Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 04-20-2011, 06:04 PM

What a nightmare...

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

3 - External Features

Scale
Burridge defines Scale as measuring scope. To what extent does the scope extend beyond the Star and especially if it does to any significant extent. In "Mark" the scope goes beyond Jesus to everyone's reaction to Jesus and the scope is Jesus Mission. In Oedipus the King the scope is likewise Oedipus' Mission. In The Life of Julius Caesar the scope is limited to Caesar. Match to Oedipus the King.

Literary Units
Burridge defines literary units as forms of presentation, specifically stories, anecdotes, sayings and speeches. "Mark" has no isolated stories or anecdotes. It has many sayings and a few speeches. Oedipus the King likewise has no isolated stories or anecdotes. It has fewer sayings than "Mark" and more speeches. The Life of Julius Caesar has stories and anecdotes and relatively few sayings and speeches. Match to Oedipus the King.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 04-22-2011, 04:18 PM

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

3 - External Features

Sources
Burridge here refers to the use of sources. All of his examples are historical sources and his related discussion assumes a historical source. "Mark" has no known historical source and neither does Oedipus the King. The Life of Julius Caesar has many historical sources. Match to Oedipus the King.

Methods of Characterization
Burridge gives 3 main methods of characterization, the words of the star, stories and editorial comments. "Mark" is long on words and stories and short on editorial comment. Oedipus the King is long on words, short on stories and long on editorial comment. The Life of Julius Caesar is short on words, long on stories and long on editorial comment. "Mark" has one match to both so this criteria is Neutral.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 04-23-2011, 10:39 AM

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

4 - Internal Features

Setting
Burridge defines setting as the physical location and whether it extends beyond the Star. "Mark's" settings are usually geographical regions but always in relation to Jesus. Oedipus the King settings are relatively stationary and confined to Oedipus' immediate location. The Life of Julius Caesar moves around like "Mark" and is always around Caesar. Match to The Life of Julius Caesar.

Topics
Burridge lists Ancestry, Birth, Boyhood, Great deeds, Virtues and Death:

Ancestry: "Mark" has none, and Oedipus' father is a mystery. The implication is that Caesar has Roman upper class ancestry. Match to Oedipus.

Birth: "Mark" has none. Oedipus' is revealed during the narrative. Caesar has none. Match to Caesar.

Boyhood: "Mark" and Oedipus have none. Caesar a little. Match to Oedipus.

Great deeds: "Mark" has quality and quantity. Oedipus has quality. Caesar has quality and quantity. Match to Caesar

Virtues: "Mark" has high emphasis on virtues. Oedipus is a mix of virtue and vice. Caesar has more emphasis on virtues. Match to Caesar

Death: "Mark" has a death story but does not end with the death. Oedipus does not have a death. Caesar has a normal death. Match to Caesar

4 sub-matches to Caesar and 2 to Oedipus. Match to The Life of Julius Caesar

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 04-24-2011, 10:13 AM

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

4 - Internal Features

Style
Burridge defines style as the form of the Greek. "Mark" and Caesar are more contemporary to each other than Oedipus so Match to The Life of Julius Caesar.

Atmosphere
Burridge lists Tone, Mood, Attitude and Values:

Tone: Measured as level of seriousness. "Mark" is very. Oedipus is very. Caesar is pretty. Match to Oedipus.

Mood: Measured as a specific emotion. "Mark" has amazement and fear. Oedipus' has foreboding. Caesar has little emotion. Match to Oedipus.

Attitude: Attitude towards the subject."Mark" = Jesus is a role model for godly behaviour ( a significant part of which is being a tragic figure). Oedipus is a tragic figure. Caesar was a talented success. Match to Oedipus.

Values: "Mark" = religious. Oedipus = moral. Caesar = practical. Match to Oedipus

All 4 sub-matches to Oedipus. Match to Oedipus the King

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 05-06-2011, 09:24 AM

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

4 - Internal Features

Quality of Characterization
Burridge defines this as Stereotypical verses Realistic characterization. "Mark" has a stereotypical characterization. Oedipus and Caesar have realistic characterizations but Oedipus is more contrived.Match to Oedipus.

Social Setting
Burridge defines this as the class of the intended audience. "Mark" is generally thought to be written for a lower class. Oedipus is written for a Community but probably more higher than lower. Caesar has mixed conclusions between upper class and "man in the street". Oedipus would have more appeal to the lower class than Caesar so Match to Oedipus

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-04-2011, 06:34 PM

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

4 - Internal Features

Authorial Intention
Encomiastic = laudatory. Match to Caesar.

Exemplary = Match to Caesar.

Informative = Match to Caesar.

Entertainment value = Match to Oedipus.

To preserve memory = Match to Caesar.

Didactic = Match to Oedipus.

Apologetic and polemic = Match to Caesar.

Overall Match to Caesar

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-05-2011, 01:23 PM

JW:
Time to summarize the results of using Burridge's own criteria from What the Hell are the Gospels?, in comparing "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King to see which would parallel better:

1 - Opening Features

Title = Oedipus

Prologue = Oedipus

Match to Oedipus

2 - Subject

Significance of subject = Caesar

Match to Caesar

3 - External Features

Mode of representation = Oedipus

Metre = Oedipus

Size = Oedipus

Structure = Oedipus

Scale = Oedipus

Literary Units = Oedipus

Sources = Oedipus

Methods of Characterization = Neutral

Summary of External:

Match to Oedipus = 7

Match to Caesar = 0

Neutral = 1

Overall match to Oedipus

4 - Internal Features

Setting = Caesar

Topics = Caesar

Style = Caesar

Atmosphere = Oedipus

Quality of Characterization = Oedipus

Social Setting = Oedipus

Authorial Intention = Caesar

Summary of Internal:

Match to Oedipus = 3

Match to Caesar = 4

Overall match to Caesar

Grand Summary:

1 - Opening Features = Oedipus

2 - Subject = Caesar

3 - External Features = Heavily favors Oedipus

4 - Internal Features = Slightly favors Caesar

Using Burridge's own criteria to determine genre, "Mark" parallels better with Oedipus the King than Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar . Since Oedipus the King and Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar are considered representative of the respective genres of Greek Tragedy and Greco-Roman Biography, this creates serious doubt as to Burridge's general conclusion that the Gospels are Greco-Roman Biography and specifically his implication that "Mark" individually is Greco-Roman Biography.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-09-2011, 03:17 PM

JW:
I've already demonstrated in this Thread that "Mark" parallels much better to Oedipus the King than Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar. This suggests that "Mark" in turn parallels better with Greek Tragedy than Greco-Roman biography. Asking than if "Mark" is Greco-Roman Biography is probably the wrong question to be asking. The better question is is "Mark" Greek Tragedy. Continuing with Poetics and looking for parallels to "Mark":

Quote:

Part XIII

As the sequel to what has already been said, we must proceed to consider what the poet should aim at, and what he should avoid, in constructing his plots; and by what means the specific effect of Tragedy will be produced.

A perfect tragedy should, as we have seen, be arranged not on the simple but on the complex plan. It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear[1], this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation. It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to prosperity: for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy; it possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies the moral sense nor calls forth pity or fear. Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves[2]. Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible. There remains, then, the character between these two extremes- that of a man who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. [He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous- a personage like Oedipus[3], Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families.

A well-constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue, rather than double as some maintain. The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad[4]. It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty, in a character either such as we have described, or better rather than worse. The practice of the stage bears out our view. At first the poets recounted any legend that came in their way. Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses- on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who have done or suffered something terrible. A tragedy, then, to be perfect according to the rules of art should be of this construction. Hence they are in error who censure Euripides just because he follows this principle in his plays, many of which end unhappily. It is, as we have said, the right ending[5]. The best proof is that on the stage and in dramatic competition, such plays, if well worked out, are the most tragic in effect; and Euripides, faulty though he may be in the general management of his subject, yet is felt to be the most tragic of the poets.

In the second rank comes the kind of tragedy which some place first. Like the Odyssey, it has a double thread of plot, and also an opposite catastrophe for the good and for the bad[[6]. It is accounted the best because of the weakness of the spectators; for the poet is guided in what he writes by the wishes of his audience. The pleasure, however, thence derived is not the true tragic pleasure. It is proper rather to Comedy, where those who, in the piece, are the deadliest enemies- like Orestes and Aegisthus- quit the stage as friends at the close, and no one slays or is slain.

JW:

[1] A describes a goal of creating the strong emotions of fear and pity, textbook Greek Tragedy. And these two emotions are exactly what "Mark's" goal is. Fear in reaction to what Jesus does and pity in reaction to what is done to Jesus. Note especially the reversal of the two for motivation. Jesus is motivated to do to others by pity and others are motivated to do to Jesus by fear. Again this type of goal of creating strong negative emotions in the audience would be unknown in Greco-Roman Biography.

[2] Again, "Mark" takes a basic of GreekTragedy (GT), unmerited misfortune, and makes it a primary theme. All of Jesus' abuse is undeserved.

[3] And again, "Mark's" Jesus isn't just renowned, he is the most renowned.

[4] Another extreme. Jesus goes from being the most popular person around to the least popular (Is "Mark" satirizing the GT formula?).

[5] No happy ending for Jesus in the tAMPb. Jesus actually does the Impossible (really). But no one believes it. Now that's Tragedy!

[6] "opposite catastrophe for the good and for the bad". Boy does this author use this. Jesus' catastrophe is his death is undone but his mission is not just to become undead but to convince people of it. Those who make him dead don't realize that by doing so they are killing themselves (a favored theme of GT).

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 08-14-2011, 02:45 PM

JW:
The Skeptic Master Bart Ehrman faithfully reports in Lost Christianities page 71 that Super Sleuth "Saba" Smith also discovered fragments at Mar Saba of a lost play of

Sophocles. Those who have been paying attention gnosis that Sophocles is the greatest author of Greek Tragedy of all time. Considering that this Thread demonstrates amazing parallels between "Mark" and Greek Tragedy is it a coincidence that [subliminal message] in addition to discovering these fragments Smith also discovered Secret Mark? [/subliminal message]

Joseph

EDITOR, n. A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

ErrancyWiki

mountainman · 08-14-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The Skeptic Master Bart Ehrman faithfully reports in Lost Christianities page 71 that Super Sleuth "Saba" Smith also discovered fragments at Mar Saba of a lost play of

Sophocles. Those who have been paying attention gnosis that Sophocles is the greatest author of Greek Tragedy of all time. Considering that this Thread demonstrates amazing parallels between "Mark" and Greek Tragedy is it a coincidence that [subliminal message] in addition to discovering these fragments Smith also discovered Secret Mark? [/subliminal message]

Hey Joseph,

Have you ever sat down to reconstruct this "Secret Mark" according to its prescription of insertion into Mark? The apparatus looks suspiciously like a mechanism designed to make Jesus and the Apostles in question appear in a very distorted and common light. I posted this observation last year after going through the exercise. Therefore I ask again - Have you ever sat down to reconstruct this "Secret Mark" according to its prescription of insertion into Mark? If you have not done so, it is worth the effort to examine the task specified by the text itself.

On the idea that the gospels are tragedies, I think this is within the bounds of tolerance. Those who authored the gospels in Greek had their Greek audience in mind, and it was a very tragic reality for that Greek audience. They were told that their god had been crucified on account of his healing people, performing miracles, raising people from the dead, etc, etc, etc on the Sabbath day, whereon one should not work.

It was a tragic tetrarchy of tales that spread the Good News to the Greek speaking world of their immanent loss. They were told that it was not in fact Zeus "in which they lived and moved and took their being", but rather a dead Jew. This was tragic news to the Greeks, and the Platonists took it badly.

Best wishes

Pete

04-20-2011, 06:04 PM	#101
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	What a nightmare... JW: Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better: 3 - External Features Scale Burridge defines Scale as measuring scope. To what extent does the scope extend beyond the Star and especially if it does to any significant extent. In "Mark" the scope goes beyond Jesus to everyone's reaction to Jesus and the scope is Jesus Mission. In Oedipus the King the scope is likewise Oedipus' Mission. In The Life of Julius Caesar the scope is limited to Caesar. Match to Oedipus the King. Literary Units Burridge defines literary units as forms of presentation, specifically stories, anecdotes, sayings and speeches. "Mark" has no isolated stories or anecdotes. It has many sayings and a few speeches. Oedipus the King likewise has no isolated stories or anecdotes. It has fewer sayings than "Mark" and more speeches. The Life of Julius Caesar has stories and anecdotes and relatively few sayings and speeches. Match to Oedipus the King. Joseph ErrancyWiki

04-22-2011, 04:18 PM	#102
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better: 3 - External Features Sources Burridge here refers to the use of sources. All of his examples are historical sources and his related discussion assumes a historical source. "Mark" has no known historical source and neither does Oedipus the King. The Life of Julius Caesar has many historical sources. Match to Oedipus the King. Methods of Characterization Burridge gives 3 main methods of characterization, the words of the star, stories and editorial comments. "Mark" is long on words and stories and short on editorial comment. Oedipus the King is long on words, short on stories and long on editorial comment. The Life of Julius Caesar is short on words, long on stories and long on editorial comment. "Mark" has one match to both so this criteria is Neutral. Joseph ErrancyWiki

04-23-2011, 10:39 AM	#103
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better: 4 - Internal Features Setting Burridge defines setting as the physical location and whether it extends beyond the Star. "Mark's" settings are usually geographical regions but always in relation to Jesus. Oedipus the King settings are relatively stationary and confined to Oedipus' immediate location. The Life of Julius Caesar moves around like "Mark" and is always around Caesar. Match to The Life of Julius Caesar. Topics Burridge lists Ancestry, Birth, Boyhood, Great deeds, Virtues and Death: Ancestry: "Mark" has none, and Oedipus' father is a mystery. The implication is that Caesar has Roman upper class ancestry. Match to Oedipus. Birth: "Mark" has none. Oedipus' is revealed during the narrative. Caesar has none. Match to Caesar. Boyhood: "Mark" and Oedipus have none. Caesar a little. Match to Oedipus. Great deeds: "Mark" has quality and quantity. Oedipus has quality. Caesar has quality and quantity. Match to Caesar Virtues: "Mark" has high emphasis on virtues. Oedipus is a mix of virtue and vice. Caesar has more emphasis on virtues. Match to Caesar Death: "Mark" has a death story but does not end with the death. Oedipus does not have a death. Caesar has a normal death. Match to Caesar 4 sub-matches to Caesar and 2 to Oedipus. Match to The Life of Julius Caesar Joseph ErrancyWiki

04-24-2011, 10:13 AM	#104
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better: 4 - Internal Features Style Burridge defines style as the form of the Greek. "Mark" and Caesar are more contemporary to each other than Oedipus so Match to The Life of Julius Caesar. Atmosphere Burridge lists Tone, Mood, Attitude and Values: Tone: Measured as level of seriousness. "Mark" is very. Oedipus is very. Caesar is pretty. Match to Oedipus. Mood: Measured as a specific emotion. "Mark" has amazement and fear. Oedipus' has foreboding. Caesar has little emotion. Match to Oedipus. Attitude: Attitude towards the subject."Mark" = Jesus is a role model for godly behaviour ( a significant part of which is being a tragic figure). Oedipus is a tragic figure. Caesar was a talented success. Match to Oedipus. Values: "Mark" = religious. Oedipus = moral. Caesar = practical. Match to Oedipus All 4 sub-matches to Oedipus. Match to Oedipus the King Joseph ErrancyWiki

05-06-2011, 09:24 AM	#105
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better: 4 - Internal Features Quality of Characterization Burridge defines this as Stereotypical verses Realistic characterization. "Mark" has a stereotypical characterization. Oedipus and Caesar have realistic characterizations but Oedipus is more contrived.Match to Oedipus. Social Setting Burridge defines this as the class of the intended audience. "Mark" is generally thought to be written for a lower class. Oedipus is written for a Community but probably more higher than lower. Caesar has mixed conclusions between upper class and "man in the street". Oedipus would have more appeal to the lower class than Caesar so Match to Oedipus Joseph ErrancyWiki

06-04-2011, 06:34 PM	#106
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better: 4 - Internal Features Authorial Intention Encomiastic = laudatory. Match to Caesar. Exemplary = Match to Caesar. Informative = Match to Caesar. Entertainment value = Match to Oedipus. To preserve memory = Match to Caesar. Didactic = Match to Oedipus. Apologetic and polemic = Match to Caesar. Overall Match to Caesar Joseph ErrancyWiki

06-05-2011, 01:23 PM	#107
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Time to summarize the results of using Burridge's own criteria from What the Hell are the Gospels?, in comparing "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King to see which would parallel better: 1 - Opening Features Title = Oedipus Prologue = Oedipus Match to Oedipus 2 - Subject Significance of subject = Caesar Match to Caesar 3 - External Features Mode of representation = Oedipus Metre = Oedipus Size = Oedipus Structure = Oedipus Scale = Oedipus Literary Units = Oedipus Sources = Oedipus Methods of Characterization = Neutral Summary of External: Match to Oedipus = 7 Match to Caesar = 0 Neutral = 1 Overall match to Oedipus 4 - Internal Features Setting = Caesar Topics = Caesar Style = Caesar Atmosphere = Oedipus Quality of Characterization = Oedipus Social Setting = Oedipus Authorial Intention = Caesar Summary of Internal: Match to Oedipus = 3 Match to Caesar = 4 Overall match to Caesar Grand Summary: 1 - Opening Features = Oedipus 2 - Subject = Caesar 3 - External Features = Heavily favors Oedipus 4 - Internal Features = Slightly favors Caesar Using Burridge's own criteria to determine genre, "Mark" parallels better with Oedipus the King than Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar . Since Oedipus the King and Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar are considered representative of the respective genres of Greek Tragedy and Greco-Roman Biography, this creates serious doubt as to Burridge's general conclusion that the Gospels are Greco-Roman Biography and specifically his implication that "Mark" individually is Greco-Roman Biography. Joseph ErrancyWiki

08-14-2011, 02:45 PM	#109
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: The Skeptic Master Bart Ehrman faithfully reports in Lost Christianities page 71 that Super Sleuth "Saba" Smith also discovered fragments at Mar Saba of a lost play of Sophocles. Those who have been paying attention gnosis that Sophocles is the greatest author of Greek Tragedy of all time. Considering that this Thread demonstrates amazing parallels between "Mark" and Greek Tragedy is it a coincidence that [subliminal message] in addition to discovering these fragments Smith also discovered Secret Mark? [/subliminal message] Joseph EDITOR, n. A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos. ErrancyWiki

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.