Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

'domen h'sooce'- "The horse is shit.", if that is the way you wish to read it,...

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...is also fine with me, as being so read you are confirming that it is NOT a translation of, nor the equivalent of the English ejaculatory expression "horseshit", and as I pointed out in post #97 I never employ the word 'horseshit' in my posts.

Originally Posted by spin

Sheesh, Shesh, shoosh!

הסוס דמן is not "The horse is shit", but "shit of the horse", which is as near as you'll get in literal significance to the idiomatic structure in English "horseshit".

Churning out a literal translation of the parts "horse" and "shit" and sticking them together is devoid of sense, unless you specifically want to say something like "The horse is shit", which doesn't give you the sentiment in "horseshit".

Originally Posted by spin

הסוס דמן is not "The horse is shit", but "shit of the horse",

Originally Posted by spin

Speakers of English may tend to use scatological ejaculations to indicate something is nonsense, but other languages will probably not. Ancient Hebrew doesn't seem to provide you with anything useful, so you gotta go modern, שטויות, shtooyot, "nonsense".
I'm sure there's something in modern colloquial Hebrew that can help you, rather than using things that will only make sense to you.

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quanitity and quality will not be assured.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Why not simply have the person establishing the thread be able to limit certain people from participating in his discussion? Facebook has these kind of settings with respect to picking and choosing which people can see certain kinds of information. In this case if mountainman wants to proselytize his gospel of the fourth century founding of Christianity he would be free to exclude me from the conversation. I could still see the conversation but I couldn't post messages there. The person who starts the thread would in effect be a 'sub-moderator' whose authority would be limited and ultimately would be subject to Toto and the powers that be. But he would have the power to exclude posters who are abusive or excessively moronic - in order to keep the overall discussion lively.

I think many people at the forum are worried about the 'powers that be' here becoming fascist. But in this case, it's more like the natural working of friendships and associations. Let's say I started a discussion about the Islamic idea of someone other than Jesus being crucified. I could restrict mountainman et al from participating but he could start a rival thread saying that there was no crucifixion because Constantine created the Church in the fourth century and exclude me.

The two discussions could simultaneously and attract mostly the same lively discussion but Pete and I wouldn't have to converse with one another unless we wanted to.

I happen to resent the manner in which some posters (= Pete) use every post on ever subject to spam their points of view. This would be prevented with my model for this forum and vice versa. Freedom of speech is also preserved.

What causes many of us to become disenchanted with the current paradigm is that we see people abusing the current free speech model.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Exactly. Thank you spin for again confirming that the words so translated do not mean 'horseshit!'. I do NOT intend them to mean 'horseshit!'.
I am not attempting to present the sentiment 'horseshit!'
To me 'The Horse is shit', _ 'Ha'sooce' is shit'. No problem.

And
When someone dumps a steaming load of Gospel Horse shit, as far as I am concerned, it is the "shit of The Horse". Hay'sooce.

So I call it the "shit of The Horse", or the 'manure of The Horse'. The Gospel is not The Horse itself, but what The Horse has produced; stinking CRAP.


I am not seeking for any Hebrew equivelent of, or expression for 'horseshit!' either ancient or modern, as I have attempted to explain since post #97.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think there are three types of people who come here:

1. the people who see this as the opportunity to get 'work' done - i.e. they take the problem of what Christianity or Judaism is seriously and know they don't know all the answers and see the need to collaborate with others to help work toward the truth
2. the people that have an inflexible opinion about what religion is, don't see the need to 'work' or collaborate beyond bringing people over to their own opinion
3. the casual observer who way or may not have firm opinions about religion, but see no reason to 'work' toward any goal beyond entertaining themselves with this - a discussion among many discussions at this site.

I classify myself as (1). I come here to engage in the exchange of ideas because I recognize that this is the only way to grow as a thinker and student of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

And that’s another thing.

Anyone who uses the title field of the reply should be banned.