stephan huller

but if it's just about the individual poster and his "needs" why not just pick up a can of spray paint and graffiti subway cars with your message?

Sheshbazzar

Living in the mountains of Kentucky we have no subway cars here. Not even a train track within 50 miles Just beautiful nature. 'God's country'
Feel pity for people who live and die in their congested rat warrens.

Jaybees

What??? What's good for the forum??

It never occured to me that anything could exist simply of its own good.

I'll have to open a thread that exists entirely for its own good. Fascinating!!

Jaybees

Stop feeling like you've been singled out. I've been sent to Elsewhere, too. So I shrugged and moved on.

Besides, more posts ARE allowed there. Try it and see.

spin

Yes, for the people who are the forum. For their good. A forum thrives when the members have a sense of responsibility toward it. One is not alone at the end of a computer connection plugged into a black box that miraculously gurgles out stuff in response to what is put in. It is social group that one joins. One contributes to the forum. That's for the good of the forum. For the good of the members. People ask questions and others reply. Sometimes the questions are loaded and are for the benefit of the asker and sometimes the responses are loaded and are for the benefit of the respondent. Other times people have ideas to test or problems to resolve or are desirous to know more or help out.

Bingo the Clown-O

I’m sorry but I’m not sure I can agree with you on this one.

I guess it’s my own fault - my own weakness. :frown:

Zindiiq

Hi guys,

Yes Spin, you are correct.

Using the words סוס (suus, horse) and דמן (domen, dung/shit) the correct phrase would be דמן הסוס (domen ha-suus), not הסוס דמן (ha-suus domen).

In the two part possessive construct it is the object possessed that comes first, followed by the possessor (prefixed with the definite article ה (ha)). So, it's like saying "the shit of the horse." In the possessive construct, both words are definite, but only the second word (the possessor) takes the definite article.

"הסוס דמן" can only mean "The horse is shit." That phrase, as it stands, is a nominal sentence with הסוס as the subject and דמן as the predicate. When a phrase is composed of two nouns, the first prefixed with a definite article and the second having no definite article, it is understood as a nominal sentence.

No. That would be an adjectival phrase, but סוס (horse) is a noun, not an adjective (although the word could be turned into an adjective). If it were, that phrase would mean "horshey shit," i.e. "shit that is horse-like," whatever that may mean.

In an adjectival phrase, the adjective follows the noun in form; that is, if the noun is indefinite, the adjective will be indefinite; if the noun is singular, the adjective is singular; if the noun is pluralized, so will the adjective be; and when the noun is made definite by adding the definite article, the adjective will also take the definite article. Hence, הדמן הסוס would be an adjectival phrase.

Sure, but the writer writes within the confines of grammar (if s/he wants to be understood), and the composer composes within the confines of musical temperament (if s/he wants to avoid dissonance).

It appears that you are trying to translate literally from the English, Sheshbazzar.

ha.... suus.... domen
^....... ^........ ^
the.. horse..... shit

I'm sorry, but languages don't work that way. Hebrew is not a translation of English. Hebrew grammar is very different from English grammar. A phrase in a certain source language will have to be restructured according to the syntax of the target language in order to be understood properly. English and Hebrew are no exceptions.

If you really do want to express "horseshit," then you need to say דמן הסוס.

As I said above, it can only be understood as "The horse is shit." It won't be understood as "horseshit," although perhaps people can guess, based on context, that that is the sentiment you meant to convey.

spin

This seems to be analogous to the BC&H subforum solution I suggested earlier: the creation of a subforum that has guidelines which requires adherence to a scholarly approach to dialogue, the use of sources, references, conviviality, no hobby-horse riding, no fighting at the barricades. Not following the guidelines leads to write-blocking.

spin

I was trying to be low key about the correction.

Roger Pearse

I'm not very sure what any of these are about. Especially #1.

My own impression is that the forum hasn't done that well in the last couple of years. It has got rather stale. Part of this, perhaps, is the "Jesus Myth" stuff, which is a hobby position of a small group of people. I can't take it seriously, and I doubt that I am alone. The prevalence of this stuff, the presumption that it is true (which I see a lot) naturally tends to cause people to yawn and look elsewhere.

On the other hand we get posts by Acharya S or her devotees / alter egos, such as Dave31. I think we all know that her theory is nonsense. But it is advanced with such interesting claims of sources, that we can have great fun just looking into these. I've certainly learned from her; e.g. her reference to Antiochus of Athens led me to learn about ancient astrological writers. I think we all enjoyed looking into her claims about Horus. Dave31 is rather unpleasant a lot of the time; but I think that's generally managed OK?

So I think that the cranks are not necessarily a bad thing. They may bring fresh ideas, fresh questions. Even Roman Piso (is he still around) can cause us to look at stuff we would not always do.

What IS tedious is the sort of thing that MountainMan too often does. In some, perfectly interesting thread, up he pops and spouts his pet theory, adding nothing to the thread, often derailing it. It's a distraction, it's boring, it contributes nothing. He isn't introducing new evidence, as a rule (which might be interesting, and was when he did it with the Acts of Linus), but rather debunking all the ancient literature. I tend to ignore any thread he starts, and he does that a lot. I have no objection to the advancement of the theory (see what I wrote about cranks) but it has got boring.

I don't think civility has got any worse than it ever was. You always had to place the potty-mouthed on ignore. Mind you, I have so many people on ignore that I might not actually KNOW how bad it has got -- so bear that in mind when reading this.

The trouble with moderating on civility is that it is very easily biased, or seen to be biased. A moderator will often subconciously give more elbow-room to someone he agrees with or knows than to someone else. Indeed one reason that Christian apologists don't come here is the operation of that policy. Toto may remember Metacrock from CARM who used to come here and post, and usually the thread would go in a standard way. People would gang up to provoke and abuse him, he'd respond in kind, and then HE would be warned for being uncivil. This happens in this forum a *lot*, and often to Christian visitors. Only atheists can be uncivil here, and atheists here can pretty much lynch anyone else. If that is by design, fine -- it is your forum! -- but be aware that it does limit who can participate, and on what subjects. I never express a religious opinion here, for just this reason.

Yes, I think we've had a lot of these lately. But ... might an answer be to have a sticky thread on each hobby horse, and obliging those interested to post in that?

And see what I said about cranks above. I am entirely happy to have people like Acharya S, Dave31, etc, posting here.

I think Chili needs to be banned, not because I disagree (or agree) with him, but for the good of the forum. I can't make any sense of any of his posts.

I think Toto gets the moderation level about right. The problem of interesting content ... well, how does one get interesting threads started?

All the best,

Roger Pearse