Peter Kirby

There are over a dozen holy foreskins that have been preserved in Europe at some point in history.

best,
Peter Kirby

godfry n. glad

I will note that you distinguish Mohamed from the others in that he is "historically (~5xx CE) recorded." That is my understanding as well, that he is recorded in the annals of the Byzantine empire, or was it the Persians?

As for the rest, I think "something like Jesus", "said to have" and "alleged" speak for themselves.

I don't think you can make an ironclad case for the historicity of Kong Fu Zi (Kung fu Tzu). Is he real, or a product of a school of thought of the early Han? Reworked over more than a thousand years by an increasingly entrenched scholar bureacracy? Or... Could it be that the Confucius we know is the product of Sima Qian and his circle? Do the Spring and Autumn Annals really authenticate him? His existence is possible, if not probable, but certainly not assured.

(Sorry, but I don't come anywhere near thinking that Confucius is the construct of the Jesuits. That has to be one of the biggest pieces of western conceit that I've heard in a loooong time.)

As for Lao Tzu, he is not one, but many. Many old wise men. Their teachings all compiled into the collection known as the Tao Te Ching. The name, Lao Tsu, is literally "Old Master [Sage]". Most readers can readily discern at least two authors; others many more. Now, Chuang Tsu...I'd like to think that there's a real possibility that he may have existed, yet much, if not all, the works attributed to him are suspected to have been the work of his students or his students' students.

godfry n. glad

(And yes, I will atest that I have heard of the seven separate foreskins of Jesus (or was it six?) that were claimed to be in the possession of as many separate churches (or other holy sanctuaries) during the heyday of holy relics in medieval Europe. Darned if I can remember the citation, though....You don't think the Catholic church lets that kind of silliness still go on, do you?)

Doctor X

Sorry . . . but reminds me of the Blackadder where Baldrick opens a room full of relics--piles of "wood from the cross" and bottles of "wine from the wedding."

However . . . remember that the current Emperor of Japan is the 120 odd . . . Damn! cannot remember the number! . . . it is "exact" . . . I think 125 direct descendent . . . an there are historical records . . . in my My Boy's Own Book of Samurai . . . to the 10th emperor.

Now, the "first" is a rather mythic character . . . so "descent" from a god is not that uncommon of a thing. Thus, I am just asking with regards to descendents of Confucius.

Anyways, anyone who wants to buy the Holy Jockstrap may contact me through the phone booth on the corner of Second and Main. . . .

--J.D.

godfry n. glad

C'mon.... Somebody dig up the "Holy Foreskins" story.

...please...

gng

godfry n. glad

Um.... about this poll....

When folks get their chance to input their particular choice(s), many got the chance to input multiples, right?

So... If you go to the "results", please note that the tabulation of percentage of responses tabulates ALL the answers. A person who ticked five or six of those names has much more influence over the percentage distribution figures than the person, such as myself, who only ticked one (count'em, just one single unitary) name. My selection counted for 1 of the 213 total tabulated answers, even though my selection was one of 83 (a totally guessed number, since we seem to have no idea how many people actually responded to the poll). The answers need to be weighted somehow to reflect the true distribution of opinion.

Otherwise, the poll is slanted for those who lean to "historicity".

This is the perpetual problem with such polls. This is what is wrong with those USA Today polls. That, or exceedingly small sample populations ("After polling 27 people nationwide, we've determined that the American public likes...").

Advice: Don't guzzle poll statistics, they'll make you drunk with delusions if you're not careful.

godfry

Peter Kirby

godfry, at the bottom of the results it should say "57 votes" (or something higher)--you can figure out the percentage who voted for each checkbox from that.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

A Somewhat Hijack for a Point

I have practiced a martial art for a number of years . . . which is, unfortunately always an excuse for Westerners to dress up in pajamas and insist on being called Japanese and Chinese titles no self-respecting Oriental would ever claim.

Anyways, most styles have a "Big Daddy"--a founding figure--he killed many whatever . . . beat hundreds off . . . walked on . . . spent years in the mountains only training . . . indeed, one serious scholar asked, "With every year that passes, doesn't the rocks Sensei [Teacher.--Ed.] lifted get bigger, doesn't the bull he killed get bigger, doesn't the numbers of bandits he defeated 'single-handedly' increase?" and noted that there was nothing wrong with those stories so long as people understood the point--they are stories!!! They have "morals" and they are entertaining.

Well, my style has a "Big Daddy" who trained in China. I met his son who has passed away. I have also met a friend of his son who trained with "Big Daddy" himself and who gleefully corrected some of the "stories" passed about "Big Daddy." The "tradition" is that "Big Daddy" refused to teach until convinced by this man's father--his father "pretended" attacked just before all of his visits for . . . like . . . a year until "Big Daddy" figured he needed to teach him!!

You would think this would look suspicious . . . getting attacked on the way to his house every night.

"No!" laughs his son. He explained that his father was a big guy and "Big Daddy" did not want to teach him because he thought he was a "tough guy who might be trouble." Besides, he explained, "Big Daddy" was making 5 yen a month as a janitor and did not want to take the time teaching full time.

His father gathered a bunch of students, plopped about 30 yen infront of him, and promised that he and the rest would pay "Big Daddy" this every month if he taught!

"Big Daddy" found it within his heart to teach. . . .

Ask most practitioners, and they repeat the story about "Big Daddy" only teaching when he met "pure" students. . . . In another couple of years, I am sure the story will involve the man's father walking over hot coals on the way to "Big Daddy's" home to prove his worthiness!

Well . . . "Big Daddy" had to have learned the "stuff" from someone.

We have a "Big Chinese Daddy"--who, of course, learned a style that has been unchanged for over 47,378.42 years. . . .

[ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZzzz--Ed.]

I am getting to the point!

Right, about thirty odd years ago, one of the main American practitioners went to China to visit the place where "Big Chinese Daddy" apparently lived--a real figure.

Someone offered a photograph of him which, now, is hanging in every place that teaches the style all over the world.

Problem . . . as one practitioner who has studied Chinese for 40+ years and lives in Hong Kong noted, the picture has the wrong dress, hair style, everything for a person who supposedly lived in such-an-such a place.

His explanation: "the hosts were so disappointed that they could not give these visitors something tangible about their great teacher, they found an old picture and gave it to them!!"

Now, these events--"Big Daddy Goes to China" happened roughly 120 years ago. He died in the late 1940s and his son passed away about ten years ago. We do have legitimate pictures of "Big Daddy."

My point [ZZzzzzZZZZzzzZZZZz.--Ed.] is we know "Big Daddy" existed, we know a lot . . . but we do not . . . many myths have grown around the man as they do any "famous" founding figure.

One more: a senior practitoner of another style found a picture of his style's "founder."

In this picture he is sitting with my styles "Son" when he was the "Grand Poobah."

A student of this practitioner looked at the sweaty figures and proclaimed: "What hard practitioners they were!! They must have trained hard!"

"No," responded the practitioner, "they were both drunk!!!"

As time passes we always find a more elevating explanation.

--J.D.

godfry n. glad

Peter:

What I'm seeing is a list of the names, each with the total number of votes cast for each, and the percentage total of all the votes cast. At the bottom of the votes for each name is a total number of votes cast.

It does not indicate how many people cast the then 219 total votes. At least on the results I'm looking at.

Look at it.

Even if you had the total number of voters who cast those 219 (or however many now) votes, you wouldn't know how they cast their votes. For three of the total; for four? All but one? Only one voter could have been reasonbly assured to have cast only one vote...those that vote "none of the above".

It's a useless poll, Peter.

Interesting. Conversation starter. But reliable...No.

godfry

Peter Kirby

Hey, I didn't start it. I was trying to help.

best,
Peter Kirby

godfry n. glad

I realize that. You're alway trying...sometimes very trying.

I am, too...trying, that is. Trying to point out the pitfalls of trusting in poll statistics and generate a little skepticism in the users of published polls. Some are good, most are trash.

godfry

"Polls show that 42.7% of most statistics are made up on the spot." - anonymous