OT: whatever (was: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:...
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:RMVmd.511$3K3.311@fe40.usenetserver.com... 
> <snip> 
> <snip>
>
> So for how many of those 5,950 years, did we "have it wrong" about slavery
 -
> justified by SOME from Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22, 23; and Tit. 2:9, 10 - for
> example,
>
> "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness 
of
> heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to
> please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart
."
>
> Your translations may vary - and taking this in "context" can be interpret
ated
> away in various ways - but I assume we are taking such advice "lierally".
>
> Personally, I go with the vocal minorities of the 19th century (U.S. earli
er
> elsewhere) for slavery - and from the 20th and 21 century (for marriage).
>

I should have also quoted 1 Peter 2

"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only
those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a cred
it
to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If 
you
endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you
endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval."

However (joke!!!) after saying I was gay yesterday, I didn't think we should
 get
into whether or not the New Testament was "pro S/M" or not <G>

> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

LX-i wrote:
> These days, machinery makes it possible for a much smaller number of
> people to accomplish what it used to take teams of slaves to do.  And,
> because of the freedom we have in this country, these people are now
> either employees, or the owners themselves.  I believe that the free
> market would have ended slavery much less bloodily than the Civil War
> did.  I also think that Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
> was a good thing.  (And remember, Lincoln was a Republican....)

Years ago, when personal computers were just becoming available, we wrote in
an advertising newsletter:

"Computers, like slaves of old, cost a bit to begin with but work very
cheaply thereafter...."

We received a note from a woman in Vermont:

"I find your advertising copy offensive. So offensive, I've paid to send it
back to you..."

To which we replied:

"Immediately upon receipt of your note an investigation was undertaken to
discover the cause of the ghastly insult you so correctly pointed out. The
mistake was found to be an unauthorized editting change. The original text
read:

" 'Computers, like WIVES of old, cost a bit to begin with but work very
cheaply thereafter...'

"We regret the error."

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Ummmmm... doesn't the fact that no matter how good the treatment might
> have been... THEY WERE STILL SLAVES (pardon the emphasis) have any
> applicability?

[...]

>
> Gah... 'even when it was done humanely' IT IS STILL SLAVERY (pardon
> the emphasis).

Maybe if we changed the name, it wouldn't be so bad ("slave" => out, "guest
worker" <= in)?

In article <gJqdneDx8rc_ZADcRVn-sg@giganews.com>,
JerryMouse <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote: 
>
>[...]
> 
>
>Maybe if we changed the name, it wouldn't be so bad ("slave" => out, "guest
>worker" <= in)?

That's an idea... but what's in a name?  If 'that which we call a Rose, By
any other word would smell as sweete' then it seems that Slavery would,
were it not Slavery cal'd, Retaine that deare condition which it owes...
or so might conclude from the plaintive implorings of a love-smitten
teenager.

(apologies to Shakespeare)

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cnkrmo$2ui$1@panix5.panix.com...
<snip>>
> Ummmmm... doesn't the fact that no matter how good the treatment might
> have been... THEY WERE STILL SLAVES (pardon the emphasis) have any
> applicability?
>
> You seem to be saying 'Oh, as long as you treat 'em good slavery ain't so
> bad'; I was taught that slavery is a horror, an abomination and an
> anathema to the mind of a free man.

Yeah, me too. And I have seen nothing in a long and full life that would
make me change that opinion.
>
> ('The mark of a true slave is not that he wants his freedom, the mark of a
> true slave is that he wants a slave of his own.' - Sir Richard Burton)
>
Doc, thank you so much for posting this quote. I had never seen it before
but it stopped me dead in my tracks and made the hair on the back of my neck
stand up. Stunning.

I am adding it to my mental library.

Pete.

In article <307op8F2u91j8U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cnkrmo$2ui$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]
 
>Doc, thank you so much for posting this quote. I had never seen it before
>but it stopped me dead in my tracks and made the hair on the back of my nec
k
>stand up. Stunning.

Isn't it, though?  What is even more stunning is that it is from his
translation of '1,001 Arabian Nights' in a footnote; I can't remember the
tale precisely but he was commenting on the haughty tone used by a
gate-eunuch to a stranger at the door.  I wish I could find it... or maybe
not, with my luck I've misremembered it and the original was something
like 'two shirts, laundered, light starch, on a hanger'.

Casually tossed off, in a footnote, a century and change back... and it
still gives me goose-bumps, as well.

DD

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:RMVmd.511$3K3.311@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Howard Brazee wrote: 
<snip>
> Do you really expect me to believe that we had it wrong for 5,950 years, a
nd
> only in the recent "enlightened" 50 years we now need to redefine a
> relationship because of a *very* vocal minority?
<snip>

So for how many of those 5,950 years, did we "have it wrong" about slavery -
justified by SOME from Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22, 23; and Tit. 2:9, 10 - for
example,

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of
heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to ple
ase
them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart."

Your translations may vary - and taking this in "context" can be interpretat
ed
away in various ways - but I assume we are taking such advice "lierally".

Personally, I go with the vocal minorities of the 19th century (U.S. earlier
elsewhere) for slavery - and from the 20th and 21 century (for marriage).

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com