From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #113 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Thursday, April 22 2004 Volume 04 : Number 113 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [cr ] Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:34:03 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) In a message dated 4/19/2004 11:31:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > OTOH, I've never heard any suggestion that Hitler was not totally sincere > about everything he did. (Same doubtless goes for Caesar, Napoleon, and > most other famous historical megalomaniacs). > > So while sincerity is probably a necessary condition for greatness, it (on > its own) is not sufficient. << Well, actually, I was responding more to the "snake oil" aspect. I believe I mentioned a few qualities, with "purity" firmly connected to results -- e.g., how many people might be/are harmed. I'm quite sure many so-called "great" leaders were very "sincere" in their belief in what they were doing, but the probable body count vs. the objective would've made me suspect. > >I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive." I said "ancient" and "old" > >cultures, quite purposely so. I was talking about people with quite a bit > >of sense. Many resisted (and still resist) "modern" conveniences because > >they know it's never as "simple" as it seems. > > Can you give an example? I think if they resist 'modern' conveniences, > it's more likely because such conveniences don't suit their lifestyle. > What > would nomads do with a refrigerator? >> Or their traditional relationships with the earth, their children, their neighbors, their religions. I think that goes deeper than "life style," but I feel like we're going in circles at this point. :-) > > Okay - 'primitive' by our technological standards. Most surviving remnants > > of 'ancient' cultures fall into that class. If they've evolved > (technologically) I guess we wouldn't call them 'primitive'. I didn't > intend it in a derogatory sense though. >> Again, I was primarily speaking of a broader, deeper sense of culture, with technology only one aspect. At any rate, I'm personally satisfied that we've pretty much exhausted the "relativity" discussion as it related to whatever the heck point Jackie was making lo those many posts ago, which I've now forgotten.... Oh, interpretations of "exploitative"? - -- Ife > > > cr > ========================================================= > This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with > "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. > Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. > ========================================================= ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:13:14 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:34, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/19/2004 11:31:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > OTOH, I've never heard any suggestion that Hitler was not totally sincere > > about everything he did. (Same doubtless goes for Caesar, Napoleon, and > > most other famous historical megalomaniacs). > > > > So while sincerity is probably a necessary condition for greatness, it > > (on its own) is not sufficient. << > > Well, actually, I was responding more to the "snake oil" aspect. I believe > I mentioned a few qualities, with "purity" firmly connected to results -- > e.g., how many people might be/are harmed. I'm quite sure many so-called > "great" leaders were very "sincere" in their belief in what they were > doing, but the probable body count vs. the objective would've made me > suspect. OK, that makes sense. I suppose, history being mainly derived from legends or what made 'news' at the time (which was doubtless as sensationalist as 'news' now), the 'great leaders' who have been remembered in history are mostly those who succeeded in killing large numbers of people. It's probably far rarer that a leader is fondly remembered for _not_ starting wars and claiming great 'victories'. > > >I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive." I said "ancient" and "old" > > >cultures, quite purposely so. I was talking about people with quite a > > > bit of sense. Many resisted (and still resist) "modern" conveniences > > > because they know it's never as "simple" as it seems. > > > > Can you give an example? I think if they resist 'modern' conveniences, > > it's more likely because such conveniences don't suit their lifestyle. > > What would nomads do with a refrigerator? >> > > Or their traditional relationships with the earth, their children, their > neighbors, their religions. I think that goes deeper than "life style," > but I feel like we're going in circles at this point. :-) I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this one. > > Okay - 'primitive' by our technological standards. Most surviving > > remnants of 'ancient' cultures fall into that class. If they've evolved > > (technologically) I guess we wouldn't call them 'primitive'. I didn't > > intend it in a derogatory sense though. >> > > Again, I was primarily speaking of a broader, deeper sense of culture, with > technology only one aspect. At any rate, I'm personally satisfied that > we've pretty much exhausted the "relativity" discussion as it related to > whatever the heck point Jackie was making lo those many posts ago, which > I've now forgotten.... Oh, interpretations of "exploitative"? > > -- Ife Err, yes. End of thread? (Unless I've made any ghastly blunders in my account of relativity (Einstein version) that those who know better, such as Lynn, wish to correct?) cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:48:02 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re: Bringing Xena back - ----- Original Message ----- From: "chakram-refugees-digest" > From: Lilli Sprintz > n a message dated 4/18/2004 6:33:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > leedaley@optonline.net writes: > > > >> The series finale created controversy, because it attempted to end > >> "Xena's journey" but continue "Gabrielle's journey" and stuffed in "their > >> journey together". > > > > yes, and in my opinion, also ended her "suffering." there must be > another option. so, how do they bring her back?.....any guesses? > > Lilli Well if they ever do figure who exactly owns Xena (how can they not know who owns Xena, anyway?), it can't be too hard to bring her back. Gabrielle is off to Egypt. As we know from countless Mummy movies the dead in Egypt rarely stay dead - a few tanna leaves the right incantation and poof they are alive again. Now we have to think of a good reason to bring Xena back. The Egyptians conviently enough have one really bad god, Set, who is always up to no good. So if Set is up to his old tricks ghost Xena may have to fight him to save Orsis, who also very conviently is a resurrection god. Xena saves the Egyptian pantheon with Gabrielle's help, Orsis weighs her heart (I believe he is the one who does this if not there is a god who does) finds she is redeemed and worthy of coming back. Gabrielle goes get those tannif leaves and does the incantion (or if we are so inclined to give Eve a part the movie she can do the prayers - she's good at that) and Xena is back. Our heroines are reunited and if the movie makes money they can continue to have adventures. ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:00:18 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re:Xena and Love > Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:29:02 EDT > From: IfeRae@aol.com > > > I'm with you there. That's one of the reasons Xena demonstrated courage to > me -- facing the fears within. .... The physical battles > seldom inspired fear in her because she knew that arena so well .... > > I think that's another reason Gabs became so significant. She helped us guage > Xena's ability to accept herself and her worth as a subject of love and > admiration. ... Letting Gabs > in -- believing in Gabs' belief in her -- represented more danger to Xena than > 10 armies. But it was one of the frst steps we saw toward conquering her > greatest fears. And as we watched her relationship with Gabs grow, we could see > Xena's defenses coming down around her heart. > > - -- Ife Of course you are right. For Xena the most frightening thing for her to do is to love some one. She has been hurt the most when she has allowed herself to love in the past. Lyceus died, her mother disowned, Caesar betrayed her, Borias left her - love has been a disaster for Xena. Loving Gabrielle is what ever way you think of that love was her greatest risk. Learning not only to accept that love but also accepting that love often is not perfect and that you must forgive and accept forgiveness in order to keep love was Xena's greatest challenge. Her heroism was not predicated on her fighting ability as you said that came easy to her. her real heroism was in accepting love and all the danger that accompanied that acceptance. CherylA ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:42:14 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) In a message dated 4/21/2004 3:36:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > At any rate, I'm personally satisfied that > >we've pretty much exhausted the "relativity" discussion as it related to > >whatever the heck point Jackie was making lo those many posts ago, which > >I've now forgotten.... Oh, interpretations of "exploitative"? > > > >-- Ife > > Err, yes. End of thread? >> Heh, unless Jackie wants to get back in, or somebody else who likes resuscitating horses. > > (Unless I've made any ghastly blunders in my account of relativity (Einstein > > version) that those who know better, such as Lynn, wish to correct?) > No doubt Lynn has more sense than you and I about plunging into such areas. I could swear I heard "When pigs fly" from somewhere. :-) - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #113 **************************************