Prune said:
Surprised, he gets referred to fairly often. To be honest, I wasn't that sure of the details, other than the fact that he gets referred to often and that he was considerably before the 20th Century.
"Although he had been writing poetry since the age of 12, his first major contribution to the literary world is considered to be An Essay on Criticism, which was published in 1711 when he was 23. Other famous works include The Rape of the Lock (1712, revised 1714) as well as a six-volume translation of Homer's Iliad (1715–1726)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pope
Well, among other things, he managed to make a ton of money both for himself and his publisher with a six volume translation of the Illiad-without even bothering to learn Greek.
You have to admire a man like that.
"It is hard to understand at the present day the audacity which could lead a man so ill qualified in point of classical acquirements to undertake such a task. And yet Pope undoubtedly achieved, in some true sense, an astonishing success. He succeeded commercially ; for Lintot, after supplying the subscription copies gratuitously, and so losing the cream of the probable purchasers, made a fortune by the remaining sale. He succeeded in the judgment both of the critics and of the public of the next generation. Johnson calls the Homer " the noblest version of poetry the world has ever seen." Gray declared that no other translation would ever equal it...."
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles22/alexander-pope-3.shtml
He is considered one of England's greatest satirists, and is frequently mentioned with Jonathan Swift.
http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=5337
You have to admire a man like that.
"It is hard to understand at the present day the audacity which could lead a man so ill qualified in point of classical acquirements to undertake such a task. And yet Pope undoubtedly achieved, in some true sense, an astonishing success. He succeeded commercially ; for Lintot, after supplying the subscription copies gratuitously, and so losing the cream of the probable purchasers, made a fortune by the remaining sale. He succeeded in the judgment both of the critics and of the public of the next generation. Johnson calls the Homer " the noblest version of poetry the world has ever seen." Gray declared that no other translation would ever equal it...."
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles22/alexander-pope-3.shtml
He is considered one of England's greatest satirists, and is frequently mentioned with Jonathan Swift.
http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=5337
Pope is hardly a bore, prune. He was well ahead of his time and widely quoted.
I only brought him here to this thread as I thought that anyone familier with his work would love to have him posting here, thinking what he did way back then in the 1700's. I feel that he would cut any and all to the quick.
His quote"Whatever is, is right", has a following. Dickens used it.
To state that "What is," is, IS a no brainer but in it's intended form, it takes just a tad of indepth thinking.............Toni
Bluebeards friend.
I only brought him here to this thread as I thought that anyone familier with his work would love to have him posting here, thinking what he did way back then in the 1700's. I feel that he would cut any and all to the quick.
His quote"Whatever is, is right", has a following. Dickens used it.
To state that "What is," is, IS a no brainer but in it's intended form, it takes just a tad of indepth thinking.............Toni
Bluebeards friend.
audio-kraut said:
Gods medicine!
Man's medicine?:
Venlafaxine:
The most common side-effects and the percentage of people reporting them during clinical trials are:
Side-effect Patients
Nausea 37%
Headache 25%
Sleepiness 23%
Dry mouth 22%
Dizziness 19%
Insomnia 18%
Constipation 15%
Nervousness 13%
Raised blood pressure 13%*
Fatigue 12%
Sweating 12%
Decreased appetite 11%
Male sexual dysfunction 12%
Female sexual dysfunction 2%_
Sorry for not including the side effects of the homegrown eh. Like, I was gonna but like, I forgot what they were eh.
Is that Venlafaxine for relieving depression or causing it? One can't be sure by looking at the side effects.
Cal
The only side effect I've experienced is waking up more often during the night.
Your homegrown is a depressant (not to mention illegal), so you can't compare the two things.
God's medicine my @ss. Venlafaxine is one chemical. Pot is many, many different chemicals. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's safe. Most flowering plans are poisonous to people. Ricin is made from castor beans, and abrin from rosary peas. Both are extremely deadly -- one molecule is sufficient to shut down protein synthesis in a cell and kill it. Many commercial drugs are synthesized, pure versions of chemicals found in animals or plants, without all the other chemicals in those organisms, the majority of which have unknown effects. Natural medicine is the biggest bull**** scam ever. Studies of various herbs show that only a fraction of those used in folk medicine actually have any positive effect. If it hasn't been shown to work in a blind study, it's probably useless. Wishful thinking won't make it work.
Your homegrown is a depressant (not to mention illegal), so you can't compare the two things.
God's medicine my @ss. Venlafaxine is one chemical. Pot is many, many different chemicals. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's safe. Most flowering plans are poisonous to people. Ricin is made from castor beans, and abrin from rosary peas. Both are extremely deadly -- one molecule is sufficient to shut down protein synthesis in a cell and kill it. Many commercial drugs are synthesized, pure versions of chemicals found in animals or plants, without all the other chemicals in those organisms, the majority of which have unknown effects. Natural medicine is the biggest bull**** scam ever. Studies of various herbs show that only a fraction of those used in folk medicine actually have any positive effect. If it hasn't been shown to work in a blind study, it's probably useless. Wishful thinking won't make it work.
Cal Weldon said:
Prune,
I was trying to do a liitle spoof there. Perhaps the topic was too sensitive. I wasn't looking for a rebuttal nor trying to rile anyone.
Happy new year to you.
Cal
Damn right it is sensitive. It touches upon the general issue of alternative medicine, which has, historically, gone from witchdoctor nonsense to old wives' tales to what now is (even beyond the extremes of hi-fi audio) the BIGGEST. SCAM. EVER.
I have to agree with Bill here.... but there are some very nice people with very good hearts & intentions (had a nice afternoon with a bishop yesterday setting up a new (used) iMac)
dave
dave
Religion is worse, but it is not just a scam, it is the root of (almost) all evil. That is why I didn't use it. My former signature, which the moderators asked me to change, was a quote by the great 20th century physicist Steven Weinberg:
Often I've asked other people with a non-religious worldview why they don't organize to form a counterpoint in society for organized religion. The religious lobby holds a great deal of sway in media, education, and politics, and that is a Bad Thing(TM). Most answers I've gotten are excuses usually along the lines of "since non-religious means no religion, and thus no organized religion, it would be hypocrisy to organize because then it becomes like an organized religion". Of course that's nonsense and recently I came across an organization that seems to hold promise, if only for being very nonspecific and inclusive of any worldview which can be called naturalistic or non-mystical. Though small, it's the biggest of its kind, and some scientists and writers I respect have become members, so I had no second thoughts about joining (also because no action is required from members, which is good for a lazy person like me).
If there is a demand for such a social structure, it will develop spontaneously- but of course, only in societies where disbelief does not subject one to harsh punishment.
SY, that's a worthless statement. By that logic, apparently there is demand for crime, for it appears spontaneously in all human societies. Whether something should exist or not has nothing to do with the demands of the masses, because the masses are ignorant and don't know what's good for them. Just look at the absolute failure of democracy. Winston Chrurchill was right:
This statement is often quoted for amusement, but in fact it is a sad insight.
A hierarchical structure is inevitable in a large and densely interacting population. Democracy thus cannot be implemented as a direct process, because people cannot possibly vote on every single issue (let alone be educated enough on all issues to make the choice). The indirect implementation we see where representatives are elected fails partially because leadership merit is not a function of electability; moreover, the structure of incentives in political life does not promote behavior optimal for the population.
A big theoretical blow to democracy comes from Arrow's Nobel winning theorem, which clearly shows the paradoxes involved in voting and preferences. Indeed, the whole concept that a population can have a preference (and even less, that it can express it) is meaningless.
One of the jobs of the supreme court is a partial protection from the tyranny of the majority, a term which has been actually used by them. Unfortunately, it's a broken patch on an unfixable system. None of this is new (see the ancient Greek faux-Xenophon's The Old Oligarch).
My own view, though it would take too long to elaborate on here, is that the world would be best of as what I call an imperial meritocracy (this name has been coined by a couple of others as revealed by a Google search, but I do not mean quite the same thing).
A big theoretical blow to democracy comes from Arrow's Nobel winning theorem, which clearly shows the paradoxes involved in voting and preferences. Indeed, the whole concept that a population can have a preference (and even less, that it can express it) is meaningless.
One of the jobs of the supreme court is a partial protection from the tyranny of the majority, a term which has been actually used by them. Unfortunately, it's a broken patch on an unfixable system. None of this is new (see the ancient Greek faux-Xenophon's The Old Oligarch).
My own view, though it would take too long to elaborate on here, is that the world would be best of as what I call an imperial meritocracy (this name has been coined by a couple of others as revealed by a Google search, but I do not mean quite the same thing).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.