Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
(I'm taking it you meant a triumph over the evil of slavery, not a triumph of the evil of slavery)
No, I meant what I said, and bemoan the fact of it.
My only intent was to point out that the Founders (as a whole) genuinely wished to end slavery, but perceived their attempt to found a nation would fail if they conditioned it upon emancipation.
Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".
Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:
Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?
What bloody age does it play in???
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Oh and for the sake of form - Bookworld :angry:
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".
Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:
Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?
What bloody age does it play in???
I myself bypassed Thomas Covenant for reasons of convenience-I simply had other things I wished to read.
In retrospect, I guess I am glad; if I didn't like them, I'd had read them anyway, 'cuz I'd be too stubborn not to.
Knowing JP, he's probably looking down his nose at us right now (peering over the top of something Donaldson wrote). ;)
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
No, I meant what I said, and bemoan the fact of it.
My only intent was to point out that the Founders (as a whole) genuinely wished to end slavery, but perceived their attempt to found a nation would fail if they conditioned it upon emancipation.
Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.
I don't accept that characterization, sorry.
I think I'll chalk up this as an ideological difference.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:
Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?
What bloody age does it play in???
I myself bypassed Thomas Covenant for reasons of convenience-I simply had other things I wished to read.
In retrospect, I guess I am glad; if I didn't like them, I'd had read them anyway, 'cuz I'd be too stubborn not to.
Knowing JP, he's probably looking down his nose at us right now (peering over the top of
something Donaldson wrote). ;)
I'm currently reading the third chronicles, as it happens. The chap waited quite some time to write them. Which was a bit shell fish.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.
I don't accept that characterization, sorry.
I think I'll chalk this up as an ideological difference.
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.
I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I don't accept that characterization, sorry.
I think I'll chalk this up as an ideological difference.
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.
I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.
Ah, thanks.
I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.
I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.
Ah, thanks.
I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Tell him to feck off, the old Tory cunt.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Ah, thanks.
I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Tell him to feck off, the old Tory cunt.
Oh, we argue all the time.
He's a grand fellow, though.
You'd like him.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
You had to start sounding all bookish:dry:
So don't blame me for continuing along the same lines.
:angry:
Besides, I honestly don't quite understand what age the story plays in:( He's a leper, which points at.. well... a while back anyway but he uses the telephone:unsure:
And no one ever reads Bookworld:(
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
You had to start sounding all bookish:dry:
So don't blame me for continuing along the same lines.
:angry:
Besides, I honestly don't quite understand what age the story plays in:( He's a leper, which points at.. well... a while back anyway but he uses the telephone:unsure:
And no one ever reads Bookworld:(
With me, I never got beyond a recommendation of the series by a friend who was a fan.
I'd read some of Donaldson's sci-fi stuff, and I'd found I really didn't care for it (not his stuff specifically, just sci-fi generally), so I wasn't going to dive into a serial.
Hell, I've never even read Tolkien's Trilogy, and the movies put me to sleep.
I guess I'm flawed that way. :)
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Yeah... but the movies are nothing compared to the books.
I love the books but never liked watching the movies
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
Yeah... but the movies are nothing compared to the books.
I love the books but never liked watching the movies
Hmmm.
Books can put you to sleep, too...
That might be useful.
Maybe I get the books, then keep them by the bed, for emergency use. :huh:
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
It's set in the time it was written, on Earth. Leprosy is still about and he has it. Time passes at a different speed in The Land.
That is why he is constantly checking himself for any type of wounds. Some of his body's nerve ending have died, therefore it does not know if it is wounded, therefore it does not send anti-bodies to fight infections. So a wound would become badly infected if he does not clean and disinfect it as soon as he discovers the wound.
That is how he lost half of his hand, however if you did not read much into the book then you probably wouldn't get the significance of that.
