(ReacTor) Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

[James Nicoll]

Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...

https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or
wrong, is important to the story. Thus, the Lensmen novels are hard SF, since
inertialess travel, the sunbeam, and passage of Lundmark's Nebula through
the Milky Way having formed the planets of said galaxies, are all important
to the stories. This is so even though we know that none of those are
valid.

As far as footnote 2 is concerned, Ray Bradbury has been quoted as saying
that _Singin' in the Rain_ "[...] is a true-blue old-school science fiction
film [...]". See:
<http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/singinintherain_se.shtml>

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or
wrong, is important to the story. Thus, the Lensmen novels are hard SF, since
inertialess travel, the sunbeam, and passage of Lundmark's Nebula through
the Milky Way having formed the planets of said galaxies, are all important
to the stories. This is so even though we know that none of those are
valid.

Smith just got the name of the nebula incorrect, it was really the
Sagittarious galaxy.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Five_fascinating_Gaia_revelations_about_the_Milky_Way

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or
wrong, is important to the story. Thus, the Lensmen novels are hard SF, since
inertialess travel, the sunbeam, and passage of Lundmark's Nebula through
the Milky Way having formed the planets of said galaxies, are all important
to the stories. This is so even though we know that none of those are
valid.

Smith just got the name of the nebula incorrect, it was really the
Sagittarious galaxy.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Five_fascinating_Gaia_revelations_about_the_Milky_Way

Interesting article, but if it says that the formation of planets in the
Milky Way was caused by the Sagittarius Galaxy passing through, I can't
find it.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or
wrong, is important to the story. Thus, the Lensmen novels are hard SF, since
inertialess travel, the sunbeam, and passage of Lundmark's Nebula through
the Milky Way having formed the planets of said galaxies, are all important
to the stories. This is so even though we know that none of those are
valid.

Smith just got the name of the nebula incorrect, it was really the
Sagittarious galaxy.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Five_fascinating_Gaia_revelations_about_the_Milky_Way

Interesting article, but if it says that the formation of planets in the
Milky Way was caused by the Sagittarius Galaxy passing through, I can't
find it.

FTA:

The perhaps most curious aspect of Sagittarius' interaction
with the Milky Way was described in a paper published in
the spring of 2020. A team of researchers from the Instituto
de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) in Tenerife, Spain, found
that in the wake of each Sagittarius crash through the Milky
Way's disc, stars formation in the galaxy accelerated. In fact,
one of those periods roughly coincided with the formation of
the Sun and the Solar System some 4.7 billion years ago.

[quadibloc]

Well, that is different in the most important point.
What the ESA discovered was that the Sagittarius galaxy passing through
the Milky Way galaxy did was accelerate _star formation_. What Smith was
saying was that the passage of a nebula through our galaxy caused stars
to form _planetary systems_; at the time, it was believed that planetary
systems were rare, and resulted from close encounters between stars.
We know better now; we know that the formation of a planetary disk is a
natural result of a star condensing from gaseous matter and shedding
angular momentum.

John Savard

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:42:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
As far as footnote 2 is concerned, Ray Bradbury has been quoted as saying
that _Singin' in the Rain_ "[...] is a true-blue old-school science fiction
<http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/singinintherain_se.shtml>

So by that definition would Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder"
(which many say created the term "the butterfly effect") be considered
"Hard SF"?

(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

[Robert Woodward]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:42:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
As far as footnote 2 is concerned, Ray Bradbury has been quoted as saying
that _Singin' in the Rain_ "[...] is a true-blue old-school science fiction
<http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/singinintherain_se.shtml>

So by that definition would Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder"
(which many say created the term "the butterfly effect") be considered
"Hard SF"?
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

I believe that Bradbury was thinking of Joe McCarthy when he wrote it
(as did a few other authors in the early 1950s).

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:42:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
As far as footnote 2 is concerned, Ray Bradbury has been quoted as saying
that _Singin' in the Rain_ "[...] is a true-blue old-school science fiction
<http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/singinintherain_se.shtml>

So by that definition would Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder"
(which many say created the term "the butterfly effect") be considered
"Hard SF"?

If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.

Post by The Horny Goat
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)

[1] Outside of mathematics, where (generally accepted) definitions are
crystal clear. 'cuz if they have any ambiguity, they either never get
accepted or get tossed out when the ambiguity is discovered.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.

Post by The Horny Goat
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)

I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.

Post by The Horny Goat
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)

I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....

Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?

All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A
resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.

Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.

And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.

[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:28:50 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.

Post by The Horny Goat
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)

I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....

Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?
All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A
resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.
Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.
And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.
[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.

Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his
politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.

How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me. I'd consider
Scudder Jimmy Swaggert's wet dream maybe but certainly not Trump who
likes to run beauty contests and grab women by their ****ies. More
like a televangelist on steroids.

Though I do wish Heinlein could have written that story.

And no question the villain in A Sound of Thunder WAS much more like
Trump than Joe McCarthy.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:28:50 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.

Post by The Horny Goat
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)

I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....

Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?
All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A
resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.
Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.
And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.
[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.

Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his
politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.
How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me.

Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

Post by The Horny Goat
I'd consider
Scudder Jimmy Swaggert's wet dream maybe but certainly not Trump who
likes to run beauty contests and grab women by their ****ies. More
like a televangelist on steroids.
Though I do wish Heinlein could have written that story.
And no question the villain in A Sound of Thunder WAS much more like
Trump than Joe McCarthy.

[Titus G]

snip

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by The Horny Goat
Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his
politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.
How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me.

Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

As not a customer of the restaurant where waiters can be only Democrats
or Republicans serving up the same old central kitchen crap, I had not
read of this but found the Wikipedia article very scary. It will be a
worry if they are as powerful as you imply.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by The Horny Goat
Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his
politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.
How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me.

Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

As not a customer of the restaurant where waiters can be only Democrats
or Republicans serving up the same old central kitchen crap, I had not
read of this but found the Wikipedia article very scary. It will be a
worry if they are as powerful as you imply.

Unless they do something /really/ stupid, like dump Kamala for Hilary,
the Dems should win as they will /not be running a Boomer/ for
President. Registrations of younger voters are up. And I expect that
they will vote anti-Boomer in large numbers.

I haven't bothered with the details because they will find a few
roadblocks:
-- Trump's own ego, since he didn't write it
-- Civil Service rules (founded on Civil Service /laws/ passed by
Congress) once they try to replace below a certain level

And, of course, being nutters, their plans may just plain not work.

Also, the counter-protestors in Britain suggest that they may enounter
rather more opposition than they are planning on. Particularly since a
lot of the key troops are in jail for their activities on Jan 6 2021.

Of course, whoever gets in will have similar problems. But perhaps
with better goals.

[quadibloc]

Myself, I am not nearly so optimistic.
Kamala Harris is neither white nor male, and that terrifies me, as I
think that a lot of potential
swing voters will simply refuse to consider her on those grounds,
preferring to vote even for Trump
instead.
Yes, she has ignited a great deal of enthusiasm among Democrats, and
higher turnout helps matters
as well. But to elect a President, a party will need to get votes from
at least some rural areas,
the ones more inclined to support Trump. Remember that votes are
filtered through the Electoral
College, so it's not enough to just have a majority of the popular vote
due to a high turnout
in the most populous mainly Democratic states; one has to have a
majority in many states.

John Savard

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by quadibloc
Myself, I am not nearly so optimistic.
Kamala Harris is neither white nor male, and that terrifies me, as I
think that a lot of potential
swing voters will simply refuse to consider her on those grounds,
preferring to vote even for Trump
instead.

Why are you terrified of non-white and non-male people?
We in the USA have had many examples of non-male leaders in other
nations from Israel to India to Great Britain. Mostly they did
nothing to upset the local or international scene. We have known
great black men in the USA who greatly benefited society.

Post by quadibloc
Yes, she has ignited a great deal of enthusiasm among Democrats, and
higher turnout helps matters
as well. But to elect a President, a party will need to get votes from
at least some rural areas,

Why do you think she is against rural avocations? I think a
farmer -not an industrial farmer who might look at his land once in
while but man who lives on the soil with a family feeding the
local markets or national would look more clearly at her? She
has been on the Executive track since she left law school.

Post by quadibloc
the ones more inclined to support Trump. Remember that votes are
filtered through the Electoral
College, so it's not enough to just have a majority of the popular vote
due to a high turnout
in the most populous mainly Democratic states; one has to have a
majority in many states.
John Savard

I remember when Barack Obama was running and the same fears were
excited by a black man, Trump publicized the idea that being born of an
American Citizen on American soil was not enough to make the Democratic
candidate a "real" citizen. A lot of foolish people bought it. So he
is simply a racist idiot but it was wasted effort on his part.

Our Fears were for naught. Obama was elected and I rejoiced because it
proved the people of the USA had finally passed the point where a
capable Black Man would be rejected by the party and by the
Voting Citizens of the Government. I judge people by the capability
they have exhibited to date.

So The Harris-Walz ticket is a winner to me. If I live
to November 5 I will have voted for the Democratic ticket.

bliss

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by quadibloc
Myself, I am not nearly so optimistic.
Kamala Harris is neither white nor male, and that terrifies me, as I
think that a lot of potential
swing voters will simply refuse to consider her on those grounds,
preferring to vote even for Trump
instead.
Yes, she has ignited a great deal of enthusiasm among Democrats, and
higher turnout helps matters
as well. But to elect a President, a party will need to get votes from
at least some rural areas,
the ones more inclined to support Trump. Remember that votes are
filtered through the Electoral
College, so it's not enough to just have a majority of the popular vote
due to a high turnout
in the most populous mainly Democratic states; one has to have a
majority in many states.

Quaddie's projecting his own problems with women and brown people onto
undecided Americans.

He should remember that we've already elected a black president, and
Hillary failed only because Comey announced re-opening the 'emails'
investigation just 11 days before the election.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:41:40 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by quadibloc
Myself, I am not nearly so optimistic.
Kamala Harris is neither white nor male, and that terrifies me, as I
think that a lot of potential
swing voters will simply refuse to consider her on those grounds,
preferring to vote even for Trump
instead.
Yes, she has ignited a great deal of enthusiasm among Democrats, and
higher turnout helps matters
as well. But to elect a President, a party will need to get votes from
at least some rural areas,
the ones more inclined to support Trump. Remember that votes are
filtered through the Electoral
College, so it's not enough to just have a majority of the popular vote
due to a high turnout
in the most populous mainly Democratic states; one has to have a
majority in many states.

Quaddie's projecting his own problems with women and brown people onto
undecided Americans.
He should remember that we've already elected a black president, and
Hillary failed only because Comey announced re-opening the 'emails'
investigation just 11 days before the election.

Actually, she failed because
-- she had no idea how the Electoral College worked, so she ignored
the "flyover States" (each of which has at least 3 Electoral Votes)
-- when she was out "campaigning", she was mostly schmoozing the local
1%-ers to raise money

Trump won because /someone/ in his campaign (I do not say Trump
himself) knew how the Electoral College worked and Trump loved to talk
to (well, at) voters.

Comey's announcement came while the mail-in ballots were being mailed
in. A lot of votes had already been cast at that point.

Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

The same is almost certainly NOT true of a privately owned server even
if files have been illegally moved from a government-owned server to
the privately owned server.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).

One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.
--scott

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.

One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.

Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to. All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by
him while he was President.

And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper
appointment of the prosecutor and the mismanagement of the papers seized
from Trump's house. Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ
for $100 million due to the incompetence of the DOJ.

Lynn

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats.  It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived.  Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways.  This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to.  All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by
him while he was President.

He did not do that in any recognized form. He does not have
the sole power to declassify documents. Not even in his Mind assuming
that he has a mind which if he has a mind it has not been in evidence
during his political career.

Post by Lynn McGuire
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper
appointment of the prosecutor and the mismanagement of the papers seized
from Trump's house.  Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ
for $100 million due to the incompetence of the DOJ.
Lynn

No the case has been thrown out of court by an incompetent Trump
appointed judge who is doing her best to protect her benefactor in
violation of the Code of Ethics and the Constitution.

bliss

[D]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to. All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by him
while he was President.
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper appointment
of the prosecutor and the mismanagement of the papers seized from Trump's
house. Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ for $100 million
due to the incompetence of the DOJ.
Lynn

Really? That's great news! Probably that is why european news have
completely stopped reporting on it. It was only news worthy once things
looked bad for Trump. Any eventual victories for Trump are seldom, or
never reported.

[Chris Buckley]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to. All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by him
while he was President.
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper appointment
of the prosecutor and the mismanagement of the papers seized from Trump's
house. Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ for $100 million
due to the incompetence of the DOJ.
Lynn

Really? That's great news! Probably that is why european news have
completely stopped reporting on it. It was only news worthy once things
looked bad for Trump. Any eventual victories for Trump are seldom, or
never reported.

The charge will undoubtedly be back. I regard it as the only
legitimate prosecution of the major ones against Trump. He deserves at
least a slap on the wrist for his disregarding of classifications. It
doesn't deserve the attention the Democrats have focused on it, but
that's politics (and how the Democrats persuaded the FBI to go full
SWAT mode for the seizing of documents is undetermined, but obviously
a great political success for them.)

The case got thrown out until a different special prosecutor is appointed.
The one appointed is legitimate according to Department of Justice's
rules, but other laws strongly imply that he needed to be approved by
Congress at some point in his life (and all other special prosecutors have
been.) It all depends on definitions, as so many things do.

Chris

[Paul S Person]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to. All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by him
while he was President.
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper appointment
of the prosecutor and the mismanagement of the papers seized from Trump's
house. Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ for $100 million
due to the incompetence of the DOJ.
Lynn

Really? That's great news! Probably that is why european news have
completely stopped reporting on it. It was only news worthy once things
looked bad for Trump. Any eventual victories for Trump are seldom, or
never reported.

The charge will undoubtedly be back. I regard it as the only
legitimate prosecution of the major ones against Trump. He deserves at
least a slap on the wrist for his disregarding of classifications. It
doesn't deserve the attention the Democrats have focused on it, but
that's politics (and how the Democrats persuaded the FBI to go full
SWAT mode for the seizing of documents is undetermined, but obviously
a great political success for them.)

They followed their normal procedures, including the normal statement
on use of deadly force, for serving search warrants. You need to
understand that anything that Trump and/or his defenders assert is a
lie. They lie like a rug (which lies by nature).

And it was a great success for the Federal Archives and the security
agencies whose secrets were being stored in boxes in the bathroom, and
a great defeat to Putin and others whom Trump favors over the USA (the
list of these scumbags is quite long).

Post by Chris Buckley
The case got thrown out until a different special prosecutor is appointed.
The one appointed is legitimate according to Department of Justice's
rules, but other laws strongly imply that he needed to be approved by
Congress at some point in his life (and all other special prosecutors have
been.) It all depends on definitions, as so many things do.

Or the Supreme Court (and it hasn't even been decided by a three-judge
panel of the Appeals Court, so it will take a while) determines that
it doesn't matter what Thomas' 1%-er wants, the appointment was valid
and the case is not dismissed.

But you are correct -- they could distinguish between a Special
Prosecutor with no prior office and one previously confirmed by
Congress for some office. This is a distinction which bodes ill for
young Biden's effort to make the same argument in his case.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 17:37:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to. All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by
him while he was President.
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper
appointment of the prosecutor and the mismanagement of the papers seized
from Trump's house. Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ
for $100 million due to the incompetence of the DOJ.

I'm hoping this is satire, because the only part that /might/ work is
that a new Special Prosecutor, one appointed in accordance with the
eventual Supreme Court decision, might be needed.

Or the case could simply be assigned to the local Federal Prosecutor
in Florida. An /ordinary/ prosecutor, already confirmed by Congress
(if that is required for that particular office).

Heck, they could assign to an eager and ambition 3rd Assistant
Prosecutor they just hired who needs no Congressional approval and see
how Trump likes being prosecuted by a snot-nosed brat.

The rest of what you said is nonsense, as has been stated by the
people who actually know how this works. Some documents can /never/ be
declassified because of their topic. And their are procedures to
follow which Trump, of course, did not.

The civil lawsuit will go nowhere. If a trial actually occurred and
the jury actually found that Trump was not guilty because he had
declassified everything /then/ a lawsuit might work.

So, again, I hope you are being sarcastic. In which case, I appreciate
the humor, I really do.

[Mad Hamish]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 17:37:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to.

'In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental
agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions
memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information
Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point:
“Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow
specified procedures,” the court said.'

Post by Lynn McGuire
All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by
him while he was President.

No they weren't
as he acknowledges in a transcipt of a meeting where he was showing
people papers he'd taken

https://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-information-trump-audio-recording-talks-declassifying-documents/story?id=99960824
Trump is heard on the audio recording saying, as described to ABC
News, "As president I could have declassified, but now I can't."

"Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret
information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and
given to me,"

"Well, with Milley -- uh, let me see that, I'll show you an example.
He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't that amazing? I have a big
pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They
presented me this -- this is off the record, but -- they presented me
this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him,"

Post by Lynn McGuire
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper
appointment of the prosecutor

No, the Trump appointed judge has decided that the appoinment of the
Special Counsel was improperly selected
A judgement that goes against decades of precedent
“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all
previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General
is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel,"

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the mismanagement of the papers seized
from Trump's house.

Bullshit

Post by Lynn McGuire
Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ
for $100 million due to the incompetence of the DOJ.

Sure, Trump suing somebody just proves there's a lawyer dumb enough to
take his case and hope they'll eventually get paid...

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 17:09:09 +1000, Mad Hamish

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 17:37:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats. It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived. Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways. This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to.

'In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental
agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions
memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information
“Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow
specified procedures,” the court said.'

Post by Lynn McGuire
All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by
him while he was President.

No they weren't
as he acknowledges in a transcipt of a meeting where he was showing
people papers he'd taken
https://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-information-trump-audio-recording-talks-declassifying-documents/story?id=99960824
Trump is heard on the audio recording saying, as described to ABC
News, "As president I could have declassified, but now I can't."
"Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret
information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and
given to me,"
"Well, with Milley -- uh, let me see that, I'll show you an example.
He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't that amazing? I have a big
pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They
presented me this -- this is off the record, but -- they presented me
this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him,"

Post by Lynn McGuire
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper
appointment of the prosecutor

No, the Trump appointed judge has decided that the appoinment of the
Special Counsel was improperly selected
A judgement that goes against decades of precedent
“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all
previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General
is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel,"

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the mismanagement of the papers seized
from Trump's house.

Bullshit

Post by Lynn McGuire
Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ
for $100 million due to the incompetence of the DOJ.

Sure, Trump suing somebody just proves there's a lawyer dumb enough to
take his case and hope they'll eventually get paid...

Or one smart enough to insist on getting 1/3d off the top.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by The Horny Goat
Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his
politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.
How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me.

Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

As not a customer of the restaurant where waiters can be only Democrats
or Republicans serving up the same old central kitchen crap, I had not
read of this but found the Wikipedia article very scary. It will be a
worry if they are as powerful as you imply.

Unless they do something /really/ stupid, like dump Kamala for Hilary,
the Dems should win as they will /not be running a Boomer/ for
President. Registrations of younger voters are up. And I expect that
they will vote anti-Boomer in large numbers.
I haven't bothered with the details because they will find a few
-- Trump's own ego, since he didn't write it
-- Civil Service rules (founded on Civil Service /laws/ passed by
Congress) once they try to replace below a certain level

Trump has already tried to negate those rules, almost succeeded despite
basically do it on a whim and doing so in a planned, thought out way is
one of the first steps in the Project 2025 playbook. Also keep in mind
that the current Supreme Court can be counted on to shoot down any legal
challenges.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Titus G

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

As not a customer of the restaurant where waiters can be only Democrats
or Republicans serving up the same old central kitchen crap, I had not
read of this but found the Wikipedia article very scary. It will be a
worry if they are as powerful as you imply.

They will be as powerful as the people in office allow them to be. As
someone who remembers the Moral Majority, the notion of letting those people
have any control over anything is very disturbing to me.

As I recall, Jesus wasn't a fan of them either.
--scott

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.

They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.

"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.

They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33

No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists. A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is. That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions. Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
A tight focus on Trump’s agenda is all the more necessary, some
Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
effectively: “Instill fear in the American people.”

I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable. There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups. As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.

Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and
wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there. It is not a
coherent collection!

Chris

[Paul S Person]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.

They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33

No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists. A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is. That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions. Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
A tight focus on Trump’s agenda is all the more necessary, some
Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
effectively: “Instill fear in the American people.”
I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable. There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups. As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.
Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and
wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there. It is not a
coherent collection!

I haven't bothered to read it because it was clear to me from the
first descriptions (which focused on identifying and vetting Trump
appointees) what it was: Trump's buddies doing what he /should/ have
been doing in 2016 -- preparing for the transition. As you may recall,
it took Trump a while to get going because he didn't prepare. Well,
this time he may be prepared. If he pays attention to his buddies,
that is.

Prepared but still incoherent and weird. And, if anything, less
effective than before as a result.

And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.

They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33

No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists. A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is. That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions. Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
A tight focus on Trump’s agenda is all the more necessary, some
Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
effectively: “Instill fear in the American people.”
I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable. There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups. As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.
Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and
wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there. It is not a
coherent collection!

I haven't bothered to read it because it was clear to me from the
first descriptions (which focused on identifying and vetting Trump
appointees) what it was: Trump's buddies doing what he /should/ have
been doing in 2016 -- preparing for the transition. As you may recall,
it took Trump a while to get going because he didn't prepare. Well,
this time he may be prepared. If he pays attention to his buddies,
that is.
Prepared but still incoherent and weird. And, if anything, less
effective than before as a result.
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

I believe it was in that article I posted a link to but one of the heads
of the Heritage Foundation flat out says it is them getting ready to
handle Trump's transition if he wins because they know he won't prepare
and they can just move in and set everything up themselves.

[Titus G]

snip

Post by Paul S Person
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

That strikes me with surprise because I have you pigeon holed as a
religious nutter of a Christian cult bent.
From my childhood Presbyterian brainwashing, with nothing to contradict
it since, the definition of a Christian is someone who is a believer in
and follower of the biblical Jesus (Christ), not necessarily in all the
evil machinations of the warlike Old Testament God and incredibly vague
about the function of the Holy Ghost, who being one of an inseparable
trinity would also be a king of this other worldly kingdom. Would it be
addressed as Your Holiness? They are not Godians nor Ghostians but
Christians. And the kingdom doesn't have an organisational hierarchy
chart nor a coloured wall chart with an arrowed "You Are Here" overlay.
If you also agree that Western cultures worship of commercialism,
including borrowing and lending, of Christmas also has nothing to do
with Jesus Christ, it is not too difficult to realise that most
Christians are brilliant if unknowing hypocrites.
The NZ Prime Minister, (who until recently spelt cat with a k), is a
devout member of some weird USA Christian cult that preaches that Jesus
Christ's kingdom is on earth right now and that the righteous believers
like himself, are those being rewarded right now with monetary wealth.

[Titus G]

snip

Prosperity Gospel.

https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/prosperity-gospel#:~:text=The%20Prosperity%20Gospel%20(PG)%20is,through%20devotion%20and%20positive%20confession

or
Encyclopedia Brittanica

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

That strikes me with surprise because I have you pigeon holed as a
religious nutter of a Christian cult bent.

Well, that'll larn ya not to pigeonhole people.

Post by Titus G
From my childhood Presbyterian brainwashing, with nothing to contradict
it since, the definition of a Christian is someone who is a believer in
and follower of the biblical Jesus (Christ), not necessarily in all the
evil machinations of the warlike Old Testament God and incredibly vague
about the function of the Holy Ghost, who being one of an inseparable
trinity would also be a king of this other worldly kingdom. Would it be
addressed as Your Holiness? They are not Godians nor Ghostians but
Christians. And the kingdom doesn't have an organisational hierarchy
chart nor a coloured wall chart with an arrowed "You Are Here" overlay.
If you also agree that Western cultures worship of commercialism,
including borrowing and lending, of Christmas also has nothing to do
with Jesus Christ, it is not too difficult to realise that most
Christians are brilliant if unknowing hypocrites.

There are "holiness" Churches who are, as I understand it, that are
rather focused on the Holy Ghost.

A /balanced/ approach would attribute the gathering of Christians
together (ie, the Church) as something the Holy Ghost does.

The claim that we "worship" commercialism is one I have never
understood. When the Bible talks about worshipping other gods, it
means /worshipping/ them: bowing down before them, praying to them,
burning incense to them, etc. And the point of the Bible is that this
is being done to things that cannot possibly take any action. But my
point is that, if some group actually /worshipped commercialism/ then
they would meet together, bow down, pray to, burn incense to, etc,
some statue or image of "commercialism".

No, that claim is simply an effort to find idol-worship where there
really isn't any. This is based on the theory that /anything/ that
distracts us from God is idol-worship. That it is wrong and should be
avoided I agree, but that it is idol-worship I do not.

Post by Titus G
The NZ Prime Minister, (who until recently spelt cat with a k), is a
devout member of some weird USA Christian cult that preaches that Jesus
Christ's kingdom is on earth right now and that the righteous believers
like himself, are those being rewarded right now with monetary wealth.

That Jesus Christ's kingdom is on earth right now isn't that strange,
although it is usually treated as a /spiritual/ kingdom, not a
physical one. Of course, if you are pre-millenialist, it may seem
strange, but for post-millenialists it may be a given.

As others have noted, the cult is one of the "prosperity gospel"
groups. This works well for the leader, who gets lots of money from
his followers, but not so well for the followers, who may wait their
entire lives for their reward. The leaders are among the guys you may
have read about who have golden cars and very large mansions as a
result of the money they rake in. The end up in the news because the
IRS tends to get after them because they register as Churches for tax
purposes, and there are expectations that go along with that type of
non-profit organization involving where the money goes.

[Titus G]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

much snippage for brevity

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
If you also agree that Western cultures worship of commercialism,
including borrowing and lending, of Christmas also has nothing to do
with Jesus Christ, it is not too difficult to realise that most
Christians are brilliant if unknowing hypocrites.

snip

Post by Paul S Person
The claim that we "worship" commercialism is one I have never
understood.

With hindsight, my choice of the word "worship" was foolish as it was
extreme. My point was that Jesus, crucified about a week after his
terrorist gang of twelve violently invaded and assaulted Temple
officials/contractors carrying out the Temple's commercial activities,
stood for the exact opposite of commercialism which is the real emphasis
of the Christian's Christmas.

snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
The NZ Prime Minister, (who until recently spelt cat with a k), is a
devout member of some weird USA Christian cult that preaches that Jesus
Christ's kingdom is on earth right now and that the righteous believers
like himself, are those being rewarded right now with monetary wealth.

snip

Post by Paul S Person
As others have noted, the cult is one of the "prosperity gospel"
groups. This works well for the leader, who gets lots of money from
his followers, but not so well for the followers, who may wait their
entire lives for their reward. The leaders are among the guys you may
have read about who have golden cars and very large mansions as a
result of the money they rake in. The end up in the news because the
IRS tends to get after them because they register as Churches for tax
purposes, and there are expectations that go along with that type of
non-profit organization involving where the money goes.

That was interesting. Unsubstantiated rumour is that the current NZ
prime minister's rise to a management position and wealth in the USA was
due to his religious connections as he has been completely useless as a
politician behaving like a CEO surrounded by yes men.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

much snippage for brevity

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
If you also agree that Western cultures worship of commercialism,
including borrowing and lending, of Christmas also has nothing to do
with Jesus Christ, it is not too difficult to realise that most
Christians are brilliant if unknowing hypocrites.

snip

Post by Paul S Person
The claim that we "worship" commercialism is one I have never
understood.

With hindsight, my choice of the word "worship" was foolish as it was
extreme. My point was that Jesus, crucified about a week after his
terrorist gang of twelve violently invaded and assaulted Temple
officials/contractors carrying out the Temple's commercial activities,
stood for the exact opposite of commercialism which is the real emphasis
of the Christian's Christmas.

Which would be a fine point, were it not for the fact that the
Christian Christmas involves only /one/ Gift. All other gifts are
(well, should be) references to that one.

A fair number of Christians are as disgusted by its commercialization
as you appear to be.

IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
The NZ Prime Minister, (who until recently spelt cat with a k), is a
devout member of some weird USA Christian cult that preaches that Jesus
Christ's kingdom is on earth right now and that the righteous believers
like himself, are those being rewarded right now with monetary wealth.

snip

Post by Paul S Person
As others have noted, the cult is one of the "prosperity gospel"
groups. This works well for the leader, who gets lots of money from
his followers, but not so well for the followers, who may wait their
entire lives for their reward. The leaders are among the guys you may
have read about who have golden cars and very large mansions as a
result of the money they rake in. The end up in the news because the
IRS tends to get after them because they register as Churches for tax
purposes, and there are expectations that go along with that type of
non-profit organization involving where the money goes.

That was interesting. Unsubstantiated rumour is that the current NZ
prime minister's rise to a management position and wealth in the USA was
due to his religious connections as he has been completely useless as a
politician behaving like a CEO surrounded by yes men.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).

But I was talking about the /commercial/ version, with all its madness
building to the 25th. Amazon will warn you if your order won't arrive
before Dec 25th, aka The End of the World if your kid doesn't get the
toy you ordered; I don't think it warns you the same way about Jan 6.
"Epiphany tree" and "Epiphany gifts" are not terms I recall seeing
very often.

Similarly, while the /commercial/ season begins the day after
Thanksgiving (or at least did until relatively recently), the
/religious/ season in a sense starts with the First Sunday in Advent.

These are at about the same time, but the commercial one was timed to
not detract from Thanksgiving, while the religious one serves a
different purpose.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).
But I was talking about the /commercial/ version, with all its madness
building to the 25th. Amazon will warn you if your order won't arrive
before Dec 25th, aka The End of the World if your kid doesn't get the
toy you ordered; I don't think it warns you the same way about Jan 6.
"Epiphany tree" and "Epiphany gifts" are not terms I recall seeing
very often.
Similarly, while the /commercial/ season begins the day after
Thanksgiving (or at least did until relatively recently), the
/religious/ season in a sense starts with the First Sunday in Advent.
These are at about the same time, but the commercial one was timed to
not detract from Thanksgiving, while the religious one serves a
different purpose.

The 'Holiday Season' now starts with Halloween. I'm seeing tons of
Halloween themed bricabrac in stores, and Hallmark is trying to
convince me to send out 'Halloween Cards".

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:00:07 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).
But I was talking about the /commercial/ version, with all its madness
building to the 25th. Amazon will warn you if your order won't arrive
before Dec 25th, aka The End of the World if your kid doesn't get the
toy you ordered; I don't think it warns you the same way about Jan 6.
"Epiphany tree" and "Epiphany gifts" are not terms I recall seeing
very often.
Similarly, while the /commercial/ season begins the day after
Thanksgiving (or at least did until relatively recently), the
/religious/ season in a sense starts with the First Sunday in Advent.
These are at about the same time, but the commercial one was timed to
not detract from Thanksgiving, while the religious one serves a
different purpose.

The 'Holiday Season' now starts with Halloween. I'm seeing tons of
Halloween themed bricabrac in stores, and Hallmark is trying to
convince me to send out 'Halloween Cards".

That's happened since ... well, since before I came along.

At least for candy and plastic pumpkins and cosumes. Hallmark's
efforts are perhaps an innovation. But, hey, selling cards is what
they /do/, and who's to say they haven't tried it before?

For Thanksgiving they still seem to be selling mostly food. Much of it
requiring extensive preparation and cooking, although a diligent
search will usually find something acceptable that can be microwaved.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).
But I was talking about the /commercial/ version, with all its madness
building to the 25th.

And then all Christmas music disappears from the radio on the 26th. Got it.

Post by Paul S Person
I don't think it warns you the same way about Jan 6.
"Epiphany tree" and "Epiphany gifts" are not terms I recall seeing
very often.

Not in the US, but I'm pretty sure that in Eastern Europe, Epiphany is
more significant than is Christmas.

Post by Paul S Person
Similarly, while the /commercial/ season begins the day after
Thanksgiving (or at least did until relatively recently), the
/religious/ season in a sense starts with the First Sunday in Advent.

No, the First Sunday of Advent is when the season of Advent starts. The
(religious) Christmas season starts on December 25, or for traditionalists,
the evening of December 24.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:12:19 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).
But I was talking about the /commercial/ version, with all its madness
building to the 25th.

And then all Christmas music disappears from the radio on the 26th. Got it.

Just one of the reasons I don't listen to music on the radio.

And "Christmas music" is apt. I once heard a well-known Christmas song
or carol (something on the order of, but not necessarily, "Oh, Little
Town of Bethlehem") sung by a Country-Western artist. My reaction:
"Why's she singing it as a dirge?".

The main reason I don't listen to music on the radio is that it isn't
/my/ music, it's someone else's music and prefer to listen to the
music I have assembled in the order I have put it.

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
I don't think it warns you the same way about Jan 6.
"Epiphany tree" and "Epiphany gifts" are not terms I recall seeing
very often.

Not in the US, but I'm pretty sure that in Eastern Europe, Epiphany is
more significant than is Christmas.

It's when the Three Magi finally arrived in Bethlehem. As opposed to
the Shepherds, who made on the night of the 24th/25th. Any Orthodox
Church anywhere can be expected to regard it that way.

They also, IIRC, have a different date for Easter most years. As Tevye
says, "Tradition".

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
Similarly, while the /commercial/ season begins the day after
Thanksgiving (or at least did until relatively recently), the
/religious/ season in a sense starts with the First Sunday in Advent.

No, the First Sunday of Advent is when the season of Advent starts. The
(religious) Christmas season starts on December 25, or for traditionalists,
the evening of December 24.

You are correct that Advent and Christmas are different seasons in the
Church Year. But the first prepares for Christmas at the same time the
commercial Christmas is trying to get everyone to -- prepare for
Christmas.

Examination of Advent Calendars online shows that some end on 12/25,
that is, Christmas Day. Not Christmas Eve or 12/23, whichever they
regard as the last day before the Christmas season.

(The ones online appear to be much more elaborate than the ones I
remember. Those were cardboard, and had Scripture verses hidden behind
the flaps. The lack of jelly beans etc made it much easier to open
just one flap each day.)

[D]

Post by Paul S Person
The main reason I don't listen to music on the radio is that it isn't
/my/ music, it's someone else's music and prefer to listen to the
music I have assembled in the order I have put it.

But how do you discover new music if you only like to listen to your
music in your order?

[Paul S Person]

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person
The main reason I don't listen to music on the radio is that it isn't
/my/ music, it's someone else's music and prefer to listen to the
music I have assembled in the order I have put it.

But how do you discover new music if you only like to listen to your
music in your order?

What new music?

Actually, I also watch lots of films, and they generally have music,
including songs from more recent eras. So I have had some exposure to
forms current at various points after my collection ends.

I have 9,141 MP3 files (organized into a two-tier system of
genre/(artist, group, composer, ...) occupying 25.1 GB. When the
limitations of my player's "random by album" mode became apparent, it
took a lot of research and effort to get them into a Master Playlist.
I really have no particular desire to expand this.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 09:28:58 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).

In our family we usually got our tree up about a week before (though
last year only on Christmas Eve) but the twelveth day is when we were
taught the tree was SUPPOSED to come down. Our couch is right next to
the tree's normal location so we didn't but decorations on one side of
the tree to prevent the cat knocking the ornaments down...since kitty
normally sits on that arm of the chair the rest of the year.

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 09:28:58 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).

In our family we usually got our tree up about a week before (though
last year only on Christmas Eve) but the twelveth day is when we were
taught the tree was SUPPOSED to come down. Our couch is right next to
the tree's normal location so we didn't but decorations on one side of
the tree to prevent the cat knocking the ornaments down...since kitty
normally sits on that arm of the chair the rest of the year.

I don't remember the timing when I was growing up, but a week or so
before sounds right (if only to give time to put the tinsel on one
piece at a time, placed carefully -- /that/ I remember). After New
Year's seems likely for disposing of the tree although it could have
stretched to Epiphany.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:43:17 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
I don't remember the timing when I was growing up, but a week or so
before sounds right (if only to give time to put the tinsel on one
piece at a time, placed carefully -- /that/ I remember). After New
Year's seems likely for disposing of the tree although it could have
stretched to Epiphany.

We only used tinsel during years we had no cat - we had one incident
where we found a piece of tinsel about 18" dangling from the cat - she
had eaten it and let's just say the tinsel didn't stay in her litter
box. We figured she could badly injure herself if it caught on
something so didn't use it the following year (nor since).

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:43:17 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
I don't remember the timing when I was growing up, but a week or so
before sounds right (if only to give time to put the tinsel on one
piece at a time, placed carefully -- /that/ I remember). After New
Year's seems likely for disposing of the tree although it could have
stretched to Epiphany.

We only used tinsel during years we had no cat - we had one incident
where we found a piece of tinsel about 18" dangling from the cat - she
had eaten it and let's just say the tinsel didn't stay in her litter
box. We figured she could badly injure herself if it caught on
something so didn't use it the following year (nor since).

I only did it strand-by-strand when I was being watched. It wasn't
/my/ obsession.

Adults in the 50's -- they wanted something done, they told the kids
to do it, and then they whined (at a minimum) when they didn't like
the results.

[Dudley Brooks]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:43:17 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
I don't remember the timing when I was growing up, but a week or so
before sounds right (if only to give time to put the tinsel on one
piece at a time, placed carefully -- /that/ I remember). After New
Year's seems likely for disposing of the tree although it could have
stretched to Epiphany.

We only used tinsel during years we had no cat - we had one incident
where we found a piece of tinsel about 18" dangling from the cat - she
had eaten it and let's just say the tinsel didn't stay in her litter
box. We figured she could badly injure herself if it caught on
something so didn't use it the following year (nor since).

When I was in high school, we had the same thing happen with our fox
terrier.

Here's the worst part about *that* story:

I had a new girlfriend, and my mother quickly let me invite her over for
dinner. As entertainment, my mother decided to tell the fox terrier /
tinsel story -- not the kind of story you usually tell at dinner ... and
not the kind of story you imagine telling your girlfriend on a first date.

The kicker: When telling the story, my mother absent-mindedly replaced
the dog's name ... with *my* name!

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 09:28:58 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:13:41 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
IOW, it can be argued that it is not the /Christian's/ Christmas that
is commercialized. Which is why it is more commonly called "the
Holiday Season", and starts (at latest) the day after Thanksgiving and
extends to (at earliest) New Year's Day. That is to say, I don't think
it's been extended to the day after Halloween or Epiphany. Yet.

The Christmas season runs to Epiphany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas.

The religious one (and its cultural attachments) does, to be sure.
That is why each year I listen to one movement of JS Bach's Christmas
Oratorio on as close to the proper day as possible, and then take down
my decorations (which went up on Christmas eve).

In our family we usually got our tree up about a week before (though
last year only on Christmas Eve) but the twelveth day is when we were
taught the tree was SUPPOSED to come down. Our couch is right next to
the tree's normal location so we didn't but decorations on one side of
the tree to prevent the cat knocking the ornaments down...since kitty
normally sits on that arm of the chair the rest of the year.

Back when we had little kids, we'd get an 8+ foot real tree.
When the kids got older, we switched to an 8 foot artificial, and
now they're grown and out of the house, cut down to a 3 foot
artificial on a table.

Last Christmas, my younger daughter came home and insisted
on re-erecting the 8 footer. Of course, she did not take
responsibility for putting the decoration away.

pt

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 11:53:34 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer
Last Christmas, my younger daughter came home and insisted
on re-erecting the 8 footer. Of course, she did not take
responsibility for putting the decoration away.

Loved your story - my younger daughter lives in England (we're on the
west coast of Canada) so we haven't had too many Christmases together
during the 10 years since she emigrated (since she has a partner and
his parents are MUCH closer than Canada; Brighton -> Dorchester)

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:49:30 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.

They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33

No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists. A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is. That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions. Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
A tight focus on Trump’s agenda is all the more necessary, some
Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
effectively: “Instill fear in the American people.”
I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable. There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups. As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.
Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and
wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there. It is not a
coherent collection!

I haven't bothered to read it because it was clear to me from the
first descriptions (which focused on identifying and vetting Trump
appointees) what it was: Trump's buddies doing what he /should/ have
been doing in 2016 -- preparing for the transition. As you may recall,
it took Trump a while to get going because he didn't prepare. Well,
this time he may be prepared. If he pays attention to his buddies,
that is.
Prepared but still incoherent and weird. And, if anything, less
effective than before as a result.
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

I believe it was in that article I posted a link to but one of the heads
of the Heritage Foundation flat out says it is them getting ready to
handle Trump's transition if he wins because they know he won't prepare
and they can just move in and set everything up themselves.

And they actually think The Donald will let them do this?

Not to mention the rest of the country, particularly the people who
voted for him and therefore want /him/ to be in charge? Many of whom
are armed, organized, and unstable?

/That/ might almost be worth electing Trump to see ...

but hopefully he will lose the election and go right back into denial
mode, where he appears to be happiest.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:40:26 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

All sorts of people since the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth
century...

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:40:26 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

All sorts of people since the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth
century...

Well, they were wrong then, weren't they.

As to Constantine -- the Ancient World was very different from ours.
Every State had a religion which supported it. Constantine /changed/
the Roman Empire's religion from paganism to Christianity. He did not
change a secular state into a religiously-controlled one.

And the State the Apostle Paul required each man to be subject to was
/pagan/ Rome, long before Constantine. He asserted, then, that God
Himself instituted pagan Rome. Christians are to recognize any State
that punishes wrongdoers. And, since this is true of pagan Rome, it
follows that the State is not about enforcing any particular
religion's beliefs or religious laws. "Christian Nationalism" is,
then, at best a contradiction in terms -- and a worst an abomination
unto the Lord.

(The Lutheran viewpoint I was raised in was that God has two hands:
one hand is the Church, which wields a spiritual sword agains
spiritual forces; the other hand is the State, which wields a secular
sword against secular wrongdoing. The two are independent of each
other as both are doing God's will in different ways.)

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:28:50 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.

Post by The Horny Goat
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)

I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....

Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?
All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A
resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.
Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.
And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.
[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.

Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his
politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.

Where do you think the bulk of his support comes from? Who do you
think the Republican Party has been pandering to since Roe v Wade?

Some of their most fervent voters are from groups that previously
never voted because to do so was to be "worldly". Whether those groups
will ever regain their previous position is unclear.

Post by The Horny Goat
How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me. I'd consider
Scudder Jimmy Swaggert's wet dream maybe but certainly not Trump who
likes to run beauty contests and grab women by their ****ies. More
like a televangelist on steroids.

They only care about Presidential morality when they don't like the
President (Clinton). When he's /their/ guy (Trump), they don't care.
They make excuses. They focus on what he promises them.

Well, some of them, anyway. It's a very large group and the attitude
toward Trump naturally varies a bit from individual to individual and
from group to group. And, as Trump becomes increasingly unglued, he is
losing support. Vance isn't helping, except as anti-impeachment
insurance (no sane person would impeach or otherwise remove Trump if
it made Vance President).

Post by The Horny Goat
Though I do wish Heinlein could have written that story.
And no question the villain in A Sound of Thunder WAS much more like
Trump than Joe McCarthy.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Paul S Person
Where do you think the bulk of his support comes from? Who do you
think the Republican Party has been pandering to since Roe v Wade?

Not since Roe vs. Wade at all. For a long time, the whole anti-abortion
thing was seen as a Catholic issue and most protestants weren't against
abortion because they saw it as a Catholic thing. In 1976, the Southern
Baptist Convention issued a policy statement about abortion being a
right.

It was not until Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority discovered that
they could use the abortion issue to divide people and to make money
that it became a mainstream Protestant issue.

And it was not until Ronald Reagan embraced the Moral Majority and the
Christian Right that it became a mainstream political issue.

The pandering of the republican party to the Evangelical Movement
dates only back to Reagan. This is a relatively recent thing.
--scott

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
Where do you think the bulk of his support comes from? Who do you
think the Republican Party has been pandering to since Roe v Wade?

Not since Roe vs. Wade at all. For a long time, the whole anti-abortion
thing was seen as a Catholic issue and most protestants weren't against
abortion because they saw it as a Catholic thing. In 1976, the Southern
Baptist Convention issued a policy statement about abortion being a
right.

So, your theory is that the States currently enforcing (or trying to
do so) abortion laws they passed in the 1850s or 1880s or 1930s were
... controlled by Rome at the time? Since Protestants didn't much
care?

Post by Scott Dorsey
It was not until Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority discovered that
they could use the abortion issue to divide people and to make money
that it became a mainstream Protestant issue.
And it was not until Ronald Reagan embraced the Moral Majority and the
Christian Right that it became a mainstream political issue.
The pandering of the republican party to the Evangelical Movement
dates only back to Reagan. This is a relatively recent thing.

Well, yes, 44 years is relatively recent compared to, say, 236 years.

[Titus G]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or
wrong, is important to the story.

Even though Jack Glass by Adam Roberts would have been just as brilliant
without the importance to the story being the impossibility of FTL being
proven before being contradicted and related, though not important to
the story, were solving the Fermi paradox and explaining champagne
supernovas. In the first part of three, science was crucial to
circumstances as well as to escape from those circumstances.
I had not thought of it as Hard SF but like your definition.

[quadibloc]

I've always felt that the definition of "Hard SF" is a simple one. It
refers to science fiction that doesn't involve anything we have no
reason to believe is possible; so a story about a journey to Alpha
Centauri with an FTL drive isn't hard SF, but one about a journey to
Alpha Centauri in a generation ship might be.
So a story about the first manned landing on Mars is likely to qualify
has hard SF.
Of course, with hard SF being solidly based on present-day science, what
differentiates it between the techno-thriller... or even plain old
fiction?
While hard SF needs to be justifiable in terms of presently-known
science, it can include anticipated feats of engineering based on
existing science that have not yet been realized.
And the term has nothing to do with how the science is handled; one
would expect a soft-SF story, using things like FTL or time travel, to
have a character explain to the audience how these things are supposed
to work. The interested reader can always look up real science in a
textbook.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

"The Martian" by Andy Weir is very hard SF.
https://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir/dp/0553418025/

Lynn

[David Duffy]

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

"deliberately fudges the science...my least favorite flavor"

I don't mind some of these, as they are literally fictions about science,
but they have to be in the right spirit. One example I can think of
is when the Autarch in tCotA explains how a mass of antimatter iron
negates the weight of the flyer, but the lift diminishes over time due
to leakage of air via the insulation of the wires levitating
the anti-iron in its magnetic bottle. Which is why they stay in the
upper atmosphere until pulled down by a rope.

Elsewhere Wolfe explains that destriers run at, presumably,
a couple of hundred mph, thus allowing cavalry charges against
"high-energy armaments".

Cheers, David Duffy.

[David Duffy]

Post by David Duffy

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

"deliberately fudges the science...my least favorite flavor"
I don't mind some of these, as they are literally fictions about science,
but they have to be in the right spirit. One example I can think of
is when the Autarch in tCotA explains how a mass of antimatter iron
negates the weight of the flyer, [...]

That's a terrible example, as even in 2011, Villata (arxiv:1103.4937) was writing:

"On the other hand, the idea of antigravity is as old as the discovery of antimatter, and
some authors have argued on the possibility that the gravitational mass of antimatter is neg-
ative (e.g. [10,12???15]), which would imply that matter and antimatter repel each other (but
are both self-attractive). In other cases, it is proposed that antimatter is gravitationally self-
repulsive (e.g. [16, 17]) [...] Since the discovery of the accelerated
expansion of the Universe in 1998 (e.g. [18, 19]), some kind of
gravitational repulsion is one of the favorite candidate..."

So, it's more like _here there be dragons_

Cheers, David Duffy.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by David Duffy

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

"deliberately fudges the science...my least favorite flavor"
I don't mind some of these, as they are literally fictions about science,
but they have to be in the right spirit. One example I can think of
is when the Autarch in tCotA explains how a mass of antimatter iron
negates the weight of the flyer, but the lift diminishes over time due
to leakage of air via the insulation of the wires levitating
the anti-iron in its magnetic bottle. Which is why they stay in the
upper atmosphere until pulled down by a rope.

Is this the same kind of antimatter which
converts to really quite a lot of energy when
matter touches it? Yes, landing - or crashing -
is to be avoided. But I suppose if you're an
Autarch then you don't mind if your hypothetical
fatal flyer accident is inconvenient for other
people as well.

Post by David Duffy
Elsewhere Wolfe explains that destriers run at, presumably,
a couple of hundred mph, thus allowing cavalry charges against
"high-energy armaments".
Cheers, David Duffy.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by David Duffy

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

"deliberately fudges the science...my least favorite flavor"
I don't mind some of these, as they are literally fictions about science,
but they have to be in the right spirit. One example I can think of
is when the Autarch in tCotA explains how a mass of antimatter iron
negates the weight of the flyer, but the lift diminishes over time due
to leakage of air via the insulation of the wires levitating
the anti-iron in its magnetic bottle. Which is why they stay in the
upper atmosphere until pulled down by a rope.

Is this the same kind of antimatter which
converts to really quite a lot of energy when
matter touches it?  Yes, landing - or crashing -
is to be avoided.

It's a spoiler to give the title, but in one short story, some folks go into
orbit around a planet made of anti-matter. They don't know its nature, but
one talks the other out of landing just because something strikes him as a
wee bit suspicious.

<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?54190>

[Joy Beeson]

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

One of the commenters mentioned that he never got the hang of
calculus.

I got first-semester calculus fine, and I got second-semester calculus
fine (both faded away during the intervening six decades), but
calculus itself I never got.

Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only
didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:54:58 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by James Nicoll
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/

One of the commenters mentioned that he never got the hang of
calculus.
I got first-semester calculus fine, and I got second-semester calculus
fine (both faded away during the intervening six decades), but
calculus itself I never got.
Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only
didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.

They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.

I've read that the proof is childishly simple.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:13:12 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.

Ah, that would explain it. Neither course felt any obligation to
mention the other.

Post by Joy Beeson
I've read that the proof is childishly simple.

I found this with Bing:
<https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Calculus_(OpenStax)/05%3A_Integration/5.03%3A_The_Fundamental_Theorem_of_Calculus#:~:text=Proof%20Since%20f%28x%29%20is%20continuous%20on%20%5Ba%2C%20b%5D%2C,a%29%20%E2%89%A4%20%E2%88%ABb%20af%28x%29dx%20%E2%89%A4%20M%28b%20%E2%88%92%20a%29.>

How simple it is depends, I suppose, on how far into math a person
happens to be.

As one professor remarked to a class on Algebra (that is, groups,
rings, etc): students start the course finding it's topics
unbelievably abstract -- and finish it finding them very real.

It's all in what you're used to, and that varies from time to time.

[James Nicoll]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:13:12 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.

Ah, that would explain it. Neither course felt any obligation to
mention the other.

My calculus tragedy involved a parallel physics course in which
everything we learned in calculus would have been of great
utility to the physics class of the week before.

[William Hyde]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:13:12 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.

Ah, that would explain it. Neither course felt any obligation to
mention the other.

My calculus tragedy involved a parallel physics course in which
everything we learned in calculus would have been of great
utility to the physics class of the week before.

As I took pure math, rather than the courses offered to science types
(don't ask me why, I was warned) the gap in my case was often more than
a year.

So I learned to do some things twice, once the Physicists way, once the
Mathematicians way. Never try the former on an exam set by the latter.


William Hyde

[Paul S Person]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:13:12 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.

Ah, that would explain it. Neither course felt any obligation to
mention the other.

My calculus tragedy involved a parallel physics course in which
everything we learned in calculus would have been of great
utility to the physics class of the week before.

Two possible responses, both intended light-heartedly:

-- that's why pre-requisites exist
-- they were clearly /very/ carefully coordinated

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.
I've read that the proof is childishly simple.

There are three kinds of calculus class.

There is a calculus for math majors class, which is all about proofs and
all about how the calculus works inside. Every procedure that is shown
is proved and students will be expected to explain the proofs.

There is a calculus for engineering students class, in which you won't
see any proofs at all but where you will be expected to memorize a huge
number of procedures and drilled in order to be able to do differentiation
and integration as quickly as possible. There is no emphasis on how
anything works, just on how to make it work fast.

And there is a calculus for poets class, sometimes called an intuitive
calculus class, in which the proofs are handwaved and you get to see some
of the easier mechanisms so that students get a basic understanding of
what integration and differentiation is and how it can be used.

Some universities teach all three kinds, some only one. Which one is
appropriate depends on your personal relationship with the calculus.
--scott

[Tony Nance]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.
I've read that the proof is childishly simple.

There are three kinds of calculus class.
There is a calculus for math majors class, which is all about proofs and
all about how the calculus works inside. Every procedure that is shown
is proved and students will be expected to explain the proofs.
There is a calculus for engineering students class, in which you won't
see any proofs at all but where you will be expected to memorize a huge
number of procedures and drilled in order to be able to do differentiation
and integration as quickly as possible. There is no emphasis on how
anything works, just on how to make it work fast.
And there is a calculus for poets class, sometimes called an intuitive
calculus class, in which the proofs are handwaved and you get to see some
of the easier mechanisms so that students get a basic understanding of
what integration and differentiation is and how it can be used.
Some universities teach all three kinds, some only one. Which one is
appropriate depends on your personal relationship with the calculus.
--scott

In broad strokes, I think your three types are pretty accurate.

At my Enormous State University, we have seven flavors of calculus.[1]
Possibly less for those who don't think the Calculus for the Biological
Sciences and/or Calculus for Business are distinct enough from one of
the differently-numbered other courses.[2]

The additional flavors are largely because we have a lot of students who
fall into exactly one of these three buckets:
- their HS transcript says they should be ready for calculus, but their
placement exam (taken before enrolling) says they shouldn't (hence,
Calculus with Review, that does calc a little slower while reviewing
necessary pre-calc skills)
- are aiming to teach in middle school[3] (there are some state-imposed
requirements)
- are strong enough to accelerate, but don't want to major in math (they
end up doing 3 semesters of calc in 2 semesters)

Tony
[1] We used to have 10, which is apparently more upsetting to
administrators than 7.
[2] I have taught both the Bio and the Business - they're different, esp
the Bio flavor, but it's not worth arguing with people about.
[3] For those students who want to teach math in high school, they are
required to get a math degree in addition to whatever educational
training they need. Many (all?) of them do a 5 year program where they
also end up with a masters (in education).

[Titus G]

Post by Tony Nance

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.

It was asserted, but never explained.  The two courses were entirely
separate.
I've read that the proof is childishly simple.

There are three kinds of calculus class.
There is a calculus for math majors class, which is all about proofs and
all about how the calculus works inside.  Every procedure that is shown
is proved and students will be expected to explain the proofs.
There is a calculus for engineering students class, in which you won't
see any proofs at all but where you will be expected to memorize a huge
number of procedures and drilled in order to be able to do
differentiation
and integration as quickly as possible.  There is no emphasis on how
anything works, just on how to make it work fast.
And there is a calculus for poets class, sometimes called an intuitive
calculus class, in which the proofs are handwaved and you get to see some
of the easier mechanisms so that students get a basic understanding of
what integration and differentiation is and how it can be used.
Some universities teach all three kinds, some only one.  Which one is
appropriate depends on your personal relationship with the calculus.
--scott

In broad strokes, I think your three types are pretty accurate.
At my Enormous State University, we have seven flavors of calculus.[1]
Possibly less for those who don't think the Calculus for the Biological
Sciences and/or Calculus for Business are distinct enough from one of
the differently-numbered other courses.[2]
The additional flavors are largely because we have a lot of students who
- their HS transcript says they should be ready for calculus, but their
placement exam (taken before enrolling) says they shouldn't (hence,
Calculus with Review, that does calc a little slower while reviewing
necessary pre-calc skills)
- are aiming to teach in middle school[3] (there are some state-imposed
requirements)
- are strong enough to accelerate, but don't want to major in math (they
end up doing 3 semesters of calc in 2 semesters)
Tony
[1] We used to have 10, which is apparently more upsetting to
administrators than 7.
[2] I have taught both the Bio and the Business - they're different, esp
the Bio flavor, but it's not worth arguing with people about.
[3] For those students who want to teach math in high school, they are
required to get a math degree in addition to whatever educational
training they need. Many (all?) of them do a 5 year program where they
also end up with a masters (in education).

Fascinating.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and
its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.
I was aware that there were different levels of Statistics at Stage 1,
for example, the Arts department had their own course for Economics
students but a pass would not qualify you for entry into Stage 2
Statistics in the Science department.
And having not considered such things for decades, found this thread
diversion fascinating.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Titus G
Fascinating.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and
its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.

Gatech was the same way. Everybody took a year of engineering calculus and
memorized the 143 required integrals, whether they were psychology, physics,
or mechanical engineering. The only people who did not have to take the
engineering calculus classes were management majors (and football players who
had their own special major under the school of management). Even math students
had to take the things (although they also got a math calculus class later).
I think this was a terrible idea but it did help reduce student retention which
was probably the point.

Post by Titus G
I was aware that there were different levels of Statistics at Stage 1,
for example, the Arts department had their own course for Economics
students but a pass would not qualify you for entry into Stage 2
Statistics in the Science department.

Okay, statistics is weird... Psych statistics is a crash course in the kind of
statistics needed for experimental design but without any of the theory behind it.
No combinatorial stuff, but lots of correlation and Student's T Test. If you
are lucky you get some applications stuff that explains when particular measures
are useful and when they fail, but this is not always the case.

Math statistics is all proofs as you would expect. I never took an economics
stats class but I'd be very interested in the curriculum!

Post by Titus G
And having not considered such things for decades, found this thread
diversion fascinating.

I am still recovering from my experience. Out here in the real world I have
not solved anything in closed form in ages. Wish someone had taught about
runge-kutta in college (and where the error bounds are).
--scott

[William Hyde]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Titus G
Fascinating.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and
its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.

Gatech was the same way. Everybody took a year of engineering calculus and
memorized the 143 required integrals,

Memorizing integrals? I can see where it might be useful, but I've
never heard of such a requirement.


whether they were psychology, physics,

Post by Scott Dorsey
or mechanical engineering. The only people who did not have to take the
engineering calculus classes were management majors (and football players who
had their own special major under the school of management). Even math students
had to take the things (although they also got a math calculus class later).
I think this was a terrible idea but it did help reduce student retention which
was probably the point.

Post by Titus G
I was aware that there were different levels of Statistics at Stage 1,
for example, the Arts department had their own course for Economics
students but a pass would not qualify you for entry into Stage 2
Statistics in the Science department.

Okay, statistics is weird... Psych statistics is a crash course in the kind of
statistics needed for experimental design but without any of the theory behind it.
No combinatorial stuff, but lots of correlation and Student's T Test. If you
are lucky you get some applications stuff that explains when particular measures
are useful and when they fail, but this is not always the case.
Math statistics is all proofs as you would expect. I never took an economics
stats class but I'd be very interested in the curriculum!

Post by Titus G
And having not considered such things for decades, found this thread
diversion fascinating.

I am still recovering from my experience. Out here in the real world I have
not solved anything in closed form in ages. Wish someone had taught about
runge-kutta in college (and where the error bounds are).

I deeply wish I'd been taught the same.


Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg! I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to
get RKF4 or RKF8 to deal with my equations some time before continental
drift created a new Pangea.


William Hyde

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Titus G
Fascinating.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and
its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.

Gatech was the same way. Everybody took a year of engineering calculus and
memorized the 143 required integrals,

Memorizing integrals? I can see where it might be useful, but I've
never heard of such a requirement.

I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to derive
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Scott Dorsey
I am still recovering from my experience. Out here in the real world I have
not solved anything in closed form in ages. Wish someone had taught about
runge-kutta in college (and where the error bounds are).

I deeply wish I'd been taught the same.
Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg! I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to
get RKF4 or RKF8 to deal with my equations some time before continental
drift created a new Pangea.

Plot it on graph paper and count the squares...
--scott

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Titus G
Fascinating.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and
its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.

Gatech was the same way. Everybody took a year of engineering calculus and
memorized the 143 required integrals,

Memorizing integrals? I can see where it might be useful, but I've
never heard of such a requirement.

I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to derive
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Ah.

Teaching to the test.

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde

Post by Scott Dorsey
I am still recovering from my experience. Out here in the real world I have
not solved anything in closed form in ages. Wish someone had taught about
runge-kutta in college (and where the error bounds are).

I deeply wish I'd been taught the same.
Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg! I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to
get RKF4 or RKF8 to deal with my equations some time before continental
drift created a new Pangea.

Plot it on graph paper and count the squares...

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =

derive

Post by Scott Dorsey
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Ah.
Teaching to the test.

No, not at all. The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.

That is, it's skills training and not education.

Except that engineering has changed a bit since then and although we still
need to be able to plug and chug very quickly, we have machines to do the
hard work now.

But it IS nice to be able to solve things like optimization problems and
volume integrals on the back of an envelope during meetings while other
people are saying they'll have to run a simulation and get back in a week.
--scott

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =

derive

Post by Scott Dorsey
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Ah.
Teaching to the test.

No, not at all. The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.
That is, it's skills training and not education.

Well, in the real world, even before Matlab and such, if an engineer was faced
with an ugly integral, he'd[1] pull the CRC book off the shelf, rather than
try to apply integration by parts or something.

And, I challenge anybody who hasn't taken a few semesters of calc to actually
apply the CRC information to a problem.

[1] Almost invariably back then.

[William Hyde]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes.  The whole point of the class is to be
able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =

derive

Post by Scott Dorsey
anything that you can memorize.  If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Ah.
Teaching to the test.

No, not at all.  The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.
That is, it's skills training and not education.

Well, in the real world, even before Matlab and such, if an engineer was faced
with an ugly integral, he'd[1] pull the CRC book off the shelf, rather than
try to apply integration by parts or something.

We didn't do that. It was more or less a cult thing, avoiding those tables.

I must have changed my mind at some point, as not three feet from me is
a copy of "Table of Integrals, Series, and Products" by Gradstheyn and
Ryzhik. Now that I recall, that was an impulse purchase after I spent
an hour and a half solving an integral the hard way.


I believe this was referenced in a tale by Kornbluth, in which an
executive thinks to himself "maybe I don't look up as many integrals as
I used to" or words to that effect. It is a story about what happens
when other considerations trump engineering. Perhaps it should be
required reading at Boeing?

William Hyde

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =

derive

Post by Scott Dorsey
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Ah.
Teaching to the test.

No, not at all. The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.
That is, it's skills training and not education.

Well, in the real world, even before Matlab and such, if an engineer was faced
with an ugly integral, he'd[1] pull the CRC book off the shelf, rather than
try to apply integration by parts or something.

Maybe. Sometimes you can plot it on paper, cut out the graph, then weigh
it and divide by the weight of one square of graph paper.

But I can see some need to solve things in closed form now and then, even
if I haven't had to do it more than once or twice in my career.

I could see more of a need back a century ago when most of my teachers
were in school. Things change slowly.
--scott

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =

derive

Post by Scott Dorsey
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Ah.
Teaching to the test.

No, not at all. The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.
That is, it's skills training and not education.

Well, in the real world, even before Matlab and such, if an engineer was faced
with an ugly integral, he'd[1] pull the CRC book off the shelf, rather than
try to apply integration by parts or something.

Maybe. Sometimes you can plot it on paper, cut out the graph, then weigh
it and divide by the weight of one square of graph paper.

Back when I worked in a lab, I sometimes had to use a planimeter to do
this.

pt

[Tony Nance]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes.  The whole point of the class is to be
able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =

derive

Post by Scott Dorsey
anything that you can memorize.  If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

Ah.
Teaching to the test.

No, not at all.  The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.
That is, it's skills training and not education.

Well, in the real world, even before Matlab and such, if an engineer was faced
with an ugly integral, he'd[1] pull the CRC book off the shelf, rather than
try to apply integration by parts or something.
And, I challenge anybody who hasn't taken a few semesters of calc to actually
apply the CRC information to a problem.
[1] Almost invariably back then.

Aye - back in the day, some calculus texts had sections called
(something like) "Integration by Tables", and some courses had homework,
quizzes, etc on such things.

Tony

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg! I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to
get RKF4 or RKF8 to deal with my equations some time before continental
drift created a new Pangea.

Plot it on graph paper and count the squares...
--scott

As I said in my previous posting, I was doing that in the fifth grade.

Obviously I didn't understand differential and integral calculus at
that time (10 years as a math major I certainly did) but it was laying
the foundation.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Scott Dorsey
And there is a calculus for poets class, sometimes called an intuitive
calculus class, in which the proofs are handwaved and you get to see some
of the easier mechanisms so that students get a basic understanding of
what integration and differentiation is and how it can be used.

Yes one of my worst experiences in university was my 2nd year calculus
class which was taught as a joint math students / engineering students
class which is fine but during the first half of the class was taught
100% to the engineering students with the result that we were given
separate math and engineering mid-terms and I got a result of 12% on
the midterm. And this was a good result amongst the math students. The
prof immediately realized the problem and restrung the way he taught
the class and the math students did MUCH better - to the extent that I
got a final grade of B in the class. Wasn't fair but at least he made
a serious effort at fairness in the second half and made sure we got
the teaching we needed to do those proofs that you were talking about.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:54:58 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
One of the commenters mentioned that he never got the hang of
calculus.
I got first-semester calculus fine, and I got second-semester calculus
fine (both faded away during the intervening six decades), but
calculus itself I never got.
Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only
didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.

Oy veh! I got that in 2nd year though back in elementary school we got
a glimmer of that trying to "prove" the area of a circle was pi * r
squared by counting progressively small squares (mostly where the
circle went through including those where the line went through versus
those where the squares were outside the circle vs inside which
demonstrated the area of the circle had to be between those two limits
- and having to do it 2 or 3 times with progressively smaller squares
- we had to do 3 or 4 iterations of this)

[Paul S Person]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:54:58 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
One of the commenters mentioned that he never got the hang of
calculus.
I got first-semester calculus fine, and I got second-semester calculus
fine (both faded away during the intervening six decades), but
calculus itself I never got.
Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only
didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.

Oy veh! I got that in 2nd year though back in elementary school we got
a glimmer of that trying to "prove" the area of a circle was pi * r
squared by counting progressively small squares (mostly where the
circle went through including those where the line went through versus
those where the squares were outside the circle vs inside which
demonstrated the area of the circle had to be between those two limits
- and having to do it 2 or 3 times with progressively smaller squares
- we had to do 3 or 4 iterations of this)

Archimedes computed pi by using inscribed/circumscribed polygons. This
is the sort of thing that led to the discovery (or, better perhaps,
conceptualization) of limits.