Hans Blaster said:

This is ringing familiar. I believe the sesech were mining the roads or something on the way to Savannah. Sherman tried to cure them of that tactic.

Click to expand...

Today it's called using human shields.

Hans Blaster said:

Looked it up. Was making war materiel. Burnt down. Army of the Tennessee went through there. I used to live 2 km from there.

Click to expand...

Burning it down wasn't the problem; shipping civilians, mostly women, against their will is. It's why there's not much complaint about the soldiers heating track rails and bending them around trees; that was to prevent it's use to transport material and troops, and bending the rail prevented simply connecting it back together.

Hans Blaster said:

Soldiers were doing the right thing. Sherman didn't have the logistics to support them. Not sure what the atrocity is here.

Click to expand...

Oh? Telling them to leave without so much as a suggestion of where they could go and what they would do? The only time Sherman tried to address it was out near Savannah, and that led to the rumor of "40 acres and a mule." It was later determined that Sherman had exceeded his authority.

To see the problem, consider what happened to the Union officer Jeff Davis (no relation to the Confederate president) at Ebenezer Creek. His unit was crossing a pontoon bridge and a large number of emancipated slaves were following when the received word that Joe Wheeler was bearing down on them. He got his unit across and, to protect them, cut loose one side of the bridge and pulled it in to their side of the shore. With no place to go and Confederate calvary bearing down, the former slaves panicked. Many died trying to cross. Davis' first responsibility was to his mission, but that's not how the Northern press saw it. He already wasn't the most popular officer in the Union Army, and Ebenezer Creek didn't help his career much.

So it was that when I learned that the first US military governor of the Alaska Territory was Jeff Davis, I couldn't help but wonder if what happened at Ebenezer Creek was why he was sent to administer "Steward's Folly:" A command as far away from the rest of the army as possible.

None of this would have happened had the slaves not been encouraged to leave. Not to remain slaves, but to at least come to an understanding that they were no longer slaves and would be compensated for their labor - as apparently one farmer offered to do. His former slave replied they had to leave because they were told to do so. I can't help but wonder how many who did as the soldiers urged and left ended up coming back simply because there was no where else to go.

BCP1928 said:

It's not the evidence but the value judgement. The Naqadan culture was not "primitive." You have to paint it as "primitive" so you can fit in your "lost technology from some ancient vanished culture."

Click to expand...

Stop turning everything in politics and morality. Just deal with the evidence lol. You actually acknowledge that your making a value judgement. If thats the case then did it ever occur to you that your value judgement may be your own lol. That is being projected.

That your using a subjective determination to dispute the evidence. Thats not science and you complain about those who propose alternative knowledge as being unscientific.

Ok lets take the trigger word 'primitive' which is a common word used to describe prehistory cultures. Lets call it a less advanced culture as far as tech was concerned compared to modern times. Before the wheel the methods were less advanced as far as making round stuff.

BCP1928 said:

No degree of truth has ever been established to show that the biblical flood was based on a real event nor that Plato's Atlantis was based on a real city-state.

Click to expand...

Yes there is. Not just the biblical flood but every flood story from all cultures. Are you saying they just purely made this up. Like hey we need to create a false story to make out religion more interesting.

No all these cultures are basing their flood myths on a real flood event. In fact we have evidence for massive flooding around 8,000 to 14,000 years ago that had mega flooding. We see the evidence in the landscape. Scientific studies have been done.

The question is why would not ancient culture at that time who survived or who were decendents of the people of that time not create a story about such an event.

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Now if this mega flood happened locally why would cultures not record such an event. Its based on a real event. Just like the possibility that during those mega floods a city that was well advanced in that time or looked upon as a great city that was looked to was then wiped out in a relatively short time. Then as time goes by this becomes legend.

This is what I am talking about with hard or hyper skepticism that it even blinds people from the real possibility that these legends are based on real events that may be the basis. All the cultures themselves and not the so called whackos are the ones saying these ancients had advanced knowledge that could create these great works.

The hard skeptics are actually the ones relegating these ancients to certain ways by insisting that all these myths and legands are make believe and not based on some reality.

BCP1928 said:

So Native Americans had CNC machining, too?

Click to expand...

Lol I just told you I never said that they actually had CNC maching and you double down. Typical. You can't handle dealing with the hard evidence in the ground.

BCP1928 said:

Instead, you want to skip the discovery and fabricate a fairy story about ancient lost technology from some mythical ancient vanished culture. But be careful. It's possible that those pots came from Mesopotamia--the Naqadans traded with them extensively--but if you want that to be the story you will have to prove that the Mesopotamians were "primitive" too.

Click to expand...

Ok at least the idea of vases being traded is attempting to link them back to a culture who may have had the ability to make them. Which supports that some sort of turning was involved and not just by hands.

But even then at 3,600BC the potters wheel that existed in Mesopotamia was the slow version that had lots of wobble. We find tons of examples of softer vases and copies from this method. Some are pretty good but never at the level of these vases.

BCP1928 said:

The only assumption I see is right in that paragraph above.

Click to expand...

Then your very selective in assumptions which is sort of supporting my point. That your assumptions have no basis in reality.

BCP1928 said:

I used "Atlantis" not because I believe in the Atlantis legend in particular or because I think you do, but merely because "lost technology from some ancient vanished culture" takes too long to write. If you don't like your made up "lost technology from some ancient vanished culture" being called "Atlantian" why don't you make up your own name for it too?

Click to expand...

Saying "lost technology from some ancient vanished culture" is completely different to saying "lost knowledge from Atlantis". Your using a baited word that is well know to represent whackery. Your qualifying all investigation into lost advanced knowledge as whackery by simply adding that word and you know it lol.

That is you and not me or anyone who serious investigates lost advanced knowledge. In fact its even a study subject in rediscovering the lost Indigneous knowledge of cultures at University lol. Its something the cultures are trying to do and rediscover. Your actually the one creating the conspiracy.

I have read and agree.

eretz Israel is the land of Israel, the nation of Israel.

The promised land of Israel began when the 12 tribes in their Exodus from Egypt, crossed the Jordan river, to populate the promised land in the areas designated for each tribe. And thus the nation of Israel begun.

Always in His Presence said:

No I have not.

Click to expand...

I'll let others reading the thread make up their own minds whether that is true or not.

Always in His Presence said:

In fact I am at the point of repeating the same thing over and over.

Click to expand...

You passed that point from the start of our interaction.

Very good opinion! A complete journey of faith.

The best way to ensure there are more people in poverty is to subsidize it.

Always in His Presence said:

My question to @Xeno.of.athens was about his Roman Catholic Bible missing pages - which obviously there are missing pages compared to the EASTERN Orthodox.

Lots of squirming going on here.

Click to expand...

How do you know which Bibles my friend @Xeno.of.athens has? Because Byzantine Rite Catholics are Roman Catholics, indeed, like the Romanians, Aromanians, Moldovans, Bessarabians, Alexandrian Greeks, Hagiopolitan Greeks and Antiochian Orthodox, the Romanian Greek Catholics and Melkite Greek Catholics even identify as being of the Romiioi (Roman) ethnicity.

We are talking about Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Churches under the Pope of Rome, including several of the largest Roman Catholic jurisdictions in the East, such as the Ruthenian Greek Catholics, the Melkite Greek Catholics and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

Also for that matter the Maronite Catholics, West Syriac Rite Roman Catholics in Lebanon, and the Syriac Catholics and Malankara Catholics, like the Syriac Orthodox Church, use the West Syriac Peshitto, and to my knowledge this is also the case among the East Syriac Rite Chaldean Catholics and Syro Malabar Catholics (since the older Esst Syriac version lacks 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation).

And the Armenian Catholics, who were before the genocide in 1915 the second largest liturgical rite in the Roman Catholic Church after the Latin Rite, use the same bible as the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is also Orthodox.

The only case where I haven’t confirmed the canon is identical is in the case of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Catholics vs. their Tewahedo Orthodox counterparts.

Dan Perez said:

And you do have a FALSE ISRAEL , IN A VERSE ??

Click to expand...

Not all the offspring of Israel, are truly Israel. Romans 9:6b
....they claim to be Jews, but they are actually a synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:6b

And what does God say He is going to do with them?
Bring those who did not want Me for their King and slaughter them... Luke 19:27
Those who were born to the Kingdom, will be thrown out into the dark.... Matthew 8:12

Get this: The Jews have had almost 2000 years to get right with God. They remain stubborn and obdurate as ever. God will Judge and punish them and only a Messianic remnant will survive. They won't say much. Ezekiel 16:63

Time you and all who have false ideas about Jewish Israel, STOP posting lies and unscriptural rubbish.

Lukaris said:

If I understand what you are saying here it would seem to be exemplified by a situation in the Netherlands in which solar & wind energy is overwhelming their power grid.



( about the middle of the article)Per the BBC:


The problem is "grid congestion", says Kees-Jan Rameau, chief executive of Dutch energy producer and supplier Eneco, 70% of whose electricity generation is now solar and wind.

Grid congestion is like a traffic jam on the power grid. It's caused by either too much power demand in a certain area, or too much power supply put onto the grid, more than the grid can handle."

He explains that the problem is that the grid "was designed in the days when we had just a few very large, mainly gas-fired power plants".

So we built a grid with very big power lines close to those power plants, and increasingly smaller power lines as you got more towards the households.

Nowadays we're switching to renewables, and that means there's a lot of power being injected into the grid in the outskirts of the network where there are only relatively small power lines."

And these small power lines are struggling to cope with all the electricity coming in from wind turbines and solar panels scattered around the country.


Netherlands' renewables drive putting pressure on its power grid

Click to expand...

Wouldn't call it congestion. It's more that the conductor isn't rated for the amps (ampacity). Ampacity can vary with the air temperature and temperature of the wire. 4/0 ACSR is a nice-sized conductor for distribution and has an ampacity of 327 amps. 4 ACSR is a common distribution conductor and has an ampacity of 140 amps. 336 MCM ACSR is a largish conductor and has an ampacity of 529 amps (Note: I'm looking this up).

The reason conductors get smaller the further you get from a substation is that the load decreases because there are fewer customers between there and the end of the line. Not only can it handle the amps, but also the voltage drops. In North America, where distribution is usually based on Wye, you typically go from three to two to single phase (I think the UK and Ireland use Delta distribution; don't know about the rest of Europe).

Now let's say someone puts generation out on distribution. Whether it's wind, solar, diesel, or whatever doesn't matter. The closest customers will be drawing from that source. Imagine a "T" connection, with few customers on one side of the "T" but lots of customers on the other side. The side with lots of customers is going to be pulling more amps through the conductor than was planned for. But that's due to connected load, not available generation capacity. It's like a transformer rated to supply power to an entire house, but only a nightlight is plugged it. It can supply much more amps than is used; the determining factor for the amps on the conductor is the load.

This is why, if someone is putting in a lot of solar, or a lot of wind mills, they're going to need to be near a transmission line. Stepping up voltage lowers the amps, and adding it to the mix might still be somewhat problematic, but not as problematic as on the end of a single-phase distribution powerline.

To handle any sort of distributed generation on distribution, you have to size conductor based on the load not just "downstream," but "upstream" as well. So if you knew the distributed generation would supply no more than the load of a circuit coming out of a substation, that it would be going at the end of the line, and you already had 336 MCM ACSR near the substation, you'll probably end up running 336 MCM ACSR all the way out to the end.

Hentenza said:

The emotional fallacy comes from “attempting” to show an absurdity that is not present.

Strawman. No one here has argued that God is powerless and that people are too dumb.

Learn your fallacies.

Click to expand...

<ROFL> Hey, I'll just let you make 'em up as you go. It's more entertaining that way.

Have you ever heard the parable of the Good Samaritan?

Hentenza said:

It always goes back to the emotional fallacy argument.

Click to expand...

<Laugh> Have you ever looked up the word "fallacy"? You'll no doubt be amazed that if doesn't mean "stuff with which I don't agree".

Hentenza said:

And let’s not forget the straw man to give it flavor.

Click to expand...

And you don't know the difference between a strawman and Batman.

RileyG said:

Since I am not Orthodox, Eastern or Oriental, I'm not sure if I have much opinion on a unification. With that said, I would love to learn more about it.

Peace

Click to expand...

It should be of interest to you vis a vis the prospects for EO and OO reunion with the RCC.

Carl Emerson said:

Interesting... Art Katz used to say that the modern State of Israel would be expelled from the land and Jews would return again as a people redeemed in Christ.

Click to expand...

Art Katz also said:
'Nothing has more disarmed the Church of the necessity for preparation, discipleship and maturity that can stand strong in faith, in these end times; than the mistaken idea of a rapture to heaven, so they won’t have to face the Lord’s wrath'.

Maria Billingsley said:

The Supreme Court did act.

AI Generated

The Supreme Court's most prominent action on behalf of Donald Trump was the 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, ruling that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their core constitutional purview, and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. The Court has also frequently ruled in favor of the Trump administration in emergency motions, often limiting nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts.

Click to expand...

That was a different case entirely than Trump v. Anderson, the one that was actually about the disqualification clause.

This is why people shouldn't be trusting the answers an AI spouts out at them, at least without verification. They get things wrong all the time and can give you opposite answers depending on how you phrase your question.

Only problem I can see is here:



It’s possible that the legitimate hier is in the Kaesong Wang clan.

Paulwat said:

Do you think Donald Trump should've been banned from running for president?

I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that Donald Trump was allowed to run for president again after everything that happened on January 6th, 2021. The Capitol riots weren’t just a random protest that got out of hand they were a direct result of months of Trump spreading lies about a “stolen” election and pressuring officials to overturn the results.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he did bad.

Paulwat said:

A sitting president encouraged his supporters to march on Congress during the certification of an election he lost, and people died because of it. That alone should’ve disqualified him from holding office again under the 14th Amendment (Section 3), which literally bans anyone who engaged in or incited an insurrection from serving in government.

Click to expand...

No, it most certainly does not "literally" ban "anyone" who did such a thing from serving in government. If I were to go off and engage in insurrection, I wouldn't be disqualified at all. Only people who had served in particular positions were ineligible to serve in government again. Here is the text of the relevant portion, and note the bolded portion where it says the people who would be susceptible to it:

Here's the relevant text:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

If you never took an oath to support the Constitution as any of the things listed, then it doesn't matter how much insurrection you engage in, you aren't disqualified. 99.9% of people, even if they started up a rebellion personally, would not be disqualified under this. The whole thing was there because they didn't want the people who rebelled against the US during the Civil War to come back into political office, but they also recognized that they couldn't ban everyone who engaged in rebellion from office or there would be basically no one from the South who could serve in government, so they limited it to those who had done the bolded, limiting it to who they had seen as the most serious of the traitors.

As for the questions of whether Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or even how to decide such a thing... well, that's a complicated issue. If you want to do an inordinately deep dive into the subject, one can read the original 142-page-long article arguing Trump wasn't eligible here, and can read a 251-page-long response article arguing the opposite here.

Or if you just care about what actually happened, the case ended up going to the Supreme Court (Trump v. Anderson), who more or less dodged having to decide anything by saying Congress hadn't given them authority to decide the issue, effectively halting the case. It was a questionable decision, but it was the decision.

If one cares anything at all about my own opinion, my personal take is that (1) while Trump's behavior was very bad, it probably didn't quite run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment, and more importantly (2) even if it did, he isn't disqualified, because the President isn't "a member of Congress," "an officer of the United States," "a member of any State legislature," or "an executive or judicial officer of any State". The President is quite obviously not a member of congress, a member of a State legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any State. The only question is whether they qualify as an "officer of the United States". Despite seeming counterintuitive, I think the answer is no. The Constitution itself says, referring to the President:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

So all of the Officers of the United States are commissioned by the President. That's what the Constitution says. So if they later on, in the Fourteenth Amendment, use the identical phrase "Officer of the United States", it seems to me the proper reading is to interpret it according to its earlier usage, which excludes the President from it. This means the President doesn't fall under any of the categories of disqualification. Whether this omission was by accident or on purpose I am not so sure (after all, none of the Presidents of the United States had joined the Confederacy, so there was no need to include them!), but the text seems rather clear to me. Now, if Trump had taken an oath in any of the other offices enumerated it would apply, but as the first person to become President without needing to take such an oath prior, all that matters is the presidency.

And yes, I know people have argued against this position, but I ultimately find those counterarguments unpersuasive. But that's just me.

Paulwat said:

On top of that, there are his criminal indictments... from trying to interfere in Georgia’s election results to mishandling classified documents. Any one of those cases would’ve ended most politicians’ careers, but somehow Trump’s using them as campaign fuel.

Click to expand...

An indictment is just an indictment, not actual guilt. And it is true Trump managed to use that in campaign fuel, which I think worked mostly because the previous indictment by Alvin Bragg (along with Latetia James' case) smacked so strongly of lawfare--even some people who really didn't like Trump were critical of them--that people associated that with the indictments you mention, which had more strength behind them.

Fantine said:

Trump is so transparent.

Cross the 34 times convicted felon and you will live to regret it.

So far, his track record is 100%. Everyone he's gotten indicted is 100% innocent. In a city like D.C., a Trump indictment is the surest sign of integrity I can count on.

Click to expand...

Pssst. The man was indicted by a grand jury in Maryland. Not a Trump anyone in DC. BY Judge Theodore D. Chuang who was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 8, 2014,