Interesting Stuff

Chat about anything you like here that doesn't fit under Bible Doctrines. Keep the subjects clean and refreshing to all.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Dajo1
Posts: 346
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#311 Post by Dajo1 » 2 months ago

True, Bobcats are diversefying and expanding their range to include mowers. However, the ORIGINAL and one and only Bobcat will always be a heavy lifter around here!

Stranger
Posts: 1946
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff - CB Radios

#312 Post by Stranger » 2 months ago

Does anyone remember the 23C BOBCAT CB radio made by Pierce Simpson? I think they had some other names as well like SuperCat, Tiger and Panther. I think it was when they went to 40C is when they started using the name LIon. I personally have peaked and tuned a good many of them and what I learned was they all have amazing flexibility with a distinctive sound.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqYTX7parRw



Stranger

Bobcat
Posts: 3363
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#313 Post by Bobcat » 2 months ago

Here you go!


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1946
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#314 Post by Stranger » 2 months ago

I figured you'd remember it Bobcat. It had the Reciev-O-Slide feature a.k.a. (Delta tune). Nowadays they are not really necessary, it was more for the crystal based CB's.


Stranger

Jeremiah
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#315 Post by Jeremiah » 2 months ago

Stranger wrote:
2 months ago
I figured you'd remember it Bobcat. It had the Reciev-O-Slide feature a.k.a. (Delta tune). Nowadays they are not really necessary, it was more for the crystal based CB's.


Stranger
Hey Stranger

I could smell (See below 1) a cb'er from 10,000km. You've got a former field agent (see below 2) on your tail, but he's a friendly bullfrog now, looking for some good buddies without any QRM.

Take a browse on cbtricks.com and you will see the A(alley cat) to W (wildcat) on the Pearce Simpson.

Note 1. Still need to chat to you some time about smelling angels.
Note 2. FCC Field agent equivalent in my lands. Was an RFI investigation specialist.

Jeremiah aka Bullfrog formerly Hound Dog QSX

Stranger
Posts: 1946
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#316 Post by Stranger » 2 months ago

Jeremiah wrote:
2 months ago
You've got a former field agent (see below 2) on your tail, but he's a friendly bullfrog now, looking for some good buddies without any QRM.

Cq Cq Cq DX

I've got nil QRM of the human kind*. I'm not sure how long you've been off the key but here in my lands good buddies is a derogatory term now and has been for some decades. I don't recommend using it. Politely put, I got a one way street and that's out!
Jeremiah wrote:
2 months ago
Note 2. FCC Field agent equivalent in my lands. Was an RFI investigation specialist.
Well to be honest I would have been one of the guys you were probably looking for. I used to push a lot of wattage always pushing overload**, probably was bleeding over a bit, the silly scope said I was and so did my meters.
Jeremiah wrote:
2 months ago
Take a browse on cbtricks.com and you will see the A(alley cat) to W (wildcat) on the Pearce Simpson.
I have been there before, I wasn't sure which finals to put in my Ranger 2970 to make my 100wt turn into 200wt but I didn't find them there.
I have have had many radios but now I'm down to just my base station equipment and one mobile unit. I'm keeping those handy in case something happens to the grid, I'll still be able to get out on the frequencies.

Jeremiah wrote:
2 months ago
Note 1. Still need to chat to you some time about smelling angels.
Sure, take a look at Rev 8:4 and have your people get with my people and we find some smelly place to do lunch.

Jeremiah wrote:
2 months ago
Jeremiah aka Bullfrog formerly Hound Dog QSX
I like Bullfrog better.


** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KMLLZF2qI0


Stranger, (2Cor 4:11)*

Bobcat
Posts: 3363
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff - The German View of Dunkirk

#317 Post by Bobcat » 2 months ago

Hey, 10-4 good buddies. I hate to change the subject, but, as a result of looking at Marina's Jesuit thread and included link, I found an interesting article on why the Germans allowed the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk to escape. The movies about Dunkirk usually provide the allied perspective. This article discusses it from the German perspective.

Had the British expeditionary force not escaped at Dunkirk, Britain would probably have had to surrender, or at least sue for some sort of peaceful resolution with the Axis powers. This would have made the Atlantic Ocean a 3000 mile buffer zone between the Axis and the USA. It's hard to say how the war would have proceeded from there. An American victory would have been much more problematic without Britain as a staging area.

In an unpublished addition to Mein Kampf, Hitler expected the USA to be the last bastion holding out against the Axis move for world dominion. Hitler expected a final battle as late as the 1980s. Even during WWII the Germans were working on a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver it across the ocean. The British escape at Dunkirk led to the war being brought to Germany before she could finish developing the means to carry the war to the USA mainland.

One day, when I finish my Final King of the North thread, I will show the relationship between this and the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63 CE (which resulted in a cry of peace in May, 66 CE - the day known as the "Golden Day"). But, that 'one day' is not today. (See post where I learned about the Golden Day here; And where the Golden Day fit in a timeline of the Jewish-Roman War here.)


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 3363
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff - "Abstain ... From Blood"

#318 Post by Bobcat » 2 months ago

In a discussion on another board about the WT view of blood, one poster (going by the initials "TD") made a very interesting grammatical comment on the phrase, "abstain ... from blood." (Ac 15:29)

I thought it was so interesting that I wanted to place it here also:

I don't disagree with [another poster's] analysis, but I think the problem with the JW interpretation of the Decree is much more basic than that

What the Law forbade was the eating of blood. Transfusion would fall under the umbrella of this command only if it can be shown to be either physically, morally, ontologically or in some other way equivalent to the eating of blood.

It can't and the JW's know it.

They therefore attempt to get around that inconvenient fact by invoking the phrase, "Abstain from blood" as an independent construction in an attempt to convey the idea of a simple and direct command applicable to all uses of blood

That is semantic legerdemain.

You can't invoke a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it. It's ungrammatical.

Allowing the JW's to get away with such a cheap trick is a level of charity they really don't deserve.

"Abstain" is intransitive, which means it is unable to take a direct object or transfer action from subject to object.

What, for example would it mean to:
Abstain from shrubbery

Abstain from crankshaft

Abstain from train

These phrases are completely nonsensical because they're grammatically incomplete

The only way to make an "Abstain from" construction work is to either preface it with an appropriate context or modify the intransitive verb, "abstain," with a finite verb. Only then do you have a transfer of action between subject and object.

Like this:
Abstain from cutting the shrubbery

Abstain from scratching the crankshaft

Abstain from riding on the train

Another way to illustrate this problem is to attempt to express the abstention from blood as a, "Do not."

For example, "Fornication," in contrast to the other three items listed in the decree is the name of a finite act and therefore has a verb form.

I can easily state that abstention as a finite negative:
Do not fornicate

You can't do this with blood because it is not a finite act. It's an object and there is no verb form of the word that really works here. The only way to phrase the abstention as a "Do not" is as I've explained above.

This might seem like an esoteric point, but it's really not. It's actually very easy

In context, the phrase "Keep abstaining ... from blood" is a reiteration of the prohibition on eating it as stated in the Law. That's why the word, "Keep" (Which the JW's like to omit) is there.

Out of context it is an incomplete thought that can mean anything a snake oil salesman wants it to mean.

---One more simple example and I'll shut up.

To illustrate how an "Abstain from" construction will morph depending upon the context in which it is spoken consider these two sentences:
His dermatologist said, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol."

Her obstetrician said, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol."

Even though both doctors have said, "Abstain from alcohol" they are clearly not talking about the same thing. While we would understand the former to be a reference to the topical application of alcohol, we would understand the latter to be a reference to its consumption.

The two abstentions are completely unrelated as they are meant to address two entirely different conditions.



[The bolding is poster "TD's. I put the examples given in quotes for formatting style.]


Bobcat

User avatar
menrov
Posts: 1896
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#319 Post by menrov » 2 months ago

Though I disagree with WT doctrine on blood, I also have to disagree with the arguments that abstain from blood is grammatically wrong. According to Oxford Dictionary:

​abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong
to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs
TOPICS Cooking and eatingC2
Link: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... ...%20More
If one can say To abstain from alcohol or sex or drugs, one can also say To abstain from blood.
At least, that is how I see it grammatically.

Bobcat
Posts: 3363
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff - "Abstain ... From Blood"

#320 Post by Bobcat » 2 months ago

If one can say To abstain from alcohol or sex or drugs, one can also say To abstain from blood.

That's the point the poster was making. You can't just say "abstain from ..." For example, "Abstain from alcohol." Does that mean I can't use window cleaners that contain alcohol? Or rubbing alcohol for cleaning a wound? "Abstain from alcohol," by itself, requires further interpretation. Even the phrase, "Abstain from sex," would require further explanation. Do you mean from all sex? Or do you mean from illicit sex (meaning "fornication"). Only further explanation, or the context in which it was spoken would make it clear. In the case of sex, you might interpret the phrase one way if it was your doctor telling you, and a very different way if it was a clergyman telling you. On the other hand, "abstain from fornication" would have the specificity needed to fully interpret such a phrase. (Of course, what "fornication" is might be open to interpretation also.)

This is the point of what the poster is saying. That the phrase, "abstain from blood," by itself, is grammatically incomplete. (It might not be "grammatically wrong." "Incomplete" is probably better.) What is missing in just that short phrase is in what way blood is to be abstained from.

JWs (following the example of the WT) will often quote just that phrase ("abstain from blood") to legitimize their no transfusion policy. But that phrase, just by itself, does not provide the needed information to determine how one is to "abstain."

For example, every single person who says, "abstain from blood," could be said to have already violated that statement. How? Well, because while they are standing there making that statement their bodies are full of blood that they haven't "abstained from." If they truly did "abstain from blood" they would have no blood on or in their persons and would be dead, so that they could not have made that statement in the first place.

Of course, such an application of "abstain from blood" would make no sense. But it is one way that "abstain from blood" could be interpreted, because the phrase, by itself, is incomplete. Its being incomplete leaves it open to however someone wants to interpret it. Applying it to medical use has nothing to do with its Biblical context. But it has everything to do with how the WT has chosen to interpret it.

This is why the poster said that "abstain from blood" is an incomplete grammatical construction. When you quote just those three words, out of context, the phrase requires interpretation to determine how one is to "abstain from blood": Do you want me to not touch it? Not eat it? Not look at it? Not smell it? How do you want me to abstain from it?

The WT simply quotes, "abstain from blood," and then introduces what the WT wants: Don't use it medically.

But medical use of blood is not in the context of Act 15:29. Rather, eating of it, and avoiding offending Jewish sensibilities is what the surrounding context is discussing.


Bobcat

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests