Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jane Hafker who wrote (14289)	4/19/1998 3:00:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 39621

I'd forgotten Wells' reputed dabbling in the occult, I rather expect that to him it was no more than another of many experiments and studies. If we are to accept the definition of some (yourself, perhaps?) that all who are not members of a particular branch of born-again 'Christianity' are 'Satanists', then I suppose he was, as am I and as is the great majority of humanity. But we do not describe ourselves as such - remember, the whole concept of 'Satan' is a Christian invention, as has been pointed out above numerous times. Personally, I claim membership in only one group - the human race, homo sapiens sapiens Do I doubt the lineage of the sons of Noah and the story of the flood - Well, I do not carte blanche accept it. There is to my knowledge only one book relating the story, and that is not enough evidence to make a judgement. Yes, I know you see that book as holy and inspired by 'God', but I see that as quite unproven, though I am open to viewing substantial concrete corroborating evidence. So I have no opinion on the subject beyond pointing to the lack of proof. The language is interesting, though - how 'Ham' became 'Hamitic' and 'Shem' became 'Semitic' .... it is old old writing, for sure. Anyway, re Wells and his history and his later attitudes towards his earlier writings - My opinion of this was freshly formed yesterday while scanning the ten pages of revision notes in the volume I have here. It is well expressed in the post to which you are referring. He clearly, imho, was embarrassed by stances taken in the first edition. This is the 'Outline of History', btw, he did write other histories. The first edition centred on the causes, the events, and the possible effects of the 'Great War', being written beginning in 1918. Later revisions took a wider view, as well as containing new updated history. The language chart/diagram in your volume and that in mine do differ. Yours has only three branches, mine has five principal branches and six single lines off to the side. None of the 'branches' is connected to the root, many lines are broken within each language group, and most lines and the base of most branches have a question mark in the break. Imho, this clearly shows that what Wells was most aware of was his own ignorance, and for that I consider him intelligent. The study of language involves huge amounts of information that must be correlated and compared and filed for easy access. I read an article a few years ago (in Scientific American?) about how computers have aided language research by doing much of the drudge work, but also about how the study is hampered by the fact that dead languages and the ancient forms of living ones were not well recorded. In very few cases were they even written on stone tablets or papyrus or vellum. Spelling was a flexible practice, and vowels are a relatively new invention. Much if not all of what you call the Bible was written without vowels, they must be inserted before translation and often there is a choice of two or three. Anyway, I get the impression that Wells would have loved to review later info, and to use this technology, and would also be appalled at some of the uses to which we put it -g-