On 20/10/2015 17:25, solar penguin wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:15 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 04:44:53 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/10/2015 22:23, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
>>>>> Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your point being? There are no 21st century comedy mannerisms in
>>>>>> Aristophanes, Menander, Terrance or Plautus, especially ones that
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor in Cary Grant. When you listen to humour in old Cary Grant movies
>>>>> does it sound like the vernacular of the 21st century?
>>>>
>>>> It sounds close though.
>>>
>>> Can you give specific examples of Cary Grant's dialogue sounding close
>>> to specific aspects of 21st century vernacular?
>>>
>
> I guess not.
I answered below. All of it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> originate from the US. So where do these Vikings get them from
>>>>>> especially the ones that are derived from Freud? What justifies then
>>>>>> being their?
>>>>>
>>>>> They get them from the Tardis which translated their North Germanic
>>>>> slang and jokes into the slang and jokes Clara would understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish. When Aristophanes, Menander, Terrance or Plautus are
>>>> translated
>>>> into English no such mannerisms, philosophy or slang comes out because
>>>> it doesn't exist in the original.
>>>
>>> That depends on the translator. TV Tropes has a whole page about it:
>>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CulturalTranslation
>>
>> It doesn't exist in the original Greek nor any translation into modern
>> Greek. I can assure you of that.
>>
>
> We were discussing translations into English not modern Greek. You even
> said "When [they] are translated into English," in the material quoted
> above.
>
> Modern Greek translators might routinely do a shitty job, but English
And you would know that how? Can use understand Homeric Greek. Can you
understand modern Greek?
> translators are more thorough. (Nearly twenty years ago, I saw an
> English translation of Molière's Le Misanthrope which included lines
> like, "My love for you is like a Northern Line station; I'm stuck there.")
>
So he thought she was dirty, overcrowd and unreliable? He hated having
to use her?
What you were reading were not translations but interpretations.
No translation of Homer or Beowulf contains 20th or 21st century
American mannerisms because they do not exist in the original and did
not evolved until 100s or 1000s of years later.
>>
>>>> Freudian psychology/philosophy and
>>>> Jewish vaudeville did not exist when they were written. The kind of
>>>> humour in these plays most similarly resembles that of William
>>>> Shakespeare because he copied most of his comedies (if not all) from
>>>> Italian translations of ancient Greek and Roman plays or plays written
>>>> by later Italian writers. Even the humour in Chaucer is similar to
>>>> those classic styles but bares not resemblance to Freudian
>>>> psychology/philosophy and Vaudeville which tarnishes American comedy.
>>>>
>>>> Remind me where in Shakespeare he finds it funny or necessary to make
>>>> the main protagonist bully the people he's supposed to be training to
>>>> fight by giving them silly names instead of using their own? Henry V?
>>>> Julius Caesar? Hamlet? It's pure Vaudeville.
>>>
>>> As I pointed out elsewhere, that sounds a lot like Falstaff in Henry
>>> IV.
>>
>>
>> Don't think so. Cite the specific act and scene.
>>
>
> Henry IV Part 2, Act III, scene ii.
Falstaff isn't giving the soldiers new names so as to bully them like
the Doctor did, he's jesting with them using their own given names.
FALSTAFF. Is thy name Mouldy?
MOULDY. Yea, an't please you.
FALSTAFF. 'Tis the more time thou wert us'd.
SHALLOW. Ha, ha, ha! most excellent, i' faith! Things that are
mouldy lack use. Very singular good! In faith, well said, Sir
John; very well said.
FALSTAFF. Prick him.
MOULDY. I was prick'd well enough before, an you could have let me
alone. My old dame will be undone now for one to do her husbandry
and her drudgery. You need not to have prick'd me; there are
other men fitter to go out than I.
FALSTAFF. Go to; peace, Mouldy; you shall go. Mouldy, it is time
you were spent.
MOULDY. Spent!
>
>>
>>> Moving away from Shakespeare, there's Robin Hood and Little John. Were
>>> they influenced by American vaudeville too?
>
> Any comment?
>
> Also, that most British, most stiff-upper-lipped of all heroes, Dick
> Barton, Special Agent, called his underlings by the nicknames "Snowy" and
> "Jock". Was Barton secretly a Jewish-American vaudeville comedian too?
> How did he manage to balance that with the secret agent work?
>
What the hell are you raving on about? The subject in question is crude
American derived comedy in Doctor Who.
For example
DOCTOR: Tall one over there. What's your name Lofty?
VIKING: My name's not Lofty.
DOCTOR: Well I'm going to call you Lofty anyway. Let's see what you can
do Lofty.
That's bullying.
Then there's all the pseudo-psychological Freudian based crap with the
Baby and more crap with the Vikings being given the social values and
emotions of the 21st century middle class rather than acting like the
Vikings in the sagas.
>>>
>>>> It something the Marx
>>>> Brothers would be proud off. It also something that doesn't belong in
>>>> a Children's programme or anything aimed at them.
>>>
>>> Why do you think the Marx Brothers aren't suitable for children? Are
>>> you worried that kids will become addicted to hard-boiled eggs?
>>
>> I said nothing about the Marx Brothers not being suitable. It was the
>> Doctor, the main role model doing a bad impersonation of a comedy act
>> derived from them that was tantamount to explicit bullying that is not
>> suitable for children. Even if someone had put him down for doing it
>> still would not have been suitable for children to watch since it
>> encourages bulling anyone who's too tall, too short and so on.
>>
>
> Interesting point. If you're that worried about bullying, though, the
> current worry is about cyberbullying, including kids uploading
> embarrassing videos to humiliate their classmates. The Doctor openly
> endorsing that is far, far worse than him using a friendly nickname.
>
It wasn't a friendly nickname or his real name. After "Lofty" he goes on
to bully all the other soldiers also.
>>
>>>> Edgar Rich Burroughs
>>>> dealt with a similar situation in Skeleton Men of Jupiter but in that
>>>> case John Carter puts the bully in his place before training the
>>>> people with him to how to use weapons to fight with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that particular book, but the books by
>>> Edgar Rice (not Rich) Burroughs I've read have all been sexist,
>>> testosterone-driven, macho nonsense that modern audiences wouldn't
>>> expect from an episode of Doctor Who.
>>
>> Poppycock. Edgar Rice Burroughs is the greatest writer of romances of
>> all time.
>
> And you couldn't even do him the credit of getting his name right.
>
Idiot. You understood full well who I was referring too.
>> Tell me what is sexist about Tara Princes of Helium in The
>> Chessmen of Mars, Tavia in A Fighting Man of Mars or Llana of Gathol?
>> All of them stand up for themselves and are written as equals to the men
>> as is Deja Thoris and all the other female protagonists in all of his
>> books that I've read.
>>
>
> I'd have to re-read the books to answer in detail, but my impression was
> that the characters were closer to a _man's_ ideal version of an
> empowered woman, rather than a realistic depiction of how women really
> empower themselves.
Oh yes, you mean feminists don't you? Women who think female empowerment
is equivalent to sleeping around like seedy men or sleeping your way up
the socio-political ladder.
If that's what you want the closest to it is the anti-heroin in A
Fighting Man of Mars. On the other hand you might like Xaxa from The
Master Mind of Mars (ripped off by Douglas Adams as Xanxia in The Pirate
Planet) or maybe Issus from The Gods of Mars if that's your type.
Real women who actually want a relationship with a man on an equal
footing are closer to Burroughs' main female heroic protagonists.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And ancient Greeks in the agora didn't speak in the heroic
>>>>>>> hexameter Homer used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually you will find that they did, or at least that's what they
>>>>>> did when they quoted Homer. Read Plato's Ion and you will see how
>>>>>
>>>>> How rich in count of drachmas cost that youthful hound in
>>>>> yonder window what spies my orbs perceptive light?
>>>>>
>>>>> Aye, thirty drachmas cost that youthful hound and eight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you imagine how long it buy the ingredients for the dinner's
>>>>> stew?
>>>>
>>>> That's not how Homer wrote. That's Shakespeare you're basing it on.
>>>>
>>>> Here's Homer
>>>>
>>>> Lines 795-800 from Book 13 of The Iliad
>>>>
>>>> Straightforward literal translation.
>>>>
>>>> "And they went in like a maelstrom of quarrelsome winds that goes
>>>> earthward beneath Father Zeus' thunderbolt and with an inhuman din
>>>> churns with the salt sea, the many roiling waves of the
>>>> greatly-roaring
>>>> ocean cresting, flecked with white, some before, and others hard
>>>> behind;
>>>> So too the Trojans were packed together, some before, others hard
>>>> behind."
>>>>
>>> That's poetry. Poetry tends to be poetic. Prose tends to be prosaic.
>>> And, despite what you may claim, people would've spoken prose in
>>> everyday speech.
>>
>> Get a clue you fool. I told you to read Ion and The Republic by Plato.
>> Homer was quoted by everyone every day. It was the basis by which people
>> based their lives on.
>>
>
> All that shows is that Plato quoted Homer. Nothing more.
What it shows is that you've not actually read the texts I mentioned.
What it shows is that Plato gave explicit examples of ordinary people
quoting Homer on a regular basis and using his philosophy and values to
base their lives upon.
>
>>
>>> When casually chatting about the weather, they would've said, "Windy
>>> today, isn't it?" not "A maelstrom of quarrelsome winds goes
>>
>> They would have probably quoted the relevant section of Homer.
>>
>
> Ah, I see the cause of your confusion. You're getting mixed up between
> Ancient Greeks and the Darmok aliens from Star Trek. Never mind, it's an
> easy mistake to make... Oh, wait, it isn't! It's a totally stupid
> mistake!
No. Besides which Piccard equated their mythology with that of Gilgamesh.
>
>>
>>> earthward beneath Father Zeus' thunderbolt and with an inhuman din
>>> churns
>>> with the salt sea, the many roiling waves of the greatly-roaring
>>> ocean
>>> cresting, flecked with white, some before, and others hard behind."
>>>
>>> If you disagree, the when _do_ you think prose was invented? It was
>>> before the 19th century, right?
>>>
>>>
>> Get a clue you imbecile. The philosophy and mannerisms in Homer have
>> nothing to do with prose or poetry. They are based on culture and still
>> permeate Greek culture to this day. Read anything by any ancient Greek
>> writer and you will find modern Greeks in it, and you will also find
>> modern Britons in Shakespeare, not the philosophy of Freud and modern
>> sociology which American comedy is based on.
>>
>
> Talking of reading Shakespeare, you must've noticed how he has all the
> commoners and rude mechanicals talk prose in the vernacular of his day,
> as opposed to the high-flown verse of the noble characters.
>
> What does that tell you?
>
That he was probably familiar with Aristophanes and Menander or their
Latin/Italian copyists who do exactly the same.
>>
>>>>>> quoted him. See also Plat's Republic which also indicates how the
>>>>>> education system was primarily based on Homer's works. That is the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>
>>>>> Very few people went to their academies. Most were slaves. Most of
>>>>> the rest were illiterate farmers.
>>>>
>>>> That's pure bullshit. All Athenian youths were obliged to attend the
>>>> gymnasia from the age of 8 to the age of 18 and then serve in the
>>>> military for 2 years. The education was free, paid for and provided by
>>>> the state for all citizens no mater how rich or poor. Everyone was
>>>> taught to read and write including the farmers. Just imagine an army
>>>> or
>>>> state filled with and run by illiterates. It wouldn't get very far.
>>>
>>>> That's why they educated all citizens to prepare them to fight, follow
>>>> written orders, vote and administer the government if they were ever
>>>> elected to office. Women since they didn't have to fight always stayed
>>>> at home. The men even did the shopping. The women made cloth.
>>>>
>>>> What you call salves were not Athenian citizens but the equivalent of
>>>> migrant labourers. Douloi is what they were called which literally
>>>> translates as Workers not Slaves.
>>>
>>> Bonded labour still counts as slavery by Amnesty International's
>>> modern- day standards. Ancient cultures, like the Greeks, wrongly
>>> believed it was different from slavery, but that doesn't make them
>>> right.
>>
>> Bonded labour was abolished in 593 BC by Solon. The Douloi worked
>> voluntarily for pay just like any worker would today or were bought and
>> sold in a similar manner to modern day Footballers and owned by their
>> employers in the same way that Footballers are owned by their teams.
>>
>
> Can you provide a cite for this?
Herodotus, Plutarch's Life of Solon, Aristotle's, Constitution.
>And did they get the same pay and
> lifestyle that top-class footballers get?
>
The top class and highly educated ones did. Aesop for example was one.
He eventually attained his freedom and became an advisor to kings and
city-states.
>>
>>>> They were paid with bed and board or with a set fee of 6 obols per
>>>> day. It wasn't the state's duty to pay for
>>>> their education since they were not citizens, didn't fight in the army
>>>> and paid no taxes.
>>>>
>>>> People need to stop trying to associate ancient Greece with 17th-19th
>>>> century slavery in America and the education standards of Middle ages
>>>> England. It was nothing of the kind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Since the character Maisie Williams was playing is called Ashildr
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> obviously a reference to the fact that she was a descendant of the
>>>>>> Scyldings who called themselves Danes not Vikings, which brings to
>>>>>> mind Beowulf.
>>>
>
> It may be obvious to you, but in another DW forum I've seen discussion of
> the possibility that her name could come from the Old Norse hildr,
> meaning "battle". That would fit quite nicely with her role in the story.
Or it could mean "shield" from Scyld also considering her role in the story.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Beowulf was an English invention, and he was a Geat not a Dane.
>>>>> Hrothgar was the Dane: the openning of the poem recounts his
>>>>> kingdom's
>>>>> history up to Grendel. The language of the poem was intentionally
>>>>> archaic even then. Contemporary English did not speak that way.
>>>>
>>>> Beowulf is the English version of Hrolfs Saga Kraka. The usual dating
>>>> for both is wrong.
>>>
>>> Once again, only your dating is right and everyone else is wrong. What
>>> a dull surprise.
>>
>> Once again you show you are an ignorant fool. If you care to look at a
>> list of kings of Denmark and put Ragnar anywhere between 800 and 900 AD
>> where almost every historian thinks he live you have no choice but to
>> put Hrothgar before 200 AD. Have you seen the kings list fool? The
>> lengths of reigns are all given. There are more than 30 generations
>> between the last Frotho and Ragnar. Get a clue. There's no way the
>> events of Beowulf can be dated any later than 200 AD.
>>
>
> Beowulf is a poem, and a work of fiction. It doesn't have to be
> historically accurate in every detail.
Given the tradition it's from the kings have to be in the right order
and must have lived in the right period as the other kings named as
contemporaries. You wouldn't put William the Conqueror in the time of
Richard the Lion Heart.
>
>>
>>>> The kings lists place the events around 150 AD mainly
>>>> due to an absence of Frothos in the lists later than then, assuming
>>>> Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson died around 830 ADish. Hamlet dates to
>>>> about
>>>> the time of Plato or Herodotus, King Leir to about the time of Homer
>>>> and Lycurgus of Sparta.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're getting muddled up between Amleth and Hamlet again. We've
>>
>> No I'm not. Amleth is the original source for Hamlet.
>
> Exactly. Hamlet is a fictional character who was very loosely inspired
> by Amleth. But he is not Amleth, and Hamlet's world is not Amleth's
> world.
Hamlet is as much a fictional character as Henry IV.
>
>>
>>> discussed this before. Hamlet was very much a product of Shakespeare's
>>> time, complete with contemporary cultural references that would make no
>>> sense in the time of Plato or Herodotus.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The poet knew the Geats would be conquerred by Swedes, as alluded in
>>>>> the poem's ending.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lo! the Spear-Danes' glory through splendid achievements
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Does any of the above remind you of a modern American sit-com?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was more along the lines of Dallas. Did you catch the Who Shot
>>>>> Beowulf cliffhanger?
>>>>
>>>> The Iliad was along the lines of Dallas too. The best part of it is
>>>> the soap-opera among the gods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Using the name of a god in vain was blasphemy as was creating new
>>>>>> religions. Socrates was sentenced to death for it. Even in
>>>>>> Christianity
>>>>>
>>>>> Socrates was not a North German. Romans were quite happy to add gods
>>>>> to their religion to bribe those gods to abandon their previous
>>>>> worshippers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That's not what they did. The Romans accepted the gods of the
>>>> barbarians
>>>> and let them worship them as they wished and even allowed them to be
>>>> worshipped in Rome by the Germanic immigrants. To simplify things they
>>>> associated each foreign god with the equivalent Roman god that was
>>>> responsible for the same sphere of influence.
>>>>
>>>>> Post-exilic Judaism and Christianity were distinct from the
>>>>> polytheisms around
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by Post-exilic Judaism? The Jews were outright
>>>> polytheists up until the destruction of the Temple of Elyon by Titus
>>>> in 70 AD. Even their own bible makes this clear. They worshipped every
>>>> god the Phoneticians worshipped and had temples built to them all in
>>>> Jerusalem. Elyon (the Most High) was the father of Baal-Shamen
>>>> (Uranus)
>>>> who was the father of El (Kronos) and Ashera (Rhea), who were parents
>>>> to Jehovah (Pontus/Yam-Nahar). Adonai (Adonis) was equivalent to
>>>> Baal-Hadad
>>>> (Hades) the son of Dagon (Zeus-Arotrios) brother of El and married to
>>>> Anat (Athena) the daughter of El and his sister Baaltis
>>>> (Alilat/Dione).
>>>> Other identifications were also given.
>>>
>>>
>>> You've made similar claims before. You've never given any convincing
>>> evidence to support your theory. I bet this time won't be an
>>> exception.
>>
>> More poppycock from you. I've already given my sources.
>
> IIRC nobody found your sources very convincing.
>
You will find that my sources were the standard texts of their day and
everyone found them convincing. Anyone walking though Jerusalem in the
first and second centuries AD would have witnessed that the Jews were
polytheists and worshipped the same gods as the Phoneicians.
It's time to put the historical revisionism of the Church out of your
head. The bible itself says the Jews worshipped multiple gods. The
Elephantine letters of around 400-300 BC make Ashera the wife of Jehovah
which is obviously a reference to the Baal Epic where she prostitutes
her self to Yam-Nahar (Yaw/Yah) to stop him going to war with Baal-Hadad
(Adonai or Lord since Baal is Vul meaning Lord in Babylonian and is
interchangeable with Adad in Babylonian names.)
>> The Jewish
>> religion was clearly identified as Phonecian Polytheism by every writer
>> in the first and second century AD and is evident from explicit
>> statements by Philo and Porphyry and the contents of Sanchuniathon. The
>> bible itself brands the Jews as Polytheists an names all of their gods
>> in the Hebrew text. If you have an English translation LORD in capitals
>> is read as Jehovah/YHWH in the Hebrew, Lord, capital L is read as Adonai
>> and God is read as either El or Elohim meaning either the god El or the
>> Gods allied to El. Genesis in the Hebrew begins, In the beginning the
>> Gods created the heaven and the earth.
>>
>
> No-one's denying that Judaism evolved out of a polytheistic religion, and
> its scriptures still contain a few quaint throwbacks to those origins.
Few? They're riddled with them. The Hebrew bible is explicitly polytheistic.
>
> It's your specific claim that it remained polytheistic until the AD era
> that people have trouble with.
Look at the archaeological record. There are temples to all manner of
gods scattered all over 1st and 2nd century Jerusalem.
>
>>>>
>>>>> them in the anti-synectrism and their emphasis on religion as an
>>>>> instrument of morality and justice instead of god bribery.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary the Jewish religion stood for absolute servitude to a
>>>> cruel schizophrenic tyrant who offered nothing in return for his
>>>> subjects services (or sacrifices) except the chance to live. The Greek
>>>> gods were like the Ewings and the Barneses feuding with each other
>>>> over
>>>> who controlled the earth's resources, looking out for the good of
>>>> their
>>>> children and those that bribed them the most or whose services they
>>>> needed and usually being unfaithful to their spouses and having
>>>> various
>>>> affairs with anyone that took their fancy. The Jewish gods in
>>>> comparison
>>>> were genocidal sadistic monsters and the entire religion was obsessed
>>>> with prostitution. Abraham and Isaac were both pimps. Lot was a rent
>>>> boy
>>>> turned pimp. Christ fell in love with a prostitute.
>>>
>>>
>>> But did they speak in poetry or prose?
>>>
>>>
>> Fool!
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Compare the monstrous god of Joshua who orders him to genocide every
>>>> man, woman, child and animal in Jericho except for two prostitutes who
>>>> helped his spies, to the Greek gods who were split between both
>>>> warring
>>>> sides in the Trojan War. It was the Greeks who sought to destroy Tory
>>>> not the gods.
>>>>
>>>> Compare how one of the Jewish gods tortures Job by killing his sons
>>>> then
>>>> his wife and then then inflicting a disease on him to test his faith
>>>> to
>>>> how Jason is tested by being asked to bring back the Golden Fleece and
>>>> the gods offering their help to him freely.
>>>>
>>>> On the one hand the Jewish gods basically said, "if you don't follow
>>>> me
>>>> and offer regular sacrifices I will slaughter you". On the other hand
>>>> the Greek gods basically said, "if you don't offer me any sacrifices
>>>> then I won't help you and might help your enemy if they pay a high
>>>> enough price, and if you don't heed my advice then you will only have
>>>> yourself to blame for the consequences."
>>>
>>> Did they say that in poetry or prose?
>>>
>>>
>> Fool!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Islam followed this, and some of
>>>>> this have been incorporated into Hinduism and Buddhism.
>>>>>
>>>> And now you see where the bloody Jihadists and other holy warmongers
>>>> come from. The ancient Greeks never used "because it's God's will" to
>>>> justify their wars and slaughter.
>>>>
>>>>>> the use of God's or Christ's name in the manner the Doctor did would
>>>>>> have spelled death for him.
>>>
>
> Good job he _didn't_ use Christ's name then.
>
> Seriously, are you complaining about stuff that _wasn't_ in the episode?
>
If you bothered to read from the stated I was referring to the Doctor
using Odin's name in vain. That was blasphemy.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christians lacked the political power to execute blasphemers until
>>>>> 300.
>
> In England they didn't gain that power until the reign of Henry IV. (Hey,
> him again! He keeps popping up in this thread, doesn't he?) He gave
> Archbishop Arundel the power to execute heretics and blasphemers in
> exchange for recognising his dubious claim to the throne.
The son of a Flemish butcher or something.
>
>>>>
>>>> But the Jews always had it.
>>>>
>>>>> Jews did not execute non-Jews.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. Look at what they did to Stephen the first Christian martyr.
>>>> And do I need to bring up the ridiculous justification for the
>>>> genocide of Jericho again?
>>>>
>>>>> The letters of Paul record some of his conflicts with other beliefs,
>>>>> but they end with him leaving without killing anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are inbuilt self preservation responses,
>>>>>
>>>>> So fear itself.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. If something doesn't pose an immediate threat then
>>>> how
>>>> can you feat it. The electric eels posed no threat to the baby. When I
>>>> first heard the Doctor translate "Fire Water" I thought he mean Whisky
>>>> was in the barrels and the baby's father was a distiller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Getting the aliens drunk? Now there's an interesting idea. But
>>> probably less suitable for children than all the Marx Brothers
>>> combined.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Also at an early age babies can sense anxiety in caregivers and
>>>>>>> share in it empathetically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically you are saying that they copy the behaviour of whoever is
>>>>>> with them. That's what babies do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, no. About 96% (Or is that 99.6%?) of humans are born with neural
>>>>> wiring that induces in us the same emotions we see in people around
>>>>> us. It is not copying behaviour, it is emotional resonance. It's
>>>>> why humans
>>>>> can live in concentrations and cooperate in numbers impossible for
>>>>> the great apes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's the ability to copy what they see. Parent smiles, baby smiles
>>>> back.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does the baby even know that it's smiling back? It can't see its own
>>> face.
>>
>> The baby would probably have no memory of it. It's living by instinct.
>>
>
> Yes, the instinct is making it _feel happy_ at the sight of the smiling
> parent.
>
Therefore it has no capacity for language, no more than a 2 year old cat.
When are we gong to see the Doctor speaking Lion and Tiger? When is he
going to translate Wolf and Dolphin?
>>
>>>>>> The would have been trained as slingers or stone throwers at the
>>>>>> least
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually they used hay hooks, shovels, hammers, whatever else was at
>>>>> hand on the farm with some hope of lethality. They could not afford
>>>>> armor and reached between the shield bearers to whack whoever got
>>>>> through the shield wall. Their weight pressing up from behind added
>>>>> to the shield wall inertia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Slingers, stone throwers and archers would have been used first to
>>>> soften up the attackers, then come the cavalry. Next comes the phalanx
>>>> and finally hand to hand combat.
>>>
>>>
>>> _If_ they were soldiers. These weren't. They were farmers.
>>>
>>>
>> As far as the Vikings were concerned everyone was a solider. Military
>> service was compulsory.
>>
>
> Everyone? Bear in mind that we have no reliable written records from
> Vikings of that era. Also bear in mind there would've been differences
> between the Rus, the Danes, etc. How can you be sure that everyone
> served military service?
The ones in England were Danes. Even in medieval times every peasant
farmer was expected to fight to defend the land of his feudal overlord.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The Vikings would have preferred death. Were there ever any Viking
>>>>>> slaves?
>>>>>
>>>>> Read Volsungasaga and pay attention to people other than the Niflungs
>>>>> and Sigurth. Warrior primes would be put to death to avoid subsequent
>>>>> revolts, but anyone else who could be cowed was more valuable as a
>>>>> slave than rotting meat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Assuming they were willing to do work.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Given that the armour was solid steel the potential difference
>>>>>> across
>>>>>> any part of it would have been close to 0. The connecting wires from
>>>>>> the eel barrels would have melted before anything would have been
>>>>>> felt inside the cage.
>>>>>
>>>>> They showed no insulation between the suit interiors and outer armor.
>>>
>>>>> Current surges can follow conductors into the armor.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the solid steel suites would have virtually zero potential
>>>> difference across them there would be no lethal current flowing
>>>> through any conductors touching it.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're assuming the suits were made of steel. Doctor Who is full of
>>> alien metals such as Argonite, with unusual, seemingly impossible,
>>> properties. How do you know the suits weren't made from an alloy of
>>> them?
>>
>> And your point being what? Either they conducted electricity or did not.
>> Either way there would have been no harmful potential differences
>> anywhere inside the suits.
>>
>
> That depends on the fictional properties of the fictional alloys. They
> don't have to obey real-life rules for conductance and resistance.
If is they case and it is obviously important, why isn't it mentioned
anywhere in the script?
>
> IIRC argonite (from "The Space Pirates") can cause strange
> electromagnetic effects in copper, for example.
>
Where is it mentioned in The Girl Who Died?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any instrumentation on the surface
>>>>> was subject to charge and current surges. How much current the cables
>>>>> could carry without melting depends on their alloy. Weren't they a
>>>>> high quality silver? The cables were thick enough.
>>>>
>>>> Looked like copper to me and where did it come from, that's the
>>>> question.
>>>
>
> Because copper and bronze were totally unknown to the Vikings, were
> they...?
How did they make copper wire?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The real problem is I doubt electric eels provide the kind of charge
>>>>> separation and potential difference needed to power outside
>>>>> equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The doctor used the tiny 10cm wires from the space suite as an
>>>> amplifier. (more nonsense)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile in the US Putin is the favourite of conservatives because
>>>>>>> they find
>>>>>>> his willingness to randomly kill people much more manly than Obama.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it was because the only alternative was that sexist
>>>>>> socially brain dead moron Donald Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Putin man-love predates the current convervative march into
>>>>> futility.
>>>>>
>>>>> With either Trump or Putin it shows how easily chicken hawks can be
>>>>> goaded with shame.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>