Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: February 2026

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Ibn Fadlan's View on Vikings

Ahmad ibn Fadlan's Encounter With the "Vikings"
Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen | 28 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6hEI1uJr4

3:14 Free translation. Fadlan considers Muslim Ritual Purity as equal to normal hygiene.

Probably not too uncommon among Muslims.

4:11 I have, up to an attack of gout, diagnosed on 13th XII (St. Lucy), been drinking 1 pint (50 cl) of beer, strength 6.6 to 7.2 each evening before bed.

You can imagine how this relates to avoiding nycturia.

Now, there have been Muslims who have because of this stamped me as a drunkard.

4:24 Muslims probably have a ritual law reminiscent of Leviticus 15:16.

Fadlan probably meant that Vikings skipped the "unclean until the evening" part.

5:45 Probably there is some people group that has tattoos or are supposed to have had tattoos.

Fadlan finds the Vikings remind him of that, and so he applies the stereotype. Imagine he was more familiar with Lapps than with Tatters, learned that Tatters travel around and then he assumed (and wrote as eyewitness testimony) that Tatters live in roundish tents called goahti.

That's probably how Fadlan came to imagine Vikings wore tattoos. Of course, this could be a custom simply limited to the Novgorod area and using an East Slavic word ... from what I know about that, which is not much. I just know that unlike what you told me of Vikings, I don't know for sure Rus' Slavs didn't have tattoos.

9:40 No, being true to the Islamic culture wasn't so much part of his job as part of his Pavlovian reactions.

I Think This is Misinformation

Former Employee Ale Pretti Fired over Complaints ...
Beti Daily | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAPCNBLFtQo

Do you have an actual link to the original statement?

I'm noting one of the hits I find for this clinic is:

Lake Shore Medical Ctr
Permanently closed

That's Lake Milton, Ohio.

Friday, February 27, 2026

Sharing, with some Reservations

He meant the title ironically · Sharing, with some Reservations

The Last Conservative - and the Catholic Resistance.
Dr G Ashenden | 25 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_FfZbJazFE

He meant the title ironically

He meant the title ironically · Sharing, with some Reservations

The Christian Origins of Fascism
Brian Holdsworth | 28 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7zTPQhbhKU

3:25 "several photos"

I know mainly two photos. On one, we have actual Catholic clergy, who are getting around a provocation to the Nazi salute by doing a Dollfuss salute instead (right arm stretched at 90° from the vertical, like a flag in mourning, Dollfuss was killed, by Nazis).

Pax Alotin
@Pax--Alotin: Such a mash up - pictures of Hitler a Nazi with the label Fascist -
Then there is the Nazi Salute that was borrowed from Mussolini - who in copied it from the French painter David's famous 'Oath of the Horatii' 😉🙂😊
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @Pax--Alotin Indeed, Hitler's salute is a pretty flashy thing in a painter.

He should have remained one.

4:04 On this one, I think it may be Fr. Schachleiter who is seen looking down, a bit sadly, while the man enthusiastically shaking the Führer's hand is the Protestant bishop ... looking up, yes, it's the Reichsbischoff Ludwig Müller.

In case you think Schachleiter (if it's he) was in any way a bad look for Catholicism, look at how pained he looks, and recall, his bishop in Munich revoked his faculties for celebrating Mass.

(Yes, it's Albanus)

Now, while Ludwig Müller was not sceptic of Nazism at the time and may have committed suicide after it fell (this is not certain), Schachleiter died a natural death of old age in 1937, before the Anschluss, before WW-II and even so he was somewhat iffy of National Socialism.

4:28 Fun fact, the photo you showed is in archives noted as featuring Schachleiter and Müller, but more so, it's from my birthday ... the year midway between my own birth and my grandpa's.

6 September 1934
Hitler greets Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller and Abbott Albanus Schachleitner as Honorary guests at the Reich party rally for Unity and Strength

I'm born 6 Sept, but 1968 (and my grandpa, 1900).

6:09 Austrofascism clearly is compatible with Catholic Christianity.

Exhibit A) It's roots in Christian Social movement (previously Christian Socialist I think, but changed name in response to Socialist coming to mean Marxist) commence with a certain Dr. Johannes Immanuel Veit, friend of St. Clemens Maria Hofbauer, convert from Judaism, Young Earth Creationist, Catholic priest and ... well, part originator of Christian Socials.

Exhibit B) the Christian Social chancellor just preceding Dollfuss was Mgr Ignaz Seipel, who had written Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter (Econom-ethic doctrine of the Church Fathers).

Exhibit C) On the issuing of Quadragesimo Anno, Dollfuss promised to make Austria a "Quadragesimo Anno state" and Pope Pius XI never contradicted him.

Exhibit D) When Dollfuss had been murdered (a bit like Charlie Kirk) and lay bleeding to death, he forgave his murderer. The murderer in question was a Nazi.

Exhibit E) You probably agree that the von Trapp family singers are Catholics and their opposition to Hitler was politically rooted in Dollfuss and Schuschnigg (whose fate after the Anschluss they pitied, and rightly so, Nazis had him harrassed by shrink personnel supposedly for being suicidal).

hundefar
@hundefar: Dollfuss wasn't a fascist.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @hundefar He at least tolerated the term.

Schuschnigg later specified they tolerated the term.

For reasons of general usage, and because he fits certain minimal criteria as I see them for fitting the common usage, I accept that usage.

@hundefar I can add, Schuschnigg perhaps had more reason than Dollfuss to be picky about it, since Mussolini was a good friend of Dollfuss, hence the Italians at the Brenner to stop an Anschluss from happening in 1934, but none more later on when Schuschnigg was on the line.

Dollfuss also had some illness requiring baths, and Mussolini hosted him, as I recall.

7:00 Wait, are you bringing up Mussolini and Gentile as founders of Fascism?

Mussolini was founder and Gentile co-theorician of one Fascism, the Italian one.

But not of Austro-Fascism or of any strain of Spanish Fascism, whether Carlists, or Falangists proper or JONS (from most to least Catholic).

If we go back to Mussolini, one can mention, his mother* was a devout Catholic:

Rosa Maltoni (Predappio, 1859-1905), la mamma del duce, fu una maestra elementare. Contrariamente al marito Alessandro, un socialista mangiapreti, Rosa era una devota cattolica che fece battezzare i figli e li conduceva alla messa tutte le domeniche. Forse per questo, dopo morta, nel Ventennio, gli italiani andavano a trovarla al cimitero. Venerata per 20 anni come una madonnina, l’avrebbero probabilmente anche fatta santa, se non altro per fare un favore a Mussolini, ma poi la guerra, la Resistenza, la Liberazione e tutto il resto: grazie a Dio non se ne fece più nulla. Ora la sua è una tomba poco più che qualunque, la sua una figura “di culto” minore, relegata praticamente sullo sfondo della sorprendente gloria post mortale del sepolcro del figlio, sepolto morto a S. Cassiano di Predappio, in provincia di Forlì, e ancor oggi visitato da neofascisti, nostalgici e curiosi di ogni genere ad ogni ricorrenza utile, per esempio il 28 ottobre, anniversario della marcia su Roma, ma anche – e per sfregio- il 25 aprile, festa della Liberazione Nazionale dal nazi-fascismo etc etc.

So, a bit like one can find overlap between Socialism and Catholicism around Doris Day, dito in the background of Benito.

Spooky TreadXIII
@spookytreadxiii: I thought about this also... while I do believe Actual Idealism would be realizing that God is external and internal with natural law being in rule which a lot of aspects of government and state mirrors heaven even in pagan times. Also, if we go off of the Old and New Testament there are nations and some sense of keeping parts of the church or religion pure over mixing or allowing too much outside influence. Then why Socialism when localism and distributism can work at National and is the Bridge between Capitalism and Syndicalism (GOATd systems). Which means in a way Christo-Fascism can work and does make sense, especially if we're not going for old or 100% of someone else's idea which are we even taught that or is it just propaganda from the victors that in WW1 destroyed kingdoms and WW2 destroyed Authoritarianism, which the church used in order to guide nations and peoples.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @spookytreadxiii "Actual Idealism would be realizing that God is external and internal with natural law being in rule"

That's how C. S. Lewis converted from Hegel's Absolute to a personal God.

"especially if we're not going for old"

Lots of what Fascism did was in response to circumstances. Blackshirts were in response to Red Terror, and Dollfuss changing the constitution (constitutionally) was in response to a Civil War which had just been quenched in blood, and one wanted to avoid a return to it.

7:10 Come on, Gentile is maybe the philosopher of Fascism, but Fascism existed well before him.

Fino al 1922 Gentile non mostra particolare interesse nei confronti del fascismo.

So, three years after the Sansepolcro declaration, Gentile is drafted to become Minister of Education by Il Duce and suddenly discovers Fascism. And that's not because he was young and inexperienced, no, his career was already in swing. In 1922 he was 47 years old.

7:58 The Doctrine of Fascism — 1932. Fascism had been Fascist for 13 years and Gentile for 10 years before this was published.

It's comparable to Stalin and Kubnov (People's Commissar for Education) co-writing a book on Communism and calling that the foundation of Soviet Communism (obviously, the difference is, Stalin was just successor to Lenin, Kubnov just successor of Lunacharsky, and Lunacharsky had become a Marxist well before the Russian Revolution).

8:17 I would say that defining features of Fascism are things that:

A) contributed to the March on Rome
B) are shared with other movements also labelled Fascism by analogy.

Obviously, the Austro-Fascist theorician Mgr. Seipel was not agreeing with Gentile, nevertheless his disciple and successor is labelled a Fascism like Mussolini.

I would say there are three features.

1) Corporativism. Opposition to both Communism and Laissez-Faire Capitalism, solved by promotion of a very specific Syndicalism that included the employers.
2) Indifference or hostility to Parliamentarian Democracy.
3) Being prepared to take up violence for these goals, if needed.

None of these are bad or incompatible with Catholicism. Items 2 or 3 can go wrong, pretty easily, but are not wrong in and of themselves, it's the judgment about when Parliamentarianism is to get out (in Austria it was in fact a constiutional act) and when violence is needed that can easily go wrong. Item one is the reason why Dollfuss spoke of Austria as a Quadragesimo Anno state.

8:36 Yes, I'll proceed to make that claim!

Before Italian Fascism got into power there already was a French Fascism that didn't get into power (and was actually divided during the occupation), namely Action française.

It's founder Maurras was an Agnostic. But Maurras was influenced by one René de la Tour du Pin who was a Christian.

And the influence is not doubtful. Maurras had already founded Action française before René died. Now, one came to note a similarity in positions taken, so, Maurras got the question: "does de la Tour du Pin belong to the Action française" and please note the answer: "no, it's Action française which belongs to de la Tour du Pin"

The number one of Action française, an Agnostic, made himself the number two in relation to one outside the club, and that one was a Christian.

The name was also given to a journal associated with the movement, L'Action française, sold by its own youth organization, the Camelots du Roi. The movement and the journal were founded by Maurice Pujo and Henri Vaugeois in 1899, as a nationalist reaction against the intervention of left-wing intellectuals on behalf of Alfred Dreyfus. The royalist militant Charles Maurras quickly joined Action Française and became its principal ideologist. Under the influence of Maurras, Action Française became royalist, counter-revolutionary (objecting to the legacy of the French Revolution), anti-parliamentary, and pro-decentralization, espousing corporatism, integralism, and Roman Catholicism.

1899 is 20 years before the Sansepolcro programme by Mussolini, which in turn is, as mentioned, 13 years before Gentile's book. So, Action française is 33 years older than Gentile's work.

In case you doubt the label Fascism, note the fact that it was anti-parliamentary (item 2 on my checklist) and corporatist (item 1).

I
Catholic American Nationalist
@Cathnat-Amnat: Maurras was not the founder of Action Francaise. However, he was one of its chief ideological proponents. He was reconciled to the Church before he died. At any rate, it's a shame Action Francaise was condemned. Regrettable decision that was reversed later, but too late after all...
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Cathnat-Amnat I'm afraid the personal reconciliation is a false news, but anyway, if Maurras wasn't the founder, he was close enough after them in joining AF.

Did you know the surviving big sister of Ste Thérèse Martin asked for the lifting of that ban?
II
Pax Alotin: hglundahi ---- quote 'If we go back to Mussolini, one can mention: his mother was a devout Catholic'
Quote 'So, a bit like one can find overlap between Socialism and Catholicism around Doris Day, ditto in the background of Benito'
The Left especially - Stalinists were such good propagandists. In 1949 - they had us believing Nazism was spawned by a man who was half Jewish.
Fascism begins and ends at the borders of Italy. Nothing to do with Nazism, Peronists - Francoists - all of which were built around their own historical roots.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Pax--Alotin That's one way of viewing the word, not mine.

Are you saying Rudolf Jung was according to some half Jewish?

9:31 Would you mind telling me exactly how Gentile's secularism contributed to the March on Rome, which anyway happened before Gentile was a Fascist?

Wait, it actually helped to recruit a lot of Jews to Fascism.

Up to 1934, Jews were overrepresented in Italian Fascism, and one Mayor (Geremìa Brizi, of Assisi) actually helped to save Jews from Nazi deportations under the Salò Republic in memory of those days. It's not as if they were totally marginal to Fascism either, like the mistress of Mussolini, Margherita Sarfatti, or Aldo Finzi:

In 1921, he was one of the nine Jewish deputies elected to the Italian Parliament for the Fasci italiani di combattimento. Having reached the rank of lieutenant colonel, in January 1923 he was appointed Vice Commissioner for the Air Force (the titular commissioner being Benito Mussolini himself, who however delegated all matters to Finzi), a post he held until 1925, being one of the founders of the Regia Aeronautica in 1923.

He died as a partisan against the Germans. He was not involved in the Via Rasella attack, but was one of those shot in retaliation for it.

9:59 Rosenberg was as little a founder as Gentile. However, he was an exponent ...

But before that, you have an actual founder, Rudolf Jung.

Now he was influenced by the rival Czech National Socialism (the one that later drove Sudet Germans into the arms of Hitler), which was inspired by John Hus and his violent successor John Zizka of Trocnov.

Not Orthodox Christianity, but Christian heresy of the Pre-Reformation with some overlap to Radical Reformation.

10:22 Positive Christianity is not too far from certain trends within Evangelicalism.

Like not seing God as lawgiver but seing Him as Father.

There are some ex-Nazis who had not too much trouble getting an Evangelical career after that.

Schachleiter had a reason to fear the Protestant influence on Nazism.

10:44 I think Adolf von Harnack, famed Liberal Theologian, also shared the fad for Marcion.

Positive Christianity is not simply Nazism with Christian veneer, it's Idealism with Christian veneer, as much as so much other "Christianity" in classical Reformation based Protestantism by well before 1900, and it happened to join hands with Nazism.

11:31 Sure, if you go to Nazism, you find people as Anticatholic as John McArthur and as Uncatholic as Joel Osteen.

That's why I like to call myself Fascist, but not Nazi.

11:56 Italian Fascism prior to 1938 in interior politics and to the Ethiopian War didn't act contrary to the Natural law.

Whatever Mussolini may have said with Gentile in 1932.

(For the record, I don't think the killing of Matteotti was a Fascist vendetta for his criticism of the new voting law, I think it was a royal one, for his criticism of the King's petrol deal with England or English companies).

But again, Action française did not reject the Natural law and Austrofascism certainly didn't.

Nor did the Carlists and as far as I can tell, nor did the Falangists.

12:04 You are aware that some schools of Protestantism deny this?

Most Calvinists would agree the moral law is known even after Adam's sin, but some take Total corruption one step further.

You may have heard of a certain Kevin Annett, right?

What he said indistinctly about Christian hospitals in Canada, well, it was not true about Catholic ones, but it was true about United Church of Canada ones and some more.

12:23 What you just stated about Italian Fascism is not even necessarily a denial of Natural law, since on Hegelian views (the one CSL believed before his conversion) the Natural law is known by the rational self determination of the Absolute including in history.

The Natural Law does not necessarily come as "external" since the proof text actually speaks of it as written on hearts:

Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
[Romans 2:15]

I'm not a fan of Gentile, but I think some people in English culture risk getting him wrong in making his views wronger and other than they are. I saw Lotus Eaters misconstrue his view on Corporatism, for one.

12:37 I recall an Orthodox bishop in Serbia praising Positive Christianity on the theory that each nation had its own moral character and therefore needed the Church adapted to itself.

I suppose he would not have gone to Mass in a Greek Orthodox service ...

Again, yes, Nazism was very Anticatholic, but it was so in ways shared by Anticatholics often seen (in Ecumenism) as "fellow Christians"

13:39 I'm about as inclined to trust Leo Strauss, who probably (like his disciples in the US, including you by now) as I am to trust Gentile on Catholicism.

Modernity is not necessarily more and more breaking away from Catholicism, so, the Hippie era is more recent than Progressive era, but also more Catholic.

14:09 Holy Roman Empire was at this time trilingual.

1) High German, or what we call German.
2) Low German, which has a debased modern version in Plattdeutsch
3) South East Gallo-Romance to North Italian dialects. Well, 4) some French in Hainaut as well.

But compared to it, France, Norse countries, Poland, Hungary, all functioned as nation states.

Action française doesn't deny this state of affairs, but it overemphasises the degree to which Luther destroyed Christendom, and considers Nation states as what's left of it.

14:13 Liechtenstein was the 343:rd State of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, just like the US has sth that looks like a Federal level, the Holy Roman Empire had an Imperial level.

14:21 Localism ... did I mention that one tenet of Action française was Decentralisation?

14:44 Thank you, Communism more so than Nazism, Nazism more than Italian Fascism, Italian Fascism more than Austro-Fascism.**

Did you know Austro-Fascism was so decentralised, that when there was a decision to allow putting beggars in camps (1936 I believe)*** the only one of the 9 Länder that implemented this was Upper Austria? Nowhere else.

15:56 "both the rich and the poor"

Sounds nice and Fascist to me. Rejection of Klassenhass. OK, Fascist compatible.

16:06 "there is no common good"

Sorry, but that's clear misrepresentation. Even in Gentile, the idea is that rich and poor have a common good.

16:29 You are totally out of touch with what Fascism, even Nazism, teaches about the poor.

In 1933 beggars were in Nazi Germany put in camps. Those were basically very rough boot camps. The idea was that through harsh discipline people should be pushed to habits from which they would be able to take up normal lives.

I disagree with priorising "helping" someone over respecting his freedoms, perhaps more than you do. But that was what Nazism did, as long as the poverty was one of situation or of habits associated with the situation.

In most of Austria even this didn't happen.

In 1926 Mussolini decided to block non-Italian Gipsies from entry into Italy. Why would Gipsies have wanted to enter Italy if it had been harsh to the poor? Think of that for a moment.

16:57 You are treating Fascism as a synonym for the political ideas you don't like in Nazism.

Heschmeyer claimed that the Church has condemned "Fascism and Nazism".

Now, if you mean "the school of Gentile", I think that work might be on the Index, certainly Rosenberg is. But if you mean documents aimed at régimes, the NS one was condemned in Mit brennender Sorge, but Fascism overall had no similar condemnation. Non abbiamo bisogno is not a wholesale condemnation of Mussolini's régime. It's a complaint about breaches from the Concordat.

These may or may not be incidental to Italian Fascism at its core essence (which shifted), but they are certainly incidental to Fascism as a broader movement.

17:48 You are speaking of the "Founders of Fascism" (being aware of an incompatibility and so having to) "Create their own (per)version of Christianity" ...

You are somehow mixing up Positive Christianity, a Nazi thing, with Italian Fascism or maybe even Spanish such?

That's careless use of language.

* Amnesia Vivace : 1. la Madre del Fascio
https://web.archive.org/web/20071029004122/http://www.amnesiavivace.it/sommario/rivista/brani/pezzo.asp?id=227

** His view: "Fascism and especially Communism are all about" what? Centralisation in nation states.

*** Unlike Nazi Germany no strict obligation to work and no risk of sterilisation.

Keaton Halley Misses a Beat

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Keaton Halley Misses a Beat · Creation vs. Evolution: Two Points Against non-Geocentrics in Creation Ministries International

Did Copernicus Prove That We're Not So Special?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a63IueWc3Yo

Copernicus certainly neither showed nor failed to show that the Sun orbits the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy.

He considered that the Sun (instead of the Earth) was the physical, geometrical, centre of all that God had created bodily, and that the fix stars were close to the circumference, but the actual circumference is more like Empyrean Heaven above that.

And pretending he "showed that" Earth orbits the Sun, sorry, but his argument was that Spirograph patterns (which Geocentrism requires) are so ugly God couldn't possibly have decreed them!

I Don't Think I'll Have to Assume Gavin Ortlund is Stupid, or Doesn't Know English

When he gives a blooper, I find I have the right to treat it as a blooper.

Open Letter to Catholic Apologists
Breaking In The Habit | 27 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REc_Uyo6IFc

2:27 An online (or printed) Apologist is "in a ministry"?

Benny Hue
@BennyHueENT: Yes... they are ministering to people.. In the same way a doctor "ministers" to their patients... a minister is just someone who gives something to those who need it (extraordinary eucharistic ministers- LAY people who distribute the eucharist to those who need it... albeit in extraordinary conditions which is often abused and done at every Sunday Mass I've ever seen)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @BennyHueENT I think the word has a specific connotation in Church affairs.

If I give a man 50 cents because he asks for a coffee that costs 1:50 (I don't do it every day), that is my private affair, and doesn't imply any kind of authority over him.

But if a deacon gives him a sandwich, that is part of a ministry, and to some degree implies a kind of authority for the occasion.

Ministries follow a Church procedure of charity and sanctity or meant to cultivate these things (even if they fail).

This is what I mean by being Apologist isn't a ministry. Not necessarily at least. A ministry can include or even concentrate on Apologetics, but not each Apologist is obliged to be in such or constitute himself as such a ministry.

I would say fuller portions of Evangelism do consitute ministries, like missionary or preaching service. Bringing someone to Christ or guiding him in the Christian life. Apologetics is less than either and may therefore be outside ministry.

2:57 Those outside the Church are part of the members St. Paul is speaking of?

I
Thomas J
@thomasj51: No
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @thomasj51 Neither do I think so.
II
@user-zw8ks6br2v
@user-zw8k: I have the same question 🤔
III
Michelle’s Vintage Library
@michelles-vintage-library: He is talking about Christians who go online and try to sow discord within the body of Christ. They care more about “being right” than speaking with love. They attack fellow Christians and accuse them and look for ways to put them down because of differences in theology or politics. That’s what he’s talking about. This, in turn, causes non-Christians to think poorly of Christianity. 3:00
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @michelles-vintage-library Try to sow discord "within the body of Christ" ... you said.

I don't think any person who has Christian beliefs would agree that these were his motivations.

Caring more about being right than speaking in love may in certain situations be the only appropriate thing.

If a priest adresses a guy who doesn't believe in Adam and Eve (and therefore isn't properly Christian) and does so in private, speaking with love may indeed be the most appropriate.

B U T if such a guy is adressed by a layman in a forum, speaking with love may be clearly against forum decorum and indeed be seen as superciliousness. Given the expectations caring about being right is the one charitable, because it's the one courteous thing to do.

I can't tell whether such and such a non-Christian thinks poorer of me or of a guy who calls himself Christian but doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, but we are not supposed to give up truth to get popularity either.

I think many of those who think poorer of me or say they do would be more concerned with "being right" against Christians, and find that easier to attain with the one who has a more hollow statement.

3:40 There are no occasions when someone frustrating can be considered as outside the scope of mission, but could be used as a foil, before 3rd party?

I think St. Thomas thought there were.

5:42 I would for my part not be eager to be treated to Hanlon's razor.

I would also not be eager to be excused, because English isn't my first language. I am good at English, and I don't mean that as an East European who understands most of a simple news programme, but has a heavy accent and asks "do you want to wash own hands" instead of "do you want to wash your hands" (reflexive pronoun being used in all three persons in Slavic and Baltic). I mean it as a man who could meaningfully analyse a passage by Tolkien. Or Shakespear.

And "attack Church teaching" ... if you consider §283 of CCC as "Church teaching" it is my full intent to attack it. If you uphold it, it shows you are not the Church.

6:00 There are souls you can't win without winning an argument.

Or have someone else win it for you.

6:25 Q 1 - probably not subconsciously.

There is a reason why I'm avoiding confrontation including apologetics with Muslims, and it is unfair to want to push me as some kind of missionary to Muslims when most certainly I'm not.

There are others I don't avoid confrontation with, because they are an Occidental adversary to beat in the societal debate.

You know, Chesterton was in some ways an Apologist because he was a Politician. He wasn't a priest or monk.

He neither wanted to sacrifice himself nor his share in what could be done for England just to avoid offending someone who wanted England to become inhuman.

No, My Apologetics is NOT Putting My Faith into Danger

Is it a Sin to Watch Protestant Videos?
Scholastic Answers | 26 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI2-5BrY2GY

We can agree that someone who said "the Catholic Church teaches that Adam had non-human pedigree, but this means God was putting Adam in the way of a most serious child abuse well before Adam had sinned, therefore we need not believe ..." insert the Catholic Church or Adam and Eve ... has lost the faith.

However, you can not apply that so as to say "IF the Catholic Church WERE to teach that Adam had non-human pedigree, that WOULD mean etc and therefore, this is not how God created Adam and also not what the Church teaches" is a loss of faith.

Very much on the contrary, it's a defense of faith.

0:25 Just mentioning, I never called you a retard.

Unless you mean retarded acquisition of correct theologumena compared to what is desireable in a channel such as yours.

But no, not retarded acquisition of normal adult intelligence.

0:40 On the day (discounting the Julian to Gregorian shift) 777 years passed between a burning of the Talmud before Notre Dame, Paris, and the burning of Notre Dame Paris.

Jews pretend God took revenge for the burning of the Talmud.

Do you think Jews did so, or God for complicity with the Talmud?

6:34 Do people who hold "Leo XIV" to be Pope and Mater Populi Fidelis to be a Papal Encyclical sin by denial of either Papal infallibility or Coredemptrix?*

"To give an example, I 9:29 myself have spent a few years reading 9:31 Protestant theology and do not 9:33 particularly suffer from sins against 9:34 the faith. Further, it is part of my job 9:36 to speak to those who oppose the faith 9:38 in order to provide answers that will 9:40 remove the force of these objections. 9:42 For me to read Protestant theology or to 9:44 watch a theology debate both has a 9:46 sufficient justification and places me 9:48 in no unique danger of sin."

Apart from the Protestant Theologian Prevost, I agree.

Is my case too, except I don't read Mater Populi Fidelis without a good reason.

12:13 Would you consider that someone is overdoing things, if he makes the syllogism:

CSL was a heretic (didn't convert to Catholicism before dying 22 Nov 1963)
HGL states he has read CSL
therefore we can conclude HGL is putting his and other peoples' faith in danger, for no reason at all

Close quote, do you think he's overdoing things?

* Someone asked if I was Sede or Benevacantist, I'm Conclavist. Christian Wagner did an interview with Pope Michael I before he died, I think one with Pope Michael II too.

Thursday, February 26, 2026

Sungenis Arguably Wrong about Our Lady's Age

It's within a general questions and answers session, and his mistake is on that particular question, so I'm not answering all of the video:

The Copernican Conspiracy & The Science of Genesis
Robert Sungenis | 25.II.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXgup2Fxxac

I tried to find a source for your claim, and I get a confused Benedictine pretending St. Albert supports 20.*

Here is St. Albert's conclusion, but watch out for what Fr. Robert Nixon, OSB inserts in brackets:

It is apparent that everything pertaining to the Blessed Virgin was most fitting and apt, both with respect to nature and grace. We therefore believe that she conceived Our Lord at the age at which a person has reached full stature and development of body [i.e. not in her earliest youth.] We believe also that she was betrothed to Joseph around the same time, approximately two months before she conceived Our Lord (according to the usual custom for engagements.)

If we count "her earliest youth" as actual childhood, physical incapacity of conception, I agree.

What St. Albert counts as "full stature and development of body" (I'd like to see the Latin) is when a woman is normally able to conceive, which is on average some months above 12. The full normal spread for either sex is 9 to 18. A doctor cannot diagnose "precocious" or "delayed" puberty except outside those limits. However, the average is a few months after 12 for women and a few months after 14 for men.

What Fr. Robert Nixon, OSB supposes is, St. Albert talks of how tall She is. Yes, skeletal development can add a few inches after puberty and usually does.

That's why he wantonly adds "not in her earliest youth" and thank God he has the decensy of at least using brackets.

Note also that St. Albert doesn't the least doubt that St. Joseph was elderly:

Furthermore, the marriage of an elderly man to a very young maiden seems to be incongruous. Rather, it is fitting that a young man marry a young woman, and that an older man marry an older woman. Hence it is written by the poet Ovid: “If you wish to marry wisely, then marry someone who is like yourself!” Now the marriage between Mary and Joseph was certainly organized in accordance with all wisdom. Therefore, since Joseph was already an elderly man, it seems that Mary should not have been extremely young, but of a more mature age.

The incongruity about an old man married to a young woman comes from the Pagan Ovid, not from Church law.

But St. Albert didn't say "if, as is usually assumed" but "since Joseph was already an elderly man" ...

37:09 There are different views on whether Proto-Gospel of St. James is from the Apostle St. James the Brother of God.

You are obviously on the denying side.

37:25 Where would you get "around 20" from?

37:47 The references I find are about sacrifices of sicels of silver, for men, and also, military service.

So, we can probably be sure St. Joseph was at least 20, but not that Our Lady was.

He that is counted in the number from twenty years and upwards, shall give the price.
[Exodus 30:14]
And it was offered by them that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upwards, of six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty men able to bear arms.
[Exodus 38:25]
If it be a man from twenty years old unto sixty years old, he shall give fifty sicles of silver, after the weight of the sanctuary:
[Leviticus 27:3]
From twenty years old and upwards, of all the men of Israel fit for war, and you shall number them by their troops, thou and Aaron.
[Numbers 1:3]
And assembled them on the first day of the second month, reckoning them up by the kindreds, and houses, and families, and heads, and names of every one from twenty years old and upward,
[Numbers 1:18]
Of Ruben the eldest son of Israel, by their generations and families and houses and names of every head, all that were of the male sex, from twenty years old and upward, that were able to go forth to war,
[Numbers 1:20]

38:04 Can you give even one place in the OT where it is spelled out that a woman cannot be married before 20?

Can you give even one place in the OT where "twenty years" is mentioned as any kind of legal requirement about a woman?

38:19 I don't think you find persons, even male, of under 20 for that reason called children in all of the OT.

A man under 20 was not yet doing military service, but that doesn't make him a "child" ... you can answer "what about boy?"

And I can answer "can girls (apart from children) not get married"? An alternative translation of a prophecy in Isaias states "girl" instead of "virgin" ... the concepts were not totally alien.

In this matter, you are going against Italy and the Papal states.

In Codice Rocco, 14 was clearly the age of consent. How do I know? A girl of 14 who aborts is punished, but a girl of 13 isn't, but she is deemed to have not consented to abortion, and therefore whoever "put her up to" abortion (even if she asked for it) is punished way harder. I couldn't find the criteria for rape about Codice Rocco, the punishments for abortion and "euthanasia" are the most cited and a 1930's integrality of it is hard to find. I think 14 is still the age of consent in Italy. In that case, it should also be an age for marriage. The Risorgimento raised it to 18/18 unfortunately.

Now, the Papal states, before the Risorgimento, actually had the canonic law, which is 14 for men and 12 for women, for nuptial age. In the 1917 canon law, this changes upwards two years, but the old limits remain as age of consent. See "de personis" and "infamia legis" ... one of the things that make you infamous by legal fact is being judged (I don't think it matters if the court is secular or clerical) for sexual activity with persons who are below 14 if male or below 12 if female.

38:39 First, She would not have been a child at less than 20, and second, "blessed among women" is an already standing formula, a kind of military award used twice in the OT.

Jael and Judith. Each because they killed a man who wanted them and didn't get them and was an enemy of Israel.

Now, Satan is the oldest enemy of God's Israel, that's the only person Our Lady can be said to have in any sense "killed" making Her Co-Redemptrix.

* The Youthfulness of Mary the Mother of God
Fr. Robert Nixon, OSB
https://tandirection.com/tradition-restored/the-youthfulness-of-mary-the-mother-of-god/

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Tranny: Fletcher Merkel and Harper Moyski. ICE: Renee Good and Alex Pretti

"Minnesota" - Marsh Family adaptation of "San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Some Flowers in Your Hair)"
Marsh Family | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRHxXHZmVAM

And some more dead:

Teen and man killed in north Minneapolis shooting, police say
By Nick Lentz, Beret Leone, Ashley Grams | Updated on: February 24, 2026 / 5:45 AM CST / CBS Minnesota
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/north-minneapolis-shooting-feb-23-2026/

Monday, February 23, 2026

Lunatic, Liar or Lord ... Resuming

"type lines of 28:21 reasoning that you use to say it 28:23 couldn't have been a cloud or an 28:24 airplane there must therefore it must 28:25 have been a UFO."

In those cases, we deal with objects or sightings that cannot be inspected at close hand.

The point of the Trilemma is, it comes within a setting where CSL has already reasonably excluded both myth and distortion over a telephone game.

The parallel doesn't hold.

"just trash 28:51 talk people he doesn't like, whether he 28:53 does that directly or, you know, using 28:55 his supposedly past atheist self as a 28:57 punching bag"

So far, you haven't given even one reasonable example of CSL trash talking anyone.

You have given an example showing you totally misunderstand what kind of thing Atheism was culturally speaking in his time.

But that's not a reasonable exemple.

You have heard of the Monty Hall problem?

According to Marilyn vos Savant, if you change the door, you have 2/3 chance of winning and if you keep at your original choice, 1/3.

What you are doing is like if someone were to say "no, it's 1/2 for either" went on to dismiss her for "trash talking Monty Hall" ...

I first actually thought it would be "1/2 either way" but went on, with the assumption the host both knows where the prize is hidden and will not open that door, to check the remaining possibilities and I vindicated Marilyn vos Savant's view.

I chose door A. So far 1/3 it's A.
Host opens B, which is empty (or has a goof prize). Now, zero chance it's B. But, the chance it's A, his opening B was just 1/2. The chance it's C, his opening B after I chose A was 1/1. So, 1/3 it's A, 2/3 it's C.

You refuse to do CSL's "math" and pretend he was trash talking people ... sorry, not the case. That's not a valid excuse.

"From what I understand, people 29:14 have been saying that she was 29:15 homeschooled in, I think, a religious 29:17 conservative environment. Uh, she shows 29:19 that she is not really widely read or 29:21 she shows signs of that anyway. And what 29:24 what she is read in happens to align 29:26 with somebody who maybe produced other 29:28 things but also produced this kind of 29:30 neat, satisfying, conclusion-seeking 29:33 rhetoric."

Is "she" a bad transscript, or did you say "she"? If you meant someone else, I missed that part.

C. S. Lewis was a man.

He was not homeschooled, but spent parts of his education in two or three boarding schools, the latter / last of which he found so unbearable as to (as an Atheist) threaten his father with suicide if he wasn't freed from this school, and thereon he was tutored, by an Atheist, a fan of Frazer, that man being Kirkpatrick.

Oh, wait.**

"where I pretty 0:10 extensively critiqued Hillary Lane's 0:12 thoughts on evil and villainy in 0:14 stories."

My bad. Sorry.

* It was in the pre-Flood era, described by a more truthful work as And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity [Genesis 6:11] ** It's more than two weeks since I saw the beginning of the video. I don't know who Hilary Lane is, but it sounds like it could be same gender as Hilary Clinton, though obviously not same politics. I recalled it so much less because I didn't even comment on it.

Coming to Lunatic, Liar or Lord in the End ... and Breaking Off, as Comments Get Invisible

First third of a video by Mr. Zod against CSL as Apologist · Same Video on CSL as Apologist, Roughly Up to Rest of First Half · Coming to Lunatic, Liar or Lord in the End ... and Breaking Off, as Comments Get Invisible · Lunatic, Liar or Lord ... Resuming · Miracles Chapter III, from Another POV

Same video by Zod.

14:33 Treat one person similar to the other.

Well, that's the thing. IF this is a valid universal obligation, the problem for Christianity or any Theism (what he became Atheist about) is, "why is God" (seemingly) "not taking advantage of omnipotence to get doing that?"

BUT, if it is a valid universal obligation, the problem for Materialist Atheism is, how do atoms in brains come across universal valid obligations?

And before you say "there are exceptions" that's not what I mean by universal valid obligations, these can be conditional and can include room for exceptions.

15:00 The problem isn't, how we do that.

Given we have reason, given we have a reason that applies to obligations and not just facts, it's clearly possible.

The problem is, in a Materialist and Atheist universe, how do we get either a reason or that reason applying to obligations?

What is the ontological status of fairness?

CSL had a point that if it's just a very commonly shared preference among men, like everyone agrees it is at least that, but if it's just that, and that could be explained by evolution, why should someone sacrifice his other preferences, that might be stronger, to this one?

Concretely, one Epstein seems to have thought of it is a commonly shared preference, and he thought of certain other preferences as more interesting to him.

And, no, he was not known to be a Theist and he certainly was known to promote Evolution, among his philanthropic funding, yes, some went to medical expenses for the poor, but some to fund Evolution. CSL saw this coming.

15:39 The problem is, any Materialistic ontology of the straight line reduces the straight line to a preference.

Again, CSL basically predicted Epstein.

And by the way, he doesn't identify the straight line with God, more like God's reflection in each human man, including an Atheist.

So, he would object to Eric Hovind's asking "how does an Atheist know what's right?" as trying to solve two problems at (apparently) "one" question.

What universe we exist in and what universe someone believes in are two different things. In either universe, there are Christians and Atheists. But Atheism doesn't make sense of that.

16:03 "the universe doesn't think"

That's taking Atheism for granted, not just against Christianity, but even against Pantheism.

In a Theistic view, the universe is in the hands of Someone Who Thinks. (In a Pantheistic one, the universe itself and each being in it is that one, CSL has other arguments against Pantheism, but you are still on chapter 4 of Miracles, before that one).

In an Atheistic view, explain "the concept of treating people equally" (even if it's not to your immediate advantage) as anything we are obliged to, whether we like or not.

An Atheist in a Christian Universe can be explained as fair, because God created him such that being unfair would be going against his (better) grain (now some people fall below that, and all do on occasions).

A Christian in an Atheist universe dying as kind of a martyr for fairness, can only be explained as "Darwin award" (slang for "less fit" eliminating themselves), because, on Materialistic views, there is nothing in it in fairness apart from the rewards it can get you from people sharing the preference.

But the problem is, if fairness cannot warrant martyrdom, how much hardship can you take for it before it's a hardship too many?

And another problem, if a fake show of fairness can earn you the same awards, but fairness can't, why not tweak fairness to that circumstance?

To some judges "the victim was black" means less exoneration and "the victim was Nazi" means more such*, but judges are in themselves a testimony to mankind already in some way believing in some kind of fairness. They are a thing distinct from raw power. Now, they do wield more raw power than people who can stand before judges and not pay excellent lawyers. But Epstein was from a family that always could pay excellent lawyers.

How is a man more powerful than lots of courtrooms to be held to fairness? One option is, if he believes in Heaven and Hell. But that option also involves a distinct possibility of him sponsoring Christian preachers to tell the general public of Heaven and Hell, and to discourage belief in for instance "a universe that doesn't think" or "we evolved from beings close to amoebas or at least close to yeast cells" (procaryote and eucaryote ancestry, give or take my accuracy, according to Evolution).

Now, in this context, a certain man called Andrew Carnegie, who died more than 100 years ago, wanted to do business unhampered by certain concepts of fairness (like anti-usury "prejudice" or Sherman act). Guess what he promoted, while donating to universities? Well, Evolution. The idea that our idea of fairness is an evolved preference, and that evolution happens in ways that can change preferences. How do you impose fairness on a transhumanist, in argument?

16:11 "it just lacks justice"

Well, exactly. CSL's fall into Atheism was about a "universe" that "lacks justice" and therefore isn't in the hands of a just creator and ruler.

I don't think CSL's case was unique, even if it wasn't your case.

And I think it is especially prone to happen in people who from Christian (or any Theism with a strong concept of God's justice) go Atheist in years like late preteens or early teens.

Again, where is the sense, in such a universe, that we owe justice in any deeper sense than owning our turn at the beer round in order to keep our friends at the pub?

But that round of beer in the pub only exists, like courtrooms and judges, because a sense of justice is deeply anchored in man.

And exploring that, CSL abandoned Atheism for Hegel's Absolute, Hegel's Absolute for God, and God in a very general sense for the God of Christian Revelation, but that last conversion had another reason, which you'll come to, I hope.

Because, we are not just before the practical problem of maintaining a sense of justice without Christian monarchs, but also of the theoretical one of explaining this fanatic or nearly taste for justice in a being which is known to like being unjust when that gives himself pleasure or advantages prone for future pleasures.

"I can see that as an emotional 16:43 outburst. Uh it does nothing to get you 16:45 toward God."

In the immediate, it got a very young Jack or Clive away from God.

The reason CSL ultimately thought it did is a testimony to his capacity to say "wait a minute, that wasn't quite consistent on my part, was it?"

A Christian expects the universe to be, ultimately fair. An Atheist can explain the Christian expectation as a piece of mythology. But what does he do with the motivation behind the Christian expectation, namely, again, the human taste for justice? Because without it, the mythology wouldn't exist even as wishful thinking, because there would be no such wish.

Again, the universe is not something we observe at close hand, it's something we for the most part deduce. And deduction is about the reasons being valid as such, like valid syllogisms, not just where you observe, but next door behind a wall, and as far away as Sirius or Aldebaran. Reason, like justice, is a thing that man can oppose from passion, but also obey against passions, and both are things the validity of which cannot be simply observed at close hand, because the validity in question is one way beyond observation at close hand.

17:42 "Atheist in any meaningful sense"

He was as much an Atheist as Swinburn and as Percy Byshe Shelley.

He was as much an Atheist as Epicure.

This Atheism has some historic precedence over a combination of Darwin and Russell, which seems more like your teapot.

18:15 "a narrow group of stupid atheists"

May have become narrow after 9/11 and New Atheism being the go to towted over the internet forums and vlogs and blogs perhaps too, but those Atheists were the guys who prepared the road for Darwin. And plenty of the guys who had just accepted Darwin the decades after he published.

"to 18:32 reduce that very rational and meaningful 18:36 form of anger"

When AronRa** promotes abortion, that anger is very far from either rational or meaningful.

It's too bad Secularist Pro-Lifers don't see contraception as the stupidity it is (from one generation to the next or one after that, it's like not paying your round, but hoping others will pay the round when you turn up next weekend), but there are even Atheists who realise abortion is deeply irrational and meaningless. It's wanton destruction, for which there may always be some kind of sentimental motive, as for so many other murders. And like less immediately destructive contraception, it's also stupid.

18:56 Yeah, right ... opposing abortion is "theocratic" ...

On a purely "rational" Atheist view, what's wrong with Theocracy?

Oh, it's theoretically incorrect to believe in God? OK, so a government becomes responsible, not for what it can provide in terms of security for people to enjoy the lives they can form, but to abstract truth ... and on top of that, Atheism is by now (since when?) so blatantly known to be true that the government cannot have an excuse (except stupidity, which is inexcusible in government) to believe otherwise.

I don't see how either of them would flow from an Atheistic world view. I do see how they both flow from modern Atheism being a reaction against and offshot off Christianity, in a passionate rejection of the origin.

19:15 It becomes blatantly obvious to me, that the only Atheists you take seriously yourself are modern Left Leaning Evolution based ones, with a heavy dose of Russell, isn't that your teapot?

CSL was an Atheist at a time when Churchill was an Atheist. At a time when the Victorian court was Atheist. Not in the sense of boycotting the Church of England, but in the sense of believing it was myth and ceremony, with no real doctrine on the universe and no real doctrine of justice to offer.

Get a documentary on how at the Victorian court a certain Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was raised, at the Victorian court. You might like to read up in the complaint by a younger brother of a now Prince of Wales, that younger brother being married to a Meghan. I specifically mean the school years in this case.

Now, recall, the first full blooded intellectual input CSL had of Atheism was a former headmaster of a school in that kingdom, to which Ireland then belonged, not a current one in the US.

And before you think that you are a better Atheist than CSL ever was, how about asking why the UK has so many more Atheists per capita than the US, and why it's the US and not the UK that has Creationist homeschoolers or Pro-Life politicians. How come the late Charlie Kirk is from Chicago and not from Chichester or Glasgow?

No, Atheism as such may be a prerequisite for certain left wing fads today, like abortion, but it has nothing to offer any movement dedicated to Social or Personal Justice as an added inspiration for such goals over an above Christianity. It flourishes in the kind of upper class environment that CSL portrayed as Charn. It doesn't exactly flourish quite as well in rural areas, like Beaversdam.

19:59 No, he absolutely didn't say "Atheists are poorely read" ...

He did say they have to be careful about what they read. There are more than one way to be so.

One is reading certain things not at all. But another is reading them "with dampers" ... being prepared one is going to meet "Christian propaganda" and determined to not be carried off by it (like quite a lot of people read Narnia, if from Atheist backgrounds).

But apart from that, he was unusually well read, and one can be lots less well read and still not poorely read, so, one could make one's way around those books (to which nowadays Seven Chronicles of Narnia also belong) without being poorely read.

It was more of a friendly tip. If you are determined to find Milton's Satan a heroic rebel against a Cosmic tyrant, best way is to not read Paradise Lost. BUT the second best way is to read Paradise Lost after reading loads of Byron or (more recently) Sandemo.***

20:06 Oh, he certainly wasn't saying there was no popular culture or science books to inspire Atheism.

Especially contemporary ones.

He was speaking mainly of older and mainly narrative prose, epics, novels, drama, classic views of things. If you wish people to go on exploring the last issue of Nature, he'd obviously agree that that is pretty safe reading for Atheists.

But you are yourself (judging from a comment near 3:14 on this video) not too keen on allowing your listeners to explore Paradise Lost after CSL's input without yours.

20:49 CSL wasn't saying what you attribute to him.

As I recall ... yes, I went back to 19:50 to check ... it is in Surprised by Joy.

Now, if you had actually read the book, as opposed to just reading the quote out of context, you would be very well aware that CSL was far from saying Atheists have to be illiterate. The next few lines or sentences, which I don't recall in detail, give some indications on what Atheists can safely read.

He had himself examplified in earlier chapters. The Golden Bough is a classic for Atheists. Freud has come to the aid of Frazer. If you are an Atheist, lots of modern pop culture is your friend. Go to Greek and Norse myth with the attitude Atheists inherited from late Protestants that nothing in these stories happened anything like what the story looks like, and those Pagan stories are a great Atheism inspiring perspective on Christianity.

And obviously, it's not just psychology and economics, but also some hard science stuff that will invariably, in modern media not specifically niched for Christians be presented in an Atheist way. Anything like that is obviously safe reading for an Atheist wanting to stay such, and CSL very well knew that and said so. But somehow you seem to agree with him, since you seem to want Atheists to stay clear of CSL, other than, possibly, the author of Narnian Chronicles. And if you read them, you'd obviously be well adviced to get in with lots of feminism (ready to be indignated about the Problem of Susan) and have your Atheist answers ready about points that LWW, PC or SC may raise about Christian faith as belief beyond immediate rational confirmation. It may ruin your pleasure, but ... why would that stop an Atheist from imposing those precautions?

24:33 There is a huge difference between "divine to some extent" in the sense a Hindu could consider himself as (part of) Brahman, and saying "before Abraham was, I AM" in a context of the Hebrew religion, of Second Temple Judaism, which, believe it or not, was not the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza.

I would be as deluded if I accepted to say I was Elijah. I recall a childhood in Vienna with busses and trams, with shirts and trousers. And Christmas celebrations. I do not recall a childhood in a world where you typically wear a tunic reaching to the ankles and a coat about as long with no buttons, but held together around you by the belt ... or you had the belt below it if you wanted the coat closer. Nor do I recall rumours of a city 419 km to the NW where they worshipped Baal and had sacrifices to Moloch, even before importing them to my own country, and that this Tyre 419 km to the NW was at the Mediterranean. No, I would be a "poached egg" case if I pretended to be Elijah.

Same thing is true of a claim of being the God who created and made promises to Abraham. If that's not what you are, you can't reasonably be less than mad for saying it.

25:22 Noting your quote is from Mere Christianity and not from (the second part of) Miracles.

In Miracles, which I anyway recall better, CSL goes into detail on why the Gospels are good biography.

Because, if not, someone in the first C. had discovered the art of modern realistic novel writing.

I'd qualify that, he means inclusion of plot irrelevant and even mood irrelevant matter of fact minor details.

The modern novel also has a length and wordiness of description (usually) that wasn't feasible for papyrus based° writings.

26:08 A little bit deluded or a little bit sleazy are also incompatible with great, but just human, moral teacher.

You know, a version pretty popular at the Victorian court.

[comments of mine started to disappear, so I take a break, but next comment will deal with exorbitant and onesided demands for nuance without providing clear examples of missed such]

* In case you do not catch my drift, that is, on my view, unfair. In peace time, what violence or threat someone showed before being killed should neither be compounded with nor contrasted with either skin colour or "hair colour bald" ** An Anti-Theist with loads of anger, sometimes at least verbally directed against God rather than against Christians. Also, a politician. *** Back in February 6th, two days after the video came out, or the day before even, I posted a comment at 3:14 about Zod's view on the matter, he still hasn't told me who has been saying his stuff between Byron and back to Milton (see First third of a video by Mr. Zod against CSL as Apologist). It can be mentioned, I haven't read Paradise Lost myself. ° And hand written.

Friday, February 20, 2026

Same Video on CSL as Apologist, Roughly Up to Rest of First Half

"Uh the thoughts themselves 11:37 are not true or false just because 11:39 they're made up of atoms. Those atoms 11:41 when they generate thoughts are 11:44 generating thoughts that can maybe 11:46 accurately understand and reflect and 11:48 predict things about the physical 11:50 universe. That's meaningful"

So, where did the atoms get this ability to generate thoughts from?

From their speed? Their direction?

And where did the thoughts that got generated by atoms acquire an ability of accurate understanding?

Because, the point that CSL is making is, atoms being deterministic causes, and atoms being generators of thoughts, these together mean, thoughts are generated deterministically, which is at odds with them being generated in a way giving them freedom to explore sense, or giving them the non-deterministic dirrection of valid logic.

We presuppose reason works whenever we reason.

The problem is, materialism, when analysed in relation to individual human reasons, gives us no reason to believe that reason works.

One could scrap the reasoning (including materialism) or one could just (as CSL does) scrap the materialism.

By 12:02 we have two issues.

"We can 11:52 observe the universe, notice things 11:54 about it, and have thoughts that are 11:56 more or less accurate."

Can we? Especially on a Heliocentric view?

Even as a Geocentric, in order to have the daily motion match my observation that we aren't moving and son, moon and stars are, I have to deduce that there is a part above the stars that doesn't move. Because, without this unmoving container, it would make more sense to say the earth were moving inside the whole.

Because movement is predicated about the thing contained, not about the container.

But you also have to deduce things you do not see, like a Solar system with Earth orbitting the Sun (or a common centre situated outside the centre of but inside the Sun or sometimes just outside it) and Earth turning around itself.

These things are also unobserved in themselves, as much as my Empyrean Heaven.

No, we cannot observe the entire universe, and we can only observe at close hand a very tiny fragment of it.

Logic means, from observations made within that tiny fragment, I can deduce about the unseen outside the observations.

THE UNIVERSE, any universe, Geocentric, Heliocentric, Acentric, BigBangish or whatever, is a piece of abstraction and deduction.

"Um and to say 11:58 that that can't happen because those 12:00 thoughts are being generated by atoms is 12:02 just plain nonsensical."

What isn't nonsensical though is to say this couldn't happen if thoughts were just being generated by atoms.

You do acknowledge a difference between "can't" and "couldn't if", right?*

"This 12:27 is just kind of by the book stuff and 12:29 it's just using word play to get 12:30 yourself to conclusions about God."

No, you are using word play to avoid conclusions about God.

Like equivocating about "can't since" and "couldn't if" or about "atoms generate" and "only atoms generate" ... they kind of sound similar, but have different meanings. You sound as if you had a gotcha on CSL, but you haven't.*

13:35 I think your most honest assessment of CSL's view of his past Atheist self is, he did not reflect very well.

He certainly was an atheist.

But he wasn't one of your type, meaning, presumably, from your pov as an Atheist he didn't reflect very well.

To some of us, including me, he made up for it when coming out of Atheism.

"Just and unjust 14:18 are just words we use to describe 14:20 whether people are being treated fairly, 14:22 to put it roughly."

That's precisely the kind of word analysis he never stooped to as an Atheist.

His reasoning remains valid. As an Atheist he asked if Theism shouldn't mean a God who treats people fairly. As an Ex-Atheist he added, he could not have had an universally valid idea of "fair" from an Atheist universe, or from atoms in his brain.

* Even Chinese makes a distinction. I translated (on Google) the phrases "I can't swim" and "If I hadn't learned, I couldn't swim" and I get: "Wǒ bù huì yóuyǒng." vs "Rúguǒ wǒ méi xuéguò, wǒ jiù bù huì yóuyǒng." In other words, the irrealis conditional is marked by to "I can't swim" / "Wǒ bù huì yóuyǒng" adding at the right place a "jiù", making it "...wǒ jiù bù huì yóuyǒng."

Just don't ask me to pronounce it, please, I don't speak Mandarin Chinese!

Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Could Israel Have Avoided THAT October 7 by Praying the Rosary?

[Please note, despite some subtitling in the video, elsewhere I find the name of the seer of Kerizinen is Jeanne-Louise Ramonet, also what I find in the description.]

Our Lady Reveals How Satan Hides Her Apparitions From the World!
Jerome Chong | 18 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0VEgHRRXak

The first apparition* was 84 years before October 7 2023, and Jeanne Louise lived little more than 84 years.

* It warned of impending war.

And it was actually the second apparition, 14 months after the first.

History of Kerizinen
https://www.kerizinen.com/historique-de-kerizinen?lang=en

Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Setting Records Straight on Ius Primae Noctis and ... Simon Whistler is Less Candid ... on Early Marriages

Could Medieval Lords Really Sleep With Brides on Their Wedding Night?
Fact Quickie | 12 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fubpe_-ip-4

5:19 The Church didn't need to track it.*

If you didn't get the right and didn't wait, you simply had one more sin to confess next confession.

7:15 "Did not commonly get married before the age of 18."**

Did you see Mr. Baker do a video on a certain female lineage (Garsenda of Sabran)?

I checked it out and found*** 22 women in the Middle Ages whose marriages were:

11 at the youngest.
14 as lower quartile.
15.5 or 16 as median.
17 as higher quartile.
26 as the oldest.

I did a few other lineages°, on the female side. 105 women in total, including above.°°

7 or 8 at the youngest (obviously the cohabitation started later)
13 or 14 as lower quartile.
16 or 17 as median.
18 or 20 as higher quartile.
53 as the oldest.

When an "or" is indicated, it's because I've taken into account for each person the highest and lowest ages possible from the sources, like disputed year or date of birth or of wedding can mean the same person can be seen as wed at 15 or 16 or even greater variation, and each list of position values takes into account the high and low values of each.

So, a woman married before 18 was at least in the nobility pretty common. Commoners are so much less documented, I wonder how you do stats on them. Obviously the diocese of Cambridge or whatever during the English Civil War and Cromwell's era cannot be seen as a guaranteed faithful sample for the Middle Ages.

Susmitha Varma
@susmithavarma53: I think this video is talking about the usual age at marriage of commoners. Noblewomen certainly did marry very young.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @susmithavarma53 Now, the thing is, whether noble or commoner there was no such thing as the usual age.

If you take the span of ages between the one 1/4 and 3/4 up in the list of ages, you can get a typical age span, but even so, there are c. 1/4 who married younger than that.

The problem is, either Kim Phillips didn't present or Simon Whistler (or whoever wrote the script) didn't pass on the numbers for the early teens marriages. They were not a majority, but neither were they so among noblewomen.

8:14 I'm noting, Kim Phillips book is in the full title:

Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, 1270-1540.

8:16 I'm noting that he uses the word "the norm" here.

It was obviously allowed to wait a bit longer, and I think a monastic school among nuns would have been better suited to make this endurable while staying chaste than lots of modern high school settings.

The quote on the screen doesn't specify how common or uncommon a marriage around the age of puberty was.

8:36 Ah, OK, "a large portion of the sample married between the ages of 18 and 22"

I could say the same for my 105 woman sample.

The position values 66 to 88 are between 18 and 22

20 20 20 21 21 22 22 22
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Or even between 72 and 94

18 18 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Sorry, 95.°°° That's a large portion.

But I suppose his "large portion" could be sth like between the two quartiles, i e the middle 50 % or so. That would be less misleading.

It can be mentioned, Yorkshire is in the North, with delays of puberty in pre-industrial times, and also somewhat poorish, so delays of economic nature can have intervened. In other words, a similar sample from the Paris region might give a different result.

9:10 Massachusetts 1652 to 1800.

Like Cambridge, that's Calvinist country.+

For ancestors of the Count of Chambord, back to Henry IV and his wife Marie Thérèse of Modena, I got more younger marriages, with nearly no Calvinist ancestry, than for Francis Joseph and Sissi, with herself descending from a 16th C. Calvinist of Palatinate Zwei Brücken.

9:17 Oh, you give 19.5 to 22.5 as mean age.

But that doesn't specify the spread or anywhere near it.

How old was the Lower Quartile of age samples?

Case in point, in the ancestries of Marie Thérèse of Modena and the Count of Chambord, the furthest back generation I went to++ had these ages of women at their first marriage (not always coinciding with the one for the genealogy), here:

13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 21 22 22 23 23 23 24
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 29 35 37 39
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

So, the overall spread is 13 to 39, but the median is 19. The mean would not be too far off.

However, 12 of 72 or 1/6 were married before age 16.

9:35 The average is not a good substitute for the minimum.

If you make "the average" a decent hint at where to put the legal minimum, you cut out all the previous lower half of ages.

Did Kim Phillips really just give the average? That's dishonest.

Now, the lowest 1/6 are certainly not "the norm" but they are a far bigger portion than the lowest 1/100, so can absolutely not be stamped as "abnormal" either.

10:15 No, I don't think early marriages are a recipy for high divorce rates.

Bad preparation is, and Baby Boomers had part of the worst messages in some popular Anti-Fascism or Anti-Nazi propaganda, Feminism, to poison some of their marriages.

Sure, we shouldn't put people into very degrading camps because of their origin, but that doesn't mean that Bund Deutscher Mädel was wrong about the role of women.

* The curate could sell the couple the right to not wait to the third night. ** Female marriages. *** The post Mariages dans la lignée de Garsende de Sabran ° Seven Generations Women, Age at First Marriage, Age at first marriage and at death - a few more °° The total is given in Encore de lignées féminines : l'âge au premier mariage. °°° The font on that blog has shorter space for numbers like 1, so the numbers don't line up properly. They do in the comment section of the youtube video, so I took last portion to verify. 66 was the beginning of a line, and 72 is just 6 items in from that. + I should have mentioned, a study from 1960 or so did use Cambridge or some other clearly Calvinist dominated diocese, in a period involving the Civil War and Cromwell. ++ Encore une génération ou deux ?

First Part of Trent Horn's Video on Zionism in the Light of Catholicism

Can Catholics be Zionists?
The Counsel of Trent | 16 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwnGWVihNQ8

1:21 I went to the wiki* and found this:

"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."

Palestinian "Arabs" descend mainly from 1st C Jews, Samarians and Galileans.

They are Hebrews.

They are the non-Jewish very close cousins of Mitsrahi Jews.

So, Zionism wants to get them away because they don't keep the halakhot ... as if Yuval Noah Harari does, and as if they were after AD 70 the correct sign for an alliance with the God Who promised a Seed as Stars and Grains of Sand. To the common ancestors including his son and grandson.

But the meek shall inherit the land, and shall delight in abundance of peace.
[Psalms 36:11]
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
[Matthew 5:4]

In the years leading up to AD 70, some of the then emerging Jewish confession were proud and opposed Rome.

The Christians were meek and recalled the words of Christ in Matthew 24 and fled to Pella. That's not in South Macedon, near Skydra, it's in Jordan, Al Fahl. After wintering out the Roman incursion and conquering (ecclesiastically, as missionaries) Edom, Moab and Ammon, they went back. Unlike people of the at this point highly Antichristian Jewish confession, they weren't chased by the Romans. So, they inherited the land.

The Muslim Palestinians have some slight percentage from the Arabian Peninsula, but are essentially Christian Palestinians and Mitsrahi Jews more or less willingly or forcefully embracing the religion of the invader, and taking two to three centuries to learn that foreign language.

That's why I'm no longer a Zionist. I was raised one.

1:34 There are no cats in America, and the streets are paved with cheese ...

I had heard of pogroms before then.

A reason why I prefer Wrangel over Denykin is, the latter tolerated (but arguably didn't initiate) pogroms, Wrangel didn't even tolerate them. The French far right has fond memories of Denykin's daughter, by the way, so I try not to be too harsh on that family.

1:48 But the Lord actually did tabernacle on Zion. Bethlehem, Mount of Olives, Golgatha, the Empty Grave, and the OT temple where He was circumcised. Or where at least the offering of purification took place.

The Christian Palestinians know that.

1:52 We know the true fulfilment of these prophecies, don't we?

For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and that which shall be saved out of mount Sion: the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 19:31]

For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a, remnant, and salvation from mount Sion: the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.
[Isaias (Isaiah) 37:32]

And many nations shall come in haste, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob: and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.
[Micheas (Micah) 4:2]

A majority of the then and there Jews apostatised and cried "we have no king but Caesar" (on Zion, where God claimed kingship all over the OT). This makes those in the upper room a remnant (Our Lady and the Twelve among them) and St. Peter did give the word of the Lord to many nations in Acts 2.

3:53 Yeah, Herzl was underwhelmed by God's representative on Earth.

"If Jews come there, we'll have priests ready to baptise them"**

And meanwhile, the Zionist state has persecuted those priests and also persecutes converts. If a Jew converts to Catholicism, and loses his job, are you aware that Catholics are not allowed to offer him a job?

Back in my Zionist childhood, I didn't know Jews were going that far to push back against Christianity.

4:42 In fact, it is the teaching of an OT prophet.

Hosea was told to call his son "lo Ammi" = not my people.

A very good definition of Jews who reject Jesus.

* From the wikipedia article Zionism ** From my memory, which wasn't too bad.

Sunday, February 15, 2026

An own state is not the universal right of every nation, Anti-Zionism is not Hypocrisy or Double Standard

SSPX & Rome Reunion? Catholic Kicked Off Panel; Muslim Mayor Snubs Catholics | CATHOLIC NEWS ROUNDUP
Christine Niles | 13 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grP4mvBFDQE

Ari Berman!

When did you last stand up for the right of Gipsies, Sorbs, Lapps, First Nations, Catalans, Basques (I could probably go on, but these are the cases I know best) to have their own state?

And the right of Palestinians to have their own state?

Carrie Prejean Boller, you rock!

Élites Promote Evolution: a Conspiracy, Not a Theory

A little more than one century ago, the US philanthropist Carnegie funded scientific institutions on condition they promote Evolution. I obviously prefer his Swedish relatives that started the brewery for Carnegie Porter.

Epstein Files REVEALED: Why was he pushing evolution?
LSNTV | 13 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j9U9I25ysY

5:33 One harmonious system.

On the astronomic scale too? With Geocentrism, the answer is yes.

6:29 "first time"

No. Julien Offray de La Mettrie was an Atheist, while Jean Le Rond d'Alembert and Denis Diderot gravitated into that direction.

How come this was possible in the 18th C. while it was clearly absent from the 13th?

Heliocentrism.

12:09 About the frequency of mutations and the time it takes for one to take over an entire population too.

So far, you are underestimating the impossibility of "big picture evolution" (like more radical than pepper moths or hedgehogs diversifying into species and even genera).

You haven't mentioned that some functions require more than one gene.

My favourite example since a few years ago is the retina of ... not sure if it was Astyanax Jordani or some blind cichlid, I think a cave in Mexico was mentioned, indicating as I look up the former, and then blind cichlids (indicating Congo river, other side of the Atlantic) could be a false memory.

Either way, the blind fish in question has ten genes for retina development. Two of them are damaged with a mutation or two. When coupled with relatives of non-blind populations, the hybrid isn't blind, the mutations are recessive.

So, ten genes, and getting only two things wrong on two of them is enough to make the retina non-functional.

However, this cannot be what St. Paul talked about, since genes and these blind fish have not been studied since the beginning of creation. Day and night, summer and winter, new moon and full moon have.

14:21 This case is not from biology, but from linguistics.

Human language functions on certain bases.

The logical bases involve:

concepts can be named for themselves, not just as part of a pragmatic signal ("food" doesn't mean "let's eat" and "lion" doesn't mean "lion danger, lets climb the trees")
they can be named in different types of absence : past, future, hidden, far, negated, conditional.

But the thing that makes this possible is:

sentences are broken down into concept signals, known technically as morphemes (usually words, but also endings, prefixes and a few more), neither or none of which denotes a complete sentence ("let us eat some food" has five parts, and none of them gives the pragmatic signal by itself)
morphemes are broken down into non-signals that only code for difference ("eat" and "ease" differ by T from Z sounds, neither of which has any meaning).

The corresponding things in "monkey talk" are:

usually one signal per "concept"
and that signal either one sound or a regular back and forth, but not a direction specific sequence of different sounds
usually only pragmatic and emotic "concepts" ("I'm worried you look sad" or "lion danger, let's climb the trees" are two concepts, while "sad" and "trees" aren't)

These are linked. With very limited capacity to differentiate signals, you don't have the room for discussions about interesting topics, you just have the room for pragmatics and emotics, the equivalent of languages entirely in traffic signs and emoticons, no rebus involved.

So, how would the latter change into the former? Increasing vocabulary by subdividing such concepts by sound sequences would be pointless, if each "word" is an entire signal and learning one means to learn how to respond to yet another type situation. But increasing sentences by subdivision into theoretic concepts, into topics, would be impossible if the "vocabulary" remained as limited.

Even more.

chimpanzees cannot hear consonants (outer ear too thick)
chimpanzees cannot pronounce pure vowels (hyoid tied to air bags for distortion and amplification)
chimpanzees, by absence of Broca's and Wernicke's areas and a human version of the FOXP-2 gene cannot learn vocabulary, properly. Or vocabulary and sentence structure.

In the pretended line from "Ramapithecus" (ancestral to chimps and men, according to evolution) to us, there are only three categories of skeleta:

all of above traits (when found) human (even if Homo erectus had somewhat thicker ears, and might not have heard T, but could have heard CH or K, which are less shrill)
none of above traits (when found) human (Australopithecus, for instance)
the skull is too damaged to tell.

14:33 Darwin neither knew the genes of a retina, nor the working of human language.

16:20 I second Franklin M. Harold, adding Human language and cosmic Geocentrism to it.

Friday, February 13, 2026

Refuges for Christians, Seven Countries

7 Countries Giving Christians FREE Residency (Russia Will SHOCK You!)
Global Sightlines | 10 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7MMKL5R1yU

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

On Apologists and Our Duties

THE ISSUE WITH CATHOLIC INFLUENCERS - A Vlog
Amber Rose | 9 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkaSIP3BHFc

OK, holding controversial opinions, is that also a sin?*

I suppose Our Lord was pretty controversial twice over in the temple.

4:59 Some converts have to get into Apologetics instantly, as per school or family.

I was, when arriving at SSHL for ninth grade, a basically Evangelical Apoologist. When I left after twelfth grade, I was a Catholic one.

With some school mates, minutes of apologetics was the most peaceful interaction we had.

I was only received after leaving High School, since I graduated in 1987 and was received in 1988.

Now, this kind of thing can happen online. I think Sips with Serra and the Jewish Catholic are in this kind of position.

And in fact, well before the internet existed, a certain Chesterton who was already doing apologetics was received in, I think, 1922. Writing was his career, he couldn't just stop and he had to explain why he left the Anglican communion. In 1922, he denounced Eugenics, before Pope Pius XI did so in Casti connubii. In 1923, he wrote a booklet on St. Francis of Assisi, and in 1925 he wrote Everlasting Man.

Another case like that was a certain John Henry, future Cardinal, Newman. However, in his case, he was given the explicit order to write before getting instruction. One often forgets that Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is what reflects the Anglican deciding to become Catholic, while that was fresh in his memory, not the Catholic case as it would be presented by a well instructed Catholic.

"I 5:38 mean, it does, but you're not like 5:40 authoritatively trying to speak on the 5:42 church. You know what I mean?"

The exact same thing is true about Apologetics.**

Trent Horn would be in a very great pickle if his pretence that Cardinal Baronius had said "the Bible doesn't teach us how the Heavens go" in the connection of the Galileo affair had been made authoritatively on behalf of the Church.

Cardinal Baronius had died before the Galileo affair, Galileo made the quote but didn't say what highly placed Church man, it's dubious if Galileo had even met Baronius, and I think the earliest person to pin it down to Baronius (a good apologist against Protestants and a holy disciple of St. Philip Neri) was in the 19th C. Perhaps the Anfossi affair.

[end] As you multiple times referenced "the Catechism", can I hope it's that of St. Pius X, or Baltimore?

Or the one of the Council of Trent?

* She mentioned rage bait is. ** They are also not speaking authoritatively.

Other possible criticism of me. I supposedly get my information from Social Media, which is getting clicks by feeding me what I believe. Basically what Ali-Marie Ingram is saying:

@alimariehere
STOP 👏🏼 WORSHIPPING 👏🏼 YOUR 👏🏼 ALGORITHM 👏🏼 #reality #truth #fyp
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G4guBbDvnhY

The problem with this approach is, for one, if I click a wiki article, I get the article there is, not the one the algorithm "thinks" I want to click, and for another, the algorithm cannot tell what I am going to believe and what I am going to contradict. I click Gavin Ortlund a lot because I disagree with him. I click Gavin Ashenden a lot because I agree with him. The algorithm cannot tell. And therefore you cannot tell simply from the time I spend on social media whether I get my information from trustworthy sources or not. But those who are most eager to pretend I get it from untrustworthy ones, usually what they complain about isn't my basic info, but the conclusions I arrive at from it, going beyond what my sources were clearly and openly saying. There is a difference between seeing the census of US population per age and gender in 1977 and in 2025, which anyone can do, and making the conclusion that those wanting to mentor someone have increased in comparison to a decrease in those possibly needing a mentor to mentor them, which is what I concluded.

Like lots of people who'd like to mentor me on items of the internet and what I'm doing there, who are so old they cannot tell the difference between a post I naively trusted and a post I cunningly made. Even if I'm well above mentoree age, but some crooks want just any excuse to treat a man of 57 as if he were 17.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages