« first day (1169 days earlier)      last day (3439 days later) » 

Dan
Dan
3:03 AM
@Davïd ;)
 
 
8 hours later…
Davïd
Davïd
10:54 AM
@Caleb @Dan @Susan (Apologies for the multi-ping!) I saw somewhere that the "help" "tour" etc. links have shortforms, but can't find that again now. (Esp. for comments to new users.) Can you confirm and link? or correct my mistaken impression? Thanks!
 
 
1 hour later…
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
11:55 AM
11
A: Time to fork Markdown?

Jack Douglas@David's post mentions Standard Markdown Common Markdown CommonMark, which is an incredibly welcome development - apparently my "It's not happening" was wrong: it was happening on the quiet! All I want to add is that I think this is the correct way to go about it: the horse before the cart. If w...

@Davïd ^^^ is fyi
I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks this is going off-track
 
Davïd
Davïd
12:22 PM
@JackDouglas I haven't been following the discussion (well, hardly at all). Got any examples? It would be a shame if it was losing its way. I thought it was meant "simply" to clarify "canonical" Markdown, and then think about how most sensibly to extend. But you sound worried... :(
^^^ I didn't think it would lead to that ... but is it? (And I thought xkcd could be hot-linked in chat, like Amazon, Yt, etc.?)
 
 
4 hours later…
Susan
Susan
4:12 PM
@Davïd These? Not sure if the long or the short form is counted toward the character count, though.
Wow, this is excellent. I had no idea these existed. Thanks!
 
Susan
Susan
4:29 PM
@Davïd ^^ I just dropped the s and the one-box worked. (Please note: I have no idea what any of this even means or why it might work one way or the other. I just searched meta and tried it.)
 
Davïd
Davïd
4:41 PM
@Susan Brilliant! Thanks, Susan. I knew they were out there somewhere, although I didn't realize there was quite such a full (and helpful!) set. Will bookmark, and hope I can remember where I bookmarked...
...which feels like a variation on a "tweet" I saw today: "In a late night stupor I apparently added "make to-do list" to my to-do list." Just so.
@Susan Ah right! And thanks again. I think I ran into that once before. But in my early morning stupor, etc.
And just in case anyone is interested . . .
^^^ For anyone interested in patristics (I'm looking at you, @Dan) - this came highly recommended from someone whose judgement I trust. I've just grabbed a library copy, and it does indeed look excellent. Recommended for anyone looking for a thoughtful read over the festive season!
 
 
4 hours later…
Davïd
Davïd
8:31 PM
@Davïd isn't it obvious that "we" refers to Christians? — Jack Douglas 2 hours ago
@JackDouglas - pretty much, yes. Of course I have this in mind:
2
A: Feel free to describe the meaning of the text, but please don't prescribe it to your readers

DanIt is undesirable to speak prescriptively about the text in such a way that it implies norms that are expressed as binding on readers. The OP can make the exact same points using first person singular language to make it clear that s/he is talking about him/herself without imposing beliefs upon t...

I see we're sharing hats today -- like we're on the same team. :) Which we are. :))
@Davïd That appears to be the implicit assumption, anyway. The problem being that "we" (as BH.SE) aren't a Christian site, and that sort of language remains problematic. (Not saying anything you haven't heard dozens, hundreds of times before!)
 
 
2 hours later…
Paul Vargas
Paul Vargas
10:44 PM
@Davïd What do you think about this season? :)
 
Davïd
Davïd
@JackDouglas While we're at it :) in this revision you wrote in your commit message: "...because it's easy for me to get ESV in markdown form...". Do you have that automated? an app??
@PaulVargas Hi Paul - not sure what you mean . . .? "Think" about it? Here, it's mostly cold, damp, dark, grey, windy. =/ But that's possibly not what you mean!
@PaulVargas I like your hat, btw. That's one I won't be getting!
 
Paul Vargas
Paul Vargas
@Davïd Humm... It's just curiosity. You said things like silly things, jollity and confusion, thoughtful read... :)
 
Davïd
Davïd
11:10 PM
@PaulVargas That kind of sums it up! :) But also, for me, this too. ;)
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd Well, it could just be referring to the reader. I did that here and nobody gave me a hard time. (Ug, that question needs a re-write.) The last sentence does make it clear this one is meant to be about modern application, though. For the record, I think it's off topic and should be closed, but hopefully by vote.
 
Davïd
Davïd
@Susan Yes, I agree - that's why I left a little wiggle room: "hard to know" in comment; "pretty much" and "appears to be" to Jack here. Cagey....
There's a few votes yet to go, though.
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd There may be another mod willing to step in. :-)
 
Davïd
Davïd
@Susan In the Matthew 27:46 question, also, it's clear that "we" is "readers of this particular Greek text". Clear to me, anyway.
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd I remember being irritated when I realized I would have to write a title for that one, and I think it shows. I don't have a better idea at the moment, though.
The recent one I think actually could have gone that way until the last sentence. Actually, maybe because it also refers to "our enemies" that's necessarily about personal application.
 
Davïd
Davïd
11:22 PM
Ha, yes, the small matter of a title! Could have been simply: "Psalm 22:2 in its Greek and Aramaic forms" ... or something =/
@Susan The tone of the whole question strikes me as gauging the normative demands of the text on "us", but that kind of "us" isn't really BH.SE, it seems.
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing the viewpoint of those who have reviewed it and decided not to VTC.
@Davïd By the way, that salting infants answer was fascinating. The Galen quote got me laughing.
 
Davïd
Davïd
@Susan I have acted in accordance with this wisdom - my new guide.
@Susan Glad you enjoyed it. :) I wondered if the pediatrics article would catch your eye!
It's quite dated, and might be equally amusing.
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd Oddly, I wasn't able to access the full text of that one. That's actually a medical journal, and I guess "they" (my library's wizards?) figure too old to be relevant. Not archived freely by the journal either.
 
Susan
Susan
11:41 PM
@Davïd This is the most interesting paper I've run across along the lines of "old medical journals talk about the bible." Like the other, would never even be considered for publication today. (Also like the other not freely available from the journal, but that one is reprinted all over the place.)
 
Davïd
Davïd
@Susan And our access starts at 1965 (that article was '63). Oh well!
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd Better than mine - 1999!
 
Davïd
Davïd
@Susan Remarkable! There's a small industry on Job's ailments, too, I believe.
JAMA = Journal of the American Medical Association?
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd Yeah. The AMA is known for its....biases....but something like that is really incredible to me. People would've thrown a fit were it published today. (Well, there was a small fit apparently thrown in 1986, but it would've been much worse more recently.)
 
Davïd
Davïd
11:56 PM
@Susan Twenty(one?) replies?! It seems to have touched a nerve....
@Susan I see one from a bona fide NT scholar, too: Paula Fredriksen.
 
Susan
Susan
@Davïd Yeah, I can't sign in. ;-)
 

« first day (1169 days earlier)      last day (3439 days later) »