jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:49 am Eeek... Orsen Wells and George Orwell.... the same person? No wonder they were never in the sam place at the same time.

Sorry my mistake, it was George Orwell. Thank you for being so polite with your challenge.

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:09 pm Sorry my mistake, it was George Orwell. Thank you for being so polite with your challenge.

Well, that was not the only one, Mac, it is easy to get names crossed with end of the world genre. There was Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Soylent Green, a screenplay based upon "Make Room! Make Room!" by Harry Harrison, "Planet of the Apes" by Pierre Boulle, and just to name 3 more the list is seemingly never ending.

...all so much BULLSHIT...

Of course, 2012 has GREAT special effects, but who really wants to see it happen for real?

Deep Impact was a pretty good flick, lots of people interest and stories.

We have went in science from "calamities NEVER happen" insisted upon by the gradualists to the "...if it does happen it is so terrible that humanity almost goes extinct" over-stating of the effects of calamity by the calamitists.

I suspect that there have been disasters such as the type that encased Wolley Mammoths (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/mammoth.asp) in ice with stomach contents intact, they seemed to have frozen that quickly.

So I suspect that calamity is not always an extinction-level event but may indeed be spread world-wide.

So - were Orsen and H.G. or George involved in plural marriage?

DeaconBlues (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:58 pm Well, that interesting, but not important. What IS important, it that all's well that ends well, and all did in well when H.G. Wells used his ink well.

Well, that's all I have to say... ahem...

H. G. Wells middle name was George, Orson Welles first name was George, and George Orwell's name wasn't George. What does the Mayan calendar say about that?

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:23 pm H. G. Wells middle name was George, Orson Welles first name was George, and George Orwell's name wasn't George. What does the Mayan calendar say about that?

It says it's time to get a new calendar.

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:06 pm It says it's time to get a new calendar.

December 2012 came.

Asteroid is approaching earth and then starts falling on it.

Chaos, panic, disorder: It is the end of the world by Mayan calendar.

And then asteroid fell on the original stone calendar.

Waves of dust and then shockwave....

And when the dust cloud dissipated, on the shards of the old calendar, new one was standing, good to the year 32118. Close to it was a smaller stone, with this inscription:

"Next calendar would be sent to your planet at the day of the end of the current one. Thank you for using our stone calendars"

I translated this from the joke from some russian site.

fhunter wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:39 pm December 2012 came.

Asteroid is approaching earth and then starts falling on it.

Chaos, panic, disorder: It is the end of the world by Mayan calendar.

And then asteroid fell on the original stone calendar.

Waves of dust and then shockwave....

And when the dust cloud dissipated, on the shards of the old calendar, new one was standing, good to the year 32118. Close to it was a smaller stone, with this inscription:

"Next calendar would be sent to your planet at the day of the end of the current one. Thank you for using our stone calendars"

I translated this from the joke from some russian site.

My biggest fear is that a lot of people will read that translation as more evidence of impending DOOM

I observe that almost all of the comments on this subject seem to start with the presumption that polygamy is the only form of plural marriage, but there have been cases of polyandry (multiple husband marriages). In the mountain areas of Nepal, it was a common enough practice but is all but non-existent today I am told. There is a short film clip on the subject on youtube (National Geographic, "Polyandry in Nepal").

Anyway, when I first heard of polyandry, I was averse to the idea, like most men would be. But after I though about it for a while, I could see a lot of very real advantages, and invite others here to consider....

IF, a family had one wife, and two or more husbands...

It is entirely possible that the husbands would be the typical dead-beat trash types that we see too much of these days, but IF the two or more husbands were NOT dead-beats but reasonably decent men, with jobs, who worked well together and such. Well the possibilities seem very appealing to me.

One woman can easily meet the sexual needs of MANY men, as any successful prostitute can demonstrate. A wife needs to do more than merely meet sexual needs but still, I do believe one wife could keep two or more cooperating husbands quite happy in one home. Provided the husbands are good friends, I do believe such a relationship could be very workable and long term.

From my own standpoint, the most appealing thing would be that my wife would have to divide her nagging activities to other men, thereby reducing my total nag-loading quotient.

IF, there were another man who made similar or greater income to myself, I could share expenses that would only slightly increase by having another man in the home. I could tolerate that so long as he was a reasonably decent fellow that I could work with.

As for children, there might be jealousy and humiliation issues, but families in Nepal seemed to handle those issues well.

The reasons NOT to live in a polyandrous marriage are there, the biggest being the societal rejection, being scorned and ostracized and all that. But were in not for the societal rejection, I do think I would consider it.

Who else here could live in a polyandrous marriage? Not that I am looking for a co-husband here (that would never happen with my wife), I just want to know what others here feel on the idea.

If memory serves, I am old you know, not as old as MacWolf, he is a couple melina older then I am but if memory serves Heinlein wrote a book called "Friday" and it talked about a line marriage. Several husbands and wives of different ages, the oldest couple were the head of the family and about every 10 years down in age was another couple, like a corporation it never dies and you had the option to opt out. kids were raised by all. Interesting concept, however one wife was in my case one to many, the only good thing that came out of it was 3 of my 4 sons.

River

DeaconBlues (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:07 am I observe that almost all of the comments on this subject seem to start with the presumption that polygamy is the only form of plural marriage, but there have been cases of polyandry (multiple husband marriages). In the mountain areas of Nepal, it was a common enough practice but is all but non-existent today I am told. There is a short film clip on the subject on youtube (National Geographic, "Polyandry in Nepal").

Anyway, when I first heard of polyandry, I was averse to the idea, like most men would be. But after I though about it for a while, I could see a lot of very real advantages, and invite others here to consider....

IF, a family had one wife, and two or more husbands...

It is entirely possible that the husbands would be the typical dead-beat trash types that we see too much of these days, but IF the two or more husbands were NOT dead-beats but reasonably decent men, with jobs, who worked well together and such. Well the possibilities seem very appealing to me.

One woman can easily meet the sexual needs of MANY men, as any successful prostitute can demonstrate. A wife needs to do more than merely meet sexual needs but still, I do believe one wife could keep two or more cooperating husbands quite happy in one home. Provided the husbands are good friends, I do believe such a relationship could be very workable and long term....

(...not to be RUDE, but... ya-da, ya-da, ya-da... and then finally...)

...

DeaconBlues (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:07 am Who else here could live in a polyandrous marriage? Not that I am looking for a co-husband here (that would never happen with my wife), I just want to know what others here feel on the idea.

So, there was this woman, and she had 1/2 dozen or sons, (but who was counting...) each by a different man.

But the HELL of it was, moi, she named EACH SON GEORGE...

So the census taker came to her house one day... in the hills of Tennessee... :-\

After the standard questions, when the inevitable question came up as to how many children she had, she of course had to tell the census taker that she had six sons... Then, the next question from the census taker came...

"What are their names?"

"Well, They are all named GEORGE...", came the reply...

"WHAT?!??? Why DID you name them ALL George?"

"Well, saves lots of time. When I want them to come home, I go out side and holler GEORGE, time to come home and they all come running...

...and when I want them for supper, I holler, GEORGE! Suppertime... and they all come..."

"Well", says the Census Taker... "What if you only want to talk to ONE of them?"

The old lady just laughs and exclaims... "Why, that is EASY..."

"Then I call them by their LAST NAME..."

...so there you have it, moi, the ABSOLUTE BEST reason for having more than one husband...