labels

[Dan T 8]

You must have known that I meant the real (original) Celtic druids who had established sacred groves in Anglesey.

The druids weren't vicious. They had a good relationship with nature and their people. However, out of desperation and extreme stress stirred by Roman occupation, they resorted to human sacrifice and cannibalism which weren't really like them. That was what I wanted to hear from you.

Uki, bro, I will not continue. I don't want to make my Maundy Thursday dark. Besides, I don't enjoy swimming in the murky waters of politics and religion. If you make a lighter and fun thread, we could meet again.

i never make assumptions about peoples breadth or depth of knowledge I usually grossly over estimate. and im just a dark and murky kinda guy, sorry bout that now

[Dan T 8]

come on i know im not the only one who lives in dark and murky here. this isnt really the foofy bunny philosophical thread it started as

You must have known that I meant the real (original) Celtic druids who had established sacred groves in Anglesey.

and in case anyone wants to get into this with me i must clarify the difference between celtic and gaelic. i am more well versed with the gaelic subset of celts than the celts of brittain

[Darnell 8,478]

sorry over my head just a bit

sorry - that's mostly the example I'd use to show how labels change over time, for the 'same word'.

Another example -

A Republican label TODAY, is not the same meaning 250 years ago, 1000 years ago, 1800 years ago.

then there are connotations that are associated with the label, as well, depending on the observer and the position of the observer.

You can make empirical sets of data on each word that you listed in this post, going back over time. This type of thing used to interest me, much - I remember a small thesis topic about it that I posited to a group of students, over 2 semesters, as well.

Sorry, I'm out, also. Good Luck !

[Dan T 8]

sorry - that's mostly the example I'd use to show how labels change over time, for the 'same word'.

Another example -

A Republican label TODAY, is not the same meaning 250 years ago, 1000 years ago, 1800 years ago.

then there are connotations that are associated with the label, as well, depending on the observer and the position of the observer.

You can make empirical sets of data on each word that you listed in this post, going back over time. This type of thing used to interest me, much - I remember a small thesis topic about it that I posited to a group of students, over 2 semesters, as well.

Sorry, I'm out, also. Good Luck !

well clearly a Thomas Jefferson Republican is different than say a Michael Steele and an Irish Republican has an entirely different meaning all together. Also makes you wonder if it is useful for people to organize into political parties at all. It was my understanding that the election system in this country was originally intended to discourage parties from forming. It seems that when power shifts from one party to the other it is because we want to eject the people in office, not because we really have a fondness for the guy running against him. I truely believe that barak obama mostly almost wholely because mccain was too bush similar. you might list other reasons like bho's charisma but it had very little to do with his qualifications or appreciation for how our government is supposed to work. As much as I hate the guy I want to avoid turning this into a bho bashing/analysis/praise thread also. im just holding him up as an example of how labels can be used to oversimplify things sometimes.