Discussion:
300
(too old to reply)
Peter J Ross
2007-03-28 02:05:08 UTC
Permalink
A long time ago, when I had no grey hairs, my Greek teacher introduced
me to the writings of Herodotus and his story of how King Leonidas and
his 300 Spartans died in order to delay the destruction of Greek
civilisation by the Persian barbarians. Leonidas is still my Number
One hero, and Herodotus is still my Number One historian, but I'm
wondering:

Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?

Is there still a place for heroism? If King Xerxes said to you "My
army's arrows are so numerous that they blot out the sun" would you
reply "Good, thus we can fight you in the shade"?

Are there still men willing to fight as Leonidas did, and if so, where
is the enemy against whom we can stand and die?

These random thoughts are prompted by the release of a movie that's
probably a travesty: <http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/>
--
PJR :-)
Mark Borgerson
2007-03-28 14:52:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@pjr.gotdns.org>, ***@example.invalid
says...
Post by Peter J Ross
A long time ago, when I had no grey hairs, my Greek teacher introduced
me to the writings of Herodotus and his story of how King Leonidas and
his 300 Spartans died in order to delay the destruction of Greek
civilisation by the Persian barbarians. Leonidas is still my Number
One hero, and Herodotus is still my Number One historian, but I'm
Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?
Is there still a place for heroism? If King Xerxes said to you "My
army's arrows are so numerous that they blot out the sun" would you
reply "Good, thus we can fight you in the shade"?
Are there still men willing to fight as Leonidas did, and if so, where
is the enemy against whom we can stand and die?
These random thoughts are prompted by the release of a movie that's
probably a travesty: <http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/>
Have you see the movie? I went to see it with my son and a friend
of his. (I had to go because he is only 16, and R-Rated movies
require and adult with kids under 18). I actually liked the
movie, but there were significant departures from the history
of the battle of Marathon. It is very stylized---the Spartans
fight in leather jock straps and have no body armor. Xerxes
looks about 7 feet tall with more piercings than you would
find in a heavy metal band and their top ten groupies.

The movie does hold true to the idea of sacrifice and fighting
to the end for the rights of free men. (But neglects to mention
that the Spartans had their gear carried to the battle site
by their slaves.)

Mark Borgerson
Peter J Ross
2007-03-30 17:24:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 06:52:28 -0800, Mark Borgerson
Post by Mark Borgerson
says...
Post by Peter J Ross
A long time ago, when I had no grey hairs, my Greek teacher introduced
me to the writings of Herodotus and his story of how King Leonidas and
his 300 Spartans died in order to delay the destruction of Greek
civilisation by the Persian barbarians. Leonidas is still my Number
One hero, and Herodotus is still my Number One historian, but I'm
Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?
Is there still a place for heroism? If King Xerxes said to you "My
army's arrows are so numerous that they blot out the sun" would you
reply "Good, thus we can fight you in the shade"?
Are there still men willing to fight as Leonidas did, and if so, where
is the enemy against whom we can stand and die?
These random thoughts are prompted by the release of a movie that's
probably a travesty: <http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/>
Have you see the movie?
No, hence my "probably". What I've read about it seemed unpromising.
Post by Mark Borgerson
I went to see it with my son and a friend
of his. (I had to go because he is only 16, and R-Rated movies
require and adult with kids under 18). I actually liked the
movie, but there were significant departures from the history
of the battle of Marathon.
s/Marathon/Thermopylae/ ... unless a *very* significant departure from
history is involved!
Post by Mark Borgerson
It is very stylized---the Spartans
fight in leather jock straps and have no body armor. Xerxes
looks about 7 feet tall with more piercings than you would
find in a heavy metal band and their top ten groupies.
Oh dear. Hoplites certainly wore the heaviest armour available. I
don't know anything about ancient Persian piercings.

The Persians were certainly noted for being tall, but 7 feet is
pushing it.
Post by Mark Borgerson
The movie does hold true to the idea of sacrifice and fighting
to the end for the rights of free men. (But neglects to mention
that the Spartans had their gear carried to the battle site
by their slaves.)
Helots, not slaves. The distinction would have been important at the
time, though it wouldn't have been a lot of fun to be either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots
--
PJR :-)
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-03-28 22:44:09 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Mar 2007 02:05:08 GMT, Peter J Ross wrote:

[...]
Post by Peter J Ross
Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?
[...]

One thing that I took away from Viktor Frankl's _Man's Search for Meaning_
(this was from the days when "man" was an acceptle term to refer to
humanity in general) was how important it is for people to have a sense of
meaning. This often comes from believing in something greater than
oneself. Thus life is most worth living for those who believe in something
for which they will give their lives. I think that is as true now as in
the time of Herodotus.
--
Jayne
Rob
2007-03-29 08:49:47 UTC
Permalink
[...]> Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
Post by Peter J Ross
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?
[...]
One thing that I took away from Viktor Frankl's _Man's Search for Meaning_
(this was from the days when "man" was an acceptle term to refer to
humanity in general) was how important it is for people to have a sense of
meaning. This often comes from believing in something greater than
oneself. Thus life is most worth living for those who believe in something
for which they will give their lives. I think that is as true now as in
the time of Herodotus.
For thousands of years faith has been a more successful social
strategy than evidential truth. That may have changed in the last
century.

Eventually a life's meaning based on evidential truth is likely to be
more successful than a faith based meaning as it allows a closer
relationship with reality. Such enlightenment is unlikely to be found,
though, while historic faiths predominate - unless one of them happens
to be right of course (which, bearing in mind their variety and
antiquity, seems pretty unlikely).

The sanctity of the individual is a prerequisite for the western
concept of the hero. I can imagine a much more collective, less
individualistic, society based on evidential truth succeeding in
competition with faith based societies. Overcoming the pain of death
would probably be an essential part of this.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-04-01 21:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
[...]> Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
Post by Peter J Ross
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?
[...]
One thing that I took away from Viktor Frankl's _Man's Search for Meaning_
(this was from the days when "man" was an acceptle term to refer to
humanity in general) was how important it is for people to have a sense of
meaning. This often comes from believing in something greater than
oneself. Thus life is most worth living for those who believe in something
for which they will give their lives. I think that is as true now as in
the time of Herodotus.
For thousands of years faith has been a more successful social
strategy than evidential truth. That may have changed in the last
century.
Eventually a life's meaning based on evidential truth is likely to be
more successful than a faith based meaning as it allows a closer
relationship with reality. Such enlightenment is unlikely to be found,
though, while historic faiths predominate - unless one of them happens
to be right of course (which, bearing in mind their variety and
antiquity, seems pretty unlikely).
While there may be evidence that one's family, one's country or humanity
exist, I do not see how there could be evidence that any of these things
are a basis for one's life's meaning. People's decision that a given value
is worth living and dying for comes from the heart not from evidence.
Post by Rob
The sanctity of the individual is a prerequisite for the western
concept of the hero. I can imagine a much more collective, less
individualistic, society based on evidential truth succeeding in
competition with faith based societies. Overcoming the pain of death
would probably be an essential part of this.
You seem to assume that evidence is the best way to discover the truth.
Even if you had evidence to support this assumption, that would be a
circular argument. You are making an epistemological assumption just as
much as those of religious faith are.
--
Jayne
Viking
2007-04-03 14:20:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:53:44 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You seem to assume that evidence is the best way to discover the truth.
Even if you had evidence to support this assumption, that would be a
circular argument. You are making an epistemological assumption just as
much as those of religious faith are.
Well now *here's* an interesting thread. Jayne: have you considered
that the "evidential truth" that is to be discovered is that one need
not have a meaning framework at all--that in the absence of such a
framework, there is no need for it? That is to say, seeking ultimate
"evidential truth" might mean simply removing the layers of
psychological construction we've imposed on the world? And that in the
absence of any such imposed layers of meaning, there need not be any
need for them at all? That without those layers one is so much a part
of the world that there is no need to relate oneself to it through an
imposed framework of meaning?

Anyway, an interesting thread. Let me know if you understood anything
I've said....
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-04-03 21:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:53:44 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You seem to assume that evidence is the best way to discover the truth.
Even if you had evidence to support this assumption, that would be a
circular argument. You are making an epistemological assumption just as
much as those of religious faith are.
Well now *here's* an interesting thread. Jayne: have you considered
that the "evidential truth" that is to be discovered is that one need
not have a meaning framework at all--that in the absence of such a
framework, there is no need for it? That is to say, seeking ultimate
"evidential truth" might mean simply removing the layers of
psychological construction we've imposed on the world? And that in the
absence of any such imposed layers of meaning, there need not be any
need for them at all? That without those layers one is so much a part
of the world that there is no need to relate oneself to it through an
imposed framework of meaning?
Anyway, an interesting thread. Let me know if you understood anything
I've said....
I think I've understood what you said, although I find it hard to imagine
how a person could relate to the world without a framework of meaning.
You, for example, seem to believe that feminism is bad and it is something
that men ought to oppose. How is it possible to believe this without a
framework of meaning?

In my world view (basically Christian Humanist, along the lines of Erasmus)
I can say that people ought to oppose feminism because it leads to men
being treated unjustly and to people being unhappy. I have "imposed layers
of meaning" such that I have values like "justice is good"; "causing
long-term widespread unhappiness is bad"; and "people ought to support the
good and oppose the bad". I weigh my observations against my values, come
to conclusions about things, make decisions and choose courses of action.

How would a person with no framework of meaning making any decisions or
judgements? Is his life just a series of random interactions?
--
Jayne
Viking
2007-04-05 03:27:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:18:06 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Well now *here's* an interesting thread. Jayne: have you considered
that the "evidential truth" that is to be discovered is that one need
not have a meaning framework at all--that in the absence of such a
framework, there is no need for it? That is to say, seeking ultimate
"evidential truth" might mean simply removing the layers of
psychological construction we've imposed on the world? And that in the
absence of any such imposed layers of meaning, there need not be any
need for them at all? That without those layers one is so much a part
of the world that there is no need to relate oneself to it through an
imposed framework of meaning?
Anyway, an interesting thread. Let me know if you understood anything
I've said....
I think I've understood what you said, although I find it hard to imagine
how a person could relate to the world without a framework of meaning.
You, for example, seem to believe that feminism is bad and it is something
that men ought to oppose. How is it possible to believe this without a
framework of meaning?
In my world view (basically Christian Humanist, along the lines of Erasmus)
I can say that people ought to oppose feminism because it leads to men
being treated unjustly and to people being unhappy. I have "imposed layers
of meaning" such that I have values like "justice is good"; "causing
long-term widespread unhappiness is bad"; and "people ought to support the
good and oppose the bad". I weigh my observations against my values, come
to conclusions about things, make decisions and choose courses of action.
How would a person with no framework of meaning making any decisions or
judgements? Is his life just a series of random interactions?
A fine question, Jayne. When one has thrown off the layers of meaning
that one usually imposes on the world, one is no longer compelled by
hidden mental forces, as most people are. There's no unconscious mind
operating, compelling one to live a life pushed in various directions
for reasons that you have no clue about. That's the way most people
operate--mentally imposing layers of meaning and then struggling with
their mental creation all their life, believing it real.

When one throws off those imposed layers of meaning, you see that you
are as much a part of the world as anything is--that when you act, the
world is acting. In other words, you are free, and as much a part of
the world as anything is.

This gives you the ability to consciously decide your life, without
hidden compulsions. You take control, you are the world. You can
decide for yourself, much as an artist makes a creation. That's how I
look at life--making my own conscious decisions, creating, acting as
an artist.

Life is not "just a series of random interactions"--not when you're as
much a part of the world as anything is. That puts you on the level of
everything else, not beneath it--you are the decider of your life, not
just the sufferer of external circumstances (as most people live their
lives). That's the point I want to make--rather than being subject to
your life, wondering what it's all about, you take the reins and you
create, artfully.

For example, my sweetie and I made the conscious decision to love each
other fully. That conscious choice has let us put our relationship
above all else, and in consequence nothing else threatens it--we've
never had a fight in 13 years. There are no clouds between us, and we
want only what's best for the other--a good part of my life revolves
around the conscious decision to build a good life for us both. That
was a conscious choice.

As for my actions in sm, I also made the conscious choice of working
for justice. As to getting angry, sm has always been my test
ground--for I consciously decide to get angry as well as loving.
Well, *laugh*, things got somewhat out of hand in that department, so
I shut them down and now use a killfile for the time being. That
doesn't rule out getting angry in the future, but I have to be more
careful about slipping into the unconscious trap about believing that
what people say about you has a hold on you when, of course, it
doesn't. Don't rule out anger in the future there. It's an ongoing
experiment for me (and a somewhat too seductive one!).

So that's the idea--when you see that you're as much a part of
everything as anything is, that gives you the freedom to consciously
create your life, without needing to react to hidden compulsions. You
live your life as a work of art, as a free conscious creation. That's
what getting rid of the layers of meaning you (unconsciously) impose
on the world does for you. It's not that you find an external object
of truth--rather, you find that by removing the layers of obfuscation,
you don't need an external truth.
Viking
2007-04-09 15:03:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:18:06 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Well now *here's* an interesting thread. Jayne: have you considered
that the "evidential truth" that is to be discovered is that one need
not have a meaning framework at all--that in the absence of such a
framework, there is no need for it? That is to say, seeking ultimate
"evidential truth" might mean simply removing the layers of
psychological construction we've imposed on the world? And that in the
absence of any such imposed layers of meaning, there need not be any
need for them at all? That without those layers one is so much a part
of the world that there is no need to relate oneself to it through an
imposed framework of meaning?
Anyway, an interesting thread. Let me know if you understood anything
I've said....
I think I've understood what you said, although I find it hard to imagine
how a person could relate to the world without a framework of meaning.
You, for example, seem to believe that feminism is bad and it is something
that men ought to oppose. How is it possible to believe this without a
framework of meaning?
In my world view (basically Christian Humanist, along the lines of Erasmus)
I can say that people ought to oppose feminism because it leads to men
being treated unjustly and to people being unhappy. I have "imposed layers
of meaning" such that I have values like "justice is good"; "causing
long-term widespread unhappiness is bad"; and "people ought to support the
good and oppose the bad". I weigh my observations against my values, come
to conclusions about things, make decisions and choose courses of action.
How would a person with no framework of meaning making any decisions or
judgements? Is his life just a series of random interactions?
A fine question, Jayne. When one has thrown off the layers of meaning
that one usually imposes on the world, one is no longer compelled by
hidden mental forces, as most people are. There's no unconscious mind
operating, compelling one to live a life pushed in various directions
for reasons that you have no clue about. That's the way most people
operate--mentally imposing layers of meaning and then struggling with
their mental creation all their life, believing it real.

When one throws off those imposed layers of meaning, you see that you
are as much a part of the world as anything is--that when you act, the
world is acting. In other words, you are free, and as much a part of
the world as anything is.

This gives you the ability to consciously decide your life, without
hidden compulsions. You take control, you are the world. You can
decide for yourself, much as an artist makes a creation. That's how I
look at life--making my own conscious decisions, creating, acting as
an artist.

Life is not "just a series of random interactions"--not when you're as
much a part of the world as anything is. That puts you on the level of
everything else, not beneath it--you are the decider of your life, not
just the sufferer of external circumstances (as most people live their
lives). That's the point I want to make--rather than being subject to
your life, wondering what it's all about, you take the reins and you
create, artfully.

For example, my sweetie and I made the conscious decision to love each
other fully. That conscious choice has let us put our relationship
above all else, and in consequence nothing else threatens it--we've
never had a fight in 13 years. There are no clouds between us, and we
want only what's best for the other--a good part of my life revolves
around the conscious decision to build a good life for us both. That
was a conscious choice.

As for my actions in sm, I also made the conscious choice of working
for justice. As to getting angry, sm has always been my test
ground--for I consciously decide to get angry as well as loving.
Well, *laugh*, things got somewhat out of hand in that department, so
I shut them down and now use a killfile for the time being. That
doesn't rule out getting angry in the future, but I have to be more
careful about slipping into the unconscious trap about believing that
what people say about you has a hold on you when, of course, it
doesn't. Don't rule out anger in the future there. It's an ongoing
experiment for me (and a somewhat too seductive one!).

So that's the idea--when you see that you're as much a part of
everything as anything is, that gives you the freedom to consciously
create your life, without needing to react to hidden compulsions. You
live your life as a work of art, as a free conscious creation. That's
what getting rid of the layers of meaning you (unconsciously) impose
on the world does for you. It's not that you find an external object
of truth--rather, you find that by removing the layers of obfuscation,
you don't need an external truth.
Rob
2007-04-03 09:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Rob
[...]> Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
Post by Peter J Ross
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?
[...]
One thing that I took away from Viktor Frankl's _Man's Search for Meaning_
(this was from the days when "man" was an acceptle term to refer to
humanity in general) was how important it is for people to have a sense of
meaning. This often comes from believing in something greater than
oneself. Thus life is most worth living for those who believe in something
for which they will give their lives. I think that is as true now as in
the time of Herodotus.
For thousands of years faith has been a more successful social
strategy than evidential truth. That may have changed in the last
century.
Eventually a life's meaning based on evidential truth is likely to be
more successful than a faith based meaning as it allows a closer
relationship with reality. Such enlightenment is unlikely to be found,
though, while historic faiths predominate - unless one of them happens
to be right of course (which, bearing in mind their variety and
antiquity, seems pretty unlikely).
While there may be evidence that one's family, one's country or humanity
exist, I do not see how there could be evidence that any of these things
are a basis for one's life's meaning. People's decision that a given value
is worth living and dying for comes from the heart not from evidence.
<attempting to post again...>

As Darwin remarked about bees, the values that persist are the ones
that result in a culture's continuity.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Rob
The sanctity of the individual is a prerequisite for the western
concept of the hero. I can imagine a much more collective, less
individualistic, society based on evidential truth succeeding in
competition with faith based societies. Overcoming the pain of death
would probably be an essential part of this.
You seem to assume that evidence is the best way to discover the truth.
Even if you had evidence to support this assumption, that would be a
circular argument. You are making an epistemological assumption just as
much as those of religious faith are.
Apologies, I was slapdash. By Evidential Truth I meant a means of
assessing and influencing the future based on past evidence and a
minimum of assumptions. I think it possible that this may be, or
become, a successful way to influence social continuity at least on a
par with the promotion of a belief in the existence of an almighty
being.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-04-08 20:22:01 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Apr 2007 02:15:46 -0700, Rob wrote:
[...]
Post by Rob
Apologies, I was slapdash. By Evidential Truth I meant a means of
assessing and influencing the future based on past evidence and a
minimum of assumptions. I think it possible that this may be, or
become, a successful way to influence social continuity at least on a
par with the promotion of a belief in the existence of an almighty
being.
I suspect there is some kind of miscommunication happening here. I am not
sure why you are talking about "belief in the existence of an almighty
being." Perhaps you took my comment about a sense of meaning coming from
"believing in something greater than oneself" as an allusion to a
supernatural deity. This is not what I meant. Something greater than
oneself could be one's homeland, family, descendents or humanity in
general. All I was trying to say was that having something that one is
willing to die for gives people a sense of purpose and meaning that makes
their lives richer. While religious beliefs can fill this role, I would
not be surprised if it came from other values.
--
Jayne
Rob
2007-04-09 23:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]
Post by Rob
Apologies, I was slapdash. By Evidential Truth I meant a means of
assessing and influencing the future based on past evidence and a
minimum of assumptions. I think it possible that this may be, or
become, a successful way to influence social continuity at least on a
par with the promotion of a belief in the existence of an almighty
being.
I suspect there is some kind of miscommunication happening here. I am not
sure why you are talking about "belief in the existence of an almighty
being." Perhaps you took my comment about a sense of meaning coming from
"believing in something greater than oneself" as an allusion to a
supernatural deity. This is not what I meant. Something greater than
oneself could be one's homeland, family, descendents or humanity in
general. All I was trying to say was that having something that one is
willing to die for gives people a sense of purpose and meaning that makes
their lives richer. While religious beliefs can fill this role, I would
not be surprised if it came from other values.
I am confused. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you help me
reconcile the above paragraph with your earlier sentence that: "While
there may be evidence that one's family, one's country or humanity
exist, I do not see how there could be evidence that any of these
things are a basis for one's life's meaning."?

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.

Rob
2007-04-03 23:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Rob
[...]> Is the idea of dying in an apparently lost cause ("When their spears
Post by Peter J Ross
were broken, they fought with their swords, and when their swords were
broken they fought with their hands and teeth") still relevant today?
[...]
One thing that I took away from Viktor Frankl's _Man's Search for Meaning_
(this was from the days when "man" was an acceptle term to refer to
humanity in general) was how important it is for people to have a sense of
meaning. This often comes from believing in something greater than
oneself. Thus life is most worth living for those who believe in something
for which they will give their lives. I think that is as true now as in
the time of Herodotus.
For thousands of years faith has been a more successful social
strategy than evidential truth. That may have changed in the last
century.
Eventually a life's meaning based on evidential truth is likely to be
more successful than a faith based meaning as it allows a closer
relationship with reality. Such enlightenment is unlikely to be found,
though, while historic faiths predominate - unless one of them happens
to be right of course (which, bearing in mind their variety and
antiquity, seems pretty unlikely).
While there may be evidence that one's family, one's country or humanity
exist, I do not see how there could be evidence that any of these things
are a basis for one's life's meaning. People's decision that a given value
is worth living and dying for comes from the heart not from evidence.
<Trying to post for the third time....>

As Darwin remarked about bees, the values that persist are the ones
that result in a culture's continuity.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Rob
The sanctity of the individual is a prerequisite for the western
concept of the hero. I can imagine a much more collective, less
individualistic, society based on evidential truth succeeding in
competition with faith based societies. Overcoming the pain of death
would probably be an essential part of this.
You seem to assume that evidence is the best way to discover the truth.
Even if you had evidence to support this assumption, that would be a
circular argument. You are making an epistemological assumption just as
much as those of religious faith are.
Apologies, I was slapdash. By Evidential Truth I meant a means of
assessing and influencing the future based on past evidence and a
minimum of assumptions. I think it possible that this may be, or
become, a successful way to influence social continuity at least on a
par with the promotion of a belief in the existence of an almighty
being.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Viking
2007-03-29 04:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
Are there still men willing to fight as Leonidas did, and if so, where
is the enemy against whom we can stand and die?
Has *all* your time on sm and smm been wasted?
Peter J Ross
2007-03-30 17:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
Post by Peter J Ross
Are there still men willing to fight as Leonidas did, and if so, where
is the enemy against whom we can stand and die?
Has *all* your time on sm and smm been wasted?
I don't remember dying for either of those newsgroups.
--
PJR :-)
Viking
2007-03-30 19:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Viking
Post by Peter J Ross
Are there still men willing to fight as Leonidas did, and if so, where
is the enemy against whom we can stand and die?
Has *all* your time on sm and smm been wasted?
I don't remember dying for either of those newsgroups.
I don't recall saying you did.
Peter J Ross
2007-03-30 23:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Viking
Post by Peter J Ross
Are there still men willing to fight as Leonidas did, and if so, where
is the enemy against whom we can stand and die?
Has *all* your time on sm and smm been wasted?
I don't remember dying for either of those newsgroups.
I don't recall saying you did.
Good. I didn't.

For those who are interested, Wikipedia has a tolerable article on the
battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
--
PJR :-)
Marcel Beaudoin
2007-03-31 01:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
A long time ago, when I had no grey hairs, my Greek teacher introduced
me to the writings of Herodotus and his story of how King Leonidas and
his 300 Spartans died in order to delay the destruction of Greek
civilisation by the Persian barbarians. Leonidas is still my Number
One hero, and Herodotus is still my Number One historian, but I'm
Have you read the graphic novel upon which the movie is based? If not, I
highly recommend it.
--
Marcel
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-03-31 15:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcel Beaudoin
Post by Peter J Ross
A long time ago, when I had no grey hairs, my Greek teacher introduced
me to the writings of Herodotus and his story of how King Leonidas and
his 300 Spartans died in order to delay the destruction of Greek
civilisation by the Persian barbarians. Leonidas is still my Number
One hero, and Herodotus is still my Number One historian, but I'm
Have you read the graphic novel upon which the movie is based? If not, I
highly recommend it.
Would you say the graphic novel is suitable for a 12 y.o boy or is it an
adult one? If it is suitable, it sounds like something my son would like.
--
Jayne
Marcel Beaudoin
2007-03-31 18:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Marcel Beaudoin
Post by Peter J Ross
A long time ago, when I had no grey hairs, my Greek teacher
introduced me to the writings of Herodotus and his story of how King
Leonidas and his 300 Spartans died in order to delay the destruction
of Greek civilisation by the Persian barbarians. Leonidas is still
my Number One hero, and Herodotus is still my Number One historian,
Have you read the graphic novel upon which the movie is based? If
not, I highly recommend it.
Would you say the graphic novel is suitable for a 12 y.o boy or is it
an adult one? If it is suitable, it sounds like something my son
would like.
Let me find it again and read it over. I *think* that it would be suitable
for a 12 year old, but it has been a while, so I am not entirely certain. I
am quite certain that there isn't a whole lot of gore in it, and I don't
remember any sex at all.

*reads it again*

Yes, most definately it would be suitable for a 12 year old boy.
--
Marcel
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-04-01 21:09:17 UTC
Permalink
On 31 Mar 2007 18:37:04 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin wrote:

[re: graphic novel upon which the movie is based]
Post by Marcel Beaudoin
Yes, most definately it would be suitable for a 12 year old boy.
Thanks, Marcel. My son has been reading some Roman history to accompany
his study of Latin, so I think he may like some Greek as well.
--
Jayne
Loading...