JSkains: "Science is a tool of Satan"

[_Chap]

Great Spirits With Foreign Sounding Names Often Get Their Names Spelled Wrong By People Who Are Too Careless to Pay Them The Compliment of Spelling Their Names Right, Even Though It Would Be Very Easy To Do So Because The Vowel Pairs In The First And Second Syllables Sound The Same And Are Spelled The Same.

Just saying ...

[_jskains]

Great Spirits With Foreign Sounding Names Often Get Their Names Spelled Wrong By People Who Are Too Careless to Pay Them The Compliment of Spelling Their Names Right, Even Though It Would Be Very Easy To Do So Because The Vowel Pairs In The First And Second Syllables Sound The Same And Are Spelled The Same.

Just saying ...

You're new here ain't ya? Just saying...

JMS

[_jskains]

An excellent question, Buffalo.

And it all comes back to this - he seems to be embarrassed by his own thread. And he should be.

The logic is so mind bogglingly intense. I can't imagine why this place isn't taken more seriously... :)

JMS

[_Blixa]

Great Spirits With Foreign Sounding Names Often Get Their Names Spelled Wrong By People Who Are Too Careless to Pay Them The Compliment of Spelling Their Names Right, Even Though It Would Be Very Easy To Do So Because The Vowel Pairs In The First And Second Syllables Sound The Same And Are Spelled The Same.

Just saying ...

You're new here ain't ya? Just saying...

JMS

Because this egregious misspelling is a stunning example of "thinking outside the box," or avoiding "group think," or "individuality."

Seriously, Chap you missed this?

[_Chap]

[jskains spells "Einstein" as "Einstien". Chap remarks on this. jskains asks if Chap is "new here"]

Because this egregious misspelling is a stunning example of "thinking outside the box," or avoiding "group think," or "individuality."

Seriously, Chap you missed this?

Nah. I am pretty sure this is a case of "mumpsimus". The mis-spelling was inadvertent, but once it was pointed out (I gather my remark was not the first) he decided to make a virtue of it rather than admit he was wrong by correcting it:

Mumpsimus

According to the tale, there was once a medieval monk who persistently said a phrase in the Latin Eucharist wrongly, either because he was illiterate and had learned it that way or because it had been transcribed incorrectly in his copy.

Instead of "quod in ore sumpsimus", he would say "quod in ore mumpsimus". Now 'sumpsimus' is Latin for "we have taken" (the full phrase means "which we have taken into the mouth"), but 'mumpsimus' is just nonsense.

What made this particular mistake memorable is what the monk was supposed to have said when he was corrected. According to the version of the incident told in 1517 by Richard Pace, later the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London, the monk replied that he had said it that way for forty years and "I will not change my old 'mumpsimus' for your new 'sumpsimus'".

As a result, the word came to be applied to someone who sticks obstinately to their old ways, in spite of the clearest evidence that they are wrong. The word can also have the related meaning of some custom or notion that is adhered to, even though it has been shown to be unreasonable.

Some references suggest that the story may have been first told by Pace's friend Erasmus; there's also a hint that it may really have been an oft-told joke in medieval times. The word is first recorded in 1530 in a book by William Tyndale, the first translator of the Bible into English, called _The Practice of Prelates_. It was given royal approval in 1545, when Henry VIII referred to it in a speech:

"Some be too stiff in their old mumpsimus, others be too busy and curious in their sumpsimus".

It has, perhaps surprisingly, stayed in the language as a learned joke for more than 400 years, and is still to be stumbled over from time to time.

[_Themis]

Instead of whining about being more persecuted than Jesus and Joseph put together, why not defend your views?

I would still be interested in how he thinks Satan can or is influencing science. I did not see him really address this anywhere.

[_jskains]

Instead of whining about being more persecuted than Jesus and Joseph put together, why not defend your views?

I would still be interested in how he thinks Satan can or is influencing science. I did not see him really address this anywhere.

Well if you chose not to read Mormon Dialogue, I guess you won't see it.

If you are referring to here, the extreme hostility, insults, and childish commentary at the beginning of this thread set the mood, making me uninterested in a serious communications here.

If you wanted real dialog you might have tried just asking my thoughts.

JMS

[_Themis]

Well if you chose not to read Mormon Dialogue, I guess you won't see it.

If you are referring to here, the extreme hostility, insults, and childish commentary at the beginning of this thread set the mood, making me uninterested in a serious communications here.

I actually did go over that thread. You still make simple assertions without any substance. What I was looking for was specifics in in how and where Satan is influencing science.

If you wanted real dialog you might have tried just asking my thoughts.

I did ask your thoughts.