Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 180742 times)

The Genuine · « **Reply #450 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:35:55 AM »

It was just a guess, because it's not clear who would be laying on him a sum of money. So I guessed it meant God, in which case it necessarily had to be all of his money.

Jonathon · « **Reply #451 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:41:42 AM »

I'm guessing the family of whomever the ox killed. The Germanic people once had a similar practice called weregild ('man-payment').

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #452 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:02:29 PM »

And this is my humble opinion, but none of that is really about an ox at all. It's symbolism for an atonement for sin.

rivka · « **Reply #453 on:** February 20, 2009, 03:56:30 PM »

Quote

And this is my humble opinion, but none of that is really about an ox at all. It's symbolism for an atonement for sin.

That's the point where Jewish tradition disagrees with you.

I am definitely not an expert in N'zikin (damages), but IIRC, the first verse talks not about what is actually done by a human court, but what the negligent owner deserves by the hands of Heaven. The second describes what is actually done. And the "him" is not the guilty party. It means the value of the victim -- in terms of earning potential. Sort of like how life insurance is supposed to work. Also, the ox's owner is only responsible if the ox is "an habitual gorer". Like how in American law they say every dog gets one bite?

Also, did Jesse get confused, or is this one of the places where the numbering differrs between a Tanach and Christian Bible? To me, the verses Jesse quoted are 28 - 29.

The Genuine · « **Reply #454 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:28:56 PM »

Quote

Also, the ox's owner is only responsible if the ox is "an habitual gorer". Like how in American law they say every dog gets one bite?

That makes sense, Rivka.

Anyway, since the Bible isn't exactly my field: the one-bite rule does not necessarily apply if you already know your dog has violent tendencies. And then there's the question about whether that rule applies only to strict liability cases, as opposed to mere negligence.

The Genuine · « **Reply #455 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:30:00 PM »

Oh, I got that from some online King James version.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=21&version=9

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #456 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:38:38 PM »

I guess I should say - I think it is about the ox, but it's also full of symbolism, according to Christians.

Jonathon · « **Reply #457 on:** February 20, 2009, 05:15:15 PM »

Quote

Also, did Jesse get confused, or is this one of the places where the numbering differrs between a Tanach and Christian Bible? To me, the verses Jesse quoted are 28 - 29.

I'm the one who gave the reference, not Jesse. I don't know how the verses are numbered in the Tanach, but in the King James version the relevant verses were 29 and 30.

And I should note that I really did not want to kick off a discussion on scripture interpretation. The only point I was trying to make was that my coworker botched something.

The Genuine · « **Reply #458 on:** February 20, 2009, 05:55:55 PM »

Does that mean you would prefer not to have such discussions here in general, or were you simply pointing out that that's not what you meant to start at this time on this subject?

Jonathon · « **Reply #459 on:** February 20, 2009, 06:02:47 PM »

Mostly the latter, but also some of the former. It wasn't my intent for this thread to be hijacked, and I'm afraid it won't be a terribly productive discussion.

The Genuine · « **Reply #460 on:** February 20, 2009, 06:03:43 PM »

::pokes out your eye::

Jonathon · « **Reply #461 on:** February 20, 2009, 06:04:27 PM »

Ow! That was uncalled for.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #462 on:** February 20, 2009, 06:47:34 PM »

You should poke out his eye.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #463 on:** February 20, 2009, 06:49:45 PM »

And if it helps at all, the reason I brought it up was to clarify for Jesse that, at least according to some interpretations, it's not just rambly words about oxes. That there's symbolic meaning there.

Not that Rivka's interpretation is rambly. Just that someone unfamiliar with the Old Testament might find it a lot more boring than it actually is.

The Genuine · « **Reply #464 on:** February 20, 2009, 07:04:12 PM »

Actually, oxen really excite me.

rivka · « **Reply #465 on:** February 21, 2009, 09:15:36 PM »

Quote

Quote
Also, did Jesse get confused, or is this one of the places where the numbering differrs between a Tanach and Christian Bible? To me, the verses Jesse quoted are 28 - 29.
I'm the one who gave the reference, not Jesse. I don't know how the verses are numbered in the Tanach, but in the King James version the relevant verses were 29 and 30.

I know. But he provided the verses. I was asking if he got them wrong, or if the numbering was different.

The Genuine · « **Reply #466 on:** February 22, 2009, 08:21:19 AM »

Apparently King James wasn't entirely thrilled with your translation.

rivka · « **Reply #467 on:** February 22, 2009, 08:37:01 AM »

I never met the man!

rivka · « **Reply #468 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:57:27 PM »

Seen on a listserv for college registrars:

Quote

The card is given out in the robbing room the day of commencement.

*snicker*

Farmgirl · « **Reply #469 on:** March 14, 2009, 06:48:06 AM »

Well, it's nice to know they are preparing them for SOME way to support themselves after college!

rivka · « **Reply #470 on:** March 14, 2009, 10:41:16 PM »

By teaching them how to cope with theft?

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #471 on:** April 02, 2009, 03:42:09 PM »

This isn't a quote from work, but it's a question about work.

Is it OK to say "the turn of the century" to refer to the most recent turn of century? I want to write it in this paper to refer to how things have changed since the late 1990's, early 2000's, but when I re-read it it sounds like I'm talking about a hundred years ago.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #472 on:** April 02, 2009, 04:03:16 PM »

I say it, but am usually misunderstood.

"I thought scrunchies went out at the turn of the century."

"Nah, everyone was wearing them in the '90's."

"Exactly."

Jonathon · « **Reply #473 on:** April 02, 2009, 04:06:43 PM »

If it sounds like you're talking about 100 years ago, then I'd find a different way to say it.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #474 on:** April 02, 2009, 04:12:05 PM »

My problem is that I've already said "since the 1990s" twice. What would be another good way to re-word?

Here's the paragraph:

Quote

With such results, the call for more computer access was the new rallying cry and school districts were quick to follow national trends. But in the late 1990s, it became apparent to researchers that increasing access was not being matched by increasing success, or even increasing use, in the average classroom (Cuban, 1999). By 1995, schools averaged one computer for every nine students, but the impact on instruction was minimal and a significant number of teachers didn’t use computers at all (Reiser, 2001). Since the turn of the century, the focus has shifted to the phenomenon of integration.