| Revision as of 15:33, 20 April 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →A few questions: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:12, 20 April 2007 edit undoGeogre (talk | contribs)25,257 edits →A few questions: Apostrophes indicate the plural of numbers and acronymns.Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::::"Leveller" would imply radical religious views. If ''that'' didn't, then Ranter sure would. The promotions in the New Model Army (esp. for taking on the Grandee colonel) would, too. The Levellers were... well, it's hard to explain exactly. It's a political movement, but it's so tied up in a religious view that it's almost a religion. I would suspect that he was an "Independent," which is an umbrella term at the time for the various congregational churches that would become today's Baptist church. What it means most particularly is that he was a congregationalist. Once you say that, it gets extremely difficult to outline a specific. Given the involvement with ''The Single Eye'' and its views (denial of sin, for example), you'd have to say that the guy was way, way, way, way out on the religious fringe. ] 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | :::::"Leveller" would imply radical religious views. If ''that'' didn't, then Ranter sure would. The promotions in the New Model Army (esp. for taking on the Grandee colonel) would, too. The Levellers were... well, it's hard to explain exactly. It's a political movement, but it's so tied up in a religious view that it's almost a religion. I would suspect that he was an "Independent," which is an umbrella term at the time for the various congregational churches that would become today's Baptist church. What it means most particularly is that he was a congregationalist. Once you say that, it gets extremely difficult to outline a specific. Given the involvement with ''The Single Eye'' and its views (denial of sin, for example), you'd have to say that the guy was way, way, way, way out on the religious fringe. ] 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Hey, thanks for that. I was interested in your name, so I went to your page and I must say that: ''"Mainly, I hit the Random Article thingie over there. If the result is something I can improve, I do. If the result is something that doesn't say anything, I slap a CSD A1 template on it. If it's about the Aesir, I put moustaches (or shave them) on all the pictures"'' is just about the simplest, sanest, wiki-philosophy I've ever seen! :-) ] 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | ::::::Hey, thanks for that. I was interested in your name, so I went to your page and I must say that: ''"Mainly, I hit the Random Article thingie over there. If the result is something I can improve, I do. If the result is something that doesn't say anything, I slap a CSD A1 template on it. If it's about the Aesir, I put moustaches (or shave them) on all the pictures"'' is just about the simplest, sanest, wiki-philosophy I've ever seen! :-) ] 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Ok, I've tried to be explicit about the radicalism. I figure that the "Leveller" thing would say it all, but the ''DNB'' is silent on ''which'' radical religious movement he was part of. That suggests that he was an Independent. I have used a wiggly word, but I think it really is likely and not a guess. I'm also about to link in our John Winthrop. That's great researching, there. I wish I had gone to the ''DAB'' while on campus today, but I got a bad case of Friday. ] 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Apostrophes== | |||
| Apostrophes mark the plural of numbers. This is so that a number is not read as having the letter as part of it. For example, the difference between a 350is and a group of 350is and the difference between the 90s and the years of the many 90s is the apostrophe. This point of grammar has been unquestioned for generations. However, just ''recently'' some vulgarians, primarily in the business community and primarily in the United States, found themselves simply incapable of typing an apostrophe, and so they began doing their plural numbers and acronyms without the apostrophe. Some few style sheets began allowing this, but with a stupid rationalization -- "when unambiguous." Well, that's worse rather than better. At present, ''United States'' practice is split over the matter. Many rhetorics and handbooks still teach the apostrophe, and some do not. Some professional journalists require them (e.g. the ''New York Times''), and some do not. Misplaced Pages has no rule on the subject, as it ''allows'' either one. I do not allow either one. I teach my own students to use the apostrophe, and I use the apostrophe, and I will not have these removed as "bad." Such blind and ignorant edit summaries betray profound intolerance and foolishness. Latin abbreviations are, according to most contemporary style sheets, not italicized ''if unambiguous.'' I regard "flourio" as still somewhat unknown in its expansion but "exampli gratia" as not. Therefore, one italicizes "fl." but not "e.g." One italicizes "inter al." but not "etc." Help, if you can, but do not meddle with acceptable and proper writing, please. ] 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:12, 20 April 2007
A few questions
- Trying to give the geographical and historical context for Massachusetts in the 1630s, and I think Massachusetts Bay Colony and saying it is in North America might work better than the current link. Also, rather than New England, I find Plymouth Council for New England and New England Confederation (though only from 1643) more informative.
- I also tried to find Higham Park, and was wondering whether this is Highams Park in Waltham Forest, or whether it is Higham, Kent?
Any ideas on these? Carcharoth 03:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for those. I think you're right, and I was very aggravated, when I was writing, by the knowledge that we certainly had better links but that I would have to get another window open and search and prod to find it. Misplaced Pages has always had a problem of organization as great as the problem of content, and I wish our editors with a rage for order would aim their efforts at the systemic problems. The Higham Park is frustrating, because this is a "former crown" area, which means that it may have passed out of parlance and might not be a royal land after the Restoration (and yet might be, too). I think, however, that it would be the former, not the latter. I really wanted those buying and selling bits in, though, because I consider it possibly the most interesting detail. If you were a radical anti-royalist, a radical protestant, then what did you do after 1649? Well, you put your money where your mouth was and bought church lands and royal lands to intentionally complicate matters and intentionally "reclaim" the lands. If you were a Leveller, a Ranter, or, most particularly a Digger, you'd definitely do that. Geogre 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problems. I was pleaasantly suprised to find Putney Debates - that was a bit of a lucky find - but I enjoy digging and searching around. It is relatively easy to find things, but more use of redirects would help, as often an alternative spelling (red-link) can be turned blue in the twinkling of an eye. I have been reading up a little bit on the New England colonies, and I just want to check that you are linking to the right ones. The ones I mentioned above might be the wrong colonies!! Can you check your sources to be absolutely sure? It would be interesting to know what he got up to out in that Brave New World. Carcharoth 11:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically Thirteen Colonies and Province of Massachusetts Bay (which formed after our guy had died), though the reference to him dying in Boston suggests that he was in that area, and not the other areas shown here (note the dates). <sigh> More specific linking is all very well, but we have to be careful of not being more misleading than merely linking to the general Massachusetts article. I'll leave it up to you to decide. Carcharoth 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problems. I was pleaasantly suprised to find Putney Debates - that was a bit of a lucky find - but I enjoy digging and searching around. It is relatively easy to find things, but more use of redirects would help, as often an alternative spelling (red-link) can be turned blue in the twinkling of an eye. I have been reading up a little bit on the New England colonies, and I just want to check that you are linking to the right ones. The ones I mentioned above might be the wrong colonies!! Can you check your sources to be absolutely sure? It would be interesting to know what he got up to out in that Brave New World. Carcharoth 11:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was frustrated, myself. I got his account solely from the DNB, and I suspect (just suspect) that this is one of those 2004 entries that hasn't been significantly re-researched from the 1898 ed. The reason is that the article has a very dismissive tone of (no kidding) "the colonies." When he was not in England, the DNB author regards him as entirely uninteresting. In fact, this would be a very, very interesting figure to research post-arrival. All that I found that I did not include is that both of his sisters married Winthrops.
- Ok, well, that's a big, big, big name in "the colonies." Additionally, when he came over, he would have been extremely rich. Additionally, army and navy pay, even for officers, simply isn't high enough for his land speculations in England. All of this points to the idea that he had a significant income source in the New World, and this means that, going over to Mass., he simply had to be a big wheel. I'll see if I can pick up his story in the DAB (Dict. Am. Bio.). So, monetarily, he has to be a big stink in America. Add to that the radical, radical politics and religion, and you're looking at a probably huge figure in the colony. I do not know which one, exactly, but I suspect the Rhode Island contingent. Geogre 11:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Looking at John Winthrop, I see what you mean. You mention Rainborowe's radical religious views, and further up the talk page say he was a radical protestant, but there is nothing in the article at the moment explaining his religious views. Was he a Puritan, or another flavour of radical protestantism? Carcharoth 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bingo! From John Winthrop: "Winthrop then married his fourth wife, Martha Rainsborough, widow of Thomas Coytmore, sometime after 20 December 1647 and before the birth of their only child in 1648" - so he was the brother-in-law of Winthrop. That nearly made Rainborowe a relative of John Kerry, who is from the Tyndal-Winthrop side of that family. Carcharoth 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Leveller" would imply radical religious views. If that didn't, then Ranter sure would. The promotions in the New Model Army (esp. for taking on the Grandee colonel) would, too. The Levellers were... well, it's hard to explain exactly. It's a political movement, but it's so tied up in a religious view that it's almost a religion. I would suspect that he was an "Independent," which is an umbrella term at the time for the various congregational churches that would become today's Baptist church. What it means most particularly is that he was a congregationalist. Once you say that, it gets extremely difficult to outline a specific. Given the involvement with The Single Eye and its views (denial of sin, for example), you'd have to say that the guy was way, way, way, way out on the religious fringe. Utgard Loki 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for that. I was interested in your name, so I went to your page and I must say that: "Mainly, I hit the Random Article thingie over there. If the result is something I can improve, I do. If the result is something that doesn't say anything, I slap a CSD A1 template on it. If it's about the Aesir, I put moustaches (or shave them) on all the pictures" is just about the simplest, sanest, wiki-philosophy I've ever seen! :-) Carcharoth 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Leveller" would imply radical religious views. If that didn't, then Ranter sure would. The promotions in the New Model Army (esp. for taking on the Grandee colonel) would, too. The Levellers were... well, it's hard to explain exactly. It's a political movement, but it's so tied up in a religious view that it's almost a religion. I would suspect that he was an "Independent," which is an umbrella term at the time for the various congregational churches that would become today's Baptist church. What it means most particularly is that he was a congregationalist. Once you say that, it gets extremely difficult to outline a specific. Given the involvement with The Single Eye and its views (denial of sin, for example), you'd have to say that the guy was way, way, way, way out on the religious fringe. Utgard Loki 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bingo! From John Winthrop: "Winthrop then married his fourth wife, Martha Rainsborough, widow of Thomas Coytmore, sometime after 20 December 1647 and before the birth of their only child in 1648" - so he was the brother-in-law of Winthrop. That nearly made Rainborowe a relative of John Kerry, who is from the Tyndal-Winthrop side of that family. Carcharoth 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've tried to be explicit about the radicalism. I figure that the "Leveller" thing would say it all, but the DNB is silent on which radical religious movement he was part of. That suggests that he was an Independent. I have used a wiggly word, but I think it really is likely and not a guess. I'm also about to link in our John Winthrop. That's great researching, there. I wish I had gone to the DAB while on campus today, but I got a bad case of Friday. Geogre 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Looking at John Winthrop, I see what you mean. You mention Rainborowe's radical religious views, and further up the talk page say he was a radical protestant, but there is nothing in the article at the moment explaining his religious views. Was he a Puritan, or another flavour of radical protestantism? Carcharoth 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Apostrophes
Apostrophes mark the plural of numbers. This is so that a number is not read as having the letter as part of it. For example, the difference between a 350is and a group of 350is and the difference between the 90s and the years of the many 90s is the apostrophe. This point of grammar has been unquestioned for generations. However, just recently some vulgarians, primarily in the business community and primarily in the United States, found themselves simply incapable of typing an apostrophe, and so they began doing their plural numbers and acronyms without the apostrophe. Some few style sheets began allowing this, but with a stupid rationalization -- "when unambiguous." Well, that's worse rather than better. At present, United States practice is split over the matter. Many rhetorics and handbooks still teach the apostrophe, and some do not. Some professional journalists require them (e.g. the New York Times), and some do not. Misplaced Pages has no rule on the subject, as it allows either one. I do not allow either one. I teach my own students to use the apostrophe, and I use the apostrophe, and I will not have these removed as "bad." Such blind and ignorant edit summaries betray profound intolerance and foolishness. Latin abbreviations are, according to most contemporary style sheets, not italicized if unambiguous. I regard "flourio" as still somewhat unknown in its expansion but "exampli gratia" as not. Therefore, one italicizes "fl." but not "e.g." One italicizes "inter al." but not "etc." Help, if you can, but do not meddle with acceptable and proper writing, please. Geogre 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)