text:
In three previous installments in this ongoing debate, we wrangled over the issue of whether radical biblical skeptics once denied that the Hittites existed at all, and whether Christians apologists and scholars have been lying about this reputed fact ever since (for over 130 years).
"DagoodS"' words will be in blue; Vinny's in green; D'Ma's in purple, and Jon's in red.
* * *
I think it is you who wants to treat the Bible differently from other ancient documents. You are perfectly willing to accept the intellectual integrity of those scholars who doubted the existence of Troy absent historical/archeological confirmation; however, if similar logic is applied to the Bible, you deride the scholars as "extreme Bible skeptics." The only double standard I see here is yours.
If I read your latest findings correctly, even one of the authors of the work that gave "fundamentalism" its name is unable to cite any scholar who ever published a claim that the Hittites never existed. The most he can provide is the private musings of an anonymous colleague. I think you are right to anticipate that Dagoods is not going to admit defeat on that. (1-21-11)
It looks like you didn't read (or didn't properly understand) what I wrote above or the latest section of my (3rd) paper.
Kyle was (it seems pretty evident to me) being charitable to a very eminent fellow Egyptologist (Sir A. E. Wallis Budge) who had been shown to be dead wrong (two years after he made his statement), based on the seminal Hittite archaeological finds of 1906-1907, under Winckler.
Secondly, as he noted, Budge did not state this in print (he stated in print the lesser claim that the "Kheta" were not the same as the Hittites). He was apparently afraid to do so. Therefore, he expressed it privately. So Kyle honored the confidentiality by not naming him; yet he left so many obvious clues as to his identity, that I could figure it out 100 years later by a textual comparison and a fun bit of "literary archaeology."
Thus, not naming him didn't have to do with lack of evidence, but with the demands of charity towards a colleague, and the reluctance of the latter to publish his true opinion.
In his article "Archaeology" in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Kyle names many higher critics who question everything under the sun in the Bible. He didn't name Budge there as the person who made the denial (since his extreme skepticism was not in print), but he left a clue in context (see all the clues in my paper, above):
Occasionally it has been boldly said that "no such people ever existed" (compare Newman, Hebrew Monarchy, 184-85; Budge, Hist of Egypt, IV, 136).
The use of "compare" means that he wasn't arguing that these two works made the claim. They didn't. Budge said it privately to Kyle in 1904, as Kyle noted (not naming him) in The Fundamentals (1909). Since Newman died in 1897, this clue narrows it down to Budge. (1-21-11)
Newman's Hebrew Monarchy, incidentally, was initially published anonymously, so again we see a reluctance of the higher critics to openly state their more radical claims (in this case, in print, but without a name attached; in Budge's case, in conversation only). (1-21-11)
The same dynamic applied to Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger's works Letters of Janus and Letters of Quirinus, that dissented from the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council (1870). They were anonymous. So this practice of anonymous dissent was not an unknown phenomenon at all.
Budge would have been all the more reticent in 1904, with over 20 years of archaeological findings already having occurred. Like many scholars who have been proven wrong over the course of time, he held on to his outmoded beliefs in the face of manifest evidence.
Archaeology is no different from natural science in that respect (see Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions), since human nature is the same and pride is a huge factor working against the granting of concessions and admitting error. (1-21-11)
(1) Scholars bounce theories ideas off their colleagues all the time. Then they do research. If the evidence directly supports the theory or directly refutes it, they may publish something. If the evidence isn't is inconclusive, they don't make a claim about it. Sounds to me like Budge didn't make a claim.
(2) Maybe, Kyle didn't identify Budge because he knew perfectly well that Budge would deny that he had ever categorically denied the existence of the Hittites. Maybe Kyle is just like all the other Christian apologists who have claimed that skeptics denied the Hittites without having the evidence to support their claim. (1-21-11)
Right. So you think the most plausible explanation is to simply call Kyle a liar regarding his report of what was said, huh? He completely fabricated a remark made by a very reputable archaeologist? Budge would categorically deny saying what Kyle reports him to be saying (if Budge is the guy)?
I thought DagoodS might pull a stunt like that (since he thinks many many Christian apologists are in the habit of deliberately lying or being utterly incompetent in research); I didn't realize you were as hyper-skeptical.
It's true that if one holds (like Bareknuckles Bum and to a lesser extent DagoodS) that those of a different persuasion are clearly a pack of liars and incompetents; intellectually dishonest through and through, that almost anything can be explained. You can do that; you can take a quasi-conspiratorial view of things.
I approach things vastly differently: I take people (all people) at their word unless there is very strong, compelling evidence to doubt their individual honesty. I don't regard atheists en masse as a bunch of liars or evil people. Nope. I approach each one as a person with presumed integrity; as a seeker of truth and the good, as he or she deems it to be.
The demonization of opponents is the primary cause of dialogues being impossible from the outset. Atheists and agnostics too often demonize Christians as dishonest liars or clueless dumbbells.
We all have to get past that and regard those who differ from us as people with an honest disagreement: seekers of truth just as we are. We can dispute and dialogue and debate about what these truths are or might be, minus all the derogatory opinions and cynicism. But we must presume good faith and honesty in our opponent.
At least that is what I will continue to do. I'll continue to seek out atheists who don't start with an assumption that virtually all Christians are idiots or liars or "retards" (the Bareknuckles Bum mentality). (1-21-11)
. . . he knew perfectly well that Budge would deny that he had ever categorically denied the existence of the Hittites.
I have already argued that this is implausible, because Budge would have known full well that he was the one being referred to, and that folks could figure it out without too much trouble, since so many clues were left, that I discovered myself.
Therefore, if it were a complete falsehood that he had made such a denial, he would have surely renounced the misrepresentation. The fact that he was not named is overcome by the fact of obvious clues left, where readers can put two and two together.
If Kyle were truly interested in lying and fabricating for mere polemical purposes, then he wouldn't have left so many clues to identity, precisely because it would backfire and become ugly with a strong rebuttal. It wouldn't be in his interest to do so; it would be counter-productive to his purpose. He would just say "so-and-so stated they didn't exist" without all the clues.
So I find your take quite implausible on these grounds and on the basis of not being in the habit of regarding eminent scholars as bald-faced liars: especially regarding aspects of their own field.
They may be wrong; stubbornly wrong, of course. They may be reluctant to change their mind when evidence warrants it, but they (atheist and Christian alike) don't usually lie and fudge the facts (i.e., unless they are in certain corners of the global warming PC crowd, where data manipulation is the norm). (1-21-11)
"Compare" means in support of the proposition. "Contra" would mean against. See compare vs contra. If Kyle wasn't claiming the citations were supporting the claim "Occasionally it has boldly been said, 'No such people existed,'" then what WAS he citing them for? (1-21-11)
DagoodS references "Basic Legal Citation" (which we can understand, since he is an attorney). The abbreviation "cf." or "compare" can and often does indeed mean "support", but it doesn't necessarily imply an equation of the original proposition and the ones suggested as comparisons. They could also be similar, but not identical. As a writer / author myself and apologist, I use "cf." all the time: preceding biblical passages. Oftentimes, these are merely similar, not identical (i.e., in the ideas therein).
It's rather foolish for DagoodS to make out that Kyle's use of "compare" means without a doubt that he is claiming that his two similar citations are absolutely identical to the alleged oral statement of Budge. This simply doesn't follow. They can be similar. Any dictionary definition or work of grammar or writing style will bear this out, and we need not belabor the point of definition any further.
Perhaps DagoodS is ignorant of the broader range of meaning that "cf." has) Fortunately (whatever the cause of his peculiar difficulty), we have things like dictionaries that provide objective meanings to words, so they can't be molded at will like putty, to mean whatever we want them to mean. DagoodS himself proves my point. I searched "cf." on his blog and found the following:
Essentially, Total Depravity holds that due to the inherent capacity for sinfulness, and yes, a proclivity toward self-interest (cf. Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory), . . . (8-18-08)
Total Depravity is a specifically Calvinist belief (not even the majority of Christians hold it). Dawkins is an atheist. Obviously, then, whatever his theory is, it is not identical to Total Depravity. Therefore, it is a comparison of concepts similar in some respects only. This is precisely what I contend Kyle was doing. It's not rocket science. But prior bias and hostile premises create strange opinions.
DagoodS latest reply is entitled, "Hittites, skeptics, and hearsay" (1-21-11). I shall cite it in its entirety (his words in blue, as usual) and respond point-by-point: a courtesy that DagoodS rarely if ever extends to me. He usually cites very few of my words, usually preferring to simply launch into his own little thought world with scarce reference to any argument of mine (akin to a closing argument in a court case).
That makes for, too often, lousy rational argumentation. On my site, I present both sides, and give my opponent the respect of dealing with his arguments and replying, rather than ignoring most of them or presenting "them" back in my own words, filtered through my natural bias (as he frequently does).
I apologize for this; I don't generally like to create a post out of comment discussions, as it becomes disjointed. However, as you will see, this will simply be easier to read by putting in posting form. We continue our search for a skeptic who stated, "Hittites never existed."
For Lurkers, the newest name proposed by Dave Armstrong in our Parade of Characters is E.A.T.W. Budge - prolific writer who wrote extensively on Egyptian history from 1885 – 1930.
We don't have a specific writing from Sir Budge denying the existence of the Hittites; what we have are the writings of Melvin Grove Kyle (a contributor to The Fundamentals (1909) if that means anything to you!) where Kyle reports, "In 1904 one of the foremost archaeologists of Europe said to me: 'I do not believe there ever were such people as the Hittites…'"
No name, situation or context is given for this anonymous quote. Dave Armstrong argues (persuasively, in my opinion) Melvin Kyle is implicating Sir Budge with this quote, without directly attributing it to Sir Budge.
Good; so at least he agrees that Kyle thought it was Budge, and was persuaded by my reasoning for believing this to be the case.
The documentation provided by Dave Armstrong supports this position:
1) In 1912 (three years after The Fundamentals), Melvin Kyle wrote The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in Biblical Criticism. At pg 105, he states:
Some had even gone so far as to say, though not often for publication, that "no such people as the Hittites ever existed." Budge, in his History of Egypt, says: "The Kheta, who are, no doubt, the people referred to by the Assyrians under the name of Khatti, have been identified with the Hittites of Holy Scripture, but on insufficient grounds," and again, "In passing it must be stated that the commonly accepted identification of the Kheta with the Hittites of the Bible is as yet unproved, since it rests only upon the similarity between the Hebrew name Heth, and the Egyptian name Kheta."
The citation of Sir Budge immediately following the statement about Hittites not existing implicates Sir Budge either directly stated it, or supports it in his writing.
It is part of the "clue" that Budge was in his mind. But Kyle had just noted that these ultra-radical statements of skepticism were made "not often for publication." He then goes on to document examples of lesser but still significant skepticism, because that is what the skeptics (including Budge) were willing to put into print. It doesn't follow that these opinions were thought by Kyle to be identical to the complete skepticism.
In past installments of this debate DagoodS has, more than once, made wild claims about what he thinks Christian scholars were arguing by citing something, that did not logically follow, or make sense in context. He has claimed, for example, that people were misrepresenting the opinion of F. W. Newman, when this was not in fact the case. Anyone who can read can see that what Kyle cited from Budge is not the same as absolute denial. DagoodS need not point that out, as it is already obvious.
However…we encounter our first problem. Melvin Kyle is quote-mining. Sir Budge wrote a multi-volume set of History of Egypt in 1902. The second quoted sentence comes from Volume Six, page 34 where Sir Budge states
In passing it must be stated that the commonly accepted identification of the Kheta with the Hittites of the Bible is as yet unproved, since it rests only on a similarity of the Hebrew name Heth and the Egyptian name Kheta; on the other hand it may readily be conceded that the people who built the fortress temples of Baghaz-Köi and Eyuk belonged to the same race, if they were not actually the same people, as the Kheta depicted on the Egyptian monuments.
Whoops! Did you catch that? Melvin Kyle only quotes Sir Budge up to "Egyptian name Kheta" and then stops. I don't know about you, but if I continued a sentence with "on the other hand" I would appreciate being quoted entirely! Sir Budge specifically states it is "readily conceded" the people who built the fortress (the Hittites),
But Budge didn't call the people who built these fortresses "Hittites." This is what DagoodS hasn't yet grasped. We do now, but he didn't, because he denied the category.
belonged to the same race as the Kheta, "if not actually the same people." (his words.)
So what!! This is irrelevant, which is probably why Kyle felt no need to include it in the quote. Budge denies the equation of the Kheta and the biblical Hittites. But he concedes that the folks further up north (current-day Turkey [Asia Minor or Anatolia] and Syria) are "of the same race." They are part of a much larger category, but "not actually the same people." This is no more significant than saying "Dwellers in the Caucasus mountains and John Smith from Wichita, Kansas and Karl Schmidt from Hamburg are of the same race: Caucasians." A category that broad indicates little with regard to peoplehood, or culture, etc. And peoplehood is precisely what is presently under consideration.
Hence, Budge denies that the two are the same people (they are only part of a larger race). He is skeptical of the category of "Hittites" altogether. That's why he wrote, "the people who built the fortress temples of Baghaz-Köi" rather than (what was already pretty much accepted by then) "the Hittites who built the fortress temples of Baghaz-Köi" (a major city in the Hittite Empire). He denies that the Kheta are Hittites and he denies (by refusing to name them) that the people who built the temples of Baghaz-Köi were Hittites, too.
DagoodS wants to play the quotation game and argue that someone provided an incomplete, out-of-context citation (with the insinuation of deliberate cover-up or possible dishonesty)? I can play that game, too, if he wants me to. Why don't we, then, continue his larger quotation and see what Budge says after that?:
The reasons for this view are based upon the identity of features and costume of the people depicted on the reliefs of Eyuk with the Kheta of the Egyptian reliefs. The hieroglyphic inscriptions of the race to which the Kheta belonged, which have been called "Hittite," and which are declared to have been "read" and "translated" have not as yet been deciphered, and all deductions based upon such "readings" and "translations" are worthless for archaeological purposes.
We see, then, that the only two times Budge uses Hittite or Hittites in this work, he is skeptical. On p. 34 he denies that the Kheta are the same as "the Hittites of the Bible." On the next page he skeptically puts "Hittite" in quotation marks. He denies the very category (precisely what I have been arguing that he did, and what Kyle claims he made quite clear in a remark). So he uses "people" to describe those who built Baghaz-Köi: the city that all now hold to be a Hittite center of power. That is the entirety of relevant references in this particular book. Yet DagoodS claims that it provides some proof that Budge accepted the existence of the Hittites as a nation (let alone an empire).
Moreover, we see him naming all sorts of other peoples in the following pages (minus the cynical quotation marks): "warlike tribes that lived on the southern coast of Asia Minor" [where the Hittites lived], "Qarqisha" or "Qalqisha," "Pitasa," "Euka" or "Luka," "Maunna," "Masa," "Tarteni" . . .
The first of these tribes, the Qalqisha, seems to be undoubtedly the Cilicians, the termination sha representing the nominal termination in Lycian, the typical language of the ancient races of Asia Minor. The Pitasa are the Pisidians, the Euka or Luka are the Lycians, as already mentioned.
He mentions the Mashauasha, Sharetina, Sardians of Lydia, Sardinians, Shakelesha, Sagalassians, Thuirsha, Aqaiuasha, Achaians, Tchakarei (Teucrians), Taanau (Danaans), and Pulsath (whom he thinks are the Philistines), among others. All of these peoples are mentioned, but he has no place for the Hittites. He scorns them all three times he mentions "them" at all or their capital. And that is because, I submit, he doesn't think they existed. It's completely consistent with that hypothesis. I showed in my last installment how he exhibited this same "Hittite skepticism" in at least two other books of his:
In his 1929 (originally 1913?) book, The Rosetta Stone, Budge gives indirect indication of his skepticism in print, by putting every instance of the word Hittite or Hittites in the text (pp. 194-196) in quotation marks: thus suggesting a questionable identification, whereas he does no such thing for Babylonians, Assyrians, etc.
Budge writes similarly in his volume, A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities (London: Harrison & Sons: 1900), where he uses skeptical phraseology such as ". . . which has been called Hittite" (p. 27) and "seals inscribed in the so-called Hittite character" (p. 200).
All of this is quite consistent with the theory I am proposing and that Kyle indirectly asserts with all his clues (that DagoodS agrees implicate Budge in Kyle's mind and intentions).
Sir Budge is NOT stating, "The Hittites never existed." He is indicating is that the connection between the Kheta and the Hittites has yet to be proven at the time of his writing.
He is not acknowledging them at all. He denies that the category exists, as I have shown from this book and two others of his. That's logically the same as "denying that a people and empire known as the Hittites existed."
Now look at the first quoted sentence by Kyle Melvin which comes from Sir Budge's History of Egypt Vol. 4, pg 136 (1902)
The Kheta, who are no doubt the people referred to by the Assyrians under the name of Khatti, have been identified with the Hittites of Holy Scripture, but on insufficient grounds, and similarly the Khabiri have been identified with the Hebrews.
Again, Sir Budge questions whether Kheta is correctly identified with the Hittites. Not whether the Hittites existed at all.
It is not inconsistent with the latter proposition. It doesn't contradict it. It is simply a lesser example of skepticism which is completely harmonious with a proposed complete skepticism.
1n 1906, archeology confirmed Kheta was referring to the Hittites.
Sir Budge wrote a book The Dwellers by the Nile which was originally published in 1885, but updated. I cannot confirm publication date of the copy linked, but in it, Sir Budge states at pg 53:
[F]or it was from this race the Khita nation, so celebrated for having waged war successfully against Ramses II, and recently identified with the Biblical Hittites, sprang.
(It appears in his later works Sir Budge refers to "Kheta" as "Khita.") Reasonably, this was updated some time after 1906—after the discovery linking the two.
I agree; it appears that he finally learned by that time what had been argued by Sayce and Wright since the mid-1880s. Five times in the book he directly equates the Khita (aka Kheta) and the Hittites. Better late than never. At least he can admit he is wrong (unlike many people I know). I respect that.
If we review The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archeology published 1893, but updated 1925, Sir Budge repeatedly refers to the "Hittites" as historical without qualification.
Because he "got it" late and figured out the truth of the matter does not disprove that he categorically denied the existence of the Hittites before. Kyle indirectly acknowledged that he had changed his view, by writing in 1912: "no one is saying now that 'no such people as the Hittites ever existed.'" Budge had budged: he was now acknowledging the archaeological evidence. Some folks are slow learners. And some will accept the evidence of the spade, even if they eschew the historical evidence of Scripture (that is persistently verified by the spade).
Everything we have seen (including positive demonstrations of how he repeatedly denies the validity of the very category "Hittite") is completely in accord with such a theory. DagoodS denied that anyone ever was that entirely skeptical of the Hittites. He has been proven wrong. Christian apologists have not been lying, lo all these years. These opinions were quite real among Budge and no doubt other biblical skeptics, yet to be found and documented.
At best what we have is a scholar who questioned the sufficiency of proofs whether "Kheta" was referring to the Hittites. Notice he carefully qualifies his statement. He doesn't say, "Kheta does not refer to the Hittites" nor does he say, "The Hittites didn't exist, so Kheta can't be the biblical Hittites." He says the case is "unproven."
Granted, that is how he puts it in his writing, with as much scholarly objectivity as he can muster. It is still not at all inconsistent with a theory of his radical skepticism.
Further (contra Melvin Kyle's quote-mining) Sir Budge states whether Kheta refers to the Hittites or not—If Kheta is not actually the same as the Hittites, they must be the same race.
But he didn't say this! DagoodS imports his own thinking into the quotation but it isn't there (which is precious and humorous, doing this, as he does, right after falsely accusing Kyle of quote-mining). What he actually wrote (as already shown above) was:
. . . the people who built the fortress temples of Baghaz-Köi and Eyuk belonged to the same race, if they were not actually the same people, as the Kheta . . .
He did not identify these "people" as Hittites, and in the same work was consistently skeptical of "Hittites" altogether.
How could one claim Sir Budge was stating "the Hittites did not exist"?
The evidence of his works prior to 1904 bears this out, with consistency (at least what I have seen thus far). It doesn't prove it, but it is entirely harmonious with such a scenario. Nothing there contradicts it. And then, of course, we have Kyle's word for what he stated outright.
How could the Kheta be the same people, or at least the same race, as a myth?
That's not what my opinion (nor the early skeptical Budge's) requires. The early Budge stated that the Kheta were of the same race as an undetermined "people" who built and inhabited Baghaz-Köi -- but not with what he would regard as the Hittites (since he didn't acknowledge them).
Upon gaining new information, Sir Budge readily accepts Kheta and Hittites are the same.
Good for him. Maybe DagoodS will eventually alter his opinion as well, the more we keep showing that it has more holes than a pin cushion.
Now to the second document.
2) Melvin Kyle's entry on Archeology in the International Bible Encyclopedia (1915?) states,
Then grave doubts in the past have been raised concerning the Hittites Occasionally it has been boldly said that "no such people ever existed" (compare Newman, Hebrew Monarchy, 184-85; Budge, Hist of Egypt, IV, 136)
Uh-oh. Do you see those two cites?
Yes we do! We can read!!! Isn't literacy wonderful?
That first name may be familiar to you—Francis William Newman. He was a previous contestant in our Parade of names and we already blew out of the water the allegation Newman said, "Hittites don't exist."
. . . which was a perfectly ridiculous and irrelevant exercise, since neither I nor anyone else claimed that he did so in the first place.
Indeed, he demonstrated he did think Hittites existed.
Yes, of course (YAWN). As already pointed out, I had written in my first paper (this is now the fourth in the series):
Note, however, that neither Newman's nor Cheyne's positions entail an absolute denial that the Hittites existed: only a severe doubting of many particulars and the general thrust of the biblical accounts, which have since been corroborated by archaeological evidence.
All this demonstrates is that DagoodS either didn't read or fails to comprehend my papers and clarifications made in his own comboxes, since here he is stating something that never was part of my argument. He's now been informed of this three times (counting this one). His stupefied repetition of the non sequitur comes as no surprise to me. It's what often happens when one fails to respond point-by-point. If you don't understand the opposing argument in the first place, then you make yourself look silly by opposing straw men that have nothing to do with the opposing argument.
And so here I am yet again, correcting DagoodS' false understandings. He can make fun of a caricature of my argument if he likes, for his readers, but he'll look awful silly when I present the actual truth of the matter in my replies. His choice . . . if he insists on looking rationally inept, I suppose I can't stop him. But maybe he'll learn to read more carefully in the future.
The original 1882 claim that I cited, from William Wright, entailed no such implication, either. DagoodS again simply read into it what wasn't there (an occurrence apparently distressingly frequent in his argumentation, since we have seen repeated instances of it). Wright stated that Newman "speaks of the Bible references to the Hittites as 'unhistorical,' and as 'not exhibiting the writer's acquaintance with the times in a very favourable light'". That is not the same as denying the existence of the Hittites altogether. I trust that most readers can perceive the logical distinction, even if the logically hapless DagoodS cannot.
And the second citation we have just demonstrated doesn't hold water, either.
That particular section of Budge doesn't prove that he thought the Hittite nation or people didn't exist. I never said it did, nor did Wright. DagoodS certainly knows what I intended to argue: what my claim was, since I expressly affirmed right after the long quotation: that both men did not deny the existence of the Hittites in the citations mentioned. I didn't believe that of Budge till yesterday, when I put all of the evidence together. And this particular citation was not any part of my evidence proposed.
Realizing these entries are not enough, . . .
DagoodS acts as if his non sequitur paper made me see the light, but he misunderstood the nature of my argument in the first place. He reads the writings of Christians like myself in the same manner that he reads the Bible: not attempting to properly understand either before he proceeds to futilely attempt to rip them to shreds.
Dave Armstrong claims Sir Budge made an oral statement to Melvin Kyle, who did not attribute it to Sir Budge out of friendship. Curiously, the only support given is that they were in the same occupation (really? Everyone in the same occupation are friends?), and that Melvin Kyle didn't attribute the quote to Sir Budge.
The reason someone says that the originator of some thought shall "remain nameless" is generally because either 1) they can't document or prove their identity, or 2) they fear a reprisal of some sort, or 3) they are protecting the person from embarrassment, out of charity. The latter seems the most plausible to me, since they were in the same field. True, that is not proof of friendship. It was merely speculation on my part; no more.
But good will and respect (if not technically friendship) could and would motivate one not to embarrass a colleague in one's own field. Assuming for a moment that the utterance actually happened, it strikes me as something that would be communicated to a friend, since it is controversial in and of itself. But friendship is not crucial to the theory as a whole. DagoodS is free to try to argue the superior plausibility of an alternate scenario.
The second support is question-begging: We know they are friends, because Kyle didn't attribute the quote to Sir Budge. Kyle didn't attribute the quote to Sir Budge because they are friends.
Mere speculations are not intended to be serious arguments in the first place. They are simply thrown out for consideration: to create a plausible scenario of what may have happened. They are tentative by nature.
I submit it more likely Melvin Kyle did not attribute this quote to Sir Budge, because Melvin didn't want to be called out on it! Safer and anonymous to say, "I heard it from a leading archeologist" than to actually call out a name!
I don't find that plausible, for reasons I gave in my second reply to Vinny, near the top of this paper. The question at hand is whether the remark was actually said, and whether we can trust Kyle to accurately report it or not. I say that we can, because I see no reason why we shouldn't.
How many times have we had conversations like that? How many assertions have you heard, started with, "They say…." Or "Scientists claim…" And when we look for the proof (like we are doing here) all of a sudden "they" and "scientists" and "skeptics" become difficult to find!
I think eminent professors talking about their own field can, and should be granted a good degree of trustworthiness.
This is the reason we do not allow hearsay (a witness stating, "She told me…") in a courtroom. It is unreliable. We don't know the context, the credibility, the bias or anything at all about the person making the hearsay statement.
It was inevitable that DagoodS would object to it being "hearsay." I predicted that. Again, we are left with the decision of how we will interpret the claim. Is Kyle distorting what actually happened or fabricating a complete lie, or not? I don't find that likely or convincing, myself.
Take this simple situation. Bob is testifying:
Bob: Tim told me the truck was red.
But Tim isn't there; we cannot cross-examine him. What if Tim was color-blind? Or it turns out Tim wasn't in a position to even see the truck? Or Tim has some bias? This is the reason we indicate attorneys must be allowed to cross-examine the ACTUAL witness. Not what someone else claims the person said.
We have the same problem here. What was the context where Sir Budge talked (if he did at all) to Melvin Kyle? How many of us have heard someone quote what we said, and think, "Wait a minute. I wasn't saying that AT ALL!" or "Wait, that was taken totally out of context."
I know the feeling well, from how DagoodS treats my arguments! I agree that reports of oral communications aren't compelling in and of themselves. That's why I am creating arguments and a plausibility structure around the alleged spoken words of Budge: showing that nothing in Budge's writings contradicts such a proposed scenario.
Melvin Kyle already demonstrated he has no problem quote-mining.
I deny this, and I have given my reasons why, above. But I have shown how DagoodS distorted what Budge said and molded his stated opinion into a conception of his own making: a sloppy exercise in wishful thinking.
What if Sir Budge said, "The Hittites as literally described in the Bible? In my opinion, no such people existed"? Many other scholars questioned the literal accounts without questioning the Hittites existence. (The same way if I was talking about Exodus and someone mentioned the Egyptians willingly giving the exiting Hebrews gold, silver and clothing to the point the Egyptians were plundered. Exodus 12:35-36. I could respond, "No such people existed!" I am NOT saying Egyptians didn't exist—I am saying those particular Egyptians are a myth.)
I trust the eminent scholar to have reported it accurately and not out of context. DagoodS doesn't trust him. That's what it comes down to. I trust scholars in their own field. I take them at their word. It is irrelevant to me if they are Christians or atheists or left-handed, one-eyed, freckled libertarians.
Melvin Kyle could easily take a sentence out of context or modify it, or mold it to his own wishes.
And DagoodS can easily apply his usual cynicism and skepticism to Kyle, just as he does with everything and anything else Christian or biblical. If Kyle had a bias (granted) -- not the same as deliberate distortion or misrepresentation --, then by the same token, so does DagoodS, in how he interprets. It doesn't mean that someone is deliberately lying. Natural bias is one thing; lying or deceitfulness quite another. In the end, readers will have to make up their own minds how they will interpret all this.
Or maybe he didn't. Maybe Sir Budge said to him privately, "All this Hittite nonsense is bunk. No Hittites ever existed." That is the problem with hearsay—we don't know! This is why we must rely upon our sources, and avoid inferring something not there.
Not everything is the equivalent of a court case. We proceed in our everyday lives doing many things that aren't absolutely proven. Absolute proof is not required here (nor belief "beyond a reasonable doubt"). We're speculating and arguing for plausible scenarios.
Finally, it appears anachronistic for Sir Budge to write about the similarities between the Hittites and the Khetas—if not the fact they were actually the same people!—and then privately proclaim the exact opposite.
This smuggles in the same falsehood that DagoodS has used repeatedly: that Budge was referring to the Hittites in comparison to the Kheta. He did not do so, as shown.
A hearsay statement conveniently fitting what a quote-mining apologist wants to hear, who carefully avoids attributing it to Sir Budge.
Essentially, this is a sophisticated way of saying that Kyle lied. Big surprise: DagoodS again concludes, after long, agonizing, soul-searching (utterly fair-minded) reflections on the matter, that the Christian lied. That's what they always do. Christians (especially we lowly scheming apologists) are a great big pack of liars.
The actual quotes do not align with what Sir Budge claims—the fact Melvin Kyle cut out a most important portion should cause heavy concern regarding his reliability.
That's sheer nonsense. I have shown that Kyle didn't do anything wrong in not including later sentences (whereas DagoodS read incorrectly a crucial element of Budge's position). This is a bum rap. But DagoodS is desperate at this point, and the charge of lying and/or incompetence is what he always seems to fall back on. It's what started this debate: his classifying apologists as habitual, inveterate liars. He tried to water it down later and make out that he wasn't claiming that, but I documented his original meaning beyond any doubt. And now he is doing the same thing again. The leopard can't change its spots. It looks like as long as DagoodS is an atheist, he will always suspect any Christian thinker of being a dummy or a liar. Kyle is the present recipient of this blessing.
Not to mention citing Newman, who we have already seen, contended Hittites existed. If Kyle is willing to misrepresent Newman . . .
He did no such thing. DagoodS charges Kyle falsely. This goes back to the meaning of "compare" (or, "cf.") that I dealt with above. DagoodS reads into the quotation an intent to distort that was not there.
and is willing to misrepresent Sir Budge, why should we consider him reliable for claiming an anonymous statement, implicating the opposite of what Sir Budge wrote?
DagoodS says Kyle is an incompetent and a liar (surprise!!!). I say he can be trusted, for the many reasons I have given. Readers can choose for themselves. It's all here. I have included DagoodS' entire paper, with my reply. I trust readers' intelligence enough to use their critical faculties and come up with an informed opinion.
But the substance of the reputed oral statement is not at all the "opposite" of what Budge wrote (prior to 1904). To the contrary, it's completely harmonious with it. I think I have demonstrated that, but again, readers are free to judge for themselves. I encourage all of you reading this to do just that.
Sniping-type remarks by DagoodS in his combox and my replies:
Read Dave Armstrong's response to my question as to why Kyle was citing Newman and Budge. He indicates "compare" means "concepts similar in some respect only."
He mocks me; calling me "foolish" for allegedly claiming Kyle's use of compare means "without a doubt that he [Kyle] is claiming that his two similar citations are absolutely identical to the alleged oral statement of Budge." [emphasis in the original] (Note I did not say they were absolutely identical. Example 17,233 of Dave Armstrong misrepresenting my position.)
Interesting. So Kyle says "it has been boldly said that 'no such people exist' (compare Newman and Budge)" and Dave Armstrong insists this means the citations are NOT "absolutely identical" to the statement.
So Newman and Budge did NOT say "Hittites didn't exist" just "concepts similar in some respect only."
Yeah? So what? As I have stated three times, and again now, I haven't argued otherwise. I stated as much in my first paper. Maybe you'll get it now. (1-23-11)
In other words, in what was cited from Budge's writing, he didn't outright deny their existence. That's because he didn't wanna say it in writing. (1-23-11)
Read Dave Armstrong's reply. One word: Spin.
Longer explanation: Dave Armstrong considers Kyle's quote-mining of Sir Budge's quotes (twice) by chopping out the end of sentences which conflict with his (Kyle and Dave Armstrong's) position not important because…
…those portions of the sentences were "not relevant."
No--I'm not kidding. (1-23-11)
I made my arguments, and they were quite involved and systematic. You can choose to ignore them or misrepresent them (as you usually do), or actually interact with 'em: take your opponent seriously enough to grasp his argument and show everyone what is actually wrong with it, rather than simply calling it names (like "spin"). I know it's a novelty, but I think there is a good chance that you might like it if you tried it sometime.
There has been no conflict demonstrated between Budge's words and my interpretations of what I believe was his pre-1904 position. Quite the contrary. (1-23-11)
The search for an old version of Encyclopaedia Britannica (reputed to have described the Hittites as a "mythological people") continues. I ran across a citation of the 8th edition (1853-1860; published in 1861) on "Hittites":
The 1861 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, under the subject 'Hittites', contains just eight-and-a-half lines and if you read these carefully, you will notice that they are only a brief summary of what is found in the Bible.
'HITTITES, the children or descendants of Heth, formed one of the tribes of Canaanites which occupied Palestine before the Israelites. They lived in the mountains of Judea round Hebron, and retained their nationality even after the return of the Israelites from exile. The "kings of the Hittites" are often mentioned in connection with the kings of Syria; and in the days of Joram their alliance with the Egyptians was an object of dread to the besieged inhabitants of Samaria.'
(David Down, "The Hittites -- second time round")
We know, then, that as late as 1861, the Britannica was, in effect, still accepting the authority of the Bible with regard to Hittite history. Thus, that edition and earlier ones will not have the reputed text I am looking for (if it exists at all), because biblical skepticism was not yet the norm.
The next (9th) edition was published from 1875-1889. We know that in 1881 (article by T. K. Cheyne) the existence of the Hittites was not denied. A question remains, however, as to whether articles can change even within editions. Possibly they do (I recall, I think, revisions of Cheyne's article being mentioned). It may be that in earlier years within the dates above, more skepticism was expressed; then as archaeological finds came out, it was toned down.
A set dated "1875" is available at Wayne State University (my alma mater): "library use only" -- so I'll have to persuade them to let me look at it or learn what it says about the Hittites. That would be a special treat if I could find the great sought-after "gem" (that would end this discussion once and for all) right at my own college.
"D'Ma" commented on DagoodS' blog:
I've been reading the back and forth between you guys as this has unfolded. I really don't have a dog in this fight and am unprepared from a research stand point to argue for or against. Thus what I am offering is an observation and not an argument.
It seems to me, and as one who has typically been on the side of Christian apologist, that the arguments put forth by the Christian apologist in this case are a massive fail. This, again, is just an outside observation of facts.
The key words in this are "Occasionally it has been boldly said". Just from the outside looking in, if the best as a Christian apologist, you have is that Sir Budge didn't outright deny the existence of the Hittites "because he didn't wanna do it in writing" it can hardly be called bold.
It is my observation that apologists on both sides of any issue(I'm not speaking of anyone in particular here - so don't think I'm attacking anyone in this debate)tend to latch onto ideas and quote mine to support their own agenda.
I think at the very least maybe some agreement could be had that if the support for said argument is not strong, and holes have been shot through and through, that maybe it's just not a good argument and drop it.
It is hard to believe that apologists have clung to such a vague quote. But it does happen on both sides.
Furthermore, I'd be interested to know, did the Christian apologist correct his statement later? Even if Sir Budge did make the statement at some point, it appears that he later corrected his views "in writing" when new information came to light. Did the Christian apologist do the same? Did they recant the use of this denial of the existence of Hittites as an apologetic when the person in question changed his views on the subject? (1-24-11)
In effect, yes. Kyle noted that no one argued like that anymore, in the same context, and I would contend that his not naming Budge was a charitable act, because the man no longer believed it; therefore shouldn't be named. But it was important to note that skeptics once argued in such a fashion and that archaeology had corrected them. Kyle took a middle road by not naming him, yet leaving clues for those really interested in who it might be.
I think it is important to understand that skepticism in certain areas (basically from the school of higher criticism) was much greater in the past, before the advent of biblical archaeology, because we should learn from our mistakes. It's always good to know where we have come from. This is why history in general is a good and constructive field of study.
That said, I think that when this is done, it should be properly documented. I'm as disgusted as atheists, at the use of some "proverbial"-sort of accepted wisdom, minus any documentation and hard evidence presented. This is why I have had to work so hard looking up things, because so many Christian apologists (even scholars) were too lazy to do so and contented themselves with simply parroting "commonly known" knowledge (i.e., within their own circles) that something or other was the case. That doesn't cut it. It's never been how I do my apologetics.
But there are some additional reasons I have suggested, as to why it is so difficult to find documentation of this: it's very old (pre-1880), a lot is in German; skeptics were reluctant to put it in print (Budge), or to publish such radical opinions with their name attached (F. W. Newman).
But there were indeed such opinions (to a more or less degree). My research has shown that. It doesn't convince DagoodS, but nothing ever does: he is beyond all rational argument on some things. I write for others, not him. His was simply the extreme opinion that needed to be refuted. He doesn't dialogue (at least not with me). And that is what I am about. I seek dialogue, not mutual monologue (mixed in with a bunch of insults that have nothing to do with the topic). (1-24-11)
Another reason it is difficult to find is, as I have noted, because the word "Hittites" doesn't necessarily have to be used, if a person is so skeptical that he would relegate most of the early books of the Bible to mythology and legend. This definitely happened (I produced documentation). Such a position (such as held by Schultz or David Strauss or any number of higher critics) entails by its very nature a questioning of the Hittites' existence, along with that of many other figures involved.
It doesn't necessarily do so (one could hold that there were real people who were distantly and initially connected to the later massive accretion of legend and myth: such as King Arthur or Robin Hood, etc.), but such a position might very well involve that premise (non-existence) within itself. And it could be expressed without ever saying the word "Hittite," so that Google Book searches, etc., would not locate it.
But DagoodS has already stated that documentation of that sort is not good enough for him. Very convenient isn't it: if we irrationally rule out legitimate evidence and documentation for a position because it doesn't conform to a tee to what we say it should conform to? I have maintained that this is not the ideal evidence that could be found, but it is evidence, and relevant.
But this is part and parcel of the frequently illogical nature of DagoodS' argumentation: that I have objected to. His thinking is thoroughly irrational and confused.
Of course, you would expect me to say that, as a Christian. I say this is a key reason why he is an atheist, because of his disturbed, irrational thinking, that led him to atheism, by means of many false premises.
This is how I generally approach atheists and atheism: the problem is not usually a matter of being immoral, but rather, of being irrational and improperly grounded in or informed of Christianity and its rationale. That's why I always go in my analyses and apologetics right to one's premises (a thing that DagoodS detests and despises). (1-24-11)
I say DagoodS is irrational and uninformed about Christianity, so that he rejected it. Anyone would expect me to have some theory about atheists who once were Christians. I'm not gonna say his reasons for rejecting Christianity were perfectly good ones! I would be a pretty lousy Christian apologist if I thought that. :-)
I don't say he is immoral and evil. But DagoodS generally says about Christians that they are profoundly stupid and also a pack of liars. Which is worse? I haven't attached moral judgment; he has.
I can only do so much discussion about discussion. DagoodS refuses to actually talk about the thing itself in any comprehensive, normal fashion. He doesn't dialogue with me. That gets old. I will continue to seek an atheist who has the courage of his convictions and can defend them against honest criticisms. (1-24-11)
I hesitate to explain my researching skills. Like the magician, I fear once explained the magic becomes mundane, and the magician considered nothing more than a skilled laborer. All I did was two (2) things:
1) Find the Google Book of the source cited;
2) Search "Hittite" or "Hittites."
The first step took a googlewhack. The second, typing in the single word in the "Find" box. I then found other instances where the same author referred to Hittites as existing.
Not particularly impressive, eh? *grin*
I personally find it very disingenuous to cut out a sentence…especially when the cut-out portion starts with "on the other hand" indicating a differing position than the first quote-mined part of the sentence.
By the way, does anyone (this isn't directed at D'Ma) think I need to explain why I don't dialogue with Dave Armstrong? It seems like petty internet feuding to do so. (1-24-11)
Thanks for the confirmation and clarification (lest anyone mistakenly think you have actually been attempting dialogue).
Again, I'm not the one calling you an immoral or dishonest person. At worst, I use a few pointed terms for what I consider weak arguments. But we can expect those on your side to take your side, no matter what happens. Nothing new there.
Since I am interested in dialogue and you clearly are not (with me) by your own admission, then obviously we are at an impasse. I have no interest in mutual monologue, so we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day.
I thank you for the time you did put into this, and opportunity for me to clarify (and I think, considerably strengthen) my argument. (1-24-11)
Additional final comments in the combox:
[Dave: 1-21-11] :
Yep, "liar" seems to be DagoodS' stock answer to every Christian counter-claim. We must be lying about it. What else could possibly explain our maddening intransigence and refusal to bow at our atheist overlords' feet and accept their manifest wisdom?
[Larry ("Barefoot Bum"): 1-21-11]
(Summary: but Christians actually are liars . . .)
[Dave: 1-21-11]
I certainly wouldn't waste time with folks I consider inveterate liars. But of course there are very few I regard in that way.
[Jon: 1-24-11]
(gross summary caricature of what I supposedly argued, and how I did it)
[DagoodS: 1-24-11]
(agrees, pats Jon on the back, and presents further distortions of what I did)
[Dave: 1-24-11]
. . . it is entertaining and excellent for a good belly laugh. Thanks!
[Jon: 1-24-11]
(reiterates the tired canard that I am very nice in person; why not also in print?)
[Dave: 1-25-11]
(explains yet again why this objection is obfuscation, erroneous, and irrelevant)
[Larry: 1-25-11]
(puts his spin on the discussion and concludes that I am a liar)
[Larry: 1-25-11]
(I'm a liar, so he sez, because, well, all Christians are liars; therefore, I must be, too!)
[Dave: 1-25-11] :
Many thanks for the superb confirmation of exactly what I've been saying. Christians are a bunch of despicable liars. Rarely have I seen such a clear example of pure prejudice. This is as bigoted as it gets.
You lie about my supposedly classifying DagoodS as a "liar" (he showed the same non-comprehension of my position, even after I clarified it). When I used the term "Lies" in the first paper, it was a rhetorical use, since he had the word "lying" in his paper I was critiquing.
But it was "lie" in the sense of falsehood; not deliberate, knowing, deceptive falsehood.
If you look up "lie" in any dictionary, it's true that the first definition is knowing deception. But a secondary meaning is simply "untruth" or "falsehood." That was my sense. If it wasn't clear at first, it was after I clarified (at least to anyone who is willing to receive it, rather than concluding that I was deceiving and "lying" in the first sense).
So I didn't call DagoodS a "liar": contrary to his later semi-paranoid overreaction. But he has certainly called many Christians and apologists that, and you without question classify virtually all Christians into the category of dishonest, deceptive liars who care nothing about truth. I have never EVER said anything remotely approaching this sort of bigotry, about atheists. I don't believe it. It couldn't be any further from my position than it is. There is no comparison. Yet the myth around here is that I'm the one who has supposedly engaged in all these "personal attacks."
Whatever DagoodS thinks about Christians in general is hard to tell (he sends mixed signals), but I do know that he is unwilling to dialogue with me. So this continues to be a sheer farce. It's simply post mortem analysis now.
I continue to be astonished at how dimly my arguments, my motivation, the thrust of my reasoning throughout this, are understood. But what can I do? This is what happens, when the opponent is demonized and caricatured from the beginning. I agree with Plato and Socrates: that true dialogue is literally impossible with those stacked conditions of hostility and relentless suspicion of motives.
Apparently the goal on this site is to pat each other on the back and cry in your beer about how terrible and cruel and stupid and what a bunch of liars Christians and God are. There is little interest in discussion with someone who differs. The goal is to refute Christianity at all costs. It ain't the goal to interact with a Christian who dares to disagree with the cynical, jaded portrayal of the Christian faith that occurs here on a regular basis.
[DagoodS: 1-25-11]:
I am not quite as pessimistic towards Christians. I think many are truth-seekers, but the environment and culture is not very amicable towards it. The fact we see deconverts come out of Christianity would be sufficient evidence such truth-seekers exist.
As for Christian apologists…I do dialogue with many—and quite amicably. I think such discussions are helpful more for lurkers than any hope of one converting the other. To see how the arguments pan out, what the facts are, etc. However I quite agree with some it becomes a "tedious exercise in futility to have a discussion about a substantive issue with someone who is not an honest seeker after the truth" and further discussion becomes a waste of time and effort. Commodities best spent in other endeavors.
[Dave: 1-25-11]:
So you classify me as "someone who is not an honest seeker after the truth," right DagoodS? That's why you have no desire to dialogue with me.
[DagoodS: 1-25-11]:
Yep. Although don't short yourself here--that is only one of many reasons I choose when and when not to reply to you.
Plus it is always fun watching how long you string out your insistence in having the last word.
[Dave: 1-25-11]:
Thank you for your frank reply. Let it be known that I don't return that insult. Be well.
[Jon: 1-25-11]:
Sorry to dwell on this. Maybe it's not important. But Dave, I find you to likewise be a bulldog in person. You seem competitive and not a shrinking violet in person. The same is true for your written debate. The difference is that the personal discussion seems a lot more pleasant to me.
I think that bit of unpleasantness in your written debates makes written communication more difficult and potentially hostile. Ask yourself why do you think it is that it's only the written communication that descends to levels you (and I) don't like. You and I will never have a problem in spoken discussion and you know that. So there's a difference between the written and spoken. Is it me? I think it's you. But if it's me tell me.
[Dave: 1-25-11]:
Is it me?
I think so.
I think it's you.
You're entitled to your opinion.
But if it's me tell me.
I did.
Do you agree that I am not "an honest seeker after the truth," as DagoodS just confirmed was his opinion?
[Jon: 1-25-11 + Dave: 1-25-11 (one / two / three)]:
I do not think you are dishonest.
Okay, cool. So we have three atheists, and three opinions of me. I'm quite the controversial (and complex) figure:
Dave in person (though the man has never met me he purports to know all about me personally): ass, loser, etc. ad nauseum.
Dave in writing: ass
Is Dave a liar?: yes, cuz all Christians are.
Dave in person: nice guy
Dave in writing: ass
Is Dave a liar?: yes
Dave in person: bulldog in argument, but a nice guy
Dave in writing: bulldog in argument, and an ass
Is Dave a liar?: no
Fascinating. Thanks again for the comedic value of that. And I'm delighted to see that we have come so immensely far in our personal friendship that you can readily admit that I am not a liar. Now there is something very positive and encouraging to build on, ain't it, Jon? I'm not an inveterate liar because I disagree with you on something. I actually like truth, as you do.
But let me ask you this. Have you learned something through this exchange?
I learn something -- lots of things -- in every exchange I have. That's why dialogue is fun. One doesn't enter it in order to always be right, but to learn and grow. I do think I succeeded in providing sufficient evidence for what I suspected would be the case.
The claim of the apologist is that skeptics used to deny the existence of the Hittites
They did. That has been shown to my satisfaction. My Christian friends think so too. You guys think the opposite. Such is life. We think the evidence for the existence of God is quite sufficient. You don't. What else is new? I accept the report of reputable archaeologists in talking about their own field, even if I don't see exact quotes. Thinkers do that all the time in many fields of inquiry. We accept the word of the expert. We can't do everything ourselves.
and this reveals that they are in some way defective, or perhaps "hyper-skeptics" grasping at demonstrably false claims in their efforts to discredit the bible.
It shows that they wouldn't trust the Bible's historical accuracy (due to the poison and bankruptcy of much of higher criticism) and were proven wrong. I entered this whole debate because DagoodS called apologists who mention these 19th century skeptics inveterate liars. They weren't lying. There was lots of skepticism, to differing degrees.
Granted, much of this skepticism was not total, but then, many of the more nuanced scholarly claims made by Christian scholars were not necessarily claiming it was always total. There are gradations. This is what one usually finds in any intensely detailed and comprehensive study. It's like seeing a mountain in the distance, but then up close you really see how many topographical features it has. It ain't "smooth" at all. It's not simply described.
Is that a fair characterization of skeptics generally based on what you've learned about their claims regarding the Hittites? I hope you would say no.
My position is that atheists and other biblical skeptics are driven by their hostile premises, and these premises are false. I analyze peoples' thoughts and where I believe they go astray, not their hearts and motives. That is the game of DagoodS and Bum: "Christians are liars and dolts; that explains why they don't agree with us, the smart people who get it. But we know there are a few honest Christians: the ones (like us!) who decide to leave Christianity . . ."
I would hope you would at least agree that the apologetic characterization is not fair. Will you go that far?
I have made a number of statements critical of sloppy research and lack of documentation. No one knows that better than I do, because I've been out here busting my butt looking for stuff for two weeks, only to put up with DagoodS' condescending mocking and systematic disregard for my arguments, because (as we now know) he never had any intention of dialoguing in the first place, and regards me as a liar, not interested in truth.
Christians exaggerate claims and atheists do also. It's a general human tendency (bias). I've said this all along and it has been my opinion for as long as I remember. So I haven't learned anything new in that regard. I was only surprised by the extent to which DagoodS resorts to "liar" as an explanation for almost anything. He has gotten much more bigoted and cynical compared to when I first encountered him.
But this is what happens. The more you hang out with atheists (people like Bum) who despise Christians and think they are imbeciles and liars (and the less you hang around thinking, halfway decent Christians), the more you will tend to think that way. We are what we eat. If young people hang around other kids who do drugs and steal cigarettes from the store, they will tend to start doing it, too, the longer they hang out with 'em. People are sheep. That's how they act. Christians do the same thing, and not always in a good way.
The claims have been exaggerated, and things passed on that lack nuance and the proper distinctions. I saw a lot of that, and fully agree with you in despising it. I'm the one who has to deal with the backlash of that, as an apologist, not you, so I have at least as much motive (if not much more so) to detest distortion, as you. It's not the way I have always operated.
That said, I have shown in various different ways that such skeptics did exist. The key thing I found is, unfortunately, the report of a spoken communication. I accept the word of the Egyptologist who reported it; DagoodS does not, and essentially calls him a liar, too. So he's a liar and so am I. That is DagoodS' excuse to flee the debate and respond no further. I predicted early on that personal insult would be the result, the more I pressed the issue, and sure enough, it was.
It's easy to dismiss the other side of an argument as all liars and dumbbells. I don't approach discussion in that way. And that is why this goes nowhere. The stakes were high from the beginning, because of how DagoodS framed the question: making an absolute statement that "no one" ever denied the Hittites' existence, and then calling apologists en masse liars for denying his take.
My main mistake was in naively assuming that mere reason would work with a person who starts out with that sort of ludicrous and intrinsically hostile outlook. I should have known better, but I don't regret doing the work, because it was instructive on several levels and fascinating.
I especially loved learning more about and being able to defend the Bible in terms of what it stated about "kings of the Hittites" and of the Egyptians, in the time of Elisha, and how current archaeology and historiography backed it up.
So I am blessed after this. It was bound to end up with ill feelings because DagoodS began the whole thing with those same feelings. Garbage in, garbage out . . .
[DagoodS: 1-26-11]:
(relentless misrepresentations of my arguments, repeating dumb things back that have been clarified 3, 4, 5 times or more, compete with numerous personal attacks and additional falsehoods: "many Christians [including me] embrace non-truths to sustain their belief without researching. . . . persecution complex. . . . tenuous rationalization . . . claiming you didn't mean lying when you said lying . . . name-calling, bad arguments, long-winded posts, rudely insistent on having the last word . . . dunderheads [myself and other apologists] . . . my position misrepresented, the quote-mining, the strawpeople and the refusal to clarify . . .")


text:
- Filed Under
When Laura J. Parker decided to major in psychology at the University of Michigan, she was intrigued by the study of human behavior. Little did she know this interest would turn into a career in finance.
Parker is a financial advisor for Sage Rutty & Company, Inc., a locally-owned financial firm that has served the Rochester area for nearly a century. "We help clients make a financial plan, and then choose investments to make that plan work," she says.
While Parker serves clients of all ages, she particularly enjoys working with young professionals. "I love the educational aspect, helping ...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By Jeremy Faludi, posted on April 25, 2006.
We love our computers for all the ways they make our lives (and the world) better -- the wealth of knowledge (and democratizing force) of the Internet, the instantaneous communication, the sophisticated tools that help us work and create and share. But do our computers love us back?
The modern world's greatest tool is among our most disposable and resource-heavy. Performance-wise, computer design has progressed staggeringly well and astonishingly fast. But looking at it from a green perspective, the work has barely begun. When our laptop dies and we toss it, it either rots in a landfill, or children in the developing world end up wrestling its components apart by hand, melting toxic bits to recover traces of heavy metals. Did someone forget to design for them? And of the $250 billion per year spent on powering computers worldwide, only about 15% of that power was spent computing--the rest was wasted idling. Did we really get what we paid for?
We've written about various aspects of green computers before, but here's an attempt to give a whole-picture view of what the bright green computer of tomorrow will be like: efficiency, manufacturing & materials, recyclability, service model, self-powering, and other trends.
Power: Watts vs. Flops
It has been said that it takes a pound of coal to create, package, store, and move every 2 megabytes of data. This is wrong--Lawrence Berkeley Labs checked the numbers and found it was more like one pound of coal for every 10 or 20 megabytes--but even so, that's a lot of energy. Even with energy prices as cheap as they are now, Google projects it will soon cost more to power a computer for four years than it does to buy a new one. Faster processors historically use more power, and you may recall some generations of Intel chips being called "toasters" for the enormous heat they generated. But that heat's not necessary, it's inefficiency. Inefficient CPU's are a double hit because they both use too much power themselves and their waste heat increases air conditioning needs, especially in server farms--between the computers and the HVAC, data centers use almost ten times the energy per square foot as office space. The waste heat also causes reliability problems, as CPU's crash much more often at higher temperatures. Besides CPU's, inefficiencies also crop up in power supplies, monitors (though LCD's are an order of magnitude better than the CRT's we used to use), and some peripherals. Many people have been working for years to slice this inefficiency out of machines, particularly laptops and other mobile devices whose battery life depends on wise power use.
Transmeta was the pioneer in power-efficient CPU's, with a brilliant design that provided 30% - 170% improvement in performance-per-watt from Intel chips. The market didn't really appreciate Transmeta, but they're still plugging away, and will hopefully be more successful over time. Even more impressive, P. A. Semi is a new chipmaker who claims their CPUs have ten times the performance-per-watt of other computers. The biggest player involved is Sun Microsystems, which has bet a lot on efficient CPUs. They claim their "Niagra" processor gives the best performance-per-watt of any CPU on the market, and said in a 2005 press release that if just half of their entry-level servers from the last three years had been Niagras, the impact would be equivalent to pulling a million SUV's off the road. Sun's CEO Scott McNealy said about their Eco-Responsibility Initiative, were here to make money. Understand that. But we think we can do that in a way that pays off not only for our shareholders but for everybody on the planet.
CPU's are not the only sources of inefficiency in a computer. Power supplies are notoriously bad, generally as little as 47% efficient. And since everything in your computer runs off the power supply, nothing can be efficient without a good one. As we recently mentioned, "80 Plus" certified power supplies are helping fix this by running at 80% efficiency or better. Software also helps. Many computers are only in use 10-20% of the time; laptops use power-management software to sleep or hibernate when not in use, and although desktops lag behind, almost all now have some kind of power management software.
On the far horizon, reversible computing (which also includes quantum computing) promises to reduce power consumption by a factor of several thousand, but such systems are still very much in the lab. It will probably be a decade or two before anything like that makes it to the marketplace.
Computers' power needs will decrease over time one way or another, and at the same time, our ability to generate power renewably on-site will increase. I think within the next ten years we will hit the crossover point where computers can generate all their own power. Solar panels can already cost as little as a dollar a watt, and can generate 5 - 10 watts per square foot. Laptops currently use between 15 and 45 watts. If you assume photovoltaic efficiency increases 50% and computer efficiency doubles (modest goals for 10 years), every laptop could power itself with a PV panel on its top. Alternatively, an average person can generate 75 watts continuously pedaling a bike, or 5 watts turning a hand-crank; computer efficiency gains of 10x could make this a viable method. This is theoretically already designed into the One Laptop Per Child project, and has been tried elsewhere as well.
Sugar and Spice and All Things Nice--well, actually not.
Electronics make up 70 percent of all hazardous waste. Manufacturing computers produces about two pounds of waste for each pound of computer, and between a quarter and a third of this is hazardous waste (the only numbers I have are from ten years ago; can someone provide a link to recent studies?) This includes things like lead in solder, Selenium in circuit boards and power supplies, mercury in LCD backlights, polybrominated flame retardants and antimony trioxide flame retardant in plastics, cadmium in circuit boards and semiconductors, and more. In addition, chip manufacturing uses some of the deadliest gases known to man (such as arsine, silane, chlorine, and phosgene) and several greenhouse gases (like nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide). Not to mention the few thousand gallons of water and over 6000 megajoules of energy a computer requires to fabricate. This is more than the average American's energy use for a month and a half, and Americans use a lot of energy. (Again, if someone has recent numbers on water & energy, please send.) But the computer of the future will be cleaner and greener.
NECs 2002 PowerMate Eco was the first computer to use lead-free solder, a fully recyclable plastic case, monitors without harmful gases, and no toxic flame retardants. (It also used a very efficient CPU, the Transmeta Crusoe.) Little has happened since then, but Dell's OptiPlex GX520 and GX620 desktops are nearly lead-free, and by this summer all computers entering the EU are required to be also. A smaller Oregon company, Computer Technology Link (CTL), sells lead-free PC's that also reduce power use by 15-25%, CTL will even recycle your old computer for free, as well as the computer you buy from them when you're done with it. In 2004 HP prototyped a printer with a corn-based plastic case that could biodegrade. The jurys still out about whether biodegradable cases will actually go to the compost pile rather than the landfill, but it's worth a shot, and last year NEC created a mobile phone with a compostable case, made from a composite of corn plastic and natural fibers.
Circuit boards could be created with a fraction of the waste produced now; they no longer have to be acid-etched copper on fiberglass, we have new technologies such as inkjet-printed conductive polymers which cause only a tiny fraction of the waste. The technology is still in the lab, but on a production scale it should be both greener and cheaper than etching. Even with existing technology there are many toxins which can be eliminated from circuitboard production, and the European Union's pending RoHS toxics-reduction legislation will begin to force companies to build better boards.
Chip fabrication could be radically cleaned up. It's a hard problem--manufacturers push the edges of materials science to get all those tiny features on the chips, so processes are not well-enough understood to easily swap toxic reagents for nontoxic ones--but it is a solvable problem. The lack of progress is mostly due to lack of priority in R&D--consumers don't care about production impacts, they care about speed. Some fabs are working on making their buildings and support systems better, though. In 2004 Texas Instruments worked with Rocky Mountain Institute to design a greener fab in Texas that saved so much money in water, power, and construction costs that it was cheaper than building overseas. That success simply involved better facility design; imagine if we redesigned the whole process.
In comparison to reformulating the computer's chips, reformulating the outside shell is a snap. The shining, coated plastics many computers have now are cobbled from a stew of materials that are not only unrecyclable, but also somewhat expensive. As mentioned above, NEC and HP have made forays into greener case design using exotic bio-plastics. Even simpler methods work as well--sleek aluminum cases are more robust and far more recyclable than plastic ones.
Giving Your Computer Nine Lives
For years, computer manufacturers have blithely packed hazardous substances into their gadgets, then let the whole pile of materials speedily obsolesce; but legislation and consumer activism is changing that. Their new laws requiring manufacturers to take back their own products when customers discard them is a simple but powerful force for changing the production process. Faced with disassembling parts and cycling them back into the fabrication process, companies are making more careful decisions about how those parts are assembled in the first place. Faced with disposal of their own toxic waste, companies are more motivated to eliminate the ingredients from production.
Companies in Europe who've been legally obliged to take back their productsthough they initially balked at the ideahave found that it actually helps their bottom lines, increasing efficiency in labor and materials, and thus saving money. A Panasonic television from 1984 had 39 plastic parts made from 13 different plastics, and took 140 seconds to disassemble. Their 2000-model television contained a mere eight plastic parts made from two types of plastic, and took 78 seconds to take apart (with a corresponding advantage in the time to assemble). Panasonic has a great illustration of this on their website.
Dell recovered 36 million kilos of their products last year for reuse or recycling, and they plan to triple their product recovery by 2009. Their takebacks were not brought on by legislation, but by consumer activism--the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition's "Toxic Dude" campaign, which had college students pressuring Dell to take back old computers, worked so well that Dell now gets it, and has exceeded its own recycling goals. Hewlett-Packard is another leader in recycling old machines--both their own and other companies'. They reuse what they can, then downcycle and dispose of the rest. It's far from being a perfect cradle-to-cradle system, but when all companies have to take back their products, much more design effort will go into creating self-perpetuating cycles of components and materials.
The best way to recycle a computer, however, is to keep it and upgrade it. After all, what do you really need a new computer for? A faster CPU, more memory, and more disk space. All these can be bought individually and replaced, in a well-designed machine. Most brand-name manufacturers are laggards here, making little effort to allow upgradeability of the CPU, though RAM and drives are easy to add. The vanguards of reusing computers are small service shops and resellers, making what are called "white box" systems cobbled together out of generic components, or souped-up older PCs. A few--like Berkeley, Californias Immaculate Computers--even make an effort to make their white boxes green by using lead-free solder. White-box systems are by their nature easy to upgrade or reconfigure, which also means they are easy to disassemble and recycle when you can't upgrade them anymore.
Service: Bits, Not Atoms
Have you ever watched the CPU usage of your machine? If so, you've noticed that it's twiddling its thumbs at just a few percent almost all the time, and only cranks up to full usage for a couple minutes here and there when you're using some fancy Photoshop filter or playing a game. Why have that idle horsepower at all? Because we want it to be there when we need it. Some efficient CPU's are starting to use power-management within them to shut down unused areas without the user noticing. But the ultimate way to have even more horsepower, and only pay for the time you're putting it to use, is to use someone else's machine. A "thin-client" or "dumb terminal" system is a service that connects you to a big industrial-strength computer somewhere else. Basically all you need is a screen, a keyboard, and a fast net connection; the computers brains and disk storage are kept on the server. Sun Microsystems is trying to push the world towards systems like this; they say existing thin-client systems use a tenth of the power and reduce raw material usage by a factor of 150. And that's even using new machines. Server farms can be just as powerful using a large number of older, slower processors as they can be using a small number of fast new processors; while each individual CPU might be too slow for you to want in your own machine, a rack of a hundred reclaimed from the trash bin could be faster than the best machine you could afford. This will help green computing by allowing old hardware to be useful for much longer--easily triple, possibly five times as long as it's currently useful. Sun points out that their thin-client system also allow people to work from home, which reduces the need to build offices and commute; these gains could have as much or more environmental impact as the improved computers. There's financial incentive, too: in addition to the green benefits, Sun says using thin-client systems in their own company saves them $2.8 million per year in energy, $65 million per year in real estate, and $21.2 million in other costs.
Sun's model involves centralized server farms running proprietary hardware and software, but theres no reason it couldn't be done running open-source software on millions of generic machines scattered in living rooms across the world. With strong encryption, redundancy, and reliable connections, it doesn't matter if your data is located in your living room or scattered in stranger's homes in Bangalore and Berlin. The Seti@Home project has already proven the potential for large numbers of ordinary (even obsolete) net-connected computers in people's living rooms, using only spare CPU cycles, to become a powerful supercomputer.
The Bright Green Computer
All this is just the beginning. So far, consumers haven't cared about ecological impact when buying computers, they've cared only about speed and price. But as Moore's Law marches on and computers commoditize, consumers will become pickier about being green. (This means you!) Tomorrow's bright green computers will be different from today's in many ways. So far its rare to see a product that pulls on more than one solution, but the industry is starting to move forward--sometimes of its own accord, sometimes dragged kicking and screaming by regulations and consumer activism. Devices use less and less power while renewable energy gets more and more portable and effective. New green materials are developed every year, and many toxic ones are already being replaced by them. The greenest computer will not miraculously fall from the sky one day, itll be the product of years of improvements to this and that along the way. Designers can now make many small changes converge into a full rethinking of the industry, into directions as yet unknown. And when they do, we will have on our desk a machine that not only connects us to the world through information technology, but to a cycle of manufacturing that doesn't hurt us or future generations; to companies that consider both the people who make their computers and those who take them apart; and all in a product that is lighter, sleeker and more elegant than any we've yet seen.


text:
If you are looking for brake replacement in las vegas, you can trust Brake Masters. Brake Masters has been in business since 1987. We specialize in brakes, ABS and all related systems. Our skilled technicians are ASE (Automotive Service Excellence) certified and our auto repair shops carry the latest high-tech lathes, machinery and diagnostic tools and equipment, to make sure the job is done right the first time, with virtually no followup and repeat repairs. Brake Masters uses the highest quality Bendix pads and shoes in both ceramic and semi-metallic construction for all foreign and domestic car needs. Whether your vehicle is in safe running condition or not, Brake Masters provides mobile units to perform free on site inspection, a convenience unmatched in the industry. We will beat or match any price for brake system repairs and provide every customer individualized attention, as well as offer a lifetime warranty on our pads and shoes. Reservations are not necessary, since our technicians are on duty and willing to inspect and repair your brakes in a swift and proficient manner.
Brake Masters also prides itself in covering a vast array of other automotive repair needs, including servicing and repair of alternators and starters, CV boots, shocks and struts, hydraulic lines, cooling, transmission and brake system flushing, clutch and drive train, tuneups and alignment. Brake Masters conducts a thorough inspection of all components, supplying the customer with the needed repairs at the most affordable prices. Only the highest-rated OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) parts are used for your vehicle, installed by technicians who have certification and experience in each repair area. So if you hear any of those worrisome squeaks, taps, clunks, howls or grinding noises, it's time to see Brake Masters and let them put your fears to rest.
It's good to have some tools in your garage to take care of minor automotive issues that may arise with your car or truck. Having these tools will help you to take care of your car or truck. We've come up with seven of the most important car care tools you should have in your garage
Brake Masters has been servicing our vehicles for brakes, oil changes, and tunes ups for the 12 years we have lived in Las Vegas. The Brake Master team has been a great help to us over the years and has always take great care of us as customersTerry and Ann


text:
Robert Hargrave
User Stats
Profile Images
User Bio
My craft is about using a rather ordinary material and transforming it into an exotic visual experience. The Plywood Sculpture studio is located in railroadsquare.com/. A complete Bio may be found on my website and current news at facebook.com/home.php#!/RT.Hargrave.
External Links
Related RSS Feeds
Recently Uploaded+ See all 3 videos
Recent Activity
Robert Hargrave commented on The Sawdust Dilemma
This film has sparked many positive comments on Facebook...such as "this film has lots of character to it". It is an example of the abundance of potential that Nick posses as a film maker. I very much appreciate the effort that Nick has put into…


text:
By MARTHA SMITH
Special to the Standard
EXETER – When a major weather event is on the way, residents receive constant advisories via computer, TV and radio, but what about the animals housed at the town's shelter on South County Trail?
Who's looking out for their safety?
As it happens, in another example of inter-departmental teamwork, Stefan Coutoulakis and Steve Mattscheck – directors, respectively, of emergency management and public works/the shelter – have put their heads together over this very topic. They have arrived at a plan adapted from one used in coastal Louisiana.
"We've been throwing ideas around," says Coutoulakis, who is a federal disaster consultant. "I reached out to one of my Homeland Security colleagues in Jefferson Parrish, La., and he sent me their evacuation plan which we're customizing" for use in Exeter.
"We tweaked it," adds Mattscheck, who notes that a key element to making an evacuation plan work is having a mutual-aid pact with shelters in other communities because, in the event of a hurricane, everybody wants to move inland.
"It's the main thing we lack," he says of a multi-town agreement. "Transport is also a huge issue. Our equipment is always tasked beyond its capabilities."
In Jefferson Parrish, animal control workers have access to a low bed truck with built-in cages. Exeter has the cat-transport question settled but removing dogs may prove trickier.
"We can put cats into carriers and then into the [animal control] van," Mattscheck says, noting that figuring out what sort of vehicle would accommodate large cages with dogs remains unanswered.
He and Coutoulakis agree that the template they're using calls for the shelter to be completely vacated 72 hours before the predicted landfall of a hurricane.
The final component to the plan is communication: Unlike West Greenwich animal control, which has radio transmission because its work falls under police department supervision, Exeter's van has no radio.
That problem is about to be remedied.
Acting under a federal mandate, this year's financial town meeting approved a plan to upgrade the existing radio system to narrow-band. Mattscheck says 14 existing radios will be replaced with three of them installed in DPW trucks and one in the animal control van.
Mattscheck says completion of the plan is pending. "I'm talking to administrators of other town shelters" to form an alliance.
[1] http://www.ricentral.com/sites/default/files/solar1-cmyk.jpg


text:
Get the latest Flash player
Date: 8 years ago
Runtime: 1:07
Views: 21,462
panty pee
mmmm, feels soooo good! let me know if you like!
piss, pee, watersports, crossdress, panties
All Comments
Looked like a satin bikini panty, I some like that, wish the lighting had been better, but nice post please do more!
Doesn`t that feel good when the piss runs all round your nuts. I`m getting so horny.
Looked REALLY hot, I wish it had sound!
very nice piss
love it love it love it
Nice, just make the next one a bit brighter, and maybe have sound


text:
If you are in Cape Town and have not yet visited 1890 Sushi House and Grill, then you are seriously missing out. Some like to keep it a secret just to make sure they will always have a table. Capetonians all agree that this is the best and most delicious sushi in town with a grill to match.
One does not even notice the simple and slightly bare décor because you are just too busy socialising over the fresh sushi – or fresh turn-table sushi – and large portions. The most difficult choice is will I only order sushi or take on one of the mouth-watering chicken, duck, pork, beef or seafood dishes.
You will be sure to spot Charlie, the owner, ensuring that all his patrons are happy and catching up with his regulars.
Be sure to book a table at this very popular and reasonably priced restaurant in Observatory, Cape Town. They are open from Monday to Saturday for lunch and dinner. The best sushi in Cape Town!
Al Fassia has been offering traditional Moroccan cuisine since 1985. The restaurant embraces a romantic atmosphere coupled with professional service and gourmet dishes. Guests have the option of sipping drinks on the patio before being seated at their cosy table. Guests are able to experience fine dining in the heart of Guéliz.
Experience the best cuisine that Turkey has to offer at Anatoli. Be greeted warmly by attentive staff and seated in an intriguing Victorian warehouse, built in 1904.
Freshly baked flat breads accompany traditional meze, presented in equally traditional oversized trays. The knowledgeable waiters will enthusiastically take diners through all of the meze available. There is something to suit every palate at Anatoli due to the variety that characterises Turkish cuisine.
Experience a memorable culinary journey through Turkey care of Anatoli at Green Point.
Ashley's is a unique owner-run restaurant that specializes in optimizing and perfecting the family dining experience. The first thing you see when you walk in is a big smile from either the owner or one of the staff members. The atmosphere is warm and inviting and, as the name suggests, you immediately feel like you're with family.
Ashley's offers a wide variety of dishes including delicious seafood, steaks, burgers, pasta, pizzas, ribs and chicken. A special carvery is served on Wednesdays from 6 pm to and on Sundays from 11.30 am to 3.30 pm. Ashley calls this "mamma se kos", translated "mom's food". Look out for daily specials and excellent deals.
The restaurant is child friendly with its own kiddies birthday club and a kiddies menu which is also available for the not-so-hungry adults. There is a children's play area, a baby changing station and baby chairs for the younger ones.
The restaurant also caters for functions with a range of menus to choose from. Unpretentious, warm and back to your roots is what you'll experience at Ashley's. Customers can contact the restaurant for more info or send an email to [email protected]
Enjoy a fusion of Asian flavours and indulgence for good food brimming with exotic flavour and colour.
Blue Banana serves up mouthfuls of authentic Thai, freshly made with unique flavour.
Buena Visa Social Cafe near Cape Town's V & A Waterfront is a Cuban themed restaurant and bar. Its authentic decor is eclectic, with a touch of shabby chic this combined with Cuban and Latino beats, Cuban inspired menu and great friendly service combined transport visitors to Havana -the Buena Vista Social Cafe a popular destination for Capetonians, as well as international visitors.
The menu has been designed around traditional Cuban, Central American and Caribbean fare, with a heavy Mediterranean influence too. There is a varied tapas menu, with both hot and cold dishes to choose from, including a meze platter, piquant jalapenos chilli poppers, scrumptious chicken skewers and flambéed chorizo. There is also a wide selection of Mexican favourites on the Comidas menu, all with a Cuban twist, such as the Chicken Churasco, which is grilled chicken breast with guacamole and salsa on traditional toasted Cuban flat bread.
The Buena Vista Social Cafe is also famous for this meat and seafood. The beef is SA grain fed super beef, aged for 21 days. The Lamb Al Ron, a house speciality, is delicious slices of roasted lamb flambéed in a creamy, Cuban rum sauce. The sea fare includes Cuban inspired linefish, fresh from off the boats and an indulgent seafood platter. The piece de resistance is the Cuban paella – a traditional rice dish with a generous selection of seafood, including prawns. The dish is packed with flavours and made to an authentic recipe; the paella is a fabulous feast!
A noted institution in Melville that brims with wholesome meals and delicious bakery, Café de la Crème sets a home away from home ambiance dressed in ornate pressed chandeliers, old fashioned stripes and flowing character.
Enjoy freshly baked cakes, pastries, biscuits and bread throughout the day or a scrumptious toasted sandwich with chips or salad.
Daily specials include fish and chips, chicken a la king and lamb chops. Main course delights with Lamb shank, traditional Greek moussaka and the rare roast fillet with three sauces.
Desert seduces with sinful treats such as bee sting, baklava, brandy balls, pigs ears and petite fours to mention a few.
Enjoy substantial breakfasts, legendary lunches and dinners alongside decadent treats at Café de la Crème in Melville.
Housed inside a historical building that was once the old train station, Café de la Gare boasts terrace dining and charming surrounds alongside traditional dining delights.
Perfect for breakfast, lunch or dinner, diners enjoy gastronomic French and Malagasy dishes alfresco on the large terrace or within the charming surrounds of the garden.
The lounge bar captures the mood with relaxed surrounds perfect for pre/post dinner drinks with delightful notes setting the tone at the evening piano bar.
Situated just off the main road in Mossel Bay, the Cafe Havana Lounge overlooks the hustle and bustle of village life. Enjoy lunch or dinner from their extensive menu featuring a variety of Cuban dishes. For the not so hungry, nibble on tapas while you sip a Cuban cocktail on the wooden deck.After dinner you can move to the cosy Cigar Lounge and sit next to the fireside while puff on a Cuban cigar. The Cafe Havana Lounge offers a fully stocked bar and regular live entertainment.
Casa Lalla is a unique and interesting riad with an evening restaurant for the public - bookings are essential. Lalla is in the heart of the old Medina and the smells and night noise add to the ambiance of Marrakech. The menu is created daily from the freshest seasonal ingredients from the market and the designs of the chef. Casa Lalla is a tranquil resort in the bustling Medina, with food that will rock your world.
Cattle Baron offers a variety of truly South African cuisine and does not fail to deliver on quality, quantity and affordability.
This steak ranch offers a wide range of meats, served with rice, baked potato or chips, and the famous complimentary creamed spinach and sweet butternut.
Vegetarian pastas and a vegetarian platter are also available to non-meat eating guests, and on top of this, Cattle Baron offers a really cool kids menu filled with great dishes and awesome dessert options.


text: Sue Moll, Townsquare Media [ Adorable Violinists in Toms River By Sue Moll July 17, 2014 This is why I love my job! I've been on the air now over 10 years and along the way I've met some of the greatest people I've ever met right here in Ocean County. Read More|Comment Category: Articles, Ocean County Breakfast Show, Sue's Mommy Blog Tags: class of 2014, Graduation, Jersey Shore, Ocean County, Ocean County Breakfast Show, violinists Send to a friend! Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Pin it! Reddit This! Share on Tumblr!