Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Momentary Life...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Driving from St. Louis to Hermann, Mo., we saw this. Mrs. B. didn't have her camera ready, but she instructed me on how she wanted the image taken.

    Processing was my idea, though.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      Driving from St. Louis to Hermann, Mo., we saw this. Mrs. B. didn't have her camera ready, but she instructed me on how she wanted the image taken.

      Processing was my idea, though.
      That works really well. I'm terribly fond of black and white, though I struggle against a fairly poor Nikon to do much with anything. Here's a recent one:

      Click image for larger version

Name:	_DSC2874cbw2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	64.8 KB
ID:	2434717
      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

      Pro-Life






      Comment


      • It's not a bad Nikon (there is no such thing). The problem is the dynamic range of the scene is beyond the capablility of the jpg file to render.

        Two ways to handle that:
        1. Shoot in raw mode. The raw mode keeps all the data from the shot. You'll need to have some kind of processing program to properly render the raw image.

        2. Try a simple HDR software like AutoHDR. That happens to be freeware, but the publisher will take donations.
        http://www.autohdr.co.uk/

        Trying to recover data from a jpg on a message board is pretty hard, but I just ran your shot through AutoHDR:



        You can see that even with that, there's a considerable improvement in rendering the rock walls and the sky. From a raw image it would be much, much better. Worth a try. It's a magnificent shot, BTW.
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          Yeah, I don't think we agree on the scolding.
          It's a light error when a child scolds an adult for a light error. It's also a light error when a child addresses an adult by their first name, even if the adult invites the child to do so. Basically, almost everything erroneous that emerges from our mouths is light.

          The trick is to use childhood as the training ground for being successful and profitable as adults, because it's light error to scold adults for light errors too, so once we have become grown, we have 'escaped' the window of opportunity to learn as an apprentice from our parents and caretakers about how to be adults who commit fewer light errors, because light errors are the main difference between success and failure as adults, assuming innocent (non-criminal) living.

          The only time we are justified in treating light errors severely is when our children are young. Once they become older, the window has shut on that opportunity to teach them as apprentices in how to live.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          If Jack has to float through it then he has a right to speak to it, especially given his motivation is for the welfare of others...
          Children don't have rights, they have permission, and I don't grant my kids permission to scold adults for light errors. Not only that, I don't permit them to say anything at all about light errors, to anyone, not even to their peers---that's their peers' parents' job, not my kids.'
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          What I talked to him about was the point of raising an issue, the efficacy. I said that the problem is that it usually ends with the other party either paying lip service at best or becoming defensive and negative at worst. There's little gain in the effort. He understood.
          There's much to gain from teaching your children to avoid light errors though. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." You yourself are testament to this proverb, Town. It's a light error to be sloppy about details, and about thinking, but you were trained up as a child to avoid this light error, and as far as I can tell, with you being an an officer of the court and all, which wouldn't be possible had you been a practitioner of the light error of sloppy and un-detailed thinking, it is serving you very well.

          fwiw
          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

          @Nee_Nihilo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
            Children don't have rights, they have permission
            Children have all sorts of rights and the same essential rights as an adult, but recognizing their experiential lack and the ongoing development of the organ responsible for sound decisions, we govern their exercising of rights and deny them full access to that exercise until we're reasonably sure they're capable of bearing the responsibility for their actions soundly.

            and I don't grant my kids permission to scold adults for light errors.
            I don't believe it's good manners for children to scold adults for any reason. But scolding is typically a thing done in anger and from some personal sense of authority. That wouldn't be an apt description of my son's contribution, though it comes closer to my response regarding the smoking woman's subsequent behavior.

            Not only that, I don't permit them to say anything at all about light errors, to anyone, not even to their peers---that's their peers' parents' job, not my kids.'
            Jack told me that he had a friend who used a word I don't even believe adults should find in their mouths. He said that he then told his teacher. I said to him, "If you want to be a better friend, tell your friend first and try to influence his behavior. I know how all of you (kids) are about telling on one another, but do you think that when you do that first you're giving your friend the chance to do better? And shouldn't that be your first concern? Do you think you're telling your friend that you care about them by going straight to authority?"

            I don't have a problem with bringing authority into the mix when the person in need of discipline refuses to discipline themselves, but otherwise I think we need to align our actions with concern first, and personal offense second. That was part of the problem in Jack's well-intentioned remark about smoking. It put the offense first and concern second when you consider the probable responses to it. His inability to understand that, mostly a matter of a lack of experience, is one reason for him to come to me and to let me address it. Among peers he has a better understanding, though even that was in need of some guidance.

            There's much to gain from teaching your children to avoid light errors though. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." You yourself are testament to this proverb, Town. It's a light error to be sloppy about details, and about thinking, but you were trained up as a child to avoid this light error, and as far as I can tell, with you being an an officer of the court and all, which wouldn't be possible had you been a practitioner of the light error of sloppy and un-detailed thinking, it is serving you very well.
            I was given instruction in both morals and manners by my family. In our household my son's actions would have been seen as a failure on the second part, abrogated somewhat by an intention in line with correct consideration on the first part. Or, it is sinful to smoke. It is sinful to harm your child. It is poor manners to tell someone how they ought to behave if they are within their rights. The woman Jack spoke to was doing both of the former, willfully. She compounded her error subsequently, as moral actions go. But as a social convention, Jack should have brought the matter to me to deal with and he understands that now. And because he didn't he encouraged, however inadvertently, a compounding of her error, a thing no longer lost on my son.

            It's easy to encourage stumbling, especially among those whose inclination or maturity is suspect. It's much harder to appeal to a better angel. This is frequently true in debate. I try to focus on issues and use humor to soften the blow of difference, but even then the invitation to conflict and poorer behavior, both in myself and others, makes it a practice fraught with pitfalls at best.
            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

            Pro-Life






            Comment


            • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
              Children have all sorts of rights and the same essential rights as an adult, but recognizing their experiential lack and the ongoing development of the organ responsible for sound decisions, we govern their exercising of rights and deny them full access to that exercise until we're reasonably sure they're capable of bearing the responsibility for their actions soundly.
              This was what caught my attention, and I'm glad you've answered it well.

              As for Jack, he's a kid. This was one of a million learning moments ahead as he goes through his life, and you explained things with love. I like how you talk to Jack while showing him you value his input. I wish more parents did that.

              Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

              Comment


              • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                This was what caught my attention, and I'm glad you've answered it well.
                Why thank you, kindly.

                As for Jack, he's a kid. This was one of a million learning moments ahead as he goes through his life, and you explained things with love. I like how you talk to Jack while showing him you value his input. I wish more parents did that.
                I've always spoken to Jack the way I would to any adult whom I love and respect. People have a way of rising to meet great expectations. Jack has consistently overwhelmed my own. He's smarter than I am. Smarter than his mother even. It will be a great pleasure to guide that and the good heart he has at his center into maturity.
                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                Pro-Life






                Comment


                • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Children have all sorts of rights and the same essential rights as an adult, but recognizing their experiential lack and the ongoing development of the organ responsible for sound decisions, we govern their exercising of rights and deny them full access to that exercise until we're reasonably sure they're capable of bearing the responsibility for their actions soundly.
                  If a kid is verbally belligerent to an adult, is the adult within his rights to defend himself rhetorically against the kid? Is it good for the adult to defend himself thusly? Is it sin? and if so, is it light, or grave?

                  The reason I ask is because if an adult were to defend himself rhetorically against a verbally belligerent child, there's some chance that the kid will start to cry.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  I don't believe it's good manners for children to scold adults for any reason. But scolding is typically a thing done in anger and from some personal sense of authority. That wouldn't be an apt description of my son's contribution, though it comes closer to my response regarding the smoking woman's subsequent behavior.
                  It was scolding, unless you think that smoking, and smoking near your kids, is grave sin. Is that what you're saying?
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Jack told me that he had a friend who used a word I don't even believe adults should find in their mouths.
                  Swearing is a light error.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  He said that he then told his teacher. I said to him, "If you want to be a better friend, tell your friend first and try to influence his behavior. I know how all of you (kids) are about telling on one another, but do you think that when you do that first you're giving your friend the chance to do better? And shouldn't that be your first concern? Do you think you're telling your friend that you care about them by going straight to authority?"
                  You should just tell him why you want him to think what you want him to think. You've got decades of thought supporting your advice, why do you want him to take decades to figure out something; just tell him why he should think what you want him to think. Lay it all out for him, but tell him what you want him to do.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  I don't have a problem with bringing authority into the mix when the person in need of discipline refuses to discipline themselves, but otherwise I think we need to align our actions with concern first, and personal offense second. That was part of the problem in Jack's well-intentioned remark about smoking. It put the offense first and concern second when you consider the probable responses to it. His inability to understand that, mostly a matter of a lack of experience, is one reason for him to come to me and to let me address it. Among peers he has a better understanding, though even that was in need of some guidance.
                  There's no offense possible, when adults make light errors or commit light sins; habitual light sinners sin lightly habitually. They can change their habits if they care to, but like most of us, they also have weightier issues on their plates than habits that Christ Jesus says are so light, that they are already forgiven wrt communion with His Body, and Church. And kids can know, and I would put forth, should know, that light offenses are the prerogative of the adults committing them, and so long as you are a certain maturity, or immaturity, then you're going to be forced to heed your father's guidance wrt avoiding light errors.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  I was given instruction in both morals and manners by my family. In our household my son's actions would have been seen as a failure on the second part, abrogated somewhat by an intention in line with correct consideration on the first part. Or, it is sinful to smoke. It is sinful to harm your child. It is poor manners to tell someone how they ought to behave if they are within their rights. The woman Jack spoke to was doing both of the former, willfully. She compounded her error subsequently, as moral actions go. But as a social convention, Jack should have brought the matter to me to deal with and he understands that now. And because he didn't he encouraged, however inadvertently, a compounding of her error, a thing no longer lost on my son.
                  Or, she chose to treat a light sin, as if it were grave. Our light sins are forgiven us automatically, but that's eternally---it takes an indulgence to forgive the temporal penalties that our light sins incur, and because she treated a light error on the part of your son severely, which is a light sin itself, she incurred the temporal penalties that the light sin, through the nature of sin itself, requires that she pay.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  It's easy to encourage stumbling, especially among those whose inclination or maturity is suspect. It's much harder to appeal to a better angel. This is frequently true in debate. I try to focus on issues and use humor to soften the blow of difference, but even then the invitation to conflict and poorer behavior, both in myself and others, makes it a practice fraught with pitfalls at best.
                  Light errors are light, even when we commit them on purpose.
                  "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                  @Nee_Nihilo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                    If a kid is verbally belligerent to an adult, is the adult within his rights to defend himself rhetorically against the kid?
                    Outside of an environment where that adult's authority is being challenged, as with a teacher, what sort of adult would feel threatened by the words of a child, absent some legitimacy in them? In any event, since belligerence and that doesn't attach to what I have spoken to with my son I'm not sure what is served by going further afield, except to lend a tonal support to the notion of scolding, which wouldn't be fair, so...

                    It was scolding, unless you think that smoking, and smoking near your kids, is grave sin.
                    It wasn't scolding for the reason given prior.

                    Is that what you're saying?
                    I'm being pretty consistent and I think fairly clear in what I'm saying and that's not it. In any event, what the woman did was wrong, both for herself, her child, and others around her, and her response was ill-mannered and poor as an example for anyone. I hope she makes better choices moving forward. She certainly can't claim ignorance and she's been given reason to reconsider her methodology.

                    You should just tell him why you want him to think what you want him to think.
                    I told him exactly what I thought he needed to understand why his choice wasn't the better course of action. I frequently apply the Socratic method with Jack as part of my instruction. It demonstrates respect for his ability to reason and find the best course of action, with a bit of scaffolding.

                    His response told me that he understood.
                    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                    Pro-Life






                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      Outside of an environment where that adult's authority is being challenged, as with a teacher
                      Respect your elders isn't a value you hold as necessary, good, or valid for kids. You require some sort of formal superior-subordinate social structure to heed, rather than just kids showing honor and respect for adults who engage in light sins.
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      , what sort of adult would feel threatened by the words of a child, absent some legitimacy in them?
                      Why would an adult have to take verbal abuse from a kid? And what lesson does it teach them to bite your tongue when affronted so?
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      In any event, since belligerence and that doesn't attach to what I have spoken to with my son I'm not sure what is served by going further afield
                      I specified why, because an adult might in legitimate and justified retort make the rascal cry.
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      , except to lend a tonal support to the notion of scolding, which wouldn't be fair, so...


                      It wasn't scolding for the reason given prior.
                      It was scolding, in common parlance, unless 'scolding' is also legal jargon that I don't know about.
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      I'm being pretty consistent and I think fairly clear in what I'm saying and that's not it. In any event, what the woman did was wrong, both for herself, her child, and others around her, and her response was ill-mannered and poor as an example for anyone.
                      Then it is what you're saying. Else, why would it elicit any kind of negative commentary at all, from your son, or from anyone else for that matter? You believe that her behavior warranted scolding, and even from a seven-year-old.
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      I hope she makes better choices moving forward. She certainly can't claim ignorance and she's been given reason to reconsider her methodology.
                      Habitual light sinners sin lightly habitually. The point is, it's light sin, unworthy of scolding or reprimanding or even giving them 'reason to reconsider their methodology.' If you're instructing your own kids about avoiding the practice of light sin for themselves, then by all means have at it, since Sacred Scripture and experience both testify that it tends to work, and keeps them from light sins when they're older, which we know will be profitable for them. But others' choice to sin lightly is none of our business.
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      I told him exactly what I thought he needed to understand why his choice wasn't the better course of action. I frequently apply the Socratic method with Jack as part of my instruction. It demonstrates respect for his ability to reason and find the best course of action, with a bit of scaffolding.
                      I respect kids' ability to reason, which is why I tell them straight what they should do, think, and feel about things, and the reasons why, but primarily the message is, Because I said so. And primarily my reason is because of my respect for their ability to reason, and to discipline themselves mentally and physically to avoid light sins, for their own good.
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      His response told me that he understood.
                      I'm sure he did.
                      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                      @Nee_Nihilo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                        Respect your elders isn't a value you hold as necessary, good, or valid for kids.
                        I don't believe I'd have much respect for Hitler if he was alive today, so it's a case by case. Same for respecting anyone. I approach people respectfully until their practice tells me that I can't or shouldn't continue to do so.

                        Why would an adult have to take verbal abuse from a kid?
                        I give up, why? I had to answer it that way because nothing in what I was talking about constituted verbal abuse, except perhaps the woman's use of profanity.

                        It was scolding, in common parlance, unless 'scolding' is also legal jargon that I don't know about.
                        No, it wasn't. You just need for it to be so you're digging heels.

                        Scold: to criticize (someone) severely or angrily especially for personal failings
                        • He scolded the kids for not cleaning up the mess they had made in the kitchen.

                        Synonyms of scold
                        bawl out, berate, call down, castigate, chastise, chew out, dress down, flay, hammer, jaw,keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rag, rail (at or against), rant (at), rate, ream (out),rebuke, reprimand, reproach, score, tongue-lash, upbraid

                        Those are fairly emotional and sharp. None of that accurately describes the incident, at least my son's part of it.

                        You believe that her behavior warranted scolding, and even from a seven-year-old.
                        Rather, my son made a statement to her about smoking. Then she weighed in, including the bit of profanity, in front of her four year old and my son, so I absolutely scolded her. The particular word she used is about as offensive a term for reproduction that can be mustered.

                        Smoking near enough to people that they can smell the smoke can, with people who have respiratory problems, cause real physical distress. Smoking around a child is reprehensible now that we know the impact of that, with or without allergies entering into it.

                        Habitual light sinners sin lightly habitually. The point is, it's light sin, unworthy of scolding or reprimanding or even giving them 'reason to reconsider their methodology.'
                        Your entire weighted sin context isn't one I've accepted as legitimate outside of how you choose to order things for yourself. If that ordering makes dangerous and offensive behavior something that isn't worthy of reprimand I think you need to adjust your scale.

                        others' choice to sin lightly is none of our business.
                        If you use foul language in public, in front of me and mine you've made it my business. If you're smoking in public, where I can smell it then you've made it my business. Maybe it's a cultural thing. What part of the country do you inhabit, generally?

                        I respect kids' ability to reason, which is why I tell them straight what they should do, think, and feel about things, and the reasons why, but primarily the message is, Because I said so.
                        That's actually the opposite of respecting their ability to reason, so we differ again.

                        In any event, I understand your context and you've had mine as fully as I can give it.
                        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                        Pro-Life






                        Comment


                        • I have a momentary question:

                          If lay => laid, why not play => plaid, and why doesn't laid rhyme with plaid?

                          Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                            I have a momentary question:

                            If lay => laid, why not play => plaid,
                            Because then you'd have to wear it out (either) and that's just gosh, by gauche...well, shoot.

                            and why doesn't laid rhyme with plaid?
                            Or vague/ague, how/low, wholly/holly, poem/toe, lumber/plumber, kin/kind, mould/would, wind, but wind?

                            What a language...
                            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                            Pro-Life






                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                              Your entire weighted sin context isn't one I've accepted as legitimate outside of how you choose to order things for yourself. If that ordering makes dangerous and offensive behavior something that isn't worthy of reprimand I think you need to adjust your scale.
                              It's a Christian thing, Town.
                              Last edited by Idolater; July 7, 2018, 08:23 PM.
                              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                              @Nee_Nihilo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                                It's a Christian thing, Town.
                                It wasn't a part of my traditions and upbringing in a number of churches, all Christian. But then, they were all Protestant as well. So it must be more of a Catholic instruction, which probably means it was in my Episcopal background as well, but I wasn't a particularly keen member in those days and that was decades ago.
                                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                                Pro-Life






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X