[Milton-L] One post per day?

Daddario, Christopher N. CDaddario at towson.edu
Mon Dec 20 10:50:43 EST 2010


That or can we bring back the lactating mothers?

-----Original Message-----
From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Salwa Khoddam
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:46 AM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] One post per day?

It is true that Mr. Sirrah has committed Book II to memory and thus should
be applauded for that, but at the same he castigates Milton for adding,
changing the scriptural story in, Mr. Sirrah's words, a "disgusting" manner.
How can one commit to memory words that he/she reviles?  His animosity to
Milton and to scholars on this list does no good to anyone.
Salwa

Salwa Khoddam, Ph.D.
Professor of English, Emerita
Oklahoma City University
2501 N. Blackwelder
OKC, OK  73106
Phone:  405-208-5127
Email:  skhoddam at cox.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Leonard" <jleonard at uwo.ca>
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:07 AM
Subject: [Milton-L] One post per day?


Yes, "Nairba Sirrah" is not a pseudonym concocted for this list; it is the
stage name by which Brian Harris performs poetry that he has memorized by
heart.  Some performances (alas not Milton) are on Youtube.  The flames on
this list on the past two or three days have done none of us any credit
("the deep tact of Hell" indeed), but Nairba has given as good as he has got
(or got as bad as he has given) and he is not the only person to post
repeatedly in a single day.  I for one cannot (at least not yet) second a
motion to ban from Milton-L someone who hascommitted book two of Paradise
Lost to memory.  If that accomplishment does not show genuine commitment to
Milton I do not know what does.  But I do think that the experience of the
past three days reinforces the case for a "one post per day" rule (not just
guideline).

John Leonard



----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas H. Luxon" <Thomas.H.Luxon at dartmouth.edu>
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] once again


> Nairbah Sirrah is NOT a pseudonym. Google the name. Understand.  Have
> peace.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 19, 2010, at 8:03 PM, "Campbell, W. Gardner"
> <Gardner_Campbell at baylor.edu> wrote:
>
>> Moving on to something else:
>>
>> I would respectfully like to move that the person posting under the
>> apparent pseudonym "Nairba Sirrah" be banned from Milton-L. The
>> frequency, tone, and content of this person's posts constitute harassment
>> in my view. Internet vernacular would call this person a "troll" or a
>> "griefer," i. e., one who delights merely in destructive disruption.
>>
>> Gardner Campbell
>>
>> (from mobile)
>>
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2010, at 1:04 PM, "Nairba Sirrah"
>> <nairbasirrah at msn.com<mailto:nairbasirrah at msn.com>> wrote:
>>
>> radical, independent dogmatic decisions/beliefs aside....WHY? WHERE? in
>> scripture does Mary being conceived immaculately come from?
>>
>> the answer: nowhere.
>>
>> This discussion only supports my criticsm of Paradise Lost from a few
>> days ago.
>>
>> Individual people deciding - completely on their own - to insert
>> biographical narratives and explanations into religious tradition is
>> wrong.
>>
>> Why? because if it catches on, ignorant/uninformed people think it has
>> divine foundation. Milton claimed a spirit dictated Paradise Lost to him
>> at night. Joseph Smith said he dechiphered ancient golden tablets by
>> putting glowing rocks in a hat, and then putting the dark hat to his
>> face.
>>
>> L. Ron Hubbard gave no account of how he learned the story of Xenu. And
>> yet, Scientologists believe what he says everywhere.
>>
>> It is just as plausible to say that these people made these things up.
>> That they...were...lying.
>>
>> God forbid we descend on the most possible of possibilities of all.
>>
>> There is no physical, or historical evidence of Jesus whatsoever. And the
>> only source documents regarding Mary are the gospels of Luke and Matthew.
>>
>> And in neither gospel is there any mention of Mary's conception.
>>
>> Once again, I respectfully ask the list to simply acknowledge this FACT
>> and therefore dismiss all hypothetical theories regarding her conception
>> and birth.
>>
>> Most pre-eminently due to the realization of what you are saying. If what
>> you are saying is true, then Mary is THE DAUGHTER OF GOD, and therefore
>> HIS first child on earth, not Jesus. It means she would be just as
>> capable of performing miracles, being the true messiah, etc.
>>
>> What you all are clinging to is the sick product of the mentality of a
>> specific period of time that dealt with Catholics' obsession with Mary's
>> virginity...an obsession that has no root in actual New Testament
>> scripture.
>>
>> Simply people - like you - making up facts and rationalizations on their
>> own.
>>
>> The Immaculate Conception is the conception of JESUS. The earliest
>> mention of Mary in scripture is when she is a young woman visiting
>> Elizabeth, when she is visted by Gabriel and told she will conceive
>> Jesus.
>>
>> Now please stop with all your encyclopedic references. Like Milton's
>> crazy, ridiculous plot line in Paradise Lost, they are completely
>> independently constructed definitions done by people who knew how easy it
>> is to fool and persuade an idiotic multitude.
>>
>> There is nothing more sad than a crowd of people applauding a liar before
>> checking into the facts.
>>
>> Opinions published in the last few hundred years are not facts. Documents
>> from the first century ARE. Even though they are likely fictions too.
>>
>> Now please all of you stop, and move on to something else.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: <mailto:mundylc at sbcglobal.net>
>> mundylc at sbcglobal.net<mailto:mundylc at sbcglobal.net>
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
>> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:33:02 -0500
>>
>> Though my email has certainly been full lately,  I cannot resist adding
>> one more comment to this diatribe.  As a Catholic bred child, a graduate
>> of a Catholic College filled with Edmonites who cheerfully pointed out
>> the differences between the "facts" and the "parables",  and as a loving,
>> though not erudite, teacher of JM,  my understanding of the Immaculate
>> Conception is this:  Jesus could not have been born to a woman not of
>> total purity, ergo, Mary is the child conceived Immaculately, and
>> therefore is a totally pure and "qualified" Virgin able to conceive and
>> give birth to the Son of God.    Whether fact, parable, or fiction, this
>> belief has survived centuries of belief/denial and arguments, and
>> unsuredly will continue to do so.  As always, I learn much from my
>> learned colleagues, even when inciteful. and wish you all a warm and
>> peaceful Season, no matter what your beliefs.
>>
>> Lorayne Mundy
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Nairba Sirrah<mailto:nairbasirrah at msn.com>
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
>>
>> I'm sorry Mr. Hodges, I'm not continuing with you about this. I have the
>> Roman Catholic Catechism as well. I have no clue why you are debating
>> this. I've stated my point...a point that needs no statement in the first
>> place. Billions of people know you are incorrect. I will not respond
>> again. Please don't use my name in another post.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:41:52 -0800
>> From: <mailto:jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>> jefferyhodges at yahoo.com<mailto:jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>
>> "'The Immaculate Conception' refers to how God impregnated Mary with
>> Jesus."
>> Nairba, are you saying that this is what you mean by the expression
>> "Immaculate Conception," or that this is what is meant by the Roman
>> Catholic doctrine?
>>
>> Jeffery Hodges
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com<mailto:nairbasirrah at msn.com>>
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 4:36:06 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
>>
>> I am NOT wrong. If you are actually reading an excerpt from the Roman
>> Catholic Catechism, it is simply a typographical error. There is nothing
>> in the Biblical canon about the birth of Mary. Nothing. There is no
>> reason for the church to have any doctrine about how Mary was conceived.
>>
>> "The Immaculate Conception" refers to how God impregnated Mary with
>> Jesus. Even people who don't practice Christianity know that. Please stop
>> saying i'm wrong. I am not wrong.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:31:38 -0800
>> From: <mailto:jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>> jefferyhodges at yahoo.com<mailto:jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (clarified)
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>
>> No, Nairba, you are wrong. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate
>> conception refers to the process by which Mary was conceived in her
>> mother's womb.
>>
>> Jeffery Hodges
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com<mailto:nairbasirrah at msn.com>>
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 4:26:28 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (clarified)
>>
>> Hello Jeffery,
>>
>> good hearing from you. But..
>>
>> no, again. If your statement were true it would be dealing with the birth
>> of Mary. Conception refers to the conceiving of a child, a fetus. The
>> person being conceived in the most famous case of "immaculate conception"
>> is JESUS. Jesus! you both know what I meant.
>>
>> As for the Biblical passages quoted by Professor Danielson, all of us
>> scholars know there are many, many different translations of that
>> particular book and verse...and have several very different wordings and
>> implications.
>>
>> But in them all, is the declaration made by god; the divine mandate of
>> "this is what is going to happen to you." How Mary responds, as far as my
>> contention is concerened, is irrelevant. God didn't offer her a choice.
>>
>> Giving a declaration of impregnating a woman is a violation of that
>> woman's sanctity, no who (or what) makes that declaration. Her response
>> could simply have been a moment of accepting inneviatablity. For all we
>> know, she was mortified. Or madder than Hell.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:15:00 -0800
>> From: <mailto:jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>> jefferyhodges at yahoo.com<mailto:jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>
>> Nairba, you are wrong. The immaculate conception refers to the process by
>> which Mary was conceived, not the process by which Jesus was conceived.
>>
>> Jeffery Hodges
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com<mailto:nairbasirrah at msn.com>>
>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 4:05:04 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
>>
>> amazing you bothered to post that..."the immaculate conception" is the
>> conception of JESUS inside Mary. It is therefore, quite "concerned" with
>> both Mary and Jesus, and God.
>>
>> and to append the word "doctrine" to it is absurd.
>>
>> Some of you with your detial debating are truly frightening.
>>
>>> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 01:56:09 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
>>> From: <mailto:alanshorn at gmail.com>
>>> alanshorn at gmail.com<mailto:alanshorn at gmail.com>
>>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>
>>> Once again, as Professor Danielson pointed out to you, the doctrine of
>>> Immaculate Conception is concerned with the conception of Mary, not of
>>> Jesus.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Nairba Sirrah
>>> <nairbasirrah at msn.com<mailto:nairbasirrah at msn.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Dennis,
>>>>
>>>> didn't mean to infuriate. But that unfortunately happens a lot on here.
>>>>
>>>> In response, of course the Roman Catholic church is going to see it
>>>> that way. But the main essence of the story is that Mary did not have a
>>>> choice. God was the father. And she was the mother. She got preganant
>>>> by divine insemination.
>>>>
>>>> As hard as it may be to face or admit, the "immacualate conception" by
>>>> ancient and modern definition IS rape. She had no choice. Not exactly
>>>> immaculate. Had God asked her permission, then fine. But as is, it was
>>>> rape.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention she was already married to another man. Adultery.
>>>>
>>>> And as for it not having anything to do with Milton, in Milton Jesus is
>>>> "begotten" in Heaven. And considering he soon after fought in a war,
>>>> was also born an adult.
>>>>
>>>> What's so wrong about considering the physical implications of these
>>>> spiritual narratives? In Milton, we are to suppose that "the Son" is
>>>> zapped into her uterus and reborn...but as you so graciosly pointed
>>>> out, in Luke it clearly says she will conceive, meaning a sexual
>>>> bonding between father and mother.
>>>>
>>>> Again, sorry for the offence and infuriation, but a fact is a fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:42:13 -0800
>>>>> From: <mailto:danielso at interchange.ubc.ca>
>>>>> danielso at interchange.ubc.ca<mailto:danielso at interchange.ubc.ca>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception
>>>>> To: <mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>>> milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so this hasn't much to do with Milton. And perhaps I shouldn't
>>>>> rise
>>>>> to the bait. But Mr. Sirrah's assumptions are apparently false
>>>>> (infuriating, too, but let that pass) on two counts:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states
>>>>> that
>>>>> *Mary* was conceived without sin; it wasn't officially formulated as
>>>>> dogma until the 19th century.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. If Sirrah means to say that *Mary* was impregnated against her
>>>>> will,
>>>>> that statement is contrary to the plain meaning of the biblical
>>>>> account
>>>>> of Luke 2:26-38 (See below, noting the future tense in the angel's
>>>>> "you
>>>>> will conceive," plus Mary's compliant response).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm done, except to thank Louis Schwartz for his eminently sensible
>>>>> comments yesterday, and to wish my fellow Miltonists all the blessings
>>>>> of the season, whatever feasts or festivals they observe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis Danielson
>>>>> _______________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Luke 2:26-38
>>>>>
>>>>> In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel
>>>>> Gabriel
>>>>> to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a
>>>>> man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
>>>>> The
>>>>> angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored!
>>>>> The
>>>>> Lord is with you.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of
>>>>> greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid,
>>>>> Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth
>>>>> to
>>>>> a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be
>>>>> called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne
>>>>> of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants
>>>>> forever;
>>>>> his kingdom will never end.”
>>>>>
>>>>> “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
>>>>>
>>>>> The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be
>>>>> called[b] the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to
>>>>> have
>>>>> a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive
>>>>> is
>>>>> in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.”
>>>>>
>>>>> “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be
>>>>> fulfilled.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10-12-18 9:07 PM, Nairba Sirrah wrote:
>>>>>> in the vein of considering the classic epic hero and the classic epic
>>>>>> villain, let us remember that "the immaculate conception" was (if it
>>>>>> actually happened) categorically...rape. Anytime you impregnate a
>>>>>> woman
>>>>>> against her will, it is rape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if Satan is the hero, guess who's the villain.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dennis Danielson
>>>>> Professor of English
>>>>> University of British Columbia
>>>>> #397 - 1873 East Mall
>>>>> Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1
>>>>> telephone: 604-822-4092
>>>>> Author: The First Copernican
>>>>> Editor: Paradise Lost, Parallel Prose Edition
>>>>> WEB: <http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/ddaniels/>
>>>>> http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/ddaniels/
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Milton-L mailing list
>>>>> <mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>>> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
>>>>> <http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l>
>>>>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>>>>>
>>>>> Milton-L web site: <http://johnmilton.org/> http://johnmilton.org/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Milton-L mailing list
>>>> <mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
>>>> <http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l>
>>>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>>>>
>>>> Milton-L web site: <http://johnmilton.org/> http://johnmilton.org/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Milton-L mailing list
>>> <mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>>> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
>>> <http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l>
>>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>>>
>>> Milton-L web site: <http://johnmilton.org/> http://johnmilton.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu> Manage
>> your list membership and access list archives at
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web site:
>> http://johnmilton.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu> Manage
>> your list membership and access list archives at
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web site:
>> http://johnmilton.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu> Manage
>> your list membership and access list archives at
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web site:
>> http://johnmilton.org/
>> ________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>>
>> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu> Manage
>> your list membership and access list archives at
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web site:
>> http://johnmilton.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
>> <http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l>
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>>
>> Milton-L web site: <http://johnmilton.org/> http://johnmilton.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>>
>> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>

_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/

_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/



More information about the Milton-L mailing list