[deel 635] Drijf de hegemonen uit!

quote:

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

quote:

Huisartsen stellen Hoogervorst ultimatum
ANP

DEN HAAG - De Landelijke Huisartsen Vereniging (LHV) dreigt met nieuwe stakingsacties als minister Hoogervorst van Volksgezondheid woensdag niet voor 12.00 uur afstand neemt van een ingezonden brief in de Volkskrant. Voorzitter B. Vos van de LHV heeft dat woensdagochtend gezegd. Volgens hem gaan er stemmen op binnen zijn organisatie om het Tweede-Kamerlid Buijs (CDA), van oorsprong huisarts, te royeren als lid van de LHV.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 12:21 schreef Monidique het volgende:
Als ik vrijdag ga werken, moet ik met de bus. Minstens twee uur rijden en drie keer overstappen. Er wordt die dag dus niet gewerkt. Maar als die 3000 ProRailers maar tevreden zijn, nietwaar?

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 12:33 schreef Mutant01 het volgende:
Hey.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 12:33 schreef Mutant01 het volgende:
Hey.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 13:11 schreef Monidique het volgende:

[..]

.yeH

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 10:08 schreef George-Butters het volgende:

[..]

Lagere energiekosten geeft bestedingsruimte voor consumptie op andere vlakken in de economie. Meer arbeidsintensieve markten. => meer werk. En zo slinger je de boel weer aan.

Daar staat tegenover dat de verspilling van energie door burgers zoveel mogelijk dient te worden afgeremd. Een schoner milieu begint bij u zelf.

quote:

Prepositions at the Ends of Sentences: Further Explanation
of Why the 'Rule' Is Wrong


by Tina Blue
September 4, 2000


My article entitled "It's Usually Not Wrong to End a Sentence with a Preposition" caused some consternation to those who were taught grammar according to rigid rules. For those people, and for those who are in a position where they must justify (to an editor or a teacher, for example) the use of a preposition at the end of a sentence, I am supplying references to a number of highly respected experts in the field of modern usage.

The "grammarian's grammarian," H.W. Fowler, published A Dictionary of Modern English Usage in 1926. (It is kept up to date with periodic revisions. All page references in this article are to A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965].) This work is considered a standard reference, often used as the arbiter when questions of grammar and usage produce conflicting answers. This book is quite forceful about the silliness of the "rule" that one must not end a sentence with a preposition:


It was once a cherished superstition that prepositions must be kept true to their name and placed before the word they govern in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting them late. . . . The fact is that. . . . even now immense pains are sometimes expended in changing spontaneous into artificial English. . . . Those who lay down the universal principle that final prepositions are 'inelegant' are unconsciously trying to deprive the English language of a valuable idiomatic resource, which has been used freely by all our greatest writers except those whose instinct for English idiom has been overpowered by notions of correctness derived from Latin standards. The legitimacy of the prepositional ending in literary English must be uncompromisingly maintained. . . .
In avoiding the forbidden order, unskillful handlers of words often fall into real blunders. . . . (473-474)


In the same section of the book, Fowler explains that "the 'preposition' is in fact [often] the adverbial particle of a phrasal verb, [and] no choice is open to us; it cannot be wrested from its partner" (475).


Here is what Edward D. Johnson, another modern expert, from this side of the Atlantic, says in The Handbook of Good English (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982. All page references are to this edition.): "Note that it is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition, despite a durable superstition that it is an error" (283).

In Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay: Practical Advice for the Grammatically Challenged (N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1999. All page references are to this edition.), Richard Lederer and Richard Dowis have entitled their fourth chapter "Things You Know That Just Ain't So." In this chapter they take up the final preposition problem (with a nod to Fowler as the acknowledged master of English grammarians everywhere):


"Like the imagined rule against splitting infinitives, the notion that it's somehow wrong to end a sentence (or a clause) with a preposition likely grew out of early grammarians' attempts to force English to follow the rules of Latin . . . . Henry Fowler, the grammarian's grammarian, settles the issue best. . . . [What follows is a quotation from the passage I have already quoted at length from A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.]


In Sin and Syntax: How to Craft Wickedly Effective Prose (N.Y.: Broadway Books, 1999. All page references are to this edition.) Constance Hale says, "Can we bury the schoolmarm's rule, 'Never end a sentence with a preposition,' once and for all? . . .When prepositions and verbs are joined at the hip, it is folly to separate them" (109-110).

Even usage handbooks commonly employed in high school and college classrooms (e.g., those published by Harbrace, Little Brown, and Prentice Hall) say quite clearly that it is acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition. The simple truth, as Fowler explains, is that the "preposition" in a phrasal verb is not really a preposition at all, but rather an adverbial particle, and in their attempts to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, "unskillful handlers of words" commit some real blunders! .

quote:

Ratzinger seeks further explanation from US theologian


The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reportedly asked US Jesuit theologian Roger Haight for a set of explanations regarding his 2000 book Jesus, Symbol of God.

The Congregation's Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger asked Haight's Boston teaching institution - Weston School of Theology - to stand him down. Haight is currently on sabattical at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Centre.

The book suggests Jesus' humanity can support a new openness of Christianity to a pluralist vision, in the context of interreligious dialogue. This position is related to that of Jacques Dupuis, another Jesuit whose views were investigated by the Congregation.

Haight commented earlier this month at an interreligious seminar in Birmingham in the UK, that he did not expect the Church to accept his ideas regarding religious pluralism. But he pointed out that many of the views condemned during the modernist crisis of the early 20th century were later accepted by Vatican II.

quote:

Further explanation of the album delay
MTV has released an article mentioning the Free Fiona Campaign (the protest is tomorrow!). They also spoke to Jon Brion, who gave more details on the recording process and subsequent delay of the album.

A few new facts:


* An article by the New York Times was wrong in discussing a prolonged recording time for Extraordinary Machine. The album was actually created over the span of one year, six months of which were spent on break from recording.
* Upon hearing the finished album, Sony heard no obvious radio singles and requested another song from Fiona. She delivered what Brion describes as "another great Fiona Apple song," and Sony again saw no radio potential. Jon says: "The record company wants 'Criminal' junior and Fiona doesn't offer that up."
* Approximately a dozen songs were recorded for Extraordinary Machine.


An excellent quote from Jon: "Eventually [Machine] will come out. People who do understand her and get what she's about are going to be thrilled. Is all this going make radio play it? Probably not. Does she care? No."

Read the full article for more from both Jon Brion and Free Fiona founder Dave Muscato.

quote:

Title:
Further Explanation Regarding Relations Prohibited for Marriage

Question/Comments:

According to my understanding of your reply, the relations you listed as prohibited for marriage are derived from Al-Nisaa: 23 -24 obviously. I need further explanation of your reply in this regard.

1.

Are there any other Ayahs of Quran that mention the relation prohibited for marriage.
2.

I need further explanation how it is prohibited, as a corollary, to combine in marriage a woman with her maternal or paternal aunt (sister of her father or her mother). I have difficulty understanding how on the basis of combining two sisters in marriage we can derive that ruling about wife's aunts.
3.

Is it an express commandment of shari'ah or does it depend on persons own understanding of directives of Quran and Sunnah.

Regards


Answer:

The other verses related to any sort of prohibition of marriage are those in Al Baqarah 2:221, Al Ma'idah 5:5, Al Mumtahina 60:10. Nevertheless, these verses are not relevant to the scope of prohibitions regarding family ties. As it regards marriage of a woman and her aunts the Qur'an establishes the principles to follow. Being wed to two sisters is obviously prohibited due to the fact that it violates the construct of the relationship. Therefore, the Qur'an has clearly stated this type of marriage, between one man and two women who are sisters, as invalid and illegal. Also, it should be appreciated that the Qur'an has prohibited marriage to nephews. If considered, one should understand that the prohibitions of these types of marriages deal with the family structure and its preservation. Any marriage that infringes upon the sanctity of family ties desecrates the very social structure that "family" enjoys. Hence, by the very nature of the relationship the Shari'ah eliminated certain people from any sort of matrimony.

When interpreted on the foregoing grounds, the prohibition of marrying a woman and her maternal or paternal aunt would be an obvious extension of the prohibition mentioned in the Qur'an and, therefore, part of the Shari`ah.

I hope I have clarified the issue.

God knows best.

Ronnie Hassan
March 31, 2004

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 13:41 schreef Monidique het volgende:
Met name kLowJow zit zich nu suf te prakkezeren over wat hij erop zullen zeggen.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 13:50 schreef kLowJow het volgende:
Topickiller .

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 08:57 schreef Aaahikwordgek het volgende:
Harry, ben je weer uit de subsidiepot aan het graaien?

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 14:15 schreef lucida het volgende:

[..]

Let's debate about the rebate!...

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 14:22 schreef Harry_Sack het volgende:

[..]

hm, wat heb ik gemist?

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 14:58 schreef pberends het volgende:
Verzin hier fantasie-POL-TT's.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 15:05 schreef George-Butters het volgende:

[..]

Deze is dan wel weer leuk.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 15:10 schreef pberends het volgende:
Mhoaw, nog niet, ligt aan de "inzendingen".

quote:

Geen accijnsverhoging Breezers en bier
Uitgegeven op 15 juni 2005 om 13:25 uur

(Novum) - Breezers en bier worden niet duurder. Een meerderheid van VVD, CDA en de LPF keerde zich woensdag tegen het voorstel van minister van Volksgezondheid Hans Hoogervorst (VVD) om de accijns op deze twee dranken te verhogen.

Volgens de VVD werkt het belastingplan niet. "In Duitsland is hetzelfde geprobeerd maar zijn jongeren overgegaan op andere premixen en wijn en is het alcoholmisbruik dus niet afgenomen", zei VVD-Kamerlid Edith Schipper.

Hoogervorst wilde met het plan het alcoholmisbruik onder jongeren tegengaan. Bovendien wilde hij de accijnsverhoging op Breezers en bier, populaire dranken onder jongeren, gepaard laten gaan met een accijnsverlaging voor gedestilleerde dranken zoals jenever. Slijters in de grensstreek zien hun verkopen dalen, omdat klanten massaal in Duitsland jenever inslaan wegens het belastingvoordeel.

Hoogervorst houdt eraan vast dat het alcoholmisbruik onder Duitse jongeren wel is afgenomen door de accijnsverhoging. De zichtbaar teleurgestelde minister verweet de Kamer geen 'vervelende' besluiten te durven nemen.

Hoogervorst zei niet met nieuwe voorstellen te komen om de accijns op alcoholhoudende dranken te verhogen. "De Tweede Kamer moet zelf maar zien", zei hij.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 15:47 schreef kLowJow het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 14:45 schreef lucida het volgende:
Een nieuwe politieke (wissel)koers van netto-betaler naar netto-ontvanger!...

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 14:45 schreef lucida het volgende:

[..]

Een nieuwe politieke (wissel)koers van netto-betaler naar netto-ontvanger!...

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 16:09 schreef Johan_de_With het volgende:
[afbeelding]

Nietzsche's snor op het hoofd van Gary Coleman?

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 16:14 schreef kLowJow het volgende:

[..]

Waar anders?

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 16:16 schreef Johan_de_With het volgende:

[..]

In de schoot van Larry King?

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 16:09 schreef Johan_de_With het volgende:
[afbeelding]

Nietzsche's snor op het hoofd van Gary Coleman?

quote:

Velen bleken niet goed op de hoogte te zijn van de inhoud de Europese Grondwet.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 17:18 schreef Sidekick het volgende:
- vrouwen worden verkracht door ongelovigen waaronder ik ook moslims schaar

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 17:29 schreef pberends het volgende:
Terreurverdachte zat in quiz bij Boszhard

[afbeelding]

.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 13:50 schreef kLowJow het volgende:
Topickiller .

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 17:41 schreef RichardQuest het volgende:
*burp

quote:

Op woensdag 15 juni 2005 17:42 schreef Johan_de_With het volgende:

[..]

62%.