"There's been speculation for months about whether Michael D Higgins would run for the Presidency. Today, he told Labour TDs and Senators that he was willing to do so, that his recent knee operation wouldn't prevent him, and that it would be good for the party and for the presidency to have a contest." — Youtube recording

Does anyone know anything about this knee operation in (circa) 2004?

1. Why did he need the operation?
2. Did he acquire a limp as a result of it, or did he only begin to limp in 2010?
3. Was it the same knee that he broke in 2010?
4. [Bonus question] If it was the same knee, have the 2004 operation and the 2010 fracture combined to make him limp so much nowadays?
   talk) 03:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
   ]

You already asked that... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did

Kipling doesn't seem to have been to India since 1889[4]1891[5]. Gandhi visited George Bernard Shaw during his 1931 visit to Britain, but I suspect that there was little common ground between Gandhi and Kipling. Kipling's anger over WWI was (as I understand it) almost entirely directed at elected politicians[6] and he tried to promote the idea of governance by a kind of military junta. Interesting thought though. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again: please take that comment about Kipling's military government with a pinch of salt - I can't now find a reference for it. One of those things that I thought I knew. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if you were referring to his Aerial Board of Control or to non-fiction writing. -- 203.82.66.204 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link, but not what I was thinking of. I believe it came from a TV play (not My Boy Jack (film)) but I'm not sure now. However, this article about his poem Gehazi gives an insight into his post-war political views "The Radical Right group, of which Kipling was an active member, despised any form of political pragmatism because it negated the duty to serve the nation and the Empire in the way that Kipling himself had immortalised in his Indian canon." Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article

It's such a basic tenet of Christianity that anyone who doesn't believe he was crucified can almost safely be said to be something else. Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones, I think, who believe in the stake hypothesis, but in that case he was still executed and died and ascended and all the rest. The

Islamic view of Jesus' death for example sometimes follows the crucifixion story, sometimes not, but in either case Jesus did not actually die on the cross. There is also the "swoon hypothesis" where he didn't die, he just passed out and looked like he was dead. The idea that the crucifixion was somehow an illusion goes back almost as far as Christianity itself, as it was a tenet of Docetism. (Also, somewhat irrelevant but interesting, aside from the dispute over the shape of the cross/stake, there is also another dispute about the date; some Protestants think a "Friday crucifixion" is too Papist, and believe instead in a "Wednesday crucifixion".) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I wonder why the particular shape of the piece of wood some guy was nailed to about 2000 years ago has achieved such importance. I cannot see any important doctrinal implications of one or the other (although one is slightly more open to Freudian interpretation...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "particular shape of the piece of wood" was the means by which the Christians believe that he died for our sins and ascended to heaven. Such shapes/symbols have a way to becoming important. Flamarande (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's weirder than that. While Christians often use the cross as a symbol, and in imagery, there really isn't any special theology attached to the shape. People use the familiar imagery in phrases like "arms opened wide to save", but it really wouldn't be a big deal to Christians for Jesus to be crucified on a different shaped piece of wood. It would be weird, as we have a good chunk of early Christian writing and imagery that refer to this shape, but it wouldn't actually change anything. Jehovah's Witnesses (who are the only people who find the 'stake' thing convincing, and the only ones who think the 'Tammuz' thing is convincing, but not sadly the only ones to find 'Constantine invented the Catholic Church to appease pagans and destroy Christianity' convincing) often present the issue of the shape of the cross as vitally important, as if it deeply matters, whereas it is really completely irrelevant to standard Christian belief. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, almost all sects, cults and religions find and focus themselves upon some relatively minor issue as vitally important. This way they can separate their guys from the surrounding world. This way religious leaders can impose their rule over the faithful. It goes more less this way: We do this this way and the others don't. They are different from us as we are to them. We shouldn't mix. It is GOD who decided such issues. Flamarande (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes claimed that the ultimate was the

homoousianist vs. homoiousanist dispute "over a vowel" (however, though it was rather esoteric, it was not actually about a vowel as such)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

In early Christianity, some

eidolon appeared to be crucified. This idea is pretty much extinct among Christians (though Muhammad incorporated a version of it into Islam). The JW thing is unique to them alone, as far as I'm aware. It can appear to be supported by somewhat superficial perusal of a dictionary of Classical Attic Greek (note: the New Testament was written in Hellenistic Koine Greek), but everything else we know about Roman execution customs and the history of early Christianity contradicts it... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Galatians 3:13 (http://mlbible.com/galatians/3-13.htm) uses ἐπὶ ξύλου, meaning "on the stake" (literally, "on the wood"), in quoting from Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 (http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/21-22.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/21-23.htm), which uses עַל־הָעֵץ, meaning "on the stake" (literally, "on the tree").

—Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why don't those words mean "wood" and "tree" in those places? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One has to be a little careful with the word cross. In English, a cross has to have something that crosses, but this is not the original meaning of the word crux, which meant the execution device. A crux simplex is just a pole to which the victim is affixed; it's a cross, so to speak, without a crossbar. So at first glance I don't see why you would say the Witnesses don't think he was crucified — apparently they think he was on the cross, but without a crossbar. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sects believe that Simon of Cyrene and not Jesus was the one actually crucified on the cross. Heiro 02:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus died on a cross, and insist it was a "stake." But then they are not considered Christians by many Christian denomination. Edison (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly for other denominations to pronounce on whether the JWs or any others are not Christians. If the JWs say they follow, in their way, the teachings of Christ, that ipso facto makes them Christians. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz -- That may sound logical, but unfortunately it goes against about 1,700-1,800 years of history, and would define Muslims as being "Christian"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that they are Christians, they just worship God differently. But my question is, are there other Christian denominations that believe that Jesus was executed using a stake or a method other than crucifixion. And is there any evidence for (or against) the stake theory?

csdnew 09:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you mean "differently". There's a reason there are so many different Christian denominations - they each differ from all the others in some significant way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In their beliefs and ways of worship.

csdnew 12:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Compared to what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 -- The main "evidence" is looking up the word σταυρος in a dictionary of Classical Attic Greek, and overlooking that the New Testament is written in Hellenistic Koine Greek. Just about everything beyond that which has been alleged in favor of the stake hypothesis is somewhat strained or irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is having preferences (but still being happy for getting something) and another is to get a fixed idea about what you want. What's the name of that? Quest09 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment? Pfly (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want

Dukkha: basically, the state of being attached to the presence or absence of something (as opposed to the something in itself). --Ludwigs2 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, both answers seem to be on the right direction. But, is there a name for "having preferences, but it's OK". Buddhists are not indifferent to stuff, even if they accept that things go wrong sometimes, they have preferences (for example, they prefer not to break a leg, but accept that it happens). Quest09 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something to do with the Noble Eightfold Path--right view, right intention, right effort, etc.? Pfly (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term you are looking for is

for a year in UK? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your TV satisfies the latest "Energy Star" requirements for less than one watt in standby, then you can run it for 1000 hours for the cost of one unit (perhaps 10p in the UK, depending on your tariff). One average year is 8766 hours during which time your TV will use 8.7 Kwh (units), so the cost is likely to be less than £1, though tariffs are rising rapidly. Dbfirs 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did people (and not just the sovereign) in Elizabethan etc times refer to eg "My Earl of Derby", "My Earl of Leicester" and so on. Why "my"? Ericoides (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Madam states that the term comes from mea domina, meaning my mistress of the house. When a subordinate refers to his lord it is "My lord." So, to someone living in the Earldom of Leicester they would refer to their earl as "My Earl." Not so important now, but when your lord owned the land you lived in when you were a slave/serf, it might have been important. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But people who are not subordinate to Leicester – either because they are not within his earldom or because they are his sovereign (ie Elizabeth) – also use the term "my" when referring to him. Ericoides (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without claiming definite knowledge, I have always taken this to be just another instance of the formerly widespread etiquette practice (common, for example, in China and Japan as well as Europe) of equals in an exchange each behaving and speaking as if the other is the senior, or those in a nominally subordinate position exaggerating that subordination, hence antique letter salutations like "I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient servant" from civil servants and others, or the spoken "Your servant, Sir" used between gentlemen in the Stuart period. In English the use of "My lord" was sufficiently common that French and Italian speakers took "Milord" to be an actual English title of nobility. [Sorry, too rushed to dig out proper references.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but again a little quibble; the us of "my" occurs even when the person so referred to is absent, eg, "I was discussing with my Earl of Derby the matter arising from etc". Ericoides (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "My Earl of Derby" was used, it was much less common than "My lord the Earl of Derby". I can look into this, but my immediate guess is that the possessive pronoun was transferred from the everyday use of Norman French and Medieval Latin by the upper classes of England... cf. "monseigneur", &c. (By the way, there was no British nobility in the 16th century!) Moonraker (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, re British, my mistake (although it could be construed as being a question in general about English and British nobility)! I'll try to find instances of my Earl of X; I'm sure I've read some recently. Ericoides (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've never seen "my Earl of X"; it's normally "my Lord Earl of X" or, more commonly, "my Lord of X" (so you'd say "I was speaking to my Lord of Derby" rather than "I was speaking to the Earl of Derby"; this form occurs in Shakespeare). It seems that it was just seen as a more respectful way of referring to someone, which presumably developed from the more respectful way of addressing someone directly. A similar form still exists to a certain extent in the courts: if a judge in the

Court of Appeal of England and Wales wants to refer to one of the other judges he is sitting with he will say "...as my Lord, Lord Justice Smith, said...", or simply "...as my Lord said..." if it's clear who he's referring to. Proteus (Talk) 12:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed: "my Earl" is wrong. See Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester; "I see not her Majesty disposed to use the services of my Lord of Leicester." (Francis Walsingham). Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. One contrary example hardly proves the non-existence of the Earl form. See, for instance, Sir John Gilbert to Sir Robert Cecil: "As to my Earl of Cumberland having the greatest part in the Watt's adventure, the case standeth thus."[7]; or [A. Gorges (?)] to Lord Carew: "I am desirous to hear of your welfare, and by a few lines to let you know of some bruits that I hear of, that may concern the State, that if you think fit it may be related to my Earl of Salsburye."[8]; or Montagu: "nor my Earl of Leicester with any of the favourites of Augustus"[9] etc. etc. Ericoides (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to disagree completely with my first comment, but the "my lord" construction does also appear in Old English. For instance, in Genesis B, Eve calls Adam "frea min" (my lord). Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]