Today In History!

TODAY:

1519 Leonardo da Vinci died.

Actually, according to Dan Brown, he's alive and well and living with Elvis Presley in a tiki hut on Maui.

Leonardo da Vinci very well may have had the greatrst mind and collection of talents that humanity has ever seen.

Probably true. By the way, did Jesus invent anything?

Tomorrow, 1519, the Leotardo family started its persecution complex.

He was able to turn water into wine, cure blindness and rise from the dead...but He did have a little outside help.

Yeah, us!

And what the hell does Jesus have to do with this topic about da Vinci anyway?

Jesus invented humans?

Well truthfully there are times when I have my doubts after seeing how some of them talk and act.

I was under the illusion that Jesus was of humans. He was born into a world already inhabited by humans.

How He could have possibly invented them, then, is beyond me.

His father invented them. Cardi cut out the middle man.

Actually, Catholics believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Holy Trinity, so in essence, IF Cardi was professing this faith, then he was correct.

We go from Da Vinci to esoteric Catholic dogma, and the mystery of the Trinity, possibly the most discussed theological issue in the Catholic Church. Where is Dan Brown when we need him?

Maybe the poster who brought Jesus into this in the first place didn't understand that the originator was talking about the artist himself, Leonardo da Vinci, and not the Da Vinci Code.

Since the original post in this thread was a load of baloney anyway, let me pursue a little futher "off-topic":

But I'm still confused as to how Jesus could biologically, scientifically, chronologically, historically, practically and pragmatically invented something which he himself was. Or something, if only because of the physicality of, well, you know, actually giving birth, which must have spawned him.

(ie. Do Catholics believe that Humanity began with Jesus? Do Catholics reject Adam and Eve as the first man and woman on Earth? Is Mary and Mary's giving birth to Jesus absent in Catholic doctrine?)

By the way, is "Today in History" (as well as being a hideous cliché) also an oxymoron?

I think it is.

How do you figure that?

Capo, I will speak here for myself and myself alone. As a Roman Catholic, I have been taught that the Father (God), Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost are all one, and that the Holy Trinity can be separate and yet one is the mystery of our faith. Therefore, Jesus was both the Father AND the Son, so if you believe that God created humans, then you also believe that Jesus did, since they are one and the same.

Three persons in one God. As Babe posted, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - the Trinity. As the Bible says before all was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is the Word. So, if it really happened like it says in Genesis, then Jesus did invent us. BUT, did he "invent" anything else like LDV did? Well, it seems he didn't. You would think that hanging around his Dad in the carpenter shop all those years and given who he "really" was, he could have invented power tools at least.

LDV? Last I checked she hasn't posted here in years....

Ok, fair question. What SB said is correct. But I'll elaborate on what she said a bit further if I may.

Christians believe in the teachings of the Holy Bible. Both the old and the new testaments. However they also believe that they are not bound by the laws of the old testament, but instead are saved by grace and the teachings of the new testament. They believe that the Saviour or the Messiah was sent as the sacraficial lamb for all mankind. Under the laws of the old testament, if one sinned, they were required to sacrafice a lamb in order to be forgiven of thier sins. But with the coming of the Messiah who was the sacraficial lamb, the old testament laws of sacraficing a lamb when looking to be redeemed by God from sin is no longer required. These are the beliefs of the Christian faith.

Christians also are taught, in the new testament, and believe that Jesus is also known as The Word. It is believed that God sent us The Word, through an immaculate coneception. It is taught and believed, as SB pointed out, that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, aka The Holy Trinity.

That brings us back to the old testament book of Genisis. In the book of Genisis, before the creation of Adam and Eve, it says " In the beginging was THE WORD. And THE WORD was with God, and THE WORD IS God." Then it goes on to teach us that God said " Let US create man in OUR
own image."

So you see, Christians beleive that God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit were one from the begining of time, before the creation of man. And that is why I said what I did about Jesus "inventing" us.

Now of course you don't have to believe this, as that is your choice. But I have tried to explain to you what Christians believe in with the hope that you could at least understand and respect why we hold Jesus in such high regard.

Someone can worship a goat for all I care, but there is no reason for anyone to disrespect the religious teachings and beliefs of another person just because they themselves might not have the same beliefs.

I hope that my explaining this was helpful and has given you a better understanding of the Christian beliefs.

Because the information it contains is insufficient for a thread of its own. We do have a Random Post thread.

Why is it insufficient? Because its poster, the one telling us about it, adds absolutely nothing to the information; information as dull as somebody's birthday or deathday does not hold much interest - and OWTG's intention in posting the thread is unclear. It lacks clarity. In a word, it's presented in the same way somebody might copy and paste an entire MSN article and not make any further comment, and let the stew be stirred by somebody else.

What is the significance of Da Vinci's death? Why are we celebrating, mourning, discussing (though that never happened, ha!), or even hearing of this? It's a decidedly odd post, more so because there's an entire thread dedicated to it.

So tomorrow I'm going to search through some sort of famous death database and post a thread dedicated to each and every famous person who died on that day in suchasuch year.

(Not really; but I hope you see what I mean.)

NB: I've just noticed my saying "baloney" might have been misunderstood to mean "untruthful". Not so.

Oh, and thanks SB and DC for clearing those up.

(Personally, without meaning any disrespect to the Catholic belief, I think Jesus is a much more persuasive and convincing Christian or prophet or teacher of good faith if I view him as a human; not a God with human traits, but a human, born from a womb, whose fundamental and most important concern was doing good through actions of goodness.)

You're welcomed Capo.

Capo, that's why all faith is personal.

It's not disrespectful at all. I believe for the reasons you've stated, that is partly why the "Word was made Flesh."

Yes Klyd. That is part of the reason. The other being that in order for God to know what it was/is like to feel temptation and all the other things in life that can cause man to sin, he needed to make the Word into Flesh to walk the earth and fully experience what mankind was going through, as a human being.

Those Roman procurators monopolized the patents throughout Judea.

Sure, Leonardo could paint the Mona Lisa, design structures and envision helicopters and tanks, but I'd like to see him feed a multitude with seven fishes and seven loaves of bread.

Well, the trick is that you have to cut them up into really tiny pieces.

Well, if you do view him as human, then how do you account for the miracles he performed?

Funny, I didn't read anything about that in Careless Love...

I'm not a Christian. I could never make the commitments it demands of me, just in the same sense I could never become a communist, in the sense that capitalism bores me. What are religions but simply ideological manipulations of the Many? And although Christianity has purposeful and appealing ends, its means throughout history have done little good for its name, and its means today ask me to turn contrary to all I believe in.

I think miracles as told in the Bible are meant to be taken allegorically, were intended allegorically, and hold much resonance (and more sense) allegorically. The principle beliefs of Christianity are good and effective in sparking a sense of goodness and going about life in a good, beneficial way. (Good and beneficial as regards allowing humanity to continue to exist, to evolve naturally.)

But sparking a sense of goodness stops at teaching; when you tell a person how to fish, you don't then catch the fish for him and eliminate the point of your lesson.

Those miracles are, as all allegories are in some way, a lie. Necessary lies, but still lies. It seems absurd to me, in this day and age especially, to hold the miracles in a literal way, to keep Christianity in its cage of ultimate mystifier.

There is apparently enough historical and scientific evidence that Jesus did exist. That too may or may not be a lie, I don't know, I don't necessarily care. But I think it is beneficial, in the same way it is beneficial to look at Ghandi and other selected individuals whose philosophies present insight into humanity and possible solutions to its continuity (it is also mightily beneficial to teach the readings of Mein Kempf, and illustrate in those teachings exactly why it, the book, is not benificial to the human race.)

Though I am in no position to attack such beliefs, and although I will defend anybody's right to believe in them, it seems odd that people should look upto God, or the Gods, or some Higher Power, instead of to their own. It's very bleak, really. And just reading or hearing the way we write or talk about God, the Christian God, goes some ways to illustrate the flaws and deficiencies in our society: for starters, we refer to God as a He, as Him; 'He' is a product of a patriarchal society, regardless of moral intentions; all actions of war and oppression have been declared in the name of God by men, by individuals, on the oppressed Many; 'He' is the product of an imbalanced world, and 'His' creation and sustained existence by 'Us' adds further to such imbalancing.

Those are my opinions, since you asked for them; John Fowles goes to convincing, though by no means persuasive, lengths in The Aristos in elaborating upon what I've written here. It's convincing because it would take a brave, literate, articulate man to deny Fowles's logic, his pragmatism, his faith, in Evolutionism; it isn't persuasive, because it's the kind of writing (he's a fantastic linguist, and a self-conscious one too) you only connect with if you already feel the same way. He says in his preface he's not interested in converting people to this faith or that faith. Throughout, from the beginning, and as the important final message, his emphasis is on individuality, The Individual, the importance of knowing oneself in a world full of selves. Christianity, among many other things, threatens that.

So, you are saying that the miracles were not supernatural events. You are saying that they are allegories. Fine, but there is absolutely nothing except one's own experience to discredit the Bible's narration of Jesus' miracles as supernatural events, right?

Faith > Your Argument.

Regards,
Double-J

What does that mean?

How did things get so far? Will the invocation of Leonardo Da Vinci's death shake the faith of the believers or give faith to the non believers? Will the discussion of miracles solve anything? I too am against the belief in miracles, and for years I have paid my people not to believe in them, but someone comes to them and tells them of something fantastic, and they say donate a little money, and a miracle will happen to you.
And they can't refuse. I would keep religion in the Churches. I don't want it in public schools and I don't want it in public squares. That's an infamnia. In my city I would keep it in the dark areas. Theyre animals anyway, let them gain their souls.

P.S. We are now one day past Da Vinci's death. Who died today?

Wally Schirra.

Peter Pan

Peter Pan never grows up, so how can he die?

Don't pick on DE NIRO. He got confused with this and one of the games.... the question was what he used his PP for.

You again.

If you want to get rid of the games section then do it,i couldn't give a shit...

I'll give BOGEY 2 minutes to reply to this..

What if she doesn't respond within two minutes?

Then she will be sonic boomed..

You couldn't give a sh*t about them getting rid of the games section, yet you post in there as much as I do?

DE NIRO, I love you.



Now.. you were talking to SC.. yet gave ME a 2 minute time limit to reply? I never said anything about the games section, so honestly, I'm not sure what you're hoping I'll say. And Irish is right.. you've got 26,000+ posts. And I bet at least 25,000 of those are in the Games section.

SC or Geoff, if that section is hypothetically deleted... will all those posts of his go away? I mean, will his post count go down?

Because I think that'd be hilarious.

ANYWAY, DE NIRO, I asked a serious question. How can Peter Pan die, if he lives in Neverland, and never grows up? I thought maybe you were trying to be funny.. but you failed miserably if you were. So I'm just going to go with my original thought, which was, you don't know what you're talking about. (Surprise, surprise!)

And I can't believe you sonic boomed me. EVERYONE knows I have sonic boom-proof armor. AND only a select few people can USE to sonic boom, and you're not one of them. You can try, but you'll always fail.

Adieu!

Yeah but it doesn't mean i care for them,Even thought i still post in there,i lost interst in them long ago...Time to think of some more games..

OMG He's gonna come get me, that's what!!!

You just got stumped in the Numbers thread, admit it.

How many more times you ganna go on about that game,you sound like a broken record..

One point for the Bogzter.

Good for You..keep It Up

How exactly do you decide which words you'll capitalize?

Just curious.

2-nil.

Does it bother you that much,thats getting boring too.

If we lose the games forum -- De Niro loses all of his contacts and half his posts. The other games forum participants might wind up supporting De Niro just to avoid a long--destructive BB war.

I think Bogey secretly has the hots for De Niro and thats why she always picks on him

I must admit there is that certain je ne sais quoi about their exchanges.

C'mon guys, kiss and make up. Or just kiss.

I think you have posted that one already about irish..

Ha Ha.

No thanks

That's Italian for "What a heck of a play"

Yes I did. But I couldn't resist after seeing what you said.

Peter Pan Peanutbutter did.

Peter Pan Peanut Butter is for pud pounding poopypants. Skippy is the only real peanut butter!!

Peter Pan Peanut Butter is my favorite. IMHO it is the best to bake with and it makes real good peanut butter milk shakes. I hope they bring it back soon but till then I'll get Skippy.

Right. And as far as science goes, although I again do not deny anyone the right to believe in them, it is scientifically probable, as in countless millions to one that I am right in not believing they happened, and believers are scientifically countless millions to one wrong in believing they did.

That is a scientific fact. The whole notion of faith is believing in something despite the rationality which opposes or questions it.

Say that 3 times fast.

Ditto! All the rest are fakes. And besides, Peter Pan peanut butter can kill you!

Experiencing one miracle is not a big deal. It is the occurrence of an extremely unlikely event statistically. But repeated miracles is necessary(because of the powers usually attributed) and sufficient(statistically speaking) proof of God for me. The day I start seeing miracles consistently, I am going to believe in God.

Or miracles are part of Hazard, which is an integral part of my life, my existence. Millions play the lottery, but the odds of winning are slim.

Capo, Believing in a higher power doesn't deny your self-faith. It enhances it. I have faith. I believe in God. I embrace many of His teachings. However, I don't necessarily believe in the Church, which, as you pointed out, has provoked wars, exploited its power of its simple faithful, and gotten rich at the expense of its congregations. The Church as an organization is often more about politics than about faith, and I make sure that I keep the two very separate.

As for the miracles, I do believe that they occurred. I believe that they still can. I believe that God can heal through His special messengers, be them saints or His only son, or a doctor that He blesses with extraordinary skills.

However, there is a difference between faith and blind faith. What you described in your post is, IMHO, blind faith.

As for peanut butter, I prefer Jif.

Choosey moms choose Jif.

Floozy moms choose Jif.

Hey!! Who are you calling a Floozy?!!

The last two moms who posted right above my previous post.

Don't talk that way about my friend Beth! Hey!!! Wait a minute....

Yes, but applying scientific principles and rational thought to prove or disprove the existence of that which may be divine is an exercise in futility. Science and the scientific method are products of human thought and rationale. God, if you believe, exists in a plane of reality, not confined by the limits of science. That human thought, which is limited temporally and spacially, can not completely fathom a Being that always was and always will be, does not mean that there isn't another reality, a divine reality, that exists in a plane of timelessness.

Thus the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

And more importantly, Mignon is dead on correct. Peter Pan is the best peanut butter out there.

That's an excellent post, Klydon.

But faith is still a belief in the mysterious. If science attempts to demystify our universe, religion is a rejection of such demystification.

Put away your winter coat, Klydon. Your brain is fried from the heat.

To a large extent I agree. Faith implies an adherence to something unknown or perhaps unknowable.

I think science and religion are compatible. In fact, while I believe in God, I believe it is our human nature and obligation to advance scientific thought ceaselessly to - as you well stated - "demystify our universe." I celebrate scientific discovery, but just think that there are aspects of our existence that science may not be able to explain. Ithink though that that shouldn't stop science from trying to answer these questions, such as why are we all here.

Who knows? maybe as human thought evolves, we will be able to prove scientifically the existence of an Almighty Being. Then science would be religion's best friend, and we would have to be pretty darn almighty ourselves.

By the way, what are you still doing awake? Isn't it pretty late in England?

I concur with Capo, that is an excellent post. However I would like to point out that many things that were considered divine and mysterious many centuries ago have be demystified by science today. It is plausible to believe that science will uncover some more truths in future that will possibly remove the mystery out of a few more things. 20 years ago, everyone would have laughed at the idea of cloning. Today it is a reality. It is however possible that science may fail miserably in explaining somethings in all of the future. That is where your philosophy is important. We cannot analyze divinity with scientific methods, though my education biases me to do so.

One poster in an usenet forum I used to be active once said something I will always remember.

When I was a kid, my grandmother, who will turn 93 later this month, would make me peanut butter sandwiches with Planter's peanut butter. It had a unique flavor, but I don't think they make it any more.

My brain does feel fried though.

What about the miracles that occur everyday in our lives that science can't even come close to explaining?

EXAMPLE:Recently, just a weeks ago actually, I had a dream about a person who I had not talked to in MONTHS. That person called me the next day to tell me that they were thinking about me!!!

I'm not saying that science will not someday demystify the wonders of the mind, but there are occurrences that happen to us everyday that APPEAR to be the work of a higher power!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa

If you lost interest in them, then why do you continue to play?

Da Vinci, Peanut Butter, God, Games forum.
This thread is now officially competing with random post whoring.

I bet she wants to give him a big smooch.

COME ON GUYS, EVERYONE SING ALONG.....Bogey and De Niwo, sittin' in a twee...

Who is Jif and where can I find him?

Too pass the time at work...

Exactly what I said.

Or maybe his brains gone sour from all that salmonella in the Peter Pan peanut butter!

See SC I told ya.

Maybe it's time to put a poll up on here.

"Which Peanut Butter Is Best"

and then list Skippy, Peter Pan and Jif.

Why did you capitalise "appear"? It was important that you did.

I think it's convenient for us to point to Divine Intervention when what happens is an improbable (not impossible) explosion of Hazard. Remember that it's also as convenient for us to ignore Divine Intervention when miracles such as tsunamis happen. We don't point to God when we win the lottery; we might pray to Him before winning, but it's unlikely we'd admit to our selfishness when we thank Him for winning. We pray to God to let us win, but would then be hypocrites if we admitted, "But God created all men equal."

I also find it interesting that a lot of Christians are very, very quick to judge people. Call this terrorist or that terrorist scumbags; they do so in the name of God, instead of God, they take it upon themselves to pass judgment and condemn people to Hell, when God is or should be an all-loving, benign being, whose love far outweighs the evil of man.

SO what you said, what you really meant is that you disagree. That simple equation was as effective as saying, "I disagree."

Isn't that as logical as me posting a great means of losing weight, then you posting:

Fat people > Skinny people?

No offence with that example; it was the first that came to mind.

My main pet peeves: people who judge and people who generalize. Capo, "many" Christians??? Exactly how many?? I'm sure there are some, just as there are judgmental Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, etc. I think that you can't decide that.

Jesus' true message was that we are all God's children, and that He embraces us all. I choose not to believe in the fire and brimstone, unforgiving God that some do, but rather the God that Jesus talked about, the one that will forgive us our sins, because we are only human, and the God that embraces us with His love. That's what His son taught us.

Of course, as humans, we are often frail and give in to our baser side. But by being the very best people we can be, then we are serving both ourselves AND Him. Be it through academic achievement, being good spouses, being a good parent, performing random acts of kindness, that is what I mean. And it's a personal choice for each and every one of us.

To me, that is the true meaning of Christianity.

Many. Many who I've come across. I can only speak for people I meet.

The whole fact that the Bible is open to so many interpretations (contrary to how it was originally perceived, and intended) now shows, to me, that it can only be regarded beneficially, for evolutionary reasons, as allegorical.

The Bible's done far too much for us as humans for us to eradicate, but the time when it was the be all and end all of humanity's moral upkeep is long gone.

Oh, and were you generalising about your dislike of generalisations?

Apparently so.

And, btw, do you EVER sleep??

A little. Here and there, in fits and starts.

Improbable explosion of hazard? By this I assume that you/Fowles mean a coincidence?

Ok...so you think the fact that my friend and I were thinking about one another at the same time is a mere coincidence and nothing more...fair enough.

BTW-I think I should get myself a copy of Fowles' book. Not only do you quote it in your sig but have quoted it time and time again throughout this thread. For someone to put so much stock in one author's one book tells me that it must be pretty good. While I'm sure that The Aristos has some qualities that distinguish it from the THOUSANDS of other works that have similar philosophies; how can you expect Christians to not make CONSTANT reference to their one book(The Bible), when you make CONSTANT reference to your one book(The Aristos)?

Oh no.. only you, Ice baby.

Thanks, Bogey baby. And it's Ice-Ice baby, right?




His real name is Eddie.

He has a pony-tail and drives an El-Camino.

OK... one Pennsylvanian and one Ohioan agree. It must be the Amish influence. What next?? You guys gonna tell me that Peter Pan goes with scrapple??

Mmmmmmmmmm...scrapple.

OK, X, you get the award for most unexpected and out-of-context Top of Page Post!!

I eat nothing with the word scrap in it's name.

This from someone named after a crustacean?

I take it you don't eat crabs.

Ice:

Where do you draw the line between dismissing something as a coincidence and praising it as a miracle? If I am to thank our Creator for intervening in my life, what am I do for wars, starvation, human inequality? It's become a cliché to dismiss the existence of God on the notion of wars, but it is in part true. I cannot accept that, if someone did create me, they are autocratic enough to manipulate my entire life. In that sense, Divine Intervention is Devine Manipulation; it's not unlike some sort of dictatorship encouraging births in order to bring up the males to serve the purpose of the State, and to bring up females to produce more males. (But let's not get onto why the world's population is increasing.)

Fowles's novel is only good because I find it suitable to me. He's too self-conscious to say something as ridiculous as "My book > The Bible". He introduces his thoughts on Christianity, for instance, thus:And remember that all quotes from the Bible are selective, and only beneficial to the argument in which they are used; for many references in the Bible, there are references which oppose it, which contradict it, in other parts of the work. A recurring theme in my posts here seems to be contradiction, inconsistency, the convenience of choosing when and when not to believe, or what to believe. Theories, be they scientific or theological or artistic, are theories because they are intended to work in practice in every possible situation, to accomodate all routes of potentiality without exceptions - because exceptions disprove them.

Fowles's book might not be without contradictions, either, but he never announces himself as the prophet, and he never announces that it must be read in order to make humanity better. His primary concern is never to attack beliefs, but to reject certain beliefs in order to come to a conclusive contentment with his own; and by those means he comes to the conclusion that makes clear the sacrifices we must make in order to adapt to the new modern world we now find ourselves in (as a race, as a species).

I'm sure there are "THOUSANDS of other works" like The Aristos, but I only happened to read this one because I love Fowles's writing. I connect very deeply with the thematic preoccupations throughout his work, and I think he's a fantastic writer. Like I've already said, it's not necessarily a persuasive book, and it doesn't really want to be. It isn't persuasive because beliefs and faiths such as those found in religion are inherited through deep rooted education, family life and childhood environment; it's very difficult to turn to a religion once you're beyond adolescence, which is why born-again Christians fascinate me as much as they confuse me. That quote svsg wrote is excellent:



Put it this way: if all of today's generation eradicated religion in schools and family learning, what then would exist in God's "absence"? How would our creator reclaim His power among those who did not even know He existed?

Into you and your friend's coincidence went, I should imagine or suspect, millions of complex, interrelated scientific variables and factors, which made you think of one another on that day, at that time of the year; perhaps there was something buried deep within your memories, within your unconscious, that linked one another. It's no coincidence that me and some girl I've not spoken to in a while came back into contact last night; it's far too complex to say it was merely down to shared anticipation of spring, its coming, the sun and the memories we share with it.

A final quote, since I like them, from Ernst Mach:

I'll make an exception for you.

Hmmmm...and I thought shellfish was trayf.

It is. (I'm not kosher).

I feel it's only fair to scan in the relevant pages from the Fowles work, for the benefit of Ice, and perhaps his wallet; though I maintain that I already thought these things before reading the book.

Since this thread has gone SO off-topic, I may as well go further. When I was 16, I worked at a summer camp run by the local Jewish Community Center. I gave one of the kids in my group milk with his bologna sandwich, because that's what he asked for. I had no idea that his family was kosher, or even what the kosher laws WERE. I got in HUGE trouble.

For the rest of the summer, the other counselors taunted me with Billy Joel's "Only the Good Die Young".

Sorry dont know what Scrapple is. It could be hillbilly influence

[quote=MignonSorry dont know what Scrapple is. It could be hillbilly influence [/quote]

Scrapple is make up of all the ingredients not good enough to go into a hot dog.

After reading The Jungle for US History this year, my daughter has refused to eat hot dogs.

Scrapple is basically the parts of a pig you probably wouldn't ever dream of eating.

To quote a famous...um...quote...it contains "Everything but the squeal!"

Oh...and it's delicious.

Oh ok now I know what you are talking about. I am so dence at times

Freshly made scrapple with a few eggs is my kind of breakfast!!

Back to Today In History:

Today back in 1975 Moe Howard of the Three Stooges passed away in Los Angeles, CA due to lung cancer.

Scrapple, eggs and grits. My Boca breakfast!!

Don't ever read FAST FOOD NATION. It'll ruin you for pig parts.

Would that be a two yolk egg?

Don't get me started on that!! (I was too hungover at the time it happened to make sense of it... NOW I don't even wanna try).

When I was around 9 years old, we went to The Concord hotel up in the jewish alps. My dad had to go there for a convention. Well anyway the first morning we go into the dining room for breakfast, and the waiter is taking our order. So I ask for bacon and eggs. The waiter tells me that they do not serve bacon. I'm like what do you mean you don't serve bacon? He tells me that the hotel does not serve bacon. I was so pissed. Meanwhile my dad and his business partner are hysterical laughing. So I look at my dad and ask him what's so funny?

At the time the Concord hotel was a Kosher hotel.

I stayed there once for a convention as well. One of the girls I worked with couldn't understand WHY they couldn't give her milk for her coffee. The waiter patiently explained that The Concord was a kosher hotel, and she smiled and said, That's OK. I'm not Jewish.

I guess we all have a story like this.

I'm in Epstein's Kosher deli in Yonkers about 15 years ago and my brother was absolutely dumbfounded as to how you could get a turkey sandwich OR a cheese sandwich, but not a turkey and cheese sandwich. He eventually ordered one of each and made two turkey and cheese sandwiches. Actually more like 4, because being a Jewish deli, they over stuff the sandwiches and there's always extra rye bread on the table.

You know something ? I could go for some potato pancakes with applesauce.

Uncle Jun', I thought you were a bacala man, what are you doin' eatin' sushi?

Moe Howard is dead?! Damn. First, da Vinci, now Howard. The good ones never last.

Hey, I'm still around!

Santino had a temper back then to huh?

Back to Peanut Butter....

I'm sorry to say, but you all dont know what you're talking about.

Jif? Skippy? Peter Pan?

Bunch of fakes...all of'em.

There's just one REAL Peanut Butter :

Smucker's Natural Peanut Butter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All this talk of peanut butter, I have a craving for a peanut butter milkshake yum-yum