caldrail

I wonder how that could be. The uneducated youth, which obviously exists in California as Wiltshire, often displays a system of relative enthusiasm and poor dialogue. I find it interesting, and baffling, that such people could inspire a novel. It's hard to see any of them with any passion or insight as to the human condition, and lets be honest, if you write a novel based on them it ain't gonna be Romeo & Juliet! I didn't know you were writing one. Good luck with that.

It's very easy to suggest that all that was need was to field an army and see off the vandal threat or whatever. I don't actually believe it was as simple as giving an order, even if it came from Honorius (who wasn't the strongest ruler the romans had). In some cases, such as Valens prior to marching on Adrianople, considerable persuasion was necessary to get roman soldiers to agree to go on campaign.

As I write this I'm listening to the guy sat in the next cubicle as he tries manfully to arouse interest in a young woman of his acquaintance. He keeps insisting he needs to buy a hammer in order to bang some curtains in. Whatever that means. He insists that intelligent people should use double beds to sleep in. By now you're probably getting the idea of what he wants. His girlfriend asks why he needs a hammer anyway, because he can't afford one. Apparently he can, the 99p shop does them. No they don't she says. They probably do he responds. Part of the problem is that she's busy on the internet, apart from her mobile phone going off regularly. He of course tries again to restart the coversation. He's going to a gym. In a few months he's going to have a back like a caveman - his words, not mine. She's not impressed, any more than I am, and whinges that girlfriends should come first. He yawns, a sure sign of increased frustratiion and boredom. I don't think he realises that she's getting more attention from the chatsite on the computer. Oh hang on, yes he has, he's moaning that her PC is more important than his gym. She hisses at him, telling him to shut his mouth, and he warns her he's about to go. Which of course he doesn't. Ahhh..... Youing love.... Soap Opera of the Week The young woman finally lost her rag with her companion as he complained about her willingness to spend another twelve minutes on the computer. Turns out he's an ex-boyfriend. None of her other ex-boyfriends are so pushy. Wow. Eastenders in the flesh. Why sit vegetating in front of a television when you can get class action like this in a public library?

I agree. The reporting of archaeology is often sensationalist. I think you have to accept that it always will be. the journalist is selling news and unless it interests the reader in some way the journalist ends up unemployed. Most readers aren't interested in history - it's viewed as a dull, boring subject (an attitude learned in school lessons given by indifferent teachers usually) - so the journalist looks for the sensationalist element. Sometimes though you have to wonder if the journalist knows any more than the public he writes for. I guess all too often he doesn't. The prevalent view of prinmitive societies is that they're basically ignorant. Ok, they don't get a first class education, but the sophistication they show in manipulating even simple ideas and resources demonstrates that intelligence isn't lacking. Some will point at the kago cults of the south pacific. Tribesmen, having witnessed the arrival of aeroplanes with cargo for soldiers serving in WW2, imagined these to be iron birds delivering goods from the gods. They then believed if they built bamboo radios they could summon these birds for themselves. In some respects it's a laughable (or pitiable) situation, but since the modern logistics system was beyond their experience, they attempted to make sense of it and exploit it. Naturally they failed and the kago cults evaporated over time. One suspects the other reason was the increasing pervasiveness of the modern world. Perhaps it also demonstrates that intelligence varies considerably between human beings, and that people with real incisveness are very rare - even in the modern west which contains a fair number of idiots and dunces who wouldn't read or understand history unless some big claim was made of it.

Today I'm at our local sports center. I have to, because the main library is being visited by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, and for security, us plebs are forbidden from accessing the premises. Personally, you have to wonder if she only wants to reserve the computers for a quick surf whilst she's in town. Actually I don't have anything against her at all. I do notice that a certain Shirley Burnham, a pensioner campaigning to keep the Old Town library open, was planning to use the event to highlight her concerns. So sensitive are the police about royal security that they've already told her to behave. Parade of the Week Swindon does seem to be a busy place lately. Just yesterday I caught the tail end of a parade setting off through the town. I asked a council employee standing near me what was going on. He told me it was the Royal Air Force getting the freedom of the town in recognition of their service. Quite right too I think, but I noticed the naval uniforms at the back of the parade line. The council guy smiled, way ahead of me, and told me the Sea Cadets had tagged along for the ride. As a youth I was an air cadet, and my flight was stationed next door to those sea cadets. There was hardly any interaction between the two services at all. We always sort of glared across the fence at the goings on of the other side and kept a disrepectful distance. I watched the low pass of a Hercules transport, a salute to the men of RAF Lyneham, and remembered the one occaision I sneaked out there for an unofficial joyride in an air force transport. It was a very hot day and the empty Hercules on circuit training bumped up and down so much in thermals and turbulence that enjoying the experience was impossible. I see that the base is due to close shortly. Ever since I first lived in Swindon as a six year old child I used to see these aircraft flying overhead on their way for a landing down the road. The skies above Swindon are going to a lot less busy in future. Believe it or not, I'm going to miss that periodic whine of four turboprop engines and the woosh of a 'Fat Albert' on it's way home.

You know, Biology is not Philosophy; it's hard science. If you don't know what evolution is, there's no way you can disguise it by circular argumentation. What circular argument? Sylla, biology is defined as a science by convention, not some unalterable commandment. It was someones choice in previous times to determine the limits of what is or isn't part of the study of living creatures. Arguably, what is or isn't biological is a matter of philosophy. You seem to rely on labelling a great deal. You might find that the quality of an argument has little to do with the banner you display above it. As it happens, I do know what evolution is and you cannot assume that you alone are the sole owner of all that is conventionally wise. Well, you've chosen not to seek the second gold star. That's entirely up to you of course but I admit I'm disappointed. I'll now present the answer I was going to had you decided to expand on evolutionary erudition. I do apologise for the poor quality of the article as I hadn't the time to write anything more focused. Looking Beyond Darwinian Selection ========================== Natural Selection (Biol.). A theory of the mechanism of evolution which postulates the survival of the best-adapted forms, with the inheritance of those distinctive characteristics wherein their fitness lies, and which arise as small uncontrolled variations; it was first propounded by Charles Darwin, and is often referred to as Darwinism or the Darwinian Theory. Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology The elegant logic of Darwins Theory of Natural Selection is impressive. He postulated that successful creatures would pass on their characterisitics to their young leading to diversity and specialisation of species. Unsuccessful creatures would naturally tend to die out. An example of this is the emergence of speckled grey butterflies instead of the bright white one previously found. In the urban enviroments created by Man, the white butterfly has no camouflage and is targeted by birds, hence the speckled grey mutation becomes the survivor. This is survival of the fittest in a passive sense. Perhaps two species of bird catch butterflies for food. The better hunter catches its prey easily, and reduces the chances of finding food for the other. Direct competition of this sort is survival of the fittest in an active sense. In the same way that Newton was inspired to formulate his laws of physics, so Darwin was inspired by the natural world he observed in his fieldwork to find some reasoning for why animals seemd to fit their ecological niche. Darwin had no body of science to enlighten him about genetics. That science had yet to be discovered. Instead, he reasoned that small changes from one generation to the next were responsible for the drift in form. The reasoning is sound. Should a creature be unable to compete in it's enviroment, it dies and cannot pass on it's own charcteristics to another generation. The tendency to pass on 'superior' characterisitics would therefore mean that species would evolve slowly toward creatures better adapted for their enviroment. His theory is by its very nature mechanistic. He proposed small changes because he observed nothing larger. Although his theory explained the variety of species in terms of random change and trial, the increment of evolution must therefore be of a very slow progression given that species tend to resemble others of their kind very closely. In Natural Selection, creatures are tested by their enviroment. Enviromental Concerns Darwin presents a somewhat simplistic picture of the evolution of species. He did so because whilst he may have been aware of changes in the enviroment from prehistoric times, he did not observe that the enviroment, be it local or global, continuously changes. His theory of Natural Selection assumes a static enviroment in which species compete. Natural Selection has one essential proprty - the diversification of a species occurs over long periods of time. Under normal circumstances the change is hardly noticeable - indeed, that was the reason Darwin did not consider anything else - but modern insight and concern about enviromental issues has revealed something very important. Even micro-changes in the enviroment can have a strong effect on species. Since under Natural Selection a species will tend to become more specialised, it also becomes more vulnerable to change. Arguably Natural Selection agrees with this, since the species regarded as fittest will obviously be another in different circumstances. With change, the more specialised species can no longer compete and the more generic species survive and diversify. There is however an objection to this. Since the specialised species are the result of survival of the fittest, the less specialised are by definition less successful and therefore will tend to die out in competition. In other words, the diversity of the species within any enviroment is limited by the available ecological niches they can occupy. Adaptive Concerns Eyesight in human beings, or at least those born in the modern industrial societies, is getting worse. More and more people require corrective lenses. This is the Darwinistic side of things because more and more individuals are surviving to pass on poor eyesight where once this poor vision would impacted on their chances of survival. With species that live in darkness, we see either of two things. Their eyes become large and very sensitive to whatever light is available, or vanish completely if there is none. Blind invertebrates are common species found in caves for instance. Under Darwinistic evolution, this was a process that happened by chance over an extended period. Since eyesight was no advantage in total darkness, successive generations had poorer vision until it declined completely. There is something about this view that doesn't satisfy. Since there is no advantage whether the creature can see or not, then eyesight would persist if the creatures so blessed were successful. In other words, the eye remains whether used or not. But all too often, the eyes vanish altogether in blind species. Some might argue that with the lack of one sense, the others compensate for. This doesn't mean the remaining senses are any keener, merely that the creature has no choice but to make better use of them. But even so, it seems peculiar that blind species evolve so readily in lightless conditions. One suggestion is that the lack of stimulation reduces the genetic dominance of that feature. If so, then responsiveness is a factor in evolution as much as random drift. Faculties developing according to necessity and stimulus rather than mere coincidence and selection. This concept has important ramifications. It would mean that a cheetah evolved to run at very fast speeds not only by the success of those ancestors who had longer legs, better lungs, and more flexible backbones, but by an implicit biological need. It does sound absurd, but the ability use limbs for walking soon vanishes in a species that takes to the water. We have then the possibility that genetics is influenced indirectly by our enviroment, and that it developed in complexity to take advantage of it. Simply wishing our descendants to be faster will not produce athletes. The trend toward this biological impulse must be triggered by lifestyle. Arguably this is not the case, and we are merely discussing Darwinian selection, yet the small random shift in form over long periods of time does not in itself explain satisfactorily some of the dramatic shifts in evolution that have occured. Predictive Concerns The physical characteristics of living creatures are encoded in DNA and these complex chemical descriptions of species dictate the appearance, capability, and probably even behaviour to some degree. This is the science of Genetics, a field of study that did not exist in Darwins day. Perhaps in one sense genetics provides us with the random changes required by Darwins theory. The combination of male and female genes results in characteristics passing on to the next generation. Now if Darwin is to be believed, the characteristics of creatures successful enough to consider procreation should emerge in the next generation. Unfortunately, the rules of genetics mean this isn't necessarily so. Firstly, Darwin assumes that a single change is passed on. In other words, a 'changed' creaure with a superior characteristic would ordinarily mate with an ordinary specimen of standard form. In genetics, no creature is 'standard'. Although the individual may closely agree with another in appearance and capability, they are inherently unique, with dominant and recessive qualities that may be passed on. In some respects, the natural world follows Darwinist principles. Social animals usually arrange for males to compete for mating rights, thus the dominant herd leader has the harem to himself, mating with the available females and passing on his own characterisitcs in preference to the lesser and somewhat frustrated males left out of the fun. Nature sometimes uses this method to ensure that dominant characteristics persist. As we have already noted, it isn't 100% reliable. It is therefore, a method of creating an average new generation of persistent strength. Here already we see Darwinist theory as valid for consistent reproduction rather than the less predictable mixing of DNA found in nature. Iterative Concerns Genetics opens up another concern to laid against Darwinist theory. In Natural Selection the minute change he postulated in every generation was no more than speculation. Since individual specimens were very similar, Darwin conjectured that changes in every generation must be slight, and this is why Natural Selection is such a long term prospect. In theory, the mix of characteristics allowed by genetics provides our small change, albeit less reliable than Darwins simplistic development from one generation to the next. What Darwin had not allowed for was the bigger change. The possibility of a mutation is ever present in genetics. Now this doesn't mean we need to stray into science fiction, but there will always a very small number of 'different' specimens in each generation. Whereas Darwin wrote of slow gradual change, nature holds the possibility of rapid change in a short space of time. Indeed, human beings have latched onto this and for instance the selective breeding of dogs has produced over the last ten thousand years, (and the last thousand in particular) a plethora of breeds. Nature not only allows these bigger iterations but requires them for survival. In situations where the stimulus exists, these larger changes become dominant. Without this capacity for change, life would fail for one simple reason. Catastrophe. Catastrophic Concerns The stable enviroments of Darwins theory do not actually exist. We've already considered enviromental drift, but we must allow for the possibility of catastrophic change. The Earth is potentially a dangerous place. Powerful forces fed by internal tectonic movement and the volcanism it causes are known to have had far reaching effects. The Permian/Triassic Event is thought to have been largely due to a massive break-up of the Earths crust in Siberia, and whatever the cause the effect was a mass extinction of nearly all life on this planet. The effects of cosmic forces are equally profound. The K/T Event which is often quoted as having killed the dinosaurs was caused by a meteorite strike in the Gulf of Mexico, and that of no great size compared to those the Earth experienced in its infancy.The survival of species in the aftermath of that event underline the concept of 'survival of the fittest'. Smaller creatures were able to hide from the worst excesses of the apocalyptic enviroment, as did those with thicker skins or those whose aquatic ability sheltered them from the effects. This doesn't mean the numbers survivng were large at all. More consistently, the star that our planet orbits is responsible for periodic changes. The Sun varies the amount of heat, light, and other radiations over time. Our weather is driven by these forces and the interaction of the Earths composition has produced some startling changes in prehistory. It was in fact due to one great change that life was able to develop at all. Very early on the Earth went through a 'snowball' phase, in which the planet suffered temperatures that froze it almost competely. When the thaw came, the availability of warm shallow water allowed complex life to evolve for the first time. These first creatures were very different from those we see now, and it's believed they were killed off by the second 'snowball' phase. The process repeated when the thaw finally arrived again and the resulting species eventually evolved into those we see around us. Swift variations of temperature have been responsible for sweeping changes to the ecology of the northern hemisphere since the Ice Ages, and most of those within a few generations. The final thaw of eleven thousand years ago is usually mentioned as the most visible evidence of such catastrophe, but that ignores the sequence of warm and cold periods that took place within the ice ages. Catastrophic changes then are not intrinsically survivable. Those species that are specialised in the former enviroments tend to die out very quickly, along with others simply unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The important issue here is recovery. Since the catastrophe has opened up a fresh ecology, there is a period of rapid evolution as soon as conditions are favourable. New, empty enviroments are filled with species that diversify by way of the 'big change' made possible by genetics. It seems then that the iterative scale of change can vary according to enviromental pressure. As the ecology developes and stabilises, species might begin to conform and settle into what almost approaches stagnation. Survival of the fittest not only afflicts individual species, but entire ecologies as well. The stagnant population loses its sharp edge and finds it harder to compete against new arrivals. This is why isolated enviroments often produce the docile species. That may be Darwinist, but the rapid evolution experienced in the fresh colonisation that follows shows us that genetic mutation is at it's most active when their are fewer pressures to seek out particular ecological niches. Because a species has found a niche and cannot utilise another without direct competition, the specimens that change the most are those exposed to the greatest competition and therefore those with a tougher time surviving. In other words, evolution responds to opportunity whereas competition suppresses it to a minimal level. Behavioural Concerns The concept of survival of the fittest must be extended beyond mere physical characteristics. Although having the right 'tools' for the job of survival, the manner in which the job of survival is carried out Without doubt, the behaviour of a species directly affects its fitness. Aggressive species can ward off competition, and nervous species watch out for them. The development of social behaviour brings co-operation into the mix. Safety in numbers is a principle that many herbivores adopt. Some carnivorous species adopt a tactical approach to pick off individual members of such a group. We run into an old debate here about instinct, learned behaviour, and intelligence. Instinct isn't really a behaviour pattern as such, but an urge toward it. Learned behaviour has been shown to be vital in the wild. Without parental guidance, many creatures find survival difficult if not impossible simply because they don't know how. Rescue centers for wild animals often train them in survival techniques as a prelude to release into the wild, but sadly, the learned behaviour required for succesful adaption to the wild enviroment is often lacking, especially in the interaction with other members of their species. Intelligence becomes a useful characteristic when all else is equal. It also seems to occur in species that have a hard time surviving, especially those linked to cold climates. The need to remember food and water sources, the need to co-ordinate survival, and even the need to find new ways of exploiting the enviroment are all stimuli to mental capacity. How does this all diverge from Darwins theory? Behaviour is partially genetic, formed by the biological needs of the animal and available as instinct, or something gained from experience. The more complex the animal, the more it must learn to be the creature it is and how to survive. It isn't a system of small inherited changes, but very much something an animal has learned for itself, either by watching others or direct experience. Most importantly, even on a very basic level, an animal may make a decision, rational or impetuous, with the thought processes available to it. It does not neccesarily act on accumulated instinct as Darwinian theory would demand. Technological Concerns The arrival of genetic science has the potential of creating directed evolution. Already scientists are capable of cloning as Dolly the Sheep demonstrated. The science isn't perfect however, and whilst the possibility of making copies of individual animals is now possible, at this stage the genetic age of the clone is unchanged from its donor. Dolly was old when she was born. The recent discovery of near-perfect frozen mammoth remains has brought the 'Jurassic Park' scenario a step closer. The recreation of extinct forms is something of a scientific novelty. Although we might potentially learn about primeval life, we must understand that these creatures will not have the benefit of being brought up in their natural enviroment or have the opportunity to learn appropriate behaviour from their parent. The nightmarish visions of science fiction of course go much further than that. The concept of designer babies, infants modified genetically to be what the parents require, brings with it a moral choice about the spiritual and aspirational aspects of applying a pre-destined fate upon a child. Worst still are the exploitive visions whereby human beings are grown for the benefit of a few. Rather than rely on genetic trends and Natural Selection, we are close to creating an artificial enviroment removed from that of the wild, where we strive to control our own evolution and be what we desire to be. Unfortunately, human nature is rarely so benign and inevitably, the spread of such technology may well one day produce a 'biological arms race' in which humans of opposing factions are improved in a forced analogy of real Natural Selection. This mindset is with us already - we see it in our armed forces, our very own replacement for the teeth and claws we lack. It is an instinct. Conclusions Logic dictates that Darwins Theory of Natural Selection must be a factor in the evolution of life on Earth, no question of it. The parameters of the theory are somewhat static however, and do not account for the dynamic interaction of enviroment, genetics, and behaviour. Darwin invented a mechanisn that he thought was responsible for evolution as opposed to something more along the lines of divine intervention that was generally accepted in his day. Life on Earth is a remarkable thing but one that is ultimately and entirely dependent on a suitable enviroment in which to thrive. The composition of that enviroment is not only the local conditions, but the interior and exterior forces that mould it. Life is linked by its very own substance to the universe from which it developed. As our study of the physical world has opened up more detailed layers, should we really be suprised that these underlying principles haven't in some way produced similar layers of understanding of the natural world? Time then to put Darwins Theory of Natural Selection in its place, as an early step on the road to discoverng what life on Earth actually is and how it works.

I think it had to do a lot with the constant threat of detention or various implements designed to hurt the botty. School was a treadmill in my day. You never got mollycoddled.

No good arguing with me on that point. The debate between science and faith started in the middle ages. It's been a lethal debate too. Plenty of scientific individuals got fried alive for their opinions. Erm... No... I don't. If you want to know what I think, please feel free to ask. Yes. Correct. Have a gold star. For two gold stars, can you tell me why Darwinist Theory of Evolution is not a complete answer to biolgical progression?

There was an obituary in our local paper recently. Bill Slater had passed away at the grand old age of 65. I don't think many people outside the Swindon area knew him, but he was an Oxford man, a rugby player, a stage performer, but most relevant to me, my old history teacher. I read that small story on the bottom of the page with mixed feelings. In all honesty I wasn't aware of his understated stage career performing the works of Gilbert & Sullivan, and I knew from another source that he'd been wheelchair bound for many years. A part of me wishes that he'd known I was now a keen history buff. There was a time when I wasn't. As a youth plotting to become a rock drummer and so beat the world into submission, he once heard me play. The year after I left school I helped a friend put together a charity gig at a local sports hall, and also became the drummer for the band we both formed for the occaision (we won Best Instrumental Track). During a rehearsal he'd heard the racket we were making and investigated, sharing a joke about our musical effort. What I found out later was that he'd made a very vocal complaint to the authorities about us. Were we that bad? That was the problem with Mr Slater. He was a towering individual of strong opinion and character. He was also a little quirky. There was a kid in my year by the name of Chaudrake who always got pulled up by Slater for one reason or another. On one particular day, we waited outside the locked school library on the first floor, a balcony overlooking the quadrangle. Slater appeared beneath us, reached into his pocket, and lobbed the keys into a sub-orbital trajectory. We all turned our heads to watch the keys land on the roof above us. He gritted his teeth, went purple, and shouted "Chaudrake! Why didn't you catch those keys? I'll see you later!" Anyway, now he's gone, and he'll never know I'm studying history. Probably just as well. He'd only tell me what a complete mess I was making of it. So come my final day, with St Peter making himself scarce, Bill Slater will be there at the Pearly Gates, impatient as ever, demanding to know why my homework had taken a lifetime to hand in. Examining Examinations The funny thing is that I see in the media stories of how children are suffering stress because of the school system these days. Apparently the prospect of examinations is too much to bear. What on earth is going on? I used to get tests and exams every other week. No-one slit their wrists over it back then. I notice that the standards of examinations are nothing like what they used to be either. A recent experiment with some kids who took a bogus equivalent examination from the fifties did miserably. No wonder schools are reporting more children than ever getting good grades. The grades just aren't good anymore. I hate to say it, but there's a lot to be said for traditional teaching. Even with psychopathic history teachers.

Well.. We still eat, defecate, urinate, dream, bonk, and sleep afterward. Guess you might be right. Oh no he didn't. He was was top carnivore in one region - that of the North American continent (which was seperated in towo by an inland sea across what is now the central plains). By virtue of this creatures size, paleontologists believe it was a solitary hunter with territories it guarded - there is however some circumstantial evisdence to suggest they hunted in packs (!!!). A word of caution. T Rex was ionly strutting his stuff in the last two million years of the Cretaceous Period which was a very unhealthy time for life on Earth. Volcanism was rife as tectonic movement was causing all kinds of coastal re-alignment. The Deccan Hills of India for instance emerged in this period, one vast single flow of lava as the crust broke up, a smaller version of the earlier and catastrophic P/T Event that killed off more than 90% of life on Earth. There was a large variety of mammals in the Cretaceous ranging from tiny mice and shrews to badger-like creatures, eking out a living under the noses of the dominant dinosaurs. I should point out that the dominance of the dinosaurs was coming to an end anyway. Birds had evolved (an offshoot of dinosaurs of course, but very much a group of creatures better able to adapt than the pterosaurs), mammals were becoming more common and diverse, and with the arrival of a meterorite over Mexico, the K/T Event and it's aftermath would favour small creatures or those with some protection against the enviroment. The global hothouse that followed the Cretaceous Period allowed smaller species free reign because the larger dominant creatures had perished. Birds were, for a short time, the major carnivore, and some terrifying flightless birds stalked the jungles. Insects had a brief re-awakening (never as large as the Carboniferous Period examples), and the various mammalian branches were bcoming established. The ancestors of whales were still capable of walking on land (presumably something similar is true of dolphins). In fact, our primitive ancestors are late-comers in the race.

You are aware I take of the court cases in the south of the US concerning education and evolution? The debate is very much in existence. Scientific American magazine featured this story and included a report on two or three museums trumpeting their biblical science. Only a few weeks ago, I came across a glossy pamphlet in my local burger bar proclaiming that science is wrong and the earth is only 6000 years old. Believe me Sylla, the debate exists and isn't going to go away until the christian fundamentalists do. Absolutely, and some of that record is lost to us, either by tectonic movement pushing the fossils beyond reach, or even destruction, or by the process of weathering. The plains indians of the american west used to find what they called 'Thunder Horses', which were the remains of Brontotheres exposed by rain and wind - now gone altogether. then again, some priceless exhibits have been destroyed by warfare, especially in WW2. Not at all. A missing link is a fossil that connects two disparate branches of evolution in theory only (until a candidate is found). Only if you are responsible for two seperate descendant species could you possibly be considered.

Despite getting out of bed late this morning after too much cider the night before, I made it to the library for the grand opening ceremony as usual. Thing is though, the mood seemed very muted. Nobody was massing by the door to be let upstairs. Not even The Flash, who lives for his mad dash round the coffee bar every morning. I should have guessed. I should have realised. The computors were down. The lady on the helpdesk approached as we filed up the stairs on autopilot and delighted in telling us they weren't working. Oh, right, I'll just wander away then... She told us the four technicians were busy upstairs trying to bring the computers online. I don't remember her exact words, but she made it sound like they were engaged in a life or death struggle with Grungor, the Super Robot, clumsily smashing it's way through the furniture chanting Must... Destroy... Mankind.... "I'm sorry" She added with a smile, "But I don't have a timescale for when the computers will be back." Huh? How did she know I was going to ask that? Are the librarians psychic? Political Point of the Week The recent scandals in British politics are claiming victims at last. Michael Martin, our Speaker of the Commons, has been forced to stand down. Other MP's have already done so. Calls are now being made for Gordon Brown, our very own Prime Minister, to stand down before the next general election. At least that way he'll be spared the ignomony of having to face one. He got his job without being voted in, and might yet lose it without being voted out.

Sleeping with the window open where I live is impossible.

Yes, this is interesting, answers my questions. "The master could free his child, but he could not acknowledge or adopt it: law and society was adamant on this point." Slavery in the US and in much of the Western Hemisphere was founded on race. This is a major difference from the Roman institution. Thanks for your response to my questions! Veyne was misquoted out of context above: the actual phrase (pg. 52) is "Today's closest psychological analogy to ancient slavery is racism". No, it wasn't out of context. You've merely repeated my point.

Way cool. What needs to be emphasised however is the cost of waterproof concrete in Roman times which I gather wasn't cheap. For that reason, ordinary concrete was used where-ever possible, or in cases where builders thought they could get away with it such as part of the Hypogaeum wall at the Colosseum.

The Roman Empire (Paul veyne) has a very down to earth personal viewpoint and interestingly says that the only thing we have today that comes closest to Roman slavery is racism.

The weather yesterday was nothing short of a battle between the gods. In the blue corner, the sun god, a warm and comforting brightness in his perfect blue realm. In the red corner, the rain god. A bringer of greyness and wet, master of dampening chaos, riding the wind to wreak rainfall upon the land. All morning the wind was dragging ragged grey cloud across what was otherwise a fine and sunny day. By lunchtime, the first heavy grey mountains were on the horizon, and by the time I was walking through Lawns wood, the first showers had arrived, Woodland is an enviroment I've always loved, and today it was a chaotic mix of conditions with which to enjoy it as I sheltered under the dubious protection of a spreading tree. The wind in the leaves made tides of white noise, waves of sound that are curiously relaxing if you don't suffer the chill edge of the breeze that causes it. At this time of year the colour in the wood was delightfully diverse. White and pink blossoms. Light green deciduous trees, dark green pines. Behind me, a tall mature tree with purple brown leaves. Over to my left, a solitary cream butterfly flitted around in total defiance of the wind. The pair of magpies, black and white birds with an almost oily sheen to their feathers, remained grounded and watched the butterfly flt past them. Then all activity ceases as dog walkers vanish along with their faithless hounds as the slanted curtain of rainfall that appears around me. Oh yeah. I got wet too. Conversation of the Week Inevitably I got somewhat dampened after deciding that the tree wasn't as generous with its shelter as I hoped it might be. I had tried stopping at the local art gallery in Old Town to sit out the weather, but the local school had the same idea and hordes of barely controlled kids made that impossible to enjoy. So I trudged down the hill and eventually got a minor soaking. Two lads were walking past as I reached my front door and fumbled for the keys. "Crap weather innit?" Said one. "Yeah!" Agreed the other with a chuckle. The art of conversation is not yet dead.

You're plainly reversing the logic; Philemon was first "found" (that's the antecedent) and then the identity of Caesar's enemies was discovered in any suitable way (that's the consequence). No, Im not. How was Philemon found out? Suetonius doesn't tell us that. Really it amounts to two situations. Firstly, that he was found 'in the act' of using poison by an alert member of Caesars household (which indicates they expected some sort of skulduggery at the behest of Caesar himself) or that Philemon was seen talking to Caesar's enemies, which indicates that Caesar already knew who his rivals were and was having them watched for his own protection. In any case, it doesn't matter. At that stage of the game Caesar is pushing hard to come out on top. He doesn't want a war with petty rivals to distract him and embarras his politic career. It's enough that his rivals made such a cack-handed attempt. Since he survived, Caesar would have thought little more of it. The poisoner was known and executed, his enemies aware that Caesar wasn't so easily killed. Caesar was sharp edged politician. Such people do not easily trust others and make sure that their rivals are kept under close watch. If Caesar had failed to do that, he would have been the victim of a plot much earlier. Poisoned perhaps? Maybe a subborned slave?

The point thats been lost over the recent exchanges concerning slavery is the ambivalence of the Romans toward slavery. Would a Roman say "You're less than a person?" Actually, yes, they would, if they felt they had reason. A slave in the imperial household might be anything from a trusted retainer and confidant to the far more common drink dispenser. The fact a slave was in the imperial household was neither here nor there, and a view of the slaves quarters in the homes of the wealthy on the Palatine shows the restricted space and dark passages these people were kept in. It might well be then that in such an enviroment occcaisionally a slave got a little above himself, especially since imperial families were even more careful about appearances than lesser folk. You wouldn't want to be seen with slaves who talk back or disobey if you're standing beside the Emperor. A modern definition, though I accept the difference with the Roman model is subtle and carries with it a stronger message about the value of freedom. Roman women in the Principate chose their own partners at will. Sex for pleasure was a method of filling in the free time these women had, and their wealth meant they weren't preoccupied with manual labour. The Romans were using contraception - abeit a little primitive. Marriage was another matter of course. I find that a suspect way of regarding slaves. Just another class? I seriously doubt many Romans saw them as such. The Roman caste system was well established and the slave fell outside it, since as property and something officially less than human, they could not be part of society (though again Roman ambivalence found such roles as convenient). Anyone can discuss it, Don't be so cheeky

Philemon had his own motives - you've already stressed that point - but we don't know what they were, because we read no more than he agreed to aid Caesars enemies . In some way or other they had realised he might be willing to do so, and their succesful attempt to subborn Caesars slave may well have been what tiped him off (Caesar had his own informants too) That's what you would do. Naturally, since you don't expect to be assassinated and to learn that someone was about tto would demand an explanation. In Caesars case, he already knows who's behind it because how else would Philemon have been found out? In any event, Caesar is committed to becoming top dog and will not be swayed from that path. To get embroiled in a personal war with another politician will only weaken his case and divert his attention from matters he considers more important. When he's powerful, then he can get even. A failed assassination is neither here nor there. He expects such behaviour and since the attempt failed in such a manner, clearly his opponent isn't as dangerous as it seems, so why worry. You're not dealing here with an ordinary person. Caesar is an invererate risk taker. His entire political plan involves a risk of assassination anyway. There simply wasn't any need for an exhaustive interrogation. Caesar is often hasty and in a hurry to achieve (He even broke down in tears at his failure to compete with Alexanders success). He hasn't got the time to bother with a disloyal slave. Like all dictatorial and dominant ypes, he regards an assassination as an occupational hazard, and consequuently guards himself against it. King rats have very different priorities from ordinary people. That's not just my opinion - it's an observalble psychological phenomenon and one demonstrated many times in the historical record in a variety of individuals.

Nature is such a fascinating subject. You can't help but admire those colourful documentaries, even if they're carefully constructed and selective in what they show. It is supposed to be entertainment after all. Still, the program about the South Pacific was of interst to me. It seems the 'Bird of paradise' has a habit of making a stage and attracting a mate by going into a song and dance routine. In effect, so do human beings. Birds have mating dances, we have nightclubs. In fact, the only difference is that when birds throw up afterward, it's generally to feed their young instead of decorating the pavement. I built a stage once. Way back when I worked in one particular warehouse, a bunch of managers had formed a rock band to play a Red Nose Day event ('Red Nose Day' is an annual public charity drive based on comedy). I got roped in to play the drums because the selected manager had all the percussive skill of a koala bear. So I built the stage and played my 'song and dance' routine. It was obvious afterward that as a comedy event we failed. The audience, even though they were captive employees, were actually impressed. What was obvious to me was that as a means of attracting a mate I had failed as well. I guess you need the lovely plumage too. Car Vandalism of the Week My car has been broken into again. For the third time, some idiot has ripped a large hole in the hood to get the door open. How many times does that moron have to break into it before he realises it doesn't work anymore and doesn't have anything left inside it? I know... I'll put a sign up. This car is disabled. Then again, they'd only nick the sign...

"If anyone is startled" is the key phrase. Slaves in luxury is one thing, slaves in luxury beyond imagination is another. The slaves described above are clearly pampered, few in number, and extremely lucky to have such comfortable lifestyles, assuming of course they don't have some onerous function for which their luxury is compensation. More likely though is that these slaves are deliberately cossetted because coarse intimate servants weren't to the owners taste. One other thing. These slaves were greek? The treatment of greek and Roman slaves wasn't necessarily the same. Although their societies had common ground, cultural attitudes differed.

"The slave Philemon, his amanuensis, who had promised Caesar's enemies that he would poison him," I rest my case. The witness can be killed, your honor. That doesn't state his reasons. It only records that he agreed to commit the crime.

Well, I'm afraid that I find your view on slaves not much more realistic than the opposite one. They both have in common that they interprete the concept 'slave' in a very monodimensional way : the worst possible one Oh? The vast majority of slaves were not treated well. Certainly some had reached positions of trust, even to the point of running businesses for their master, but these were exceptions rather than the rule. Given the numbers of slaves involved, the bulk were in menial labour (though some villas had astonishing retinues of slaves even in urban settings, though I imagine very few were there for intelligent conversation) The Empire it self was at times mostly run by slaves or freedmen who enjoyed a lifestyle beyond the imagination of the vast majority of the free citizens. I would fight shy of describing slaves as having lifestyles beyond the imagination. Freedemen sometimes did very well for themselves. Slaves were sometimes in administrative positions that afforded them some comfort, but lifestyle beyond the imagination? I seriously don't think so. Would a citizen of professional status tolerate a slave better off than he is? Not easily. Such extravagance toward a slave would not escape notice, and if you have a particular reference, I'd like to see it. I remember the anecdote you refer to, though I can't recall the author. I think your interpretation of it is not correct. If I am correct this incident was so noteworthy because it was one of the very few cases wherein there was even any suggestion that this law should actually be applied. There is a difference between laws and reality. Look around you. As to the distinction you make between fairness an humanitarianism, I fail to see it. The law was very specific. If a man was murdered by his slave, all the slaves of his household were to be executed. The law existed to deter slaves from agreeing to aid a murderous slave, or even thinking of such action to begin with. This was the post-Spartacus period in which the paranoia about the slaves around them was at it's height. The distinction over fairness was made by the Romans, not me. It was an excuse. They knew the local slaves were waiting to see what happened and quite probably their masters were aware of sentiment expressed privately. Why even the suggestion that in this one case the law should be applied caused so much uproar, among the free citizens, mind you, was that it was considered as completely inhumane because there was no indication at all that the slave who had murdered his owner had not acted all by himself. Irrelevant under Roman slave legislation. That law was inspired by the idea that if a slave murdered his master with serious premeditation, there was no way his fellow slaves with whom he was living in very close proximity, could not have gotten wind of something, therefore they were guilty of not denouncing the culprit. As it happens, I think that if a slave murdered his master, and I am not sure how often such things occurred, he almost always acted in a rage or with very little or no premiditation or planning. So the complicity of others would seldom even have to be taken into consideration and if it had to be, it is likely that in that case efforts would be made to determine who exactly had been implicated. That law was inspired as a means of detering such behaviour. Slaves were less than human and since it would be necessary to resort to torture to obtain legally valid testimony, it would normally be considered more expedient to execute them all. Although slaves had some rights (precious few in pre-principatal times) it did not extend to individual representation in court. If a slave wished to make a legal defence against this law, he must do so through his owner, who unfortunately had been killed. Consider it from a property point of view: does it make any sense to burn your own house down because the roof leaks ? I think that law was a purely theoretical statement implying that in such a case happening all the slaves of the murdered master had completely forfeited their right to live. That's not quite the same thing as being actually condemned to death and executed. The law stated that all were to be executed in the event of the murder. Also the flexibility of the human mind, it's ability to think in a slightly schizofrenic way if you will, is underestimated here. You are not necessarily either a fellow human being or a soulless, willless piece of property. You can very well be both, at the same time or alternatingly. I see no problem with that at all. Thats a modern perspective. We now find slavery an intolerable concept even though it still exists under our noses in an abstract way. Back then, slavery was normal. Roman citizenship wasn't a right. It was a privilege. Slaves were not included, and since self-determination was the essential quality that a free person, to have no self-determination made one a slave. Those with the legal status of slaves were not given human status by Romans. They state this themselves frequently. In some cases, an owner might have friendly relations with an individual slave. That of course was his choice since the slave was his property. Soome owners like Ciciero fostered loyalty by these means, but he didn't see it as demeaning to do so. Cato made a point of discussing the finer points of keeping slaves with absolutely no reference to their humanity at all. Depending on the circumstances, your own personality or qualities and my mood you can be either my second best friend or an inferior being who 'just has to do as you are being told'. Isn't that how we treat children ? I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. I like that concept. The difference between a pet and a domestic animal. I often get the impression that the concept is very widespread that people who lived 2000 year ago must have had a completely different mind set, world view, psychology and emotions from us. I do not believe that at all. Humans are humans. Then as now. Now be careful here. I agree the motivations and responses are from the same set as ours, and that human beings are the same as they were then. We must realise though that the Romans had a different view of the world. They saw their own culture, with its different rules to our own, as the primary source of civilisation. By the Principate, they truly believed they were destined to be (if not already) masters of the world. Their society had excesses we don't tolerate today, and their acceptance of violence in everyday life is only found in anarchistic regions in our own day. Of course, Romans must, by the omnipresence of it, have been pretty immune to sights that would rob us of our sleep for weeks. But I think that doesn't mean that an average Roman wouldn't to some extend be able to consider a fellow human being as such, even if that fellow human being was legally just a piece of cattle. Nor that people who enjoyed needlessly torturing fellow living creatures were overabundant at the time while they are very rare nowadays. The distribution of psychopathic individuals is probably impossible to determine. However it is true that chiildren (at least in the prosperous principate) were over-indulged and allowed to behave in an astonishing fashion by modern standards. They were brought up to believe their society was dominant, that Romans were masters over nature, and that slaves were tools. As for the lower classes, they existed in a world of street violence, gangs, unemployment, and dodgy trading. The prevailing life expectantcy was short. Unwanted infants were left to die outside houses or in sewers. Many Romans of the lower classes might not expect to live beyond twenty. Now as for torturing an individual even if he was considered a piece of cattle.... The man desiring the torture to be committed was unlikely to administer it. He might command another slave to do that. So the torturer might not be a psychopath at all, nor enjoy the experience in any way. He has been simply ordered to do it. If he was a slave - he has no choice but to obey. It is of course possible that a slave might speak up for the man he is about to torture if he felt strongly. Quite what the owner would have thought or responded is another matter.