>> ^ZappaDanMan:

@Boise_Lib cheers for that


We share a fascination with Genghis Khan and Zappa. <thumbs up>

>> ^ZappaDanMan:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Fascinating person.
I recommend the series by Conn Iggulden
Genghis: Birth of an Empire
Genghis: Lords of the Bow
Genghis: Bones of the Hills
Khan: Empire of Silver
Very good historical fiction. It's fiction, but Iggulden does a very good job of staying true to history while writing a great novel.

Alright, i'll check them out. Looking for something different anyway, I'm stuck in a non-fiction grind at the moment. Which book do you start with ? are they serialised story telling.. from book to book (like lord of the rings).


Yes, I listed them in order.
They run from Temujin's childhood to Kublai Khan's reign--including the splintering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Fascinating person.
I recommend the series by Conn Iggulden
Genghis: Birth of an Empire
Genghis: Lords of the Bow
Genghis: Bones of the Hills
Khan: Empire of Silver
Very good historical fiction. It's fiction, but Iggulden does a very good job of staying true to history while writing a great novel.


Alright, i'll check them out. Looking for something different anyway, I'm stuck in a non-fiction grind at the moment. Which book do you start with ? are they serialised story telling.. from book to book (like lord of the rings).

>> ^TheGenk:

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.
Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.
Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television )


Yes I think common sense is a good idea when it comes to food, if a food is more nutritious when cooked, then eat the cooked version. There are many chemicals in raw food that inhibit absorption (phytates, chelating agents to name a couple), so cooking is certainly not always bad, as it can make nutrients more bioavailable.

The most important thing is just to make sure that the food you eat is nutrient dense, so fruit and vegetables should make up a large proportion of the diet, because they are the best nutrient dense foods available for our bodies.

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.

Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.

Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television

>> ^lucky760:

What's with all the fake POV shots? Very distracting.


These new BBC-documentaries all include some sort of spy-cameras for these close-ups (of course not necessarily like here in this video, but) like this:

http://videosift.com/video/Black-Bear-Mother-and-Cubs-Filmed-by-Another-BBC-Spy-Cam

http://videosift.com/video/Polar-bear-sees-through-your-pathetic-disguise

http://videosift.com/video/The-Adventures-of-Dung-Cam-and-Elephant-Calf

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Also, sorry enoch but this is a dupe. The original is right there at the bottom of the page in the related videos.
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Did-Jesus-Die-BBC-4-Documentary


meh../shrugs.
if someone else sees it that way they are free to dupe.
i thought this was interesting and was unaware of the other video.
the other video is the complete show and the points you make in comparison are valid but technically this is not a duplicate but rather a clip.
my feelings will not be hurt if someone dupes this video nor will i harbor any ill will to anybody who does.
it is a video..a good one...but still a video and i have no emotional attachment to it.
it started a great conversation and it was again seen by many who may have also been unaware of the existence of the other video.
mission accomplished.

The differences amount to...
1) The original has little transitions where they read passages from the Bible, the Torah, etc. They are missing in this edit.
2) When the man from Kashmir is explaining Issa, he's dubbed in this version. In the original, he's got subtitles.

Neither of these constitute added value. If anything, this is inferior to the original since it's missing 10 minutes of footage.

>> ^chicchorea:

With all due respect, while there is indeed overlap, they are not the same.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
Also, sorry enoch but this is a dupe. The original is right there at the bottom of the page in the related videos.
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Did-Jesus-Die-BBC-4-Documentary

With all due respect, while there is indeed overlap, they are not the same.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

Also, sorry enoch but this is a dupe. The original is right there at the bottom of the page in the related videos.
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Did-Jesus-Die-BBC-4-Documentary

...you are just confusing the issue with all those facts!

Blasphemer!

>> ^enoch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no evidence for this. This whole thing started because someone claimed to find documentation at an isolated monestary (i think in tibet) of Jesus' missing years. It was never confirmed, nor did anyone ever see the documents.
This is just yet another lie trying to cast doubt on the resurrection, so people won't believe that Christ was who He said He was. A lot of people can't make up their mind about Jesus..so they say He was a good man who was very wise. Well, if you read the scriptures you can't believe that. Jesus said outright He was God, and that He is the judge of the living and the dead..so either he is a liar or insane, or He was telling the truth and is our Lord and Savior. There isn't any middle ground there.

no shinyblurry.
there is no middle ground for you ,which has nothing to do with faith or belief in jesus but is entirely about YOUR belief in doctrine and dogma.
267 books of the bible..all by biblical authors yet only 66 IN the bible (KJV) or 73 (if you are catholic).
164 revisions.
over 22,000 mistranslations: CONFIRMED.
josephius flavius:debunked.
i can do this all day scooter.
as for jesus's life after resurrection i tend to agree that it is speculation based on rumor and tidbits of conjecture but the gospels themselves are based in many instances in the exact same way.
the bible is an incomplete text.
we now have:
the gospel of judas.
the gospel of mary.
the gospel of james.
the gospel of thomas.
and so much more but the church will never recognize anything apart from what has been canonized since 325 A.D.jesus didnt build the church..constantine,hippo and carthage did..nicean council 325 A.D.before that christianity would be unrecognizable to you or any other christian on the planet.
your comments have an evangelical flavor to them so i know my comment will be ignored because you are self-righteous in your own certitude based on a seriously flawed scriptural text.
any perceived deviation from canonized scripture is to be viewed as coming from satan and therefore a lie.
how very....dark ages of you.
only a fundamentalist or evangelical would view digging for the truth as a way to confuse and cast doubt.
is your faith based in jesus?
or a book?
because from what i have seen of your comments it is the latter.
well.you go have fun with that.

>> ^marinara:

i have to say, without the crucifiction, christianity falls apart. You wouldn't worship someone who had a bad weekend with roman soldiers and then slept it off.

Am I alone in thinking that's a huge misstep on the part of Christianity? All of Jesus' teachings and messages are suddenly meaningless because he didn't come back from the dead?

I feel like that's missing the forest for the trees.

Yeah, this is from a BBC documentary about the cult.

>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
dag said: enoch..great historical summary there.
No, it actually was quite terrible.

you just make my point with your comments.
i did not use the phrase "self-righteous" as a slight but rather as a statement.
one in which you have confirmed over and over and over.
your presumption and hubris are appalling.
you are a troll of the worst kind because you are already convinced of your righteousness and everybody you interact with are clueless to the truth you hold.
maybe they would listen more if you were not so condescending.
personal revelation?
great but how does that dismiss my evangelical statement?
gnostic gospels?
sure..but how does that take away from my premise that the more information we have the clearer the picture becomes?
jesus may possibly have studied with buddhist monks.
how does that take away from his teachings?
or his sacrifice?
it takes away NOTHING.
and instead of discussing something that is obviously important to you..
what do you decide to do instead?
make veiled insults towards me and ignore my argument entirely.
you are a child who is convinced of his own certitude and throws hissy fits when called on his own bullshit.
i do not know you.
i do not know if you have studied for years or got your information on the back of a cracker jack box.
i only know what you reveal here by your comments and you come across as a condescending know-it-all who takes any disagreement personally and attacks whomever has the audacity to direct any disagreement your way.
will you take this comment as it is intended and maybe perform some introspective thinking?
or will you behave.... as i have witnessed...like a spoiled child?
time will tell i guess but i feel i should be clear here...
i dont really care what you do.


Wow, emote much? See what actually happened here is that you posted a bunch of information that wasn't true (while being rude and childish to boot), and I corrected you. Now, you send me a comment filled with personal attacks and call me immature. I'm guessing you're probably..15? Give me a break. Go do your homework and clean your room while you're at it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

dag said: enoch..great historical summary there.
No, it actually was quite terrible.


you just make my point with your comments.
i did not use the phrase "self-righteous" as a slight but rather as a statement.
one in which you have confirmed over and over and over.
your presumption and hubris are appalling.
you are a troll of the worst kind because you are already convinced of your righteousness and everybody you interact with are clueless to the truth you hold.
maybe they would listen more if you were not so condescending.

personal revelation?
great but how does that dismiss my evangelical statement?
gnostic gospels?
sure..but how does that take away from my premise that the more information we have the clearer the picture becomes?
jesus may possibly have studied with buddhist monks.
how does that take away from his teachings?
or his sacrifice?
it takes away NOTHING.

and instead of discussing something that is obviously important to you..
what do you decide to do instead?
make veiled insults towards me and ignore my argument entirely.

you are a child who is convinced of his own certitude and throws hissy fits when called on his own bullshit.
i do not know you.
i do not know if you have studied for years or got your information on the back of a cracker jack box.
i only know what you reveal here by your comments and you come across as a condescending know-it-all who takes any disagreement personally and attacks whomever has the audacity to direct any disagreement your way.

will you take this comment as it is intended and maybe perform some introspective thinking?
or will you behave.... as i have witnessed...like a spoiled child?
time will tell i guess but i feel i should be clear here...
i dont really care what you do.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes, quite terribly accurate. >> ^shinyblurry:

dag said: enoch..great historical summary there.
No, it actually was quite terrible.