Question about shellac solvent

Diesel fuel for boats was (perhaps still is) dyed blue because of differing tax rates.

That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!

Actually the pilgrims were the ramees, not the rammers. They didn't become the ramees until after they set up in New England.

--RC "Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

GregP responds:

When I was a kid, anyone who caught another person unscrewing a gas cap with a syringe or hose in his hand was subject to one helluva tongue lashing at best. In some cases, a but kicking ensued, and in others, it was a simple matter of calling the cops.

Charlie Self "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

I remember purple gas on Grampa's farm north of Winnipeg when I was a kid. We ran it in the snowmobiles, but not in the car.

rcook5 responds:

Old George, with "bigoted"? Dear me. I'm a bigot.

The Pilgrims broke from the Anglican Church in an attempt to found their own Catholic Church. In the process, they were not exactly polite, and things got a wee bit rough under the British Monarchy (much of the idea the Puritans were trying to get across involved democracy that, though religious, created a stir of fear in the monarchy). They were pushy and none too bright about who they went up against. Thus, onward to Holland in 1608, where they had a hard life because of their oft expressed views, including the view that their way was the only way, sort of a pre-Falwell "my way or hell" deal that tended to irk those who didn't agree with them.

In that sense, they were, as you say, the "ramees." In fact, though, they were insisting their view of Anglican and Catholic theological matters was the only way, and making changes that worried those in power. Of course, viewing "their way" as the only way is a common trait amongst religions, so this doesn't really set them apart, then or now.

We have some slight degree of religious tolerance in this country, though not nearly as great as we pretend. The Pilgrims had none...but weren't powerful enough to enforce their way.

Charlie Self "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

"Catholic?" Not even in the sense of universal.

They were anything but polite. They were the rump extremists in the Puritan movement who would not make peace with the authorities.

They were, dare I say, a Royal pain in the a**?

All true. But they didn't actively try to overthrow the established church or government. They would have been perfectly content to be left alone to do things in their own way -- which included excoriating anyone who didn't agree with them, including their nominal brethren.

Of course the idea of religious toleration was nothing if not novel in early 17th Century England. The country was enmeshed in the religious unrest -- and outright warfare -- which was sweeping Europe and everyone had the horrible examples of Germany, France and Spain before them. In those days you could make a pretty good case that not conforming to the offical religion amounted to treason. Most people in authority viewed it as subversive, at a minimum.

The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have the power.

Exactly. And that's why your statement strikes me as incorrect.

Also keep in mind that the pilgrims represented only a tiny minority even within the puritan movement. Puritanism was a broad intellectual current in England at the time but only a very small number of those of Puritan sympathies were ever extreme enough to become pilgrims.

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

I'm not going to intersperse my comments, it just gets too hard to read. The family farm IS over as an institution. that happened when people moved to the city. Sure there are farms and sure their are family farms, but the numbers are a fraction of what they once were. Just like there are damn view hunter-gathers clans anymore. Very few people are farmers relative to the number of people in the U.S. I think the percentage at one time was close to 50 percent.

Farming is a business, period. People that have some illusive dream about farming, go broke.

Ah yes, the farmer-government relationship. Farmers say they want no government intervention, then do everything they can to climb aboard the hand outs. Government screws up almost every time they intervene whether it is about grain, dairies, potatoes, sugar beets or whatever. Of course, farmer coops/product promoter groups also screw up.

You didn't insult me. And now the food production thing. Hell the earth was suppose to run out of food by now, but your cheap food is still coming. Markets go up and markets go down, the successful farmer has to pay attention and hedge his bets even if that means getting into stock market futures. Like I said, business, one part is making the crop, the other is management. The guy I know that are successful do both well. And if you have no idea of economics, you WILL fail.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that someone with a tube would be unscrewing gas caps. Guess the Cannucks are different. Just touching another person's car was considered bad manners, but unscrewing a gas cap? In 1969, I had a 1964 Chrysler 300 and never remember a person touching it without asking permission. No body in the U.S. would be checking gas in private cars without a search warrant where I live.

I remember when I was in the military several of us were walking down the street in New Haven CN in 1959 and stopped to look at some rich kids Ferrari. Heck most of us had never seen a Ferrari. Two seconds after we stopped to look (no touching), we heard a yell, "Get away from the car. And, we did, right quick.

George E. Cawthon responds:

Craft guilds killed 'em. That's when the big influx to the cities started.

Oh, I love the farmers around here. Almost all strong conservatives (whatever that means in today's confused grouping). Strongly against welfare and msot similar government programs. But suggest taking away their tobacco allotments and price supports and whoooooweeeeeee!

Charlie Self "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

Substitute "Charlie" for "Pilgrims" and you've got something closer to reality.

Your observations are historically more accurate, but you must realize that anything or any one with which Charlie does not agree, regardless of accuracy, is subject to the most foul attacks. He can't seem to shed his antiestablishment bias even in the face of fact.

I'm sure you're referring, in your "unpleasant" remark, to the "government vs. individual" conflict which is as old as civilization. Only thing that kept people alive in the early years was acting in concert, but this meant the individual had to sacrifice some of themselves to gain the protection of the group. The rules were clearly enunciated, more or less democratically derived, and, by the standards of Europe, where hanging,drawing and quartering were still employed, the consequences were often fairly minor. Yet, as always, when an individual sees no personal gain in following the standards of society -or diminished threat, something we often disregard - he acts selfishly, sometimes attempting to destroy the order and process which protected and protects him.

Do you think the Puritan settlers - for the Pilgrims were much different - were any different than the intolerant elitists who are trying to overturn the US elections? Read Calvinist sermons and then Jesse Jackson, and there's not a lot of difference.

That doesn't mean it's , just a smaller absolute number...

Regarding farm policy...

One can't generalize entirely...as in any other area of public policy, there are individuals in both the public and private sectors holding opinions across the entire spectrum. The major problem now is quite similar to other economic areas, there is no simple answer that will solve all the problems w/o creating others. Part is public policy, part is US self-reliance, part is present position and how to change that w/o total disruption of a sizable segment of the overall economy, part is the role in the continued balance of trade ...

Actually I've found Charlie to be a pretty reasonable person whose posts add a lot to this NG. I haven't seen anything of the behavior your attribute to him.

He's not always right, but which of us is?

Your certaintity is misplaced.

I'm referring to the fact that most of us would have found puritans, and especially the pilgrims, anything from annoying to infuriating to be around.

Only if you're philsophically tone-deaf.

I don't know what your problem is, but you obviously have one. I am not going to get into this with you, so feel free to read me out of your particular Church of Absolute Knowledge.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

Me. I'm always right.

Handed.