Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Fraud of Turin
Researchers in France have successfully created a duplicate of the Shroud of Turin using a technique that would have been available in the Middle Ages. This is signficant because:
The experiments...answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.
I'm not sure, however, that the headline "Turin Shroud confirmed as fake" is justified. Just because the image definitely could have been created by mundane means long after Jesus's death in a process consistent with the technology of the time doesn't necessarily mean that the image wasn't in fact the product of a miracle. And that's the point. Nothing will ever prove that the image wasn't the product of a miracle. (Link via Sploid.)
|6.21.05 @ 6:50PM|#
Alex Tabarrok has been making some arguments with much the same logical flaw. To wit, if you posit the existence of an omnipetent and omniscient being, there is nothing you can't explain as a miracle, and the whole of science, including not least free-market economics, is invalid because any and all of it can be explained as "because god made it that way."
|6.21.05 @ 7:00PM|#
Daniel,
You're new around here, so I'm going to clue you in on a little
secret... Starting a discussion about proof/non-proof of religious
beliefs is like putting a bleeding cow in a piranha tank.
You should just be thankful that Gary Gunnels won't be here to lay
into you.
|6.21.05 @ 7:03PM|#
Does this mean that Jesus didn't really die? Did he actually hop
a bus to New Mexico by way of Vegas just to avoid the whole
marriage...I mean death...thing?
By the way, I've been away for awhile. What happened to
Gunnels?
|6.21.05 @ 7:27PM|#
This is news?
I remember seeing a show several (maybe ten or fifteen) years ago
(I think it was Nova) where one guy took a
sculpture of a head, wallpapered a cloth on top of it with water,
and then used a brush to lightly dab some powder on it, with the
more prominent parts of the cloth getting more powder and therefore
darker. It looked a lot like the Shroud, and it was also a
photographic negative. Was I high when I saw that, or just
asleep?
|6.21.05 @ 7:33PM|#
I saw the shroud with my very own eyes over 20 years ago, and I can confirm that it looked *exactly* like a miraculous shroud would look if it were in fact miraculous.
|6.21.05 @ 7:37PM|#
Nothing will ever prove that the image wasn't the product of
a miracle. - DK
Of course nothing can't. The statement,....the image wasn't the
product of a miracle is a negative, and
you can't prove a negative.
What has been disproved, however is this statement: "The Shroud was
created by some process impossible for humans to recreate at time
X." Occam's Razor should lead us to assume that, if one natural
process could create something, then the similar/identical product
of a "miracle" was probably created naturally, too.
Of course, those intent on believing in the "miracle" will
rationalize that their divine power created the Shroud, no matter
what people today are or in the Middle Ages were capable of.
Kevin
|6.21.05 @ 7:41PM|#
If reporters, headline writers, and editors can't grasp the simple logical error in that headline, what good is it trying to get them to understand anything -- especially science, including not least free-market economics.
|6.21.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Was Gunnels really banned? That's a bummer. I'd heard that before, but I assumed it was just a crazy rumor. He was certainly an abrasive and arrogant sort, and he often let his hostility undermine his arguments. Even so, I thought he was one of the most informative posters on this board. I don't know, it seems like just because a guy is a jackass, doesn't mean he should be purged.
|6.21.05 @ 7:55PM|#
What? The shroud could be a fake!
Oh no! Now I'll have to abandon my faith completely! What will I
do?
...I guess I'll just have to wander around in circles until I get
hit by a car! ...there's no Jesus to save me!
Might as well close all the churches 'cause there's nothing left to
do but become an atheist now--now that we know the shroud is a
fake!
|6.21.05 @ 8:14PM|#
<offtopic>
AC,
The full discussion is over here.
He wasn't actually banned, he left because he simply didn't want to
follow the rules Tim laid out for only him.
</offtopic>
|6.21.05 @ 8:17PM|#
". . .will ever prove that the image wasn't the product of a
miracle."
Not even the church's own findings that the shroud is a fake - a
finding that was made almost immediately after the shroud's first
appearance in the mid 1300's?
|6.21.05 @ 8:25PM|#
"You're new around here, so I'm going to clue you in on a little
secret... Starting a discussion about proof/non-proof of religious
beliefs is like putting a bleeding cow in a piranha tank."
kmw,
If you had read the Phyllis Diller cookbook, you would know, that a
discussion of politics and religion around the dinner table can
cover for short-of-gourmet-cookin'.
That was not at all to imply Daniel Koffler is serving up
half-baked threads.
Bleeding cow in piranha tank... yum yum.
|6.21.05 @ 8:32PM|#
Over the centuries, has anyone ever taken a sample from the Shroud, pretending it was for the purpose of carbon-dating, or some such, when, in fact, the sampler had come to the end of his roll of toilet paper and was just desirous of a glistening, shall we say glowing, shall we say "transfigured" anus?
Jeff|6.21.05 @ 8:41PM|#
But science will never prove that the image of Mary in the
cheese sandwich is false.
Or the oil stain...
Or the bridge girder rust...
or the window grime...
|6.21.05 @ 8:44PM|#
No, no, no, don't you all see. The ability to reproduce the shroud is a miracle and it was only through the grace of god that mankind was given that gift. If anything, this actually proves the authenticity of the shroud because it shows how difficult it was to find a method of forging it that was available hundreds of years ago.
|6.21.05 @ 8:44PM|#
I've seriously considered scraping an image of Mary into a piece
of fried fish and selling it on Ebay.
Can we bring Gunnels back for this thread?
|6.21.05 @ 9:03PM|#
I remember seeing this problem before with AFP. Powerful headline that isn't quite completely justified by the article itself. Unfortunately I can't think of another example off the top of my head.
|6.21.05 @ 9:38PM|#
Not to mention that some Bishop actually got the guy who created the damned thing to confess not long after it was created centuries ago.
James Leroy Wilson|6.21.05 @ 11:22PM|#
France? An AMERICAN debunked it back in February:
http://www.shadowshroud.com/.
|6.22.05 @ 2:33AM|#
The Vatican has always been skeptical of the shroud. It was the Vatican that sponsored the 1988 carbon dating tests. It's really only in recent decades that the Shroud has become such a big issue. Before that, it was like any other obscure relic.
|6.22.05 @ 3:02AM|#
The shroud is as authentic as Huck Finn's raft. I don't waste my time looking for fictional artifacts. I also guarantee that Noah's Ark is not to be found on any mountain in Turkey or Iran.
|6.22.05 @ 8:08AM|#
Perhaps if Gary Gunnels is indeed dead to this board, we should make a shroud of him, and 2,000 years from now it would be considered a sacred relic.
|6.22.05 @ 8:19AM|#
"I also guarantee that Noah's Ark is not to be found on any
mountain in Turkey or Iran."
Maybe because it isn't. Maybe it's in Syria. I have no clue.
I lived a very long a virtuous life, and I get rewarded for it by
having to build a gigantic fucking boat and having to rustle up two
of every animal. Can you imagine the logistics of this feat, not to
mention the given time period? I have no idea how I did it.
None.
And then I have to spend 150 days on this fucking thing getting
soaking wet, shoveling shit, and trying to keep the animals from
fucking killing each other, not to mention us.
Jesus fucking Christ, a little gratitude here, please?
|6.22.05 @ 8:57AM|#
I don't have a dog in this fight -- my faith does not depend on
the Shroud being authentic -- but one thing about this explanation
strikes me as odd.
Why would someone living in say 1300, go to all this trouble? I
mean, they could have just painted the image on and it would have
been impossible for anyone using 1300s technology (ie, no
microscopes or carbon dating) to spot it.
|6.22.05 @ 9:09AM|#
I'm with crimethink, I could care less either way, but he has a
point.
Also, what miracle couldn't be explained by other processes? I
thought miracles were supposed to mimic what could naturally occur
other ways, except they were catalyzed at a specific time for the
religious purpose at the time. That was the whole reason Jesus
wouldn't turn a rock into bread, 'cause it was unnatural. I could
be wrong, but this is what I've always been told.
|6.22.05 @ 9:21AM|#
Back in 1300 there was a thriving market in religious relics - finger bones, hair, shrouds? I suspect a good artist went where the money was.
|6.22.05 @ 9:23AM|#
Shawn Smith -- I seem to recall the same thing, though I think
there was some controversy over whether the image produced was
really "photonegative" in the way the original Shroud's is. If the
fabric is molded closely over the model's features when the pigment
is applied, there's potentially some distortion when it's later
layed flat.
crimethink -- There wasn't much forensic analysis of even a
rudimentary sort going on back in the 1300s, but I think the reason
for this method might have been that it would actually have been
easier than painting for a forger with no artistic talent.
Alternatively, one might imagine an artist/relic-forger simply
experimenting with new techniques who liked the "spooky" effect he
got this way.
I've personally always rather liked the "Da Vinci photograph"
theory, but that's apparently flawed too, alas --
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Photographic.htm
|6.22.05 @ 9:23AM|#
I don't know if motive is all that important to this investigation. People did wacky stuff back then. Hell, people do wacky stuff now.
|6.22.05 @ 9:26AM|#
wellfellow,
Some miracles are indeed things that occur naturally, but happen
exactly at the time that the miracle worker wants them to. Such as,
Jesus telling Peter he'll find a fish with two coins in its mouth
-- an unlikely but not impossible feat -- so that he can pay a
tax.
Others are completely unnatural -- like parting the Red Sea, or
raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus could have turned rocks into
bread, but he refused because he was in the midst of a forty-day
fast; the devil was trying to tempt him to break his fast.
|6.22.05 @ 9:33AM|#
crimethink-
Ah, I see. Forgot about the fasting thing. Thanks.
Although, the red sea thing, isn't impossible in the same way that
the rock/bread thing is. In a way it mimics natural events like
tides and tsunamis and whatnot.
|6.22.05 @ 9:57AM|#
Not even the church's own findings that the shroud is a fake
- a finding that was made almost immediately after the shroud's
first appearance in the mid 1300's
...based in large part on the fact that the nail wounds visible on
the shroud are on the wrists, while the contemporary Latin
translation of the Bible clearly stated that the nails were driven
through the hands. Which is also why every medieval image of the
crucifixion has nails going through the hands.
Later it was discovered that St Jerome had erred in translating
from the Greek text, which did not rule out the nails going through
the wrist. And, of course, modern knowledge of anatomy confirms
that the metacarpal bones of the hand are nowhere near strong
enough to support the body's weight, so it must have been the
wrists that were nailed during crucifixion.
Which again brings up the question of why a forger would depart
from the contemporary art in such a radical (though ultimately
correct) way.
|6.22.05 @ 10:03AM|#
And don't assume that church officials are impartial on the authenticity of relics, miracles, etc. In fact, a medieval bishop would have every reason to cast doubt on them, since they would represent a connection to God that he doesn't control.
gaius marius|6.22.05 @ 10:10AM|#
on gg:
I didn't say everybody had to follow those rules. I said Gary
had to follow them.
not exactly the finest moment in the history of the rule of law for
mr cavanaugh. i think we generally deride this as a bill of
attainder. so much for empirical principles and equal
protection.
on SoT:
you can't prove a negative
true, mr kevrob -- but then, you can't prove anything, strictly
speaking. didn't hume teach us precisely that -- causation itself
is faith, and induction by enumeration is therefore invalid
reasoning?
there's a difference, i think, between skepticism of faith and
religion and hostility toward it. hume's lesson should keep a
conscientious observer in the former camp.
i don't think the shroud of turin is actually the funerary wrapping
of christ; but i do know that faith in relics have provided and
continue to provide, within the context of the church, several
meaningful services to the catholic faithful which are part of a
way of life that thrived in europe for a thousand years. there is
obviously much wisdom and knowledge to be learned about human
societies from their continued veneration, which is untouchable to
techne.
|6.22.05 @ 10:26AM|#
i don't think the shroud of turin is actually the funerary
wrapping of christ; but i do know that faith in relics have
provided and continue to provide, within the context of the church,
several meaningful services to the catholic faithful which are part
of a way of life that thrived in europe for a thousand
years.
I don't think that the earth was created in 7 days; but I do know
that an overly literal interpretation of Genesis has provided and
continues to provide, within the context of their church,
meaningful service to the fundie faithful which are part of a way
of life that has thrived in different sects around the world for
more than a thousand years.
gaius marius|6.22.05 @ 10:27AM|#
Why would someone living in say 1300, go to all this
trouble?
i think this is the most relevant question, mr crimethink. relics
fulfill a human need which few of the
rational-monad/efficient-market simulacrum can even
acknowledge.
Which again brings up the question of why a forger would depart
from the contemporary art in such a radical (though ultimately
correct) way.
although, i must say, the forger (if it was one) is presumed to be
working in the 14th c -- well into the advent of italian humanism.
anyone who had read their galen and avicenna -- and had then
further conducted the experiments in anatomy that was one of the
first profound effects of the classical revival -- could have come
to the same conclusion.
that is was forbidden by doctrine for representations to show the
nails anywhere but the palm doesn't preclude the artist from
rendering the christ so. the church was far less authoritarian
prior to the conterreformation than it has been remembered as
since, and was quite tolerant of actions among humanists that would
later have been deemed heretical.
gaius marius|6.22.05 @ 10:30AM|#
fundie faithful
fair enough, mr thoreau -- but simply because ridiculous literalism
has set in among the wayward sons of christianity doesn't nullify
the utility of relics in a healthy human society.
|6.22.05 @ 10:45AM|#
relics fulfill a human need which few of the
rational-monad/efficient-market simulacrum can even
acknowledge.
I'm not disputing that, gaius. My question is not why someone would
forge a relic, but why they would do it in such a complicated
manner, when simpler methods would have done just as well. Of
course, Umbriel provided a possible answer to that...
|6.22.05 @ 10:47AM|#
because ridiculous literalism has set in among the wayward
sons of christianity doesn't nullify the utility of relics in a
healthy human society.
Even if such relics are frauds?
|6.22.05 @ 10:52AM|#
Even if such relics are frauds?
I was thinking the same thing. If God exists as he does in the
Christian bible, wouldn't faith in a false relic be idolatry of a
sort?
gaius marius|6.22.05 @ 10:55AM|#
Even if such relics are frauds?
i think their authenticity hardly matters, mr crimethink. is
GOOG really worth
$290 for $2.53 in earnings and no dividend? of course not. but one
convinced that this goofy search engine is going to take over the
world, reality is of diminishingly small importance next to faith.
one can think of GOOG as a relic of an age obsessed with commerce,
if you like.
|6.22.05 @ 12:19PM|#
"Jesus could have turned rocks into bread, but he refused
because he was in the midst of a forty-day fast; the devil was
trying to tempt him to break his fast."
This is one of my favorites!
I think there was something bigger going on. I think the devil was
tryin' to tempt Jesus to give the people what they want. So Son of
God, wanna be the Son of Man? Feed the people's greed, and they'll
follow you instead of me!
In the next temptation, the Devil tempts Jesus to protect people
from harm. ...Now those are temptations worthy of God!
Thank goodness he resisted the temptations to give us what we want
and to protect us from harm; indeed, our salvation, apparently,
depended on it.
P.S. ...ever read "The Grand Inquisitor" chapter from "The Brothers
Karamazov"?
|6.22.05 @ 12:21PM|#
gaius,
I'm sure that the reality of whether GOOG returns their investment
is of great importance to those buying its stock. If they find out
that they were mistaken, they will not be grateful for their
misplaced faith, but curse it. I suspect the same would be true of
those with a devotion to the Shroud.
So, gaius, the $64,000 question:
If the Shroud's authenticity doesn't matter, does it matter whether
God became man, died on the cross, and rose again 2,000 years
ago?
|6.22.05 @ 12:29PM|#
sandy -
To wit, if you posit the existence of an omnipetent and
omniscient being, there is nothing you can't explain as a miracle,
and the whole of science, including not least free-market
economics, is invalid because any and all of it can be explained as
"because god made it that way."
only assuming that god changes his mind about what he made from
time to time. as long as there are constant observable phenomena,
science is valid, whether or not you call the whole of existence a
"miracle". what would make science invalid is if the rules were
arbitrarily changed from time to time by god, that is, the
occurrence of "unnatural" miracles.
|6.22.05 @ 12:32PM|#
If the Shroud's authenticity doesn't matter, does it matter
whether God became man, died on the cross, and rose again 2,000
years ago?
crimethink, i think what gaius is trying to say is that, to True
Believers, it's not.
gaius marius|6.22.05 @ 1:34PM|#
I'm sure that the reality of whether GOOG returns their
investment is of great importance to those buying its stock.
i'm not so sure, mr crimethink. i mean, it matters -- but its also
secondary. there are a lot of folks out there who bought yhoo at 200 who
are still waiting on that ship.
does it matter whether God became man, died on the cross, and rose
again 2,000 years ago?
i think evidenciary authenticity is irrelevant to belief, mr
crimethink. facts matter nothing to a man of pure faith. is someone
going to prove that god doesn't exist from a lack of
evidence?
as for me personally.... are you asking me as a cultural
anthropologist or a catholic? ;)
as a catholic, i think god's force is in the church and its canonic
exegesis of the bible -- not the bible itself. as such, does it
matter if the events of the bible are allegorical? not nearly as
much as the social institution that grew from the exegesis, which
is an instrument of hellenic philosophy par excellence. even if
allegorical, what has been gleaned from the allegory through the
exegesis is invaluable.
fwiw, i think the real appreciation of allegory has about died in
our literalist, technological age. history as conceived by the
ancients was necessarily allegorical -- they saw utterly no
conflict in having events cast to serve a proper allegory. and i
don't think any of the founders of the constantinian church were
belabored by literal details even in the prosecution of heresies;
when they fought nestorian, arianic and monophysite heresies, they
were fighting to resolve philosophical differences that they felt
illustrated by the truths in question.
when paul writes, 'If Christ is not risen from the grave our faith
is in vain' -- does he really mean that, if we got the facts wrong,
the faith is worthless? obviously not, imo. he means that the event
of the resurrection is central to comprehending the view of human
life which is christianity.
it's difficult now, i think, for people (including myself) to
transport ourselves to a place where the physical facts are so
secondary to philosophy -- but one can hardly doubt that such a
time existed. (indeed, i think we are experiencing a gradual return
to those times.)
|6.22.05 @ 1:48PM|#
And, of course, modern knowledge of anatomy confirms that
the metacarpal bones of the hand are nowhere near strong enough to
support the body's weight, so it must have been the wrists that
were nailed during crucifixion.
Ummm, that would mean humans couldn't climb and grossly
underestimates the strength of not only skin but the transverse
metacarpal ligament. It sounds more like common wisdom than
physiological fact.
The assertion also denies the weight is distributed among both
hands and feet. If we assume a reasonable weight of 165 lb. and 30%
is supported by the feet that leaves only 58 lb. for each arm.
Further, assuming the current crop of replica nails, about the size
of a pencil, are reasonable simulations and the thickness of an
average hand is 1.25 inch we can deduce the pressure on the flesh
to be about 155 psi. The question now becomes is 155 psi enough to
rend skin and ligament? While it is almost certainly painful, I
find it hard to believe that is suffecient pressure to tear. For
real world examples, a 5 gal. pail full of water weighs a bit more
than 40 lb and while uncomfortable to lift with one finger bearing
the weight it does not split the skin and there are numerous
examples of people who pierce their backs and have their entire
weight supported by a pair of hooks going through only skin. As for
the good doctor/physician that is quoted widely on the web claiming
that nailed hands can't support the weight, he would be more
convincing if he wasn't an ophthalmologist.
If anything, I'd wager religious detractors started saying the
depiction of the crucification was false because the nails were in
the wrong place and after the shroud "turned up" the stories
flipped. I know the shroud is real, but I feel it is art not
artifact.
|6.22.05 @ 2:19PM|#
as a catholic, i think god's force is in the church and its
canonic exegesis of the bible -- not the bible itself. as such,
does it matter if the events of the bible are allegorical? not
nearly as much as the social institution that grew from the
exegesis,
If the events I was asking about were merely allegorical, the
sacraments are worthless, I spend hours of each week in spiritual
masturbation, I lend financial support to an organization that's no
more than a 1700 year old joke on the human race, and have duped
myself into believing that death is not the end of my being.
Yeah, I'd say it matters.
when paul writes, 'If Christ is not risen from the grave our
faith is in vain' -- does he really mean that, if we got the facts
wrong, the faith is worthless? obviously not, imo.
Then your opinion is obviously wrong. As he goes on to say, '...if
our faith is in vain, the dead are lost, and if it is for this life
only that we have believed, we are of all people most to be
pitied.' Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Christian view of
human life "if we got the facts wrong."
|6.22.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Eddy,
Hmm... you may be right, according to this analysis.
http://e-forensicmedicine.net/Turin2000.htm
|6.22.05 @ 2:40PM|#
crimethink,
the point is that pure faith doesn't rely on evidence, and so
evidence doesn't matter to someone who lives by pure faith.
obviously if evidence against their faith were accepted as
fact by the believer, it would be devastating; but if their faith
were "strong" enough, by definition, they would never accept any
amount of evidence against their faith as fact. in other words, if
you care about material evidence at all, you're not purely a man of
faith. that's all.
gaius marius|6.22.05 @ 3:02PM|#
you care about material evidence at all, you're not purely a
man of faith.
exactly, mr zach.
If the events I was asking about were merely allegorical, the
sacraments are worthless, I spend hours of each week in spiritual
masturbation, I lend financial support to an organization that's no
more than a 1700 year old joke on the human race, and have duped
myself into believing that death is not the end of my being.
why on god's green earth would you believe that, mr crimethink?
what about the church and all that it has done for western
civilization relies solely on the actuality of events separated
from us by two millennia of church development? there's no joke in
the essential philosophy and law that the church has been the
exponent and defender of for all that time.
gaius marius|6.22.05 @ 3:06PM|#
it's akin to saying that if romulus wasn't raised by the
she-wolf, rome is just an empty joke -- or if achilles didn't
really slay hector, homer was nothing for mankind. that really is
the ultimate rejection of the empirical, isn't it!
if you want to believe in the power of god, look at what the church
has done for this civilization. that is the testament of the
church's validity.
|6.22.05 @ 3:14PM|#
if you want to believe in the power of god, look at what the
church has done for this civilization. that is the testament of the
church's validity.
gaius,
I think that I would choose a different test for the result you
seek.
|6.22.05 @ 3:25PM|#
or to put it less snarkily, what gaius is illustrating is
plainly true to anyone who has ever picked up a history book.
everyone, everywhere must have some sort of mythos behind their
actions - a binding of emotion and words and actions either to some
form of ritualization or group identification.
this includes rationalists, libertarians, and even the most haughty
objectivist.
|6.22.05 @ 3:54PM|#
"If the events I was asking about were merely allegorical, the
sacraments are worthless, I spend hours of each week in spiritual
masturbation, I lend financial support to an organization that's no
more than a 1700 year old joke on the human race, and have duped
myself into believing that death is not the end of my being."
Wow, that's much of the reason I became an atheist, crimethink. May
I quote you?
|6.22.05 @ 3:57PM|#
even atheists have their gods; it's part of what makes us
human.
humans making gods isn't really the issue, when it comes down to
it, unless you're one of those anal-retentive psicop types who
beats off to to skeptical enquirer. it's that they make such
shitty, broken gods in the process that's a problem.
|6.22.05 @ 4:25PM|#
that's kind of loopy reasoning... if humans are incapable of making gods that are "good enough", then doesn't that mean we should just kinda stop?
|6.22.05 @ 4:55PM|#
"if humans are incapable of making gods that are "good enough",
then doesn't that mean we should just kinda stop?"
no one is incapable of building good ones...it's just that we're
often incapable of being aware of the process as being an artifact
of our existence.
that internal process is mistaken as an artifact or evidence of the
objective universe, then used to
bludgeon/rape/murder/kill/confound/abuse/smack very hard with a
dishrag/legislate/obscure/and otherwise annoy our neighbors.
|6.22.05 @ 5:26PM|#
so basically, it's OK to "create gods" for ourselves, as long as
we don't confuse that with reality.
i don't think the PSICOP folk would have any problem with that.
|6.22.05 @ 5:47PM|#
ahh, well...the psicop crowd thinks they're *not* creating
gods.
a more simple version of that is: do you believe in Love?
|6.22.05 @ 5:58PM|#
... still a little loopy. the word "love" doesn't imply a metaphysical energy or being (at least when i use it); just a poetic concept. similarly, the word "god" usually implies a metaphysical being, but i can use it poetically to describe an object or concept of extreme importance in someone's life (which is what i thought you were talking about). the two meanings obviously aren't the same.
|6.23.05 @ 10:29AM|#
"the two meanings obviously aren't the same."
but operationally, they are. at least, i can't find a way to
separate the two.
it's definitely loopy, no argument there.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245