I’ll see what I can do

I also have a conspiracy theory where he is a CIA agent and George Harrison is an MI6 agent and they conspire to make Dylan the 5th Beatle to improve relations between USA and UK in the cold war, but this failed because McCartney was afraid of Dylans songwriting capabilities. In the end Dylan and Harrison made the traveling Wilburys, which therefore is actually the Beatles how they should be. I can produce like 20 pages worth of proof for my theory; I may make a post about it someday.

I have a theory:

There’s this line that goes: “All along the watchtower, princes kept the view.” Right?

Well let us look at the watchtower. There is only one piece remotely close to the watchtower on a7: the pawn on b6. So this must then be a prince. However, we know that this pawn can promote to a queen, but not to a king. This leads me to the conclusion that the pawn is in fact a princess, not a prince; the line would then go: “all along the watchtower, princess kept the view.” This makes even more sense when we remind ourselves that there is only one pawn around, so “princes” is impossible in this position.

There can be a debate whether the princess is just a princess or is actually called “Princess”, but this is something I will think about tomorrow.

It was probably Hans Niemann then

I think so. Some other songs like “idiot wind” or “positively fourth street” have some savage lines too, but those are mixes of sadness and anger, while this one feels like pure hatred to me. His other political songs often don’t really blame a single person, but the system, which feels less direct. Examples are “hurricane” and “only a pawn in their game”.

I can’t think of any other song where he sings something remotely as savage as “I hope that you die”.

I should really start listening to audiobooks more often. I just looked and the book is freely available on Librivox, so I may switch back and forth between reading and listening from now on. Thanks for the tip!

Reading “A tale of two cities” by Charles Dickens. I am not too far into it, but so far it’s been really enjoyable! The English accents are really hard to follow for someone whose native language isn’t English, but I’m getting used to it.

I recently read this and was surprised at how good it was. I loved Orwells Animal Farm, but didn’t like 1984 that much, so I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it; I read it more to get some insights of the war. But the book is not just informative, it is also really funny at times, and the story is just wild.

I second this recommendation.

I should really try Blonde on Blonde again; I am quite a new Dylan fan, so I haven’t listened to that one too often and Dylan often only clicks for me after a few tries.

Hwy 61 has some amazing songs on it! And disliking the Christmas album is very understandable, although the video of “Must be Santa” deserves an oscar imo.

Homage to Catalonia, George Orwells memoir about the Spanish civil war. I never read memoirs or autobiographies, but I am very glad I have read this one. It gives a good insight into various aspects of the civil war, as well as Orwells personal views (and his sigarette addiction). On top of that, it is at times hilarious. And it is almost unbelievable how many things happened in just 6 months.

Highly recommend it if you’re into history or politics or love Orwells other works.

Thanks for answering! It looks great!

Looks great!

Some questions out of curiosity: how long ago did you convert your lawn to this (if it was a lawn before), and how hard was it to beat all the grass?

If you have objectively proven that atheists are wrong, that means that you must have proven that God exists right? I do not think that is possible without God showing himself, and not just to you, but to others too. If these atheists have not seen God, you have in fact, not proven that they are objectively wrong.

Also, there are many arguments that atheists use. For example, some atheists believe that the Bible can not be right because parts of it were written long after the events that they describe (for example gospels written maybe 50 years after Jesus’ death, meaning most if not all eyewitnesses have died).

As a Christian myself, I do not believe you can objectively disprove atheism. And to claim not liking God is the only reason for their beliefs is ignorant, if not worse.

Did some re-reading of Anna Karenina and Pride and Prejudice. Now reading George Orwells “Homage to Catalonia”, his memoir of his time as a volunteer against the fascists in the Spanish civil war. I’m about a third of the way in and so far it has been quite enjoyable, but I am hoping for some more politics later on; right now it is mostly about the situation on the front.

The only story I could find was an accusation of sexual abuse of a 12 year old girl in 1965 in New York, with the accusation coming from a woman in 2021. The original accusation could not be true because Bob was not in New York at the time, but in the UK. Later the accusation was changed and still later, in 2022, fully dropped; no evidence was ever given.

If you have a different case in mind, I would love to see some sources, because I can’t find anything else.

Yeah it is definitely bittersweet, but if you compare it with the Children of Húrin, it is a very happy book. Boromirs death may be the saddest part of LOTR, but it would be the happiest part of The Children of Húrin, just because that whole book is so dark.

I am a big fan of Leo Tolstoy. His biggest works are War and Peace and Anna Karenina, but those are both quite large, so if you want to know a bit about his style i would suggest some of his shorter works. Of the shorter works I have read I really loved “The Death Of Ivan Ilyich”, “Hadji Murad” and “Master And Man”.

I also really like Jane Austen, you can’t really go wrong with her. Her novels aren’t that difficult either; they were the first novels in English (my second language) that I really enjoyed reading and they significantly improved my English.

I completely understand the weather thing. In the Netherlands it doesn’t get that cold, but the rain is really annoying (it rained basically non-stop from october till late february). In the city where I live however, there is also a pretty good bus service, so you can avoid cycling longer distances in the rain. For me I find cycling in good weather so good for my mental and physical health that I wouldn’t want to go without it.

You say an e-bike doesn’t quite do it for you, and I’m curious what you mean. Is it that it doesn’t have the range, that the engine isn’t strong enough for hills, or something else? I would love to learn about more disadvantages of micromobility, so I can create more nuanced opinions.

This could very well be the truth. In LOTR and the Hobbit these despicable creatures seem pretty nice, but keep in mind that it was Hobbits who wrote all of that and they are in this case biased towards Hobbits. Furthermore, it’s interesting that the Hobbits, who could barely read or write, had so much knowledge about their genealogical ancestry: this could merely be an oddity, but it could also mean that they made it up to erase any questions about their rights to the territory.

On top of that, when I was searching through my memory for proof of another theory I have, that Lobelia got screwed over by Bilbo, it seemed suspicious to me that despite their love for genealogy and the fact that they (at least before “the Hobbit”) kept their homes to their family, or heirs, there is no mention of any inheritance procedure in any of the books, despite this being more relevant for the Hobbits who wrote the books than for example some random elven language. When Bilbo comes back in the Shire, he was declared dead, but there seemed to be an “auction” instead of an “inheritance”. On the other hand, Bilbo bequeaths everyting to Frodo later on.

This use of words raises some suspicion. One possibility is that the “auction” was actually an “inheritance” and that Bilbo tried to invalidate Lobelia’s claims to his inheritance in his writings. Tolkien may have omitted the part of the book where inheritance in the Shire is explained to make Bilbo more likable: this part of the book is necessary to make my Lobelia theory, which I will not explain here because it’s too long, not just a theory, but a fact.

The other possible reason as to why there is no explanation of the inheritance procedure is because there was no such thing, because the Hobbits didn’t live here for that long yet, increasing the probability of the theory mentioned in the above comment.

Furthermore, Sauron wasn’t actually an eye, but he was seen by the Hobbits as such. The sun baby may have been angry at the Hobbits (see comment above this one); by showing himself as something resembling the sun baby, he (what even are the sun baby’s pronouns?) made them recall the crimes they commited against the Teletubbies.

I may just be wrong though.