What modern invention/innovation do you wish had never been developed?

Shangas · Jan 13, 2013

LizzieMaine said:
To say nothing of the pretentious dolts who buy a suit or a coat and leave the label on the sleeve for all the world to see.

You remind me of a TV show I watched once about Savile Row (I think the others here might know the one I mean).

It concerned the tailors of the Row, and their customers, protesting the ingress of Abercrombie & Fitch into their "turf".

One of the well-established tailoring-houses (the name of which currently eludes my memory) stated that while their clothes are certainly exclusive, expensive, handmade, and literally tailor-cut,-measured-and-made...in NO way do they flash their name around.

In fact they so DON'T flash their brands around that the tailor had to pull apart a jacket just to show the cameraman where the label WAS. It was sewn on the INSIDE of the INSIDE pocket of the suit-jacket. Unless you're going around London with an inside-out suit and a torn breast-pocket, you'd never notice it.

Addressing your latest posting, Liz, I return to one of my pet hates about modern society. Consumerism and quality.

As I think you rightly state, these days, it's all about the things you have. And the things you use. If you don't automatically have the latest and greatest of everything, you're an idiot.

Of course, the stupid thing here is, the latest and greatest changes every six months. Which means that it's not designed to last. Which means that it's not quality. Which means that you're trying to be cool by showing how cheap you are. Which means absolutely NOTHING at all.

Geez, people these days can be stupid...

fashion frank · Jan 13, 2013

m0nk said:
Does reality TV count as a modern innovation? I personally don't think it should, but for those who do consider it to be, I'd like to include it on this list.... the dumbing down of society has increased 10-fold because of this drivel.

Here Here , My good man ,you have hit the nail right on the head !!!

I can't stand all of those voyeuristic type shows that are on the air , they in reality have no talent and as I am always
telling my young daughter " big deal their singing, how about them playing or doing something ( like on all the old variety shows I watched as a kid) ,something no one else can do " and its like lost on her .

Hell ,I cant even tell you who the player's are on half of those shows , ( I think Cindy Laupier is going to now host one ?)and I could care less.
Yep , that's really dumbing down our culture to a new level.

All the Best , Fashion Frank

missjo · Jan 13, 2013

Depends on your definition of reality television though.
I've seen some amazing so called reality tv, such as "the 1900 house", "the 1940s house"...

Shangas · Jan 13, 2013

I've seen "The 1900 House", "The 1940 House", "Edwardian Manor House", "Texas Ranch House", "Frontier House", and other such shows.

I would call them historical re-enactment shows more than "reality" shows, though. (I liked every single one of those, by the way, apart from 'Ranch House', which I think was full of far too much complaining and whining).

I hate all those music-and-dancing shows that we have these days. They NEVER GO AWAY.

*DEEP BREATH*

The Singing Office.
X-Factor.
So you Think you can dance.
Dancing with the stars.
Don't forget the Lyrics.
It Takes Two.
The Voice.

...did I miss any of them?

They're SO repetitive, they drive me nuts!

missjo · Jan 13, 2013

I LOVED the coal house, technically a bit of reality tv as well.
But I guess there just are a few types of reality tv and as 99% of it is ghastly and disgusting, it is pretty obvious that it is generally evil and wrong.
So lets not ban reality tv when we get to power but just vote for more reality-tv control

ThemThereEyes · Jan 14, 2013

I dislike it when everything in a car is automatic. I had to use my mother's car today, for which I was grateful, but I do not like driving her car. Everything is automatic and power controlled. Even the steering wheel and seat adjustments. Ugh!

tridentine · Jan 14, 2013

The Novus Ordo Missae.

Widebrim · Jan 14, 2013

tridentine said:
The Novus Ordo Missae.

Why would you want part of the "Mass" said in Latin, a language which is no longer understood by the vast majority of people in the world? It was the language of the Vulgate, of course, but none of Scripture was written in it. I'm all for tradition, but not at the expense of understanding.

V.C. Brunswick · Jan 14, 2013

ThemThereEyes said:
I dislike it when everything in a car is automatic. I had to use my mother's car today, for which I was grateful, but I do not like driving her car. Everything is automatic and power controlled. Even the steering wheel and seat adjustments. Ugh!

How about power locks and windows? I find it a tad creepy. If you ask me it was a predator's dream come true. :eeek:

tridentine · Jan 14, 2013

This might answer you question well:
http://www.unavocela.org/latin.htm

also
Latin being a "dead" language seals in perpetuity the sacred and ancient meaning of the Mass without the gradual creeping in of vulger languages [current vernacular] that would actually change the wording and presentation of the Sacrifice.
But refer to my above link as it is much more thorough.
Thanks,

ThemThereEyes · Jan 14, 2013

V.C. Brunswick said:
How about power locks and windows? I find it a tad creepy. If you ask me it was a predator's dream come true. :eeek:

You're right, it is like something in a movie. Like a serial killer picking up a hitchhiker.
I dislike those power windows and locks as well. I was actually a bit sad, when I had to get a new car, to get a car with power windows. The crank lever windows and manual locks on my old car were just fine by me.

tridentine · Jan 14, 2013

" Why the Mass IN LATIN?

On top of the cross on which our Savior died, the cause of his death - "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" - was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. In tribute to this historical fact, the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, while always preserving certain Greek and Hebrew expressions, has from the very first century been conducted in Latin, the language of old Rome, the see of St. Peter and the popes who would succeed him. To preserve the Latin in the Church's public worship is to preserve the link between the Church of today and the Church of the past.

Besides thus being a sign of historical CONTINUITY, the Latin language is also a sign of UNIVERSALITY. No one insisted more strongly on this point than Pope John XXIII, the most abused and disobeyed pope in modern times, who made his own the words of Pius XI: "A universal Church must have a universal language." Just as Roman Catholics have a right to expect the same beliefs among members of their Church anywhere in the world, so do they have a right to find themselves "at home" in every one of their churches the world over. This they always did and do when properly trained to use the bilingual missals containing on one side their own language translation, while on the other side those familiar Latin sounds they heard since childhood as a second mother tongue, that of their Mother the Church."

Tango Yankee · Jan 14, 2013

ThemThereEyes said:
I dislike those power windows and locks as well. I was actually a bit sad, when I had to get a new car, to get a car with power windows. The crank lever windows and manual locks on my old car were just fine by me.

Funny, when I bought my 2004 PT Cruiser (RIP) new I paid to have aftermarket power locks installed! And I'm glad for the power windows. I never did like having to lean across the car to try to roll down the windows on the passenger side, and forget about trying to roll down the ones in the back seat! Of course, with the way cars are designed these days it is generally a lot more uncomfortable trying to drive at higher speeds with the windows down than it was in the days of wing windows.

LizzieMaine · Jan 14, 2013

V.C. Brunswick said:
How about power locks and windows? I find it a tad creepy. If you ask me it was a predator's dream come true. :eeek:

*Loathe* them. What idiot thought it was a good idea to make a car door that would lock automatically when the engine was running -- so that you couldn't leave the car with the engine running on a cold day without locking yourself out. Which I once did when driving a friend's car -- when I was driving her car to pick her up at a hospital. Had to leave the stupid thing sitting there running in the entryway for almost an hour waiting for AAA to come and unlock it. "This wouldn't have happened with MY car," I fumed.

ThemThereEyes · Jan 14, 2013

Tango Yankee said:
Funny, when I bought my 2004 PT Cruiser (RIP) new I paid to have aftermarket power locks installed! And I'm glad for the power windows. I never did like having to lean across the car to try to roll down the windows on the passenger side, and forget about trying to roll down the ones in the back seat! Of course, with the way cars are designed these days it is generally a lot more uncomfortable trying to drive at higher speeds with the windows down than it was in the days of wing windows.

*brings flowers to your PT Cruisers grave* hahaha
I do miss driving with the windows down and not having such a huge rush of painful to the ear noise!

ThemThereEyes · Jan 14, 2013

LizzieMaine said:
*Loathe* them. What idiot thought it was a good idea to make a car door that would lock automatically when the engine was running -- so that you couldn't leave the car with the engine running on a cold day without locking yourself out. Which I once did when driving a friend's car -- when I was driving her car to pick her up at a hospital. Had to leave the stupid thing sitting there running in the entryway for almost an hour waiting for AAA to come and unlock it. "This wouldn't have happened with MY car," I fumed.

That's awful! I'm glad my car doesn't do that, I'd get locked out too!

Bruce Wayne · Jan 14, 2013

Another thing about Latin is that all living species have a proper name in Latin. Because let's face it, a rose by any other name...

Widebrim · Jan 14, 2013

tridentine said:
This might answer you question well:
http://www.unavocela.org/latin.htm

also
Latin being a "dead" language seals in perpetuity the sacred and ancient meaning of the Mass without the gradual creeping in of vulger languages [current vernacular] that would actually change the wording and presentation of the Sacrifice.
But refer to my above link as it is much more thorough.
Thanks,

Thanks for the link. The Latin spoken in the 5th century did not stay the same over the centuries, as you probably know; it changed over the years, so there really is no perpetuity in the sense of an "unchanged" language. In addition, Jerome's Latin Vulgate was just that, a translation into what was then the common language of the Western part of the Roman Empire. It was translated from Greek and Hebrew so that the people of that day could understand what they were reading. (In the Eastern part of the empire, of course, Greek was the common language.) In addition, and on a theological note, the idea that Jesus has to be "re-sacrificed" at every "mass" (although R.C. theologians now prefer to use the term "re-presented) was not present in the early Christian church; it evolved over the centuries, due to the imposition of Old Testament hermeneutics on the New Testament. The book of Hebrews states that Jesus' sacrifice was once and for all and cannot be repeated (and therefore does not need to be re-presented since it was already accepted as propitiation by God the Father [Hebrews 7:27]).

Widebrim · Jan 14, 2013

tridentine said:
" Why the Mass IN LATIN?

On top of the cross on which our Savior died, the cause of his death - "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" - was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. In tribute to this historical fact, the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, while always preserving certain Greek and Hebrew expressions, has from the very first century been conducted in Latin, the language of old Rome, the see of St. Peter and the popes who would succeed him. To preserve the Latin in the Church's public worship is to preserve the link between the Church of today and the Church of the past.

Besides thus being a sign of historical CONTINUITY, the Latin language is also a sign of UNIVERSALITY. No one insisted more strongly on this point than Pope John XXIII, the most abused and disobeyed pope in modern times, who made his own the words of Pius XI: "A universal Church must have a universal language." Just as Roman Catholics have a right to expect the same beliefs among members of their Church anywhere in the world, so do they have a right to find themselves "at home" in every one of their churches the world over. This they always did and do when properly trained to use the bilingual missals containing on one side their own language translation, while on the other side those familiar Latin sounds they heard since childhood as a second mother tongue, that of their Mother the Church."

The sign above Jesus' head was written in those three languages so that the people present would understand what was being written; that, in and of itself, does not make Latin a "holy" language. If that were the case, then Greek and Hebrew should also be considered "holy" (although Scripture states that it is now believers who are holy, and not what they use during worship). Why should people have to listen to a language that they don't understand, while holding a translation in one hand? I remember the Latin mass, and had that same question in my mind at the time.

Your statement that Latin was the language of the church that existed in Rome in the first century makes sense due to the fact that Latin was the first language of most of those living in that city and its environs. Yet do you think that the Jewish Christians who lived in Rome (and there were quite a few there in the 1st century A.D.) necessarily used it when worshipping? They likely also used Aramaic and Greek, languages which they may have spoken/understood better than Latin. In addition, there was no "Roman Catholic Church" in the 1st century, just a group of believers who lived in Rome; there existed simply the Way, the Body of Christ, with no single "papa" officiating over all the Western churches. The most important (and influential) centers of early Christianity for the first few centuries A.D. were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Only later was Rome added as an "official" center of Christianity because, according to the original sources, it was "the capital of the ancient empire." It was basically under pope Gelasius in the late 5th century that Rome rose to power in the Christian world, but Constantinople resisted any and all attempts by the Roman papas to dictate policy for the Byzantine Empire (and is basically why the "Orthodox" Church split from the Western Church). We can further discuss this topic in an open and friendly manner, if you wish, via private messages. -Lee

LoveMyHats2 · Jan 14, 2013

How modern is a flash light? At times I wish it was not made, as it can be fun to stumble around the house without one when it is pitch black and I am trying to find the love of my life! lol!

What modern invention/innovation do you wish had *never* been developed?

I'll Lock Up

One Too Many

Practically Family

I'll Lock Up

Practically Family

One of the Regulars

Suspended

I'll Lock Up

Suspended

One of the Regulars

Suspended

Call Me a Cab

One of the Regulars

One of the Regulars

My Mail is Forwarded Here

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I’ll Lock Up.

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics

What modern invention/innovation do you wish had never been developed?