AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > September > 03 > Entry
Is the FDA approval for the morning-after pill a victory for women?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
FDA approval of the morning-after pill is long overdue. Newspaper editorials mostly applaud the FDA’s decision but I don’t hear anyone discussing what this controversy is really about.
This controversy isn’t about the health and safety of the morning-after pill. The morning-after pill was proven safe and effective three years ago, and contains the same hormones that are in the birth control pill. It is no less safe than the myriad 20-plus forms of family planning.
This controversy isn’t about the morning-after pill as an easy-out for promiscuous teenagers. The FDA approval does not make the morning-after pill available over-the-counter to teenagers under 18. While the potential for teenagers to get access to the morning-after pill exists, this is true about a lot of things.
This controversy isn’t about the potential rise in casual sex. A single dose costs $25-40. Women aren’t going to pop these babies like Tic Tacs. This is especially true, since taking a heavy dose of hormones is nauseating for most. I don’t envision hordes of women wanting to hurl on a regular basis when there are so many other forms of birth control available.
This controversy isn’t about a potential rise in STDs. People are either going to use condoms or not, regardless of the availability of the morning-after pill. The birth control pill, the diaphragm and a host other birth control methods don’t prevent transmission of STDs.
This controversy isn’t about the questionable “studies” posted on pro-life Websites claiming a rise in STDs after the introduction of the morning-after pill. Such claims are refuted by a 2005 July British Medical Journal study which found no significant increase in unprotected sex after the morning-after pill became available over-the-counter.
Let me tell you what this controversy is really about: it’s about the seeming lack of “consequences” of having sex; it’s about taking sex lightly. Pro-life websites all confirm what we already know: the only effective means of birth control is “100% abstinence”. True. And this is the issue.
This controversy is about what conservatives view as our moral decline, resulting from our laissez-faire attitude about pre-marital sex. To control this decline they feel they must control women’s bodies. Conservatives believe women should be ashamed or embarrassed about their sexual indiscretions, not given conveniences. And this makes them outraged.
Rebuttal
The people who should be embarrassed are those celebrating the morning-after pill’s “long overdue” availability without prescription. Because this supposed victory for women is a dangerous sham.
Yes, the Plan B morning-after pill both prevents and stops an early pregnancy after unprotected sex, and so initially it’s not surprising that liberally-oriented women’s groups would celebrate. Apparently, we should be thrilled that women are more “free” to couple up without consequences.
But aren’t those same women’s groups supposed to be fiercely protecting women? Look at these facts:
From the beginning, the FDA’s advice to approve Plan B was spurred by political pressure, not science. Several pro-abortion activists are on the approving panel, and the FDA eventually went along with it because Hilary Clinton and other Democratic senators were holding an FDA appointment hostage to Plan B’s approval.
When it comes to sexual issues, “women’s advocates” appear caught between two completely conflicting goals: they can’t both protect women and promote the idea of enjoying sexual “liberation” without consequences. For years they’ve erred on the side of freedom, but I had hoped that with women’s health and sexual abuse so clearly at stake, that they would favor protecting women over politics on this one issue. I was wrong. And that is what makes me outraged.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By candide
September 11, 2006 07:53 AM | Link to this
Have you seen The Wicker Man? It deals with a feminist island and the evils the women are capable of. It is neither leftist nor rightist, just shows that women can be as merciless as men.
As for the new pill, conservatives would like to control it; they want to control everything. I say: knock ‘em down!
By Renee
September 11, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
Victory for women, yes. But I think the victory stretches past women. Victory for Americans, to be able to make their own choice, in this situation, without government intervention.
By www
September 11, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
http://free.7host07.com/apelbsin/affiliate-saless-program-13.html "> Affiliate Saless Program , http://www.banan.741.com/bike-pocket-sale/index.html "> Bike Pocket Sale , http://free.7host07.com/apelbsin/affiliate-sale-program-34.html "> Affiliate Sale Program , http://armostrash.freewebsitehosting.com/belie-burial/index.html "> Belie Burial , http://www.banan.741.com/golf-bag-organizer/index.html "> Golf Bag Organizer , http://sloniks.iquebec.com/beatrice-real-estate/index.html "> Beatrice Real Estate , http://sloniks.ifrance.com/balancing-a-garage-door/index.html "> Balancing A Garage Door ,
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this
Question: Who is TramadoL89986? And why is he/she off their medication?
In all seriousness — I think the morning after pill is a great idea and a great accomplishment. Men like to regulate women’s reproductive rights, but until one man goes through at least 2 hours of hard labor and eighteen to twenty-five years of “mother pains” then they really have nothing constructive to say. My opinion only!
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
Question: Who is TramadoL89986? And why is he/she off their medication?
In all seriousness — I think the morning after pill is a great idea and a great accomplishment. Men like to regulate women’s reproductive rights, but until one man goes through at least 2 hours of hard labor and eighteen to twenty-five years of “mother pains” then they really have nothing constructive to say. My opinion only!
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
Reminds me of a great joke:
Q: What do you get when you cross Rush Limbaugh with a beautiful French actress?
A: RU-486.
That is still as funny as when I first heard it, close to 15 years ago. So the real question is either why did it take the US so long to have the same pill available as has been available in Europe OR if seriously, this administration/their supporters would like it not to be used at all, why was it just now approved, during this important election year? hmmmmmmmmmmm.
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Reminds me of a great joke:
Q: What do you get when you cross Rush Limbaugh with a beautiful French actress?
A: RU-486.
That is still as funny as when I first heard it, close to 15 years ago. So the real question is either why did it take the US so long to have the same pill available as has been available in Europe OR if seriously, this administration/their supporters would like it not to be used at all, why was it just now approved, during this important election year? hmmmmmmmmmmm.
By lozen
September 11, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Renee, “Victory for women, yes. But I think the victory stretches past women. Victory for Americans, to be able to make their own choice, in this situation, without government intervention.”
You took the words right out of my mouth!
By Tina
September 11, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
I agree with Susie Homemaker- he is off his meds- I think it’s a good idea for birth control to be out in the open- they will do it anyways- might as well prevent some of them from having babies too soon.
By Lyrazel
September 11, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
41 nations in the world already approved this drug. Given the list of FDA APPROVED MEDICATIONS now under recall as being health damaging one can only wonder if this delayed release was not politically motivated. Women’s health issues rarely receives the funding for research and development or news acclaim—UNLESS it deals with reproductive issues. As for protecting people who take over-the-counter drugs they dont understand…well, havent we been doing that for centuries? Alka-Seltzer was on the dangerous ingredient list for phenylpropabolamine additives (recently removed from all cold products)…Robotusen and its crew has been declared ineffectual but its still being sold… Face it Americans love medication!
But I guess dumb people will instinctively reach for a cure after late night with a unprotected sex leading me to the inevitable conclusion: I would buy stock in Barr Pharmaceuticals.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Diane, and all my fans here. You finally asked a question of substance which should generate a lot of good conversation this week here on W2W. Unfortunately for everyone else here,however, you just fed the Bruno troll in a big way with (1) Your impractical, unnatural, and impossible suggestion that morality should be divorced from sexuality. I feel a big Bible rant coming (think Garden of Eden and fig leaves), so all the weak of heart and faint of mind like John better run for cover for a while. (2) Your implication that conservatives want their women to be “dead fish” in bed by heaping shame upon them.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Of course, I must address the more important of these two charges first, i.e. the ridiculous claim that conservatives have lousy sex. Again, Shaunti is too modest to defend herself, but the word on the street is that she’s “quite the fox”. As for me, I could give you a long, long list of references, but why bother? Just get my email address from the AJC board operator and give me a shout, Diane. I guarantee after a night with me you will personally see GOD and go straight. Chuck will be proud of me.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Hola Chilao, mi hermano en puta. Lo entiendo que eres un caballo como yo. Es verdad?
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Diane, I do give you a lot of credit for recognizing that any “judgement” of whether the “morning-after pill” is a “victory ” for women or not can’t be made within the realm of Science. While “scientific facts” like the pill’s effectiveness and side effects do have some bearing on the issue, ultimately the more important question of SHOULD this pill be used lies solely in the realm of MORALITY. While Science can tell us HOW to accomplish things more efficiently, it can never tell us the RIGHT WAY to apply technology. Ultimately, Science is merely just ONE tool in the human toolbox of ways of understanding. In fact, Science is powerless to reveal the greatest truths of all to us, SPIRITUAL TRUTH and the resulting MORAL TRUTH. For that we have to consult books like the Bible to get our minds straight on important, real life issues such as this one.
By 2D
September 11, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
How long has this drug been going through FDA approval?
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
The Biblical myth which addreses this current topic here the best is the mythical story of the Garden of Eden. From this story we learn that (1) GOD gave the message to humans that eating from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” would preclude us eating from the “Tree of Life” and acheiving immortality. (2) The Evil One, in the form of a serpent, communicated to Eve to disregard GOD’s message because, in fact, there would be no consequences to disobeying GOD’s WORD. (3) After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in fulfillment of GOD’S PERFECT PLAN, they immediately became self-conscious of their nakedness, and covered their reproductive organs with fig leaves. They were then driven from the Garden of Eden, never to eat of the fruit from the “Tree of Life”.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
Because the story of the Garden of Eden is a myth (yes, chuck, a myth), it requires careful analysis to glean the true meaning from these strange heppenings. Examining these events in order:
(1) To understand why it was necessary for Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit (and for each of us to taste it a few times in our own lives), you have to go back to Genesis 1 which states that man and woman were created in GOD’s IMAGE. In fulfillment of this, it was necessary for humans to have a “moral conscience” in order to make moral discernments regarding what is “good” and what is “evil”. Before eating the fruit, apparently all the pre-Adamite humans mentioned in Genesis 1 and referred to in Genesis 4 were living in an animalistic state of blissful ignorance.
By Billy
September 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
God damn it, Bruno.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
If you look closely, chuck and Dane have made “strange bedfellows” by both advocating a return to this state of blissful ignorance, although in very different ways. On the far left, Diane proposes to simply disassociate natural feelings and moral judgements regarding sex, thereby reducing women to unthinking, unfeeling animals. The big problem with this, unfortunately, is that human females have a year-round estrus in contrast to other animals. GOD protects the other female animals with a limited estrus to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to limit venereal diseases, but leaves human females vulnerable because of our unique ability to make moral choices. At the other end of the political spectrum, chuck wants to remove moral choice by passing Draconian laws against everything he deems undesirable. Of course, his mind has been polluted by the false theological teaching of “Original Sin”, so that he clings to the false hope that we can return to Eden one day. Sorry, chuck, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle despite all your “good intentions”.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Moving on to (2) The Evil One in the form of a serpent is often wrongly identified as the Tempter. However, because GOD’S CREATION IS PERFECT, it was actually GOD who was the author of this Original Temptation, not the Evil One. Again, I refer to the Lord’s Prayer in which we ask GOD to “lead us not unto temptation”. We don’t pray to the Evil One with this request (well, maybe chuck inadvertently does). GOD gave the Evil One great powers, powers which surpass our little human pea brains. The Evil One gets us to dance his jig every day in very clever ways, such as blinding us to the consequences of our actions, Diane, and even by getiing people like chuck to misread the Bible and invent crazy concepts like “Original Sin” making him believe that he can get back to the Garden of Eden and eat from the “Tree of Life” and become immortal like GOD.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
And, finally, (3) The first action taken by Adam and Eve was to feel shame for their nakedness and cover their reproductive organs with fig leaves, thus beginning the moral practice of MODESTY. Unfortunately, “geniuses” like chuck and Diane can’t see that SHAME and MODESTY are among GOD’S GREATEST GIFTS TO MANKIND. Yes, Diane, manly, false shame is a weapon of the EVIL ONE, such as chuck trying to make his fellow brothers and sisters here on earth feel bad for being born gay. If you think deeply about it, MODESTY is GOD’s WAY OF PRESERVING WOMEN’S CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN BODIES. This is done by naturally limiting the number of sex partners a woman takes on which limits unwanted pregnancies, VD, and makes the whole experience more meaningful to boot. I’ve never met a happy ‘hoe, and I’ve “known” a few in my lifetime.
By IdolBruno
September 11, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Dancing with myself Dancing with myself Dancing with myself Dancing with myself
By Renee
September 11, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
OMG…
somebody stop him LOL!!!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
The final part of (3) is more sobering, of course: Because we have the ability to make free moral chice, it is a given that we will often make the “wrong” choice, which seems to drive chuck insane. Probably because the Bible states that “the wages of sin are death”. Chuck appears to be vainly trying to live a “sin-free” life, to ensure his own salvation. If he could only understand the concept of GRACE, he might relax and quit berating everyone else about their sins. We can’t earn GOD’S LOVE chuck, it is strictly an unmerited GIFT.
But, lets have no illusions here, the ultimate fate of humans, according to the Bible, is “sheol”, i.e. the grave. Modern day Bible revisionists try to equate “sheol”, the grave, with Hades, i.e Hell. They are NOT the same thing, despite the revisionists best efforts and “good intentions”. Yes, folks, we are destined for the grave, to lie quietly as the Bible describes. The original Christians believed that they, too, like the Christ would be ressurected one day (the Second Coming), but it didn’t happen in their lifetimes, nor since, despite predictions to the contrary every few years from those who forget that it is not man’s place to know “times and seasons”.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Almost finished, Renee and Billy, hang in there. I really pray that you might read the Bible one day with a fresh outlook, devoid of the crazy interpretations perpetuated by control freaks like chuck. It really is a great book, probably the greatest work of fiction ever written.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Because I believe in Physics, and even the Second Law of Thermodynamics in limited applications, I can not believe that any humans, including the pre-Adamite humans, were ever immortal. What made Adam and Eve different was simply the fact that with their newfound abilities to understand consequences of our actions, they only became AWARE of their own mortality. This can be a heavy burden, but without this knowledge, we again would be more like an ameoba in our level of consciousness, and not really in GODS’S IMAGE. In spite of the pain of death, I think it’s all worth it. Hopefully all of you here do as well.
By lozen
September 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, thank you for your well reasoned post on this subject. I’m glad you grace this blog with your presence and your intelligence.
By lozen
September 11, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Now if they will just come up with a morning-after pill that stamps out all STD’s we can start having fun again like we did in the 60’s!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Wrapping up and applying these concepts to the issue at hand, the “abortion pill”, and whether it is a “victory for women”, this is my take: No, the abortion pill is not a “victory” for women, because abortion of “choice” is an ABOMINATION TO GOD, TO LIFE ITSELF. Am I advocating taking away this choice, like chuck believes we “should” do? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Because to remove free choice is AN EQUAL ABOMINATION TO GOD, TO LIFE ITSELF. So, Libs, I’m with you that these pills should be available, like other forms of birth control. The bad news, however, is that the SHAME from using such procedures can NEVER BE DIVORCED FROM THEIR APPLICATION. As such, once again, my man Dubya is right on the money with his policies the past six years: Promote ABSTINENCE among young girls, and MARITAL FIDELITY among adults, while passing NO LAWS TO LIMIT FREE CHOICE. I believe that is GOD’S WAY.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
2D and Kevin, I’ve been working on trying to reconcile the disparate stories in the Bible for a long time. I would appreciate your input today, please, on how you think my interpretation holds up here in attempting to capture the “true spirit” of the stories. Thanks, DOG.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Finally, 2D and Kevin, later this week when I have more time, I would like to quote for you what modern phycisists like Richard Feynman and Roger Penrose have to say about the Second Law of Thermodynamics by applying quantum physics principles to real systems. I tried earlier, unsuccessfully, to give you the “common-sense”, lay-persons explanation of their discoveries, but made the mistake of joking about “Clinton’s lawyers”, thereby casting “ad hominem” doubt on the facts. You guys might have heard of Richard Feynman before (he won the Nobel Prize for Physics). Roger Penrose, in case you forgot, was a Mathematics professor at Oxford, who co-authored “The Nature of Space and Time” with Stephen Hawking for which they jointly won the 1988 Wolf Prize for Physics.
By Mara
September 11, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
did anybody read through all of Dog’s posts?
Renee - Victory for Americans, to be able to make their own choice, in this situation, without government intervention
wanna borrow the tiara for a while?
Shaunti’s whole arguement is rediculous. “Protect women”? From what, exactly? Their own sexual appetites. She can tell herself that it’s to “help” women, to “protect” our fragile phsyches, but really it’s a control issue. She said it herself,”Apparently, we should be thrilled that women are more “free” to couple up without consequences”. Her “outrage” seemingly is fed by women getting to have sex, without consequences! Where’s her outrage about men “having sex without consequences”?
Until she and her ilk start fighting just as hard to regulate the availability of condems and erectile dysfunction drugs I’ll continue to believe that their entire arguement is aimed at stigmatizing female sexuality. Not that I think they have the right to regulate any private, adult, consensual behavior…
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Mr. Penrose published his Magnus Opus in 2004, “The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe.” In this book, he not only discussess the real life impact of quantum mechanics, but provides ALL the Mathematics and Physics to understand these important concepts. It’s a big book by necessity, 1000 pages long, but it summarizes every important theory of modern physics like String Theory, and Mr. Penrose’s favorite, Twistor Theory. The bottom line, however, is Mr. penrose comletely supports my assertion that even the most complicated modern physics formulas don’t even come within an eyelash of describing reality. While the Science dogmatists outthere like Robert Hazen cling to the false hope “just give us more time (and UNLIMITED CASH), and we will solve all the mysteries of the universe and present them in a nice formula”
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
You see, BC, the reason I know you’re not really that sharp is that instead of referencing crackpot websites to bolster your belief in Evolution, you should have been quoting Robert Hazen, the leading real scientist out there who can argue persuasively for the Big Bang and Evolution. But even if you did, I already beat you to the punch by reading Mr. Hazen’s books to formulate my counterstrategies.
By Mara
September 11, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Chilao - funny, funny…but the whole joke rests on the premise that somewhere ot there a woman exists that would actually have sex with Limbaugh…LOL!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
In the same way, I know chuck isn’t very bright either, because he could have easily countered my challenges about Saturday being the true Sabbath by referring to the concept of the “New Covenant” and by referring to Galatians which instructs “Do not give a man a hard time about his sabbaths”. Instead, in the words of Chilao, it was a lot of “Man said this, and man said that.” Thats why, chuck, I can say with confidence that your theology is nothing more than a house of cards which even a mild gust, like Hurricane John can topple over.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Hey, Mara, I had sex with Rush one time, and it was FANTASTIC. I saw GOD!
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Mara - I figured she was drunk, too much great French wine OR Rush slipped her a handfull of those painkillers he likes so much….LMAO
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
Of course, Rush and I were both on heavy narcotics at the time, but, hey, whatever it takes, right, Chilao?
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Because my time on W2W is drawing to a close, I would like to share with any intelligent folks here what I believe are the greatest books out there on Science and Religion plus a few Santana recommendations.
For the best Pro-Big Bang/Evolution book, get “Gen-e-sis, The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origins” by Robert Hazen. It’s in stock at amazon.com for $17.61.
For even better counter arguments to the BigBang/Evolution as presented today, get “Life Itself” by Robert Rosen and “The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe” by Roger Penose. Both are also in stock at amazon.com for $25.50 and $25.30 respectively (hey, free shipping). Because these are hard books to read for the undereducated, I suggest warming up with “The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols. I-III, also available at amazon.com.
For the ultimate spiritual guides, get “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind” by Shunryu Suzuki, along with the “NIV Student Bible” both in stock at amazon.com for $10.36 and $16.49 respectively. To help understand the Bible better, I strongly suggest picking up a copy of “God’s Plan For Man” by Finis Jennings Dake from amazon.com for $23.09 as well. I don’t agree with Mr. Dake’s theology (Pentecostal), but his book contains a wealth of information. Mr. Dake had an “eidetic memory” like Mozart, Leonhard Euler, and poker legend Stuey Ungar, in which he is able to recall endlessly long strings of info, thereby seeing patterns that the rest of us can’t.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
For Santana, get Caravanserai, Moonflower, Lotus, Welcome, and Viva Santana, in that order to see GOD.
By Archie
September 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
The Fda approval for the morning-after pill is a victory women and men in the sense that no one will have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Shanti mentions the health risk with this pill but there’s a risk with any pill and the morning-after pill is no different. As for studies showing STD’s increase where the morning-after pill is available,well, Diane is right that people are going to use condoms or not use condoms. Diane is also right that you cannot control people, you cannot control people and there is no point in depriving people of a legitimate choice just because some are uncomfortable. I do think that people and I mean men and women should have some shame over sexual indiscretions. I don’t think people should copulate wherever and whenever so yes there needs to be some shame but I do not think that people need to be controlled sexually and I don’t think people need to go to jail for having sex.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
2D and Kevin, if you want to get a head start on my coming modern physics discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, go to Borders and get a copy of “The Road to Reality” by Roger Penrose. Chapter 27 is entitled “The Big Bang and its Thermodynamic Legacy”. The points I referred to previously are contained on pages 686-687 (Time symmetry in dynamical evolution), 688-689 (Submicroscopic ingredients), 690-8=692 (Entropy), 692-696 (The Robustness of the Entropy Concept) 699-701 (Is the whole Universe an Isolated System?), 702-707 (The Role of the Big Bang), and finally 717-723 (Cosmology).
By Billy
September 11, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Bruno, DOG, whoever — If you’re so smart, surely you can handle creating your own web page with its own discussion area for your ramblings instead of hijacking this one.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
For a beautiful discussion of the real meaning of the word “holistic”, I will refer you to a brilliant explanation of the paradoxical observation proven by the famous “two-slit experiment” (no pun intended considering today’s topic), that subatomic particles simultaneously exhibit both particle wave-like properties on pages 500-517, especially section 21.7 entitled “The ‘holistc’ nature of a wavefunction” containe on pages 511-515. A grea quote from Niels Bohr himself is contained on page 516 “If all this damned quantum jumping were really here to stay, then I should be sorry that I ever got involved with quantum theory.”
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
As you might guess, Niels Bohr was actually a foolish atheist, who simply couldn’t accept that GOD’S WAYS defy human description and Logic.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
So again, BC, I can’t prevent Intelligent Design websites from lodging uninformed complaints regarding the accuracy and usefulness of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I can tell you that the leading modern phycisists of today all have misgivings. To me, plain old common sense will tell you the same thing, something you are obviously lacking in. Of course, like a good Lib, you are only too willing to “categorize” me, so that, like John, you can simply dismiss people’s ideas with no real thought on your part. Check out the references I’ve given you here, then get back to me. Ok, D-wad? I checked out your lousy recommendations, and none have panned out so far.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
So sayanara for today, you can all resume your mindless babbling until Wednesday. (2D, Kevin and Renee are excepted from that criticism.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Hello All. I see pharmacists refusing to sell this one too. What if one of their daughters needed it? Just a thought.
By Nikita
September 11, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
Allrighty. Well, DOG, I’ll take your criticism when you learn to spell.
As for the debate at hand, Diane really nailed it this week. For a certain portion of the right wing, this issue is only about one thing: removing any and all situations that might aid people who choose to do anything other than follow their morally prescribed path of no sex outside of marriage and no sex which is not for the purposes of procreation. IMHO, moral teachings are for your home, not for social policy. So evidently I don’t agree with the right wing’s take on things.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Of course, like a good Lib, you are only too willing to “categorize” me,
Does anyone else see the humor here?
By Pssst
September 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Mara, the answer to your posted quesion at 11:43 is contained in DOG’s rants, and in the Biblical myth of the Garden of Eden. I know you find such analysis tedious and “pedantic”, but do you actually know WHY you hold the views you do? Didn’t think so.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Nikita, your post shows that you are another mindless Lib like John whose only debating tactic is to characterize all thought with which you disagree as being “right-wing”. Then, you proclaim victory with no real analysis of the ideas presented using strictly ad hominem fallacies to bolster your own pathetically weak and immoral positions. In case you haven’t been on W2W long, I believe we’ve all accepted here that occasional typos aren’t a legitimate objection to the ideas which they represent.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Yes, I do see the humor, John. Do you see similar humor in your own ridiculous comments? Didn’t think so.
By Mara
September 11, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
don’t you just love this line from Shaunti “they’ve erred on the side of freedom”? Shows you where her priorities lay, and it ain’t on “the side of freedom”. What’s the opposite of “freedom”…? Subjegation. Dependance. Autocracy. Censorship.
Maybe they should add these words to the Republican platform. You know, kinda like “truth in advertising”…
Jack - you know that some holier-than-thou pharmacist is going to insist that it’s his “right” not to fulfill his obligation as a pharmacist because it conflicts with his “moral” opinions. Even if that obligation is confined to merely handing the woman the product. Even were that to never happen (HA!) it’s still seems pretty demeaning for a grown woman to have to publically confess her private behavior before (hopefully) given access to this particular contraceptive.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Looks like Mara has a secret admirer. :)
By lozen
September 11, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Until she and her ilk start fighting just as hard to regulate the availability of condems and erectile dysfunction drugs I’ll continue to believe that their entire arguement is aimed at stigmatizing female sexuality. You are so right Mara. Dog? Who is this Dog you mention? I do not hear, see or read anything by this dog.
By Billy
September 11, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
So sayanara for today, you can all resume your mindless babbling until Wednesday.
Promise? You’ve claimed to be leaving several times in the past, only to linger around being a nuisance. Like herpes.
By lozen
September 11, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
“Apparently, we should be thrilled that women are more “free” to couple up without consequences.” Yes Mara, this is just moralizing B-S. Why should there be consequences for women who want to have sex? There aren’t supposed to be disasterous consequences for taking care of any of our other needs: food, water, etc. Ohhhhh, consequences should be dire for dirty, sinful sex and only for women!
By kimberly
September 11, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Yes. It’s a victory for men too.
By lozen
September 11, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
Oh, Mara you were referring to “herpes”
By Lyrazel
September 11, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
To further my point about women being second class in medicine-research I am going to post a column that WOMEN may find extremely interesting. All you men…you have loved ones who are women…so you may just give it a scan and see if such things could occur in YOUR family, circle of friends or associates…
Nearly 10 years ago, I got my first mammogram in a pink gown while an ABC cameraman shot footage. Because I was a spokesperson for the American Cancer Society, my exam was aired to encourage minority women to schedule regular mammograms. While a study released this week reports that new cases of breast cancer have leveled off, troubling data recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association conclude that black women diagnosed with breast cancer are more likely to die than white women because of a more aggressive-type tumor.
That study followed on the heels of an initial 2005 study by the same research team from the Lineberger center at the University of North Carolina. It first uncovered the existence of a basal-like tumor that can grow quickly and is associated with a higher mortality rate than other types of breast cancers.
In the 2006 study, researchers wanted to find out whether certain segments of the U.S. female population had a higher incidence of this type of tumor. Of the 496 cases it sampled from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, one of the country’s largest African-American breast cancer databases, nearly 50% were of black women.
Researchers found 39% of pre-menopausal black women had the “basal-like” tumor, compared with 14% of post-menopausal black women and 16% of non-African-American women of any age group.
Lisa Carey, medical director of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, says black women are not at higher risk of developing cancer but are at greater risk of developing the basal-like tumor.
The findings, she says, might help explain why pre-menopausal black women have a 77% higher death rate from breast cancer than white women of the same age.
Today, many therapies don’t work well against basal-like breast cancer, and the most common approach is surgery or chemotherapy. But if research is focused especially on black women with this type of breast cancer, breakthrough treatments might be found. “We are currently running a clinical trial looking to see if a targeted drug will work in this subtype,” Carey says.
Black women must participate in these clinical trials, tend to their diets, exercise more, do monthly self-exams and get mammograms. Carey says that overall mortality rates have dropped about 25%.
“If we want that (decline) to be 100%, we must all work together to do the trials that test new ideas,” she says.
It’s time for my yearly mammogram and a new public-service announcement.
Joyce King is a freelance writer in Dallas
Thanks you all for enduring someone else’s writings.
By Mara
September 11, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
Now Jack…you know you’re the only under-the-bridge dweller for me ;^)
By LyrazelHijacksWTW
September 11, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Study: Breast cancer in younger black women is more likely to be an aggressive variety
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -– For decades, researchers have tried to understand why breast cancer in younger black women is such a significant public health problem.
Black women have fewer breast cancers than white women, but their mortality is worse. Black women under the age of 50 have a 77 percent higher mortality rate from breast cancer than white women of the same age.
Results of a study led by scientists from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill schools of Public Health and Medicine and the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer suggest one reason for these differences.
When younger, premenopausal, black women get breast cancer, they are more than twice as likely as older women, black or white, to get an aggressive breast cancer subtype, the study found. They are also much less likely to get the least aggressive type. A report of the research appears in the June 7 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“The present study adds an important piece to a large puzzle,” said senior study author Dr. Robert Millikan. “Previous studies showed that many breast tumors in younger African American women are very fast-growing and hard to treat.
“We found something new: Younger African American breast cancer patients show a high frequency of one of the aggressive subtypes of breast cancer called basal-like,” said Millikan, associate professor of epidemiology at the UNC School of Public Health, a UNC Lineberger member and principal investigator of the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS). The CBCS, one of the largest black breast cancer databases in the United States, is a population-based case-control study that enrolled women with breast cancer from 24 counties of North Carolina as cases, and an equal number of women without breast cancer as controls. Women who consented to the study were interviewed about their histories, and their tumor tissue was collected. The study required extensive cooperation from all of the women who participated in the study, their physicians and pathologists, and a large number of hospitals in North Carolina.
According to JAMA study lead author Dr. Lisa A. Carey, associate professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at UNC’s School of Medicine, modern technologies such as microarray analysis can reveal the molecular characteristics of cancers and have shown that breast cancer is not one disease. “It is a family of diseases that are biologically different from each other, some more aggressive than others,” Carey said. “In this study, using the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, we were looking at how frequently these different subtypes occur in a given population.”
DNA microarray analysis allows scientists to determine the expression levels of thousands of genes simultaneously. This can reveal gene expression patterns, which, in turn, enable genomic profiling of tumor cells.
UNC School of Medicine study co-author Dr. Charles M. Perou, assistant professor of genetics, pathology & laboratory medicine, and a Lineberger member, is a pioneer in microarray technology. “Gene expression analysis using DNA microarrays has identified several breast cancer subtypes, including luminal A, luminal B, basal-like and HER2-plus/estrogen receptor-negative,” said Perou. “These studies were based on limited sample sets. We wanted to see if we could identify the presence of these subtypes through a population-based study and to find out if they correlate with factors such as age, menopausal status and race.”
But microarray analysis requires freshly frozen tumor tissue specimens, and the tissue available from the CBCS was collected between 1993 and 2001. Fortunately, the CBCS had many tumor tissue samples in blocks of paraffin.
To use these, Perou, along with study co-authors Dr. Torsten O. Nielsen and Dr. Maggie C. U. Cheang of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, had developed in 2004 an antibody test to identify the main breast cancer subtypes that they validated in a large (930 cases) tissue microarray study.
The test involves immunohistochemistry (IHC) profiling, which is the testing of sections of tissue for specific proteins by attaching them to specific antibodies, and then looking for the antibodies through the enzymes to which they were connected. This IHC test was refined for the JAMA study, which was the first time the IHC method was used to examine breast cancer subtypes in a population-based study.
“And this had the surprising finding that the basal-like subtype was more than twice as frequent in younger African American women with breast cancer versus everyone else,” Perou said. Among premenopausal African Americans with breast cancer, this type makes up 39 percent compared with postmenopausal African Americans (14 percent) or Caucasians of any age (16 percent).”
The JAMA report notes that the high prevalence of basal-like breast tumors anda lower prevalence of a subtype associated with a more favorable outlook for survival, luminal A, could contribute to the higher breast cancer mortality in younger black women.
There are treatment implications of these findings.
As Carey, medical director of the UNC Breast Center and a Lineberger clinical faculty member, points out, “Right now, the only available treatment for basal-like breast cancer is chemotherapy. Fortunately, while there are no targeted treatments yet for basal-like breast tumors, some of the newer chemotherapies tend to benefit this subtype more than other subtypes. “In addition, there are many new drugs that we will be evaluating in clinical trials to try to provide a targeted treatment for patients with this subtype of breast cancer.”
Millikan said, “This is important information to know, since it means that African American women, like all breast cancer patients, need the best possible diagnostic workups and access to the latest clinical trials. It will be extremely important for these findings to be validated in other patient populations, and to engage breast cancer advocacy groups to ensure that the findings are translated into better care and access to clinical trials for all breast cancer patients.”
“My advice for young African American women,” added Carey, “is the same as my advice for all women: get regular health care.”
Dr. Jorge Gomez of the National Cancer Institute said a particular kind of grant, the Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) grant, was crucial in moving this research forward. SPORE grants “are dedicated to transitioning laboratory discoveries to the clinic or clinical observations to the lab. This collaborative project exemplifies the multidisciplinary nature of the SPORE Program,” Gomez said.
Study co-authors from the UNC School of Medicine are Dr. Chad A. Livasy, department of pathology and laboratory medicine; Lynn G. Dressler and David Cowan, department of medicine; and Dr. H. Shelton Earp, Lineberger professor of cancer research, professor of medicine and pharmacology and UNC Lineberger director. Other co-authors include Dr. Kathleen Conway and Dr. Melissa A. Troester from the UNC School of Public Health’s department of epidemiology; Dr. Patricia G. Moorman from the Duke University Medical Center’s department of family medicine; and Dr. Joseph Geradts, a former UNC Lineberger member now at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.
#This work was supported by an award from the National Cancer Institute to UNC Lineberger for a breast cancer SPORE and by a grant from NIH/General Clinical Research Centers Program of the Division of Research Resources. The CBCS is part of the UNC SPORE at Lineberger.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Billy—finally an INTELLIGENT COMMENT—“LIKE HERPES”. You see, while you Libs are falling over yourself declaring Diane the winner in this debate, you’re totalling ignoring Shaunti’s point that irresponsible sexual behavior leads to herpes, genital warts, chlamydia, etc, not EVEN mentioning AIDS.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Hi Kim. :)
By lozen
September 11, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Didn’t the woman who was head of the FDA resign over this? If I remember correctly she was very much in favor of putting the pill on the market a long time ago when they first studied it and she believed the decision not to put it on the market was political right wing crap.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
lozen, in case you haven’t noticed, having an unwanted pregnancy or a life-long VD is a little more impactful than having a stomach ache because you ate too much. “Errors of proportion”, just like John. Keep working on it.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Isn’t herpes the gift that keeps on giving?
By DOG
September 11, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Again, the Libs desire to remove moral consequences from our decisions is pure folly, and would only make us into “animals”.
By kimberly
September 11, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Hey…. {;->
I agree that the decision not to put it on the market was right-wing crap. Condoms BREAK! Hello? (One good squeeze…) The m.a.p is NOT pleasant! No one is going to do it as a regular form of BC. It’s emergency damage control, and that’s a good thing to have! When the levee breaks, you can get the water out before it destroys the whole city.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
We basically are DOG. We just have reasoning skills, other than that, Woof,woof!
By The72John
September 11, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Yes, I do see the humor, John. Do you see similar humor in your own ridiculous comments? Didn’t think so.
All I see is a desperately disturbed individual who has deluded himself into believing that because he’s read a few books about science and math that he is fundamentally more intelligent than anyone else. All I see is someone with serious emotional problems who for some reason takes pleasure in doing nothing but ridiculing other people.
All I see, Bruno/Dog/God/Ad Nauseum, is someone who constantly attacks others with the same tactics that he consistently decries as flawed, with the same “labeling” and “compartmentalizing” that he claims to transcend, who takes valid scientific theories and attaches purely unscientific mumbo-jumbo to them in order to sound impressive, and who claims not to be religious but consistently parrots the nonsense that the religious dogmatics of the world spew forth every day.
In short, sir, I see a meglomanic fraud who confuses the volume of esoteric, arcane ramblings that he can put to paper with actual substance. I see a rude and obnoxious fool who has single-handedly managed to destroy a blog by spending more hours than I can possibly fathom creating mindless drivel that attempts to immitate intellectual discourse.
I’m sure we’re all TERRIBLY impressed with your tremendous comprehension of the universe that dwarfs that of everyone else, but I speak for everyone, I feel sure, when I say we have had enough of you. Begone, fool, and bother those with the patience to deal with your nonsense.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Again, the Libs desire to remove moral consequences from our decisions is pure folly, and would only make us into “animals”.
And again, the “conservs” desire to be the sole arbiter of what is and isn’t moral is pure folly, and would only make us freedomless drones to the iron orthodoxy of their narrow-minded controls.
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Kings Play Chess On Fat Girls’s Stomachs = homo sapiens.
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
so what was the PHYLUM there?
By Jack
September 11, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
all last night sat on the levy and moaned….
By Jack
September 11, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
That’s it. Now I’ll be humming “Zepplin” all day. :)
By The72John
September 11, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Errors of proportion
I wish I could fabricate concepts and pass them off as legitimate, too!
By lozen
September 11, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Yes, John puts it quite well. Begone, damn spot!
And you’re right too Jack. Humans are animals with the same instinctual drives as any other animal. We can reason (some of us anyway) and we can control our drives when we need to. When we don’t need to control them, we can enjoy them. OHHHHHHH, nooooooo, nooooooooo. Not sex! Dirty, dirty, bad, bad. Preserve your virginity women. Put it in a can and set it on a shelf like canned fruit. Don’t let anyone partake unless you have a ring on your finger. Yahweh only wants you (women only of course) to have sex in the sanctity of marriage. Unless you’re gay and then you can never enjoy it because it’s an abomination. It’s okay if you’re gay and you never have sex because it’s the act that is a dirty filthy sin! Women can’t be having sex with multiple partners. They might find out that what we’ve always been told was 8 inches is really only 3 inches!
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Any reason they do not teach this one in Biology Class?
Keep Privates Clean Or Forget Getting Sex
By Jack
September 11, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
“They might find out that what we’ve always been told was 8 inches is really only 3 inches!”
I always heard that is why women make lousy carpenters! LOL
By Billy
September 11, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
you’re totalling ignoring Shaunti’s point that irresponsible sexual behavior leads to herpes, genital warts, chlamydia, etc, not EVEN mentioning AIDS.
Bull. We’re perfectly cognizant of that fact. We take issue with Shaunti’s (and the rest of the religious reich’s) idea that sex is inherently irresponsible when the participants are not married. And with the idea that since all such behavior is irresponsible, we should maximize the consequesnces of such behavior, because common sense and Jesus tell us that if every premarital liason resulted in pregnancy, then almost no one would have premarital sex. Well, that may be true, but while making changing lanes without a turn signal a capital crime would cut down on that infraction, it’s not the right thing to do.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
“Keep Privates Clean Or Forget Getting Sex”
Oh where I could go with this one….
By Billy
September 11, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
lozen, in case you haven’t noticed, having an unwanted pregnancy or a life-long VD is a little more impactful than having a stomach ache because you ate too much.
Or than having a stomach ache because of the morning-after pill…
Again, the Libs desire to remove moral consequences from our decisions is pure folly, and would only make us into “animals”.
“Moral consequences”? Can you explain this term? Please try to keep physics out of it. And don’t cite other people. Explain it in your own words. How is not forcing a woman to have a baby immoral? It’s certainly no less moral than forcing her to do so…
Weren’t you leaving?
By Jack
September 11, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Now Billy, you know that stopping a pregnancy is murder plain and simple. Sex is for procreation only and is not to be enjoyed. Man on top, get it over with quick.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Please try to keep physics out of it. And don’t cite other people.
Now you’re asking the impossible, Billy. After all, without falling back on technical jargon and citing the works of various obscure scientists, the troll has no way to hide the fact that he really doesn’t have anything to say whatsoever.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Billy, let me break it down to you: Either Life has meaning and is precious (all Life), or it’s just a bunch of meaningless chemical reactions. Under the second view, pushed by Jean Paul Sartre, Life has no intrinsic meaning or value, you are free to make up your own meaning. Of course, this leads directly to the “moral relativism” of today, in which “anything goes”, “damn the consequences”. My point in brining up the Garden of Eden myth is to show that this topic has been considered before, and was well answered by this myth.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
You Libs wish that there be no consequences for our actions comes straight from the mouth of the Evil One.
By Mara
September 11, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
the Libs desire to remove moral consequences from our decisions is pure folly
it’s not the moral consequences we worry about (that’s between you and your deity, if you have one). It’s the physical “consequences” we try to minimize…
Oh,and Billy…well said.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
John, I’ve tried to present my ideas to idiots like you for a long time, who, when they figure out that they’re way outmatched, ultimately fall back on appeals to authority because they can’t critique the ideas directly. So, I brought up references to bolster my ideas for Libs like you. Of course, I know you’re not man enough to actually follow up on any of these references. I followed up on BC’s references and Billy’s references and found…..nothing.
By Billy
September 11, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Actually, what we have been ignoring, I thinkn, is Shaunti’s bogus claim that emergency contraception is “…given by predators and abusive partners to hide sexual abuse.” What the hell? Abusive partners? Does that mean that the occasional dose of Plan B will hide my wife’s broken eye socket that she got after I decked her for not bringing the beer when I asked? Does it make bruises magically disappear? Hmm, the only way I can see that it would hide abuse is by preventing pregnancy.
The very idea is sickening to me. A rapist who forces his victim to take Plan B is hiding his crime? I guess that means that we should charge the rape victim who seeks out Plan B on her own as an accessory to her own rape after the fact…For Plan B to hide sexual abuse, several conditions have to be met: The victim must be female; of a fertile age; at the point in her cycle where she is sexually fertile; not on long-term birth control like the regular pill, patch , or IUD; and taking steps to prevent pregnancy through consensual sex. The perpetrator must be male, fertile, refrain from using a condom, finish inside her, and not have had sex with her recently. And the assault itself must be your standard, for lack of a better word, rape — forced vaginal intercourse. What percentage of sexual assaults meet all these criteria?
And even if a huge number of assaults did meet them, which they don’t, it would still be impossible to use that to justify forcing women to carry a child to term. Plan B isn’t abortion. It’s preventing pregnancy, which is a huge strain on the body and can be exceedingly dangerous. No woman should be forced to endure that if she does not wish to, and the argument that preventing pregnancy in cases of rape is somehow hiding evidence is so wrong in itself that all who make it are likely going to hell faster than the sluts who have premarital sex.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Mara, I understand that Science is morally neutral, it can be used to improve both “good” and “bad” things. Without moral guidance, however, you end up with cruel animal research on defenseless bunny rabbits.
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Dog: Here’s a thought …….. why can’t everyone be resonsible for their OWN morality? I understand following laws and the consequences of NOT following laws; but following someone else’s views on morality are too cumbersome and vague since morality, like the hemline, goes up and down constantly and your view of morality may not be the same as say, the Quaker’s view of morality.
Why not let GOD worry about mass morality and let each person worry about their own? (Morality in the sense of who to sleep/not sleep with, who to marry, when to take birth control, etc — not morality as in should I molest this 12 year old boy).
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
One day, Mara, when you’re much older, you”ll understand that good morals always make the most “sense” scientifiacally. If the goal is less unwanted pregnancies and less VD and less AIDS, the answer lies in more RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR, not BETTER ABORTION PILLS.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
You Libs wish that there be no consequences for our actions comes straight from the mouth of the Evil One.
Typical ultra-right strawman…
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Dog: Here’s a thought …….. why can’t everyone be resonsible for their OWN morality? I understand following laws and the consequences of NOT following laws; but following someone else’s views on morality are too cumbersome and vague since morality, like the hemline, goes up and down constantly and your view of morality may not be the same as say, the Quaker’s view of morality.
Why not let GOD worry about mass morality and let each person worry about their own? (Morality in the sense of who to sleep/not sleep with, who to marry, when to take birth control, etc — not morality as in should I molest this 12 year old boy).
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
But, foolish Libs keep trying to elevate their most base desires to deity status, instead of growing up.
By Brian Curtis
September 11, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Apparently, Bruno’s brilliance doesn’t extend to knowing how to remove a closing parenthesis from a link.
Here you go, Bruno: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Come back when you can refute ANY of the information you find there.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker, YOU ARE SINGING MY SONG. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I’M ADVOCATING—CHOICE. BUT AS SHAUNTI SUGGESTS, LET’S OFFER AN INFORMED CHOICE INCLUDING THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR BEHAVIOR. LIBS WANT TO PRESENT ONLY HALF OF THE STORY.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
And yes, Susiehomemaker, morality can seem like shifting sand, but only because it is us mere mortals trying to interpret it in the face of ever-changing circumstances. But, that’s no excuse to stop trying.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
If he cut and pasted I would think he was Chuck.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
BC, I’ve gone to your links already, but, in return, you have gone to none of mine. So, I’m not wasting any more of my time going to crackpot websites you keep dragging up. I’ve offered you the gold standard of Science to back up my claims, but the fact remains that your poor excuse of an education will never allow you to understand hardly a word true Scientists like Robert Rosen have to say.
By Renee
September 11, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Billy, excellent, excellent, comment (3:12). You don’t wear tiara’s do you??
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
The bottom line, is that a certain definition of “Evolution” IS TRUE: Organisms DO adapt to changing environments all the time, and possibly “natural selection” plays a small part in this. I say “small part” because random adaptation would produce 10 gazillion failures for every “lucky random mutation” The observed fact is, however, that this adaptation is nearly “miraculous” in it’s efficiency. Natural selection can’t explain this “directed Eviolution” via any random process.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Good post Susie.
DOG. Do you agree when religious laws are changed as society changes? (Like not eating meat on Friday)
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
And, the biggest point is that while changes occur daily in established species (Adaptive Evolution), there is no evidence of “Linear Evolution” as an explanation of cosmology, i.e. the Origin of Life. You might put your faith in anthropologists with their two boxes of bones which supposedly explain hundreds of millions of years of development to one day find irrefutable evidence, but I don’t have that much time or that much CASH to keep paying their enormous salaries.
By kimberly
September 11, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
He’s not as venmous as Chuck, IMO. But seriously, who let the leg-humper out of the kennel?
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Of course, it IS rather amusing to me to see the “evolutionists” keep reworking their theories every time the evidence keeps proving them wrong. Ptolemy would be proud! The only folks who are more ridiculous in their pronouncements are astronomers, who can spin more Science Fiction than Gene Roddenberry.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
but the fact remains that your poor excuse of an education will never allow you to understand hardly a word true Scientists like Robert Rosen have to say
That would be “poor excuse for an education”. I believe you’ll find that’s the correct construction for that particular expression.
But, foolish Libs keep trying to elevate their most base desires to deity status, instead of growing up.
Ah, the strawman becomes even more overstuffed.
John, I’ve tried to present my ideas to idiots like you for a long time, who, when they figure out that they’re way outmatched, ultimately fall back on appeals to authority because they can’t critique the ideas directly. So, I brought up references to bolster my ideas for Libs like you. Of course, I know you’re not man enough to actually follow up on any of these references. I followed up on BC’s references and Billy’s references and found…..nothing.
Poor, poor, sad, little man. He can’t stand it that everyone hasn’t embraced the obvious rightness of his deliberately abstruse “philosophies” of life…he still thinks that because he claims to have specialized education in one area that he must be sooo much smarter than the rest of us.
He still doesn’t realize that his entire argument has been predicated on his own appeal to authority - in this case, his self-proclaimed authority as an “educated scientist”.
By the way, that’s the real definition of appeal to authority, BruDog, when one claims validity for a statement because of the position held by person making the statement, rather than the inherent validity of the statement itself. See - you say “All this is true because I’m a scientist and you are to stupid to understand”. That’s appeal to authority.
You really do have deep emotional issues, hmm?
And who wants to bet that Suzie Homemaker is yet another of our least-favorite MPD sufferer’s many nom-de-blogs?
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Another big difference between me and chuck, kimberly, is that I can actually back up my ideas with real Science, something BC can’t even do.
By Tina
September 11, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Thank God someone said it- Go Billy- seriously- go to a chat room for chats!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Jack, Jesus put all law-changing to rest with the New Covenant. Those who try to enforce Old Testament Law (like chuck, who incidently does so in a suspiciously SELECTIVE way), are simply NOT READING THE BIBLE.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Another big difference between me and chuck, kimberly, is that I can actually back up my ideas with real Science, something BC can’t even do.
Of course, BruDog is is only one who gets to say what the real science is.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Sorry again to make such esoteric connections, but the Christ’s words were simply the “Spiritual Forerunner” of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem which proves mathematically that no set of “rules” is ever complete, or ever interally consistent. As such, the answer is NOT in strict enforcement of Laws as chuck keeps advocating. The Christ says so!!!!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Sorry, John, Susie is her own woman. Are you?? Don’t take my word on the Science, Philosophy, or Religion here John, research it for yourself. When you do, you may ask for a refund for all your expensive degrees, because apparently they’re not worth much.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
“I can actually back up my ideas with real Science, something BC can’t even do.”
You can back up your religous beliefs with Science? Why don’t you write a book? Worked for Dan Brown.
By kimberly
September 11, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
“Real Science?” Uh-huh. Does that reflect reality like MTV’s “Real World?” If by BC you mean Brian Curtis, the you’re real deluded. BC is the slammin-est blogger on the whole AJC! He never hits without a logical argument and thorough backup. Many times I’ve wanted to shave my head and follow Brian Curtis around — that’s how “real intelligent and informed” he is.
By Tina
September 11, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
All in favor *vote to get rid of Dog???
By The72John
September 11, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Sorry, John, Susie is her own woman. Are you?? Don’t take my word on the Science, Philosophy, or Religion here John, research it for yourself. When you do, you may ask for a refund for all your expensive degrees, because apparently they’re not worth much.
Your belittling becomes more pronounced with each post, BruDog. You’re really so sad - if you were as convinced of the validity of your ideas as you claim, you would have no need to insult everyone who doesn’t agree with you just for the simple fact that they disagree with you.
You continue to cloak your ideas in the trappings of science and to rely on the abstruseness of the sources you cite and the knowledge to claim to protect you from actual scrutiny.
I suspect that were a trained scientist to tune into this discussion, he would eviscerate you. Ah, but then you would simply claim that he was one of those false scientists who understand nothing, wouldn’t you?
Does anyone know anything but you, BruDog? You claim one minute that science informs everything, yet turn around and dismiss it as nonsense. At other times, you claim that religion is nonsense, and then suddenly parrot its most fundamentalist and dogmatic teachings like a true believer.
Are you consistent with anything, BruDog? I doubt it - part of your significant and apparent emotional problems, I feel certain.
By Mara
September 11, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Jack - (snicker, snicker…) don’t tempt him. He’s bad enough just paraphrasing the websites….
By Billy
September 11, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Billy, let me break it down to you: Either Life has meaning and is precious (all Life), or it’s just a bunch of meaningless chemical reactions. Under the second view, pushed by Jean Paul Sartre, Life has no intrinsic meaning or value, you are free to make up your own meaning. Of course, this leads directly to the “moral relativism” of today, in which “anything goes”, “damn the consequences”. My point in brining up the Garden of Eden myth is to show that this topic has been considered before, and was well answered by this myth.
You just couldn’t keep other people out of it, could you? All life is precious? Does that mean that you are a vegetarian? No, wait…plants are alive! What the hell do you eat??? No one has, prior to the advent of emergency contraception, argued the morality of emergency contraception. You’re like the idiots who argue that the second amendment means we cann have all the guns and explosives we like. No, it doesn’t, because there is no way our revered Founding Fathers could have forseen street sweepers and Kalashnikovs.
Only anarchists believe that “anything goes”. I certainly don’t know anyone who does. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Is fur murder? Call it relatavism if you like, but it’s debatable. Yes, life has value, but it’s obvious that we disagree on when that life begins.
By the way…Weren’t you leaving?
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
All in favorvote to get rid of Dog???*
Now, now, it’s a free blog(almost keyed ‘dog’..LMAO), if you don’t like what’s on the telly, change the channel. I’ve been busy over at, oh, never mind.
About to convert to Islam though, they got this thing about dogs, and y’all know they(K9) are my least favored species.
Reminds me of a great cartoon I have probably already shared: Two Mayans in the back of a religious ceremony, observing a human sacrifice, one turns to the other and says “I’ve been thinking of converting to a religion with better looking virgins”.
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
And who wants to bet that Suzie Homemaker is yet another of our least-favorite MPD sufferer’s many nom-de-blogs?
huh? Did you just call me a dog? R U one of those people who, if they don’t like what is said, blatantly tries to whittle down the person instead of effectively whittling down the comment? Jeesh!! My comment was to DOG not you, and if you don’t like my comment to him, blast the comment not me for making it!!
I joined this particuliar forum because weekly I see intelligent, (sometimes volatile but always intelligent), interraction with some really good comments that make me think beyond my comfort zone. I thought, “Intelligent comments, intelligent people”. Boy was I wrong!!!
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
And who wants to bet that Suzie Homemaker is yet another of our least-favorite MPD sufferer’s many nom-de-blogs?
huh? Did you just call me a dog? R U one of those people who, if they don’t like what is said, blatantly tries to whittle down the person instead of effectively whittling down the comment? Jeesh!! My comment was to DOG not you, and if you don’t like my comment to him, blast the comment not me for making it!!
I joined this particuliar forum because weekly I see intelligent, (sometimes volatile but always intelligent), interraction with some really good comments that make me think beyond my comfort zone. I thought, “Intelligent comments, intelligent people”. Boy was I wrong!!!
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
And who wants to bet that Suzie Homemaker is yet another of our least-favorite MPD sufferer’s many nom-de-blogs?
huh? Did you just call me a dog? R U one of those people who, if they don’t like what is said, blatantly tries to whittle down the person instead of effectively whittling down the comment? Jeesh!! My comment was to DOG not you, and if you don’t like my comment to him, blast the comment not me for making it!!
I joined this particuliar forum because weekly I see intelligent, (sometimes volatile but always intelligent), interraction with some really good comments that make me think beyond my comfort zone. I thought, “Intelligent comments, intelligent people”. Boy was I wrong!!!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Billy, if you believe “when life begins” is DEBATABLE, you’re even more pathetic than I first thought.
By Tina
September 11, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
I don’t have anything against ya Dog- I just think that your picking fights in a discussion about birth control???? don’t you work?
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
And who wants to bet that Suzie Homemaker is yet another of our least-favorite MPD sufferer’s many nom-de-blogs?
huh? Did you just call me a dog? R U one of those people who, if they don’t like what is said, blatantly tries to whittle down the person instead of effectively whittling down the comment? Jeesh!! My comment was to DOG not you, and if you don’t like my comment to him, blast the comment not me for making it!!
By Tina
September 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
I don’t have anything against ya Dog- I just think that your picking fights in a discussion about birth control???? don’t you work?
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
And who wants to bet that Suzie Homemaker is yet another of our least-favorite MPD sufferer’s many nom-de-blogs?
huh? Did you just call me a dog? R U one of those people who, if they don’t like what is said, blatantly tries to whittle down the person instead of effectively whittling down the comment? Jeesh!! My comment was to DOG not you, and if you don’t like my comment to him, blast the comment not me for making it!!
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
And who wants to bet that Suzie Homemaker is yet another of our least-favorite MPD sufferer’s many nom-de-blogs?
huh? Did you just call me a dog? R U one of those people who, if they don’t like what is said, blatantly tries to whittle down the person instead of effectively whittling down the comment? Jeesh!! My comment was to DOG not you, and if you don’t like my comment to him, blast the comment not me for making it!!
By Jack
September 11, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
We wouldn’t want you to shave those red locks under any circumstances my Dear. :0 )
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Sorry — Don’t know how I posted that multiple times!!! Please forgive me oh Great and powerful Lord of the Blog!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
kimberly, if you think BC, Brian Curtis, is remotely intelligent, you haven’t been following my dismantling of his “Scientific house of cards” the past few weeks. He thinks he “defeated” me based on info from crackpot websites, but isn’t man enought to reference the REAL SCIENCE BOOKS I keep referring to. The reason is, that his Georgia Tech education was apparently subpar, although he CAN snow everyone here who hasn’t studied quantum mechanics as I have.
By Kevin
September 11, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
BC
The website does a good job of critiquing creationist’s objections to evolution. However, it still has trouble explaining the myriad of problems with evolution itself. I copied this statement from one of the articles dealing with transitional creatures:
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species.
I will give the website credit for stating that transitional creatures are rare, and that other theories have to be proposed to attempt to explain this major flaw with evolution. Scientists are not open to the idea that evolution might not be true. They will continue to theorize why evolution is true instead of reviewing the initial hypothesis that evolution has to be true (because of course there is no God).
Gee – that sounds like the same strategy that creationists like me employ to defend the bible. We are criticized for not being open to the possibility that the bible might not be true. That criticism is valid for creationists, but it is just as valid for those who support evolution.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
*huh? Did you just call me a dog? R U one of those people who, if they don’t like what is said, blatantly tries to whittle down the person instead of effectively whittling down the comment? Jeesh!! My comment was to DOG not you, and if you don’t like my comment to him, blast the comment not me for making it!! *
Well, A) It’s a public blog, so even if a comment is directed to one person, anyone can respond to it.
However, B) The timing of your comments and BruDog’s afterward sounded like he was shilling for himself again. He has a habit of using multiple handles to create fake people who agree with him or reinforce him or act as sounding boards or foils for his arguments.
And, no offense, if you are a real person I apologize. However, I’m still not convinced that you aren’t just another of these.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Susie, you’re catching on that John can’t fight fair, because ultimately he’s a sissy. This is not in reference to him being gay. I know many gay guys I would fear in a fist fight, but John isn’t one of them.
By 2D
September 11, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
DOG… Sorry bro, but I’ve gotta disagree with you.
While I do agree that we have devolved into a dangerous state of moral relativism, we must allow folks to make their own decisions. I mean, if God is willing to provide free will, then our government should as well.
If a person believes the morning after pill is morally wrong, then they shouldn’t use it (that’s my view). If folks believe there isn’t anything wrong with it, then let them use it. They will have to deal with the consequences of their actions, if and when they come.
I would go so far as to say the same thing for drug users, drunks and promiscuous individuals. Until their actions hurt others, then let them act as ridiculous as they want. They are the ones who will have to face the consequences.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Tina, after working 50+ hours per week for more than 35 years, I’ve earned my retirement. So, yes, I actually do have plenty of time now to harass blowhards like chuck, john, AND BC, who ultimately cannot back up their positions at all.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
We love you Susie. The Hell with what the others think.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
2D, please reread my comments. I argue 100% for free choice, and would support NO LAWS to restrict birth control. However, the Loony Left wants to divorce all morality from this decidedly moral issue, which I think is a bunch of crap. We tried it with welfare for how many years?
By Billy
September 11, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
BUT AS SHAUNTI SUGGESTS, LET’S OFFER AN INFORMED CHOICE INCLUDING THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR BEHAVIOR. LIBS WANT TO PRESENT ONLY HALF OF THE STORY.
We’re all for making known the negative consequences of irresponsible sex. What we object to is the assumption that all sex when not done exactly as the right likes it is irresponsible, as I’ve said before, and the idea that policy be based on “consequences” that “God” will enforce in the “afterlife”.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Going further, 2D, I hope you will read my analysis of the Garden of Eden myth which I spun out this AM here on W2W. In my analysis, removing free choice through Laws, like chuck advocates, is AN ABOMINATION TO GOD.
By Tina
September 11, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Ahhh- Dog is retired- No wonder- has nothing better to do than to “preach”
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
72John — Again, If there was something that you just abhored in my comment then blast the comment. To attack me as a figment of Dog’s imagination, (your words paraphrased), makes absolutely no sense to me. Read the comment that was made at 3:13; if you are against what I said then blast the comment with two guns and both barrels blazing — try to make me think about your point of view;let’s talk on that level. Blasting me as a person is too easy and juvenile; especially since you don’t know me from John.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Susie, you’re catching on that John can’t fight fair, because ultimately he’s a sissy. This is not in reference to him being gay. I know many gay guys I would fear in a fist fight, but John isn’t one of them.
Oh look, now BruDog is using even more belittling techniques. Gosh, Bru, your completely uninformed opinion about my ability to defend myself is…well…meaningless!
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
72John — Again, If there was something that you just abhored in my comment then blast the comment. To attack me as a figment of Dog’s imagination, (your words paraphrased), makes absolutely no sense to me. Read the comment that was made at 3:13; if you are against what I said then blast the comment with two guns and both barrels blazing — try to make me think about your point of view;let’s talk on that level. Blasting me as a person is too easy and juvenile; especially since you don’t know me from John.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
So, as far as I can tell, we actually agree on this issue. I believe a careful reading of the Bible will support this. “Original Sin” is a false teaching of modern churches. If you read the words carefully, and put together the different concepts like “omnipotent” and “omnipresent”, I believe that GOD’S PERFECT PLAN WAS TO EAT THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT SO WE COULD HAVE MORAL DISCERNMENT IN FULLFILLMENT OF GENESIS 1 ( in GOD’S IMAGE we were created). To think that a “mistake” occurred by eating the fruit is a tragic misreading of this beautiful passage, with SATANIC results.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Yes, it’s a bunch of crap because it isn’t true. But keep repeating it enough and maybe people will believe you, hmm?
By Billy
September 11, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Bruno — I was the one who went to Tech, not BC. To the best of my knowledge, at least. Your Mudd-y education won’t even allow you to keep that simple fact straight.
Do I believe life’s beginning to be debatable? Not really. Do I believe that there’s a large amount of subjectivity as to the point between sperm & egg and newborn baby at which people can say, “That’s a human being!”??? Yes, I do. That clump of 8 cells that is prevented from implanting itself in the uterine wall is not a baby. Many infertile women have problems with implantation, not fertilization. If fertilization is the mark of life, then you must find fertility clinics morally reprehensible since they fertilize thousands of eggs knowing full well many will just be thrown away.
By The72John
September 11, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Blasting me as a person is too easy and juvenile; especially since you don’t know me from John.
That’s great, since I wasn’t actually blasting you as a person. I didn’t criticize you in the least.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
I just love it when posters spout how smart they are. Kinda like braggin about the ole package. If you gotta brag, you’re lying.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Billy, I might humbly suggest to you that the idea of an “afterlife” is both non-Biblical, and un-Scientific at the same time. Both the Bible and Science say we go to the grave (“sheol”). An afterlife is not a part of my argument here at all. In that regard, I can only quote Steve Winwood— “Heaven is in your Mind”— from the second Traffic album entitled “Mr. Fantasy”.
By Tina
September 11, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
i’m curious to hear how god will punish 9/11 terrorist- But lucky me-the Almighty God blogging all day long since he has his well deserved Retirement after 35 years will surely let me know … .
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Kinda like braggin about the ole package. If you gotta brag, you’re lying.*
kinda like having to ask “was the metric, as in centimeters, or Anglaise, as in inches?”. LMAO(that 8 vs 3 thing, for example)
By Tina
September 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Good blog Jack
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Billy, you’re argument of viability is a definite “slippery slope”. Viability used to mean that the baby had to be able to survive on its own without machines. There are millions of now-grown preemie babies who are likely VERY GRATEFUL that the definition of viability is now only about 20 weeks into the pregnancy instead of the prebious 26 weeks.
Also, I’m pretty sure that BC stated that he attended GT also. If I am wrong, however, I will eat my words like a man and publicly apologize.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Even though he only has 3”, he has good taste in music.
By Jennifer
September 11, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Chilao, mi amigo, eres un caballo!
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
A woman asked me just the other day if I sould give her 8”—I told her “Honey, I don’t fold it in half for anyone!”
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
Jack, you might have to stop by and hang out someday. I’ll turn you on to some Robin Trower and King Crimson. I don’t think the Libs could hang with us (except maybe Chilao).
By kimberly
September 11, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
Jack, so true! Hahaha!
DOG said, “I know many gay guys I would fear in a fist fight, but John isn’t one of them.” Um… Dude, are you taking bets there? Hahaha! Trust me… He TOTALLY IS one of the ones you should fear. Hahaha! My money says you’re down in 90 seconds.
By Jack
September 11, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble….
By Jack
September 11, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
I saw Robin Trower at the Municiple Auditorium back in the 70’s. My ears rang for days.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Kevin, missed your shout about “transitional forms”. It’s pretty funny to me that top anthropologists like Brian M. F* have now backtracked, and don’t call, for eaxample, australopithecus a “transitional form” at all now, but acknowledge that there is no direct link between the various hominids prior to homo sapien sapien.
By Tina
September 11, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
I’m with Kimberly- he’s down easy!
By Chilao
September 11, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
how fittingway too funny
Said the straight man to the late man Where have you been Ive been here and Ive been there And Ive been in between.
I talk to the wind My words are all carried away I talk to the wind The wind does not hear The wind cannot hear.
Im on the outside looking inside What do I see Much confusion, disillusion All around me.
You dont possess me Dont impress me Just upset my mind Cant instruct me or conduct me Just use up my time
I talk to the wind My words are all carried away I talk to the wind The wind does not hear The wind cannot hear.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
Well, maybe John could whip me now, I give in. The question is, would it get him “excited”?
By Jack
September 11, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
I’m pretty sure Chilao has a music collection we would all envy.
By DOG
September 11, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Rock on Che!!!!! I talk to the wind also!!!
By Billy
September 11, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this
Billy, I might humbly suggest to you that the idea of an “afterlife” is both non-Biblical, and un-Scientific at the same time. Both the Bible and Science say we go to the grave (“sheol”). An afterlife is not a part of my argument here at all.
Bruno, so far you have done and said nothing on this blog with humility. The afterlife may not figure into your argument, but I don’t care about your argument, Bruno. The folks you support on the right — the ones who are against ready availability of Plan B, the ones for limiting our free will — well, they do figure in God’s wrath in their arguments. They might not make the argument that God’ll be ticked off at our choices, but that’s why they fight against it. They do believe in an old-man-in-the-sky god, and they want everyone to live their lives according to their idea of what that old man wants.
If you truly believe that limiting free will is wrong and you have no “divine punishment” fears, then what is your reason for being against Plan B?
By Kevin
September 12, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this
Bruno,
Please cut and paste the following into your web browser to go to one of the web pages on the talk origin website. See if you enjoy it as much as I did!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html
Kevin
By Lyrazel
September 12, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
One day, Mara, when you’re much older, you”ll understand that good morals always make the most “sense” scientifiacally. If the goal is less unwanted pregnancies and less VD and less AIDS, the answer lies in more RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR, not BETTER ABORTION PILLS. DOG, Its easy to preach at the good folk of the choir its much more difficult to make it happen outside a blogsphere. You would not last an hour in a clinic trying to convince a hot-to- not to trot.
I see pharmacists refusing to sell this one too. What if one of their daughters needed it? Jack, I believe their daughters would find another pharmacy…like they do now.
By DOG
September 12, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
Big shout to Chilao: You did it! Your creativity allowed you to do what chuck, John, and BC couldn’t—beat the Bruno troll at his own game with the “I Talk to the Wind” reference. I did give you a little help, but you came through like a champ! I know it was the end of the day and you were under time pressure, but it was beautiful! You could have also piled on with a reference to the “21st Century Schizoid Man” or even “Confusion will be my epitaph” from the same album, but I won’t quibble.
You see, John, chuck, and BC kept trying to beat me at their OWN GAMES, which is why they kept losing. You, on the other hand, got creative. Touche!
By DOG
September 12, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Before I admit total defeat, however, I reworked a Robin Trower song into my prayer for aborted babies:
In this place Full of empty space Your love holds the key Please, GOD, shine it on me.
Now I know Since I’m less than bone What it really means To have YOU gone. Have mercy on my soul!
Before I lost Your precious gift of Life I somehow knew Your gentle breath would comfort me
So, in this place Full of empty space Your tender Love Still shines in my soul. Thank you, GOD.
By DOG
September 12, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
Kevin, I gotta run. We’ll puzzle through the mysteries of the Universe tomorrow.
By Billy
September 12, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Kevin, I gotta run.
Promise this time?
We’ll puzzle through the mysteries of the Universe tomorrow.
That really won’t be necessary…
By Tina
September 12, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Good morning to all!
By Mara
September 12, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - You would not last an hour in a clinic trying to convince a hot-to- not to trot.
were you trying to imply something with this 8:19 post? LOL!!
By Chilao
September 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Sounds like there are advantages to being a high school dropout and missing that senior year of Black Hole Physics. LMAO
Only thing I miss about SR year was that TRIG I never had, (but later did have a college calculus).
By Renee
September 12, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
where is everyone today???
By Brian Curtis
September 12, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Bruno really is amusing with his pretentious claims about “real science” (which apparently consists of one lone biologist whose musings he’s misinterpreted anyway).
Now he denounces Talk.Origins—the single biggest collection of research, analysis, and thoughtful discussion of evolutionary mechanics by PhDs, biologists, and researchers—as a “crackpot” site? And he honestly doesn’t see the difference? That’s a mystical zealot for you.
Robert Rosen wrote some philosophy-of-science stuff about his resentment toward the treatment of biology by physicists, which he claimed was reductionism. In it, he worships at the altar of set theory as the ONLY valid way to approach knowledge, making him as guilty of reductionism as those he complains about. (And by the way, he got his math wrong— http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000627000001000059000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes .)
So, based on his own personal spin on the writings of ONE biologist—who was speaking of philosophical issues, not science, at the time, and who made mistakes anyway—Bruno declares that Dr. Rosen is the world’s only “True Scientist,” and that all the others are crackpots. Riiiight.
Bruno, I’ve taken you to school over the past few weeks, exposing your ignorance and hypocrisy with your own statements… and I haven’t even worked up a sweat. As I’ve said, half the time you manage to embarrass yourself with your half-baked arguments that even Creationists shun, without my even lifting a finger.
At least zealots like Chuck and the creationists are honest in their motives; you’re more like an Intelligent Design nut, wanting all the credibility of science without having to follow any of the rules or do the hard work—like supplying logic and evidence. Like you, the IDers are intellectually lazy and hypocritical.
Now, I know you won’t try to respond to anything from TalkOrigins… mainly because you can’t … but by all means, keep entertaining us with your posturing and preening. When you’re not boring, you’re actually very funny, and it’s a refreshing change from the usual mystics who harangue us here.
By Brian Curtis
September 12, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Kevin: I agree that the TalkOrigins site could devote more space to the problems with evolutionary mechanisms and the ongoing research to resolve them; it’s primarily a resource for dealing with creationist insanity, which claims that there is NO evidence for evolution, or that evolution is “scientifically impossible” (and similar absurdities).
But would you agree that problems with scientific theories can only be resolved through more science… not abandoning logic in favor mysticism?
Still, the core topic this week is the approval of Plan B, so maybe we should save the evolutionary stuff for later. I notice Shaunti’s condemnation of it is propped up with pseudo-scientific justification that would make Bruno proud: “It’s never been tested for circumstances of use that don’t occur!”
Well, duh, Shaunti. Aspirin has never been approved for round-the-clock use at a rate of 20 pills a day, 365 days a year either. That doesn’t mean it isn’t perfectly safe for use at the proper dosage and correct frequency.
Renee: I suspect most people are waiting for Bruno to tire himself out with his self-congratulatory babbling. He’s our newest troll, of an interesting subspecies: the pseudo-intellectual mystic.
By Brian Curtis
September 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Kevin: I agree that the TalkOrigins site could devote more space to the problems with evolutionary mechanisms and the ongoing research to resolve them; it’s primarily a resource for dealing with creationist insanity, which claims that there is NO evidence for evolution, or that evolution is “scientifically impossible” (and similar absurdities).
But would you agree that problems with scientific theories can only be resolved through more science… not abandoning logic in favor mysticism?
Still, the core topic this week is the approval of Plan B, so maybe we should save the evolutionary stuff for later. I notice Shaunti’s condemnation of it is propped up with pseudo-scientific justification that would make Bruno proud: “It’s never been tested for circumstances of use that don’t occur!”
Well, duh, Shaunti. Aspirin has never been approved for round-the-clock use at a rate of 20 pills a day, 365 days a year either. That doesn’t mean it isn’t perfectly safe for use at the proper dosage and correct frequency.
Renee: I suspect most people are waiting for Bruno to tire himself out with his self-congratulatory babbling. He’s our newest troll, of an interesting subspecies: the pseudo-intellectual mystic.
By Billy
September 12, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Does the “sexual predators will use it to hide their crimes” argument not make anyone else’s blood boil?
By Mara
September 12, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
hey, Renee. I haven’t posted much this morning because I don’t feel like debating the origin of the species, creation “science”, mathmatics, physics or the strange mysticism of Bruno’s Dog.
I was pretty interested in this topic, because the argument of personal autonomy vs. governmental control is near and dear to my heart. But frankly, I’ve been sort of bored with how the discussion has “progressed”, if you want to call it that. So, I’ve been earning my keep and only checking in every once in a while.
By Chilao
September 12, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Does the “sexual predators will use it to hide their crimes” argument not make anyone else’s blood boil?
That is just so Pedophile-Step-Daddy does not get the little girl pregnant. And is about as Valid an argument as most. (meaning not…since alot of abuse can occur without any pregnancy ANYWAY)
By WAR EAGLE
September 12, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
ladies- Plan B was designed to combat the ‘holier than thou’s’ who want every woman to go through with a pregnancy-wanted or not. We have too many unwanted kids already and unless christian children’s services is willing to take care of all these kids, I suggest that the holier than thous shut the heck up. It’s a woman’s body and it is not a human until it has a birth certificate. you cannot give a SS# to a fetus, and you cannot give a fetus a birth certificate. Therefore, the bible wackos are WRONG! Life begins at birth-that is why they have BIRTH day parties and not CONCEPTION or FETUS parties. Grow up and take the bible out of your nose!
By Mara
September 12, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Chilao, Billy - to be fair the “sexual predator” argument is also used by pro-choice groups to “sell” their viewpoint regarding parental notification for minor girls. Who hasn’t heard the argument about a girl possibly having to get permission for her abortion from her rapist? Being pro-choice myself, I’ve been trying to articulate exactly why the argument is valid for one side but not the other. This is as far as I’ve gotten -
While the pro-choice side sees their argument as illustrating why girls should be allowed their personal privacy and (in the case of the parental rapist) personal safety, Shaunti sees the same basic premise as a reason to limit everyones choice, just in case.
By Melissa
September 12, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Shaunti Feldhahn is an unfortunate, unrealistic person who is trying to send women back several decades. If she wants to be a frigid, ultra-conservative woman who believes woman should remain “pure” and chaste until marriage, go ahead. Adhere to your double standards for men and women, but don’t expect all other women to deny their natural, healthy sexuality. She is so concerned with women having (GASP!) sex without consequences. It sounds as if she is equating pre-marital sex with some kind of felony for which a prison sentence would be appropriate. Women are not interested in these uptight, archaic ideals.
By lozen
September 12, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Mara, ditto to the boring and the frustrating on this blog this week and last. Dog/whatever took over the space and there’s no way to get rid of him. I tried to just ignore him and continue speaking with you and others, others tried insulting him but nothing worked so far.
Birth control, abortion, the decision of whether to bring another life into this world should always, always, no exceptions ever, be the personal, private decision of the woman who becomes pregnant. It doesn’t matter how she got pregnant. It doesn’t matter who the father is. It doesn’t matter how old she is. Why does this most personal and private decision continue to be debated by government? I will never get that photo of a smirking G. Bush surrounded by five grinning males, signing a bill taking away more of women’s personal and private decision making about what they can do with their bodies and their lives out of my mind. This should not even be a public debate.
By lozen
September 12, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
I am thankful for Shaunti because she’s a perfect example of the people who want to make this country a theocracy and force everyone to follow their rules. Shaunti shows us the kind of thinking we have to take a stand against. We’re living at a crossroads, everything is in flux - every structure and institution, religious, social, political. The old answers don’t work anymore and we’re searching for new answers - inside and outside of spiritual traditions. We’re looking for answers that make sense in our lives, not some rules and regs written 2,000 years ago for a totally different time and place. Shaunti, Chuck, and people like them are clinging to the past and trying desperately to stop change. They can’t stop it. Women have birth control and the option to end a pregnancy they’re not ready for. This should not be a political issue. It should be one of the most private things in life and each woman should be able to make her decision in peace without political intrusion. Gay people should have every civil right straight people have. In a decade or two, people will look back on the struggle for gay rights as we now look back on the african american struggle. Science and spirituality do not have to be mutually exclusive and for most people they aren’t. Shaunti and Chuck and their ilk are perfect examples of a small group of irrational, frightened people (no matter how loud they may be) who want to stop the world; it just can’t be done. We do need to be vigilant about these people and their determination to take over our government. We must make sure they don’t do that. The christian right has caused so much damage in this country; we’re more divided than I’ve ever seen in my 60+ years.
By Jack
September 12, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
“sexual predators will use it to hide their crimes”
I equate this with her arguement against stem cell research where she claims people “adopt” fertilized embryos. Yeah Right. Uh Huh, yes, that’s the ticket.
By Jack
September 12, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Lozen. You are as a fine wine.
By Billy
September 12, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
While the pro-choice side sees their argument as illustrating why girls should be allowed their personal privacy and (in the case of the parental rapist) personal safety, Shaunti sees the same basic premise as a reason to limit everyones choice, just in case.
Mara, I think the pro-choice argument is different in that it assures women and girls that they will not have to have a child they do not want. And it’s not about the child — it’s about the pregnancy. Had my wife’s pregnancy occurred in 1955 instead of 2005, she would likely have died. Pregnancy can wreak havoc on a woman’s body. You’re right — the pro-choice side errs on the side of giving women control.
With the “sexual predators hiding crimes” argument, you have to weight the rights of everyone involved. You can’t justify forcing some women to be pregnant on the off chance that someone else’s pregnancy that resulted from a rape will provide evidence of the crime.
By Billy
September 12, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Lozen. You are as a fine wine.
Kept in a barrel for the first few years of life?
By chuck
September 12, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Abortion proponents claim that RU-486 is safe. These documents prove otherwise,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s senior policy director. “When the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved RU-486 under intense political pressure in the waning days of the Clinton administration, the extent of the damage was anyone’s guess. Now evidence is available through Adverse Events Reports filed by doctors, Danco (the drug’s distributor) and women themselves. Healthy women who take RU-486 can end up with life-threatening, even fatal, complications. These reports show case upon case of women being rushed to hospital emergency rooms after taking RU-486.
Through 2004 there were over 600 complications, including 5 recorded deaths from using the “Plan B” pill. These were complications that occurred while the drug REQUIRED A PRESCRIPTION. It is absolutely nuts to think that there won’t be even more emergency situations with women using this pill without regard to known or unknown health problems. This is a disaster waiting to happen for women and the men who love them.
I have an idea, let’s all self-medicate. I don’t need no stinking doctor to tell me what kind of drugs I need. Print thos little warnings on the bottles and let me at them.
By Jack
September 12, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
finer with age.
By Billy
September 12, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Chuck, Plan B is not RU-486
By JustAThought
September 12, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Is CWA similiar to NWA(outta Compton) except C is for Christian?
By Renee
September 12, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
I have an idea, let’s all self-medicate. I don’t need no stinking doctor to tell me what kind of drugs I need. Print thos little warnings on the bottles and let me at them.
What’s the problem with that. You should be able to do as you please to your body. If you choose to hire a doctor and utilize his services so be it, but if you want to take of care of it yourself, hey, why not. If I want to ingest something in my body that has risks associated with it (just like everything does) then why can’t I.
Why do others constantly feel the need to police bodies other than their own? That should be the topic for next week.
By Lyrazel
September 12, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Mara—just tried to tell DOG (why? I cant explain my senility) that simplistic logic would not make a difference in the lives of people who are less brilliant that it is. I had my paragraphs all arranged—and when the AJC posted the space was absent—so it reads like a comment to you when actually it was just a pickup with your name starting….well am I implying anything? Sure am but not to you: Saying stuff in a blog is sure easier than actually dealing directly with people, who as you know, do not obey because its good advice. LOL
Shaunti, Chuck, and people like them are clinging to the past and trying desperately to stop change. I dont see them as clinging to the past, lozen. I see them as inventing from history a past that was pure, decent and true thus in choosing of fact subsequently forget the TRUTH. What both don’t want to realize is how much change this past century has brought that they adhere to without question actually goes against scripture as written. Scripture is re-worked for social reasons, both for language and government (include many popes here when the word was catholic, include the Lollards and Luthers, include scholars and Irish monks). Ancient greek or hebrew versions of biblical scriptures they differ from what we have now as the Bible. In the ancient greek text Jesus was hung upside down…being it more slanderous to the culture of the time……ah trivia.
Melissa: Shaunti does that a lot. Women seem to be to blame (in her world) for everything wrong in the world thus need to be controlled by men or by their government.
By Chilao
September 12, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Is this (RU-486) the “morning after” pill I’ve heard so much about?
No. Those pills operate in a different way and during a different time frame than RU486.
Morning after pills, or “emergency contraception,” are essentially very high, multiple dosages of birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse.
By Bruce
September 12, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe I just read this from yesterday;
“Your belittling becomes more pronounced with each post, BruDog. You’re really so sad - if you were as convinced of the validity of your ideas as you claim, you would have no need to insult everyone who doesn’t agree with you just for the simple fact that they disagree with you.”
72John you are such a hypocrite…. I guess you can dish it out but can’t take it. Sickem Dog!!!!
By Billy
September 12, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
It’s funny how there’s no middle ground with Chuck. He either posts stats with no references, or he cuts-and-pastes entire pages. Where is your reference for the 5 deaths due to Plan B?
By Bruce
September 12, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe I just read this from yesterday;
“Your belittling becomes more pronounced with each post, BruDog. You’re really so sad - if you were as convinced of the validity of your ideas as you claim, you would have no need to insult everyone who doesn’t agree with you just for the simple fact that they disagree with you.”
72John you are such a hypocrite…. I guess you can dish it out but can’t take it. Sickem Dog!!!!
By Jack
September 12, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
I think Lyrazel is as fine wine also. :)
By Chilao
September 12, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
sorry, that was from this website below explaining the difference between RU-486 and the morning-after pill.
http://www.nrlc.org/RU486/ru486info.html#Is%20this%20the%20%E2%80%9Cmorning%20after%E2%80%9D%20pill%20I%E2%80%99ve%20heard%20so%20much%20about?
By Billy
September 12, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Bruce, I really can’t recall John ever insulting someone without reason — with the possible exception of SusieHomemaker, if, in fact, she is a different person than Bruno. Most people he insults are Chuck, Randy, and Zack, who most assuredly deserve it, and those who defend them.
By Lyrazel
September 12, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Chuck we are the world’s LARGEST SELF-MEDICATED society. Ever been in a pharmacy and seen aisles of aisles of drugs for self-medication? Everything from pills for stinky feet to pills for loosing weight and what is really obscene is the FDA recognizes most of these products are fraud and cures nothing…but they contain quite dangerous ingredients deemed as SAFE by the FDA (at the time). Like how many doctors consult with their patients about the risks of taking an Alka-Seltzer with their Lipitor—yet its there—and the FDA just says nothing except: doctors should warn patients about using other drugs….but who sees Alka-Seltzer as a drug? It took years to get diet drugs that contained speed off the shelves because they were not seen as a drug…per se.
By Lyrazel
September 12, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Jack, no longer wine…I have aged enough to be cognac. LOL
By Scalia
September 12, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
I hate that people believe that women should be punished for unprotected sex. It’s like they want society to look down on the pregnant, unwed mothers, and shun them. Make them feel like pariahs. They want society to throw rocks at the pregnant, unwed mothers as walk down the street. They want to taunt them. Call them names. It’s really kinda sick when you think about it.
By Zack
September 12, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
If this approval is a “victory for women”, then the Holocaust was a “victory” for Germans, and slavery was a “victory” for the white man.
Wake up, world. Abortion is murder. It’s injustifiable homicide. It’s wrong!
People can argue and fuss and raise their voices and name call, but they can’t refute what I just said with anything factual, just with volume.
By Billy
September 12, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
I wouldn’t need Plan B if the government would let m smoke weed every now and then…
By Billy
September 12, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
People can argue and fuss and raise their voices and name call, but they can’t refute what I just said with anything factual, just with volume.
Maybe you’re right. Except for the fact that Plan B is not abortion…
By Renee
September 12, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
*If this approval is a “victory for women”, then the Holocaust was a “victory” for Germans, and slavery was a “victory” for the white man.
Wake up, world. Abortion is murder. It’s injustifiable homicide. It’s wrong!
People can argue and fuss and raise their voices and name call, but they can’t refute what I just said with anything factual, just with volume.*
Zack your comparisons are amazing, but actually in a manner of speaking the Holocaust was a victory for some Germans, as was slavery for some white people. The Jews and black people then overcame the German’s and white’s victory and then celebrated their own victory of sorts. A victory of survival.
To religous zealots like you, abortion is murder. So no matter what you choose to call it, yes people should be able to make their decision about it. And the morning after bill does not equate abortion, it alleviates the need for an abortion. But even if you or anyone else does think the pill and abortions are similar, it doesn’t take away from the fact that YES, UNEQUIVOCALLY women should be allowed to take the pill, abort the baby, self medicate or anything else I can come up with.
By chuck
September 12, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
You are right. RU-486 is different from the “morning after pill”. I was mistaken. Apparently the morning after pill is a massive dosage of the medication found in birth control pills…which are prescription controlled. I apologize for the confusion. The statistics all came from the FDA and are for RU-486 NOT the plan b pill. I searched for ru-486 because I thought they were the same thing. When ru-486 first came out during the Clinton years, they called it the morning after pill. I stand corrected.
I still don’t think it is a good ideat to sell over-the-counter a larger dosage of a drug that is currently and for the forseeable future available by prescription only.
What’s really funny, is that my dog has to take an anti-inflamatory called Rimadyl. At the vet’s office it costs $45 for a 30 pill bottle. I found it online at $130 for a 180 pill bottle, but, you guessed it, I have to have a prescription from the Vet to get it.
By Renee
September 12, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Morning after bill should actually have been morning after pill although I think Morning After Bill would be an appropriate name on so many levels.
By Kevin
September 12, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
I am as conservative as they come. I almost always side with conservatives on moral issues. I am against abortion. I believe the sexual revolution has done tremdous harm to both women AND men in our society, and has greatly contributed to the breakdown of the family.
With that being said, it is clear that this Plan B pill is not an abortion drug. It will not work if you are already pregnant. If the risks of the drug are clearly explained to women, and the FDA has approved it, they have every right to have access to it.
By Chilao
September 12, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Those anti-flea drops that you put on cats shoulders are now a DEA-controlled substance, and I can only get from my Vet, when I have taken a cat there, not necessarily on the same trip. Tried to get them from a VET I have never had a cat at, they are just more convenient, and had gotten them there at least 4 years. Not anymore. and THEN, when I stop by to get a year’s supply at the VETs the cats DO go to, they take my name and everything.
Yet I can go down to the corner from work and (probably, I have never tried) buy crack, coke, and heroin.
By Jack
September 12, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Ever see the “Seinfeld” when Kramer’s got a cough and goes to the Vet to get the meds for him?
By SusieHomeMaker
September 12, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Bruce, I really can’t recall John ever insulting someone without reason — with the possible exception of SusieHomemaker, if, in fact, she is a different person than Bruno
Yes, Virginia, there is a Suzy Homemaker!! She’s black, female, late 30’s (sometimes when she dresses up she can passd for early 30’s), two kids, two dogs, (Sid Vicious and Bubba), two foster children, one ex-in-law who will never leave, and one job as a Project Manager.
I’m saying this to say I’m real and I can think for myself. If I agree or disagree with anyone, which in fact I NEVER agreed with anything Dog had to say, what I did was QUESTION his reasonings. He happily explained to me his position. Which I understood and I’m still researching to see where he’s coming from. I like to view ALL sides of something before I jump on any bandwagons. I’m not blinded by bling.
But now all of a sudden I’m a figment of Dog’s imagination!!! If that wasn’t so paranoid and sad, it would be sooo funny!!!!
By SusieHomeMaker
September 12, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Bruce, I really can’t recall John ever insulting someone without reason — with the possible exception of SusieHomemaker, if, in fact, she is a different person than Bruno
Yes, Virginia, there is a Suzy Homemaker!! She’s black, female, late 30’s (sometimes when she dresses up she can passd for early 30’s), two kids, two dogs, (Sid Vicious and Bubba), two foster children, one ex-in-law who will never leave, and one job as a Project Manager.
I’m saying this to say I’m real and I can think for myself. If I agree or disagree with anyone, which in fact I NEVER agreed with anything Dog had to say, what I did was QUESTION his reasonings. He happily explained to me his position. Which I understood and I’m still researching to see where he’s coming from. I like to view ALL sides of something before I jump on any bandwagons. I’m not blinded by bling.
But now all of a sudden I’m a figment of Dog’s imagination!!! If that wasn’t so paranoid and sad, it would be sooo funny!!!!
By Jack
September 12, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Chilao. What about weed? (or is that in the garden?)
By Jack
September 12, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
“ex-in-law who will never leave”
You poor thing. Not really an “X” are they? (or not “x” enough)
By SusieHomeMaker
September 12, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Morning after bill should actually have been morning after pill although I think Morning After Bill would be an appropriate name on so many levels.
LOL!!!
By SusieHomeMaker
September 12, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
“ex-in-law who will never leave” — You poor thing. Not really an “X” are they? (or not “x” enough)*
LOL — Well somehow I knew when I married her brother she would stick with me forever. Sort of like luggage!! In all fairness, she’s great and she’s a big help with the kids!
By Brian Curtis
September 12, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Zack: Even if someone agreed that ‘abortion is murder’… what on EARTH does that have to do with the Plan B pill, which is the topic under discussion?
By Chilao
September 12, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Chilao. What about weed? (or is that in the garden?)
Yeah, I thought about that after I posted, probably that too, not that I have ever tried (to acquire down the block, lest that be misconstrued)
never saw that Seinfeld, does he end up with hog barbituates?
By Kevin
September 12, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
BC you stated
“But would you agree that problems with scientific theories can only be resolved through more science… not abandoning logic in favor mysticism?”
Yes, I would love to see these theories resolved with more science - not preconceived notions. I don’t have a problem with scientists trying to prove that evolution is true. I do have a problem with scientists claiming that they are objective and open to all possibilities.
I understand that I, and those who believe like me, are myopic. My point is that scientists are too! If they weren’t, the Nebraska and Piltdown Man hoaxes would not have lasted as long as they did. (And yes, I do realize that scientists uncovered the fraud and admitted the mistake).
By Brian Curtis
September 13, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Kevin: That’s a fair statement. And that’s why the scientific method has so many built-in checkpoints and independent verification processes. A great way to build your career is to prove that another scientist’s claims are wrong, which is exactly what’s happened over and over again.
Being able to recognize and correct errors, and treating knowledge as an incremental process—rather than an absolute—are two of the strengths of this approach. That’s where religious dogma can’t compete.
By Lyrazel
September 13, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Chances are any vet will not give a prescription to take on-line. They give very foreboding lectures about the quality of the drugs and proclaim nefarious unscrupulous practice of on-line companies purchasing on the cheap medications that are not the same quality. There could be some basis to that or it could be the on-line service directly cuts their own profits made by charging for the product. Or it could be the veterinary standards for medicines is more thorough than for humans. Remember its harder to get into Vet school than Medical school….
By Billy
September 13, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Kevin, perhaps the blame for such incidents lies not so much with the scientists as with the system. No one is willing to fund science when the science returns answers they do not want to hear. This is how we end up with corporate-funded pseudo-science. For example, there’s the fairly recent study that determined that an inland glacier in Greenland has recently grown in size. A “scientist” claimed this as evidence that global warming is a sham, and many on the right latched onto it.
Nevermind that other scientists, including the one who conducted the study, determined that his conclusion was completely faulty. The increase in glacier size was due to an increase in inland snowfall, which is itself and indicator of milder (more moist, due to more warmth) temperatures. The “scientist”, funded by energy companies, took evidence of global warming and tried to use it as evidence against the phenomenon.
By Billy
September 13, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
My point is that he had to come to that conclusion or else Big Oil, etc, would stop funding him. There’s this epidemic of people in power not wanting the truth. They want the answer they want. If they want to hear 2+2=5, you’d better tell them 2+2=5. If you try to tell them 2+2=4, they’l put their fingers in their ears and yell to avoid hearing you. Then, if you insist on repeating yourself, they’ll try to take away your teacher’s license, even though you’ve got a master’s in math.
The sad thing is that our President is the epitome of this.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
this is off topic, but… Ijust read an article saying that Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne wants to test “non-lethal” weapons on groups (or “mobs” as he calls them) of American citizens…just to work the kinks out (and ascertain that they are in fact NON-lethal) before deploying them on the battlefield. IOW, they don’t yet know whether the weapons will kill ya or just maim you a little. I guess he feels that it’s better to harm a few of those hippie-librul anti-war protesters than one of our enemies. Typical. And he’s cutting 40,000 Air Force personnel including active duty, reserve, and civilian support people. And here I thought we were “at war”; What kind of idiot gets rid of perfectly good soldiers during wartime? I guess we know…
full article - http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html
By DOG
September 13, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Billy—You’re slowly CATCHING ON with your comment here this AM that “No one is willing to fund science when the science returns answers they do not want to hear. This is how we end up with corporate-funded pseudo-science.”
Voila—my first cut and past—-with italics!
Now, Billy, put 2 + 2 together for us and figure out which “scientific studies” are NOT BIASED. Big hint, Do you think that purpose of research scientists at all the big Universities is to find “Truth” with their cockamamie “research”. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s all about bringing in the bacon.
By Bruce
September 13, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
“If we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation,” said Wynne. “(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.”
This guy is a nut!!!!!! All’s far in love and war!!!!
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
My time on W2W is growing very short, now, so I am going to attempt to move into high gear and not waste any time on more insults for John, chuck, and BC. My main focus today will be to rip BC a new one in my own W2W version of the “two slit experiment” for the latest crackpot websites he directed me to yesterday, especially the MackDaddy of All-Time Crap, www.talkorigins.com.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
bunny turds. and I dared to think that today we might be spared…
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Before I do, BC, again I apologize to everyone here for this extended Science discussion. If you go back a few weeks in my discussion, I tried many times to steer BC away from a discussion of the actual Science itself in order to move on to what is most important, the proper role of Science in the human “toolbox” of understanding. In fact, HE’s the one who kept bringing up the false Creation/Evolution dichotomy which exists only in his feeble mind. What he, and his buddies at talokorigins.com keep missing is that there is a THIRD ALTERNATIVE to both of these crackpot schemes. It’s called Real Science, in which you simply say “I DON’T KNOW” when confronted with facts that don’t make immediate sense instead of inventing more fairy tales like Evolution as an explanation of Cosmology.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Before I get started, a few quick shouts.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Renee and SusieHomemaker—Sorry we had to meet here on this board in this way. My Science message isn’t really for you, because I’m pretty confident that you two already see what it’s all about: Just more cracker jive used by the Man to keep the brotha’s down! I’m serious!!! You see, if it was just us Sistas hanging here, we would have moved past this crap long ago. But you know how just plain stupid some crackers like BC can be.
By Brian Curtis
September 13, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Congratulations on admitting your ignorance, Bruno… though I’m not seeing how that qualifies as science, which is about correcting ignorance rather than just surrendering to it.
It’s clearly too much to hope that you’ll stay on-topic, or even answer any questions… the zealot cannot be diverted from his memorized speech.
So everyone grab and chair and sit back; this should be funny.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Susie, like my man ODB says : “As residential MC/My career is so intelligent/Unique physique/You can never F* with a DOG/ N*a Please!
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
I have enough acreage to raise meat rabbits, it a potential income source later on. There is a place in Rome Georgia that buys meat rabbits for slaughter.
for more info on this growing meat source:
http://www.rudolphsrabbitranch.com/rrr.htm
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
Ya see, Chilao, DOG also gets down with Biggie and the all-time Master, my man ODB. It ain’t just a bunch of honky crap.
By lozen
September 13, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Okay everybody, see you later when this latest dump of idiotic, egotistical, monopolizing bullsh*t is over.
By Billy
September 13, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Bruno, I thought you were leaving? Do you honestly believe that scientists working in research at universities are willing to doctor their work the way the corporate-funded guys are? I’m not saying they won’t ever do it, but when they do it’s less frequent and to a lesser degree.
It’s sort of like the bias in the “liberal media” — I’m not saying it’s not there, I just saying that it’s nowhere near the scale of the conservative bias in the media. Most in the mainstream media at least make the effort to appear impartial.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Sorry, I had to wretch for a minute. I told you my time here is getting short.
By Brian Curtis
September 13, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Folks, the only way to deal with a troll is to ignore it.
Just let him babble all day; we’ve seen that’s what he’s going to do regardless. Heck, he posted his entire anti-fundamentalist essay when Chuck wasn’t even here to read it!
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Before wasting my day on BC’s crap again (it’s not MY crap), I want to shout for Kevin. You and 2D are the guys I’m actually trying to reach here. You see, you are both highly intelligent folks to realize that (1) Scientists are just as full of crap as anyone else in this world (2) The Bible has something of value to offer.
The problem, as I perceive, is that you two let the feeble minded Scientist define the argument for you with their false Science/Religion dichotomy. That is to say, if “Evolution” isn’t true, than that means you have to accept the childish, un-Scientific definition of GOD which is sold by the Devil in virtually every church around the world every Sunday.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
So, one day Kevin, I hope to share with you my “Jeffersonian” vision of GOD, devoid of “supernatural explanations”. The first key, Kev, is to understand that Logically and Spiritually, this GOD cannot be any type of “extrinsic” GOD, that is a “personal GOD” who can change the Laws of Physics upon a whim. NO, bro—If you want peace and understanding in your brain, you gotta start with the Biblical concept of Emmanuel—GOD within.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
A personal GOD is too easy for the pseudo-scientists like BC to rip apart, because it not only is not verifiable with any experimentation, it simply doesn’t pass the “common sense” test. What I’m trying to do, Kevin, is to give you more precise definitions of the words “GOD” and “Love” so that you cna carry a vision in your mind that is both Scientifically correct, and theologically correct, AT THE SAME TIME.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
The wretched retcher ralphed repeatedly.
Chilao - My mother made the best rabbit. She’d pressure cook them in their own gravy with taters, onions, carrots, and assorted other vegies. To die for, I swear! With some nice crusty bread and a cold lager it’s fit for a 30-pt Zagat eatery.
By cd
September 13, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
A real victory for women would be the male birth control pill. Some women can’t tolerate regular birth control. My married friend has horrible urinary tract infections from condoms, diaphrams, and birth control pills. Hormones and spermicide can exacerbate urinary tract infections. It’s good to have one more option for women who may have unique physical problems. My friend might be able to avoid several courses of antibiotics for urinary tract infections each year if she was able to just take one course of the morning after pill after an annual mistake when her husband is negligent. Moreoever, she could avoid headaches, bloating, and the risk of stroke and heart attack with birth control pills if she only had to take one pill a year. Birth control is very necessary. Kids are very expensive today. One had to buy more housing with more kids, and the housing prices are through the roof. With five kids, you can’t live in a tent or a one room apartment.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Although, I will publicly say, that if forced to choose between Evolution and a Literal Bible, I would probably have to hold my nose and go with the Literal Bible, only because it makes more sense than to believe that Life somehow invented itself. Fortunately, there is a THIRD CHOICE which BC will never perceive—i.e. the TRUTH. I have high hope that you and 2D might soon see that TRUTH with a little more thought on your part. I know that your “common sense” struggles with the “supernatural Physics” suggested by evil, false Biblical teachings.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
But, on to the village idiot, BC. I need to take a short break, BC, but get your diapers out. You’re gonna need them before I finish here today showing, via your own website, talkorigins.com, what a true IMBECILE you are. In fact, after spending a few minutes there last night in the “belly of the beast”, I realized that you can’t even correctly parrot the crap on that site they pass off as Science.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Quick note to Chilao before my 30 min break: I considered converting to Islam once while in college. Of course, the circumstances involved about 4 hits of some good “windowpane” and the Cat Stevens album “Catch Bull At Four”. I kept listening to “The Boy With the Moon and Star on His Head” over and over again. Fortunately, I sobered up a day or two later, and came to my senses. I hope you do the same.
BTW, what ever happened to “windowpane”?
By Billy
September 13, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
My friend might be able to avoid several courses of antibiotics for urinary tract infections each year if she was able to just take one course of the morning after pill after an annual mistake when her husband is negligent.
Antibiotics can reduce the effectiveness of the pill…
By Brian Curtis
September 13, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Yawn…
I don’t want to take up anyone’s time here with a point-by-point refutation of Bruno’s demonstrated blunders, but if anyone’s interested, check out
http://calybos.tblog.com/
By DOG
September 13, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
For my upcoming discussion, I BEG everyone to first go to the talkorigins.com/faq link provided by BC above. Don’t take my word for anything here. Just to give you a flavor of how brilliant these folks are, I cut and pasted this “gem” straight from their website regarding the veracity of their asinine claims:
Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one’s conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you’re operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn’t 100% certain.
By Nikita
September 13, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Apparently, we should be thrilled that women are more “free” to couple up without consequences.
This is the crux, folks. I doubt that anyone in the conservative movement really cares all that much for women. After all, they’re usually concerned with “protecting” women by limiting their opportunities, so it appears to me that what they really care about are not women, per se, but women adhering to their beliefs about what they should or should not be or do.
Also, as someone who has used Plan B, I think the comment about repeated use is a red herring. Plan B isn’t a walk in the park. It’s painful, and getting it is both embarassing and complicated. Take it once and it steels your resolve to never be in a position to need to take it again.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
But, folks, don’t take my word here, GO TO THIS SITE FOR SOME REAL LAUGHS. Anyone else see the total hilarity of the above statement??? And this is supposed to be from, how did BC say it, the top physicists and biologists in the world??? LMAO—-ROTFLMAO——-HAHAROTFLMAO (Having-A-Heart-Attack-Rolling-On-The-Floor-Laughing-My-A-Off)
I’m starting to wonder if that has been BC’s strategy all along, to get me laughing so hard at him that I would have a fatal heart attack. Nice try, BC.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Billy, go back to my comment at 9:57 for the answer to your idiotic comment at 10:24. Again I quote my man ODB: “N###A Please!!”
By DOG
September 13, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Quick side note, I just finished recording my first rap album. Me and Diddie think we got a monster single on it for the white boys to rap along with: “I Gotta Brotha’ In My Johnson”
By DOG
September 13, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
I requote “Lack of proof isn’t a weakness either”. By posting this statement by itself, with no reference to talkorigins.com, you might realize that this is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT USED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS TO DEFEND CREATIONISM.
But maybe BC shares Billy’s belief, that “Hey, as long as it’s OUR GUYS are doing it, it’s ok. It’s only when those OTHER GUYS do it, it’s all wrong.”
HUH???????????Anyone else here see the TOTAL BS THAT IS BC’s MIND?
By DOG
September 13, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
The other song me and Diddie think might work is “WIGGAH PLEASE!” Susie, please explain to BC what a “Wigger” is.
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Guys, see what happens when you do a lot of windowpane. Tell/advise your children….LOL
By SusieHomeMaker
September 13, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
What kind of idiot gets rid of perfectly good soldiers during wartime?
Quick comment: Airmen have a different mission than a soldier so perhaps these particuliar airmen were expendable because their mission was no longer of import to the Air Force. However, with the job market in some states being what they are, perhaps it would’ve made a lot of sense to see if the Airmen wanted to transition to the Army branch of the military and become soldiers. Some probably would’ve said “HECK NO!! but who knows? They never received the chance. Also remember these are the same idiots that said on NATIONAL TELEVISION, that they would’ve invaded Iraq regardless! That’s so sad…….
By Renee
September 13, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Dog - What’s the real reason behind the racial epithets?
By Renee
September 13, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
ROFL Chilao!! Haaa!
By DOG
September 13, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Renee—Serious answer about the epithets for you, because I do have great respect for you. You see, my argument with BC is that he thinks it’s ok for “HIS GUYS” to do “Whatever” without question, because they are on “HIS SIDE”. It may be a little rough to hear, but isn’t the same BS perpetrated by rappers who use the “N” word all the time in their so-called “music”? If a white guy ever uses anything like the “N” word, then all of a sudden it’s ALL DIFFERENT.
By Brian Curtis
September 13, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Post your ravings on the TBlog site, Bruno, and leave these nice people alone to have an intelligent discussion. Your willful distortion of every statement is entertaining, but it belongs there, not here.
http://calybos.tblog.com/
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
As for my “creds”, Renee and Susie, let me mention a few of the locations of clinics I worked in many years ago: May Avenue, Stewart Avenue, and how about the MoFoDaddy of them all, Mayson Turner Ave. down near the Bluff on Simpson Street. After dark, I would usually be the only cracker around for miles except for a few geekin’ white ‘hos. But you know, I never had any problems with all the “geeks”, other than constantly having to remove syringes and crack vials from the front porch of the building.
By lozen
September 13, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
“He who knows best knows how little he knows” Thomas Jefferson
By lozen
September 13, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.” Thomas Jefferson
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
But, Renee, I do stand by my analysis, all epithets aside, that this Science BS that BC keeps getting a hard-on over is really nothing more than cracker jive!
By Mara
September 13, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Nakita - I agree that the “conservative movement” doesn’t seem to care much for women but…it loves the heck out of our uteri, our mammaries, and that, generally speaking, men can physically dominate us. The question that troubles me, given their general contempt for independant women, is how they managed to co-opt the idea that conservatives “love freedom”. That they are the ones “protecting our freedom”. That liberals are “communists” that want to take your freedom from you. How’d they do that? We want to allow people the freedom to live as they see fit and somehow that makes us the ant-freedom party of oppressors?
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
lozen, I full support your quote from Jefferson. As a matter of fact, the greatest REAL SCIENTISTS of all time, like Nobel Physicists Richard Feynman say the SAME EXACT THING. It’s only the piece of crap atheistic “geniuses” like those at talkorigins.com who believe they actually DO know it all.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
And, if you recheck my comments, I’ve constantly stated the same thing about my own knowledge of the Universe. Reading Euler makes me cry at how dumb I am , he was ONE SMART MOFO. But, if you read Euler carefully, he was a man of great humility and devotion to GOD, like all the other true GIANTS of Science like Gregor Mendel, the “Father of Genetics”.
By Jack
September 13, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
“Guys, see what happens when you do a lot of windowpane. Tell/advise your children”
Micro-dot and blotter too.
By Billy
September 13, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
…If forced to choose between Evolution and a Literal Bible, I would probably have to hold my nose and go with the Literal Bible, only because it makes more sense than to believe that Life somehow invented itself.
And here we have proof that Bruno/Dog/F*** does not understand evolution. “Life inventing itself”??? I’m sorry, jackass, but in your years of study of evolutionary theory where exactly did you read that? Evolution has nothing to do with the inception of life. It only deals with the changes in life since that point.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
One last compliment, Renee. The reason I know that you know “what time it is” is by your multi-dimensional jokes such as the “morning after Bill” comment, which you correctly stated was true on MANY LEVELS.
The problem with BC, Renee, is that like most crackers, he’s stuck in one dimension only. He’ll never figure out the mystery of “overtones” which are created on a piano by striking a single note. Although only one note is struck, many other “sympathetic” strings begin to vibrate as well—“overtones” is the technical term.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
With the “cross corpus callosum” type of thinking I am trying to acheive, you should hopefully hear many “overtones” in my statements. And like “overtones” on a piano, they are often beautiful, and help to support the original note struck.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Susie - have we won the “war on terra”? It seems we haven’t yet, so how could the “mission” of these airmen no longer be relevant? Isn’t their mission to protect Americans? If, as their mission statement says, the Air Force promises to “deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests — to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.” then how can even these least of airmen (which, one hopes, is what they’re cutting, and not the really good airmen) have a mission that is no longer important to the Air Force? That being said, if they are superfluous, then I fully expect the Air Force to promptly cease and desist in their efforts to recruit new airmen which, one assumes, they don’t even need…
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
The real problem with BC is that his corpus collosum is too thick, so that the left side of his brain and the right side of the brain NEVER CONNECT. Talking to him is like trying to play a cheap Radio Shack digital keyboard instead of a real piano. Because the noises in his head are only cheap “digital” reproductions of beautiful “analog” music, there can be no overtones.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Billy - Evolution has nothing to do with the inception of life. It only deals with the changes in life since that point
Exactly.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
BC, I’m almost finished taking care of the bunnies—It’s taking longer today because Sweetie hurt her leg recently and I have to give her subcutaneous antibiotic shots to prevent the formation of an abcess. Because they are prey animals, their little bones are very weak in comparison to their muscles. An evolutionist might call this a “mistake” in rabbits, but in the BIG PICTURE they are food, so a lot of tough bones wouldn’t fit into GOD’S PLAN. Do you follow, pea-brain?
By Brian Curtis
September 13, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
It’s fun to see how I’ve obviously struck a nerve with Bruno, resulting in his raving and obnoxious insults to me in damn-near every post he makes. His little ego must be really threatened.
But again I say: Bruno, if you want to rave about the evils of science, do it at the T-Blog. Quit wasting space here so people can get on with the topic at hand.
I’m waaaaaaiting….
By Billy
September 13, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
He’ll never figure out the mystery of “overtones” which are created on a piano by striking a single note. Although only one note is struck, many other “sympathetic” strings begin to vibrate as well—“overtones” is the technical term.
I dunno, it seems like you explained it pretty well…
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Mara, If “evolution” were only applied to short term changes, no sane person could argue against it. However, Evolutionists do exactly what John continually accuses me of—they take a valid idea (Adaptive Evolution), take it out of of its intended sphere of observation, i.e. short-term adaptation, and try to turn it into an explanation of Cosmology, i.e. the Origin of Life. I call this misapplication “Linear Evolution”.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
And even though “Linear Evolution” makes no sense and is actually contrary to the observed evidence, idiotic dogmatists like BC invent one ridiculous claim after the other to cling desperately to their foolish ideas. In a few minutes, I’m going to go point by point over his Mecca, talkorigins.com. It’s funny how he’s already referencing yet ONE MORE crackpot website before I have even fully skewered the first one with it’s idiotic misstatements about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
By lozen
September 13, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Interesting website to get away from this egomaniacal tirade. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=malonezone
By SusieHomeMaker
September 13, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Dog: I do not use racial epithets. My grandfather is white, I have three white sisters-in-laws, and a bunch of white cousins, aunts,uncles etc; as well as German, Korean, Nigerian and Puerto Rican in-laws and relatives. I try to live my life color blind.
By Renee
September 13, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Dog - while I appreciate your compliments, it’s hard for me to understand your consistent “put-downs” of others. Brian Curtis, who has been on this blog for some time, I cannot ever remember calling someone a name. Maybe he has, but it’s not often enough to play a role in my mind. 72John, who does feel passionately about his debates, does not name call first, but usually in defense of being called names. I think that your message, whatever it is, gets lost in the name calling, put downs and elevation of yourself.
Netbanker, who has been on here sometime is quite intelligent. However, he never has the need to brag on his intelligence, it shows through on his posts. Hence, no matter what his message is, it is usually listened to and debated fairly.
I think everyone here on the blog brings their personality and individual expression, but I think you would find your message would be much more receptive by others if you wouldn’t berate so much.
On the other hand, I don’t think you care much about the reception you do or don’t get, LOL.
By kimberly
September 13, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
DOG, just curious… Did you have to be beaten and yelled at this morning? My dog did NOT want to go out in this rain to make wee wee and poopie. I tried being the confident alpha, getting her to that calm, submissive state, but NO. I dragged her out on the leash into the middle of the yard and reminded her I was in a poncho and would wait all morning if necessary, but NO. I got stern, I threatened, then I finally snapped and went ballistic on her. In the end, I finally got one quick little squat, and an entire work day of worrying. DID YOU DO THIS TO YOUR HUMAN THIS MORNING?
By Nikita
September 13, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Mara, my only guess would be that they’ve done it by wishing it so. After all, for much of the population with its short memory, saying something enough makes it true.
By Kevin
September 13, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Bruno,
I appreciate all the kind things you have said about me. In another forum, I would love to discuss the issues you stated in an earlier post. I would also like to give you a new blog name - Vizzini - because I find your intellect dizzying. I mean that with the greatest possible respect! I also hope that I won’t have to explain the reference, but I will later on if needed.
To everyone who is waiting for Bruno to leave (and I am not one of those), just be patient. Unless I have misunderstood his comments, he will not be with us much longer.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Renee, the putdowns I’ve used here are simply fighting fire with fire. I don’t believe I’ve ever poked maliciously at anyone who isn’t completely full of themselves, like John, BC, and chuck. Sorry for my Pavlovian Temptation to you early on. I wasn’t trying to mock you, but simply tried to show that even a level-headed woman like you has “buttons” which aren’t that hard to push. No one but Chilao ever pushed my buttons so far—He got me with a great song reference “I Talk to the Wind”—i.e. My words are all carried away—-the wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear.
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Vizzini: I can’t compete with you physically, and you’re no match for my brains.
Westley: You’re that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
(from The Princess Bride)
By DOG
September 13, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Kevin, I am ready to meet you in person if you wish. For safety purposes, just tell me which church you attend. I can be a “guest”, we can meet there if you like. Unlike BC, you have real intellect, because you have some inkling of what we can be certain of, and what is just a guess.
While some think I’m just trying to belittle, I’m not. But just like trying to learn golf, the hardest part isn’t learning the RIGHT WAY, it’s trying to forget about all the WRONG WAYS you learned on your own before hooking up with a pro.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
A true understanding of GOD (= The TOTALITY) is essential to being able to form moral positions which can be supported by both good Science and good Theology.
If you noticed, the burned out hippies on this board, lozen and Lyrazel, are still pining for the supposedly “free love” fo the 1960s, which never actually existed, and cannot exist in the human plane. There’s always a cost. The only “free love” is GOD’S LOVE, which is known as Grace. Furthermore, we cannot earn Grace through any magic chants as chuck believes (“I accept the Lord Jesus as my Saviour”), as all the evil, manly churches teach in a round about way.
By kimberly
September 13, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
DOG, but will you make poopie in the rain?
By Kevin
September 13, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Sorry Bruno,
I would like to meet you as well, but I from the Middle Ga. area and listing my church wouldn’t help. I DID mean the Vizzini comment with respect, and not as a put down.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Kevin, I think church should be safe from unruly protestors like John. It doesn’t matter the denomination to me, I’m equally comfortable at a Pentecostal Church or a Wiccan ceremony. Heck, I’ve even sat through the most bizzare cult meeting of all, Catholic Mass.
I’ll come back after 2 to clue you in more on the Second Law of Thermo, and why it’s an even bigger piece of fiction than the Bible. The only difference is, the Bible has great value for other reasons (moral lessons). Evolution as an explanation of cosmology comes straight from the mouth of the Evil One.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
I’ll travel to Middle Ga—no problem. I always put my money where my mouth is. Even if you meant the Vizzini reference as a slap, it’s ok. Getting slapped around a little doesn’t faze me in the least, something the “insulters” here just can’t catch on to.
By Nikita
September 13, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
DOG, you poked at me, did you not?
By Monica
September 13, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Hello to all my blog friends!! I know, long time, no blog. I’m just passing through to say hello! Hope all is well. I noticed that Chilao quoted from my favorite movie of all time! I also noticed that there is a new blogger taking up lots of space! Have a great day, old blog pals (I don’t mean old age-wise, of course) :)
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Bright light goes off (Again) converse to church name, open up a one-time-use web email(yahoo, hotmail, gmail; does not matter), post it, and go from there. Only one person would need to open it and post. REAL SIMPLE, really.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
I don’t believe I’ve ever poked maliciously at anyone who isn’t completely full of themselves
anybody recall the firestorm of invectives released upon the usage of “sychophantic obsequiousness”?
ROTFLMAO!!!
By Renee
September 13, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
The Princess Bride is one of my fav’s Chilao.
Any chances DOG/Bruno is also FM
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
I’m back! First, Mara, you might have noticed that I backed off on insulting you once you dropped the ridiculous practice of intentionally misspelling words like ‘librul. My attack was simply to turn your own “debating technique” against yourself, which wasn’t hard to do.
If you check out all my insults, you’ll see that I generally insult people in the “dimension” that they are stuck in. E.G. John’s stuck in the name-calling dimension. Chuck’s stuck in some psychotic world where he himself is GOD. BC keeps falling hook-line-and-sinker for obvious BS which his enormous pride won’t let him see.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Chilao - more P.B. LOL!
Inigo: That Vizzini, he can fuss.
Fezzik: Fuss, fuss… I think he like to scream at us.
Inigo: Probably he means no harm.
Fezzik: He’s really very short on charm.
Inigo: You are sure nobody’s follow’ us?
Vizzini: As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable. No one in Guilder knows what we’ve done, and no one in Florin could have gotten here so fast. - Out of curiosity, why do you ask?
Inigo: No reason. It’s only… I just happened to look behind us and something is there.
Vizzini: What? Probably some local fisherman, out for a pleasure cruise, at night… in… eel-infested waters…
Vizzini: INCONCEIVABLE.
[In the boat in the morning]
Inigo: He’s right on top of us. I wonder if he is using the same wind we are using.
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
Brilliant, Renee, on FM guess, however FM is considerably younger.
I have never seen/read The Princess Bride, I just searched on Vizzini and came up with that quote, from either the book or the movie. The last fantasy stuff like that I truly appreciated was The Dark Crystal.
Hi Monica, long time…LOL
By Mara
September 13, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Renee - Any chances DOG/Bruno is also FM
Dang, I never thought of that but it’s not an inconceivable (heh, heh, heh…) possibility…
By Jack
September 13, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Hi Sweet. :) He makes it on the blog regularly.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
If you notice, I’ve never insulted Kevin, even though his vision of GOD appears to be the same crazy “personal GOD” that chuck believes in. I don’t insult him, because he doesn’t dwell in the dimension of UNMITIGATED ARROGANCE that John, chuck, and BC do.
I did poke a little fun at Renee, for which I hope she forgives, but I have tremendous respect for both her and SusieHomemaker. The funny thing is, that in real life, I get along extremely well with black women (which certainly came in handy in my days working in the ‘hood).
By SusieHomeMaker
September 13, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Susie - have we won the “war on terra”? It seems we haven’t yet, so how could the “mission” of these airmen no longer be relevant?
Mara: When I say Mission, what I’m talking about is their main jobs. If the military has an excess of a certain job type — but no longer has a need for that type of job, (for instance, let’s say the jobs that were cut were for cooks. The Air Force has 125,000 cooks but only 100,000 troops, the cooks’ jobs would be in excess of what was needed), then the job would be abolished. This happens a lot in a lot of government jobs.
Also, like I said earlier an Airman’s job is not like a Soldier’s job. The most combat units are in the Army and the Marines. The least is in the Air Force — it doesn’t do anyone any good to have no combat soldiers, marines or airmen in excess.
That being said, if they are superfluous, then I fully expect the Air Force to promptly cease and desist in their efforts to recruit new airmen which, one assumes, they don’t even need
I doubt if that happens!! These are government entities — they love doing stuff that makes no sense to anyone else!!!
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
But, now the long awaited “undressing” of BC and his crackpot websites full of lies and half-truths.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
I backed off on insulting you once you dropped the ridiculous practice of intentionally misspelling words like ‘librul’
Ahhhhh, so that’s what pushes your buttons…
okie than, weil cee howe faar awei duhlibrutly missspelt wurds kan dryve yue. Ainybudy wonna hep? Hearter then yue’d thinck…
By Jack
September 13, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
I never though BC as arrogant. No more than thee
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
First things first, your supposed “rebuttal” of my man Robert Rosen. I will cut and paste for “critique” here for all to see, then I will pick apart point by point.
*Robert Rosen wrote some philosophy-of-science stuff about his resentment toward the treatment of biology by physicists, which he claimed was reductionism. In it, he worships at the altar of set theory as the ONLY valid way to approach knowledge, making him as guilty of reductionism as those he complains about. (And by the way, he got his math wrong— http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000627000001000059000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes .)
So, based on his own personal spin on the writings of ONE biologist—who was speaking of philosophical issues, not science, at the time, and who made mistakes anyway—Bruno declares that Dr. Rosen is the world’s only “True Scientist,” and that all the others are crackpots. Riiiight.*
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Mara, if you want to stop making a jackass out of yourself, try discussing real ideas using common language.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Susie - if their “specialty” job is defunct, shouldn’t they just be retrained in a new “specialty” instead of squandering all their previous military training?
But I suppose, as you say, that’s the government for ya! :^)
(oar, shood eye sae…thatts thuh guvormant fore yue…LOL!)
By Child of the 60's
September 13, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” Mark Twain
Ahhh, those hippie years! That is exactly what we did! No regrets. It was such an exciting time; we really believed we could change the world - create peace and love and community - make it a better place. We were naive, but so beautiful in our naivete and our tie dyes and flowers in our hair, dancing in Piedmont Park with the Grateful Dead and others. Blowing bubbles, drinking cheap wine, kissing, making love under a blanket with other people all around us (just a little bit exhibitionistic), exploring each other and ourselves. I had been told ‘all men are the same so you might as well put up with your man’s crap,’ by older women. I learned how untrue that was. All men are not the same. Some men were rough and unfeeling. Many were simply not there emotionally. Some were gentle and caring and sensitive. Some were complex and exciting. Most were in too much of a hurry. I learned size doesn’t matter at all if a man knows how to use his other assets, but, unfortunately most men don’t know that. Some still believed sex is dirty. One man would jump out of bed and into the shower before I was quite finished gasping. (Get out your fan Jack.) There were many, many lovers and I learned something from each and every one. I explored intimacy with other women, and how same-sex relationships are the same, and different, from heterosexual relationships. I developed a sense of humor about myself and others, I got an education on many different levels and now have a life completely different from anything I ever imagined as a child or teenager. I worked for civil rights, became a feminist and worked for women’s rights. I tried many drugs - pot, acid, ecstasy, crystal meth, coke, others I don’t remember the names of. All those experiences were valuable and made me the person I am today. Now I’m a mature, professional woman. I have everything I really want and more. I have friends and co-workers who care about me. I have a beautiful home. I travel the world. I have a very nice bank account, investments that are doing well, and many years to come of good times and travel and exploration. I hope to have a lot more sex and love before I die. I will always be grateful that I was young, free and curious in the 60’s. No burn out here, and certainly no regrets!
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Back to BC’s wild imagination. Based on BC’s “critique” reprinted here, one might assume that his link leads to a thoughtful, informed discussion of Mr. Rosen’s ideas. No, instead it is simply an empty Abstract offered without any proof at all. In fact, the Abstract itself is a little murky in what the author is trying to accomplish, and could possibly be called ambiguous due to the author’s indecisiveness of whether he actually agrees with Mr. Rosen’s principal assertion or not that the Laws of Physics are completely inadequate to even begin to describing real Life processes like the “quaternary folding pattern of proteins”.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Hey Child of the 60s, I hope you read the part in the Bible which starts out “When I was a child……,” and finishes up with “But now that I am grown, I have set aside my childish ways.”
By Billy
September 13, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Mara, if you want to stop making a jackass out of yourself, try discussing real ideas using common language.
Take a look in the mirror…
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Back to BC’s first crackpot site: I beg all to go there and check it out for yourself how BC critiqued Mr. Rosen’s whole life’s work based on an ABSTRACT. Better yet, I will reprint the abstract here:
Theoretical Biology: Organisms and Mechanisms
Christopher Landauer* and Kirstie L. Bellman[dagger] *Aerospace Integration Science Center [dagger]Principal Director; Aerospace Integration Science CenterThe Theoretical Biology Program initiated by Robert Rosen is intended to identify the key theoretical characteristics of organisms, especially those that distinguish organisms from mechanisms, by looking for the proper abstractions and defining the appropriate relationships. There are strong claims about the distinctions in Rosen’s book “Life Itself”, along with some purported proofs of these assertions. Unfortunately, the Mathematics is incorrect, and the assertions remain unproven (and some of them are simply false). In this paper, we present the ideas of Rosen’s approach, demonstrate that his Mathematical formulations and proofs are wrong, and then show how they might be made more successful. ©2002 American Institute of Physics
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Mara, if you want to stop making a jackass out of yourself, try discussing real ideas using common language.
yeah, like JenDog’s caballo.(which means ‘horse’s %ss’)
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Looking over the Abstract, notice how BC changes Mr. Rosen’s area of study, “theoretical biology” into Philosophy. Furthermore, I have Mr. Rosen’s book in hand, it is a hard core science book which devotes about 275 pages to understanding the FOLDING PATTERNS OF PROTEINS.
Mr. Rosen’s choice of “category theory”, a relatively new branch of mathematics, to illustrate his observations in the laboratory was appropriate, because category theory is the only one I know of that deals with the phenomenon I was discussing earlier with Renee about “multi-dimensional thinking”, based on the fact that Reality exists on many “levels”.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Chilao, caballo means horse, as in “hung like a horse”, get it? Hermano en puta means “brother in pu$$y”. No insults there, I hope.
By Renee
September 13, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Mara - you are cracking me up today LOL!!
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
But before BC starts screaming about “mysticism” due to my mention of the phrase “multi-dimensional”, let me explain that I’m talking about real, verified “dimensions”, not imaginary ones. The simplest example of “multi-dimensional” characteristics can be seen in every computer program ever written.
At the “machine” level, computers can only process strings of data known as “bits”. In the eary days, the strings were only eight characters long (8-bit), then were doubled to 16-bits, then 32-bits, and now 64 bits in home computers. At this “level”, the “programs” consist of strings of 0s and 1s, which the machine happily processes in its mindless way.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
jest owt uv keeryosity, howe menny uv yue wern’t ayble tue undrestend mie postes beefur Brewnose Dawg beegan wining abut thuh biiig wurds? Wuzz eye missteak’n inn beeleeving thet yue awl wur pritty smarte? Shood eye bee mieselph ore pritend mie voekabulairy owenly haz won-cylabl wurds?
okay. Can’t do that much longer. It makes my brain hurt >:-(
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Chilao, caballo means horse, as in “hung like a horse”
I got my translation from street Spanish/Mexican in Houston. but what do they know? LOL
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Now, at the “programming language level”, there aren’t 0s and 1s, but real English words which allow the programmer to write the programs more quickly and efficiently. A device known as a “compiler” does the necessary “translation” from “programming language” to the required “machine language” for the programmer.
The point is, that at the machine level, the strings of 0s and 1s are MEANINGLESS to the programmer, yet, ultimately, this is the only “MEANING” that the machine “understands”. Conversely, the computer CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND THE HUMAN MEANING OF THE PROGRAM. THAT MEANING EXISTS ONLY IN OUR HEADS, EVEN THOUGH THE OUTPUT FROM THE COMPUTER IS REAL.
By Billy
September 13, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Chilao, caballo means horse, as in “hung like a horse”, get it? Hermano en puta means “brother in pu$$y”. No insults there, I hope.
Yeah, why would anyone find that remotely offensive? Mierda. Todo que tu has escribido.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
jest owt uv keeryosity, howe menny uv yue wern’t ayble tue undrestend mie postes beefur Brewnose Dawg beegan wining abut thuh biiig wurds? Wuzz eye missteak’n inn beeleeving thet yue awl wur pritty smarte? Shood eye bee mieselph ore pritend mie voekabulairy owenly haz won-cylabl wurds?
okay. Can’t do that much longer. It makes my brain hurt >:-(
By Miss Priss
September 13, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
DOG, you are an a$$ and that’s a fact. Please do not subject us to your filthy language and mind on this blog! I’ve been in groups over and over with self-centered, blow hards just like you. You think you have the right to monopolize a meeting or a blog. You end up talking and talking and saying nothing. You’re perro excremeto!
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Chilao, caballo means horse, as in “hung like a horse”
I got my translation from Houston street Spanish/Mexican. but what do they know? LOL
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
This same phenomenon of simultaneous “levels of reality” also occurs in our bodies in this way: We humans ascribe great meaning to our actions and emotions. At the molecular level,however, these “actions” and “emotions” are translated by our “compiler”, our brain, into specific chemical reactions, which in turn depend on atomic interactions. At the “chemical level”, and certainly at the “atomic level”, the higher level meanings we ascribe to our actions would be impossible to discern.
By Child of the 60's
September 13, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Ahhhh if only I had a time machine and could return to the 60’s! I would bet half my bank account Chuck, Randy, Zack, DOG and all these other up-tight people never had that joy and freedom; they wouldn’t be the kind of judgmental, moralistic, joyless people they are if they had.
By Mara
September 13, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Renee - this should give you another chuckle :^)
I had just finished “Child of the 60’s” post and skimmed down. Somehow I misread Theoretical Biology: Organisms and Mechanisms to say “Theoretical Biology: Oragasms and Mechanisms”
now there’s some science I might want to explore!!
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
This strange relationship between “simultaneous levels of reality” was well explored by a gentleman named Douglas R. Hofstadtler who won the 1980 Pulitzer Prize for his landmark “Godel, Esher, and Bach”, in which he postulated “cross corpus callosum” connections between quirks in Logic (Godel), strange Art (Escher), and brilliant music (Bach).
So while John has been lambasting me for trying to make similar cross connections here, the Pulitzer People gave my buddy Douglas their top prize. Personally, I would spit in the face of the Pulitzers as well if they tried to give me one of their pinko commie prizes, however.
By Miss Priss
September 13, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Perro excremento! ys, mra, lt us kp dging ths if it drvs hm czy. Rly, ignrg hm is the bst tactic i blv.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
But back to Rosen. In trying to describe this situation in terms of protein folding patterns, Mr. Rosen attampts to keep the various “levels of reality” correlated via “category theory”. Granted, it is a stretch, but all geniuses have to start the discussion somewhere, right?
If the writer of the Abstract knows some more appropriate math, I would love to read about it, and would immediately embrace it if it provided a better explanation. That’s what Science is all about.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Mara, I’m all for exploring Science together, what’s your email address???
By Renee
September 13, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Mara - I actually understand you better now LOL!!! What does that say for me LOL??
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
But, sadly, if any of you choose to waste your time on BCs site here, you can’t get any further than the Abstract without shellong out some CASH. I told you guys already about that, I’m tapped out on paying any more CASH to these blowhards to “prove” their wild claims on my dime. At least the AMS.org articles I referenced can be read without forking out any CASH. See, Renee, i told you that it’s all a cracker scheme.
By Renee
September 13, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Mara - that is funny!! I thought however, that I did write a book by that title LOL.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
So, in wrapping up exactly WHY BC is a total fabricator of lies, and not a seeker of TRUTH, consider the fact that BC didn’t pay to actually read the article which “supports” the Abstract either. However, if you will all notice, that didn’t stop him from fabricating the meaning of Mr. Rosen’s work out of THIN AIR, JUST LIKE THE REST OF HIS SCIENCE THEORIES, WHICH I WILL MOVE ON TO NEXT.
By Billy
September 13, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Bruno, you have repeatedly promised to leave. When are you going to make good on this?
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Sorry or the delay, I had to find BC’s crapp link one more time. Please, everyone go there now.
Here you go, Bruno: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
But, remember, it was the vaunted BC, the slammin-est blogger ever on the AJC who is recommending this site, not me. Honestly, I’ve been ready to move on to more important things a looooong time ago, but BC won’t let it go.
By Jack
September 13, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Child of the 60’s. Oh the fun we had then. I’m a member of the establishment now but I wouldn’t trade that time for all the tea in China. (except for that short stint in the jungle)
By DOG
September 13, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Sinse I doubt anyone other than BC wishes to slog through more of this crap, I copied the Intro to the whole website which lays down the “ground rules” for you here, about HOW the Scientists frame their arguments:
Each of these “Darwinian” theories can be, and have been at some time in the past 150 years, challenged, and the end result called “anti-Darwinian”. Anti-Darwinisms include [4]:
Special creationism (sometimes just "Creationism" [5], the view that species are created "specially" in each case): challenges 1, 2, 6 and usually 8. Examples: the last biologist to be a special creationist was Louis Agassis (d. 1873) [6]. Orthogenesis (linear evolution, aka Great Chain of Being thinking, the view that evolution proceeds in direct lines to goals, also sometimes called teleological evolution or progressionism): challenges 8 and 9. Examples: Lamarck, Nägeli, Eimer, Osborn, Severtsov, Teilhard. Often found as vague statements in more orthodox biology (in terms like "primitive" and "advanced" forms instead of the usual meanings in biology of older and derived) [7]. Neo-Lamarckism (aka Instructionism, the view that the environment instructs the genome, and/or the view that changes occur to anticipate the needs of the organism): challenges 7b, 8 and 9. Examples: Darwin, Haeckel, ED Cope, S Butler, Kropotkin, GBS Shaw, Kammerer, Koestler, E Steele [8], Goldschmidt [9] Process Structuralism (aka Formalism, aka Laws of growth tradition, also called Naturphilosophie, deriving from Goethe and Oken - the view that there are deep laws of change that determine some or all of the features of organisms): challenges 3 to 5 and 10. Examples: Goethe, Geoffroy, D'Arcy Thompson [10] , Goodwin, Salthe, Gould, Løvtrup [11] Saltationism (in texts before about 1940 also called "Mutationism" or "Mutation Theory", the view that changes between forms occur all-at-once or not at all): challenges 11, and sometimes 2. Examples: Galton, TH Huxley, De Vries, TH Morgan, Johannsen, Goldschmidt.By Mara
September 13, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Priss - yer probly wright. Ignoaring hym iz bettor thehn corekting hym.
Renee, Billy, Chilao and all y’all…it’s quittin’ time yeahhhhhh. air kisses to almost everyone ;^)
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
As I mentioned to you all previously, I have a good bit of “debating” experience, including giving countless hours of “expert testimony” to be used in court cases over the years. I’ve defeated some of the best attorneys from King and Spalding, with their $3000 suits before, so I don’t think you’re any challenge here, BC.
By what a fool
September 13, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Dog, you are an idiot. You keep saying you are going, but you don’t go. Are you that stupid that you think you’re gone. You have completed ruined this blog. Was that your intention?
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
The first trick any slick attorney learns, of course, is HOW TO FRAME THE QUESTION. I’ll use the classic “Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?” as an example. The idea is, that the respondent is forced to admit guilt no matter how they respond to this question, if it is answered strictly within the FRAMEWORK PROVIDED.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
The point is, this Evolution website only allows you two choices here: Either you can go with their version of “Evolution”, or you are stuck selecting from a pre-provided list of “stock answers”, all of which are even more crazier-than-a-bedbug. By not providing any INTELLIGENT CHOICES to pick from, you are stuck with one of their “loaded” answers, which they know they can already disprove.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
The choice not provided here, again, is the TRUTH, THAT WE SIMPLY CAN’T EXPLAIN ALL THE MIRACLES OF LIFE USING STRICTLY MECHANISTIC EXPLANATIONS LIKE PHYSICS.
One day, even if every chemical reaction in our bodies is mapped out, BC may be satisfied that all these “mysteries” are solved, but, again, he’s just a one-dimensional thinker. Because, as Renee knows, and any good computer programmer realizes, reality exists on many “planes”.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Geting late, and I haven’t even gotten warmed up! Maybe some peer pressure on BC to shut his trap might help, guys. I was grateful when some of you recognized that John is little more than a name-caller when it really came down to it, and told him so. Of course, his supporters feel it’s okay because of his “good intentions”. SImilarly, I didn’t notice anyone begging chuck to come back yet.
By what a fool
September 13, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Dog’s talking to himself again.
By Billy
September 13, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Well. I think I’ve had it. Congrats, Bruno. You win. I’m leaving. I may stop by in a few weeks to see if Bruno’s still ruining the blog. If not, I’ll be back. If so, you might not hear from me for a while.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
But on to the meat of the matter, The Second Law of Thermodynamics in QUANTUM MECHANIC FORM. Part of BC’s ignorance about the problems in this Law are based on the fact that his Mecca, talkorigins.com, uses basically a “high school physics” definition of and explanation of this important Non-Law rather than getting their hands dirty with the more elegant definition used by modern physicists. I will have to go back to the site to get their definition for you all here.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Herw’a the “high school” definition from talkorigins.com:
The total entropy in a system is represented by the symbol S. The symbol S is used to represent a given change in the entropy content of a system. If the symbol q is used to represent the amount of heat absorbed by a system, the equation for the resulting entropy increase is:
S = q/T (1)Where T is the absolute temperature. When heat is absorbed, the entropy of a system increases; when heat flows out of a system, its entropy decreases.
The “surroundings” of a system is everything outside of the system that can interact with it; surroundings can usually be defined as the space that surrounds a system. When heat is evolved by a system, that same heat is absorbed by its surroundings. When heat is absorbed by a system, that same heat must necessarily come from its surroundings. Therefore any entropy increase in a system due to heat flow must be accompanied by an entropy decrease in the surroundings, and vice versa. When heat flows spontaneously from a hotter region to a cooler region, the entropy decrease in the hotter region will always be less than the entropy increase in the cooler region, because the greater the absolute temperature, the smaller the entropy change for any particular heat flow. (See equation 1, above)
By what a fool
September 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
I think we all need to leave. No fun with Dog here. This used to be a really fun an entertaining blog. For the last couple of weeks all you see is Dog and his persistant “I’m leaving”. He’s not leaving so everybody else might as well. Just be glad you don’t have to deal with him in person,
By Chilao
September 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Billy - don’t go. Who is going to say ‘Dump the wh2re’ when FM talks about taking his g/f to Cancun? LMAO
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Billy, I would have hoped to get to the IMPORTANT STUFF long ago, but BC kept on with his Science dogma despite my every early protestation otherwise.
By Bruce
September 13, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Don’t leave Dog, the only reason they want you gone is really simple. THEY CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!! You have shut them all up and since they are not the ones in control it scares the hell out of them. Everything is fine as long as the one contolling the blog is saying things they want to hear or agree with.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Ya see, Billy, I shut chuck up and John up, but BC kept running his uninformed mouth, so now all of you have to suffer the consequences.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
So, quoting Roger Penrose: “The notion of entropy ws introduced by Clausius in 1865, but it was the outstanding Austrian Physicist Ludwig Boltzmann who made the definiton of entropy clear (or at least as clear as it seems possible to make it)…..The Boltzmann entropy, S, for the state of the system represented by some point x of P is S = k log V, where V is the volume of the box which contains x, and k is the Boltzmann constant.”
By Jack
September 13, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
My only suffering is that more ladies do not grace this blog. You blowhards scare them off.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
The problem with the “high school definiton” of Entropy, is that, kind of like Newton’s F = mA, it does provide some reasonable degree of “accuracy”, but falls apart when you take it to the molecular level, in which you then need the quantum mechanics version.
By Billy
September 13, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Bruno, don’t try to pass this off onto BC. He hasn’t uttered a word for four hours now, yet you still sit there rambling to no one. You are the reason I’m going. And unlike you, I mean it.
I don’t plan on posting again until this cockgobbler goes away like he said he would. Seriously, man, is there not another blog on whith Robert Rosen and Shunryu Suzuki need fellating?
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
To apply the “high school definition”, you ultimately have to substitute STATISTICS in place of REAL MEASUREMENTS, which is well-described urther in the discussion of Thermodynamics at talkorigins.org. Now I know this presents no problem to you, BC, with your willingness to fill in the blanks with certainty anytime a blank appears. I won’t get into a long-winded discussion about Statistics, but I again defer to the genius of Mark twain who said “There are lies, damn lies, and Statistics”
By Renee
September 13, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
You have shut them all up and since they are not the ones in control it scares the hell out of them. Everything is fine as long as the one contolling the blog is saying things they want to hear or agree with.
The irony in this statement is comical. Please tell me Bruce, who controlled the blog before?? Any one of us at any time can write any opinion we want, we can choose to blog, not to blog, agree, not to agree, etc. While DOG may be dominating the blog or inundating the blog with his thoughts and opinions or his “facts”, that is in no way controlling what myself or anyone else does or says on this blog.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
If you read further into the discussion, ultimately the JACKASS Scientist who conjured up this crap starts arguing that because in Statistics, sometimes “unlikely events” occur, like flipping 100 heads in a row with a fair coin, that it is perfectly fine to extend this “anything is possible” argument to try to explain away the obvious contradictions presented by non-Entropic Life.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
I’m putting aside for a moment any discussions here of the problems in trying to find a “closed sytem” in the Universe, to which this crap actually applies. I will likely have to return tommorrow to give you the “official version” of why every “closed system” can only be considered “closed” if it includes the entire Universe. I tried unsuccessfully earlier to present this discussion to Kevin and BC, bt I don’t believe either one of them understood the “real life” ramifications of having to make every “closed system” include the entire Universe. If you’re looking for anything “mystical” in my statemendts of Science, this is close as you’re going to get.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Even in trying to “apply” the concept of Entropy to a very tiny system presents BIG PROBLEMS, which I will attempt to discuss here. To “measure” something, you must first invent an “objective standard” by which to compare your current “data” against in order to make an evaluation. At the atomic level, trying to define states of “high order” (i.e low entropy) vs. states of “low order” becomes extremely problematic. Down at the atomic level, most of the ordinary ways of “measuring” are of no use. If you would like for me to give you an ultra-technical quantum mechanics explanation of this difficulty in “measuring”, I will happily do so for you tommorrow.
By DOG
September 13, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Of course, my opinion again is the same as almost every other W2W blogger here. These “arcane” discussions have no real-life meaning, and I COULDN’T AGREE MORE. Unfortunately, the physicists in whom you put so much trust,BC, can’t see that for some reason, and keep constructing even bigger houses of cards after the previous ones kept getting knocked over by small gusts of wind.
By Nikita
September 13, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
So, dog, then…when ARE you leaving?
By DOG
September 13, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Well, out of time for today. Study up over night, BC, we’re just getting started here on W2W oon the topic of why you are totally full of $hit, BC.
By Bruce
September 13, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Renee, you are way to intelligent to play that game. You know very well that 72John has done this very same thing before. The only difference is most bloggers here agree with his position even if it is wrong. Eason did it too, heck even Chuck can get crazy with his cut and paste sometimes. Also, if what you say is true, “Any one of us at any time can write any opinion we want, we can choose to blog, not to blog, agree, not to agree, etc.” Why is Billy leaving? Why can’t he just ignore Dog and go on blogging with the rest of us? You could say he is choosing to NOT blog but judging from his last post I’d say he allowed Dog to run him off. I believe I can safely say that since they are not the ones in control they are mad and do not want to play with the rest of us. Shoot, Dog even ran Candide off this week.
I may not agree with or understand everything Dog says but he isn’t running me off.
By Kevin
September 14, 2006 07:40 AM | Link to this
Bruno,
I would like to apologize for the Vizzini reference. With your ongoing debate with BC, I was reminded of the scene in the Princess Bride (one of my favorite movies) where Westley and Vizzini are having a battle of wits. During the contest Westley tells Vizzini that he finds his intellect dizzying. That IS the only quote I was referring to. At the time I thought it was funny, but I now realize that it is not. Again, I sincerely apologize.
By Lyrazel
September 14, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
My only suffering is that more ladies do not grace this blog. You blowhards scare them off.
Jack, no blowhard on a blog could POSSIBLY scare ANY women that posts here from commenting or any woman from coming to post her mind. We are strong, tough and opinionated but we tend to wait out the windy boys until they drivel all over themselves. Then we return and comment about issues…so like reality we endure gracefully, live longer, are stronger and possibly have a better time blogging than these constantly having to argue blowhards.
The AJC needs a Men To Men blog…women would flock to it in droves while the lads can stay here to talk religion, abortion and evolution until they bore themselves to death… Have a happy
By DOG
September 14, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
Hello all. The promised day has arrived, my last day on W2W. As I stated earlier, my reason for coming here wasn’t to get sidetracked in a discussion of the weaknesses of various scientific theories. To prove this, I have gone back to my first few days here and have cut and pasted some snippets to show who the REAL INSTIGATORS HERE ARE.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
BC—I haven’t even gotten started as to all the reasons why The Second Law of Therodynamics is false. Essentially. it is nothing more than a GENERAL DESCRIPTION of the NATURAL DISPERSION OF HEAT IN INANIMATE OBJECTS. In this context, the Law works ok, other than the fact that you can’t measure Entropy directly, but have to make statistical approximations.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
In trying to appply this Law to Living Beings, however, IT FAILS MISERABLY. The reason is, Living beings DEFY ENTROPY BY CONSTANTLY CREATING ORDER FROM DISORDER, BY TURNING “INANIMATE MOLECULES” INTO “LIVING MOLECULES”.
As I’ve hopefully gotten everyone to see, at the ATOMIC LEVEL, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “LIVING MOLECULES AND INANIMATE MOLECULES. HOWEVER, THAT DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE DISCERNED AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
My point is, if you took a cell from a human liver and ‘broke it down” into it’s constituent atoms, it wouldn’t be much different from the constituent atoms of virtually any other cell in the human body. The fact that those individual carbon atoms and hydrogen, etc, create a HIGHER FUNCTION IS NOTHING SHORT OF A MIRACLE.
Since you claim to be a Scientist, BC, please explain one day to the good folks here at W2W, how each molecule in our bodies “knows” how to perform the proper functions.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
As I hopefully conveyed yesterday, a computer can “run” a program, but the computer can never discern the HIGHER LEVEL MEANING OF THE PROGRAM, I.E. THE “REASON” BEHIND THE PROGRAM. THAT “REASON” EXISTS ONLY IN OUR HUMAN MINDS.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
To address this problem of “intelligent molecules”, Evolutionists keep inventing wackier and wackier “explanations” that basically admit that these molecules behave in ways that can only be described as INTELLIGENT. If you read their latest literature, now they are talking about “SMART PROTEINS”.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
So, BC, if you want me to spend another 20 hours going over the Second Law of Thermo, I can and will. However, if you will simply get a book on quantum mechanics, you will see that the Law is flawed even when trying to apply the concepts to Inanimate objects, let alone Living beings.
But, because you are the ONLY one here on W2W who is stuck in that “dimension”, I will spare everyone else here on my last day on W2W to hopefully discuss some more important things, like GOD. That is unless you choose to open your IGNORANT UNINFORMED MOUTH ONE LAST TIME.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
What “words” or “explanations” folks come up with to describe the miraculous process of life isn’t really important to me (or probably to GOD, either), as long as they ACKNOWLEDGE THE MIRACLE AND HAVE RESPECT FOR LIFE.
My hatred for you, BC, is you are one of the EVIL, HORRIBLE JACKASSES OF THIS WORLD WHO HAS NO RESPECT FOR GOD. You stare in the face of miracles and cling desperately to your man-made descriptions of things, even when those descriptions become laughable. As I stated earlier, Ptolemy would be proud!
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
So Kevin, don’t apologize if your Vizzini “compliment” didn’t work out. If you knew me in person, you would realize that there are VERY few things that any MERE MAN can say to me that upset me. With a deep understanding of Godel, you will realize that once any “definite statement” is made, immediately the CONVERSE OF THIS STATEMENT becomes true AT THE VERY SAME TIME. As such, I don’t place much faith in manly pronouncements, INCLUDING MY OWN.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
To solve this “problem of Logic” can be (1) The easiest thing in the world to do, or (2) The hardest thing in the world to do. Let me try to give you all some insight into that, because this is both the MYSTERY OF THE BUDDHA and surprisingly to some folks, also the MYSTERY OF THE CHRIST.
By Brian Curtis
September 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
(yawning, stretching) Good morning, all!
Has Bruno finished his preprogrammed little rant against the Evils of Science, or is he still huffing and puffing and wasting everyone’s time?
(quick scan of yesterday afternoon’s posts)
Nope, he’s got a lot more venom to spew impotently until everyone agrees to praise his unparalleled intellect. Yawn. Oh well.
Bruno, I repeat: I’ve refuted your idiotic gibberish, point by point, on the T-blog. Go there and post your defenses, if you can. Here you’re just another tiresome troll who can’t argue his way out of a paper bag.
Maybe we can get on with another topic next week… or maybe Bruno will break his promise to “leave” yet again and continue boring his betters with his pitiful incoherent rants. We’ll see.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
So, on my last day on W2W, I will humbly attempt to explain, in my little pea-brain way, just what the MYSTERIES OF THE CHRIST AND THE BUDDHA MEAN.
Based on my experiences here the past few weeks, my prediction is that the following people already “get” it: Renee and Susiehomemaker. The reason is, as black women, they have a lot of expereince dealing with CRACKER JIVE, which in a nut-shell is what these phony Science “explanations of GOD” are.
By Lyrazel
September 14, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Hello all. The promised day has arrived, my last day on W2W…. You aren’t going to even stay till joke day? Pity that.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
The ones I have hope for (one day) are folks like Kevin and 2D, who may be a little confused, but at least keep an open mind. I have mild hope for Billy, because once in a while he is honest enough to admit that he’s confused (i.e. high state of entropy).
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
The ones I have no hope at all for are the following: BC, John, chuck, and perhaps surprisingly to Renee, NetBanker. The sad fact is that each of these folks is highly intelligent in a certain way, but each of them has allowed their UNMITIGATED ARROGANCE to blind them. When you study the Bible, you learn that it is the EVIL ONE who BLINDS us to obvious TRUTH. As the story goes (from Dante’s Inferno, I believe), Satan was GOD’s top helper at one point, and had the all-important job of “carrying the Light” for GOD. Unfortunately, Satan wasn’t happy to merely carry the Light for GOD, he started claiming the HE AACTUALLY INVENTED THE LIGHT. Hopefully, some of you can hear an “overtone” of Jon Lovitz here (My wife….Morgan Fairchild…yeah, that’s the ticket!)
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
BC, I see you’ve raised your little pinhead off your pillow. Did you remember to THANK GOD today that you’re still alive?? That you are breathing, and participating in this MIRACLE which we call LIFE?? Or are you just another Jon Lovitz: “Hey I don’t need to thank GOD, because…..well there is no GOD…and in fact, I’M GOD….yeah, that’s the ticket!”
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
And BC, I went to all your crackpot websites, and none panned out, including your self-created “Science” on your calypso link. But, I played your little game enough already, at the great boredom of everyone here (including myself). If you want to go jerk off while you read your own words, go ahead, I’ve got far more important things to do, like save bunny rabbits from EVIL JACKASSES LIKE YOU.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
You see, BC, your whole problem, just like chuck and John, is that you’re strictly a one-dimensional thinker. You guys, with your limited Logic abilities, keep framing every question into an EITHER/OR proposition. You keep missing the fact that there is another alternative, namely the TRUTH. As I said, I’ve matched wits with the top attorneys in town over at King and Spalding many times, and whipped every one of those stuffed shirts. It’s because they frame every question into an EITHER/OR proposition, usually along the lines of “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” When I expose the assumptions which go into such thinking during depositions, they lose, because I expose their “evil intent ” for the juries to hear. The only case I ever lost was because the plaintiff lied his A* off on the stand, it wasn’t my fault.
By Brian Curtis
September 14, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
By the way, I’ve taken a moment to deal with Bruno’s latest batch of nonsense—again, on the T-blog site (http://calybos.tblog.com/ ), where he’s free to rave and froth all he likes without pestering people here.
I assume he’s too cowardly to address any of those points, of course. Besides, he’s provoking more anger and attention by trolling here. What a pathetic little man.
By Just passin'thru
September 14, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
The biblical creation story was obviously written by men who knew nothing about astronomy, biology, zoology, botany or anthropology. The Hebrew account of a heaven (firmament) on pillars, with its windows open, resting on a body of water and supporting another body of water above and not a hint of the universe as we have come to know it thru science. If Jehovah knows all, and the bible is his holy word, then wouldn’t you think he would have written about the planets and the solar system or at least would have known the light of the sun and moon are the same light? Elementary students know that! We need a new mythology for a new world. The bible is full of superstition, contradictions, cruelty, and fantasy. That is why Christianity doesn’t make sense for so many people anymore. Freud believed our repressed, unconscious needs overrule our rational minds. Is it just a need for security and safety and fear of death (just believe in jesus and you are saved and guaranteed heaven) that overcomes the rational minds of millions of christians?
By DOG
September 14, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Before I try to shed a little light on the MYSTERY OF THE BUDDHA and the MYSTERY OF THE CHRIST, I am going to cut and past the comments made by BC and John three weeks ago when I first came to W2W so you all can judge who really has “good intentions” and who doesn’t.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
You see, it was actually Brian Curtis who got me on to this board with his comment about three weeks ago, which I will reprint here for you all:
*By Brian Curtis
August 21, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Amelia: We can only hope. I know a lot of genuine conservatives who are itching to take back their party, and I for one would welcome some intelligent debate about real issues again. The hysterical screeching of the far right has gotten old.*
By Jesus
September 14, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Who wants to see a magic trick?
By DOG
September 14, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
I wanted to take up BC’s challenge, but realized I wouldn’t get far with all the name-callers like John, so I started my conversation with this opening salvo:
By Bruno
August 21, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Reading this “discussion” today confirms several observations regarding liberals I have made over the past 26 years: (1)Liberals like to snipe from the sidelines, but truly have no credible ideas for a better future. (2) Liberals claim to champion human dignity, but ultimately are some of the most vitriolic, name-calling people on a personal level. Their rationalization for this rude behavior is that any opponent to their ideas must be evil and therefore does not deserve common courtesy. (3) Liberals claim to be the party of “diversity”, yet maliciously stereotype all conservatives, and show open contempt for black and gay Republicans. (4) Liberals like to fantasize that they are not only the moral superiors of conservatives, but that they are definitely the intellectual superiors to conservatives. Here, for example, Mara and definitely The72John apparently confuse using big words with true intelligence in light of their constant self-congratulations. True intelligence means not only the ability to gather facts, but also the ability to sort them out in order of importance. True intelligence means accepting the reality of human nature, and not living in some dream world in which we don’t have permanent opponents. True intelligence is realizing that no one has all the answers, so that it is worth hearing the other side out. (5) Liberals always think their motivations are strictly altruistic during their political rants, and will never believe they have selfish motivations. Finally, (6) There must be a lot of unemployed liberals based on the amount of time some of them spend making comments here instead of getting a job.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
John, of course, couldn’t stand me pushing his buttons, and fired back with
And yes, I do think that I am morally and intellectually superior to the average conservative in this country. Glad you caught that. I think that the average conservative in this country is a selfish, self-righteous bigot. Probably because they do things on a regular basis that is both self-righteous and bigoted…funny how that works
By DOG
September 14, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
My reply to John was this:
By Bruno
August 21, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
John, I would love to help you see all the examples of the unnecessary, hateful comments contained in this “discussion”, but I also learned years ago that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. So, I’m going to make it your homework assignment to review all of the ad hominem attacks contained in the comments made by you and your liberal friends today. I’m sure your intellectual honesty will motivate you to do that. I WILL give you credit for attempting to support your arguments with evidence MUCH more than anyone else here, including any of the conservative commentators. However, I believe a seasoned debater would dwarf you easily. You consistently demonstrate “errors of proportion”, by which you sidestep the true core issues, like Israel’s right to exist, and substitute instead large volumes of non-pertinent “facts”.
With my experience in debating, I knew that no amount of “facts” would ever sway John, nor BC for that matter, as all my subsequent discussisions have shown.
By BlindMan
September 14, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
“I see,” said the blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Then, this “gem” from BC, which any JUNIOR HIGH SCIENCE TEAHER COULD REFUTE:
*By Brian Curtis
August 24, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Bruno: Actually, all that science DOES is explain real-life systems. That’s the purpose of science, and it does it very, very well.
And if you incorporate the Sun into the Earth-Sun system, the whole second-law objection disappears—because the Sun IS losing energy. Therefore, the entire point of bringing it up—to allege that evolution somehow violates it—becomes moot. Sheesh.*
What is so idiotic here is that BC is “mixing his metaphors”. To overcome legitimate objections to the applicability of the Second Law of Thermo, he falls back on some juvenile considerations of what constitutes a “closed system”. In one breath, he says that the Earth + Sun is a closed system in which the Second Law of Thermo DOES apply. In the next breath, he claims that somehow The First Law of Thermodynamics DOESN’T apply to the same “CLOSED SYSTEM”. WHAT A F-ING IDIOT!!!!
By Jesus
September 14, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Bruno, that’s no way to talk to your fellow man.
By Lozen
September 14, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Bruno, DOG, Dumba$$, Why don’t you shut the fu*k up? Nobody wants to hear anything you have to say except for Bruce and 2D. They are not here. You are the most god-awful boring personthat has ever been on this blog. You are perro excremento and have nothing to say that anybody wants to hear. You are talking to nobody except yourself. What a bloated ego!
By Renee
September 14, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
OMG lozen LOL!!
I think Bruno is one of our regulars, who has gotten frustrated with other bloggers, and is taking it out in this alter ego. If it’s not FM, who could it be. Any takers in “name this blogger”.
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
nah, Bruno is original. I knew people in h.s. who did that windowpane stuff, one, last I heard, in spite of being extremely ugly and hirsute, nowadays dresses up in drag, stands on the corner, and offers the textile mill workers BJs when they get off shift.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
I’m back
By DOG
September 14, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Chilao, I understand that a lot of ex-windowpaners lost their minds (think lozen and Lyrazel). Surprisingly, a few actually FOUND their minds. Like I said, I will stack my life achievements against anyone here. However, if you remember, I don’t place much value on academic awards or any other such BS. Academia is strictly a “CRACKER CLUB”, simply a more elaborate form of the MUTUAL ADMIRATION SOCIETY HERE ON W2W.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
So, insult away. It just makes my victory even sweeter. Here’s a quote from me on Aug 24:
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
AND to my new fans who have declared that I have out-pompoused John, and out Bible-thumped Chuck, many thanks.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
As for the explanation of each of the varied reactions to the Bruno troll, remember “Einstein’s” quote:
By Einstein
August 30, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Nice observation from Chemistry for you, BC: “Under high pressure, we observe critical opalescence.”
By Bruce
September 14, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
Oh, I’m here Lozen and you are a fine one to talk about bloated egos……. Keep going Dog you are starting make them see they have been so wrong for so long!!!!
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Now, a few quotes to show where I’m “coming from”, vs. where BC and some others are coming from:
By GOD
September 1, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Welcome back, chuck. Your input IS valuable. Just be careful to speak for yourself, don’t try to co-opt my authority. Memorizing one Book doesn’t make you an expert on anything other than your own prejudices.
By GOB
September 14, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Holy crap…I try to check in on the blog and this moron is what greets me…lovely.
By Renee
September 14, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Chilao - I’m getting sneaky suspicions that you are the Bruno culprit, LOL.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
All throughout my discussions, I have constantly re-emphasized that my input here was simply on the Moral plane, in fact my “raison de etre” for coming to W2W. My hope was to first give burnouts like lozen and Lyrazel, along with atheists like BC, a REASON TO BE MORAL THAT DIDN’T DEPEND ON WACKY FAIRY TALES LIKE THE BIBLE. Unfortunately, BC wouldn’t let the Science thing go long enough to discuss much of real importance. I’m looking for an exchange we had in which I begged him to “leave it alone” so we could move on, but he refused. I’ll find it soon.
As for own take on the Science B.S., I was totally honest with Billy when I said:
By DOG
September 6, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
Billy, if you like, I would enjoy having a polite, reasoned discussion with you here one day regarding the limitations of Scientific Reasoning and why the Big Bang and Evolution as an explanation of the Origin of the Universe and the Orign of Life are bigger pieces of Science Fiction than any Philip K. Dick or H.P. Lovecraft story ever written. I appreciated your explanation last week that you’re not a hard core Science guy. Actually, I only studied that crap myself to be able to debate the Science Dogmatists in their own terms. One of their favorite debating techniques is to dazzle people with important sounding B.S. Bruno can handle A’hoes like them anyday.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
As far as the veracity of my Science, I’ve invited all of you many times to check the facts, get a GT prof on here if needed. I’ve also tried to show just using plain common sense that BC doesn’t know his A$$ from a hole in the ground for all of you who don’t want to spend 30 years researching every observation. I’ll look for a few quotes to show that as well. Don’t be snowed by these atheistic Big Bangers/Evolutionists, folks. There’s nothing to their arguments. For an easy to read disarmament of them without the hard core Science, I strongly recommend, actually BEG DOWN ON MY KNEES WAITING FOR “UNCLE JOHN” (think Uncle Ernie from “Tommy”), to buy “Case For a Creator” by Lee Strobel.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Also, while I’m looking for BC’s BS, I would like to answer John’s complaints regarding my use of “fake monikers” (anyone else see the humor in John’s unintended oxymoron?) The original reason I went with Bruno is that my real name was already taken. Hint: Bruno sounds like who? Yes, Bruce. I don’t know how long the “real” Bruce has been here on W2W, but it should be obvious we aren’t the same guy. I did laugh heartily that he actually supported me in my thrashing of the blowhards. HAHAROTFLMAO. Help, call 911 someone, I can’t breathe….
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Let me let you in on a little know fact that all “Bruces” know, John. We know what it’s like to be teased about being gay. Because the name “Brucie” was associated with f* at some point, every Bruce I ever knew had to start fighting at an early age. I used to get p** at my Mom for picking that name, but then one day I heard the Man In Black sing about “A Boy Named Sue”.
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
One of their favorite debating techniques is to dazzle people with important sounding B.S.
well, that sounds familiar. LOL
Renee? Renee? huh? (wishing I could do those selective wacky smiley/question faces available on other posting sites…LOL)
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Bruce is Aussie? who knew.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
You see, I’m not a big guy. I grew up near “the streets” up there in “joisey” (I’m from joisey, you from joisey? Which exit?—J. Piscopo) So I had to either start sucking c**, or fight MoFos who were twice my size starting at a young age. I’m proud to say I’ve never sucked a c** yet. As a true Scientist, I keep that possibility open, though. From what I hear, John might have his “way” with me in a fight.
BUT, I’m counting on the fact that he ain’t from joisey, because I will come at him from angles he NEVER CONSIDERED in a real fight, just like I did to him verbally here on W2W.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
So now I thank Ma for that name, because it helped me become the MOFO that I am to other humans. Of course, that doesn’t apply to bunnies or any other of GOD’S CREATIONS.
By Renee
September 14, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
LOL Chilao.
Before I can clear you as a suspect, I will need to complete my forensic investigations LOL.
By Lozen
September 14, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
bruce, stick it where the sun don’t shine a*******hole.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Anything coming together for you Renee or Susiehomemaker? You see, certain crackers like me had take a lot of heat from other crackers. These same other crackers were the ones calling you a “N###A” when you were growing up. Hate isn’t just “inter-racial”, but also “INTRA-RACIAL”.
I’m certainly not completely free of racial prejudice, but like Susie I try to be as “color-blind” as is humanly possible. I love ya Susie for your honesty, you’re ONE RIGHTEOUS WOMAN. WHO LOVES YA BABY? GOD DOES, DON’T EVER LET A CRACKER TELL YOU OTHERWISE.
By what a fool
September 14, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Who asked Dog for his life history? Does anybody care? Oh well, he’ll be gone soon (yeah right).
By Lozen
September 14, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Brucie, Brucie! Oh yeah I remember Brucie from middle school. The boys would look over sideways at you and flutter their eyelashes and say, “Oooooohh Brucie!” And then laugh at you…. Oh, now I understand. Poor Brucie.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
It’s painful for me to listen to the Maestro Stevie Wonder quiz me “Why must my color black make me a lesser man?”. I want to run from that, but I hang in there even though it makes the “water run fom my eyes(Songs In the Key Of Life. WHY? Because I’m just as guilty as any other cracker. I can’t escape my guilt, my sin.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
So double-check who I’ve been shouting down here—it’s all total pieces of Sh@@ like chuck, BC, and even John. Why do I pick on John, even though he’s been harrased his whole life??? Well, based on all his name-calling and lack of ANY REAL COMPASSION FOR ANYONE BUT HIMSELF, IN MY HUMAN ARROGANCE I BELIEVE HE HASN’T LEARNED HIS LESSON YET.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Now I don’t know how your Brucie responded lozen, but I WOULD HAVE SMASHED YOUR FACE IN LIKE I HAVE TO MANY OTHER TOTAL PIECES OF SH## LIKE YOU. HEAR ME MOFO?? NAME THE PLACE, AND I WILL SMASH IT IN AGAIN FOR THAT OTHER BRUCE YOU KNEW. YOU F*kING PU@@y.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
NAME IT LOZEN, YOU FKING PRCK. MY BEATING WON’T BE FROM ME, IT WILL BE FROM THE ONE WHO COULD’T DEFEND HIMSELF.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
I’m not fighting Science Dogmatists for their asinine, unsupported views. As I have said many times, I don’t give a flying F about that crap. But when SCIENTISTS CAGE UP BUNNY RABBITS AND TORTURE THEM WHILE THE BUNNIES WON’T SCREAM, I’M AFTER THE MOFOS.
By Tina
September 14, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Go Lozen! Bout time somebody said it!
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Anybody have stock in the heart-meds pharmaceuticals. LOL
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Pretty funny, lozen, the TRUTH comes about your pitiful soul. Now you might understand my initial salvo to you Libs a few weeks ago about your supposed “compassion”. Because lozen, I was partying back there in the 60s and 70s right nearby scum like you who were promoting “free love”. But, maybe because I’ve “Gotta Brotha In My Johnson”, I saw that the reality was the “takers” were the ones promoting that total garbage. In sista terms, it was nothin but pure cracker jive coming straight from the Man.
By Tina
September 14, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Dog is frickin crazy!
By Renee
September 14, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Never mind Chilao, no need for forensics. Please accept my humble apology!
We need a psychiatrist in here pronto!
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
You see, while some geekin white ho spoke up for BC a little while back (“the slammin-est blogger on the AJC), she didn’t realize that it is HUMAN SCUM LIKE HIM WHO TORTURES ANIMALS IN THE NAME OF “SCIENCE”.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
HEAR ME, BC? YOU CAN STICK ALL OF YOUR “SCIENCE” BS UP YOUR A$$, IF YOUR HEAD DOESN’T ALREADY TAKE UP ALL THE SPACE.
By Tina
September 14, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
this has got to be the craziest blog ever- just sad it is compiled of a bunch of freaks “Dog” and “dog” - wait- seems to be a pattern here?
By what a fool
September 14, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock. How much longer ‘till Dog leaves?
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Gasp, gasp…. Better take a quick joke break for JustPassinThru. Andy Griffith pulls over some arrogant out-of-towner for speeding who says “This place must be the A*******hole of the entire Universe.” Andy just smiled and said back “I see, and you’re just passin thru.” Get it, turd?
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Good ones today, Renee! You’re tops in my BOOK. (BOOK has many levels of meaning).
By Hey you
September 14, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Dog, the village called, they want their idiot back. Time to go, son.
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Chilao, since you are the only REAL MAN on this board (In my heart of heart I bet you tried to help out the Brucies and Johns who couldn’t defend themselves), answer me one Q, bro. Aren’t ya gonna miss me when I’m gone?? The wit is non-pariel, non?? The levels of complexity—a real mind-blower, no?
By Tina
September 14, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Renee - de nada *(LMAO)
By DOG
September 14, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Well, this is it folks. GOD IS THE TOTALITY OF REAL THINGS. GOD’S LOVE IS MANIFESTED IN ALL THE MAGICAL BONDS, AT ALL THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF REALITY, FROM THE SUBATOMIC, TO THE MOLECULAR, TO THE QUATERNARY FOLDING PATTERNS OF PROTEINS, TO COLONIES OF ANTS IN WHICH EACH ANT CARRIES OUT ITS LIFES DUTIES IN TOTAL HUMILITY WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANY MORE REWARD THAN TO SAY, THANKS GOD FOR THIS LITTLE LIFE.
I do love you all here, although some of your “fantasies” may not have been what you believe you signed up for (think Fantasy Island). Love, Rourke.
By Bruce
September 14, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Any one know a good website for acompaniment CD’s? I need to locate Michael Bolton’s version of Georgia on My Mind.
By Renee
September 14, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
this has got to be the craziest blog ever
LMAO yes it is!!! It’s so crazy, it’s actually comical.
afterthought Is there a problem with using animals in the name of science? Maybe that could be the topic for next week.
By Wheeziee
September 14, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
DOG, you finally up here with me, in HEAVEN. It’s a total jam, DOG, you’re gonna love it. It’s all good, but I’ll be complete when my George finally makes it up here to be with me. I saw him on that VH1 reality show where they threw him in with a bunch of crackers. Sherman, baby, Wheezie will be here for you when you make it. Just don’t blow it at the last minute by listnin’ to any cracker jive.
By GOD
September 14, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
All together, one last time, guys: DON’T BE A BRUNO!
By a little ant
September 14, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Thank you , GOD.
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
(pulling myself up from the weight bench, flexing those biceps, looking in the mirror ya, ya, looks good umpph, umppgh, flex flex)
I am sure Bruno is a vegetarian. (to quote Seinfeld, Not that there is anything wrong with that). Or maybe just likes his steak skinned alive. Oh, wait, it is okay, cattle can bellow.
this is a repeat, I know, but for the memory impaired
when the going gets rough the average turn conservative² *Henry Rollins
By Tina
September 14, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Oh wow- ants are talking- I must be crazy too!
By Bruno
September 14, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Very well put DOG, I appreciate your responses.
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
But I ain’t got nothing against conservatives, why some of my best friends…oh, never mind. LMAO
By Chilao
September 14, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
wow, bright light goes off isn’t that selective concerns about the use of animals for human gains a splendid example of that concept called moral relativism, that conservatives/fundies(to use a W2W term) are always ranting and raving against?
By Lyrazel
September 15, 2006 07:38 AM | Link to this
Chilao, I understand that a lot of ex-windowpaners lost their minds (think lozen and Lyrazel). My hope was to first give burnouts like lozen and Lyrazel, along with atheists like BC, a REASON TO BE MORAL THAT DIDN’T DEPEND ON WACKY FAIRY TALES LIKE THE BIBLE.
Gee I miss one day and am slandered by DOG for being a burned out windowpaner. First, I have never worked in the manufacturing of glass or windows. I suppose that I should be honored seeing the company I am slandered with, so thanks. Life as a liberal is completely unapologetic…
By Brian Curtis
September 15, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel: Just think how flattered I am that Bruno singled me out for most of his incoherent ravings and insults. I must’ve really threatened his poor, fragile little ego. (That’s what happens when you run into someone who isn’t intimidated by your BS and can show why you’re full of hot air.)
Dare we hope this tiresome troll is finally done? Because that would be enough to smile about this Friday.
P.S. Bruno, if you’re still lurking: My point-by-point explanation of why all the garbage you posted is wrong is still waiting for you, at http://calybos.tblog.com
By Lyrazel
September 15, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
Brian, haven’t you noticed the ones who make the big personal attacks cannot win their arguments in any other way? Truly what is the deal about needing to win? Its a debate that is fun. I have been persuaded by many people here to re-think my opinion and accept others opinions as equally valid—for themselves to believe. ANYWAY its joke day:
Dear Tide, I am writing to say what an excellent product you have! I’ve used it all of my married life, as my Mom always told me it was the best. Now that I am over fifty, I find it even better! In fact, about a month ago, I spilled some red wine on my new white blouse. My inconsiderate and uncaring husband started to belittle me about how clumsy I was, and generally started becoming a pain in the neck. One thing led to another and somehow I ended up with his blood on my new white blouse! I grabbed my bottle of Tide with bleach alternative, and to my surprise and satisfaction, all of the stains came out! In fact, the stains came out so well the detectives who came by yesterday told me that the DNA tests on my blouse were negative and then my attorney called and said that I was no longer considered a suspect in the disappearance of my husband. What a relief! Going through menopause is bad enough without being a murder suspect! I thank you, once again, for having a great product. Well, gotta go, have to write to the Hefty bag people. Have a happy, Lyrazel
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Good replies, Lozen and Lyrazel.
Why did I have to listen to Great White’s *Psycho City? last night? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. LOL
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
A strict Muslim, a moderate Muslim, and a liberal Muslim are walking down the street when they see a beautiful woman. The strict Muslim shouts, “God forbid!” The moderate says, “God is great!” or “Allahu akbar.” And the liberal says, “Inshallah,” or “God willing!”
By Stephanie
September 15, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
WUDDUP.
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
It was fun being a baby boomer … Until now. Some of the artists of the ’60s are revising their hits with new lyrics to accommodate aging baby boomers. They include:
By Lozen
September 15, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Chilao, that baby boomer list makes me want to cry. Esp. “Splash, Splash I was Havin’ a Flash ;-)”
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Lozen - my older friends send that kind of stuff to me, not yet appropriate for me, being too young. LMAO Besides, I have been eating grapenuts since I was a kid, the only three cereals I even buy are Familia, GrapeNuts and spoon-size ShreddedWheat. TMI, I know.
By Lyrazel
September 15, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Ok Chilao, here you go…
Rest Home Girls—Pet Shop Boys
By Lyrazel
September 15, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Might As Well Face It..You Are (Addicted To Tums_)—Robert Plant
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Rest Home Girls—Pet Shop Boys
are they hotter in the WestEnd or EastEnd? Or just cheaper in the East End? LOL
interesting trivia: The Hue battle scenes, urban combat, in Full Metal Jacket, were filmed in London’s East End, and much of the architecture of that industrial area, was done by the same French architect that did alot of the city of Hue.
By Brian Curtis
September 15, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Some old-age jokes for Friday:
LOVEMAKING TIPS FOR THE ELDERLY
Put bifocals on. Double-check that you’re with the right partner.
Set alarm on your clock for 2 minutes… in case you doze off in the middle.
Set the mood with lighting. Turn ‘em ALL OFF !
Make sure you put 911 on your speed dial before you begin… just in case!
Write partner’s name on your hand in case you can’t remember what to scream out at the end.
A young man asked an old rich man how he made his money.
The old guy said, “Well, son, it was 1932. The depth of the Great Depression. I was down to my last nickel.”
“I invested that nickel in an apple. I spent the entire day polishing the apple and, at the end of the day, I sold the apple for ten cents.”
“The next morning, I invested those ten cents in two apples. I spent the entire day polishing them and sold them at 5:00 pm for 20 cents. I continued this system for a month, by the end of which I’d accumulated a fortune of $1.37.”
“Then my wife’s father died and left us two million dollars.”
TOP 10 OLD FOLKS’ PARTY GAMES
Musical Recliners
Spin the Bottle of Mylanta
Hide and Go Pee
Simon Mumbles
Doc, Doc, Goose
Red Rover, Red Rover, the Nurse Says Bend Over
Kick the Bucket
20 Questions Shouted into your Good Ear
Pin the Toupee on the Bald Guy
Sag, You’re It!
A husband a wife were celebrating their 90th wedding anniversary, and the media was there to document the occasion. One of the reporters asked the secret to their successful marriage and longevity. The wife replied that they had never had a sick day in their lives.
The astonished young reporter asked, “Really? You’ve never been bedridden?”
And the wife quickly replied, “Oh, thousands of times… and twice in a buggy! “
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
A very self-important college freshman attending a recent football game, took it upon himself to explain to a senior citizen sitting next to him why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his generation.”You grew up in a different world, actually an almost primitive one,” the student said, loud enough for many of those nearby to hear. “The young people of today grew up with television, jet planes, space travel, man walking on the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars…We have nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed processing…”and,” pausing to take another drink of beer…
The Senior took advantage of the break in the student’s litany and said, “You’re right, son. We didn’t have those things when we were young.. ……so we invented them. Now, you arrogant little sh!t head, what are you doing for the next generation?”
By chuck
September 15, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Jimmy Hendrix- Pepto Haze
Bush- The prescriptions Between Us
Chris Cornell- Better Change Me
Guns & Roses- Mr. Gallstone
ZZ Top- Prune Juice Drinkers and Flower Raisers
The Who- Summertime Snooze
Van Halen- Top of the Stairs
Metallica- Teeth in the Jar
Bush- NITROglycerine
ZZ Top- Life Alert Necklace
Rolling Stone- It’s Only Rock ‘n Chair
Nirvana- Smels Like Ben Gay
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
A very self-important college freshman attending a recent football game, took it upon himself to explain to a senior citizen sitting next to him why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his generation.”You grew up in a different world, actually an almost primitive one,” the student said, loud enough for many of those nearby to hear. “The young people of today grew up with television, jet planes, space travel, man walking on the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars…We have nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed processing…”and,” pausing to take another drink of beer…
The Senior took advantage of the break in the student’s litany and said, “You’re right, son. We didn’t have those things when we were young.. ……so we invented them. Now, you arrogant little s** head, what are you doing for the next generation?”
By Jesus
September 15, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Well, this is bittersweet. Bruno’s not here, but neither is anyone else.
By Chilao
September 15, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Well, this is bittersweet. Bruno’s not here, but neither is anyone else.
So much for Witnessing.
saw a great cartoon recently, along the lines of IF the DaVinci code book were true.
Kids say to Dad, as he dishes out their evening supper. “Aw Dad, not loaves and fishes AGAIN?”
By Billy
September 15, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
I’m back, since Bruno’s not.
Kids say to Dad, as he dishes out their evening supper. “Aw Dad, not loaves and fishes AGAIN?”
Kind of reminds me of David Cross’ standup:
— I’m going to raise my kids to be Amish. “Daddy, can I play video games?” “No, son.” “But you’re playing video games!” “Well, honey, Daddy’s not Amish. Now blow out your candle and go to bed.”
By Mara
September 15, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Hi guys! Stayed away for obvious reasons but just had to stop in and skim the jokes, now I’m glad I did!!
here’s my contribution -
A priest, scientist, an astronaut and a plumber were playing golf one day. To kill the time they started a conversation on natural occurrences. They chose to debate about wind. The scientist said that winds were the result of thermal convection. The astronaut said that they were made by the planet’s rotation. The priest said that storms were god’s way of cleansing the earth. The plumber only knew that the wind always blew when he played golf. They played through 17 holes, arguing furiously. Just as they teed up at the 18th, everything became calm. Amazingly, a giant hand came down through the clouds just inches above their heads. The astronaut and the scientist didn’t see it because they didn’t believe in the supernatural. The priest knelt down and prayed in fear. Only the plumber stood up. Suddenly a voice boomed down “If you want the answer, pull my finger”. The plumber did, and a mighty wind blew.