AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > March > 15 > Entry
Should female politicians play the mommy card?
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
Female politicians play the mommy card like a Playboy bunny works the cottontail. It’s all about getting ahead by pandering to sexist stereotypes. Parenting isn’t a seamlessly transferable skill to the running of a country, and it can never replace years of political experience. Most everyone can have children. Far fewer actually parent well — and only a few can lead a nation.
Nancy Pelosi touts her brood of five as her political curriculum vitae. Hillary Clinton’s subzero demeanor is softened with photo opportunities with hubby Bill and daughter Chelsea. Clinton and Pelosi are political forces to be reckoned with, so why do they play the mommy card to curry political favor?
It’s not because motherhood is a realistic comparison to the running of a country. It’s because the “mommy card” in politics isn’t about being a mother at all, it’s about catering to our public neurosis about women in power. Being a mother affords female candidates the approachability factor. Child-free apostates are viewed with suspicion. This notion of what a “real woman” is seems rather limiting. The evolving nature of what it means to be a happy and productive citizen includes family structures reflecting a broad range of personal choices today.
If everyone really felt that the mommy-turned-politician career path was a viable means to political office, we’d see more high profile examples of single mother candidates being elected. If it’s hard for Pelosi and Clinton to raise a family with millions of dollars and full-time nannies, imagine what it’s like to raise a child all alone on a regular salary. Single mothers are the real multi-taskers, not mothers who’ve lived privileged lives.
Regrettably, even child-free female politicians are viewed with disdain. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer implied that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice could never empathize with the families who had children stationed in Iraq because she had none. It’s disappointing that even the most liberal political figures pander to the mommy bias.
Motherhood doesn’t make women any more compassionate or capable of running countries than other women. And this is exactly what Rice implied in her rejoinder to Boxer. I thought women had come farther than the mediocrity of such bias, she said. Indeed. So had I.
Rebuttal
America finally has a female house speaker and a mainstream female presidential candidate — and it’s baffling why some who agree with their politics would criticize their proud proclamation that they are also mothers. That’s one of the few things a conservative can respect about these two women and it appears the public does as well. What is so wrong about female politicians - or male ones for that matter — being proud that they undertook one of the most intense, important roles in the world and did it well?
In a 2003 Gallup Poll, 86% of adults either had children or wanted to have them someday. If multi-gazillionare John Edwards can somehow be perceived as “one of the people” by putting on a pair of well-worn blue jeans, surely motherhood is a much more authentic asset when relating to a population where an overwhelming majority are parents themselves.
Pundits may think Hilary Clinton is playing mommy politics, but no one can deny it is also part of who she is. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a newly elected Democrat from Minnesota campaigned with her 11 year-old daughter and often talked about her daughter’s healthcare issues. She often affirmed that since there simply haven’t been lots of moms holding high elective office, it was important for moms to see those posts being held by “someone who understands their lives.” In a recent L.A. Times article, Ellen Malcolm of the liberal Emily’s List said that she viewed such open discussion as “kind of a coming of age” for political moms.
Successfully raising well-adjusted kids doesn’t mean a woman can run a nation. But it sure speaks well of her ability to examine, analyze and manage people under the best and worst conditions, and to keep her head in a crisis. Being a mom like that is something that shouldn’t be downplayed to avoid “sexist stereotypes:” it’s something to be proud of and trumpet from the rooftops.
Everyone advises politicians to give voters a sense for “who they are.” Hopefully, these elected moms will go to work on issues that concern children and mothers and not forget who they are, just to make a point.
Comments
By P
March 18, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this
I agree with Shaunti. It is important to me as a young mom to have someone who is in politics understand what is like to be a parent and what it takes to raise a child whether that someone is a Republican or Democrat. All of those who are running for office are playing some type of a “card” that they have in order to win. Why should being a mom be something that is off limits? Even though I may disagree with some of the women in office about their views on certain issues, I admire their courage to compete in a so male dominanted sphere.
By Brian Curtis
March 18, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
Of course it’s pandering, and it’s just as obviously necessary despite its irrelevance.
The fact is, the voters will accept only a narrow range of “acceptable” qualifications that have nothing to do with actual ability to do the job. Try being a non-Christian, for example; or worse yet, a pagan (gasp!). And even trivial things like appearance make a depressingly large impact on voter support; seen very many obese candidates, for example? Or ones with non-military scars and deformities?
Mommyhood is, of course, unimportant as a qualification. But it’s insulting necessary to appeal to the “common clay” of the voting populace.
By Minerva
March 18, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
Hurrah for Diane Glass. Too many female politicians are playing the mommy card. I can’t stand to even look at Polosi let alone be constantly bombarded with her constant references to her family. Get over yourself lady, raising your kids has nothing to do with running a country. What a selfish egocentric attitude! Bad male politicians use “causes” to distract from the real issues of the day. The “Mommy” pols do the same by talking about their families when they should be talking about their platforms and other pertinent topics. As far as I am concerned, any politician who throws up the emotional smokescreen; be it kids, grand-kids or cute little puppies is hiding their ineptitude for the job they are supposed to be doing.
By Bravewolf
March 18, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
I don’t hear anyone saying that a man has to be a father to lead a country. Funny how it’s the women who have to be mothers in order to be considered for the job.
By Brian Curtis
March 19, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this
Get your comments in fast, folks, before Bruno the Lying Troll takes over again.
By Renee
March 19, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this
Hi everyone!!! Long time I know!
I agree 100% with Diane on this issue.
By lovelyliz
March 19, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this
Could someone get rid of those pseudo ads that keep showing up here?
By SusieHomeMaker
March 19, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this
I agree with Brian. I think it’s more of the fact that America won’t stand for an “Iron Lady” running things. The woman must be soft and approachable, in America’s mind, in order to be even considered for the job. I remember when Dumbya was running for President and there was this big right up about how Mrs. Dumbya was such a lady and she would be a “true” First Lady of the Whitehouse by never butting into her husband’s affairs of state. At the time I thought it was hogwash, but now I see that this is how America thinks. A First Lady is NEVER supposed to have any opinions or thoughts other than the ones that are put into her head by her husband’s camapign manager. Same thing happened a few years back when Sonny was running for gooberner. Mrs. Sonny would stand by his side on commercials and/or close up shots, and stare lovingly into his face while he spoke about the changes he would make in Ga. if he became governor. She would NEVER look away or yawn; but just stare lovingly at his face! Yuk!!
Many female politicans may play the Mommy card, but it’s because that’s what America expects.
By Lyrazel
March 19, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
We make politicians dance because it is the one time they are paying attention to their constituents and we feel power we do not ordinarily have with government.
I think men also have to play the papa card. You know the good dad and husband with strong commitments, the ability to breed good looking spawn and maintain a wife who never gains weight. Few are. The job of being a politician requires hours of travel and weeks away from home. Children are neglected to be sacrificed for the greater good of getting daddy elected, they all show up at PR events like the happy normal middle class traditional scratch-and-sniff genuine unit. Scratch the surface and find drunks, drug users and (to their constituents surprise): pedophiles and gays playing straight. Thomas Jefferson had a black mistress and illegitimate children of slaves. FDR cheated on his wife so did JFK, so did WJC. Scratch the surface and the scent of do-do and ca-ca on the card waifs.
Some women voters evaluate women politicians by adherence to the traditional role. We subjected First Ladies to cookie contests and who believed Barbara Bush ever held a spatula? But there it was the mandatory: be a woman by proving traditional maternal duty. We did not seem to care one bit if these women did not have good traditional lives. Barbara Bush even said herself: Politics is bad for children. Hillary faced a public shame when her husband had to defend himself in a publicized trial for his philandering and many seriously doubt Bill’s ability to be First Man without dipping into the cigar box now and then. Does Chelsea even factor in their life except for campaigning?
The mommy card is played to identify with 51% of the voting American public: women. It is a long and traditional fal-di-rah that is all noise and no substance and puts women down by ignoring their abilities of: leadership, understanding laws to write bills, fundraising. Voters look at mommy issues but the mommy card is a Joker. Has there been any significant improvement for working mothers for: child care? No because the affluent have no problem finding domestic help. Remember the scandal about undocumented domestic help women politicians faced? Why was that never brought out in husband’s political run? Men politicians don’t need to be quizzed on what country their domestic comes from but women do. Men do not face the fashion police who dock points if she wears white shoes after labor day, men do not have: he wore a double breasted blue Armani jacket with low heel wingtips and coifed hair by Sultan to address the Senate.
John Waters and Divine could have made a more traditional family unit than the politicians do. I would have believed Divine if he played the mommy card just as much as I believe Nancy P knows her grandchildren’s birthdays.
By Stir
March 19, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
Many female politicans may play the Mommy card, but it’s because that’s what America expects.
Remember the cliche of a male president using photo ops kissing /holding a child?
This type of “I am one of you” has always been used to connect with the people.
Why is it that these issues are often viewed as a “woman’s” only subject with these two ladies? It is as though they WANT to divide the sexes at every chance.
By Anthony
March 19, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
You’d think that after all women have had to overcome in history that there would be some unity. It’s the same comparison as single women to married women. One always has to seem stronger when in reality both have their strengths. As a mother a female politician may be soft and “approachable” but a woman who has no children is independent and focused on her career (usually). The moomy card is really not played by the politician but the listener or supporter. You can hear what you want to hear. If you block all the mommy stuff out you are left with what you should be hearing.
By Archie
March 19, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
On this subject I agree more Shanti but I do agree with some things Diane says.
Motherhood doesn’t make women any more compassionate or capable of running countries than other women. I agree with that statement.
Senator Barbara Boxer implied that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice could never empathize with the families who had children stationed in Iraq because she had none.
I agree with that statement because I don’t think a mother could so comfortably go along with a lie that puts men and women in harm’s way as Rice does with this Iraq way. One size doesn’t fit all but I really believe most mothers would not just go along with the lies leading up this war in Iraq. Also, Diane as a man I am always told what a “real man” is and it is limiting but I such statements often come from women. So yes, as men we get insulted all the time and we move on. It sounds as if Diane is overly feminist because really being a mom should not be downplayed too avoid sexist stereotypes. I really hope Diane finds happiness with a man and has children then she won’t be so quick to write the ways she does on this subject. I believe you can be a mother and yet still be feminist but even being liberal and feminist does not mean one can escape being labelled extremist. I agree with Shanti’s last paragraph.
By Amy in ATL
March 19, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
I’m a big believer in the power of women, and I don’t see anything wrong with female politicians trumpeting the virtues of motherhood which campaigning. I’m a working mom with 2 girls, and I think balancing both lives is a challenge, but what challenges you also makes you stronger. In the case of Hillary and Nancy, it seems like they’ve both been successful moms and politicians, so why not bring that up as part of the whole character conversation? Motherhood is surely a major part of their lives, and it’s no different than male politicians discussing their experiences with fatherhood, military service, or being on the high school football team. No, it doesn’t necessarily qualify you for higher office, but neither does coaching your son’s little league team or teaching Sunday school or any of the other little details that turn up in candidates’ bios.
By SusieHomeMaker
March 19, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
Why is it that these issues are often viewed as a “woman’s” only subject with these two ladies? It is as though they WANT to divide the sexes at every chance
That’s where their bread and butter is coming from!! I too would like for them to give more “meat” sometimes in their commentary and less “potatoes”. I’d like to see their views on the Iraq war from a “woman’s” perspective. There are a LOT of mommy soldiers serving right now, some single mothers, I’d like their take on that — I’d also like to hear their take on the brewing controversy over Walter Reed from a female perspective (mothers, wives, children, SOLDIERs), etc.
But it’ll probably be a cold day in hell before that happens, so in the interim, let’ just enjoy the potatoes!!!
By YumYum
March 19, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
yum yum, potatoes.
By Lily Toad
March 19, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
I was appalled when Barbara Boxer, one of my favorite politicians, made that statement to Dr. Rice. As a non-mother I can empathize with mothers’ issues such as child care, health care and the risks of having a child enter the armed forces. Archie, all those mothers in Congress voted along with the Bush lies, so your argument about Dr. Rice doesn’t hold water. Whether she’s a mother or not she’s bought into the bush b.s.
By kimberly
March 19, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
A mommy’s kisses are magic, and can make the boo boo all better. Does that make for good elected officials? I hope we exercise more thorough judgement of a candidate’s qualifications than that! Nonethess, we should keep some mommies on hand, ‘cause we have lots of boo boos.
I believe Barbara Boxer’s comment was taken out of context. When you add it to what she said before and after the comment that was held up as a Fox News screeching point, she was making a point about how comfortable too many people are sending other people’s children to fight and die, because it doesn’t affect them. I don’t really think she was calling Rice a dried-up eggless hag as her critics played it.
By NetBanker
March 19, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
John Waters and Divine could have made a more traditional family unit than the politicians do. LOL! Lyrazel, that was priceless!!
I’d like to see their views on the Iraq war from a “woman’s” perspective. There are a LOT of mommy soldiers serving right now, some single mothers, I’d like their take on that — I’d also like to hear their take on the brewing controversy over Walter Reed from a female perspective Go Susie! Those topics are exactly what many would like to hear too.
I’m definitely leaning toward Diane’s position on this issue. While I don’t think there is anything wrong with a female candidate mentioning that she’s a mother I don’t think it’s integral to whether or not she can lead. Shaunti states “Successfully raising well-adjusted kids doesn’t mean a woman can run a nation. But it sure speaks well of her ability to examine, analyze and manage people under the best and worst conditions, and to keep her head in a crisis. “ The key to her position is “well-adjusted” which could be interpreted to also mean that if one has raised ‘not-so-well-adjusted’ children then one is not qualified as a candidate. Additionally, while children are certainly people in the most strict sense of the term they’re not the equivalent of dealing with adults. “Because I said so” or “because I’m the Mom” doesn’t work in the workplace unless one is the Boss. And just because one’s children are well-adjusted doesn’t mean that Mother was good at keeping her head in a crisis.
By Lily Toad
March 19, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Susie, I see there’s a link for suggesting topics for Diane and Shaunti so maybe it’s worth a try to make your suggestions. However all my suggestions have been ignored. I think they like simplistic no-brainers like the above topic. Every Sunday when I see their topic in the print newspaper I groan.
By Archie
March 19, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
Lily Toad, many women and men did not know the uranium claim was a lie but Rice knew that claim had no business being in the speech before the American public. Many people have changed their minds on the Iraq war because of the lies but not Rice. I agree with Diane that motherhood does not make a person more compassionate but I just don’t believe that most mothers would go along with a lie just for politics sake when they know so many will die. Women are different from men and men are more violent,notice I said more violent because I know women can be violent as well. Ms Boxer was never in favor of this war and she probably wonders what would Rice do if her children had to go over to Iraq as soldiers. Her comment may seem like a low-blow but anything you can do to stop unnecesary death is welcome as far as I am concerned. Rice is a big woman she’ll get over it. I have nothing against women that aren’t mothers but please understand as a man I used to get all kinds of insults before I became a father. “If you had kids…” “Wait until you have kids…”. Get over it. Experience with anything changes you. I was single and child-less for a long time so I really know that you can be a man without being a father and I imagine you can be a real woman without being a mother but I think the topic question is not a big issue really. I do like Hillary and Barbara Boxer but I am no fan of Ms C Rice.
By Objective Observer
March 19, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
The reason most young adults are so eager to leave home when they turn 18 is because “mommy” cannot mind her own business, and wants to control everyone else in the family because she is so insecure. If some female politician is stupid enough to play a “mommy card,” the public may enjoy being mothered for a little while, until the controlling starts. Then the voters will throw her out on her fat arse. Of course she will respond like all wronged “mommies.” She will make statements that are intended to produce reactions that alternate between anger and guilt.
By morgan lamberth
March 19, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
Let them play the card for all that it is worth !It shows compassion. I like the Nanny State !
By Archie
March 19, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Kimberly I didn’t read your comments before I posted my last post but I agree with them. I used to get so many comments on the negative before marriage and fatherhood but I survived. There’s a term called ultra-conservative well let’s add ultra-feminist. There are so many men that want to support women with their issues but we need sensible help.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Let them play the card to the hilt ! It signifies compassion.Hillary -Obama ,then Obama-?
By Lily Toad
March 19, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Archie, I’m no fan of Dr. Rice, either. Like I said, she’s brainwashed by Bush b.s., although I hear she’s not as important in the administration as she used to be. I just think people should lay off her personal life. So what, she’s a woman who put her career ahead of anything else. Maybe she just never met anyone she liked enough to get involved with. I don’t like Hillary, she’s too hawkish.
By Monica
March 19, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Diane stated in her argument,”Single mothers are the real multi-taskers, not mothers who’ve lived privileged lives.”
So where does that leave us married, middle class moms? :)
I personally can’t see how a woman can be a successful politician and mother at the same time. In those well-privileged families, who really does the “raisin?” It’s good old Alice the housekeeper or Fran the Nanny. It’s hard enough for me being a teacher and having children. My children come before the stacks of essays that I should grade in the evenings. I couldn’t imagine juggling a politician’s life of committee meetings, budget hearings, public appearances, and the soccer/cheerleader/baseball/gymnastics routines at the same time!
By Lily Toad
March 19, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
Depending on how helpful the husband is the married mom may not be better off than the single mom as far as multi-tasking.
By Mara
March 19, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
The reason most young adults are so eager to leave home when they turn 18 is because “mommy” cannot mind her own business, and wants to control everyone else in the family because she is so insecure
Wow. Somebody has some “mommy issues”. Justin? Is that you?
on topic -
Define “the mommy card”. Are we using it to define the worth of the female candidate? As if child-free candidates are less worthy of our trust than those who popped out a kid? If that’s what we mean then absolutely NOT. That idea reduces women to the status of “breeder” and ignores the traits and skills that she would bring to the job whether or not she ever had children. If we are saying that women with children have a deeper understanding of the challenges facing a parent, well…I think a parent of either sex would have that more intimate understanding.
On one hand I find it annoying that female politicians might assume that we care whether they’ve popped out a kid or three. On the other hand, motherhood is a part of who they are and will ultimately affect their views on policy.
By Mara
March 19, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
I’m de je vous-ing here. It seems that we kinda had this same conversation a while ago except it wasn’t whether the child-free could relate to the breeder, it was regarding whether whites could really understand/relate to minorities. (Hi Renee!)
Just seems like the same situation, different demographic.
By Some Analysis For The Brain-Dead
March 19, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this
Everyone is just skimming the surface as usual, because no one is asking WHY we’re concerned with a political candidate’s personal data. The reason is that we are emotional/rational beings who make decisions based on both types of “input”. Is this wrong? Why do we do that?
Another term to describe emotional evaluation is “gut feeling”. I wold argue that in the end, this is what drives most people, especially when the stakes are high. As such, candidates do their best to connect emotionally with the voters, which often means being in the “same clubs”, like being a “Christian”.
By Some Analysis For The Brain-Dead
March 19, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
Personally, I’ve come to trust my “gut instinct” when making decisions, especially at the poker table. I’m sure some “genius scientist” like BC will start crowing that this is an irrational way to make a decision, etc. Well, that’s why he’s a loser both at the poker table and in Life. The greater truth is that our brains are bombarded with incredible amounts of data every second. Our rational minds, however, can only consider a limited number of items at once, usually about 7. Our “gut feeling” is nothing less than our brain’s way of making decisions when faced with enormous amounts of data. Is it always right? Of course not, but it is often the best way to make a decision.
By Mr. Rogers
March 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
By Yep
March 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
Losers in life are those who have nothing better to do with their lives than to leave smelly dog dumps on blogs.
And then have the twisted view that somehow it is endearing.
By Brian Curtis
March 19, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
Well, there’s the liar, this time going by “Some Analysis,” which he definitely needs.
So much for intelligent discussion THIS week. Catch you later, folks!
By Mara
March 19, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
adios, au revoir, auf wiedersehen…good-night
By Some Advice For The Brain-Dead Libs of W2W
March 19, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
Susie, I see there’s a link for suggesting topics for Diane and Shaunti so maybe it’s worth a try to make your suggestions. However all my suggestions have been ignored. I think they like simplistic no-brainers like the above topic. Every Sunday when I see their topic in the print newspaper I groan.
If you Libs really want to improve W2W, you might start barking up a better tree than simply trying to run off people you don’t like. The quality of the discussion each week is related primarily to the quality of topic. In case none of you other than Lyrazel have noticed, Diane and Shaunti have been “phoning in” the topics for several months now. A good topic is essentially a “yin-yanger” in which two strong positions come in conflict. Here’s an example of a good topic: “Should racial or biological differences in men and women be taken into account when setting job requirements for firefighters?” In case any of you are unaware, both sex and race are taken into account in hiring practices. A topic like this pits “Diversity goals” vs. “merit”.
In other words, a good school teacher plans enough material to keep the kids busy for the whole class period, because “the Devil finds work for idle hands”.
By Cassandra
March 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Woe is me! The end is near!
By Joan
March 19, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
Everybody’s out of step but Johnny.
By Jack
March 19, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
I am a 36yrs old white male and I do not think women or women in politics play the mommy card. In life whether it is professional or personal marriage/family is very important, however in our professional life it must be demonstrated that you know and understand what family unity is and how much you should embrace and love it.
Women have come very far and they should be very proud of that. Since the womens rights movement, women have accomplished so much and have set milestones. Women are no longer pertrayed as unitelligent housewifes, barefoot and pregnant. They are now very successful business women, political leaders and household leaders. They no longer lead by their emotions but by their decision making abilities. Women have the ability to be leaders, executives, engineers, ect. just has much as men do.
Its not about using the mommy card. When you are in a certain line of work or in a certain position in your personal life such as a deacon at a church or a sunday school teacher or a social worker ect. you must represent that position in a positive manner and one of those attributes if your married with children is showing your ability to be a successful spouse or parent. Why is it that one must have a motive for something to gain or why is it that society always wants to pertray a person or political party with some sort of card? Such as a race card, mommy card, daddy card, ect..
Ladies stand up and be proud of where you have come from and where you are now and where you are going in the future. I applaud women of today and I no that I am the luckiest man in the world to be married to the woman I am married to and the beautiful children that I have. My wife is a very intelligent, loving, awesome wife, mother and business woman. She is my backbone, the backbone to our house, the perfect role model for my children and society. We are a christian family and God is the head of our house. God is our decision maker and our key to success..
By Stir
March 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
Personally, I’ve come to trust my “gut instinct” when making decisions, especially at the poker table. I’m sure some “genius scientist” like BC will start crowing that this is an irrational way to make a decision, etc. Well, that’s why he’s a loser both at the poker table and in Life.
Are you under the impression that professional poker players do not learn to calculate odds based on what cards have been played?
By Huh?
March 19, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this
however in our professional life it must be demonstrated that you know and understand what family unity is and how much you should embrace and love it.
Someone call the EEOC on this guy quick, will you?
By Stir
March 19, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this
Dog,
I meant to ask you something last week.
Do you believe that your personality is dictated by your genes?
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this
Are you under the impression that professional poker players do not learn to calculate odds based on what cards have been played?
Stir, most people consider Doyle Brunson to be the greatest all-around poker player of all time. If you read his book, he is very clear in his respect for instinct. In fact, he believes the same way I do: Our minds subconsciously pick up minute bits of information and process them in order to arrive at your “gut feeling”. So while pot odds calculations are important, statistical considerations aren’t the final adjudicator in a great poker player’s mind.
In a practical sense, in poker, you make the best decisions by knowing exactly what your opponent is holding. In this sense, the “absolute value” of the strength of your hand is irrelevant. The process by which you “put an opponent on a hand” can not be represented by a simple algorithm involving simple odds calculations such as pot odds.
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this
*Dog,
I meant to ask you something last week.
Do you believe that your personality is dictated by your genes?
My opinion would be yes, that genetics have a tremendous influence in determing the multiple characteristics which we lump together under the term “personality”. One confirmation of this are studies done which located identical twins who were separated at birth. Despite very different upbringings, they were remarkably similar in their outlooks on life.
The importance of your question relates to a view adopted by psychologists the last 100 years or so that a baby’s mind is a “blank slate”. Without going off on a philosophical/political rant, this is a denial of “human nature” and leads to all kinds of crazy social policies.
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Also, Stir, I didn’t mean to ignore your question last week about how it is possible that the Earth is in the center of the Universe and is not moving. The importance of this “outlook” is far greater than the reach of theoretical Physics. In case I didn’t mention, in any “geometrical structure” which has no boundaries, every point is at the “center”. The Earth is not unique in this way. That’s the bigger point: We are all at the “center of the Universe”.
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
The importance of learning “mathematical modeling” is that it forces you to take into consideration many factors at once, and most importantly, to assign a proportion to each factor. This is the type of “mathematics” that needs to be taught in school, not arcane geometrical proofs.
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
For example, consider a woman who chooses to stay in a physically abusive relationship. Usually, the woman’s friends and family members will do anything to get her out of the situation, but like a magnet the woman will keep running back to the “abuser”. Sounds a little crazy until you apply some “mathematical modeling”. Obviously, the woman places a greater value on being with the person than her own physical well-being. Until this “value judgment” changes, the woman will keep running back in spite of every effort by those who really love her.
By Stir
March 19, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this
In case I didn’t mention, in any “geometrical structure” which has no boundaries, every point is at the “center”.
That omits a big-bang type theory then, no?
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
That omits a big-bang type theory then, no?
The type of “Big Bang” which is represented by an “explosion” form a point source doesn’t match our observations of the Universe. The “topological characteristics” which we observe can be modeled with more complex geometrical structures, however, such as a torus.
The biggest mind-blower lies in trying to visualize something which has no boundaries. In this way, nothing can lie “outside” of the universe (which is the ‘set of all sets’ to use the terminology of Cantor), such as an anthropomorphic God. Any God must lie within the system That’s why I keep using the term “Emmanuel”.
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
Another theory which is easily blown out of the water by simple mathematical considerations is the Theory of Evolution, which is most appropriately titled “Ateleological materialism”. When you start calculating the odds that the model of Life adopted by Evolutionists is correct (i.e nothing + nobody = everything), you end up with probabilities with gazillions of zeros after the decimal place before you see a 1. You can’t shake these guys with common sense, however, because they keep falling back on the fact that wildly improbable things are possible. At the same time, they ignore theories which make a lot of sense and therefore have a much higher probability of being “correct”.
By Stir
March 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
The type of “Big Bang” which is represented by an “explosion” form a point source doesn’t match our observations of the Universe. The “topological characteristics” which we observe can be modeled with more complex geometrical structures, however, such as a torus.
You do know that the torus is a common shape for explosions, right? And it has been considered as a model for you universe for many years now.
That being the case, I do not share your awe in these observations.
Your interpretation of these theories never leads to the practical and stay rooted in the theoretical.It is too bad that you cannot articulate your thoughts into a tangible/practical idea. You may have something to say, but it all comes out sounding like one big song/dance.
You cannot say I did not try.
By A nice doggy
March 19, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
The ultimate Question we all are forced to answer one day is “Does Life have meaning ?” According to ateleological materialism, there is no meaning. A bunch of wildly improbable events all happened simultaneously, and boom, here we are in this perfectly integrated world. This “theory” leads straight to the philosophy of existentialism, in which there is no inherent meaning or purpose of Life, you have to invent one. This also ties in with the “blank slate” model of child psychology which lead right to the misguided views of Dr. Benjamin Spock. If you dig deep enough, this dangerous philosophy leads to most of the ridiculous Lib policies which have damaged our country the past 40 years, and even to geniuses like Clinton’s lawyers who questioned what the meaning of the word “is” is.
By Stir
March 19, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
1. You can’t shake these guys with common sense, however, because they keep falling back on the fact that wildly improbable things are possible. At the same time, they ignore theories which make a lot of sense and therefore have a much higher probability of being “correct”.
My common sense screams BS anytime someone replaces a systematic (currently) unprovable theory of a phenominon with magical notions. Or, when someone wants to discredit real/practical solutions for a lot of theory.
I have known people that no longer are invited to meetings because they are totally unable to suggest anything that can be applied to the situation.
You should do well as a professor writing papers, but I have a “gut feeling” (but based on fact;) your use in a classroom with actual people will not turn out too well. If you think the people on the blog have no tolerance for gassy egos, wait until the students get ahold of you.
By SETHU
March 19, 2007 10:55 PM | Link to this
Sorry if this message wasn’t expected. Please delete it so. 133 http://buy-cheap-tramadol-online.blogspot.com/ buy tramadol online http://buy-cheap-ultracet-online.blogspot.com/ cheap ultracet
By Mara
March 20, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
great job, guys!
“A comprehensive study of “time diaries” by researchers from the University of Maryland shows that fathers have increased their child-care work from 2.5 hours a week in 1965 to seven hours a week in 2003. There is a similar trend with housework: Dads did 4.4 hours a week in 1965 and 9.6 hours a week in 2003.”
“Perhaps even more striking, the total workloads of married mothers and fathers — when paid work is added to child care and housework — is roughly equal, at 65 hours a week for mothers and 64 hours for fathers.”
“In most families, though, one of the most notable gaps that remains is that mothers have more responsibility for organizing and orchestrating daily life…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901639.html
By Translator
March 20, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this
gassy egos = dog flatulence.
By SusieHomeMaker
March 20, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this
Mara: Your comments reminded me of an article from 1955 (real Good Housekeeping article); that was being passed around my office. The article was on how young housewives could be a “helpmate” for their husbands and set the example for their daughters to follow. Here’s some of the “high” lites!
Make the evening his Never complain if he comes h ome late, or goes out to dinner, or othe rplaces of entertainment without you. Instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his very real need to be at home and relax.
Don’t complain if he’s late home for dinner Even if he stays out all night; count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through that day.
Don’t ask him questions about his actions or question his judgement Remember he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.
A good wife knows her place
Thought I might share this with you!! When I originally read it I thought it was too funny!! However, a lot of the guys in the office were looking wistful and yearning for the “good ole” days!!
By Archie
March 20, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
Susie, that was a good post at 10:29 but I definitely don’t want to go back to 1955. I don’t mind if my wife asks quesions, in fact I wish she would be more interested in certain things around the house. If you cook a good dinner I guarantee I won’t be late. The thing is if you cook… I am going out to dinner by myself mainly because I am tired of cooking and you(modern women) won’t cook. Obviously my thoughts are jokes but since some are so sensitive… New rules for helpmate: clean up the house sometimes because I can’t work outside and inside, cook sometimes because we can’t afford to eat at Outback,Ruby Tuesdays, and the Cheesecake factory every other night and because I get tired of cooking. Since you(women) are liberated now that means,yes, you have to pay some bills on time without getting angry.
By SusieHomeMaker
March 20, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
Archie: Too funny!! I can cook, (I’m a southern girl after all), and I do a LOT because like you said it’s cheaper than going out. As for the rest, I’m divorced; so, I guess I flunked the “Perfect Housewife/Helpmate” test!!! I will however take the make-up exam after I meet my next ex-husband!
By kimberly
March 20, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
Archie… a man of reason. {:-> I am thrilled to cook, but it’s hard when you leave the house at 8:00 and don’t get home until after 7:00 every day, or when you’re running around getting kids to and from practice and games. Cooking requires planning, a task often pushed back when constantly responding to immediate issues. As far as a good meal goes, I’ll take something home-cooked and well balanced over fattening, greasy, (potentially compromised) restaurant food! But alas, so little time the modern world. sigh
By Archie
March 20, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
Hello Kimberly and SusieHomemaker, I am smiling as I read your responses as you both have a sense of humor. I know both of you are modern women and I just had to get my dig in but I don’t mind cooking and I don’t mind housework, I just need some help every now and then. I like independent women that also like men and don’t view men as the enemy. I saw a show on where the woman never even went into the kitchen and the family ate out every night,of course, the subject of the show was getting out of debt. I fault the man,too, because he could have gone into the kitchen and started cooking. Today’s women are so different than 1955 version and that’s a good thing but we still have to use common sense,i.e. male or female has to homecook sometimes and manage money, otherwise you both end up on Oprah complaining about how broke you are. I am still learning as I just discovered a term called compulsive hoarding and how that negatively impacts marriages. Anyway on topic,Kimberly, with a schedule like yours you have every right to mention that you are a mom when running for office.
By Mara
March 20, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
Hey Susie - LOL @ the “rules”! My faves were “Don’t ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.” and “A good wife always knows her place”
Archie - sorry…thought I was giving the guys on the board a “atta boy” for being more home and family oriented than their fathers. I never considered that the stat about total work hours balancing out might indicate that we “modern” women (whatever that means)were failing to meet some sort of outdated marital obligation. Seems to me that you get what you bargain for. If your significant other doesn’t like to cook and that’s important to you…maybe you shouldn’t be with her. Same with housekeeping etc.
I decided my honey was the man for me the day I came home to my apartment to find he’d rearranged the furniture, done the dishes, and had dinner started. To me that showed that HE wasn’t looking for his mommy, he was looking for his partner. He told ME that he decided I was the woman for him the first time he took me to the NOPI Nationals and I didn’t b*** about the heat, noise, or the dirt. (shrug) If you choose someone incompatable with what YOU need from a mate, you get what you get.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
My dream girl: 5 ’ 7” or taller, very athletic, smart as a whip, and not afraid to put me in my place. Also, forget the high heels, tight jeans, and make-up—we’re going running, so put on some sweats.
He told ME that he decided I was the woman for him the first time he took me to the NOPI Nationals and I didn’t b* about the heat, noise, or the dirt. (shrug) If you choose someone incompatable with what YOU need from a mate, you get what you get.
I like your hubby’s outlook, Mara. I’ll have to start treating you with more respect.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
Archie… a man of reason. {:-> I am thrilled to cook, but it’s hard when you leave the house at 8:00 and don’t get home until after 7:00 every day,
I hate that for you, kim. Life was not meant to spend every minute working.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this
Archie: Too funny!! I can cook, (I’m a southern girl after all), and I do a LOT because like you said it’s cheaper than going out. As for the rest, I’m divorced; so, I guess I flunked the “Perfect Housewife/Helpmate” test!!! I will however take the make-up exam after I meet my next ex-husband!
I’m betting on you, Susie, to find a great guy for yourself. You’ve got too many great qualities to be single. Of course, my skills as a prognosticator may be suspect right now based on how my NCAA picks turned out.
By Monica
March 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
Cooking requires planning, a task often pushed back when constantly responding to immediate issues.
Ain’t that the truth! I like to cook, but somehow I never can remember to move the chicken from the freezer to the fridge the night before! Now that T-ball’s back in swing (are you lurking Julia? Hi!), Monday nights are crazy! With regard to eating out, we have started splitting entrees - it’s cheaper and we don’t need the excess food. The blessing/curse that is upon us now: we have three restaurants with curbside to go service. It’s too convenient! We can enjoy a nice meal at home, that someone else prepared, without taking the boys in a nice establishment against their will :)
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
With regard to eating out, we have started splitting entrees - it’s cheaper and we don’t need the excess food.
For a single man, it’s far cheaper to buy dinner at a restaurant than to round up all the ingredients and cook them yourself. As you point out, Monica, the portions are huge, so what is supposed to be 1 meal is really two meals for me. Plus, I’m a nut for ethnic food, the more authentic, the better. I look for restaurants where no one speaks English.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
Now that T-ball’s back in swing (are you lurking Julia? Hi!), Monday nights are crazy!
I will say that the little yard apes can be entertaining to watch over at Mountain Park while I run laps. As a (former) health care professional, however, I think that most of these kids are too young to be playing organized sports. I’ve been told there are T-ball leagues for three and four year olds. That’s crazy, IMO.
By kimberly
March 20, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
Monica, yes, keeing up with lil’ athletes can wear you out! I try to cook enough on weekends to have leftovers for Monday and Tuesday night. Doesn’t always happen though. By Friday I’m over it and just want to collapse on the sofa and not move. Stuff you make in one pot (stews, casseroles, etc.) are the most convenient, but kids (and many men) have an aversion to “food that touches.” The crock pot sounds great, except that there’s nothing I can slow cook for 11 or 12 hours that isn’t a black gooey glob by the time I get back to it. Yuck. And now, when it seems all hope is gone, I’m dealt another cruel blow: not dream girl material. Dang.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this
Man, this is going to suck when I go back to work one day—I’ll have to start getting out of bed before 2 PM. I’m very involved in playing a game called Go, which is extremely popular in Japan, Korea, and China. It’s kind of like chess, but about 1000 times harder. I have to stay up all night to play the Asian guys over the internet when it is daytime for them.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this
but kids (and many men) have an aversion to “food that touches.”
Is that a guy thing? That was a big issue for me as a kid—I liked to “compartmentalize” my food, and eat one item at a time before moving on to the next. I’ve overcome that tendency as an adult for the most part, however. Now I only try to keep the “dry” items separate from the “gooey” ones.
And now, when it seems all hope is gone, I’m dealt another cruel blow: not dream girl material. Dang
Other than the height requirement, you would do great for me, kim. Excessive baggage scares me a little, but I’ve learned to deal with it in my old age.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this
In return, what do I have to offer? Well, you may have noticed that I’m pretty good at tearing people’s egos down and attacking their self-worth. With a little “motivation”, I’m an expert at the opposite as well: I can make someone feel that they are the most important, most special person ever created by God as well. I might cut Bill Clinton down out of jealousy, but the man was a true genius in making you feel like he really “cared”. The possible difference between he and I is that I’m not a liar—If I compliment you, it’s sincere.
By Monica
March 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
My kids have an aversion to anything that’s not pizza, chicken nuggets, or peanut butter and jelly! At least that one is somewhat healthy. Oh, I forgot meatloaf and spaghetti…
What are the qualifications for dream girl, anyways? LOL
By MrRogers
March 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
A little “expert” advice for all of you enthusiastic parents here whose kids are signed up for every league: Children’s bones are not fully formed, and they can easily develop lifelong problems from injuries sustained by playing sports before they are ready. I know, because I made a few million dollars treating these same kids later in life.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this
The worst sport, in my opinion is gymnastics for girls along with its second cousin, competitive cheerleading. For boys, football is very dangerous, especially at the high school level. Wrestling causes a lot of injuries, as well as motocross due to accidents. I was the “team chiropractor” for Tucker High School for many years. I hope the coaches never found out, but I secretly told the kids not to play if they were injured, ever. The little bit of transient glory provided by high school athletics isn’t worth a life-long injury, IMO.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
What are the qualifications for dream girl, anyways? LOL
You’re pretty close, Monica, to dream girl status. Your husband is a very lucky man.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Well, I guess I should fess up—-The most important quality in a girl to me is nymphomania. Forget everything else. You wouldn’t think there were that many nymphos in the world, but I’ve dated many.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
A fellow’s best bet is to look for a girl with Irish heritage—You hear a lot about the hot Latino girls, but IMO you just can’t top an Irish girl in the sack. Green eyes are usually a giveaway.
By Monica
March 20, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
Wow, dog, I actually agree with you! I teach freshmen, and last month one of my students had knee surgery already - meniscus damage at the age of 14. Some coaches lose sight of the fact that they are working with kids whose bones aren’t finished growing.
By kimberly
March 20, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
Monica, may I offer my magic trick for kids & veggies? Kids love to dip! I make a sauce of melted butter, lemon juice and garlic salt, in individual dipping cups for the broccoli florets or other veggies. I had great success getting my step kids, and later my own, to eat veggies. Dippin’ is fun!
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
Some coaches lose sight of the fact that they are working with kids whose bones aren’t finished growing.
Really, Monica, I think many parents need to reevaluate their motivation for wanting their kids to participate in organized sports. For the one-in-a-million young athlete who has the potential to become a pro, I say go for it. But I can’t tell you how many times I had to scream at parents who refused to take their kids out of a sport after they were already injured.
By pffft
March 20, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
Yes, I’m sure everyone loves genuine compliments offered by people with severe emotional problems.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this
The only analogy I ever found to work with the gung-ho parents is to compare life to a foot race. You see, “Life is a marathon”, I would tell them, “not a hundred yard dash. If your kid burns out too early by pushing it now, s/he won’t have anything left later on when it’s more important.”
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
Yes, I’m sure everyone loves genuine compliments offered by people with severe emotional problems.
You would be surprised how effective a sincere compliment is, pfffft, even if the complimenter is mentally ill. Hey, look how well it worked for Bill Clinton.
To be honest, the more I’m exposed to Hillary, the more I like Bill. I’d even vote to overturn the two-term limit to let Bill back in if it meant we didn’t have to put up with Hillary.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Any opinions today about Rudy Guliani?? I think he’s a good man, and would be confident with him as our leader.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
I make a sauce of melted butter, lemon juice and garlic salt, in individual dipping cups for the broccoli florets or other veggies.
Butter, lemon, and garlic salt??? What about good old-fashioned, ultra-high calorie blue cheese dressing (or ranch)? Gotta clog up those arteries, you know.
By lozen
March 20, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this
You wouldn’t think there were that many nymphos in the world, but I’ve dated many. Ha, ha, ha. ROTFL! Of course you have. You wouldn’t think there were that many deaf, dumb and blind nymphos would ya?
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this
So kim, are you saying that you show up for dates in high heels, tight jeans, and lots of make-up? I thought you were more than just a poser, an arm ornament. Wasn’t that the deal with your first hubby? He was looking for an arm ornament, not a real woman with opinions of her own?
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this
*You wouldn’t think there were that many deaf, dumb and blind nymphos would ya?
You know, I’m not a bad-looking guy, lozen. Not GQ material, but not bad. Also, I can be extremely charming with the right motivation. You’re a pretty smart lady—I’m sure you figured out how to “motivate” your man.
By Archie
March 20, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
*My kids have an aversion to anything that’s not pizza, chicken nuggets, or peanut butter and jelly! At least that one is somewhat healthy. Oh, I forgot meatloaf and spaghetti…
What are the qualifications for dream girl, anyways? LOL*
Monica, I posted after Susieh because I thought she was funny and I posted in humor about non-cooking women. Obviously this does not apply to everyone. In fact the lady that sits in front of me agreed with me and she said she changed as she got older and she cooks often and well. I am glad that post generated some intelligent discussion from most people anyway.
By Quoter
March 20, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
two quotes about Rudi, so why are we not surprised?:
I’m a Democrat who lived in NYC during Giuliani’s tenure. At the beginning, I thought he did a pretty good job. By the end, he seemed to have developed into a mean-spirited autocrat who lacked the restraint to handle power. He was never satisfied to prevail; he had to destroy and humiliate those who didn’t kowtow to him. He struck me as the kind of person, not unlike Cheney, who is, or would be, dangerous if given too much power. In the limited scope of running a city, he could be effective. In the global scope of a presidency, he would be scary. Posted by: cck on February 9, 2007 at 2:27 PM
One’s temperament is not an effective measure of a presidential candidate. A more relevant measure would be one’s leadership or management style. In this case, Guiliani was a bully who surrounded himself with yes men like Kerik and refused to dialogue with the mildest of critics. His 9/11 performance was more style than substance. e.g. The police/fire radios, the air quality. The fact that he governed New York like a demagogue more than a democrat is far more important than if he occasionally gets hot under the collar.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this
When you guys get a chance, please let me know if you think the trailer to my friend’s movie is funny. Apparently he’s getting a good reaction from some famous folks. He says that he is on the verge of getting Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins to appear in cameo roles as hard core Republicans. If he can pull that off, it will be a blockbuster for sure.
http://lisztforpresident.com/Lisztforpresident/Campaign%202008.html
By lozen
March 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker, recently I went thru some old boxes from my teenage years and found some similar articles. Amazing! It advised young women not to develop strong interests because they would want to adopt their husband’s interests when they got married. This is just one example of the many, many ways females were taught they were subordinate to males back then. Of course it’s still happening. Every womens’ magazine has at least one article on how to get him to talk to you, how to please him sexually, how to keep him from cheating, how to get him to open up, how to catch a man, how to keep a man. (Then comes the article on how to make delicious cakes, pies and other desserts with photos and then comes the article on how to lose weight!) How many mens’ mags have articles about how to keep her happy and please her sexually, etc. Zip! Men are still taught being successful at work is most important. Women are still taught being successful getting a man and having a relationship is most important.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Quoter, the New Yorkers I know are all uniform in their praise for Guliani, and not just for his 9/11 leadership. He took a dirty city and cleaned it up and made it a great place to live. As for your 9/11 complaints, give me a break! The man “inherited” one of the most difficult situations emotionally, and got everyone working with their heads held high right away. If some mealy Democrat were in charge that day, they would’ve had us believing it was our fault and start taking up collections for th enemy.
By kimberly
March 20, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this
Oh good grief. You bash “one-wife” Bill for being a skirt chaser, then backtrack and sort of understand ‘cause his “stand by your man anyway” wife irritates you, but then you’re comfortable with Rudy’s (the NYC dump ‘em for the gumar Dom’s) “leadership?”
In my highest heels, I’m not even close to 5’7”, doofus. And yes, I pretty up for dates like a good southern girl, but don’t spend all my time posing. I have hiking boots AND muscles, and know how to use them both. The fair skinned (sorry not Irish) are required to spackle and paint just a bit before emerging into the bright light and ridiculous asthetic standards of southern women, so bite me Mr. loud-tie, bling-wearing, 1980-camaro-hairstyle sporting mutt.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Men are still taught being successful at work is most important. Women are still taught being successful getting a man and having a relationship is most important.
And where lies the problem, lozen? It’s called human nature. Male and female. We’re different, so advocating different strategies for life makes a lot of sense. i told my 20 year old niece several times that the smartest thing she can do is marry well. She tries to come back with some feminist BS, but she knows I’m right.
By Stir
March 20, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
“Life is a marathon”, I would tell them, “not a hundred yard dash. If your kid burns out too early by pushing it now, s/he won’t have anything left later on when it’s more important.”
Geese, you have some pretty old and cliché gas releasing today dog. Or are you now going to claim to have thought of that statement yourself when you were 3yrs old while fighting in Vietnam on your way to college to teach number theory - since your so advanced and all.
Your ability to top your last load of bs does amaze me though. Not much different than how Paris Hilton surprises me in acting even more stupid and vain than her previous stunt.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
I have hiking boots AND muscles, and know how to use them both.
If you’re trying to shake me, you’re not doing a very good job. Strong women turn me on.
so bite me Mr. loud-tie, bling-wearing, 1980-camaro-hairstyle sporting mutt.
You got the wrong guy there. I wear no jewelry and have almost a crew cut. Fashion isn’t my thing. Hopefully you didn’t think I was the guy in the pictures from my friend’s website, did you? I was just playing with everyone that day. I’m in the pictures, but my face is hidden in almost all of the shots. If I thought it would work, I would make up a myspace account for you with pictures.
By A serious doggy
March 20, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
Stir, I appreciate your input yesterday regarding the presentation of my ideas. If I have done a poor job organizing my thoughts to lead to a practical conclusion, I apologize, and would like a second chance to sort it out for you. My goal is to develop a TOE (Theory Of Everything) which is both logically consistent and, most importantly, consistent with reality. I will skip for you all of the metaphysical and epistemological considerations which must be decided upon before developing any system of knowledge, and will assume that you agree that buses run people down who jump in front of them regardless of the jaywalkers’ outlook on the situation, and that a picture of the ocean and the ocean itself are two very different entities.
To get to the heart of the matter, most Americans are exposed to two “different” basic worldviews as children: First, in church, you are told about a mystical anthropomorphic Creator who is responsible for all aspects of existence, including moment-by moment events in each of our lives and even an afterlife, all apparently decided upon by the whim of the Creator. Later, in Science class, you are told that this is wrong, that the Universe actually began as an incredible explosion of homogenous material which spontaneously differentiated into “protons and electrons” at the moment of explosion, which then spontaneously combined (at incredibly high velocities, mind you) in a perfect one-to-one correspondence to form hydrogen, which later combined through a long chain of unlikely, purposeless mechanical events to form “heavier elements”, which then spontaneously combined over billions of years to form all of us sitting here today staring at pixels on a computer monitor, all in a purposeless way.
By A serious doggy
March 20, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this
Hopefully it is obvious that these two world views are incompatible at a very deep level. In order to reconcile the conflict, a person has to make one of three choices. (1) Believe in a “literal Bible” and reject the premises of Science out of hand. (2) Accept Science as the final arbiter of truth and reject all of the premises of Religion out of hand. (3) Develop a system of knowledge which incorporates elements of both Science and Religion. I won’t spend any time here discussing option #1—chuck has done a fantastic job of demonstrating the folly of that route. I wish I didn’t have to spend time discrediting option #2 because, to me, it is just as obviously wrong as choice #1, but a lot of folks like BC seem willing to buy that one hook-line-and-sinker. The bottom line is that observed phenomena, both in Nature and in the laboratory, don’t support the premise behind the “modern” Scientific view that matter is ateleological and thus doesn’t have any “divine” properties. If you read their literature carefully, informal references to teleological properties of matter are made frequently. A great example comes from the title of the most famous anti-God, pro-Evolution book ever, “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Amazing how he can ascribe such “motives” to “inert” materials like carbon and hydrogen and keep a straight face. He even speaks of molecular “competition” in the book. Huh? What, do carbon atoms challenge each other to meetings in front of the Star Bar? Really now.
By A serious doggy
March 20, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this
Once you reject options #1 and #2 as workable world-views, you are left with option #3, an amalgamation of the other two. The question then becomes which premises from Religion and Science make sense, and how should they be combined. Unfortunately, many people choose option #3, but essentially believe in a “dual Reality” which includes both ateleological matter AND an anthropomorphic Creator—the worst of both worldviews, IMO. To me, the right combination is the inverse of those two premises—i.e. a worldview which includes teleological matter, but no anthropomorphic Creator.
I don’t know if you are able to follow this line of reasoning in order to reach some practical conclusions, but I will say that adopting a view in which matter itself is divine leads me to a position of respect for all Life without appealing to Santa Claus for a reason. I understand your concern with ascribing divinity to matter, because it opens up a Pandora’s box which allows for all kinds of crazy, mystical theories. However, if you recall, the second requirement of my system of knowledge is that it has to correlate with reality. As such, anyone who develops a theory which denies bus accidents will be hearing from me. At the same time, anyone who postulates that nothing + nobody = everything is not a statement of divinity will be hearing from me also.
By Klank
March 20, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
Of course it’s still happening. Every womens’ magazine has at least one article on how to get him to talk to you, how to please him sexually, how to keep him from cheating, how to get him to open up, how to catch a man, how to keep a man.
I agree. Pretty stupid of women to keep puchasing those mags and more importantly running those articles, since women do own almost all of them.
Get these women need to get with the new program and stop creating such harmful material and stop promoting these mags.
By A serious doggy
March 20, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
As for your charge that these thoughts are not original with me, I never said they were, guy. I won’t call you names like you did to me, however. What is original with me is the ability to sort through all of the BS that is being passed off as knowledge these days, and call it BS, and from a point of knowledge. I’ve slogged through Schroedinger’s equations before in describing atomic bonding from a quantum mechanics standpoint, so I’m not criticizing from afar, like many others.
I do appreciate your critique, however, because I may go the academic route one of these days. I’m not sure if you are a professor or an administrator, but you sound like you know what you are talking about.
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this
Oh good grief. You bash “one-wife” Bill for being a skirt chaser, then backtrack and sort of understand ‘cause his “stand by your man anyway” wife irritates you, but then you’re comfortable with Rudy’s (the NYC dump ‘em for the gumar Dom’s) “leadership?”
Ha Ha. “If I contradict myself, so I contradict myself. I contain multitudes.”
By A nice doggy
March 20, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this
Get these women need to get with the new program and stop creating such harmful material and stop promoting these mags.
Same question for you as I posed to lozen. Have you ever heard of human nature? I direct both of you to reread Aesop’s Fables, especially “The Lion and The Mouse”.
By Stir
March 20, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this
I don’t know if you are able to follow this line of reasoning in order to reach some practical conclusions, but I will say that adopting a view in which matter itself is divine leads me to a position of respect for all Life without appealing to Santa Claus for a reason.
Honestly dog, that is a beaten path of reasoning. You seem to still be struggling with the first hard part: pluaristic systems.
All but the most ego-centric people, are considerate enough to keep those ramblings in their head. Most people also go through the process you are with out even having to be aware of it, and those that are consious of it have a well known disorder.
Ultamately people in your situation end up filling up tons of notebooks of their “genious” ramblings, never knowing that it is second hand for the rest of us in which we graduate from by our 30s.
Think about it; you unknowingly answered the complaint of song/dance with more song/dance. How self-aware is that?
By Monica
March 20, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
The fair skinned (sorry not Irish) are required to spackle and paint just a bit before emerging into the bright light and ridiculous asthetic standards of southern women
You’re in good company! I don’t do tanning beds, and I’m too afraid of skin cancer these days to sun-bathe. Now, if we lived in the Renaissance period, everyone would think that we were wealthy and didn’t have to labor in the hot sun!
By lozen
March 20, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
Pretty stupid of women to keep puchasing those mags and more importantly running those articles, since women do own almost all of them. Yeah, well I never claimed human beings of either gender are smart. Why would all the grocery stores have their National Inquirer and Globe mags at the checkout counter if people were smart? And it’s pretty stupid of men to keep purchasing Playboy and watching race cars go around and around but some of you do it, don’t ya?
By Archie
March 21, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this
How many mens’ mags have articles about how to keep her happy and please her sexually, etc. Zip!
That’s not true as MensHealth sends me articles daily about how to keep a woman happy,sexually and otherwise. They sent me an article called the “better sex workout”.
Also Essence magazine has plenty of articles that tell women how to get ahead in business,etc. Essence has articles that deal with male issues as well but it is slanted towards women particular women like SusieH.
I don’t subscribe or read Playboy but I don’t think it would be stupid if I did and it’s not stupid for women to read whatever magazine they read because it’s just a magazine and it is a free country.
By Lyrazel
March 21, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Actually you may not be right. Abandon your feminism scapegoats and look at economics. One finds that marriage today brings a significant drop of income. After college many women find themselves leading the career-track lives. Their income ability begins to rise and many single women make large purchases like home, car and investments. Women who get married normally exit this lucrative world for having children. Children means a loss of income because new needs (childcare, schooling transportation, sick days, etc.) factor in. Also many women who have children cannot return to the same job because of the time child rearing takes. Returning to the job market after an absence means salary depreciation at any age. The younger the married woman returns to the job market the higher her salary will be in 10 years—but it will never equal what she could have been paid (unless in her absence she managed to acquire an advanced degree). Also significant numbers of married women can suddenly become sole-supporters of family units due to job loss, divorce or military separation. Marriage means sharing expenses, so if partner gets sick that is an expense, if partner’s car breaks down, that is another expense…if husband makes bad investments, buys a bass fishing boat and gives up his lucrative Dr. job to become a pro bass fisherman, another expense…
While you say: finding someone else—the real truth is her own efforts might be far more lucrative than playing the Tonto role for some Lone Ranger as her uncle suggests. Men are no longer guaranteed the big job nor is there any guarantee that they can earn more than she can. Encourage your niece to blaze her own trail until she feels comfortable managing finances and assets. Mr. Cash-Machine is a myth! I mean are YOU better off after marriage/divorce? I doubt it too.
By kimberly
March 21, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, so basically it’s a crap shoot either way. Whichever way you choose, it’s likely you’ll sacrifice something. Young people should be encouraged early on to really examine and ponder what’s important to them. Being self-sufficient and financially stable is important to most, but to many, it’s not what makes life worth living. On the other hand, if you give it all up for love and family, you may yet wind up with nothing. The best chance anyone has, IMO, is to figure out what’s most important and go for it. Either way it’s a roll of the dice. In the end, will you wind up with what matters to you?
By SusieHomeMaker
March 21, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this
I’m betting on you, Susie, to find a great guy for yourself. You’ve got too many great qualities to be single. Of course, my skills as a prognosticator may be suspect right now based on how my NCAA picks turned out.
OK here’s my picks for the Men’s final four: Georgetown, Florida, Ohio State, and (drum roll please), either N. Carolina or Memphis.
For the women I’m going with the old favorites: Tennessee, LSU, Duke, North Carolina.
What’s yours?
By AntiBozo
March 21, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
Did Lyrazel miss the *”So there, Dog” or is she just too nice.
anybody note any similiarities between Lord Doom on the Wooten blog, intent on destroy, destroy the blog to then crow about I won, I won and anybody on this blog?
By SusieHomeMaker
March 21, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
And it’s pretty stupid of men to keep purchasing Playboy and watching race cars go around and around but some of you do it, don’t ya?
HA! ROTFLMAO!! Too funny!!! But you know they only purchase playboy for the “articles”!! They barely notice the nude calendar girls!!
I will admit though, when I was younger I used to sneak into my mother’s room and read her PlayGirl, (whatever happened to it?); and secretly lust after some of the guys there. Years later, I learned that the majority of the guys were gay and that nearly broke my heart!
By Lyrazel
March 21, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
Its delusional encouraging women to marry a rich man in these times. Rich does not guarantee staying rich, does it nor does it guarantee a happy home! The best advice for anyone starting out in the world is KNOWING how to stick to a budget that is so important to both married and unmarried people: rich or poor. I have lived through husbands walking away from their wives and children and anyone who encourages someone to become reliant on another persons wealth well, it raised my hackles. But tis true what they say: Money is nothing if you aint got someone to cuddle….
By Archie
March 21, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
Being self-sufficient and financially stable is important to most
Kimberly that really should be important because with that you can do so many things for charity and your family and yourself. You are right that it’s a roll of the dice to get married but hey no one’s perfect, I think.
Men are no longer guaranteed the big job nor is there any guarantee that they can earn more than she can.
That is so true. My spouse earned more than me at different times but you don’t marry to improve yourself economically anyway you marry because you love someone. You can get your finances in shape without someone else most of the time. Women aren’t always better off single because you can get laid off or your business can go sour. I think people forget that they won’t always be young and vibrant. Like I said before men are not the enemy but somehow that attitude has crept into certain women’s minds. Lyrazel, don’t pay attention to nonsense because obviously marriage is not a cure-all and should not be expected to be such. People say things to get a rise out of you because of your feminism. I think what Kimberly said in her first two sentences at 9:49 was very sound advice. I really think Diane has some envy issues with people who have children because she has suggested several times that people with children especially married people don’t parent well. Diane is too good to have that kind of envy.
By Mara
March 21, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
The very premise that “marrying well” is “smarter” than being personally responsible for oneself is absolutely ludicrous! The idea makes me want to retch.
The mutt is actually advocating that it’s smarter for a woman to be a gold-digging parasite dependant on, and beholden to, someone else than it is to be a independant, self-sufficient individual with the wherewithal to escape a untenable situation if needed. I guess to him it’s better to “owned” than to be free. Blech!
By lozen
March 21, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
All you women are so right this morning. The best thing for anyone, male or female, is to discover what they really want to do and go for it. Two halves never make a whole and women who get married expecting the man to complete them and provide for them and keep them safe in this world are setting themselves up for a fall. Become a whole person and learn to take care of yourself. Then you might find another whole person who can be a good partner. Of course dog gives bad advice. I hope his niece is smart enough to see thru him as we all do!
By Lily Toad
March 21, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
I was raised with the expectation that I, and my sisters, would go to college and work all our lives. My mother said it’s great if we marry but not to count on a man to support us and to be able to support ourselves. I’m thankful for growing up in the 1960’s with that advice. In our neighborhood my mother was the only woman who worked. All the other women were stay at home moms.
By Lily Toad
March 21, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
I don’t know if I should say this or not, but, I’ve noticed that we can have nice discussions amongst ourselves in the morning. Some dogs sleep late apparently, so let’s enjoy the morning. Once I see the long, insulting, self-congratulatory posts I leave.
By kimberly
March 21, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
LilyToad, that was the advice and expectation I received as well. Although now my father expresses regret that he didn’t better teach me the importance of selecting a good, suitable partner, and the tools and knowledge with which to do that. “It’s one of life’s most important decisions,” he says. Where was this discussion when I was 21? As it is, I’ve always taken care of myself. The downside: whatever needs doing, I have to do it my %&*^^$^%$## SELF! I’d be lying if I said I never envied what appears to be the greener grass on the other side of the fence, but I know it’s probably full of chiggers anyway.
By A nice doggy
March 21, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
OK here’s my picks for the Men’s final four: Georgetown, Florida, Ohio State, and (drum roll please), either N. Carolina or Memphis.
I had a premonition that Louisville would do well, but they crapped out, unfortunately. My biggest problem this year was giving no respect to the Big 10 teams like Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois. Memphis has done surprisingly well, but NC looks too good to lose to them. I didn’t give much respect to Ohio State either, but they have found a way to win so far.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
The mutt is actually advocating that it’s smarter for a woman to be a gold-digging parasite dependant on, and beholden to, someone else than it is to be a independant, self-sufficient individual with the wherewithal to escape a untenable situation if needed.
If y’all would reread my advice to my niece, it didn’t say anything about money. I said the best thing a young woman can do is marry well. To me, that may include financial success, or at least stability, but I’ve never advocated being a “golddigger”. Marrying well means selecting someone who knows what true love and respect are all about. Show me a single woman, and I’ll show you an unhappy woman.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
What is absolutely astounding to me every time I come on this blog is how simple, good old-fashioned, commonsense advice like “Marry well” can get twisted around by some of you Libs who apparently have a hard time accepting Reality.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this
Although now my father expresses regret that he didn’t better teach me the importance of selecting a good, suitable partner, and the tools and knowledge with which to do that. “It’s one of life’s most important decisions,” he says. Where was this discussion when I was 21?
kim, everything you have mentioned about your Dad has been extremely admirable, especially the part about giving to charity on your behalf at Christmas time. He sounds like my kind of guy. I do fault him for not addressing the issue with you that should have been most important, however—how to find a great husband. Didn’t he screen your dates as a teen?? Where was the shotgun??
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Anyone want to adopt a baby bunny?? I opened my side door for a minute yesterday, and next thing you know a baby bunny jumped inside my house. Thank God I saw it before one of my rabbits killed it. I’m still in a little bit of shock about the whole thing. I mean, I went 43 years with no lagomorphic interactions, and now they’re literally jumping through my door. I’m starting to wonder if the neighbor who abandoned the first bunny I rescued didn’t buy another and throw it out also. Monica, please ask your Dad if I can borrow his shotgun. Some neighbors of mine apparently need to learn a lesson.
By Jack
March 21, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Hi All. Kim :), thanks for turning me on to Wooten’s blog. Lot of vitrol. The folks on this blog are much nicer with more sense and manners. Love to all. Gotta go, don’t want to make Big Brother mad. SMOOCH!
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
The downside: whatever needs doing, I have to do it my %&^^$^%$## SELF! I’d be lying if I said I never envied what appears to be the greener grass on the other side of the fence, but I know it’s probably full of chiggers anyway.*
A good marriage is a beautiful thing, kim. To have a partner you can count on makes every day better. How to achieve the perfect marriage?? It has to begin with respect. With a deep, basic respect in place, you’re not going to have too many bad times. I don’t know you well enough to know why your first marriage didn’t work out, but it appears from a great distance that there were some power issues involved. In my experience, fiesty women like to fight a little, stir up a little trouble. That’s okay as long as everyone agrees to “fight” in a fun way. No hitting, okay?
By MrRogers
March 21, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
If you want to know the real Dog, ask my ex-wife how I treated her before, during, and after our marriage. From day 1 I insisted that she have her own, well-funded bank account so that she wouldn’t be beholden to me financially. When we split, I basically gave her everything. Life isn’t about money to me. I’ve always had the Midas touch anyway, so when reserves are low, I follow the advice given to me by Dr. Sid Williams when I was a poor college student. He said “Money?? It’s all around you, just lying there in great piles. All you have to do is reach down and scoop up a big handful”.
By RabbitMeat
March 21, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Anyone want to adopt a baby bunny?
Do they grill well once grown?
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
So what TV shows are you guys watching these days? I like very little that’s on, with the exception of Vh1’s “Surreal Life Fame Games”. This latest incarnation includes Ron Jeremy, Traci Bingham, Vern Troyer, Emmanuel Lewis, Pepa form Salt-n-Pepa, Brigitte Nielson, and Vanilla Ice (Rob Van Winkle). I’ve started fantasizing that SusieHomemaker looks just like Traci Bingham. Sizzlin!!
I also like “The 70s Show”. In many ways, it is pretty realistic.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
Do they grill well once grown?
If you’re talking about my bunnies, you’re going to have to deal with an appetizer of lead first.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Ultamately people in your situation end up filling up tons of notebooks of their “genious” ramblings, never knowing that it is second hand for the rest of us in which we graduate from by our 30s.
To Stir: Based on your ignorant, condescending remarks yesterday, I have to take back my compliment to you that you know what you’re talking about. You’re sounding more and more like BC: A person who has made a pretty penny duping the public by claiming that lab rats and full-of-$hit college professors are the final arbiters of truth. I’ve laid out my TOE; it is logically consistent, applies perfectly to reality and is compatible with both rigorous Scientific thinking and respectful Theological thinking. In return, you have offered not the first rebuttal of any of the ideas themselves, but instead, when pressed for real debate, have mimicked Joe L by claiming that you’re just too smart to explain things to dumb people like me.
As for your “worldview”, what is it? Lay it out for me here or keep your mouth shut, ok? Your statement: Honestly dog, that is a beaten path of reasoning. You seem to still be struggling with the first hard part: pluaristic systems. gives me a clue that your TOE, whatever it is, won’t even pass the consistency requirement. Do you believe in both “inert matter” AND an anthropomorphic God, or just “inert matter”? Lay it on me, genius, if it’s not beneath you to explain such complicated, “pluaristic” stuff to dummies like me. As for the importance of developing a consistent, yet realistic worldview, I’ve spent the past 6 months showing the Libs AND religious wackos here on W2W how their untenable worldviews lead them to ridiculous, inconsistent conclusions about reality.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
Out of curiosity, what is your area of expertise, Stir? I won’t be surprised if it turn out that you are an Anthropology prof. In my experience, they usually have an unmatchable combination of pure arrogance and total lack of connection with the real world. Political Science profs aren’t far behind. I’ll never forget how shocked all the Lib profs were when Ronald Reagan laughed Jimmy Carter out of town in 1980.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
Well, it was fun, but I gotta run and take care of this new bunny rabbit. If any of you are looking for real heroes in this world, look no further than Debbie over at the House Rabbit Society. Bunny rabbits have no greater friend in this cruel world than Debbie. I always tell her that it’s her who makes me believe in God’s Love.
By Stir
March 21, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
I’ve spent the past 6 months showing the Libs AND religious wackos here on W2W how their untenable worldviews lead them to ridiculous, inconsistent conclusions about reality.
Your assertions lead nowhere. Just read over them and they are a bunch of hot air. Your ramblings remind me of college students filling up pages with fluff, always skirting any specifics, because they do not know the material.
I am not the one that has claimed to have grand theories, now am I? It is you that needs to back up your song/dance routine for it to be viable - which you have failed at completely. What does it say about your grad notions if even you are not able to apply them to a practical situation?
And lastly, if “pure arrogance and total lack of connection with the real world” discredits someone, you have the reigning title.
If you are so smart, tell me this: how does your TOE explain matrix page-flipping?
Your vast mind cannot even remember I am female.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
What does it say about your grad notions if even you are not able to apply them to a practical situation?
Wake up, Stir: Every practical moral issue I’ve offered an opinion on springs directly from a consistent worldview. You, on the other hand, have done absolutely nothing but snipe from the sidelines. So tell us all about your worldview, will you, genius? Either that or shut your trap.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
TOE explain matrix page-flipping
I’ve read a hell of a lot of Physics books in my day, Stir,but I can’t say that I’ve heard the term “matix page-flipping”. If you will explain what you are referring to, I will happily tie it into my consistent, realistic worldview.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
Your vast mind cannot even remember I am female.
I do remember you claiming to be female, but your posts don’t come across as feminine in any way, so you’re a guy to me.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
So, was I close about the Anthropology guess?? I was nearly banned from Anthropology class in the 1970s because I made the prof look so foolish questioning how they could come to such grandiose conclusions based on so little evidence.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
The silence is deafening, Stir, just like when I called BC on his BS. I am disappointed, though, sincerely. I’m honestly looking for someone to show me a worldview which reasonably addresses the “GOD” question. Ateleological materialism, which is the basis of both the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, just doesn’t cut the mustard once you apply even a modicum of reasoning.
P.S. You may have noticed that I practice “The Reverse Golden Rule”—i.e. treat others as they are treating you. So keep the insults flying, I’m sure this Jersey boy can match you blow for blow.
By Stir
March 21, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this
Every practical moral issue I’ve offered an opinion on springs directly from a consistent worldview.
That is easy to say seeing as you have not offered a single one. You are the one that purely “snipes from the sidelines” about how incorrect EVERYONE else is without providing anything besides your philosophical babbling.
That babbling is fine if you are writing a novel, such as Heart of Darkness, for the entertainment value.
It is easy being right when you stay in the theoretical, and you stay in the theoretical because being wrong scares the hell out of you.
All you are is yet another scared little boy who hides behind being mean and lofty. I would hate to see you in action, for your significant other probably gets ripped to shreds - as you have stated you are so good at. And, as you have stated, I bet you then try to lift them up again and are left wondering why they, like kimberly, refuse your offer.
By Brian Curtis
March 21, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this
And there we see the core of Bruno’s insecurity: anyone who disagrees with him MUST be mocked and their obvious stupidity insulted, because if someone else might be right, then he might be wrong.
That sort of overcompensation points to some real self-esteem issues.
By lozen
March 21, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
A good marriage begins with respect? Then no wonder you aren’t married mutt. It’s so obvious on this blog that you respect noone. You don’t get to tell people to shut up! You are nothing and your ideas (can I call them that really?) are nothing. You blab on and on about nothing. Everything Stir says about you, everything Mara says about you, everything BC says about you, even everything Chuck says, is true and correct. You just like to hear yourself talk on and on about nothing of importance. Do us all a big favor and find some other place to dump your load of crap.
By Brian Curtis
March 21, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
And then there’s Bruno’s persistent delusions that people are hanging on his every word, or even care as he babbles to himself… truly, this guy is sorely threatened by people he suspects are smarter than him. SERIOUS self-esteem problems here. That accounts for the lies and delusions.
Bruno, the only one you’ve been “making look foolish” for the past six months is you. And you’ve received a pretty much universal response from everyone on this forum: contempt. Go work out your petty ego problems somewhere else, troll.
By Stir
March 21, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
So, was I close about the Anthropology guess??
Nope. Not close at all.
Ateleological materialism, which is the basis of both the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, just doesn’t cut the mustard once you apply even a modicum of reasoning.
Yet, you have nothing that fits even your criteria that replaces them, only a ambiguous link of half theories you read while lonely.
If you will explain what you are referring to, I will happily tie it into my consistent, realistic worldview.
I, unlike you, know that it is obtuse to run over the blog with a topic that would A) Take a whole day B) In the end serve no purpose given your inability to listen to others and syth information due to your ego.
I’m honestly looking for someone to show me a worldview which reasonably addresses the “GOD” question.
And again, what makes what you think we are here to serve your desired topic? Just one more example of how centric you are. Try to absorb this fact.
By lozen
March 21, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
He really thinks he is “calling out” people on this blog! Ha. Ha. Ha. We just get sick of listening to your bullsh-t and turn you off egomaniac. I can show you many, many single women who are happy. You don’t know what the **##&& you’re talking about as uaual. I don’t believe you know many women;any woman who is unfortunate enough to run into you would spend about 10 seconds before running away as fast as she could run.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
If you want to know where I’m coming from, Stir, google in the names “Tony Li” and “Cisco” when you get a chance. Tony is the guy who wrote the code for Cisco’s main routers in the early 1990s, and is almost singlehandedly responsible for earning them billions of dollars as a result. Well, Tony was a classmate of mine at HMC. I think I remember helping him with math once or twice.
By kimberly
March 21, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this
I’m sure this Jersey boy can match you blow for blow.
Heh heh… Heh heh… He said… {:-D
Dude. Seriously. There’s like a bazillion homeless people downtown that TOTALLY need your enlightenment and advice. Someone smart to set them straight on the path to someplace or other. It’s a beautiful day, so you know they’re outside enjoying the sunshine. Go to them! They need you!
By Truther
March 21, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
That sort of overcompensation points to some real self-esteem issues.
Lawdy, Lawdy, ain’t that the truth.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
And let me repeat:
I’m honestly looking for someone to show me a worldview which reasonably addresses the “GOD” question. Ateleological materialism, which is the basis of both the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, just doesn’t cut the mustard once you apply even a modicum of reasoning.
P.S. You may have noticed that I practice “The Reverse Golden Rule”—i.e. treat others as they are treating you. So keep the insults flying, I’m sure this Jersey boy can match you blow for blow.
I have tried to have a reasonable debate with the few of you who claim to know something, but got no where. In each case, you guys couldn’t defend your points of view, and fell back on every insulting tactic in the world.
By lozen
March 21, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
Mutt is so pitiful. Nobody enjoys his bombastic diatribes about how smart he is and nobody believes it for a fast minute. You are so right BC; the only one he makes look foolish is himself.
Again I am thinking about the nerd on the playground bragging and boasting to get attention. Has it only been six months? Seems like eons since he attached himself here and started trying to get our attention and convince us all how smart he is.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
I would hate to see you in action, for your significant other probably gets ripped to shreds - as you have stated you are so good at.
Stir, you are a smart person, I grant you that. The sad truth is that I was nasty to my last lady friend a few times, for which I am deeply ashamed. That was something I had always avoided in the past, because I generally don’t have any bad things to say about the people I love, or even those who I don’t love. And no, we didn’t go through the “honeymoon” thing, there was no reward for either one of us. In the end, that’s why I retired. I realized that business stress had turned me into someone I didn’t want to be.
By Truther
March 21, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
I’m honestly looking for someone to show me a worldview which reasonably addresses the “GOD” question. .
and even after the stated 6 months, you are still here looking for it.
talk about STUPID.
By Stir
March 21, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this
Go work out your petty ego problems somewhere else, troll.
I actually would not mind if there was hope of progress, but that is clearly not possible.
He has turned to the anonimity of a blog to try to get the approval he wants so badly. Sad, and a huge err in judgment.
(Popped in my head:) Looking for love in all the wrong places…
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this
Heh heh… Heh heh… He said… {:-D
kimberly, I would never go head to head with you in an insult contest. I know if your ex had to resort to hitting you, you must have really been whipping him verbally, no? I think you know a little about diminishing people’s self-esteem yourself.
By lozen
March 21, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this
Now everybody stand back and watch little Mutt throw himself on the floor and kick and scream. “The Reverse Golden Rule?” I guess it never ever crossed his wittle mind that’s what we’re doing with him? Oh no! He has so much to teach us ignorant libs! Yeah, fer shur.
“I have tried to have a reasonable debate?” Puuuuleeeese.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this
Look, can you guys at least admit that I’m cheap entertainment for you all? After putting me down, you must all feel so much better about yourselves. ; > }
Blogs=BS
So, JokesOnYou!
By Stir
March 21, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this
you guys couldn’t defend your points of view, and fell back on every insulting tactic in the world.
From my observations this is what you have done each and every time. I asked you how your rambling could be put into practical action and you kept on bull$hitting. I gave you the benefit and quit after a while because you wrote a lot without saying anything.
Hows the illness, btw? (psst…hey kettle, you are black…)
By Truther
March 21, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
Y’all know Dogg can mathematically prove in his yin/yang god, it’s just we lack the advanced math required to understand it.
or SOMETHING like that.
By kimberly
March 21, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
Wow. How did you know? It was indeed my impertinent mouth that made him HAVE to hit me. But I’ve learned my lesson, I promise! I’m a good girl now.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this
I, unlike you, know that it is obtuse to run over the blog with a topic that would A) Take a whole day B) In the end serve no purpose given your inability to listen to others and syth information due to your ego.
You’re a helluva debater, Stir. Try pulling that one in a public debate: Introduce a term, challenge your opponent with it, then refuse to define or explain it any further. I typed “matrix page turner” into the Google search engine and came up with nada. It appears to be a term relating to some type of software, best as I can tell.
By Mara
March 21, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
I think I remember helping him with math once or twice
yeah, and I helped Alan Greenspan with his Economics homework a time or two and proofread most of Michael Waldmans English papers.
snicker, snicker
Some truth there was, but dash’d and brew’d with lies, To please the fools, and puzzle all the wise - John Dryden
By WTH
March 21, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
cheap entertainment for you all = blog ruination.
I’ll take the second definition.
By Stir
March 21, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this
That was something I had always avoided in the past, because I generally don’t have any bad things to say about the people I love, or even those who I don’t love.
We both know that is total BS. You have been doing this since you were a child. You just did not know that in a progression there are no definitive lines and that it would lead you to running off the people you need most.
In the end, that’s why I retired. I realized that business stress had turned me into someone I didn’t want to be.
And you still are blaming something/one else which is proof you have no (current) ability to change.
(Mother did it need to be so high…?)
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
I asked you how your rambling could be put into practical action and you kept on bull$hitting.
Stir, if you can’t see how the answer to the “GOD” question directly impacts every area of our lives, then maybe you’re the one who needs remedial help. The fact remains that support for abortion, indulgent child-rearing practices, overbearing social programs, etc. can all be traced back to a flawed worldview, IMO. My real guess is that all of you have adopted some positive spiritual outlook deep inside, but that you are unable to articulate it in a way that stands up to rigorous debate.
If the greatest truth is that you just plain don’t care about the answer to the GOD Question, then I will accept that. At least chuck sees the importance of the Question (even if only to guarantee his afterlife will be pleasant).
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this
It was indeed my impertinent mouth that made him HAVE to hit me. But I’ve learned my lesson, I promise! I’m a good girl now.
kimberly, no one had to hit you, ever. I’ve been mad at plenty of girls, but have always walked before we even got to the insult stage. With my last girl, I experimented by fighting fire with fire (verbally), and I deeply regret it. I might be a sick puppy in some ways, but I don’t hit girls.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
I have dated one or two formerly abused women in the past, but they were always short relationships. When they would tell me their stories, (1) My heart would break in a million pieces for them (2) I would immediately want to look the guy up that hurt them and beat him to within an inch of his life. Each time I decided that these weren’t healthy emotions and bailed out before things got too dramatic..
By Stir
March 21, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Stir, if you can’t see how the answer to the “GOD” question directly impacts every area of our lives, then maybe you’re the one who needs remedial help.
As if your notions point to some provable notion of god. At best you (and I as well) might have some wonderfull ideas that point to that as the best probable explanation. Yet, I know that does not matter in helping the vast majority of people in the world and only with turn them off.
And you say you live in reality? This is reality and look how your “proof” helped people. The only person that gets any positive energy from your condecending know-it-all verbosity is yourself. And when you are presented with that FACT, you continue with fingers in your ears; proving your reterict is self-fulfilling - not out of spreading generous enlightenment.
You are how cults start - minus the charisma.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
You are how cults start - minus the charisma.
Is that a career suggestion? I might have to look into that. I think you can still buy land in Guyana pretty cheap.
By HeHaw
March 21, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
A Cult of One.
That’s better than joke day.
By lozen
March 21, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
mutt, ever think about dating women instead of girls? Of course not! A real woman would put you in your place so fast… but you probably pick 17 year olds who will stare up at you awe-struck while you expound on the God question - until they get a little older!
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
As if your notions point to some provable notion of god.
If your memory is good, you may recall that my outlook is the same as the Mennonites. God is truly unknowable in its entirety, but we can find truth through revelation. The technique which I have used is a sort of reverse engineering. Rather than trying to start at an uncertain, unknowable beginning and reason forward to moral positions, I looked at what public policies made sense to me and which ones didn’t and reasoned backwards to which worldviews were behind each one.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
A real woman would put you in your place so fast…
And I would love it. Bring it on, lozen. I love strong women. I just haven’t met one who can fight fair. Once you guys get emotional, we lose no matter what.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
You are how cults start - minus the charisma.
Out of curiosity, you do acknowledge that both Big Religion and Big Science are the two biggest cults going right now? The great part is that when you are in the majority, cults are accepted without criticism. When someone points out to the Evolutionists that they aren’t wearing any clothes, everyone freaks.
BTW, did you reread the Aesop’s Fable, “The Lion and the Mouse” yet, lozen?
By Stir
March 21, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this
Is that a career suggestion?
If you had any charisma, maybe you could pull it off - there are a lot of slow people out there looking to believe in anything.
But, in reality, you cannot even awe a single blogger. So, I would recommend becoming a politician. You will find loads of people that will tolerate your gas for theirs. But alas, you need some charisma for that too.
So I would lastly recommend scamming lonely men and women on the internet match sites out of their dough - seems fitting. You could steal other people’s identities and ideas for your own, as you do here, to make up for your complete lack of resembling anything relatively beautiful and human.
(yeah, I know…You have millions. That lie will work to secure $ in your new profession.)
By Stir
March 21, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
Big Religion and Big Science are the two biggest cults going right now?
Except when science finds proof a theory is wrong, they adhere - your group of religion persists until forced.
Evolutionists You still have yet to admit, as postulated above, the fact that YOU are the one that confuses theory of evolution and the term Evolutionists.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
Really gotta run now. Stir, great Pink Floyd reference. I take back anything bad I said about you. I was fortunate enough, in my Forrest Gumpian way, to attend The Wall concert in LA in 1980. Somehow things always work out for me.
P.S. I have stated that I have earned a few million dollars. After the IRS, an ex-wife, and many girlfriends got through with me, I don’t have even a million left. But that’s a story for another time.
By Stir
March 21, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this
Rather than trying to start at an uncertain, unknowable beginning and reason forward to moral positions, I looked at what public policies made sense to me and which ones didn’t and reasoned backwards to which worldviews were behind each one.
Translation: I took other peoples attempts at making a change and then stereotyped/ridiculed them from my armchair.
By Scooby-doo
March 21, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this
Plus, Scooby snacks aren’t cheap, you know. At least not the good ones.
By Stir
March 21, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
I take back anything bad I said about you.
We all know that is for you to feel better. In your twisted head apologizing allows you to continue to believe that you are a good guy.
As it no longer works with your loved ones, it will not work with anyone else once they get to know you.
By Auto insurance
March 21, 2007 8:59 PM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. Auto insurance [url=http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]Auto insurance[/url] http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ cheap health insurance [url=http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]cheap health insurance[/url] http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ home owner insurance [url=http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]home owner insurance[/url] http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ discount auto insurance [url=http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ ]discount auto insurance[/url] http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ state farm auto insurance [url=http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ ]state farm auto insurance[/url] http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ vip pet insurance [url=http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]vip pet insurance[/url] http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/
By Auto insurance
March 21, 2007 9:02 PM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. Auto insurance [url=http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]Auto insurance[/url] http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ cheap health insurance [url=http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]cheap health insurance[/url] http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ home owner insurance [url=http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]home owner insurance[/url] http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ discount auto insurance [url=http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ ]discount auto insurance[/url] http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ state farm auto insurance [url=http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ ]state farm auto insurance[/url] http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ vip pet insurance [url=http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]vip pet insurance[/url] http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/
By auto insurance
March 21, 2007 9:52 PM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. auto insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME ]auto insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME best car insurance quote [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg ]best car insurance quote[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg florida health insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP ]florida health insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP home owners insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz ]home owners insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz progressive insurance agent [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe ]progressive insurance agent[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe travel insurance online [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg ]travel insurance online[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg
By auto insurance
March 21, 2007 9:57 PM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. auto insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME ]auto insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME best car insurance quote [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg ]best car insurance quote[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg florida health insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP ]florida health insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP home owners insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz ]home owners insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz progressive insurance agent [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe ]progressive insurance agent[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe travel insurance online [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg ]travel insurance online[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg
By Auto insurance
March 21, 2007 10:41 PM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. Auto insurance [url=http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]Auto insurance[/url] http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ cheap health insurance [url=http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]cheap health insurance[/url] http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ home owner insurance [url=http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]home owner insurance[/url] http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ discount auto insurance [url=http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ ]discount auto insurance[/url] http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ state farm auto insurance [url=http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ ]state farm auto insurance[/url] http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ vip pet insurance [url=http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]vip pet insurance[/url] http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/
By auto insurance
March 21, 2007 10:56 PM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. auto insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME ]auto insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME best car insurance quote [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg ]best car insurance quote[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg florida health insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP ]florida health insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP home owners insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz ]home owners insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz progressive insurance agent [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe ]progressive insurance agent[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe travel insurance online [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg ]travel insurance online[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg
By auto insurance
March 22, 2007 6:43 AM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. auto insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME ]auto insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3983BNME best car insurance quote [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg ]best car insurance quote[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=3995CtIg florida health insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP ]florida health insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=400Z8jwP home owners insurance [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz ]home owners insurance[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=401E3Azz progressive insurance agent [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe ]progressive insurance agent[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=402JHQFe travel insurance online [url=http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg ]travel insurance online[/url] http://www.fuzzyimagehosting.com/ims/album.php?uid=403SEmBg
By Mosquito ringtone
March 22, 2007 6:51 AM | Link to this
The best free music and RingTone download site in the world including ringtones for verizon, sprint and cingular. Mosquito ringtone [url=http://tvmaniac.blogs.se/ ]Mosquito ringtone[/url] http://tvmaniac.blogs.se/ Free nokia ringtones [url=http://radiomaniac.blogs.se/ ]Free nokia ringtones[/url] http://radiomaniac.blogs.se/ Nextel ringtones [url=http://netmaniac.blogs.se/ ]Nextel ringtones[/url] http://netmaniac.blogs.se/ Download free ringtones [url=http://mobilemaniac.blogs.se/ ]Download free ringtones[/url] http://mobilemaniac.blogs.se/
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 22, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Those are equiprobabilities which have no connection to what is there : they ignore the parameters that natural selection faces- the nature of the organism and the enviornment.One uses the argument from incredulity and invincible ignorance to argue against evolution .Read”The Counter-Creationism Handbook ” for more on the false probabilities and other examples of nonsense. Science is no cult ! One brays in averring so .Scientists use rigorous experiments and contend with each other ,using reason , not their whims .When evidence shows otherwise they avidly change their opinions whereas others just let their fragile egos ,using old documents without validity and their whims to arrive at predetermined conclusions . Face it: we are great apes !
By Lyrazel
March 22, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Diane and Shaunti You want us to use our email to suggest topics. Everyone in this blog understands that the giving email on-line is a dangerous and spam inducing thing. Why is it the blog is THE ONLY BLOG WITH SPAM but you want us to give out personal information? I doubt either of you would submit your true address to make a daily post. When I came first to this blog I did and was email attacked by the spam that links itself and the industry that dredges email addresses from sites like this who plague you now. Now I use a fake address and continue to post without spam repercussions.
Here are some topics: With the recent pet food recall how much observation is being done by the FDA and the USDA to protect human food? Just how understaffed are inspection teams? Japan will not import American beef because it has higher standards and complains the meat is not regulated fully inspected for consumption. Is the lack of regulation of the food industry because of the profits the industry can gain or because lawmakers only act under crisis?
With the non-combat roles women in the military are in how is driving a transport truck any more safe than being in battle? With so many roadside bombings it puts women into a very vulnerable position but without combat pay. Have women’s roles in the military improved? Have conditions for women improved in service? Have incidents of rape increased or decreased in the military in 2007 since Viet Nam War, since the Persian Gulf War 1990?
Why is there such information on celebrity trauma stories in newspapers when the general public does not consider celebrities very important in daily life?
Are parents more aware of their children and activities than ten years ago?
Why is it most illegals come to this country to work but Americans can get disability for the inability to hold a job?
How do three-year-olds get diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and given adult medications that are untested in children and are known to have lingering side-effects in adults?
Is there a pill culture in the USA because of HMOs?
When can you say NO to a police search? Has the guns-blazing special force squads set up to move illegal drugs off the streets jeopardized the safety of average citizens more than drug dealers?
Why is Georgia trying to make heros out of confederates by giving a month for awareness when they lost the civil war? What other nations glorify losers of civil wars?
Why do we have lawmakers who pass bills (like allowing concealed weapons in cars/ no seat belts needed in trucks) which the public and police do not want? Is this really good for Georgia or does it show how powerful lobbyists are in the Legislature?
Anyway you want topics and I want a clean site. The second part is on your end. DO SOMETHING PLEASE!
Thanks so much
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 22, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel , mostly good points .Why don’t they discuss atheism, since most Americans fear the ten % of us who are atheists and agnostics.We new atheists are speaking up and demanding our say ,but many resent that as against their supremacy like the white ignorant supremacists so do. I welcome Jim Wallis to urge his fellow evangelicals to vote Democratic but I prefer the ethics and sound advise of Arthur Caplan, Paul Kurtz and Peter Singer .
By Stir
March 22, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, Maybe you know this already, but many posters do not. The reason for so much spam is that you can link directly to this page and bypass the necessity of having a login/password; unlike their news articles. And as you have found, posting under a fictitious email is easy as well.
Until these things are changed, the spam will persist.
By Auto insurance
March 22, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
Information about all lines of auto, car, health insurance. Find medical health insurance quotes for affordable health insurance in all states. Auto insurance [url=http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]Auto insurance[/url] http://autoinsurance.fanforum.cc/ cheap health insurance [url=http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]cheap health insurance[/url] http://healthinsurance.fanforum.cc/ home owner insurance [url=http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]home owner insurance[/url] http://homeinsurance.fanforum.cc/ discount auto insurance [url=http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ ]discount auto insurance[/url] http://discountinsuran.fanforum.cc/ state farm auto insurance [url=http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ ]state farm auto insurance[/url] http://statefarminsura.fanforum.cc/ vip pet insurance [url=http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/ ]vip pet insurance[/url] http://petinsurance.fanforum.cc/
By Mara
March 22, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
morgan - Why do the majority who are religious fear and distrust the few atheists and agnostics out there? Because they had to be told what to do and given religious “laws” in order to know what is “moral” and they just can’t conceive that decency and morality can exist without dogma or the fear of supernatural retribution. I am, of course, speaking of those religionists who hold the non-religious in contempt…
Hey Lyrazel - interesting point on Japan not accepting American beef…the reason, of course, is that our screening for mad cow desease is, shall we say, less than rigorous. Some of the meatpacking plants wanted to test every individual cow but the USDA, who has a monopoly on the test kits, refused to cooperate. Why? Can’t really say for sure, except that the larger Big Agra feedlots might be worried that tested beef would sell better than untested, thus cutting into their share of the market. So to compete they’d end up having to do universal testing also, which would cut into their profit. Short sighted on their part and the USDA, but when you mix politics and money…
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
Mara - There have been 60 (SIXTY!) cases worldwide of mad cow disease. Testing for it is an immense waste of money considering the risks. This is a classic case of bad risk assessment that plagues our society at this point. That money could be used to much greater effect in other ways. We live in a society where hysteria is used to distract us from more important issues and keep us off balance.
By Mara
March 22, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
But Joe, what difference does it make whether the risk is real or perceived if the meatpacker is offering to go to the expense and trouble of doing the testing itself? It doesn’t cost the tax-payer anything to allow the business to include testing in its processing line, it doesn’t affect the quality of the meat, and it certainly doesn’t hurt to be more safe than sorry. Why shouldn’t the folks who want to use increased (if unnecessary) testing as a marketing strategy be able to do so?
BTW, don’t know where your numbers came from but according to the World Health Organization, between 1986 and 2002 there were nearly 200,000 cases of bovine spongiform encephelopathy confirmed in the UK herds alone.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs113/en/
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
HUMAN cases Mara, human cases are all that matter.
There is no way the USDA has a “monopoly” on test kits. The science is public and if there was any value in offering the tests someone would. I guarantee you that those kits were purchased from a private lab that could sell them just as easily to the private companies. I’m sure if anything the USDA decided that it shouldn’t be required to test for BSE and it wasn’t worth the cost to pursue it if you were in the minority incurring the cost.
I would be interested in reading more about this situation if you have any links.
By Facts
March 22, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
There have been only THREE cases of mad-cow in cattle here in the U.S. and all three caught before introduction into the food supply. And one was a dairy cow that originated in Alberta. However, 30 percent of our beef supply, mostly in the form of hamburger, comes from older(5+ years old) dairy cows.
so testing at a feed-lot level would not even test those dairy cows.
By Facts
March 22, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
The solution, implemented about 10 years ago here in the USA, is to restrict the use of deceased cattle parts in the grain mixtures fed to cattle. It seems something that can only be considered cannabilism was happening prior to that.
really makes you want to either be a vegetarian OR chow down on a hamburger(tongue in cheek).
By Lily Toad
March 22, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this
Stir, I sometimes post on the Wooten blog and see no difference in how I post there and how I post on WtoW, as far as having a log-in and there is never any spam on Wooten’s site. However, Wooten does check in from time to time, so maybe his is monitored more. Or is it that I’m always logged-in and don’t have to do so every time that it’s seamless?
Morgan-lynn, I’m not in favor of Wallis wanting Evangelicals to vote Democratic because then they will want to tell the Dems how to vote. As it is, all the Dem presidential candidates, except Kuchinich, are too scared to support gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a big issue for me because I don’t think people should be get special rights just because they are married, but I hate discrimination.
By Stir
March 22, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
There have been only THREE cases of mad-cow in cattle here in the U.S.
I doubt that. Not being scientific here, but my good friend’s father died last year from mad cow which he got from the bone meal in the fertilizer he used in his garden here in Ga. So much for trying to live healthy and grow your own, huh? He was a vegitarian.
What this tells me is there is no blanket statement that truely covers this issue.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
It does appear that the USDA is claiming some right to restrict the testing on legal grounds. I don’t necessarily agree with that. I DO agree that the private company should be allowed to test but must report all positive tests to the USDA who should handle all aspects from there. I would make it very similar to the way testing and handling communicable diseases is done.
I think it’s a ridiculous assertion that big companies would be “hurt” by small companies who test. I’m not saying they don’t believe it, but it’s not valid. What is more likely is they fear a public outcry for complete testing when “100% tested” beef hits the market and that is valid in my opinion. We should not be requiring 100% testing. The companies may be motivated by greed, but in this case I think they are right.
By Spotted Dairy Cow
March 22, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
Eat more chikn.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
Stir - Are you sure he didn’t have “normal” CJD? CJD is the human form of BSE but it is not always caused by BSE. Considering his age it seems much more like it was CJD (versus “variant” CJD which is derived from BSE).
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Those are equiprobabilities which have no connection to what is there : they ignore the parameters that natural selection faces- the nature of the organism and the enviornment.One uses the argument from incredulity and invincible ignorance to argue against evolution .
Morgan, I almost wish I could share the simple vision of the Big Bang Theory and Evolution that you and many otherwise intelligent people seem willing to accept with little scrutiny. The bottom line is, any system which begins with “inert” matter cannot explain Life. This doesn’t mean that an anthropomorphic Creator has to be the “Original Cause”, the “Prime Mover”. Obviously, matter has properties which we don’t understand if Life is able to spontaneously form from non-Life.
If the Big Bang and Evolution truly were the mechanism of Life, why is it that the transition from non-Life to Life has never been observed either in Nature or in a laboratory?? If it is such a simple thing, a natural occurrence, why don’t we see it every day?? Ditto for “transitional forms” between species. Where are they?? Forget the fossil record, why aren’t more being formed on a daily basis??
Evolutionists have no answers for these questions, of course. All they can do is divert attention from the real issues by accusing you of being “religious” because the bottom line is that their “theory” is laughable.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
The solution, implemented about 10 years ago here in the USA, is to restrict the use of deceased cattle parts in the grain mixtures fed to cattle. It seems something that can only be considered cannabilism was happening prior to that.
really makes you want to either be a vegetarian OR chow down on a hamburger(tongue in cheek).
Stir—You keep questioning how a consistent worldview gives a person the ability to come to practical answers?? Here is a great example. Fortunately, one poster here had the brains enough to scratch below the surface of the “Mad Cow” scare to find out that the culprit all along was un-GOD-ly feeding practices. Do you see the connection? You see, the folks who start with the atheistic, “blank slate” view of Life could easily start thinking that cows digestive systems are “blank slates” as well and start feeding them junk. A person like me wouldn’t have fed them ground up carcasses in the first place. The beautiful part is that I wouldn’t even need some jackass in a lab to find the “truth” for me about what is best to feed cattle. God tells me.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker—You gotta come play poker sometime with me on Wednesday nights. We had the best time last night. Some gay guy built up a big chip lead, started feeling his oats and began crowing. He mentioned that he was elected Homecoming King in college while at Vandy. I asked him if he had ever considered returning to run for Homecoming Queen to complete the sweep. Everyone thought that was pretty funny. Of course, he got the last laugh a few hands later when he bluffed me into folding the best hand. He put his hand to his ear and said, “You hear that?” I said “What?” He said “That was the sound of me taking yo’ money, Bltch!” Apparently it is a line from a TV show; everyone really liked that one. Why is it that the other players are happy when I lose?? I’m really at a loss to explain…..
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Question for all you dog owners: Where do you guys get the idea that it is alright to walk your dogs in other people’s yards?? I had to tell some bimbo yesterday to get the F out of my yard when she stood there and let “Fido” take a crap. I think most of the kids on my block have figured out to stay away from my yard.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
“The bottom line is, any system which begins with “inert” matter cannot explain Life.”
There is no difference between inert matter and living matter. Can you tell the difference between the carbon atoms in your body and those in a diamond? “Life” is nothing but a name for an ORGANIZATION of matter, no different that “crystal” is another organization of matter.
Transition from complete lack of organization to massive organization is not a simple step that can be observed in an immensely minute time frame.
Actually there are many, many transitional forms. We have posted them to you before but you are too stubborn to accept facts that shatter your massive ego.
More formed on a “daily basis”? How about drug resistant bacteria? You really are so dense that you don’t get that recorded human history (and that’s not even focusing on actual educated human history) is like saying that because you can’t see grass growing in a second that it’s not growing at all.
By Mara
March 22, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
JoeL - Don’t have any links of my own but if you wiki “Mad Cow” you’ll get an entry. While I would never cite Wikipedia as a reliable source in and of itself, the entry is well footnoted with the relevant links. I agree with you that the testing should not be mandated, I think that voluntary testing should be allowed. In 2003 the Japanese beef market was worth around 1.4 billion dollars and if some company wants to try and regain that market share through universal testing, one would think that the “free-market” folks would be all for it.
I view the issue as one much like the “organics” and “humane husbandry” markets. Companies don’t have to follow those practices, but at least I have the option to choose those types of products.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
We all know that is for you to feel better. In your twisted head apologizing allows you to continue to believe that you are a good guy.
Stir, can’t you tell when someone is yanking your chain? You must be in IT or something like that. BTW, since you weren’t able to provide any references or explanations about “matrix page-turning”, I will accept your defeat on that issue. Maybe it was from the movie “Matrix”. Is that where you get your “Philosophy of Life” from? Ditto for your TOE. You’ve criticized my presentation, but couldn’t come up with any rebuttal of the ideas except to say that you haven’t been able to develop a world view which is both consistent and leads to practical answers. What would your worldview have told you about Mad Cow Disease? Probably that we need some highly paid buffoon in a Lab to study the problem for 20 years. Well, my worldview is a little more efficient than yours. I don’t need lab w******* to figure out the truth.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
Feeding bovines - strict herbivores - animal protein is not UNGODLY it’s stupid. Science and logic tells you that. Not to mention that feeding products derived from an animal back itself is a closed loop which keeps bad things perpetuating and exposes them to the organisms most highly pathogenic and adapted to them. Again LOGIC and SCIENCE.
By Lyrazel
March 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
I suppose my upset is more directed toward pharmaceutical companies pushing pills on children that have clear side-effects on adults than meat industry marketeers who are being hoisted by their own petard from closed international markets and savvy consumers. I can always invent my own scare with so much phobia to choose from. Its one of the complaints I have about media.
I don’t believe most people in 2007 would eat meat if they had to kill cows, chickens, pigs. We would have a real vegetarian dominance especially in cities where folks tend to be squeamish about killing things that are not human. Imagine going out to dinner and choosing your cow then watching your filet mignon being chopped out. Nope. Waitresses would have to be paid triple overtime just for showing up. Generations ago people did kill their dinner and now our dinner kills us. T** for tat. So be it. Ain’t life wonderful?
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
Mara - Well personally I always point out that the “free market” is reactionary and not proactive. And in this case people are worried - and legimately so - about the free market hyper-reacting to “100% tested” beef and screaming for mandatory testing.
When you boil it down to the issues and not the motivations I think the right course is to allow testing but make all reporting and handling of results go through the USDA. And maybe you make regulations that products cannot be labeled as “100% tested”. This has a two-fold effect of preventing an irrational public overreaction and not misleading the public that “100% tested” and 100% safe are the same thing (because they are not).
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
There is no difference between inert matter and living matter. Can you tell the difference between the carbon atoms in your body and those in a diamond? “Life” is nothing but a name for an ORGANIZATION of matter, no different that “crystal” is another organization of matter
Well, DUH, that’s exactly what I’ve been pointing out to you, genius. It’s just that you are willing to accept some serious “hand-waving” from so-called Scientists who want you to believe that self-organization is a perfectly Natural occurrence, directly related to the properties of matter. The only problem is, when you ask them to demonstrate exactly which properties lead to self-organization, especially the kind that takes non-life to life, they have no answers. And never will. Apparently that “missing link” doesn’t bother you, but it’s too critical to ignore.
Actually there are many, many transitional forms. We have posted them to you before but you are too stubborn to accept facts that shatter your massive ego.
Total BS, Joe. Even hard-core Evolutionists admit that the fossil record indicates the rapid formation of many species, all without apparent precursors (the Cambrian Explosion). They think they got off the hook by scrambling to come up with new terminology (“punctuated equilibrium”), but this is simply a descriptive term, it explains nothing.
More formed on a “daily basis”? How about drug resistant bacteria? You really are so dense that you don’t get that recorded human history (and that’s not even focusing on actual educated human history) is like saying that because you can’t see grass growing in a second that it’s not growing at all.
Joe, the development of resistance to antibiotics doesn’t represent the formation of a new species. More importantly, the rapidity and efficiency by which bacteria develop resistance indicates a purposeful activity. If blind chance were the only hope for bacteria to survive, they would all be dead, just like us.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
Feeding bovines - strict herbivores - animal protein is not UNGODLY it’s stupid. Science and logic tells you that. Not to mention that feeding products derived from an animal back itself is a closed loop which keeps bad things perpetuating and exposes them to the organisms most highly pathogenic and adapted to them. Again LOGIC and SCIENCE.
Joe, if Logic and Science said it was way off base to feed ground up carcasses to cattle, why in the hell were they doing it in the first place?? The cattle industry is one of the most tightly regulated industries. If the practice of feeding carcasses was permitted, it was because some jackass “Scientist” had previously declared it to be “safe”. Wake up and smell the coffee burning, genius. And these are some of the same folks that try to tell me that shooting up cows with BGH doesn’t alter the quality of the milk. BS, Joe Tell me again how “frankenfoods” are jsut dandy. Funny how the FDA opposes labeling of Frankenfoods. Their reasoning?? “We don’t want people to make hysterical decisions based on prejudice” WHAT?????????????
By AntiBozo
March 22, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
the development of resistance to antibiotics doesn’t represent the formation of a new species
in other words, some godly form/creator really IS out to kill us all. the only way to explain that, per your own logic.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
What properties lead to organization? Gibbs free energy for one. The fact that atoms form molecules which form larger molecules. And so forth and so on. As Locke pointed out you fall victim to seeing form being perfect to function when in actuality function is perfect to form. Things work the way then do because we adapted to what existed rather than the other way around.
There are feathered flying lizards, fish that walk on fins, etc. Dozens of “transition” forms. Nevermind that the odds of conditions even forming a fossil are slim and there could be thousands if not millions of species we don’t even know existed. The fossil record is always going to be highly limited because it’s very difficult to preserve organic organisms. The evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution despite this huge limitations.
By AntiBozo
March 22, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
So he went through all the effort to create us, only to create things that will change in order to kill us.
I hope we are not supposed to actually like this god. sounds like a real MF.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
“Joe, if Logic and Science said it was way off base to feed ground up carcasses to cattle, why in the hell were they doing it in the first place??”
Because GREED is not logical you dope. Because people are driven by factors OTHER THAN LOGIC! Because people are always willing to take a risk (when it affects others) to make a buck. Tightly regulated my arse. It’s another good ol’ boy network with the foxes watching the henhouse.
“Safe” is always a relative term. You can always find some schuyster (you’re a chiropractor I’m sure you know all about that) who will tell you what you want.
Frankenfoods! Ha! You do realize humans have been performing genetic engineering since the dawn of time. Why do you think we have Great Danes and chihuahuas!
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
I suppose my upset is more directed toward pharmaceutical companies pushing pills on children that have clear side-effects on adults than meat industry marketeers who are being hoisted by their own petard from closed international markets and savvy consumers.
Lyrazel, listen up for a minute. You don’t like me, and that’s ok. But hear me out when I say this: I agree wholeheartedly about the pill pushing on kids these days. We don’t want them to smoke pot (heaven forbid), but her, take this Ritalin, take this anti-depressant. But don’t overlook food as a major source of behavioral problems in our kids. Commercial livestock are shot up with all kinds of nasty hormones and antibiotics which we then consume. I know that Joe’s buddies over at the FDA are convinced that none of these chemicals harm us, but I have a different opinion. Why else do you think little girls 8 and 9 years old are having periods so young?? One more example of how a Godly respect could have prevented a bad situation.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
“More importantly, the rapidity and efficiency by which bacteria develop resistance indicates a purposeful activity. If blind chance were the only hope for bacteria to survive, they would all be dead, just like us.”
You know absolutely zip about science I hope you know. Do you know why bacteria are antibiotic resistant? Because they are DEFECTIVE cells. If there wasn’t antibiotics in the environment they wouldn’t survive. They would die out rapidly due to competition from superior healthy cells. However due to their inability to uptake certain materials or generally to efficiently uptake the materials they SURVIVE! That’s proof positive that your “purposeful” activity is complete bunk.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this
So he went through all the effort to create us, only to create things that will change in order to kill us.
I hope we are not supposed to actually like this god. sounds like a real MF.
Anti-Bozo: I’m not sure who you are addressing. I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic (human-like) Creator. While the concept can’t be completely disproven by Logic alone, a big Man-In-The-Sky doesn’t sound plausible to me and doesn’t match th evidence. I believe that matter itself is divine.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
Guys, I really understand where the false dichotomy of an anthropomorphic God vs. inert matter comes from. When we are kids, we all go to church and hear some pretty tall tales. As such, most of us reject the fairy tales in our search for truth. Then we go to Science class and they say, no problem, what appear to be miracles are simply a result of this formula here on the chalkboard. The formula explains everything.
At that point, I think most people give up and just accept what the schoolteacher tells them because the jargon sounds impressive and there is no other alternative explanation offered. Unfortunately, when you start questioning Big Bang and Evolution, which apparently chuck did with his 149 IQ, you have to reject Science as a source of answers as well. In chuck’s case, he went back to his original raining, because he apparently thought the church explanation made more sense. In my case, I started looking for a middle ground rather than either totally accepting or rejecting either one.
By MrRogers
March 22, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
Do you know why bacteria are antibiotic resistant? Because they are DEFECTIVE cells. If there wasn’t antibiotics in the environment they wouldn’t survive. They would die out rapidly due to competition from superior healthy cells
What????????????? I would love for BC to evaluate this statement for us all since you guys think he’s the resident expert on Science. Joe, you are one confused dude. You must have got a hold of some of that good stuff going around.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
Matter is divine! Ha! And what defines “divinity” then. It seems to me all you are doing is believing what is rationally true and making up some grandiose phrases that mean absolutely nothing. That you are just too weak to accept the chaotic, random nature of the universe and have to invent some ridiculous concept to make you feel better. Nevermind that it’s ridiculous from either a rational or philosophical viewpoint.
All you are doing is calling the laws of the universe which are natural, “divine”. You are just making up your own bs which means nothing and diverges no amount from what everyone else believes in actual practice but you think it makes you superior. Classic.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
Because GREED is not logical you dope. Because people are driven by factors OTHER THAN LOGIC! Because people are always willing to take a risk (when it affects others) to make a buck. Tightly regulated my arse. It’s another good ol’ boy network with the foxes watching the henhouse.
I won’t disagree with your “good ol’ boy network” analysis of both the FDA and state AG commissions. However, Joe, you skirted my point. In order to receive permission to sell their cattle, some Science w******* had to give his seal of approval by claiming that no harm is done. Ditto for BGH in milk, and Frankenfoods. BTW, your comparison of selective breeding in animals and splicing gene sequences into gene sequences designed by God is completely invalid.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
“Unfortunately, when you start questioning Big Bang and Evolution, which apparently chuck did with his 149 IQ, you have to reject Science as a source of answers as well”
Firstly, you have to gather ALL the information which you clearly have not done. Second, you have to at least somewhat understand that information, another thing you have failed at. Finally you have to accept that there are some things that are just arbitrary and have no “cause” or “answer”. The charge on a proton and electron could have been anything and matter would appear in a different form today, it’s all arbitrary. And those arbitrary occurences defined how matter would organize. But it doesn’t mean that the universe is any less explainable as a natural thing.
Your middle ground only exists in your mind and is nothing but a sad construct to explain the things you cannot or will not accept. It’s no more rational or valid than religion.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
“What????????????? I would love for BC to evaluate this statement for us all since you guys think he’s the resident expert on Science. Joe, you are one confused dude. You must have got a hold of some of that good stuff going around.”
Yeah, I see that your grasp of real science is as tenuous as your grasp of human relations. If you actually knew the facts you would have a better understanding of the universe.
How about this explain to me HOW antibiotics work - any of them (there are numerous mechanisms). I bet you have ZERO clue. Therefore how can you understand how antibiotic resistance works.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
Nevermind that it’s ridiculous from either a rational or philosophical viewpoint.
All you are doing is calling the laws of the universe which are natural, “divine”. You are just making up your own bs which means nothing and diverges no amount from what everyone else believes in actual practice but you think it makes you superior. Classic.*
At first glance, your charges may seem to carry some weight. However, there are many advantages to considering matter itself to be divine, rather than relying on fairy tales to explain life(Big Religion) or by outright lying and claiming that matter is “inert”(Big Science). By considering matter divine, all the magical properties of matter make sense. This does not give anyone license to discard rational thinking and the Scientific Method, of course. It’s simply a matter of perspective. My perspective leads me to respect matter and the intelligence it contains, which leads me to practical conclusions like it’s not ok to feed ground up carcasses to animals.
By Mara
March 22, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this
maybe you make regulations that products cannot be labeled as “100% tested”
I don’t agree with this at all. The idea that the government would forbid companies from giving its customers factual and honest information about its product simply to protect other competing companies that don’t choose to do follow the same business model is just…flabbergasting. If you and I are comfortable purchasing unscreened beef but my neighbor isn’t, why should I ask the government to force companies not to cater to that particular group of consumers? As long as the information on the packaging is truthful I don’t think the government should be able (or would legally be able to) invoke a gag rule on the company. Free speech and all that…
Using that type of rationale, should Starkist be barred from putting “tuna safe” on their cans? Or Weyrhauser from lableing their wood products as “Sustainably harvested”? How about those companies that bill themselves as “100% recycled material”? Is this too much information for the marketplace?
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
“BTW, your comparison of selective breeding in animals and splicing gene sequences into gene sequences designed by God is completely invalid.”
But MATTER is DIVINE. And we are MATTER. Therefore WE are GOD. Which means we can change anything and it’s the hand of God. Your sad concept doesn’t even follow it’s own sad logic. If they were “designed” by God then God has to be a sentient force. Otherwise they are a result of the natural universe and evolution.
By Brian Curtis
March 22, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this
Life proceeds by blind chance, frequent failures, and occasional stumbles onto a fortuitously useful new direction. In other words, evolution.
Denial that evolution is valid, at this point in the evidence-gathering process, is about as “insightful” as denying that the Earth is round. Not that it even slows pompous windbags like Bruno down in their question to jam all of reality into their preconceived philsophical perspectives and reject whatever doesn’t fit.
Like, y’know, facts.
I’m telling you, Joe: don’t bother. Bruno can’t learn, because learning requires admitting you don’t know everything… and Bruno-Dog can’t ever do that. All he can do is brag, lie, and babble in a pathetic grab for attention and recognition here that he can’t achieve in real life. What’s sad is that, even here, he hasn’t managed to impress anyone; I guess too much of his real personality shows through.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 22, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Mara, thanks.Their puffed up but fragile egos are so insistent on getting purpose for their lives ,divine love and a future state that they just cannot see that our own purposes, human love and this life suffice .As Albert Ellis would say they have a “mustabatory” need for God that they could with guidance get over [ See his “The Myth of Self Esteem ]. Joe L., their brain shield of faith precludes their acceptance of real facts .They retort that we are dogmatic and blindly accept the scientific consensus ! Any new life form from inert matter would suffer from predators ,so that is no big deal against abiogenesis . Ateological naturalism is it : theistic evolution is an oxymororon .To invoke Divine Mind behind selection is merely the new Omphalos argument that although nature looks purposeless, God deceives us ! And it is a mere non-sequitur to conclude that , since nature shows no purpose for us as I have before stated how me make our own . Read ‘“The Reason driven Life ” for more on this point . Logic is the bane of theists .[But thank goodness for Francisco Jose Ayala and Kenneth Miller, Catholics ,in their fight against mindless creationism ! Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism .
By Brian Curtis
March 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
Bruno-Dog kinda reminds me of Ayn Rand: a persistently irrational ego hysterically insisting that every personal opinion is Absolute, Objective Truth, and that a favored philosphical position MUST—absolutely MUST—a logical necessity.
Rand’s followers dismissed any disagreement or dissent as the obvious product of inferior, or perhaps diseased, minds. They were a sad, sick little cult of egomaniacs pretending to be the ultimate rational ideal (ironically enough). And ultimately, they were discarded by all serious thinkers, only to be rediscovered each generation by ego-driven teenagers who fall in love with the notion of self-worship as a valid worldview.
Most, of course, eventually grow out of it.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
Finally you have to accept that there are some things that are just arbitrary and have no “cause” or “answer”. The charge on a proton and electron could have been anything and matter would appear in a different form today, it’s all arbitrary. And those arbitrary occurences defined how matter would organize. But it doesn’t mean that the universe is any less explainable as a natural thing.
Joe, I honestly wish I could get through to you. Although you refuse to agree, I completely understand your viewpoint, and how you likely came to it (anti-church). In return, I don’t think you really know what I’m saying, maybe because it’s merely a reinterpretation of existing facts.
What you are missing here is a deep inconsistency in what you are saying. Randomness and organization are antithetical. You keep trying to marry the two together, but it’s not logically possible. As such, order cannot spontaneously emerge from disorder. And please don’t give me that line that under the “Laws” of Probability, anything is possible.
Joe, I do believe that the Universe is natural in the sense that there is no anthropomorphic, external Creator. However, your vision of all these random, arbitrary events leading to Life is the wildest fairy tale I have ever heard.
By Brian Curtis
March 22, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
Oops, typo: That should’ve been “every philosophical opinion must BE a logical necessity.” (In other words, my beliefs are SO rational that the universe must conform to them.”)
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
“It’s simply a matter of perspective. My perspective leads me to respect matter and the intelligence it contains, which leads me to practical conclusions like it’s not ok to feed ground up carcasses to animals.”
Then what makes it ok to eat animals? Or plants for that matter? Or ANYTHING? If matter is “divine” we are destroying divinity anything we do. We should stop existing.
Your “perspective” is idiotic. All you are doing is calling natural occurences “divine”. You are no different than a Greek calling lightning Zeus. You are merely calling the arbitrary rules of the universe “God”. That’s nothing but terminology and a sad label that makes you feel better. In reality it means absolutely nothing. A rose by any other name (or really its inverse here, calling a fish a rose does not improve it’s smell).
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
Lily Toad, good point .I meant he has a voice but ours do count. And many secularists are Republican . The secular voice is too low ,but others with their domination of the public square see us as threatening when we just want equality of treatment .
By Moviesite
March 22, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
Bruno is the pimple-faced geek in those movie pics. The one hanging by the side, acting like he does not belong there but looking so glad to be around some people. Some circles would call it the fringe-look.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
“As long as the information on the packaging is truthful I don’t think the government should be able (or would legally be able to) invoke a gag rule on the company. Free speech and all that…”
The problem is that there is “truth” and there is perception. And in this case that statement will convey a dangerous misconception. As far as free speech, I would very directly compare this to yelling fire in a theater. Free speech ends when it endangers the general public. Also we don’t live in a completely free market and the government regulates much of what a business (which btw has no free speech rights, only individuals do) can and can’t do. It’s no different than requiring an ingredient list or nutritional information.
The government should have no place telling the owner of a company he can’t go on TV and say his meat is 100% tested. They have every place telling his BUSINESS it can’t place that on a label.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this
How about this explain to me HOW antibiotics work - any of them (there are numerous mechanisms). I bet you have ZERO clue. Therefore how can you understand how antibiotic resistance works.
I hope some of you will realize why I have to keep getting in a p** contest with half-wits like Joe who can’t debate ideas on their own merit. Joe, I’ve got my college transcripts in hand. I had to compile them in order to get ready to return to college. I’ve taken a total of 142 college courses, totaling around 500 credit hours. In relation to bacteria, I’ve taken courses in Biochemistry (many), Histology, Pathology (numerous). Microbiology (3), Immunology, Diagnosis (many), Public Health (many), as well as several courses tangentially related. Get off your high horse, Joe.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
I don’t agree with this at all. The idea that the government would forbid companies from giving its customers factual and honest information about its product simply to protect other competing companies that don’t choose to do follow the same business model is just…flabbergasting.
At least Mara may be getting a clue regarding my rejection of Big Science. With all of the other labeling requirements, wouldn’t you think given the fact that a product contained questionable ingredients like genetically modified foodstuffs, we would at least be given the opportunity to decide for ourselves.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
” As such, order cannot spontaneously emerge from disorder. And please don’t give me that line that under the “Laws” of Probability, anything is possible.”
You keep using “spontaneously”. It’s not “spontaneous” it’s ordained by the natural laws of the universe. The randomness is the occurence is “unguided”, but the ORDER of the natural laws is what makes the random occurence beneficial. Two atoms colliding is random. The atoms forming a larger more stable atom or a molecule IS NOT SPONTANEOUS.
It’s not a wild fairy tale at all. It’s merely the fact that an infinite number of unguided occurences subject to the natural laws of the universe led to ever complicated organization of matter. Life is merely one name for one organization of said matter. The problem with people like you is viewing “life” as anything other than a complex system of energy. We are no different than a crystal other than complexity.
By kimberly
March 22, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
Wow…. such a lively discussion, and I find that I just don’t care! Does it matter what we call stuff? No. Does it change the forces of nature one iota when we spend the day debating its origin? Nope. Does my opinion change ANYTHING? Not likely. So I’ll remind you all that it’s a beautiful day, and repeat the words of mr. ee cummings:
O sweet spontaneous earth how often have the doting
fingers ofpurient philosophers pinched and poked
thee ,has the naughty thumb of science prodded thy
beauty .howoftn have religions taken thee upon their scraggy knees squeezing and
buffeting thee that thou mightest conceive gods (but true
to the incomparable couch of death thy rhythmic lover
thou answerestthem only with
spring) -- E. E. CummingsBy Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
Which means we can change anything and it’s the hand of God.
Joe, you keep trying to put words in my mouth based on what you have heard in church. Divine matter follows fixed principles. you keep trying to define the word “divine” to mean “anything goes”. Heck no. The “anything goes” model is yours—A theory that “inert” materials, through some kind of blind luck, “evolved” into a perfectly integrated world which even includes neurons which allow us to construct mental models of the world. At what point will you acknowledge magic?
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 22, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis , that is right about both of them ! Not to self-promote,,but google my name to find my threads and posts on what I claim here today and more.See me taking licks ! Maybe Rand had a pesonality disorder as I do ,but one which with medication and therapy , I overcome . Such as she would not want to change for the better but stay mired in solipsism.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
. It’s not “spontaneous” it’s ordained by the natural laws of the universe. The randomness is the occurence is “unguided”, but the ORDER of the natural laws is what makes the random occurence beneficial.
Joe, I rest my case. Because once you dig far enough, you reach a point where you have to start using words like “ordained” and “ORDER” and “beneficial”. How in the world can you apply terms which all have their roots in purpose to purposeless, inert matter. All I’m doing is the same thing you’re doing, but I’m being more accurate, honest, and Scientific to say that such properties cannot be associated with purposeless matter.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this
Wow all those courses and you can’t answer a simple question about antibiotics? Just answer the question. It’s not personal, it relates to the argument by subject. Anyone can make up a fake list of credentials. Back up claims with knowledge and/or show that you even understand the subject which you claimed such shock over.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
Wow…. such a lively discussion, and I find that I just don’t care! Does it matter what we call stuff? No. Does it change the forces of nature one iota when we spend the day debating its origin? Nope.
I agree with you in one way, kimberly. The arbitrary name we select for something doesn’t change its fundamental character. s such, I’m sure you’ll understand why I think calling handicapped kids “special needs” is a load of crap.
Or, maybe, at the same time, you’ll realize how choice of words sometimes betrays a deeper attitude. You see, when POSs like Joe and BC start taking away divinity from matter, I know that they’ll be torturing some defenseless caged animal soon so they can enlighten us with more “Science”. So maybe it does matter after all.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
No see my brain can process both probabilities and underlying laws of the universe to understand it’s not magic. Apparently you suffer from an inability to do both.
So again all those courses and you can’t explain a simple thing like antibiotics? AND you claim that my statement was so far off base without the starting point of that knowledge?
I love that all your claims of intelligence are based on unsubstantiated titles yet your arguments never reflect any real facts or intelligence.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this
The problem is that there is “truth” and there is perception. And in this case that statement will convey a dangerous misconception. As far as free speech, I would very directly compare this to yelling fire in a theater. Free speech ends when it endangers the general public.
And the BS keeps right on flowing. Sounds a lot like DOGMA to me, Joe: Don’t tell folks they are unknowingly eating foods they wouldn’t choose to eat otherwise because “We know what’s best”. Can’t let those ignorant heathens make their own decisions, can we.
Joe, you really are a pinko Commie underneath it all, aren’t you. Well, go move to China, then. The government over there will be happy to tell you what is best for you (for your own good of course).
By kimberly
March 22, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this
You say “divine;” I say “bovine.” Let’s call the whole thing off.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this
No all you are doing is making yourself feel smarter than you are and applying the misnomer of “divine” to NATURAL ORDER. No one argues the universe lacks order, the argument is WHERE DOES ORDER come from. Some people believe it comes from God. Some people believe it merely exists. That order is order - it’s arbitrary. As I pointed out matter would be completely different with changes to the totally arbitrary states adopted by the early universe.
What is “inert” matter? Matter is matter. Matter has properties. The interactions of these properties has rules. These rules are based on arbitrary RANDOM and essentially unimportant natural occurences in the early universe. You are the moron who keeps calling a set of arbitrary rules “god”.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this
How about the defenseless gasoline you put in your car? Of the defenseless electricity that powers you computer? If ALL matter is divine than a table is just as important as a person. In actuality YOUR silly philosophies diminish the importance of people and “defenseless” animals and not ours.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
Denial that evolution is valid, at this point in the evidence-gathering process, is about as “insightful” as denying that the Earth is round. Not that it even slows pompous windbags like Bruno down in their question to jam all of reality into their preconceived philsophical perspectives and reject whatever doesn’t fit.
Great point about Evolution and a “round” Earth. Last time I checked, it was egg shaped. WHat is totally hilarious to me, Brian, is that while you reject Religion out of hand, you haven’t dug deep enough to realize that the Scientific Method is based on the same exact “worldview” introduced by monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity. Specifically, the idea the the world is ordered and purposeful, such that it is valid to establish rational models which can then be tested against what The Big Guy put there for us. They used to call it “Thinking after God”. Unfortunately, the new breed of half-wit Scientist like yourself now do the “Thinking for God”. Subbtle difference on the surface, but hopefully chick will come on board this week and tell you the story of Lucifer (the bearer of the light).
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
“Joe, you really are a pinko Commie”
Ah more of that rational intelligent thinking from the little doggie.
So you do think it’s okay to yell fire in a theater? Great logic there. Of course the fire is “divine” matter so it has as much right to exist as the humans who are trampled.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 22, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
Check “The Counter -Creationist Handbook” for examples of speciation is latter times and for more answers to silly anti-evolutionism .Rand was of that persuasion. By the way Mr. Secular Progressive is Paul Kurtz with his groups and publising house, Prometheus. Bill O’Reilly commits the straw man fallacy in his portrayal of us SP’S.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
You know it would be great if a rel Philosopher or Theologian wold come on board to evaluate our discussion. I believe they would see Joe and BC hurling a lot of insults, but coming up empty time and time again in terms of answering challenges to their pitiful worldviews.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
“You know it would be great if a rel Philosopher or Theologian wold come on board to evaluate our discussion.”
Wow maybe you finally made the first step to healing your sickness. You admitted your silly concepts are not real philosophy.
Yes you NEVER called anyone a PINKO COMMIE no did you? The saddest person is the one that can’t even see who they are.
Talk about coming up empty, where is that explanation of antibiotics that anyone with a tenth of your claimed education could have easily provided?
Physician heal thyself.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
Look out BC, Dog is tiring out our knuckles with his face in this fight! He has us right where he wants us.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
Just answer the question. It’s not personal, it relates to the argument by subject.
You know what’s really incredible, Joe. You guys ask me direct questions, and I actually respond to them with the facts. In return, none of you will ever answer a straight question, especially those revealing your biases. It took Tramadol 1000 queries before BC would even admit he made his money bilking the public carrying out ridiculous “research projects”. Stir has yet to answer what her background is. I’ve been frothcoming at every step.
Joe, I think even folks who have never taken even one course in microbiology or pathology (or even histology) understand that antibiotics work via several mechanisms. Some interfere with cell reproduction, others attack the cell wall itself, etc. The chemists who make the antibiotics look for places in the physiology which are easily interrupted. They would probably make good terrorists, or at least computer hackers. you would think Microsoft would have a more secure operating system by now, no? Or maybe they are Evolutionists and are waiting for the OS to Evolve on its own.
By Mara
March 22, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
Joe - how does labeling tested beef as tested beef “endanger the public”? The issue of yelling “Fire!” in a theater was a concern because the crowd was likely to panic and cause harm to themselves or others in the crowd by stampeding for the exits. So how would saying “We tested this and we found no indication of BSE” cause harm to anyone, other than a competeing beef company’s bottom line? I’m just not seeing the harm to the public. Would the demand for tested beef be illogical? Maybe. But so is the demand for 3-inch stilletos. And I guarantee that the shoes cause more injury to the consumer than tested beef will! LOL!
As for “truth”…what is truth? Do you take the position that “truth” is not static, much as my rather existential explaination of “personal reality” said that “reality” is relative? If you are, remember that I was called all kinds of nasty names for positing that. :^)
morgan - interesting article in todays SF Chronicle about moral behavior and the brain cortex - “The ventromedial prefrontal cortex processes feelings of empathy, shame, compassion and guilt. Damage to this part of the brain causes a diminished capacity for social emotions…” So much for morality being dependant on belief in a deity.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
No see my brain can process both probabilities
Joe, you’re a F-ing idiot, ok? You haven’t demonstrated any math ability beyond 7th grade. You admitted to “forgetting” eighth grade math, remember? Now I answered your question about antibiotics. You never answered my math question to you, which BTW, is at the level of college freshman Linear Algebra. You have spoken at length regarding your ability to handle “multidimensional” thinking, but seem to know nothing regarding the mathematics of dimensions. So, prove me wrong by explaining quickly why every finite, non-zero inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It’s a simple result, although it has great philosophical ramifications. Hint: It has to do with the concept of coordinate axes.
By Lily Toad
March 22, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this
You say “divine;” I say “bovine.” Let’s call the whole thing off.
HA, HA, HA! Kimberly, that’s the most entertaining thing posted in the last few hours, with the exception of BC’s analysis of Ayn Rand followers.
By Mara
March 22, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this
kimberly - you get a standing ovation from me for You say “divine;” I say “bovine.” Let’s call the whole thing off
ROTFLMGDAO!!!!!
By Lily Toad
March 22, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
I’ve been frothcoming at every step.
I usually don’t make fun of people for typos, but this just says it all.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
“Joe - how does labeling tested beef as tested beef “endanger the public”?”
Because if I label some beef as “100% tested” and not others, due to the poor risk assessment of people and poor education around the subject I raise the very real possibility of a frenzy over food safety. Also it conveys a false sense of security (from an admittedly massively minor problem) about “tested” beef’s safety.
No what I was saying is that something can be truthful and not conveying the concept that it truthfully represents to the recipient. This is what keeps lawyers in business!
In psychology they talk about Big R reality and little r reality. Big R reality is what is actually happening. Little r is what your brain is perceiving. ALL reality experienced by humans is secondary. It’s merely our brain’s reconstruction of what is big R reality.
By Lyrazel
March 22, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
Why else do you think little girls 8 and 9 years old are having periods so young? Ah Ralph, why do we pretend little girls never had periods so young? Maybe scientific studies of women’s physiology has not had much research thus we are seeing such strange” results that do not match the 60 years of data it does have? I think changes occur outside the body of both social and environmental that effect the species more than modern medicine accepts. Modern girls have lives profoundly different from their great-grandparents thus we have no data as to the effects of overeating and lack of physical activity on menstruation. Are males more fertile at a younger age now? Is fat the trigger for menstrual cycles/fertility to occur earlier or does continual sexual influences of society trigger girls minds into becoming *women physically before mentally?
By Lily Toad
March 22, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
I’ve been frothcoming at every step.
I usually don’t make fun of people for typos, but this just says it all.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
As for “truth”…what is truth? Do you take the position that “truth” is not static, much as my rather existential explaination of “personal reality” said that “reality” is relative? If you are, remember that I was called all kinds of nasty names for positing that. :^)
Mara, I don’t believe I called you any names in attacking your position on reality being relative. I may have used mockery, but turnabout is fair play, no? Remember, I have been folowing “The Reverse Golden Rule” here on W2W. I save my insults for the insulters, my mockery for the mockers.
Here’s a good snappy response to kim, for example: You say “divine;” I say “bovine.” Let’s call the whole thing off Alright, then you can say “liberated” and I’ll say “slut” and we’ll call the whole thing off, ok?
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
” Now I answered your question about antibiotics. You never answered my math question to you, which BTW, is at the level of college freshman Linear Algebra.”
No you answered nothing. You did the same thing you always do when asked a real question of fact, you blithered about your so-called credentials and never offered an ounce of knowledge. I recall no previous math question from you, feel free to refresh my memory. But I will answer it “doggy style” - ‘I took 3 years of higher math at a pre-eminent institution therefore you have NO RIGHT to question anything I say and I’m smarter than you and prettier and you are a big stinky butt.’
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this
Ah I admit you did finally make some attempt at answer that I missed above. My fault on that comment.
However you offer some real insight there. Cell reproduction (not really). Attacking the cell wall - for some and you are at least in view of the ballpark finally. Now if you knew that they attack the cell wall by interplacing themselves in the matrix preventing it from forming you would be almost to the concept that UPTAKE of cell wall material is what ultimately causes the cells demise. And lack of said uptake actually makes a defective cell that would be thoroughly outcompeted in a natural environment “resistant” to said antibiotic.
So now your uneducated “what” is proving to be yet another deficit in your knowledge of the real world and how “flawed” and “defective” cells are often advantageous and by no means ordained by your divine matter.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
These rules are based on arbitrary RANDOM and essentially unimportant natural occurences in the early universe. You are the moron who keeps calling a set of arbitrary rules “god”.
Is that so, Joe. totally arbitrary, huh? Random and unimportant, huh? And it was just blind luck which “caused” it to work out so great? I’m really not sure how you can’t see what unbelievable leaps of faith a person has to make to come to that conclusion. Of course, in your non-dogmatic mind, these are self-evident facts, so anyone who questions them is simply a few cards short of a full deck.
Like I keep trying to get across to kimberly, in one sense our choice of wording isn’t critical, as long as we can agree that we are talking about the same thing. However, in my experience, animal torturers like BC all share a common worldview that matter is not divine (or even bovine).
BTW, That’s what I mean by reaching my views via “reverse engineering”. For you lightweights who I don’t really believe understand Ayn Rand to begin with, that’s not what she did. Unfortunately, she started with certain premises and reasoned forward, which led her to some faulty conclusions.
By kimberly
March 22, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this
He hurt my feelings. Boo hoo! Actually, if you’re calling me a sl-t, you’re wrong. I’m not a sl-t, I’m a b-tch. Do you know the difference?
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
Straight from the Ministry of Truth courtesy of Joe L. :
Because if I label some beef as “100% tested” and not others, due to the poor risk assessment of people and poor education around the subject I raise the very real possibility of a frenzy over food safety. Also it conveys a false sense of security (from an admittedly massively minor problem) about “tested” beef’s safety.
I have to admit when I read “1984” back in the early 70s, I didn’t believe our country would ever be like the one described in the book. Now, between cameras everywhere and our Ministry of Truth FDA, I’m really wondering where we’re heading.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
He hurt my feelings. Boo hoo! Actually, if you’re calling me a sl-t, you’re wrong. I’m not a sl-t, I’m a b-tch. Do you know the difference?
I didn’t call you any of those names, kim. Just trying to underscore the point that you try to put on liberal trappings, but are conservative underneath it all.
As for the “B” charge, men love Bs. Haven’t you noticed? Start working that thing, momma!!
By kimberly
March 22, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
Hee hee, c’mon girls. Tell him. {;->
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
But I will answer it “doggy style” - ‘I took 3 years of higher math at a pre-eminent institution therefore you have NO RIGHT to question anything I say and I’m smarter than you and prettier and you are a big stinky butt.’
Funny how that is the only answer I keep getting when I ask direct questions, when in fact, the record shows I have answered every direct question ever posed to me.
I have no interest in credentials, Joe. That’s your schtick, along with 72John, remember. That is until I shut you guys up with real credentials. Then it didn’t count. You guys would make great women—Just change the rules in the middle of the game when you realize you’re losing.
So lay some extremely simple math on me, Joe. Or at least explain why his result has any possible philosophical consequences.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
However you offer some real insight there. Cell reproduction (not really). Attacking the cell wall - for some and you are at least in view of the ballpark finally. Now if you knew that they attack the cell wall by interplacing themselves in the matrix preventing it from forming you would be almost to the concept that UPTAKE of cell wall material is what ultimately causes the cells demise. And lack of said uptake actually makes a defective cell that would be thoroughly outcompeted in a natural environment “resistant” to said antibiotic.
Joe, I could bore you and everyone else here with a long-winded discussion of cell physiology and give you a lot of specifics regarding the various types of antibiotics, but I jumped through your hoop. BTW, your statement that no antibiotics work by attacking the reproductive cycle doesn’t sound like one made by a person with much knowledge of what they were saying. So keep the p** contest up, ok?
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
“And it was just blind luck which “caused” it to work out so great?”
What do you mean “work out”? The universe would be diffent is the charges on subatomic particles were different and atoms had 12 valence electrons. But there would still be matter and it would still organize in some manner consistent with these arbitrary values.
Actually they aren’t that big a leap of faiths. The only leap is abandoning the self-importance that we try to attribute ourselves. That egoism is what prevents most people from grasping it. Surprise, something that ego gets in the way of and you can’t grasp it.
Ayn Rand a heavyweight? As BC so accurately pointed out Ayn Rand was merely the personification of a perpetual ego centric teenager. Again no surprise you relate.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this
BWAH! You have no interest in credentials?! You are the king of the d*ck measuring contest. You are the ONLY person on here who throws around titles and puffs out your chest at where you supposedly went to school, did, studied, etc. You wouldn’t be half as sad if you just admitted what you were. Your complete lack of self-awareness borders on scary. Every behavior you accuse others of are generally solely exhibited by you.
And of course you can’t resist a random sexist comment at the same time. Yet another example of your complete cluelessness.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
Hee hee, c’mon girls. Tell him. {;->
I repeat: As for the “B” charge, men love Bs. Haven’t you noticed? Start working that thing, momma!!
I guess I should have said keep working that thing, momma!!
Kim, I know we’re not a romantic match, but I do regret never having met you in person. You seem like the perfect person to go to the Botanical Gardens or the High Museum with. Or even a poetry reading. I’m sure I could be talked into trying that. Hell, I’ve even taken ladies to see “The Phantom of The Opera”, for crying out loud. I did draw the line at “The Nutcracker” however. A man has to retain some pride.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this
“I have to admit when I read “1984” back in the early 70s, I didn’t believe our country would ever be like the one described in the book. Now, between cameras everywhere and our Ministry of Truth FDA, I’m really wondering where we’re heading.”
Actually you hit close to the mark but still miss the target yet again. You have the crimes right but you keep getting the wrong culprits.
By Answer
March 22, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this
A Beech is a Sl!t that is not giving it to the person using the beech label.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
I usually don’t make fun of people for typos, but this just says it all.
Lily, you got me there. Good one!!! While it appears to be a great Freudian slip, I’ve actually discovered through blogging that I am a dyslexic typist. I’m not a dyslexic reader at all, so I’m not sure wher that comes from . Must be two different parts of the brain.
By kimberly
March 22, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this
You are the king of the d-ck measuring contest.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHA! HAHA! Here’s a tip: If you’re a winner, we’ll let you know. If you haven’t been notified…. HAHAHAHA!
BTW, a sl-t will do anybody. A b-tch will do anybody but YOU. HAHAHAHA! HAHA! I love springime. sigh
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
Every behavior you accuse others of are generally solely exhibited by you.
And pretty darn amazing that I’m the only one here who does that, right? You guys should reread some of your own criticisms one day if you’re looking for some real insight on your own behalves. Oh thats right, can’t apply standards to yourselves like that, no way.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
BTW, a sl-t will do anybody. A b-tch will do anybody but YOU. HAHAHAHA! HAHA! I love springime. sigh
kim, you really are a funny person. Truly. I love when you post. If I ever did meet your ex-hubby, I would probably delay trying to kick his a* for hurting you to find out how a man could be so stupid to not treasure a rare jewel like you. Seriously. I would say the same thing even if you were a guy, but none of the guys here can hold a candle to you, including me.
Seriously, kim, you are so smart it scares me sometimes.
By Mara
March 22, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
the very real possibility of a frenzy over food safety
does that mean you foresee stampedes of consumers fighting and clawing one another to get to the tested beef? Sounds sarcastic, I know, but I don’t mean it to be…I just don’t seem to be “getting” the safety issue. If there were to be some kind of demand for regulation, the USDA/FDA would be well within their rights to point out that tested meat, clearly labeled, is available if that’s what the consumer wants and non-labeled product is there for those who aren’t as namby-pamby.
funny…I don’t recall naming any names of who did or did not call me names for my existentialist maunderings…yet here I see a “not ME!” denial. As if I have the time or desire to leaf back through multiple posts merely to prove him wrong…HA!
anyway, good discussion today folks. Jokes tomorrow…
By Mara
March 22, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this
the very real possibility of a frenzy over food safety
does that mean you foresee stampedes of consumers fighting and clawing one another to get to the tested beef? Sounds sarcastic, I know, but I don’t mean it to be…I just don’t seem to be “getting” the safety issue. If there were to be some kind of demand for regulation, the USDA/FDA would be well within their rights to point out that tested meat, clearly labeled, is available if that’s what the consumer wants and non-labeled product is there for those who aren’t as namby-pamby.
funny…I don’t recall naming any names of who did or did not call me names for my existentialist maunderings…yet here I see a “not ME!” denial. As if I have the time or desire to leaf back through multiple posts merely to prove him wrong…HA!
anyway, good discussion today folks. Jokes tomorrow…
By Mara
March 22, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this
the very real possibility of a frenzy over food safety
does that mean you foresee stampedes of consumers fighting and clawing one another to get to the tested beef? Sounds sarcastic, I know, but I don’t mean it to be…I just don’t seem to be “getting” the safety issue. If there were to be some kind of demand for regulation, the USDA/FDA would be well within their rights to point out that tested meat, clearly labeled, is available if that’s what the consumer wants and non-labeled product is there for those who aren’t as namby-pamby.
funny…I don’t recall naming any names of who did or did not call me names for my existentialist maunderings…yet here I see a “not ME!” denial. As if I have the time or desire to leaf back through multiple posts merely to prove him wrong…HA!
anyway, good discussion today folks. Jokes tomorrow…
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
BTW, a sl-t will do anybody. A b-tch will do anybody but YOU. HAHAHAHA! HAHA! I love springime. sigh
Last time I had to go to court, a young Spanish girl there also was wearing a shirt that said “Yes, but not with you”. Is that what you mean, kimmy?
You’re the greatest. I’m totally jealous of any ex-boyfriends. Stupid guys.
By lozen
March 22, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Ha, ha, ha. Kimberly has definitely posted the most entertaining thing on the blog today.
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
Oh I can honestly tell you the many flaws I have and by no means accuse others of being sinners and myself the only saint. You are sheer hypocrisy though.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
At least stop by for a Scooby snack one day, will you?
By Brian Curtis
March 22, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
Bruno, the difference is this: Others are capable of posting about the topic. You’re only capable of posting about yourself and how wonderful you are.
And frankly, no one so far is fascinated. Imagine that!
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
All praise kimberly!!!!
And Mara, you’re not bad yourself. I thought about you ladies yesterday on the way to the vet to get the rescued rabbit checked over. Here I was feeling sorry for the little bastard, right until he took a big leak on the front seat of my car. Right then, a mommy thought hit me, well, maybe a mommy would overlook that. Of course, I’m a daddy, and was POd.
Now I’ll ever get a date with rabbit urine on my seat. ; > {
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Bruno, the difference is this: Others are capable of posting about the topic. You’re only capable of posting about yourself and how wonderful you are.
BC, if you spent 1/10 of the time offering ideas which made any sense as you did worrying about me, you might get somewhere in Life. You would be a terrible poker player, I can tell you that. So who does play here? I think kim would be a good player, but she would claim poor when she had to pull $20 out of her pocket. I can hear her already “I worked hard for that money!! I”m not going to risk it gambling!!”
By Joe L
March 22, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
Mara - No I mean that the public will develop another irrationally driven panic and force the government to 100% test causing either a lot of wasted government funds or an increase in beef prices.
Honestly what it boils down to for me are two issues: can or how can the USDA regulate testing (I say they should allow private testing but require all results be reported to and acted upon by them only) and what value is there to the public in labeling. I see no value other than to appease irrational fears of some and great harm in further increasing those irrational fears among others.
This solves the issue of allowing companies to compete more fairly in foreign regulated markets while also ensuring a safe food supply and not raising both prices and anxiety for no real reason.
By Answer
March 22, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
Now I’ll (N)ever get a date with rabbit urine on my seat.
Doesn’t sound like you were getting them before the urine either. Sure, sure, blame the poor little rabbit.
By Answer
March 22, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
Too cheap to buy a pet carrier is super dooper super CHEAP.
By Roger
March 22, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this
Mom’s should stay home. At least until they go to school. Anyone that doesn’t understand that is an idiot and will take thier career over thier children.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
Too cheap to buy a pet carrier is super dooper super CHEAP.
Hey, gotta save my money for the really important things like gambling and Scooby snacks. Actually, for the bunnies, a big cardboard box works well and is easier to get them into to. It’s hard to get them into a normal pet carrier if they extend their back legs.
One more cheer for the folks who work in animal rescue. If there’s a Heaven, Pete is waving those guys through without even an x-ray scan for security! I don’t do a lot but send them a few bucks, I’m not including myself.
By lozen
March 22, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
kimberly, the poem was very nice too!
“…..I could bore you and everyone else here with a long-winded discussion of ….” And what would be different about that? That’s all you do anyway. And, yes, Joe L is right: you cannot resist the sexist comments and the trash mouth and … Well, let’s just call you what you are - a total loser, a sexist pig, a big fat bore for three.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
“I worked hard for that money!! I”m not going to risk it gambling!!”
So, was I right, or what?
Actually, NetB would be a player to be feared.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
Well, let’s just call you what you are - a total loser, a sexist pig, a big fat bore for three.
lozen— You would not be a player to be feared at the poker table. You would get your chips taken before you even sat down. I can hear you whining on your way out the door already, “It just isn’t fair. They cheated”.
By Ralph the Wunderdog
March 22, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
Now if Mara really wanted me gone, she could have kept singing that song from The Sound Of Music they adapted for a car commercial. “So long, farewell, auf weidersahn, goodbye”. I considered sending the president of Kia a check to buy their entire fleet if they would just stop playing that commercial. It must have worked since Mara was singing it.
By Mosquito ringtone
March 22, 2007 10:01 PM | Link to this
The best free music and RingTone download site in the world including ringtones for verizon, sprint and cingular. Mosquito ringtone [url=http://tvmaniac.blogs.se/ ]Mosquito ringtone[/url] http://tvmaniac.blogs.se/ Free nokia ringtones [url=http://radiomaniac.blogs.se/ ]Free nokia ringtones[/url] http://radiomaniac.blogs.se/ Nextel ringtones [url=http://netmaniac.blogs.se/ ]Nextel ringtones[/url] http://netmaniac.blogs.se/ Download free ringtones [url=http://mobilemaniac.blogs.se/ ]Download free ringtones[/url] http://mobilemaniac.blogs.se/
By footjobs pics
March 23, 2007 12:12 AM | Link to this
http://geo.ya.com/yojik/sjx/01-20.html footjobs video
By Mosquito ringtone
March 23, 2007 12:17 AM | Link to this
The best free music and RingTone download site in the world including ringtones for verizon, sprint and cingular. Mosquito ringtone [url=http://tvmaniac.blogs.se/ ]Mosquito ringtone[/url] http://tvmaniac.blogs.se/ Free nokia ringtones [url=http://radiomaniac.blogs.se/ ]Free nokia ringtones[/url] http://radiomaniac.blogs.se/ Nextel ringtones [url=http://netmaniac.blogs.se/ ]Nextel ringtones[/url] http://netmaniac.blogs.se/ Download free ringtones [url=http://mobilemaniac.blogs.se/ ]Download free ringtones[/url] http://mobilemaniac.blogs.se/
By footjobs pics
March 23, 2007 1:45 AM | Link to this
http://geo.ya.com/yojik/sjx/01-20.html footjobs video
By Free ringtones
March 23, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this
The best free music and RingTone download site in the world including ringtones for verizon, sprint and cingular. Free ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000011.html ]Free ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000011.html Mp3 ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000010.html ]Mp3 ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000010.html Polyphonic ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000009.html ]Polyphonic ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000009.html Motorola ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000008.html ]Motorola ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000008.html Download free ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000007.html ]Download free ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000007.html Nextel ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000006.html ]Nextel ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000006.html Free Nokia ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000005.html ]Free Nokia ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000005.html Mosquito ringtone [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000004.html ]Mosquito ringtone[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000004.html Free ringtones [url=http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000003.html ]Free ringtones[/url] http://bama.ua.edu/~tccc/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000003.html
By Mara
March 23, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this
stupid dog…can’t tell the difference between a show tune, a commercial, and a theme song. My lyrics came from the theme song of “The Lawrence Welk Show”
Good night, good night, until we meet again
Adios, Au revoir, Auf Wiedersehn ‘til then.
And though it’s always sweet sorrow to part
You know you’ll always remain in my heart
Good night, sleep tight, and pleasant dreams to you.
Here’s a wish and a prayer that every dream comes true.
And now ‘til we, meet again,
Adios, Au Revoir, Auf Wiedersehn.
Goodnight!!!
The commercial (and the musical) lyrics are “So long, Farewell, Auf Weidersehn, Good Night”…as you can see, not an Adios, or Au Revoir in the whole she-bang. You do get an “Adieu” in the middle of the song, but it still is WAAAAAYYYYYY off from Great Grans favorite theme song.
dumb, dumb dog…
By JokeDay
March 23, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
Mara - just do it 1000 more times and we’ll be rid of him.
wait, he lies, forget it then.
my JokeDay contribution right there.
but another contribution:
See any differences between Fundies and Dog?
Both are Right, because they say so.
Both need a higher being to explain things they do not understand.
Both want everyone to think like them Please Please, think like me, Please, I’m right.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
My lyrics came from the theme song of “The Lawrence Welk Show”
Lawrence Welk?? Now just who is the nerd here?? Don’t tell me you also watched Little House on The Prairie growing up, did you? Out of curiosity, how could you even remember that theme song?? All I remember was “And a wona, and a twoa…”
Both are Right, because they say so,
Are you admitting defeat again, BC?
Both need a higher being to explain things they do not understand.
Where do you keep coming up with a “Higher Being” considering the fact that I don’t include any “higher beings” in my worldview.
Both want everyone to think like them Please Please, think like me, Please, I’m right.
I don’t see any pleading on my part for you to think like me. I have little concern when weak minds like yours can’t grasp simple truths.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
I did get on a Big 80s roll last night for some reason while the basketball games were on. Some real nail-biters last night. I can’t figure out how Ohio State keeps winning. Tennessee had them on the ropes after the first half, then folded up their tents and went home the second half. What are some of y’all’s favorite Big 80s tunes?
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this
Ok, everyone do a big line of coke and put on some Big 80s music:
a-ha—Take On Me
A Flock of Seagulls—I Ran
Wang Chung—Everybody Have Fun Tonight
Will To Power—Baby I Love Your Way/Freebird Melody
Scandal—Goodbye To You
Tommy Tutone—867-5309 (Jenny)
Frankie Goes To Hollywood—Relaxxx
Spandau Ballet—True
Simple Minds—Alive and Kicking
Billy Idol—Eyes Without a Face
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
Of course, I had to immediately purge my sound system with some Grateful Dead immediately afterwards. Dick’s Picks # 32—Real smokin China Cat Sunflower/I Know You Rider on that one.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
History/Grateful Dead trivia question: One of the most famous lines in a Grateful Dead song comes from “He’s Gone”: Nothin’ left to do but smile, smile, smile.
What US President used that as his campaign slogan?
By kimberly
March 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
Def Leopard - Pyromania The Scorpions - There’s no one like you Prince - Purple Rain, When the Doves Cry Billy Idol - Rebel Yell The Daz Band - Whip it
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
I was never much of a coker myself. I need stuff to calm me down, not make me more wired. I’ll never forget a coke party I went to once in the mid 80s, though. I walked in and some guy handed me a huge bag of coke and said “Here, do all you want.” There must have been 5 pounds in that bag. I started adding up how much it was worth and began having visions of Al Pacino showing up any second. “Say hello to my little friend”. I booked out of there as fast I could and never looked back.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
Def Leopard - Pyromania The Scorpions - There’s no one like you Prince - Purple Rain, When the Doves Cry Billy Idol - Rebel Yell The Daz Band - Whip it
I’ll go along with Def Leppard. You didn’t go to any of their shows in which they set up a Pleasure Dome under the stage in the 80s, did you kim? They would invite ladies from the audience to come on down and get naked in the Dome.
I love the Scorpions. I love “No one Like You”. “Rock You Like A Hurricane”. Are you a Blackfoot fan as well? They are more Southern Rock, but seemed to have a similar moody quality as the Scorpions.
As for Prince, did you catch his half-time show during the SuperBowl? The man knows how to entertain.
Daz Band’s “Whip It” is pretty good, but I like Devo’s “Whip It” better.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
So where were you guys hanging out in the 80s? When I wasn’t at The Saint on Chesire Bridge Road, I might be found at MacGruder’s in Marietta.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
Okay, kimmy. I just put on some Def Leppard in your honor.
I like “Photograph”, “Animal”, “Foolin” (great one there), “Armageddon It”, “Rock of Ages” (really great), and of course “Hysteria”.
Also, quick personal question. Your ex was a Virgo, thereby ruining the rep of all Virgos forever. Please don’t tell me that he was a Yankee also. If so, I will throw in the white towel. That would be a trend in your life that even I could never overcome.
P.S. I’ve concluded that you’re too smart for your own good.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Yeah, sing it Joe!! Pour Some Sugar On Me!!
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
“What Do You Want?” “What Do You Want?”
“I Want Rock And Roll! I Love Rock and Roll!”
“Rock of Ages, Rock of Ages!!”
By Mr Rogers
March 23, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood
By kimberly
March 23, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Never saw Def L. in concert, but did see YES three times, Van Halen, Kiss, ZZTop, John Cougar Mellencamp, Jethro Tull, Hewey Lewis (haha), Triumph, Joan Jett, AC/DC… some I don’t remember, and too many to list. During the Prince halftime show I screamed, swooned, and threw my underwear at the TV set.
Actually, I hold no grudges against yankees (y’all talk so cute!), but my don’t-do list does include Virgos, though, along with rednecks, frat boy types, alcoholics, bi-polars, active-duty military (gut wrenching sob!), Republicans, and anyone who speaks ill of my dead heroes. (I have omitted narcissists, sadists, musicians, and the emotionally unavailable from the don’t-do list; otherwise, there would be no one left to date.)
By Auto insurance southern owners
March 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
Hey, guys! Great site. I bookmark this place and waiting for me tommorow! Auto insurance southern owners [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/autoinsur/ ]Auto insurance southern owners[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/autoinsur/ Florida health insurance agency [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/healthinsurance/ ]Florida health insurance agency[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/healthinsurance/ Farmers home owner insurance [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/homeinsurance/ ]Farmers home owner insurance[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/homeinsurance/ Dental insurance life met [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/dentalinsurance/ ]Dental insurance life met[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/dentalinsurance/ State farm auto insurance company [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/statefarminsurance/ ]State farm auto insurance company[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/statefarminsurance/ Dog health insurance pet [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/petinsurance/ ]Dog health insurance pet[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/petinsurance/
By Auto insurance southern owners
March 23, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
Hey, guys! Great site. I bookmark this place and waiting for me tommorow! Auto insurance southern owners [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/autoinsur/ ]Auto insurance southern owners[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/autoinsur/ Florida health insurance agency [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/healthinsurance/ ]Florida health insurance agency[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/healthinsurance/ Farmers home owner insurance [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/homeinsurance/ ]Farmers home owner insurance[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/homeinsurance/ Dental insurance life met [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/dentalinsurance/ ]Dental insurance life met[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/dentalinsurance/ State farm auto insurance company [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/statefarminsurance/ ]State farm auto insurance company[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/statefarminsurance/ Dog health insurance pet [url=http://www.easyfreeforum.com/petinsurance/ ]Dog health insurance pet[/url] http://www.easyfreeforum.com/petinsurance/
By BeThere
March 23, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
Whatever happened to Appolonia?
By lyrazel
March 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
My ex did a lot of lines in the 70s-80s and now has a nice set of false teeth thanks to what coke does to gums.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Gotta run—So what is your favorite YES album, kim? I especially love “Fragile” and “Close To the Edge”. “Drama” was good even though Jon Anderson wasn’t with the group at the time. hey came out with a great song in the late 80s, “Love Will Find A Way”.
Do you still believe in Love??
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
Did you grow up in Dunwoody, kim? If so, I probably delivered a pizza to you before.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 23, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Rand must have had a personality disorder that precluded her getting out of her solipsism.Her then acolyte ,Branden with certain statement led me to atheism. I thnk she did not have a firm grip about atheism and she was anti-evolution.I daresy, people are moral now than during the Ages of Faith !
By chuck
March 23, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
Finally a job that seems to match your qualifications, Bruno.
By Stir
March 23, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
Dog, When/how did humans arrive in your world view? What’s the logic behind it?
As for: You keep questioning how a consistent worldview gives a person the ability to come to practical answers?
Incorrect. I stated that your assertion that your world view provides any tangible solutions is total bs as illustrated by you yourself.
By Atheist
March 23, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen Roberts
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 23, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
Ralph, I too have dyslexic fingers.hvae taht So ,I really have to proof read .My computer is my higher power .It keeps me awake and going , though for a while my faith in it failed ,for I was so tired and did not care much for using it.But it came through!I am saved !Halleluyah !
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this
Finally a job that seems to match your qualifications, Bruno.
You mean pizza delivery? Heck, that was the best job I ever had. I made tons of money and had a lot of fun wrecking several cars. The best part about pizza delivery is that people are always glad to see you. As a chiropractor, I had to put up with a bunch of whiners like lozen.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
chuck, where were you all week? The atheists were crawling out of every rat hole imaginable. I was waiting for you to thump them with your Bible. Don’t tell me you’re actually working this week? Now if only I could get an honest day’s work out of BC…..
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
Dog, When/how did humans arrive in your world view? What’s the logic behind it?
Stir, why is it that you keep asking me direct questions and expect an answer when you haven’t had the courtesy to answer even one direct question I have posed for you. I’ll tell you what: After you reveal what your job is (i.e.what your bias is)and what your worldview is, then we can talk.
BTW, your question is flawed. You ask what the “logic” is behind humans being here. I told you before, you can’t start from a group of principles and reason forward and expect to come to realistic answers, which is the implied framework hidden within your question. If I could answer WHY we are here, I would be as smart as GOD, and I’m not. I do like the Biblical interpretation, however, that we are created in God’s Image (i.e. mentally).
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this
Ok, chuck, Mr. History Teacher:
History/Grateful Dead trivia question: One of the most famous lines in a Grateful Dead song comes from “He’s Gone”: Nothin’ left to do but smile, smile, smile.
What US President used that as his campaign slogan?
By Mara
March 23, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this
thought provoking (and rational) discourse on religeon v. science…absolutely fascinating if you’re into that sort of thing.
http://www.waagnfnp.com/2007/03/21/science-and-belief/
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 23, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this
Bible-thumpers just don’t realize that mere mortals just made up the book and were ignorant of science. true morals and history-no Exodus, for instance.Yahweh was a sociopath- the Deluge, the killing of the first born of Egypt.Judaism long ago gave up animal sacrifice .The whole Atonement is nonsense . It took a sado-masochist for that ! And as there is no kind of Hell, I won’t be going there ;but will be as I was before my birth -nothing . I have never thought about any future state .Hello,Atheist!
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
I did have a small problem with getting fired while with Domino’s Pizza, however. Like about 10 times. Turns out I had a little problem with authority, and a smart mouth…… Imagine that!
By YouMean?
March 23, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this
Man created god in man’s image?
Chuck teaches school, they have this thing called Spring Break.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
Good site, Mara. If you study the History of Science a little, atheism has never been a part of the scheme. That is a recent trend among half-wit Scientists born in the 1900s. Every truly great Scientist from Newton to Einstein have acknowledged a Higher Intelligence (although not specifically a Big-Man-In-The-Sky). It wasn’t until recently that you have idiots like BC who stare at intelligence and see randomness somehow.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
Chuck teaches school, they have this thing called Spring Break.
Silly me to think he might be actually working for a change….
In my peak years, I worked nearly 365 days a year.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 23, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
Sure, men created God in their image and what an image ! How could God operate in the cosmos if He is not a god of the gaps? The ignotist argument springs up here: God merely “hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leap”, being just the non-meaningful tautology God wills what he wills .Oh, mortals rely on yourselves !
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
Ok, chuck, I accept your defeat on the History question. It was Taft, BTW. lozen didn’t include GD lyricist Robert Hunter in her lists of great poets, but he surpasses them all. His lyric style is somewhat like ee cummings insofar as he uses the sound and shape of the words themselves separate even from their meaning to create a greater Gestalt. Here’s a sample of one of his craziest songs:
Look for a while at the china cat sunflower, Proud walking jingle in the midnight sun. Copperdome bodhi drip a silver kimono, Like a crazy quilt stargown through a dream night wind.
BTW, kim, does that cummings guy still give readings. I’d like to take you to one. ; > } (j/k)
By Imagine
March 23, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
Some people are not smart enough to know when to NOT talk. Imagine that.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this
God merely “hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leap”, being just the non-meaningful tautology God wills what he wills .Oh, mortals rely on yourselves !
Morgan, if you accept an anthropomorphic God, then your concerns make sense. My question is, why must God be a separate entity from matter itself? Once you believe in such a separation, you end up in an existentialistic funk like the author of “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. A separate God is a foolish notion. God is right here and now. Stop looking out in space for God. Remember, Dorothy, “There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home” So click those heels three times and come back home.
By Imagine That
March 23, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this
Others imagine we care. Imagine that.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Others imagine we care. Imagine that.
Looks like we got a new sidline sniper on board. Or is it just boring old lozen or BC again? You’d think between them they could come up with an original idea once in a while instead of spending 99% of their time complaining.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
W2W Poker Players I would fear: NetB, 2D
W2W Poker Players I would respect, but not necessarily like: chuck, Kevin, Jack, Renee, blablabla
W2W Poker Players I would like, but not necessarily respect: Mara, kimberly, Morgan, 72John, Joe L
W2W Poker Players I would laugh out of the room and cover my ears to their whining: lozen, BC, Stir
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
By.., I accept no God .I just want to know how ,granting for the sake of argument that iff God means something , how God would act without being the god of the gaps ? And still granting that, the notion faces the Occam argument : Occam’s razor shaves off God from any explanations as redundant and contrary to Alister McGrath, the redundancy is not helpful .So ,either God means nothing or else He is redundant ! Now for your notion of God : that is a bombastic redescription of reality as Paul Edwards would have said .One alleges that God has certain attributes but does not show the empirical reasons for them .For instance , most claim He is omnipontent but the unrequited evil belies that . So , some then claim that He is limited .That is empirical ,taking into account evil .There is the incompatability argument against His attributes that they conflict . As fideists know , natural theology fails but fideism itself presupposes it insofar as it makes use of creator -first cause and designer . That is why my signature at the many sites I frequent states :logic is the bane of theists .For the rest of it : Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism . That is I do not try to defend my ignorance as fundamentalists do and that I use what is there to go to what else is there unlike supernaturalists and paranormalists .Having schizotypy , I am supposed to subscribe to those beliefs but I abjure and objurate them .So, I know a few words ! Thanks all for being friendly ! We can certainly disagree with out being disagreeable . Now at times I do get exasperated with some .
By Stir
March 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
Stir, why is it that you keep asking me direct questions and expect an answer when you haven’t had the courtesy to answer even one direct question I have posed for you.
Why? Because you have not answered my first question of how/when does your world view get applied to the real world. The short answer is that, like string theory, it does not apply to the real world nor can it be tested.
So much for meeting any scientific criteria.
Plus, just to point out you have a larger flaw than standard religions and science combined: You have a non-human like entity, that we humans were based on (paradox), that one day decided (but does not think - paradox) to create humans/life/etc yet provides no purpose.
People like you are what is created when stupid people memorize big words and theorems.
By SideLineSniper
March 23, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
I WON, I WON, I got the award. All of my life I wanted to be a SideLineSniper. I have ARRIVED, I am now a SideLineSniper. Does the award come with a scope?
oh, was that a sidline sniper? guffaw
By Stir
March 23, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
You’d think between them they could come up with an original idea once in a while instead of spending 99% of their time complaining.
(Psst - Kettle, you are black.)
By lozen
March 23, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this
Magnetism is one of the Six Fundamental Forces of the Universe, with the other five being Gravity, Duct Tape, Whining, Remote Control, and The Force That Pulls Dogs Toward The Groins Of Strangers.
By Pow Wow
March 23, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this
No women should not be allowed to play a mommy card. If women want the reponsibility of being a politician, then they must accept the sacrifices that come with it. I have no problem with women being in power, but you have to understand what your are getting into, and all I see “playing the mommy card” is a cop out to neglect your responibility as a politician.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this
BTW kim, I might be more qualified for you than you might think based on your list. OK, I might be a tad bipolar, but I overcompensate in return with great kindness and generosity. And I guess I did run MLK down a little, but only to point out that he was human like all of us.
On your “distasteful but acceptable” list, I do plead guilty to mild narcissism, but that’s it. I can’t even claim to be a musician, although I’m sure I’ll sing some mushy love songs at some point.
In return, are you sure that you’re always “emotionally available”? Your bit about “going on strike” sounded like a threatened withdrawal of love to me. I’m sure it’s effective.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this
He is omnipontent but the unrequited evil belies that .
Morgan, if you deeply think about it, it is you who are trapped in thought processes limited by “normal” Logic. E.g. your statement here makes no sense, unless you believe that God, which is the totality of all real things, can only be beneficial. The totality includes Good and Evil, Male and Female, etc. You call that a contradiction, but I don’t see it as so. From an engineering perspective, you always need counterbalancing forces to keep your system stable. Kind of like the checks and balances in our govt.
Again, morgan, you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t start from some point of Logic and say, therefore it must be this way. Heck , no. Reality is way stranger than any fiction any of us could ever come up with. Personally, i look at Reality and think “Now what kind of a system could explain this….?”, not the other way around, which is what Big Religion does in its worst moments.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
Morgan, can you at least admit, or understand, how the Scientific Method is a direct result of monotheistic beliefs?
If not, do a little research to figure out why the Scientific Method came from Bacon, and not Krishna, the Buddha, or Confucius.
By kimberly
March 23, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how to play poker. What are those little black pointy things on the cards? Do they mean something?
By lozen
March 23, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
Mutt, step away from those groins!
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this
Let me once again clear up a basic confusion which all of you, including the teachers here, have about how we develop knowledge. Stir’s question earlier reveals the flaw: In Geometry class, we learn about deductive logic, i.e. given a set of undefined words and axioms (i.e. unproven statements), these theorems are then true. If you think deeply about it, logic isn’t really all that it’s cracked up to be in the sense that it only is useful in systems which, by necessity, have to begin with undefined words and unproven statements.
On the other hand, inductive logic is based on noticing patterns, and believing the pattern will hold true for some intuitive reason until it proves itself false through experience. Many math books will slam the idea of inductive logic due to the fact that nothing is actually proven by noticing a pattern. The deeper truth is that the Universe is an “open” system insofar as we don’t know all of the elements it contains. As such, deductive logic, which can only apply to a “closed” system isn’t valid.
In informal terms, I use the word “revelation” to mean inductive thinking. It is often accompanied by an emotional feeling which many people describe in religious terms.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this
You have a non-human like entity, that we humans were based on (paradox), that one day decided (but does not think - paradox) to create humans/life/etc yet provides no purpose.
Stir, why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I have argued for no “being” at all. I’m telling you that matter itself is Divine. This leads to every practical conclusion in the world based on respect for matter. As humans, we are part of both the constructive and destructive cycles that all matter is part of, so we can’t be Jainists like Joe l was suggesting (i.e. eat nothing, wear no clothes). However, given the choice of doing things God’s Way, like feeding cattle things that are beneficial to cattle, there is a moral imperative to listen to God and not some jackass in a lab.
So what is your bias, Stir? Why do you keep hiding?
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how to play poker. What are those little black pointy things on the cards? Do they mean something?
You’re definitely my kind of player then!!! C’mon over, will just explain the rules as we go along, ok?
P.S. I asked you earlier if your delicates stuck to the TV screen after being thrown during the Superbowl, but I guess the censors deleted it. I do have a sick mind sometimes…..
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this
Mutt, step away from those groins!
Take it light, lozen! (Theres a good 70s expression for you). You’d be welcome at my game, we would pretend not to hear your whining.
Serious question: You’re not a Grateful Dead fan at all? You remember the Summer of Love, don’t you sweetie?
Big wet doggy smack on your lips. (I never said which ones, BTW)
By wats a mommy card
March 23, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
How exactly does one “play the mommy card” ??????
Admit you have kids?
The blog next week should be “Should male politicians play the daddy card?”
By kimberly
March 23, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this
I don’t know much, mongrel, let alone all this fancy philosophical talk about logic. Is it “inductive” or “deductive” logic that tells me, even though a man talks a good game and claims to be nice, caring, gentlemanly, and capable of decent human behavior, that he really must be avoided at all costs, because he is sick sadistic little effer who would hurt me in any way he could, laugh himself sick, spend years bragging about how much fun it was, say he was sorry, then try to do it all over again? And although I cannot answer that question (please feel free) I’ll go out on a limb here and say it’s “deductive” logic that tells me the mysteries of his dysfunction could be solved with a tape measure.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
I’ll give you proof there’s a God: My stocks are through the roof today. That’s proof enough for me.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
s it “inductive” or “deductive” logic that tells me, even though a man talks a good game and claims to be nice, caring, gentlemanly, and capable of decent human behavior, that he really must be avoided at all costs, because he is sick sadistic little effer who would hurt me in any way he could, laugh himself sick, spend years bragging about how much fun it was, say he was sorry, then try to do it all over again? And although I cannot answer that question (please feel free) I’ll go out on a limb here and say it’s “deductive” logic that tells me the mysteries of his dysfunction could be solved with a tape measure.
The answer to your first question is Inductive Logic tells you that.
The answer to your second question is Deductive Logic will prove or disprove the size of the package. So either I’m a real fool to challenge you, or I can back it up. What does your poker intuition tell you.
By Stir
March 23, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this
Stir, why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I have argued for no “being” at all.
So now we are based on no being. This non-being created humans out of nothing for a non-thinking reason, all at some specific time.
That sounds like the definition of randomness.
So what is your bias, Stir?
In short: I believe all things follow the same duality seen in light. The state of the universe, if not touched by god, would be chaos/randomness. Yet, some force influenced the probability of inert material into systems that were ordered. This god does not need to conform to any notion, but the ripples in the pond from that influence persists throughout all reality. Hence why numbers like pi and all mathematical rules are found regularly.
But, I, unlike you, know this is philosophy - not science.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
even though a man talks a good game and claims to be nice, caring, gentlemanly, and capable of decent human behavior, that he really must be avoided at all costs, because he is sick sadistic little effer who would hurt me in any way he could, laugh himself sick, spend years bragging about how much fun it was, say he was sorry, then try to do it all over again?
kim, I’m just using my imagination on the blog to vent some BS. I did say some unkind things to my last lady, and I am ashamed of it. You see me bragging? Although I didn’t come to W2W to look for a date, contrary to popular opinion, I have become entranced by your obvious intelligence, creativity, sensitivity, and all-around huge heart. I’m no smooth talker in real life, I am a crude bastard at times. But not with my lady. Because I know she holds my fragile ego in her hands. Believe me, I learned my lesson last year.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
If you ever want to take a chance and meet a stranger who potentially might be Mr Right, I’m going to have to leave it up to you to make the move, however, which I am not expecting because you are a classy, conservative lady for the most part. I’ll tell you periodically where I’ll be, you can show up one day with tape measure in hand if you like. I know I will be at the Asian Cultural Experience in July to play in an exhibition Go match. It’s held every year at The Botanical Gardens.
By Stir
March 23, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
I’ll go out on a limb here and say it’s “deductive” logic that tells me the mysteries of his dysfunction could be solved with a tape measure.
Don’t you mean duct tape?
Dog, you already showed your position provides no answers to real questions: You cannot resolve the fact that humans exist and how your non-thinking god created us and etc. You have built a BS pseudo-science based on those very scientist that you discredit.
BPD much?
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
This non-being created humans out of nothing for a non-thinking reason, all at some specific time.
That sounds like the definition of randomness.
No, it’s the same idea as the Big Bang Theory, except instead of pondering a separate Creator, I realized it had to be Emmanuel, God Within. You see, once I was lost, and now I am found.
Stir, believe what you want about my Science knowledge. Pick up a copy of “Road To Reality” when you get a chance, and we’ll talk more in detail about The Big Bang, SuperString, Theory, Twister Theory (Mr. Penrose’s favorite) or whatever other formulas you think shed light on the topic. Yes, light has dual properties, as does all matter, because it is Divine.
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this
Stir, our views may not be as different as you think, other than the fact that my semantics are more in order than yours are. No one knows the Ultimate Answers, obviously. My only goal is to characterize the system we do know about. Unfortunately, Scientific models are inadequate due to something know as the Excluded Middle—i.e. the idea that something has to be one way or another, that dualities can’t exist in Reality.
By Trivia
March 23, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this
it actually ORIGINALLY was ‘duck tape’; military-issue water-proof, eventually it became used for DUCT tape, however both terms for the same product are accurate:
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/duckvsduct.html
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this
Look, Stir, I don’t want to have to let Tramadol take over the questioning for me.
So what is your bias, Stir?
How do you make your living?
By Trivia
March 23, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this
oh, probably meant DUCT/DUKE tape(not a tape measurer)
By You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello
March 23, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
P,S kim, if posting my picture would help, I will do it for you. I’m not the guy you all thought I was in the movie shots. I was wearing a green shirt, but my face was obscured in each shot. I look like Robin WIlliams, clean-shaven, short hair. I smile and laugh about 99% of the time.
By lozen
March 23, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this
WASHINGTON, DC—The Department of Health and Human Services issued a series of guidelines Monday designed to help parents curtail their children’s boundless imaginations, which child-safety advocates say have the potential to rival motor vehicle accidents and congenital diseases as a leading cause of disability and death among youths ages 3 to 14.
Defuse the ticking time-bomb known as your child’s imagination before it explodes and destroys her completely,” said child-safety expert Kenneth McMillan, who advised the HHS in composing the guidelines. “New data shows a disturbing correlation between serious accidents and the ability of children to envision a world full of exciting possibility. “
The guidelines, titled “Boundless Imagination, Boundless Hazards: Ways To Keep Your Kids Safe From A World Of Wonder,” are posted on the HHS website, and will also be available in brochure form in pediatricians’ offices across the country.
According to McMillan, children can suffer broken bones, head trauma, and even fatal injuries from unsupervised exposure to childlike awe. “If your children are allowed to unlock their imaginations, anything from a backyard swing set to a child’s own bedroom can be transformed into a dangerous undersea castle or dragon’s lair,” McMillan said. “But by encouraging your kids to think linearly and literally, and constantly reminding them they can never be anything but human children with no extraordinary characteristics, you can better ensure that they will lead prolonged lives.”
Although the exact number of child fatalities connected to an active imagination is unknown, experts say the danger is very real. According to a 2006 estimate, children who regularly engage in imagination are 10 times more likely to suffer injuries such as skinned knees from mythical quests, or bruises and serious falls from the peak of Bookcase Mountain.
One of the HHS recommendations emphasizes increased communication between parents and children about the truths behind outlandish fantasies. “Speak with your children about the absolute impossibility of time travel, magical powers, and animals and toys that talk when adults are not around,” reads one excerpt. “If this fails to quell their imaginations, encourage them to stare at household objects and think clearly and objectively about their actual, physical characteristics. “
The HHS also discourages aimless playtime activities that lack a rigid, repetitive structure: “Opt instead for safe activities like untying knots, sticking and unsticking two pieces of Velcro, drawing straight lines of successively longer lengths, and quietly humming a single note for two to three hours.”
But even these relatively safe activities can become imaginative, experts warn, without proper precautions. “Do not let children know that, for example, sailors and pirates untie knots,” McMillan said.
Although no cure has yet been developed for childhood imagination, preventative measures can deter children from potentially hazardous bouts of make-believe.
“Many of the suggestions are really quite simple, like breaking down cardboard boxes or sewing cushions to couches so they cannot be converted into forts or playhouses,” McMillan said. “Blank pieces of paper, which can inspire non-reality- based drawings, should be discarded unless they are used in one of our recommended diagonal folding and unfolding activities. And all loose sticks left lying in the yard should be carefully labeled ‘Not a Sword.’”
Unfortunately, removing everything from a child’s field of view that could stimulate his active young mind is extremely time-consuming, and infeasible as a long-term solution, McMillan acknowledges. “To truly protect your children, you must go to great lengths to completely eliminate their curiosity, crush their spirit of amazement, and eradicate their childlike glee. Watch for the danger signs: faraway expressions, giggle fits, and a general air of carefree contentment. “
Added McMillan: “Remember, if you see a single sparkle of excitement in their eyes, you haven’t done enough.”
By Stir
March 23, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
Stir, our views may not be as different as you think
I did not say or think they were. The main difference is that I am not Borderline.
Trivia,
You missed the point. She was talking ruler and I was talking BTK the guy.
By yupiter6
March 25, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
if you don’t want resive this message plz mail me stopspammysite[…]gmail.com http://ringfun.150m.com/nextel-ringtones-com.html >pc party sending
http://ringfun.150m.com/wwe-john-cena-ringtones.html >ringtones cena john