Hellbender

I concur. I expected at least someone to vote for the first three options.

gotcha. I figured that was why. Do you think Disney has a problem with this, considering she probably has a contract with them in all? I mean, how many mothers would want to go see a disney movie with their children, starring a barely-legal girl with a "slutty" reputation?

I know I can't. Besides, amking the world safer for whom is a better question.

The pics look just like imperfections with the camera or photo to me. I have lots of pics with odd things in them like that. ON a side note, I know lots of people who are utterly convinced they have either seen a ghost of experienced one. When pressed for another (non-supernatural) explanation, they deny ever having thought of such a thing. People tend to fall into the "if I can't explain it easily, then it must be supernatural" mindset too easily. Now I am not saying this is what you did here, but with all the movies and books we experience out there it is always an interesting possibility. For instance I know a kid who was relieving himself in his bathroom one night, when the door to the medicine cabinet closed as if on its own. He is taken to believe this is a ghost's doing. I am not going to call him stupid, but he never thought of any explanation in the realm of mundane for it. I have seen lots of doors close as if by themselves as a result of air currents and simply wind. Sometimes old houses have unstable fllors and simply shifting your weight can cause something to fall or move mysteriously. Just an aside I wanted to discuss....

never saw the video, I boycotted MTV, but I have heard about it. Why so contraversial? Actually I could pretty much imagine why.

I speak for a lot of people when I say I am sick of the way popular culture is going these days. I mean, we got Ashlee Simpson, a proven fraud and lip-syncer on the cover of 2 magazines this month. Doesn't anyone know she was caught lip-syncing twice? We don't still have Milli Vanilli gracing the cover of Rolling Stone do we? I read one comment by her saying "I am nothing like Jessica (her older sister, or the person on whose coattails she rode to stardom) I'm more street smart". they are sisters, right? So you mean to tell me they were raised in seperate environments, one in a comfortable suburb home, the other in a ghetto? Give me a break. Its funny when celebrities like singers stop wanting to be known for what got them famous (in this case being Jessica Simpson's sibling) in the first place. Would Ashlee have this phony singing career if her sister never got one? I doubt it. Ahem as you can see I hate Ashlee Simpson. I haven't followed Lohan/Duff much, but I do know they have a sort of rivalry thing, and they are both b**ches. I know it was a big deal when Lohan turned 18 for some reason. These girls are young enough to still be in high school, yet they are considered some kind of "sex symbol" nowadays, which is pretty disgusting. Even if Lohan is 18 and legal, she is still too young for a lot of guys. Anyways I could go on forever, but reading my rants tends to get pretty darn old.

I am pretty interested to see where this thread is going to head.......

great. *zips up lead-lined jumpsuit*

I was apologizing for the apparent confusion it caused you, thats all.

okay good point. I was just wondering if you meant reasons as in human attributes, or some wierd cosmic reason. Thanks for clearing that up.

you have go to remember, a lot of us are accustomed to dealing with biblical creationists. AS you might know, a common tactic with these people is to take one flaw or uncertainty within science and twist it into "proof" that all of science is wrong, and by default, the bible is correct. When we see someone questioning science, even though it is not a bad thing to do, the red creationist flag immediately goes up. I apologize.

of course being a member of a social species such as ours you would feel that way. But what is this "reason" we have advanced further along than any other species?

I never said you are, I was just saying that in America, Englishmen are all falsely portrayed that way.

It was never meant to be sarcastic, if you are referring to my post. To my knowledge, "dogs and cats" evolved long after the Cretaceous, which was ended by the mass extinction of all large animals, including your beloved dinosaurs. Since whatever casue their extinction simply didn't single dinosaurs out to kill, so the mention of other animals is hardly irrelevant. PS. Whatever was around at the Jurassic time period is irrelevant. Some species of dinosaurs and other animals were already extinct by other causes by the end of the Cretaceous, when your "death of the dinos" occured.

If what you are saying is true about this Enterprise program, then it is a prime example of this phenomena.

not to butt in, as I have never been a fan in any way of any Star Trek-related shows, but I agree with Sayonara3 here. Its hard to see in our media, being such a pluralistic (well, ideally) country. In an effort to attract more viewers, many shows have a multi-ethnic cast. Being that usually means portraying not just the physical race, but also their stereotypical identity as well. The African-American will usually be tough, street-smart, etc. the Asian will usually be smart and/or know a martial art, the Englishman will usually be "stuffy", etc. etc. I am not referring to one show in particular, but after watching a variety of American shows, this racial stereotyping becomes self-evident.

uh yeah so it is short-sighted.

like I said before, unreasonable in terms of knowledge of proper scientific debate: definitely. Universally unreasonable in character: maybe, even likely, but not definitely. Creationists are people who feel their very beliefs that they held true for a long time under attack by evolution. These are also people who are conscious of the fact that evolution theory negates the Genesis creation story, and think this is an indication of science overshadowing the entire bible. These are people who try to make aspects of their religious beliefs sound scientific in order to get equal time in classrooms simply to indoctrinate students. Their arguments are often negated a long time ago, yet they still continue copy-and-paste them, still consider any flaw in paleontology, geology, evolutionary biology, etc. complete proof of their religion's versoin of creation. These behaviors are annoying at best, hopelessy desperate at worst. But it does not necessarily mean their characters are wrong, misguided maybe, but they feel that they must make an argument, no matter how erroneous, and they do.

naturally, men have more testosterone, making them behave aggressively. MAny male animals do. It would seem that some men have too much, but I think the levels are pretty much the same. A lot of us guys act like brutes to hide their insecurities as a man, making guys like me look bad too. Yeah, I said it.

His personal character means nothing to me.

actually now that I read some of his work and had no problems with it, I can't say what I have been told beforehand about his ignorance affecting my perception of him. Theres nothing wrong with being assertive.

He was being a total jerk. What I mean by one-sided is that he never considered any viewpoint or idea but his own, instead telling us that out points were essentially baloney.