Phi for All

Cut and paste more crap like that and you'll be asked to leave. I see you shaking your head at me. Are you hoping to hear an original thought rattling around in there?

Swapping spit at 20 below can be dangerous. I remember reading that kissing was a holdover from infant behavior where the response to having a cheek stroked by the mother's breast was to start sucking in anticipation of being fed. Idk if there is any research to back that up.

Here's a link to a test done with Fireproof 88 that claims success. What kind of temperatures is the shuttle exposed to?

Thank you for posting these statistics. In the future, please cite the sources so anyone who wants can confirm their accuracy. It's also good form to give credit to those who compiled the data.

These are the vocal people who take all the heat every day. They are targets because they are in the thick of things. They don't always make the right decisions, but every bad decision is put under a microscope. I noticed Ken Lay made both lists, so perhaps it's the business people who are messing things up rather than the politicians and the media, our favorite usual suspects. I still maintain that when special interests speak louder than voters, the politicians will listen to them instead.

Yes, if you'd read further into the thread we all figured that out. Everyone stop pointing out how dense I was that day!

No evidence of a scientific nature for ID after two pages, moved to Pseudoscience.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, except those who see only hatred everywhere.

I think the system actually works out in their favor. Would the restrictions against a sex offender entering an elementary school as a shelter be relaxed in the event of a hurricane? I also think the sex offender who is truly repentant would not feel restricted by sheltering in a prison. On the contrary, it gives them virtual immunity from any accusation of wrongdoing, something that might crop up later had they sheltered with children. Please stop turning every specific issue into a general diatribe against the evils of present day society. I think there are plenty of people who respect the dangers of hate. You tend to make it sound like you are the only enlightened soul in a sea of unbelievers. Sometimes your constant naysaying makes me wonder how you can ever positively affect the world around you. People do good things and people do bad things. Always have, always will.

Having played the game off and on for almost 30 years now, my friends who still play have gravitated to online play, using the Neverwinter Nights game modules. The dice and the paper were fine when the rules weren't so complicated. The first version was almost too simple and we quickly modified it with our own extras. Version 2 was better but clumsy, and we found ourselves floundering in hundreds of dollars worth of books and add-ons. When Version 3 (currently 3.5, I believe) came along, we found that they finally had the game right, extremely realistic (for fantasy), but unfortunately the new rules slowed our game down to a crawl. So much to factor into every swing of the sword! The technical parts quickly overshadowed the role-playing, which was what had kept our interests over three decades of play. Version 3.5 is the perfect set of rules, but the computer is the perfect setting for them. We play online now, using conference calling and speaker phones to keep that get-together feel. I don't have the time to devote to making dungeons in 3.5, it's just too complicated and intricate. A character takes two hours to generate properly by hand and it's a DM's nightmare to run combat. There is a whole community of D&D geeks who spend their days generating computer modules for the online community. Better them than me, and the stuff they are coming up with is great. There's no fairer DM than the computer using the most up-to-date rules.

Let's stay on topic. Is this Politics or Pollinatics?

Just curious, how much does a brand new (17 years?) driver of a 1995 Buick Park Avenue (beige) pay for insurance yearly?

This is, of course, the smartest move to make. Threatening children is taken very seriously. I can't envision any scenario where hurting your neighbor's children would suddenly make him stop threatening to hurt yours. In fact, I think it might force him into acting on his threat. I was also wondering why this was placed in Politics. Was it the legal aspect you were looking for or the political one?

How serious it was makes no difference. You do not have the right to harm anyone because of a threat. If you harm someone while actively defending yourself or your children (e.g., pushing them away as they lunge to strike), that's different. In this instance ku is asking to be the first one to actually harm a child.

Here's a list I found from Politics1.com. I couldn't find how up to date this list is, and it's all Republicans, not just the moderates.

Thanks for the heads up on your new account, antiNarcism! Opening up new accounts after you've been banned is, you guessed it, a bannable offense.

The article says 20, but does not list them. Wouldn't tell us a thing. Some of the most conservative people I know support vegetable birth control. I think you may see current labels change by election time. Even George Allen can afford moving a bit more towards center with the conservative backing he seems to have sewn up. The biggest danger of ID, imo, is that it seems logical to offer a wide range of studies to students, and if Allen decided to back it he could be spun as making concessions to conservatives and liberals. I think much depends on how the public comes to view ID before the election; is it teaching religion or is it broadening the curriculum?

Possibly in left-leaning states, but this statement can hardly be applied to all of them. Witness the 20 states where the idea has been gaining support, and where creationism is still the driving influence behind the curriculum change.

There is much good info in this thread and now it is veering off-course. If you wish to discuss aspects further, start a very specific thread. Closed.

I've always disliked the term "conspiracy theory" because it paints all wild ideas with the same wide brush. The term gives theory a bad name. I move we slap down anyone who misuses the word theory from now on. Henceforth I shall call it "conspiracy speculation".

The religious right is very strong at state and district levels. I see this as an opportunity to get their foot in the door. Get ID into the curriculum, then back it up with "creation science" later. They can make a rational case for well-rounded learning and push their agenda once ID is being taught. Slippery slope, I realize, but politics at the state level is full of issues that have slid to the very bottom.

Next to what evolution actually is, I think this statement is the one most ID and creationism supporters fail to grasp. They lump "theory" in with "hypothesis" and "speculation" and see no difference between them. They join the science bandwagon long enough to scream, "It's not FACT it's THEORY!" and then jump off again with their fingers in their ears.

If idiots read books, it would solve many problems. Do we know who coined the term Intelligent Design? It just sounds so slick and spin-doctored, a million dollar sound byte that came from some right-wing religious think-tank, probably paid for by taxpayer dollars.

If God is "testing" people, then:1. His textbook for the course has literally thousands of interpretations, so to believe in "what He says" is subjective to each reader. 2. Some people live their whole lives and die without ever hearing about your version of "what He says". 3. You only get the answers to the "test" when you die, leaving the huge possibility that you believed in God the wrong way. A much more likely scenario than the omnipotent, omniscient God is a God who must follow the laws of the physical universe, but understands them at a far greater level than we do. This God would probably not have a problem with people who learn about science and believe what they see, as well as holding out for the possibility of something greater than they can understand at the present.

It's your intent that makes the difference. If you use it intending to shock or demean, it's vulgar. If it's to underscore the fact that this stubbing of your toe hurts worse than any other ever, then it's expletive. Use expletives too much and it's "the boy who cried ****!" syndrome. Social acceptance probably has more to do with degree than anything else. Society would forgive you quicker if you said "****!" after having both legs chopped off by a train than if you did after stubbing your toe. You're more justified in using such strong language in the former instance.