Phi for All

budullewraagh, from the Forums Policy document listed under Announcements on the main page: 13.z) Santa hats shall not be worn by avatars after Valentine's Day. Consider this a warning, budullewraagh. Suspension will follow the next lapse of judgement. And stop trying to bait the Republisexuals. They were born that way and it's not their fault.

Referring to the epicanthic fold which distinguishes the Asian eyes from the Caucasian would be different. Referring to "slanty eyes" is similar to saying "darkies" or "faggots" in that there is a demeaning attitude in the utterance. If that is not the case, my faith in you is restored. Word of advice, don't refer to your Asian friends as "slant-eyes".

I like that. Were they Irish? Was he a leprechaun because he was a wee little man or because he had all the ethnic acoutrement as well? I can see this couple vowing to never tell anybody about it for fear of being thought crazy, then being exceptionally boring out of self-preservation. Many couples from "the old country" (not just Ireland) have these deep dark secrets they never discuss with anyone outside immediate family, even with cousins, since they can be some of the worst in spreading malicious gossip. I heard stories like this involving ghosts and UFOs, but never leprechauns walking through walls. Faith and bejabbers!

From the Forums Policy document listed under Announcements on the main page: 2.l) Racial slurs or slurs against homosexuals, or any kind of discrimination or prejudice, is not permited. Consider this a warning, Silencer. Suspension will follow the next lapse of judgement.

I like Michio Kaku's Hyperspace as well, but string theory is only part of this book.

ROFLOL! Don't mean to take away from the royals, but you reminded me of a comedian I saw last night talking about new NASCAR sponsors now that women are becoming a larger part of the auto racing demographics: "How did you ever get tickets to the Tampax 500?" "Well, I had to pull a few strings...."

"That's what you think?! Only the most fanatic zealot would think that!" Ad hominem, personal yet indirect.

Ad hominem doesn't have to attack me directly, all it has to do is label your opponent's view as one coming from the "most fanatical of religious zealots". That's a personal attack, thus ad hominem. What you're doing now, what you do with your cutesy smileys, what you do in almost every post you make, THAT'S red herring. You attempt to divert attention from the valid points your opponents make and keep harping, ad nauseum, on points he never brought up. One. Last. Time. It matters not that saying the pledge is voluntary. When it is taught to the students in the first place, it contains an uneccesary religious reference that was added 50 years ago. I like the Pledge without the reference to God. I believe in God. I believe in separation between Church and State. You've said you're thankful we don't live in a country ruled over by religious factions. You've said lines must be drawn far sooner than other people might draw the line. How do you think religious states start? They don't pop-up overnight. They start with the inclusions of little bits of religion where they don't belong, like in secular schools. They start with indoctrination of children, whose minds are more malleable. They start here, now.

Roses are red, violets are not. I'm sure you're all gorgeous but your brains make you HOT. Happy Valentine's Day, SFN Mona Lisa. your presence here est mirabile visu!

You really should have done one, start us out and have some fun, son! It just makes me so ever sore to quote the maven Nevermore!

This is never an excuse for perpetuating something that is easily fixed. Removing the words from the pledge only removes the legal enforcement of teaching them to small children that way. Acknowledging His existence is one thing, teaching children to pledge allegiance to Him in a secular school setting is another. Ad hominem attack, and it really doesn't work in this case anyway. I'm no fanatic but I can certainly see the hypocrisy in making my child take an oath to god outside of a church setting, and a daily one at that. I'm so very sorry you fail to see the distinction between these examples and teaching small children a daily litany involving religion during their secular education. We are at an impasse.

Did you get the present yet? Let us know if you don't get it, it was insured for a bundle....

Definition of "Lip Service". Total, complete separation of Church and State, except in this one instance? Reminds me of Monty Python's Expedition to Lake Pahoe sketch: "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit...."

And don't forget where he's probably headed after his term is up: straight to the ex-President's club, the Carlyle Group. Former secretary of state James Baker is managing director, ex-secretary of defence Frank Carlucci is chairman, George Bush Sr is an adviser, and John Major heads up its European operations. Many people say this is just one of the perks of being "plugged-in", but when we are talking about the potential for starting (and exploiting) WWIII, it goes beyond a little insider trading, don't you think?

Well, the Declaration is not the Constitution, after all. And I believe side A feels imperiled because church and state are not separated in this very important, very impressionable instance.

I have to admit, including the words in 1954 did seem like the PTB were trying to add an allegiance to religious beliefs (something the framers of the Constitution were desperate to avoid) in addition to allegiance to country. It seemed like it satisfied someone's political agenda at the time and served no secular purpose. This is a problem of specific context, something many laws have trouble with. Side B should realize that something as nebulous as peer pressure dilutes their argument, and analogies to child abuse diverts that same argument.

I'll probably regret this, but let me lend my condensed perspective to what has been posted about the "Pledge Problem": Side A (you know who you are) says there is nothing wrong with using the words "Under God" when saying the pledge of allegiance in schools, since the students are free to recite the pledge any way they want once it has been taught to them. Side B (you know who you are) says they also have no problem with the students saying the pledge any way they want, but a secular education format paid for by taxpayer dollars and run by the state should not be teaching students to say the pledge with religious phrasing in the first place. Neither side objects to the pledge being said, neither side objects to the student's rephrasal (or indeed, refusal) of saying the pledge and neither side supports forcing the students to do anything they feel violates their rights. It seems to me that the real sticking point here is how the pledge is taught in school in the first place. It is, after all, a vow of loyalty to one's country and the principles it upholds to ALL its citizens.

I'm not willing to throw away my humanity for a few more years of oil dependence. I'll take my chances on alternative energy technology and risk being sorry rather than loot and plunder to be safe. The oil will be gone eventually. If you feel we're all going to be sitting around in the dark, wouldn't you rather do it with friendly people?

We need resistance in order to grow. If everybody thought the same way, all but one of us would be unnecessary. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Think of it this way: all those idiots are here to show you what not to do. The more you see people being uselessly destructive, the more firmly against useless destruction you become. We need you to learn this so that, with your superior intelligence, you will survive and be the future of mankind. But don't try to get rid of the idiots. We need them too. Treat them as obstacles to overcome, but don't let them diminish your spirit. If you do, they win.

Newtonian, please be careful to which depths you will sink to get your point across. Intelligence breeds opinions, not playground jeers. Civility always, people.

I know the whole Charles/Diana thing left a vacuum in the hearts of many concerning the royals. I agree with you about William, he may be the one to rekindle interest in the monarchy.

I'm very proud of the capabilities of the members here, but as for answering any question, there will probably always be some strange little piece of knowledge that is unobtainable except by a very few people on earth. I would definitely say most questions, though.

Do you think this will happen? That could be very interesting. Now wait a minute, wasn't GLAAuuRGel the elven prince from that Tolkien story? The English monarchy is soooo confusing!

OK, I never bother much with things like this, but I just watched Lohan's video you were refering to earlier. What. A. Hypocritical. Piece. Of. Crap. Respect my privacy (as I do everything short of strip naked in public)! I don't know why there are so many RUMORS about me (as I do everything short of having sex in public)!! This is just Hollywood glamour crap, flipping off the paparazzi so you get your picture in the paper. "I want everyone to know how tough it is to be so famous. Superstars like me can't go anywhere without being recognized!" She would dry up and blow away if no one recognized her for more than 48 hours.

KEEPING UP WITH THE JONES -- "According to his own account, cartoonist Arthur R. ("Pop") Momand lived in a community where many people tried to keep up with the Joneses. Momand and his wife resided in Cedarhurst, New York, one of Long Island's Five Towns, where the average income is still among America's highest. Living 'far beyond our means in our endeavor to keep up with the well-to-do class,' the Momands were wise enough to quit the scene and move to Manhattan, where they rented a cheap apartment and 'Pop' Momand used his Cedarhurst experience to create his once immensely popular 'Keeping Up with the Joneses' comic strip, launched in 1913. Momand first thought of calling the strip 'Keeping Up with the Smiths,' but 'finally decided on 'Keeping Up with the Joneses' as being more euphonious.' His creation ran in American newspapers for over 28 years and appeared in book, movie, and musical-comedy form, giving the expression 'keeping up with the Joneses' the wide currency that made it a part of everyday language." From "The Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997).