DrDNA

I suggest you try match.com. You MIGHT have better luck.

Sounds like he knows just enough to be dangerous. Thank God he is interested in water and not pyrochemistry.

And if I buy the book for $8.75 I can find out other "shocking truths".......like..."Water Is The Key To All Body Functions!" Amazing! Quite frankly, I'm also shocked at the water logged human. "Another side of water imbalance is due to the excess use of inorganic salt and salty foods, which leads to the waterlogged human. You see young children 7 to 10 or more years old who are so waterlogged that they look grotesque. Some of these children have bloated and middle aged-looking bodies. Just compare them to the adults with their bloated and puffed-up faces, arms, bellies, legs, ankles and feet." http://www.evolutionhealth.com/bragg_h20.html

What happened?

Vick's Vapor rub will turn your wrinkeled, old, tired, sagging, useless scrotum into a firm, vibrant, bouncy, happy scrotum.

I think it will work.....if you happen to have a half dozen weapons grade plutonium watches.

for those who doubt the taste test.... Quote: "The ancient Hindus were the first to coin the term "honey urine," a thousand years before the first Europeans recognized the sweet taste of urine in patients with diabetes. The Hindu physicians Charaka, Susruta, and Vaghbata described polyuria and glycosuria. They noted the attraction of flies and ants to the urine of those affected by this ailment. .................................. It was Thomas Willis’s observations of diabetes in 1674 and Matthew Dobson’s experiments in 1776 that conclusively established the diagnosis of diabetes in the presence of sugar in the urine and blood. Diabetes was no longer considered a rare ailment. Willis referred to diabetes as the "pissing evil" and noted that in patients with diabetes, "the urine is wonderfully sweet, as if it were imbued with honey or sugar." He claimed that diabetes was primarily a disease of the blood and not the kidneys. Willis proposed that the sweetness first appeared in the blood and was later found in the urine. Dobson provided experimental evidence that people with diabetes eliminate sugar in their urine. He gently heated two quarts of urine to dryness. The remaining residue was a whitish cake, which, Dobson wrote, "was granulated and broke easily between the fingers; it smelled sweet like brown sugar, neither could it be distinguished from sugar, except that the sweetness left a slight sense of coolness on the palate." Dobson detailed his findings in a paper presented to the medical society of London in 1776. Prior to presentation of his findings, Dobson consulted with William Cullen, one of Britain’s foremost clinicians, consultants, and educators. " End Quote Diabetes Spectrum 15:56-60, 2002 I submit to you that this tendency to explore separates us from the rest of the population, except perhaps from the perverts.......

Everyone would like to have a better memory. Maybe you should take a healthy few minute break and then try to study some more.? That said, the drugs you are taking appear to have a long list of potential side effects. Including but not limited to memory. For example, http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-9846-Risperdal+Oral.aspx?drugid=9846&drugname=Risperdal+Oral&pagenumber=6 http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-11188-Trazodone.aspx?drugid=11188&drugname=Trazodone&pagenumber=6 http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-6222-Prolixin.aspx?drugid=6222&drugname=Prolixin&pagenumber=6 Of course, the benefits of these medication(s) may far outweigh any potential side effects. You certainly should discuss the memory issue and any other risks vs benefits of your medication with your doctor.

Is this for that new racial profiling class the TSA is sponsoring?

That may be, but the original posters are playing with fire (rocket fuel).

In case anyone is not familiar with the current and past admins relationship with Musharraf/Pakistan: Quote "Hillary's Musharraf: Mrs. Clinton's forgotten fling with the Killer of Karachi By Greg Palast Online Journal Guest Writer Nov 14, 2007, 00:21 Email this article Printer friendly page November 13 -- He was the other man in Hillary's life. But it's over now. Or is it? You've seen all those creepy photos of George Bush rubbing up against Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, the two of them grinning and giggling like they're going to the senior prom. So it's hard to remember that it was Hillary and Bill who brought Pervez to the dance in the first place. How that happened, I'll tell you in a moment. But first, let's get our facts straight about the man in the moustache. Musharraf, according to George Bush, The New York Times, NPR and the rest of press puppies, is "our ally in the War on Terror." That's like calling Carmine Gambino, "Our ally in the War on Crime." Musharraf's the guy who helped the Taliban take power in Afghanistan in 1996. And, through his ISI, Pakistan's own KGB, he is still giving the Taliban secret protection. And this is the same Musharraf who let Khalid Sheik Muhammed, Osama's alleged operations chief for the September 11 attack, hang out in Quetta, Pakistan, in the open, until Khalid embarrassed his host by giving a boastful interview to Al Jazeera television from his Pakistan hang-out. And this is the same Musharraf who permitted his nation's own Dr. Strangelove, A.Q. Khan, to sell nuclear do-it-yourself bomb kits to Libya and North Korea. When the story of the flea market in fissionable materials was exposed, Musharraf and Bush both proclaimed their shock -- shock! -- over the bomb sales. Musharraf didn't know? Sure. Those tons of lethal hardware must have been shipped by flying pig. But, unlike Saddam and Osama, creations of Ronald Reagan's and George Bush Sr.'s Frankenstein factories, Musharraf was a Clinton special. And it all began with an unpaid electricity bill. In 1998, Pakistan wouldn't pay up millions, and they owed billions, to British and American electricity companies. And for good reason: the contracts called for paying insanely high prices. It smelled of payola -- and ultimately, the government of Pakistan filed charges against power combine executives and canceled the contracts. That's the rule under international law: companies can't collect on contracts they obtained by pay-offs. But these weren't just any companies. One was a Tony Blair favorite, Britain's National Power. The other was Entergy International, a sudden big-time player in the international power market based out of, oddly, Little Rock, Arkansas. Despite the Clinton administration's claim to fight foreign corruption, this was an exception. Clinton and Blair voted to cut off Pakistan's funding from the IMF. Pay-up the power pirates, they told Pakistan, or starve. Why was President Clinton so determined to crush Pakistan because of an unpaid bill to some Little Rock company? This was not just any company. But that wasn't much. More important, Entergy and its partners, the Riady Family of Indonesia had just paid about half a million dollars to Hillary's old Rose Law Firm partner Webster Hubbell. Odd that, hiring Hubbell. Why would Entergy pay big bucks to Hubbell as a "consultant" when he was on his way to jail for a felony. Hubbell was doing time because he refused to testify against Ms. Rodham. Did President Clinton know about the payment to Hubbell? Clinton denied it to the press, but under oath, to the FBI, Bill said he "wouldn't be surprised" if the Riadys told him about the payoff to Hubbell in one of Bill's several private meetings with them in the Oval Office. Was there a connection between Entergy's kindness to Hillary and her law partner and the power company's extraordinary sway with the administration? From inside information on energy policies to a favor requested of Tony Blair's office by Hillary's office, Entergy could do no wrong. Certainly, their consortium's executives wouldn't have to stand trial in Pakistan. And Entergy got its money. On December 22, 1998, Pakistan's military, at the direction of General Pervez Musharraf, sent 30,000 troops into the nation's power stations. At the time, Entergy's partners told me, "A lot changed since the army moved in. Now we have a situation where we can be paid. They've found a way to collect from the man in the street." Yes: at gunpoint, according to Abdul Latif Nizamani, a labor union leader who spoke with me after Musharraf's gang had arrested him. With Pakistan's army in control of the nation's infrastructure, and acting as guarantor of payment to the US and UK power giants, General Musharraf's final takeover of the entire government nine months later -- a "surprise" coup to the Western press -- was, a forgone conclusion. And the Clintons, complicit, like Bush today, could say little. Just months before he left office, President Clinton paid a sudden visit to Musharraf. Congressional Democrats were stunned. Musharraf had quickly shown himself to be a Taliban-loving, unbalanced dictator who violated US treaty terms by exploding a nuke and threatening to incinerate our ally India. Notably, the ambassador with Clinton made payments to the electric companies a top item on his agenda. Favors done; favors repaid. Nothing new under the sun, but it's a dangerous game, Senator Clinton. All right, maybe you can say that President Clinton's blessing of the radioactive dictator can't be blamed on Hillary, despite the smelly money chain going from Arkansas to Karachi. But, be honest, the lady sure as heck ain't running on her record as a senator; her whole pitch is, "re-elect Clinton." And I'd rather tell you this story before you hear it from President Giuliani. Nevertheless, let's not lose sight of the current danger. While the Clinton's may have handed us the Lunatic of Lahore, it's George Bush who leaves mints on his pillow. I have no information that Clinton knew of the sales to North Korea. The Bush administration did and, we discovered at BBC, blocked the CIA investigation that could have exposed it in 2001. And that, Mr. Bush, is a very, very dangerous game. The problem of creating Frankensteins, whether an Osama or a Saddam or a Musharraf, is that these creatures are often known to rise and turn on their creators. But I'm sure we'll correct the error. Four years ago, as Bush was proclaiming victory over the Butcher of Baghdad, I wrote, "Given our experiences with Saddam and Osama, our monsters tend to get out of control after about 11 years. Therefore, we can expect, in the year 2013, that President Jeb Bush will have to order the 82d Airborne into Pakistan to remove Musharraf, the Killer of Karachi." Unfortunately, we may not have that long. Based on Greg Palast's investigations for the Guardian papers of Britain 1998-2001. Palastis the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: from Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild.He is currently on assignment in Ecuador for BBC Television. Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal" http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2637.shtml End Quote

W is apparently old school. You know, in the old days, chemists tasted everything. Hence the term "sweet urine" for diabetes.

This is not good. What a sad, sad, and predictable turn of events. But I say that we are gonna do nutin. According to the current AND most recent past administration, they are the "good guys" helping us fight the "war on terror". W has strong ties to Pakistan. Bill had very strong ties to Pakistan. And Hillary has strong ties to Pakistan. Quote: "Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her. According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration. While not prohibited by law, accepting such a donation necessarily raises questions about the effect this relationship--and similar ones--will have on her policies in the White House towards Pakistan should she win the 2008 contest, or in the US Senate should she not. The influence of money is never straightforward, of course. Joe Biden, the other democratic Presidential candidate to receive money from Cassidy, has called for cutting off support to Pakistan if it does not change course." End Quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/lobbyist-for-pakistan-max_b_71379.html

One point to keep in mind is that, compared to DNA, RNA is much less stable and does not hang around long. You usually don't hear about RNA being extracted from mesquitoes in fossilized amber or old samples in forensics testing, for example. Why? It is MUCH less stable than DNA; especially in biological fluids or even muck from fingers that contain nucleases/RNAases. RNAases chew it up immediately. This fact is important in the formation of proteins and cellular metabolism. So, what do you think might happen it translation wasn't halted quickly and efficiently? Impressive. Top 10 by what measure? USA Today Poll, BCS Poll, or the AP Coaches Poll? Paper championships cause so much confusion. I wish that they would just battle it out in a tournament........

Hmmm.....I dunno.......I kind of like the way my error turned out. LOL

Oh my gosh. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO MAKE YOUR OWN TEETH WHITENING CONCOCTIONS AT HOME.

Uh huh. Much like the splash that occurs just before the flush.............

For the record, just about everyone would agree that ANY substance that alters the mind and the senses can be dangerous. For example, please don't snort, smoke, injest, or partake of "harmless" and/or "natural" plant substances and try to drive, ride a motorcycle, pilot a boat, etc. I was going to say something else, but can't remember what it was..........

The VAST majority of the drugs perscribed, over the counter, or illict have their origins in plants. Don't buy into that nonsense that if it is "natural" it is chemical free or drug free and therefore harmless. Opium is "straight" from the plant.

Al Gore certainly gets my vote...................... .........................................................................................................................................for pompus arse of the year.

The vanity of human species never ceases to amaze me. What a choice. Death or bright teeth? On the bright (no pun) side, it apparently does NOT cause anal leakage .

.....oh yeah. Tell that to my one-eyed friend that has an Estes rocket sticking out of his socket.

From what limited amount of info that has made its way into my tiny brain from my own 2 eyes and 2 ears (incl casual discussion, internet, radio, newspaper, etc), it appears from my side of the fence that most people were disappointed with the selection this year. I tend to agree with "them" (which is itself unusual). Is your choice based on some positive impact or factors that you feel that he has contributed to the overall betterment of the human state or are you looking at it from overall impact (or potential impact) period to humanity and/or the planet? Of course since lil Geroge, Newty, Krushchev, LBJ (twice), Nixon, Khomeini, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini also won in their respective time frames, I do conceed that your (and Time's) choice may be spot on. Although it is by no means equivical, one could make the case that Time Person (Man) of the Year can be the kiss of death for a person's place in history. The Man of the Year Winners 1927 Charles Augustus Lindbergh 1928 Walter P. Chrysler 1929 Owen D. Young 1930 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 1931 Pierre Laval 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1933 Hugh Samuel Johnson 1934 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1935 Haile Selassie 1936 Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson 1937 Generalissimo & Mme Chiang Kai-Shek 1938 Adolf Hitler 1939 Joseph Stalin 1940 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill 1941 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1942 Joseph Stalin 1943 George Catlett Marshall 1944 Dwight David Eisenhower 1945 Harry Truman 1946 James F. Byrnes 1947 George Catlett Marshall 1948 Harry Truman 1949 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill 1950 American Fighting-Man 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh 1952 Elizabeth II 1953 Konrad Adenauer 1954 John Foster Dulles 1955 Harlow Herbert Curtice 1956 Hungarian Freedom Fighter 1957 Nikita Krushchev 1958 Charles De Gaulle 1959 Dwight David Eisenhower 1960 U.S. Scientists 1961 John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1962 Pope John XXIII 1963 Martin Luther King Jr. 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson 1965 General William Childs Westmoreland 1966 Twenty-Five and Under 1967 Lyndon B. Johnson 1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell 1969 The Middle Americans 1970 Willy Brandt 1971 Richard Milhous Nixon 1972 Nixon and Kissinger 1973 John J. Sirica 1974 King Faisal 1975 American Women 1976 Jimmy Carter 1977 Anwar Sadat 1978 Teng Hsiao-P'ing 1979 Ayatullah Khomeini 1980 Ronald Reagan 1981 Lech Walesa 1982 The Computer 1983 Ronald Regan & Yuri Andropov 1984 Peter Ueberroth 1985 Deng Xiaoping 1986 Corazon Aquino 1987 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev 1988 Endangered Earth 1989 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev 1990 The Two George Bushes 1991 Ted Turner 1992 Bill Clinton 1993 The Peacemakers 1994 Pope John Paul II 1995 Newt Gingrich 1996 Dr. David Ho 1997 Andy Grove 1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr 1999 Jeff Bezos 2000 George W. Bush 2001 Rudolph Giuliani 2002 The Whistleblowers 2003 The American Soldier 2004 George W. Bush 2005 Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, & Bono 2006 You 2007 Putin PS: I personally feel that Hillary or Obama would have been great choices since, although I often lean the other direction politically (whatever that means), they are both breaking brave new ground for women and descendants of the African Continant in the USA and the World scene (btw, I realize that there have been women and black presidents and PMs) and I expect them both to keep doing it for a while. But I would have REALLY loved to see the Burma Monks get it. That would have been a choice along the lines of Ghandi. PSS: "you" in 2006 was a cop out.

Go to the poll. Go to the poll!

Perhaps the answer you seek lies within your own question, Weedhopper. .........or perhaps the Evangelicals got it right.