Pangloss

Oh that's a fine attetude!

You're certainly right about that, which is why we set a different standard here. There are thousands of democraticunderground.coms and billoreilley.coms around the Web, all of which are more than happy to entertain radical notions, logical fallacies and partisan chicanery. We have no intention of doing so here. It is anathema to us, and I'm sorry you didn't get that message at the door. Good luck to you.

One further note: This thread is not about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Further posts along those lines will be SUMMARILY DELETED. We have an appropriate place to discuss conspiracy theories. The politics board is not it. (I'd offer to move them, but I don't think we can easily pluck individual posts from the inside of threads like that, and frankly it's all likely been covered over on the more appropriate pseudoscience board anyway, or wherever we're throwing this kind of nonsense these days.) Our purpose here is elevated and intellectual discussion of real-world issues with a fundamental eye on science, its impact on those issues, and the impact those issues have on science. We are no more interested in reading about 9/11 conspiracy theories here than we are in piltdown man, phrenology or astrology. Take it elsewhere. Furthermore, we have rules here regarding the use of logical fallacies and/or inciteful (rather than insightful) debate tactics. Take that elsewhere too. We thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you, now I have a reason to issue you a warning as well. 1) I didn't "choose myself", I was asked to fill this role by the board owner. 2) I'm no "demigod", in fact I'm subject to the same rules as everyone else on this board, including yourself. I can't break them, and as your in-box just informed you, neither can you. 3) The tone and purpose of this board has been set by its present inhabitants and is guided and facilitated by myself and the other moderators. In fact the only one trying to upset the apple cart here is yourself. You have one more chance. Use it wisely.

Chinese Love, you're about half a post away from outright ban, not so much for the idiocy of your comments but for your antagonistic tone. This forum is about egalitarian debate, not sanctimonious demogoguery. But Bascule, you should know better than to misquote someone in a reply. That was just plain dumb.

He wasn't hired to propound conspiracy theories, or even discuss 9/11 at all, so how "open" his students are (or are not) is irrelevent.

1982? Why 1982?

I guess that's a little different from what I was thinking, but perhaps that was the statistic I'd heard. Thanks AL.

I think I read somewhere that there are over 10 million adopted children to gay/lesbian parents in my country alone. Opponents worry about whether gays/lesbians are capable of raising children? Kinda moot at this point, isn't it?

The peace plan that Secretary Rice is taking back to the Middle East is workable. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel agrees to it, especially since it doesn't call for them to stop shooting unless/until Hezbollah does. The real question is not when Israel will stop attacking Lebanon, but when Hezbollah/Lebanon will stop attacking Israel.

I don't agree with that premise. Either the first case or the second one. What this is is a good argument for getting governments out of the business of marriage altogether.

It might have been a little antagonistic but I don't think it was that big of a deal. This thread has gotten circular and unconstructive, so I'm going to shut it down. You two kiss and make up!

You assume they want their privacy for the sake of their daughter. It seems unlikely that we're going to be flooded with video of local TV reporters running after crying children of gay divorces while they're parents throw their hands up in front of the cameras. What a silly notion.

Would it all be ok if maybe you got my point?

Howard Dean's in Florida this week, and he somehow managed to track down some television cameras and talked them into talking him into giving his opinion on the congressional rejection of the Iraqi PM. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-0726howarddean,0,4761469.story?coll=sfla-news-florida Um, Howard... Arabs are a semitic people. They cannot, by definition, be "anti-semitic". You blithering idiot. It's astounding that people actually touted this guy as the intelligent alternative to George W.

I think the ACLU would oppose sending kids home for wearing a t-shirt that says "Deport all Mexicans".

I voted libertarian recently. It was kinda ironic, actually. I was annoyed with my Republican congressman because he didn't keep his personal promise to me regarding the assault weapons ban. He didn't have a Democratic opponent, so I ended up voting for a guy who probably wouldn't vote for an AWB to save his life. (chuckle) Ironic, but such is our voting process.

Yes

Well, the conservative wing of the religious/denial-of-science/miscomprehension element of our society has more influence on the Republican party than the liberal wing of the religious/denial-of-science/miscomprehension element of our society has on the Democratic party. That's not quite the same thing. Baptist ministers would love to have the same influence on Democrats that evangelist ministers have on Republicans. They're just not willing to do what it would take to gain that influence, which would be to vote Republican for a while. I guess it's easier for them to stamp their feet and cry about social injustice and focus on "the WAY things were done" instead of what was ACTUALLY done. They're quite a pathetic lot, IMO. But I'm grateful for every day that they remain in ignorance about how to solve that problem. Put another way, James Dobson gets the ear of the President and is warmly received on the Hill, no matter what the subject. But Democrats avoid catholic or baptist ministers like the plague. The Democratic "Big Tent" is very much a thing of the past, and the modern Democratic party has very little interest in ressurecting it. That doesn't actually change my point, btw, which would still be true even if 99.99% of it were coming from the far right. It was a minor point; I wasn't trying to suggest that the religious left is a major player on this subject.

Perhaps; I guess I can understand your concern. I don't know enough about how that snub would play in the Arab world to know if it constitutes "humiliation", or what impact there would be if such were the case. I could read a dozen articles on this and still not know.

We could haggle about whether the typical pew-sitter at Ebenezer Baptist Church is a "social conservative", but even if they are then I would hardly characterize them as "right wing", which was my point. It's a religious/denial-of-science/miscomprehension thing, not a "left-vs-right" thing.

I disagree, I think it's a reasonable response to a very ignorant and demonstrably dangerous position on the part of the Iraqi PM. It's utterly vapid for him to support Hezbollah or oppose Israel while other Arab nations are actively trying to stop them. Granted he's dealing with an Iran-fueled insurgency, but that just makes it appeasement which is contrary to his country's approach in every other area of engagement (even political). That's not the kind of nation we want in Iraq, it's not the kind of nation IRAQ wants, and it's not the kind of nation ANYBODY ELSE wants in that region, EXCEPT for Iran. Does that actually strike you as something we should support?

Yeah that does change in VB7 (labels change to .text instead of .caption) (or .value for HTML labels in ASP.NET). Annoying, I know, especially since that particular trait is not backwards compatible. Thanks for clarifying where the change occurred, though -- that kind of tidbit is useful to me in my work. I think it's something that most users would probably figure out on their own, but since this was clearly a learning thread I thought it might be worth mentioning. I teach beginning VB/ASP and it never ceases to amaze me what people can get hung up on sometimes, especially when they get tired and/or frustrated. (grin) As a side note, I think as we go forward we're going to find that most "learners" are going to be using VB8 (Visual Studio 2005). It's a free download, after all. Unfortunately VBA in Office is still using the old VB6 IDE. (Even with the Office 2007 beta!) So people who come up through the VBA route (like Excel gurus) get a mixed message on some of these details.