rhino

No way .. it goes across the room from my "Dogs playing Poker" ... in velvet picture. Yeah, it does look like velvet .. I figured people keep reporting Elvis sightings, and they always seem very inspired ... and his movies seem more popular than Jesus' ... so maybe he is God. But I don't know where he is .... he hasn't been by here in weeks.

Is HE one of these guys?

yeah, but please slow Grant's head down ... I'm getting epileptic fits when I look at him too long ...

Well, if you were a good looking female .. and you got a note saying .. come to my coach tonight ... I'd like to share something with you .... and it smelled like dramboui .. that was probably really Santa ... BAD Santa ... :unsure:

Did you use to write thank you's for gifts excie? I guess people know, if you think you got a personal letter from vpw, most likely it was forged by a secretary ... sorry .... <_<

junk table ? ... I thought it was a plurality palace like table ... I left that book and took the Ouiji Board ... Actully, I don't rememeber ever seeing the junk table ... I guess God protected me.

glass floors are better than glass ceilings ... weren't you one of the elite excie ... so you didn't do no steenkin cleaning Actaully I read the glass floor was renovated, maybe it was covered or gone when we were there ...

I'm thinking of TWI in a more comedic setting, to match VP's true research capabilities. Too late now ... but maybe Rodney Dangerfield as vpw. He drinks and womanizes ... and here he is with his comic book degree. of course Rodney was always happy it seemed ... but twi was was a joke. But yeah, a dark comedy would be more fitting, still, why relive that?

Two parent families are strongest, from stats I saw. Sure, if you have stats that show there is usually abuse in two parent families, show that, instead of hinting at it. Sudo's point is that there is no stigma to having kids single. I agree that a stigma is not the best probably, but education on more than just birth control would also help. I never said I was against sex ed that has reduced teen pregnancy ... yes I read the rest of my article. Yes, marriages that stay together are probably the ones with fewer problems ... divorce is necessary at times ... but how many times is that, and is it enough to merit encouraging kids to have children out of wedlock, because dad will probably abuse their baby? I never said that .. again you seem to argue against what you wrongly think my position is. I'll try to be clearer. That was in this same context really, that a part of the concept of raising a child should include marriage. It doesn't have to condemn single parents, but it could clearly show "evidence" that the road will be much more difficult for the next 20 years if they decide to go it alone. Of course sex ed should be part (if the village has to raise the child), because most teen pregnancies are unintentional. But why not teach the benefits of marriage on its own, and for the child? Sure, teach it all ... especially if they are already becoming parents ... I just think it would be wrong to glorify in any way, the idea of being a single teen Mom. The stark realities should be taught on that score.Again, most educated Moms or couples are already teaching their kids I'd bet, the big area of concern seems with those living in or near poverty. You're the hands on expert, but even if the Dad tries a little and supports financially ... that helps. There is no guarentee that one imperfect parent is better than two, as you seem to suggest. Yes, teach all those ... that would be beneficial even for those higher up the food chain. I'm mostly saying those should be taught with marriage as the gold standard, while not condemning the single parent. Unless you can actually present evidence that single parenting is better ... which I don't think you can. The more I read from those sites I gave, the more it seems marriage in general is positive for society, even without kids. If we are now raising the child, there could be some good instruction there. I wish I had those classes you suggest.

He must be hoping someone will show up drunk and push the "Buy it Now" button ... then he'll take them to court and destroy their life ... I see they hve a Land Camera 104 for $2.99, but you have to pay shipping. And it doesn't have the paraphenalia.

WOW Sunesis ... you became a REAL rock star, and drank the good stuff ...

The way I remember it, Fryar was sidelined because he got cut on the hand by the kitchen knife his wife had used, perhaps in defense. I wasn't sure he actually got arrested in that incident ... but maybe so. It seems he got it reduced or dropped maybe. Here it is ... 3. Irving Fryar's wife slashes his hand before AFC title game Four days before the Pats faced the Dolphins in the 1986 AFC Championship Game in Miami, Irving Fryar, a wide receiver and the best punt returner in the NFL, cut two fingers and had his hand put in a cast. Pats GM Patrick Sullivan said it was a freak accident: "This morning, he was putting a kitchen knife back in the drawer ... It slipped and cut his hand." Despite the fact that this explanation defied logic, newspapers reported it without comment. Fryar, awho caught 39 passes and scored 10 TDs during the regular season, missed the Dolphins game but did play in the Super Bowl, scoring the Pats' lone TD. The Boston Globe reported before the Super Bowl that the knife cut, which required six stitches, came during a fight between Fryar and his wife, Jacqueline. He knocked her down, the Globe reported, and she got up and slashed his hand. Both went to the hospital. Fryar ended up making a remarkable turnaround in his life and enjoyed 17 years in the NFL. He retired in 2000 after 17 seasons, and is the sixth-leading receiver league history with 851 career receptions.

For me it was maybe kinda a good time before way corps ... but then it was more drudgery and doing the work of moving the word. Sure there was some fun along the way, but that was not what carried me ... maybe I was comfortably numb at that point. By the end I was working my real business more, but still the rest revolved around twig and piffle. Jen-o .. yeah, I finished my degree early on in TWI, but I was also working and ALL my spare time was TWI stuff, and falling asleep in early classes after working thru the night. I should have been really trying to immerse myself in my major. If I had left twi then and gone on to some career, it would have had minimal impact. For all the talk of how much FUN some had, I wonder if being a real minister is really fun. I'm thinking it is more burden and often tedious to help the oppressed go free or visiting sick folks. I don't think we were taught to do things like that so much. Some of the more kind twig leader types may have done that more than those higher up. If you're up in front singing or blabbing and people applaud, you can walk away and tell yourself what a great job you did "moving da wuhrd" that hour or two. I didn't have much of that, but I'd guess some still dream they were Gawd's rock stars. I think the TWI Mad Dog 20/20 vision was not that smooth going down, even at the time.

Studies show the mom and pop family is the gold standard, yet I agree with simon, you and others use this "that is all a myth" argument against it. Now you say it was just sarcasm, but your point was the same. Congrats on that ... you seem a perfect example of the strength of a mom and pop family. Why is having one parent at home with the kids "going backwards"? That seems very "progressive". We can have both, as your family apparently demonstrates. It is a problem ... there may be situations where it is the best that can be done, and god bless the single mom, but it is a problem ... or maybe better stated, it presents some major challenges for Mom. Why not be real progressive and have two strong parents raise a child? ... we've replaced your raped, abused, depressed meth' Mom ... with today's strong educated woman in a doubly strong household. Of course we still have to deal with the murdering, rapist, drunk, abusive, cheating husband ... With all that "stigmatizing" that has happened in these threads, it is no wonder all the alternatives seem more attractive. I mentioned a high rate ... I did not say explosion, though you quote me as saying that. The US teen birth rate is more than triple Australia's, according to wikipedia, and rates turned up again last year, breaking a 14 year decline. Here is a little info Despite a nearly one-third decline over the past decade in teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States: • One in three girls still becomes pregnant by age 20. • Half of all first out-of-wedlock births are to teenagers. • Still high rates of teen pregnancy and birth contribute to maternal and child poverty, father absence, diminished life prospects for children born to teens, and often result in unstable relationships and marriages. Approximately $100 million a year (FY 2006-FY 2010) is now available to promote healthy marriages. This federal funding, included in the reauthorization of welfare reform, can be used to support education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. That last bit seems like good news to me. It appears that policy and education most influences the poor, which probably differentiates US from Europe and Iceland and Australia. So if the state has to educate the child on birth control, they might as well teach them about the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. From wikipedia closely mapped poverty rates in California:[45] County ........................Poverty rate ........Birth rate* Marin County ................... ..........5% ................ ..5 Tulare County (Caucasians) .......18% ................50 Tulare County (Hispanics) ..........40% ..............100 * per 1000 women aged 15-19

Good point ... we could have wasted time getting wasted or playing around ... but we generally worked, except the fruit of our labor was taken by a few elite shysters. The little training or development we did get was offset by some negative influences. I guess it was marginally better than being a crack whore. But I used the best of times, worst of times line several days ago somewhere here. I don't know exactly what the line refers to in the book ... but the best of times was fictional for us ... but it seemed great because we thought we were so special in what we were doing. The world was our oyster, but it was a bad oyster. :o

Here is "The National Marriage Project" and here is the author of that article, Barbara Defoe Whitehead, in testimony before a senate subcommittee on children and families ... talking about marriage. I don't know what her stance is on the homosexual "marriage" ... Like all human institutions, marriage is far from perfect. And getting married does not turn people into saints. Yet the fact remains: despite its acknowledged problems and imperfections, marriage remains an indispensable source of social goods, individual benefits, mutual caregiving, affectionate attachments, and long-term commitments. And people who are married, though not saints, tend to behave in ways that benefit themselves, their children, families and communities. Given these advantages, it makes good sense for the public and private sector to explore ways to reduce the barriers to healthy marriage and to make it possible for more parents to form strong and lasting marital unions. Even a relatively modest increase in healthy marriage formation and duration could reduce levels of child poverty, increase parental income and promote higher levels of child wellbeing among families with children.

That picture above is from after my time I guess ... I'm thinking the glass is probably just in that center part behind the (new?) rails. I think I cleaned the outside windows once ... I don't remember walking on a glass floor. Actually, I don't remember a glass floor in the middle either, but it may well have been there.

You asked several questions but never raised a doubt ... it still seems your intent was to instill doubt. I still have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my article's quotes from researchers. I used the word evidence because of the quotes from researchers that seemed noteworthy. I don't see your quote as being her agenda ... I think she took that from the research, which she said actually went contrary to what one might surmise. Actually I happened upon that article after that discussion about the nature of animals strongly protecting their own. Someone said nature could as easily show we should eat our young because of rats. Then someone made a list of other bad animal parents, which seems to have been fabricated, since it was corrected by jen-o I think.We are looking at statistics and policy, should we cover up stats that might offend some? I'm betting Sushi and others are tremendous step parents as may often be the case. That doesn't change the comments from researchers, but it does seem to be the heart of why you asked your 50 10 questions. Are you basing this on research? There may be many cases where this is true, and many where it is not. The researchers quoted in the article said it was more likely the child was better off when the parent stayed single. It seems stability was a big factor. Usually one natural parent is still there, and often the other parent still cares very much about the child. Perhaps more social pressure for parents to marry and stay married would help the child. It is quite a commitment. The article had sources, you didn't pursue the sources .. you kept asking questions here. You gave no real reason for doubt, you just wanted to introduce doubt, to defend those offended step parents ... it appears. I don't think the article is outdated ... it makes some interesting points. It is just an article ... not the final word. You are questioning peer review of the article ... you should be asking about the peer review of the "evidence" or research that was quoted. You can track that down if you want ... it seemed mainstream to me. A lesbian couple raising a child from birth, with the sperm donated by the brother of the non-mother, may be a pretty good family ... perhaps better than the single mother. There are still always questions, but that seemed pretty innovative.

Why would I not believe you? OK, the lulu site page that was linked shows your book? Is this not your book? This is from Amazon. ... spent the better part of the last thirty years studying the Bible. Her exploratons have taken her across the country several times and through time hundreds of times. God exhorts us in the Bible to study His words and to also meditate upon these things. She endeavors to do both. Her method of research also include any manner of media that gives more information on the subject. Nothing is rejected out of hand. Eventually everything is sorted and as much is discarded as is kept. But nothing is actually thrown out, as it may prove useful later.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the moderators were way corps ... I was evil way corps ... so you can send me nasty messages if it helps, but after the first few sessions, I will want to charge for your rehab ... you seem a little angry ... turn the cubs on and drink a beer ... that's what I'm doing ... you don't hate the cubs too, do you?

Or sociology or whatever ...it seems some simple statistics and real life examples of the effects on the lives would be helpful. well positive changes can be made without going overboard. Not all change is good ... societies rise and fall. You just said all the teen pregnancies are not good ... why is there such an explosive rise? Perhaps totally removing the stigma of being an unwed mother is akin to making kids feel good about themselves in the school system, whether they actually learn to read and write or not.

The article was in "The Atlantic Monthly", which seem reputable. The evidence was from many researchers which the author named and quoted. You have presented nothing. For a post on the internet, I think I've done plenty. You continue questioning it and pretending I have to answer your 50 questions, or else it is all false. This seems a dishonest approach.

I read you page where you sell your book and a little on Amazon ... I would think it would help if you included your credentials. That is pretty typical. Instead I got the impression that your experience you mentioned was TWI. Now you hinted about some professor, but I really didn't see anything to sell me on your book. If you have credentials in research or whatever, I'd suggest parading them a little would help sell books. Good luck ...

You are intolerant of views that you disagree with, you don't know the reasons they disagree, yet you have labeled them "bigots" yes, I think that puts you in your definiton, you apparently have your own religious view. ... You were classifying that whole majority as prejudiced or bigoted, unless I proved you wrong. You said ... I guess I will continue to not know who the majority is as long as people continue to avoid the question. Majority or not if their belief is based on religious bigotry then they are the ones that are wrong and unless you can confirm that this is truly about religious folk with a hyper sensitivity to semantics (one word in particular) or explain how exactly this is going to make all marriages crumble then, without being hateful, without projecting, without being angry or upset, this looks like it is based on prejudice. Please prove me wrong. I'm just one person, I can't prove you are wrong to think they are all prejudiced or bigoted just for having an opinion you don't agree with. I do think that seems to make you look bigoted. But mostly I was just using your "twisted logic" that you were right unless I proved you wrong. I'm not going to to explain exactly or prove to you or confirm anything about all those people. Go ahead and be intolerant of what you have decided they all think and why they think it. Good grief ... As I've said other places, I don't think social services should consider taking a child away because a single mom has a lesbian mate. I'm not sure of all the evidence, but I do think the voters can determine if they want to change the law to make clear a marriage is for a man or woman. My personal concern is with the left pushing their agenda against the will of the majority, and this is just one of many steps for them. But you are the one calling people bigots and homophobes ... I don't see how that helps. You don't know those millions of people.

You just have to have rhythm ... who could ask for anything more?