satori001

Duly noted Sudo. I am a cad. I shall administer to myself thirty lashes. (Instead of the usual 40.)

Was it the new color scheme?

Has Jesus been harrassing you, laleo? And there's the difference between a constitutional democracy and mob rule. But I have edited them, H. Probably several times over. The inspiration for a post may be raw, but the finished product is a finished product. And frankly, their apparent "rawness," after so much editing (which includes refining language, adding supporting facts, unmixing metaphors, breaking up big paragraphs, etc), may indicate how much it was needed.I think editing is more inspired (to take great liberty with the word "inspire") because those edits are "revealed" upon reflection. They do not accompany first ideas. They follow. Some suggest appealing to moderators after the time limit is up. Do we really want to make admins our "co-editors?" Would they have any inclination, much less the time, to obey every whim as my own keyboard does? Yeah, right. I will never tell you that I "wish you could read it in the original." Even laleo once nearly begged me to make a correction long after the 2 hours was up. Fortunately, for her peace of mind (if not soundness of mind) there was no 2 hour limit. And that was just a spelling error. (As if I ever misspell anything). If laleo seems as healthy and vivacious today as ever, we can probably thank the edit feature. Boards are by nature temporal. I wish, sometimes, they were permanent. They aren't. We shouldn't try to make them permanent or we will change their fundamental nature, and therefore, purpose. I don't know if GS could serve the same function without the implicit "escape clause" of editing offered to some participants. I rarely see the abuses (as they are described) because I don't "live" here. I don't commune in the same way some of us do. I don't think my editing has ever fallen under that category, although at one time I did wipe a number of posts. I don't even remember why. I only remember that it seemed necessary, and I felt it was my right to do so. MOST of my stuff (and I think, my "best stuff") has been deleted by others, by the way. Ruthlessly. Remorselessly. So, why shouldn't I share some power over my own posts? I know editing posts can be anti-social at times. I think we can tolerate that. It's the price we pay for the sense of freedom we need to express ourselves.

This is a slightly different issue: All of my graphics and pictures suddenly went away, leaving little boxes with red x's in their place. If I turn off my firewall they come back, or most of them, but it worked fine with the firewall until yesterday. Somebody must be tinkering with the settings. I am logged in, obviously, or I couldn't post. I don't think that matters.

test testing123 so far, no edit tag - are they added after the fact, even with quick edit? -- yes, it's been changed. the edit tag now shows with quick edit, but not immediately, and it isn't visble, then it is, then it isn't... not that it matters much, but someone pointed out that "quick edit" did not leave an "edited tag," and now it does. sort of. it doesn't show after the edit until you go back to the forum and go back in again, or just refresh the screen.

Sears Mastercard: I was alarmed to find out I'd been assessed a $35 late fee by my Sears card, even though my bill cycle closing date is October 7th. If you don't have a calendar, today is October 3rd. Sears, and several other companies have shortened their billing cycles to a 24-day payment cycle. That means you can no longer look at the date, add a month, and know when it's due. Of course, the invoice provides the due date. I just didn't read it because it's been the same since I got the damn card. I called their customer service, and after navigating the endless automated choices spoke to an English-speaking (wonder of wonders!) representative who apologized, removed the late fee and all finance charges, and informed me that this was the new rule. She said it would not affect my credit until I was 30 days late, so that wasn't an issue. Love ya, Sears.

I'm not really talking about that extreme, H. In cases where the posts are so over the top, the moderators will generally "edit" them before their authors have the opportunity, because the posts will have been reported by the first reader to take offense. The offense may or may not be justified, of course. Drunken gibberish is not offensive in itself. (If coherence were the only criterion for posting, Garth would be in big trouble, and I don't think it's because he's drinking.)

With 38 votes so far, we appear to be getting a representative cross-section. If it were an election, the result so far would be characterized as a "landslide." Although I worded the choices with an obvious bias, I have encouraged opposing views and those voters seem comfortable making them known. Some of them are quite convincing. Even so...

But Rick. If they want to edit the next morning, it suggests they have read it the next morning, doesn't it? It suggests they aren't happy with it, doesn't it? Maybe that modicum of self-awareness you deign to prescribe exists already. I think your post illustrates the "reformative" role some feel Greasespot should fill. Pawtucket said it wasn't part of the charter, by the way, and it's a good thing. We need to work out our own salvation, wouldn't you say? A bad post is a bad post, not the mark of Cain. Greasespot is neither reformatory, nor charm school. There are those who would have it otherwise. They are more comfortable with appearances than truth, in my opinion. It is very important, I think, that those of you who feel posts should not be edited after two hours do NOT edit your posts after two hours. You'll feel like hypocrites if you do, you know? Those of us who feel we should edit after two hours, or two months, if we're so inclined, will respect your rights and never insist that you edit your posts, no matter how badly they are in need of it. (I can't promise not to rub it in, though.) On drininkig... I don't post while drinking because it's more fun to turn off the PC, grab the keys and go driving around the neighborhood. BUT, in the interest of safety, I do recommend a designated poster for anyone who wants to drink at Greasespot. That's not to say I haven't posted whilst enjoying a nice Shiraz or Burgundy, or the occasional Sam (Adams). On those occasions, I fill my posts with mirth, irony and joy, although I'm just as likely to doze off before clicking the "post" button. Whether or not surviving posts appear foolish, or make me look like an "foot," I'm grateful for the opportunity (meaning, the OPTION, my option) to reappraise them later, and to re-write them if warranted. Momentary lapses are hardly a good reason to stop drinking. They are a good reason to stop posting, if the rules have become so stringent. The lapses might indicate the need to drink more. That is not for you to say, or Greasespot policy to enforce. There is plenty of oversight already. Management walks a fine line between "law" and "grace." I appeal to management, if there is any question, err on the side of grace. (This post has been edited about 27 times, by the way - it's not about "perfectionism," it's about enjoyment. It is a rare post for me that survives its first draft, or its fifth.)

I appreciate the replies on both sides of the issue, and for now I'm undecided. Which avatar should mstar pick? Decisions, decisions... (Nice work mstar, by the way.) Mark asks, "Why should this be different?" I'd point out that it's always be different, and ask why it shouldn't continue to be different. To simon, I'd say that "warts and all" aren't the issue. If editing could really remove every blemish, there would be no blemishes left on these forums. But we are the "editors," and we are not perfect. Our posts should be as we, imperfect creatures that we are, intend them to represent us. I have been disappointed or annoyed in the past when someone has removed or revised a post, especially when I thought it was very good. I have also removed quotations from my own posts, at the writer's request, because they did not wish to leave their words there. Obviously I thought otherwise, but I deferred out of common respect because it was his/her post. So I recognize both sides of the issue. I believe the greater good is served by the ability to edit, without time limit or restriction. Two hours or twelve hours is really the same thing to me. The archives are a somewhat different issue, I guess. By the time a thread is archived, it should be understood to be permanent. But this inability to edit effectively archives our posts while their threads are still "active." And for those who think it's a fine way to teach us to be responsible, to "say what we mean," etc, etc, since when is that part of Greasespot's charter? Is Greasespot now some kind of church?

Raf, you can post the link, but you can't click it for them. My years in the interior taught me a healthy respect for "Aggies."

I hope anyone who votes "no" will explain here, and be prepared to defend that position. Of course, Garth, your response is to acknowledge your first instinct, which is to abuse the editing privilege. I'm not at all surprised. Regardless, I'd be happy to tolerate your misuses if it meant others could post without the burden of "make sure you know what/how/why you are going to post what you do while you still can" looking over their shoulder. I heard a well known author today, Joan Didion, say that she didn't know what she thought until she read what she wrote. In other words, writing was a process of working out her feelings and ideas. Suppose her editor said, "Joan, no re-writes after 2 hours?" Rather than beautiful prose, Garth, she might write something resembling what you do, if she could write at all under such strict guidelines. And that would be a great loss, as are your own posts.

Good posts, all. Anybody else think that a healthy "fear" is sometimes appropriate? Of course, we can define fear here as natural anxiety in the face of a potentially devastating threat, which propels one out of one's apathetic lethargy and into action. Not enough fear out there.

When I write a post, I know what I mean to say. It doesn't always come out that way. I might not realize until some time later. Sometimes long afterward. I like the idea that I can add a word, change a word, and delete a word if need be. If the meaning is affected, I can explain how, and why. After all, I'm not writing the frickin' bible here. Cosmic truth, maybe. Bible, no. As long as the board notes the original text has been changed, and when, I see no value or purpose in revoking this common privilege. I do see the potential harm in it, the chilling effect of any like restriction, the loss of individual control over one's message. Pawtucket, I hope you will consider reviewing and revising this policy to one of personal editorial freedom - at least opening it up for discussion, since I'm guessing many or most of us would prefer to make our own decisions. I'm sure there's a small, puritanical contingent of forum fascists lurking in the shadows, which demands absolute adherence to the original edition, however flawed time may prove it to be. I think it is grace, not law, which serves as the best model for a flourishing forum. Just my two cents.

def59, you seem to think it's your responsiblity, and within your ability (and by inference, that of your religion), to change people from homosexual to heterosexual. You are talking about lifestyle, and you are talking about sexuality. Do not confuse the two. You are buying into the stereotypes, and the result is misunderstanding and ignorance, as demonstrated by some of your comments.

This virus has cost the poultry industry worldwide 10-15 billion in destroyed birds. That's a lot of birds. By the way, people who died of Spanish flu died of hemmoraging. People who die of ebola (and related diseases) die of hemmoraging. They're different diseases, but it should put this "flu" in perspective. It's not your garden variety influenza that worries public health officials. In a worst-case scenario, not everyone here at Greasespot will be around next year, and possibly quite a few, regardless of age or present health. Closed communities like TWI in New Knoxville could remain untouched, or could be wiped out, depending on how successfully they isolate themselves. Given their penchant for putting "believing" ahead of common sense, the Way woods may be re-opened for burials. I know. What a morbid thought. But take a look around next time you're in a public restroom and you'll get some notion of the priority given to prevention by the average idiot. You know the saying about "one bad apple." It refers to a spoiled apple, which is an apple with a "disease," so to speak. The government should be mobilizing, NOW. So far, all we get is warnings. By the way, these diseases are found in many areas where there is poverty and ignorance, and the breeding ground for fundamentalist Islamism. It's followers have expressed an interest in biological weapons. Why wouldn't one infect himself and then come here before the symptoms begin to show? Hell, they blow themselves up. What's the difference to them?

I didn't see NightLine, but the word is going out, from the UN and the CDC and various other public agencies. The medicine is called Tamaflu (and other names), as far as I know. I have some in my fridge but it's a year old and probably ought to be tossed away.

Tell me something 2J, could you ever become a homosexual? As in, make the choice, and follow through on it. Could you even choose to behave like one - like holding another guy's hand, they way you might hold a woman's? Let's leave aside your convictions for a moment. Suppose you'd never heard a discouraging word about it. Could you change your orientation? I'll supply your answer for you, and correct me if I'm wrong. You will say "no," and an emphatic "NO" at that. What makes you think your friend, or any homosexual, became convinced (logically or otherwise) it would be a good idea to force her (or his) way through the emotional aversion, if not revulsion, which you might feel at the same thought, to embrace someone else of the same sex? Think about that. Do you think it's a "spirit." Really? Could a spirit convince or compel you to kiss another guy - on the lips? And enjoy it? I doubt it. We could mention some other places it might want your mouth to go. But we won't go there, okay? My point is this. You are clueless. Your friend may well need the care of a doctor, the counsel of a therapist, and the consolation of a minister, as well as the devotion of a friend (if that's what you are). You are neither doctor, nor therapist, nor minister as far as I can tell. If she needs and wants help, you can help her find help, but you cannot help much beyond that, and if you try you could do a lot of harm. Be a devoted friend, if that's what you are, or beg her forgiveness and leave her alone, if you aren't. The point of my earlier questions was this. Our sexual behaviors are as deeply rooted as our most fundamental feelings and instincts. Affirmations and proclamations will not change them. Nor will prohibitions. Nor will condemnations. Nor will your friendship, support, counsel, encouragement, and so on ad nauseum. Nor will bible teachings, scripture references, manifestations, or even "love." Those things are magic. Christian magic, Way magic, New Age magic, positive thinking magic, all of the above. The only results produced by magic are convincing it's practitioners that it works, even when it does not. The Way is a great example. You were always believing, according to the Way. If you got good results, you believed positively. If not, you believed negatively. See? The magic always works. I hope you will reconsider the self-indulgent urge to meddle in this person's life. If you want to fix somebody, buy a pet to practice on for 20 or 30 years.

We can't seem to get a handle on disasters until they've happened. In 1918, the "Spanish flu," so-called because it got more coverage in Spain during the tight, WWI censorship, circled the globe. It killed hundreds? Thousands? No, millions. Actually, 30-40 million around the world. Puts hurricanes and tsunamis in perspective, doesn't it? For two years, a very bad strain of flu has been killing birds, and about 60 humans too. Scientists say it's only a matter of time, not if but when, before one of the trillions of trillions of little virii makes the genetic leap to become a human contagion and the physical leap to some poor, Chinese peasant, whose chickens were infected by some wild bird. From the peasant to his family, to his village, to the local city, to the capital, to the world capitals, in a matter of weeks or even days. They say it could be this winter. Thought you'd want to know. Surgical masks will be in short supply.

Moddishwasher, What dilemma, true or false, do you think you see?

This trial will be used by the left to demoralize the military and the nation to further undermine our will to see it through in Iraq. She will be tried in a vacuum. There will be little or no attention paid to the demeanor, behavior or background of the prisoners, which could shed light on the need to "break" them by any means. I believe the psychological duress of sexual humiliation was employed as a substitute for physical duress. The interrogators probably felt it was more merciful, and possibly more effective too. Whether Abu Ghraib prisoners murdered innocent Iraqis for Saddam, or innocent lives for Al Qaida, they will never know the punishment they truly deserve. It is incumbent upon our military to extract any strategic information they might possess, and by any means necessary. As it turned out, the interrogations, and the "softening up" process, were carried out by unqualified people who had no or insufficient training. Even so, there was probably more method to the madness than meets the eye. They knew what they were dealing with. Regardless, the inadequacy of Lynndie England and her comrades may partly be the result of turning the armed services into some kind of entitlement program for those near the bottom of society, among them Lynndie. Nobody wants to defend the indefensible, nor should they, but I hope someone will speak up for whole truth before the trial concludes, and not just the feel-good, civilian condemnation of a few frustrated prison guards and interrogators.

I don't think he'd be too distracted by forms of behavior Allen, godly or not. He'd consider the heart, don't you think?Peter was zealous, but then so was Judas Iscariot, to name two. Do you think he judged them as equals?

Hey Pawtucket and crew, you guys do good work. I'll check back in when I have more time, but I hadda know what it looked like. Regards...

Allen, if you had to believe a verse to understand it, there'd be something wrong with you. Is there?

I think it was because they were hypocritical, judgemental, and most of all, cruel.You say it's because they wouldn't change their minds? I guess it depends on how you understand the term "hard-hearted." Hey, speaking of the TWI mentality, thanks for the example, Allen.