socks

2-3-2, home, away, home. Home field advantage is kinda sketchy, depending on how they look at it. This page covers some of the history and ground on the idea. I've had to bone up on it myself. Indeed, Giants get the W, 11 - 7. Great game. Everyone predicted a 1 run differential, a squeaker win for whoever got it. Pitching being what it was, the batters showed up tonight on both teams it seemed. Lincecum was good but far from bullet proof, still he held his ground after getting hit twice, the second time on the back of his leg with a line drive. Rattled I'm sure, but I'd probably have been carried off the field crying and waving my hat. He's tough. Lee was hittable, to say the least. Giants/Sanchez with a record setting 3 doubles and a 4th single/error getting him to second base for the 4th time. A Giant Uribe homer. (I think they're going to call AT&T left field seating "Uribe Cove" pretty soon, he seems to favor that for his homers). Assorted hits, good on bases. Lots of errors between the two teams. A real battle. Great game! Game Two tomorrow - I have no doubt the Rangers will have a response. Gotta love it. Northern California is hot for the Series, I can say that. "Go Giants" signs up along the Freeways. Lots of people in Giants Orange and Black today where I work. Just went out to get gas post-game and the pumps were buzzing and several cars had local Giants Radio, KNBR 680 blasting the post-game after glow. Great stuff.

I agree that timing and pacing are part of the pitchers (and hitters) strategic tools. Icing down a play either way can make a difference. What I mean on the delays is that in every - single - pitch and bat sequence, many many batters practically get dressed again before they get set at the plate for the next pitch. I've watched many many times where a pitch goes across the plate, strike/ball whatever. The batter doesn't swing. Nothing changes. They step out, redo each glove as if they needed it, and go through the same repeated rituals they did coming to the at bat. They'll do this after every pitch, swing or not. And the pitchers do the same kinds of things although I see that pitching would require more of a reset. Between the two players and the psyche side of it the whole thing takes forever at times. I understand the mental part of it and the timing of it - although I think in Baseball we get visibility into the quirkiness of human nature, which is part of what makes it interesting. But it's gotten a little extreme over the years and seems to have become expected. There's the guy on the Rangers, might have been Howard - stands there at the plate and points his bat up and out towards the pitcher for - I counted it out at 9 -10 seconds several times while he stared at the pitcher. That's just lame IMO, looks stupid, to me. What's that doing? Get set and get ready to swing, there's a game going on. Foul balls are where the replay would serve well I think. Saw several this year where the ball was clearly fair or on the line but called foul. The call's up to the Ump, agreed but when the Ump's call it "out" when it's on, there's room for debate. A ball on the line is considered fair. An inch one way or the other , if it's on the line it's on. Sometimes the Umps just don't have the view to what happened and I'd think they'd want to confirm their own calls. Games go either way based on those calls. Maintaining a completely human measurement to the plays assumes there will be errors and there are. The fact that a guy on a couch has better views to what happens is interesting to be sure. Me, when I see the ball on TV the standard camera shot doesn't allow for depth, only height and a slight view into placement across the plate, so a strike on TV may not actually be correct. But hen a replay shows clearly what it was and it's clear the Ump called it wrong it is what it is.

Couple writ's on the topic: http://www.theyankee...-pitch-fx-22035 http://www.sciencene...kID=8&DocID=528 If a machine were used I'd want one that will yell "STUUUUUUrrrrrrrrahhhwwwwwwwwwiiiiiiiiiKKKKK!!!!!!" :) I definitely think there should be some means of accessing the replay from different angles, if needed. Quickly - although right now I don't see how we could slow down the game any further. With every batter stepping out of the box after every swing, adjusting gloves, throwing some stink eye at the pitcher, racking the bat around a dozen time or so....going through several tap - wiggle - scratch - spit rituals and then redigging a hole to stand in at the plate - not to mention the time outs, throws to First, and.......I mean, what's another couple minutes an inning? There's a vacation after every pitch.

Anyone bring up Umpire calls this year? The need for a better Vision Care program? Lot of talk about instant replay in the game for settling challenges to the Ump's calls. Good idea? Nutty?

Yep, Howard took it looking alright. The radar image they showed after put the ball just picture perfect over the lower border of the zone. Was it a strike? By the rader image and the ump call - it was. He didn't see it as a strike, otherwise he would have surely swung. A squeaker. It's not a hitter's strike for sure. I think it gave Howard a very difficult choice to make but one he's no doubt made before. I'd have thought he'd have hacked it if nothng else and taken a foul ball. Every added pitch in that kind of scenario adds more possibilities to what Brian Wilson might have thrown next so if nothing else, keep him throwing..... I'm happy with the outcome but I agree - it was a tight tight end. And speaking of fast balls - the Giants will face Feliz soon enough. 100 mph? Sooooo....it's going to be some great baseball!

here ya go sports fans - next time we see a batter hit the ball, consider this: http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/biobaseball.html Tom - congratulations. Your team competed with honor and vigor! Let the Series begin!

Go SF Giants! Not sure if I've chimed in on this Baseball thread but I follow the Giants and feelin' good now. Next stop - World Series next Wed. Game start is 4:57 pm West coast time. Giants and Rangers, AT& T Park. We always watch the World Series no matter who's playing hiway29. It's the final playoff of the season so it's hard to beat if you like baseball. mstart: I think that its good for baseball that two teams that have never had the opportunity before will be competing...its bound to be a great boost to both places.........agree widdat, completely. I like the Rangers too and think this will be good competitive baseball. The Giants team this year has been really interesting to watch unfold and develop. I like Bochy's approach to managing the team, the players and the game. The player's stories are both small and grand and there's more than a whiff of life's grit in their lives and careers. Contrasts abound - Andres Torres at 32, first time for a real spot on a Major League team. Madison Bumgarner turned 21 this year with a resume' that goes from High School to the Majors. Some players on their way around again, others maybe on their way out, maybe for the last time and come to the team to make a contribution, not be stars. And end up being stars in a town that's embraced them as if they'd grown up there. They've got the honesty that goes with greatness, even the little kind - when they play badly they admit it, support each other openly and when they play great they celebrate together. Maybe not unique but it' just seems like the right way to do it. They've got the trappings - The Beard, The Freak, the Old Guys and the Kids, the fans - the Panda hats (my daughter got hers at the home game 9/15 against the Dodgers and wore it as if it was as normal as wearing a watch). Sometimes they seem like they're teetering on the edge of failure and sometimes they crash but this season they've managed to bring it around enough times to succeed. If the Padres had steamed through winners they wouldn't be where they are but they didn't and this is where they're at, not expecting an inevitable win, earning every step forward. It's great baseball.

How, <br> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHbyP7dHv8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHbyP7dHv8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHbyP7dHv8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Why? :) <br> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma9DgkU-XvI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma9DgkU-XvI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma9DgkU-XvI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Once again, I'm reminded of how difficult it is to leave each other alone in our society and let others get along with their own lives and me with mine. I guess when a person shows up at my door they're looking for interaction - it's my door, they're knocking, what you get is what you get. I think it would be really interesting to find myself in the situation described in the thread. I don't have any reason to harrass them or make fun of them. It makes no sense to use that person as the focal point of any grievances I might have that they aren't a part of. Trying to prove I'm smarter than they are makes no sense - if that's the goal, why do I need to validate that? If I actually put myself in their shoes I doubt I'd want to do anything but engage them in the best possible manner. Who are they, where are they from, what brings them here today? Generally I don't rush to answer the doorbell if I'm not expecting anyone. I"m usually doing something and don't hear it anyway. A lot of my own personal brain time can get wasted fantasizing on woulda coulda shoulda said. Why wait for a knock on the door if that's really that important? Find the right people and say it to them face to face or as directly as possible. Get on with it and get it done. Every now and then a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon group shows up at the door. I just tell them I'm not interested. There's been a few times over the years I've felt inspired to talk something through with someone but it's always congenial. First you have to get past the tension and awkwardness, sort out which one's the Mentor and the newbie if there are two or more and try to build some kind of natural rapport. I always tell them I'm a Christian and have a nice day. They're going to need it - trying to go directly face to face, cold turkey with someone like that can be difficult because there are people out there that don't mean good, aren't going to be harmless and will try to rip them deep in some way to satisfy some inner purpose that has nothing to do with them.

"is it a carry over of "da bible (blue book) tells me so"?" What's that supposed to mean? I consider the Bible a worthy guide. Carry over? What's that mean?

"I don't doubt that we need "leaders" but they lead by example," Very true. There are plenty of situations and circumstance in life and every endeavor where one person will have to tell another person what to do and someone will have to listen and do it. Many people have difficulty accepting authority from others. Most people dont' when they understand what and why and when and who and are want to accept that or at least agree to it. "Work" is like that, having a job in a company. If someone comes up to you that isn't your "boss" and tells you to do x amount of work for them, you question it. They're not your boss, you have no agreement to work for them and if you do you won't be able to do your work. You work for your boss because you'd agreed to and you accept their authority according to the agreement. You work, they manage, you get paid, they get paid, etc.

(not organization, but non-profit corporate entities that people are pressured into swearing their allegiance) Don't get me started. :) "Non-profits" do incredible amounts of good in our nation as I'm sure you know. Often populated by people giving their time, talent and money to support efforts to assist in areas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those who can use and will use a leg up on their circumstance. Involvement in these kinds of areas can be a resume' item for those who do it sure but it's a means to "pay it forward" and do good out of the good they have. Yet it's not typical to see those who make such efforts getting wealthy or accumulating personal volume through the org's. Sure, it happens and when we hear about it we're aghast. "That's so wrong!" we think, profiting from an effort committed to helping others. People do make their living working in non-profits but as any good church-goer knows, "the laborer is worthy" of their hire. Working that out in a manner that makes sense and serves the org's purposes can work in an honest way if that's the intent. What makes people drop their pants when money's involved though? Good question. Leadership - the whole idea of a training aspect to it serves a basic purpose - to improve the individual. "Leadership skills" make for a better person, in theory. Be a better person, skilled, capable in some aspects. What's a leader do? "Lead" - what's it mean? Training staff for an org. is one thing. Training "leaders" - it's a term that needs definition and perspective.

Hmmm, dunno exathar. We live in a nation where the popular application of fairness tends to reduce anything that gets in our collective craws to mush. We want to embrace "evolution" as the most viable solution to our origins and reduce other things to "myths", as if our current level and expected rate of understanding will ever hope to grasp how primordial bio-electric sludge can become a walking talking iPhone fanatic given enough time. But we pump fuel into our cars made from sources I'd be hard pressed to fully describe in in a way that would convince anyone I actually understand how it came to become "oil" so I get that the human mind makes incredibly complex leaps of faith and calls it "understanding". I do it we all do it. It bugs me too. I bug myself sometimes. To bug is to be I guess. But I digress- the symbolic nature of Genesis is a rough tug-of-war amongst religious folk, me included. I don't know what the Iroquis creation myth is but I'd assume they have trouble with it too. Seeing that far back requires good eyes. Speaking of Jung, the band "Electric Flag" recorded one of it's best lengthy jam to a tune titled "Fine Jung Thing". Think it was in the soundtrack to the movie "The Trip". It's all Mike Bloomfield, ripping out his last meth breath with every note. Really hot guitar on it if you like blues - rock. I like Henri Bergson' s stuff and in his book "Creative Evolution" he wrote - The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in the effect was already in the cause......I kind of agree with that, depending on how cause and effect are defined and therein is some Jungian thought, that the whole can outsize the parts. But an outcome could not in theory be devoid of reference to it's cause, so yeah I get it. In regards to symbols, language could be said to be symbolic representation of meaning that's given to uh...something. An outcome or result. It could be said that language, words, don't exist alone, that there's no expression without a hmmm expressor. So there has to be something and some meaning or definition given to it, parameters, and then the expression describes that, brings attention to it, represents that. "Logos" - same idea. Intent expressed. Symbols. Gotta have them.

Another thought along these lines is what can be read of the life of Jesus and His handling of the scripture. A primary aspect of His life was in fact correct interpretation of scripture, both in understanding and in practice. He held forth from scripture at times and responded to questions and situations with what would be an "accurate" understanding. He challenged others like the Pharisees on their interpretation and corrected them. Stepping back it seems to be fairly clear that the main impact of His message was to declare "truth" and present "this is what it looks and acts like" through His own life, both in word and deed. Today I see much of the struggle in the arena of "deed". Those who don't do what they teach or who don't consistently meet the standards of what they present as "truth". Whether the intent is honest or deceptive, achievement can be expected to be inconsistent. A person won't always perform perfectly. The life and teaching of Jesus Christ appears to be clear - know the truth and practice the truth, understanding that God looks upon the heart and will honor the faithful prayer of the individual to come to Him. The entire idea of accepting that premise for us assumes some clear understanding of what we're doing - understanding Jesus Christ, His mission and what God's intents are, through him. Doing that we have the information passed down to us from those who knew Him, lived the mission first, and those who within a few generation captured their thoughts and message. It stands to reason that we would have a similar approach as Jesus Christ did, to expect that a correct understanding of scripture, and now including those early writings, as having a correct interpretation would be necessary. To act accordingly we need the according-to first, what the ideas, concepts, principles are that we're trying to apply. Primary to that understanding is the Message Himself, Jesus Christ. As Jesus and those in earlier times urged others, so are we urged to the same ends.

Ditto, Dan. The journey of a 1,000 miles begins with a single step, followed by a series of wrong turns and visits to gas stations for fuel, snacks and better directions. I'm with ya brah - celebrate the progress!

We're all familiar with II Peter 1:20. Are there other sections of scripture that stress the importance of this approach? Do we even know if that particular passage has been translated in a manner that conveys the original intent? Authorship of l and ll Peter is debated. The content of that verse is made clear by the context though - the prophecy of the scripture refers to the O.T. prophecies of a coming Messiah. The writer sets forth that the aposltes, the "we" which apparently include Peter and we could easily assume the other apostles and close followers of Jesus, were eyewitnesses and had personal experience that they spoke from to declare Jesus that messiah, Lord, son of God and that the prophecies could be interpreted that way. It refers to the prophecies as having been from God, not men and that those who (apparently from the reference) offer other versions and explanations of both the prophecies and who Jesus was, were wrong. There is a strong assertion there that the prophecies might have many interpreters but have only one correct one, which the writer is speaking to. Take it or leave it, believe it or not but it's fairly clear from the context, at least to me. In the New Testament epistles (and others not included) there's the same assertions made as to the historical prophecies being fulfilled in Jesus. If the New Testament is viewed as a collection of writings representing those who had first hand knowledge of and with Jesus Christ, and who through that first generation had opportunity to have revealed to them through study, thought and revelation information about that, it makes sense to understand it as best we can to know what was said or not said written and not written. It can be said that the condition of the surviving documents prevents that and that those that do exits are unreliable. That's debatable - but if a person wanted to get as much as they can from it and about it, the effort to determine a baseline of "accurate" understanding of what does exist only makes sense. To me. I agree that "likemindedness" is over emphasized in the Way but that's partially because the early understanding that the true equal mind is in "the mind of Christ" and represents a spiritual reality has eroded over time and been replaced with an expectation that knowing what a verse says collectively is the same as being "likeminded". It's not. Agreement is one thing - equally "soul"ed is another. In the New Testament we can see a very simple clarity around their "likemindedness" - that they were all witnesses and particpants in the life of Jesus and spoke directly to what they believed from first hand experience was true. This was clearly stamped on their collective consciousness through the fact that they all knew that the Jesus they followed died, was killed and buried. None of them waited with expectation for Him to be alive again, they mourned His death. It's understandable that the impact was life changing for them at that point if - if - the dead man they once knew was alive again. So much of the N.T. revolves around that simplest essential reality that formed the basis for their own "likemindedness".

Think of it as having some of the same qualities as a hobby, exhat. There's stuff, little gidgets and gadgets, and even certain skills you can develop. Fun stuff. Smoking tobacco is fun too if you don't set yourself on fire or burn yourself, someone else or your stuff. When you smoke a pack of regular 'mokes you end up with an empty pack. Use up an e-cig cartridge and you....refill it! To buy a pack of 'gurettes you get to march down to the local Bag 'N' Gag Mart, point past the rack of Big Jugs mags and pay 7 bucks for a pack of "Boro Reds. E-Cig's you browse the web, order at online prices and wait with eagerness for the package to arrive. It's like Christmas without the Fruit Cakes! With ciggies you light up - matches! Got a light? Where's my lighter! I need some fire! E-Cig's.....you press a button and enjoy a visit to the Flavor Festival with every draw. Vanilla! Cherry! Mint! The differences are....significant.

that's where my mind's going mr. arrow. waysider, as to the use of symbolism is required, etc. ..........i don't ever recall there being a big or small stink over "using it or employing it as a means to comminicate, so i'm not sure what you're referring to. as a matter of fact the endless use of metaphor, simile and analogy was pretty popular in the Way throught the 70's and 80's, that i recall. as far as symbolism in relation to interpretation, i'd suggest that a "symbol" is the representation of something, not the thing itself.. it wouldn't be the symbolism being the problem if there was one, it would be what produces it. i don't think anything can mean everything to anyone about anything when it comes to the bible, nor that there's no clear way to understand any of it. so all symbols aren't going to be correct. Understandable to the individual perhaps and that's where it gets ambiguous i think - what makes clear to one person can be muddy to another.

Dripping's something I've tried, that sounds like a good approach. I may try that with some specific atomizers to experiment more. You'll like the USB passthrough. It's a much easier and more reliable battery power when you're at a computer. The transition and "quitting" - I realized reading through so many people's reactions and experience, comparing with my own, that the best approach for me was try it, use it, don't sweat the difficulties, work through them and give it some time. I found what I like, what I don't like, and over time there's more of the latter than the former. Bingo. It really got me whacked for a bit when I read about the FDA government focus and for awhile I followed that progression. It seemed ridiculous since the FDA manages to stay out of the tobacco company's chemical business - the actual tobacco with the nicotine isn't cut off nor the process that's used to produce a variable tasting and good burning 'backy, but the process of using the nicotine with an e-cig.......should be all of a sudden? I was bamfoozled. Managing the quality of the nic' liquid - I get that. But the all out intent to shut it down for fear of it not being "safe" and unmanaged - really seemed insane. It doesn't seem to have happened though which is encouraging. Overall, 'sall good. :)

Peese, excart. Right on Brother Dan. You're on the big horse sounds like. Are you using preloaded cartridges or refilling your own? At first I was kind of aghast at the range of supplies and accessories, dunno why. I quickly purchased a USB battery which plugs directly into the PC USB port and provides an "endless" supply of power, at a computer. The battery retains a charge and will also work on it's own I found, although not as long. The weirdest thing for me was getting used to handling them - there was no fire, no flame, no ashes and no smoke. And no ashtrays. You can just lay them down. Years of habit would find me catching myself doing that and grabbing it - finally got used to it. Putting it in your pocket is kind of whacky too, in a good way. I found a permanent marker cap that fit perfectly and I can slip it on the end, put it in a shirt pocket and it's about as convenient as carrying a pen.

From a man who can <em>ride the dragonfly</em>.... <br> <br> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0d1HilfLxA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0d1HilfLxA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0d1HilfLxA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Sudo, the data - all of it - on religious conviction has to be defined and parsed, aggressively to form a clean set of data. As I'm sure you know, any data has to be but that in particular and moreso because the broadest definitions for terms like religion and major religions are weak. They are by virtue of the subject matter which is people and what they say they "believe" and the method of metrics which is to assign a label to it, religion, non-religion, atheist, etc. So one person states they believe in God and have been active in a church affiliation throughout their life and they go plink into the "religious" bucket. If pressed they respond they're more inclined to believe in God than not, or they would prefer to attend a church versus not attend a church but they don't attend a church as a member today but if....etc. etc. etc. In the end, what do we have? A Roman Catholic who rejects Vatican ll might go with the traditional view that any of the so-called "Christian's" who are non-RC, aren't Christian, period. Others who embrace ecumenism as a recognition of the holy spirit in action might include them, if with qualification. Many opinions thrive inbetween all the extremes. And any of the churches RC's include/don't include might eliminate RC's right out of the gate as being non-Christian and an apostasy. A Budhist doesn't consider Budhism a "religion" in the same way as they're included if they're being compared with many of the other religions. Yet Budhism is typically included in religious statistics. Wiccan's don't embrace a centralized "religious" convocation or binding authority that would result from being a "religion" and any such collective would be extremely diverse. So would any "Christian" conglomerate - some things generally agreed upon, others not. On a much broader scale there needs to be a step taken back and work done towards clarification on what we're really trying to identify in all of this data collection, and why. I tend to view the entire effort as a mishmash of information based on an extremely unclear and confusing set of requirements. Now I know - true blue believers on either side of the "God" coin can look at what I'm saying and figure I'm just trying to get around the "data" and instead of examining it, trying to denigrate it as unreliable. However if I look at it honestly, even wanting to get something out of it, I still have to say I'm not sure what any of it's trying to get at. I'd like to have a clear, reliable dataset to look at but I don't think it's going to come from the types of surveys that are being used. "Raw" data collections takes a great deal of thought and planning to collect. An old, old example of statistical voodoo is a claim made by a journalist years ago who started the "Rats Outnumber People in New York" story. Upon investigation his source was unwieldy to say the least and by nature of the view sought could only be so...the basis for it was a count done in some apartment building, starting on the top floor and working down, and an actual - this is true - "head" count of rats seen. Counts were made floor by floor. The total count was then matched to the number of residents of the building and the conclusion was drawn by a simple math comparison. When pressed for documentation the hmm, Rat Counters admitted that they didn't really know if the rats seen throughout a floor and on each floor were the same rats they'd counted before. They just counted. This "statistic" was cited in a book titled "Statistics in Action" and used as a textbook example of the kind of b.s. that proliferates. It's pretty old now but I think I still have it around somewhere. Unreliable and odd? Sure. But the story grew legs and actual numbers were attached - "40 rats for every person" or some such thing. What would work better IMO for this religious/people/beliefs kind of data - and if anyone likes this idea be sure to send me, socks, a check to "brightideascomeinallsocks@yah-mon.com" - would be to establish a set of queries and questions in the form of practical, moral and ethical situations and dilemmas to which a respondent must reply, with answers based on U.S. laws, federal, state and local laws. Don't identify any of the answers as wrong or right but rather simply responses. From that determine how well the citizens understand their legal rights and the rights of others and how they would apply them. Or something along those lines. That would give insight into how a particpant both thinks and "believes". Add to that any identification the respondent chooses to make as to what influenced their choices to establish some moral and ethical standards. See what people say and from that, create the dataset. See how and if "religion" is factored in and how it's described and named. That could be used to form the basis of a second survey, using the terminology provided by the first survey. It's a thought anyway, would require a lot of work to get it sussed out. I'd agree though - yeah. If I'm going to put a bumper sticker on my car declaring something I need to think about how I relate to it. It's my car, my bumper sticker. I don't. I like a nice clean looking bumper. Well, maybe one of those non-glue layons that reads "GO SF GIANTS - WIN!!!!" but probably not. Look for a b-ball cap in the back dash though.

Wordwolf - some statistical bedtime reading HERE> The entire site has a lot of information. Some analysis HERE on the way the prison/religion data is manipulated. Sudo, your quote has been around long enough to qualify for a Snopes entry by virtue only of the number of time's it's been used incorrectly IMO. It's usually quoted in the same vague context - implying some kind of meaning but not clearly. You've posted it often on GS so I have to assume it's serving some interest. There used to be another I'd see different places - something about the higher average number of Christians in psychiatric care, haven't seen that one in awhile. Here's a finding, unrelated to this but that suprises nearly everyone - Calfornians are often characterized as nutty tax and spend social liberals, in favor of more government and more taxes. In the book "A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World " by Mark Baldassare he suggests that isn't true and that in fact Californians are not that different in many views than citizens in other states. He drew upon a huge amount of opinion survey data. Many of his observations are becoming apparent. It took me quite a while to digest this book after my wife found it and we read it. But I digress - THIS article looks critically at claims regarding Dentists, suicide and divorce. Statistics can be made to say nearly anything and often even the absence of data where it's assumed data should be can be used to postulate possibilities, and we do love our possibilities. What's it all mean? I'll have to get back to you, soon as I know I'll pass it on.

Now here's a couple faces you can trust: No offense - well, what the heck, let's be honest....how did those two bring this into the world? Maybe it's just envy - slack jawed doorknob says "dump the cute one". Maybe it's for the best - for her - in the long run to get some distance from that horde, but it's hard to believe I'm sure that many Christians will feel that this puts a bad name on their faith. I don't. It's a clear opportunity to point out the absurdities of this kind of thinking.