LG

This is the point, is it not? Which is quite disturbing if ya think about it... We women sound our 'best' to men when we sound like other men... Having never had a man speak to me "in a certain way," I wouldn't know. I was just trying to be funny (a vain pursuit, I know).

The first amendment protects free speech. It does not grant the right to do what those people did. We've gone way overboard in allowing people to disrupt other people's peaceful activities.

Well, gee, Ron, we coulda told ya that!! :D--> :D--> :D--> And we coulda told ya this: Unless, of course, the women lower both the pitch and the volume in a certain way, if you know what I mean. :D--> :D--> :D-->

Hmmm. Touchy about the word "alien." Used to live in New York. Obsessed with cones. Any relation to Beldar, Raf?

Not that my opinion matters much, but I don't think this belongs in either the doctrinal or politcal forum, though it contains elements of both, as do many other Open forum topics.

If the woman really did just go in to call 911 to verify who he was, then the officer shouldn't have ticketed her. However, even if he'd beaten her to a pulp with his nightstick, that wouldn't reflect on "the kops," as a group or back up the notion that "no one respects them anymore."

Ummmm, why don't you click the link and find out, hmmm?And frankly, nobody said anything about "a 'hate article', as it were," or said anything about Spong hating. He was the one who used the word "hate," not Mark or the author of the article.

Tom, I know that's not what you meant, but you implied it just as much as some others in this thread implied the things they were accused of implying. It's pretty standard, though not universal, Christian doctrine that Jesus saved Christians from going to hell, that the key to that salvation is believing in and accepting Jesus as lord and savior, and that there is no other way to salvation. That doctrine implies that anyone who believes differently is going to hell, so any Christian who accepts that doctrine and says the things Jonny suggested is implying that anyone who believes differently is going to hell. Add in your response to him and what do you have?

So "if you believe differently, you're going to hell" is not offensive, but "if you believe differently, you're a 'freaking moron'" is? I'm thinking that too many people are too easily offended.

"Although some Christians merrily support the works of the devil, I won't do it" leads to much more lively discussions, don't you think?

ChasUFarley, if I'm misreading you, please forgive me, then explain what you mean. That said...You should know as well as anyone that those statistics are the best surety that anyone can offer. If the best that chemo can offer is a 20% chance of living five more years, then that knowledge provides a person a basis for an informed decision. Claims of being able to channel a mystical life energy give no such basis. As long as a person is fully informed, I don't care if he wants to eat donkey dung if it makes him happier. Let him. But I won't give much respect to the promotion of the practice, even if it's certified by the donkey dung guru of the world, unless there are some statistics to show that it benefits a significant number of people. I feel pretty much the same way about reiki.

Pikers!

I don't share WD's beliefs, but I was thinking about what I might say if I did, and I think I'd have as hard a time expressing my thoughts without offending people as he seems to be having. I'm not offended, but I'm not a Christian. So I have a question for Christians who are offended by WhiteDove's comments. If you shared his beliefs, how could you express them without offending Christians who don't share those beliefs? I don't think you could.

People need not be named, or even personally identified, in order to be discussed. In most cases, "my former branch leader [or whatever]" would serve just as well as the person's name. In few cases in a public forum do first person accounts need to name other people in order to be convincing or effective for the purposes of venting, informing, or seeking understanding. In some cases, a few participants in a public discussion might find naming names to be useful, whereas most wouldn't. Private discussions among those people would serve their purposes, without plastering other people's names all over a public forum. They usually are not hearsay but they could easily be slander.I have all sorts of stories I could tell of terrible things people have done. I could tell every one of them without using a single name, and most of them without disclosing enough information for even the most diligent researcher without personal knowledge of the events to discover the identity of the people involved. I think the best policy (I'm talking personal, not forum) is to avoid naming names, or even specifically identifying people, unless it is essential to the story.

Looks like somebody came out of the mod closet.

What's "horrible" is whatever representation you got that there is some sort of media coverup of anything ("could not get anyone to publish"). Try Google

I'd get on it in a heartbeat, if I could. Cowgirl, that's a great site. You gave the link to the archives. Here's the link to the Picture of the Day, which changes daily.

There's also the "yell really loud" method, but Mrs. !'s is much better.

And many times they are, especially if the woman is someone who is likely to use the word "confront." (I'm not picking on you, Vickles, but TWI people and probably many other religious people "confront" evil and error.) If a guy doesn't feel like he's being "confronted," he may feel like he's being bitched at, and again, many times he is. Oenphile's last few sentences go both ways.

Some background, starting with a picture: This site doesn’t look particularly dangerous, but it is, and has been for years. The dam is over 100 years old and is deteriorating, especially underneath. The waterfall is about 8 feet high. There is a strong back current that can trap people underneath the dam and, especially, under the rock and concrete on which the restaurant (top left of picture) is built. The site was closed for swimming at least twice in the past, but later reopened. Several people have drowned there, the most recent one on April 21 of this year. The July 3 incident was the sixth time since then that emergency personnel were called to rescue someone at the site. They’ve also rescued people there plenty of other times over the years. They know what they’re doing. Below are links to a couple of follow-up stories. Arrested rescuer interfered, police say Charges dropped in river rescue incident

Good for you, Raf! Congratulations.

Thomas, it's not based on apparent size but both apparent size and apparent brightness depend, in part, on distance. The moon at it's brightest appears about 8000 times brighter than Mars at its brightest. The sun appears over 400,000 times brighter than the brightest full moon. This Wikipedia article gives a pretty good explanation.

That August 27 "encounter" happened in 2003. Mars did not, and never will, appear anywhere near as bright as the full moon. The full moon appears thousands of times brighter than Mars at its brightest.

The ruling is not a victory for Bottoms or a loss for TWI. It is an affirmation of what TWI's policy has been for several years. They're on solid legal ground.

I’d almost bet my house that there was more to the incident than the article indicates, Ron. I lived in San Marcos and the surrounding area for about 10 years and have had family there for over 30 years, and I know that there is a lot of background that the article doesn’t mention. I’m inclined to think that the police acted properly, though the story sure makes it seem otherwise.