Shotgun

No. It sounds like they should have been punished by the school for inappropriate conduct, but it doesn't sound like it was anything more than that.

Hmm, it's a tough call between lust and gluttony... but I suppose that gluttony is a bit more enjoyable. Edit: Oh, and I'm pretty sure that "wraith" is not a deadly sin.

Were you legally downloading music when this happened?

I agree that most Americans would understand. But as for making us safer, I don't know about that... To find out that our military had to kill our own citizens in order to stop the terrorists (even though they were obviously going to be killed anyway), I think that would only serve to instill more fear in our country (which would probably be seen as a victory for the terrorists). I don't know... My first thought that day, after seeing the news of this plane going down, was, "Wow, we had to shoot one of our own civilian planes down." Not that my intuition means anything... And if that was the case, I find it hard to believe that it could still be kept a secret after this many years.

Not yet. I don't care much about anyone's "position on issues in SC," but if someone regularly posts very hateful and angry-sounding stuff on here, then that would probably affect how I felt about them in real life. I don't think that anyone's "online personality" is much different than their "real life personality." (If it is, then they've got some sort of multiple-personality thing going on, and I really don't need any more psychos in my life. )

Well, as long as you go puke it all up in the parking lot afterward, then there is no harm done.

Alcohol is socially accpetable - being a raging drunk is not. Barnum's take was that making alcohol less of a socially-acceptable thing for everyone would drastically reduce the number of raging drunks. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but I think it's an interesting idea. I do think that reducing the social status of alcohol is much more likely to help the problem (and our country does have a huge alcohol problem) than prohibition would. Anyhow, I didn't mean to get off-topic (again), but I'm easily distracted like that.

I think that P.T. Barnum had an interesting reason for giving up alcohol. (http://www.lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archives/ptbontemperance.htm) It's a long read, and I don't necessarily agree with everything he thought, but it's an interesting perspective. He ended up being part of the movement that led to prohibition, and obviously that didn't work, but I think he had the right idea in making alcohol less of a socially-acceptable thing.

I've heard this a lot, mostly in studies I've read about alcoholism, but from my personal experience I tend to think it's not so true. I know a lot of people who drink alcohol to a point that would probably be considered "abuse," and I'm pretty sure that not one of them came from a family where alcohol was forbidden. And most of them did not come from families where alcohol was abused either; they're just from typical families that allowed their children to have a little bit of alcohol before they were of legal age. Anyhow, I suppose my personal experience does not equate to a scientific study, but I don't think that science has found a very accurate etiology for alcoholism anyway (probably because it's such a complex problem, and very different in different people). And more on the topic of this thread... Does the drinking age actually stop any 18-year-olds from drinking??? I was surrounded by so much alcohol as a teenager (at parties and such) that I was hardly aware that there WAS a legal drinking age. (Not saying that's a good thing, but it seemed to be the norm, at least in West Texas anyway.) Oh, and I was bartending at 18, which is another silly thing about the alcohol laws.

I think I liked "Bedknobs and Broomsticks," but I don't remember it very well. "Grease" was one of my favorite childhood movies. And I remember having fun seeing "The Bad News Bears" at the drive-in when I was five or six years old, but I don't remember that movie very well either. Edit: Oh, and "The Wizard of Oz," of course!

Sounds like a good reason to use public transportation in New York. I've never been there, but from what you guys are saying, I think that I would hate driving there. I guess I've never driven anywhere where using turn signals (and following other traffic rules) was not the best way to get where I wanted to go. And I've driven in a lot of big cities (just not in New York).

I can think of one. I call it the NUTS technique or going NUTS (Non Use of the Turn Signal) Zipp0's post (#18) in this thread hints to me that I may not be the first one to think of calling it this. It's any general situation where you want to gain the advantage on someone by making them think you're not turning. A specific example: You're driving down the road and want to make a right turn. There's someone coming from the opposite direction. Since they’re a little closer to that turn, you see they've already started to slow down and signal to turn. You think to yourself, "I don't want to get behind that jerk. He's gonna drive too slow." At this point, if you start also start to slow down and signal, the other person will think, "I don't want to get behind that jerk. He's gonna drive too slow." Because you’re slowing down and will take longer to get there, the other person will have time to turn and get in front of you. So instead, purposefully *don’t* use your turn signal (and perhaps brake a little later) to make it look like you’re going to drive straight through. This will make the other person think, "He’s not turning. I better wait for him to go by." So now you get to make the turn first and get in front. --Head Ok, let me rephrase that... I can't think of any reason (other than being a self-absorbed, rude prick) not to use a turn signal when intending to make an actual turn.

I've heard this excuse before for not using turn signals when changing lanes, and while I've never experienced it myself, I guess it's understandable in some situations. But I can't think of any reason not to use a turn signal when intending to make an actual turn.

Well, that's annoying too, but somewhat more forgivable. I can usually just assume that these people are spaced out and unaware that their turn signal is still on. But those who simply don't use them - I'm not really sure what to assume except that they must be lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed, rude pricks. ( Ok, I feel better now. )

Yeah, and the same for people who don't use their turn signals when they're supposed to.

Ok, that's it. I know I promised I wouldn't post any of the pictures you sent me, but since you keep pretending to be so innocent... (Warning: this is not safe for work, and it's some really sick s**t, but Remi keeps sending me these freaky pictures, so I think it's time for everyone else to see what he's really about.)

??? What, are women not allowed to have their names on mortgages in Alabama???

Yeah, the religion thing is questionable, but it definitely seems to fit the definition of "cult." Hubbard seems to be the P.T. Barnum of spiritual leaders. I'm not sure why anyone would want to follow someone who is known for claiming that starting one's own religion is the best way to get rich, but perhaps his followers deny that he ever made such a statement(?). Oh, and I also thought that Tom Cruise was good in "Interview with a Vampire," especially in that one really homoerotic scene with Brad Pitt.

True, but it sounds like they think of Scientology as something more than just a religion. (A "totalitarian group" as it is called in the article, "making him unfit to play a German martyr.") Not saying I agree with them, but it doesn't sound like a religious issue for those who are upset at the use of Cruise for this role.

It sounds like they are allowing the movie to be filmed there, with Tom Cruise as the star, so I don't think they are discriminating against him. As for saying that Cruise is inappropriate for the role, I think that everyone - especially Stauffenberg's son - has a right to speak their opinion about it.

I don't know. At the school that I am going to, about 200-300 people apply to the the R.N. program every semester, and about 12-36 are accepted, depending on how many people they can accommodate at that time. I have talked to people in the nursing department about this, and they say it is because they cannot hire enough instructors to accept more students - mostly due to the fact that they can't pay nursing instructors more than they pay other faculty. So many qualified nurses choose to remain in the field where they can make a lot more $$ rather than taking a pay cut to teach. From what I understand, this is the case with most schools in California; I suppose it might be a different situation in other states, but I don't know.

Yes. The nursing shortage has nothing to do with a lack of would-be nurses; every nursing school either has a long waiting list or only accepts people with very high GPA's. But I don't think it's necessarily a lack of nursing schools either. It mostly has to do with a lack of people to teach nursing, which has to do with a lack of funding to pay qualified people enough to become nursing educators.

Of course they love you for your mind... as long as your mind has a credit card. You should approve them. Then you can post pictures of your poo in their comments.

Damn you, after reading this thread I just spent the past 40 minutes playing guitar (which I hardly ever play anymore), and now my hand hurts. Now I must quit pretending to be a rock star (with my classical guitar??? ) and get back to doing chemistry homework. Ok, I'm going now. Really, I am.

I want to finish reading Atlas Shrugged. It's been sitting in my bookshelf for years now, with the bookmark about a quarter of the way through (where I left off). I was enjoying it, but for some reason I keep picking up other books to read instead. Oh, and the language thing. I've tried forcing myself to learn Spanish because it seems like the practical language to learn, but I'm really not that interested in it. Russian seems much more interesting, but it doesn't seem very practical. Hmm, maybe one of these days . . .