Shotgun

Yeah, it looks fake because of the collapsed slider I just assumed that Patrick Swayze had done a Mr. Bill with the llama, collapsed his slider, lowered the flags, and then hopped off for another five minutes of freefall.

Hmm, so that's who stole my Triathlon! Freakin' Texas llamas.

It is not a necessity to practice any sort of faith, but it is a necessity to live somewhere, so the two don't really compare. Now that's more comparable to the religion thing. It doesn't make much sense to marry someone if you think that a more perfect match exists somewhere else, just as it doesn't make much sense to practice Catholicism if you think that some other religion might be closer to the truth. Neither faith nor marriage are necessary, so why have either one if you don't believe you've picked the best?

Yeah, it's pretty creepy, and it wasn't all that long ago. Today we just give people drugs that we have little understanding of, but hey, at least we're not pounding ice picks into people's heads! It was much worse than then it is now.

Actually, they don't remove a lobe; they just make an incision into it.

"Too drunk to consent" could mean that she was passed out on the floor, or it could mean that she was too drunk to even speak or to put up resistance. So, assuming that she never said "No" (and that's a big assumption from the few details given), there is nothing that indicates that she in any way said "Yes" or gave consent otherwise. "Too drunk to consent" could also mean that she did say "Yes" but now believes she was too inebriated to know what she was doing, in which case the man should not legally be at fault (assuming that she got herself drunk, rather than being drugged or something like that). There are just way too many possibilities of what might have happened, and there aren't enough details in the news to make a judgment about it. But that's what the judge and jury are for, and I'm sure they'll get a lot more details than what we're getting. It sounds like it's a case of "he said/she said" unless there were other witnesses, and if she's claiming that she was too drunk to consent (and not claiming that someone else drugged her), then I doubt the judge and jury are going to believe that she was sober enough to remember exactly what happened. And I don't think that the man should be convicted unless it's pretty clear that he did indeed rape her - beyond a reasonable doubt, of course. Oh, and as for banning certain words from the trial, that just doesn't seem like a good thing to start doing. (Or is that something that often happens??? I've never heard of such a thing.)

There is nowhere near enough information in that article to have an opinion about the case. Women (or men) shouldn't get drunk to the point of not being in control of what happens to their bodies. And it's not too cool to have sex with someone who is so shitfaced that they probably won't remember what happened (or if they agreed to having sex). But those things will likely continue to happen, and we'll continue to have cases such as this, but each of those cases is unique. I'm guessing that a jury is likely to have less sympathy for a woman who (willingly) got drunk to the point of being taken advantage of, compared to a woman who is claiming rape under circumstances where she was sober and can give more reliable information. (It's pretty hard to sound confident in the facts of your testimony while telling the jury that you were extremely drunk.) I don't know.... It's a crappy situation. Sounds like a good situation for both men and women to try and avoid.

If you don't mind the occassional caning... Oh, Steve likes more than just the occasional caning.

Nothing but pervs in there.

And last weekend they were in a London airport, pretending to be Metallica.

How are you getting "speed up" from "expansion"? The two do not mean the same thing.

Well, if that article is correct, then yes. But it's not just a matter of putting out more, it's a matter of putting out to everyone, including those men who would otherwise be "reproductive losers." I thought it was interesting that they claimed that strict monogamy would virtually guarantee a mate for everyone. I guess that would be true if it was legally enforced, and everyone was legally required to have a partner.

That's an interesting article, when read in it's entirety (rather than reading only the part that makes it appear to have an anti-Muslim agenda). Hmm, there is lots of violence in America. Perhaps it is also caused by men who can't get laid, which there are plenty of here, despite the fact that polygyny is not generally tolerated.

Just speculation, but it seems to me that a larger percentage of skydivers have degrees, compared to the general population.

What sort of comments are you looking for? It seems that a lot of people want to kill American citizens. Why is it such a surprise that there would be doctors among those people?

And to answer this question without playing games, I'll use my post that you were replying to: "I wouldn't usually consider age in choosing who to ask advice from; I'd consider what their actual experience with the subject is."

That's ok. I'll beat you later, and then we'll be even.

She's been teaching first grade for quite a while now, and from what I've seen she's a great teacher. She just recently started back to school to work on her Masters. So far, she's been doing online classes (and using her classroom for some of the assignments), but I think she'll have to take some on-campus classes at some point too. She lives in Texas, so I doubt that she knows any teachers out here, but I'll certainly pass on your info to her; she would probably be interested in talking to you.

Because we realize the fact that letting the government interfere (more than it has already) into it is going to cost more and provide less. I didn't say anything about letting the government interfere.

I'm taking a chemistry class right now, and I think the teacher is pretty good. But it's at a community college; would that work, or does it need to be a K-12 school? Oh, and my sister is working on her Masters of Education too.

I think you're saying that having 21 years experience in something is better than having one year of experience, which is probably true in most cases. And that is somewhat related to age, but not completely. (You can't have 21 years of experience if you're only 10, but simply being 55 doesn't mean that you have 21 years experience of anything other than living.) I'm sure that if you wanted medical advice, you'd ask your younger wife who has been through medical school, rather than running down to the senior center and asking the oldest person you can find (not knowing what kind of medical knowledge they have). I think what Butters was saying is that age does not automatically equal wisdom and experience, and I agree with him. Yes, most people gain wisdom as they get older, but in different amounts. So being 50 doesn't necessarily make one wiser than someone else who is 30. Anyhow, if all you old people are so wise, then why haven't you fixed our health care system yet?

Well, if the 55-year-old is under investigation by the SEC, and the 25-year-old is not, then I'd probably go with the 25-year-old.

And would you ask investment advice from a poor 50-year old musician before you would ask a wealthy 30-year-old banker? "Experience" is a very broad term. Can't really answer that question without specifying what kind of experience. I wouldn't usually consider age in choosing who to ask advice from; I'd consider what their actual experience with the subject is.

Do you often drive at that speed?

No, but it looks like they've got some good rooms for people who like to play Tarzan. Except I didn't see any rooms with ropes to swing on. That place reminds me of the Oasis of Eden near Joshua Tree.