Nightingale

I love that show!

LOL! me too!

did you know that walrusses (walri?) have penis bones?

doesn't much matter whether you're lying down or standing... some people get a little dizzy, though, especially if you manage to bump a nerve. I'd lie down for the first attempt. if you've had it 2.5 years, you won't have a problem finding the other end of the piercing. the skin heals through it into a tube, just like an ear piercing. just put a lot of neosporin on the hole and on the ring, before you slide it through.

is the original piercing healed? if so, just use pliers to open the bead, put a little bit of neosporin on the top, and rotate it out through the bottom. just insert the other ring, and close with the pliers. or, the easiest solution: go down to your local piercer, and give them five bucks to do it for you. I change mine out myself fairly regularly. some people don't like to do it. if there's any doubt in your mind as to whether or not its healed, let a piercer do it for you.

Sangiro explained it in a post in Bonfire... it means you've posted a message in that thread.

I think you're very correct. I'd asked a couple of questions of someone who I knew was a Christian, but didn't come off as overbearing, at least at first. After the first few messages, I was innundated with unasked for messages filled with bible quotes, preaching things that didn't make a whole lot of sense (something about the longitudinal location of London meaning that the King James version of the bible was the only valid translation??) that I didn't have the background or context to understand, and chastized for using a curse word that I didn't even completely type out in a post on a message board. The post wasn't even directed at this person. Frankly, it creeped me out. So, what could've been an open dialogue about Christianity turned into me being totally weirded out and not wanting to talk to this person, and the person in question probably not really understanding why.

LOL. the dz.com team is ranked 69th!

Visitor Requirements: U.S. Residents Although a passport is the ideal identification, you do not require a passport or visa to enter Canada. Just make sure you carry identification to establish your citizenship such as a Birth Certificate and least one ID card with photo. If you are a naturalized U.S. citizen, you should carry this certificate. Permanent residents of the U.S.A. must bring their "Green Card". Although it is rare, immigration officials may prevent the entry of visitors: who appear to pose a health risk. those they doubt will be able to support themselves and their dependents in Canada. whose willingness and means to return to the U.S. is in doubt. As well, those admissible to Canada must not have a criminal record. This includes any convictions for driving while intoxicated. If you have questions about your admissibility to enter Canada, contact your nearest Canadian Embassy or Consulate for consultation. Visitors from the U.S. who are not American Citizens Permanent residents of the United States (anyone with a Green Card) do not need to carry a passport or travel documents to enter Canada. Temporary residents of the United States (anyone who carries a Temporary Resident Card, Form 1-688, or Employment Authorization Card, 1-688A or 1-688B) must carry a passport and may also require a visa depending on their country of citizenship Citizens of other countries who wish to enter Canada through the United States must also carry a valid passport and may require a visa, which they should obtain from a Canadian Embassy or Consulate outside Canada. Those in this category should check with an office of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service before they enter Canada. Visitor Requirements: Travellers from Other Countries International travellers may require a visa to enter or transit Canada. To see whether you require a visa, visit the Canada site for more information on visa requirements. International travellers who wish to find out about Canadian customs regulations should visit the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency website. Entry into Canada for Foreign Nationals with Criminal Convictions or Equivalent As of June 28, 2002, the implementation of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act changed the rules affecting the admissibility into Canada of foreign nationals who have criminal convictions in Canada or abroad or who have committed criminal acts outside Canada. These include offences that are considered criminal in Canada, such as driving while under the influence of a substance such as alcohol, even if the offence was not considered a felony or criminal offence in the country where it was committed. For more information about these very important changes, download this Fact Sheet. Travellers Bringing Children Travellers visiting Canada with children should carry the following: identification for each child similar to identification described for adults. a letter of permission from the parents of any children accompanying them for whom they do not have legal custody Please note: Divorced parents with shared custody rights should carry legal documents establishing their status. Unaccompanied children should carry a letter of permission from their parents or a legal guardian. Studying or Working in Canada: If you are planning to study or work in Canada, contact the nearest Canadian Embassy or Consulate for a copy of the brochure called Entering Canada to Study or Work. http://www.travelcanada.ca/tc_redesign/app/en/us/travelArticle.do?catId=51

the average porsche owner is 56 years old. 61% of Porsche owners are male. 62% are married. They have a median household income of $96,000 and 78% of them are college graduates. source: a marketing prof. at LMU

is there any way to see whether or not someone's read your PM?

and how can hetero spouses help each other more than gay spouses?

so, how do you justify allowing infertile hetero couples to marry? or hetero couples who don't want children? since, as you said, marriage's purpose is for procreation.

I've said positive things about your posts when warranted.

I'm not out to get you, simply because I have other things to do that are infinitely more interesting.

if you're that curious, I'm sure you can google it yourself.

LOL! I didn't have time to research all that. He wanted a basic explanation and he got it. If I'd included all that, I'd be writing a dissertation! If you want to go find all that stuff, go for it, but, since lower court decisions can vary state by state, you'd definitely have your work cut out for you.

no... you're just paranoid and see slams where there are none.

I agree. I can't believe I just agreed with you! I think I owe beer!

I gave him the most recent court interpretation, along with a few past decisions/explanations of the decisions.

Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on 11- 15 -2000:(EWTN.com) It is unfortunate that in recent times the Church's teaching on capital punishment has been presented so unclearly, both by members of the Church as well as of the media and other sectors of society. The Church's teaching on this matter is governed primarily by the natural law, and secondly by the principle of double effect. The Church's teaching on this subject remains fundamentally the same. The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor, by virtue of the principle of double effect, can resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is "rare, if not virtually nonexistent." The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor. What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, makes resorting to the death penalty *disproportionate* to the threatening aggression. (According to the 4th criterion of the principle of double effect, the unintended evil effect of the act of self-defense has to be proportionate to the intended good effect of that act.) Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a "rare" case arises that warrants the death penalty. It would, by the standards of the natural law and the principle of double effect, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching.

I absolutely agree that we did the right thing in WWII. However, the reason we got involved in the war was not because the Germans were killing millions of Jews.

I was adding a third person to the equation, because mosttimes, people aren't JUST getting advice here.

Just because its always been done that way doesn't make it right. I don't feel people should have to pay for art they would not normally support.

BUT... his instructor might know his progression and abilities better than the guy with 10 years and 3000 jumps. Who should he listen to then?