pirana

What a goof. I'm expecting any day now that he will take the conspiracy theorist side in the debate over whether the moon landings were faked or not. I guess fair is fair though. The Reagan's consulted astrologers. At least Clinton was a good old-fashioned guy who just wanted to get laid. I'll take hot-for-the-babes over Bible-thumping senility or Bible-thumping fundamentalism anyday. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Then it is settled. You are simply a freak of nature. Next science question please. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Not to be redundant, but I have to ask why to that also. Where are those rights coming from? Are they codified somewhere, or personal opinion? I'm going on the assumption, stated elsewhere in the thread, that any bodies not donated specifically for this were completely unclaimed. Who is being hurt anyway if there is no live person to be offended? I'm also operating under the assumption that a dead body with no next of kin has no "rights." " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Being in debt is not the same as being bankrupt. A person, or other entity, is not bankrupt until a legal proceeding has taken place and found them unable to meet their financial obligations. You are not bankrupt until you have successfully filed for and been given that status by a court. That little technicality aside, did the "research" take into account assets? Or was it just subtracting projected obligations from projected income? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How do you beat IT in 18 questions? Doesn't it ask you 20 questions and then make a guess? Must be a different version than I've played. Ours never guesses until after the 20th question. Unless the joke is that you shot it after question 18. My experience is that it guesses correctly after 20 questions about half the time. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Here's where somebody brings up the gassing of Kurds in 1988 and conveniently skips the facts that it occurred 15 years prior to our invasion, we were on Saddam's side at the time, and our government did nothing but verbally condemn the use of gas. Blues, Dave I had mentioned that before. The US practices situational ethics, just like every other government on Earth. All nations will make friends with anybody if the payoff is right. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I am not going to express my view; however, I wanted to point out that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Judge over everyone who lives, and He will be the One we ALL will stand before on judgment day. People can live their lives anyway they choose while on earth...and they will face The Flying Spaghetti Monster for the decisions they made while on earth. It matters not what I think, only what The Flying Spaghetti Monster thinks. There, fixed it. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Why is that? If no family member can even be located to be informed of the person's death, who's going to be offended. It's not like anyone could identify the person once they are disected. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Squares Bill .... going in squares. Richards They did not specify the angles. We could be dealing with rectangles, parallelograms, trapezoids, or my personal favorite - the rhombus. I like it because it sounds a lot like rumba. Maybe that's it, we should teach them all the Latin American dances. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

A true sign of the times that valuable scientific research is being restricted by the personal beliefs of our chief executive. His level of micro management makes the average bureacracy look downright flexible. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I can't believe it took that many posts for the most obvious suggestion. You folks are getting slow in your age.

All insurance companies that I know of have a general "hazardous sports" question, which includes scuba and skydiving, etc. If you deny, they have 2 to 3 years depending upon the state to investigate. Now, it's ok to change your mind after you got the policy and not tell them. But, if they can prove "willful misrepresentation" (i.e., you were active at time of policy issue) they may not have to pay even after 2-3 years (depends upon the state I'm told). Yep, one of the things most people don't know about insurance is that it is, for the most part, regulated at the state level; there can be 50 different ways of doing just about everyhting. In MN, providing false information is called material misrepresentation, and there is no limit on the look back period. IIRC, the hazardous sports question here includes skydiving, scuba, rodeo, mountain climbing, cave exploring, and any motorsports. Nothing about being a lion tamer though. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yep. They won't even give you an exemption, either. They figure, "If he's skydiving, what ELSE is he doing?" I'm in health insurance, but do know a bit about life. Most won't insure at all; and with the premium the are charging for your rider, it's their way of saying they'd rather not insure you either. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I know that, thats why I picked the same number of people that I know that do each In that case what you are doing is a survey at best, an opinion poll at worst. Either way, it has no statistical validity as far as determining the relative safety of the 2 activities. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Might as well throw my piss into the wind, mostly as a criticism for abusing stats. Raw numbers are pretty meaningless. By posting raw numbers only for activities that all kill more people than skydiving, you insinuate that skydiving is safer than any of them. (If that is not your intent, then what's the purpose of the post). You could slice and dice it a boatload of different ways, but I bet that raw numbers is the only way skydiving stays at the bottom of a descending order list of fatalities. Bee stings and lightning? That's not even apples to oranges - it's apples to automobiles. Even though the data they use is not granular enough to explain why and when skydiving is so dangerous (to them all jumpers and all jump activity presents equal risk), underwriters are dead on in putting it near the top of their unacceptable risk listings. If you want to provide meaningful numbers, you've got to factor in # of non-fatal events, or total number of events, or even start dicing up events by type or something combination of those things. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Very flawed. Right in the second bullet about roots. 1st off, they conveniently go back only as far as they need to establish Jewish ties - which is 3700 years ago. When some of the Semitic tribes (that eventually became the Jews and Arabs) moved in around that time, they ran off the population that was previously there - the Cannanites. So the claim that the Jews settled the area is false on 2 counts; 1) somebody else was already there, and 2) the Semites were not Jews yet, they were still Arabs. BTW, the Semitic tribes that migrated to the Mediteranean shores were based in Meopotamia (Tigris & Euphrates area) at the time they split up and some of them ended up in what is now Israel. Why don't they take it one step farther back and lay claim to Iraq, or another step and lay claim to Saudi Arabia, which is where their real roots are. It's also where the other Semites they left behind now live. I noticed that nobody here mentions that both modern Arabs and modern Jews have as common ancestors the early Semitic tribes. They all migrated out of the Arabian Peninsula into other areas. That dirty little fact must be more than either party can handle. And probably why the Jews don't like to talk about their history prior to about 1500 BC. Also, the "International Community" that granted them a place to live was basically Britian and France, with behind the scenes backing from the US. Others went along, but not like they had a choice, or could do anything about it. As an aside, they were intentional and very careful not to specifically support an actual state. If you read the Balfour Declaration (it's just a short letter actually) it does not specifically support forming of a separate nation. As for the comment about it being theirs because God said so. Give me a break. That is just a propoganda style appeal to emotion, and a further indication of the sites bias. So yeah, they are not impartial (Who is? Is there any such think as purely altruistic behavior?), but they are also telling partial truths and outright falsehoods. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Very true. The horizon can be pretty scary for those of us in our mid 40s. How do we protect ourselves? Still trying to figure that out. Precious metals. Or anything else that is relatively portable and always in demand. In a situation of total chaos things like food or guns work well. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Do you see every post and response as an opportunity to just flame on? My questions and answers are pretty civil (I think). Do you ever communicate in a civil manner? I'll try again. You ask me to just answer. I'll do that. So just ask a straightforward question and I'll try a straightforward answer. As I said already, I'm still not sure what your question is. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm sure you know that even the Vatican has declared that's not true. but its hard to uproot something that has been drilled into people's minds for 2000 years. The Vatican deciding whether or not something is true is a very weak criteria for fact finding. On top of the fact that they are a highly politicized organization with a strictly enforced agenda; there's also the issue of their dogmatic belief system. They can change though if the evidence is strong enough. It only took them a few hundred years to formally acknowledge their mistreatment of Galileo. Think about it; every 6th grader capable of reading and applying a little common sense knew the Sun was at the center of the Solar System, but the official voice of Catholicism still had it's head in the sand. Pathetic. A history of acts like that make them an entirely uncredible source of information on any topic. Like most politicians, they have no integrity. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Jesus voluntarily laid down his life. According to Scripture he could have summoned legions of angels to protect him. The sin of every person, past, present, and future sent him to the cross. Please tell me how my sins, in my lifetime, sent Jesus to the cross. What mechanism was in place to allow someone 2000 years ago to even be aware of my existence in the here and now? Some sort of mysticism was in place? Did they use Tarot, astrology, Quija board? Or did they just "know" in the manner that believers "know" things? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Don't cheap-out and make this about me, this is about AA. There are aberations everywhere, but the agenda of AA is to give minorities benefits in the way of jobs and admissions into schools. Do you recall the U of M case 5 years back when a white female was denied admissions into their law school, she sued saying that minorities were admitted before her with lower LSAT and GPA's. The SCOTUS affirmed the lower courts saying it would stand for 25 years to come. 2 dissented: Scalian and Thomas. She presented evidence such as perfect SAT's earn 13 points toward admissions versus being a minority yielding 20 points toward admissions. If you're arguments are too pathetic to argue the issue, don't, but don't revert to childhood arguments. 1st sign of zero ability to argue is referring to the arguer rather than the argument. Your posts are so full of hyperbole and superlatives that is very difficult to respond to them without questioning your manner of thought or the quality of the ideas. For example, your question about ever having tried to get a grant. The answer was yes, and I was successful, and I am white. I'm still not aware of exactly what your point was and whether or not my answer in the positive was meaningful or not. Maybe you did not want or expect an answer. Maybe it is just a matter of communication style. p.s. - Now it's about AA. I thought it was about reparations. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Did I somehow convey that I do not understand that difference? I was agreeing with you. There is a difference between keeping an open mind and letting your brain ooze out your ears. Got it. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to scrounge up a couple Q-Tips and clean out my ears. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

If you have nothing to add, it is better to keep ones mouth shut to avoid looking like a fool, instead of...... hiow does that go? Why not address the issue? Good thing your reply is next to Rush Limbaugh's above. What I was adding was my opinion, and did so by poking fun at your opinion because it appears to be very narrowly focused and absolute. Your quick jump to "keeping ones mouth shut" further reinforces the perception of the extremity of your character. I don't know how it goes. If you want, you can let me know by finishing the statement. I'm guessing it ends by me getting called something negative, or some other derogatory comment. I don't think there is an issue to address. It appears from your statements (though the thread gets a little confusing with all the multiple quotes) that you think corporations are either for the most part, or maybe in total, evil. I disagree, but do not think we will change each other's opinions, so I just chose to point out the folly of holding such an absolutist opinion on the topic. And I really don't get the relevance of the Rush L. comment. That must be a sideways manner of criticizing someone else who disagrees with you. I sense you have some very strong negative beliefs about corporations, as well as other things (based on other threads). Some bad personal experiences? If you have had some, they do not mean everyone and everything similar to the factors of your experience are evil. As some famous person once said, the only common element of all your dysfunctional relationships is you. So, tell me about your childhood. x " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Did I somehow convey that I do not understand that difference? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well put.