jenfly00

NC, thanks for that. You're right...and I went ahead and emailed him a moment ago. Here is what I sent over... "Hi, Professor: Friday's episode has been bothering me, and I wanted to take a brief moment to email you this morning. I thought we had a pretty good relationship and I want to apologize for any part I played in turning it into a confrontational one. It wasn't (and isn't) my intent to have a confrontational relationship with anyone, and again, I am sorry for any part I played in developing that. With that, I am back to studying, and I'll see you this afternoon. Regards- Michele" If he responds, I'll post it up. If not, well, we'll see what happens this afternoon in class. Thanks again for the wording, and for the suggestion. Let's see how this goes. And now, I have to review pH factoring and buffer identification... Ciels- Michele Good move!

I have 3 lab partners - one who scores about the same as me, one who's about perfect, and one who scored 25 on the last test. We're all over the board...but we help each other as best as we can. We're a solid and good team. I most likely won't be doing anything now....but might if I feel there was some inaccuracies in grading. Ciels- Michele I've read the enabling responses here with a sense of disbelief. This is a college level course, you are well into adulthood. You decide to lock horns with a professor in his classroom and then attempt to end it on your terms. Failing that you are carrying a tape recorder to future classes, considering complaining to ...anyone who will listen, been in tears, and had a nightmare about it. I've spent most of my life in academia. There are good, bad, fair, unfair, crazy instructors. I've always carried at least a full academic load, worked full time while doing it and avoided high drama over petty issues. When I've had disagreements, I went to them and discussed the problem. Here's the harsh reality of the situation. This is college, not elementary school. Do your work and suck it up, cupcake. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

How are you going to live with the horror and devastation caused by these people? My god! There were "minor instances of spray painting of pavement" . Even worse, "police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti". About the only thing I like about you neo-cons (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you are not a neo-con) ...you're predictable. Da, tovarisch... so are you Libs. While you're at it, why don't you tell me where vandalism is legal? OK, hotshot, if you were the top cop, what would you have done? Tear gas? Attack dogs? Call in the National Guard and Kent State their asses? Perhaps a Tiananmen Sqare senario would be more pleasing to your socio-political agenda? ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

How are you going to live with the horror and devastation caused by these people? My god! There were "minor instances of spray painting of pavement" . Even worse, "police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti". About the only thing I like about you neo-cons (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you are not a neo-con) ...you're predictable. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Hmmm ..........WOW! ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Ok, I'm confused. Are you're upset that drunk drivers kill people or that they don't take responsibility for it? Because if it's the former, then you should know that pot smokers kill people too. I did a simple google search and picked the first one that came up. Here. I'm sure there were more in the list if you'd like me to post them. I heard he had an extra glass of orange juice that morning. Damn OJ drinkers are killing people! ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

So basically, you took Eric 'Otter' Stratton's famous speech from Animal House and elaborated ...at great length.

Their noses 'rot' because of the vasoconstrictive effects of the cocaine. No blood supply and the tissue turns necrotic. Dude, you've been conned by a con. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

For several years now, Joint Commission standards have not allowed any of the abbreviations you mention. Oral dose is PO, not OD. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Exactly. All the criticism, both direct and comparative, of New Orleans, and its residents, and its mayor, etc., in the wake of Katrina has definite racist undertones. These e-mails are just one installment in the process. But it's oh-so-taboo to say it aloud now isn't it? People see what they want to see. Believe it or not, there are people out there who are capable of discussing Katrina, New Orleans and the aftermath without dragging race/racism into it. You mean the ones who view it as 'well, golly gee, they were both fives'?

"It’s silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." -Ronald Reagan ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Yeah? How's that coming? ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

glad to see you've finally taken a position on the guy, your continuous agonizing over it had us a bit worried I find more and more people agreeing with me as time passes. I expect you'll come around soon.

Exactly. All the criticism, both direct and comparative, of New Orleans, and its residents, and its mayor, etc., in the wake of Katrina has definite racist undertones. These e-mails are just one installment in the process. But it's oh-so-taboo to say it aloud now isn't it? People see what they want to see. Believe it or not, there are people out there who are capable of discussing Katrina, New Orleans and the aftermath without dragging race/racism into it. You mean the ones who view it as 'well, golly gee, they were both fives'?

Where are all of our resident neo-cons??? ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

I didn't compare the impact, I compared the citizens actions. Do you not see a difference in how the two populations reacted? Definitely. I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that people who actually have homes to live in and food to eat would have a big head start over those who don't. Post edited. Please refrain from using racial slurs here. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Ah, you might want to write to the publishers of the American Heritage and Merriam-Webster's dictionaries and inform them that their definitions of atheism are wrong. But if you say that your atheism is not based on faith, that's fine with me. I don't really care whether my none-of-the-abovism is based on faith, and I'm frustrated with the limitations of all these silly words anyway. http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm Definition of Atheism and Atheists Today There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this. There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god. Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god — if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask. Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

I think it's a transitional phase on the path of a more realistic assessment of a historically elevated status. I view born agains as much like the congenial alcoholic who is unable to face the world without his crutch ...frequently amusing, sometimes tragic but mostly harmless to others. I'm all for toleration of those who must give up their lives to a religion ...just can't see any way to respect their common failing. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Nope, it isn't ...and it's also not the class of drugs John was referring to. In short, you had no idea what you were talking about. I realize it will be limiting for you, but perhaps if you would stick with subjects you know something about ... Am I missing something here? warfarin *is* injectable. Walt Only if you do it like this http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/PSO1099.php ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

never seen this one but: D F T ? (assume they are one of each and not, example, all three D, though not explicitly defined) Therefore, because T can't be either the first or second, so must be third - the rest follow. Yep. Don't ya just love these? Truth is obviously not on the left, or he'd be lying about who is next to him. Truth is not in the middle, or he'd be lying about who he is. Truth is on the right, therefore, the god next to truth is falsehood, as stated by truth. That leaves only the left for diplomacy. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

You were responding to John's statement "Maybe I should also carry a syringe of clot dissolver" You responded "show me ...the strokes prevented by availability of syringes of warfarin" Nope, it isn't ...and it's also not the class of drugs John was referring to. In short, you had no idea what you were talking about. I realize it will be limiting for you, but perhaps if you would stick with subjects you know something about ... ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Maybe it's time for y'all to go back to school, then.... I'll restate and try to make the question clearer: Show me the cardiac arrests and strokes prevented by the AVAILABILITY,NOT use of portable defibrillators (NOT implanted) and AVAILABILITY, not use of clot-busting drugs. Sure, here you go: http://www.gnauk.co.uk ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

I read your comments as spirited debate with a bit of fun thrown in. Douva, unwind a bit, dude. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Typical woman. Always trying to change a man into something that he isn't. If God had wanted us to be touchy, feely and talk a mile a minute, he would have made us into women. If there really was a god, she would have put your dicks on your chins. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".