Andy9o8

Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of desperate twisting of logic and semantics, and circularity of argument, that I discussed above. Not interested in playing the game.

So, to your mind, what's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? An atheist is someone who lacks religious, spiritual or theistic/deistic beliefs of any kind. He sees no more reason to open his mind to the possibility of the existence a god, gods, spirits, etc. than he does to open his mind to the possibility of the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. A true agnostic says the existence or non-existence of a god, gods, spirits, etc. is unknown and probably unknowable, so he doesn't want to commit himself to any kind of belief or assertion of non-belief one way or the other. A "social agnostic" is an atheist who, probably from hard experience, doesn't feel like being socially pressured to explain and justify himself every f**ing time he'd refer to himself as an atheist, so he just says "agnostic" as a more socially-acceptable path of least resistance.

Sorry, that's simply not correct. Any dictionary definitions (yeah, I've seen them) that deem atheism a "doctrine" reflect a non-neutral bias in the authors, and thus are incorrect. At its purest form, atheism is not a belief, it is simply an absence of a particular kind of belief. It's no different than, say, an absence of any belief in anything like Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. That's not a "doctrine", or for that matter, or even a "belief" that those entities don't exist, it's simply an absence of any belief in the first place that such things exist. People with religious or spiritual beliefs seem to have a defensive, almost desperate, need to define atheism as a form of "belief", and atheists as a form of "believers". I suppose that gives them some comfort. Nonetheless, at a core, foundational level, those definitions are simply not correct.

There are a number of very capable and experienced skydivers who are deaf. Most DZs accommodate and train deaf students quite well in their student programs. There are a few douches at the occasional DZ who are afraid or aren't willing to make the effort, but they're generally few and far between. Do a Google search for the phrase "deaf skydivers". You'll be pleasantly surprised by what you find.

To not extend it to every other possible question is absurd.

You're clearly a bit torn: you're eager to take up skydiving, but you have a lot of doubts and nervousness running through your head before you even sign up for your first jump course. This is apparent from the fact that this is the third recent thread you've started here with this type of inquiry. Which is perfectly fine - knowledge is power, and helps dispel the uncertainties. I'd suggest that the best way to gain this knowledge is to schedule a time to go down to your local DZ, have a sit-down with a couple instructors to address your questions in detail, and then just watch the activity for a couple of hours. Then go home and decide whether giving skydiving a first try (for example, with a tandem jump, which, if you haven't done at least one yet, would be a great introduction for someone like yourself) is for you. (And if you already have done a tandem, you should still have a sit-down with instructors to get your questions answered in person prior to AFF.)

Then by that logic your postulated "wise man" would also say "I don't know" to whether Santa Claus exists, for no other reason than because the human mind can fantasize the abstract idea. Which, as before, is to say: Nonsense.

fwiw, I read this article on washingtonpost.com this morning: Why you’re not going to get Ebola in the U.S. Doesn't sound like the final word, but it's an interesting read that helps put it in perspective. I hope.

Both nbcwashington.com articles I read about the case are so ambiguous as to that, that I really can't tell.

Then to be consistent it's equally logical that to say monsters don't exist under my bed requires omniscience. Which is to say: nonsense. With all due respect.

For the dyslexic, This is the best way to round a reef. Now back to our show.

My native language is American English. To me, the word "notions" as used in the sentence sounds awkward. I would recommend replacing it with "concepts" and/or "basic theory".

The only real-life significance is whether it is, or is not, a barometer for how people will vote on Election Day. Otherwise, it's just "Yay, team!"

This. I can't imagine 90% of average WSJ readers even reading the article to the end, much less giving a shit (much less contributing to public outcry) about anything "extreme sporsters" do that goes south.

And while we're talking about are-you-sure screens, one would also be helpful for the "add friend" link, as it appears close to the link to look at someone's profile, which is easy to mis-click on a smartphone.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/27/australia-lead-commonwealth-games-medal-table

That's partly correct. If the 2 circuit appeal courts ultimately rule the same way, the Supreme Court does automatically have to get involved, since there would be no tie to break. That said, in this case, given what's at stake, I'd expect whomever ultimately loses in each circuit to appeal to the Supreme Court; and although the Supreme Court can either agree or decline to hear the appeal(s), on an issue of this importance I'd predict the S.C. will agree to hear the appeal.

My understanding is, if that circuit agrees to take on the case as a whole, its past previous decisions are voided until their new ruling comes out. Yep, that's correct.

Sorry to sound like a broken record as many times as I've posted this to people, but.... The laws vary greatly from one state to another. YOU really need have a live sit-down with a lawyer in your state (who, in turn, may need to research the laws of one or more other states, depending on all sorts of factual variables...) - sooner rather than later - in order to reliably understand what applies to you in your particular situation. Yes, it will probably cost a consultation fee, but considering what's at stake, it's the first step of the mature and responsible thing to do.

As an aside, if you and she were together anywhere near in time to that trip, be aware the only firm proof or disproof these days is DNA testing; and in many (most?) US states there is NO statute of limitations on child support responsibility (nor is one parent's child support obligation "waivable" by the other parent, since it's an entitlement of the child, not the custodial parent). Put more simply: if a child support claim is filed against you even many years from now, your calendar and arithmetic might be meaningless without DNA.

Yeah, we already understand the argument. That argument won in the DC Circuit by 2-1, and lost in the 4th Circuit (based in Richmond, VA, a pretty conservative region) by 3-0. Now it's up to the Supremes. Of course, there's no harm in you repeating it, but it's already pretty much been covered.

I seem to recall, just off the top of my head, that an issue was raised over whether some condemned prisoners might have not been properly rendered unconscious before being given the paralytic. If so, the concern was, the prisoner might have been rendered unable to move, speak or even blink by the paralytic, but still conscious and aware of the feeling of suffocation when given the agent to induce respiratory arrest, prior to the cardiac arrest agent being given. (Legally, this raises "cruel and unusual punishment issues.") More generally, and in any event, I'm not so sure how easy it would be to acquire for execution purposes, at least legally, unless they secretly go to a cooperating "compounding pharmacy" that mixes it up on special order. My understanding is that re: any type of chemical to be used- whether a paralytic, or a hefty dose of the type of drugs used to euthanize animals, or just a powerful sedative, etc - the issue has been that the mainstream commercial manufacturers of these chemical agents have all recently been placing bans on their products being used for human executions.

Possible hoax? Seems an open question. Doubts grow over Isis 'FGM edict' in Iraq Isis denies ordering that all girls in Mosul undergo FGM. Doubts grow over UN report, seemingly reliant on year-old document from Syria thought to have been doctored

I see what you did there!

Point of order: Who are "them"?