Zenister

that video always gives me gooseflesh...thanks for reminding me.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

chirp ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

more that you cant understand anything that you do not have definitions for.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

"brother's keeper" implies that you have the right and responsibility to prevent someone from doing something you think is too dangerous for them.. We are all over 18, adults in the eyes of the law. If someone has is fully aware they might die (i find it ridiculous that anyone actively skydiving is unaware it they might die while doing it, do we need larger print on waivers?) then they are acting with the full knowledge of the possible consequences, it is not your job to stop them from doing something even if it kills them. You don’t have to help them if you think they are on the short road to death, you might try helping them learn so it doesn’t, but everyone wont always listen. there are a lot of people out there who would say we should not jump from planes at all as it increases the chance that we might die. Do you want anyone else making that decision for you?? I have known quite a number of people who 'looked over the edge' once to often, i bitch at them to the limits of friendship, but in the end all i can do is chose to watch or not.... I have known quite a number of people who 'looked over the edge' once to often, i bitch at them to the limits of friendship, but in the end all i can do is chose to watch or not.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

wow, you really must not like samurai movies, westerns, kung fu theater or gangster flicks eh? Kill Bill was nearly flawless...and the other movies it leads to watching in order to 'get it' is weeks of great movies....dvd film fest in the new apartment, just what the doctor ordered... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

snorting comet is pretty high on the entries for 'stupid human tricks'... enough of anything will kill you... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

when it is capable of performing the basic biological functions common to the rest of its species.... that may be 10 weeks 15, 20 etc depending on individual development, but once it is capable of sustaining the basic functions common the rest of humanity it is in no longer a potential human it has realized it's potential, it may continue to develop (on its own) however all its basic functions are present. What is missing is the list of basic functions shared by all members of a species, not some, or most, but all. Once an individual is capable of performing all the basic biological functions common to the rest of its species it is a functional member of that species... if it cannot breathe on its own (and has never done so) and all other members of its species breathe on their own, it isn’t a functional member...yet. Why should it be treated as one legally? Children are potential adults, why do we not give them the rights of the adults they may become? of course the timeline is continual, all timelines are, but at specific points along that timeline various functions become developed enough to operate autonomously, without the host. Once all the basics are autonomous, it is a realized human, but the timeline doesn’t stop for that moment... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

your mistaking the cause. sit a child in a nice safe room and then introduce a sudden loud noise and the kid will scream too... Your wrong about fear, with a very few exceptions fear is a learned behavior, try asking a child psychologist. Loud noises may startle a child and create a 'crying response' but that is not fear it is suprise, and the baby has a limited set of responses to suprise. Most babies enjoy being tossed in the air, they have no fear of falling, they dont know that the ground will hurt them.. The root of all fear is death, a baby doesnt know what death is to be afraid of it.. Humans have few natural instincts, many of the ones that remain are so repressed in many people that they have no effect at all... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

A corpse also has no POTENTIAL for life, but a fetus does. Big difference there. In your other post you said that there is a time when embryo becomes human. Yet you could not define that exact split second moment. Because there is no precice instant where it switches from non human to human, one millisecond, and you really can't be a hemihuman (notice that I like my new word?). With the lack of defining that exact moment, one has no ethical choice but to play it safe rather than abort a human, or a soul, or spirit, etc (damnit Paj, it's like I'm hearing your evoice in my head, stop it!) Actually you can define that moment, it is the point at which it shares common basic biological functions with the rest of humanity. What you cannot predetermine is the timeline on which it occurs in a individual pregnancy. Science would have to determine when the average 'range' is for when that stage of development occurs, to be able to create a standard for social use. Soul, Spirit etc.. is irrelevant to this discussion, it cannot be defined, measured or even agreed that it exists, and is not a basic biological function common to humans... there is little evidence to support it’s existence at all. is "potential" enough to give a fetus equal legal status as realized humans? Do you understand the legal implications for women once they become pregnant, if it is? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Actually I’d imagine the 'straw that broke the camel's back' was "jealousy, resentment, even hate" if you aren’t capable of dealing with these emotions in a rational manner your not going to do well in any kind of relationship.. the difference is traditional marriages have less opportunity for these to become an issue. There are fewer reasons to be jealous in the first place, and if something else is going on its easier just to lie and hide, than deal with the real issues of jealousy and resentment before it becomes hate.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

The point is that political leanings have NO bearing on performance, but they do have a lot to do with how you are ‘rewarded’ for that performance. Its pretty obvious I have more direct knowledge to base my opinion on Clark's performance, knowledge and expertise, as in is he qualified to make determinations about military readiness something you claim "He's no expert" when clearly he is. So you cant even explain what Clark's mission was in Kosovo and yet you make conclusions about his performance of it? really really sad. To bad ignorance isn’t painful But this observation leads you to What I'm refuting is your ignorant assertion that "he's no expert'. Clearly he is, and the political maneuverings that happens at the flag level has NOTHING to do with that expertise. If you'd bothered to read and research you’d discover (as I've said) he was an arrogant ass, but a very competent one, and one who has a great deal of influence over the US military, but then it is also fairly obvious you don’t know or understand how we teach and develop military doctrine or how long it takes to make significant changes. The US military does not reinvent the wheel every year, nor every decade even. Long Term goals and planning and goals have been refined and reevaluated, but the fundamentals have not changed. Keep guessing, its amusing to watch, your way off on my position and job function while in Kosovo. But then you've shown a predilection for making assertions without any real information to back them, so I’m not expecting any great revelations from you. All I have defended is Clark's expertise, not his personality or anything to do with the specifics of realignment, unlike you I don’t draw conclusions until i have more (and from accurate sources as opposed to political opinions from those with no direct knowledge) information. And I give a rat’s ass about political leanings really, its all about military proficiency. Something Clark has demonstrated over the course of his career, no matter what his political opponents might assert now…. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

no methods change. technology advances, but the strategic and tactical concepts remain the same... the rows of soldiers was always a bad idea, it just took a better tactician to figure out how to beat it. currently our way of life is not under significant threat. It may be hard to grasp that fact with the spotlight and the wolf shadow in the closet but wait until there is a danger of dying while walking to the supermarket to pick up your ration of bread.... if/when that occurs we will gladly use whatever means necessary to insure the survival of our way of life.....even if that means the glass parking lot option... fortunately we are no where near that level of military/social stress.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

yea that is fairly obvious... Yes, actually. If you do as well then you, of course, should realize how many perturbations post-9/11 has caused in the long term sked and therefore know that any scheduling done while Clark was still in uniform bears little if any resemblance to any current schedule. Or planning based on said schedule. wrong very very wrong... i wish i could tell you exactly how and why but if you think about it you should realize why i cant. Maybe someday I’ll discuss it with you over a beer, but it wont be in the next 10 years…… you've looked at Clark's record and you still dont see? there isnt much point in arguing with you then apparently credentials and experience verified by a burning bush wouldn’t be good enough for you if they are on the opposite side of the political fence. You've made up your mind and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise..sad really Clark's record speaks for itself, no matter how many people don’t like him personally Did you figure out what assignment Clark had that greatly affected force planning and doctrine? It had nothing to do with Kosovo. Since you've already examined his record it should be rather obvious to what i am referring.. I still don’t see any quotes for your assertions on Clark's performance. Last time i checked completing your mission (and he did complete it as well as he was allowed with the resources he was given... I suppose your going to defend Clinton's ignoring Clark's repeated requests for additional support??) with ZERO CASUALTIES to your force was not a 'failure' oh well... i'm glad your not in charge of any strategic operations. In what way do you believe Clark’s failed his mission? I’d be interested in what you think he was supposed to accomplish in the first place, and what is your source for that belief? Do you have the OPORD for Kosovo on file? I wonder how much of that is professional opinion based on experience with him and how much is because he ran as a democrat? if they share your rabid anti-dem attitude, it wouldn’t matter if he walked on water and ended wars with a single squad, they'd still hate him because of his politics... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

It is the most accurate, basic, and fundamental characteristic of being human. not really, a corpse has the same DNA, but it lacks all other biological functions, should it have the same rights as a living human? All humans share common biological functions, until a fetus shares those functions why do you insist that it is human? logically 'these' (I've been trying to get someone to start the list to begin discussion about what a human is, but i'm not going to give away all the answers, as much of the discussion and debate would come from that list, we've just agreed on DNA but there is more to go) are the list of basic biological functions that are common to all humans. They may be common to other forms of life, but they are all present in the species homo sapiens. No humans exist who do not share these biological functions. (not due to defect or injury) that which does not share these functions is not human. It may be developing into one, but until it mets the criteria that deferentiates on species from the next it is only a potential member. not without it's host it will not. Do humans rely on other humans for basic biological support? that lack of independence is a strike against it being humans as well. DNA structure is a single data point. are your basic biological functions still developing? there is no opinion on life inherent in that statement. I agree, without discussion there is no progress, and I enjoy learning from the experience and opinions of others. ps. I liked it better when your sig was in greek. It made interested parties 'do the footwork' on their own... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

That is the problem with most 'open relationships'. A lack of commitment, it isn’t about who you sleep with, it is about who you support, who you care for and who you go home to. Sex is a simple physical act relationships require much more energy. in a working open relationship different 'needs' are being fulfilled by different people, there is no one person who is 'everything', but that doesn’t mean that one person is not 'most' important. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

perhaps being a 'team player' is important sometimes, but standing up for your personal principles apart from what you are ordered to do is important as well. Neither of which says anything about how well he accomplished his mission, just that he didnt get along with his boss... Shelton didnt like him at all, Hugh Shelton is an 'old school warhorse' with strict ideas as to how military operations should be conducted.. Clark is a 'new school, asynchronous, information warfare' general. Completely different approaches, and Clark has little tact with those he disagrees with, even when they out rank him.... once you get above O5 half your job is political, some people don’t do political very well. Which is why it is ironic that he ran, and expected that many of his peers (such as Gen Tommy Franks) said "absolutely not" when asked it Clark would make a good president. But what were the total US casualties in the Balkan conflict again? other topic The employer doesn’t have to prove anything in 'at will employment' states. Unless you can prove clear prejudice or discrimination, your gone for any reason (or none at all) the company wishes... you may be able to appeal to your company if it's an issue with your boss, but if the company as a whole decides your gone........cyas! ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Heinlein explores the concept of 'family marriage' (not a new concept, but one that has be repressed and rejected by the prevailing religious dogma primarily christians...) throughout the majority of his novels, one of the things science fiction does is examine social issues somewhat 'outside' the norm.. I'd also recommend "the Moon is a harsh Mistress" and "Friday" for the way they illustrate some of the other issues involved in this type of relationship... "to Sail beyond the Sunset" is also good..drags a bit on occasion but has a lot of internal monologues that discuss it.. ps. Will you marry me? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

was hoping i could find a great redhead shot of her i have, but i think it on another machine... I still see her the way she was when i was 12, such women are timeless....but then i'm still in love with Diana Rigg too.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

DNA is one common characteristic, but it is not the only one.. only with the environment provided by the host, not on it’s own. It is illogical to call a clump of cells that shares a few common data points with a species, a member of that species. It may possess the potential (although in the petri dish without its host environment it has no potential of it's own) to become a member of that species, but it IS NOT one yet, and should not be granted equal legal status as a realized member of the species. Intellectually, morally perhaps, but our basic biological functions are autonomous at the time of birth. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

5, 50, 500 it's irrelevant, you do what you have to to win a war based on the current threat level... If it were necessary for the survival of the US we would gladly adopt the methods of 50 years ago... the direction that modern conflicts have progressed have allowed us to keep our ‘morality’ as that level of brutality has not become necessary for ‘safe’ progress in the current conflicts, lets hope that is never does, but don’t pretend we are any better now than we were then, we just aren’t under the same level of military stress…. yet.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

If you can prove its over the tie and the tie does not say "Fuck You" in big block letters... He can sue and win...Trust me. I have been involved in these types of cases. problem is you cant often 'prove' it was anything, you may never know the real reasons you were fired, and the ‘official’ reason will be good enough to keep you out of court unless your employer is a total idiot, particularly in 'at will' states. Your boss can fire you because he doesn’t like the sound of your voice but the reason might say ‘does not fit into the company work environment, ‘does not work well with others’ nice non definable reasons that you cant really defend yourself against........but none of that applies to the military where you can be relieved of you position simply on your bosses order. No reason required. No appeal allowed unless his boss overrules him... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

I was there, in Kosovo, not at Kerry's speach... and your actually wrong on both counts, i know several flag officers personally and work with more on a regular basis (not many Navy though) and the date of Clark's retirement has nothing to do with his influence over force structure, planning or doctrine. Do you have any idea exactly how far out we are really planning and designing? apparently not.. Are you even aware of Clark's real influence on our current force structure, design and development programs?? What assignments did he have that put him in a position to affect it? Maybe you should do a bit more research then rethink your opinion. Perhaps you should look at his actual record while your at it too... Again what were the total US casualties for the Bosnian conflict? Since you haven’t met Clark, and now cant meet him in a military capacity, i can understand why you mistake his 'peers' resentment for lack of respect. He's an ass and an ass with authority at the time, which doesn’t make you many friends, but that doesn’t discount his expertise or experience. I spent enough time in the service and I have enough time in the real world to know that in both places people don't get fired for doing a good job. with officers, particularly flag officers, politics and personal issues play a MUCH larger role than performance...its not enough that you do it right, you also have to do it 'their way' which isn’t always possible or beneficial to your soldiers perhaps you should look at Clark's record too....he wasn’t 'fired' for performance. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

this is were we disagree, as there is evidence and it can be accurately defined. We DO have definitions that separate one species from another, that define the characteristics common to all members of that species. Creating consistent accurate definitions is one of the things science does. By taking the time to list the characteristics common to any species and sorting those characteristics down to the basic biological functions that are common to all members of that species, you have a very good standard for determining what is a member of that species and what is not. Are chimpanzees human? Why not? What separates us from them? If you can make distinctions between human and non-human with any group, why can you not make it with a 'pre-human’? or are you going to argue that humans do not have a set of basic biological functions and characteristics in common? are there any members of the species homo sapiens who do not share these basic biological functions (not due to accident or defect)? now that you have a solid verifiable definition, apply it to a fetus at each stage of development. The timeline that the change takes place may be variable to each individual host/fetus but that definition never changes… ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

ok, i stand corrected. that was apparently part of the joke i missed as well ..and my spelling always sucked ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Terrorists who win are referred to as "freedom fighters". The victor makes the rules remember? In war anything that gives you an advantage over your enemy is a legitimate target it isn’t as if we have never waged war against entire populations either, or used less than honorable means to do so... it's all about how you define your 'enemy' ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.