infra

The Assasination of Richard Nixon definitely looks interesting )

looks interesting ... you have an awful lot of SG points for someone with 3 friends on here ... you must be selective ...

Sigh... yeah, some new lows in the newswire. Unfortunately, in both of those cases there isn't much that I could do about them.

I know that I editorialize plenty of my posts, but I usually try to at least back up what I'm saying with some facts. Hyperbole has its place but it shouldn't be a substitute for all writing.

I don't know, my heart hasn't really been in the newswire much lately.

can always dump the guy .. that might make sense

Welcome back - good to see you around.

I can't stand the whole Peterson thing either. I'm particularly annoyed by the people I meet who seem to think that because they've read articles about the case in People magazine that they're in a position to offer a qualified legal opinion about the verdict and sentencing. There's a reason why people are paid money to be lawyers - they know a lot that we don't know, and we aren't privy to all of the facts of the case. I get very irritated by that.

Anyway, have a good Christmas.

what we have is that abstinence is the cause of decline in teen pregnancy in said time period. most studies are inconclusive as to the effectiveness of either sex ed model when compared. There is significant research going on the determine such. Would this be a good summation?

I would liken myself to legionaire. I am very science oriented. I tend to go exclusively on the published scientific record. and very rarely make characterizations without a grat deal of evidence. With that thread specifically most people would find a link and throw it out there without examining it. I must have gone through 30 studies before I found the one I cited. I also try not to cite partisan groups. Focus on the Family lately has been strange relaible for this stuff. As I also noted I use whomever as long as the protocol and methodoogy of the resource is sound.

Everyone else was largelycombative and confrontational. They were more guided by ideology than by an interest in finding the truth.

I have the equivalent of WWIII on gay marriage starting here. I would be more interested in a casual debate (via Email perhaps) then to have another person join. I beleive the pro gay marriage position is well represented. Your assessment of my argument thus far however would be welcome. Once again given how adversarial everyone has been I would submit that my conduct as been rather unorthodox. I would assert that my claim thus far has been well established

Just noticed we share a birthday.

Happy Birthday!

I don't know if you know but it is also bonfire night here in the UK so lots of people will be lighting fires, burning effigies and letting off fireworks on your birthday.

Happy B-day.

Hey, just wanted to say good article about the 100,00 death count in Iraq. Much better than what I submitted. Honestly, I was so appalled at even the possibility that this was true, to say much intelligent about it.

I am constantly amazed at how many people want to discredit this out of hand. I can certainly see scrutinizing it, but I can't understand people who think we shouldn't even ask these questions.

Hey, if you get a chance, check out the "New Thread" thread in the News group. There's talk about bringing on another politics editor and I mentioned you as a good possibility if you're interested. I don't know if you are or if you have the time but I think you'd be perfect for the job. My guess is if Sean says he's looking then it would probably be between you and Keith. I think you'd both be great, just let me know if you'd like me to put in a good word for you privately to Sean and I will.

Hahaha. I always love your submissions. No worries.

THat's a good personal philosophy, I think. But you also need to take some time to enjoy the fruits of your labor! Otherwise what's the point?

Just coming in to say hi. I've been reading quite a few of your posts in the CE and while I haven't agreed with all of them they have certainly been interesting contributions.

You should get a profile pic though, just so people don't confuse you with other folks without one. It doesn't have to be of you even.

Anyways hi.

I know exactly what you mean - it's easy to get sucked into the myriad discussions going on here and withdraw from the outside world. The key is to pace yourself, I think. And realize that even when you go away, the site will still be here when you get back.

You're obviously making a good impression with your postings though (as you have consistently done with me) based on what other people are writing.

You might like this group:Zombie Hunters.

I haven't seen it. I can tell you that Resident Evil: Apocalypse was the worst piece of crap ever, though. In case you were wondering.

Good point in that thread about proving the existence of God. I'm still not sure about the fence sitting issue though. Does logic demand skepticism? I don't really know. If so, then the default state should be disbelief until proven otherwise. I know it's not necessarily a valid analogy,but I doubt many people say "Well, I haven't seen conclusive evidence for it, so until I do I'll just say I'm undecided as to the existence of the tooth fairy." The problem with all of these discussions is that any logical analysis of an ontological proof is bound to end up in a tautology. Which would invalidate the proof in the first place - except for the caveat that you brought up, that ontological proofs have as their foundation that logic need not apply. I think that's why I have such a hard time wrapping my head around them. Anyway, good fodder for discussion.

I love Spun and fear and loathing in las vegas