GOD HELP THIS COUNRTY!!

[BigStewMan]

(Years ago) - My son, (and the sons of my friends), had condoms since about age 14. They were also armed with a lot of plain, frank talk about sex, disease, HIV, responsibility, and the enormous downside of early parenthood. They got into their 20's before having children, and I am reasonably sure at least some sex was had before that! No disease was contracted by anyone I know of, and no "abandoned moms" were left in the dust. Questions came up, answers were forthrightly and honestly given. They seem to now have healthy happy families. No taxpayers were harmed in the process. So, I count that as a success for the value of education. Some of it was delivered in school, and some of it at home. I would have been delighted for the school to have a "health center" as described above, but all they had was Sex Ed.

hold your views to the same standard that you held david's statement about homeschooling, and oldbuckster's statement about the way he raised his kids--how does what you wrote above help the masses of young people affected by condom failures? is this a case of what is good for you is good for everyone? i'm not sure what they claim the failure rate is these days; but, i know it's not 100% failsafe. for the sake of argument, lets say the failure rate of a condom is 5%--if that failure rate was applied to other areas of life, say airline travel--if your son was getting on a plane and the pilot said only 95% of you will be alive when we land--would you let your son board that plane? Not me.

[Gilbert]

With all this intense criticizing here there must be a lot of people here with direct hands-on involvement in these two difficult problems! I'd be interested to hear how you are all involved in solving the teen pregnancy problem, or the drug addiction problem. And, how do your results compare to the work being done by other people in these two news items? I only ask because after 3 pages of whining about it, I haven't seen anyone take the time yet to actually lay out their work on the issues.

Are you volunteer drug counselors? Big Brothers, Big Sisters? Are you serving on your school boards? Do you work in the public health sector? Are you involved in volunteer programs that teach parenting skills? Are you working in the homeless shelters with addicts? Are you working the crisis intervention phone banks in the evenings? Are you volunteering as teaching assistants for after school programs? How did you reduce drug addiction in your area? How are you working to reduce teen pregnancy?

With such intense and strong feelings about the "problems" you must be taking some pretty strong actions yourself, right? Surely you wouldn't be just sitting back and taking pot shots at all the others who actually DO the work, would you? So, go ahead, don't be shy, tell us what you have been doing that works better than what these people are doing! I'm sure no one wants to discover that they are simply standing around holding up a shovel while others do the work. That just wouldn't be "right," would it?

Mark,

Big Brothers & Tulsa Young Professionals....., bowling and/or a movie a couple times a week, and helping weekly with teaching math to youngsters, been there, done that.. for a short while at least. It was a good feeling, but unfortunately, my obvious selfishness, lack of character, and obvious disdain of moral value and human life led me to focus my attention toward a different program. I call it, the "Try To Be A Good Parent Program". It's nothing magical, just a little something I learned from back home, but mostly good judgment and common sense, mixed with moral teachings. Thankfully, my mother and father passed on the free injection clinics and focused their attentions toward holding 2 jobs and raising 3 children. My little girls are currently 5 and 7yrs., so, I think it's still a bit premature to say that my program has a 100% success rate, but that's what I'm striving for.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Also on your subject of personal involvement, what do you think will cure the 2 problems discussed on this thread? How much more money, time and effort will it take to rid our country of drug dependence and stupid parents? Is it a feasible undertaking? My mind works funny, because I cant see how a safe drug injection rooms and handing out pregnancy pills to 12 yr. old girls is going to help either of these two issues. Maybe Im just ignorant, so please enlighten me. Because the way I see it, the entities responsible for these programs are only contributing toward another citizen dependency program. And, while you grind your teeth over that, please tell me if you can, what you think the magnitude of these tax funded programs is now, versus say, 50 years ago. That ought to be enough time to establish a track record. Ive done my research back during a technical writing course, and I didnt like what I learned.

If every full time working member on this forum was to figure out how much they earn (pretty easy), versus how much they pay in taxes (not so easy), what would that ratio be? Mines scarily close to 1:1. And since Im reasonably sure that that ratio will never turn in my families favor, I think Id rather see more funds directed at building and repairing our countrys infrastructure, than feel good band-aid clinics that promote federal dependency and bigger government. Please prove me wrong, and I mean that sincerely.

Respectfully,

Chief Whiner

[Groomlakearea51]

It's getting interesting.... Comments in CAPS (IT'S EASIER TO READ!)

So, you are left with a certain reality in these instances - teens are, or are not going to have sex (on Prom night, let's say) - and for those who will the question is simply, is it better if they use a condom or not? AGREED, JUST DON'T LIKE "FACILITATION". AKIN TO THEY ARE GOING TO DRINK BEER, SO WE SHOULD PUT A KEG OF LITE BEER OUT IN THE PASTURE AND LOCK THEM UP AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. NOT THE BEST ANALOGY, BUT IT'S FRIDAY NIGHT.... BUT THAT'S MY PRIME POINT OF ARGUMENT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD.

What's the most common every day reaction of each and every parent who is suddenly faced with a pregnant daughter or a son with an STD? "What???? My son/daughter doesn't do those things!!!!" It's called denial. Obviously SOMEONE's sons and daughters are doing it, or it wouldn't be happening, right? AGREED. GENERALLY THAT'S THE REACTION (I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH PARENTS WHEN THEY SHOW UP TO HAVE SOMEONE ARRESTED....)

Second point of logic - if so many people have done such a fantastic job of sex education as they claim - why would they be worried if their son/daughter was given a condom? Such kids wouldn't need or use them. So, apparently, the parents have a lot less faith in their own educational skills than they present! ( DISCLAIMER: I am not referring to anyone here.) PERSONALLY WOULD DISAGREE ON THAT ONE. DONE A FANTASTIC JOB (IMHO) BUT I WILL ALWAYS BE WORRIED UNTIL THEY MOVE OUT AND FACE LIFE ON THEIR OWN. I THINK THAT OUR WORRYING IS A NATURAL THING, RATHER THAN A LACK OF FAITH.

I am lot more mistrustful of what Disney, CBS, Vogue, Kraft Foods and Monsanto are doing to really young kids than what educators, teachers and schools are doing. The private sector is preying on kids in an unconscionable way for profit. Teachers and educators may make some mistakes, but they aren't doing it to make money. TOTALLY AGREED

(Years ago) - My son, (and the sons of my friends), had condoms since about age 14. They were also armed with a lot of plain, frank talk about sex, disease, HIV, responsibility, and the enormous downside of early parenthood. They got into their 20's before having children, and I am reasonably sure at least some sex was had before that! No disease was contracted by anyone I know of, and no "abandoned moms" were left in the dust. Questions came up, answers were forthrightly and honestly given. They seem to now have healthy happy families. No taxpayers were harmed in the process. So, I count that as a success for the value of education. Some of it was delivered in school, and some of it at home. I would have been delighted for the school to have a "health center" as described above, but all they had was Sex Ed. YOU WERE BLESSED WITH KIDS WITH COMMON SENSE (REFLECTS YOUR EFFORTS)

And lastly, I don't think kids are as nearly fearful of being educated as their parents are of having them become educated. AGREED.

I JUST DON'T LIKE THE ISSUE OF "FACILITATING", HOWEVER WELL INTENDED, IF BUT INNOCENTLY AND INDIRECTLY. PUT A CANDLE ON THE COUNTER AND THE CHILD WILL AT SOME POINT JUST HAVE TO STICK THEIR FINGER IN THE FLAME.

caps off..... made it easier for me to read also!!

Later! Gotta run

[Gilbert]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Possession of a condom doesn't influence the decision to have sex as far as I know.

I like the way you think here, whats your stance on gun control? For or Against? Im only lost on your views toward the small things, like parental consent and involvement in the decision to hand them out?

A great many sexually active teens are doing it because they think it is right and good and proper and fun to do so. At least, I have never seen that "condom as permission" theory documented by any serious investigation or study. So, you are left with a certain reality in these instances - teens are, or are not going to have sex (on Prom night, let's say) - and for those who will the question is simply, is it better if they use a condom or not?

Teenage sex for experimentation, for fun, or due to emotion or lack of the ability to control it THAT Ill agree with. BUT because they think its right, good and proper? Sorry, I dont agree with that part. What happen to good ethics, morality and parenting or is that where the politics & another tax dollar federal program come into play? If I have a choice, I think Id like to pass on the federal program, because I think I can do a significantly better job of parenting than any politician. And, even if I cant, I still like it to be my decision. Somehow, I just feel that its not the governments place to raise my children. Or do you think differently? Would you be opposed to a video camera (a very small one) in your childes bedroom, with a direct link to a States Health and Human Resources Center. Gotta love that program, got some real winners in those buildings.

Also, have you ever had sex with a condom. Ill guarantee you that a, quote, GREAT MANY boys who have experimented sex both with and without, will strongly lean towards the without side. And if they were foolish enough to experiment, then what choice do you think theyre going to lean towards? Tough one huh. Unless of course you really believe in your they do it because its right, good and proper statement.

Or is this another tax payer wasted funding bandaide, lets all feel good about what weve done fix?

What's the most common every day reaction of each and every parent who is suddenly faced with a pregnant daughter or a son with an STD? "What???? My son/daughter doesn't do those things!!!!" It's called denial. Obviously SOMEONE's sons and daughters are doing it, or it wouldn't be happening, right?

I agree with the parent reaction part, but its not the governments responsibility to try and correct the issue. Stupid parents are stupid parents, and the governments not going to fix that with free condoms, birth control pills or shoot-up centers. If your for the creation of another political program, wouldn't you like to be offered the oportunity to sit-in with their teaching of this matter to your child? Or do you have complete trust in, and feel its the duty of politicians and tax payers carry the burden without your direct participation or even the opportunity to participate?

Second point of logic - if so many people have done such a fantastic job of sex education as they claim - why would they be worried if their son/daughter was given a condom? Such kids wouldn't need or use them. So, apparently, the parents have a lot less faith in their own educational skills than they present! ( DISCLAIMER: I am not referring to anyone here.)

Second-point-of-logic. OMG. I wasnt able to find the first one.

I am lot more mistrustful of what Disney, CBS, Vogue, Kraft Foods and Monsanto are doing to really young kids than what educators, teachers and schools are doing. The private sector is preying on kids in an unconscionable way for profit. Teachers and educators may make some mistakes, but they aren't doing it to make money.

Ill almost always agree with the TV part, I miss programs like Andy Griffith, and Leave It To Beaver. At least there was a solid moral teaching in most of those programs.

Do the schools get tax payer funding (as in money) for implementing these programs? I know the answer, but its obvious that you didnt.

You comments on the private sector are just a tinny weenie bit vague. But if the private sector comes preying on my kids, with unconscionable thoughts, I have something for them, and it came with two clips.

(Years ago) - My son, (and the sons of my friends), had condoms since about age 14. They were also armed with a lot of plain, frank talk about sex, disease, HIV, responsibility, and the enormous downside of early parenthood. They got into their 20's before having children, and I am reasonably sure at least some sex was had before that! No disease was contracted by anyone I know of, and no "abandoned moms" were left in the dust. Questions came up, answers were forthrightly and honestly given. They seem to now have healthy happy families. No taxpayers were harmed in the process. So, I count that as a success for the value of education. Some of it was delivered in school, and some of it at home. I would have been delighted for the school to have a "health center" as described above, but all they had was Sex Ed.

And lastly, I don't think kids are as nearly fearful of being educated as their parents are of having them become educated.

Agree with the last sentence, I dont like it, but I definitely agree.

As for the rest of that paragraph, I think you sell yourself and/or your wife way short on the part you played in the successful raising of your children (but maybe your right, I dunno, I wasnt there so you could be right); But to think that a politically funded program played just as big or bigger a part, well, that is unconscionably sad.

My children, are just that. And I thank the good lord and my wife that we can afford to send them to a private school that offers us the ability to review and discuss part of the curricula before the start of each school year.

[BigStewMan]

"Drug users who use second-hand needles get disease and infections and pass along STDs which have to be treated in public hospitals at  very great expense because we haven't yet moved to a society which simply allows people to die on the streets. You might want that, but that's not where a Christian nation is going to go. So, what is cheaper - - a 99-cent clean needle or a $9,000 hospital visit for AIDS treatments? Which is better - - having a nurse be in charge of disposing of needles, or letting users toss them in the bushes? In so many ways this is simply a silly discussion at this level. Common sense will handle the money end of this argument, and just a tiny modicum of Christian compassion should handle the rest." 

yikes! helping drug users continue their destructive lifestyle is showing Christian compassion? Please provide a Scripture reference to support that statement. It really doesn't matter if educators and/or public health workers don't consider their actions as facilitating--it is and they are. neither their intent nor their perspective are the definers of truth--they either are facilitating or they are not; and their actions clearly show that they are. something does not cease to be true just because one doesn't believe it. lastly, how do you define violence?

[dkp]

"yikes! helping drug users continue their destructive lifestyle is showing Christian compassion? Please provide a Scripture reference to support that statement. It really doesn't matter if educators and/or public health workers don't consider their actions as facilitating--it is and they are. neither their intent nor their perspective are the definers of truth--they either are facilitating or they are not; and their actions clearly show that they are. something does not cease to be true just because one doesn't believe it. lastly, how do you define violence?"

INTENT

A fighter pilot drops a bomb on an enemy radar. The wind blows it too close to a house and 10 civilians are killed. You take him to court for murder because regardless of his intent, "he killed civilians." So, I dare say it should be obvious that what is at stake here is his "legitimate intent" to do his war duty which was not intended to harm civilians. Without the concept of intent, he is destroyed and has no defense. So, the concept of one's INTENT is firmly established in all philosophical and legal realms that I am aware of. Intent changes the meaning of an act.

I think you proved his point, mdeneen. His point was that, regardless of intent, this program facilitates drug use/abuse. You example is flawed. The pilot did not intend to kill those 10 civilians, yet they are, in fact, dead. He either killed them or he didn't, correct? The pilot, like this program, was aiming for one thing and achieved something else. The pilot facilitated the death of those 10 civilians, there is no doubt about it. Now is he guilty of murder? No, he is not.

-David

[Groomlakearea51]

I JUST DON'T LIKE THE ISSUE OF "FACILITATING", HOWEVER WELL INTENDED, IF BUT INNOCENTLY AND INDIRECTLY. PUT A CANDLE ON THE COUNTER AND THE CHILD WILL AT SOME POINT JUST HAVE TO STICK THEIR FINGER IN THE FLAME.

Well, I certainly don't think educators or public health workers see their programs as "facilitating" the event - whether that be sex or taking drugs. They see themselves as mitigating the negative effects which are inevitable without their "intervention." Intervention as opposed to facilitation.

Correct, they do not at all. They are just doing the best they can by intervening and, hopefully, mitigating the effects of what is an alarming situation, or to use the old expression, "Picking up the pieces". So much these days is reactive, rather than prescriptive. Reactive shows (hopefully...) results; prescriptive takes time, often an entire generation of time (say 18-20 years) to show results. That effect was noted by scholars when assessing the effects of the "baby boomer" children behavior and values as they came of age in the 60's and 70's. The effects became readily apparent in the 90's, extending into the present time.

Great thread!! keep the posts coming. very interesting all!!

[bluesboy]

I would suggest forgetting that class and instead reading Daniel Boorstin's The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.

By far still the best book on the subject.

Oh, and I love how so many will decry gridlock and differences, instead eschewing 'getting along', which by definition says compromise your beliefs in the name of passing a bill that simply assuages the ego of many.

Unfortunately after seeing how the Republicans have wantonly abandoned their so-called principles of less government and fiscal responsibility (while fervently holding onto their right wing-liberal social engineering principles in the form of their anti-science religious pandering), and where the liberals mantra is simply to claim that they have not spent enough on unfunded mandates, that have (in only 4 years!) expanded the current obligation from $3T to $8T! ...and then to come out with the "we've got to save Social Security" song and dance... I suspect they would have suggested the Titanic band play "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" as it was going down!

And to think, we would have a balanced budget amendment except that the Nobel Prize winner Gore as V.P. voted against it on the sole stated basis that the proposed balanced budget amendment would not allow for deficit spending in time of war.... I will leave you to ponder the irony of that!

But the real irony is that Bush IS a moderate! Financially and regarding the role of government (just as when as Gubner of Texas he was suggesting a state income tax!) he is anything But conservative! And as as far as his religious beliefs, he has no problem using the government and the rule of law as a means to socially engineer and impose his beliefs. A conservative? Where????? He's just a right-wing liberal.

And as far as polarized...really? Let's see: Regarding spending and governmental scope? Nope, both parties actively increase government spending and government growth in absurd proportions, with the only differences being in the rate and to which special interest they pander! And as far as intrusion in personal lives and beliefs? Nope! Both parties give us plenty of social engineering, be it in social theory or religion! The only difference being that the Democrat 'liberals', or 'progressives' as they now prefer due to the pejorative meaning associated with the term "liberal", all claim to suddenly be 'libertarian' when their own indiscretions are uncovered, while the Republicans eat their own. The only polarization seems to be between just which 'agenda' the government should dictate and impose regarding our beliefs and how they spend 'their' money. But they are both actively engaged in increasing both the scope of government and its growth. Polarization??? Oh yeah, must we read the Bible or Marx...

To the degree that they both actively employ social engineering, they are simply two liberal camps who see the role of government as expansive and social engineering as legitimate. while those of us who do not want government interference and growth and who do not want nor need government lectures in social/religious belief are just ignored and abused. And the media is simply the propaganda arm of each. I'm not polarized. I'm alienated and sick of both groups.

I personally wouldn't mind a lot more gridlock, as intelligence and responsibility is a rather increasingly dwindling resource.

As far as the topic at hand, its the school's role to provide education in the form of information and explanation to facilitate understanding. It is not their job to provide material resources enabling behavior. And if only adults had sufficient understanding to teach what they themselves to often are clueless about.

{And I love the editorial "It's had a couple low points where people veer off topic and throw in their political beliefs at no one's request", as some evidently believe that "polarization" regarding socio-political issues occur amidst a vacuum without context! Pray tell, what would this entire topic amount to without the discussion of the 'optimal' nature and scope of government in society????)

Oh, and may I humbly suggest that we all worry about saving this "Country"! "Counrty" has been passe for some time...[][]

Mas, This is a great post. I think you have hit the nail on the head as to what is wrong with politics in this country today. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize for my rudeness directed at you by me in another thread earlier this week.

[BigStewMan]

happy saturday--hopefully this post will make it--i just typed two replies and they disappeared before making it to the board.

mdeneen--i wasn't presenting you a straw man or any other trick. no offense intended at all; but, that is not needed because you're logic commits suicide all over the place. i'd love to take up the challenge to discuss religion which is a topic that i feel very qualified to debate; however, i will respect amy's rules.

i did mean that intent is not a definer of truth. i can't state it any more plainly--things are or they are not. things don't exist because i believe in them; nor do they not exist just because i choose not to believe. i believe in absolute truth. you are not the first person to accuse me over trying to simplify things (one of my friends keeps telling me not to make everything black or white). I do that intentionally because i want to get to the core of a matter--that is where lasting change can occur. for instance, in your example of the man shooting dope, using a dirty needle is not the core issue nor is it the man's biggest problem. yes, he is possibly compounding his problem because a dirty needle may bring on another serious issue. but, to make this issue black & white--the man's problem is that he is shooting dope in the first place, and getting him to stop is where the focus should be. some workers may try to sear their conscience by thinking they are being compassionate and saving this drug user from aids, etc...the user choosing to use a dirty needle stems from his drug use. if saving this person from one potential consequence is your goal, then you have succeeded, only in that instance. how can this worker pat themselves on the back and feel so wonderful when they have done absolutely nothing to solve this man's problem? he is still using drugs and now is one step further down that horrible road. you may hail them as great humanitarians, but i don't think they've helped this person a single bit--perhaps they merely delayed the likely tragic outcome to this person's life. please take my word for this, drug users will not start using drugs only during business hours. they will use it whenever the opportunity presents itself--if it is at a clinic fine, if it is at the park, that's fine too, from a stranger at a party--still fine. chances are that someday he'll OD; but hey at least he didn't die from aids right? they have not helped this person deal with the reality that his drug use is damaging to his body and even more painful to his loved ones. 

habitual drug users don't need help maintaing the status quo. i also think i'm qualified to speak on habitual drug use--that was my lifestyle for many years. by the grace of GOD i have been drug free since 1980 and i can tell you that i am exceedingly happy that their wasn't a bunch of compassionate people helping me go farther down that path of destruction than i already had.

i will withdraw from further discussion on this topic--i hope the rest of you continue the discussion. i also hope that you will carefully consider that you may not be right. these people do need help; but, not the kind that is being offered.

enjoy your weekend folks. i don't know about where you live, but it is a beautiful day in southern california.

regards,

steve

[oldenough]

Mark, you say you are not of the christian faith, and yet your attitude shows the compassion and understanding that is supposedly required to be a "good christian". For what it is worth i am proud to know you.... John.

[oldtimer]

"I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, but I'm sick and tired of being told that I am."

With thanks to the good folks of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

[Tarheel]

"gestalt" I like that word. Back in the 70s a friend of mine that later went on to play with some famous folks wrote a song that upon hearing it I named it "Gestalt". A loose interpretation is the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Neil....if you are out there....I really miss those days. Or were you thinking of the word zeitgeist?

[mas]

Compassion.

Sounds
simple doesnt it? Especially when one party can claim to care while they
relegate those with whom they disagree to be uncaring callous folks. But oh, Im
sure that no one means to imply that!

What is compassion? It is not
simply a sense of sympathy or caring for the person suffering, not simply a
warmth of heart toward the person before you, or a sharp clarity of recognition
of their needs and pain, it is also a sustained and practical determination to
do whatever is possible and necessary to help alleviate their suffering.

But it should be noted that
relieving the suffering of a hungry person is not necessarily simply a matter
of feeding them! Hmmmbut what does that mean?

Yes, and compassion
by proxy, as this is exactly what the oh so compassionate folks actually
advocate! Are they actually getting off their oh so compassionate posteriors
to actually involve themselves in the solution and the administration of their efforts
to mitigate anothers pain and suffering? Or are they compassionate by virtue
of their tax dollars being designated and utilized to establish a bureaucracy with
the end goal being to hopefully see a fraction of those resources actually get
to the affected persons assuming those persons be qualified by virtue of
fulfilling their abstract definitions. And this priority wouldnt be
established by virtue of a political agenda would it?

And since
they are so quick to bring up Hurricane Katrina, one only has to think of those
displaced folks who cannot get shelter as they live in floodplainswhere the oh
so compassionate bureaucracy justifiably will not place shelter on a
floodplain and those who are displaced will not relocate to a safer less
exposed location A moral dilemma I guess

You know,
I have a small problem defining compassion as an impersonal abstract process
whereby a small group of elected (or too often appointed) compassionate officials and bureaucrats make a
decision as to how everyone elses
money will be used to administer assistance that involves no more than someone
signing a piece of paper and a purchase order. Especially as those same oh so
compassionate officials are then absolved of all involvement except to
hopefully receive a plaque of appreciation at some awards dinner attended only
by other bureaucrats! But they. And those who vote for them, are defined as being
compassionate! Why do I have a good idea as to just who decides this
distinction!)

They irony
is that this qualifies even those tax payers who disagree with the process as compassionate.
They are just as involved as those who abstractly advocate such activity. And
to me this tends to render the entire concept of compassion as defined as
being rather hollow.

If you
want to talk of compassion, it involves more than simply advocating the caring
for others! And it certainly involves more than voting for someone who makes
public proclamations of feeling your pain and caring! It means actually
getting off you posterior and DOING something.

And the
irony is that this does not require the governments blessing. A fact that
becomes even more ironic in that the government has specifically precluded many
private and religious organizations from administering many programs. Yup, but
I guess that is just an aspect of compassion that we will need to accept as
well.

Sorry
folks, but disagreeing over the role of government as being the arbiter of compassion
does not make one dispassionate or uncaring. And simply advocating some
bureaucratic administration of impersonal resources by proxy begs the
definition of compassion as well.

And
compassion involves more than simply removing consequences of someones
voluntary and intentional behavior!

I always
wonder when someone differentiates himself or herself by posturing as being
compassionate. But this certainly sounds like quite a few in this country,
doesnt it? And I suspect that few will have any difficulty plugging in any
number of figures and organizations that fit this criteria

And
compassion has little to do with the actual topic at hand. Rather it is the
role of government in society. How one rationalizes or justifies this
involvement is derivative.

It seems
to me that many have cause to go back and re-examine just what constitutes true
compassion

By the
way, where does one event begin and another end? Wherever you want! It is completely
arbitrary. Although you may selectively focus on some distinct event of
convenience (in itself just another result of selective attention)! This
understanding is one distinction (denote a bit of irony do you?) that is fundamental
in Eastern philosophy and modern physics and so often manifests itself as a
flaw in Western logic. One which provides stimulus for which Wittgenstein
corpse can indeed be defined as being athletic

[oldenough]

mas,...you are the epitome of a windbag. Keep it brief and concise, you may just find your messages get across.

[mas]

It was either use many words or go slow enough so that you could understand it.

I was unable to go slow enough.

But its always nice to see a partisan player contribute substantively to the discussion. And always the personal attacks. At least it is consistent with the level of reason...

[oldenough]

I'm impressed. You managed to reply in two sentences. My apologies for the personal attack but some people just deserve a little dose of the truth.

[dkp]

mas,...you are the epitome of a windbag. Keep it brief and concise, you may just find your messages get across.

This has been a great thread thus far. Let's not derail it into personal attacks and get it locked.....please.

I actually thought Mas' post was very well said. There have been posts on both sides of the proverbial fence that have been, at times, a bit lengthy.

-David

[oldenough]

S.o.o.o.rry.

[mas]

I'm impressed. You managed to reply in two sentences. My apologies for the personal attack but some people just deserve a little dose of the truth.

One can see why neither the number of words nor the speed at which they are spoken make a difference.

Perhaps we can have a debate over the efficacy and use of federal funds to support Big Bird (and wonder where the billions in subsequent marketing revenue go) . Those were obviously funds well spent. But there is no wonder why "new math" was declared a failure. This post brought to you by the number "2".

[oldtimer]

And the follow up from my previous post: "Well, I've met a lot of people and I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right."