JayB

Powerful rejoinder, BTW. Makes me recall a conversation I had a while back about whether it was possible for a degree to actually have a negative lifetime value for the said degree-holder.....

Hopefully this will prompt Chavez to: -Invoke "Bolivarian" principles to justify seizing the property owned by all ISP's operating in his country. -Attempt to create a "BoliNet" that offers both substandard services and distribution under price controls that guarantee that the cost of offering the services is less than that required to provide them. -Blame nefarious forces out to undermine the revolution when the 14kbs network remains off-line for months at a time...

You've just re-stated Pascal's Wager with the day-o-judgment bet-thing. There are many responses to this line of thinking that you can peruse at your leisure. My question is this: if a supreme being exists that would grant a chap like the Green River Killer a VIP pass to heaven if he accepted Jesus as his personal savior a few minutes before dying, but would condemn a just and decent main to everlasting agony and torment for his failure to do so - should such a being be revered or held in the utmost contempt? But what about Deuteronomy? Would following these injunctions lead to a good life? How about a set or moral principles to base one's life upon? "Deuteronomy 13 1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. 12If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God."

Isn't this what inspires you to reject evolution? Acknowledge that its claims about the origins of life - human and otherwise - are little more than ancient folklore and this opens the possibility that the same is true for everything else in the book? Incidentally - how do you feel about the admonitions set forth in Deuteronomy as a set of principles to base one's morality on?

"on evolution, my feeling is science explains the worldly and religion explains the spiritual, completely orthogonal to each other. i don't know why so many american christians get defensive against evolution" The fact that this debate exists is a testament to the fact that your feelings on this point are not widely shared. Do you really not understand why "so many american christians get defensive against evolution?" Maybe R.G. Ingersoll can help you out here: "Many of the clergy are now ashamed to say that they believe in devils. The belief has become ignorant and vulgar. They are ashamed of the lake of fire and brimstone. It is too savage. At the same time they do not wish to give up the inspiration of the Bible. They give new meanings to the inspired words. Now they say that devils were only personifications of evil. If the devils were only personifications of evil what were the angels? Was the angel who told Joseph who the father of Christ was, a personification? Was the Holy Ghost only the personification of a father? Was the angel who told Joseph that Herod was dead a personification of news? Were the angels who rolled away the stone and sat clothed in shining garments in the empty sepulcher of Christ a couple of personifications? Were all the angels described in the Old Testament imaginary shadows -- bodiless personifications? If the angels of the Bible are real angels, the devils are real devils. Let us be honest with ourselves and each other and give to the Bible its natural, obvious meaning. Let us admit that the writers believed what they wrote. If we believe that they were mistaken, let us have the honesty and courage to say so. Certainly we have no right to change or avoid their meaning, or to dishonestly correct their mistakes. Timid preachers sully their own souls when they change what the writers of the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables, poems and myths. It is impossible for any man who believes in the inspiration of the Bible to explain away the Devil. If the Bible is true the Devil exists. There is no escape from this. If the Devil does not exist the Bible is not true. There is no escape from this." http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/devil.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll Anyone care to guess his political affiliation?

"The SLA is thought to have only ever had about 12 members. Six, including the group's leader, Donald DeFreeze, were killed in a police shootout later in 1974. The remaining five members lived quietly under assumed names for over 20 years, until the FBI tracked them down. The last SLA fugitive, James Kilgore, was arrested in Cape Town in South Africa in 2002. All are now in jail"

Hahaha. More good news here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7217817.stm

Considering the Salomon Scarlet for my wife, but not sure if the 154 or 164 would be the better size. Ski Dimensions are: 154: 130/90/122 164: 130/94/123 Wife's dimensions are 5 four and a half, ~120-125 lbs. I'd classify her skill level as advanced intermediate at this point. Recommendations for other women's all mountain fat skis (especially those that behave well on hardpack) would be welcome. Many thanks.

And I thought it just climbed well. Yeah? Well that was just a snap shot. Check this out...

What is the homeopathic remedy for a bacterial infection of the lungs? Dilute suspension of Streptococcus pneumoniae administered via inhaler?

had obligaciones, mujer. i'm amused at how up in arms people get over insults thrown at some schmuck who offers up his frickin' FIANCEE, woman he LOVES, blah blah blah, half-naked, to a bunch of strangers on the fucking internet. shit! some schmuck is bragging about his hot gf, and actually posts a photo, and challenges these strangers with a "jealous?". you gotta be kiddin' that you'd get offended if someone throws shit at him. i'm surprised, that you, as a woman, wouldn't be pissed at HIM for posting photos of her without her even knowing. maybe they roll that way, i don't know. you know what though? i don't even think he's legit. notice how he's disappeared? although he may have sobered up, and is now mortified? perhaps. i don't think he's legit, cuz he'd have taken the photos down, if it mattered to him. If these were your motivations, it seems odd that you would have taken the tack you did, instead of starting off with something like the above. All in all, I think that would have been more in keeping with the SC (the deft touch, the elision, the rhetorical fencing)that we all know and love than the "I think it's dangerous and reckless for an adult to let their kids play in a busy street so I'll run their kids over to teach them a lesson" rationale than starting off with the "Your girl is a nasty ho" angle.

Hmmm... Not sure if any resemblance that I can see (hard to tell how much exists) is greater before or after the male pattern baldness and other ravages of time took their toll... Will have to check with the wife. If there's really a resemblance, then next year's halloween costume is a no brainer....

Who said I like fat bitches? There is a difference between fat and healthy…….You’re the one posting pictures of anorectic women. So since you are so quick to critique, lets see some pictures of your wife and her "healthy" physique. 111's fiancee is far from "anorectic" and I think his enthusiasm for his new bride is cool. Why piss on him?

Sounds similar to the results they found with vitamin-A and vitamin-A deficiency in children in parts of Asia. Ligands for nuclear-receptors that can turn a particular subset of genes on in a massive-way. Probably best to steer clear of mega doses.

Exactly. She's hot. 111 is stoked, and should be. He's going to marry a hot chick that climbs. I'd be willing to bet that most of the dudes taking potshots probably wouldn't even be able to make eye-contact if they met a woman like that in a bar, and have no business critiquing anyone's physique either.

last time i was with her, she had this nasty drip and wanted me to go down on her. blech. has it cleared up yet? Classy. Why the hostility and vulgarity?

Preemptive vow testing...

I can't say that I'm jealous, since I'm very happy with my wife and I think I'm actually more attracted to her as time goes on but - I will say that it looks like you've snagged yourself a pretty, fit, and athletic gal that looks like she climbs as well, so you are a lucky man for sure. Now - what I would propose is this: show her this post. If she laughs and gives you a punch in the arm, then it's clear that you've won the equivalent of the chick lottery, and you should propose immediately....

Where did you get the idea that the Liberal tradition postulates a clear separation between political and economic power, between political and economic liberty, etc? One of the central claims of this school of thought has always been that political and economic liberty are inseparable from one another. In your second sentence, for example, you are basically paraphrasing one of Locke's central contentions, which makes your argument that these insights of yours have hitherto escaped the attention of Libertarians and/or (classical) Liberals especially humorous.* *"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property." -John Locke *"Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society." -John Locke

So you agree with libertarianism's view of the state...but what you take exception to are the restraints which private property and economic freedom impose on the power of the state. "I'm all for chastity, it's just the abstinence that I take issue with."

"But Thiel is more than just a clever and avaricious capitalist. He is a futurist philosopher and neocon activist. A philosophy graduate from Stanford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diversity Myth, which is a detailed attack on liberalism and the multiculturalist ideology that dominated Stanford. He claimed that the "multiculture" led to a lessening of individual freedoms. While a student at Stanford, Thiel founded a rightwing journal, still up and running, called The Stanford Review - motto: Fiat Lux ("Let there be light"). Thiel is a member of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neoconservative pressure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a liberal pressure group that works on the web. Thiel calls himself "way libertarian". TheVanguard is run by one Rod D Martin, a philosopher-capitalist whom Thiel greatly admires. On the site, Thiel says: "Rod is one of our nation's leading minds in the creation of new and needed ideas for public policy. He possesses a more complete understanding of America than most executives have of their own businesses." This little taster from their website will give you an idea of their vision for the world: "TheVanguard.Org is an online community of Americans who believe in conservative values, the free market and limited government as the best means to bring hope and ever-increasing opportunity to everyone, especially the poorest among us." "The internet is immensely appealing to neocons such as Thiel because it promises a certain sort of freedom in human relations and in business, freedom from pesky national laws, national boundaries and suchlike. The internet opens up a world of free trade and laissez-faire expansion. Thiel also seems to approve of offshore tax havens, and claims that 40% of the world's wealth resides in places such as Vanuatu, the Cayman Islands, Monaco and Barbados. I think it's fair to say that Thiel, like Rupert Murdoch, is against tax. He also likes the globalisation of digital culture because it makes the banking overlords hard to attack: "You can't have a workers' revolution to take over a bank if the bank is in Vanuatu," he says." "Here at last is the Enlightenment state longed for since the Puritans of the 17th century sailed away to North America, a world where everyone is free to express themselves as they please, according to who is watching. National boundaries are a thing of the past and everyone cavorts together in freewheeling virtual space."

Should shorten up the liftlines around here on Sunday. That's a bonus.

There'll be a spot available for you back here in June. I can assure that there is no shortage of people here who will oblige you with a volley of fuck-you's at the slightest provocation. Your paradise awaits....

None for sale in the US that I know of. Toyota Hilux is available in Canada, I think.

95 4x4 Toyota extra-cab pickup with fiberglass canopy. Manual. 3.0VZE V6 Engine. Highway = 16-18mpg average, 19 on flat roads with a tailwind. ~190,000 Miles at this point. The only in-town driving I do is to and from the highway exits. I'd guess it's at least 1-3 mpg worse in-town.