JayB

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears. I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack. You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself. http://www.talkorigins.org/ in particular http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man. There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself. You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally. But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends. I had to chime in here with a minor point about the testability of scientific theories. There some theories that you can test by observation, others that you can't. Those theories that can't be tested by direct observation and measurement can still be tested by the extent to which they make useful, verifiable predictions. One of the many predictions of evolutionary theory was that evolutionary relationships should persist at the molecular level. For instance - the hemoglobin molecules generated by humans should more closely resemble the hemoglobin molecules of lemurs than, say - lampreys. These predictions were made several decades before scientists had the technology necessary to test them directly, and well before DNA had been identified as the agent of heredity. The fact that this prediction was borne out by empirical evidence several decades later provides one of many strong lines of evidence in support of the original theory. The case is even stronger when one considers the evidence provided by DNA sequencing. Speaking of DNA - were you aware of the fact that nearly one-half of the human genome is composed of ancient retroviruses (or similar self-repicating elements) that integrated into our genetic material millions of years before the arrival of modern humans? That they splice themselves into a new locale in the genome something like every 30-250 live births? That when these endogenous retroviruses replicate and insert themselves into the genome, they quite often damage the hosts by cripling and turning off necessary genes, or activating quiescent genes in a way that can give rise to cancer and other disorders? That the reason that primates can't synthesize their own vitamin C is because one of these retroelements spliced itself into the middle of a gene that encodes an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of this vitamin? Is any of this consistent with the notion of intelligent design? "The eukaryotic genome has undergone a series of epidemics of amplification of mobile elements that have resulted in most eukaryotic genomes containing much more of this `junk' DNA than actual coding DNA. The majority of these elements utilize an RNA intermediate and are termed retroelements. Most of these retroelements appear to amplify in evolutionary waves that insert in the genome and then gradually diverge. In humans, almost half of the genome is recognizably derived from retroelements, with the two elements that are currently actively amplifying, L1 and Alu, making up about 25% of the genome and contributing extensively to disease. The mechanisms of this amplification process are beginning to be understood, although there are still more questions than answers. Insertion of new retroelements may directly damage the genome, and the presence of multiple copies of these elements throughout the genome has longer-term influences on recombination events in the genome and more subtle influences on gene expression." Read the whole thing. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/10/1455

Bad news. I'm crossing my fingers for Kirk, but it doesn't sound good. There's a small ridge about 100 meters to the climber's right of standard route to pan-point that significantly reduces exposure to avalanches.

I really, really doubt that Gazprombank can issue ADRs, unless they have a US subsidiary that handles this form them. Inasmuch as Gazprombank is involved in ADRs for shares in Gazprom, they are probably serving as a local custodian bank for the (American) depository bank(s) that issue the ADRs that trade on US markets. Issuing common stock in an foreign country is one thing, serving as a custodian bank for US banks that issue securities that are priced in dollars and trade on US markets is another - neither of which have anything to do with who actually owns the shares, much less who has a controlling interest in the company, Comrade Financier. Yes - If I have an ADR, that is real property that I own. The extent to which I excercise effective control of the company that I have an ownership stake in is proportional to the number of shares that I own relative to the total shares outstanding. If I own enough shares to determine who sits on the board to represent my interests, then I have effective control over that company. Ergo - if the Russian state, or one of its proxies owns the controlling interest in the company - then the state has effective control over the company. Why you would expend all of this energy to dispute what is a plain fact is beyond me. However, all of this assumes that the country has an independent judiciary, a security apparatus that doesn't intervene in civilian affairs, that anyone who opposes the state in their capacity won't end up jailed on spurious charges like, say, Khodorkovsky, etc. In a country where anyone who is in a position to challenge the Kremlin and avails themselves of the opportunity to do so winds up either jailed, dead, or fearful of either - the names on the shares aren't nearly as consequential. Your nominal argument: "Because we argue that state control of a company does not inherently reduce political liberty I'm arguing that liberty can't exist without it?" Your real argument: "Because we argue that state control of a company the economy does not inherently reduce political liberty..."

ok let's get this straight: i hold no neg-ams. i would only get a neg-am if i was certain to be in a position to sell property quickly (why would i pay any extra if i didn't have to, since my aim wouldn't be to hold and build equity?). i understand also that i am in a position to refi anything i would buy with a neg am, because of various factors we don't need to go into (i'd hate to leverage myself into a tenuous position with no outs). you wouldn't advise anyone to delve into derivatives without a complete position from which to play, right? and you wouldn't curse derivatives outright simply because of the risk, right? it's a bad comparison in many ways, but the point is it depends on what you do and why you do it. jeez. dumbass. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks. Thanks for the soliloquy - but I was just trying to get a rise out of you. Hopefully if you aren't in a position where you will be cashflow positive after the rate resets hit, you will be able to sell for a net-profit, or have enough cash to ride things out until you can. The second lump of resets, which is composed primarily of Alt-A, Agency, and Prime ARM resets corresponds to roughly 2010-2012.

Controlling interest vs. Owner. A shareholder is an owner. No, we aren't. That's the strawman you continue to erect each time this issue comes up. 1.Exchange tradeable does not equal private. Were it otherwise, the platinum bullion held in the Russain state's vaults would be considered private asset, just like the Gazprom ADR's held in accounts controlled by the Russian state. State owned enterprises that issue exchange-tradeable shares are still....drumroll...state owned enterprises. Controlling interest = appoints board of directors = hires and fires CEO. If the state holds a controlling interest in the shares, the state controls the company. Pretend that there's a meaningful difference in the control that an entity like the KGB exerts when it has a controlling interest in the outstanding shares, versus any other form of ownership that grants it an equal amount of control over the corporation if you wish - but don't expect others to participate in the delusion. 2. Looking forward to the clarification.

OGZPY is a tradable ADR - ergo, I'd consider it a private asset. I'm not sure when "corporation" became synonymous with "freemarket capitalism". The two are not one in the same. If the state or its proxies own a controlling stake in the outstanding shares, then the state is as much the owner of Gazprom as the Ford Family is of the Ford Motor Company. You, Crux, et al seem to be arguing that political liberty increases in direct proportion to the state's control of property - whatever form that may take. To summarize your position: The more the state confines its activity to laws, and the the less it involves itself in the ownership or control over property and productive enterprises - the more likely fascism is to emerge. I'm arguing the contrary point. Fascism and various other forms of totalitarianism are *only* possible when the state secures enough control over private property - be that farms, factories, corporations, or what have you - to render the population incapable of resisting.

Ironic headline on the "Bend Business Review": "Breaking Point Is Powdr Corp killing bill Healy's dream for Mt. Bachelor?" Interesting to note in the same article Bachy visits are up just 3% over 2001 and have actually fallen .77% on the 10 year time scale. Compared to a 14% increase over 2001 and 44% increase over 10 years for Meadows. Seems like Bachy was seen as the premiere "destination" mountain in the PNW up until the mid-80's, but it's status as such seems to have declined progressively ever since. Pretty much the only reason I'd bother with Bachelor is if I have some other reason to be there. I'd never travel to the area for the skiing at Bachy if I lived in Portland/Washington.

Hey: Thanks for the updates and suggestions. Looks like we'll be able to hook-up the two-for-one deal via Shell for the 26th. Now if only I could figure out whether or not Whistler will revive last year's deal, I could start planning our vacation. Might have to head for Utah instead if deets don't emerge soon.

Edited for improved clarity: "What has characterized the economic aspects of Putin's regime has been the seizure of private assets by the state or it's direct proxies, not an increasing limitations on the state's capacity to do so, or to direct the economy by other methods." When we are talking about formerly private assets that have been seized by the state, which are presently controlled by the state, and are being used to further the state's ends - then they are part of the state, not autonomous corporations owned and governed by private citizens. Pretend that this is "placement of power into the corporations," and not the state eliminating actors that have the capacity to check the state's power if you wish. Fascism, yes. Free-market capitalism, no.

How do you define tolerance? For me it means acknowledging and respecting the legal rights of people with opinions that differ from my own. That's it. IMO so long as you abide by the strictures defined above, you can extend tolerance to persons that you actively despise. yes yes we all know you're a law and order type of guy, blah blah blah heard it before. So what's your working definition? my working definition is you're a dumbass, just like pink. Thus spake the man with the multiple neg-AM I/O arms...

How do you define tolerance? For me it means acknowledging and respecting the legal rights of people with opinions that differ from my own. That's it. IMO so long as you abide by the strictures defined above, you can extend tolerance to persons that you actively despise. yes yes we all know you're a law and order type of guy, blah blah blah heard it before. So what's your working definition? IMO my version is more likely to hold when the chips are down than the lefto-PC "Celebrate Diversity" version.

How do you define tolerance? For me it means acknowledging and respecting the legal rights of people with opinions that differ from my own. That's it. IMO so long as you abide by the strictures defined above, you can still be defined as tolerant towards a group of people that you openly, actively despise.

Jesus Christ. "...his perception depends upon your definition of fascism, but if fascism is seen as fundamentally a process whereby the corporations merge with the state to the end that all political restraint on capitalism is forcibly removed, then yes, Putin (and Russia) may be going in the direction that Hitler followed." It was National *Socialism*. Hitler and Mussolini both emerged from socialist movements, and the movements overseen by both required *more* state control over their respective economies in order to effectively consolidate power and deprive private citizens of the means that they'd need to resist coercion by the state. Trotsky understood this well. "In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." What has characterized the economic aspects of Putin's regime hasn't the seizure of private assets by the state or it's direct proxies, not an increasing limitations on the state's capacity to do so, or to direct the economy by other methods.

On my commuter route, fixie season ended as soon as the first snow fell...

For Your Wife: -WRSI or WRSI with detachable face-bar if you are on a budget ($100 or less). -Sweet Rocker Full cut or Rocker Full-Face if money is no object.(~$300) -EJ's Rolling and Bracing (DVD)to spend less time upside down.($~35) Pound-a-Thon at the Beaverator Hole (real name) on the Taylorville Section of the Beaver River (NY). [gvideo]9174804086329722776[/gvideo]

I just need to know what kind of beer the volcano produces, how hot the strippers are, and how interested they'll be in chain-doinking me for all of eternity before I sign on the dotted line...

The canonical beliefs of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are set forth by Henderson in the Open Letter,[4] the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and on Henderson's web site,[19] where he is described as a prophet. The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, which created the entire universe "after drinking heavily."[2] All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith; a form of the Omphalos hypothesis. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."[4] The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses that it contains beer volcanoes and a stripper factory.[20] Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale, and the strippers have VD.[21]" I'm on the verge of converting...

As far as the boy-scout thing goes, there's a big difference between what the people in charge articulate as policy, and what actually happens in practice at the troop level. I was an atheist boy scout, and no one associated with my troop would have made an issue of this had it even come up. It never did, because religion just wasn't part of the picture. I suspect that this would have been the case even if I chose to press the issue with the adults that ran the troop. Had I made it a point to engage in theatrics, and made it a point to force the issue at the regional level or higher, maybe it would have been different. I think that this is a key issue. The Boy Scouts are a private organization with a particular set of principles that they advocate and attempt to reinforce or instill in the boys that choose to join their organization. They have a set of principles that they make no secret of - you choose to join them or not. The extent to which you actually abide by or internalize them is entirely up to you. When I was growing up, there seemed to be a broad assumption that when you joined such a group, it was up to you to make whatever compromises or concessions necessary to you to persist in the group. Now it seems like there's a broad expectation that the converse is true, and that private groups should make an infinite number of compromises or concessions in their principles in order to accomodate the practices, beliefs, or identities of individual members, who seem to crave this kind of institutional validation. At least in the case of special groups that have received validation as formal victim-groups. If there were laws in place which specifically prevented the formation of any youth-groups for boys other than the Boy Scouts, or if membership in the Boy Scouts was compulsory, then I'd be more sympathetic to these complaints. As things stand, there's absolutely nothing preventing anyone from creating an outdoor oriented groups for gay children, or athiests, or any other group of youths with convictions or identities that fall outside those that the Scouts are willing to accept or promote. Having said all of that - I have no problem with the argument that if the Scouts are taking public money, then they have they have to play by the public's rules, and should not receive any special treatment, subsidization, etc that would not be available to any other group of private citizens.

For me it's timid people that can't bring themselves to pass when it's clearly safe for them to do so. Just as annoying on a bike as it is in a car. Whether I'm in a car or on a bike, I pull over so they'll pass as soon as I can. They move down the road unimpeded, I no longer have someone on my ass. Win-win.

This sort of argument presumes that you have to believe in the supernatural myths that underly a particular holiday in order to enjoy the cultural traditions that the myths gave rise to. I don't believe in any of the various supernatural phenomena originally associated with halloween/all-saints-day, but I celebrate Halloween, etc.

Seems like a good opportunity to draw some attention to this guy. The Christopher Hitchens of the 19th Century. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

I'd say all athiests are pretty much in agreement when it comes to the supernatural phenomena that religion concerns itself with, but it's no surprise that this does not translate into anything resembling unanimity on political issues that are completely unrelated to such questions, or at best only tangentially related to them.

I've run into quite a few people who find theological justification for their left-of-center beliefs in whatever religion they belong to, and organizations that do the same. What has upset people on the left over the past twenty years doesn't seem to be that there are religious groups or people with overtly political agendas, but rather that the religious people and groups who share their convictions have been substantially less effective at translating their religiously inspired political convictions into concrete political gains than people with who they disagree on most political issues. Edited to acknowledge Exhibit A two posts above.

Glad to hear that you are on the road to recovery, and I wish you well in your efforts to retain that perspective. Seems to get more difficult as time passes for most people who, despite the epiphany, still have to work for a living, pay bills, drive in traffic, etc.