archenemy

already

sold.

free tickets annoy me.

I'd go, but baseball annoys me.

I eat a lot, and I am not thin by any stretch of the imagination. I've seen you in real life and you're right, you don't look thin. You look solid and healthy!

Because most of the time women don't run out to the end of branch with no other way around the guy in front of you.

photoshop annoys me

You guys know how to make a Monday much more fun!

Oly is my hero 2

Dru is my hero.

I am around muslim women twice a week for my Arabic class. I do not find them to be any stronger or fitter than any other women I have met here in America or anywhere else in the world. They are strong, but then, all women I meet are strong in surprising ways--even when they don't know it until they are tested in some way. "Powerful" though, I disagree with. That is the problem. They are powerless in their home countries, powerless under their political structures, and powerless in various religious organizations. And this program may be a way to help change this problem.

I have not yet read beyond this post, so forgive me if what I'm laying down here has already been said. I agree with Sherri on this. Women, especially women who have little experience in an atmosphere of equality with men, cannot be expected to suddenly behave "liberated" when still in the company of men. They have not been exposed to an environment that supports them as equal individual human beings yet and will most likely still feel secondary to men in the group. I think an analogy (albeit a weak on) to this in America might be girls in the classroom. Girls' voices are generally silenced by about sixth grade (no fault of teachers--this is a social thing we learn). Yet, if girls get put in an all-girl class during the difficult years around puberty, they speak up again. I am sure the teachers in our cc.com group can give more info on this--pro or con. But the important thing here is that a group that is accustomed to "sumiting" (I am trying to find a gentler word that oppressed) to the dominant group cannot be expected to suddenly act differently within there environment until the dynamics of that group have been changed. The easy first step is to allow women a voice of their own in a supportive environment of other women who know exactly how they feel. I understand this may feel exclusionary to men; but I have faith that men grasp the importance of the fact that women may need some time and experience in the company of other women.

he could rent out that space between his teeth

The answer is 42

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. When I said "permit", I did not mean to imply this meant a permit for owning a gun, rather, a permit for hunting. Sorry for any confusion...

"Because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life," Xavier Delfosse, a member of the team from Grenoble University in France, said in a statement. ooohhh a hunting expedition!

No; you can tell b/c his lips aren't moving.

Nice detailed way to reiterate what I said above.

It could be spawned by the internet.

So back on track, 1) Speech and the press ARE regulated. False alarms (yelling 'fire' in a theatre), threats, obscenity, false statement, violating national security; these and more are heavily regulated in the name of public safety and well being. I could stop here, because Bill's slippery slope argument is already DOA, but... 2) guns and gun ownership ARE regulated. Anyone under thirty has to pass hunter safety to get their permit; these classes are for public safety and well being. Certain types of weapons are banned for many people. People with felony convictions are not allowed to own a gun. I could go on here, but I'd just sound like a dumb cunt, wouldn't I?

That is funny.

I agree. I can't understand why anyone would do that to another person. And while in the hospital, she must see parents with kids who are sick but curable. How could she not feel empathy for them? The resources being used to prolong her child's death could be going toward saving someone else. I just don't get it.

That what will never change? Who you talkin too? You bet, and that arguement has been used quite sucessfully as well to show that the media can and should be restrained especially in their active depiction of violence, which is ruinous to society and has been proven to cause more violence. Nobody is saying that the media should be banned or regulated, rather that it should have the most eggresious abuses which they repeatedly display checked a little. To obsensiously tighten up and improve our society just a bit: only the most eggrious books should be banned. Maybe responsible people like yourself can register to check them out with a special permit after a background check. Not all books or all media. Remember that the biggest amount of people murdered via a domestic terroism act were not killed by guns anyway. By ideas picked up from the internet. That's what we learned from Tim McVey. He learned how to make a bomb. After all, don't you agree that only a criminal would object to having to register with the police or ask to keep them out of his house, and only unpatriotic Jews would refuse to register and wear the pretty yellow stars..... Right, what's the big deal? We can and should fix society so that we are all safe. Bill's equating of our 1st and 2nd amendment rights here seems a bit far fetched to me. He suggests that to regulate gun ownership would open up the possibility of also regulating free speech and a free press. This line of argument is fundamentally flawed on several counts. 1) Speech and the press ARE regulated. False alarms (yelling 'fire' in a theatre), threats, obscenity, false statement, violating national security; these and more are heavily regulated in the name of public safety and well being. I could stop here, because Bill's slippery slope argument is already DOA, but... 2) Equating the direct and proven threat that homocidal gun owners present to society to the indirect and unproven threat of 'media induced violence' (which has never been proven by any study) is a bit of a stretch. Our society already regulates and sometimes bans access to potentially lethal machines to a segment of the adult population: it's called a revoked driver's license. I can think of no compelling reason why a similar standard should not be applied to gun ownership in the interests of public safety. From this post, it sounds like there are no rules attached to gun ownership whatsoever. This is simply untrue.

The pen is mightier than the sword, so perhaps knowledge is more dangerous than guns?

But a good invitation for other analogies.