knelson

only to you, dru No... actually I found it particularly funny also.

There's a great post on here somewhere that I'll try and find a link to, if I can work this *$^$& search engine. What I remember was that a guy had crampon points and a wrench to change them in his carry-on bag. He thought "duh" as he was approaching security, but went for it anyway. Security dude did look at the points, but put them aside. Instead, security dude confiscated the wrench because "tools" were on the no-no list, repacked the points into the bag, and sent him on his way. I'll try to dig up the post, but my point it that logic has very little to do with what will pass and what will not. And arguing is not an option. Might want to check it, or be ready to part with anything that doesn't look like the "normal" stuff people bring onboard.

Quality, not quantity. My spray is ISO9000 compliant.

You're the thoughtful one on the right, bringing flowers... right?

I was trying to come up with something along that line last night, but I just couldn't find the right wording.

From a NOLSe post elsewhere on this board...

This'll teach that fucker to pass me without asking...

I saw Stallone do this once...

I'd double check the seam tape on that jacket. I'm thinkin' it might not be up to snuff. Oh... congrats, too! -kurt

If you'd bother to look up the data yourself you'd see those sources aren't that different. If you'd bother to look up the data you'd see that "common sense" is once again wrong, as for a total of several decades America was heading to greater income equality (decreasing gini coefficent) "Looking up the data" these days just means doing a google and posting the results, not necessarily trying to digest what the data is saying... so no - you're right - I haven't bothered to look up the data. With that said tho... Thanks for showing a graph that at least has a consistent data source. And I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong, so there... I was wrong - you were right. By this data, it does appear that income inequality wasn't always there. But was it...? This graph shows the PERCENT CHANGE for the Gini coefficient. This coefficient measures the gap between high and low income levels. The graph only tells us how much that coefficient is CHANGING... not what it is to start with. What it tells us is that yes... the rich are getting richer. It does NOT tell us that there was never a gap to start with. Example: In 1949, person X makes $10/year and person Y makes $1000/year. That ratio is 10/1000 or .01. In 1980, person X makes $50/year and person Y makes $5000/year. That ratio is also .01. The percent change of that ratio between 1949 and 1980? Yup... zero. No change in the coefficient. Was there income inequality present all along? You betcha. I will ponder this more, but I still think something's fishy with that metric. Maybe it's the wrong metric, who knows. But it just seems like from the caveman days, there were some that had four sharp sticks, and some that only had one. I'm sure they did some "redistribution" of their own, but in the end, some still ended up with more. I agree to disagree...

86th percentile woulda thought it would be up there with tomtom's. I guess it's my job that's keeping the thumb down on me... I need a more prestigious occupation than "civil engineer." 83rd. Fuuuu... you're telling me that if I was a Civil Engineer I'd be at the 85th, but because I'm a Mechanical I'm 83rd. Damn. Guess I better cut you some slack there Sobo. I bow down in awe of your class. I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing with CBS - it doesn't matter what the cause of the disparity is. It's not something that can be fixed. There will always be people that make more than others. There will always be people who make bad choices in life and can't recover. There will always be people who have misfortunate things happen to them and lose everything. You can't fix those things. But we CAN fix our attitudes and have compassion and understanding for folks that are struggling to get by and help them however we can. -kurt

Umm "Source: Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data in Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 1994-95 (M.E. Sharpe: 1994) p. 37, and U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, Table F-3." those are the same sources. Historically part of the reason behind seamingly punitive tax policies was income redistribution, to combat the capital gap. Umm... nope. Try again. You conveniently left out the date range info from the page at http://www.faireconomy.org/research/income_charts.html which then makes it appear to be from the same source. Here's what it says for those that are too lazy to check it out for themselves... Data Sources: 1947-1979: Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data in Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 1994-95 (M.E. Sharpe: 1994) p. 37. 1979-2001: U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, Table F-3 OK... the latest chart's info is directly from the US Census Bureau. The older info is from something called "Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 1994-95" written by ME Sharpe, that is supposedly an "analysis" of US Census Bureau data. NOT THE SAME SOURCES. And I'm sure the "Economic Policy Institute" is an unbiased think tank. Look - I know the gap is getting bigger, but common sense says the gap has always been there and has always been growing. But that growth is not linear - it's most likely exponential, just like compounding interest. And we're just now probably starting to see that curve take off. -kurt

In relative terms thats not true. vs. Interesting graph. I'd be curious to know what their definition of "Family Income" is, and if it's the same between the two graphs. Looking at the website those came from, I see their data source is different for each graph. Bells and whistles should be going off in the head when this happens to be watching for some funny business with the statistics. But even if it is true, my point is simple... Those with more disposable income have more to invest thus generating more disposable income, thus having more to invest... It's hard to make something out of nothing. The gap just keeps getting bigger. I'm not sayin' that's a good thing...

Well... duh. Always has, always will.

What do you call a gal with no arms, no legs, and no torso? Muffy.

Hmmm... deep. Never thought of it that way.

Orange you glad I didn't say banana again? A motorcycle because a telephone pole has no doors. Johnnie train's the baby in the house.

Orange you glad I didn't say banana again?

Selkirk, Still confused... seems like you're arguing with me, but we're saying the same thing. There are many different areas of study available at seminaries, so giving you a specific course outline is a bit pointless, but here are a couple links you can knock yourself out with... http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwsem/syllabus/listen_with_heart.html http://www.trinitylutheranseminary.edu/Academics/CourseCatalog.pdf Obviously, if someone is truly interested in a counseling avenue, their 4-year degree coursework (before seminary) is probably going to be heavy in that area... just as you commented. If their interest is in music & worship, then they're probably going to have an emphasis on arts, etc. Again... we're saying the same thing: most of these folks aren't "untrained."

I think you're confusing "Priests" or ordained ministers from other denominational relgions with the "send in a coupon from a matchbook and become a minister" variety that seems to be predominate in a lot of fundamentalist non-denominational churches. The path to being an ordained minister is up there close to being a doctor. Not sure what that says about either career path... Big difference between a minister and a catholic priest. There are lots of people preaching with nothing but charisma and few bible versus. Though there are also some extremely thoughtful well educated ones as well. Likey anything else there's a spectrum. As for catholic priests, I just googled it and came up with this "Preparation generally requires 8 years of study beyond high school, usually including a college degree followed by 4 or more years of theology study at a seminary." Nope, these guys aren't trained in anything what so ever. (This is the same amount of schooling it takes to get an MD, or for some a PhD. Though the MD's still have a residency to go through once they graduate.) Uhhhh... right. Yeah. I think that's pretty much what I said. As also noted, schoolin' don't make ya edumacated. But check into what they're teaching at those seminaries and I'm pretty sure you won't find 4,003 courses on how to read Hebrew. Course work also involves counseling. And like MDs, there are also internships, etc. equivalent to residencies. Point is, contrary to Josh's point, most of these folks that are in it for the right reason ARE highly trained. Whether or not they're competant is another issue. edit: can't believe I spelled "competant" wrong!

I think you're confusing "Priests" or ordained ministers from other denominational relgions with the "send in a coupon from a matchbook and become a minister" variety that seems to be predominate in a lot of fundamentalist non-denominational churches. The path to being an ordained minister is up there close to being a doctor. Not sure what that says about either career path...

Damn... can't believe I'm gonna stick up for Catholic priests... Can't vouch for all of 'em, but most clergy ARE trained in the art of relationships... even if they're not having one themselves. Relationships don't have to involve marriage, or sex for that matter. Uhh... guess you're not a church goer, eh? Most churches WILL suggest outside help, in addition to the obvious "church stuff." Christianity is not a passive religion, as others have suggested in this thread - it's a two-way street. -kurt

That was the joke, in its entirety. C'est tout, c'est fini! The thought of a skeleton drinking a beer was supposed to be funny. I guess. Anyway, next? Wait wait wait... let's not move on so quickly here. So you repeat a joke here - that's not funny - that you don't really get yourself - and try to pawn it off as a "joke?" What is this, a joke? Oh.... I get it now. Very subtle. I have underestimated you...

Great headline I saw online... "Agent 86 makes 82 – missed it by that much" Mr. Adams will be remembered forever. At least by us old (?) farts, I guess. And Klenke... try Firefox. Google search bar (NOT their spyware toolbar) right on the menu bar. Click the "open a new tab" button, type or paste your word/phrase in the toolbar and voila - your results in seperate window/tab, without losing the page you were originally on. Try it... you'll like it. You can also do Yahoo, dictionary.com, ebay, and others from that same menu bar too.

Hold too long or push too hard and you'll end up with hemorrhoids. ...and then this happens.