Dechristo

Ben suffered from lead poisoning

The " someone close to me died" troll

If you are travelling roped on a glacier and your partner falls into a crevasse, what are you going to arrest with, your 45 cm ice tool. No, you want an ice axe! If adequately excited about the climb, and I fell face-forward, the third tool would plunge deeply and provide adequate purchase. However, in such a scenario, the efficacy of the third tool may diminish quickly after introduction to the glacier.

like a couple of guys in Colorado National Monument in the '70's used to trundle entire pillars

one could dance "The Worm" up a wall

you're a sick puppy

talking about money is so gauche, ...so plebeian, common, ...so vulgar.

New Incredulity

...or, a bunny-whipped barb

I want shuttle bus service with conveniently located espresso baristas.

STFU, n00b

Turn to your TA and say, "I've got a pressing task for you to address ASAP."

is it legal to use a Swiffer?

There is an appropriateness, and an irony, in an academic asking a question that cannot be answered by book, lecture, or study.

That's pretty rich coming from a guy, who earlier in this same thread (and in the same post) stated: and... You do see the problem with these statements together, yes? Right... Nope. This is where you fall off your horse. There are millions of firearms in private ownership and it is not illegal to buy or sell firearms privately ("black market"?). There will be little effect in limiting the availability of firearms without affecting this market. try to dazzle 'em with bullshit, eh?

You're obviously ignorant of the realities of gun trafficking as your conjectures are based on ill- or mis-informed notions of the subject. As for bolstering your argument, perhaps, but only in your mind.

Studies also show that the vast majority of guns involved in violent crimes originate from federally licensed dealers that sell without a store front or proper record keeping. Shut these bastards down, require a valid storefront and proper record keeping for licensed dealers, plus a backround check and waiting period for purchasers (already in place in many states) and you've addressed a significant chunk of the ease of availability problem. This shouldn't impinge most lawful gun enthusiasts too terribly much. I don't believe this would help as there is a huge number of sales between private parties. To have an effect, private gun sales would need to be outlawed...and that would be difficult to achieve. ...and most of those privately sold guns that wind up in the evidence room originate from these few rogue federally licensed dealers. People don't manufacture guns in their basement. Established companies do, and those companies sell to licensed dealers. It's a classic 80/20 problem. Cut out those few dirtbag dealers selling to everybody and anybody and you've removed a major source of the problem. Primarily, it's an enforcement problem. Politically, pro gun politicians don't want to insult their pro-gun base and the well funded and organized NRA. This is the dirty little secret of the gun debate, and one for which neither the NRA nor their supporters have an cogent explanation. Apparently, you are unaware of the huge activity in private sales of guns that originated from "storefront" gun shops.

Studies also show that the vast majority of guns involved in violent crimes originate from federally licensed dealers that sell without a store front or proper record keeping. Shut these bastards down, require a valid storefront and proper record keeping for licensed dealers, plus a backround check and waiting period for purchasers (already in place in many states) and you've addressed a significant chunk of the ease of availability problem. This shouldn't impinge most lawful gun enthusiasts too terribly much. I don't believe this would help as there is a huge number of sales between private parties. To have an effect, private gun sales would need to be outlawed...and that would be difficult to achieve.

it's up to 31 or 32 killed today at VA Tech

perhaps he should be niggardly in his use of pejorative speech.

November 21, 1888:

You might want to reconsider that statement. The term "yellow journalism" was created over one hundred years ago to describe the sensationalizing of news in order to drive up circulation. ...and Jefferson's hiring of a New York journalist to smear Adams took place before the presidential election of 1800.

Do you believe I'm defending Imus?

The Rutgers team response to Imus should have been, "Imus who?"

I submit you display the fruit of the same mechanism. Your posts are rife with the judgement of others; you display what you condemn. Ah, the judgmentless society argument. No values, where anything and everything is simply fodder for derision, scorn, and shock. I argue instead that even using no other moral compass or standard than common sense you'd have to be blind or complicit to not judge certain behaviors and actions as inappropriate to the common good. For example, the Bush adminstration's motives, methods, and actions relative to not only the war in Iraq, but also broad swaths of governmental policy, at nearly every turn, have been dishonest, disenginous, and at times treasonous almost from day one due to their ends-justifies-any-means approach to a 'conservative revolution in government'. In the case of Imus' on-air speech, as a professional journalist his speech was by any cogent standard a textbook example of hate speech pure and simple. He's free to spew his personal biases and bigotry as a private citizen - he has a different responsibility when he's on the air. A whole genre of media talking heads have spawned over the past 20 years which at their core are based on hateful content designed to skirt the edges of legal speech to shock, enrage, and incite divisions among peoples. Hopefully Howard Stern and others of their ilk were awake at some point during this whole pitiful episode. But in the end people get what they accept. Blind judgment rooted in dogma is lamentable, a blind eye to injustice, criminal, and treasonous behavior is stupidity. I just don't mind calling them as I see them when speech and action leave the realm of opinion and private concern to negatively impact public welfare. At one time that's what journalism used to be about - public accountability rather than hate-filled 'entertainment'. No, it's not about being without judgment, but the application of judgment. As an example, it's appropriate that I judge the length to cut a board, but inappropriate to judge myself as wrong, or stupid, should I make an error, unless I want to do it for humor (which, I often do). We have laws to determine "wrong" behavior and I believe it appropriate to petition for the creation or change of laws, but the endless haranguing and bitching on what you think is Right and Wrong sours the giver and the receiver...admittedly, it's a habit hard to break. Lighten up. Your last breath should taste sweet.