packsaddle

I have done this before. The first thing I do is have a chat with the parents to make sure they understand the situation. They usually take the lead and that usually ends it as far as my involvement goes. However, if they wish me to, with their permission I am willing to make the boy aware that if he wants to talk about his questions, I am willing to listen and perhaps offer some support.

Here's the problem with your last statement. Spineless wimps would, of course, agree with you. Corrupt liars would also say they agree, whether they did or not. See the problem?

Whether it is done as airy persiflage or puffery, I consider the 'declaration' of something to have less authority than the actual demonstration of it. Or to use an old saying, it's one thing to have the mouth, quite another to put your money where the mouth is. What is the other thread?

John-in-KC, Tennessee Tech used to have an exquisite tuba ensemble. I have often enjoyed their performances. But I haven't seen them in quite a while, just haven't spent much time in Cookeville lately. Edited part: Hey, just found this: http://orgs.tntech.edu/tuba/ They're alive and well. I may pick up one of their recordings.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

SSScout, I prefer a flute ensemble version of "The Girl from Ipanema" as elevator music. There's just nothing better than the classics. Spielberg evidently agreed. John-in-KC, I agree. Deeds speak more truly than creeds.

Oh Rapture! This is just too good not to share!

I just notified my classes that if the world comes to an end tonight, lecture is cancelled.

I'm very disappointed in what I'm seeing on both sides. At the same time I think I understand why they're saying what they're saying. Neither side is addressing the hard issues with realistic, and reasoned policies. They are letting the emotional issues that are really quite shallow create even more polarization than exists already. I think they are avoiding meaningful policy discussions because they BOTH know that what they are about to inherit is almost without solution. They and the American people are going to be hammered by circumstances that were created by the current administration and have festered until they are almost insoluble...without significant pain to the public. And they're afraid to speak the truth to the public because they'll lose votes if they do. And they're probably right about that. If the decision is between Bush-warmed-over and Alfred E. Neuman (what me worry?), then I suggest that it could all be academic: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html If the hadron collider creates a black hole, all of this hand wringing will matter for nothing...or so I'm told by the conspiracy folks around here. I'm laughing, of course. But we're going to find out the ultimate answer to the end of the world question, possibly tomorrow during the first test. Eeee haaa! Think I better sell my stock and go wild for the next few hours...the end is a comin'. But then, people have been saying that often...for a long time...of course until it DID happen in the rapture of 1996. And hardly anyone noticed.

It applies to open systems too. And as far as I am concerned, ALL systems are natural, and all natural systems are open...unless you really believe that Matrix movie theme. Of course it is a choice. The outcome of the choices are subject to selective pressures and those which produce the greatest efficiency tend to win out eventually. If people make wasteful (less efficient) choices they are at a competitive disadvantage with those who are less wasteful (more efficient). This works in all systems, just the mechanisms are more complex in social ones (and might involve irrational supernatural spirits or something).

You were commenting to someone else that I probably have seen the film and I replied to the effect that I'd seen it at least umpteen times. I just saw it again for umpteen+1. And thought about you when I heard that line again. Next we're scheduled to move on to 'Galaxy Quest'...and beyond!

A now-retired history prof at Southern Miss used to tell his classes that one of the two favorite books carried by Confederate soldiers was Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables". They thought it meant, "Lee's Miserables". There could be a kernel of truth here. From the website: http://www.lesmis.com/pages/education/novel_author_2.htm "Indeed, Confederate soldiers read the novel voraciously, calling themselves "Lee's Miserables." I didn't see the movie. It looked too much like a "cheesy kid's fantasy story, very similar to Narnia. [but] instead of talking lions, this one had talking polar bears." Thanks Trev. I think we are on the same wavelength...you might consider wearing the aluminum foil?

I agree with NJ. If this is legit, we can surmise that he has parents. We can also surmise that he isn't 18 yet if he hasn't done the final writeup or EBOR. If this is the case, the parents are still very much involved unless his state has one of those idiotic emancipation laws and he has already fallen into that crack. He needs to talk to his parents and their attorney if there is one, NOT us. The EBOR is an insignificant consideration. Edited part: GW, if he was caught climbing into MY daughter's window, I'd be the one charged with the felony. His parents could merely replace my car.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Don't mention it, I owe it all to Jaqueline Suzanne and Harold Robbins.

Sorry man, As I said before in this thread, I was born and bred in the South. Lived my whole life here. Hunted and fished...and studied...in most of the Southern states and lived in rural areas, and on the mill hill. Your characterization of Atlanta and Athens as Yankee enclaves is one I'll be sure to mention to provoke people in the future. But I'll let people from those parts defend themselves. As for 'loyalty', I might ask, loyal to what? A failed immoral cause? Ignorance and futile stupidity? I have direct, personal knowledge of at least one West Point graduate from the winning side who DID consider Lee a traitor and I mentioned in this thread another whose dislike of Lee led to the location for the formation of Arlington Cemetary. But my assessment is my own opinion and as I said before, I know I'm in a minority. I was in a minority opinion regarding integration at one time (also in opposition to BSA practice at the time). I can live with it. I'm loyal to what I have learned through the references that I have listed in this and other threads on the topic. That said, if you have authorities that contradict those scholars, I look forward to reading them. As for opinions, your is yours and mine is mine, even if it is about 3 years old by now.

Merlyn, I'm thinking it is at the top of page 2 in the other thread on atheism. I'm curious as to how one starts a new thread by accident. Kind of like tripping on the sidewalk and accidentally starting a new thread?

Merlyn beat me to it. When I read the question, the term 'empathy' came immediately to mind. I can only add that being able to "put oneself in another's place" and empathy are essentially why we value the golden rule. I have noted in the past that a full code of morality can be derived from the second law of thermodynamics and a simple assumption that greater efficiency is better than less efficiency. Nothing more is needed.

The Talosian speaks to Captain Pike in "The Cage" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059753/quotes It wasn't a perfect quote but close enough. Meg Wyllie was one of my favorite character actresses (the Talosian Keeper, referred to by the other Talosians as 'magistrate'). Calico, I guess I have to make a similar confession, sigh. Edited Part: I'm trying to figure out why OGE made that response...plus Beavah has me worried about what it is on page 22 of the G2SS that makes me evil if I violate it. I'm actually reading it right now and ... I mean, 'evil'? I don't get it. I'm thinking that the whole world would be a better place if everyone was a Trekkie. You have to admit, neither political party has any better grasp of reality.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

GaHillBilly, Sorry man, I was going by the earlier quote from the same Anchorage paper article that your quote came from: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html From the article: "Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."" The 'fair and balanced' people at Fox news conveniently left that part out and so did you. But when she was interviewed a day later, she tried to back off (your quote). Does the word, 'flipflop' bring back any memories? In fairness, I'll reserve final judgement until I hear or read some more definitive statements from her if any are forthcoming, but for now I am suspicious that her first statement came from the heart, her later statement might have been calculated to blunt the reaction. Or I could be wrong and she's just clueless about science and science education. Is that better? At any rate, suggesting that alternative views should be taught is fine as long as the alternative views are scientific. However, such a suggestion is bad in this case because it is merely a ruse to bring in ID/creationism as the alternative view. ID/creationism isn't science so it isn't a scientific alternative that should be taught along side science. Teach it in political science or religion class. But keep it out of the science classroom. Show me her strong support for science education and for keeping religion out of science classes, and I WILL reconsider my decision. Show me. See you Sunday night. I'm gone camping...assuming my companion ever shows up.

The moderators are not secret. They are designated by an asterisk by their forum membership status (for example: senior forum member*). I took them to task a while back. Their actions have been modest since that time, probably mostly due to the intervention by Terry, whom I might add is doing all of us a great service by providing this forum in the first place. I urge you to keep in mind, as I do, that Terry and the moderators really do have the best of intentions. Kind of like (hopefully) the rest of us. Edited part: Did I mention that the moderators are Talosian?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eagletrek, Wow, that's almost the same with mine. They actually LIKE broccoli! And, fortunately for me, they hate green beans. I get ALL of the green bean casserole! I love it. They can HAVE the broccoli. Anyway, my son enjoyed Cub Scouts and the beginning of Boy Scouts. But he faltered during his work toward Star. I made a deal with him: if he would finish Star, I'd leave the decision up to him and he could remain in scouting or not and I would support his decision no matter what it was. By the time he finished Star, he had decided that he wanted to take on the challenge to make it all the way through Eagle. He did. I'm off to the mountains in a few minutes. Everyone have a nice weekend!

SMT224, thanks for the reminder. So true.

Mrs. Beavah must be at least as nice and forgiving as Mrs. P. Your scenario is not comparable. First, the crash scenario cannot exactly reproduce the dependence of the son's life on the continued life of the mom. The crash scenario doesn't intimately link his life to hers in the manner of the fetus, a manner in which his ends if hers ends, no matter what. It only makes SAVING hers dependent on ending his...not quite the same thing. Second, the son would be uninjured and in order to save the mom who is also perfectly conscious and perhaps capable of returning to normal health, the rescue effort must cut the still-living and uninjured son in half. Puts a different appearance on it doesn't it? Still comfortable? I hope not. I also hope you noticed that part about 50% of pregnancies while using IUDs being ectopic. Interesting. They are rare but they exist. While your approach to what I would call 'viability' is rational, it doesn't address the question of 'life'. It doesn't really address viability either. I doubt that those who think life begins at conception are comfortable with it either. At the end, where we have the technologies available, we increasingly CHOOSE the manner of the ending, or we choose to continue the effort. We 'pull the plug' so-to-speak, sometimes on the very basis you mentioned. But if you mean to extend similar choice to the other end of things, you must also take into account the fact that the patient with heartbeat and brain activity, but unable to respond in any way, is also connected to life-support - the mother. The difference is your assumption that continued life-support will revive the patient. If you COULD substitute a machine for the biological life-support that the mother provides, then the analogy would be a lot better. But as we all know that is not yet possible. The present, and I think fair, approach is to give the responsibility for this difficult decision to the person who bears the burden of the decision: the mother. Not the state. Not the federal government. The individual. I actually think your answer before was a good one, to win hearts (and, I might add, minds). If the argument against the choice of abortion is compelling enough, if it has sufficient merit, then individuals making the choice will choose not to abort. But THEY will choose. Not the state, not the feds, not Rooster7, not TheScout, and not you. If, however, your argument does not have sufficient merit, perhaps THAT is the place to address further attention, and not to take the shortcut of government removing the right to choose. And as I indicated before, however, while the 'right' might be eliminated someday, the 'ability' won't. It will just be more expensive. All about money, as Rush says.

OK, this thread is one more rehash of stuff we've been through before. Here's one that I couldn't stay away from. The abortion debate starts on page 5: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=126517#id_127851 Then there's this one, about the same vintage but very short because it is where Rooster7 put himself into exile. Rooster, I hope it doesn't bring back bad memories: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=129006#id_129068 In short, my view is that the subject is a red herring. No law will eliminate abortion because the technology is too easy and too pervasive. Nor should the central government dictate personal moral decisions of women who bear the responsibility of those decisions. Moreover, life does not 'begin' at conception...unless you are one of the last people on the planet to believe in spontaneous generation. Life is a continuum and haploid life is life nevertheless. Finally, no one that I can remember has provided a good answer for my question about ectopic pregnancy. http://www.medicinenet.com/ectopic_pregnancy/article.htm These occur. "Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester of pregnancy." About 50% of the time both mother and fetus will die if there is no intervention. The fetus almost certainly will not survive no matter what. For those of you who want to make this decision for everyone else, who do you think must die? Fetus...or both? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

And although Mrs. Beavah runs for the disinfectant when I say it, I agree.

Wow, I never expected my comment to hijack the thread. Anyone who is in doubt about the deception that been attempted by the intelligent design creationists needs to read the Dover transcript. Or the the book by Miller, "Only a Theory". Or...Or... Creationism is a religious perspective that should not be presented in a science classroom. Intelligent design is nothing more than a 'cover' for creationism, and a poor one at that. They are too timid and PC to even name the creator, God. But this is explained in the transcript...they changed the terms to avoid legal consequences. Now THAT is an honest approach....NOT. The 'irreducible complexity' argument is just wonderful. It states that the more complex a system is, the more improbable that it could arise from mere chance. Setting aside the error of the straw man statement this is, the logic can be turned on itself. If increasing complexity accompanies decreasing probability, what is the most complex thing and therefore the least probable, perhaps zero probability? Answer: the creator.