markomalley
-
Posts
4,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by markomalley
-
-
Business Week: Can Intrinsa Be a Viagra for Women?
Procter & Gamble may be first to win approval for a testosterone skin patch to boost female desire, especially for menopausal users
Hope the info in there provides what you're looking for CW.
-
Gartmore House Conference Centre
It looks like it is being used for some good now. (If I remember, this came up a few months ago)
-
quote:
Oh, I am not saying for a second that the SOBs wouldn't implement a draft in a flash if they a) thought it necessary b) thought it would do more good than harm and c) thought that it could have a positive impact in time to respond to the particular crisis of the day; the point I was getting at in my above posts was that implementing a draft is a systematic, strategic move (takes a long time to start and a long time to stop) that has a whole lot of other things have to go in place for a draft to be applied. When I see GM cutting production on cars so that they can make HMMWV's, then I'll be concerned about a draft. Until then, I will be a skeptic.
Originally posted by TheSongRemainsTheSame:quote:
Hmmmm, imagine that...the sponsor of the bill voting against it.
So, unless it gets re-introduced in the 109th Congress, it ain't gonna happen.
Oh, and btw, one other thing...the previous draft started during WWII and ended after Vietnam. So, Vietnam did not start the draft.
You are correct. How funni history does not repeat itself anymore.
and which WW was the end of all wars?
You know, its sort of funny if you think about it. All of these progressives and socialists out there (not just here on GSC, but in general), yet, the only strategic actions that have been taken to make a draft happen were done by the most progressive of politicians. The draft started prior to WWII (a little better than a year before) by FDR. Selective Service registration started under Carter: "The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan." And the bill to introduce the draft was introduced by Rangel. So they created the system and then whine about the system that they created. And then conveniently forget the system's history and ascribe it to others. If it wasn't so pitiful how "followers of the (progressive) way" allow themselves to be duped, it would be funny.
As to your war to end all wars question, it was World War I. And, had we minded our own business during that conflict, it is likely that many of the problems we are dealing with today would never have come about. The French and the British would not have been in a position to arbitrarily draw national borders with a straightedge on a map, defining the existence of most mideastern countries, Germany likely would still have been under imperial rule (no matter how bad Kaiser Wilhelm was, he was a piker compared to what came into power in 1932), etc., etc., etc.
Oh, btw, how in the world did this thread get started in "Open" rather than "Politacks," anyway?
-
A scientific proof for the existence of hell:
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct ... leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."
This student received the only "A" given.
-
Daryl,
I agree with you on the Iraq affair. Despite the evident potential to seriously alter the balance of power in the area, it has been so profoundly mismanaged, I have serious doubts that any good can be resurrected out of it.
Having said that, I actually see some positive trends to since Arafat's death. To the best that I can see, there have been no suicide bombings since his death on Nov 11th. The last bombing I was able to find was on Nov 1st in a Tel Aviv market. The turnover of the Gaza strip, delayed for a long period, appear to be back on track. So there are apparently some positive signs. Not enough for me to become actually optimistic on the issue, but, it is good to see some non-bad news every once in a while.
As to the draft (I don't mean to perpetuate a complete derail), no matter how bad the quagmire, you need to consider the following;
- where are the training facilities to handle the influx of troops?
- where is the equipment that these troops are going to be issued and operate?
- Although an MOS 11B grunt infantryman can be given rudimentary training in about 6 months, the other MOS' that are needed to provide support to the 11B's take over a year to get fully up to speed.
- Has congress authorized a force structure increase to provide the units within which these people are going to operate?
- Where, exactly, are the seasoned NCOs that will lead the conscript troops going to come from (don't say "Stop-Loss," "Stop-Loss" just allows existing units to maintain). Although corporals can be built in a couple of years, Staff Sergeants, Sergeants First Class, and Sergeants Major take considerably longer. The army of today cannot function without well seasoned NCOs.
Those who are forwarding the canard (deception) that a draft is imminent need to look at these other signs. If you see that those other signs (increase in force structure, major increases in equipment procurement to fill the TA for those units, etc.) are being acted on in Congress, then you might have cause for concern. Until that time, the chances of a draft happening are slim to none.
(Oh, btw, this is from a 21 year E-7 with the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (3 campaign stars), the NATO Medal (Former Yugoslavia) and the NATO Medal (Kosovo))
-
quote:
Originally posted by Trefor Heywood:If true, it can only increase the already stongly existing viewpoint of many gay people that there is alienation.
However, the UCC is a Canadian body and it's appeal to people on the US side can only be limited unless they live close to the border.
Actually, Trefor, the UCC denomination was formed in the US, as a result of a merger between the Congregational Church and Evangelical and Reformed Church denominations. You can read about it in this Wikipedia writeup.
Yes, folks, the denomination that created this advert has its roots in the same theology that created such theological luminaries such as VPW (does that make them sort of connected to TWI?)
-->Having said that, fundamental tenents of their theology include inclusiveness and progressiveness. (So, if some of you are looking for a church, this might be someplace to consider)
quote:
It's true that most churches don't have bouncers at the door but once inside there are other methods, perhaps more subtle, but equally rejecting.But I will reserve full judgement until I can get to view the ad.
And that is a shame, Trefor. Even if a church disapproves of a particular behavior pattern, they ought to welcome everybody to at least come in and learn.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheSongRemainsTheSame:quote:
Steve!posted November 24, 2004 10:10
And the draft bill was being sponsored be dimmiecrats.
If Bush had wanted a draft, he could have gotten one passed in his first term.
It ain't gonna happen.
_You seem so sure of this Steve!?
ever heard of Viet Fkn Nam?
of course you have.
I am glad you said ... "It ain't gonna happen." Rather than saying ..."It ain't gonna NEVER HAPPEN!"
You cover your *** well!_
Look up 108th Congress, HR 163.
The bill was introduced on 1/7/2003 by Charles Rangel (D-NY). It had 14 co-sponsors:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI]
Rep Brown, Corrine [D=FL]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [D-VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [D-MO]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [D-IL]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX]
Rep Lewis, John [D-GA]
Rep McDermott, Jim [D-WA]
Rep Moran, James P. [D-VA]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [D-CA]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC] (withdrawn - 6/21/2004)
It was defeated on 10/5/2004 in roll call vote 494.
There were 2 votes in favor and 402 votes opposed. Just as a matter of interest, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Stark ( a co-sponsor) were the yea votes. Rep. Brown did not vote. The remainder of the sponsors (including Rangel, who sponsored the bill), voted against the bill.
Hmmmm, imagine that...the sponsor of the bill voting against it.
So, unless it gets re-introduced in the 109th Congress, it ain't gonna happen.
Oh, and btw, one other thing...the previous draft started during WWII and ended after Vietnam. So, Vietnam did not start the draft.
-
quote:
Originally posted by moddishwasher:Several posts were edited to further obscure the names of the people being discussed, since none are former or present members of the Board of Directors, nor in the high echelons of TWI.
I appreciate you doing this, but if I can suggest, in the future, please replace the partially obscured names with "A" "B" "C" "D" or whatever in order to keep the names straight. Because now it is impossible to tell who is doing what to whom (I agree the names are not terribly relevent, but it is important to keep each person separated).
Also, one other thing, fyi, in this case, the names come from court records and news stories, both of which are already in the public domain.
-
noni juice
in Open
Ya know, Hairy, I guess your last one can be considered humour...using the most liberal definition possible.
;)--> -
Excie, check your PT's
-
quote:
Originally posted by ToadFriend:I happen to know the xxxxxxxxs quite well, and have since my early days in the Way in 1972 ... I left on January 11, 1996. xxx was a loving wife and mother, and xxxx a friendly, fun-loving, and intelligent man who worked, as I recall, for the EPA in Research Triangle Park. They lived in Durham. They were caught in the midst of this heart-breaking triangle.
Trafficking does not describe what happened. They retained an attorney to help them locate a baby to adopt into a loving home. The birth mother's expenses were paid; there was no "buying" of the baby. The birth mother later saw a Geraldo show where the Way was featured as a dangerous cult, and so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxs that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing, but I, too, do not agree that "trafficking" is a correct description.
ToadFriend
Thank you for that info. As I said in my original post, "Second, the expenses for xxxxxx (the biological mother) were paid for. Again, I don't have an issue with that (although, apparently, that is against NC law). This is no personal case against the xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxx and xxxx; I have no indication that they did anything other than what they believed was the best."
And, also, thank you for clearing up that no additional moneys were exchanged.
Frankly, the biggest thing that concerned me with this was, as I also indicated in my original post:
quote:
1. xxxxxxxxxx apparently tried to convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and questioning whether or not he was the father. This seems to me like she was trying to set up a circumstance to get xxxxxx to want to get rid of her child.2. The biological father, xxxx was not contacted. They intentionally did not contact the father.
3. The mother's whereabouts were hidden from her family and from the father, xxxx.
Regardless of the xxxxxxxxs' motivations, some funkiness apparently happened to convince xxxxxx to give up her child. Not, by any means, their fault, but it still happened.
-
Pawtucket, please allow me to join the others in expressing my condolences for your loss. It is a terrible tragedy losing a parent, spouse, or child, regardless of how well prepared one might be for the eventuality. You are in my prayers.
-
quote:
I"ll PM you later and leave the stars out (I just don't like posting people's names without their permission in the open). It'll be later tonight, as I don't have the time to write that much right now.
Originally posted by excathedra:mark, tell me what happened without stars
i'm definitely open
-
quote:
Originally posted by excathedra:ps. in answer to the question, i do not think trafficking is the right word
When I read this from the 1991 Supreme Court decision on the case,
quote:
(note text highlighting is mine)
xxxxxxxxxx convinced xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and that he was questioning whether he was the father of her unborn child. On 28 May 1988, xxxxxx moved from xxxx's house and moved in with her mother. She did not leave any information with xxxx as to where she had moved. xxxx called xxxxxx' mother, xxxxxx' ex-husband, and xxxxxxxxxx trying to find out where xxxxxx was living, but no one would [***7] give him any information. On 31 May 1988, xxxx contacted an attorney in Michigan, xxxxxxx xxxxx (xxxxxx), and arranged to meet with him three days later to try to find xxxxxx. xxxx soon found out that xxxxxx was at her mother's house because on one occasion when he telephoned xxxxxx' mother, xxxxxx answered the telephone.
See, if it wasn't for the kind of stuff mentioned in the above quoted paragraph, I would agree with you and, frankly, would not have ever posted about this in any way.
You are right, trafficking may not be the right word, but when I read stuff like what I quoted above, then I get really suspicious as to what was going on.
So, if trafficking is not the right word, I would wonder what is the right one. Why would xxxxxxxxxx convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her? Why would xxxxxx go into hiding after being convinced of this?
A lot of questions...
-
Johniam:
Interestingly, according to the court documents, what spurred xxxxxx to try so hard getting her child back was when they watched a Geraldo show that talked about dangerous cults (TWI being prominently listed). She supposedly watched this with xxxxxxxxxx. So, presumably, both were no longer involved at the time.
As to the lawyer, I checked in the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer directory, and xxxxxxxx is currently listed as a managing partner for a small law firm in NC. The lawyer representing xxxxxx is listed as a sole practitioner. The lawyer representing the xxxxxxxxx through the appeal process, etc., is listed as not currently practicing.
-
I am curious if anybody has knowledge of baby trafficking that may have been going on in TWI. I ask this as the result of a court case that involved some TWI people a few years ago in NC and MI.
I've done some research on this case. Turns out it is fairly famous and is often cited as a precedent in child custody cases.
So, here's the basic scenario. This is synopsized from law review articles and court decisions I retrieved via LexisNexis:
A young lady by the name of xxxxxxxxxx lived in Michigan with her boyfriend, xxxxxxxxxxxx (Note: different documents refer to him as "the father," "husband," "ex-husband." In 1987, she got pregnant. At some point shortly thereafter, she met xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx, who recruited her into TWI. In February of 1988, xxxxxx began to work with xxxxxxxxxx cleaning houses. As is the norm for TWI, xxxxxx began to distance herself from her former friends. xxxxxxxxxx began to work on xxxxxx and convinced xxxxxx that her boyfriend was sleeping around on her and, in fact, he might be questioning whether he was the father of her child. In May of that year, xxxxxx left xxxx and moved back in with her mother. After leaving xxxx, xxxxxx began to think about giving her unborn child up for adoption. She discussed this with xxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxx told xxxxxx that there were plenty of people in TWI who would love to adopt a child.
xxxxxxxxxx called a member of the Way to let him know of the possible adoption and that person contacted xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx who lived in North Carolina. The xxxxxxxxs retained an attorney who was also a member of TWI by the name of xxxx xxxxxxxx and paid him a retainer of $3,500 to assist with the adoption proceedings. xxxxxxxx flew to Michigan to meet with xxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx in June of 1988. xxxxxxxx paid to fly xxxxxx and her two other children to NC one week later, apparently in an effort to avoid being served a summons from xxxx (who was attempting to get visitation rights for the other two children -- one of which was xxxxxx and xxxx, the other was xxxxxx' baby from a prior marriage).
xxxxxxxx met xxxxxx at the RDU airport and arranged for her to be housed with xxxxx xxxxx, another TWI member in the area, for the duration of xxxxxx' pregnancy. In order to meet the requirement for the father's signature or proof of abandonment, xxxxxxxx placed a legal notice in a small, local NC paper (Remember, xxxx, the father, was still in Michigan and apparently had no idea that his girlfriend was in NC preparing to have the baby adopted upon its birth). xxxxxxxx was aware of the fact that there was no reasonable way that xxxx would ever see the notice, but he was concerned with filling the legal square. xxxxxxxx arranged for xxxxxx to meet with a DSS person to receive the appropriate approval for the private adoption; the court documents indicated that he coached her on the proper responses to give to let the DSS social worker that the adoption was truly voluntary. The baby was born very shortly after the initial DSS interview. xxxxxx had access to the baby for only a couple of minutes before it was taken from her. She signed the adoption consent papers and gave permission for the baby to be taken from the hospital by the xxxxxxxxx. xxxxxx flew back to Michigan shortly after the baby's birth.
Shortly after returning to Michigan, xxxxxx decided that she wanted the baby back and expressed the same to her friend, xxxxxxxxxx. Her boyfriend, xxxx, also indicated the same. He, apparently, was threatened by representatives of TWI as he was trying to track down xxxxxx so he could find his child.
Anyway, to make a long story short, there was a fairly long court battle over this, resulting in xxxxxx and xxxx getting back their child.
Now, let me make a couple of editorial comments on this:
First, being a pro-life person, I am all in favor of adoptions. So, that in of itself, is not an issue. Second, the expenses for xxxxxx (the biological mother) were paid for. Again, I don't have an issue with that (although, apparently, that is against NC law). This is no personal case against the xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxx and xxxx; I have no indication that they did anything other than what they believed was the best. What I do have an issue with is this:
1. xxxxxxxxxx apparently tried to convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and questioning whether or not he was the father. This seems to me like she was trying to set up a circumstance to get xxxxxx to want to get rid of her child.
2. The biological father, xxxx was not contacted. They intentionally did not contact the father.
3. The mother's whereabouts were hidden from her family and from the father, xxxx.
4. Somehow (and this is not supported by evidence, it is just a gut feeling), I have this feeling that some more money changed hands than came out in the court documents.
So, why am I bringing this ancient case up?
I am curious to see if this is the only case of its type or if other cases like this occurred within TWI. I would be curious to know if baby trafficking was something that happened with any degree of regularity. See, since TWI was a pro-abortion organization (as I recall), I am sort of surprised that xxxxxx was not taught that the baby was not alive until its first breath and encouraged to simply have an abortion. This would follow with what I understand is TWI's normal method of operating.
So, if anybody can provide any additional information, I'd appreciate it.
If anybody is actually interested in reading the source documents, I have them copied over to my computer from the LexisNexis database. They are far too long to post here, but if you PM me with your e-mail addy, I will be happy to forward them to you. The names are sort of blanked out here; they are not blanked out in the original documents.
-
quote:
Originally posted by oenophile:I think Roy offers some wise advice. Just get on with our lives without twi which is in itself
the best way of getting back if you feel you need revenge.
Move on. Tell your story so others may learn and you may heal. But move on, use your God given talents that were either stifled or exploited by twi. Stop being a victim. Let go of the bitterness which only keeps you in twi's prison without bars.
Wino, this is one of the most profound suggestions I've heard on this board. I heartily agree, sir.
-
-
Cowgirl,
I truly appreciate hearing these lovely tones.
-
Well, just forget it then (music off)
;)--> -
There. Is that less iritating?
I'm perfectly open to suggestions, though, if you'd like....
-
Hey, I said it was annoying!
-
Question 1
For MIDI files, go to www.google.com and in the block put the following entry "filetype:mid" and it will return only files with a .mid extension.
For WAV files or MP3s etc, I suggest you go to www.altavista.com
Question 2
To tell the tag how to many times to play, put the following attribute into your tag:
loop="n", where n=the number of times to loop.
-1 = infinite loop.
So the tag in the end will look like this:
{bgsound src="http://URL and filename" loop="-1"}
-
You're welcome.
BTW, for those who really do not like to hear sounds (I somehow have a feeling we will be hearing a cacophony of sounds now), here's how you can turn it off:
If you are in Internet Explorer, go to "Tools" "Internet Options"
-- click on the Advanced tab,
-- scroll down to the multimedia section
-- remove the checkmark next to the "Play sounds in web pages" option.
-- Click OK.
That should help eliminate the aggrevation.
When did you first hear of GSC?
in About The Way
Posted
I lurked at Waydale during its existence. Then, a few months later, Waydale had closed its doors and pointed me toward GSC. I registered there.
I had been "out" for years when I first ran into either site. But, like others, I still clung to a lot of the doctrine...thinking that Martindale had screwed TWI up...this place really opened up my eyes to show how messed up TWI was from the beginning.........