LG

Wouldn’t it be better to tell them the truth? Those figures are from Paul Cameron, a rabid anti-homosexual, and they’re completely bogus. You know how he came up with them? By comparing obituaries in homosexual newspapers with those in conventional newspapers.Those gay papers, many of which are distributed for free at bars and other places gays and lesbians gather, target urban homosexuals who are active in the homosexual community. They’re mostly younger people, because older people of any persuasion tend to settle down. The obituaries are submitted by the readers, and are mostly about people whose deaths they consider newsworthy, either because they are well known in the gay community or because their death is untimely. So obituaries in gay papers over-represent younger gays and under-represent older ones. They over-represent urban homosexuals and under-represent suburban and rural ones. They over-represent more active (not necessarily in a sexual sense) homosexuals, who live riskier lives, and under-represent quiet, passive ones, who live less risky lives. And they represent only homosexuals who are publicly “out” and don’t even represent at all those who are not. Obituaries in conventional papers include homosexuals without identifying them as such. They are not representative of the heterosexual population. So neither source provides useful data for the stated purpose, and the numbers are not even close to being accurate. But they were never intended to be. They were intended to promote an anti-homosexual agenda through deception.

I know you're not a fundamentalist, ex. I've just been having a little fun. I guess it's time for a more serious post. My daughter is a theater major at UNT in Denton and was active in both high school theater and the community theater in a larger town not far from our little Northeast Texas town. Our small town has quite a large and influential conservative (though not all Fundamentalist) Christian population and is not too friendly toward homosexuals, but most of the kids are more tolerant than their parents, even though they throw around "gay" in the manner others have mentioned. The drama program at my daughter's high school was mediocre until her junior year. In the Spring semester of that year, a new speech and drama teacher came in and immediately took their one act play to State. My daughter, who had the lead role, made the State all star cast. The teacher was planning to stay on the next year, excitement about the drama program was high, and lots of talented students who had chosen not to participate previously were changing their minds. Then suddenly, the news came that the teacher's contract would not be renewed. Why? Because he had let it slip that he was homosexual. I'm sure many people already suspected that and some pretty well knew it, but it wasn't really all that obvious. He was a big, manly looking black guy, who dressed normally and had no blatant stereotyical mannerisms, so you had to actually converse with him for a while to even suspect that he was gay. But once he actually mentioned it and that got back to the school board, he was as good as gone. Fortunately for him, he ended up in a much better position, but our local drama program went right back to being mediocre. Two of the cast members and one crew member that year were fervent conservative Christians, very active in their churches. As far as I could tell, they thought as highly of that teacher as my daughter and the others did. I don't know if they suffered any grief from their Church friends, but I know that they were really nice kids who were friendly with all sorts of different people, and had been that way for years. One of them was scared to associate with my daughter for a year or so after she wore a shirt with a goat's head on the front and "Born Again Pagan" on the back, which she did in the latter part of her sophomore year, just to see what the reaction would be. (I don't remember where she got that shirt, but I didn't even know she had it until after she had worn it to school.) The "fraidy-cat" finally decided that my daughter wasn't a threat and was actually a pretty nice person, so they became friends again, the girl did my daughter's hair do for the senior prom, and she, the other conservative Christian girl from the theater group, and my daughter, as well as a couple of other Christians and some non-religious kids were among a group of four couples who went to the prom and an after party together. I don't know what the point of all that was, except maybe that kids have to wrestle with things and figure them out, and they usually do. I bet your daughter will work through it just fine.

Ok, now that you've got that said, ex, can we continue discussing fundamentalists? My favorite was Carnac the Magnificent. Oh, wait. He was a funny mentalist. Never mind.

We can and do control the behavior of both children and adults, in prisons, if necessary. To a degree, but not absolutely. A child who is hitting, biting, breaking things, or otherwise endangering people or property has given up that right.

I guess I’d better make this clear. I’m not a fundi-phobe. The Fundamentalists I know are every bit as decent, loving, and law-abiding as anyone else. I have no problem with them being open about their Fundamentalism, as long as they’re not “in your face” about it. I wouldn’t choose that lifestyle, but I don’t feel threatened by others who do. I also have no problem with people engaging in consensual Fundamentalist acts. I figure that what consenting adults do in private is none of my business. I do think that public displays of Fundamentalism can sometimes be unseemly, but that’s a matter of courtesy, rather than a problem with Fundamentalism itself. Fundamentalists should not be shunned, denigrated, or denied equal protection of the laws and decent treatment in society. ;)-->

It wasn't an attempt to bash anyone. It was a response to Evan's response to my joke. Neither it nor the joke had anything to do with Christians in general.I joked about Fundamentalism, not Christianity. Evan responded about not seeking special treatment. I cited an example of some Fundamentalists seeking special treatment. That's all there was to it.

Why does she or anyone else “need” to make up her mind and decide between those two choices? First, neither is likely to be completely correct in any case, and almost certainly not in all cases. Second, if the honest answer were “I don’t know” or “it’s more complicated than ‘either-or,’” then any choice would be arbitrary and would not be a real “answer.” Third, children don’t automatically accept their parents’ answers, especially if they’re arbitrary.How many heterosexuals decided, “I’m going to be heterosexual?” I didn’t. I didn’t give it any thought at all. I never decided that women are sexually attractive but men aren’t, yet that’s how it is for me. Why in the world should anyone be so presumptuous as to assume that someone else made such a decision, but in reverse? Was I born heterosexual? Is my sexual orientation a mostly involuntary product of my environment? Is it some combination of the two? Am I even strictly heterosexual? I certainly am as far as practice is concerned, and I’m not attracted to men in any sort of sexual way, but could I be? Would I be in some circumstances? I honestly don’t know. Don’t really care either. As long as I weren’t hurting other people, what difference would it really make? Suppose that homosexuality is purely by choice. What makes it so bad? Is it bad for two men or two women to voluntarily hold hands or kiss? Why? Is it bad for two men or two women to privately give each other pleasure in more intimate ways? Why? Just because someone else thinks it’s disgusting? Well, I think that eating raw fish is disgusting. Yet people do it, shamelessly, right out in public. Damn perverts!

White Dove, This has gone really far off topic now. I'd be happy to discuss it on another thread, if you wish. First, I suggest that you get at least a basic understanding of some terms. Here's a good starting place..

No, but some are claiming rights to special treatment in schools of their fundamentalist choices. They think their religious beliefs should be taught in science classes and that science contrary to their beliefs should carry a disclaimer, if taught at all. That's not equal rights. That's special treatment!

Fundamentalists can and do get delivered. People aren't born fundamentalist. They either choose it or are coerced and pulled into it. We can argue all day about whether fundamentalism is a natural or unnatural state. ;)-->

That's just plain evil.

Wierwille got his BA at Mission House College in Sheboygan in 1938 so 1937-38 was probably his last season playing college basketball. The Sheboygan Redskins started up the next season. They likely tried out a lot of people, and possibly carried a few more people than they normally would. The stat site I looked at lists more people that year than in subsequent years. I think Wierwille probably tried out for the team. He may even have been on the 1938-39 roster for a while, without playing in any games. That would be extremely unlikely with an established team, but not for a startup team in those days. Five people played in only one game each that season and two of them scored no points. One of those two became the 5th highest scorer the next season and the top scorer the season after that. If he got only a token appearance in one game that first season, then it seems quite possible for Wierwille to have been carried on the team for a while without getting any game time.

Linda, I noticed that after I posted and changed my post. Thanks.

The police should not have been called. If a group of adults, supposedly college-educated professionals, trained in elementary education and administration of elementary schools, can't control such an easily-handled situation as one 5-year-old child throwing a tantrum, then they have no business teaching or overseeing children, even as babysitters. I don't see that the question of spanking even enters into this, but people that incompetent have no business spanking anyone. I agree with Wacky about restraining, but not on the floor. I'd simply pick the child up, sit down in a chair and hold her in my lap, with her back to me and her legs parallel to mine, or slightly to one side. I'd pin her arms to her sides, by wrapping my arms around her. I'd then quietly say to her that nobody was going anywhere until she calmed down. I'd repeat that every so often, until she did calm down. Before letting her go completely, I'd ask her if she could remain calm and quiet, and test her by first relaxing my hold on her, before releasing it entirely. If she started up again, I'd go through the same process, but not release her quite so quickly and not without telling her that if she started up again, I'd do the same thing. You can't even get to matters of teaching, counseling, medical examinations, or discipline until after establishing that unrestrained tantrums will not happen. That said, I'd say that the police handled the matter improperly as well. They shouldn't have been called at all, but once they got there, they should have told the school to handle it themselves.

What your link shows is that he didn't coin the noun assassin. According to what I've read, he did coin the verb assassinate, or at least was the first person known to have used it.

I wish you well, mzimagine.

Is it not just a bit presumptuous for you to say that "the time is now" for others to do what you think you should or want to do?

Are you just granting others permission or do you have an opinion? BTW, the name is Joseph, not John.

They weren't at all defensive, mj. They were pointing out that what you said was unrelated to the topic and wrongly associated homosexuality with MEN kidnapping, raping, and killing GIRLS.

Mark, My emphasis was supposed to be that JPII appears not to deserve the blame that some heaped on him. I was specifically replying to a question about tempering judgment. In my mind, the decline with no reversal, on his watch, is "to his credit" as opposed to being "to his blame." I seem to have expressed myself poorly.

Excathedra, I understand that this is a hurtful subject for you, and I’m trying to be sensitive to that. I didn’t mean regarding that. I’d favor life imprisonment, if not burning at the stake, for priests who molested and raped kids. What I was talking about is tempering my judgment of John Paul II. He did take over when the abuse was at its worst and reported incidents of abuse decreased dramatically shortly after that, if the study Mark cited is to be believed. If that means an actual decrease, then that is to John Paul’s credit. If it turns out that the Church has just been more effectively covering things up, then I’ll be right there with satori.

You've posted such things before, but no one has ever suggested that GreaseSpot is a judicial system or that anyone needs or should seek the approval of anyone posting here. You've said this repeatedly, too, but nobody here could possibly keep the courts from handling it, even if they wanted to.This is a discussion forum. People discuss things. It's no big deal.

An explanation of Ouija boards. The others are pretty common illusions. They can be impressive, if done well. As George said, none of this stuff holds up to properly supervised, controlled testing.

I know of no reason to believe otherwise, but you don't know that. If shutting down Waydale was part of the settlement, and the parties were not allowed to reveal the terms, then the Allens would pretty much have to say that they were shutting it down for personal reasons.It is completely possible that the Allens would have shut down Waydale anyway and that doing so was also part of the settlement. It is possible that they would otherwise have kept it going, in a less active sense, more like GS, but agreed to shut it down as part of the settlement. It is possible that shutting down Waydale wasn't part of the settlment at all. Unless you are privy to the terms of the settlement, you flat don't know.

ex, did you read that study Mark posted a link to? It shows that the incidence of abuse peaked two years after John Paul II became pope, and then dropped dramatically. For the past several years, there have been very few incidents. Now I don't know exactly what policies were implemented, but Mark has previously said that they've been screening candidates for priesthood much more carefully for quite some time, which he says has resulted in better men, overall. I don't know anything about the new policies, because I haven't been a practicing Catholic for over 30 years, but if the numbers are reliable indicators, they seem to have addressed the problem pretty effectively, before all the stories in the news broke. Could more have been done? Probably so. Could the Church have been more up front about it? Certainly. But, if what I've read is correct, the problems were being dealt with, before most people even knew they existed. You asked about blame. I don't think John Paul II was to blame for a problem he inherited. He was responsible for it, though, and apparently addressed it more than we know. The size of the Catholic Church is beyond most people's ability to comprehend. It's huge! A pope and ruling councils can set policy, but it would be impossible for them to directly administer it. That's up to cardinals, bishops, head priests of parishes, and those who run semenaries. Most seem to have done admirably, some less well, and some extremly poorly, to the point of being complicit in the abuse. In an organization that size it takes time to root out the problem priests and bishops, and they can never be completly eliminated. A few bad apples will get in and will cover up their crimes for a long time. I'm not deceiving myself or giving anyone a pass. I'm also not judging the entire Catholic Church on my experiences, which were good. I was an altar boy and spent a lot of time with my local priests, who were good men and never, to my knowledge, behaved improperly. I'm judging by the number of abuse incidents, which began declining dramatically shortly after John Paul II became Pope and are now nearly as low as can practically be expected, given the size of the church and the fact that there will always be some sickos drawn to the ministry, a few of which will manage to get in. I'm also aware that the very best of Popes or people in other important positions are imperfect human beings. Any judgment of them I temper with an appreciation of my own limitations. Imagine we gave you the papacy in late 1978, when the sexual abuse problem was at its worst. How long would it have taken you to clean up the mess? Would you have been as effective? (No fair saying you'd just dissolve the Church or drastically change basic doctrines. You couldn't.)