LG

I would completely agree with you, Kit, if the woman had gone sought help for her problem before creating a huge problem for so many others, but she didn't. Instead, she violated the law, caused the airline great expense, delayed all the other passengers, inconvenienced people who were waiting for passengers at their destination, probably cost several passengers quite a bit of money, caused a team of inspectors to inspect the plane and FBI investigators to question the passengers and crew, and only admitted what she did and why when she was interrogated. I sympathize with her problem, but that doesn't excuse what she put so many others through.

It amazes me how ignorant so many people are of the benefits of the space program. It has been an amazingly productive investment that has yielded many real-world, on-earth benefits that affect all our daily lives, in all sorts of areas. Try Googling "space program benefits" (without the quotes) and read the first few links.

Doesn't have a thing to do with "lesser" anything. You never went through two years of in-residence Corps indoctrination, so you don't have the experiences of those who did. You also don't have other experiences of other people. That you lack experiences that others report does not invalidate their experiences. I think that's what Rascal was getting at.

If by "it," you mean "freedom of speech" in the first amendment, yes it is, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

This isn't a first amendment ("free speech") issue, folks. I agree that a lawsuit over this seems baseless, but the first amendment has nothing to do with holding someone accountable in civil court for damages his speech causes another person.

Come on, Linda, context matters. Likeaneagle made the comparisons to war and service in war. I didn't just make them up.

No one said it is. It's not. What I don't like is using Veterans Day as a springboard to honor veterans of something else, and comparing whatever else that something might be to military service in war. There's very little in life that can compare to war, and most of us haven't experienced anything close to fighting in a war. As I said before, I'm all for honoring whatever people do that is worthy of honor. I don't like doing it by feeding off somebody else's honor. I acknowledged that I came down too hard on likeaneagle, but I still don't like the comparison of much of anything to war or the service of those who fight in wars.

Not me. Some veterans don't go through much at all. Some have safer and cushier jobs than they'd likely have in civilian life. I honor veterans because as a group they stand between our society and those who would attack, conquer, or destroy it. We could not be the free and prosperous nation we are without a strong military force. Many other people do wonderful things or fight through serious problems. They are deserving of their honor. My only objection is to them feeding off the honor we bestow on our veterans.

I guess I came down too hard on you, likeaneagle. Dmiller explained what I was thinking very well.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think you dishonor military veterans with your comparison.

Yes it was, ex. Rutgers beat Princeton 6-4. The game was much different from modern football, but it's what led to the game we know today.

That was probably their biggest win at home in school history. Did you know that Rutgers won the first ever college football game?

86.1% correct here.

It's been my impression that Allan dodges the sorts of questions about his beliefs that Templelady answers about hers. I don't really pay much attention to him, so I might be wrong. Maybe he's just a jerk, and not a coward.

I don't agree with either of your beliefs, but templelady has shown courage and grace, both of which are only enhanced by the contrast to Allan's cowardice and indecorum.

What twinot asked about has not gone public. If it had, then the question would be moot, because the husbands would already know. What is not anyone else’s business is whether those wives should tell their husbands. The only way that might become someone else’s business would be if one of those wives were asking for advice. Lindyhopper, a general discussion about marriage, morals, and twi is fine, but twinot asked about whether or not wives should tell their husbands about their sexual relations with Martindale. That’s not for any of us to say, unless perhaps one of us was directly asked for advice by one of the wives in question. That could at least make it our business, though it might not mean that we should give an answer. If a woman asked me such a thing, I’d probably suggest that she talk to a capable counselor. They could together decide what to do and whether to integrate whatever they chose into a larger counseling scheme.

I think it's none of your dang business, nor any of ours.

Nobody claimed that Wierwille stole the Bible. He never claimed that the Bible was his own work. He did claim that the work of several other men was his own. That's lying. That's stealing. That's what plagierism is. No. The truth is just the opposite. Plenty of evidence has been cited, and some of it should be easy for you to check yourself. I presume that you have a copy of RHST. If so, check it for citations of Stiles or Bullinger. You'll not find them. What you will find is Wierwille claiming to be the author of a book that is essentially a compilation of works of Stiles and Bullinger.

Try googling for New Braunfels Bandera smoker. There are lots of links with tips, suggested modifications, etc.

It's also irrelevant. McVey and Nichols had nothing to do with the so-called War on Terror, which is really a fight against the murderous, radical elements of Islam.

It's not the "same principle." It has nothing to do with TWI, nor is it anything like anything done in TWI. It's not "all religious stupidity and closemindedness." It might not be a big deal to drop the Mohammed's head prop, which was not part of the original Opera, but is part of that particular production of it, but doing so would not change the main issue in this matter. The production of Idomeneo was not cancelled because of fear of offending Muslims. It was cancelled because of fear of death and destruction from radical, murderous Muslims. The fear is legitimate, because the threat is real. Such a threat is not associated with any other major religious or ethnic group, except the radical fringe of Islam.

You've got the issue wrong. It's not fear of offending groups in general. It's fear of one particular group.

Unless there's more to it than you say, if he beat you up, you should have called the police immediately and followed through by pressing charges (and not dropping them).

The first lunar landing was on July 20, 1969. The LM (Lunar Module) touched down at 3:17 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the moon at 9:56 p.m. EST. Aldrin followed him a few minutes later. They spent a little over two hours on the lunar surface, with Armstrong returning to the LM at 12:11 a.m EST July 21.

Playing is exactly what I was doing, Raf.