When I first saw "Breatharian", I immediately flahed on GB Shaw's extrapolation on vegetarianism. I guess someone took him seriously!
I'm sorry for your loss, Lucy. Your dad sounds like a really great guy. If nothing else, the article portrayed him as a loving, caring guy with an easy laugh. Can't ask for much better than that.
That said, I think the reporter was correct -- it's not an article on "hanai" or non-standard relationships, but an obit for a mainstream newspaper (the Chron used to be fairly liberal, but I haven't read it in eons) and any attempt to include such (with corresponding explanation) would have derailed the article. Perhaps there's an article waiting to be written on what was left out?
Greg:
re Entry at February 16, 2006, 04:04 PM,
Check previous entries on that site. You'll find the boy just ain't right in soooo many ways, only one of which has to do with pigeon toes...
I think the prefix names went out with area codes (before that, 95 could be WaLsh for example, so the actual code wasn't a problem). I recall an old Alan Sherman song on the subject ("The Let's All Call Up AT&T And Protest To The President March"):
"Can you see him smirking and smiling
'Cause they've got us all digit dialing"
"Let's keep those beautiful names alive
Crestview 6! Gramercy 5!"
Full lyrics at Song Lyrics
I've scanned a few "book repair" sites (with emphasis on brittle books), and it seems my little gem is beyond [very expensive] repair. I might invest in book repair tape (only $9.00 for more than I could possibly use), and hope for the best.
It's cheesy (doesn't that go, somewhat, with Verne?) but fun!
Two questions for all assembled:
I have a book (Around the World in a Flying Machine by the redoubtable Mr Verne) which is so brittle pages are breaking.
1) How do I reverse the "brittlization"? I'm thinking that I'd want to add moisture to the pages without encouraging mildew and the like. Perhaps some kind of steaming process would work?
2) How can I put broken pieces back on a page? I know regular (Scotch) tape will turn brown and will eventually fall off.
Any ideas would be appreciated. If desired, you can mail me: j dot lipton at verizon dot net
Xopher:
A happy time was had by all, thanks.
As to definitions, I think that "train", "swap", "bridge", etc are forms of nsomes (where n > 2). After all, a foursome at golf could be 2 pairs or all against every. Do you have a source for your definitions?
(Here's a source: American Heritage Dictionary: "Foursome"
1. A group of four persons or things, especially two couples.
2.
a. A game, especially a golf match, played by four persons, usually competing in pairs.
b. The players in such a game.
Not a sexual definition, as such, but one that I think is closer to the one I use.)
Xopher:
Threesome: OK, this is a purist definition. In a true threesome, all three people are having sex all together. Thus A with B and B with C and C with A, and for some activities A, B, and C all at once. Two people just taking turns with one third person is not a threesome, but a minimal case of a train.
You seem to me to be rather dogmatic (I knew bestiality would come in at some point!) about this. Threesomes come in many flavors and varieties. Some may be "homosexual bridges", others are "trains", still others are A and B enjoying C simutaneously. Tonight, I'm going to a party where I'm sure all three and then some.
By your token, in a foursome, A, B, C and D must all have sex . If A and B have sex while C and D do; then A and C switch, that's not a "pure" foursome.
A story can be grim and depressing to its characters, without being grim and depressing to the reader. 1984 is a very good example. Winston Smith doesn't have many moments of joy, and the rest of his story is gray at best, but the novel is very readable (if not as good as Brave New World in my opinion).
Any book is itself grim and depressing makes me feel like it's not that well written.
Xopher:
I'm not sure what you mean about threesomes being a "homosexual bridge". Once you reply, I'll know whether my experience matches your's (although the description makes me think not).
Xopher:
That's not a crescent in Alec's name -- it's an arc (for most values of "c")!
[g, d & r]
bryan:
this however is not an ethical reason why death penalties should not be applied but an ethical reason why the death penalty in this case should be abrogated, somewhat pedantic I know.
Not so much a matter of pedantry as a matter of diifference of opinion. You believe the death penalty should be abolished; I think that there some cases, however few, where it might be appropriate. The concept that some few inmates might turn their lives around doesn't change what we should do with those who don't.
I wouldn't be upset if the death penalty were abrogated. I think it over-applied, under-commuted, and (by way of the first two) racist.
Julie:
I'd like to get the opinion of my friends (if so I may claim) on a subject I fear is underdiscussed.
(Obviously I was wrong on that!)
Whenever the death penalty is discussed and the issue of innocence is raised, the conversation tends to go to DNA evidence and stay there. It seems to me that if some percent of innocent persons are freed based on new DNA evidence, wouldn't we expect a simular percent of persons currently on Death Row to be innocent, even when there is no DNA evidence to test?
Say Person X robs a bank and in commission of said crime, shoots and kills a security guard. Person Y is arrested, tried and convicted. If Person X was injured and left a drop of blood, Person Y could be tested and released. But if Person X left no DNA evidence, the percentage chance that Person Y is Person X is exactly the same, save that now Person Y has less chance of recourse, because so many Innocence Projects are focusing on DNA.
Opinions?
(posted on January 16, 2006 06:02 PM)
Does that sound like I'm "posting an inflammatory suggestion and asking for responses"?
Marilee is the one who started the discussion on if the death penalty is ever appropriate ("I think the death penalty is always wrong."), and when I said it could be, bryan called me a "wingnut". So who is being "inflamatory"? If I'm "odd" -- won't be the first time I've been called that!
Vardibidian:
See, the thing is, that's pretty much exactly how I remember [Gore] sounding in 2000. I may be misremembering, of course.
His acceptance speech at the Convention was a "stemwinder" indeed. I recall thinking that tis was a man I wanted as President (Tipper had kinda put me off with her PMRC antics). By the Presidential debates, he was talking about "lockboxes". The Dems lost by not countering, full force, the lies that BushCo were spreading, but Gore did himself no favors by tempering his speech during the debates.
If there other invigorating speechs through the campaign, I don't recall them, but I have trouble remembering any.
bryan:
Not really interested exactly when the death penalty should be applied. I'm just saying that there are some cases (however rare) when it seems to me that it should be applied.
As to ethical reasons not associated with evidence, consider the case of the late Mr Williams. Here is a man, however guilty he may have been of the crimes he was convicted of, turned his life around and became a positive force in his neighborhood. He posed no threat to society, and actively contributed. If I had been Governor, I would have commuted his sentence to life without parole.
Please note that this is an "add-on" to the previous death penalty postings. This should apply to the 1% or fewer cases where I think the death penalty is appropriate; failing that we get near that point, I'd like to see this taken as consideration for current death penalty cases.
(I'm a rather casual poster; I don't have the time to do extensive research. As such, I'm afraid I'm going have to be a bit more abstract than what you're asking for.)
bryan:
"Anyone who breaks out of prison, or has someone killed on the outside, where there's non-controvertable evidence, should be subject to the death penalty."
If you're serious, and god I hope not, this is something of a wingnutty idea (wingnutty in the context of not having considered the matter much).
The mix of these two very different things (escaping, having someone contract killed), suggests a poorly thought out, emotion-based approach to social control.
I could crack wise about your debating skills (I was sore tempted to post a pre-disenvowelled message), but I'd rather, ya know, debate the issue.
Let me refine my statement to make clear that I am only considrering those prisoners who were incarcerated for murder.
There have been several escapes from maximum security prisons, often with the escapees killing one or more. If someone shows they cannot be safely held, and that they have a callous view of human lives, what are we to do with them?
I am 99% opposed to the death penalty, due to ethical as well as evidentiary reason, but I allow that 1% for extrordinary circumstances.
So now I must ask you (and I would like a serious answer): Is there no circumstances under which the State may put a person to death? (The use of deadly force by the police is a related question -- is there no circumstance under which the police may use deadly force, since, in essence, this amounts to an execution by the State?)
Courtesy of me mum (a cool old broad!):
Wombat Ecology
I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, but think there are a few specific cases where it should apply: Anyone who breaks out of prison, or has someone killed on the outside, where there's non-controvertable evidence, should be subject to the death penalty. If they are too dangerous to keep locked up, the debt of safety we owe our neighbors is greater than any debt to the accused.
yes, LOX is diamagnetic
No, LOX is paramagnetic
Whatever -- LOX is delicious. Now what about sesame seed bagels and a crean cheese schmear?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 70 |
| 2005 | 42 |
Total: 112 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by jhlipton:
Show all comments by jhlipton.