Colrom

There was a brief side trip questioning why scientists would want to be Republican, as opposed seemingly to Christians wanting to be Republican. Beats me. I'm a scientist (Ph. D.) and a Christian and a Democrat. I can't imagine why being a Scientist or a Christian would induce one to be a Republican. Some of the folks here clearly believe in a form of social darwinism and a society run by the elit under rules favoring the elite. Some also believe that the ends justify the means. I prefer a society which seeks to provide for all its citizens and recognizes that some actions can only be justified for immediate survival if even then. I think that is what Christ recommended. Just my take. Your milage may vary.

I do "magic missile" because it always works against any monster. The idea of a guaranteed hit is no small thing at first level. It can make all the difference. I agree that "sleep" is good against goblins and such, though.

It is important to recognize that science does not require that time travel be used to observe events in the past before a model can be accepted. All that is required is that the model work in experiments going forward and that it at least not conflict with results observed in the past and preferably be a plausable explanation. With regard to the big bang theory, it is not a theory that exists in isolation. All sorts of physical models such as general relativity and particle theory and so on are involved. They work reasonably well in forward going observations and experiments. Still there may be some questions. Whatever happens creationism is not going to be the replacement model. The more so since it works poorly explaining the past and provides no scientific guidence going forward. By the way, the "it's too complex" argument seems especially weak to me. I find it wierd that folks would argue that a thing of God's creation was too complex to be the product of a process of God's creation. More and more it seems that some folks are worshiping a demigod. I've even heard folks say stuff that suggests they think their god can be supprised! Boo! (w00t)

In truth I think we did come from pond scum. :D It may be that the really big step in evolution is the step from simple chemicals to single cells. The complexity of most simple cells is amazing. Even a simple creature like a planaria is already a wondrous evolution. (w00t)

That was clever of those spiders! I'd like to try something like that myself! (w00t) Any suggestions for what I should develop? :D

"I remember from somewhere there was a Bio teacher that got this question. He had a male and female skeleton in the room so he had the kid count the # of ribs on them, the kid promply told it's mother and mommy complained to the principal and the teacher got a slap on the wrists... It's odd how people can be punished for stating facts. " I'm convinced that children learn bullying from their parents as much as anywhere else and bullying teachers seems to be a popular passtime these days. I especially like the case where some parent complained to a school administration about the "harsh impact" (or some such) of a teacher's use of red ink in correcting papers and was able to get the administration to force the teacher to use another color ink. I'm sure alot of students and parents got the real lesson of that story quite well! Anyway, back to intelligent design. One of the key claims of some smart guy advocates of intelligent design is that there are no examples of new species being developed by mutation. They are willing to give up on the question of change by breeding and mutation, but not on the question of species development. That's how I interpret the "pond scum doesn't become a human" claim. I don't agree, but I understand.

No, but I can see how that might happen. For starters I would just say the number is the same for men and women. If they want to go further then it is possible to consider some other options for discussion like: 1. They can be refered to an anatomy book: "Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth." (Weinreb, E. L. 1984. Anatomy and Physiology. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. p. 345.) 2. Maybe they can count their own ribs. That might be worth a try for some. 3. They can be refered to x-rays of men and women. 4. They could could also discuss the question of whether one of their ribs would regrow if it was removed and whether their boy or girl children would have one less rib if his or her parents' rib was removed. It depends on the person and the class. If there is any sense of discomfort or especially any bullying I would be inclined to retreat to the simple answer. I wouldn't get into discussions of the biblical interpretation in a science class (for obvious reasons) but biblical literalists have similar views to normal scientists in this case. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp .

Volourn I understand what you are saying and agree your view has merit but I was thinking of the P&P adventures I have played where my low level mage always had a lower kill total than the low level fighters and clerics in the party. I would take armor and magic missile as spells each day and basically save them for a key battle on that day when I would spend them all to save the party from disaster. The rest of the time I stayed in the back and kept looking over my shoulder. Sleep is a good spell, but it doesn't work against many monsters and when it does work still requires a deathblow to finsih the job. The fact is that fighters and clerics wear armor, have more hitpoints, and deal more damage over time at lower levels. All low level characters are easy to kill - but mages take longer to develop the kind of resources and toughness that allows them to relax a bit.

Actually evolution does not make much use of the mechanism of "survival of the fitest". This is an interpretation which strokes our ego by implying that we must be superior. There are many survivers as well as many extinctions. Evolution is really developed from two processes: change and extinction. Species change because of breeding and mutations. Species become extinct because they are especially "unfit" or especially "unlucky" or both. It must be a bummer to go extinct because of bad luck! Especially when some "inferior" species lucks out, ducks an extinction event, and survives! This idea of survival of the fitest reflects a yearning for an ego satisfying model (I feel good already) of "intelligent design" of superior beings - us. Yes! Hmmm. Maybe there is something to it after all! I do feel kinda superior! Lets all be superior today.

Yes. Chess. Go. Shogi. Chinese Chess - actual chess. Monopoly. Risk. Various wargames. And others. But not as often as I would like. Board games are wonderful. There is all that tactual stuff about rolling dice and moving pieces. I love it! And talking with real people at the same time. Wonderful! :D

Well, I don't mind the religious revivals. I just wish we could revive a belief in God rather than a belief in Religion. I visited the Catholic hospital where my Mother was sick a couple of years ago and noticed that they were selling horiscopes in the card shop. About that time I was trying to buy about a ton of small copper spheres for a heat exchange application in a reactor in South Africa. I searched the internet for sources and had to wade through a slew of sellers of incredably overpriced copper spheres for "new age medicine" applications. Here's an example that I just got off the internet: Copper Sphere, 4.2 oz., 1" Dia. This mineral can combat lethargy, passivity, restlessness, excitability, and non-acceptance of oneself. $12.80 I think it would be hilarious for a science teacher to start teaching astrology, new age medicine, including all that crystal stuff, and maybe even teach how to divine the future from animal intestines, as well as teach regular science if there was any time left.

"intelligent Design" is bad religion. We are supposed to close our eyes to understanding the message that God placed before us in the Universe and instead accept by rote messages which may have been inspired by God but were clearly written by men and designed to be understood by people at a time when they would have been terrified by a working light bulb. A strange religion it is that argues with God so pridefully. Just my view. Your milage may vary.

Yes. But the spell can be easily disrupted and the wizard can be killed by one hit or bite from almost any other character or monster class. They really are "wimpy", you know. That is the right word. They usually have low strength and only moderate constitution. They also wear little armor. They can use spells for protection but the spell will eventually run out and they may not succeed in getting the spell off once combat starts. I like the challenge - and also the power! :D

It is a fundamental problem that many business leaders do not act as if they believe in any values other than profit - from which I conclude that they don't really have values other than profit - no matter what they say. That certainly fits with the strange expression used by some folks that "greed is good". I got a mailing from Morgan Stanley crowing about their historical record of patriotism, giving as an example their advanced support for America's efforts in WW I even before America entered the war! What they should have said was that JP Morgan worked hard to get the US into WW I and to get us in on the side of the Brits and the French because he thought it would be good for his business. I am convinced that we could find many examples of US companies using overseas slave or near slave labor or contracting with other companies who they know use such labor. Certainly it would not be hard to find examples where US businesses have directly or indirectly exploited labor, stolen property, and had people killed who got in their way. I wonder if the war in Iraq might even be an example of that? By the way, I wonder if US and UK interests are working with the Kuwatis to slant pump from Iraqi oil reserves?

Well I don't know what a dev said but somebody said something like this: "Stealing from one source is plagerism. Stealing from many sources is research." :D

Regarding the possibility of low level wizards being wimpy - that's how they are supposed to be in D&D, isn't it?! I always thought half the fun of playing a wizard or thief was managing their frailty while wielding their unique powers. NWN1 was just a weird unsatisfying hybrid because there was no way to have a balanced party - so all the classes were buffed up and the challenges were toned down. NWN2 should be better. All of which many folks have said before.

I mentioned this before. For some reason the mods or techs just don't get it. When a mod moves a thread to a forum catagory other than where it was originated the stored last post date that controls the list order for the threads never changes thereafter - although the posts will still show. So even if we all post on such a topic it will still fade to the bottom. It's sorta like killing it - but not quite. Anyway it should be fixed. Like I said about a year ago.

Also: Girl from the north country by Bob Dylan Well, if you're travelin' in the north country fair, Where the winds hit heavy on the borderline, Remember me to one who lives there. She once was a true love of mine. Well, if you go when the snowflakes storm, When the rivers freeze and summer ends, Please see if she's wearing a coat so warm, To keep her from the howlin' winds. Please see for me if her hair hangs long, If it rolls and flows all down her breast. Please see for me if her hair hangs long, That's the way I remember her best. I'm a-wonderin' if she remembers me at all. Many times I've often prayed In the darkness of my night, In the brightness of my day. So if you're travelin' in the north country fair, Where the winds hit heavy on the borderline, Remember me to one who lives there. She once was a true love of mine. Copyright

Masters of War by Bob Dylan Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build the big bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain You fasten the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud You've thrown the worst fear That can ever be hurled Fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby Unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood That runs in your veins How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you Even Jesus would never Forgive what you do Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand o'er your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead Copyright

I agree. It is worthwhile to sort that out. For myself I don't have a problem with the pledge as originally written - especially in view of the seccession of the confederate states and the loyalty issues that arrose from that - also the loyalty issues arrising from the views of some other groups. Even now there are some military folks who have said things which may be seditious about taking over military control if the leadership is weak in their opinion. These pledges of allegience ensure that no one can say the issue of loyalty and what it means never came up. I think it is a good idea to have our children affirm their loyalty to the flag of the United States and the Republic for which it stands. I can understand if a child visiting from another country who is going to a school here where the pledge of allegience is given chooses not to recite it. I would hope they are not bullied because of that. But I think that the positive value of encouraging assertion of alliegence to the US Republic is worth the possible negatives. I don't see much point in going crazy about it, though, and adding alot of other tests, although I guess that happens. I like the pledge to support and defend the Constitution since that makes things even clearer. There is nothing in the constitution that I know of that argues that a pledge of alliegence to the United States would be illegal. The separation clause only causes a challenge on mandatory recitals because the pledge was modified to insert the "under God" phrase. As an aside - One of the precursers to fascist overthrough of the constitutional governments in Spain, Germany and Italy in the 1930s was tolerance for open talk and actual planning for overthrow of the governments.

Well Gromnir, if you do not recognize what I have interpreted as your opinions then let them be the opinions of some unknown person - named Sibyl, perhaps - for surely there are many others who have such opinions, if not you. As for your insulting characterizations - you should keep them to yourself.

Eldar, the manditory reciting of the pledge in school is intended as a test of loyalty and religiosity. It is intended to be a test which will be failed in some way by atheists and perhaps others as well. We know this from the testimony of the writer and those who altered the pledge. Whether or not it impacts the judgement regarding the legality of the compulsary reciting of the pledge in schools, I think that avoiding harm of others is a good objective, and so agree that it is worth discussing how the pledge may lead to harming students. One could argue that people are somewhat "harmed" if they are coerced into saying the words "under God" when they don't agree with them. I guess they are, but I am more concerned with the harm they may receive when they have the sh*t kicked out of them or are otherwise bullied for failing to spout the approved words. I say this as a person who teaches in high school and has seen lots of bullying behaviors by parents, administration, teachers, and students. Bullying is all the rage these days - despite all the notices and speaches about how bad it is and how it will not be tolerated. I really don't put up with it - which comes as a shock to some folks. Also I have personal experience as a bully myself - having as young child mercelessly led a class to bully a young German immigrant - calling him a Nazi and all that. I was invited to meet his mother and learn that his father was killed in the war and was generally made ashamed of what I had been doing. So I know what little it takes. Also I know a rather large and athletic young Catholic who recently graduated from a southern university who said he found the roaming gangs of fundamentalist thugs looking for converts pretty intimidating. So, I'm perfectly prepared to say it is a good idea if there is one less coerced public test which forcibly reveals a distinction which may lead to bullying or other harrasment or discrimination. All that being said, I think the compulsary saying of the pledge in schools is illegal because it seeks to establish a state religion - monotheism - in contradiction to the constitution. Gromir seems to think manditory reciting of the pledge is OK notwithstanding the constitution. But he does not seem to agree with the constitution or the role of the judiciary in interpreting the constitution and appears to be advocating overthrowing or ignoring the current law and resorting to pure majority rule or perhaps something else instead. There are alot of folks who share similar views (at least when they think they are in the majority) but I'm not one. After all, I do pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of American and to the republic for which it stands and I do pledge to protect and defend the constitution of the United States as well. So I'm not going to talk about ignoring the constitution and the established role of the judiciary. Regarding intent of those who write laws and constitutions - it is not a mystery. They all wrote extensively on just about everything - and we know that some of the writers of the constitution were actually hostile to conventional religion - not suprising considering the history of their times - while others were suspicious of the good intentions and trustworthyness of religions other than their own. Some of them were likely atheists. They did not recommend a compulsary pledge of allegience. That was later. My view is that the pledge violates the separations clause of the constitution. It seeks to establish a test which will distinguish montheists from atheists and others for the purpose of singling them out so that they can be harrased or converted. The specific mechanisms of harrasment and conversion are being developed in various laws about school corriculums and funding for school and aid programs. It is a big deal. It is illegal and immoral to force this upon people - especially children. These are just children. How can you subject them to this disgusting bullying in the name of God and our country for the purpose of supporting a state approved religious orientation?

OK Eldar, I think I understand some of your viewpoint. Do you believe that the inclusion of the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance in conjunction with the mandating of the pledge as a schoolhouse requirement (doesn't somebody have to say it in full) does not have the effect of promoting the establishment of religion? It just occured to me - how do they handle this in a school of all athiests? Anyway, maybe we need to discuss and understand better what is meant by "establishment of religion" in terms of how it is recognized. I think what religion you practice and even how you practice it certainly effects what practices you notice and which seem normal and which seem unnormal. I think I recognize the establishment of Christianity (despite the occasional feeble genuflections to the Jewish faith) in our current American situation. But I also think that other places like the UK and Germany and Israel and Pakistan and India and so on are in many ways more involved in certain kinds of priviledged (establishing) connections between religion and the state than the US. I'm going to think about it for a while and also see what other's say before writing further.

It is no good using false analogies about Nazis. If the Nazi party somehow achieved power in America (since we are talking about the US constitution here - not the German constitution of the Weimer Republic) and enacted a law prohibiting operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, one would reasonably think their intent was to allow the arrest of drunk drivers - which would not run into constitutional issues. Now if they passed a law about eating matza and also made speaches about that law in which they applauded it as having a desireable punishing effect on Jews that would run against the constitution. In the case of the pledge of allegience, it was the specific intent of those who made the change - Congress and the President - as made clear by their statements - that they would distinguish their pledge from a pledge that might be made by an atheist. They intended this pledge to be a problem for atheists and said so clearly. Their intent is important in enforcing laws and in interpreting them. Their intent was to establish religion as a national dedication - which is against the constitution according to my reading - especially in view of the writings of the original founders of the nation - many of whom were clearly not fond of organized religion. FYI - I am an American - born and bred - and a (rebel) Catholic. As a matter of right and wrong I consider it wrong to carry out myself or force others to carry out public displays of prayer or devotion. So even Christians can find this business offensive. As an emotional person, I am sick to death of seeing "God Bless America" on every car, every store window, every pizza box, and every dry cleaning garment bag, everywhere I go - and having to lead children of all religions and non religions and degrees of hypocracy in a pledge of loyalty to "one nation under God", and put up with every sneeze or other similar event being an occasion for a display of frivilous (although sometimes sincere) public prayers of "God bless you". There are probably seventeen people who actually believe in God. The rest believe in religion. Establishing religion is against the constitution. End rant.

Folks sometimes say that the pledge isn't aimed at endorsing religion it is just a natural phrasing some folks used without any intent of prejudice. But the history of the pledge makes it clear that the intent is prejudicial. Here is some info I have partially copied and partially paraphrased from a web site on the topic. In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. A reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere. Then Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on Feb 7, 1954. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution on June 8, 1954. It was signed into law on Flag Day, June 14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." So the intent of congress and the president is clear and the pledge is clearly unconstitutional - since it seeks to establish religion and possibly even Christian religion as a national dedication. It is against the law. And Christianity doesn't need bully boy help anyway.