Re: Sorry for the non-sequitur

At 07:19 PM 2/18/04, Deborah Harrell wrote: Sorry- What non-sequitur? A message concerning a Brin book: now *that* would be a non-sequitur . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

At 05:58 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote: From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote: > > >Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that > >relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see below). > >One saying that his outgoing mai

Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote: > > >Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that > >relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see below). > >One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was the

Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

Kevin Tarr wrote: At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote: Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see below). One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was the added iformercial from our frien

Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is this better? I only noticed yesterday that > outgoing e-mail is being > scanned AND certified. But it's just part of the > message, not an > attachment. I receive some mail on the subservient > list that has > attachments for no other reason than

Re: Polygonorrhea [was: BRin-L - are we average?]

Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > I think the weirdest post so far was when Alberto revealed that he has > > polygonorrhea. > > > No more! I found the magic word that I had to utter! > > The spell is > > glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); > > Alberto Monteiro What level mage

Polygonorrhea [was: BRin-L - are we average?]

Robert Seeberger wrote: > > I think the weirdest post so far was when Alberto revealed that he has > polygonorrhea. > No more! I found the magic word that I had to utter! The spell is glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia

Re: BRin-L - are we average?

Ritu wrote: > > And who would 'pure' heterosexuals be? People who find homo-sexuality > repulsive? > No, 'pure' heterosexuals are those that do not have any attaction to people of the same sex _and_ that have attaction to people of the opposite sex. Alberto Monteiro __

Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote: Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see below). One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was the added iformercial from our friendly neighbourhood s

Re: Darwin's Children

> Dee signed off: > Dee > not always brilliant enough too get it all together > at once, but glad I don't have enough > testosterone to get into a tiff with myself > over it Oh, dear - I thought to myself earlier this week, after munching some popcorn while reading the email volleys in certai

Re: A reasonable view.

> None of these examples are correct! > Correction: none of them are NECESSARILY correct. But many of them have at least some basis in truth. E.g., criticism of Israel often IS motivated by anti-Semitism, proponents of so-called "states' rights" often ARE crypto (or not so crypto) segregationi

RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment)

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:53 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: > FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment) > > > > > I didn't really t

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Honestly, the fact that I don't *like* something doesn't mean automatically that I would stop others from doing it. Place some weights on your knees so that they won't jerk so quickly next time. Place a butto

Re: Changes in moral culture (was Thoughts on gay marriage?)

Trent Shipley wrote: There was a time when conservative Christian folks were *very* strongly opposed to divorce. Divorce--and definitely remarriage after divorce--was ample reason to bar people from church and public leadership and even reason to deny communion. And hence the term divorces It

Marrying the dead.

After all the fuss about same-sex marriages I found this story amusing - in France the living can marry the dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/international/europe/19WIDO.html? ex=1392526800&en=814cc2712bc7f8f5&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND "PARIS, Feb. 18 — Christelle Demichel, 34, married a

Thoughts on 'marriage' also Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

Jim Sharkey wrote: Tom Beck wrote: It's the word "marriage" that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). But the idea of calling it "marriage" does make me uncomfortable on some

Re: BRin-L - are we average?

> Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One thing you have to remember about Bisexuals. > They can blend into any crowd. > Remain hidden as long as they like. > And only attract notice if they want to be noticed. > > My personal experience tells me that 40-60% of women > I have dated we

RE: Well, that thread wandered from where I thought it would (RE: BRin-L -arewe average?...)

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 08:10 PM > > > (If you have any questions, comments, concerns, whatever, > just ask and > > I'll be happy to answer as best I can. I actively like tal

Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see below). One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was the added iformercial from our friendly neighbourhood server (Which could be scrapped if

RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment)

From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:53:11 -0800 (PST) > "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Well, that thread wandered from where I thought it would (RE: BRin-L - are we average?...)

--- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I asked the question to begin with, I didn't > really think I'd end up posting something like this, > but what the hell? > Seriously though.. I'm genetically male (XY, as far > as I know) but have struggled with gender identity > my entire

RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment)

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: > FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment) > > > In a message dated

A reasonable view.

I was moved by the words you typed in the message below. I was especially excited by this passage: > Just because > someone disagrees with the means that you prefer to do > certain things, a lot of people on this list seem to > believe that means that we're hostile to your ends. As someone who

Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)

In a message dated 2/19/2004 12:55:02 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > And just what is "sapiosexual?" Only > has sex with wise persons? Only has sex with humans? > ...with the self-aware? > > Debbi > who seems quite boring in comparison Only has sex with women

RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)

> "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't really think anyone was keeping a chart, > but... me, I'm poly, transgendered, "sapiosexual," > with no children - fit THAT into your categories, > Debbi ^_^ Umm, I think it's safe to say that you're off any charts *I* might have a

Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marriage[sic]Amendment)

- Original Message - From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:45 PM Subject: Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marriage[sic]Amendment) > > I may be a deviate, but am definitely no

Re: Sorry for the non-sequitur

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Sorry- > > Sent a message meant to go to a friend here > instead > Oh. I thought that's me, I bet. I stll haven't done > testing for diabetes. Too > many booksales in Jan-Feb. > > William, too many headaches, Taylor Well, actually

Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marriage[sic]Amendment)

Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:14 PM 2/18/04, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: In order to be average some need to be on either side of that average. I tend to think that we average out, but only with a big standard deviation over all the values, so that either side up to the outer limits of t

Republicans Vs Science: Top Scientists Warn the Shrub Administration Distorts Science

<> The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on We

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:53:41 -0600 Erik Reuter wrote: > > JDG wrote: > > > "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

- Original Message - From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? > I also have to believe that part of the difference is in > the perceived legitimacy of the way

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Erik Reuter wrote: >I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment. So do I, but for entirely different reasons. :-) Jim Was that dirty? Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___

RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment)

Straight, married, kids, moderate. I think that last one makes me a freak around here... ;-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Erik Reuter wrote: > > JDG wrote: > > > "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have > > children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of > > adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce > > children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreove

RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

Travis Edmunds wrote: >What was Maiden like? Great. The only thing that I didn't like was they didn't play "The Trooper" otherwise it was a lot of fun. Compounded by the presence of spandex-clad, big-haired New Jersey girls, of course. :) >>One of my favorite Foxtrot strips ever had a Vivald

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

JDG wrote: > "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have > children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of > adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce > children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question > becomes - should

Update on Ender's Game, The Movie

This may have already been posted. If so, I apologize. (I'm over 1400 mail messages behind.) http://www.frescopictures.com/movies/ender/endersgame_update.html X-Men 2 Writers Signed for the Ender Screenplay Variety Magazine announced on 10 February that Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty, the wri

Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marriage[sic]Amendment)

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marriage[sic]Amendment) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:38:08 -0600 At 06:13 PM 2/18/04, William T Goodall wr

Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendm ent)

Chad, I'm in that 10% minority :) Can I get a disabled sticker for that? If I can get one for being a pure "Left-handed" person... Any other "lefties" out there? Actually, I'm ambi. Or maybe just ambi-curious. Dave David M

RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendm ent)

> > > > I suspect that "pure" heterosexuals may not even be a majority. > > > I'm in that 10% minority :) Can I get a disabled sticker for that? If I can get one for being a pure "Left-handed" person... Any other "lefties" out there? Nerd From Hell __

Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marriage[sic]Amendment)

At 06:13 PM 2/18/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 18 Feb 2004, at 9:57 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:57 PM 2/18/04, Jon Gabriel wrote: I assume you've been watching the news about the semicolon that saved San Francisco. What about it? Nope. Haven't heard about it here. Heard about it her

Re: Dean today, gone tomorrow?

Miller, Jeffrey wrote: So somehow I managed to get myself volunteered as a Dean delegate in the WA state primary. What the heck do I do NOW? ^_^ You must Kerry on as best you can, I suppose. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [E

Freedom from religion

Following the French ban on wearing religious symbols in school there is more progress in ridding the world of the pernicious evil scourge of religion, this time from the enlightened Danes :) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/ wdane19.xml "Denmark will crack dow

Re: BRin-L - are we average?(was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)

- Original Message - From: "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:51 AM Subject: Re: BRin-L - are we average?(was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment) > > From: "ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Robert See

Re: BRin-L - are we average?(was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)

- Original Message - From: "ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:09 PM Subject: RE: BRin-L - are we average?(was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment) > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > One thing you have to remember

Truth is stranger

I read a short story about a German professor of philology (or somesuch obscure subject) who through a case of mistaken identity ended up in America delivering a series of lectures on pig-rearing to agricultural students. Quite funny but not very likely I thought...until I read this story

Re: Darwin's Children

Chad Cooper wrote: > > > > Read it some time ago. What's your mail system, Pony Express? :-) > > No, he ordered it from Amazon! - Gotta defend Amazon here. We (many US folks in Korea) order from Amazon a LOT! I would say we are very happy with Amazon.

In defense of Biblical marriage

<> In defense of Biblical marriage The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical prin