GeorgiaDon

I think its a mistake to look at the "average" student as the most appropriate measure of of what the public school system is capable of doing. My kids went through the public schools here, and as a university professor I deal daily with "products" of the school system. If kids are willing to make an effort and take advantage of the people and resources put in front of them, they can come out of high school very well prepared for anything they want to do. There are many fantastic, extremely dedicated teachers in every public school, as well as many so-so or even miserable teachers. What makes the difference in outcome is the family and social environment the kid experiences at home. Most people are naturally lazy and will take the path of least resistance if allowed to meander without guidance. If you grow up in a single-wide, achieving a double-wide lifestyle may be as much success as you can visualize. Often parents (or commonly parent) buy into the delusion that their kid will end up in the NBA/NFL/whatever and make 20 million dollars a year to chuck a ball around, so time on the basketball court is given priority over time spent on homework. If parents don't make the effort to push their kids to take the tougher classes that really prepare them for life, if they can't be bothered to make sure their kids are keeping up with their homework, who's to blame when Johnny can't add and subtract? If the kid never sees Mom or Dad pick up a book, but they can discuss all the American Idol contestants as if it somehow mattered, then why is it the teacher's fault that the kid can't read anything more involved than a comic book? Look at the high achievers, the best students, to see what the system can produce when everybody does their part. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This study (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/2/179?ck=nck) examined the "amphibole hypothesis" (the idea that the effects of asbestos are due to amphibole, and chrysotile is safe) and found no difference between amphibole and chrysotile asbestos for health risk. Sorry, but the pdf is too big to attach. Health issues aside, would it be safe to assume that if we had to choose between protecting the only known population of an endangered species and having one more place to ride your ATV, you'd side with the ATV? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You seem to have a different standard for strength than I do. The ability to work cooperatively has allowed us to accomplish things no other species on Earth can match. I'm continuously amazed and occasionally appalled at what we humans can do. The nerve of those humans, curing diseases, living in extreme environments, even flying and jumping out of planes. It's unnatural I say! So curiosity means squat to you? Same thing, I surmise, for art and music? It's all a "huge waste of time and energy", everything except, you guessed it, endless repetitive study of the Bible. Hmmm, seems sort of familiar, wait I've got it! It's just like the Taliban! Except, of course, they're all going to hell because they're reading the wrong book. Here's a couple of questions for you. If we are made in God's image, is He weak and puny too? If we are curious (and I would argue it is one of our more distinctive traits), doesn't that come from God (in your world view)? How, then, could curiosity be a bad thing? Also, if the Universe and everything in it is made for our use, how could it mean "squat" for us to want to see what God has made for us? Your world seems really strange and myopic to me. I's a wonder there's any air for you to breath in there, it's so small. Come out and look around! Many others, with deep faith, have believed that all the Universe is God's grand essay; studying His works was seen as the best way to understand His mind. I feel a lot more kinship with their perspective than the small-minded view you seem to espouse. If I wasn't naturally inclined to assume the best of people, I might suspect you of being unwilling to spend he effort to learn anything of science, and bitterly resentful of those who have made that effort. Ah, the veiled threat. The last refuge of the fundamentalist, and too often the first refuge as well. Your days are numbered, and the lake of fire awaits. Unless you put put on blinders, and allow only Royd (as the appointed interpreter of the will of God) to tell you what to believe and what to turn away from. No fruit of the tree of knowledge for the followers of Royd! To actually answer your question, if you mean do I believe the span of my years is for-ordained, written down in some celestial book, then no I absolutely do not believe that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Here is one root of our differences. What is the question to which you refer when you say "answer in Faith"? I assume it's the perennial "Why am I here?" I suspect you, like most people, assume there must be some deep meaning to it all, some "great purpose" you were "created" to "fulfill". That seems needlessly narcissistic to me. I am here because my parents got randy one night, and they are here for the same reason, and so on back to the first self-organizing collection of chemical reactions back in some Proterozoic sea. I don't see any need for any mystical "why". That is not at all the same as the much more interesting and important question of "given that I am here, what do I do with the brief time I have?" I have pretty strong feelings about the importance of caring for my family (in the narrow and in the broad sense, i.e. from my spouse and children to all humanity and even to all living beings that share this planet, given that we are all kin by common descent), while trying to experience and understand as much about everything as I can, all while ultimately trying to leave this world a little better off (I hope) for my having been here. None of that requires any assumptions about the existence of magical beings or divine missions, but neither is it amoral or without purpose. Well depending on the quality of the "miracles" I suppose I could be convinced by such a train of events. But, I have to warn you the standards for real miracles has gone up of late. Given what we know of brain chemistry, how we can have apparently real but in fact quite imaginary experiences when we tickle dopamine receptors, for example, with appropriate chemical stimuli, I would be inclined to distrust any purely "personal" experiences. I'd be looking for something that could be recorded, replicated, and observed by a lot of independent observers, including many that had no preconceived expectations. But wait, then it would be more like science, wouldn't it? This line of thought I do not get at all. To me, this is nothing more than evidence that God is a purely human construct, an abstraction writ large of the supreme authority of monarchs of yesteryear, the all-powerful ruler who tolerates no dissent. God created from the clay of humanity's most base emotions, dug from the mine of 4,000-year-old political power structures. Don't misunderstand, I harbor no anger towards "God". Life is too short to waste energy being angry at an entity that either 1) doesn't exist, or 2) is very intent on acting exactly as if "he" doesn't exist. I might as well be angry at the face I thought I saw in a cloud yesterday. I hope you don't mean to imply others were made to suffer so you would have a metric to measure how good you have it? Personally, I don't feel any need to compare myself to others in order to feel gratitude for the many good things in my life. This is an excellent world for us because we evolved to fit it, not because it was created to meet our needs. Sometimes nature is not so caring and gentle, what does that say about "God"? Look, you are obviously sincere about your beliefs, and they bring you comfort and meaning. That works for you. I do not feel the need to answer the questions that seem important to you. I am quite content (in fact, joyful) to live in a material world full of an inexhaustible supply of real mysteries to figure out (how does this work? Why does that happen? What lies over this mountain?), real art and music to create and experience, real people to embrace and love. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

All I can say about this thread is WOW. So much hate....so much anger towards pigs....I love you all because Jesus loves you and the latter is no joke. I'm going to be like that character in Dane Cook's "Someone Shit on the Coats" all youre going to do at some point, youre going to lean in and go, What!?! And then blend back into the crowd... What?! I hope that it wasnt on my coat. And then, boom, youre a phantom, you just disappear, disappear. __________________________________________________________ Not sure what you're smoking, but I think I'll pass. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for responding. That is pretty much how I imagine the situation, but I did wonder if I was missing something obvious. It seems to me that there may not be a way to do it without setting up a very risky situation with a high chance that the "suspect" may have no idea he is dealing with the police. I have a similar concern with "no-knock" warrants, how is a homeowner supposed to tell it's the police and not a home invasion robbery? That's why I think those tactics should be limited to situations where the police are almost certain that intervention is needed to prevent an immediate substantial threat to life. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Max, A little joy is as much as we can ask for I think, and I am glad your beliefs bring you that, as do mine for me in their own way. I would never try to "prove" to anyone that God doesn't exist (as many posters have noted you can't prove a negative), and I wouldn't wish to try to deprive anyone of a source of comfort and meaning. You did ask, though, what leads one to disbelieve, and so I did provide some (not quite all) of my reasons. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There is a website, "Expelled Exposed" (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth), that systematically debunks each and every claim put forth in the movie. The level of disinformation and outright lies in this "documentary" are in my opinion so extreme that anything Ben Stein (and his co-conspirators) put out after this should be considered complete crap. He has completely ruined his credibility. The central premise of the movie is that there is a materialistic, atheist cabal of entrenched Darwinists that viciously destroy the careers of anyone who dares question evolutionary theory. They present the "stories" of several alleged victims of this conspiracy. Here is the summary of one case, that of Dr. Richard Sternberg, from the Expelled Exposed website: "Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy." Some more interesting distortions regarding this specific case: the movie (or is associated web site) claims Dr. Sternberg was forced to turn in his keys, and was kicked out of his office at the Smithsonian, implying this was a result of his involvement in the "intelligent design" movement. In fact, all personnel had to turn in their keys as the Smithsonian converted to a keyless pass-card security system; he was given a pass just like everybody else, and he still has it. The whole area of the Smithsonian where he had his first office was reorganized and everybody was moved to another area. Dr. Sternberg asked for an office in a specific area of the museum, he was given that, and he still has that office. So, Expelled takes 2 totally innocent events, unrelated to the "ID" issue (changing from traditional to electronic keys, and reorganizing office space resulting in a move from one office to another of his own choosing), and makes into a major deal that supposedly "destroyed his career". Same sort of lies and exaggeration regarding the other cases of "harassment" presented in the movie. All complete crap. There is also an interesting editorial written by the conservative columnist John Derbyshire in the National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=&w=MA). In part he says "It’s pretty plain that the thing is creationist porn, propaganda for ignorance and obscurantism. How could a guy like this [here he's referring to Ben Stein] do a thing like that?" With regard to the dishonesty of the whole production, he offers the opinion that "These dishonesties do not surprise me. When talking about the creationists to people who don’t follow these controversies closely, I have found that the hardest thing to get across is the shifty, low-cunning aspect of the whole modern creationist enterprise. Individual creationists can be very nice people, though they get nicer the further away they are from the full-time core enterprise of modern creationism at the Discovery Institute. The enterprise as a whole, however, really doesn’t smell good. You notice this when you’re around it a lot. I shall give some more examples in a minute; but what accounts for all this dishonesty and misrepresentation? My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools." There's quite a lot more worth reading in that editorial. One more kind of trivial but I think telling indication of the level of honesty in the movie, they are being sued by a number of graphic designers and music publishers (including Yoko Ono!) for allegedly using other peoples music and graphics without acknowledgement, permission, or payment of royalties. Don edited to correct National Review Online _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Max, I'm going to jump in here, and I'm sure we'll get a chance to talk about this in person sometime. I know enough people who I hold as intelligent, rational, and well-educated, some personally (yourself, several faculty members here at UGA) and some through this forum (Nerdgirl and even Bill von unless I am mistaken) who hold some form of religious belief (not necessarily Christian), that I cannot completely dismiss the "God hypothesis". Still, despite the best efforts of my parents, I personally find that the idea of a "God" that controls all and even "marks the fall of a sparrow" is completely unbelievable. For me, the reasons for that lack of belief go beyond the total lack of empirical evidence, although that lack would be a serious problem in itself. Some (not all) of my issues include: 1) I believe in the objective (i.e. real) existance of a world that operates according to laws of physics (chemistry and biology following as emergent properties from physics), and 2) I believe that it is possible, at least in principle, for us humans to understand those laws. Indeed, for me understanding (at least on some level) how the world works, how all life and indeed all matter/energy are interconnected through shared history, is an important part of my "spirituality". (As an aside, I recommend Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" in this regard). It seems to me that belief in an interventionist God (i.e. Royd's God that pushes babies out of windows, many to be dashed on the ground and a chosen few to be miraculously saved by conveniently placed postal workers) is the antithesis of my beliefs. If there is a God (I'm capitolizing as a sign of respect for your beliefs by the way) that intervenes daily in the physical world, posing "tests" here and answering prayers (for miraculous recovery from disease, for example) there, all without leaving any trace that could be detected by even the most determined experiment, then it seems to me the world is not objectively real. That is, it exists only as a materialization of the whims of "God". Maybe that immunosupressive protein I just characterized didn't exist last week, maybe "God" just created it to "test" me and before that he just "willed" mosquitoes to be good disease vectors. I don't believe that (and I'm sure you don't either), but once you agree that God can do anything and no-one could detect His meddling then where does it stop? Maybe there is an issue with me being a scientist, most people are only concerned that the world works in a consistant way (so that actions have predictible consequences) and not so much with why things work the way that they do. While we're on the issue of a God that directly intervenes in the world to pose tests and answer prayers, why would such a God permit so much suffering to exist? Aside from the question of human-caused suffering and "free will" (which I hope exists, even though that is an interesting problem in its own right), there is a lot of suffering caused by natural events (tsunamis, mosquitoes, etc). If God created the world, He created it with these things in it to plague innocent people. If I had the power to order the universe according to my will, you can be sure I'd pay some attention to those things and maybe less to sporting events (where every player seems to want to credit God with scoring that touchdown). Of course I am anthropomorphising God, but what could be more anthropomorphic than the Old Testament God who turns people into pillars of salt for looking over their shoulder, or drowns the whole planet (almost) rather than just appearing in the sky one day and saying so that everybody could hear and see, "Look people, I'm real, I'm here and I see what you're up to, and you'd better shape up!". We're onto the Christian concept of God now, but the idea of an all-powerful but petulant entity who gets "lonely" one day and decides to create humans so they can "worship him", and then goes on to play a perpetual game of hide-and-seek (as per the theology I was taught in Sunday School) is about as anthropomorphic as it gets. Man creating God in his own image, as it were. It's much more parsimonious to believe that tsunamis and earthquakes happen as a result of plate tectonics, or parasites exist because of straightforward evolutionary processes, than to believe that it's all part of some cryptic "plan" according to the "will of God", which we will never understand because it is "hidden from mere human minds" (again with the Sunday School theology). "No laws of Nature were broken in the making of this disaster", so to speak. Of course, there are those who avoid these questions by postulating a knob-twiddler God, one who started the "Big Bang", set Planck's constant so electrons and protons could get together and form atoms, and let things go on their own from there, maybe with a little nudge here or there to move things along. (Dinosaurs keeping the mammals down? This little asteroid will take care of that!) I don't think that kind of God is what most people have in mind when they think of a divine presence in the Universe. Anyway, that is a minimalist God-of-the-gaps that will sublimate away as science fills in more of the holes in our understanding. Well there's more but this has turned into a thesis so I'll cut it off here. There is no anger there, although if I did believe there was a God who could prevent disease or suffering but was too focused on high-school football, then I would be angry. Max, you asked what leads one to question or reject the idea of God. I offer this with all due respect (really), and I'm curious what you will respond. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There is something I've been wondering about and I hope maybe some of the current/former police officers who read/post here can comment. In a situation like this one apparently was: after dark, undercover police (i.e. not in uniform, likely dressed to blend in with the other patrons), "suspects" some distance away inside a car (lets surmise windows rolled up, maybe radio playing, people talking, so very limited ability to hear anything short of a siren coming from outside the car), then according to official police training/procedures, how are you supposed to unambiguously identify yourself as a police officer, so that no reasonable person could possibly fail to recognize you as such? How are you supposed to avoid creating a situation where any rational person, having just left a bar after an altercation, doesn't just see some dude with a gun standing in the street threatening your life? In which case, I'm sure we can all agree, any rational person would try to get out of Dodge, if necessary by going through the dude with the gun. So, what is the "by the book" procedure? Surely one must exist. Otherwise, any time undercover police decide to make a stop the chances are very high the "suspect" (who may well be entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, and at any rate has not been tried or convicted of anything at this point) is already dead. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Where I live (Athens Georgia USA) there were two intersections where there was a high rate of accidents with injuries or major damage because of people running red lights. Since red-light cameras were installed the number of injuries has gone down significantly, although there are slightly more non-injury fender-bender rear end collisions because people still expect the car ahead to push the light. To get the same effect with police, we would have to hire several more officers and raise taxes or close libraries/parks to pay for it, or have fewer officers to respond if you call about a burglary or something. It seems to me the people who complain the most are the slow learners who get tagged 2-3 times before they figure out that red really means stop. Blue ones, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We had a great view here in Athens GA. Just as totality was ending I saw a very bright meteor towards the northwest. I went inside 5 minutes later and they were just announcing on CNN that the spy satellite had been shot down. I wonder if that's what I saw, the timing seemed very close. Either way (meteor or satellite) it was a great addition to the evening. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thank you for that. It's beautiful. And a wonderful New Year (the whole year, not just the day) to all. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

He's made it clear that he would abolish the EPA and return environmental protections to the sort of thing we had in the 1800's, based on property rights. http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/ That is to say: 1) You determine that you (or your property) is being contaminated with toxic pollutants. This requires that you constantly pay for testing of the air/water. Or you develop some illness related to exposure to pollutants. 2) You attempt to determine the source of the contamination. 3) You take the allegedly offending party to court and attempt to get some redress for the damage you (or your property) have suffered. Of course, by that point the damage has already been done, and it might not be possible to undo it. How much money would compensate for a terminal disease, or kids with life-altering birth defects, or even just your property so contaminated you can't use it in the way you intended? Does anyone believe an individual would be able to prevail against a wealthy corporation with an army of lawyers? Or that any compensation would arrive in time to do any good? Or that the court system would even be able to handle the case load on top of all that it already has to deal with? That approach didn't work, which is why the EPA was created in the first place. I gather that, in a similar vein, Ron Paul would do away with the FDA, the CDC, and NIH. He doesn't specifically state that (or contradict it) on his web site, but that is consistent with his stance on the EPA, Homeland Security, etc, and it is the stated policy of the Libertarian groups he seems to be close to. In the case of the FDA the argument is the same as the EPA, if you are harmed by a drug, and you can 1) prove that specific drug did the harm, and 2) find the manufacturer (assuming they have corporate offices in the US and not the Bahamas or something), you can try to take them to court. Good luck with that. I think it is also his policy to sell off all federal lands, including national parks. (There is an oblique reference to this in this interview: http://www.lewrockwell.com/casey/casey12.html). Enjoy hiking/camping in national parks, national forests, or on BLM land? Better do it now, before its given away to corporate interests and people with the $$ to buy it up. After that it'll just be fences or sky-high fees to go anywhere. And no, he can't personally do these things overnight. But he can veto any spending bills that include funding for any departments or agencies he doesn't like. He isn't called "Dr No" for nothing. Shut down the government? I don't think that would be much of a deterrent for him. It's what he's all about. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There will be a segment on wingsuits/landing w/o a parachute on ABC evening news in a few minutes (now 7:11 PM). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In other threads on this topic you have claimed that published research by climatologists can't be trusted because they have a financial interest (through research grants) in promoting the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. In the interests of full disclosure, would you care to enlighten us about your relationship to Alliant Energy? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I bet that works better than those fake leather ammo vests. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how those of you who find Mr. Horn's behavior so laudable would feel about Farmer McNasty taking his shotgun to the next skydiver who lands out on his property. After all, 1) they are trespassing, 2) what could be more scary than someone in a clown suit who suddenly appears out of nowhere?, and 3) that backpack they're wearing obviously could conceal who-knows-what weapons, and/or is obviously meant to carry away all they loot they're about to steal. Who could blame him for being scared? He was just defending his property. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I assume you are aware that both the examples you cite of your model for how science should be funded are nonsense? Jimbo Wales is not a scientist; even if you credit him with generating the idea for Wikipedia (and there is reason to believe that much of the concept came from Larry Sanger) he didn't write the code, he (actually, his employees) used code others had written. He did put together the funding for the project, from a soft-core porn company he had founded. Contributions to science? Nada. Although Einstein's contributions to science are beyond dispute, you are aware he was a THEORETICAL PHYSICIST? Einstein's total expeditures on actual experimental science? $0.00 I don't know what field you chose to do your PhD in, but in my field I do not know anybody who gets any money from "defense-related" sources. And I have never had NIH tell me where to publish, or that I could not publish my work, and I don't know anybody who has had that experience. One last point, you can't learn how to do experimental science just by reading about it, any more than reading a book will make you a proficient skydiver. If experimental research was to be done only in the very few labs that would exist under your "independently wealthy self-funded" model, there would be no places students could go to learn how to set up a properly controlled experiment or use state-of-the-art techniques. Private industry has no interest in training students, it would waste too much time and money. Without a supply of trained researchers, innovation would pretty much cease, certainly in the biomedical fields, and those industries would relocate to countries that do see the value in investing in scientific education. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just a suggestion here. If working the muscles needed to hold an arch is part of your training regimen, you could try doing some of that in a swimming pool. The water will support most of your weight, it feels closer to being in the air than anything else I've found except, of course, the tunnel. It will help to have someone help support you to keep your head up so you can breath, or maybe you could use a snorkel. When you practice the movements for turns your helper can actually turn you in the water, which will help you to visualize the action/response. It's vastly less expensive than the tunnel. When you feel you can hold the arch and make the movements for turns you can use the tunnel to verify your progress before taking to the sky. Best of luck! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This sort of offhand bullshit insult reveals nothing more than your ignorance of what it takes to do scientific research. In my own field (molecular biology/immunology) reagents alone can easily run $2,000+ for a single experiment. How do you propose researchers do anything without a source of funding to pay for it? _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A search on PubMed did not show any relevent publications from "Weldon P". As PubMed includes virtually every peer-reviewed medical journal I'd say its almost certain that this research has not been published. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Please, do tell. And thats great news that Woody is recovering so quickly. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Please, do tell. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So you're saying the US does have a national identity document? What would that be, I don't think I've ever seen one. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)