|  |
|
| |
By: Roxanne
Date: 11/30/01 8:28:35 PM
# Replies: 59
George Harrison has passed away.
Sniff sniff sniff sniff.
He was my favorite Beatle...
:(
Response #1
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/2/01 5:49:08 PM
I go on vacation and look what happens. A BEATLE dies! One time I went on vacation, JFK Jr. died! :-(
Response #2
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/2/01 6:26:46 PM
Hmmm...*someone* seems to be quick coming up with an alibi!
Response #3
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/3/01 11:09:54 PM
Heh. True, true.
I was just thinking, I need to go on vacation more often!
Response #4
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/4/01 1:33:15 PM
Well do something worthwhile with your special gift! Next time you go on vacation, it should be Britney who kicks the bucket!!!
Response #5
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/4/01 4:54:23 PM
Heh. Okay, I'll keep her in mind.
Response #6
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/5/01 10:42:07 AM
No! I'm a big fan of her Pepsi commercials.
Response #7
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/5/01 11:11:54 AM
No matter. If she kicked the bucket, you can still get all of her videos on tape.
Response #8
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/5/01 2:45:36 PM
Her Pepsi commercials are the most disturbing of all.
Bob Dole *and* his dog getting all hot and bothered over her? That is more disgusting than drinking warm pee!!!
Response #9
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 12/5/01 6:29:02 PM
MadTV did a spoof on her the other night. That show is really funny sometimes, though the spoof wasn't one of their shining moments.
Response #10
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/6/01 8:58:15 AM
They did a spoof on Ricky Martin once. I nearly peed my pants. It was so DEAD ON.
Response #11
By: rorschach
Date: 12/6/01 11:12:07 AM
but the conversation still keeps coming back to PEE!
Response #12
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/6/01 12:44:59 PM
At least we aren't talking about SHIT.
Response #13
By: rorschach
Date: 12/7/01 11:12:52 AM
Don't give anyone any ideas....
Response #14
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/7/01 11:26:04 AM
Let's move the thread back to George Harrison. Or something equally appealing. ;-)
Response #15
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/7/01 12:58:32 PM
Should we make a shrine?
Response #16
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/7/01 8:18:24 PM
A Nunnery shrine to an ex-Beatle. There's gotta be extra candles around here somewhere...
Count ME in.
Response #17
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/8/01 2:08:03 PM
~~~~~~~~~ GEORGE HARRISON ~~~~~~~~~~~~
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
Response #18
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/8/01 2:10:54 PM
Hmmm..ain't much for ascii art anymore, I guess...
Response #19
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 12/8/01 11:45:38 PM
Response #20
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/9/01 5:52:59 PM
Ooooh. Now THAT is just totally COOL!
Response #21
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 12/9/01 9:36:08 PM
One of my new age spaceyhead friends was ranting about how the internet was all evil horrible consumerism and devoid of spiritual content. Artwells Oracula put a stop to that rant.
Response #22
By: sooz
Date: 12/10/01 5:39:31 AM
(brushing hands off) My shrine's all set up. Thanks.
Response #23
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/10/01 6:50:44 AM
Your friend doesn't feel spiritual looking at Internet porn?
Response #24
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 12/10/01 10:20:13 AM
I know it's a spiritual experience for me.
Response #25
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/10/01 1:05:46 PM
Sex in a church is a pretty spiritual experience, too.
Response #26
By: sooz
Date: 12/10/01 2:42:21 PM
Agreed, Witch. (My dad was the pastor. I had access to keys.)
Response #27
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/10/01 3:04:13 PM
Dang, Sooz. You're a sinner like me! (*high five*)
I didn't need keys. My boyfriend at the time was looking for a nice quiet spot (we were out and about, not near home). So we just walked into this chapel one day when church was not in session, and, well, we found that nice quite spot.
Response #28
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 12/10/01 11:20:32 PM
It wasn't quiet for long.
Response #29
By: sooz
Date: 12/11/01 6:59:44 AM
I love these spiritual interludes.
Response #30
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/11/01 9:34:58 AM
I knew The Church was good for SOMETHIN'.
Response #31
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/11/01 2:15:42 PM
Well, if you're going to be moaning "oh God, oh God" I guess church is about the best place to be!
Response #32
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/11/01 7:41:56 PM
If this pew is a-rockin', don't come a-knockin'.
Response #33
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 12/12/01 12:11:20 AM
E-Z access to confessional.
Response #34
By: Roxanne
Date: 12/12/01 12:38:47 PM
As long as you're down there on your knees...
Response #35
By: WitchHazel
Date: 12/12/01 10:53:10 PM
Bahahaha! Good idea, Rox.
Response #36
By: rorschach
Date: 12/13/01 10:23:12 AM
Priests don't get out much.........
Response #37
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/26/02 10:53:06 PM
Priests may not get out much, but it certainly seems many of them are staying in.
Response #38
By: rorschach
Date: 4/29/02 2:36:07 PM
and out and in and out and in.....
Personally I think the catholic church has been asking for this ever since the 1500's (?) when the pope Pius somethingorother decided that preists and nuns had to be celibate. 'course at the time the church was having a real problem with preists screwing anything that moved and probably a few things that didn't. the one human drive that is completely insatiable is the sex drive. and the more you try to repress it, the worse it gets. I don't care HOW much you try to repress it, it will boil to the surface one way or another.
Response #39
By: sooz
Date: 4/29/02 5:41:48 PM
Statistically, pedophiles are usually straight people that are married and having an active sex life with their husband or wife.
I'm married to a person that, unfortunately, knows a lot about this topic.
Response #40
By: sooz
Date: 4/30/02 4:47:28 AM
Snipped from an article:
U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that the vast majority (over 90%) of child molesters (pedophiles) are heterosexual men.
2. The statistics from Canada agree with the U.S.
3. Most of the men (over 50%) are married, and have children of their own.
Here are some findings from the peer reviewed journal, "Pediatrics" published in July of 1994. The study was done by Dr. Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. The subjects were 269 sexually abused children seen at Denver Children's Hospital over the course of one year.
*About 8 in 10 girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative.
*3 out of 4 boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.
* 1 in 219 girls was molested by a lesbian
* 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.
Thus:
2% of the boys in the study were molested by gay males.
75% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexual male relative
in heterosexual adult relationships.
Boys have approximately FORTY TIMES GREATER RISK of being molested by a heterosexual male who is one of their relatives than by a homosexual. 80% of girls are molested by males who are relatives or sexual partners of relatives.
This study is not unique. Here are some other references, all of which report parallel numbers.
Groth, A. Nicholas, and H. Jean Birnbaum, 1978 "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175.
"Suggests that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male." [p 609]
Newton, David E., 1978 "Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence", Adolescence, 13, 29.
"Existing studies provide no reason to believe that anything other than a random connection exists between homosexual behavior and child molestation. The typical offender is a heterosexual male." [p 610]
"Stigma, Prejudice, and violence against Lesbians and Gay Men" (pp. 60-80 in John Gonsiorek and James Weinrich (eds) "Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy" Sage Publications, 1992). Herek says: "Since 1978, no credible new data have been published that contradict the conclusions" [that pedophilia is a crime committed almost exclusively by heterosexuals].
Copyright ecember 22, 2000, by Mikael All rights reserved,
except that free distribution via any medium is permitted as long as
author's credit is given and no profit is involved.
Response #41
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/30/02 10:39:11 AM
Ror:
Mama's got a squeeze box, and daddy nver sleeps at night. She goes in and out, and in and out...
Amazing how any thing can sound dirty isn't it?
Sooz:
What about the cross-dressing, disco-biker lesbians trapped in a man's body category?
Response #42
By: bob
Date: 5/7/02 10:22:13 AM
capt: they are too busy waxing their chests to molest anyone
Response #43
By: rorschach
Date: 5/9/02 10:42:05 AM
of course, sooz's statistics raise the question of how skewed the statistics are given the number of people that are now claiming to have been molested by a member of the clergy. I noticed that not a single one of the statistics referenced clergy.
and I want to point out that having an active sex life with thier wife does not mean that the repressed urge is being satisfied at all, it all depends on the urge. she may not even be physically capable of satisfying the specific urge (she is assumably female after all, most wives are... if the urge is homosexual in nature that pretty much means she can't help much....)
and since when does being involved in a heterosexual relationship "prove" that you aren't gay, or at least bisexual? In fact I don't think it has much to do with it at all.
let us remember that the basic tendency for men to seek out young females and women to seek out older males is ingrained into our primal conciousness by evolutionary pressures. Men seek (multiple) young females to insure that they are healthy and capable of living long enough to care for the young, women seek older males because they are more established and are better able to provide for them and thier young. the problem as I see it is that society has set out rules that conflict with these evolutionary drives. Granted these drives can get distorted to the point that 5 year olds become the object of sexual attention, but the basic drive did at least at one time have an evolutionary basis. we have been "civilized" for such a short time evolutionarily speaking that our primitive drives haven't caught up yet.
Response #44
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/10/02 4:23:31 AM
bob:
Well, everyone's got to have a hobby. :)
ror:
Evolutionary speaking, a whole lot of things about a whole lot of people haven't caught up yet! With some people it's the sexual urges, with some people, it's their thought process with others still, it's their social and cultural awareness. Really odd don't you think?
Response #45
By: rorschach
Date: 5/12/02 6:28:28 PM
I don't think it is odd in the least. Humans have thrown a monkey wrench into our own evolutionary processes on so many levels it is amazing we aren't just jibbering messes more often. Evolution really is not equipped to cope with a massively overgrown frontal lobe and the resulting effects it has on intelligence. our conciousness is the result of both primal emotion and cold intellect and the two do not always know how to get along.
Response #46
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/12/02 7:18:50 PM
How can you throw a monkeywrench into something that is essentially random?
Response #47
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/13/02 4:43:13 AM
Hmmm, good question. How about playing craps and using a shotgun blast to roll the dice. Does that count?
Response #48
By: rorschach
Date: 5/13/02 10:22:25 AM
now see, that's a misconception. evolution is not "random", more like pseudo-random. there are only so many permutations that DNA can have and of that, only so many are actually conducive to life. that is why you see so many examples of two completely unrelated species developing similar traits due to similar environmental stimuli (whales and sharks are good examples as are whales and bats, chitin for crab exoskeletons and fingernails and claws etc).
mother nature has a very large but limited toolkit, but she can mix and match the tools a large number of ways. therefore it only looks random.
but my point was that we are changing the enviromental stimuli so fast that evolution keeps having to go back to the drawing board. our enviroment changes pretty much every couple three generations now, which is not long enough for specialization to come to bear. that has not always been the case. in fact the enviromental changes are steadily increasing in frequency. therefore the human brain and body are steadily getting more and more out of synch with the environment it has to live in.
Response #49
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/13/02 8:45:22 PM
Homer,
Certainly you are familiar with the concept of fucking a wet dream? The addage that proves that virtually everything...not matter HOW idiot proof...can and indeed will eventually be fucked up by someone.
Besides, what makes you think the whole of the evolutionary process is completely random?
Response #50
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/14/02 1:40:41 PM
Yours is the misconception, ror*. :)
Species evolve by mutating far more failures than successes, and success means different things at different times. There's no goal, there's just mutation. Shit happens and then someone survives. The survivor gets to pass along some genetic material. Function follows form.
Arguing that humans have screwed up the evolutionary process is absolutely backwards. We're evolving, changing the environment, and providing evolutionary niches (and dead-ends) for other species all over the place. Witness the rapid evolution of microbes, thanks to the development and use of antibiotics. We're *speeding up* evolution in that case, not going faster than it does.
And we're not out of sync; we're doing what we do. We evolved a neocortex and then found uses for it, such as attempting to understand gender and sexual stereotypes. Either this will aid our species in survival, or it'll kill us. Or it won't matter. I think it hasn't mattered for a while (in the same way our appendix hasn't mattered for a while), which is why we still have it.
Response #51
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/15/02 5:55:17 AM
Yeah Homer, but you you present it as thought virtually NOTHING can act on or effect the evolitionary process, which simply isn't true. Not just related to the time frame that it takes place in.
Response #52
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/15/02 5:57:57 PM
Nothing can act on or effect the evolutionary process, other than mutation. Either the mutation is successful or it isn't, or is irrelevant to success. The environment is the result of... other mutations on other species. So the random success of a given specie depends on the random successes of other species.
Essentially: There's no way to throw a monkeywrench in, because monkeywrenches are accounted for already by the theory.
The monkeywrench metaphor comes in handy when we start talking about the memetic evolution around sex and gender, rather than genetic evolution, because ideas tossed around can bring whole cultures and civilizations to a grinding halt. But ultimately it fails us there, too. Any 'monkeywrench' turns out to be just another memetic mutation.
Anyway. Nice weather we're having today. :-)
Response #53
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/16/02 10:23:47 AM
Isn't genetic engineering a type of controlled mutation?
Response #54
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/16/02 3:22:54 PM
Genetic engineering is yet another example of mutation (the ability to come up with science so we can manipulate genes) altering the environment (the result of genetic maniuplation). The scary part isn't that we're going faster than evolution, because we aren't. The scary part is that we're stupid enough to try it without knowing the risk.
Response #55
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/16/02 9:11:04 PM
So then that's not EXACTLY random then is it?
I mean, not really according to the chaos theory right?
Response #56
By: rorschach
Date: 5/17/02 9:10:36 AM
homer, no my understanding is fine, you are not understanding my point. which is, the environmental change cycle is approaching, if not surpassing the reproduction cycle, therefore success, evolutionarily speaking, is so fleeting as to be non-existant. I am not talking about microbes or other species, only our own. therefore evolution is entering a period of "churning" for us. a mutation occurrs in response to environmental pressures, but the environment changes before that mutation has a change to prove it's fitness.
Response #57
By: Da Sissop
Date: 5/17/02 8:09:14 PM
For everything, churn churn, churn....
There is a season, churn, churn, churn...
Response #58
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/18/02 12:24:31 PM
If the environment changes and a mutation is proved unfit, then it was just plain unfit, no? If we change the environment one way, we redefine fitness one way. If we change the environment another way, we redefine fitness another way. No yeah-buts allowed.
By changing our environment, we're currently selecting for human smog-breathers with ADD, as surely as ranchers are selecting for large-breasted chickens and marbled beef. You seem to be saying that we're not evolving that direction fast enough, which is a problem if we want to survive. I'd agree, and note that we can't evolve any faster than we're doing it, and so must change the environment.
As far as how random evolution is, it took, what, 6 billion years to come up with a human smart enough to figure out genetic manipulation. Do you like those odds? 6,000,000,000 to 40? :-)
Response #59
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/19/02 3:50:05 PM
"Yep, I always liked the idea of a Beer Church."
-Norm