LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT NOW! (page 2)

LDH

LOL this whole topic....and Teenyuck's "NE" thread.

Any of you other girls get spontaneous orgasms while asleep? Happens to me about 3 times a year, not NEARLY enough, LOL.

"Spontaneous Orgasms....All the fun with None of the work!!!!"

DJ for what it's worth, I read that thread and I didn't think ANYONE was being mean to Wednesday. I still don't.

Lisa

Waiting Class

outoftheorg

Hello again DJ

Hello englishman

It troubles me that I read statements like "that is an inaccurate diagnosis" and "she needs to talk to someone who understands this and not a psychiatrist"

Our only contact with this girl is what she wrote on her post. I personally would never make this kind of statement "advice" to someone who we really have not had personal contact with. I know for certain that I am not qualified to take on this risk. Are you?

Psychiatrists deal with this kind of thing every day and they do so in person. Why do you feel they would not be qualified. They would probe and ask many more questions than we could realize from a few letters of comunication from this girl. Also not all people that hear or see things are automaticly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

And once more- what if she truly is schizophrenic and she heeds your advice and sees some one who "understands" but is not qualified?

I think you are on thin ice here.

Outoftheorg

rem

Outoftheorg,

Excellent... I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't! :)

rem

SYN

Pros/Cons of Various Bible Translations When Placed 'Strategically' (see above):

King James:

Pro:

1. Usually quite heavy, so stimulation is improved by it's sheer weight.
2. Nice thick leather cover almost feels like real skin!
3. Funky edge binding can sometimes hit just the right spot....aaaah....

Con:

1. Heavy, so falls out of underwear at the Meetings in front of all the Elders.
2. Difficult to clean, gets moldy easily.
3. Paper is very dry, and can thus become stuck to the body during sleep, leading to a Theocratic spray of paper exploding out of the toilet bowl in the mornings.

New World Translation:

Pro:

1. Lighter and easier to fit in clothes - doesn't require ropes to hold down like KJV.
2. Paper is much cheaper and harder, thus it doesn't stick as easily as the KJV paper.
3. Handy bookmark-string can be used to replace feathers and toothbrushes.

Con:

1. Lies about it's true nature.
2. Size can be deceptive due to contents.
3. Narrower than KJV, and can only be used in short bursts, to prevent immediate brain implosions.

Greek Interlinear:

Pro:

1. Dual translations have excellent demon-fighting abilities.
2. Makes it OK to make a lot of noise, as you can just tell your relatives you are learning Greek.

Con:

1. As with any foreign lover, you never really know what you'll get.
2. Certain of the Greek characters on the cover have a pornographic appearance, leading to impure thoughts.

Edited by - SYN on 12 September 2002 17:54:16

teenyuck

SixofNine

DJ, you seem far crazier than Wednesday.

I asked Wed, and I'll ask you; if you were crazy, would you admit it to yourself and others? Or might you blame it on demons?

At least if you stop believing in them, they'll leave you alone.

Btw, when I look back on my time a believer, I think I was crazy too. Belief in things w/o evidence, based entirely on what one wants to be true, is insane in my book (or faith, according to some books, lol). A voice in your head is nothing special. I suggest opening up a dialogue with any voices in your head, and then be honest enough to admit that your own brain is split on some issues. Hell, just admit you have a subconcious, everyones got one, why not you? Nothing wrong with that, nothing to be ashamed of now is there?

Carmel

REM,

Me thinks yee be a bit too sensitive in your defense of "science". There are many "high priests" of science who are as dogmatic about their convictions regarding reality as there are "high priests" of religiosity. I'm always confounded when some young whipersnapper "newbie" scientist discovers something that the established scientific orthodoxy didn't discover themselves and it takes years to becomes mainstream "science". I know all about the peer review process having lived through it and still part of it and find it very much a form of a "good old boy" network rather than an objective system of critical analysis of method and rationality. So much for the "self correcting" system. Me thinks it is a very slow and painful system that is justified in being subject to criticism. As there are no "pure democracies" or pure socialistic systems, there is no "pure" scientific system or community. Always in need of correction, which, generally is not from within but triggered by external influences.

carmel "the science guy"

rem

Carmel,

I defend science because it is the best system of gathering knowledge that we currently have. Sure, it's not perfect and it can be slow and painful at times... but the beauty of it is that over time it is self correcting and does, indeed, work. If it didn't, then we wouldn't even be communicating over this wonderful medium we call the Internet.

Have you found a better system? I put more confidence in "science" (since you put the quotation marks there) than mere human intuition. Look how far science has gotten us and look how long humans were ignorant before it.

Sure we can criticize it, but let's be honest in our criticisms and not just let it be a punching bag to vent our frustrations.

rem, "the rational dude"

PS: I truly am interested in your experiences regarding the peer review process. Have you been trying to get something published? What journals? I've heard that it can be an extremely difficult process... but in my opinion, that is what makes it good.

LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT NOW!

jst2laws

LDH

teenyuck

outoftheorg

rem

SYN

teenyuck

SixofNine

Carmel

rem

Share this