On 18 Feb 2008 13:29:58 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same people 
>who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just in case the 
>government gets out of control" 

I thought that it was in case those Brit visitors aren't really tourists :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2008 13:38:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Well, I don't know how long it took for the stories about Jack the Ripper 
>to spread - do you?

Fast in London, I believe

>Keep also in mind that JtR's targets were in a large city - more rural 
>areas would have had much less coverage.  If Laura Ingals Wilder had shot 
>up her schoolyard, we might well not have heard of it, partly because it 
>was a rural area, and partly because small towns tended to not talk about 
>serious things like this happening with outsiders.



Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:36:40 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>
>Hmm, I thought the observation was that it is too late. Or the
>observation of the facts that lead to you having that belief.
>

No it is only an opinion (I have a black belt in nitpicking :)


>> Some people say that modern society is changing too fast for us to adapt to it
>> safely. I think that this has a kernel of truth. The demise of the nuclear
>> family plays a part.
>> 
>
>Is that the demise of the family with regard to single parents and
>non-traditional families, or the other movement to return to large
>extended families?
>
 nuclear family = traditional extended families

>100$ an hour seems to be the going rate here. 

That is almost as much as I make :)
And I don't mess peoples minds :)

>Insurance companies can
>dictate what they will pay, but make doctors charge the same thing to
>everyone and therefor dictate what the uninsured pay too. Screwed up
>system. 100$ a month for a one hour session, or the latest 45$ a month
>pill, or an older pill at 8$ a month?
>

And our NHS is going private. Thanks for the warning

>No argument from me on the first part. It would be a lot cheaper for
>society. The second one, though . . .
>
>I don't think counseling is about getting a person 'over' an event or an
>issue. When you have a tough math problem, that you have no idea how to
>solve, you don't 'get over it.' You study, learn what the notation
>means, figure out how the problem is expressed, and then work through it
>step by step. What do you do with a problem in life that you have no
>frame of reference for how to solve?

I wonder if we are talking about the same thing? Maybe my understanding of
counsellors is different from yours. (Two countries separated by a common
language and all that.) I am talking about non medical people i.e. not
psychiatrists. I don't think that you can really compare mental health problems
with maths problems. But then I see the world as a simple place, things happen
and a lot of them are bad. Life goes on or else it doesn't. But then I've never
been clinically depressed only very dumped so maybe I'm lucky or just don't have
enough imagination.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:38:30 -0500, Mike the Elder wrote:

> I think they refer to it as "logical bi-location".  Once you've been
> conditioned to believe in miracles you can believe ANYTHING.
> 
> With Best Wishes for progress toward a sane and rational world, Mike C.

Now that's a term I've not heard before - time to do some reading. :-)

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:26:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2008 13:29:58 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same
>>people who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just in
>>case the government gets out of control"
> 
> I thought that it was in case those Brit visitors aren't really tourists
> :)

LOL, you know, that could be true. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:47ba104d$1@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:26:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 18 Feb 2008 13:29:58 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same
>>>people who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just in
>>>case the government gets out of control"
>>
>> I thought that it was in case those Brit visitors aren't really tourists
>> :)
>
> LOL, you know, that could be true. :-)

How about sending Andy over in a red coat?  If nothing happens, it's safe to 
go.

  :-)

Post a reply to this message

Add to the list NIU's Kazmierczak as one more fluorine-crazed assassin.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/796394,021508shooter.article

have been anti-depressants.




Doing your home work, as suspected he was taking something.
Today it is mostly fluorides, Prozac, Paxil or several others, fluvoxamine, etc.

Also student photo in the article.

Post a reply to this message

> Today it is mostly fluorides, Prozac, Paxil or several others, fluvoxamine, etc.

The point I mean to make, as my point seems to fail to send.

He had to stop (taking his meds), he had taken enough, too much, and it did its
work on his now fluorine-glowing head and meninges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meninges

There should be a 4th pathology you wont see here.
Fluoride Chloride Sulfide Bromide Interaction:

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:56:40 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47ba104d$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:26:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2008 13:29:58 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same
>>>>people who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just in
>>>>case the government gets out of control"
>>>
>>> I thought that it was in case those Brit visitors aren't really
>>> tourists :)
>>
>> LOL, you know, that could be true. :-)
> 
> How about sending Andy over in a red coat?  If nothing happens, it's
> safe to go.

What, Andy is your canary? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:40:54 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, I think that's probably the case.  After all, before I mentioned
>> the shooting in Wisconsin, had you even heard of it?  Or the one in
>> Scotland?
> 
> so many shootings.  I only really remember the Columbine one.  I
> remember though that since then it's become quite routine.  Like I said
> before, people adapt to such horror situations and let their hearts go
> cold:  oh, so what, another shooting?
> 
> The first time it's shocking, the others not so.

It becomes something you "get used to" - that's one of the problems with 
the news over-sensationalizing stories:  desensitization.

>> The thing is, we - as a people - tend to overreact to things,
>> especially here in the US.  One crazy guy fails to blow up a plane
>> using a shoe bomb (which some have argued couldn't have worked
>> regardless), and now everyone who boards a plane has to take their
>> shoes off.
> 
> well, that's news to me.  So, no one dies from a bomb anymore, just for
> smelly feet?

I used to fly about 2-3 times a month starting 5 years ago (actually, 5 
years ago yesterday), did it for about 2 years.  The rules varied from 
airport to airport, but Richard Reid (the "shoe bomber", as he became 
known) made life difficult for frequent travelers.

To be clear - in the US you are required to take your shoes off *at the 
security checkpoint* and run them through the X-ray machine.  It used to 
be if the soles were < 3/4" and did not have metal shanks in them, you 
didn't have to take them off.  I bought 2 pairs of Eccos specifically 
because they met the TSA guidelines.  Then the rules changed - now 
everyone has to take their shoes off going through security.

The requirement is not that you get on the plane in your socks.

Jim

Post a reply to this message