ishmael

wayfarer, you have to understand something

Still you must agree, only evidence, not proof.

actually only adaptation IMO.

you are continually asking for proof. this is not a scientific term. there is no 'proof'. proof is definitive and that is not what science is. it is not black or white, it is supported with evidence or it is not. absolutes are very rare. the number of scientific laws vs the number of working theories is testiment to this. the evidence is overwhelming for the favor of evolution based theory.

and one common misconception is that we evolved from a monkey. we didn't. the concept is actually that we shared a common source which we evolved from, each taking their own pathes. i think this is a stumbling block as well, but mainly because it is a widely held misconception aobut the nature of evolution.

And we will be revamping/updating the rules.

thank you lunk. apology accepted about the misinterpretation i made. i suggest we close this thread.

the monarch butterfly migrates for instanc to survive in the winter.

it is always active.

both are not opinions. there is not the same amount of evidence

Foxes? Wolves? Racoons? Squirels? Rabbits? Birds? (not all fly south) Fish.

All these hybernate too? How is my post # 49 not true?

not all insects die off in the winter(or use it as a period for breeding) either. the winter has always has less food avaliable. creatures of all types have adapted to ways to reduce or adapt to survival in the winter. the monarch butterfly migrates for instanc to survive in the winter. there are numerous examples although most do not survive the winter. this is explained by the life cycle of the creatures. most are not active, but that does not mean that none are. nor does it suggest that one survival trait is better than the other. species adapt in different ways to survive.

does one bird who migrates mean it is less evolved than a bird that does not? are they not both able to survive the winter and the issues that they address in various ways? is a shee more evolved than a bear because the bear hybernates?

I can't stop you from feeling like a martyr. Which is what this statement implies to me. I can tell you this, if you opinions weren't welcomed in this thread then they would have been deleted.

my opinion that my comments in this thread were never welcomed comes directly from your statements on page one. when you thank everyone else you imply that you do not appreciate my comments.

To everyone else thank you for your time and comments.

for example , if i say to you "Everyone else smells good today" i am implying that you do not. *shrugs* whatever though.

and i dont feel like a martyr. i feel as though i'm attempting to understand the rules of this forum. if it appears to you that i am a martyr it is because i am the only one of several that is not resigned to simply ignore you. you seem to think i take this forum, you, and the internet in general far more seriously than i do. i have questions, i post them. i post my opinion and i post that. i form opinons of people, as all people do, but i certainly dont spend my time plotting a worthwhile inspiring comment. as i've asked before, i would appreciate a clear set of rules that people can come to expect to be inforced. i appreciate that there are judgement calls involved in threads, but certain topics are obviously not allowed and certain behaviors are not allowed. what i believed was the guidelines before is not now.

But clearly this does not count for much with your double standards. IE: Posts #74, 75, 78, 79 and 80. Yomamma makes a comment you guys disagreed with it he admitted to it, you guys apologized to him. And yet you fail to extend the same courtesy to me when I admit my mistakes. Thank you for your help in meeting us halfway.

yomamma made very clear what the mistake was. this is not true of you. as i asked before, i was not sure what the mistake was. until this post i was not aware for certain that the mistake was editting mine and not editting his. this has been my point(see post #70). but, because you have made that clear now. i am sorry for having carried the issue to this length.

no. thats not true. please see my post.

bears, snakes, and numerous other animals hypernate. inactivity in the winter months is a survival trait by many species. not all species have lives in the years. insects dont. the survival of their species is the trait which survies, not the survival of the individual insect. to compare them and say that inactivity proves that evolution is wrong is a very weak argument imho.

i gave you the link already.

reid and (whoever) did that, the democrats are widely angry about this.

please edit souls comment as well then.

that was not an inflamatory remark that you edited lunk.

http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...ndpost&p=296881

It is purely your opinion - nothing more than that, no matter how inflated you may think it is.

Now that I've thought about this a bit more. I do realize that our society is a bit at fault here. Because the system has loopholes that allow people to take advantage of it. And allows them to remain on programs such as welfare for so long that they lose all desire to go back to work and contribute to society. For the poor.

 

The rich have loopholes also that allow them to keep their money.

 

There will always be people that take advantage - just look at the thousands upon thousands of scammers for Hurricane relief. But even with the scammers, history has shown over the last 30 years that there is a lot of mobility out of the "poor" class brackets. So while someone may qualify as "poor" today statistics show that inside of a decade they will not be in that same status.

That is purely your opinion - nothing more than that, (antagonistic remark removed by Lunk). the facts are not, in fact, on your side. i would suggest in depth studies of the same groups that people believe to be the recepiants of unfair amounts of welfare. there is not a large amount of mobility- unless you count moving from a minimum wage mcdonalds worker to a slightly above minimum wage walmart worker as a positive class shift.

i will pose no further questions since they recieve no answer. i believe that the nature of your admin decisions is decidedly clear by the included information in this thread. i'm not pre-disposed against you, but you have made yourself very clear in this thread that you are bias. if you dont like that, you will need to take that up with yourself. you have admitted you are. not a single question has been answered and this thread has served to do little more than stir up more trouble in this forums than was before.

my comments will follow whatever rules it is that are supposed to exsist to the best of my ability to guess what rules they are. my conduct will attempt its best to guess its way through what is not clear. this is exactly what not answering questions promotes. in my humble opinion, this leaves a lot to be desired, but then again- my opinion was never welcomed in this thread. so ado.

Ish, there is no irony in the comment I found. I just happened to read the last post, which was yours. As I told DJ, do not assume that I am "taking sides" because now that I have seen Lunk's comment, it is no better then yours.

my apologies, i had assumed that you read the preceeding comment.

Now that I've thought about this a bit more. I do realize that our society is a bit at fault here. Because the system has loopholes that allow people to take advantage of it. And allows them to remain on programs such as welfare for so long that they lose all desire to go back to work and contribute to society. For the poor.

 

The rich have loopholes also that allow them to keep their money.

this is a stereotype advocated by some of the leading conservativ talking heads. it is not so well grounded in fact. the reliance on welfare is not the problem that forces an inability to move up. the welfare reform of the 90s is a very clear peice of proof that makes it impossible for the life of welfare reliance to exsist. the stance you just advocated is similar to the conservative thinkers take on the culture of poverty of lewis. lewis advocates a structural-cultural vantage point in which

systematic creation of poverty --leads to--> creation of a culture of poverty --leads to--> perpetualization.

the example of the urban poor is the most striking case in this matter. our system has basically created a self fulling prophecy. the protastant work ethic really has no place in the argument for why socialized programs are or are not needed. dont get me wrong, the PWE has a wonderful place is justifying our system, but social structures are not indicitive of world wide laziness. far from it.

simply getting rid of welfare does not increase the ability to move up. it actually doesn't play a role in it at all. those that don't have anything are no more able to get anything when you take away the aid that they may be, but most likely are not, getting. most poor are not on welfare and most poor remain poor intergenerationally. the image of the vice riden minority who lives off of welfare by popping out children is wrong on practically every level it attempts to exsist on.

and apparently you have yet to grasp the english language at all.

 

The whole reason this topic was created was so that we would stop using insults in the PA. Was that comment really nessesary?

i think the irony is that you found my comment to be the one with the insult in it whereas it infered the same thing that lunk's post did. yes, the point of this thread is to stop insults. moreover it is to promote a better posting enviroment and i would like to see that. in doing so i have asked questions in order to promote dialog which can lead to a more solidly understood enviroment in which people can post.

thus far i have recieved no answers except

"You don't understand plain english when it bites you on the behind."

"Noone is twisting your arm to post here."

"Sour grapes make for poor whine."

"Mistakes happen get over it."

"It's like babysitting 4 year olds."

"Ish is basically concerned with going on the offensive and concerned about himself(The "ME" factor)."

"To everyone else thank you for your time and comments."

"you carry on like someone stole your favorite toy. "

ect.

my point stands about the baby comment, yet still unanswered

when someone makes a comparison, it is because there is a shared trait. if you can kindly tell me that is wrong or explain which trait it is about us being babies you were referring to in a positive light, i'll be happy to hear it.

the repeated referance to childish behavior in various posts reinforces the statement that there is a trait that is shared between myself(as i am quoted showing it is indeed me, among others, that he is talking about) and a baby.

Explain this to me;

Insects are, according to science, the most proficient with regards to evolution.

Why are there no insects that are active in the winter? Why have they not developed

hair to resist cold? Other animals have. The wooly mamoth did. Why not insects?

i know insects have hair. By this I meant, why have they not developed

the capacity to actively & productivly survive a winter.

as stated, numerous creatures avoid the winter. not all insects die and many of them have an extraordinarily short lifespan. surviving the winter is not always an issue that is important. fireflies for instance, have a life span of only a day or two. animals of all species, even the more evolved ones, avoid the winter season for various reasons. a snake and a bear are good examples. its difficult to dive into zoology and say that a simple lack of an active winter somehow deminishes the way in which an animal/species has evolved. the same question could be begged of plants as well. much of it can be seen as an adaptation to winter in order for the species to survive it as a whole.

i still think the joke jeb made about cheney is the best thing i've heard, although that is followed quickly by that libby cartoon.

and apparently you have yet to grasp the english language at all. when someone makes a comparison, it is because there is a shared trait. if you can kindly tell me that is wrong or explain which trait it is about us being babies you were referring to in a positive light, i'll be happy to hear it.

but good job being a fair admin there.

oh. and it gets better. he was breaking the law to start with.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3657232.html

Vice President johnson Cheney did not have a $7 stamp he needed to legally hunt quail when he accidentally wounded a member of his hunting party this weekend at a South Texas ranch, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

[Antagonistic remark removed by Unclean] those statistics leave a lot to the imagination- such as, how do they define the quitiles, what type of mobility were those that remained given(did they move up by 5k and just break the line?), and were those who remained poor habitually and intergenerationally stuck there. they do nothing to contradict with what i said. conservative ideology has always been that of maximum participation. the programs were/are/and have been aimed at helping those that were already able to move between classes.

59% fall from the top percentile to the very bottom sounds like an odd number, as does 29% from the very bottom to the very top. no matter how you shake it, those numbers are very extreme and deserve to be questioned. i spend most of my time reading about poverty and reading statitiscs, poverty books(both ideologies), and those type of numbers NEVER arise. even conservative books cede that the movement for the poor is small.

inequality continues to rise( http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/252.pdf ) and intergenerationalism of poor/poverty is a wide occurance. i suggest a case study of a city's poor districts. the one in a million is the person who goes from poor to rich, some make it from poor to middle class, but largely the poor remain poor. i'm not going to quote a lot of single studies- suffice to say this is largely the dominant collective viewpoint of sociologist and social psychologists.

instead of trying to make it look like i'm on a vedetta against you, it would be simple to answer questions when they are asked and address concerns of those who post. but that would be my notion of how to promote a good atmosphere.

and i dont get bent out of shape when people who aren't bias edit me, take unclean for instance. then again, i dont get bent out of shape with you either. i just laugh at you and post. i think you believe i take this forum more seriously than i do.

you said you made a mistake? i thought you just said contradicting statements and made me even mroe confused? what was the mistake? editting mine? not editting his? i'm still not sure if those statements are statements that are acceptable to make in the forum.

your posts confuse me. your avoidance confuses me. and as a result, i dont see how you expect improvement without clear forum rules.

(1) closing the war dead thread

(2) editting post #26 because you didn't like how kirin used "" marks

(3) editting post #40(i believe) for the same reason

(4) editting my post and not souls

(5) editting the topic of my thread

(6) calling us babies for reporting soul breaking the rules

(7) ...

 

you know. you're right dj. i could go on, but i wont. i'll let him play by his own rules and pretend that they're fair. i agree, i dont care what he thinks, does, or says- but i like to know what it is that i'm expected to do. i'm just habitually looking for normality and stability in the handling of situations.

1- It's morbid and in bad taste to keep a running tally of the dead soldiers.

 

2 & 3 - I've informed kirin of this before. His post are very poor to read when he quotes someone.

 

4- Mistakes happen get over it.

 

5 - Your initial topic was in poor taste.

 

6 - Once again I didn't call you babies.

 

7 - .......Noone is twisting your arm to post here.

 

Sour grapes make for poor whine.

1- a running tally? like the wall of the dead in washington? if we are at war, i dont see why having a thread devoted to how many have died is wrong. if you find that offensive, fine. but i still fail to see why. am i banned from mentioning soldiers that die? what am i banned from in regards to talking about the war? can i talk about the effects of the war- just so long as i dont mention any exact numbers?

4- it wasn't a mistake. you said you did it on purpose because they were different earlier

5- cheney did shoot him in the face/chest with a shotgun. distasteful topic titles have never been editted before. what makes it 'poor taste'; that i used plural and didn't depict the situation with the utmost honesty?

6- talking to you is like talking to a wall. what have i just called you? by using a comparitive statement the implication is that i(or you) share traits similar to the object mentioned. by suggesting that it is like babysitting babies, and then by reinforcing that statement by quoting us, you are suggesting our actions are that of a baby. comparative analysis.

this does nothing to explain the clear difference in why reporting soul for what has gotten some(DJ) warned for justifies effectively suggesting we dont talk and just shutup.

7- yes, but you run a public forum and you have declared that you want debates and discussions to occur. in doing that, you have also said that you want people to not question your rules and just deal with it. these are contrary statements and the later does nothing to promote the atmosphere you have advocated. you have shyed away from a clear statement of rules and regulations or of even answering questions to be honest. the typical response is - dont ask.

but this isn't about supporting them, this is about attempting to cause their government to fail and making that a very clear point of our opperations- thus "undermine" their government.

I agree that the way we are going about this is not the right way. That's not the point I was trying to get across.

 

I was going with the idea of. How do we know for sure that the election wasn't rigged? Or tampered with? The reason I bring this up is the fact that you hear about these things occuring quite a bit in other countries.

to be fair, you hear quite a bit about this occuring in our country as well. that being said, the vocal support for hamas is very strong. i wont' say that there is no chance it was a stollen election, but i rest fairly comfortable knowing that there is yet to be any evidence of that.

After reading thru the comments in this thread. I have to ask. Are you laying the blame soully at the feet of our society for the poor being poor?

 

I understand there are things in our society that lead to people staying poor. But there are also things there to help the poor move up.

some of both. there are definately attributes that cause people to be poor, but much of that is culture. culture resolves to further create poverty. its a self fullfilling circle. the programs to assist those that are poor in rising are far from effective. most people who are poor will remain poor, and likewise most who are rich will remain rich. what you are born into you mroe or less maintain at. you are able to shift up and down a little, but rarely will people leave the class in which they were born into. i blame society for the poor exsisting, but society is to blame by both the poor and the rich.

it is merely a myth to assume that there is a mobility in this country that it is made to be.

http://sptimes.com/2006/02/13/State/Wearin...ge__gover.shtml

TAMPA - Gov. Jeb Bush took a rare opportunity to preempt late night talk show hosts Monday when he appeared at the Florida State Fair Governor's Day Luncheon.

 

Like other guests, the governor was given a "No Farmers, no Food" sticker from the Florida Farm Bureau.

 

Opening his remarks before the 1,000 or so gathered, Bush made a show of placing the sticker on his chest.

 

The sticker was bright orange - like a hunting jacket.

 

"I'm a little concerned that johnson Cheney is going to walk in," he quipped.

lol. oh that jeb.

as for burr, i was under the imrpession that when it happened in 1804 that he was still VP from the 1800 election?

but this isn't about supporting them, this is about attempting to cause their government to fail and making that a very clear point of our opperations- thus "undermine" their government.