John Adams

Ooh, Ooh, I will Mr. Kotter. Pick me Mr. Kotter. Sounds like they are nuts too, just like Cristian fundamentalists.* * Id. minus the "this story" part.

Wow did this get gay in a hurry.

Some day he and his ilk will be dead. The anti-gay marriage crowd is an almost exclusively 40+ year old group--people under 40 see this as a non-issue for the most part. Furthermore, as much as I loved my grandfathers, it's mixed with a profound sense of shame because one was an unabashed racist. EII has that in his future as well.

What does "ironic, we are talking about Quakers" mean?

It is on the front page of the NY Times webpage, second story.

Many homosexual parents in my daughters school, at all ages, mostly because it's a highly tolerant Quaker school. You know what? No issues. None. Nada. Because there are homosexual parents and homosexual teachers and like every school, homosexual kids. When people go out of there way to be civil and parents don't raise their kids to be jerkoffs like they are, school can be a lot less painful than it often is for so many kids.* *Odds of this environment existing in a public school = slim to none.

This has more relevance in the Consumer Forum.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124199948894005017.html I'm not sure if you can read it all as a non-subscriber but it's a good rundown of how the BCY decision played out.

You see people. Although the lawyers share the blame, they are often not the genesis of the dumb lawsuit. "My kid got a D so I'm going to sue the school."

4 Dems are behind it too--FYI, 1983 was The Year of the Bible also.

Former Star Trek nerd here--loved it. Wife is not a Star Trek nerd at all--loved it even more and wants to take our daughter to see it.

I am a huge home-school hater and proponent. The religious.isolationist folks dominate the home-schooling scene and give it a bad name. But if you think your school system sucks and you have both the abundance of energy and knowledge that can help your kid, go for it. But here's the thing. You have to work hard to make home-schooling work. As in, turn the world into your classroom. Going to teach science? Go to a museum or call a college professor who will happily show you the edge of science. Going to teach history? Read about it in some books--not texts-- AND VISIT THE SITES. Basically, you have to turn the world and a world of experts into your classroom. You'd be shocked at how many experts would love to talk to a kid about what they do. But that means you're going to work your ass off to provide this education and it won't be cheap. If all you plan on doing is assigning homework and teaching from a book, good luck. You will be giving her the same crappy education that bores her already. The social aspects would have to be backfilled with a million other activities. Enroll her in group music classes at a local community college. Make her pick 3 "classes" on any topic through local communities. Tell her that if she is going to do the homeschooling, she has to do 10 hours of volunteer work at the charity of her choosing. When the time is right, make her get a job. All of these things will get her plenty of exposure socially. Moreover, the social lab that is high school (where she's about to be) is A.W.F.U.L for many kids and making it though it--though most people will tell you is an important part of growing up--can leave deep scars.

Everyone on PPP agrees? Pin this thread. Kum-bay-yah my lord kum-bay-yah.

I already pay for the WSJ. I would pay for the NYTimes. Add in CNN and the Philly Inquirer and that's about all I'd pay for.

I find it endlessly amusing that you think you have mastered the art of argument and yet rely on such awful premises to make your case.

Objectively, if you put your rooster in your boyfriend's mouth, IT DOES NOT HARM ME and IT IS NOT WRONG. There is no argument otherwise. You'd like to rely on some retarded "natural law" argument again but as rational beings, we can (and should) deviate from that when it is wrong. If we were subject to it, we'd be killing the mentally disabled and screwing whatever woman we wanted. Stupid, Rosa Parks came up in THIS thread. Don't go out to the Internet straw idiots for people misusing an analogy. Stay on target mister logician. I have read a million stories about scary man-boy stalkers. Maybe you can't read.

First understand how to read guitar tablature--just google it. It isn't that hard. For songs, I go to this site: http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ The site has a ton of songs written by regular Joes. For a beginner, here's how to BEST navigate it. Type in a song name. The songs will come up--lots of versions translated by different people. If more than one band performed it, those versions will be there. A good example is "Teach Your Children." Once "Teach Your Children" comes up, the BEST version for a beginner are the ones that say "chords" next to them. Those are the easy versions of the songs (usually). Click on one of those and look for versions with words and chords over the words. Some of the better versions have how to play the chords written into the songs as well. Also best to look for songs with 3-5 chords in the entire song (easier than you might think) and where the chords are spaced out (lots of words) between chord changes. That makes the songs easier to play. Eagles, Crosby Stills, Beatles--all have many nice easy songs to play. Within a couple weeks, he can probably push out a passable version of Let it Be or Take it Easy. A supplement is Youtube. If you type in a popular song name and then "guitar lesson," you often get some helpful videos. Between that website and Youtube, your son will start to get the hang of things. The beauty of knowing some basic chords as other suggest is that once he's mastered those, he can see the chords to any song and start playing it. He might not know some of the intricacies of the songs but with just a little chord knowledge, he could play it well enough for people to recognize and sing along.

My advice to beginners is this. If you have a buddy who really likes playing guitar, he probably has a crappy guitar laying around that he'd be happy to lend you for 6 months or even sell you. Otherwise, get a junker and see if you like playing. So many people give it up that buying a new one is not worth it. On top of that, a new low end guitar is a waste because if you like playing, you'll want an upgrade in a few years and if you don't, you just overpaid. As long as the guitar stays in tune, any beginner guitar is fine. For $100, you can get an Ibanez or something like that on Craigslist I had a $200 Ibanez acoustic for 5 years before making an upgrade. (I do not necessarily recommend Ibanez over a million other low end guitars--just happened to be the one I had.) You will hear a lot about "action" (height of strings over fretboard--or how hard you have to push to make a note) but for a beginner I actually think it's ovrrated. On any acoustic guitar, it's hard for a beginner to make chords. Not impossible, but your fingers will hurt a LOT after the first few times. If you go electric (not my playing preference though I have a couple electrics), you don't have the pain/action issue as much because they are much easier to play. The issue with electrics is that you make notes but they don't sound as good (at first) AND they are really loud! In short, for beginners, acoustics are harder to play but have a more forgiving sound that covers your mistakes. Electrics are easier to play but way less forgiving of your mistakes. In the acoustic vs. electric debate, just pick the one you think you're going to play more. Most people will say beginners should pick acoustic. I don't think it matters. People should pick what will make them practice.

Please provide a descriptive subject and description of what you're linking to.

Some religious connotations and some not. Religion can't legislatively co-opt words.

That's the most insane thing I've yet read but at lest you admit you're nuts. What you and many others are actually proposing is to start legislating word-usage! No issues there.

Here's a trick logic boy. I am perfectly willing to judge hurtful acts against people. Guess what? If one guy gobbles another guy's nob, I don't see that as particularly hamrful. It doesn't bother me in the absoute slightest. Even better, if two women want to marry, again, who gives a sh--? You see: I don't care if it's naturally ingrained or not. I really could care less: homosexuality IN NO WAY harms me. The Rosa Parks analogy, if you can grasp it, was not that black people are like homosexuals per se, but that certain acts of defiance tend to act like lightening rods on social issues. This latest Ms. USA thing is a microcosm of that. You really did choose your name appropriately Stupid. You sought to convey some irony in your name and yet achieved only accuracy. Bravo. Yeah there's never been a bad portrayal of a homosexual in the media! Good one Stupid.

People pro-gay marriage aren't afraid to speak their mind unless they are weak. Most against aren't either. She's being villified for her opinion, not her freedom to express it. That's what happens when people disagree. They attack the other's opinion. She's being judged for hers. As you're judging me as wrong for mine. And although you are right that the majority of US citizens think the way you do, it's like I said: the tide is turning and when enough people like you die off, the tide will have turned and today's children will look on you in the exact same way that many today look at their racist grandparents: ignorant and pitiful. You cannot steer the sexuality of your children. Forcing that kind of issue is a sure way to !@#$ up your kids.

Yeah. HE was terrible. Leonard Smith on the other hand, was good AND dirty.

Yeah but Macs work.