On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:

> I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
> marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
> such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same ---
> unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
> if not delighted.

Then this:

> I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
> redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
> understood for many years.

These two statements seem contradictory.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:

> I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
> marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
> such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same ---
> unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
> if not delighted.

Then this:

> I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
> redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
> understood for many years.

These two statements seem contradictory.

DS

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
> of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
> it.

Slavery wasn't changed, it was abolished. They didn't change slavery by redefining
the word "slave" to be equivalent to the word "citizen." Amendments to the
constitution were made, laws were passed. The injustice was corrected (or at least
partially corrected). If you want to grant the same rights to same --- unions as
are granted to traditional man / woman marriages, go ahead, I'll support you. Just
don't try to redefine the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to achieve the
desirable goal .

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
> of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
> it.

Slavery wasn't changed, it was abolished. They didn't change slavery by redefining
the word "slave" to be equivalent to the word "citizen." Amendments to the
constitution were made, laws were passed. The injustice was corrected (or at least
partially corrected). If you want to grant the same rights to same --- unions as
are granted to traditional man / woman marriages, go ahead, I'll support you. Just
don't try to redefine the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to achieve the
desirable goal .

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
> of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
> it.

Slavery wasn't changed, it was abolished. They didn't change slavery by redefining
the word "slave" to be equivalent to the word "citizen." Amendments to the
constitution were made, laws were passed. The injustice was corrected (or at least
partially corrected). If you want to grant the same rights to same --- unions as
are granted to traditional man / woman marriages, go ahead, I'll support you. Just
don't try to redefine the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to achieve the
desirable goal .

Ed

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnj1q$e8j$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vssqfu1m3bce6e@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> >> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal
of
> >the
> >> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
> >and
> >> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and
is
> >> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays.
It
> >> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
> >climate
> >> >change.
> >> >
> >> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics
of
> >the
> >> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at
the
> >> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are
due
> >more
> >> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
> >> >
> >> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
> >> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
> >> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate
variability,
> >as
> >> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
> >> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
> >> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in
meteorites.
> >> >
> >> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth
over
> >> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
> >> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
> >> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
> >> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
> >> >
> >> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem
to
> >be
> >> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
> >dioxide
> >> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
> >forces
> >> >which are beyond our control.
> >>
> >> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
> >
> >No, we don't.
>
> Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."

No, you meant "you and whoever agrees with you, ignoring the thousands in
the field of science who disagree with you "

>
> >
> > It doesn't matter that
> >> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing
that
> >> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
> >cause
> >> of your fever today.
> >
> >
> >Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
>
> Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the
SATs.

You've posted the same anology a dozen times, it proves your point no better
now than it did the first time you used it. Bet you don't even know what the
initials SAT stand for.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnj1q$e8j$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vssqfu1m3bce6e@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> >> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal
of
> >the
> >> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
> >and
> >> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and
is
> >> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays.
It
> >> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
> >climate
> >> >change.
> >> >
> >> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics
of
> >the
> >> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at
the
> >> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are
due
> >more
> >> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
> >> >
> >> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
> >> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
> >> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate
variability,
> >as
> >> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
> >> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
> >> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in
meteorites.
> >> >
> >> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth
over
> >> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
> >> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
> >> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
> >> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
> >> >
> >> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem
to
> >be
> >> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
> >dioxide
> >> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
> >forces
> >> >which are beyond our control.
> >>
> >> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
> >
> >No, we don't.
>
> Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."

No, you meant "you and whoever agrees with you, ignoring the thousands in
the field of science who disagree with you "

>
> >
> > It doesn't matter that
> >> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing
that
> >> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
> >cause
> >> of your fever today.
> >
> >
> >Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
>
> Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the
SATs.

You've posted the same anology a dozen times, it proves your point no better
now than it did the first time you used it. Bet you don't even know what the
initials SAT stand for.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnj1q$e8j$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vssqfu1m3bce6e@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> >> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal
of
> >the
> >> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
> >and
> >> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and
is
> >> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays.
It
> >> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
> >climate
> >> >change.
> >> >
> >> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics
of
> >the
> >> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at
the
> >> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are
due
> >more
> >> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
> >> >
> >> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
> >> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
> >> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate
variability,
> >as
> >> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
> >> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
> >> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in
meteorites.
> >> >
> >> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth
over
> >> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
> >> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
> >> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
> >> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
> >> >
> >> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem
to
> >be
> >> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
> >dioxide
> >> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
> >forces
> >> >which are beyond our control.
> >>
> >> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
> >
> >No, we don't.
>
> Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."

No, you meant "you and whoever agrees with you, ignoring the thousands in
the field of science who disagree with you "

>
> >
> > It doesn't matter that
> >> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing
that
> >> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
> >cause
> >> of your fever today.
> >
> >
> >Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
>
> Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the
SATs.

You've posted the same anology a dozen times, it proves your point no better
now than it did the first time you used it. Bet you don't even know what the
initials SAT stand for.

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

2> Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many
2> new innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at
2> all.

> Actually, our research facilities and findings are second to none. Since
> we don't have too many "Designer Clinics" you are right, we don't
> develop needless, high-cost surgical practises that are funded by the
> very richest individuals, but our advancement of transplant
> technologies, cancer therapies, etc has been significant (for a country
> with 1/10th the population of the Excited States). Admittedly, the
> government healthcare system will not pay for un-proven, touchy-feely
> "treatments" advanced by some shaman from Mexico! If it is proven in a
> properly-designed, double-blind study to be effective, it is normally
> added to the "covered" list.

....it's worth noting here that massage therapy for a wide range of
ailments and injuries *is* covered under OHIP. The training and licencing
standards for LMTs are accordingly tougher. This is a great example of how
the Canadian system doesn't just toss everyone an aspirin and say "get
lost" as those who've no direct experience with it seem to think.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

2> Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many
2> new innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at
2> all.

> Actually, our research facilities and findings are second to none. Since
> we don't have too many "Designer Clinics" you are right, we don't
> develop needless, high-cost surgical practises that are funded by the
> very richest individuals, but our advancement of transplant
> technologies, cancer therapies, etc has been significant (for a country
> with 1/10th the population of the Excited States). Admittedly, the
> government healthcare system will not pay for un-proven, touchy-feely
> "treatments" advanced by some shaman from Mexico! If it is proven in a
> properly-designed, double-blind study to be effective, it is normally
> added to the "covered" list.

....it's worth noting here that massage therapy for a wide range of
ailments and injuries *is* covered under OHIP. The training and licencing
standards for LMTs are accordingly tougher. This is a great example of how
the Canadian system doesn't just toss everyone an aspirin and say "get
lost" as those who've no direct experience with it seem to think.

DS