RationalBiker

I don't think I missed that because after the part you quoted I said the following; Is this different from what you said? What I was trying to point out was that I didn't think the examples he was giving was illustrating that point well. VES

Then your references do not work to establish the premise you are making. They are bad examples as they cannot be construed or misconstrued as art or artisitic according to definition. However, would the following be an accurate interpretation of your premise? If Leonardo Di Vinchi had not established that the Mona Lisa was intended to be art, it wouldn't be art. Or in generic, simpler terms, the intent of the creator has to be known in order to establish or preclude a particular creation as being art. VES

Are you suggesting that grouse are attempting to create art when they are trying to attract a mating partner? Are you suggesting that flowers are "sensitive to or appreciative of art or beauty" (definition of artistic in the context you used)? The the mating dance or the flowers only become art only when a conceptual being recreates them through some medium. I would even suggest that they aren't even art when the artist visualizes them in his / her mind. VES

Carpe Diem indeed! Thanks concerto. VES

That's the reference I was shooting for. All the girl's would be named Sheila as well. Immanual Kant was a real p...ant, etc. etc. The philosopher's song is great! VES

Outraged is a bit strong for me, but I do think those laws have no place on the books. The "good" thing about the sodomy laws is that they are ridiculously difficult to prosecute if people are violating them in private places (homes, motels, hotels, etc.) Now people that engage in sexual activity in public, or in their cars on a public street are inviting intrusion into their sex lives in my opinion. There's not much I get outraged about. Occupationally, I have learned to suppress that kind of reaction to a large degree as it is hazardous to tactical situations. This is not something that turns on at work and turns off at home. So while I may have a strong sense of what an injustice may be, I automatically try to keep the emotional response on a even keel so that the brain stays in control. (As a side note, I attended a class today on Hostage Negotiations. Talk about staying on an even keel, those folks are amazing.) VES PS: I guess I just broke my self-imposed retreat from this thread.

Reality challenged by sophistication? Since when did sophistication supplant reality? A refined inaccuracy is still inaccurate. VES

Vociferous Passage - Essence smothered by mystical entropy, life lost to promised illusion, self spiraling to ignobility. Shards of the soul lie scattered, as foundation and faith are shattered, a sojourn devoid of answers. The Ego awakens! The mind's eye sees! The treasure sought was never far, the Joy internal, the rational Me! - Vern Stevens

Welcome to the forum! I think there are too many Ash's now. (j/k) I suggest we all change our names to either Bruce or Sheila such that we may be properly identified in public as students of philosophy... And now, the philospher's song.... VES

Unless specifically requested to clarify or respond to any of my points, this will be my last post on this matter (at least in this thread). I will use it to clarify some things about about me, and to raise some tangential ideas to other points made. While some of this may be a little off topic, I ask to be warned by moderators if I stray too far, so that I may understand better the limitations of discussions. I grew up in a home with a female mother and a male father. They were by legal definition, married. They even had a religious ceremony. In most every other important sense of the word, the rest of their "marriage" would be an abomination to the concept. Shortly after I moved out, my grandmother died and left her house to my mom. My mom moved into that house, but my parents remained "married". It was good for taxes. That was around 19 years ago. When my mom died almost 2 years ago, she died "married" to my father. She had nearly as much contempt for him prior to dying as she'd had as I grew up and after I moved out. For my father's part, it wasn't so much contempt as a lack of respect for my mom, and very little ability to exhibit emotions. The single most significant thing I learned about marriage from them was that I didn't want my marriage to be like theirs. Needless to say, this provided very little basis for me to place the concept of marriage in high esteem. That kind of relationship demeans the concept of marriage. People who simply get married for the tax break demean the idea of marriage. People who almost ritually engage in domestic abuse / assault demean the idea of marriage. ( I see this one literally NIGHTLY at work ) I could go on about all the other ways that the institution of wedlock suffers from the actions of it's participants, but I think I have laid the foundation of where I'm going with this. If I can look around and see other people, whether gay or straight, engaged in a committed, loving, healthy relationships, ones that actually honor the term marriage, then they can call their union whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned. To me, the terminology pales in importance compared to the manner in which the institution is carried out. erandror: I would never wish you to be coerced into thinking anything you don't wish to think. It is your right, and I certainly have no beef with that. I too have little regard for PC, which is one of the first things I mentioned upon entering this conversation. I see parallels to PC thought in this thread about having to come up with alternative terms so as not to offend people's sensibilities. I had to think a little about your following comment though: In my mind, I don't think they really can brainwash those that aren't willing. They can try to demonize you perhaps, but that shouldn't change your mind if you are truly convicted in your beliefs. Now I suppose it's a stretch that they could establish a "hate" law illegalizing the prevention of gay marriages to try to brainwash people or coerce their thinking. I don't like the concept of the "hate" laws. There are already laws and punishments on the books to take care of these crimes. These laws already account for intent. Despite the way it may seem in this thread, I'm no champion of gay rights. I'm not gay myself, although I do have a very few gay friends in the workplace. I don't socialize with them off duty that much because to be honest, I still feel a little uncomfortable around them. (I may need to review whether this is rationally based I suppose) This thread could have been about any other type of cultural controversary on which I had an opinion and I would have spoken up just the same. VES

March 17th, 2004: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/tennessee/tnnews03.htm Well, I guess they are pretty open about their bigotry. As an addendum to my above post, I recognize that the information is dated. Here is newer information about sodomy laws according to the ACLU. Of note, it's taking the Supreme Court to take action against states that don't want to give up their sodomy laws. The laws die quicker than the attitudes though. http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/Lesbi...yRightsMain.cfm VES

Do I need to point out that there ARE laws on the books still in some states that ban gay sex? So one reason why some people aren't trying to ban gay sex is because in some jurisdictions it already is banned. While the laws are changing, sometimes at the behest of the courts, that doesn't preclude lingering resentment exists by those who would still like to see the laws in place. However, as we agreed upon, once things become legal, most people often cease pursuing the issue. http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html I accept that it is your opinion that if 55% of America were prejudiced they wouldn't mask it, but like most of the debate between us, that is what it is, opinion. Regardless, having to mask it and choosing to mask it are two different things. Most bigots, in my experience (and I intend to pursue the psychological aspect of bigotry to see if that supports my belief), not all, are not willing to come right out and tell you they are bigots. Be that as it may, the 55% figure is subject to error, and there is a large amount of prejudice out there that does not require banning anything in order for the prejudice to exist. I can't help but think that you are failing to recognize matters of degree. I also don't understand the logic you are using to imply that any level of prejudice requires a full out assault on gays. VES

For me, occupationally speaking, this is very true. Now, I don't get to walk away, and I suppose I can get some measure of satisfaction from putting evil people behind bars. The point is, if I take it home with me, it's very destructive. I've seen some distrubing events in my line of work, not to slight anyone else's experiences, but coping with those events is a must. Otherwise it would be off to the "looney farm". VES

Joerj11, I will address both of your posts in this one. Well for one, they couldn't ban any of the things you listed above because of the US Constitution. There is nothing about marriage protected in the constitution. Being prejudiced is not an all or nothing gambit. There are varying degrees, so it's not realistic to say that all people who are prejudiced against homosexuals would ban everything having to do with them. And in some cases, they can't ban things, and wouldn't even try. Some folks prejudice merely extends to things like, "well as long as they're not in my neighborhood", or " as long as I don't have to know they're gay". Prejudice is often masked by other issues. To say that you couldn't have a parade, which I'm sure SOME people would like to see, would suggest that you bring your bigotry into the open. There's no other reason to hide behind when you deal with public places (parades, gatherings) or private places (bars, etc.). And actually where I work, there are people who constantly call and complain on people at a gay bar where they live. The gay people around the bar are not committing crimes, but the people call for us (the police) to harass them, and make up complaints. Marriage however is a different story. It's one more step of what people call, "in your face". People can hide behind the scripture, they can say it assails their religious beliefs, they don't have to admit their bigotry. And certainly your recognize that a lot of people are also against gay adoption, so it's not only marriage. In polls I could find on the internet, results ranged from 42-50% being against gay adoption. So for the sake of argument, I'll give you the lower figure. It is not hard for me to look at this data, and my experiences and say that right now, roughly 50% of the nation is prejudice against gay people. It just happens that the hot button topic right now is marriage. In my work, I've seen enough prejudice against gay people (not to mention virtually any ethnic group) to know that not all people are not up front about it. VES

No, what's obvious is the prejudice against gay people and gay activity. They're not confused, they are bigoted. You can find churches that will accept gay members and do not condemn homosexual activity, but they are rare. Perhaps this can be illustrated by this web site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm I think if you review this, you will see that there is largely a prejudice against gay people and gay activity in general, in that most denominations view homosexuality as "not compatible with the scripture". The issue of gay marriage is just an extension of that prejudice. VES (edited due to grammar and spelling errors... I really need to proof-read better before submitting)

Yes. As I stated, I don't believe their prejudice is really rooted in the word marriage, it's rooted in the affront that gay sexual activity represents to their values and religious system. VES

RH, People who want to be deceptive will do so regardless of the relative ease that one word has over another. I don't think it's worth the effort to argue over how much easier it is, if it even is easier. That, to me, is beside the point. I think those same people would be against gay marriage regardless of a change in verbage. The verbage neither helps nor detracts from their prejudice. The real prejudice is against the act, the affront to their beliefs, their god, not what it's called. In terms of what marriage means to people, it can easily be subtlely different to each person anyway. Should we then create a series of different words for each subtle variation? For example, to one person marriage may mean an obligation you have to a woman because you accidentally knocked her up and it's the right thing to do. Love, committment and trust may have no bearing in that meaning. To another person, marriage may mean you spend most of your time with that person, but it doesn't exclude having sex with another person. Or to expand on that theme, marriage means they live together and reap the economic benefits, but they both swap partners with other people. To some marriage may mean the act of obligation to marry a person your parents picked for you at an early age. At any rate, I just don't see that the term is that much of an affront to me. Many words change their meaning over the course of time, regardless of their origin. You may be right that a change or a clarification is needed. I'm just not convinced that it causes that much confusion. VES

It seems to me that all this fervor over the word marriage is reminiscent of political correctness. It appears to me that some folks are saying that context doesn't matter, it's connotation is so strong that context isn't important. I have to disagree. As with any word that has multiple meanings, it's important that the speaker uses the word in it's correct context. Anyone who doesn't like the word can avoid using it and substitute it in the manner he/she sees fit, while those who do use it should make sure the context is clear, just as they should with any word or words. It's already stifling enough to have to limit one's vocabulary because of the over-sensitivity of others without adding more words to the list. Yes, I'm bachelorly-challenged. VES

Yes he's always been able to play a good villain. That's interesting that you know him Betsy. I don't get much of a chance to brush shoulders with movie stars in Virginia. VES

The gray-haired guy is Tolliver (Powers Booth), the Bella Union saloon owner. There are some parallels between him and Swearengen, the Gem saloon owner. But I believe Tolliver will go that extra step towards insanity and evil when it comes down to it. The whore is Joanie, and she'd do best to get away from Tolliver. I foresee him killing her, or at least pushing her over the edge so that she kills herself, a variation of the suicide idea already expressed. Class and style aside, there are so many similarities between Swearengen and Tolliver that I think their core difference is the depths of evil to which they will sink. Swearengen has a 16 oz. fishing sinker while Tolliver has a ship's anchor. Wisdom: I can see your point about Bullock upholding his obligations. I like how he doesn't seem to take much stock in religion. He tolerates the preacher at burials, but you can tell he really would rather not be there. He is very principled so I hope he won't actually get together with Alma Garrett. I agree with your assessment of his temper. Don: Yes, Jane's character is awesome! It's such a shame she is in a downward spiral but there may be a historical element in play that I'm not aware of. She maintains a very tough exterior which usually works for her. However, in one episode she backed down from a confrontation with Swearengen, and I think that affected her alot. But you may notice (if you get to see some of the previous episodes) that she never acts on her toughness, but frequently acts on her concealed tenderness. VES

pvtmorriscsa, A good place to check out digital camera reviews is www.dpreview.com. Phil's reviews are top notch in my opinion. Phil reviews virtually every digi-cam that hits the market. They have forums there as well, but I warn you in advance, the signal to noise ratio is rather low. I agree with other that you can get a good quality picture out of a 3.2 MP camera. Also, you will get more pictures for the same weight and load ratio than you would with film, plus the opportunity to review and discard bad shots. My personal suggestion would be get one that accepts CF (compact flash cards) as that is fairly standard. Also, the larger the CF card you can afford to get, the more pics you can take without having to download them off camera. Alternatively, get 2 or 3 smaller ones so as not to keep all your eggs in one basket. Several companies out there make durable all-weather cases, which I would also recommend. VES

Ambivalence... VES

Past... Present...

He may not be the Turnip King, but he ruled our garden for a couple of weeks. VES

I like the pic GC! Makes me think of the HBO series, Deadwood. Also, the pic from Patrick that reminds me of an attack wing of aircraft. VES