AzurePhoenix

Seems like stabbing her in the eye with a rusty nail might do the trick. Or she might try and pray for a tumor

Aye, I know a girl with the prettiest teal eyes with this pizza slice of dark brown in one

And people wonder why I'm unpatriotic

It does seem like an irrational waste, and I don't think it in any way lessens the issue about the original abortion, which I take it you were insinuating?

Ow they plague me My worst was when the nail of my big-toe was shattered in a soccer-accident and some of the shards got driven into the meat, but the real painful part was the painkiller injections just before the "surgery"; three of them, because they were slow to take effect. Oh, when I was three or so I burned my hand grabbing onto a Fourth of July sparkler.

Google the bombardier beetle. They have abdominal chemcial sacks that mix up stuff to make an enzymatic reaction that rather violently shoots out a burst or jet of the hot stuff. It's a whole family of beetles actually.

Personally I rather enjoy them' date=' The Future is Wild, Alien Planet, the dragon thingy, but for the same sorta reason someone would watch "Snakes on a Plane!!!" just watch for simple sci-fi fun. The only thing that irritates me is that everytime they suggest the program is real theoretical science rather than just for fun. Most educated folks certainly are not going to take it seriously, but they should do a bit better at making it clear that the whole thing is nothign but wildly speculative, generally innaccurate [i']entertainment[/i] for the lamens.

My official favorites are Amur tigers, snow leopards and marbled cats, but the full list is much longer, with killer whales, belugas, red pandas, chinchillas, otters and wolverines, okapis, geckos, nudibranches, giant anteaters, various birds of prey, frogmouths, cuttlefish, and those rare color forms of lobsters (like electric blue or golden yellow) There are probably more.

INTJ Hah, does that excuse my poor attitude when it comes to stuff like superfluous curriculums or my distinct lack of sympathetic regard for others?

I recognize the name, but I'm afraid I don't remember ever having had the pleasure of mocking you, and if I have, I apologise for my faulty memory

Einstein, but only because I'm emotionally dead and even-tempered. A little testing showed that that fact saved me from being Hitler. No surprises there.

So sue me, I was half-wrong yet again; seems that the meteorites get carried by the movement of ice so they build up in certain areas. They're rather well preserved too.

Probably the best example you can get of moss playing an important role in an ecosystem is Antarctica, where nearly all of the flora is either a lichen, moss or algae, supporting the only native fully-terrestrial fauna (small invertebrates)

Off the top of my head I can recall them finding a therapod dino called cryolophosaurus and some other, an iguanodont, a hadrosaur, and the hypsilophodont featured in that "Walking With" episode. I imagine if the ice melted they'd have much easier access to potential fossils, but then again, wouldn't the melting of the ice and the movement of all that water potentially sweep alot away? As for meteors, I was under the impression that it doesn't have any more than eslewhere, it's just that they stand out darkly against all the ice, and if that's the case, after the melt there would be ALOT of bare rock for them to hide in. I imagine a dethawed and dried out anarctica would be a boon to geologists though, and wouldn't it give much better access to potential oil-hunters?

Certainly not surprising at all considering the level of faith and... confidence(?) within the groups, and bias often between them.

The different names for the christian, muslim and jewish God all refer to one deity from the same family tree of faith, the same deity, just different interpretations of "Him / It." Saying they aren't the same deity is just being absurdly picky (and for religios, possibly rather defensive).

No matter how many times you repeat it, you'll never get through to a person who gives a damn about Free Will. I don't care if a thousand non-drafted soldiers die in battle. They chose to be there, in some way or form they wanted to be there, or at least they felt the need to be there, and clearly, whether they were looking forward to it or not, they were willing to die for what they felt was right. If they died, it might be sad, yeah, but it's okay, because it was their life to give freely. The fact is, it's clear that you hold no concern for the idea of Free Will, so we all might as well stop bringing up this line of argument entirely. Just as it's impossible to guess whether or not the war in iraq actually stopped anything (or even provoked/will provoke it). I'd say should be focusing on actually defending the homefront. Terrorist cells will always exist, they'll always toil and scheme, but if we're properly prepared for them, we'll be able to stop so many more terrorist acts then we do wasting resources trying to stamp them out. And anyway, do you really want a draftee being tasked with something ogf that magnitude? I won't deny that most of them probably mean well, but I think it'd take quite a motherload of faith to remain faithful to them after the line of decisions we've had to deal with in recent years. Besides, faith's overrated. I prefer reason. Hold on, while I don't think it'd ever be justified, I do see the practical reasoning for a draft (setting aside all justice and morality) when it comes down to large scale war, but why on a rational earth should there be a draft for a small scale conflict? Seems to me that'd just bring the nation even lower in the eyes of it's people, certainly wouldn't seed patriotism, especially when there are sufficient people willing to put their lives on the line. How is living in constant fear of randomly being torn away from your life to feed the ever-present conflicts a good thing, for both the individual and the society itself? So are you seriously saying that a draft should be implemented generically? Whether for open war or minor incursions? No, it's what he's trying to say. This isn't about your thoughts and arguments, this is about the thoughts and arguments each of us raise, and it happens that he did raise it, and it's some of what he's trying to say. Anyway, when it comes down to the real threat, people will either fight or they won't. And if they don't want to, then obviously there's a reason for that. What good is a nation that none of it's people want to fight for? However, I do think that American citizens would fight. And plenty of them. It's a perfectly valid argument, why push it aside?

Maybe the people really are stupid for thinking what tehy do, but I think it still makes perfect sense. If it's so worth fighting for, they'll fight? And if it is just simply that they're too arrogant or foolish to know better, then maybe they'll regret it when society collapses around them. Learn to better appreciate the next country

Thank you I couldn't diagree more. I see a major difference in being taken from your home against your will to be sacrificed by your country, compared to signing up, full well knowing that you could die, sacrificing yourself, whether for something you believe in or only think you do. I live in the details, and when it comes down to those, the two groups couldn't be any more different. Or let them do themselves in, or piss off some neighbor who'd be happy to do the dirty. Or wait till they actually do something worth us getting involved in. And if it's truly worth it, I don't think you'll have any shortage of volunteers.

I just find it difficult to categorize this sort of thing with "little sacrifices." which is odd considering how little regard for human life I otherwise have... peculiar. And they made a choice, regardless of anything else. Bring an actual battle to the american homefront and I think you'll likely find more potential-soldiers willing to join than we have today. Of course, that's one of my rare flashes of optimism. The juice thing was a mild would-be-world-dominator joke. Not to be taken seriously. And I say don't waste resources that could come very much in handy saving our asses over something that just might pose a threat. I don't like the way those Canadians look at us and hide behind their precious trees... The inherit sexism still stings

Having regularly done something before doesn't make it any more acceptable the hundredth time around. And I'll never believe any nation could offer total freedom, some sacrifices must be made, but I see a draft as too ridiculously foul to even be considered by a so-called free country. By sending some of those same citizens off to likely kill and quite possibly die, possibly against their will, and not to mention get labled a traitorous deserter if they had the audacity to refuse their gracious goverment. Something I'm offended by. I'm a better shot with a rifle than all the so-called guys I know, and I'm certainly got a more refined killer instinct. And you seem to be overlooking the fact that I might very well have a few males in my life that I wouldn't be so eager to send off to be riddled with bullets.

No one's called me young since I was eight... and as Mokele pointed out, that kind of assumption is rather irritating, and downright arrogant. Judging from that earlier post, you can rest assured my outlook wouldn't sit well with you, and let me tell you, it's about as likely that Bush himself would side with Osama and be the front-man in a second 9/11 as it is that my stance would ever grow soft and flag-wavy. I'm certain that thanks to the media they have a better idea than the past generations did. It isn't some battle for glory and heroism, more than anything it's a game between higher powers safely tucked away in their palaces while they send off naive boys (no matter how old they are) to fight and die for something they likely don't understand, and perhaps wouldn't agree with if they did (assuming they were even told the truth anyway). It's all a big, gore-spattered game of chess floating on a pool of viper-politicians (sorry mokele for the herp reference). Doesn't that defy what america is supposed to be? Forgetting all the other wonderful or terrible, corrupt or valiant aspects of the United States for a moment, doesn't a draft epitomize the worst sort of loss of freedom? Forcing it's citizens to go to war? To lay down their lives and risk death for a fight that isn't even theirs?

He never said artist / musician / psychologist. Now he might have meant people in general as in service to culture and society, but don't you think it's a tad more reasonable to think about what he said rationally, and think for a second that maybe he meant service to the military? Communications seem to be pretty important to a battle, or the impact military scientists have on a soldiers effectiveness as a warrior, not to mention his safety? Seems to me soldiers should be pretty thankful they've got those farmers aorund to feed them too, not to mention the technicians who keep their nifty-war machines running (and design them in the first place). Or what about medics? You know, I think it's great that you're so patriotic and all that jazz, good for you, but I think you're letting your own flag-waving yankee-doodle-dementia blind you to the greater reality of the situation. Sure we'd be screwed if no one had the nerves or self-sacrificing ideals to risk their lives for actual battle, but we're just as screwed or more so without all the countless people who devote their lives to actually maintaining the army. Being patriotic doesn't mean you have to stop being practical. I think you're jumping to a conclusion that has no real basis. Some people might just happen to be smart enough to realize that their skills would be put to better use serving their nation to the best of their abilities. Patriotism is not the same thing as getting caught up in the rush of "Destroy the Terrorists" blood-lust, it's about loving their nation, and doing their best for it in whatever way they are best suited to do so. If you're good at designing better tanks, good for you, if you're useless for anything but putting a rapid stop to the travel of enemy bullets and don't mind doing so, kudos to you too. And beyond that, I think there is strength and honor in standing up for one's ideals, and for some people, that is non-violence. Or maybe they don't take aan actively pacifistic stance, but they're certainly mortified of doing harm to antoher person. And is it really that terrible for someone to be unwilling to lose their own life? Commendable certainly, but I think you're assuming that just because they chose a dangerous job it automatically means they truly understand the risks or even care. As for the military, many people look to it as an escape, a chance to have their schooling paid for, some people see it as their last viable option, a few nutters are just thrillseekers who want the rush. Not all of course, but more than a few. I understand you feel rather strongly about this, so I won't even try to rationalize non-patriotism, and I certainly don't know what your colleagues were thinking, but why does this specific example have to translate to being unpatriotic? Isn't it true that some people are betters suited to functioning in a crisis? Better able to act under extremely trying circumstances? Other people freeze up, maybe they panic, maybe they don't know how they could help in a 9/11-type situation simply because they're overwhelmed and see the little things they could do as futile compared to the big, horrific picture. Not everyone is capable of taking action under such enormous pressures. Some people see strength in stability, a pillar to hold onto in the storm. And the whole nation can't just drop everything and cease to function. Especially when it comes to people who actually have nothing to contribute, whether for lack of ability or simple ignorance of just that they're capable of accomplishing for others. To sum up; if a draft is ever enforced I agree, though I'm adamantally against the concept of any sort of draft in the first place.