menageriemanor

Homosexuality and what should be done to those who practise it, was brought up on page 1 and has been argued and picked at by others. I picked a very easy point to make and exposed it to rational thought, and you scream I'm obsessed with sex. I'm an old woman and have no interest in sex. Who's doing it, not doing it... I really don't care, as long as it is consensual, between members of a single species - or with inanimate objects, if it keeps people happy and quiet. As long as I'm not in the same room, do your d#mnedest. Go for it. DON'T CARE. NOT interested. Perhaps if religionists stopped reacting to sex as if it is a cross between rabies and crack cocaine and the reality that it is a biological function, FAR more thought about than done, quite often a crashing disappointment or bored chore of religionist housewives. If you actually viewed it in it's perspective, in modern, longterm partnership, human life... You religionists all carry on like it's the most corrupting, degrading act known to humankind. Sad reality is, first experiences between nerdy science geeks in late teens are a fumbling, embarrassing mess. A decade later, it's a learned skill;;, and for most women over 40, altho it's okay, chocolates are far better, and at times, it's a chore to be ticked off, like vacuuming. I pointed out, at the start, there were so MANY more important, horrifyingly vile, unjust and obscene things for a god to rule upon, and act upon. I pointed out the shallowness of even wasting time on it. I'm not obsessed by sex. I find it boring. I don't care. Religionists judge on partners, often on clothes females wear, women's sexual freedom and liberation, and insist it is THEY who are to make standards to inflict on everyone else, and frequently, THEY are the ones to absolutely blow their own rulings into the stratosphere. To me, being interested in a stranger's sex life, unless you are actually hoping they may be a future partner, is just a bit ever so pervy.- and biologically, if I'm being kind, REALLY ODD and inexplicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogamy There's a variance in use. If using homogamy, it appears you will have to be clear in which sense you are using it.

Does no Believer think, "With the appalling realities of suffering in the world, a god obsessed with who loves whom, of who is attracted to whom, of a maximum of 5? 10? % of the human population... This is a god that has the shallow interests and deep compassion of a womens' magazine? If the homosexuality of individuals of SO MANY species is established, and they are supposed to be created without free will, unlike the HUGELY important human species, then IF you buy into this invisable, all knowing, perfect father figure never making mistakes, then the homosexual individuals of all other species MUST be created deliberately and knowingly. So, either that god is clearly making mistakes or can't remember his previous rulings OR making points, that the ghastly judgemental loathing of homosexuals, by the fundamentalists of most/all? religions, is based on the interference of the nastier men who claimed ownership, editing rights or only correct interpretation of those religious texts. Or indeed, that the Bible, etc., and the opinions held, are the creation of men - and unpleasant sex obsessive men, at that. I am continually surprised by the OBSESSION of fundamentalist religionists, with other people's sex lives. I've never met an educated atheist who CARES, if it is consensual and between adults of the same species. It appears from the regular exposure, world wide, of evangelistic preachers in America, that they have FAR kinkier sex lives than any gay men or women I know. I don't know a gay person in a lifetime committed relationship, that has extra sexual partners of the same OR opposite sex, yet ask me the same thing about committed Christians, and even I, with no interest, can reel off a dozen, all from the tv evangelists of America. Then you get into the AVALANCHE of catholic officials, from Cardinals down, in EVERY country, AND understand, these are just those CAUGHT... For God Believer, read Sexual Obsessive, it seems. Not even, necessarily, their own! Who is MORE interested in SOMEONE ELSE'S sex life? Religious middle aged men or fairly vacuous teenage girls? Often, this is an easy target to aim for, when bringing up religious hypocracy.

LAG I don't understand the point of the above. That 'blue' is not a dominant colour? or that adding a complete outcross in the preceding generation, ie the dingo, will dilute or lose the strong colour a breed is known for... Queen Anne's dead... 19th century British saying, that is really old news. (Also used by Brit history nerds and swots in 20th/21st century...) Not cranky, not upset, give me a fortnight and I won't even remember who told me I didn't know cheese from live cattle. Or vice versa. Tho I have to say, normally I've forgotten whom I've argued with or verbally slapped down, in 2 days, and rarely, I spend a bit of time thinking, "Who am I feuding with?" but finding someone is willing to believe I could be that slack in my comments was a shock. I didn't chase confirmation, as it was just a casual, helpful contribution to urban science buffs who didn't know that BLUE could be an official colour, in animal breeds and species. Anyway, I don't sulk, don't hold grudges, don't REMEMBER, unless someone seems to be callously uncaring about animals. Call your dog or cow, cheese. As long as it is happy and healthy, .I don't care.

Teach me to not keep coming back to see what is going on. I should have welcomed you, but you shocked me. I truly don't want to come across as mean, or trying to make you feel I'm wanting to give you a hard time. It is GOOD that you want to think, and understand, but I don't think you realise just how appallingly you have been educated, in the field of science. Your suppositions are really the equivalent of giving a 5 yo the money for, and responsibility of purchasing the weekly family food. Lollies, ice cream and chips. That's got to be great, eh? That's the science equivalent of some of the things you have proposed. You use established scientific words with an established scientific meaning, in totally inappropriate ways, which, initially, is confusing, and once recognised, makes your craterous gaps in education and the understanding of biology, etc., shocking to many, and so terribly sad. As a species, we have discovered so much, have discovered the extraordinary way things work, AMAZING, beautiful, logical WORKING theories of how the world works, yet, in reading your genuine, questioning post, it appears you received an appalling evidence twisting and/or evidence free science education, where science words have invented meanings. PLEASE, understand the scientific meaning of THEORY, for example, compared to the use of the word in fashion boutiques. If, indeed, it has ever been used in the latter. If you want fast evolving, you want fast breeding maturity. That has nothing, necessarily, to do with intelligence, tho' it might, and, whether something changes depends on the stability of living conditions and the challenging conditions it is in. Potentially, with some animals, sexual maturity at 6 months, 5 years, insects in weeks... their potential to adapt is far greater, potentially, than humans. Where does the obsession with fur changes come from? Do you see bare skin as 'advanced'? Frankly, as old bodies sag, get fat, I would FAR prefer to have humans furred. Aesthetically, fat old cat or dog or cow wandering around naked, is far easier on the eye, than a fat old woman or man - I use myself as a prime example. Tho I would opt for wire/rough coated coat, myself, to blur the worst effects. Not a long furred coat - couldn't be bothered with maintenance. When young, a short, satin black summer coat would be gorgeous. Or tortoiseshell or brindle... Far less worry about skin cancers and wrinkles... Again, this time, you use the word EVOLVE as a simile for learn or to be educated. If a human brain actually evolved in it's own life timeline, from the education it had, from mother/father to child, that child would live with parents that seemed to be substandard, mentally from the birth of the child.. Our brains change, insofar as we individuals witness, in surrounding generations, not at all. Our brains have evolved amazingly, but over time. You are still thinking with the overnight arrival of Adam and Eve, 6000 year old life of Earth brain - or correctly, EDUCATION. or perhaps, ANTI education The great joy, the great comfort, is education can be corrected, quickly, joyfully, and throughout, SO interestingly. Reality of science will thrill, entertain, and will sometimes hit you with a HUGE, joyous recognition, that NOW everything makes sense, now you can believe something and RELY on it to not collapse when challenged by evidence. No reliance on FAITH to just block out inconvenient facts you cannot explain. In many sentences, you can substitute FAITH for GULLIBILITY. Arguing science from a bible education is like debating cookery with an expert, from the study of Dr Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham.

That was interesting, thanks for sharing. I'd heard of the idea, but hadn't heard a talk on it. Would have liked more.

If you want to understand how animals evolved, you need to put your bible down, and actually study EVIDENCE. I cannot comprehend how you can say animals haven't evolved and you can see no evidence of it, unless you are blind, and your understanding of them is some member of your family is saying, we're passing a cow, now, there's a giraffe, there's an oranutan, without you ever seeing them. How do you not see, on a tiny scale, and tiny timeline, how dogs have been specialised, and how the different dogs crossed SHOW changes from dam and sire and not comprehend what you are seeing? It appears the word EVOLVED is being used by you as a substitute for some sort of recognition of IQ. If you don't comprehend what evolve involves, before you invent theories that involve the collected wisdom of desert goat herders, with rewrites by every unpleasantly dominating group of men using it to push their own agenda, throughout western culture, put aside your distorting bible lense and concentrate on what has been established by research based on EVIDENCE. The bible may be a treasure to Christians, but to many educated people, it is an irritating, illogical, brutish farce, no more true than Tolkien, far more savage, judgemental and nasty, infinitely less entertaining and in fact, a huge impediment to educating large groups of people in wealthy, 1st world countries. .

I think the reference to an atheist doing something that feels 'good' has been assumed to be hedonistic, as in enjoyable. I'm pretty sure it refers to doing something we recognise as 'good', or kindly, recognising it, and feeling a certain pride and pleasure in recognising that RATHER than the amoral fixation on desire and pleasure, of immediate gain, pleasure is gained from the imagined pleasure of the person who lost something, (often presuming no hope of someone being kind, empathetic enough, to go to the trouble of handing it in or searching for the owner), gets when they get their precious something/cash back. As an atheist, I rely a great deal on empathy. I get pleasure (help! I've done something to my text, have no idea what, am computer illiterate. What do I press to reverse?) from the unexpected pleasure I see on mostly old people's faces, when I do kindly, useful or generous things, but my main obsession is animal rescue, funded from my own money, no publicity or thanks. My pay off is seeing animal personalities blossoming, fear replaced by playful joy and the animal's ablity to relax, feel it can do as it likes, never have to look over it's shoulder, never feel hungry. I must say, I am still in shock, over the complacent belief of someone on a science forum that homosexuality should be treated so. Quite apart from the vileness, the clearly established homosexuality in so many animal and bird species, makes the argument that it's a wilful rebellion for anyone to be gay a complete nonsense, (ie if animals don't have free will - or intelligence, I'm informed by Christions, to inwardly rebel over their sexual preference, then IF a God produced them so, and is infallible, then it has to have been deliberately done). So to disapprove of gays in species, is to criticise your god. I don't think a day goes past, that I don't think of Alan Turing, even for a split second, on a busy day, and not wish I could change history. For every well known tragedy, there may well be a million unknown tragedies. When the relatively large numbers of homosexuals of such talent and intelligence are known to educated people, the idea of the religious wanting them to, or complacently accepting, that they die/eternally suffer, leaves me reflecting that I HAVE had religion briefly in my life, but luckily, I felt and smelt it on my boots, and managed to wipe it all off before I walked it inside.

I still believe that the initial value of virginity is the guarantee that you aren't taking on a woman pregnant with another man's child, but frankly, after day one, that proves nothing. Certainly it is the 'ownership' of a woman that makes men and indeed their own mothers, etc buy into the lunacy of 'honour'. Widows can and do remarry and whilst they are not valued, as virgin brides, they do not theoretically have another man walking about, having 'known; (biblically), someone's wife. Often these cultures devalue old women. They aren't desired, therefore worthless. It is without doubt, a male 'ownership', but the offensiveness of killing the victim in a rape clearly shows how women are seen and valued as individuals. There's a cowardice in killing a woman already in your control, rather than the thug that actually did something wrong... It offends on so many levels, it's hard to discuss. I suspect that the reason the logical killing or castrating of rapists never got a look in, was a good Percentage of the men making the rules of honour knew that they would be condemning themselves. Those primitive cultures, like most religions, drown in hypocracy.

Live exports to foreign countries are repeatedly shown as disastrous for animal welfare. It isn't just corruption, but also incompetence. See the Mauritian scandal of live cattle sent for slaughter having to be tested for pregnancy, with 2 cows giving birth on ship, the calves killed, I think 4 more gave birth on arrival or were found to be pregnant when slaughtered.. Australia cannot even guarantee all Oz abbattoirs are ethically acceptable. No gov't inspectors find anything. Only activists are gaining the footage proving that a number of so called guarantees are utterly worthless. Then view Animals Australia footage of Kuwait and Indonesian treatment of Australian stock sent for live slaughter and the only answer is to stop live export, across the board. It would take less room and be less expensive to ship prepacked meat. There is NO argument for it that can even approach .the numerous reasons why not to do it.

So after more than 30 years studying this subject, you can't see the yawning craters of logic in your thinking? Every astronomer on the planet in cahoots with communist democrats? What's the theory? All scientists paid off by sunglass manufacturers and sun screen companies to not state the bleedin' obvious? It would be very easy to see the difference in the night skies. What is your explanation?

off topic. Really sorry. What did you waste? ie throw away and not eat later? Ever thought about chooks? Or at least compost heap/worm farm? No old age/disabled pensioners you pass and say hello to, that you could broach bringing extras to? I used to have a bunch of OAPs and every time I found super markdowns, in meat/dairy, I'd buy extra and drop them off stuff. Sometimes I was the only one they saw in the day, and if the their pets were sick, I'd take them to my cheap vet, as I'm in animal rescue. Ended up costing me, but it really perked up their days, and I could help them with things and lift their mood, reassure them, or tell them they need to go to doctors, etc. Instead of cheapest cheese, they had gourmet styles, those little excitements, little pleasures to look forward to, later. often that was their excitement of the week. Actually, slightly warped off topic, but at least dealing with feeding people, if not NASA.. Near vego but those spuds with garlic sound mmmm!!!

I just went off to google it, myself. thanks DH. LAG A point when starting to confirm a statement is to go with the definite fact BLUE CATTLE, not to google the possible area which was admitted to be doubtful. google Blue cattle and 5thish? down from the top of first page is the NORFOLK BLUE CATTLE. Since I saw the interviews, they have apparently started their own restaurant on the island, for their product. NORFOLK ISLAND is east of Australia, not south, part of NSW, officially, but the story before the blue cattle may have been from a southern island before, and I may have not realised it was a different story, when I finally noticed the blue cattle and started paying attention. The fact is I SUGGESTED it may have been King Island, which is very 'foodie' but I made it clear that was uncertain. The reason they would have marketted to restaurants in Melbourne, is that is the 'foodie' capital of Oz, and amongst the fabulous food, are people who will jump on any thing that they can market exclusively, like, ridiculously, the colour of a cow, for steak. There is already a BELGIAN BLUE cattle breed established which took the point I was making, that there ARE OFFICIALLY, blue cows, whether or not this woman is breeding cheese or cattle. http://norfolkblue.com/about-norfolk-blue/ PS They do sell cheese BUT IT IS NOT MADE FROM THEIR BEEF and it is NOT specifically blue.

LaurieAG I am well aware of King Island Blue Cheese. When it is on special and I feel outrageously decadent, I buy it. This is a cow herd whose main feature is the colour blue, JUST as the colour blue can be found in greyhounds. as their official colour, and I described it as best as I could, in writing. When blue cheese graze in paddocks, mate, bleed, give birth, lactate, stampede to you, if you throw them apples, break legs so they have to be put down, then I'll consider taking your remark without outraged disbelief. I live on acreage, own farm animals, and am very familiar with both cheese and cattle and can tell them apart. Do you seriously believe someone not you would be unable to tell a cow or bull from a cheese? Would they be able to construct a sentence? I did say I THOUGHT it might be King Island OR another obscure island. Altho as an animal lover, I was vaguely interested, at the time, I didn't note the details of where to find the cattle or names of people or stud, as I'm almost vegetarian, and have no desire to own cattle, now or in the future, or to eat beef in Melbourne restaurants. Whatever colour the cattle. As I recall there was only one 'purebred' herd, I would imagine there would not be a major promotion of the breed for eating, as one herd and first crosses culled, can hardly supply more than a couple of gourmet restaurants, year round. I think, in a lifetime of all the usual sexist comments I've heard, being informed I don't know cattle from cheese, just about tops anything I can think of... I suggest you try any or all islands between mainland Australia and Tasmania, given it is so important to you to prove I'm wrong. Perhaps it was Kangaroo Island. I'm pretty sure it was below the mainland. I don't remember where, but I saw live BLUE cattle, saw the woman who was breeding them, determined to retain the unusual colour, and know that she was marketing the organically raised steers to trendy Melbourne restautants. I also saw an interview with the grandson of the original farmer's wife. The chef interviewed on meat quality of blue cheese must have got a faulty batch? The steers are individually slaughtered and at some point, according to your superior biological knowledge, morph into blue cheese! That's how it's done! Who knew? The only sad fact that might have ended the breeding programme, is there have been some appalling fires on some of those islands, in the last 2 years. There is a tiny chance, with only one herd, that they could have been lost. If a steer is burnt in a paddock, there is no bleeding way you are going to turn it into cheese.

Essay I know has seen this, so may have others, but to make up for the disappointment of "Why I want to be a pilot, by Anon, age 10", I'm hopng this is new and interesting for all those interested in flying. No humour involved. http://398th.org/History/Articles/Remembrances/Ostrom_FortressHome.html Amazing photos, and brilliant start...

What IS beauty to appreciate, and do humans get to define it? Seems to me, that humankind is pretty indiscriminate about beauty. Most agree vistas, water in many forms, many trees, flowers etc are usually supremely beautiful, but a percentage are going to wax lyrical about many 'modern art' pieces, that would be assumed to be a new, unexplained road sign, or loose skip materials, by many humans, if not labelled with a famous name and in a gallery. Or, a lone white pot, in a white, clinical, otherwise empty room? Most undomesticated animals have the rural picturesque as their office. Except that not only do they attend to shelter and eat and raise or father families, but at any given moment, they have to be ready to flee or fight for their lives. Put an animal in a bare cage, with an area to avoid being stared at, and it will still show signs of stress, even if given plentiful and quality food and water. Add entertainment, things to do, and they are happier, but they need and desire more as a permanent, enjoyable home. If you rescue animals, you can see them blossom. If an animal faces potential death every day, in a rural beauty spot, wouldn't they, like us, concentrate on picking out potential danger spots. potential safety spots, likely food zones and likely spots to run into mates/rivals? Registering any changes from last visit would far over ride admiration of form. If death were possible or probable, each day, in places of outstanding natural beauty, how often would we stand relaxed, and simply take in the view, beautiful or not? If you were aware that in natural beauty spots, you would likely die, or that you could sneak into an old galvanised barn, find food, warmth and lots of perfect hideyholes made to enable safety, or a choice of escape routes, even if pretty roughly knocked together scrap wood, if THAT made your heart beat settle with relief as no place in the wild, picturesque woods did, would an animal - or humans, begin to view IT as the most desirable place on earth, and so, places that resemble it, desirable, (and so beautiful)? Altho we can easily die in beautiful woods, we rarely do, today, and don't associate it with fighting for our lives, but you only have to go back to the 16th, 17th century, for wild beauty to be feared and loathed. Gardens were only beautiful when clipped and controlled to the last leaf, and laid out in geometric shapes, to be viewed as nature tamed by man, Every ghastly wild vista was to be tamed and worked for profit or prestige by men. We mostly all adore the look of rural cottages of Britain, pre 1850, but is that because they have been imprinted with the idealised country life we imagine coming with the cottage? Uneven floors, tiny windows, pokey rooms, bad ventilation, inconvenient ceilings, but roses around the front door! And cutesy dormer windows in the roof... In 1450, with the chamber pots emptied out the front, parents sleeping behind a blanket, in a corner of a room, and 8 children, and possibly some grandparents, some in varying stages of dying, in 4 stinking, dark rooms... put them in ugly modern emergency accom, and they would probably swoon over it, once over their fright. Whilst most want to swap apartments for dream rural cottages, if you don't get to add all mod cons, most of us would rather loathe the sight of it, after a while. A rough little purpose built nest box in a tin shed with a kindly kept feeding station could well be the perfect cottage for a hedgehog, bird, or in Oz, a possom or snake, to imagine, IF they did, as their ideal of beauty or form. Perhaps, like some tourists, they may not be able to tell you what the definition of beautiful is, but they know it when they see it. So, what is beauty to appreciate? Do we appreciate the things animals see as most desirable and therefore beautiful? We certainly don't appreciate their claims to it, beautiful or not. .

As I said, I am now aware that here, I must make sure to warn people of humour approaching. Or avoid it. I thought it would make any pilots on here, laugh, as my military mates in Britain who fly and the noobs they are training, thought it a hoot and so did their wives. So the joke lives on another decade, in another generation... Most find the innocent presumptions of a child, amusing. I've heard very similar sentiments from children with vets, doctors, etc as parents or uncles. They just see it done, seemingly effortlessly, by their clown of an uncle/father, and presume. There is also the realisation that this child has also heard about the popularity of pilots with women/stewardesses from adult conversations and is not happy, Again, with the likelihood of his future views, many get a wry grin. I would say that it was written or said by a child, at some point, and an adult has written it up, possibly invented a name and school to protect the child's identity, and to give it a credible reason for existing. If you know about professionally written humour, you'll know that most stories stand ups tell don't really happen. They claim the experience to give it a reason to come up, to add to the believability. Often those stories are written by a professional writer. Detailed attribution of jokes is a laugh killer. I am well aware that this is an American forum NOW and earlier, tho wasn't when I joined, but I'm on internatonal forums, mostly British based, but also Colonial on many subjects, with international members, and this is the only time this has had to be explained as humour, to anyone with English as a first language. Similarly, BY ANON AGE 10. ie not by the poster. As I said, I'd heard for a long time, of a large crater of Brit/Colonial humour just pancaking in America. This is just the first time I have experienced it. What has given me a rather joyful follow up laugh, is thanks to the research on this, I know this child would be well over 50. I'm wondering if he did end up flying, AND WHETHER A STEWARDESS CAUGHT HIM... The other irony is that it was apparently first written up by Americans, who clearly appreciated the humour. Since 62 is the year now first identified, maybe the person who initially thought it funny had spent a couple of years with Brits/Colonials, in WW2, and had caught on to irony, etc?

As far as official records of parentage, through birth certificates... An unrecorded adoption, quite likely to pop up, in backgrounds, some never bothered to record births, some just said it was overlooked. There are still some very elderly people living lives of extreme inconvenience, because they never got a birth certificate, as their rural/illiterate/slack parents never registered the birth, but many women married pregnant with another man's child, knowingly or not. Also, the likelihood of later pregnancies being not the husband's child are regular enough not to cause a ripple in genealogical researchers tea. I research bomber crew from WW2 and the difference between official records and birth certs is quite often eyebrow raising. Then you get the reality vs records. Back then, you could move to a new area, change your name and life story, and people simply believed you. Even getting through official records. I believed for some time, I was looking at a very respectable widow, with an only son in a respectable job, killed over Germany, but in the 1910s, her 'husband' had been married for 26 years, to another woman, with a 25 yo daughter. Officially, in the military, her son's records were fantasy, and I don't know if the son ever knew. That's 20th century. Marriage, for the peasants of England in the middle ages, was jumping over the broom. No official records..Only the wealthy and titled had official marriages, precisely to settle claims of titles and estates. For centuries, the aristocracy had a saying,' heir and spare' If you weren't happy in your marriage, you produced a male heir and a spare, (male), daughters didn't count, and the wife could entertain herself. Love had often nothing to do with linking estates and strengthening political/family ties. One Duchess was REALLY peeved when she had 6 straight daughters.

I do agree there is a big degree of wanting to be sure of children, so there is a value in a primitive society for virginity, without the knowledge of pregnancy testing, BUT the furphy that that would somehow guarantee even the first child was theirs, if the woman had a life non restricted, means that the obsessional control of women is MORE likely with obsession with virginity. Yet the 'spoiling' of an 'owned' wife of years, (even if she is raped, and there is no subsequent child), points to this also being the obsessive insecurity of men in their performance, sexually, in these primitive societies. I think the idea of a woman being able to compare them to other men is the stronger enrager, even over the practical fear of raising another man's child. Religion, I've always found, is RIFE with hypocracy, especially around sex. I'm sure there are so called impure women known to have sex with a number of men, and if SHE shows obsession, great desire for only one man in that group, the question of 'What's he got that haven't' is going to remain. Most of those deeply controlling men would never dream of improving their performance. A number of religions with the virgin obsession also practise female circumcision, or did until people moved to western countries, (There is certainly illegal FC done in Britain and Oz). That is basically trying to remove pleasure from sex, for women, so there isn't reason to look for pleasure elsewhere. I think much of these purity obsessions are, on the ground, more about men suspecting that if their wives had a good sex life, they wouldn't put up with them, or even be uncomplaining, due to being unaware there was better offered. Is virginity a problem at all? People who voluntarily have no sex are doing more to help the human population problem, and less likely to catch numerous diseases, than most of the population. No chance of a mistake, tho I guess you could be a virgin and get AI... All the problems start to fly with being enthusiastic about not being a virgin or keeping their habits. For most, the payoff of children and family and/or partner support more than makes up for the demands of family or being a recognised couple, which generally involve sex, not being able to spontaneously accept enjoyable invitations before checking everyone elses timetables, etc

Hope this works. First one extraordinary to watch her build sound. She did this, sounding exactly the same, busking. This is very different, starts quiet, picks up, sounds like a young Paul Simon, unplugged This is Nick Drake, dead close to 40 years, from possible/probable suicide. Favorite of Heath Ledger and Brad Pitt, I was surprised to read, recently. In Britain and Oz, almost a requirement to qualify as a tortured, deep thinking academic student, and yes, if you know Nick Drake, you do get automatic respect. He wrote lovely, gentle, often sad songs, perfect for those suffering from mild depression and feeling outside the mainstream. This one doesn't seem to work. Google WHEN THE DAY IS DONE by Nick Drake, youtube

Sorry chaps, thought it was clear from title. By Anon (unknown author/anonymous), is absolutely understood and not explained and common in my circles. from Eng Lit, dog rescue, Commonwealth WW2 aircrew newsletters to science, etc. It must be one of those, 'notice only when you come across it' differences between English based language of Britain and Commonwealth, and American usage, like car boots and trunks. . and I am SO far from 10 yrs old. It has been observed by Wodehousian wits, that this bird, (slang for person), Anon, must be a GENIUS, (and SO knowledgeable/creative in so many fields!). Disturbing that almost all believed they were my personal aspirations and beliefs, but you WERE kindly in your destruction of my apparent dreams... I found it offered up by an ex WW2 aircrewman, in his newsletter, in the 1990s or early 2000s, and I presumed it was from his grandson/gt grandson. He didn't identify himself, and was happy to leave it as anon, so I followed his lead. This is fascinating. I'd heard that Americans just don't pick up some universal English/Colonial humour, but this is the first time I've felt the crater of difference yawn before me. This is the only place I've ever known this to be taken literally, and by Anon age 10 completely escape notice or not be immediately understood. Guess this means I have to avoid humour. If it has to be explained, it's dead. Mr Monketbat, you might enjoy this English/Colonial explanation of future air crew in automated planes. "The crew will consist of the pilot and a dog. The plot's job will be to feed the dog. The dog's job will be to bite the pilot, if he attempts to touch the controls..." Please, no one take THIS statement literally and educate me, this is understood as wit in the colonies and Britain. Often found in Qi tv shows, etc I might also add that if I DID actually have those pilot aspirations, I don't think I'd presume every lesbian pilot chaser would be after me... (because I'm modest AND realistic), and I don't know that they are much of a problem, at airports. Better be clear here, as I now am paranoid about off hand comments being taken literally, I'M not lesbian, tho wouldn't care if I was, but if I was chased by stewardesses wanting marriage, THEY would be presuming I was.

I want to be a pilot because it’s a fun job and easy to do. That’s why there are so many pilots flying around today. Pilots don’t need much school. They just have to learn numbers so they can read instruments. I guess they should also be able to read road maps so they can find their way if they get lost. Pilots should be brave so they won’t be scared if it’s foggy and they can’t see. If a wing or a motor falls off, they should stay calm. Pilots have to have good eyes to see through the clouds and they can’t be afraid of lightening (sic) or thunder because they’re closer to them than we are. The salry (sic) pilots make is another thing I like. They make more money than they can spend. This is because most people think flying is dangerous except pilots don’t because they know how easy it is. There isn’t much I don’t like about being a pilot except that girls like pilots. All the stewardesses want to marry them so pilots have to chase them away. I hope I don’t get airsick because if I get airsick I can’t be a pilot. And then I’d have to go to work. by Anon, age 10 (not Menageriemanor)

http://www.rpra.org/continuing-mystery-carrier-pigeon/ Don't know if this made news here, as I'm only new. Some explanation of set up by Gord Young included here, so I chose this

There was a clothing manufacturer in Oz, named Fletcher Jones, who produced fantastic quality clothes, built up a very successful business, but had been deeply influenced by a Japanese left wing philosopher, (name escapes me), he flew out to Oz, for public lectures. He was a dream boss, giving new workers money on day 1, to allow them to pay their living costs, and giving all workers shares in the company, so that as the company prospered, so would they. He was an extraordinary man, but sadly, as the company grew larger and larger, to continue to give new employees shares, he gave away enough shares to lose controlling interest. At some point, newer employees wanted to change the company, feeling little loyalty to FJ and his children running the company, and many of the decisions they pushed through wrecked the company and shut it down. The other extraordinary chap, with HUGE heart, was WW2 VC winner, Leonard Cheshire. His huge heart and loyalty and concern for the wounded, disfigured, mentally incapacitated and broken men who served under him, probably proved his kindness far exceeded his bravery. Personally knowing of his own men homeless, not coping, blinded, limbs lost, burnt, etc he set up his family's small rural estate and a few other scrounged large houses, to take them in, and appealed for fit and healthy single brothers in arms, to also move in, earn incomes and donate, help the lads they flew with, Sadly, the initial generosity of spirit didn't last, so he was bankrupted, but came back to establish a huge foundation that cares for service people injured, giving them a home and medical and personal care for life, even now. He married Sue Ryder, who also did amazing work with children behind the iron curtain, suffering post war, and even smuggled some out. They had become committed catholics, which annoys me, in that the innate kindness and amazing commitment THEY had, by NO MEANS common in that religion, they ascribed to their religion, in touching modesty.. I make a lot of sacrifices to care for animals, but as I grow older, I have no interest in so many status items most people seem to see as necessary for happiness. Almost everything flashy, expensive, even beautiful just seems so shallow and uninteresting, I don't feel it's a sacrifice to not own or to sell them, except for my thousands of books - and to be fair, I don't have children to set up comfortably.. I guess I am not 'successful' to outsiders, to average young people, but that really depends on THEIR idea of successful. Many aspire to live the life of Kim Karcrapion, a life of conspicuous waste, bad taste, and vacuousness, whereas I consider her to be an oxygen thief... If you are super rich, spend money on yachts, private planes, conspicuous, unnecessary waste, is that really a successful life? Could you personally buy, maintain and patrol a territory to protect species at risk? Die knowing that one or more species has doubled in numbers since you stepped in and you die with those protections and expansions in hand. To me, that would justify a claim to a truly successful life.

I'm sorry no one has replied, and I can't help you, except to suggest you measure from the front shoulder to the the furthest point of the rump, but if you email some studs of the specific horses you are interested in, they may be happy to help you, get the measurements, get an average. I know there is a calculation to work out weight from body measurements, but I haven't used it for 40ish years and can't remember. OR do those making those claims measure from wither to tail, as you do for horserugs? A few serious breeders will probably tell you. Or a vet that works with top breeders. I would imagine a draft horse would be slightly longer in the back than an arab, as an ideal. Sorry I can't really help. found this, don't know how it will help, but there is an article in this link, plus an estimate of head and neck weight, as rule of thumb. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111214141241AA5TDOy