lookin

Seems a surefire way to get participation, as the OP asked, is to start a thread on how to get participation. It draws folks in like bears to honey. As a public service, I'm sure, MsGuy has now schooled us on how to lose participation. If anyone needs me, I'll be in my room poking my eyes out.

If I implied that, it was not intentional. I don't personally know anyone who I think 'deserves' to kill another human being. But I do know several folks who believe that they are entitled to make that decision. For me, it always comes back to a conversation that each of us has with himself. I had my first such conversation in my mid-twenties, and have updated that conversation every few years since. I don't try to intrude on anyone else's personal conversation. Each of us must decide for himself. For example, I wouldn't try to convince you that your views are right or wrong. If asked, I'll share the dialogue I've had with myself, and how I came to believe what I believe. My own personal dialogue included all the situations you have mentioned, from the abstract to the individual. Among the decisions I have made is not to go to war, and to discourage my country from going to war. I would not pull a switch on the electric chair, even if I were one of six people with 'only' a 16.7% chance of delivering the fatal shock. As far as I know, I would not take another person's life to save my own; however, I realize that an instinct for self-preservation may very well kick in. If I did end up taking another life to save my own, I expect my remaining years would be unhappy ones. The hardest conversation I've had is whether or not I'd kill another person to protect the life of another, especially someone who is very dear to me. I've concluded that I probably would although, again, I would not expect much joy in my life after I did it. I was able to 'serve' my country in a peaceful capacity, and I've been fortunate to be able to live in a fairly safe environment. In practical terms, I've been blessed to be able to keep some distance from the line of fire. Among my ethical concerns at the moment are that my country gets into wars where thousands of people are slaughtered to help support my 'lifestyle', and that many of my fellow citizens are killing many other of my fellow citizens without my voice being raised loudly enough to prevent it. I do make my views known in these areas, although I could do more. I hope this gives you some insight into my personal dialogue. Again, I am not making any comment on yours or anybody else's. For me, it's enough that you are having it.

I'll ask around.

I was going to invite you for an Irish coffee or some such, until I realized you meant Science Fiction. Still, if you're ever in the neighborhood . . .

I knew I should have left that 'qualified' phrase out and stayed with my original version of the statement: 'My viewpoint is based on who I am, not who they are. I simply don't want to put myself in the position of taking another person's life. I don't deserve to make that call.' Qualification be damned, the issue of deserving to make a life-or-death decision for another human being is the big one for me. It troubles me that some of the least evolved human beings on the planet have managed to convince themselves that they are entitled to put an end to someone else's life. I'm glad that most countries are getting out of the execution business and I'll be even gladder when ours is one of them. Legend: Abolished for all crimes Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war) Abolished in practice Legal form of punishment According to this this article, nine countries carried out executions so far this year: Bangladesh China Iran North Korea the Palestinian Authority Saudi Arabia Somalia UAE USA

I understand what you're saying, Lucky, and agree that there are some nasty folks out there. However, my viewpoint is based on who I am, not who they are. I simply don't want to put myself in the position of taking another person's life. I don't deserve to make that call, nor am I qualified.

I could get behind that, TY. Hell, I'd even put Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann on either side of the miscreant, and pipe in medleys from the Captain & Tennille.

Personally, I decided a long time ago I don't want to kill anybody. Not John Wayne Gacy, not William Bonin, not even Ethel Rosenberg. Not anybody. Simple as that.

War stinks. . I don't have to. Devil Dog ®

Good post, Lucky, from much experience and thoughtfulness. Everything you say makes sense, though I do see things differently in a couple of areas. Maybe the differences arise because I may be more of an 'occasional' poster, rather than a 'regular' so please steer me back on course if needed. Here's where things look different to me: Perhaps not. There may be some folks who really like coming here but really don't like posting. TY and OZ can probably figure out if there are members who check in regularly and just don't post. If there are, they must care or they wouldn't keep coming back. If there are such folks, I'm glad they're here and I hope they're enjoying themselves. I wasn't here in those days, so I know your perspective is fuller than mine. From my more limited viewpoint, I don't identify with the Board as much as with the people. It's nice when people respond but, for me, it's what they say rather than how often they say it. I've tried to be better about responding to those who I know appreciate it, but I don't think I expect a lot of comments on my posts. Good thing too. OK, one more slight difference in viewpoint, and it may be because I've had to battle a thin skin all my life, but I'd like to think that this is a place where thin-skinned folks can feel welcomed. If we like our own little idiosyncracies to be indulged, why shouldn't we indulge those of others? And I also think that thin-skinned people are usually very sensitive people, and good to have around. Perhaps we can find another opening in the locker room. I think it came out very well. I really appreciate that you care about what happens here as much as you do. If not for your efforts, who knows who might be hanging around the place by now?

Yes, thank you, lurkerspeaks! Glad the 'mooch' got his and you got yours. For most 'cases', there's a minute at the end when the two parties comment on the 'trial' and/or each other. Once in a while, a story comes out that puts a very different light on the situation - a side that Judge Judy seemed to have missed altogether. I agree with RA1 that it smacks of sloppy jurisprudence, but I watch her for the entertainment and not because I'm expecting a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As for the original "What does it take to get participation?" question, in my case it comes down to (1) time, (2) something I'd like to share with you good folks and/or (3) a subject that tickles my - er - fancy. This thread has some of each. As hitoallusa has said, some folks may come here just to browse, rather than post. They may one day decide to post. Or not. It's all good. The only thing that would bother me is that someone may feel uncomfortable about posting because of anything that I/we do that would discourage them. I don't think that this website puts out any negative vibes, unlike some others I've seen; so, until I hear otherwise, my plan is to keep on keepin' on, and hoping for the best. Who knows when the spirit will move someone to join in? PS: Just saw your post, gcursor. I guess if we want more posters, we'll just have to work a bit harder at keeping the Welcome mat out. What would it take to lure you back?

I tried watching her a few years ago and couldn't get through five minutes. She had figured out how to make money being rude, and who needed to watch that? Feh! Stumbled across her again last year while channel surfing and she was still rude as ever. Hasn't changed a bit. But I guess I have, and I now enjoy watching her every day! Can't figure out what gets so many folks to go on her show and put up with her put downs. Some money, of course, and I expect she's quite charming when the cameras are off. I imagine she tells people it's an act for ratings and they should just try to play along. I hope lurkerspeaks will shed some light on the backstage doings, and what motivated him and his erstwhile protégé to appear on the show. Was it only the money, and was it worth doing? Speaking of money, I was surprised to read somewhere that Byrd, the bailiff, makes only $100,000 a year, compared with Judge Judy's $45,000,000. I do hope he makes a lot more than that. The tsuris alone should be worth at least a quarter mil.

Starbucks introduces the Mucho Macho Macchiato! ©

I had to look up toff. Once again, I'm in your debt.

Oh, I say, dash it!

This is the kind of acknowledgement and support that keeps posters coming back to MER! Lucky recently asked for fresh ideas as he considered a new format for the August Challenge, and I think this one may be a real contender. Back to topic, I've been dreading the day I'd have to leave Amazon behind, as my experiences have been nothing but positive so far. This is distressing news, but it needs to be heard. I hope Amazon will step up and fix what's wrong. TY, your post is spot on. A BJ seems the least we can do.

Good question, RA1, and I'm not surprised it makes your head hurt. As MsGuy has shown so well, the answer does seem to shift around over time. This map shows just one of the trends that makes it so hard to define the Palestinians, even geogaphically: Adjectives I've heard used to describe the Palestinians include violent, poor, uneducated, extremist, moderate, beleaguered, fractious, determined, doomed, unwanted, and a host of others. Of course, not all of these descriptors apply to all Palestinians. But the issue at hand is not so much how we define the Palestinians but, rather, how they define themselves. And that's what I think they are attempting to do right now, before it's too late. Already, they are being told where and how they can live, how they can travel throughout what land remains to them, whether or not they can build structures and infrastructure, and given a host of other proscriptions that make any pretense of self-determination just that - a pretense. If present trends continue, they could cease to exist entirely. And beyond the issue of who the Palestinians are is the issue of who we are. In my opinion, that's an equally important issue, as it determines whether or not the U. S. has any standing at all as a supporter of democracy and self-determination in this part of the world. Or, for that matter, in any other part of the world. Being able to legitimately take the moral high ground on individual human rights has been an important component of U. S. national identity and foreign policy, at least as long as I've been alive. As some have said, the U. S. is being put in the spotlight on this issue. Will we defend or veto the Palestinians' right to create their own identity? And, if we deny the Palestinians' right to self-determination, how are we different from other totalitarian leaders who deny their own citizens that freedom? If nothing else, shooing them towards a dysfunctional "peace process" while their land continues to disappear will no longer be a viable foreign policy option for the U. S. And, for shining a light on that simple fact, I have to commend the Palestinians.

Nice thoughts, MsGuy. Thanks for posting. Sounds like your dad was ahead of his time.

I know that Washington is putting tremendous pressure on the Palestinians to drop their request for UN membership later this week, but I think I'd be doing exactly the same thing if I were in their sandals. The so-called "peace process" has been stalled for decades, throughout which more and more protected settlements are springing up and forcing Palestinians into less and less of their land. Imagine if Israel began constructing guarded settlements in New Jersey with no end in sight. I have no beef at all with Israelis who want to protect their right to exist as a nation, but I have a harder time finding the justification for confiscating Palestinian land almost at will. If there's no plan to protect what pieces they have left, aren't the Palestinians in effect agreeing to be bled to death? If the UN can't help protect them, who will? I think the U. S. is being placed directly in the spotlight and I think that our promised veto of the Palestinians' request will raise legitimate questions about our country's support for freedom in the Middle East. Personally, I'm glad the issue is coming to the fore. If we can support the Palestinians' bid for freedom, great. If we refuse, then I think we should at least have the courage to belly up to the bar and say so directly. As far as I know, hypocrisy has not been a traditional American value.

At first, I didn't get their new strategy at all. The DVD-by-mail business is one that Netflix owns. Nobody does it better, if at all. Streaming video, on the other hand, is a business that's festooned with competitors. Even Amazon is in it. The key to success in streaming video, I think, has been the ability to deliver a wide range of content at low cost. Steve Jobs, for one, has been extraordinarily successful in hammering out agreements with content-providers and it seems Netflix would be vulnerable to everyone who knows how to cut a deal. I figured maybe they just think they're better at it than anyone else. But now I read that Netflix has actually stuck its nose under the content-creation tent by underwriting House of Cards, an hour-long political drama starring Kevin Spacey and due to air next year. That puts a different slant on things. If they can get exclusive content, not only by crafting deals with traditional content-developers, but also by underwriting their own, it could give them a real competitive edge. If they can do that, their case for success in streaming content becomes much stronger. Especially if the Post Office is going out of business.

There you are! I've been waiting thirty years to send you my pharyngologist bill. PM me.

You make me blush, MsGuy, which, I've just learned, turns my liver spots a rather fetching aubergine hue. Much obliged. Sadly, my writing opportunities have been limited to the fields of engineering, business, and the odd political screed. Oh, and a handful of limericks at the local bus station. That's why it's so much fun to infest this Board from time to time, in the pleasurable company of like-minded fellows. If it's comedic writing you're after, I recommend heading directly to P. G. Wodehouse. For half a century, I've been able to get a laugh from any random page of any one of his hundred-plus works. Here's a snippet from "Uncle Fred Flits By", in which Pongo Twistleton is accompanying his uncle, Lord Ickenham, on a reminiscent tour of the latter's childhood haunts: It began to seem to Pongo that with any luck he might be able to keep the old blister pottering harmlessly about here till nightfall, when he could shoot a bit of dinner into him and put him to bed. And as Lord Ickenharn had specifically stated that his wife, Pongo's Aunt Jane, had expressed her intention of scalping him with a blunt knife if he wasn't back at the Hall by lunch time on the morrow, it really looked as if he might get through this visit without perpetrating a single major outrage on the public weal. It is rather interesting to note that as he thought this Pongo smiled, because it was the last time he smiled that day. All this while, I should mention, Lord Ickenham had been stopping at intervals like a pointing dog and saying that it must have been just about here that he plugged the gardener in the trousers seat with his bow and arrow and that over there he had been sick after his first cigar, and he now paused in front of a villa which for some unknown reason called itself The Cedars. His face was tender and wistful. "On this very spot, if I am not mistaken," he said, heaving a bit of a sigh, "on this very spot, fifty years ago come Lammas Eve, I . . . Oh, blast it!" The concluding remark had been caused by the fact that the rain, which had held off until now, suddenly began to buzz down like a shower-bath. With no further words, they leaped into the porch of the villa and there took shelter, exchanging glances with a grey parrot which hung in a cage in the window. Not that you could really call it shelter. They were protected from above all right, but the moisture was now falling with a sort of swivel action, whipping in through the sides of the porch and tickling them up properly. And it was just after Pongo had turned up his collar and was huddling against the door that the door gave way. From the fact that a female of general-servant aspect was standing there he gathered that his uncle must have rung the bell. This female wore a long mackintosh, and Lord Ickenham beamed upon her with a fairish spot of suavity. Many thanks for the indulgence. I'm afraid poor Lucky will need a crowbar to bring his thread back on topic. Still, I'll never bet against him.

Quite a perceptive observation, Lucky. In search of further enlightenment, I found this 2005 abstract which confirms the somewhat counterintuitive negative correlation between weight and weed. However, this study looks at the cause-and-effect relationship from the other direction and leads the researchers to conclude that the more folks indulge in eating for pleasure, the less likely they are to smoke marijuana. It turns out that overeating and getting buzzed are competing methods for stimulating the brain's 'reward sites'. The women in the study found their pleasure in food rather than herb, and the more Rubenesque they were, the less likely they were to get baked. While compelling, the research is a bit disheartening too, as it predicts a paucity of zaftig stoners, and I doubt you'd find a more convivial group of folks on God's green earth. On the plus side of the ledger, of course, is that the return of MsGuy's six-pack may well lead to the rekindling of an old relationship from days gone by. And perhaps a few new ones as well.

I leave it to the Rt Hon MsGuy to tell us if a simple 'Bless his heart.' would suffice here. Me, I'm kinda partial to .

For much of the past year, I've been hoping that Obama and Clinton would get together and agree to switch roles for the next eight years. I think she would make a great President and he would make a great Secretary of State. When the eight years are over, he could run for his second term in 2020, an international statesman with greater political gravitas. There's no denying that America's international relations are much improved from the GWB years, and that both Obama and Clinton have contributed to the shift. There's no denying that they work well together. And there's no denying her electability over the current field of Republican candidates. The announcement would have to come jointly from both Clinton and Obama, with all ego put aside in the interest of the nation. In fact, let it be his idea with her reluctant agreement. It would confound the Republicans whose sole political ambition seems to be Obama's defeat in 2012. It would take all the wind out of their sails, and force them to focus on what they will do rather than what they won't do. Other than getting rid of Obama, there hasn't been a single idea that's caused any excitement among the Republican 'base', and I use the word advisedly. As an aside, Americans would have the opportunity to elect our first black president and our first female president within four years. And can you imagine anything more fun than watching a Clinton-Bachmann debate? PS: I personally have little problem voting for Obama again in 2012, but I would welcome Clinton's presidency while she's still got the stamina.