anonemouse

Ron, you are the transparent one, and I think everyone here can see that. Whenever you don't have an intelligent response to someone, you claim that you are being attacked. It's very obvious. It's the old "poor me, I don't know what to say, so I'll try to deflect the attention to someone else" tactic.

Ron, the difference is that I didn't actually call you an idiot. My exact words were "anyone who argues with natural selection is an outright idiot". And I figure that if you seem to think calling people "sweetie" or "honey" isn't an attack, it shouldn't be one when I am the one saying it, either.

Yes, that was the point of the thread. But in your original post, you stated an incorrect fact about evolution and/or natural selection that was blatantly false. How can you expect people to make a decision when they are supplied with false statements?

Guess what? It's a habit I did pick up from you! If you can say it and say that you didn't mean to be condescending, I can too.

Sweetie, I understand it. It's what I do. I am getting a Master's in biology, and will be going on to get a Ph.D.

More on irreducible complexity. You might want to read the second point under #4, Ron, the one that says:

No, we didn't. But I have posted my response to the "flagellum motor" here. Read it, why don't you?

Natural selection is not dependent on evolution. The "flagellum motor" example is based on the idea of irreducible complexity (i.e., the idea that something won't function if you remove one part of it). And since you obviously didn't read the link I posted, I'll post the info here.

Ron, go read this thread. I've already debated evolution with Gadgetlady, who quite frankly knows more about what she is trying to debate than you do. She, at least, knows the difference between natural selection and evolution.

Challenge to the creationists' concept that bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex.

Ron, I am not a moderator. I don't know where you got the idea that I am! Ron, there is a difference between evolution and natural selection. Yes, evolution is the obvious end point of natural selection, but they are two different theories!

Well, everyone, it looks like I will probably not be a March bandster, after all.:cry I am having to switch surgeons and get all my information resubmitted to insurance. Apparently, the surgeon I was going to use isn't covered by my insurance. I think the new one will take all of the stuff I had done already, but I think she is a lot busier than the first. If I can get everything transferred to her office and get an appointment with her immediately, I might get banded in March, but it's not likely.

Ron, to be very blunt, anyone who argues with natural selection is an outright idiot. I can see someone arguing with evolution (don't understand it, but I can see it), but natural selection is a proven fact. Arguing with natural selection would be like arguing that gravity doesn't exist.

Option B implies (well, actually, it outright states) that evolution occurs by chance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution does not occur by chance.

I was mistaken. It was Illinois where they recently put a moratorium on the death penalty because they had found a higher number of innocent people on death row than the number of people they had actually executed. Illinois suspends death penalty The actual percentage of innocent people that have been exonerated in Illinois was 6.2%. If you extrapolate that percentage to the population of the United States, that means it is comparable to someone going out and killing 18,600,000 people. I am pretty sure we would hear a lot of protests if that happened. That percentage was per the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/deathpenalty.htm

The problem is that a lot of the people on death row are innocent. I believe that it was Ohio where they found that half the people sentenced to death were actually innocent.

The insurance run-around that I am getting is unbelievable. I have only two surgeons that are covered by my insurance in my state to choose from. With one, I would be banded in the summer at the earliest. The other costs around $18,000, which I would be paying half of, or so the nurse manager at my insurance says. I am very tempted to go to Mexico, pay roughly the same amount, and get a very experienced surgeon.

I have decided to go with a surgeon in Memphis, TN that is covered by my insurance. She is considered to be an "expert" in banding, and my out-of-pocket costs would be about what I would have to pay in Mexico. Plus, she is close enough that I could see her when I wanted to, in most cases.

Yeah, I would see if you can get it covered because of medical necessity. If the surgery is not covered because it "helps your physical appearance", you should be able to appeal based on the fact that you aren't getting it for your physical appearance.

Ron, the Taliban doesn't want our country. They want us out of theirs.

Well, I think I am going to go with the one in Memphis. It is much further away than the one in Knoxville, and the surgery costs more, but she is alo much more experienced. Maybe this has been a blessing in disguise. The surgeon I was originally going to have wasn't really that experienced with lap-bands. The new one has done well over 100.

Yes, Saddam killed a whole bunch of people, but WE KNEW THAT WHEN WE WERE SUPPORTING HIM. That's WHY we were supporting him, because we didn't like the people he was killing!

Well, I found out from the nurse manager that there are only 3 approved surgeons in the Tennessee/Kentucky area. The one in Kentucky only does RNY, so he's out. There is one in Knoxville, TN that I have called to get rates. There is also one in Memphis. Either one wouldn't be bad, I think. Knoxville is an hour from my parent's house, and my brother lives in Memphis, so I would be able to stay with someone after surgery. The one in Knoxville is much closer to where I am in Kentucky, but he isn't as experienced as the one in Memphis (at least, according to OH).

They said that they weren't finished with the pre-certification yet. I am starting to get really frustrated now. I am on a deadline for this surgery. If I can't get it done in early March, I will have to wait until May. I have already lost weeks because of problems with getting all my info to the surgeon's office and problems getting my info from the surgeon's office to insurance (found out last Wednesday that insurance had never gotten my info - the fax number the surgeon's office used was old - 2 week delay).

I have no idea if it is or not, but I think it makes sense. If you think about it, if one guy goes off the deep end during war and kills 40 people, it isn't really considered a war crime. On the other hand, if a commanding officer orders the attack, it would be. Another thing to think about is the Geneva Convention, if suicide attacks are considered war crimes. If you call a suicide attack a war crime, it implies that you are in an organized war. Therefore, you have a specified enemy. If you have a specified enemy, shouldn't they be protected by the Geneva Convention? I really think that might be one reason why our administration isn't calling suicide attacks "war crimes". I think that if they do start calling them that, they'll have to answer some hard questions about their own conduct in the war.