marjon9

That's exactly why I switched to Flax Seed. I tried the Flax Oil and it still had a strong flavor, but I'm now using just the bag of Flax Seed (naaayyyy, ,horse sound>) and mixing a tablespoon in my oatmeal. It says you can mix it in muffins, or other things you cook, so I just cook it the oatmeal. No fish taste/burps. All the benefits!

I'm starting to get convinced. I don't have a problem with the taste of my fish oil, but it is a challenge to swallow a tablespoon of oil every morning. So maybe I'll try Flax Seed. I don't eat much oatmeal, so maybe I'll try snorting it.

I do the old tablespoon of cod liver oil. I found a scandinavian brand that is pretty tasteless, but it is still gross swallowing a tablespoon of any kind of oil. But I feel like it's worth it. And those big honking tablets are just too much for my band.

Ok, eww! That's just creepy, Mark!

Actually, I bought myself a Teletubbies outfit and I wear it to work now. People seem to look at me quite a bit. It makes me see that I really am as attractive as I think I am.

Hahaha! I think his stylist is called road kill by other saner folks, eh.

After these comments I went to Google to look and see what Benny Hinn's hair looks like. His hair reminds me of the intro to Hawaii 5-0, in case anyone remembers that. What is he thinking? Why make yourself a laughing stock?

Hi all, just wanted to let you know that I'm official now! I got my band yesterday and came home today. Check out the new signature...

Totally awesome, Dude! Congratulations!

I have 9 and even though I was under anesthesia I am pretty sure I did hear the doctor say "oops" quite frequently. Just kidding. 5 here.

I think it's great that you posted this thread instead of just slipping away with hurt feelings. Way to go on that!

Aside from that question, though, I really think it was just a matter of slipping through the cracks. I don't know why it happened to you this much, but I feel quite sure it was not personal. Everyone seems genuinely interested in supporting each other here and I feel pretty sure that this unlucky pattern you've have will not continue.

Welcome, and thanks for posting your concerns.

The "hide thread" feature has been added. You'll see "Ignore this thread" in the Thread Tools drop down. You can manage your ignored threads right from your CP.

I, for one, am happy. Thanks Alex!

I'm getting a bit worried here, Mark. This is the second thing in like 36 hours that we've agreed on. Next thing you know, we'll be LB support buddies.

It's getting scary around here.

Leatha, have you ever seen a "hide this thread" option on a VBulletin board? We don't even know if it's technically possible. Alex, is it?

If it is, that seems like the best option to me. And even the poor newbies who are apparently so unable to look after their own interests without protection, even they should be able to quickly learn how to hide a thread. Even lowly newbies should be able to do that.

But then again, if it is technically impossible, then that's just how it goes.

If we ever can hide threads, I'm going right for that American Idol thread. I am deeply offended by it. Every time I even see those words "American Idol" I feel a projectile PB starting to generate and work its way to the surface. I am deeply offended by American Idol.

but that is what this country is based on. majority rule. and yes, i want to live in that. when people who were not elected made the decisions for the rest of us, a group of people broke away and created the united states. i want to have a say in the way the rules that govern me are created and put into power. and that is all done by me voting. are you saying you do NOT want to have control over what your government does?

Clearly not all aspects of our lives are based on majority rule. If it were, there would be school prayer in 85% of the schools in the country. There are many ways that individual rights are guaranteed notwithstanding the wishes of the majority. Just a few short decades ago, it was illegal for interracial couples to marry in many places, but this was held to be unconstitutional. There are countless other examples. Are you sure you want to live in a world where majority rule controls everything? If so, you better pack your bags.

hehehe we agree on one point at least. from that our personal moral questions get in the way.

the best way to solve this is not found in a discussion thread on it, though it does open people up to questions on their stances. rather this is a fight, if you feel strongly about it, that should be taken to the voting booths. put the right people in office, and the laws will be changed to what you agree with. if you don't vote about it, sitting around complaining is a moot point.

I do my part, and i respect everyone's opinion. If you want to see abortion made illegal, write to your state reps and vote early and often. get heard. that is the only way to make things really happen.

I still maintain that many of these issues are not simply "majority rules." I understand your point that elections have consequences and different judges will make different rulings. But that is actually a somewhat cynical point of view that can come back to bite you. I believe you want to live in a world where some things are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even if they are out of fashion with the majority at a given moment. You may find yourself on the short end of the stick some day if you think all contitutional rights should be decided by majority rule at the ballot box.

The site has become excruciating slow since the arrival of the ads. It takes 20 seconds to go from one page to another and sometimes a couple of minutes to do a search or to post a message. The presence of the ads doesn't bother me but the decreased speed (and thus decreased functionality) does.

That's a point I had not considered. The site is definitely much slower now. That is a bit of an issue for me too.

I would have to answer no to your poll, because I don't mind ad placement at all. So I would not donate to avoid ad placement. But that does not necessarily mean that I would never be willing to donate to LBT.

I know that pro-life people have that point of view, but the Supreme Court found that there was such a right implicit in the Constitution. You can disagree, of course, but that is what the court has found so far.

And, in your previous answer, you did not address the point that there are different interests in different circumstances. Just because a court may find that a woman has a right to choose, that does not mean that a drunk driver has a right to destroy a fetus. In one situation, the mother's right to personal freedom is at stake. In the second situation, there is no such right to protect. Holding a drunk driver responsible for destroying a fetus simply does not mean that "we have a right to life only when others want us." It doesn't mean that at all.

Even if there is a "right to life," that does not mean that a right to life is the ONLY right that exists. Laws always take into consideration a balance of competing interests. In the abortion context, any "right to life" must be balanced by a woman's right to choose. In the context of a drunk driver, the drunk driver has no rights to protect at all, and there is no counterbalance to whatever rights the fetus may have.

And indeed, a fetus may have no rights at all. It is society's rights to be protected from a drunk driver that are at stake, and they win out over the drunk driver's complete lack of all rights.

no where in the constitution is "the right to privacy and reproductive choice." .

I know that pro-life people have that point of view, but the Supreme Court found that there was such a right implicit in the Constitution. You can disagree, of course, but that is what the court has found so far.

And, in your previous answer, you did not address the point that there are different interests in different circumstances. Just because a court may find that a woman has a right to choose, that does not mean that a drunk driver has a right to destroy a fetus. In one situation, the mother's right to personal freedom is at stake. In the second situation, there is no such right to protect. Holding a drunk driver responsible for destroying a fetus simply does not mean that "we have a right to life only when others want us." It doesn't mean that at all.

Even if there is a "right to life," that does not mean that a right to life is the ONLY right that exists. Laws always take into consideration a balance of competing interests. In the abortion context, any "right to life" must be balanced by a woman's right to choose. In the context of a drunk driver, the drunk driver has no rights to protect at all, and there is no counterbalance to whatever rights the fetus may have.

Sanjaya!!!

So if a pregnant woman is killed on the freeway by a drunk driver, the drunk driver is held accountable for two deaths. If she was on the freeway driving to an abortion clinic . . . it seems he should only be held accountable for one, because she intended to kill the other in the first place.

I know you believe that your hypothetical example is clearly logical, but I don't see it that way at all. Just because the Constitution supports a woman's right to privacy and reproductive choice in the context of an early abortion, this does not mean that we should therefore allow a drunk driver to escape the consequences of destroying a fetus. This is not in any way inconsistent, even though you continuously repeat this same example, as if it proves that a fetus is a baby, and abortion is murder. Your example simply does not prove these things. The interests at stake are completely different in the two sets of circumstances.

The problem Funny, is that many people are missing our point, I think. They seem to think my suggestion was to sensor the R&R section. No where has it ever been suggested that anything be taken away. My philosophy is that if would make it better for even a few guests and newbies (although I tend to think its much larger than that), and doesn't hurt anyone other than having to scroll to the bottom of the screen instead of clicking "new posts" at the top, why not help the few.

Neal, try and understand that not everyone agrees that it "helps" people to "protect" them from having open access to the full menu of ideas and options. I know you believe that people still have access to everything, all they need to do is click on various links, etc. Others of us believe that setting up these obstacles is patronizing to newbies or anyone else, and that everyone is fully competent to deal with this site without any form of "guidance" "protection" "supervision" or whatever you want to call it. Many of us believe that this is just not necessary. And I can definitely say that as a newcomer here, I would not have wanted that sort of "protection." I don't think you are in favor of censorship of the site in general. It is the "protection" that many of us believe is not necessary, and indeed, does not make it better at all. In fact, many of us believe that it does not "help the few" at all to "protect" them from something they are perfectly capable of handling for themselves.

But I don't think anyone is questioning your motivations for making these suggestions.

Ah, I was mistaken in the question you were asking. I apologize.

Ok, what makes me think i have a right to decide? Because I am a registered voter, and if enough of my ilk get together and vote a specific way, or vote people into office that we agree with the decisions they will make, then we have the ability to change the law. That is just pure democracy. I am not a dictator, and cannot make decisions or laws by myself, but i can talk to a lot of people, try to have them see my point of view, and then as a group we can vote into power the people we believe will make the right decisions in our stead. That is all anyone can do. Laws are laws, and sadly, to me, abortion is legal. But i hope to continue to work towards changing that some day.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but for me there is another aspect to the question. That is, the majority does not always rule in this country. To me one of the greatest things about our system is that it protects individual rights even if they go against the majority. For example, there are many school districts in this country where you would probably have 95% of the people vote for school prayer, yet this is still not allowed because we protect the individual's right to be free from forced religion.

That is what decisions like Roe v. Wade are all about. A court decision like that will not change just because a majority of the citizens are against abortion (which they are not, as we know, but just speaking hypothetically). Roe v. Wade exists because the Constitution protects a person's right to privacy and individual reproductive choice.

Abortion is unique because there are two entities, the woman and the fetus, involved in one constitutional issue. By definition, the rights of one have the potential to adversely affect the rights of the other. So choices have to be made. Priorities have to be decided. To this point courts have determined that the priority goes to the rights of the grown up, living person, and not the cluster of cells that will likely eventually develop into a human being. I hate abortion, and hope no one I know ever has to do it. But I can't imagine making the decision that the "rights" of that cluster of cells should be given priority over the grown up, living human being. I recognize that there are differences of opinion on that, but that's how I see it.

OMG.....Mark and I are of the same mind. I knew if I stayed around here long enough it would come to this. LBT, you have corrupted me.

Or corrupted me.

I will answer this question for ya.

Our rules are based on the beliefs of the men that founded our country, and those beliefs were based on their christian faith. So yes, many of the laws in this country are based on the christian foundation of living your own life, and caring for those who cannot care for themselves. Taking someone's life is against the law in this country, and that is based on a religious value. many who are not religious feel that lives should not be taken, but the law itself is based on a christian belief, because those who wrote the laws of this land were christian. Its why they came here, to practice freedom of religion.

If we are to follow this law, and we are erring on the side of life, then we should make abortion illegal. It is basing a law on another law that already exists. Murder is illegal. To err on the side of life means we must assume that anything with a heart beat, whether it needs to rely on someone else or not, is a life that should be protected. therefore to abort and snuff out that life would be murder.

I can only conclude that you are not willing to answer the question.

I really do understand that you believe abortion is murder. But the whole dispute here is that other people do not believe abortion is murder. The question I asked is, why do you get to be the one to decide. You answer that question by saying "because abortion is murder." Are you truly not able to see the circular nature of your reasoning?

And I understand that you believe that we should "err on the side of life." But other people do not believe that an abortion takes a life. So these other people believe that they are "erring on the side of life" by putting their own life first. Pro choice people do not believe that they are going against the founders of the country, etc., by making the decision to have an abortion. I realize you disagree. But my question is: why do you get to be the one to decide? You answer that question by saying "because we need to err on the side of life." This is clearly not answering the question. It is simply a circular answer that assumes that you are correct without answering the question. So, I must repeat. Will someone please answer the question.

Why do you get to be the one to decide these questions for everyone else?

I don't have the right to make the rules. If I did, abortion would be illegal. We depend on judges to decide these things, and I believe in light of the factual knowledge we have about life in utero, they will eventually come down on the side of life. The more we know about the unborn, the more their humanity becomes clear. It is only a matter of time. In the interim, the more we educate people about what really is going on in the womb, the more people will choose, of their own accord and based on the vast amount of information available, to choose life.

That sounds great to me. I fully support you in your effort to educate people and change their minds. If enough people do that and continue doing it, who knows, maybe your way will eventually win the day. I support you completely in your right to do that.

As long as you understand, as you said above, that you don't have the right to make the rules for everyone.

But see, the thing is, many pro-life sorts are not so reasonable. Many believe that they do have the right to make the rules for everyone. That they have the right to take this most difficult and personal decision and decide what everybody has to do, and who has to go to jail, and who has to carry a child to term, etc. That is the part that causes, shall we say, agitation in my psyche.

But again, I appreciate very much your much more reasonable approach on that point.

I, for one, have great respect for the visitors to this site, and credit them with the ability to figure out how to use it, and to disregard things they are not interested in. I am in favor of the most options possible. And I have absolute faith that the visitors to this site can handle the complexity and the potential for "offense" that may exist from a free and open environment. I don't believe anyone here needs "protection" from anything.

A few months ago, when I was mainly focused on the lap band, I saw active sites like "Antisemitism in France," etc. I saw the thread go by 6 or 8 thousand times and basically tuned it out because I was not interested. Finally one day I decided to check it out. I immediately realized that there were many people posting on that site who could use the benefit of my down to earth common sense, so I started posting. I have absolute faith that every other person who comes to this site is just as capable of making choices, figuring out how to use the site, and handling the profound offense that may occur from the mere act of reading words like "boylove."

And if they don't like it, they have the option of blocking it.

Why do we need to take a paternalistic and patronizing approach, deciding what is best for others, limiting their options, and "protecting" them from words and ideas. I have far too much respect for the people here to even consider such a thing.

So why are you different?

As these debates go back and forth, the point is clearly established that well-meaning, intelligent and compassionate people have different points of view on whether a fetus is a human being, and all other related issues. It is clear that people disagree about this.

The thing that no one will discuss is: Why does one group get to create legislation and establish criminal penalties for everyone? The answer to this question cannot be "because a fetus is a human being, and therefore abortion is killing a baby." That can't be the answer because that is exactly what people disagree about. So, what is the answer? Why do pro-life people believe that they have a right to legislate and create criminal penalties for the well-meaning, thoughtful, intelligent and compassionate people who believe that a fetus is not a human being? Why do you have that right?

It is fair to ask the question, why not err on the side of life? But that is just a question. It does not give you the right to make the rules. Why do you believe you have the right to make the rules? Will anyone actually answer this question?