marjon9

What you describe could be good. I was just put off by the fact that I found a bunch of nasty personal comments on my profile page from people who disagreed with the political views I expressed in a rants and raves column. These people appeared to by trying to damage my "reputation" on the forum because they disagreed with my political views. My thought was "gee, I sure need this." But the way you describe could be good. I would probably not be inclined to leave a lot of private messages for people but I would not object if people like the idea. I'm obviously just one vote but as far as I'm concerned if people want that system it would be fine with me.

I used the Atkins Protein shakes, chocolate and vanilla not bad. I did not like the strawbery. For powders I have used unjury brand, they are good. I've used chocolate, vanilla, and unflavored. There are a lot of other brands. You can get them at your neighborhood health food store. If you buy some there you can try them before you buy a larger quantity. If you are ready to purchase a larger supply, I like to order on line. Prices are good, and they deliver it. If you search a bit you'll find a lot of options. One thing you might want to try is to run some searches in this forum. The topic has come up quite a bit, since protein intake seems to be quite an important thing for us bandsters.

Actually, I grew up in Southern California. My camp counsellor's name was Hugh Jass. He taught us that "Kumbaya" meant "First one's free, I'll teach you how." We sat around the campfire also. The game we played was to see how many of us could inhale the same bong hit. This was during the sixties, before any negative consequences were associated with the exchange of bodily fluids.

Don't get me started on bar-b-que. All I can say is, if you like pork, you really do need to take a bar-b-que tour of the United States. Get a list of the 1500 or 2000 best bar-b-que places in the U.S. and hit the road. No, I mean right now.

Exactly. Well said. Consider these comments to be an enhancement to your reputation.

I have to say, I agree with this. I can't think of a single positive effect this function is likely to have. The rationale that it will help people on the forum know who to believe is not very persuasive. And besides, the people here don't have any special knowledge about "who to believe." It's best if all ideas are given equal footing in the "marketplace," and let the best ones rise to the top naturally. A forum like this is for people to express themselves and ask questions. We can police the forum any way we want by not reading posts from people that annoy us. And anyone who believes medical advice from people on this forum without confirming it with a medical professional deserves whatever happens to them. I bet if we took a poll most people would be against having this function. But I may be wrong. In any event, I'm certainly not in favor of it. It's just another way for people to be mean to each other privately. And if someone has something nice to say, it can be done publicly. That's how I see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry. If you don't have time to look, it means "intolerant religious conservatives and homophobes will fail to impose their legislative agenda on the virtuous and morally superior liberals."

I've always wanted to go to South America, but being the typical self-absorbed American, I had not yet differentiated in my mind among the various countries. Chile would work, though.

I spent enough time hiding behind trees watching Boy Scouts to know that it's spelled "Kumbaya."

Thanks, BJean, for your kind thoughts. This thread has brought out some thoughtful comments all around.

Thanks for the comments. And no, I did not know all those. Just found a recipe book on line and started typing away. :biggrin1:

No, I'm not from Chile, just trying to stir up trouble. Slow news day, I guess. :biggrin1:

I'm from Chile and I'm proud of our sewers. Your radio show should be cancelled immediately. :heh:

ghettofarm24, you have a compelling story to tell. Your story is definitely something that a woman should consider when she is deciding whether or not to have an abortion. But as compelling as your story is, in my view it does not provide justification for forcing a woman, through legislation and potential criminal penalties, to carry the child to term. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions take the matter seriously and struggle with the types of questions raised by your story. I also have no doubt that that the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions do not do so for any sort of feminist "rite of passage" or other frivolous reason that does not reflect the gravity of the situation. But once a woman decides, all things considered, that she needs to take this step for her own personal reasons, she absolutely must have the freedom to do so. I realize that in your view it is simply a matter of a minor "inconvenience" to the woman to have the child, but many women consider it to be much more than that. And in any event, one way or another, it must be their choice, not the choice of others who would impose their will on her by law.

If I were you I'd search around a bit on the forum. These topics have come up before. In this thread, for example, people talked about Protein shakes: http://www.lapbandtalk.com/showthread.php?=33663&highlight=carnation I know that some people have said that the Carnation breakfasts are high on sugar, but I have not checked. Also, it seems to me that they would be likely to have whey protein instead of soy, but again, I have not checked. As for soy protein, I've heard some people say that plant-based Proteins like soy can be harder to digest, but I've seen other people say they like them a lot. As for me, I know I prefer the taste of soy protein over whey. But again, I would search the forum with keywords like whey, soy, carnation, protein, etc. I think you'll find a lot of info.

If your mom has insurance then my comments are not relevant. But if she does not then she might want to consider Dr. Kirshenbaum in Denver (see web site in my signature). He does the surgery for $9950, with fills forever for $15. I know Denver is not exactly walking distance, it's not too far, and if mom is paying herself it might be something to consider. Good luck

I think that people dive in and get their hands dirty to help others in need when they feel motivated to do so. It's a wonderful thing to do. But in my experience it has very little to do with whether one is liberal or conservative. Most of the people I know who are involved in charity programs are liberals, but in fairness I don't get out much. I don't run into very many social conservatives on day to day basis. I do know that my father was the most politically and socially liberal person I've ever met or heard about, and he spent the last 30 years of his life working in homeless kitchens and Aids clinics, etc. He died at 93. I do think, though, that there is another part of this equation that does divide on lines of liberal/conservative. And that relates to the policies of the United States, both domestically and internationally. While this does not hold true in every individual case, I think that the voting record of Congress clearly bears out the fact that conservatives tend to vote in ways that protect big business at the expense of the environment. Liberals are against developing the oil fields in the Alaskan wilderness, conservatives are for it. Liberals support action by the government against global warming, conservatives, as a general rule, go the other way. Conservatives, generally speaking, support the war in Iraq to a greater extent than liberals. Liberals would rather spend these hundreds of billions of dollars on health care, education, domestic infrastructure, etc. Looking at the voting record of members of the legislative branch of the U.S. government, I don't think that there is any rational basis for disagreeing with what I said above. Of course, I fully expect that people will disagree with what I am saying, and they will probably disagree with great vigor and enthusiasm. But I think the objective proof is pretty clearly on my side on this, looking at the way the congress votes.

To be honest with you, I think I'm not worth your time.

You really can't win an argument by simply declaring that I am full of hatred. There is nothing I have said that even comes close to that. If you don't want to answer my posts, feel free to ignore them.

I was born into a world both full of life, and full of death. I was born into a world full of kindness and fairness and justice, and also full of brutality and betrayal. I did not choose any of it, but I was given the whole package as a gift. I love it all, and would not change a thing.

I have difficulty responding to your questions because the way you phrase your questions assumes points of view that I do not agree with. I do not agree that abortion is equal to "people walking around killing each other when they are inconvenienced." I do not agree with you that a person who supports a woman's right to choose believes that "no life is important." So it seems rather pointless to try to explain my belief system to you because you clearly are not open to the possibility that my views have value. In your world, anyone who supports a woman's right to choose is a baby killer who is pretty darn close to the human form of satan. It's hard to have a serious conversation with someone who is that closed minded.

Even asking this question assumes an entire belief system that does not exist for many of us. Why would I have have to "do" anything if I am "wrong"?

But aside from the point that the less killing the better, do you believe that abortion is just like having adults going around killing each other any time they want to?

I have a question for you. Do you believe that if abortion is allowed to remain legal, then they may as well allow adults to go around killing each other any time they want to, because, after all, that would be exactly the same as abortion. Do you believe that? Just curious.

If you actually read my post you would see that I did "point that part out to you." Let me clarify. In a previous post Lisah argued that "for everyone like you, there is someone who was very sure that an abortion was the right thing for her, and a law preventing her from doing that would be as wrong." In response to that you stated that for Lisah to say that is wrong, because "you are positive that there are people out there who feel that they have every reason and right to kill other adult people." That is a silly argument. Your response includes the assumption that abortion is killing a person. But that is the very issue that people disagree about. So, it is silly and circular for you to attempt to support your argument by presenting as fact the very question that is at the center of the entire controversy. Let me give you an example. It is perfectly reasonable, for example, for you to argue that a fetus is a human being because of the following various scientific and religious reasons. In contrast, it is silly to argue that a fetus is a human being because if you kill one you are killing a human being. That is just silly.