[Goldice]: sensibly benny. i think the only thing we can do is let them get on with it. as its EP would could change the name, go private, and only let certain people in.its an option

[thesuperman]: what good would that do? to those assholoes that is just a victory. they say if you ban them, they have won. thats why i dont want the guards involved, i dont want them to seem like they have won

[nokaredes]: Rose in the Shadow.

[Goldice]: yeah i know but what they want is to win. my theory: let them think they have won they'll maybe they'll piss off. cant delete their comments?

[Lord Kügenheim]: i dont care if they think they have won. Hello said that the only reason he keeps annoying us is because he can. Now he is a lying bastard who noone should believe. Im just saying it would help the situation. AND if he got banned from elftown he can be as happy as he likes. But he wont be around to say it will he?

[thesuperman]: the guards have already banned him alot. i talked to some guard named [Whim] about him. he said there is not much more they can do. that was a few days ago

[Goldice]: banning him from elftown wont help. its EP thats the problem

[thesuperman]: i talked to whim on Ep is what i ment

[Lord Kügenheim]: i suppose it is. But thats Shadow's department not mine. I'm just saying if he came here.

[thesuperman]: what is rose in the shadow?

[nokaredes]: A username. It's different from my ET one, so I just wanted to say let me in! And LK is talking about someone else.

[thesuperman]: do you wnat to help bring those assholes down 2?

[Goldice]: im not sure whats happening there hh. bombard lk with messages

[nokaredes]: of course! you saw my I blocked him comment, right? and won't that just annoy LK?

[Lord Kügenheim]: dont bombard me with anything!

[thesuperman]: we should bombard hello with hate comments

[FiSHr.]: nah man......come on.....youy gotta report him.....

[thesuperman]: i have before. i need to do something else

[FiSHr.]: well hate mail aint gonna get you anywhere

[thesuperman]: then i need to do something else

[nokaredes]: Hate mail is against some ET rule or another. Hence, if you send it, [hello] might not be the one getting banned.

[thesuperman]: anyone have any other ideas then?

[Goldice]: sorry ben.my bad.

[kduncan]: If I can make a suggestion here..Let them come here and post whatever they want. It's happened before, people from the Bush supporter's wiki have come here, been absolutely rude.. and been run out of the wiki. Face it, we're smarter, we're wittier, and we have truth, logic, and references to back us up. Of course, it's not my wiki, and I'm not even officially a member, so I may really, really be speaking out of turn here.. just my two bits.

[thesuperman]: come to EP and take care of them.

[kduncan]: I haven't registered for EP, it just doesn't sound like the kind of forum I'd like to be part of to be quite honest.

[thesuperman]: yeah, there are alot of assholes like hello and iron-wulf there. 

[kduncan]: So I've heard.

[Dil*]: there are.

[bluefarie]: what r u talking about??? *im lost...!*

[kduncan]: You need to go back a couple wiki pages to follow the conversation ~black_dove~. This forum can sit still for days, then all of a sudden just sort of.. takes off, and well, it just took off.

[bluefarie]: yeah..thts 4 sure...>__<

[Rondel]: For what it's worth, it's my understanding that the main purpose of Elfpack is to provide a place to send people who don't want to cope with all of Elftown's (in my opinion, mostly very reasonable and necessary) rules. That's part of why you'll find people behaving in that way when they are there, and it's part of why people like [kduncan] and I haven't ever felt the urge to join (interesting to note that's something else we have in common, as two of this forum's most voluble non-members). Part of the reason I stay on Elftown is that when I *have* had problems with certain members, I've been able to block them and report them to the Guards, and for the most part, the problem disappears.

[nokaredes]: I joined when ET was down for days (not that I couldn't stop coming or anything...I don't have an addiction!). Besides, I think you can still report people for being assholes at EP.

[Rondel]: I hope so, especially for the sake of their victims. For now, though, I am regularly made to feel antiquated enough, here on Elftown... <LOL> ...I don't feel a need for anything Elfpack has to offer me.

[BarleySinger]: From what I have read on the Guards wiki, elfpack is very heavily filled with under-aged nudity. I am not attracted to a place where one of the primary goals is creating a place where 14 year old girls can post nude pics of themselves without being taken to task for breaking the law (and putting themselves in real danger). Not my cup of tea. I have nothing against nudity, and I wish we lived in a world where nudity was not viewed as it is (by far too many people). I do not live in that world.

[thesuperman]: EP guards are trying to take measures against it. they are starting to crack down on people

[nokaredes]: well, it's not like kids don't put themselves in danger over here...I have gotten two under-18-y/old's home addresses, and a phone number, and I don't really have to be a 16 y/o white female living in another state than the givers...(but I am...)

[Rondel]: True, and that is one of the reasons why I need reasons to stay -- in other words, it is a concern to me, and makes me reluctant to participate in the site's community, because I don't want to appear to tacitly support that sort of thing. On the other hand, I don't think it will make things any better or safer here if all of the decent people leave. If I were someone who participated in Elfpack and found something of value in it, I might stay there for the same reasons -- but I've never felt an urge to go to a site that was created as a dumping ground for rabble in the first place (ironic, I know, coming from an Australian-by-choice...). While we're on the topic...

[Rondel]: ...does anyone here know if someone's done a "safer online behaviour" wiki? If not, I've been thinking about creating one, aimed at those folks who are new to the internet, or don't know/understand the risks involved in participating in an online community, as well as how to do so in a safe and rewarding fashion. Personally, I think such a page should be linked to the signup procedure and other basic info pages, just like the Uploading Art Rules has been.

[Lord Kügenheim]: Thats not a bad idea.

[Goldice]: yeah that sounds good

[kduncan]: I agree that it's a good idea too. Some younger kids (and even some older ones.. and adults too for that matter) don't understand the risks they're taking with some of the things they do.

[Goldice]: i mean you hear about grooming all the time. some websites say if you are under a certain to tick the box when you have permission but they're not going to know

[nokaredes]: You can link to for people under 18 years old there if you want...

[Maurer's conclusions]: http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/ - Interesting stats on Palestine and Israel

[BarleySinger]: I agree strongly with using caution on the web, but I also see the over extention of trust on the web, trust that is not warranted at all...as a symptom of an overall tendency for people to extend too much trust to people they do not know.

[bluefarie]: yeah, thts 4 sure...ppl alawys want me 2 give them my name/ pic...& i won't do tht...

[Goldice]: its not right

[bluefarie]: no..its not..then i feel guity...:(

[Lord Kügenheim]: As long as people dont know where you live there isnt much anyone can do is there?

[bluefarie]: well...thts the thing..if ne 1 looked @ my house they'd c my age & date of birth...& the elftown map...so..tht actually gives them a loit of info...

[Lord Kügenheim]: yeah i suppose it does...

[nokaredes]: A lot of people put their full real name on their houses, which surprises me because I can find people by knowing their name and the general area where they live (like, in the USA, their state).

[bluefarie]: yeah, i know thts y i don't do tht...

[Rondel]: My full real name is in my Elftown House for the simple reason that it's on my Elfwood page (where it's required), & I came to Elftown as an adjunct to Elfwood, and didn't see a point in concealing my identity here when all anyone had to do to find my real full name was click my Elfwood link. <sigh> But, that's why my page does NOT give my birthdate or location. Not to mention that I'm not in the highest-risk category anymore... ...as "middle-aged and happily married with a kid" isn't topping most people's "turn-ons" list, even among the pervy contingent. I have clothes older than most of you (& *wear them*) -- but I am *still* more careful than your average "15yo big-breasted hottie".

[bluefarie]: yeah thts true...

[Goldice]: its sick

[nokaredes]: and all those people who put up pictures from the Internet and say it's them and expect to not be found out...they get on my nerves.

[bluefarie]: yep...& i hate the creeps tht put down their age is a lot younger than they really r...

[Peace_Turtles]: I know....everyone goes old, so just don't hide your real age.

[Goldice]: either that or the tweenagers that try and make themselves like 6-7 years older

[nokaredes]: can't imagine why they'd want to do that here...

[Rondel]: Yes, it sometimes amazes me how many prepubescent 21-year-olds there are who can't drive... *sighs* *rolls eyes* ...or 17-18-year-olds who haven't mastered the concepts necessary to make it *INTO* high school, to the point where they don't even recognize the names of required courses for 9th grade... ...but I still find those more understandable and forgiveable than the folks who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, or later, and pretend not to be, just so that they can live out their "flirting with the cheerleader" fantasy, with which they've been obsessed since High School. I'm in my 30s, early thirties at that, but I self-describe as "middle-aged". Why not? It's not like I'm on the market.

[nokaredes]: Well...some people aren't lying, they just have strange lives. And mention a few of those 9th grade classes to me and I won't have the foggiest.

[Rondel]: Granted (I had a strange life myself, I am certainly not going to deny that people do); but, there are still cues that make it *very* questionable that a person is a given age -- and that's taking into account everything from my friends who didn't hit puberty on their own, but had to have it medically induced, the ones with delayed (or accelerated) physical or mental growth, the TS ones who are female and make comments about "when I was a little boy", my own experiences as a 9-year-old in college, etc. -- taking all of that into account, there are still cues that are hard to interpret as anything other than "this data does not match this person's claimed age/gender/life experience/etc.".

[nokaredes]: Yea, well, I've gotten a lot of "You're only 16?!?!?!" type messages...>.>

[Dil*]: hey...I might not be able to drive until I'm much older...I just never get around to reading my goddamn manuel ;_; (it's so boring)

[nokaredes]: My mom won't let me. :(

[Dil*]: another reason..parents don't support me learning that early anyways..they're afraid I'll die or something...but they are somewhat justified in the fact i have little road sense -_-;

[nokaredes]: People are talking about making the driving age 18 so that less teenagers die. Their reasoning? We don't have enough experience...newsflash! We'll have the same lack of expreience as beginners, no matter what the driving age is!

[Rondel]: Good grief! If they were reasoning on other grounds (say, brain development, or the effects of hormonal surges), they *might* have a case (I'm not saying that they do, only that it's conceivably possible) -- but on the grounds of inexperience??? How dumb does one have to be, not to realize that a new driver is just as inexperienced at 55 as they are at 15? Have they ever seen older widows trying to learn to drive (when their husbands did all the driving, until they died of old age)? It's scary! Newbies are newbies, regardless of their age! >:/

[nokaredes]: That's why it gets on my nerves. // That's still a broken forum-link...it'd only work if you've already joined.

[Lord Kügenheim]: I'll fix it when someone tells me how... i aint a clue how that flamin forum thing works...

[BarleySinger]: You might note that there is no minum age for learning to fly a plane in the USA. I think the youngest person to fly around the world was 12. At any rate, the problem isn't about age, it is about several other things. There are the drivers themselves, the quality of their teachers and then there is the public persicution of young people (which is very real in the USA). I do think that some minimum age should apply to both flying a plane and driving a car, but those ages have to do with a persons level of development. You want a coordinated person who can take danger seriously. A lot of young teen male drivers driver would fail a test on taking danger seriously. - - -

[BarleySinger]: I was very careful myself, and did not get my licence until I was 18 and needed to have it to get to college, but most of my friends were nut balls when they got behind the wheel. For instance, one guy who doubled all the speed limits on his birthday. Then there were the people who switched who was driving by one of the crawling over the moving car into the drivers seat. Then we have another who liked to try and drive *between* the lanes of traffic at well over 90 (always on someones tail).

[kduncan]: There's no minimum age to be at the controls and having someone teach you how to fly, but you can not pilot an aircraft on your own (ie: solo) until you are sixteen, and seventeen before you can actually get your (US) private pilot license. I think that part of the reason that there is no minimum age for being at the controls of an aircraft is that aircraft have dual controls, ie: a person cannot sit in the front without actually being at the controls. I'll also note that, in many ways, flying is much easier than driving: there is less traffic, fewer things to bump into, and fewer "rules of the road" so to speak.

[kduncan]: I've had students who started taking lessons (I'm a CFI) when they were sixteen, and took their private pilot flight test on their seventeenth birthday. The youngest "student" I've ever had was a twelve year old, but his parents just wanted him to try it out.. he (and they) weren't at all serious about him actually getting his license. My younger students (sixteen through about twenty) have been some of my best students.

[Lord Kügenheim]: saying that though, there IS less to bump into and its also more messey when you do. I dont know the age to get a PPL over here, but flying lessons is £100 for like an hour. im in the ATC so i get free flying lessons. We fly in a twin seat trainer with a pilot to help us learn how to fly. They take us up and bring us down, and we got to do aerobatics and stuffs.

[BarleySinger]: So, a kid at age 8 could legally fly a plane as long as there was a certified person teaching them along for the ride. I think there should be some sort of limits on that. Aren't there some planes that only have single wide seating, with controls only in the front? I know the Cessna planes that my dad flew when I was a kid had two controls in the front but not being a big plane buff I would not know how standard that is.

[Lord Kügenheim]: we fly Grob Tutors as our main trainer aircraft, its a twin seater with dual controls. I think you have to be 15 to get lessons and the age limit on the ATC is 12 or something.

[kduncan]: The eight year old might be handling the controls of the plane, but the pilot in command would be the person responsible for the aircraft and for any mishaps, violations, etcetera that might occur while that eight year old is handling the controls. The person doing the teaching would not merely "be along for the ride" and would have to be a certified instructor. Any time a certified instructor is in the aircraft teaching, the instructor is the PIC. Yes, some aircraft do have only one set of controls in front, these are usually tandem type aircraft where one person sits in back and one in front. Two sets of controls in an aircraft is very standard, you might even call it the norm.

[kduncan]: And before we start getting down on aviation for allowing children to handle the controls of an aircraft, let's not forget that in rural areas children also drive tractors, snowmobiles, ATV's, and riding lawnmowers. Would I let an eight year old drive a tractor out in the middle of the country, in a hay field where an accident with another vehicle is very unlikely? It depends on the eight year old, but if the child was mature enough to handle the responsibility.. sure. And most kids raised on farms are responsible enough to handle driving a tractor. Would I let that same very responsible eight year old drive on the LIE (Long Island Expressway)? Absolutely not.

[nokaredes]: Are you guys aware that some people are using <URL:http://elftown.lysator.liu.se/img/drawing/27888_1099588793.jpg> as their BHA banner? (I think it's illegal...)

[Dil*]: it is.

[nokaredes]: So what do I do...?

[Rondel]: I don't think the intent was to "get down on aviation", but rather to point out the extreme difference between the current (and proposed) driving laws, & the laws that allow young people to control other equipment/vehicles. I myself was driving a riding lawn-mower at 11, and got my first driving lessons (in a camper-van) the same year, so I'm well aware that there are *many* vehicles whose misoperation could result in the loss of life or limb, which are accessible to young people. Maybe the concern that some regulators have is that young people will find a mystique in driving that isn't present in operating a riding mower, and/or that there are far more people on the roads than in the air.

[Rondel]: The point being not only that there are more people at risk when a person is driving on the road (I didn't drive on the roads at 11, I drove (with permission) on private property, initially in a large mostly empty field, and later in the church parking lot when it was empty), but also that there are more other people whose decisions may affect the motoring environment, and more variables mean more danger. I'm much more confident in the safety of a supervised young person at the controls of an airplane than I am in the safety of people sharing the road with a person who thinks of a drivers' license as a rite of passage saying that you're 16, rather than an acknowledgement that one is trusted

[Rondel]: to operate a ton or so of metal moving at high rates of speed while surrounded by people whose lives could be ended by a moment's inattention or poor judgement. It does seem to me that there should be a stringent exam process (in fact, I'd prefer that to a hard and fast age requirement), but then, I think that the same should be true for the elected officials entrusted with the operation of our government as well. All it takes to be President is that one be born in the US, and be over the age of 35 -- you don't have to pass a test showing that you understand the machinery for which you're assuming responsibility. Maybe the politicians should be checking out the beams in their own eyes?

[Rondel]: I remember there being a furor over that image... ...but can you tell me why it's "illegal" again? Because I know for a fact that the banner in question is a digital painting (hand-dithered), done by my husband -- it's NOT a photo or photomanipulation, it's original art created specifically for this use, and while I know that there have been some rules that confuse me, with regard to celebrity images, I thought those were restricted to photos and photomanipulations. Could someone please explain which rule is being violated? (It's not actually *illegal* (though it may be against Elftown rules) because it's being used with the permission of the creator and copyright holder.)

[kduncan]: When I let a child handle the controls of an aircraft, I not only have the confidence in that child that he or she is going to listen to what I have taught him or her in our preflight briefing, but thet the child will reliquish the controls of the aircraft to me when I say, "I have the plane." In fact, I've never had a student (or non-student) reliquish the controls when I tell them, "I have the plane." At a sfe altitude, there is nothing the child (or adult) can do that will put us, the plane, or anything on the ground in danger. About the worst thing a student can do is get the plane into an inadvertant spin, which, in most trainers is recoverable with enough altitude if you simply

[kduncan]: release the controls of the airplane. It's pretty much the same with most other vehices: if you simply release the gas peddle (unless you're on a hill -- not really a factor here in Florida), the vehicle will come to a stop. But, do I think the rquirements to get a driver's license should be more stringent? Yes, they should be. In fact, in some parts of the US, (such as, I belive it's Suffolk county in NY.. which is on Long Island) the requirements -- including age -- are more stringent. Ideally I'd like to see everyone take a driver's test complete with a vision, written, and performance test every time they renew their driver's license. Pilots have to take periodic performance and written

[kduncan]: periodically to be able to act as PIC, as well as a medical exam which includes a vision tests. Operators of ground based motorvehicles should have to do the same. Just as a "for example": My mate's father has periodic vision black outs. He's still legally allowed to drive a car.. and in the Tampa area no less. It would be far safer to him, his passengers, and anyone else if he experienced one of these temporary blackouts while in flight with a set of dual controls, than on a busy highway with only one set of controls.

[Rondel]: Amen to that! I was fortunate, I had a drivers' ed class which used one of the special drivers' ed cars with dual controls, & I can tell you, there have been times in my life where I wished that the car I was in as a passenger had those dual controls, either because of driver carelessness or because of medical incapacitation. My husband & I both have to deal with medical issues which affect our driving; unlike many, we take them seriously -- I don't drive at all, and he restricts himself to essential driving, and will pull off the road if his driving is being impaired, considering it safer to sit on the shoulder of the freeway until the problem passes, rather than create avoidable risk.

[Rondel]: At that, we're in a rural area, and the risk (even on the freeway) around here is pretty low, in terms of the variables created by other drivers and their behaviour (another problem that pilots don't face nearly as much), because of the lack of traffic; that same rural location is part of the reason why we don't simply use public transportation instead of driving at all (the other reason is medical). But I repeat my question -- surely a government that can wage war is even more dangerous than a poorly-handled fast car on a crowded freeway, so why aren't there any competency tests required of those who assume control of the "ship of state" -- our elected representatives??

[Rondel]: Shouldn't they have to demonstrate the same level of understanding of the machine and its capabilities, and legal constraints, as a driver has to demonstrate in order to get a license? Shouldn't politicians be required to prove that they can comprehend the issues (reading comprehension), do basic math (in order to balance the budget), know basic law and ethics (say at a level required in my husband's day, to pass High School Civics), and so on? It seems to me that the public deserves that in its representatives. People should really be required to understand a machine before they operate it, if doing so improperly creates a risk of endangering others, IMnsHO.

[BarleySinger]: I am more interested in politicians with ethics. Or would that cause some sort of "black hole" effect.

[kduncan]: I'm interested in politicians with ethics first, and politicians who can demonstrate an understanding of their job second. Most politicians have employees that handle much of their job for them: accountants, researchers, etc. My biggest peeve here in the US is that politicians rely on commercials that are scripted, created, and distributed by people who are professionals at doing exactly that. It would be nice if our politicians here would stand on their past record as a public official.. however, we have a situation where the Democrats and Republicans together spent some 500 million dollars on presidential elections (ie: advertising). We have a local politciain here who ran a campaign as an

[kduncan]: as an environmentalist, even though the majority of his campaign contributions came from contractors and real estate developers. People are complaining about the decisions he's been making as a county commissioner, saying, "Hey.. what about the environment.. you ran as an environmentalist!" Well.. all they had to do was research the Supervisor of Elections website, look at the monies this guy was getting, and who he was getting them from, to see that he's pretty much paid for by out-of-state developers; ie: it was the blind ignorance of the voters who refused to look further than his televsion ads that allowed him to be elected to office. 

[BarleySinger]: Too true, and although the use of public relations/advertising firms to handle "spin" or get people to support a war, or to get some weasel elected are hug in the USA, it happens here in Australia too. Politicians, to be "successful" (see also, wealthy and powerful) play games with public perceptions all the time..to them "public perception" is the only thing important...to get in office. I read a psychology article on lying a while back, that stated that most very popular people are huge liars, and that their ability to lie is what made them popular. Also according to that article, even people who have been trained professionally to spot liars, usually can't...not even cops and spies.

[kduncan]: Odd isn't it? It seems sometimes that people don't care whether they're being lied to as long as the person doing the lying does so with a smile, a firm, reassuring handshake, and a friendly pat on the back.

[Dil*]: I'm reading a book on psychology myself..it's a huge tomb of a book..it's really interesting though. I think the solution is getting more people to think for themselves. Most disasters in history in my opinion is due to lack of thought by the public.

[Rondel]: Good theory, now for the next (and annoying) step -- how do you do it? How do you get people to think, when thinking makes the world a scary unsafe place? True, you have to face those scary unsafe things in order to make them better, but most people would still rather shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and go "la la la la la I can't hear you", in order to enjoy whatever period of blissful ignorance they can -- no matter *WHAT* the results. *sigh* Speaking of which, have you ever read the novel "Bliss", or seen it in movie form? I highly recommend it.

[Dil*]: nope...i'll add it to my 'to read' list along with da vinci code.. I also want to read that george orwell book..the one about the ministry of truth really being the ministry of lies..(I forgot the name..but it's a date)

[Rondel]: You mean 1984 (originally entitled 1948)???

[Dil*]: ya, that one.

[Rondel]: <feels old> It's worth reading.

[Dil*]: lol okay, I'll put that on my to read list..(hopes that I will not forget the name again)

[Dil*]: I really want to go buy books..but too broke T-T

[Peace_Turtles]: That sucks...Have anyone here read a book called "The Book of Lists"?

[Peregrinus]: Yes, 1984 is a very important book to read in today's world.

[kduncan]: On Sunday, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, the Republican congressional leaders, convened an emergency meeting of Congress to pass a bill that that interferes with the Terri Schiavo tragedy. And although in five years no other issue has prompted President Bush to return to Washington during a vacation—including the tsunami—Bush flew back from his ranch in Texas to sign it. And reporters are now raising questions about a right-to-die law Bush signed as Texas governor, contradicting his position in the Schiavo case.

[kduncan]: Just last week, the law was applied for the first time, allowing doctors to remove a critically ill infant from life support against his mother's wishes. According to the Houston Chronicle, this marks the first time in American history that courts allowed a pediatric patient to die against the wishes of their parent.

[BarleySinger]: I do not know anything about this case.

[Rondel]: That's a major first; I'm a supporter of the right to die, but I don't know how it could be applied in dealing with infants! On what justification are they applying the law, and with such strength as to override the mother's wishes? This is exactly the kind of case that makes the whole right-to-die issue so difficult; after all, properly designed and applied right-to-die laws are not supposed to be an opportunity for euthanasia of the unwilling, or anyone who has not had previous opportunity to *form* an opinion on their own desire to live or die, if severely incapacitated, and under what circumstances -- much less to *express* those views/desires, in order to allow them to be honoured.

[kduncan]: I think the big point of this story was that Bush supporters referred to Kerry as a "flip-flopper" but it seems that Bush just sort of blows any direction the political winds go.

[Rondel]: I'll say! I mean, good grief, doesn't this kind of violate his supposed "Right to Life" position? Or, no, wait, I keep forgetting -- that only applies until the kid is born, then they have the right to be tried as an adult. :/ *sigh*

[Mina Monster]: I support the right to die, but I don't support the fact that an infant can die just because the mother wants it to.

[Goldice]: i do agree with euthinasia (spelling?)

[Maurer's conclusions]: Euthanasia

[Goldice]: thanks. i wasn't far off then :D

[Maurer's conclusions]: Nope:D

[Rondel]: If you'll note above, one of the creepy things about that recent landmark Texas case is that the infant was allowed to die *DESPITE* the fact that the mother did *NOT* want it to. That's not "right to die", because nobody with the capacity to make decisions in the case was asking for that right -- it was enforced on the infant against the parents'/family's will. Euthanasia by the state is a very different thing from the right to choose to be free of pain and increasing debility from terminal or incurable illness (the usual reasons for the choice to die, in non-suicidally-depressed patients). This is NOT what most of us activists have been advocating.

[Lord Kügenheim]: I think that Euthanasia should be done ONLY if the person concerned wants it to. Its not up to the family, its upto the person in the Hospital bed. People should make it clear when they can about whether they want to die or not.

[Rondel]: And infants don't have the capacity to make that decision (or many others) -- which is why they have *PARENTS*, parents who love them and want the best for them and know them better than anyone else in the world -- so they can recognize when something nearly indefinable is wrong, and when there is hope for recovery -- which they cannot help but balance against the fact that they do not want to see their child in pain, or prolong their suffering unnecessarily. Where there is't an adult with a Living Will (or known desires), it should not be the role of the state to override the parents and terminate life. That's too close to state euthanization for "practical reasons", such as the cost of

[Rondel]: care and upkeep for the disabled. "We do what we can to take care of our own." It's a very old concept. The fossil record shows that even T. Rex provided that to its own. This is not a behaviour that should be beyond the grasp of a species that has evolved remotely near the level to which we have. Traditionally, we have given this care, since the days of Homo Neanderthalis. It *is* more difficult (and expensive) to be disabled, and need care from one's community -- but if an isolated Mongolian hill tribe can care for a person with MS or cerebral palsy (and they do), a society with greater facilities, medical technology, and wealth, should be able to do the same.

[Lord Kügenheim]: I deffinately think that the governent should keep out of it though. Its for the family to decide and the government shouldn't intervene.

[kduncan]: You would think so, Rondel, but unfortunately it's not so in the US.. and it's getting more and more difficult to obtain medical care all the time. Most people in the US (as in almost all people) have to provide their own medical insurance now, and it's very expensive. Where my mate works there are some full-time employees who simply can't afford the group policy they have.. and the rate there is adjusted, ie: people who make more pay more, people who make less pay less (you should have heard the moaning and bytching by some of the people in the "make more" group). We in the US really, really need socialised basic health care that's available unilaterally to all US citizens. We really need

[kduncan]: take unsurance companies right out of the healthcare picture.

[Rondel]: Trust me, I understand -- I've been sick, injured, and disabled in the US (where I've also worked in the health care system), and I've been sick, injured, and disabled while living in (and in one case, visiting) another Western nation, and the difference is quite significant. Now if only the countries which *do* have functional social systems can/will avoid following the US' example, and thereby landing themselves with the same set of problems that the US has acquired... ...and, I could wish few things more strongly, for the US, than functional social systems which promote people's ability to remain contributing members of society -- rather than losing the war for want of a horseshoe nail.

[Dil*]: I've argued this healthcare system thing in the bush supporters wiki...people actually think it's not a good idea. they complain and say people will leech off the system and that charities could take care of it. That's complete bs though. You can't rely on charities to take care of all the people in America.

[kduncan]: There will always be people who take advantage of situations.. just look at what happened at Enron. However, what happened at Enron illustrates another good point: people who did no wrong.. people who made not a whole lot more than minimum wage and just did their best at doing their job got up to go into work one day just to find that they are out of a job, out of benefits, out of their retirement plans.. and all so that a few people at the top could have more money in offshore bank accounts (tax-free and untouchable), and more vacation homes in foreign countries (tax free and untouchable). There are three things that all people have an

[kduncan]: unconditional right to: food, shelter, and basic health care. Hell.. we even provide convicted criminals with those. Anyone who argues that a mother with three or four children doesn't have the right to these basics for her and her family (yes, even if she is "leeching" off the system) simply doesn't have a heart. Even a person who has willfully put themselves into a situation where they need public assistance deserves the very basic things that all people need to stay alive.

[kduncan]: Here's a story for you: My mate works for a large corporation, one that provides medications for people in nursing homes, etc. I have a friend who is essentially homeless (he lives in a tent) who has worked as a taxi-driver off and on. He was out of work for a couple months, and I recommended he go to my mates place of employment for driver's job. This place goes through drivers like you wouldn't believe because they inevitably fail the infamous "drug test".. though using pot on your free time doesn't necessarily mean you're using it during work (forget the fact that a person could go into work falling down drunk and STILL pass the "drug test"). Enyway.. he's completely clean living:

[kduncan]: doesn't drink, doesn't smoke.. and really wanted a job that provided health care benefits since driving a taxi doesn't give retirement, health.. nothing. He goes in one day.. and the self-righteous receptionist there takes one look at him with his long hair, his two missing front teeth.. and tells him they "aren't hiring" right now. He was fully qualified for the position, wanted to work, is able to work.. and he couldn't get past a person who had a pre-concieved notion based on his appearance.

[Goldice]: have you ever wondered what the world would be like without presidents and rulers etc?

[kduncan]: So, you may be wondering what the moral is regards the above story. It's this: No matter how good you are, or how "clean" you live, sometimes shyte happens, and sometimes people won't give you an even break. We would be remiss as a society if we didn't provide for those who are unable (through no fault of their own.. or even through their own fault) to provide for themselves.

[kduncan]: Goldice, John Lennon wrote a song that addressed that very issue: "Imagine". It's one of the most beautiful, most visionary songs ever written.

[Rondel]: <applauds [kduncan] with a full standing ovation> It'll have to be a cyber-ovation, though -- I've used up my standing/sitting quota for the nonce, and am back to being stuck lying here. But it's people like you, who see that as "life and circumstances" rather than as defining my value as a human being worthy of a life with basic rights and free from torment, who keep me from becoming a complete and utter misanthropic recluse. Well, you folks, and my daughter. I refuse to have her raised by a misanthropic recluse, even if we are forced by circumstances to raise her in the near-complete isolation of people disabled (and disenfranchised) by Environmental Illness, so I don't get to be one.

[Rondel]: That's one of the things I also like about the web -- people see my thoughts and my words and my creations, not my body's enforced limitations in expression, position, movement, or even clothing. Its got its own problems, mind you, and I'm not ignoring them, but the web's backlash against judgement based on appearance-oriented prejudice exists for good reason, IMHO. I believe current polls show that we could not elect a president who did not look good on TV, for instance.

[kduncan]: Rondel, my mate and I hang with a pretty diverse crowd: from local doctors, politicians, and attorneys to.. well.. homeless people. And I've seen some pretty wild shyte that absolutely defies logic. I've seen doctor's sons who have done nothing but leech off their parents since high school be (finally) given the ultimatum to get a job.. walk into a place in their button down shirt and khakis.. and walk out with a job. I know of a doctor's son who killed someone while DUI (driving under the influence), only to walk away with "community service", which consisted of a radio spot which was recorded and played to make up the required service hours. I've seen intelligent, hard-working students who

[kduncan]: couldn't afford college tuition end up working at Walmart or waitressing. These self-righteous people who say, "Well, if they would just get off their butts and work, maybe they could amount to something!", really need to grow up, take their rose-coloured glasses off, talk to a few people outside their priviledged social class, and see what real life is really like. How the hell can they condemn children based on the mistakes of the parents? Who the hell are they to say that a child should remain in poverty just because the mother was 'foolish' enough to get pregnant at sixteen? Who are they to judge a woman who lives in poverty because she left an abusive husband or boyfriend and

[kduncan]: lives on pulbic assistance now with her kids she took with her to keep them from being abused? Reality check for you kids: Not everyone grows up in a priviledged home with two caring parents (or even one fo that matter), enough food to eat, and the opportunity to go to college. Shoot, because they may be caring for younger siblings, some kids don't even get the opportunity to attend high school.

[Dil*]: Ya my parents work like hell, they work so hard yet they still don't even have nearly enough money to pay 1/5 of my university fees if I were to try to become a doctor -_-; (mourning)

[Goldice]: yes i know the song. it reduces me to near tears when ever i hear i it

[kduncan]: Me too.

[Maurer's conclusions]: It's so contradictory. Lennon talks about a world with no possessions, but there he is, a multimillionaire, sitting in his huge villa playing a white grand piano in the film of the song.

[kduncan]: Very true as well.

[Dil*]: Even though it's contradictory...I still love that song.. (it's a masterpiece despite the hypocrisy)

[kduncan]: Yeah.

[Goldice]: exactly

[kduncan]: Here's a fun quote for you. Who said this: "We are creating the reality, and you will be writing what we told you."

[Peregrinus]: Sounds like something out of 1984... but I don't think it is...

[Maurer's conclusions]: Hmm. Fox TV motto?

[kduncan]: Good guesses, but it was Donald Rumsfeld.

[dawn bolly]: oke oke i whane be a member if i may ?

[Peregrinus]: Heh, same thing.

[kduncan]: Unfortunately.. yeah.

[Chic]: yeah

[Rondel]: [kduncan], just a note with regard to your comment about "condemning the child because the mother 'chose' to get pregnant at 16" -- you strike me as the type of person who is likely to know this, although it's not as commonly known as I could wish -- are you aware of the statistics with regard to the parentage of the pregnancies sired on underage/single teenage girls? Well over 80% of them, if I recall correctly, are sired by a man who is committing (at the least) statutory rape in having any sort of sexual contact with the young mother, and of those, I believe that the stats show that well over *HALF* are members of the young girl's family. It's bad enough that these girls are having

[Rondel]: *THEIR* lives thrown away/written off/ruined, as the direct result of criminal sexual acts committed against them; to condemn the children of these "teenage welfare mommies" -- impoverished because they had the sense to get out of the family home in which they suffered the abuse that brought about the pregnancy -- is simply to perpetuate the sins of the fathers on children who are (in far too many cases) both their children AND their grandchildren, all in one. But then, by many of those who condemn those who are not the children of privelege, Lot is seen as a righteous man, and was, even after he threw his daughters to the crowd as whores, then lay with them to beget the next generation.

[kduncan]: That brings to point an intresting result of the Florida elections. In Florida one of the issues on the ballot was an ammendment to require healthcare givers to notify parents/guardians if a minor child was seeking an abortion. I think I've mentioned this before in this forum. At first glance it seems like a no-brainer, of course parents/guardians should be notified.. no matter what the medical proceedure. But if you look at the issue a little more closely, it starts to look like not such a good idea for a couple of reasons. First of all, a child who has a good relationship with her parets would already want them to be aware of what is going on with her. If a child doesn't want her

[kduncan]: parents to know.. why not? Some parents are extremely abusive -- emotionally and/or physically. To tell parents like this that, "Oh, and by the way, your unmarried minor child is pregnant could subject the child to even more abuse. Secondly, what about the child who is pregnant through rape by a family member (possibly her father)? Now she's dragged in an outside party so to speak, what happens to her once her abuser finds out she's possibly been talking about this secret issue to health care personnel. In a perfect world we wouldn't need an ammendment to force children to level with their parents; unfortunately, we're not there yet.

[Rondel]: Exactly. You can't legislate trust -- you can only earn it. *sigh* Laws won't make a parent any more trusted by their children, & no minor below the age of consent *needs* an abortion *without a crime having been commited against them*. To force them to bear a child because they have been the victim of statutory rape, is simply to compound one crime with another, and revictimize a teen who deserves better. Her trust has already been betrayed, as it's hard to find yourself in an abortion clinic without that being the case -- it's not the job of the clinic to betray that trust again, and say "we won't help you without the knowledge (and/or consent) of people who are likely complicit".

[Dil*]: Very interesting read..., you guys should team up and write a book about your thoughts..

[Peregrinus]: You're certainly both eloquent and articulate enough to do so. It would probably be a best-seller. And it strikes me that the law itself was most likely proposed with good intent, in order to reduce the number of "conveniance abortions." As you pointed out, however, the idea is fundamentally flawed. It occurrs to me though, that there must be cases of "conveniance abortion" around, and I think most people, liberal or conservative, would agree that such a practice isn't a good thing. I'm sure that such a thing isn't the primary reason for abortion, of course, but it seems unlikely that it never happens.

[Dil*]: I'm pro-choice..

[Peregrinus]: In a sense, I am too, but my belief is that we ought to strive to end the need for abortion. It can't really be gotten rid of at this point, because there are simply too many bad situations out there that essentially demand something drastic (see above comments by Rondel and Kduncan), but that doesn't mean that it's a comendable practice in essence. I sort of feel it's a necissary evil. My opinion is that by supporting abortion, outright, many people are ignoring the fact that there is a problem, and others who are opposed to it are also ignoring the root of the issue, attempting to treat the symptom but not the disease. Does that make sense?

[Dil*]: Banning abortion would work in a perfect society, but society is never perfect.

[Lord Kügenheim]: Abortion is only necessary to stop back-street abortions and to protect mothers from the risks these entail.

[Peregrinus]: That's basically what I'm saying. But I think you're missing my point: we shouldn't be concerned so much with abortion itself, as we should about what causes a demand for it. These are the issues we need to address. If the need for abortion is eliminated, the there will be no more controversy. Of course, the problem will never entirely be resolved, because, as you pointed out, this is not a perfect world. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards that end.

[Lord Kügenheim]: Exactly. People these days have no respect for human life at all. It would be a bit sci-fi and unrealistic, but one way of sorting this problem would be to make abortion like murder and for both to have the same concequences. It mightent work outright but it would help.

[Dil*]: of course, that's why I support the liberal viewpoint, change is always neccessary to adapt and perfect.

[Peregrinus]: Precisely. Adatation is the key to survival.

[Dil*]: that's why I don't like conservative principals..nothing will ever stay the same.

[Peregrinus]: True, but one must be ever aware that there is danger in radicalism on both sides of the spectrum. Too radical Libralism can be just as destructive as radical Conservativism.

[Dil*]: of course...I'm..umm, left-liberal, not quite radical..but getting there -_-;

[Peregrinus]: Heh, I have an uncle that we joke is left of commnist.

[Dil*]: haha!

[kduncan]: I've been referred to as: liberal, socialist, communist, conservative.. I suppose it depends on the issue I'm discussing at the time, and who I'm discussing it with. Anyway, back to the abortion issue for a moment. Something that's being pushed in the US.. or at least in Florida.. is sex education that teaches abstinance as the only option, ie: the only acceptable sex is between a husband and wife. I'm not sure how realistic this is.. no, I take that back.. I'm absolutely surely that it's completely unrealistic. Sex education like this isn't really education at all and is one of the reasons for the high rate of abortion and pregnancy among teens in Florida.

[Rondel]: Whereas they're trying exactly the opposite, here in a South Australian trial. They're educating the kids honestly, and with the same level of information that is available to any adult who chooses to access it, but is presented in a kid-friendly way -- including techniques such as same-sex discussion groups with a same-gender teacher, what would have been called "rap sessions" in the 70s of my childhood, and so on. There's a hue and cry among the parents, but the results are what you'd expect -- the rates of pregnancy, abortion, and STDs have all dropped, and there's been no perceptible rise in promiscuity (if anything, full education has a history of *DROPPING* rates of promiscuity).

[Rondel]: As for labels, the range that have been applied to me is about as wide as the range that's been applied to [kduncan]; I consider this a healthy sign, because the world is too complex a place for one's relationship with it to be one which can be summed up in a simple one-word label (environmentalist comes closest, but there are places where I conflict even with that stereotype). As for treating abortion like murder -- I think of the abortions that have occurred within my own immediate circle of friends and family (for instance, the young woman who lost her fiance to AIDS, & found out that she had it as well, early in her pregnancy, back when mother-child transmission rates were nearly 100%)

[kduncan]: Homeland Security at work: In our county a cop was shot recently.. the first one ever killed here while in the line of duty. They caught the perpetrator the next morning. What's wild is that the guy came down from Wisconson with two friends, and the prosecutor also wants to hold the two friends in jail until the trial.. which could be months to years from now. The kicker: the two friends weren't even in the car with the guy when he shot the cop (it was a routine traffic stop). A few years ago this wouldn't have been possible.. but under the Patriot Act, it's permitted to hold people in jail without accusing them of any crime.

[Rondel]: -- and to treat an agonizing effort to make the most responsible possible decision, no matter how much it hurts, as if it were a callous disregard for, and devaluing of, the life of another, is just sickeningly appalling to me. Yes, I believe in trying to fix the problems that make abortion the best of a bad set of choices, where it is possible to do so -- but it is not always possible to fix those problems, even in a putative "ideal society". Life doesn't play fair, and sometimes, there *is* no good answer to a situation, nor a way to prevent it from *ever* arising. All we can do is our best.

[Rondel]: [kduncan], all I can say to that is that I often wonder whether it is better to be blindsided by stuff like this -- or see it coming, and be utterly powerless to prevent it, or even convince others that it is a remote possibility, much less a likelihood. I grieve for those guys... ...but I've had a long time to get used to that grief. As my husband said in one of his songs, "I have grown accustomed to my rage" -- it reassures me that I am (at least comparitively) sane, when the world goes insane around me.

[Deus_Casus]: FUCK BUSH, FUCK STICKERS!!!!!

[Alex DeLarge]: FUCK BUSH! FUCK. STICKERS!!!

[Deus_Casus]: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/Deus_Casus/Makelovenotwar.jpg

[Deus_Casus]: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/Deus_Casus/1111258836751.jpg

[Deus_Casus]: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/Deus_Casus/1110580010971.jpg

[Deus_Casus]: i hope you people enjoy these, werent too hard to find

[thesuperman]: *cries* bush took my father away...and now he's dead *cries* that bastard

[Rondel]: [thesuperman], I'm REALLY sorry to learn that. :( You have my sympathy and regret. Was your late father in the military?

[Peregrinus]: As to Rondel's last comment on the topic of abortion, that is basically what I was trying to say. And I also agree about the labeling thing. I, myself wouldn't fit into any neat little category, and I could never expect another human being to either.

[Huyana, Princess of Darkness]: Pleeeease!! Allow me to join!!! I HATE HIM SOOO MUCH!!! PLEASE!!! LET ME JOIN!!!

[Rondel]: [Peregrinus], I'm glad I was able to help put words to your views. It's always nice to see whether we've communicated our position on a subject, by seeing whether others reflect it back to us. :)

[thesuperman]: It's all Bush's fault that i am a fatherless bastard now...i HATE him...why do you guys hate him? he killed my father, thats my excuse.

[Dil*]: reasons why we hate bush

[Rondel]: [thesuperman], as I said, I'm REALLY sorry to learn about your loss of your father. :( You have my sympathy and regret. But, if I'm not prying, since you brought up the fact that you blame Bush for your father's death, may I ask why? I have no trouble believing that he is culpable; he's been responsible for the deaths of a LOT of people's fathers over the last 4+ years he's spent as president, and even before that, when he was Governor of Texas ("We put the Capitol in Capital Punishment"), his choices saw people die, a number of whom were later proven to have been innocent all along. Was your late father in the military? Or was he one of another type of Bush's casualties?

[Black_Dragon_123]: actaully, you're not technically a bastard. A bastard is someone who was born by 2 people who aren't married.