Sadly, the Dog track racing guy in my town, swept in at the 11th hour and gave him the last million. I got even with him by voting to end greyhound racing in this past election.
Damn right, Robyn. It's kinda like letting a bunch of teetotaling Mormons write all the drinking laws. Jesus lays down some weird, wacky shit when he's out of his element.
Yeah, I know. It's unfortunate that much of this conflict centers on unknowable (but highly valued) data. Some people just don't do well with the unknown. The focus should be on what we DO know.
"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." I John 4:20. We know the women. We need to do right by the women. We are not told what happens to the "stray" eggs.
That, and plenty of eggs are released but not fertilized even without any form of contraception being used, as anyone who's ever tried and failed to get pregnant knows.
Right. I've read some of those, too. It seems that the sticking point for data interpretation is what happens to the eggs that do get released but do not result in pregnancy. The people who lean to the "no postfertilization effect" side say that these eggs were not fertilized or even if fertilized would not have resulted in a viable pregnancy. The people who lean to the "marked postfertilization effect" side say that many would have resulted in a pregnancy but were prevented by the pill. There are a lot of assumptions on both sides to reach these conclusions. Data simulations can be constructed to support both. The kind of data that would be necessary to finally settle this question would probably be unethical to perform (i.e. invasive testing to confirm and time ovulation, controlled time of insemination, randomizing fertilized eggs to treatment and non-treatment conditions). No women need to be put through that IMHO.
Users are asked to dump a bunch of personal information that nerds and politicos are certain will be harvested for junk mail and spam, including first and last names, ages, zip codes, phone numbers and citizenship status. What could possibly go wrong?The typical grifters all the way down. Day ending in 'day'.
On the bad side: Grumpy Cat has passed. Likely died yelling at clouds.On the awesome side: Taiwan legalized same-sex marriage!
She would indeed. But I am a straight male, married to one woman (only one) for 24 years on Sunday, who spent 35 years in the Department of Defense including 20 flying in the USAF. That still wouldn't stop her, because I am a lifelong Democrat and a godless liberal.
Sadly, the Dog track racing guy in my town, swept in at the 11th hour and gave him the last million. I got even with him by voting to end greyhound racing in this past election.
Damn right, Robyn. It's kinda like letting a bunch of teetotaling Mormons write all the drinking laws. Jesus lays down some weird, wacky shit when he's out of his element.
That is shao lin master level snark, right there.
"... and everywhere no one cares, the fire is spreading. No one wants to speak about it." - Chris Cornell, Fourth of July
Yeah, I know. It's unfortunate that much of this conflict centers on unknowable (but highly valued) data. Some people just don't do well with the unknown. The focus should be on what we DO know.
"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." I John 4:20. We know the women. We need to do right by the women. We are not told what happens to the "stray" eggs.
That, and plenty of eggs are released but not fertilized even without any form of contraception being used, as anyone who's ever tried and failed to get pregnant knows.
Right. I've read some of those, too. It seems that the sticking point for data interpretation is what happens to the eggs that do get released but do not result in pregnancy. The people who lean to the "no postfertilization effect" side say that these eggs were not fertilized or even if fertilized would not have resulted in a viable pregnancy. The people who lean to the "marked postfertilization effect" side say that many would have resulted in a pregnancy but were prevented by the pill. There are a lot of assumptions on both sides to reach these conclusions. Data simulations can be constructed to support both. The kind of data that would be necessary to finally settle this question would probably be unethical to perform (i.e. invasive testing to confirm and time ovulation, controlled time of insemination, randomizing fertilized eggs to treatment and non-treatment conditions). No women need to be put through that IMHO.
I always assumed he lied about getting the money he wanted so he'd avoid awkward questions.
Bite me.
It's probably more damning of their "18-49" "demographic".
Come on, Quinnipac. That's lazy even for you.
Pete Townshend smashing the ukelele is a nice touch.
ETA: it's almost like I'm watching a crime procedural drama set in a certain large south Florida city.
She's vetoing it.
I know. Shocking.
Roosha
Users are asked to dump a bunch of personal information that nerds and politicos are certain will be harvested for junk mail and spam, including first and last names, ages, zip codes, phone numbers and citizenship status. What could possibly go wrong?The typical grifters all the way down. Day ending in 'day'.
On the bad side: Grumpy Cat has passed. Likely died yelling at clouds.On the awesome side: Taiwan legalized same-sex marriage!
She would indeed. But I am a straight male, married to one woman (only one) for 24 years on Sunday, who spent 35 years in the Department of Defense including 20 flying in the USAF. That still wouldn't stop her, because I am a lifelong Democrat and a godless liberal.
Worse than that? Let me go to my workshop...