fries, chips cause cancer

Steven Bornfeld said:

Well, I didn't want to register for the LA Times. The times article
however, brought me right down.

1. http://www.bugmenot.com/
2.
http://www.memeorandum.com/05/08/28/#lat--christian_schools_bring_suit_against_uc

Steven Bornfeld said:

Robert Chung said:

And here are the liberals whining because a university has standards and
doesn't want to accept feel-good politically correct high school classes
as satisfying entrance requirements:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-christian27aug27,1,2941413,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california

These guys are a bigger threat than Al-Qaida.

Words fail me because I wanted to say "god damn" or "jesus christ".

Quoted message said:

Well, I didn't want to register for the LA Times.

See bugmenot.com or http://roachfiend.com/archives/2005/02/07/bugmenot/
Here's the article intro:

Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC
# Civil rights action says the system's admissions policy discriminates
against students who are taught creationism and religious viewpoints.

--
E. Dronkert

Robert Chung said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Well, I didn't want to register for the LA Times. The times article
however, brought me right down.

1. http://www.bugmenot.com/
2.
http://www.memeorandum.com/05/08/28/#lat--christian_schools_bring_suit_against_uc

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

Robert--

Now I'm feeling a bit like a dummy. I attempted to enter the URL of
the LA Times in Bugmenot, and the response was "login failed". It
prompted me to create my own login which I did, but when I attempted to
use the login the LA Times prompted me for my email address.
What am I doing wrong?

Steve

Steven Bornfeld said:

Now I'm feeling a bit like a dummy. I attempted to enter the URL of
the LA Times in Bugmenot, and the response was "login failed". It
prompted me to create my own login which I did, but when I attempted to
use the login the LA Times prompted me for my email address.
What am I doing wrong?

Just enter http://www.latimes.com in the box at Bugmenot.com, the click
the button.
You'll see a login name and a password that you can use on the LA Times
registration box.

If you use Firefox, you can get a plug-in that'll let you right-click on
registration boxes.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Robert Chung said:

And here are the liberals whining because a university has standards and
doesn't want to accept feel-good politically correct high school classes
as satisfying entrance requirements:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-christian27aug27,1,2941413,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california

These guys are a bigger threat than Al-Qaida.

Words fail me because I wanted to say "god damn" or "jesus christ".

Quoted message said:

Well, I didn't want to register for the LA Times.

See bugmenot.com or http://roachfiend.com/archives/2005/02/07/bugmenot/
Here's the article intro:

Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC
# Civil rights action says the system's admissions policy discriminates
against students who are taught creationism and religious viewpoints.

--
E. Dronkert

It's impossible to overestimate the stupidity mankind is capable of.
Just when we think we've seen it all, somebody comes up with a better
idiot.
Bill C

Robert Chung said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Now I'm feeling a bit like a dummy. I attempted to enter the URL of
the LA Times in Bugmenot, and the response was "login failed". It
prompted me to create my own login which I did, but when I attempted to
use the login the LA Times prompted me for my email address.
What am I doing wrong?

Just enter http://www.latimes.com in the box at Bugmenot.com, the click
the button.
You'll see a login name and a password that you can use on the LA Times
registration box.

If you use Firefox, you can get a plug-in that'll let you right-click on
registration boxes.

Thanks, Robert!

Steve

Quoted message said:

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Robert Chung said:

And here are the liberals whining because a university has standards and
doesn't want to accept feel-good politically correct high school classes
as satisfying entrance requirements:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-christian27aug27,1,2941413,print.st
ory?coll=la-headlines-california

These guys are a bigger threat than Al-Qaida.

Words fail me because I wanted to say "god damn" or "jesus christ".

Quoted message said:

Well, I didn't want to register for the LA Times.

See bugmenot.com or http://roachfiend.com/archives/2005/02/07/bugmenot/
Here's the article intro:

Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC
# Civil rights action says the system's admissions policy discriminates
against students who are taught creationism and religious viewpoints.

Yet another POV:

http://www.venganza.org/

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

Yet another POV:

http://www.venganza.org/

RAmen.

Robert Chung said:

These guys are a bigger threat than Al-Qaida.

I'm pretty sure that you were being sarcastic, but you just might have
been right in reality. Al-Qaida is going to kill hundreds maybe
thousands of people, but wiping out freedom of speech which might allow
something like the Fascists or Soviets to come to power again in a
powerful western country would be much more likely to cause a whole lot
more death and devestation than Al-Qaida. Aren't you glad that you can
still speak out against the far right nutjobs in Europe, and just what
might happen if they couldn't be exposed for what they are?
Same thing here. I'm sure that our equivalent here would love a Pat
Robertson / Pat Buchanan ticket. I can't think of anything worse for
the world than that.
Bill C

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Robert Chung said:

And here are the liberals whining because a university has standards and
doesn't want to accept feel-good politically correct high school classes
as satisfying entrance requirements:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-christian27aug27,1,2941413,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Here's the article intro:

Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC
# Civil rights action says the system's admissions policy discriminates
against students who are taught creationism and religious viewpoints.

What kills me about this story is that the people who are
complaining: (1) want to keep their kids free of corrupting
secular influences so they send them to Christian schools
with special creationist science courses, etc.; but (2) want
their kids to have the secular trappings of/equipment for
success among the worldly, which requires, in their minds,
attending the University of California (which is a big
corrupting secular influence, and more power to it.)

I mean, it's natural to want the best for your kids, but it
amuses me that while they are willing to educate their kids
in religious high school with textbooks published by Bob Jones
(Segregationist) University, when push comes to shove they
want their kids to get the degree from UC, not Bob Jones U.

Fundamentalist Christians are not the only example of this
little paradox - there was a case a few years ago of
ultra-orthodox Jewish students who wanted Yale to give them
non-coed dorms, for example. I'm sort of curious how they
reconcile these attitudes toward the secular, but not enough
to actually get in a contentious discussion with one of the
subjects.

Quoted message said:

What kills me about this story is that the people who are
complaining: (1) want to keep their kids free of corrupting
secular influences so they send them to Christian schools
with special creationist science courses, etc.; but (2) want
their kids to have the secular trappings of/equipment for
success among the worldly, which requires, in their minds,
attending the University of California (which is a big
corrupting secular influence, and more power to it.)

I mean, it's natural to want the best for your kids, but it
amuses me that while they are willing to educate their kids
in religious high school with textbooks published by Bob Jones
(Segregationist) University, when push comes to shove they
want their kids to get the degree from UC, not Bob Jones U.

Fundamentalist Christians are not the only example of this
little paradox - there was a case a few years ago of
ultra-orthodox Jewish students who wanted Yale to give them
non-coed dorms, for example. I'm sort of curious how they
reconcile these attitudes toward the secular, but not enough
to actually get in a contentious discussion with one of the
subjects.

Remember this one?

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/kiryas.html

Quoted message said:

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

Bill C said:

My point is that real liberals do NOT defend censorship, and that's
all I meant by it. The right wing nutcases have been in favor of
censorship forever, it's just sad that the people who used to defend
freedom of speech and expression have now chosen to attack it.
Bill C

A nonsensical statement of your point of view, not of what makes up a
liberal or a conservative. There is as much reason to say a bedrock
conservative would be as much against censorship as any liberal.
Saying that a 'real liberal' does not defend censorship and implying a
real conservative does is what contributes to the polarized [censored] in
the U.S. and elsewhere.

How big a spot on all four quadrants do these 'real liberals' and real
conservatives occupy in your graph of the political universe? How many
of the approaching 300,000,000 in the U.S. meet your standards of
either? Or is it just possible that there are a lot of people of many
points on the political spectrum that don't care much for censorship?
And most will have someone right next to them in the same quadrant
that is all for censoring the other side...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

Bill C said:

My point is that real liberals do NOT defend censorship, and that's
all I meant by it. The right wing nutcases have been in favor of
censorship forever, it's just sad that the people who used to defend
freedom of speech and expression have now chosen to attack it.
Bill C

A nonsensical statement of your point of view, not of what makes up a
liberal or a conservative. There is as much reason to say a bedrock
conservative would be as much against censorship as any liberal.
Saying that a 'real liberal' does not defend censorship and implying a
real conservative does is what contributes to the polarized [censored] in
the U.S. and elsewhere.

How big a spot on all four quadrants do these 'real liberals' and real
conservatives occupy in your graph of the political universe? How many
of the approaching 300,000,000 in the U.S. meet your standards of
either? Or is it just possible that there are a lot of people of many
points on the political spectrum that don't care much for censorship?
And most will have someone right next to them in the same quadrant
that is all for censoring the other side...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

You're right it's too broad a statement, but I'm thinking back to the
60s/70s culture wars where you had good middle class housewives
protesting indecent movies and holding book burnings at the churches
for things like Catcher in the Rye, where on the other side you had
them fighting for women's sexual rights and control over their bodies,
supporting people like Lenny Bruce, Jack Kerouac, Gearge Carlin, and
Richard Pryor.
The problem is that the terminology has really failed to keep up the
changing times. Real "Liberals" the way I define them are the Kennedy
types who were on the front lines of opening up society, and getting
everyone's voices heard whether they liked them or not. Opening up
debate about all the issues and fighting for academic freedom to
discuss all subjects.
I'm really struggling with the "labels" here, and I know as well as
you do that labels are always going to inaccurate to some degree but
it's completely impractical to discuss every single person as an
individual in large issues, though you do have to consider the varying
shades of opinion as you point out. My problem today, and I think you
see it too is that national issues are being driven by extremist
activists on both ends of the spectrum who are both in favor of
censorship, as you pointed out. I don't care how you slice it, the
conservatives/right here have been censoring things in the name of
religion and decency for as long as this country has existed and their
leadership is still hammering away at it, and gaining ground IMO.
Unfortunately what used to be "liberals", which have now become
something else, have turned into a mirror image of the conservatives
and are just as adamant about censoring and punishing speech they don't
like. The doctor was punished for pointing out a very valid health
problem, but the "victim system", once again is more concerned with her
feelings than her physical health and the cost to all of society. That
same logic could just as easily be extended to alcoholism, smoking,
etc...They are already attacking foods, and restaurants they don't like
the same way they attacked the tobacco companies. I would guess that
those who stayed "liberal" are now mostly moderates of either party,
leaning libertarian, but noone is listening to them anymore.
I'm sure that you are correct in that there is a large portion of the
population that doesn't like censorship, but again noone is listening.
it's who screams the loudest. Perfect example here was when West Side
Story was banned from a local HS, because it was culturally
insensitive, and they just stonewalled anyone who protested, but they
did approve The Vagina Monologues as being perfectly acceptable and
culturally appropriate, again in spite of the protests. What makes me
crazy is that this is typical behavior for what is proudly
self-proclaimed as one of the most liberal areas, of one of the most
liberal states. Like I said "liberal" means something completely
different than it used to. If you've got a good new term please let me
know.
Bill C

Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

Fundamentalist Christians are not the only example of this
little paradox - there was a case a few years ago of
ultra-orthodox Jewish students who wanted Yale to give them
non-coed dorms, for example. I'm sort of curious how they
reconcile these attitudes toward the secular, but not enough
to actually get in a contentious discussion with one of the
subjects.

Remember this one?

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/kiryas.html

Yeah, my grandparents lived in Rockland County in that general
area. It is another good example of people who want to benefit
from the secular system but only under their rules, though that
link happens to give a very biased view of the Kiryas Joel
situation. There is a strain of religious separatism in parts
of Rockland and certain areas of Brooklyn; I'd be only a little
surprised if some radicals eventually start stoning buses that
run on Saturday (AFAIK this does happen in Jerusalem).

Quoted message said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

Fundamentalist Christians are not the only example of this
little paradox - there was a case a few years ago of
ultra-orthodox Jewish students who wanted Yale to give them
non-coed dorms, for example. I'm sort of curious how they
reconcile these attitudes toward the secular, but not enough
to actually get in a contentious discussion with one of the
subjects.

Remember this one?

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/kiryas.html

Yeah, my grandparents lived in Rockland County in that general
area. It is another good example of people who want to benefit
from the secular system but only under their rules, though that
link happens to give a very biased view of the Kiryas Joel
situation. There is a strain of religious separatism in parts
of Rockland and certain areas of Brooklyn; I'd be only a little
surprised if some radicals eventually start stoning buses that
run on Saturday (AFAIK this does happen in Jerusalem).

When I was a kid we visited the grandparents on Saturday, and returned
on Lee Ave. through Williamsburg, center of the Satmar chassidim. My
dad used to joke that we might get stoned. We never did, though that
seems more likely to have happened with the separatist Satmar than with
the more "in the world" Lubovitchers.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

When I was a kid we visited the grandparents on Saturday, and returned
on Lee Ave. through Williamsburg, center of the Satmar chassidim. My
dad used to joke that we might get stoned. We never did, though that
seems more likely to have happened with the separatist Satmar than with
the more "in the world" Lubovitchers.

Ah, when the Williamsburgers wearing black were Hasidim, not
hipster expatriates from lower Manhattan! The sects would
indeed behave differently. The Satmar would just stone you.
The Lubavitchers would only stone you if you were Jewish.
Then they would drag you out of the car, and ask you to do
a mitzvah by davening with them.

BTW, to drag this back to bicycles, a few years ago one of the
ultra-Orthodox sects opposed running a bike lane down one of
the main streets of Borough Park, because they claimed their
sensibilities would be corrupted by exposure to Lycra-clad cyclists.
No, I am not making this up (although some people think they
were really just trying to keep their ability to double-park
there, because forget religion, what really strikes to a
Brooklyner's heart is parking).

Quoted message said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

When I was a kid we visited the grandparents on Saturday, and returned
on Lee Ave. through Williamsburg, center of the Satmar chassidim. My
dad used to joke that we might get stoned. We never did, though that
seems more likely to have happened with the separatist Satmar than with
the more "in the world" Lubovitchers.

Ah, when the Williamsburgers wearing black were Hasidim, not
hipster expatriates from lower Manhattan! The sects would
indeed behave differently. The Satmar would just stone you.
The Lubavitchers would only stone you if you were Jewish.
Then they would drag you out of the car, and ask you to do
a mitzvah by davening with them.

BTW, to drag this back to bicycles, a few years ago one of the
ultra-Orthodox sects opposed running a bike lane down one of
the main streets of Borough Park, because they claimed their
sensibilities would be corrupted by exposure to Lycra-clad cyclists.
No, I am not making this up (although some people think they
were really just trying to keep their ability to double-park
there, because forget religion, what really strikes to a
Brooklyner's heart is parking).

Maybe 10 or so years ago there was this 17 y.o. Lubovitcher girl who
would ride with us and the homies in Prospect Park. She wore a skirt
over her cycling shorts.
She told me her parents didn't understand her. I told her when you're
17, those are the rules.

Steve

Quoted message said:

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

Steven Bornfeld said:

Maybe 10 or so years ago there was this 17 y.o. Lubovitcher girl who
would ride with us and the homies in Prospect Park. She wore a skirt
over her cycling shorts.

Like so? http://www.martyjemison.com/images/gallery/spain/091404/01lg.jpg
(short visible in previous shot 00lg.jpg).

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Maybe 10 or so years ago there was this 17 y.o. Lubovitcher girl who
would ride with us and the homies in Prospect Park. She wore a skirt
over her cycling shorts.

Like so? http://www.martyjemison.com/images/gallery/spain/091404/01lg.jpg
(short visible in previous shot 00lg.jpg).

No, actually a long, billowing denim skirt--amazing it didn't get
caught in her chain, actually.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001