Vort

That's because it's in the Adult Forum, and you're only 25.

They feel the need to counterbalance my cool rationality, incisive wit, and humble modesty.

YES!!! "Bless their hearts"! JAG has uncovered yet another motherlode vein to mine! I can't believe all the stupid, mindless drones who can't see the obvious truth right in front of their drooling mouths. Bless their hearts.

I've been waiting all day for someone to post an "acidic questions" thread, but no one did. I finally had to take it upon myself.

No, the "agree to disagree" excuse is used too soon and too frequently.If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a minor child should have state-sanctioned control over his education, regardless of his parents' desires. That is, if his parents want him to be educated at some particular institution but the minor child wants to pursue his education elsewhere, the child's will reigns supreme. Is this correct? Do you feel this way about other aspects of life? If a parent wants to take his minor child to Church but the child wants to stay home and play Nintendo, should the state require the parents to acquiesce to the child's demands? If the parents want to take the child to Italy but the kid wants to go to Disneyland, should the state enforce the child's wishes? How far will you take the sovereignty of the minor child over the will of the parents?

Not really. I just wanted the counterpart to Kamperfoelie's thread.

I like you even better than before.

No one thought this was funny? Seriously? Time for another 18-month hiatus.

Why not?Parent: Let's go, Junior. Time to do your math. Junior: I hate homeschool. Timmy says public school rocks. They talked about dinosaurs and sex. Maybe even dinosaur sex. Parent: Lovely. Get your math out. Junior: NO! I WANNA GO TO SCHOOL! Parent: Don't tempt me, kid... You're saying that the parent ought not be allowed to make the decision? That the nine-year-old child should have the final say in his education? I disagree.

I'm appalled that she called him "honey". I don't think such blatant flirting with a married man is at all appropriate. Especially from a Good Mormon Girl.

Skippy, you're a judgmental cretin. No offense. Wait, let me try again. Skippy, I know you mean well. Your sad judgmentalism and pathetic attempt to understand me illustrate the sorry state of your soul. But I know that you meant no harm. You simply lack the spiritual and intellectual facilities to engage me on my level. Am I offended when a child belches? Am I offended when a dog rides my leg? Am I offended when you offend me? Of course I am not. I am well above such puerile reactions. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm simply way ahead of you in my spiritual progression, and I understand that I must tolerate you. I mean, be tolerant of your ideas. In the end. I'm good. I'm a Mormon. And I'm a girl. Or at least two of those three. Or one. Even if I'm none of those, that's not really the point, is it? Quit changing the subject.

I love how you can use the phrase "no offense" to allow you to say anything you want.I really hate dealing with the morons on this site. No offense.

The best thing about threads on judgmentalism is the liberal use of the word "scumbag".

Same idea with mammalian body hair. In my childhood, it was well-understood that dinosaurs were simply gigantic reptiles just like we have today, and therefore obviously cold-blooded. It was therefore clear that the climate of the time was uniformly hot and that dinosaurs didn't -- indeed, couldn't -- live in cooler climates, perhaps even temperate climates. The idea of warm-blooded therapods revolutionized all that. Insulative body covering, such as with hair (mammals) or feathers (birds), then becomes an obvious advantage.Feathers are marvelously insulative, much moreso than body hair. Yet there are flying creatures the size of birds that have no feathers (e.g. bats). So feathers appear to be more closely tied to endothermy than to flight. I don't know which is scarier: That they offer a special class in herpes, or that you took it.

Scylla was bothered enough by the question to start a thread on it. The answer seems obvious: She should discuss this with her stake president (or bishop). If it's nothing, he'll tell her it's nothing. If it's huge, he'll tell her it's huge. And if it's a minor thing that she needs to be cleansed of, he'll tell her that. That's the beauty of having a Priesthood holder with authority to judge.

Are you talking about the education of minors, so-called "higher education", or both? Education will improve dramatically when, and only when, parents accept the ultimate responsibility for educating their children instead of expecting the state to take care of it for them. Since this is utterly at odds with the teachers' unions, and since the teachers' unions are the most powerful unions in the US at the present time, I don't see this as an easy change.

I adjudge your judgment of judgmentalism as judgmental.Oops, wrong thread.

I think you misread what Ram wrote. He suggests that 15,000 years ago, the beginning of our present inter-ice-age period saw the extinction of all hominids except modern humans. He said nothing about any earliest human ancestor.

You're thinking of a profound Jack Handey quote:Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.

In all seriousness, avian evolution is a truly fascinating study. Wikipedia has a good article on avian evolution. Birds are a much more ancient type of animal than most of us realize. They were around during the Cretaceous, the last stand of the dinosaurs. The best guess today is that birds derive from a type of dinosaur closely related to Velociraptor of Jurassic Park fame*. The feathers, hollow bones, and wing development are currently hot topics of debate in the evolution community, of which I'm not a part so I really can't tell you much more. *Though it may seem a frighteningly accurate documentary about dinosaurs, Jurassic Park is not without its subtle flaws. For example, most of the dinosaurs featured in it weren't Jurassic dinosaurs. And most therapods were probably feathered. And Tyrannosaurs (which led violent and very injury-prone lives) likely scavenged much of their food, much like modern top predators. Plus the dialog was inane, the plot contrived, and the animation over-the-top to the point of absurdity. But other than that, great movie.

In e.g. the UK, living members cannot be sealed in the temple without first being married civilly. Thus, they are not "those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so." American Saints, in general, would be such.

Those that judge others are scumbags.

My usual response to this is, "You need to hold your breath as you squeeze the trigger." But I see I've been preempted. Hi, Wingnut!

The Church's view is that man did not evolve from dinosaurs. Turkeys and hummingbirds did.

In many countries outside the US, such as most of Europe, LDS temple sealings are not recognized as official weddings. In those cases, LDS members are allowed to marry according to the law of the land and then receive their sealing immediately afterward, usually within a week. Since LDS temple sealings are recognized in the US as legal weddings, no such special arrangement is needed.