CaptainTux

It lets you read the e-mails sent, see web sites visited and review information. In other words, you get the detailed information on keys pressed and the application that the user typed them to while the key logger was running. Employers and identity thieves have been using this software for years and parents are starting to take advantage of this powerful took. It is usually marketed as family monitoring software.

I am not so sure about that. That said, in most self defense classes, you will see people are taught to defend and find the first opportunity to flee. Flight has kept more people alive than any weapon I know of.Your theory has one painful side effect. Escalation. If we all have guns, well, we may all want to have flak jackets. If we all have body armor, we may all need armor piercing bullets. Well, now we will all need.......

I have me one of those 17 year old daughters in my life. I allow her to use myspace. Computer stays in common area. She does not know it yet, but 18th Bday will involve a shiny new Apple Laptop. To use myspace and yahoo and aim and email...I am to have all passwords. She also knows that when she logs into the computer under her user id, that there is a keylogger involved. Now, here is the kicker. Yes, I monitor her myspace to see who she has as a friends, but I have never used her passwords once. Why? She has not given me cause to. It is our jobs to restrict you a protect you, but if you give us responsibility, we will treat ya like an adult. Guess what...most sexual predatory behavior is still an inside job. Crazy Uncle Ted is more of a threat than Big_john-4zzzzzzz-yx

That is one dry book. I will not argue, but I will debate and gladly discuss and share Good News. You cannot Argue good news. Well, you could, I suppose, but it would no longer be good...but really rather tiring news proved right.....hm. I believe the issue about debate is that we have forgotten what that means. In many ways, we have forgotten to teach children about the art of conversation. We never realized that communication would be replaced with smileys and LOL. We never knew that text messages would be more popular than compete sentences. Debate is NOT arguing. Debate is a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal. It is rather like a dance...something with structure like a box step or a waltz. We fear offense and misconstrue meaning too often these days to have real debates. A real exchange of ideas requires two parties looking to express themselves and challenge each other as opposed to looking for gotchas.

ADD, IMO, is what happens to a child when their parents pay no attention to them. If that be the case, than far more kids exist with an attention deficit disorder that we know.

Is the gospel up for debate? Yes, it is. The question, however, should not be "who wins?" but who loses?If I cannot provide the validity of my faith in Christ, I may not be allowed to practice said faith if the Gospel is written off to have as much validity as the A*Teens (which we all know should have never happened). More importantly, if I enter into debate with a skeptic, what happens to him or her if I lose the debate from not knowing my facts or sheer cowardice of conflict? They walk away with the whispers of lies still in their head. What cost can you place on the life of one soul? It was worth the life of the son of God. That soul that just walked away was worth a blood sacrifice. The life that was shed for that man was NOT without passion. In anger, He turned over tabled, He called the leaders a brook of vipers, whitewashed walls, and full of poo. He stood toe to toe with those who would insult him sometimes and even asked a woman (who just asked for His aid) why he should do something for a mere dog like her. Passion and zeal for truth and a willingness to mix it up a bit is not without it's precedent. Debate over the Gospel was pretty much a third of Paul's journeys in Acts. Sometimes with his own life in danger.

I think the reason is this. The world is full of cynical, bitter, and jaded people. It is rather a pandemic we are in. You have to be an optimist. Idealism is easy, living it is hard. I envy the innocent idealist. Someone like Jimmy Stewart's character in Mr Smith Goes to Washington has to be who he is. He knows nothing else. Me? My dad took off when I was 4. Not too uncommon, but it set the stage for my addict mother to marry a man when I was nine who thought it was okay to beat women and children. I left that environment when I was 13 to live with my grandparents barely human. Getting through that and somehow recreating a human being from scratch (long story there, suffice to say I decided to have a personality and the lie eventually became me). I would learn to love and eventually marry a great woman who grounded a wild child with a chip on his shoulder. We had Jess and Jess would be diagnosed with a heart defect at 3 months old. We almost lost our marriage over that. It was a hard road back. In the last 4 years I have had three critical surgeries not knowing if I would either come out of them or have a full recovery. A recent neurological condition has given me a time clock to fight to do what I feel I need to do. Dance at my daughters' weddings and run one marathon to completion. I could go on. Suffice it to say life has hammered me and in my path I have seen the worst humanity has to offer and the worst I have to offer has always been held at bay. If what I have experienced was all there was for me, I would not be able to go on. Life has to be better than this, society has to be better than this, we as a culture have to be better. There is an ideal. Being an idealist gives me a goal, a target. Even if I never see it, at least I aimed for something. At least I gave my last breath clawing and scratching for it never giving up hope that it is there. At least I lived my life on the high road and left this dump a little cleaner than it was when I get here in 1970. At least I (hopefully) will have inspired my daughters to be greater than the sum of her parts and know love and have a strong foundation laid to build whatever kind of life she wants for herself. My, that was pretty frelling cathartic. Sorry 'bout that. Cheers

A mere extrapolation from other data gleaned from other posts. I do not usually play the micro quote rule. In a social circumstance one does not say.."On 4/23/06 at 4:21, you had said...blah blah blah words words words." Not any fun. If I maligned your thoughts in any way, please consider it an honest error not warranting of sarcastic reply...in other words, like Earth, I am mostly harmless. I will agree that to come to a Mormon centric site to insult a Mormon makes about as much sense as someone running into Chevy/'Vette fest in Chicago, register, buy a ticket, etc just to run to the middle of the showroom and shout "Chevy ######, Fords rule!" then laugh and wet yourself. However, you will find that in pretty much any forum you will see this behavior. I mod a few Linux sites and I see people come in to distro bash and run. Go to a Star Trek site and you will see Star Trek haters. The best you can do is to report violations and rude behavior to a mod and put offensive people on ignore if the forum software has such a feature. Those are what is known as trolls. They go to forums and make a lot of noise and bug people for the express purpose of getting a rise out of you. The phrase, don't feed the troll means to ignore them. I dunno know why people hate Mormons. Some people do. They consider you dangerous and icky. I will tell you this about the house that Heather built. The LDS members here have answered the tough questions I had here forthrightly and honestly without the sugar coating the missionaries or the host families of the missionaries gave me. I respect that. I am not LDS, but I have gained a new respect for the LDS because of this site and the friends that I have made here. Some of these people are people that I would like to meet in person one day. Here is the kicker about the whole anti thing. Some of the people that have been labeled "anti" here are some of the ones who have helped me develop a respect for the LDS and consider them to be my brothers and sisters. Not really sure where I am going with this. I am rambling. Cheers

That reminds me of what my doctor told me the other day. He sat me down and told me that the good news is that I am not paranoid...the bad news is...well, everyone IS out to get me.

I am not lds (big shock there), but I am not hearing a firm answer on this issue. Perhaps it is one of those things that exists in many denomination. Some do not consume alcohol, some do not allow dancing, some do not allow women to wear pants, some ask for no meant on Friday's. Sometimes there is no deep reason for these things or the original reason is now long forgotten. At the end of the day..no one is harmed by not consuming coffee....more for me?

That sounds like a decision for the young girl to make on her own or with the aid of her Bishop, parents, or other appointed leaders as to her ability to conduct herself on the forums, not for another person, who quite frankly, is as argumentative as quite a few of the folk on this forum.

Dr T If I am safe in assuming you mean the equatorial circumference, than the answer to your query is about 23,627 miles.

You are exceptional for your age. You know what you want and why you want it. I do not know the exact stats, but most kids involved in church "fall away" sometime between college and 25 years of age. They were so sheltered in the sub culture that they were never properly equipped to deal with life on the outside. I immersed myself in the subculture in my mid teens and stayed there until I was 20 and took a job at a car wash. I was ill prepared for life at the car wash...let alone life in a secular college. I know that Mrs S meant no harm in her advise to you. I think you have handled yourself well and I hope you continue to stick around.

I will not speak on what laws should or should not be passed. A gun is a tool. For the police, it is used to serve and protect. For the military, same thing. For the hunter, it is either used for sport or for food. I suppose I like where the amish come from on the use of the gun as a weapon. I have no use for it to defend my life or the life of my family. I am not sure there is any one piece of legislation that will resolve this horrible issue. What legislation does one pass to fix broken hearts and a broken world?

Fascinating queries. How did I find Jesus? A very long story, I may tell it here one day. Suffice it to say that a polio survivor with a deformed body who stood about 4 and a half feet tall become a giant to me in 1986. I met a man who had a harder life than mine who was not cynical, bitter, and jaded. He set the example for me. Do I believe I could defend my faith? Yes. Apologetics and debate is fascinating to me. I willfully engage in such activities often. Can I prove it scientifically? No. Can a prove it as a lawyer proves a hypothesis in civil court? Yep. How far would I go? I would willfully relinquish my own life or that of my family before denying faith and that is not something I say lightly. Would I assault another? Nyet. As far as your main issue. I suggest you read the community standards and enjoy the gift you have. When you remove terms like anti, them, and us...you may just find fellowship here.

You missed nothing. I have been a bit busy with priorities. Online socializing is rahter low on the totem pole of important things. no offense to anyone, of course.

I know those days. I hate those days and am glad that they are rare. I wish I could say it was God and prayer. However, prayer is what I do in the moments of despair. What anchors my sanity is thinking about my daughters smile and my wife's eyes. The people that need me and love me most and the people that need me sane most become my stabilizer in a symbiotic relationship.

I remember the movie coming out and I remember being interested, but I never got around to seeing it. I do not think one can prove the existence of God, creation, miracles, the correctness of pro life, etc. It really is about having the better position and the better argument. With enough other facts and information to back you up, you can make a better case.

It is very simple. In many debates on moral, philosophical, and religious issues it is EXTREMELY rare for two people to enter into a conversation and have one sway the other to their position. This leaves you with two choices. Give the debate a structured and finite period, or be intellectually dishonest and continue it until the horse is beaten dead and buried. Of course in a debate I want to win. I believe that it is my position that is correct and yours that is incorrect. In a finite period I am forced to get to the crux of the matter swiftly and lay all my cards on the table. One of a few things will happen with some sub categories. I will win or I will lose. If I win, it may be because my position is superior, or it may be that my argument was better, but I had the weaker position. The same is true if I lose. Let's face it. When you play baseball or football or chess...you usually know when you wer outplayed or outplayed the opponent...or when luck came into play. If I walk away the loser...I have to analyze why. I grow from this. If I win...I SHOULD analyze why. I grow from this. I like structure and I like finite in such discussions as these. I think if we used more logic like this we would have happier marriages, stronger nation, and more productive work environments. Mrs Tux and I have rules of engagement regarding arguments. Simple things like you cannot drag relatives into the argument or hurl personal insults that degrade the person. Anger is not allowed to hold past bedtime...if that mneans we have to stay up all night...so be it. It is fun to debate formally. Try it. Structured debates have forced me to change my view or deeply rethink my view on many things. Abortion, evolution, politics, vouchers for school, death penalty, etc etc etc. There have been times in research I realized I was on the wrong side of the fence on an issue, but I had to fulfill my duty as a competitor and earn points for my team...but walked away with a new persecutive and growth.

Thank you, sir. Even the blind squirrel gets a nut once in awhile.

An interesting link to say the least. Part of the logic of some form of structure for a debate, Dr T is to give is a finite timeframe to make our arguments and counterpoints. Otherwise we will have threads that go on and on and get circular and eventually degenerate into semantics For me, debate is about more than proving my position "right". It is about exchanging thoughts and ideas that differ in a mature and rational method. Such exercises not only help you better understand why you believe what you believe, but it also challenges you to look at another point of view. To prepare my arguments and counter arguments, I have to anticipate your points....this forces me to analyze the weaknesses in my own rational and either re evaluate or discover more information to firm them up. Debate and conversation is an art form and a dance that is lost in the United States and few people use these tools to grow anymore. We no longer seek enlightenment and wisdom and growth, rather, we entrench ourselves into a position that is sometimes based on hyperbole and regurgitation of the thoughts of others with no independent research on our parts as to the veracity of the claims we believe are our own, but are actually the ramblings of others.

Normal discussion without a set of rules and structure is just loose discussion. Being forced into a format will keep it short and be a challenge for each of us. I am open to alternative methods, however.

Here are the proposed online rules that might be interesting. I modified some general debate rules to accommodate us online. I would recommend a third party to moderate and enforce the rules and three judges who promise to be impartial. 1. Introductory Provisions (Objectives) The aim of the debate is intended to educate while teaching sportsmanship and social etiquette as well. Favoring one or more of these aspects at the expense of others is to misunderstand the fundamental principles of constructive debate. In view of that, participants agree: * to adhere to the principles of fair play, decent behaviour and mutual respect to the best of their abilities * not to knowingly use untrue information; * to be willing to debate given resolution, 2. Debate Format Two people participate in each debate. One is given the role of the affirmative side, the other one the negative. The selection of the role (side) shall be conducted in a way announced beforehand to both persons by the organizer of the debate or agreed upon by the two persons.. 2.1 Roles of Individual Speakers A1 The debate is started by the first member of the affirmative side (A1). He/she has the right to define the resolution. S/he introduces the criterion (if the resolution allows one), and then outlines the structure and organization of the defense of the resolution. S/he presents the focus of argumentation and the basic arguments of his /her side. After A1 finishes his/her speech, s/he is cross-questioned by the speaker of the negative side (N1). N1 The speaker of the negative side (N1) must accept the given definition, unless it contradicts the rules of the competition. Her/his primary task is to deal with the arguments of the affirmative side (i.e. to refute or accept them). After s/he thinks s/he has managed his/her task, s/he shall present his/her case and major arguments. S/he can also introduce their own criterion. After finishing his/her speech, N1 is cross-questioned by the speaker of the affirmative side (A1). A1 The speaker of the affirmative side (A1) primarily supports the arguments which have been challenged/refuted by N1. S/he refutes the refutation (i.e. rebuts). If the negative side presented their own case, s/he shall refute it. After s/he thinks s/he has managed his/her task, s/he shall continue in the argumentation of the affirmative side. After finishing his/her speech, A1 is cross-questioned by the speaker of the negative side. N1 The speaker of the negative side (N1) shall first challenge what A1 tried to rebut (primarily challenges the challenge of the refutation), and then s/he challenges new arguments presented by A1. After s/he thinks s/he has managed her/his task, s/he continues in the argumentation of her/his side (provided that the negative side, beginning with N1, had decided to build own constructive case). After finishing his/her speech, N1 is cross-questioned by the speaker of the aff. side. 3. Rules of a Debate 3.1 Criterion Concerning policy resolutions a criterion is a popularly accepted desirable aim which sets the line of the case. A criterion serves this function (setting the line of the case) also with the non-policy resolutions (factual and value resolutions) where it could be understood as either a standard or a goal. 3.2 Definition The purpose of the definition is to explain how the affirmative side understands the resolution and what they want to discuss. The affirmative side has the right to define the resolution in any way provided that: - the definition does not depart from the common meaning of the resolution; - the meaning of the words is not twisted purposefully; - the definition is ”reasonable”. The negative side is allowed to challenge the definition only if the definition in question does not conform to the above-mentioned rules. If the negative side challenges the definition, this must be done by N1, who will explain why the definition does not conform to the rules and will offer a revised definition. Negative strategy is considered fallacious if the team challenges the definition without explaining the necessity of doing so during the course of the debate (purposeless challenge for challenge only). The clash in a competitive debate should be over arguments, not over the definition. A1 may challenge the revised definition only when it does not conform to the above mentioned rules. The right of definition is a right (not necessarily a duty) of the affirmative side. If the affirmative side does not provide the definition, this right is passed to the speaker of the negative side. If s/he wants to use this right, s/he can do so provided s/he conforms to the above-mentioned rules. 3.3 The Task of the Affirmative Side Where the resolution is expressed as a factual one, the affirmative side must prove that resolution holds true in a decisive/persuasive number of cases, which has been specified by the definition (criterion) and accepted by the negative side. 3.4 Who Wins the Debate The debate is won by the affirmative team if, on the basis of its argumentation, it upheld the resolution debated. The debate is won by the negative team if, on the basis of its argumentation, it disproved the affirmative case or put it into serious doubt. When the debate is evaluated the “strength” of the arguments is taken into consideration. The negative speaker does not necessarily have to disagree with all of the steps in the affirmative party’s process of supporting the resolution. As long as it proves the invalidity of the conclusions derived from this process, it still can win the debate. 3.5 Negative Case The negative side does not have to present its own case in the debate. It should concentrate on attacking the affirmative side’s case. However, if the negative party does decide to present their own case, it is still their task to prove that the affirmative case is not valid and, at the same time, to prove that their own case is valid. It is then the duty of the affirmative side to not only prove their own case, but to also disprove the negative case. Affirmative and negative cases must be mutually exclusive - they can not coexist side by side and be both valid at the same time. 3.6 Argumentation Persons should concern themselves with using logical arguments supported by relevant evidence. 3.7 Refutation The task of the negative side is to refute or put into a serious doubt the affirmative case as a whole. If the affirmative side has used a number of pieces of evidence to support one argument, and the negative side is able to refute that main point with one counterargument, the negative team can this way refute the whole group of pieces of evidence together. However, to disprove a piece of evidence does not necessarily mean disproving the argument. 3.8 Argument supporting evidence If the evidence is considered to be generally known, it is not necessary for individual speakers to explicitly prove its reliability. (Basic annotation is still a necessity though.) However, if the party is introducing surprising facts, statistics, etc., it must be ready to prove the authenticity of their evidence to the adjudicators. 3.9 Impromptu Debate Based on the decision of the organizer, some debates may be impromptu, i.e. the debaters do not know the topic beforehand. The preparation time and procedure for the impromptu debate are determined by the organizer of the debate provided that: - both parties receive the resolution at the same time; - both parties are provided with similar preparation conditions.

If there were grounds rules established to the debate, I would seriously consider it.

It would have to have to be organized and have judges. It is not about proof per se, it is about having the better argument and better position. It is interesting that most astronomers are theists and most earth sciences are atheists. It is too hard to look into the stars, see the organization of the universe and deny intelligent design and write it off as random behavior.The evolution/creation debate is just too easy these days. yawn.......