Carborendum

Yup. Isn't that interesting?

One golden take away: Whether there is systemic racism or not, the duty of the family and society is to encourage people to do better regardless of "reality". Everyone has challenges, and everyone has the duty to push against the challenges and succeed anyway. The greater the challenge, the less success may be obtained. But it is the effort that makes it easier for the next generation. To simply "give up" or blame "they system" is the excuse to not make that effort.

I'm going brush off my prognosticator's robe and go down the doom and gloom road again. IF THESE SHADOWS REMAIN UNALTERED BY THE FUTURE, THIS NATION WILL DIE. If anyone sees an end to this, then let me know. Otherwise, it is only a question of what nation we will have after this one dies. Show me that we are not the nation we see on the news. Show me that this trial is what will will awaken the nation to our awful state. Show me we're not past hope. Show me we can arise anew. Show me that the common man will learn the lessons of the past, present, and future, all in one combined. Show me that we will honor God, Country, and Family. Show me that Faith in Christ will rise from this. Show me that we will learn to kneel only for the King of Kings and no other, that He may heal this land.

But you see, a brick to the head need not have been fatal had it not been for the damage COVID had already done to the victim's body.

Yes. Yes. and YES! Thank you.

So, here is the first pick. It is approximately 20" long. Weighing in at 27 lbs. I opened it and was somewhat disappointed. But it was actually a success. As you can see, the seeds are not ripe. The meat is pink instead of the nice ruby red that we hope for. So, why was it a success? I plucked it when the curly-cue was just yellowing rather than completely brown. So, it was a week or so early. I bit into it. The sweetness level was about what you'd get at the store. So, for a premature melon to have the sweetness of a regular melon is pretty nice. We'll see for sure with the next one.

Remember, he's not saying it is not accurate. He's saying it is "Not Accurate". (nudge nudge, wink wink).

A while back Egard Watches put out a video as a counterpoint to the Gillette "toxic masculinity" ad. Because of the overwhelmingly positive response, they began a campaign "We See The Good" where they invited people to upload videos of positive male role-models in their lives. I saw a couple of them. One was particularly interesting because he noted that his father was a deeply flawed man (alcoholic). But as he (the son) got older, he recognized all the good in him. And due to his father's untimely death (the son was 16) he grew up without a father. Since then he began to realize how much positive influence he had from his father. I'd like to invite everyone to talk about some positive role-models in their lives. It doesn't have to be male. But that would be the spirit of this thread. ********** I'll start ********************** I have mentioned that I had problems with both my fathers. But I do see the positive. There were remarkable similarities between the two. Both were entrepreneurs. Both worked their fingers to the bone to support their families. Both had businesses that were struggling to make ends meet. But eventually both built businesses that were thriving. They both made a name for themeselves in the community. Both were concerned for both our temporal and spiritual welfare. Both were flawed human beings to the point where it was difficult to live with them -- even in retrospect, they really could have been better. But also in retrospect, they could have easily been much worse. Both had anger management issues. Both did their best to change that. *********************************************************************************** My biological father was what Americans would call abusive. But in Korea, he was not. At some point, his abuse of my mother drove her away. I never saw her again. I only remember two conversations I had with him -- which I won't go into at this time. But they showed he cared about my life and was trying to make sure I knew what it was to be a human being instead of an animal. There were several problems I had growing up that should have made him blow his top. But he seemed to take it in stride. He taught me good values (as Koreans saw it). He made sure we went to church every Sunday and we learned Christian principles. He made sure I learned proper dress and grooming. In retrospect, I think this was ridiculous considering our indigence. We didn't have indoor plumbing, but we were not going to have cavities. But whatever it was, I was raised by a man who worked his fingers to the bone every day, was concerned for our temporal welfare, and our spiritual welfare. ************************************************************************************ My adoptive father was very quick to apply the rod. He was selfish in many ways. He had some serious character flaws for which he should have gone to jail. But he didn't. He worked on improving all his life. I don't know if he has the mental capacity to do so now -- dementia. He has always been a hypocrite. He made sure we knew correct principles even though he violated the principles more often than anyone I personally knew growing up. He preached them well. And he enforced them. The interesting thing about it all was that it worked. We all knew that he was guilty of anything he preached against -- more guilty than any of us. But we also knew that his hypocrisy was no excuse for us to be that way. His hypocrisy actually served as a warning of how NOT to be. I hate being a hypocrite more than nearly any other sin I'm guilty of. So, when it is pointed out to me, it seems to double my efforts to curb that behavior. ************************************************************************ Both fathers were entrepreneurs. I didn't have a chance of not running my own business. Both fathers worked really hard. I didn't have a chance of not being a workaholic. Both fathers had anger management issues... I'm... working on it. In the end, I have to recognize that despite many failures they had, they were the men who shaped my soul. They taught me good principles. They were concerned for my well being. And despite all their flaws, they did the best they could to provide for both my temporal and spiritual well-being.

Today I discovered the video most of us have been waiting for: It's probably just a matter of time before Youtube blocks the video. A powerful reminder that the bad cops we see are only a tiny portion of the cops out there. It is easy to say "but there shouldn't even be ONE bad cop." But reality must still be addressed. Mankind is flawed. That is why we have government at all. That's why we have a justice system. One thing I was thinking of -- even before I saw this video -- was that we are very happy to give a criminal the benefit of the doubt. But in the public square, we have the tendency to not give the same to police . Example 1: A particular court case had a young teen who was growing up in the ghetto and in a gang-infested area being tried for murder. The situation was such that he noticed the telltale signs of a drive-by shooting. So, he defended himself by shooting as soon as the window started rolling down. Because he shot first, he was considered the instigator, and therefore guilty. The argument was that 1) Given his upbringing and environment, he had every reason to believe his life was in danger. So he was acting in self-defense. Justifiable. Not-guilty. 2) In the aftermath, they did indeed find that the party in the car were members of a rival gang and they had their guns out already. So, he was right. I don't remember what the verdict was. Example 2: A cop gets called to a particularly dangerous situation and in the ensuing chase, he gets shot. It is life-threatening, but he heals. He had no idea that the guy was even armed because the suspect ran off before he could get close enough to even make such an assessment. But the common practice would be to believe they are armed, just like "a gun is always loaded." Years later (because a dutiful cop does not quit the force, if he heals properly) he's on another call and a similar thing happens. Years later another call that is not violent. But he is called and encounters a suspect resisting arrest. He has not searched him, but "the gun is always loaded." In the struggle, the cop ends up shooting him. (Exact details to be determined). Why can't we give the cop the benefit of the doubt" Given his past history, he would be inclined to approach a resisting suspect with "the gun is always loaded." Is that wrong? No, but if it happened that the suspect was unarmed during a struggle, it makes the news. The cop is blamed for shooting an unarmed man. Ferguson, Missouri

I remember. But I don't believe it is unassailable. I just find that it is "quite convenient" in explaining an awful lot... without actually explaining anything.

Or perhaps it is has more to do with our understanding of the true nature of time.

That was one doctor told me when I asked him about medication vs agency and trials, etc. (He happened to be LDS -- randomly found). This medication was not meant to be a permanent fix. It was supposed to be something that gave me a chance to pause and collect myself without this cloud of darkness surrounding me. Then we can work on real therapy that will actually be the permanent fix. In the movie A Beautiful Mind (FTR: Schizophrenia, not depression, but whatever) you hear Walter Nash say near the end "I'm on a new medication..." In real life, Nash never went back on medication. He simply worked through it. Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman decided that it would be irresponsible to let people see this movie and decide to simply forego medication for such a severe condition as schizophrenia. They may have a point. But depression is different. I know some friends who have actually been helped by medication. They swear by it. But on the whole, there are an awful lot of medications that have been added to the arsenal and many which have been taken off. With such a turn around, it is a turkey shoot whether you're going to be helped or not by various medications. I believe the reason why is two-fold: Many medications really are junk or even dangerous. As a non-proffessional I can't really give a list of which are good and which are bad. But it is not as exact a science as they believe it is. This also admits that there are many that are good and will actually work. The causes of depression are manifold. So, if a doctor gives a prescriptions because of the symptoms rather than the cause, it's hit or miss if the medication is the right one. Because I haven't seen a doctor about depression in years, that condition may have made progress (this is the one concession I'll make). But it was flat out dangerous when I was being treated.

Not CIA or FBI, but I thought I'd relate an experience I had. I had just moved into a ward and was given a home teaching assignment. I was sought out my new companion, and we spoke about getting with our stewardship. He said that because of the elections, he was going to be on the road a lot for his job. "Elections? What do you do for a living?" "I'm in the Secret Service." "Wait.!?! You're a Secret Service agent?" "Yes." "... Whoa... I've never met one before." "Yeah." "Ok, so I guess I'll be going with one of my sons." "Sorry."

I was referring to the first part of the post: You only mentioned the rest as an even worse case scenario. But I'll address an interesting point you brought up. I think most of us do. Even today, women don't go into dangerous (high potential for death or dismemberment) jobs at nearly the same rate as men do. Even with offers of EOE, they simply don't apply at the same rate. Sure feminists talk a good talk about equality. But even they don't want to talk about this phenomenon because they know that physically speaking, we simply aren't equal. The smaller percentage of women who can take it certainly are welcome when they apply. But the larger percentage of men who apply will get hired if they are qualified. We know that without civil society, women will be treated much worse than they are in a civilize first world country. So, if things break down as you say, they will be pushed back to the "safe spaces" and very few will be accepted on the front lines.

When I heard him say that he had looked thoroughly into the church, I'd have asked him, then what is the counter argument to the claim you just made? He wouldn't be able to answer because he only heard one side of the argument and made a decision. Well, that certainly sounds like looking into the matter THOROUGHLY. So much for the scientific mind and rationalism. Sounds more like rationalizing than rationalism.

Good point. At least Atheists will still apply the same standard to a "dirty old man" named Joseph marrying a 13 year old virgin. And we're supposed to believe he was married to her and slept int he same bed, yet he didn't have sex with her for at least 9 months? Yeah, I'd believe that.

Everyone, we have a celebrity joining us. You may all know her as L. Carter. But for those of us who are old school, she shall always be known as "Wonder Woman". (Now we'll find out that L. stands for Larry or something)

I've gone through this entire thread and I don't see any missing link or blocked video. I guess I didn't miss it. But thanks anyway. I wish I knew which one it was so I can figure out what was so objectionable about it.

which video?

Sometimes I wish I were. I'd make a lot more money. I knew someone in a previous ward who changed careers and went to study law. When he graduated, he got a job making very nearly $1MM /yr. He had done some work with lawyers before. And some of them were impressed enough that they told him that if he applied his skills to the law full-time and got his degree and license, he'd have a job with them. He had no idea how much of a jump that would be. But he was happy. There is an awful lot of law in engineering. People don't realize that when we read the building code or the mechanical code or the electrical code, these are CODES, i.e. LAWS. We have to go through the careful study of each word and punctuation mark. We also have to write specifications which are LEGAL DOCUMENTS. We have to learn how to phrase things with the least degree of ambiguity and cover our butts for exceptions, exclusions, etc. And, let's face it, there are enough jokes out there that engineers don't argue to come to a conclusion. They just argue because they like it. But FTR, what I wrote was sincere.

I am unaware of another time in recent memory that I was annoyed at you. Are you sure it was annoyance? The only other exchange I even remember was about the Mark of the beast. And that wasn't annoyance. It was,"Oh, I guess she didn't catch this. I'll let her know." Fair enough. But at least you can understand where I was coming from now. Help do what? I'm not really trying to beat you down on this. And after laying out the above points, I'm more puzzled than anything else -- not annoyed (anymore). Remember I was asking about a local's take on the topic -- i.e. what are locals aware of that we are not hearing in the news? And then you go to the news to find out what is going on? That puzzles me.

Ok, I was going to let it go, but you're the second person to try to point this out. I've posted the actual definition from the dictionary, not your personal version of what you thought it meant. And I never saw any reports on Fox News regarding this. But thank you for reducing me to a drone who only repeats what he hears. I thought you had a higher opinion of me than that. I deduced from the fact that these were PROTESTERS that they must be, I dunno... angry about something. So, when a LARGE GROUP of such people move en masse into a facility, it would be considered "storming". Nothing we see in your videos changes that characterization.

It was common enough that it wasn't scandalous at the time. Today, average female marriage age: 27.6. But still, many women get married at 18 or 19. That's a difference of almost 10 years or 36% below the average. But not considered scandalous. In the 1800s average female marriage age: 22. - 36% = 14 to 15 yrs. (and BTW, the average age in the earlier 1900s dropped to about 20 years for a while). Do the math, folks. The fact is that marriage at 18 or 19 is a social construct. It is adulthood according to the law of the land. But people did marry younger than that age in the past. It was NOT scandalous to do so back then. We just have different sensibilities today.

Not mutually exclusive. A perfect example of how we're GROWING and yet still subject to Prejudice: We tried for years to find land for a new Stake Center. But we were routed at every turn until we finally found a place. The fact that we needed a new Stake Center points to our growth. The fact that we were routed says we're subject to prejudice. --this is not an isolated incident. The stake presidency says that many stakes around the region are experiencing the same thing: growth and resistance.