[George M. Middius[_4_]]

According to a story in USA Today, a fabulous new treatment for stupidity
is on the horizon.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
ability, or cognition, hit the market.

"The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.
"What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
short-term to long-term memories."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-07-07-smart-pills-main_x.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well, they're not talking about sudden increases in IQ, but it may help
you anyway. What are you taking for your ADD? I'd like to find out whether
it will conflict with these new Smart Pills.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 12, 1:46*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
According to a story in USA Today, a fabulous new treatment for stupidity
is on the horizon.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
ability, or cognition, hit the market.

"The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.
"What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
short-term to long-term memories."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-07-07-smart-pills-main_x.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well, they're not talking about sudden increases in IQ, but it may help
you anyway. What are you taking for your ADD? I'd like to find out whether
it will conflict with these new Smart Pills.

2pid's faith in god having a plan for him will not allow him to take
these pills. It's similar to his not supporting gay marriage because
he's afraid of god's wrath.

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

George M. Middius wrote...

Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.

Helicon Therapeutics, Inc. has moved from Farmingdale NY to San Diego
CA!

One would think that it would have been much cheaper to buy Scott a
plane ticket to NY.

An interesting company that. I could use some of those memory pills.

--
Ken

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 12, 2:46 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
ability, or cognition, hit the market.

"The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year.
"What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
short-term to long-term memories."

Yet "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

John Atkinson wrote...

Yet "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

It's about hope, I expect they prefer "The Marching Morons"

--
Ken

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

ScottW wrote...

Ken,
You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.

You're right it was childish and thoughtless.

Sorry.

--
Ken

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 1:11*am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 3:46*pm, UnsteadyKen wrote:

George M. Middius *wrote...

*Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year..

Helicon Therapeutics, Inc. has moved from Farmingdale NY to San Diego
CA!

One would think that it would have been much cheaper to buy Scott a
plane ticket to NY.

Ken,
*You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.

2pid, calling you stupid is not a "childish taunt".

Do you know why? LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 1:04*am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03*pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 12, 2:46 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Thanks to recent strides in understanding how the brain works, it's only a
matter of time before medications specifically designed to improve mental
ability, or cognition, hit the market.

"The hallmark of these drugs is they don't create more memory," says John
Tallman, CEO of Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, N.Y., which plans to
begin testing its most promising brain drug in humans later this year..
"What these drugs really do is enhance the conversion process of
short-term to long-term memories."

Yet "Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
simple hypothetical.

So, dear, dim, 2pid, why would a mayor "hypothetically" ask a
librarian about "hypothetically" banning books?

Should a mayor "hypothetically" ask an administrator about
"hypothetically" skimming funds and "hypothetically" depositing them
in her bank account? What do you suppose the result of that might be?

Talk about swallowing the party line. Moron. LoL.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
simple hypothetical.

It looks as if you are working your "debating trade"
schtick, ScottW, by assuing that I was referring to
Sarah Palin's question to the Wassila town librarian
about how the mayor could go about removing books
she felt inappropriate from the library's shelves. But
if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

But if you wish to discuss Sarah Palin's suitability
from being one heartbeat away from the presidency,
does it not dismay you that she is not familiar
with the United States' defining foreign policy strategy?

Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
Doctrine?

Long pause...

Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 6:48�am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
simple hypothetical.

It looks as if you are working your "debating trade"
schtick, ScottW, by assuing that I was referring to
Sarah Palin's question to the Wassila town librarian
about how the mayor could go about removing books
she felt inappropriate from the library's shelves. But
if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

But if you wish to discuss Sarah Palin's suitability
from being one heartbeat away from the presidency,
does it not dismay you that she is not familiar
with the United States' defining foreign policy strategy?

Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
Doctrine?

Long pause...

Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

And then she went on to give a pre-fabricated, generic answer that
revealed that she had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" was. It sent
chills up my spine.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

UnsteadyKen said:

But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
maniacs than show some maturity.

You're right it was childish and thoughtless.

And yet entirely accurate. Go figure!

Sorry.

Awwww.....

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

But if you wish to discuss Sarah Palin's suitability
from being one heartbeat away from the presidency,
does it not dismay you that she is not familiar
with the United States' defining foreign policy strategy?

Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
Doctrine?

Long pause...

Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

And then she went on to give a pre-fabricated, generic answer that
revealed that she had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" was. It sent
chills up my spine.

She does have a position even if she doesn't know it consciously. It's the
same as McCain's: "As long as it takes to 'win'."

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 4:03�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:23�am, UnsteadyKen wrote:

ScottW �wrote...
Ken,
�You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.

You're right it was childish and thoughtless.

� No worries. �I was just sad to see one of the few who
seems to generally treat people with respect
start sliding.

Do you live up to those same standards of respect? Especially after
calling people who disagree with you "weak minded bandwagoners" and
"schoolyard maniacs"?

Tsk, tsk.

Boon

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
Doctrine?

Long pause...

Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

A legit response. He might as well have been asking
about the "conservatives banned books list" as the
Bush doctrine remains a creation of the media
constantingly morphing over the years.
Gibson even had it wrong.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Charl...rlie_gibsons_g
affee

"The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have
been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the
eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited
is not the one in common usage today. "

Kudos! Palin is in the clear because no one could be expected to keep up
with Bush's incoherent and constantly changing doctrines!

Stephen



As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them: http://www.ala.org.

And please produce this list. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
consider your having seen something as the test
of validity for something someone else has said,
ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
"Flowers for Algernon":
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...frequently.cfm
..

the Bush doctrine remains a creation of the media
constantingly morphing over the years.
Gibson even had it wrong.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Charl...09/13/charlie_...

Charlie Gibson was referring, as he subsequently explained,
to Mrs.Palin, to the most commonly accepted definition,
despite Charles Krauthammer's somewhat self-serving words
on the subject. Even then, Mrs. Palin dodged the question,
Do you not feel, ScottW, that someone who might be a
heartbeat away from the presidency should be better-informed
on US foreign policy?

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Yeah, right, ScottW. You _work_ that debating trade
schtick! :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 19:14, Vinylanach wrote:


Do you live up to those same standards of respect? *Especially after
calling people who disagree with you "weak minded bandwagoners" and
"schoolyard maniacs"?

Tsk, tsk.

Boon

I for one resent that. I am a mature adult maniac.

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 19:48, ScottW wrote:


*In general I give people respect and hospitality until
they demonstrate they no longer deserve it.




Lets start a pool.
Who will be the last man standing?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Do you live up to those same standards of respect? *Especially after
calling people who disagree with you "weak minded bandwagoners" and
"schoolyard maniacs"?

I for one resent that. I am a mature adult maniac.

Wipe the mustard from your chin.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 4:23*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
Charlie Gibson: "What is your position on the Bush
Doctrine?

Long pause...

Sarah Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

A legit response. He might as well have been asking
about the "conservatives banned books list" as the
Bush doctrine remains a creation of the media
constantingly morphing over the years.
Gibson even had it wrong.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Charl...09/13/charlie_...
affee

"The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have
been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the
eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited
is not the one in common usage today. "

Kudos! Palin is in the clear because no one could be expected to keep up
with Bush's incoherent and constantly changing doctrines!

I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

Look at section v.

AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.

The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

...the Bush Doctrine, articulated by the president over the past
eighteen months in a series of speeches and encapsulated in the new
National Security Strategy paper released in September, represents a
reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of
U.S. power and, especially, military force. So perhaps it is no surprise
that many Americans--and others in the rest of the world as well--are
struggling to keep up with the changes. Indeed, it often appears that
many in the administration cannot keep up with the president. But in
fact the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of
American security strategy. The Bush Doctrine also represents the
realities of international politics in the post-cold-war,
sole-superpower world. Further, the combination of these two
factors--America's universal political principles and unprecedented
global power and influence--make the Bush Doctrine a whole greater than
the sum of its parts; it is likely to remain the basis for U.S. security
strategy for decades to come.
--

Struggling to keep up! Yes, indeed.

Stephen

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 4:48�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:14�pm, Vinylanach wrote:





On Sep 13, 4:03 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 12:23 am, UnsteadyKen wrote:

ScottW wrote...
Ken,
You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.

You're right it was childish and thoughtless.

No worries. I was just sad to see one of the few who
seems to generally treat people with respect
start sliding.

Do you live up to those same standards of respect?

�In general I give people respect and hospitality until
they demonstrate they no longer deserve it.

Maybe Terry felt you no longer deserved it.

Boon

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 11:52 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:23 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
Look at section v.

Perhaps the "liberal media" planted it.

AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.

The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

If you read my exchange with ScottW in this thread
regarding books that conservatives (mainly) wish to
have banned, he subscribes to the "if I haven't
read it, it doesn't exist" sub-class of the "debating
trade." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:52 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:23 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
Look at section v.

Perhaps the "liberal media" planted it.

I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".

AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.

The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

If you read my exchange with ScottW in this thread
regarding books that conservatives (mainly) wish to
have banned, he subscribes to the "if I haven't
read it, it doesn't exist" sub-class of the "debating
trade." :-)

If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
practice?

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
practice?

Fire-and-brimstone preachers who rant about "the Gay agenda" are similarly
unimpeded by their 'moderate conservative' brethren. And those who try to
interfere with Planned Parenthood using peaceful means are notably silent
on the issue of their less-rational hit squads. So people like Matthew
Shepherd and Dr. Slapian end up murdered at the hands of hate-fueled
lunatics.

Not that there's a pattern here. As John said, perception is only required
to extend to the end of your nose.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".

BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".

BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.

It got humid and windy and there was a little rain last night, but the
biggest effect from the hurricane is an influx of out-of-towners from
the coast. Some kids got the day off from school while gyms served as
staging areas for the evacuees.

UT rescheduled a football game, which is a big deal hereabouts.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 6:03*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:23*am, UnsteadyKen wrote:

ScottW *wrote...
Ken,
*You seemed like a nice guy struggling with his issues.
But now you've chosen to become just another weak minded
bandwagoner who would rather join the schoolyard
maniacs than show some maturity. I hope your
cheap thrills from childish taunts make you happy.

You're right it was childish and thoughtless.

* No worries. *I was just sad to see one of the few who
seems to generally treat people with respect
start sliding.

I'm sure we all respect your stupidity, 2pid. Stupidity in such
staggering amounts is rarely seen. Most people with 'brains' that
function at the level yours 'functions' do not survive very often.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 6:19*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48*am, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

"Domocrats sure rattle easily." LoL.

Hypocrite. Stupid, lying hypocrite.

And please produce this list.
I've never seen it.

That's because you're dumb.

45. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...frequently.cfm

from from a dimwit who can't comprehend a
simple hypothetical.

It looks as if you are working your "debating trade"
schtick, ScottW, by assuing that I was referring to
Sarah Palin's question to the Wassila town librarian
about how the mayor could go about removing books
she felt inappropriate from the library's shelves.

I was giving you benefit of the doubt.
Instead your defense is admittedly that you see
all conservatives being like minded on this
point, a totally ludicrous viewpoint.

This differes from your frequent and repetitive diatribes against
"Dems" and "liberals" exactly how?

LoL.

What an imbecile.

But
if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

*Which is of course, even more absurd and ludicrous.
*Why do insist on stereotyping all conservatives
in such a bigotted manner?

Because they tend to be caricatures, easily stereotyped and generally
believing in selfish policies that benefit themselves?

Because they'll lie to get those policies in place? Because the world
to the vasy majority of them is defined in binary questions and
answers?

I give up. Why? LoL.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 14, 6:44*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:52 pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:23 pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*I'd like to hear the speech where Bush said, "here's my doctrine".
I missed it. Care to provide a transcript for that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
Look at section v.

Perhaps the "liberal media" planted it.

I concede it doesn't contain the phrase "here's my doctrine".

AFAIK it's all media conjecture.
Keeping up with the media's latest policy soundbite
from pundits isn't something I want our leaders to focus on.

The AEI thinks there's a Bush Doctrine:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

If you read my exchange with ScottW in this thread
regarding books that conservatives (mainly) wish to
have banned, he subscribes to the "if I haven't
read it, it doesn't exist" sub-class of the *"debating
trade." :-)

If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
practice?

And if it's not the conservatives, where are the noted liberals who
have demanded books to be banned?

It's the ultra-right-wing of the republican party, the evangelicals so
truly represented and "energized" by Palin, who are the culprits.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
practice?

It's the ultra-right-wing of the republican party, the evangelicals so
truly represented and "energized" by Palin, who are the culprits.

"The Origin of Species" was a book, you know, as was Galileo's "Dialogue
on Two Worlds". Books are bad. Books are scary. Except for books that tell
you what you already 'know' or what makes you feel safe and secure, like
the "Left Behind" books. Those books are good because you don't need no
book-learning to unnerstanem.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 6:19*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48*am, John Atkinson wrote:

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

We've had this 'discussion', 2pid. If you support republicans, you are
supporting anti-abortion, for example. It's right there in their
platform.

And please produce this list.
I've never seen it.

Here are the 'reasons' given for trying to get books banned, 2pid.
Please list the ones you 'think' were given by liberals:

1990–20001

Between 1990 and 2000, of the 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded
by the Office for Intellectual Freedom (see The 100 Most Frequently
Challenged Books):

1,607 were challenges to “sexually explicit” material (up 161 since
1999);
1,427 to material considered to use “offensive language”; (up 165
since 1999)
1,256 to material considered “unsuited to age group”; (up 89 since
1999)
842 to material with an “occult theme or promoting the occult or
Satanism,”; (up 69 since 1999)
737 to material considered to be “violent”; (up 107 since 1999)
515 to material with a homosexual theme or “promoting
homosexuality,” (up 18 since 1999)and
419 to material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)
Other reasons for challenges included “nudity” (317 challenges, up 20
since 1999), “racism” (267 challenges, up 22 since 1999), “sex
education” (224 challenges, up 7 since 1999), and “anti-family” (202
challenges, up 9 since 1999).

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...undinformation

My take on potential "liberal" challenges?

Perhaps these. Maybe. Personally I doubt even these challenges were
made by liberals:

737 to material considered to be “violent”; (up 107 since 1999)
419 to material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)
..
The rest are squarely in the evangelical right-wing agenda of your
chosen party. Which you are supporting. LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Shhhh! said:

If it's an over-generalization to say conservatives are interested in
book-banning, where are the prominent conservatives who condemn the
practice?

It's the ultra-right-wing of the republican party, the evangelicals so
truly represented and "energized" by Palin, who are the culprits.

"The Origin of Species" was a book, you know, as was Galileo's "Dialogue
on Two Worlds". Books are bad. Books are scary. Except for books that tell
you what you already 'know' or what makes you feel safe and secure, like
the "Left Behind" books. Those books are good because you don't need no
book-learning to unnerstanem.

Speaking of "Left Behind," author Tim LaHaye co-wrote a series of
Christian teen books with Bob DeMoss. DeMoss is in the news for the
racist caricature Obama Waffles on sale at the Values Voter Summit.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.

It got humid and windy and there was a little rain last night, but the
biggest effect from the hurricane is an influx of out-of-towners from
the coast. Some kids got the day off from school while gyms served as
staging areas for the evacuees.

The news reports show a huge disaster. Good thing you have all those rich
oil companies roundabout to pick up the slack when FEMA flops.

UT rescheduled a football game, which is a big deal hereabouts.

Shee-it! That's something all right.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

BTW, since you're playing on Usenet in your usual way, I guess you were at
a safe distance from the storm? My not-so-keen eye tells me Austin is ~100
miles from Houston. At least y'll still have lectricity.

It got humid and windy and there was a little rain last night, but the
biggest effect from the hurricane is an influx of out-of-towners from
the coast. Some kids got the day off from school while gyms served as
staging areas for the evacuees.

The news reports show a huge disaster. Good thing you have all those rich
oil companies roundabout to pick up the slack when FEMA flops.

Yep, plenty o' devastation on the coast and up the I-45 corridor.

Hurricane Rita turned out to be a practice run for evacuating Houston.

UT rescheduled a football game, which is a big deal hereabouts.

Shee-it! That's something all right.

The new date is the same weekend as ACL-fest. Razorback fans will have
trouble with lodging.

Stephen

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:





On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr...september2006a
/contracosta.cfm

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr...ontracosta.cfm
Hint for the link[sic] phobic[sic].
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

Poor Scottie is confused. He managed to digest the first half of the first
sentence on that page:

"A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries can
bar religious groups from holding worship services in public meeting
rooms."

Cleary Yapper's attention span was overtaxed. It's not fair at all to
expect the poor, benighted pooch to read an entire sentence that goes on
for more than two whole lines of text. All the quibbling and mincing of
the decisions hinged on what "public" means.

BTW, Witlessmongrel says he is not a christian. Real christians are
probably relieved to hear that. Even though it's a lie.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 14, 9:56*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson wrote:





On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr.../2006abc/septe...

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

Hint for the non-thinking-impaired:

No, it's not. Duh.

And please produce this list. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
consider your having seen something as the test
of validity for something someone else has said,
ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
"Flowers for Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...mostfrequently...

and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti...

No mention of conservatives. *Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

I asked you in another post, 2pid: which of these would you attribute
to "conservatives" and which to "liberals"?

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.

So which would you attribute to "conservative" parents versus
"liberal" parents, 2pid?

But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigotted claims.

But it does,

You would, however, need to join that group of those "non-thinking-
impaired", which is not possible. For you. LoL.

Imbecile.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 14, 7:56�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:43�pm, John Atkinson wrote:





On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr.../2006abc/septe...

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.



And please produce this list. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
consider your having seen something as the test
of validity for something someone else has said,
ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
"Flowers for Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...mostfrequently...

and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti...

No mention of conservatives. �Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigotted claims.

This is an exceptionally weak argument, and it's obvious that your
fervor is not directed at the words, but the man. An intelligent man
listens to the argument regardless of the source. It's clear to
everyone here that you don't do that.

And if you're going to call someone bigoted, at least spell it right.
In the last week you've used bigotted and biggotted.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:43?pm, John Atkinson
wrote:





On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW
wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of
devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and holding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr.../2006abc/septe...

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the
library.



And please produce this list. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
consider your having seen something as the test
of validity for something someone else has said,
ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
"Flowers for
Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...mostfrequently...

and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti...

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.

This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your fervor is not directed at the words, but the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and well-documented. I've made the
same point related to a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

An intelligent man
listens to the argument regardless of the source.

Scott has no problem there. He listened to the argument, studied its
support, and saw the obvious flaw.

It's clear to everyone here that you don't do that.

???????????????

And if you're going to call someone bigoted, at least
spell it right.
In the last week you've used bigotted and biggotted.

Oh, its the old "Let me rant about your bad spelling, but don't check mine"
debating trade trick.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 7:10�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message







On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:43?pm, John Atkinson
wrote:

On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW
wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of
devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and holding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr.../2006abc/septe....

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the
library.

And please produce this list. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
consider your having seen something as the test
of validity for something someone else has said,
ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
"Flowers for
Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...mostfrequently...

and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti....

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your �fervor is not directed at the words, but the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and well-documented. I've made the
same point related to a different issue, and all John did is run and hide..

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at HE2005? Doesn't
sound like running and hiding to me.

In fact, this is how everyone else in the audio world sees it...JA
gave you your shot, you blew it, and now you're just wasting
everyone's time. If you call that running and hiding, then I guess
it's your cross to bear.


An intelligent man
listens to the argument regardless of the source.

Scott has no problem there. He listened to the argument, studied its
support, and saw the obvious flaw.

Please lay it all out for everyone to see. As a scientist, you should
be able to do that easily.


It's �clear to �everyone here that you don't do that.

???????????????

Okay, correction noted. It's clear to everyone except Arny, the other
person here with a hard-on for JA.


And if you're going to call someone bigoted, at least
spell it right.
In the last week you've used bigotted and biggotted.

Oh, its the old "Let me rant about your bad spelling, but don't check mine"
debating trade trick.

No, it's the "you shouldn't call someone a name if you have to spell
it three different ways" debating trade trick. It's also known as the
Krueger Korrection.

Boon