[Multiple Sclerosis questions...]

My wife has MS. Basically, what has been said is true. Essentially, MS is an auto-immune disorder. According to Dr. Ben Thrower, Medical Director of the MS Clinic at Shepherd Center, MS is a result of a virus that the immune system defeated at some time in the past. The white blood cells "remember" the shape of the virus under normal circumstances and produce an immunity to it. With MS, the white cells' memory of the shape of the virus mutates over time. Instead of attacking the virus, the white cells begin to think the myelin sheath that surrounds the axons in either the brain or spinal cord is that virus. They attack it instead. When that myelin sheath is destroyed, the axons can break. When they break, the neurons in the brain can no longer communicate. Whereever that break is, the function formerly governed by those neurons is lost.

 

The reason MS is so hard to diagnose is that the body function that is lost depends on the location of the axon breaks. If an axon breaks in one area, the function lost is control of a particular muscle, a break in another area could create visual impairment, loss of balance, cognitive loss, emotional/psychological losses, memory loss, degradation of speech articulation, loss of sense of touch, smell, taste, hearing, continence issues, generalized muscle weakness, inability to regulate body temperature. MS also is very sensitive to heat. Even one degree of elevation of body temperature can cause problems. Fatigue usually happens across the board. The disease is degenerative and there is no cure.

 

One of the best places to seek treatment for MS is the Shepherd Center in Atlanta.

 

 

[Who is REALLY lying?]

Bigfoot...

 

No, you did not see me with anyone out on the street at the square Friday waving Shearin signs. My wife has MS and we are homebodies... As to your comments about body language, perhaps you should just READ my last post...

 

IDDI & NR - were not you two out on the street at the square Friday waving Shearin signs?

 

If either of you understand body language, which I doubt, go back and look at the video. When king Shearin was asked questions about taxes he moves his body forward leans forward in a defensive mode. This is typical for someone who may have something to hide or doesn't want to answer questions. His voice has a slight higher pitch which is also defensive. There is more to his demeaner than what he says. The worst thing I and others saw was in the way in which Jerry responded by attacking the messenger. He should have leaned back in his seat and let the questions fly and answered in a calm, cool and collected manner. Instead he attacked the messenger. He even accussed his opponent of being a mole. And yes he did also attack his opponent in a public meeting when he said one of his opponents people must have given you the email.........or similar words. Did you catch that? I doubt that also. Maybe you two can help Jerry fold his tent and move on. I once voted and supported Jerry but over time I saw that he had developed an attitude that is no becoming of an official of Paulding County.

 

[Who is REALLY lying?]

Thanks Rose...

 

I probably will not be making a lot of posts, but this is not one I felt I could avoid.

 

As to whether one candidate specifically called a worker from another campaign a specific name or not, let me simply say this for those who are looking for specific, direct statements.

 

My graduate degree is in communications. I've studied things like persuasion. One of the interesting things about persuasive communication is that the use of suggestion and indirect statements is much more powerful than direct, overt statements due to the tendency of people to raise defense mechanisms. While direct statements are not made on the video, the communication technique of suggesting someone was using someone else for that reason actually gets the idea across more effectively than making the statement openly. In addition, look at the non-verbals. Mr. Pownall's "presumed innocence" and the Chairman's voice tones. Only 7% of any communication event is comprised of the actual chosen words. The non-verbals are far more indicative of intent than the specific words.

 

I've never had the pleasure of meeting David Austin, but I have met Jerry and consider him a friend. However, I am very disappointed with the entire tenor of this campaign from BOTH candidates. Jerrys tactics have turned off a substantial part of the electorate, as have Austin's.

 

There are some concerns I have about both candidates. Jerry, while he has some negatives (obviously) also has made some major accomplishments in the county. Why doesn't he talk about those accomplishments. I don't remember seeing but one piece this election where that is even mentioned.

 

David, on the other hand, has what appears to be an ipso facto conflict of interest in that his brother is mayor of Dallas, but has not even addressed that as far as I can tell. That failure raises the concern even further. It is not a matter of whether Boyd and David are bad boys and in cahoots with each other. It simply has the appearance of conflict of interest. What brother is not going to give his brother preference when decision time comes?... especially when the stakes are high and have potential professional repurcussions... What is the centuries old cliche?... Blood is thicker...

 

One of the things that just irked the daylights out of me was the dueling wounded wives letters, that had such similar content that they appeared to be written by the same person. Come on, folks. Dodgeball is dodgeball. Attack ads are attack ads. Both parties have done both.

 

The thing that makes me so sad about this campaign is that both of these families attend the same church. What sort of disruption to that church are all these sordid tactics creating. What about the people who know and love both these men and actually believed they were honorable before the campaigns began? I can only imagine there are some people, particularly the pastor, staff and board of the Methodist church that are having their guts ripped out over this. What kind of testimony are either of these men leaving as to their commitment to Christ? Doesn't He talk about suffering loss for the benefit of the Kingdom? It is just sad to see the extremes people will go through for political expediency, thinking that finally getting that position this way is really some sort of accomplishment.

 

Unfortunately, I think both candidates are making very loud statements. The problem is their statements seem to be telling me more about themselves than about their opponent. Neither seems to realize that... Who loses? We all do, because now nobody will trust either man due to the other's tactics. The winner, whoever he may be, is already hamstrung...

 

IDidntDoIt, so glad to see you back on here. You have that way of getting the political decussions going. You have been sorely missed.

 

[Who is REALLY lying?]

Yes, What about David Austin being a Developer? What about the Devleopment plans and the request for $13,000,000.00 sewage installation? What about the reservior issue? What about being in the tank to developers? What about the influence of Boyd Austin on David? Those ought to start things off...

IDDI, can you give a few examples that you speak of?

 

[Who is REALLY lying?]

During the last few weeks my mailbox has been inundated with boatloads of claims and counter claims from each of the candidates for County Commission Chairman. The claims and counter claims seem to be mutually exclusive. In other words, it does not seem possible that both men can be honorably be telling the truth. Are either one of them telling the truth? I don't know. I have spoken with some in the community who know and appreciate BOTH men, and some are hurt at the mutual destruction taking place. While I don't know what to make of things, perhaps you do... give us your opinion.

 

Now, beyond that, this weekend, I received duelling letters from the wives of these candidates, both of whom expressed essentially the same things... they love their man, their man is honest as the day is long, the other man is a dirty rotten liar who need to be... Therefore, vote for my man. Both have claims that the other man has injured uninvolved, extended family members.

 

Good Grief!!! When is the crapola going to stop?

 

But perhaps the capstone to this whole sordid campaign was the statement that these two families attend the same church. What must be happening in Dallas Methodist Church this election season? What must the church board and the pastor think about this mess? Have they made any efforts to defuse this dialogue? What can the church say about all this? Do they condone character assassination between members? Having been a pastor, I can only imagine that the pastor of this church is drinking Malox by the case.

 

Give us your feedback...

[Can someone explain to me why people curse?]

A definition I heard a long time ago still seems pretty appros:

 

Profantiy: A feeble mind trying to express itself forcibly.

[For Those That Can't Understand How Slavery]

"For instance, we can see the attitude of IDDI and his almost visceral hate for anyone with the DEM label as being a reflection of the hate his father, a military man, exhibited to his family. " -- Publisher

 

Wow!! Talk about AMATEUR psychologist, that was really amateur. What makes it so amateur is that it is so off base, Pub.

 

Maybe I misread you. I really thought you were a man who welcomed opposing views. Apparently I was just plain wrong. I apologize for the misjudgment. I’ll not make the same mistake again.

 

What you don't know is that I grew up Dem. I just turned from their stomach turning hate America agenda with Jimmy Carter. I actually have a confession to make. I used to defend Carter. He claimed to be a born-again Christian who taught Sunday School, was bright enough to have been a nuclear sub commander, had a military background, seemed to have a good grasp of detail in most of his conversations, but more importantly, he was the Commander in Chief. I supported his attempt to rescue the hostages. I rather liked his wife. I still think she is a rather elegant lady.

 

I was for Lyndon Johnson. He was from the hill country of my beloved Texas. My dad and my mom voted for him. They had voted for JFK. Thought he was a good man. I cried when he died. Did not like Nixon, but thought he was better than his opponent. Voted for Carter. Voted for Regan, Voted for Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush and Bush. Became nauseated at the announcement of Clinton’s election out of anticipation of where he would lead this country. I think if I had known the full extent of where he was going with us, I probably would have hurled that night. I now deal with kids who do not know what the meaning of “is” is, and who do not believe sodomy is sex. And, I understand the fact that is not much of an issue with you, but I deal with it daily. So, if you think I hate that, you are exactly dead on target. I really do hate what Billary did to this country. I also hate what John Kerry and Jane Fonda did as well.

 

You see, Pubby, I know why I left the Democratic party… Essentially, it’s not that I left you, you left me, and moved to a far country that I frankly believe is dangerous to the survival of this nation. It's not about my dad, it's about your (collective, plural) politics.

 

After reading what you wrote about me being so full of hate, and the source to which you ascribed it, I decided I’d better think a bit about where I am and why. I did that. Took a pretty good self-examination. It was profitable, and I thank you for the provocation. I now know a bit better than before, who I am and what I’m about.

 

But as to your ascription of my father’s hatred of my mother and I, I am absolutely blown away. Yes, my father was a military man, one who spent six years in combat, came home from WWII with two bronze stars I didn’t even find out about until a little over 24 years after he died. Yes, he became an alcoholic, and there was what we now call “domestic violence,” and, no, my mother did not leave him. You are right to assume there were a few fights in our home when he was drunk. What I really feel bad about is that I hurt him in one of them, defending my mother. The reality of it is that I had no choice.

 

What you have completely missed, however, is that in 1978 or 79, my dad called me to meet him at Luby’s in San Antonio. He was at Wilford Hall Regional Air Force Hospital undergoing a portion of his five years of medical therapy for squamous cell carcinoma that eventually took his larynx, and ultimately, his life. I was working there at the time. For over an hour, this man cried like a baby, asking me to forgive him for what he had done to me, for not being a father to me, for his addiction to the bottle, for throwing away enough money to have paid for the further education I had thought about seeking, for missing what he at that time believed was God’s essential calling on his life, and then asked me to pray for God to forgive him. He knew the scripture well enough to know that God wanted the whole relationship straightened up. I told him I had forgiven him years earlier, and that it was a pleasure to pray with him. I will never forget that day so long as my memory works. I remember a man described by his brother-in-law who was never close to him, as having “never seen anybody fight to live like Milton has.” I watched him lay in a bed from May until September 30, 1981, when he looked over at me, mouthed a question, looking for my mother who had gone to supper, then turned his head back to the center and exhaled his last breath.

 

You see, Pub, my memories of my dad are of a man who had lots of problems, but was big enough to overcome them, a man who knew his strength was in the Lord and ultimately returned to savor that relationship.

 

So, in a way, you were right about me hating some of the things the Dems stand for and tolerate, and it sometimes is almost visceral. But your poor attempt at the source of it is simply off-base and frankly, sick. I’m sorry that brings us to a parting of the ways, for it has been an interesting two years. I've enjoyed much of the tete a tete with you. Sorry I did not recognize your boundaries earlier.

 

My departure is not totally in response to your remarks, either, as my wife has been diagnosed with MS, and has been unable to work since October, stands a very significant chance of never being able to work again. So, there are some economic realities I must face as well, which, very frankly will significantly reduce my time available to enter your web site often enough to even catch up, much less, keep up.

 

But, I think, with your assessment of me so misguided and off-base, about the source of my “hate” that your message to me is more like, “been nice knowing you, don’t let the door slap your fanny too hard on the way out.” So, noticing the welcome mat being retrieved, I will leave you to your site, disappointed somewhat, will miss the friends I’ve formed here, but respectful of the fact that Paulding.com, in spite of all it’s potential, is, in the final analysis, your personal web site. I do not want any further injury to you or offense, wish you well and farewell. Sorry for any offenses I caused you. I hope things go well with your family as well.

[Is Dennis Hastert Out Of Line In Protecting Congress From Fbi Searches?]

Pubby,

 

I have to agree with you about Gonzales. He has surely been "out there" with some of his statements. His legal vitae also seems a bit on the "lightweight" side. I really do not know the basis for Bush's recommendation of him for the job. There surely seem to be a LOT of people out there with vitae that are loaded with evidence of competence. I know one of Bush's fortes is loyalty, but sometimes there are things that go beyond loyalty, such as obligation, duty and honor.

 

Bush has made some outstanding decisions (Condi for one) about a number of different things. But then he chooses someone who is essentially an unproven intellect (Harriet) for the highest position on the highest court in the land when he has a John Roberts standing in the wings. Go figure... The same appears to be true about Gonzales at this point. I always like to give the benefit of the doubt, but this one seems kind of shaky. The one thing that gives me pause about the separation issue is that not only is Gonzales threatening to resign but so is Meuller (sp) and McNulty. I believe both of them are heavyweights, so there may be more to this than meets the eye. I'll have to grant you, however, it is not pretty from here. Maybe the 45 days will provide a solution to this...

[Memorial Day Remembered]

Superb production, Pubby.

 

May your father's memory live on for his self-less contribution to this nation's freedom. It is more than appropriate that we remember that freedom is never free. The blood of multitudes have bought and paid for the rights and privileges we share in this nation. May we NEVER forget their heroism.

 

I absolutely LOVE John Phillip Sousa. I played a trumpet so the brass band is intensely interesting to me...

 

Thank you for preparing this production.

[Going To Worship]

Good post, TBAR...

 

Not only are you right on with the Greek, but the origin of our English translation comes from the olde English "worth-ship." The idea being a joint declaration of the worth of the object of worship. It is astounding what happens when one genuinely worships God. He is a real Person, and makes the worship an interactive process, often making Biblical texts have more intense meaning than can be obtained simply from the discipline of study. There is an "alive-ness" quality that begins to reverberate across an entire congregation as believers choose to lay aside present concerns and glorify the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, not for what He does, but because of Who He is.

 

While I've learned many things about God from the discipline of breaking out Kittle, et al, I have experienced God revealing things in worship that I never made the connection from study. I've seen lives changed, the power of sin instantly, and yes, permanently broken, bodies healed (and yes, verified by medical tests of licensed physicians who knew nothing of Christianity, and then spontaneously used the word "miracle" to describe what they had clinically observed), relationships restored. Coming into His Presence is an experience to which there is no parallel. It is one thing to call Him King of Kings. It is quite another to encounter Him as King of Kings. What an overwhelming experience!!! What a privilege to enter into Holy Ground and sense His Majestic Presence, the Splendor of His Glory... It is an extremely humbling experience to enter into His Presence, yet one that concludes with virtually unutterable joy, the joy of being at one with Him, knowing the relief of forgiveness, and the Power of His Embrace. I just wish it were possible for me to express what I've seen and experienced. There just are not sufficient devices in the English language to handle it. The Holy is something that makes "Awesome" seem worse than a school boy trying to address some august body, just totally inadequate. It goes beyond words into the experience of a Being, a Person Who is the Epitome of Perfection.

 

It is at the same time a awesome and terrifying thing to enter into His Presence. When one contemplates that this Presence is the Alpha (the Concept by which everything that is was conceived) and the Omega ( the One by Whom everything will be brought to ultimate conclusion), the first, the last, He Who was alive, and was dead and now is alive forevermore, having snatched the keys of death, hell and the grave from Satan, ascended to the Right hand of Majesty on High, where He ever lives to make intercession for us, it is simply overwhelming. It is that One before Whom the four and twenty elders will cast their crowns, and to Whom the saints will sing the song of the Redeemed while the angels must only sit and watch. He is worthy of all praise, and honor and glory and majesty and power.

 

I wish I could say more, but words fail me here.

[Some Interesting Statistics - Are Whites In Denial?]

Sorry, B4BB,

 

I don't have my head up my ***, don't need any more of that article. I've studied racial issues on a doctoral level at LSU, and never found the need for all the BS and other gutter talk...

 

Maybe it would help for your author to study some things about verbal violence and where that leads before he wastes more ink... There is plenty of research on it out there. He just needs to connect a couple of more dots...

 

Classic definition of profanity: A feeble mind trying to express itself forcibly...

[Here's Something That Perplexes Me]

SoapMom, DW,

 

Theories is not a negative word here. It is an apt description of Theistic proofs.

 

I am not in any way put off by the idea that one theory of proof is called Certainty, and another, appropriate for another field of study is called Certitude. They are THEORIES of proof. They are NOT BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. They are NOT SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. There is NO DIVINE REVELATION involved here.

 

The whole effort is a reasoned discourse that helps us to find common ground. Theistic proofs and apologetics come as much from the field of philosophy as from history, science or any other field of endeavor.

 

The whole point of the study of apologetics is to present ideas and ways of thinking about the possibility of God in ways that are pallatable to unbelievers. It is about establishing COMMON GROUND. It is about presentation of evidence -- going toward a decision? -- Of course. But not something to force someone else to accept something we hold dear.

 

The responsibility of a witness is simply to tell the story, with integrity, and present the other person an OPPORTUNITY to consider the matter. It is not about, "You must decide my way today or die now." It is about giving a credible opportunity for decision at an appropriate time.

 

Many are the times I have had pastoral conversations with people in my community who were not believers, and the tone of the conversation was warm, open, inviting, open-ended. I feel comfortable plowing the field, letting someone else water it, someone else weed it, someone else tend it and someone else harvest it WHEN THE FRUIT IS RIPE FOR HARVEST.

 

I'm a gardner. I love planting, caring for and harvesting crops. I had a garden in Shawmut, Alabama, when I pastored there. I took my dad's tiller, spent three or four days turning up soil, getting rocks out, and turning in fertilizer before I ever planted the first seed. Then after planting, I waited, watered, waited, weeded, waited, watered, waited, and eventually plants came up. Once they did, they started the blooming process, then the baby vegetables appeared. The watering, weeding and waiting continued. One of the crops I planted was a beefmaster and another was a supersteak tomatoe. These tomatoes were huge. One of them measured 17" in circumference and weighed 2.2 pounds when ripe. Now, I could have picked those tomatoes when they were 5", 8", 11" or 15" in circumference. I could probably have gotten them down had I eaten them. However, once they fully matured their flavor was absolutely mouth-watering. Not so with the immature fruit.

 

DW... my point here, is that we would all be much better off if instead of demanding acquiesence instanteously, we would simply offer an idea, and let others handle it for a while, rather than trying to wrestle fruit that is not ready for harvest from the plant. Have some faith in the power of the Gospel itself, rather than thinking you have to strong arm others into your way of thinking. If God, by His Divine acts cannot reach a heart, and break it open for Himself to enter, trying to force it open prematurely will only create scar tissue that is much harder than it was to begin with.

 

I would suggest that you take a bit of a more laid back approach, cast the seed, water it, but wait for harvest time. There is some work on hearts that God Himself must do or we will never come to terms with the lost. I appreciate your zeal. That's wonderful that you are zealous for what you believe. However, in the marketplace of public opinion, you must earn the right to be heard by offering substance, not by trying to force your opinions upon all others.

 

I think most people in this forum know that TBAR and I have a significant disagreement on some issues. I will present strong arguments, I will attempt to persuade my Christian brother and dear friend to my views. But I'm not ever going to win his acknowledgement if I call him names, misstate his position, insult him or try to force him to concede. It is not a power game, here. Nor will I try to contradict him evrey single time he writes a statement with which I do disagree, as he has done in the last few hours. I'm not interested in raising a barrier between him and myself. My interest is in putting out enough material that is substantive that ultimately he has to internally acknowledge that I have made some points, and adjust his positions. It is the facts, the claims, the evidence, the warrants that are the substance of arguments, not insults, or acts of intimidation, or slurs or such. It's about winning PEOPLE not winning ARGUMENTS.

 

I know SoapMom is currently stating she will never be a Christian. I understand that statement, and while I would hope that statement would be changed in time, I am not going to castigate her for that statement. If I am to have any hope of influencing her at any time, I MUST accept her where she is and treat her with the dignity and respect God Himself gives her. I EXPECT her to be resistant to my position. I am not in any way thinking by writing one simple post that she is just going to say, "AHA, now I see..." I frankly must do some preparatory work, then remove the rocks, evaluate what kinds of soil conditioners are needed, implement them, plant the seed, water, wait, weed, wait, tend the garden and at harvest time, read that "God's Time." she will make an ultimate decision one way or the other. If God is not intimidated by her initial resistance, why should I be?

 

It is about earning the right to be heard. Until I have earned that right, and it must come from her and her alone, all I can do is set the table, and provide the opportunity for her. She must decide whether she likes my table setting, my variety of tea, my vegetables, the spices I use on my meats, my breads, and my deserts. I'm just the cook, the gardner. I cannot, and will not even try to force feed those whom I wish to consider my positions.

[Is Dennis Hastert Out Of Line In Protecting Congress From Fbi Searches?]

That was a thoughtful and well presented post, Pubster...

 

I agree with you in the scenario about indictments, for I believe your scenario about Tom DeLay is probably more accurate than most Democrats want to admit. I fully acknowledge that a mere indictment probably should not be the basis for the executive searching the chamber. Constitutionality requires, and properly so, the separation of powers.

 

HOWEVER... let us also understand the that the precipitating factor here is probably the undue DELAY in the ultimate prosecution of Jefferson, McKinney, TED Kennedy's inept prosecution re: Mary Jo, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The voting public is nauseated at the obvious double standard that the "supercitizen" class permits. It is nothing short of OUTRAGEOUS that the HOUSE and the SENATE do not clean up their own droppings.

 

TBAR is pretty well know for throwing around the Phairiseeism montra. Maybe it ought to be applied to this Congress, too.

 

I would be in favor of Congress setting up an expedited process of their ethics committee requiring presentation of evidence presented to a grand jury resulting in indictments for the ethics committee to begin a review within a reasonable, albeit short timeframe. When the evidence is compelling, as it is in this case, either suspension or expulsion should be the outcome. If suspension is called for, a process should then be in place for the home district to have an automatic recall election within 60 days. That recall should be set up so that if (s)he wins it, it is in the face of the evidence, and the ruling of the ethics committee stands, meaning that the district is willing to lay aside it's vote until either there is sufficient evidence to move the case one way or the other.

 

Now, as to consequences of failing to do so... Might I suggest that it is more than possible that Congress may have a nail-biting vote before Jefferson gets the boot. If that be the case, the citizens of his district could find themselves in a position where his vote is the pivotal vote on extremely important legislation. That, in turn being the case, given the man's proclivity to bribery, is it not reasonable to conclude a significant possibility that the interests affected by such a vote, that could involve Billions of dollars, and thousands of lives, would tempt the congressman again? Is it not likely that they would all be smart enough to place the money in a numbered account accessable only by Jefferson after he gets out of prison on this bribery charge? Do you not see the potential danger here resulting from Congress failing to act in a prudential manner.

 

The point is, how encouraged are citizens to keep the law when their elected representatives are KNOWN to have violated the law and yet retain privilege for an inordinate amount of time? Congress: You are sending the wrong message.

 

I guess maybe Congress is Baptist after all... Once elected, forever insulated, and privileged...

 

My argument is that Congress needs to be held to a higher standard than the general public, not a lower one, but that is what the public perception is. Get elected, do whatever you want, and get away with it.

 

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

[Rock Bottom]

Brandi,

 

I've PM'd you.

 

PLEASE LEAVE...NOW

 

PsychMom is dead-on with what she says about sociopathetics. He has no empathy, no conscience, not recoverable, will not spontaneously remit, will escalate from this point. If you want to risk your children, then play around with the idea of staying.

 

Otherwise,

GET OUT NOW!!!

 

Joejetzu:

 

You obviously know neither:

• What is happening with BrandiBE
• Nor ANYTHING about abusive situations

Your best advice would be to keep yourself out of this situation and just be thought a fool rather than post anything else and remove all doubt.

 

I work with this and similar populations professionally, have been responsible for training RYDC staff how to identify and know what to do about abuse. I do know what I'm talking about. As does PsychoMom. She's just probably a little more gentle than I am.

 

Maybe what we need to do is start asking you some pertient questions... Have you hit anyone lately?

[Fifth Grade At Roberts Elementary]

B4BB,

 

I'm very sorry to hear that you are so offended by something that I experience very differently.

 

For the record, I'm an Army brat, grew up in Texas, but have my family roots in Alabama. I've got lots of black friends that I work very hard at keeping good relationships with. I try to exercise respect, and from most of them, I get it in return.

 

I do not wish to be offensive to you, but let me share with you how I experienced that song. Dad was stationed in Texas and Oklahoma most of my growing up years. Places like Fort Bliss, Fort Sill, and Fort Hood are the areas where I did most of my growing up. Living in those places separated us from our families by anywhere from 800 to 1500 miles. Every year, we would either "go home" at Christmas and/or over the July 4th holiday. I can remember spending my birthday (July 5th) from when I was about 5 until I was 19, every year shelling butterbeans, snapping beans, and shucking/silking corn. Those were wonderful times and the only occasions I got to be with any of my family. It was especially meaningful to me to get time with my cousins, too, since I had no brothers or sisters (can't you tell?).

 

Virtually every time we made the two - three day trip, we'd sing Dixie. We never sang it in context of blacks, or whites, or any other group. There was never any animosity at all attached to it. We were coming home to the "Heart of Dixie," Alabama. From the time I was very small, the ONLY association that song had for me was the traditional song my little family sang when it was time to go see grandparents. That is the only association it has for me today. When I sing it, or hum it, or whistle it, the only images going through my mind are riding on those long trips that seemed to never end until I got to see Granny or Grandaddy, or my aunts, uncles and cousins.

 

B4BB, those are fond memories for me. My parents are both dead, with my mom passing away last August, and for me that song has some sweet memories attached. It's not about you or your family, or your race, it never has been. It's been about driving through Louisiana on Highway 80 and seeing mile after mile after mile of cotton fields, and seeing the Kudzu forests just as we crossed the Vicksburg Bridge, and began to see some of the "red dirt" here and there.

 

So, I really have no intent to be offensive to you, but very plainly, I seriously doubt I'm going to put away something that is one of the very few pleasant memories of my childhood and adolescence to accomodate you or anyone else. It's just not about you for me. It's about my family, and some of the few days we cherished with each other. Never was a white/black thing... just the song we sang coming home.

 

If you happen up on me some day that I happen to be singing, humming or whistling Dixie, and I happen to take note of your skin color, for your sake, and out of respect for your feelings, I'll probably refrain from singing it in your presence, because you attach such an emotional meaning to it. But when you leave, I'll probably go back to some pleasant memories, and singing old songs that mean something to me. I hope when you do find me singing things that have such fond memories for me, that you, too, will respect the fact that I'm not trying to be offensive to you, but probably just thinking about Mom or Dad and some of those pleasant days.

[Here's Something That Perplexes Me]

DW,

 

Thanks for the compliments. Yes, I have seen the inside of a college classroom and used gradebooks...

 

One are of proofs I did not address in the previous thread that I would like to is the two major categories of proofs.

 

The most nommonly discussed proofs are those that are classed as "objective proofs." They usually include the thiestic proofs, and theo/philosophical proofs that are the elements of most discussions about whether or not God exists. Some of them are part of classical Systematic Theology, while some take on a looser structure and are largely based in a more philosophical approach, using reasoned discourse.

 

The other category of proofs is "subjective proofs." These are proofs to the individual that have no bearing on winning/losing some argument on the theistic proofs. They are what are generally referred to in the Gospel song of a few decades ago, "The world didn't give it to me, and the world can't take it away." These proofs have more to do with the individual's experiences with God, such as the experience of mercy and grace at forgiven sins, or the receipt of Divine healing of one sort or another. The basic idea behind the subjective proofs and the value of them, is that sometimes young Christians will not know the answers to hard questions that are put to them... not necessarily because there is no answer, but simply they have not been in the faith long enough to learn them. For those new believers, the subjective proof they have been given by a loving God is a reassurance that no argument can take away. As they grow in the faith, they will become better at understanding the issues in the theistic proofs, and hopefully, begin to become familiar with apologetics.

[Resume Tips]

Resume Tips

 

Getting a job is sometimes a rather daunting task. The very best way to do it is to be acquainted with someone with a lot of power in another company who thinks the sun rises and sets in you, and is willing to pursue you, rather than requiring you to come to him.

 

UNFORTUNATELY, that’s just not the way it usually works out.

 

Most often, a person has to go looking for a job, rather than just getting a call from a friend.

 

There are many motives for job-hunting…

· Better salary,

· Better working conditions

· Better location

· Better skills and abilities match to job description

 

Whatever the reason, the usual pattern for getting a job includes getting a resume together. For some, that is just a matter of going to the computer, spending a few minutes and printing out an already prepared document. For others, it can be an emotionally gripping panic attack due to not knowing what to put in a resume or how to present it on paper.

 

There are several phases to resume preparation. The first is perhaps the most grueling – data gathering. It is getting all those dates, places, locations, people, job descriptions, personnel reviews, awards, names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What makes it all the worse is that some of the detail is far enough back as to not be precisely recalled. That usually means a decision of whether to do the research to find it, or just leave it out of the resume so that when the potential employer performs the fact-check, it does not look to be deceptive because of an error on a detail.

 

One way to help with all this is to keep a Resume Journal. This can be something as simple as a spiral bound secretary’s dictation book. Or, it can be something that is a bit more helpful.

 

For instance, most office supply stores have a plastic expandable divider with a fold-over top to it with an expandable band to securely close it when finished. To begin with, find everything that pertains to your employment history, your educational background, your civic involvement, any awards you may have received, etc. Set up the divider with appropriate headers, such as, Education, Employment History (include a manila folder for each job you’ve held), Civic Involvement, Contacts, Honors & Awards, Computer Skills, Certifications, Professional Organizations, Qualifications, Publications, Presentations, Patents, Personal Information, Endorsements, and perhaps your most important section, Achievements.

 

With this setup, you will be able to keep track of most of the important data for your next resume. A spin-off benefit is that using this system, you will have done the major organization for your next resume as you go. This will save you untold hours and a host of anxiety when it comes time to tell your story again.

[Here's Something That Perplexes Me]

Leslie,

 

Thank you for having the courage to open up such a topic on this website.

 

There have been many interesting remarks made here, some of which I agree with, some of which I do not. That is not a condemnation of those with whom I do not agree, it is just not consent.

 

There are so many issues raised here, it would take a book to adequately respond. I will not even try to hit all the issues, but merely focus on some of the things related to proofs of God's existence.

 

For this, I would like to have you follow a brief side trip into an explanation of some of the theories of proof and the classifications of proof relevant to some different disciplines.

 

I would like you to consider what constitutes proof in the scientific arena. For scientists, for something to be provable, it must have at least two specific characteristics -- It must be repeatable and it must be verifiable. For example, let us do a simple chemistry experiment. Each of the elements of the periodic table has a specific weight and has a specified atomic structure that includes a specified number of electrons, neutrons and protons. There is also a hierarchy of how these elements combine or fail to combine. But let us say that we are trying to prove water is water. The standard chemical denotation of water is h2o (I don't have either super or subscripts here). Each molecule of water has 2 atoms of hydrogen attached to one atom of oxygen. Now, let us say that we have a liquid in front of us, and have postulated that it is water. How do we prove it? We simply go through an electrolysis that separates the hydrogen from the oxygen, and upon capturing the two, test to find out their atomic weight. I know I'm skipping a few steps here, so chemists, please allow me a little bit of latitude here. What I have just attempted to describe is the fact that there is a verification process to prove the chemical makeup of water.

 

The reliability side of the proof is that every time we take water through the process, the exact same thing will occur.

 

Please understand that my description above is not intended to be a textbook example of the chemist's routine to verify that a liquid is water. It is to get at the idea that there is a specific process used to verify that fact. The reliability side is then the check/balance of the proof. If it is valid, then it will be reliable -- it will work every single time it is used.

 

Now what I have just very weakly defined above is what is generally referred to as scientific method. It is most appropriate for chemists, engineers, geologists, and those of various other scientific disciplines to prove their ideas.

 

However, there are disciplines in which verification and repeatability are impossible. For instance, you probably have a great, great, great grandfather or two somewhere up your family tree. If asked to prove various assertions about him, you may have information passed down by your parents and their parents, but what you do not have is the ability to repeat him at will, and perform some act to verify your assertions for absolute proof.

 

This brings up the issue of appropriate proof. For the scientists, nothing less than absolute certainty will suffice. Let us use that word certainty to describe the kind of proof that is available to the scientific community and provides virtual fail proof proof.

 

However, if we are going to deal with the family tree, we must go to another standard of proof. That standard we will call certitude. Let's define certitude as having appropriate levels of proof to satisfy most people who are sufficiently well informed of the discipline in question. For instance, let us say that some new kid came up with the idea that John Fitzgerald Kennedy is alive. Should someone be foolish enough to do so, I would step up and state that I've been to Dealy plaza many times, have seen Parkland Hospital, have driven Stemmons Freeway, am familiar with Love Field, have read the Warren Commission reports (as well as dozens of others), have visited Arlington National Cemetary and seen the "eternal" flame. I have read the countless newspapers, and seen the events unfold on that November day of 1963. In addition, I have a very vivid recollection of taking the Kennedy physical fitness test, toeing the line for the standing broad jump and doing 8'7" when someone ran into the gym at Copperas Cove High School, yelling, "The President has been shot." I remember Mr. Turner immediately dismissing class and sending everyone home. I remember Walter Cronkite telling the story on my parents' black and white TV. I remember seeing virtually everybody I knew crying, with some near hysteria. I remember seeing the funeral procession, the body lying in state, the endless coverage of the death, the funeral, the family, the change of government, the capture and subsequent death of Lee Harvey Oswald, the role of Jack Ruby, the enormous national discussion about conspiracies and of course all the merchandisers trying to make a mint off the death of a president.

 

Now, while I cannot reproduce John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and cannot with certainty repeat his life so that his death can be verified via scientific method, I can use a standard of proof called certitude and apply it to this problem. Certitude is the sort of proof that, while not absolute, does have a quality of reasonableness to it. The way certitude functions is, it begins to evaluate all available evidence and determine what it all indicates. In the case of Kennedy, all of the items I related point to, or indicate, that there was a man named John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who came to Dallas, Texas, as President of the United States in November of 1963 and was killed by rifle shots. None of these factors, in and/or of themselves serve as certainty, and absolute proof. But each item is an indicator that something happened. Taken together, we examine where each of the indicators points. If they all point to the same conclusion, John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, November of 1963, then we can be said to be in a state of certitude about his death. That means we have an appropriate level of proof to convince a reasonable person who is unbiased of the facts.

 

With the issue of the proofs of God's existence, we must acknowledge that we do not have the capacity to reproduce God and reduce Him to a test tube for purposes of validity and repeatability tests. Therefore Certainty is not a viable option for determining the veracity of either JFK or his existence. While there are enormous amounts of resources about him, we simply must accept certitude as the appropriate level of proof to deal with his life/death.

 

The same is true of finding God's existence. There is a level of proof that will satisfy certitude's requirements, but not Certainty's. Perhaps this is a problem for some, but not for others. The way God has designed things, it is such that we can have a sufficient quantity of credible evidence to make a decision about Him, but He will always require that ultimate, final “leap of faith” in the end.

 

So yes, we can prove God exists, but that level of proof is for a certitude where all the indicators point to a specific target (God’s existence), but there are not sufficient proofs as to enable man to build a sphere all the way around God. But that is not such a bad thing. For if God were that small, He would not be God, by definition.

[Funny Town Names]

Don't forget Cut 'n Shoot, Texas... Been there... One of those Baptist things...

[Is Dennis Hastert Out Of Line In Protecting Congress From Fbi Searches?]

I understand the separation of powers argument. You have stated it well.

 

Now, let's expand the scope of this problem, and how things got to be this way.

 

The larger problem the congressional branch has is that there are now 5 months till elections, at which time EVERY ONE of the 435 congressional representatives, and either 33 or 34 Senators are up for election.

 

The read I have on the general public is that congress has the lowest marks of any branch of government. They seem to be able to do absolutely nothing but gum up all functions of government and impede any kind of progress that could ordinarily be made (yes, I know that that is a very broad generalization, but, please, for the sake of the argument, give me a stipulation on that as a perception of a large proportion of the voting electorate).

 

In addition to the perception that congress does nothing but jawbone, strike capitol police when challenged, stay drunk a considerable portion of the time, get away with MURDER, bribery, influence peddling, live a life filled with pecadillos, have the moral terpitude of slime, and make little more of themselves than blathering idiots who just cannot ever seem to "get it," when it comes to the needs of the man on the street, this congress now adds to the perception that they perceive themselves as a "superclass" of citizens who are indeed above the law at every possible opportunity.

 

While there may be legitimate concers to be hashed out over the separation of powers, the biggest problems this congress faces may not be FBI investigations. It may be the ballot box, with a rising movement with a cry to "Throw them ALL out of office."

 

I would suggest that some of the American voting public, divided as we may be over a multitude of issues, are so fed up with corruption, ineptitude, profound stupidity, total lack of insight or leadership, political bickering for the sake of politics to the exclusion of the welfare the American people, all within a total integrity vacuum, are about ready to do the Boston Tea Party, i.e., turn the whole place upside down and start all over with new faces.

 

The thing Hastert, et al., must do, is have a house cleaning of their own that satisfies the public that they are dealing with the problems. I do not know that Congress has the capacity to keep itself in check.

 

The whole separation of powers issue is an issue of checks and balances. Where is the check or the balance for a congress that has "lost it" besides the ballot box? Simple answer: There is none. They ARE a "superclass" that are proving to their constituents repeatedly that they are not subject to the same laws we are.

[10-80 Pursuit- Update -subjects Fled To Dgls County]

BlueFroggy,

 

How do YOU know that YOUR hyundia tiburon will get over 150?????

 

hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Maryland Attorney General Urged To Block $ To Church]

Mrs. Howard,

 

Philosophically, I'd have all sorts of problems with it.

 

However, if the money was designated strictly to solicit tourism, and did not have qualifying statements written into it, then they have as much right to it as anyone else would. Oh, I would definitely not like it. However there is a significant difference between my personal opinion about something and the legal statements contained in congressional bills. The long and short of it... my personal opinion has no legal bearing on whether the money is legal or not.

 

I think part of the problem here, is a poorly written code section that leaves too many loopholes and unanswered questions. The legislators probably did not do their jobs too well... That's the reason for the question.

 

The power of the legislature is in the way they write their bills. Some are punctilliously specific, while others are so broad the George H. W. Bush could sail through it. (For those in Rio Lindo, the George H. W. Bush is one of America's largest and most advanced aircraft carriers.

[Photos From Downtown.]

Nick,

 

All three photos were great.

 

However, the middle photo is a superb piece. The balance of colors from the sky and the balance of the street lights... the composition, the whole photo is one of the best shots I've seen in a long time, and I'm a bit of an amature myself.

 

Congratulations...

[Any Of Yall Wanna Buy My House?]

OF COURSE I'D LIKE TO BUY YOUR HOMES, BOTH OF THEM... RIGHT NOW...

The only problem is you probably wantMONEYfor them...

[For Tbar]

And I respectfully disagree with that line of thought, for there are some things that escape its perview.

 

The fact of the matter is that writing good law that provides for and protects a citizenry usually comes from a derrivative of Judeo-Christian thought.

 

Now, before you go talking about legislating faith, I absolutely concur, and you know that I do, that faith is not something which is capable of being legislated. It is a matter of the heart, and is susceptible only to persuasion, not coercion. Anything coerced is not something that is voluntarily given and that is the very essence of faith -- something that is voluntarily embraced.

 

Here's where I'm coming from. I am not looking for a system, legal or political, that is labeled "Christian." I am looking for a legal and/or political system that is susceptible to my influence. A system that is not dedicated to censoring every mention of that which is most Holy to me. That is precisely where AU is headed. I do NOT agree with that line of thinking or that general philosophy.

 

The idea of creating an a-religious society is not one that will work. I am not asking for a legal or political system that will compell religious behavior -- with some notable exceptions. For instance, the Decalogue declares murder, theft and adultery to be inappropriate. A legal system that "has no place for religion" must therefore EXCLUDE those prohibitions on the basis of the fact that they are religious statements. Whether they are in the 10 Commandments or not is NOT the point. The point is they make incredibly good sense, good law and good politics. The exclusion of religion from public policy would ipso facto exclude them from law based on the fact alone that they have religious roots.

 

I am not interested in a Government that commands church attendance or that commands Bible reading or commands prayer. But when it comes to basic issues that protect society against violence, one MUST consider religious thinking. To exclude religious thinking and/or religious people from the process is non-sense.

 

By the same token, I do NOT advocate that athiests should be excluded from the process. I think just as with the other religions (after all, athiesm is a religious position) they should have a voice, a chance at the floor, the opportunity to present their thinking on matters.

 

What I am DEMANDING is nothing less, nor nothing more than EQUAL ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM.

 

The whole thing that bothers me about AU, the ACLU (I regard them as similar animals) is that their focus is exclusionary for Christianity. It is a focus that says, because we are of Judeo-Christian heritage, we therefore forfeit our voice, AND our place at the table. That is contrary to the documents that represent the founding of this nation. I do not advocate a theocracy in the dispensation of Human Government, as most of us humans are far too wicked, and to consumed with ourselves to even hear the Voice of God, much less courageous enough to act on it, ergo, we must be like the "other nations, we want a king." I wonder what would have happened had Israel continued with the government God established for them and not demanded their own way...

 

The thing about the AU that is offensive to me (and I must say it is offensive to me) is that it has an exclusionary bias about it to Judeo-Christianity. Whether their intent is so or not is NOT the point. The point is the effect they are having upon society is to spread the idea that Christianity is something that is dark, naughty, and should not be allowed loose on the public at large. I find that tone offensive. Just because I am a Christian, even a Pentecostal does not mean I kissed my brains goodby at the door. I WILL NOT check out of the process just because of Whom I have dedicated my life to follow. He has called me, He has equipped me, and I do not think it is all so that I can just sit at home and isolate myself.

 

He has given us basic duties: to be salt and light in the world. He did not ask Paul to abandon his rights of citizenship, but used those very rights to spread the Gospel into some otherwise very inaccessible places.

 

Rather than having no place for religion in public policy, I think we are mandated to become involved in the process, not simply back up and abandon the process to the athiests, hedonists, materialists, and others of similar positions. Should we be rude to them? Of course not. They are part of the process. BUT SO ARE WE. That is the idea of this nation, that ALL of us should participate in the government.

 

TBAR, I count you a good friend and Christian brother, but on this issue, I'm afraid you and I are as far apart as the poles are, and I've not seen anything you've posted that even begins to change my mind in your direction. Rather, most of it cements my thinking more in my own position even more than before. I guess what I really need to do is thank you sincerely, for helping me to crystalize my thinking even more than before.

 

It's kind of funny sometimes... I occasionally think about a position before I take one and talk about it, and the more I talk and hear the opposition, sometimes the more well formulated my opinion becomes. As I hear your arguments, and consider them, I have to decide whether they coincide with things I know from my own history and exposure to the world at large.

 

Now, as to those who may agree with me on this matter, but question your relationship with the Lord, I have to be pretty outspoken here, too. That's NONSENSE and OUT OF BOUNDS. Those kinds of comments, insinuations and suggestions legitimately fall under Paul's exhortations that we judge not others. If you have those questions, and want a legitimate discussion about them, then the appropriate forum is to get with TBAR face-to-face, you and him alone and in that context, ask the question, and address matters of concern to you. To imply that there is something sub-Christian here, is a most inappropriate forum, and suggests there may be an alternative, under-the-table agenda. I've known this man for two years, have interacted with him frequently on this forum, and can state categorically and without fear of contradiction that he is a man that loves God. I do NOT agree with everything he says, as he does NOT agree with everything I say. But the conditions of fellowship are not whether we fall on the same side of split hairs, but whether or not we are on the same side of a Blood Covenant. I know that we are... in spite of the fact that he's a Baptist...

 

So, when are we going to have lunch again? SANDWICHES??? <_ src="%7B___base_url___%7D/uploads/emoticons/default_sad.png" alt=":(">