Yeah! What she said! Besides, if you put it back up, you can have your very own special smiley!

I don't think you're pathetic for expecting a certain type. I might think you were pathetic if, upon seeing the teacher, you assumed he wouldn't be a good one, but I highly doubt that. ;) Or maybe I'm pathetic for automatically assuming, simply from your description of his appearance, that he'll be a fantastic teacher. So we can either be pathetic, or not pathetic, together. :D

LOL!!! Too funny! :lol:

Oh, and you need 200 rep points to get your third green square. The dark green squares increase every 100 additional rep points. The light green squares only increase after 200 additional points.

Each dark green square is worth one point. Every thousand posts is worth one point. So someone with 4 squares and over 2000 posts is worth a total of 6 points. Two squares and less than 1000 posts is worth two points.

Well, several of the things you describe sound much like my daughter. (And me, to some extent.) DD has mild sensory issues, dyslexia-type symptoms, is VERY visual-spatial, and she does have OCD. Visual spatial learners struggle with many of the things you mentioned: math facts, spelling, penmanship. They also will often experience comorbid conditions such as sensory integration problems, ADHD, and they are often gifted. The best book I read about this was Upside Down Brilliance by Linda Silverman from The Gifted Development Center. My daughter ended up wanting me to read most of it to her because she was so excited that there was a book that was all about her. :) My daughter's OCD was mostly sensory-related until she was about 9. That's when she also started with the hand and foot washing, germ concerns, intrusive thoughts, nightmares, and general anxieties/fears. I have no idea what the correlation is between her sensory stuff and her OCD, but you're not necessarily on the wrong path in looking in that direction. Maybe not this year, maybe not ever. But as someone who's walked in your shoes, I know that it's not out of the question. I pretty much handled things as they came up for several years. A few months ago, things escalated to the point that I realized she needed help beyond what I was able to give her. It took some time, but we found a fantastic doctor, and things are SO much better now. Trust your motherly instincts and stay aware. Good luck!

Just explain to him what a stud he is to all those husbands out there whose wives have never had any interest in sharing the video or the concept with them. :D Not that I would know anything about that... :lol:

:lol: I'm not quite that bottom-heavy. :lol: (And thanks! :blushing:)

Thanks. :blushing: Right after I posted I thought about how much I enjoy seeing everyone else's pics in their avatars. I'll keep it on the profile page for now, that's about all the public display I can handle. Maybe one day I'll get the nerve to use it as an avatar. Probably not. :lol:

I don't use a pic for my avatar, but I have one on my profile. I don't like ANY pic of me. I would not be able to handle seeing my face on every post. It took me forever to even post one anywhere because it just makes me uncomfortable. I'm trying to face my fears and move into the current day and age. But I'm not used to it yet. :o

Here's a website called Isle of Lesbos that lists several different translations side by side to compare. I've not come across an illustrated version yet, but now you've got me wanting to find one.

I don't think I've read a translation of hers that I didn't love.

That's my question too. :confused:

Artificially inseminating a woman is not a sin according the the Bible I've read. So it seems you're implying that by doing so, the doctor is somehow condoning the behavior. But people with religious convictions have to interact with "sinners" all the time. Would, then, a store owner be condoning sin by selling condoms to a homosexual man? Should it be his right to choose not to do so? Could a restaurant choose to not serve a homosexual couple because they felt providing sustenance for them is akin to condoning homosexuality?

I would call it reverse discrimination. But that's a new thread... Meaning, you think it's okay, or you think they can legally do it? Why? Can harm only be physical in your opinion?

Also, to people outside certain religions, discrimination based on sexual orientation seems no different than racism.

But if it is determined that discrimination based on sexual orientation is allowed due to religious convictions, what's to stop someone from establishing a religion where people of certain skin colors are an abomination? And there are people out there who would quite likely do something like that if the law would then protect them in their racism.

:D Seems to be the "in" thing to do! :tongue_smilie:

How is discriminating against someone based on their skin color different than discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation? If the only difference is that the latter is due to religious beliefs and should thus be allowable by law, then it seems by that logic the KKK just need to change their wording a little bit.

The article doesn't specify, but for me the payment issue comes down to when they told her they would not do the insemination. It said they gave her fertility treatments and then instructed her on how to do the insemination at home. (That's entirely laughable.) If she received the fertility treatments knowing they had no intention of doing the insemination, that's not so much an issue (payment-wise). But if they did the fertility treatments first, and THEN told her they wouldn't do the insemination, that's completely unethical.

Let me amend this a little. I think the thread has taken a couple of directions. The particular strand that Jedi brought into the discussion is what I was referring to.

That's why I see the comment as relevant. Because this hasn't been a thread about abortion, it's been about discrimination. Whether you don't believe in something for religious reasons, or for personal reasons, picking and choosing what people you will or won't treat IS discrimination.

It seems awfully unethical to give the first portion of the procedure, the part they were "okay" with, but not finish the procedure. Fertility drugs are one step in the insemination process. If they knew they weren't going to complete the procedure, ethically they shouldn't have started it.

I agree completely. And that is why I have such a hard time understanding everyone's fear of Obama. Even if he had some sort of extremist plans, he couldn't just go into the White House and wave a magic wand and things automatically go his way. That's not how it works. :confused: