permaculture playing cards*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes It's just a matter of time... Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of EJB 3 in Action this week in the EJB and other Java EE Technologies forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "It Watch "It New topic
Author

It's just a matter of time...

John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Scientists now mixing male and female cells to make home-grown 'she-males'
I for one believe we will see the inevitable occurance of human cloning become 'somewhat' common - like it or not. I think it will become as popular and as blas� as test-tube babies and surrogate mothers.
I believe it is the future and we should move forward. The evolution of mankind!! We should continue to push the envelope and let the chips fall where they may...
---------
On another note, what better person is there to raise you but yourself??? Poor kid will have an adult version of his own traits to contend with...
Poor kid will also see what he can grow into if he doesn't do some serious changing!!


"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 21, 2000
Posts: 4339
    
    2

yeah, i read that too on AOL. men and women arent as different as we think. there are people born naturally with both male and female "features". there are women born with over-size clitoris who undergo, what i find wrong, surgery. there are men born who are not like most men as well. sometimes they even change the sex on the birth certificate, or have a hard time deciding. then there is the whole sex-change thing. i dont know. i didnt like reading that they were doing that. im perhaps not as shocked or upset by it as some people are though.


SCJP
Visit my download page
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Q - Why is the area between a woman's breasts and her hips called a waist?
A - Because you could easily fit another pair of tits in there.
Now thats an application of genetic tampering with REAL possibilititties.
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
The book, (Woman, an intimate geography), that I mentioned in the babe-only topic, has a whole portion of a chapter on that issue. We all start off as 'woman' and then some become men. Some woman are missing the enzymes/protein/hormones that are supposed to suppress certain actions and they end up with out their proper sex organ functionality, yet have exaggerated feminity. I ~believe~ Jamie Lee Curtis has had this happen.
----------
It makes me wonder if the male sex organs are derived from woman's, AND if some folks develop only partial penises - is it possible that homosexuality is the sexual desire that has also only half-way developed??? Is is not a bad question, at all. Boy, it would really throw a monkey-wrench in the works if we proved a biological reason for it.
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 21, 2000
Posts: 4339
    
    2

from what i saw on tv, the penis and clitoris start out the same and develop differently.
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Maybe we could improve on the female to male transformation so males are born without nipples
Originally posted by John Dunn:
is it possible that homosexuality is the sexual desire that has also only half-way developed???
I doubt it. Scientists have tried to find biological reasons for homosexuality (and other socially deviant behaviour) for ages and to my knowledge no one has come close. While their intentions are good these ideas can be dangerous because they imply the person is sick and needs curing. Besides, underdeveloped desire wouldn't account for homosexuality in women because the woman's desire would already be fully developed.
That said, there is a whole lot of human DNA that needs studying in detail. There's no telling what we might find in the future.
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Maybe we could improve on the female to male transformation so males are born without nipples
Originally posted by John Dunn:
[qb]is it possible that homosexuality is the sexual desire that has also only half-way developed???
I doubt it. Scientists have tried to find biological reasons for homosexuality (and other socially deviant behaviour) for ages and to my knowledge no one has come close. While their intentions are good these ideas can be dangerous because they imply the person is sick and needs curing. Besides, underdeveloped desire wouldn't account for homosexuality in women because the woman's desire would already be fully developed.
That said, there is a whole lot of human DNA that needs studying in detail. There's no telling what we might find in the future.[/QB]

Actually, I think there is some evidence that there are certain biological tendencies in homosexuals, like a smaller hypothalamus in male homosexuals and shorter index fingers in female homosexuals. Also, some genetic data suggests that there are biological factors involved. For example one study shows that if one identical twin is homosexual there is a 52% chance that the other will also be. For fraternal twins it is 22% or over 5 times that of the normal population.


Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. - Ernst F. Schumacher
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Michael Morris:
Actually, I think there is some evidence that there are certain biological tendencies in homosexuals, like a smaller hypothalamus in male homosexuals and shorter index fingers in female homosexuals. Also, some genetic data suggests that there are biological factors involved. For example one study shows that if one identical twin is homosexual there is a 52% chance that the other will also be. For fraternal twins it is 22% or over 5 times that of the normal population.
Interesting, I hadn't heard those ones before. I've started looking at index fingers now so I hope you're happy! How queer...
I wonder if in the future genetic science could tell if a child would be homosexual, would it be viewed like a disease?
Assuming the same science can also accurately predict disease and personality traits (not forgetting the complex relationship between biology and environment) and it was possible to alter the genes of a fetus to remove chances of it developing Parkinsons disease, depression, etc, would people also want to remove the homosexual gene if it existed?
[ July 04, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
Assuming the same science can also accurately predict disease and personality traits (not forgetting the complex relationship between biology and environment) and it was possible to alter the genes of a fetus to remove chances of it developing Parkinsons disease, depression, etc, would people also want to remove the homosexual gene if it existed?
That's a very good question. I would lean towards saying no. It comes down to what do we consider homosexuality to be, a pathology or just another variation in the human species much like differences in intelligence or athletic ability. Some biologists believe that the short finger thing may not be genetic at all. Instead they theorize that if a woman has previously produced a male child, that there is still a good dose of testosterone lingering in the womb causing certain male tendencies to emerge. Who knows?
[ July 04, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Morris ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
would people also want to remove the homosexual gene if it existed?
IMHO, I don't think that will happen. I, for one, believe we will soon see gay marriages here in the states and in time most gay stuff will just become trivial. Question I have is what will take its place? Transgendered stuff or biSexual things or maybe polygamy???... Culture and society is always evolving. The fringes always end up getting absorbed into mainstream.
Andrew Monkhouse
author and jackaroo
Marshal Commander

Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Posts: 11278
    
  59

would people also want to remove the homosexual gene if it existed?
A frigtening possibility.
One of the problems that are forseen with being able to modify the genetic codes of your offspring, is that some of the variation in people at present may disapear. It could come down to people seeing it as an invenstment and/or a necessity. The investment comes in as spend $1000 now on getting a child who is going to be a genius ... therefore they are more likely to be able to get good jobs and hopefully support the parents later in life. The necessity comes in if enough people do this - then people may see that they have to do it or their child wont be able to compete. Once you get into this area, then I think it would be a brave parent who modified some of the child's genes and didnt look at what part the other genes might play, so it is more likely that the homosexual gene (if it exists) would also be removed at the same time as any other changes are made.
Another problem is with the whole gene mapping - there has been some talk about how private that information should be. For instance should an insurance company be able to demand you show them the results of gene analysis under their existing "known conditions must be declared" clauses? What if this means that they refuse to give you insurance because they believe you have a high risk of getting a heart attack by the time you are 50?
Regards, Andrew


The Sun Certified Java Developer Exam with J2SE 5: paper version from Amazon, PDF from Apress, Online reference: Books 24x7 Personal blog
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Michael Morris:
It comes down to what do we consider homosexuality to be, a pathology or just another variation in the human species much like differences in intelligence or athletic ability.
Currently I believe the latter - we're better off trying to change attitudes than genes. Many people would have us believe different however. The key, as you say is in the definition and who gets to define it. The power of the medical profession has been quite remarkable if you think back to a time when women were locked up as being insane for giving birth to bastards, the whole hysteria "disease", and the hijacking of the birth process, even now (though attitudes are changing again) treated more like a sickness sometimes. As long as people hopefully continue to question authorities, I think we'll be okay and I think homosexuality is "safe".
Originally posted by Andrew Monkhouse:
One of the problems that are foreseen with being able to modify the genetic codes of your offspring, is that some of the variation in people at present may disappear...
...The investment comes in as spend $1000 now on getting a child who is going to be a genius ...
... The necessity comes in if enough people do this - then people may see that they have to do it or their child wont be able to compete.
Its a double edged sword. Children to order would be undesirable and dangerous. The snowballing effect of making humanity "perfect" implies knowing exactly what perfect is (which is largely subjective - you could design the perfect consumer in theory). It implies a single type too, but a system where all parts function exactly the same biologically is more vulnerable to an unforeseen and devastating attack.
Also diversity can breed intolerance but perhaps less diversity will breed more intolerance, to the most minor of differences - who knows.
Getting back to the "gay gene", if you were living in a society where homosexuals were mercilessly persecuted I think many parents would isolate that particular trait out of love for their child. Its the most natural thing in the world to want to give your child the best head start in life. Fortunately most western societies are becoming more tolerant, but as John says, something might take its place.
Generally though, I'm quite excited by the possibilities and certainly look forward to a time when you'll be able to halt the transfer of cancer genes to your offspring. Aside from major diseases, I think we're better off leaving the rest to chance, but the temptation to go beyond that would be phenomenal.
[ July 07, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
There are so many potential problems with tampering with the human genome it's hard to list them all. It's eugenics pure and simple, we're just directly manipulating the offspring instead of using selective breeding. The two biggest problems I see is the creation of a superior class of humans that would believe it was their right and obligation to subjegate the inferior humans, and the weakening of the gene pool. Those so-called inferior genes are there for a reason. It may not be obvious to us, but nature certainly has a purpose.
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Transexuals have marriage rights in UK whattya know...
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
I have several very good friends who are gay, and while I don't judge them or hate them because of it, I still consider homosexuality to be a pathology. Why? For one simple reason: it offers NO benefits. A species does not evolve in ways which do not benefit its survival, and not being able to reproduce is certainly a drawback. Maybe Evolution is Dead. Science and Medicine killed it. People just live longer these days, live when nature would have killed them. I could bring my religious beliefs into it - or just personal experience. I don't know a single homosexual who doesn't have some sort of messed up family life, emotional trauma, or "reason" for being gay. I also know of people who have had homosexual tendencies and have been "curred" because they weren't happy with their decisions and wanted to change. They attended counsiling and made a commitment to change. One of these is happily married with kids. So, I personally view it as a pathology. Thoughts?
Damien Howard
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 01, 2003
Posts: 456
I have several very good friends who are gay, and while I don't judge them or hate them because of it, I still consider homosexuality to be a pathology. Why? For one simple reason: it offers NO benefits. A species does not evolve in ways which do not benefit its survival, and not being able to reproduce is certainly a drawback. Maybe Evolution is Dead. Science and Medicine killed it. People just live longer these days, live when nature would have killed them. I could bring my religious beliefs into it - or just personal experience. I don't know a single homosexual who doesn't have some sort of messed up family life, emotional trauma, or "reason" for being gay. I also know of people who have had homosexual tendencies and have been "curred" because they weren't happy with their decisions and wanted to change. They attended counsiling and made a commitment to change. One of these is happily married with kids. So, I personally view it as a pathology. Thoughts?

I think it is just something beyond anyones control. I don't see why it can not be viewed as something natural. It has existed since the beginning of recorded human history. It exists in some animals as well (bisexuality as well). Religion should mind it own damn business. If God had a problem with it, he wouldn't make gay animals. And lastly, this only has an affect on breeding because of our social structure. There is no reason biologically why a person can not choose to spend their life with some one of the same sex, but still reproduce with someone of the opposite sex.
I'm not gay, I don't believe in polygamy or in having multiple partners. I'm quite happy just being with my gf. I could care less what others do. Why interfere with something that does not harm you one iota? And please don't give me any bs saying it does. "My children might see it and be influenced, It might spread to a family member, God will damn me for not speaking against it and whatever other bs you can come up with" If you want to take that attitude you better pull sex and violence from tv, better stop reading the bible and Harry Potter for that matter, your kids might become witches.
And isn't this homosexuality thing such a minor issue when you have idiots like Bush running around bombing starving people?
Ok, now I'm done. I apologize to anyone who might be angered by my rant. I do not intend to upset anyone, just to say my piece
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
I have several very good friends who are gay, and while I don't judge them or hate them because of it, I still consider homosexuality to be a pathology. So you feel their homosexuality is a manifestation of some sort of disease. It's quite an assessment being that you can't prove that. Suppose you are wrong, then aren't you judging them, aren't you punishing them or subjecting them to a negative label to justify what you feel about them?
Why? For one simple reason: it offers NO benefits. If something offers no benefits is it automatically a pathology?? Is the hair on my arms / back pathological?
A species does not evolve in ways which do not benefit its survival, and not being able to reproduce is certainly a drawback. Maybe Evolution is Dead. Science and Medicine killed it. People just live longer these days, live when nature would have killed them.
Gay humans are not a species. They are a very small subset of a species.
I could bring my religious beliefs into it -
well, it's not really a religious issue, IMHO.
or just personal experience. I don't know a single homosexual who doesn't have some sort of messed up family life, emotional trauma, or "reason" for being gay.
This is a fallacy. You probably don't know enough homosexuals to accurately determine if their 'pathology' exists as a result of some dysfunction in life. (I bet you don't live in NYC, L.A., KeyWest or San Fran )
I also know of people who have had homosexual tendencies and have been "curred" because they weren't happy with their decisions and wanted to change. They attended counsiling and made a commitment to change. One of these is happily married with kids. So, I personally view it as a pathology.
A human's sexuality ~may~ change over time. For some people, sexuality is an evolving thing. It's not an absolute.

Thoughts?
Yeah, even if homosexuality is a pathology, who cares? In a nutshell, I see sexuality as a way for Humans to have physical, spiritual, and emotional intimacy and contact. So, if the actions are consensual, responsible, and based on love, what difference should it make to me if two honest, caring responsible men or women engage in consenual sex with one another?? I definitely don't fully understand a gay man, but I don't need to, and I'm comfortable with that. I don't seem to need to understand every other type of people or culture to get by, so what difference does it make?
I don't think people will ever be duped into being gay b/c they saw others around them doing it.
I believe a person will never reach there true self if they stifle their desired sexuality and therefore I would be saddened in knowing that a gay man/woman was unable to be who they deep-down really wanted to be. I believe each person has a responsibility to themselves to be true to themselves.
Don Kiddick
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 580
Originally posted by <Jen>:
I have several very good friends who are gay, and while I don't judge them or hate them because of it, I still consider homosexuality to be a pathology. Why? For one simple reason: it offers NO benefits. A species does not evolve in ways which do not benefit its survival, and not being able to reproduce is certainly a drawback. Maybe Evolution is Dead. Science and Medicine killed it. People just live longer these days, live when nature would have killed them. I could bring my religious beliefs into it - or just personal experience. I don't know a single homosexual who doesn't have some sort of messed up family life, emotional trauma, or "reason" for being gay. I also know of people who have had homosexual tendencies and have been "curred" because they weren't happy with their decisions and wanted to change. They attended counsiling and made a commitment to change. One of these is happily married with kids. So, I personally view it as a pathology. Thoughts?

How do you know homosexuality offers no benefits ? Nature works in mysterious ways. It's strange don't you think that homosexuality is present among many species - dogs, cats, tsetse flies etc... I reckon there is a evolutionary reason for homosexuality, what it is, I can't tell you, I'm not God, neither are you.
D.
[ July 18, 2003: Message edited by: Don Kiddick ]
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Homosexuality does not harm me, it's not contagious, I'm not God, back hair is gross (but had a function), I live in Indiana, and I believe humans and gay humans are the same species (just like hairy guys and smooth ones). Maybe there is some benefit to homosexuality, who knows? Not me. I see none. If anyone would like to offer up ideas, I'm all ears. What are the benefits of homosexuality (other than, of course, being true to yourself)? I'm also open to the idea that Evolution no longer holds much of a candle to human development. Hairy backs might have been useful when humans didn't have central heat to keep them warm. Now it's no longer necessary. Homosexual humans are able to "reproduce" through the wonder of science and some willing female donor. Neato, go for it. That kid will be singled out and different for the rest of their life. Ok, maybe society will change and be more accepting - which would by all means be a good thing - but right now kids are cruel and would mercilessly tease another child with gay parents. I've seen it happen. Poor kid. I personally am glad that I was raised by Mom and Dad, not two gay men, but that's just a personal preference. So, speak up.
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
A few other thoughts and responses:
To Damien Howard:
"I think it is just something beyond anyones control. I don't see why it can not be viewed as something natural."
- exactally my point. Pathologies are not 'unnatural' and they certainly are beyond anyone's control.
"If God had a problem with it, he wouldn't make gay animals."
- Ok, so religion should mind it's own business, but you believe God created animals? Make up your mind.
"Why interfere with something that does not harm you one iota?"
- If I was 'interferring' with homosexuality, then I wouldn't be friends with so many homosexuals. I would probably never have a conversation with a "gay" if I thought they were bad, nasty, or harmful - because I don't think this. If I was friends with someone with AIDS and I called AIDS a pathology, would that be hate or judgement?
"And isn't this homosexuality thing such a minor issue when you have idiots like Bush running around bombing starving people?"
- Uh, yes, but that's what places like this are for, to discuss stuff that's not so very important and exchange opinions. I offered mine because I thought it would start interesting conversation - and I was right. =)

To John Dunn:
Your responses were pretty well thought through, thank you. Though you seemed to interpret what I was saying as "homosexuality is bad". I was not saying this at all. I simply view it as a "pathological condition". Try definition #3 at dictionary.com: "A departure or deviation from a normal condition." I personally think that a normal condition for humans is for males and females to hook up and breed. That's how the body (evolved / was made). I think this is the intended way of things.
To Don Kiddick:
And yes, animals can have this pathology too - thank you for that point that I missed.
---------------------------------------------
Some other quotes for your enjoyment, ones that I live by. Guess the author and win a prize:
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.--`Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'--Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
- It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day
Bill Clinton was pretty good at that
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Damien Howard:
And isn't this homosexuality thing such a minor issue when you have idiots like Bush running around bombing starving people?

I am lurking into a Russian forum for translators/interpreters (and these are people who work in UN ), once somebody called Bush "an idiot", after which the moderator urged everybody to watch their language.
If Russians don't consider insulting the president of the USA acceptable, maybe American citizens can find better ways of expressing their frustration also!


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
maybe American citizens can find better ways of expressing their frustration also!
Hey, its our right to criticize the Prez!!!
---------
My Moldavian friend once commented on my Bill Clinton satire photo in my cubicle and all of us were laughing at his remarks. (Bill, was in SM gear with Hill pulling his leash.)
He said, "Why do you hate Clinton?"
I said I don't hate Clinton, but it sure is damn funny. Isn't it?"
He says, "Isn't this really bad to do this?? Can you get in trouble?" He said he would have gotten in trouble if he did something like that in RUH-Shaaaaa.
We reminded him that that is exactly why he came to the US We weren't laughin AT him but at his innocence. It also pointed out how little respect we had for our Prez
So, tell all the Rooskies in the UN that 'idiot' is appropriate, if that's how they feel. Their feelings may not be appropriate, though, but nobody will send 'em off to a gualog.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Hey, its our right to criticize the Prez!!!
I imagined there is a difference between criticizing "the Prez" and calling him an idiot. Maybe I imagine too much. :roll:
He said he would have gotten in trouble if he did something like that in RUH-Shaaaaa.
Cannot imagine anyone in Russia getting in trouble for calling Bush "an idiot"
Their feelings may not be appropriate, though, but nobody will send 'em off to a gualog.
Now that's something new! I rush the tell them! They must still have been keeping su-ha-ri under the bed! Just in case!
po�lite adj. po�lit�er, po�lit�est.
1. Marked by or showing consideration for others, tact, and observance of accepted social usage.
2. Refined; elegant: polite society. [Middle English polit, polished, from Latin pol�tus, past participle of pol�re, to polish. See POLISH.] --po�lite“ly adv. --po�lite“ness n.
[ July 18, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
freedom of the press
n
: guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by <Jen>:
To Don Kiddick:
And yes, animals can have this pathology too - thank you for that point that I missed.

Actually you totally missed my point. Evolution is not an algorithm, it's an infintessimly (sp?) complicated process which no human is capable of understanding fully.
If homosexuality has no evolutionary value, why does it continue to exist and show no signs slowing down ? Homosexuality has been with us probably forever, but certainly since ancient civilisations such as the Greeks. In my very humble opinion I believe that homosexuality fits in somewhere in the grand scheme of evolution. How else can you explain the continual occurence of homosexuality throughtout history and throughout species ? If it had no evolutionary value it would not be with us today.
D.
jason adam
Chicken Farmer ()
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 08, 2001
Posts: 1932
Originally posted by John Dunn:
It makes me wonder if the male sex organs are derived from woman's, AND if some folks develop only partial penises - is it possible that homosexuality is the sexual desire that has also only half-way developed???

If you've ever watched gay porn, I think you could throw out that whole "partial penis" theory
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
They must still have been keeping su-ha-ri under the bed!

SU-HA-RI
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
freedom of the press
.. belongs to those who own the press.
John, you are an idiot.
Sorry!
If we do not call each other "idiots", why is it Ok to call Bush "an idiot"? Enlighten me.
P.S. What all this has to do with "Gulag"???
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Suhari (pl from "suhar'")
"cracker, zwieback, biscuit, dried crust; rusk"
-- basically dried bread, believed to be the best food suply to take with you in prison.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
There is an idiom in Russian -- suhari sushit' , which means "to dry su-ha-ri" (which is a tautology, because "suhari" is derived from the root "dry", so it's like "to dry dries") and it means to make preparations, or more often simply to expect to be arrested.
[ July 18, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Jason: I think you could throw out that whole "partial penis" theory
It's no theory. Fetus start off with 'female' organs and then some (the males) get transformed into male organs. That is complete fact. ~Sometimes~ this process fails to complete normally and those poor souls end up with malformed sex organs and lots of hardship, (as one could imagine). My wonder - and its not a new thought - is could this malformation also occur at other areas in our beings. (i.e. our psyche or our emotions). AND MIND YOU, I don't then think of it as a pathology anymore then small/large penises, small/large breasts, or blond/brown hair are pathologies. It's just different. If we did find some anatomical reason for it, then all the folks that claim it to be a moral issue would need to sit down.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
He said he would have gotten in trouble if he did something like that in RUH-Shaaaaa.

In 1985 I attended a preparation class to enter the University (which meant university folk told us what they want to see from their students)
One of the questions in literature class was "what XXXXXXX congress of Communistic Party said about literature". Our lector yawned and answered: "well... read what they said. It's all slovobludie anyway".
"Slovobludie" -- not sure how to translate, but something around masturbation/prostitution/messing around of/with/whatever words. FYI: Nobody sent her to Gulag.
Second attempt:
Slovo - word
Blud - lechery
[ July 18, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
John Dunn, you are an idiot
Well, sometimes I am idiotic. Just not most of the time.
If we do not call each other "idiots", why is it Ok to call Bush "an idiot"? Enlighten me.
Suppose you couldn't 'offend' the Prez. Then how could you ever impeach or grill one for something they did wrong? Presidents are citizens, they are NOT royalty. When the press came out and accussed the Nixon admin of crimes, were they being offensive?? If that being offensive were not allowed, would we ever have found out about Watergate?? 'Idiot' may not be a recommended word for daily usage, (unless you want to be caustic), but it certainly is not illegal. I also think that when we are talking about a Prez, all bets are off. No Guts, No Glory. If a Prez can't stand up to a little criticism they should turn the job over to the V.P.

P.S. What all this has to do with "Gulag"??? We told Alex (al-UXXXX from Moldavia) that he wouldn't get sent to the gulag if made fun of Clinton.
>>> I also found a postcard that said " In NYC you go looking for a party; in Russia the Party goes looking for you"
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
>>> I also found a postcard that said " In NYC you go looking for a party; in Russia the Party goes looking for you"
Ok, that's funny!
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
suhari sushit
Could you put the correct pronunciation here for me? (you can cut some corners, if it has any of those hard-to-make sounds) I want to use that at work, the next time one of my RUH-shuuuun friends makes a boo-boo.
FYI: Nobody sent her to Gulag. Well, this REALLY did have nothing to do with gulags, except that fact that I felt compelled to bust Alex's chops, (as did most of the other men around), and this seemed a great way to do it. Probably a male-bonding-American-sardonic-humor thing. Basically, if you're speaking in bust-able sentences, you're definitely gonna get busted on... I am laughing as I recall how the non-Americans would bust back in their broken English. (Honest to God, I've had more than one non-American, comment that they wish they knew the lanuage better, so that they could crack more jokes, because they felt they were missing out on a lot of fun.)
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Could you put the correct pronunciation here for me?
<scratching my head>
The stress is on the last syllables in both words, other than that, I am not sure how to convey pronunciation on this media... Heck, local population cannot even pronounce my simple name "Rita" as it should be pronounced, and how can I explain that the sound "i" is not what they think it is???
I'll try to drag Matola into this conversation, he must know better.
Well, this REALLY did have nothing to do with gulags
Why do people use "gulag" as plural? This word is an acronym:
G - Glavnoe (main)
U - Upravlenie (mm... headquarter?)
LAG - LAGerey (of camps)
-- and there was only one! (1930-1950s)
Like CIA, for example. You do not call all your prisons Cias, do you?
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Hmmm.... would
Sue-har-ee Sue-Sheet be close
The whole S-H-I-T thing-ee could be embarassing if I got that wrong.
jason adam
Chicken Farmer ()
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 08, 2001
Posts: 1932
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Jason: I think you could throw out that whole "partial penis" theory
It's no theory. Fetus start off with 'female' organs and then some (the males) get transformed into male organs. That is complete fact. ~Sometimes~ this process fails to complete normally and those poor souls end up with malformed sex organs and lots of hardship, (as one could imagine). My wonder - and its not a new thought - is could this malformation also occur at other areas in our beings. (i.e. our psyche or our emotions). AND MIND YOU, I don't then think of it as a pathology anymore then small/large penises, small/large breasts, or blond/brown hair are pathologies. It's just different. If we did find some anatomical reason for it, then all the folks that claim it to be a moral issue would need to sit down.

I was just trying to add a slight amount of humor to a topic that I find fairly irrelevant (that of why people are gay). For anyone to state that they understand the nature of life, creation, or why we do what we do is quite egotistical. If science has taught us one thing is that as soon as we think we understand something, something else comes along to blow that whole idea out of the water. Any time you have an exception to a rule, you have the possibility for any other conclusions to exist.
So no offense meant, I was just having fun, when I read the statement combining partial penises and homosexuality I immediately thought of a few queens that would be more than happy to drop trow and prove there's nothing partial about theirs
[ July 19, 2003: Message edited by: jason adam ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
JA: For anyone to state that they understand the nature of life, creation, or why we do what we do is quite egotistical.
Hmmm.... IMHO, I guess it depends on what they're sayin'
philosophy
n 1:
a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school [syn: doctrine, school of thought, ism]
2: the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
3: any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: It's just a matter of time...
 
Similar Threads
Change Of Faith
What should you do when you see a fight?
India Election 2004
Does size matter ?
Have you seen Zangief Kid video?