On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:59:24 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message

>>
>> Your two seem to have a lot of time on your hands and enough excess
>> dudgeon to go to the moon and back.
>
>Seems like you have a lot of time on your hairy caveman hands too. Fork you!
>LOL
>

Hairy? Caveman?

I guess you do not pay much attention to details...too busy being a 10
cent copy an etiquette snob.

On 7/30/2015 12:33 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:59:24 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> Your two seem to have a lot of time on your hands and enough excess
>>> dudgeon to go to the moon and back.
>>
>> Seems like you have a lot of time on your hairy caveman hands too. Fork you!
>> LOL
>>
>
> Hairy? Caveman?

Yes.

They were.

> I guess you do not pay much attention to details...too busy being a 10
> cent copy an etiquette snob.

No wonder you were named after a low order element.

Some day you'll be an evaporite and this will all be moot.

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:49:14 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Have you priced specialty books lately? They are expensive. All that
> that students are taught to be proven science changes quickly.

No it doesn't. That's the point about science, it may evolve but doesn't change. Most undergraduate science courses (especially mathematics) are valid for many years.

http://www.richardfisher.com

In article >,
Cindy Hamilton > wrote:

> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-4, Sal Paradise wrote:
> >
> > In a video for local outlet WESH-TV, Workman explains that the book,
> > titled "World History," dedicates 36 pages to Islam and only several
> > paragraphs to Christianity.
>
> Seems to me that if you're going to teach stuff, you'd want to
> spend less time on things your audience already knows (Christianity)
> and more time on unfamiliar material.
>

Then since we've had a massive influx of Somalis into my town, maybe the
schools need to start teaching Christianity? Not likely to happen.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:33:01 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:59:24 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> Your two seem to have a lot of time on your hands and enough excess
> >> dudgeon to go to the moon and back.
> >
> >Seems like you have a lot of time on your hairy caveman hands too. Fork you!
> >LOL
> >
>
> Hairy? Caveman?
>
> I guess you do not pay much attention to details...too busy being a 10
> cent copy an etiquette snob.

Unlike many topics here, at least it's food related.

--

sf

On 2015-07-30 12:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Best solution, if possible, would be to upgrade the woman to a first
> class seat and be sure to let the religious nut know she was getting the
> best treatment possible.
>
> No seat available? Sit down, shut up, or get off.


His plan may have been to make a stink and get himself upgraded to shut
up. It would be nice for him to know it backfired in triplicate.

On 2015-07-30 12:07 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:

>> Have you priced specialty books lately? They are expensive. All that
>> that students are taught to be proven science changes quickly.
>>
>
>
> It isn't just science books, though. And online addendums/changes
> should be easy enough to carry an edition through at least 3 yrs,
> maybe more.
>
> Having put 3 kids through college, I was astounded at the book pricing
> and the publisher changes that made any previous edition useless, so
> the used book trade dries up.

I was stunned at prices when I was a student. I remember being thrilled
to see that one course had only one text....Handbook of Socialization:
Theory and Research. Then I saw the price of that one book. One course
had a book on the reading list that happened to have been written by the
professor. I don't think I missed a single class in that course, but
there were no readings from that book assigned and it was never even
mentioned in class. Those of us who diligently bought all the books on
the list got scammed.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:46:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-07-30 12:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Best solution, if possible, would be to upgrade the woman to a first
>> class seat and be sure to let the religious nut know she was getting the
>> best treatment possible.
>>
>> No seat available? Sit down, shut up, or get off.
>
>
>His plan may have been to make a stink and get himself upgraded to shut
>up. It would be nice for him to know it backfired in triplicate.

I think that is exactly what was happening on the plane I was on.
There was more than one to-do, all those making a fuss had middle
seats, all were pushing to get changed into aisle or window.

Just one incident observation. It might have been an outlier.

On 2015-07-30 3:22 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:49:14 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Have you priced specialty books lately? They are expensive. All that
>> that students are taught to be proven science changes quickly.
>
> No it doesn't. That's the point about science, it may evolve but doesn't change. Most undergraduate science courses (especially mathematics) are valid for many years.
>

That explains all the new discoveries. How many people understood the
Theory or Relativity 200 years ago?

On 7/30/2015 1:33 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article >,
> Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-4, Sal Paradise wrote:
>>>
>>> In a video for local outlet WESH-TV, Workman explains that the book,
>>> titled "World History," dedicates 36 pages to Islam and only several
>>> paragraphs to Christianity.
>>
>> Seems to me that if you're going to teach stuff, you'd want to
>> spend less time on things your audience already knows (Christianity)
>> and more time on unfamiliar material.
>>
>
> Then since we've had a massive influx of Somalis into my town, maybe the
> schools need to start teaching Christianity? Not likely to happen.
>

But it should.

If not - hello Candadidia, where muzzies are running wild!

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/...haria-law.html

Sharia law is advancing in Canada at both provincial and local levels.

The provincial governments of Canada for years have tacitly recognized
Sharia law for Canada's Muslim minority by sending multiple welfare
checks to polygamous Muslim men who raise multiple families in Canada.

In 2003, Muslims in Ontario, the immigrant-rich province, attempted to
make the government of Ontario set aside its laws and have only the
Sharia law apply to Muslims. After a fierce debate, the Premier of
Ontario eventually stepped in and pushed back against Sharia, at least
for then.

Efforts by Canadian Muslims to push for Sharia law at the municipal
level have met more immediate success. Above is the scene at Valley Park
Middle School, a public school in Toronto, Ontario in 2008 - a decade
after Mark Harding took a stand against it.

Instead of just a classroom, a cafeteria becomes a mosque on Friday
afternoons so that Muslim students can listen to an imam from a nearby
mosque and pray towards Mecca. In the photo, the boys are praying in
front of the girls, who are praying in front of the menstruating girls,
who are forbidden to pray. The same scene is repeated at public schools
across Canada today and many of their cafeterias only serve Halal food
that have been sacrificed to Allah, the moon god.

By contrast, public schools in Canada provide neither facilities for the
Christian students to gather and worship nor kosher food for the Jewish
students.

Also since 2008, the municipal government of Edmonton in the province of
Alberta has been denying men access to its swimming pools during certain
hours of the week after Muslim women demanded opportunities to swim
without men around, in accordance with the Shariah law.

In 2011, the municipal government of Huntingdon in the province of
Quebec built a mosque, a Halal slaughterhouse and offered a 1-year
property tax moratorium to attract Muslim residents.

In a 2011 survey, 62% of the Muslims in Ottawa, the Canadian capital,
expressed a desire to live under some form of Sharia law. The percentage
is high, especially given their option to engage in Taqiyya. Over the
next 20 years, Canada's Muslim population is projected to triple.


Alternately:


http://nationalreport.net/city-michi...nt-sharia-law/

In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted
4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of
Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into effect January 1st,
addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as
personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and
hygiene.

The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb
amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or
abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law
imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.

Some in town seem to welcome the new legislation while others have
denounced the move as “abhorrent”, a threat to freedom and incompatible
with the Constitution. When asked by National Report about the need for
such a law, local resident Jeremy Ahmed stated:

“It is because of our need that Allah the Almighty, in all his
generosity, has created laws for us, so that we can utilize them to
obtain justice. We hope to see other cities taking this action in the
face of the governments inaction of passing such legislation”.


"Hello America, where are ya?"

On 30/07/2015 1:54 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-07-30 3:22 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:49:14 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you priced specialty books lately? They are expensive. All that
>>> that students are taught to be proven science changes quickly.
>>
>> No it doesn't. That's the point about science, it may evolve but
>> doesn't change. Most undergraduate science courses (especially
>> mathematics) are valid for many years.
>>
>
> That explains all the new discoveries. How many people understood the
> Theory or Relativity 200 years ago?
>
I think you mean 100 years ago!
Graham
--
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy wine,
which is kind of the same thing".

On 30/07/2015 1:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-07-30 12:07 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>> Have you priced specialty books lately? They are expensive. All that
>>> that students are taught to be proven science changes quickly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't just science books, though. And online addendums/changes
>> should be easy enough to carry an edition through at least 3 yrs,
>> maybe more.
>>
>> Having put 3 kids through college, I was astounded at the book pricing
>> and the publisher changes that made any previous edition useless, so
>> the used book trade dries up.
>
> I was stunned at prices when I was a student. I remember being thrilled
> to see that one course had only one text....Handbook of Socialization:
> Theory and Research. Then I saw the price of that one book. One course
> had a book on the reading list that happened to have been written by the
> professor. I don't think I missed a single class in that course, but
> there were no readings from that book assigned and it was never even
> mentioned in class. Those of us who diligently bought all the books on
> the list got scammed.
>
>
>
I was fortunate in that regard. There were no mathematics texts, only
one physics and a small number for geology, 2 of which are still a handy
reference today, some 50 years later, and I bought those second hand.
I was also fortunate regarding fees. Back then, the local education
authority gave me a (means tested) maintenance grant and paid my fees.
IIRC, the fees for pure science for one year were £85. Now they are
£9000 thanks to Maggie T.
Graham
--
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy wine,
which is kind of the same thing".

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:55:39 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
>"Gary" > wrote in message ...
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-07-30 2:01 AM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Nope. Students pay tuition for post secondary education. University is
>>> >> considerably more expensive than college.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Here, community college is part of the K-12 system and is relatively
>>> > free compared to the other choices. Since the early '70s, all places
>>> > of higher *public* education in the California system are
>>> > universities. They are more expensive than a CC but downright cheap
>>> > compared to attending a private college or university.
>>> >
>>>
>>> My first year university tuition (1970) was $515. Somewhere along the
>>> line it rose to $615, which caused a lot of controversy. I just checked
>>> the current rates. It is now $1330 per credit rate and a cap of $6652
>>> for 4 or 5 (max). The local college are closer to $3000, plus materials
>>> and most of them are only 2 year courses.
>>
>> The books are a rip too...Often costing way over $100 and they replace
>> them every 2 years.

University salaries certainly can be very nice!That's why I was
thinking about becoming an UMSL professor! I live right across the
street!

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe...
>
>It was interesting to see the salaries of the higher ups at universities in
>CA in the paper today, while tuition etc., keeps going up.
>
>Cheri

On 7/30/2015 3:28 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
> University salaries certainly can be very nice!That's why I was
> thinking about becoming an UMSL professor! I live right across the
> street!

How many professors live in a city park?

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:57:30 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 7/30/2015 9:39 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:33:28 -0400, Nancy Young
>> > wrote:
>
>>> In other words, I personally wouldn't have taken it past a
>>> passing irritation. And I don't blame her for being annoyed about
>>> the whole thing, but I'd save it for the guy who started it.
>
>> I am itching to watch another in-flight kerfluffle.
>
>Ha, not me, I all Put your crap in the overhead bin (and
>not too much of it!), sit down and be quiet, let's go.
>
>Of course, I'm always in the middle seat, so I'm not all
>that happy to start with. Just kidding.
>
>nancy

I am thinking of strictly for YouTube.

On 2015-07-30 4:49 PM, graham wrote:
> On 30/07/2015 1:54 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-07-30 3:22 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:49:14 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have you priced specialty books lately? They are expensive. All that
>>>> that students are taught to be proven science changes quickly.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. That's the point about science, it may evolve but
>>> doesn't change. Most undergraduate science courses (especially
>>> mathematics) are valid for many years.
>>>
>>
>> That explains all the new discoveries. How many people understood the
>> Theory or Relativity 200 years ago?
>>
> I think you mean 100 years ago!

Oh? It wasn't taught in the physics books 200 years ago?

On 30/07/2015 7:42 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-07-30 4:49 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 30/07/2015 1:54 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2015-07-30 3:22 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:49:14 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you priced specialty books lately? They are expensive. All that
>>>>> that students are taught to be proven science changes quickly.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. That's the point about science, it may evolve but
>>>> doesn't change. Most undergraduate science courses (especially
>>>> mathematics) are valid for many years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That explains all the new discoveries. How many people understood the
>>> Theory or Relativity 200 years ago?
>>>
>> I think you mean 100 years ago!
>
> Oh? It wasn't taught in the physics books 200 years ago?
>
Special Relativity: 1905
General Relativity: 1916

Graham

--
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy wine,
which is kind of the same thing".

In article >,
says...
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:22:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
> >
> > Granted, if I wanted to completely rework a recipe, I'll type it up.
> > But just for scratching out 1/2 teaspoon salt and replacing it with
> > 1 teaspoon, I'll write in the book.
> >
> Something that minimal isn't worth recording.

Of course it is; I often adjust the seasoning in recipes to the level
of salt (or sugar, spice or flavourings) we prefer.

Janet UK

On 2015-07-30 1:55 PM, Cheri wrote:

> It was interesting to see the salaries of the higher ups at universities
> in CA in the paper today, while tuition etc., keeps going up.


Universities seem to have lots of money for some things. A few years ago
the local university contracted a head hunter to help them find a new
dean of social studies. They contacted an old friend on mine from BC.
She was flown here, picked up at the airport and wined and dined and
interviewed for three days. There were two other candidates that would
be going through the process. They ended up going with the person who
had been acting in the position for the last year. He or she may have
been doing a great job, but that is a hell of a lot of money to be spend
on the appearance of an earnest search.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-07-30 1:55 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> It was interesting to see the salaries of the higher ups at universities
>> in CA in the paper today, while tuition etc., keeps going up.
>
>
> Universities seem to have lots of money for some things. A few years ago
> the local university contracted a head hunter to help them find a new
> dean of social studies. They contacted an old friend on mine from BC.
> She was flown here, picked up at the airport and wined and dined and
> interviewed for three days. There were two other candidates that would
> be going through the process. They ended up going with the person who
> had been acting in the position for the last year. He or she may have
> been doing a great job, but that is a hell of a lot of money to be spend
> on the appearance of an earnest search.

I've been involved peripherally in a search like this, for a department
chair. It was indeed an earnest search, but it turns out the interim chair
was the best candidate after all.

Most deans schmooze with donors most of the time. Finding the right person
is not a scientific process.

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-07-30 1:55 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > It was interesting to see the salaries of the higher ups at universities
> > in CA in the paper today, while tuition etc., keeps going up.
>
>
> Universities seem to have lots of money for some things. A few years ago
> the local university contracted a head hunter to help them find a new
> dean of social studies. They contacted an old friend on mine from BC.
> She was flown here, picked up at the airport and wined and dined and
> interviewed for three days. There were two other candidates that would
> be going through the process. They ended up going with the person who
> had been acting in the position for the last year. He or she may have
> been doing a great job, but that is a hell of a lot of money to be spend
> on the appearance of an earnest search.

That's not a lot of money. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the head hunter fee. It's also not easy to find the right candidate. It's necessary to make them welcome and show them around the area so that they will feel good about moving.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 7/31/2015 1:30 PM, Directorate of Troll Removal and Disposal wrote:

Barbara J. Llorente FRAUD!

Barbara J Llorente 71 Cerritos Ave San Francisco, CA 94127.
Age 65 (Born 1950) (415) 239-7248. Background Check - Available. Record
ID: 47846596.

Your ass has more mass than Jupiter!

No one cares about you.

Get OUT!


_,..._
/__ \
>< `. \
/_ \ |
\-_ /:|
,--'..'. :
,' `.
_,' \
_.._,--'' , |
, ,',, _| _,.'| | |
\\||/,'(,' '--'' | | |
_ ||| | /-' |
| | (- -)<`._ | / /
| | \_\O/_/`-.(<< |____/ /
| | / \ / -'| `--.'|
| | \___/ / /
| | H H / | |
|_|_..-H-H--.._ / ,| |
|-.._"_"__..-| | _-/ | |
| | | | \_ |
Barbara Llorente | | | | |
| The | |____| | |
|Troll Enabler | _..' | |____|
jrei | |_(____..._' _.' |
`-..______..-'"" (___..--'

On 7/31/2015 5:14 AM, Directorate of Troll Removal and Disposal wrote:

Barbara J. Llorente FRAUD!

Barbara J Llorente 71 Cerritos Ave San Francisco, CA 94127.
Age 65 (Born 1950) (415) 239-7248. Background Check - Available. Record
ID: 47846596.

Your ass has more mass than Jupiter!

No one cares about you.

Get OUT!


_,..._
/__ \
>< `. \
/_ \ |
\-_ /:|
,--'..'. :
,' `.
_,' \
_.._,--'' , |
, ,',, _| _,.'| | |
\\||/,'(,' '--'' | | |
_ ||| | /-' |
| | (- -)<`._ | / /
| | \_\O/_/`-.(<< |____/ /
| | / \ / -'| `--.'|
| | \___/ / /
| | H H / | |
|_|_..-H-H--.._ / ,| |
|-.._"_"__..-| | _-/ | |
| | | | \_ |
Barbara Llorente | | | | |
| The | |____| | |
|Troll Enabler | _..' | |____|
jrei | |_(____..._' _.' |
`-..______..-'"" (___..--'

On 8/1/2015 4:03 AM, Helpful person wrote:
There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings
and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush
family but also many other politicians that are still in office and
still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. Jeb Bush, George Bush
Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and
Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars
(note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).

Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was
a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration
worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and
depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political
opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry.
Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986
that they felt would require a bailout. This information was kept from
the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.

Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings
in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office
building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by
the regulators at $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The
taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.

Neil Bush was the most widely targeted member of the Bush family by the
press in the S&L scandal. Neil became director of Silverado Savings and
Loan at the age of 30 in 1985. Three years later the institution was
belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to tax payers to bail out.

The basic actions of Neil Bush in the S&L scandal are as follows:

Neil received a $100,000 "loan" from Ken Good, of Good International,
with no obligation to pay any of the money back.

Good was a large shareholder in JNB Explorations, Neil Bush's
oil-exploration company.

Neil failed to disclose this conflict-of-interest when loans were given
to Good from Silverado, because the money was to be used in joint
venture with his own JNB. This was in essence giving himself a loan
from Silverado through a third party.

Neil then helped Silverado S&L approve Good International for a $900,000
line of credit.

Good defaulted on a total $32 million in loans from Silverado.

During this time Neil Bush did not disclose that $3 million of the $32
million that Good was defaulting on was actually for investment in JNB,
his own company.

Good subsequently raised Bush's JNB salary from $75,000 to $125,000 and
granted him a $22,500 bonus.

Neil Bush maintained that he did not see how this constituted a conflict
of interest.

Neil approved $106 million in Silverado loans to another JNB investor,
Bill Walters.

Neil also never formally disclosed his relationship with Walters and
Walters also defaulted on his loans, all $106 million of them.

On 7/30/2015 2:26 AM, sf wrote:
The U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 5:22 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 5:42 AM, wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 5:52 AM, Ophelia wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 7:11 AM, Helpful person wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 8:29 AM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 8:30 AM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 12:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 5:35 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/31/2015 3:55 AM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/31/2015 3:59 AM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:55:27 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2015-07-30 1:55 PM, Cheri wrote:
> >
> >> It was interesting to see the salaries of the higher ups at universities
> >> in CA in the paper today, while tuition etc., keeps going up.
> >
> >
> > Universities seem to have lots of money for some things. A few years ago
> > the local university contracted a head hunter to help them find a new
> > dean of social studies. They contacted an old friend on mine from BC.
> > She was flown here, picked up at the airport and wined and dined and
> > interviewed for three days. There were two other candidates that would
> > be going through the process. They ended up going with the person who
> > had been acting in the position for the last year. He or she may have
> > been doing a great job, but that is a hell of a lot of money to be spend
> > on the appearance of an earnest search.
>
> I've been involved peripherally in a search like this, for a department
> chair. It was indeed an earnest search, but it turns out the interim chair
> was the best candidate after all.
>
> Most deans schmooze with donors most of the time. Finding the right person
> is not a scientific process.

They do the same trying to get grad students they think can publish
papers that will put their department on the map, so why not. It's
good to see what other talent is available and interested.

--

sf

On 8/1/2015 5:33 AM, sf wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 2015-07-31 2:03 PM, Helpful person wrote:

>> Universities seem to have lots of money for some things. A few
>> years ago the local university contracted a head hunter to help
>> them find a new dean of social studies. They contacted an old
>> friend on mine from BC. She was flown here, picked up at the
>> airport and wined and dined and interviewed for three days. There
>> were two other candidates that would be going through the process.
>> They ended up going with the person who had been acting in the
>> position for the last year. He or she may have been doing a great
>> job, but that is a hell of a lot of money to be spend on the
>> appearance of an earnest search.
>
> That's not a lot of money. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the
> head hunter fee. It's also not easy to find the right candidate.
> It's necessary to make them welcome and show them around the area so
> that they will feel good about moving.


It may not be a lot of money to you, especially if someone else is
writing the cheques. It would be tuition and living expenses for at
least one student.... times three.... to end up with the person who has
been acting in the position.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:59:24 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> Your two seem to have a lot of time on your hands and enough excess
>>> dudgeon to go to the moon and back.
>>
>>Seems like you have a lot of time on your hairy caveman hands too. Fork
>>you!
>>LOL
>>
>
> Hairy? Caveman?
>
> I guess you do not pay much attention to details...too busy being a 10
> cent copy an etiquette snob.

Hairy "caveman hands" fits all sexes dimwit, but you're right, I don't pay a
lot of attention to details of your posts.

Cheri

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-07-31 2:03 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>
>>> Universities seem to have lots of money for some things. A few
>>> years ago the local university contracted a head hunter to help
>>> them find a new dean of social studies. They contacted an old
>>> friend on mine from BC. She was flown here, picked up at the
>>> airport and wined and dined and interviewed for three days. There
>>> were two other candidates that would be going through the process.
>>> They ended up going with the person who had been acting in the
>>> position for the last year. He or she may have been doing a great
>>> job, but that is a hell of a lot of money to be spend on the
>>> appearance of an earnest search.
>>
>> That's not a lot of money. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the
>> head hunter fee. It's also not easy to find the right candidate.
>> It's necessary to make them welcome and show them around the area so
>> that they will feel good about moving.
>
>
> It may not be a lot of money to you, especially if someone else is
> writing the cheques. It would be tuition and living expenses for at
> least one student.... times three.... to end up with the person who has
> been acting in the position.

don't just drop the clue bus ticket on the ground - hand it to the driver