The school we’re zoned to is not just tough, it’s dangerous- Most teachers don’t try to teach; if they prevent major crimes from occurring, they've had a good day. The stories that come out of that place are gut-wrenching; the kids there aren't being prepared for squat. I've busted my ass and sacrificed a lot to send my son to a private school as a result.

What little good that could come of us participating in the local public school would pale in comparison to the harm it has the potential of doing to my son- not only to his well being day-to-day, but to his chances of success afterwards as well. I'm not sacrificing my son's future on account of Allison's idealist prattle. From what I've seen, not many of the our local public school system's participants: teachers, parents (especially the parents), or the students give a rat's ass about making their school system any better.

I attended a very tough school while growing up, and learned more about avoiding having my ass kicked than anything else that I needed for college- as a result, it took two tries and 6 years to finish my first degree- my first two years were spent learning what I should have learned in high school.

Allison Benedikt has her opinion of me, and I have my opinion of her. My son is my responsibility until he's grown; if his young life is made difficult by starting out with a rotten education, I can't see Allison getting very worked up about it... I mean, it's no skin off of her ass, is it. Allison can go fuck herself.

Any use of war weapons is a terrible thing; usually the people that demand the weapons' use or make light of it are those who have never been on a battlefield.

That having been said: There are different types and degrees of injury potentially caused by weapons of war (or any weapon); these injuries may be classified by type and degree of acute trauma as well as by long-term, chronic sequelae. Whereas in my opinion the horror of a -fatal- injury from weapons of war cannot really be differentiated or mitigated by weapon type, non-fatal injuries and their long-term effects on the lives of the injured are perceived to be worse if caused by chemical weapons.

For starters, the health facilities of the victim army / society is presented with a bolus of injured as well as fatally injured whose suffering is usually more severe and of a longer duration than that of victims of penetrating trauma. When the chemical injury cases are released from acute care, the long-term morbidity from blistering and/or nerve agents is as gruesome if not more so than that of burns and amputations, but often presents in forms that are not easily diagnosed or treated, adding to the misery and mental anguish of the victims. A old physician I once knew told me that he'd seen two chemical exposure cases that had injuries similar to those caused by war gasses; he considered them "burned" on the inside in addition to the horrible external burns.

Chemical and biological weapons are strategic weapons- they not only create immediate fatalities, they are also used to reduce combat effectiveness by requiring the diversion of resources to care for military and civilian casualties. These weapons also damage the victim's economy and environment, and they induce indirect damage from terror in the victim population.

In my opinion they -are- more terrible than conventional weapons.

Normally, I can spot the implied /irony tag. Tell me that you're being ironic.

What's your point, Ludwig?

Not one little bit, it appears.

When I was in school, I always wondered what people actually -did- with a PhD in Philosophy, now... I know.

For me it was when you dropped your punch card deck, it would be scrambled.

Best statement I've read in a while.

In college I dated a (otherwise, very nice) fundamentalist girl; years later had a relationship with a girl that had more or less atheistic views.

Interacting with either on the subject was like calling a Rant() function with a parameter for "God" or "Anti-God" output. They had the same kinds of arguments, the same intensity, and the same intolerance for any views different from their own on the subject.

While we dated I enthusiastically agreed with the philosophy of each to increase the odds of getting laid.

Yeah, they jumped all over upper management at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, didn't they?

Doesn't MS scam an Android patent tax from most vendors? The last of that kind of thing I remember hearing about was that MS was going after Barnes and Noble's Nook, B&N decided to take them on, MS wouldn't tell them exactly what infringed and it looked good for B&N. Suddenly, MS made a "strategic investment" in B&N and I never heard another word about the litigation.

They seem to prefer milking cash from consumers and other companies than consistently making good stuff. They have their moments now and then, but the moments are getting fewer and farther between. Must be easier to scam.

He stated his opinion that you are a shill, then asked others to review your past posts in order to support his opinion... this is a topic unto itself; and is open to debate, just as the opinions stated in your previous posts are still open for debate. You could have said something like: "...drop a bookmark there and we'll come back to it, but let's keep talking about Western police and intelligence agencies vs the raw power of Soviet Communism."

Instead, you assert that his statement of opinion is evidence of his desire to "silence" you in this thread- which seems itself to be an over-the-top statement guaranteed to stifle further debate on either subject... and casting (for me, at least), a bit of a shroud of doubt over your motives; now I'm motivated to take a few minutes and look over your past posts to see what he was talking about.

Christ, I'd hate to see the "active leader" version of Ballmer... How many chairs does he have to throw to qualify? Then again, maybe I'm confusing "Active" with "Aggressive".

Stand-alone or not, if I can't play the games I purchase without being connected, and IF those games are tied to one and only one machine, then I'm done- I'm not angry, I just don't need an XBox 720 that badly- What revolutionary change in my gaming experience will be worth restrictions and the chunk of cash up front (not to mention the Live Gold membership fees)? Always-connected benefits MS and their partners, not me.

I owned 2 original XBoxes and later purchased 2 360's (one for me, one for the kids... actually 3, as I bought one of the newest 360's to replace a box that RROD'd). We also purchased I don't know how many games over the years; I'm sure the cash outlay was in the thousands.

I'm just one person and as an individual I don't figure much into Microsoft's decisions, but I don't see what value is added for me with Microsoft's 720 strategy.

There are a lot of other options available, It's time to start checking them out in earnest.