I haven't watched TV for years; how is this an issue? [Queue up obligatory TV snob link...]

Nah; you're not a snob; you're just stupid. Because you're stupid, I'll answer the question. See if you can get a grown-up to explain it to you.

It's an issue because many people watch television, for many reasons. Those people are talking about it in this thread. The fact that you can't afford television, or don't watch it for some other reason, is possibly interesting to you, but not particularly germane to the subject. No doubt there are a number of people across the world who do not watch TV, many of them for perhaps the same reason as you. Their declarations would of course also be meaningless -- but they weren't stupid enough to fail to realize it. In this thread, making such a statement is not meaningful to the topic.

It is in fact, demonstrably a failure, just as telling everyone you touched yourself inappropriately this morning. While it might be interesting to you, it's not related to the topic.

Hope this helps.

Dave Kelsen
--
"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." -- Tom Lehrer

I have to say that you are consistent. Never close to right or accurate, but consistent, and if I wasn't fairly sure that it's tongue-in-cheek, I'd say you are distinctly exuding a sense of superiority, as if you actually believe what you are typing. Kudos.

Dave Kelsen
--
Some nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.

I love how Slashdot picks on one news channel so they can ignore all the other ones lying to us.

I don't see the logic of your statement.

People (including those on Slashdot) pick on this particular 'news' channel because it is the most egregious, obvious, insanely foolish of the bunch, not because they want to pretend the other news sources are not lying, or ignore the lying that goes on. When he was on, Olbermann was the worst of the bunch, on the other side. And fairly popular. But he never reached the level of ignorance fundamentally possessed, used and propagated by those on the Fox News channel. If you think they are or were truly comparable, you came in to the situation with some predispositions you need to examine.

Dave Kelsen
--
Self-deprecation is an art form that I'm far too ugly to be any good at.

I don't necessarily agree - or disagree - with the idea here. But suppose we start from another well-known and widely accepted definition of stealing: taking something that isn't yours, that you didn't earn, that you have no rights to.

The idea that copying is not theft focuses on the fact that nothing is effectively removed from the owner, and that's true. I think that it is more worthwhile and meaningful to focus on what it is, and means, to me.

Maybe that's just me, though.

Dave Kelsen
--
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature." ~ Marcus Aurelius

I don't think the previous fellow was trying to tell you what you think, but I can state unequivocally that I am not. I am telling you that you are using the term 'atheist' incorrectly, irrespective of the literal English translation of the original Latin word segments..

A person who does not have a belief in a religious deity is an agnostic, one who says, "I don't know."

An atheist is a person who states, "I know. There is no god." These terms are often commingled, but their meaning is generally clear, although obviously not to you.

You decide what you think, and if you feel strongly about it, tell us. But you don't get to re-define the common and accepted meanings of terms when you do so. If you claim to be an atheist but describe yourself as an agnostic, it is, whether deliberate or not, misleading.

Dave Kelsen
--
Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve it's dignity.

I disagree. We have another word for that; people who simply don't believe one way or the other - who don't have a belief - are called agnostics. You are saying that agnosicism is atheism. Atheism states, "there is no god." Agnosticism says, "I don't know if there is a or any gods."

These are not the same. Atheism is a statement of belief about a religious matter.

Dave Kelsen
--
The "bishop" came to my church yesterday.. that guy was an imposter, he never once moved diagonally.

You fail to comprehend the difference between belief and religion. A statement of belief about a deity, presented as fact, is religion. That of course doesn't mean that it isn't stupid.

I have no such faith, and am not defending the notion. I am simply pointing out that because of the subject matter, these kind of statements are indeed religion. Stated the way you have couched your statements above, i.e. "I am pretty sure," "probably right," etc., it is another matter.

This is not simply another unknown; it is on the minds of many humans, as it deals with two questions we do not have answers for - where did we come from, and what happens after we die.

Science can not yet adequately explain the first; whatever caused the big bang, the origin of what matter went 'bang', etc. Nothing can explain the second. I have my own set of beliefs, pretty much like yours, with respect to this. But to make a statement concerning the existence of 'god' is religion, purely.

Dave Kelsen
--
"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." -- Tom Lehrer

Atheism is certainly a statement of unprovable belief about the existence of a deity, touted as a fact.

That's religion, kid.

Dave Kelsen
--
One of my biggest fears in this election is that the outcome will create a world in which Glenn Beck is happy.

Why is it so hard? I have never considered it, in reading. My wife is the author of a series of fantasy books (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Hunting-Dixie-Lexi-George/dp/0758263090) and I find them entertaining and well-written. I have read Tolkien since I was introduced to it in 8th grade, 1971, and I find all of it entertaining and well-written. The gender makeup of the cast is not relevant to me, and I suspect it is not relevant to most authors.

As for the Avengers, Whedon didn't create any of those characters, although I presume he made choices about who would be featured, and how much.

No one is saying that even-handed treatment of characters with respect to gender is wrong, or ruins stories. I am saying that the lack thereof is also not wrong, and doesn't ruin stories.

Dave Kelsen
--
Did you know that if you put your ear up to a stranger's leg you can hear them say: What the fuck are you doing?

Goblins are Orcs.

I signed up for this; I'm an old-time programmer whose formal education has not included much about the internet. I just wanted to point out that the fourth word in the terms of service, 'participate', is misspelled.

In what way is it not a true indicator of a user's preference?

It has to be either on or off by default. Your statement means that whichever way it is set, it doesn't indicate the user's preference, so it can not ever indicate the user's preference.

Something seems.... wrong about that notion.

I think you're making the opposite point.

Bush was able to get things done, because he was able to get people 'across the aisle' to work with him, to a limited degree.

Obama was not, and was excoriated in the press and elsewhere for his fruitless attempts at bipartisanship during his first 2 1/2 years of presidency. What Mitch McConnell said (roughly, 'our goal for the next two years is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president') wasn't just rhetoric, it was operative policy.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature." ~ Marcus Aurelius

There are a number of Republicans who are naturally sympathetic to Democrat legislation, being from pretty liberal states. Pulling in a few of those votes would have easily overcome filibusters. Needless to say, it didn't happen for a lot of crucial legislation.

It is my opinion that any Republicans who might have been willing to think, rejecting the edicts from above in their party, were threatened with removal. If that didn't work, they were removed; the last is/was Olympia Snowe.

I don't see how either party will get much done from here on out, without a filibuster-proof majority. I agree with this, said by President Clinton: "Democracy does not have to be a bloodsport. It can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest." But I don't hold out much hope that it will ever, at least ever again, work that way.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I don't always make new friends, but when I do, I like to make them using parts from old ones.

Robert Heinlein wrote many books for young science fiction readers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinlein_juveniles