carpandean

Slender Man?

In-and-out on cloud cover. Picture can't really do it justice, but ...

When this: felt like this:

Is this Jack Eichel? ;)

Bummer, it's a Saturday. Can't go. :(

Those were the teams' colors from the beginning and I am generally against complete changes of the color scheme (yes, including Buffalo's red and black.) Their recent jerseys have all been well designed, however, so that's what I would be hiring.

Maybe we should try to hire Minnesota's creative director away first.

Royal blue and gold, definitely. While I liked the black-and-red, that's not the Sabres to me. I'm not as opposed as some to a little bit of fine gray details to add some depth, but it's way too overdone now. The pit stains have to go. Pipping up the side, too. The rest can stay, if they really want, but it might need to be thinned out, if it does.

https://youtu.be/wGdhc9k07Ms?t=24s

I could have given you my 3 cents: Who knew we even had one of those? Technically, it doesn't settle which god. Whatever one is there, we trust. Another interesting fact found along the way: "Our Country; Our God" and "God, Our Trust" were the first suggestions by the Director of the Mint.

But "in god we trust" was added to coins in 1864:

Coins: 1860's (with some interruptions on some coins after that) Paper: 1950's It's interesting that the Declaration of Independence features "their Creator" and "God", but the Constitution does not. Even in the case of the DoI, no specific religion is described, though the use of the singular form of God precludes both atheism and any religion that believes in multiple gods.

Don't forget that you can't be compelled to testify against your spouse, either. The state wants to prevent polygamy, as well. Can't get a license to marry someone if your previous contract is still in place.

Playing devil's advocate: do you know that they didn't?

I take anything that has been processed by "man" with a grain of salt. I am reasonably certain of two things: a) Jesus, be he man or son of God, probably did exist around the time that he is believed to have, b) His message and lessons, whether true and unfiltered or approximate and improved by the writers, are valuable lessons on being a good person. Now, as for who he was, there are four possibilities: 1) He really was the son of God and expected to be considered as such, 2) He was a bit delusional, being just a man, but thinking he was the son of God, 3) He knew he was not and intentionally misrepresented himself, whether for good or bad reasons, 4) He never said that he was the son of God, but a story grew around a popular and charismatic figure with a powerful message. Regardless, of which of those is true, (b) still holds above. So, I leave to each person to believe which of (1) - (4) is correct, but as Neo, Drunkard, etc, have said, the message, without the assumption of (1), is still worth a lot.

I should have done a search before I posted that theory (though, I did note that I had not looked into it.) I believe that the video was David Barton on Glenn Beck. If so, it was about his book, The Jefferson Lies. Here's a quote from Wikipedia on that text: How much egg is on my face? It was an interesting theory, though.

I remember watching a video once that I meant to look into more. Basically, the guy being interviewed said that the so-called "Jefferson Bible" was not actually his revision of the Bible, taking stuff that he did not believe in out, but was rather a concise guide designed to present the valuable teaching of Christ to non-Christians. In particular, it was distributed to all members of Congress, regardless of their personal faith. The guy also provided several quotes and examples of missionary work that Jefferson had done as proof that he did, in fact, believe in much of what was cut. As I said, I didn't have time to look into the credibility of it, but I thought it was pretty interesting, anyway.

There was a time when our government promoted the idea of armed citizens well trained in the military weapons of the day and, no, it wasn't in the 1700's. Teddy Roosevelt felt especially strong about training boys, not just grown men, how to shoot.

Any school, church, etc, shooting is empirical evidence. The aforementioned shooter including it in his thought process is, too.

College seniors vs. college freshman? Yes, I definitely think that there is a maturity difference. Of course, I'd say 21 and 25 are generally very different, too.

Age is an easily measurable proxy for maturity. Never perfect, of course. Many 16 year old girls are more mature than most 18 year old boys, but guess which one gets arrested if they have sex.

Not a cause, per se, but an opportunity. In at least one recent mass shooting, the shooter's journal revealed that he considered other locations, but rejected them because he thought he might not have the opportunity to shoot as many people (or something along those lines), settling instead on a gun free zone (I think it was a school shooting) as there would be less opposition. It's a theory with some logical and some empirical support.

That many shootings (well, those publicized ones, anyway) take place in gun free zones.

Isn't that true for every non-GFZ, already?

Agreed and agreed. On the school carry part: under NY law, a pistol permit can only be issued to someone 21 or over. Additionally, open carry (of pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc) is not legal in NY. So, if schools were not gun free zones, the only ones who could be carrying legally (illegally can happen now anyway) would be seniors (or other older undergrads; e.g., returning students) or grad students, parents, teachers, safety/police officers or visitors who are at least 21. You would not have a class full of armed disgruntled undergrads (grad students generally seem to take their own lives when things get tough.)