Question: What is Veronica Franco's occupation?
Answer: poet<|endoftext|>
learn without the pressure of entrance exams or the need for high grades.
     Any high school graduate could enter, but about half would leave
during the freshman year. The classes were small, 2 to 30. A department
head was often the teacher and was readily available for help. This was a
good time to be in college because there weren't any jobs, anyway, and the
cost was low, lower than living elsewhere. In my junior year, my room was
$1.50 a week, and my meals were a $1 a day (or some work). A car could even
be had for $10; it didn't have to have insurance; and a license was $3.
     My degree is a bachelor of arts. By avoiding engineering, I had time
for English, philosophy, psychology, history and German. I believe that the
general academic program is as important as career preparation, not to
mention the social life of campus living: dances, music, teas, walks along
White Clay Creek and football games at Fraser Field.
     I was introduced to the possibilities of independent research at the
University of Delaware. The University gave me a small private lab in the
new chemistry building, Brown Laboratory, and I had use of any apparatus
belonging to the physics department. Using a small plate camera, a
planometer and a small allowance for materials, I proceeded to measure the
size of some heavy molecules and write a thesis, all without credit, just
for the pleasure of doing it. I was also a student assistant in the physics
department, as well as the only physics major.
     Another example of the ideal University atmosphere at Delaware was
that the second in command in the physics department, Mr. Wilson, was
studying for his Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania in atomic and
nuclear physics. In the '30s, this was the leading edge, and he taught us
(our class of two persons) whatever he learned. Grades were assigned before
classes started, and we met at the Deer Park, sitting around a table.
     All this led to a fellowship at the University of Maryland with more
fundamental research and a career at Bell Telephone Laboratories, where the
learning never stops. I will always be grateful for the start I got at
Delaware in a career that has been a real joy.<|endoftext|>Sunday, January 28, 2018

Graphic Novel: a game review

SYSTEM: Graphic Novel

TL;DR version: Graphic Novel is not a game that I would enjoy. There are some nice world-building elements that you can steal for your games. However, the mechanics are so loosey-goosey that they make me wonder why you'd buy this as a game rather than as some GM advice. That being said, I suspect that those who find it works find that it works well.

This is less a review and more of a personal reaction.

Graphic Novel calls itself "A Free Form Supers Roleplaying Game" and it certainly is free-form. That grants a lot of freedom to the players, which is generally a good thing. However, I think I can summarize the mechanics in five points. I'll try, without infringing on the text (except for the term "Destiny Points").
  • Describe your character.
  • Give your character the number of Destiny Points decided on for the campaign.
  • When it's important, roll a d20. High numbers good, low numbers bad. How good or bad depends on your view of the character's competence in that area, but 20 is always success, 1 is always failure.
  • If the result is bad, you can spend a Destiny Point to re-roll as many times as you have Destiny Points.
  • You get one Destiny Point back per hour, or when you do something that "fulfills your Destiny."
Could this work? Of course. And if it works for you, great. As Abraham Lincoln reputedly said, "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they will like."

It is too free-form for me.

As a GM who has gotten into arguments with players in several different systems, the third point is an issue. Expertise for rolls is decided from the vantage point of the character, so Awkwardman might succeed on that roll to defuse the nuclear bomb only on a 19 or 20, while Reed Richards might succeed on a roll of 5-20.

The fifth point is also problematic: do you get Destiny Points back at one per hour of game time ("You sleep for 8 hours, so you have 8 Destiny Points back") or one per hour of play time ("I know we elided over a month in game, but you spent your last Destiny Point ten minutes ago"). I presume it's the former, but the game doesn't say.

It also doesn't tell you to define your destiny: writing it down has to be inferred from the rest of the text. (My question to the author didn't get answered directly; maybe I misunderstood the response, but my question about the answer hasn't been answered.)

The game does provide a lot of fluff, though: it has names of various people, organizations, and cities that you can plunder for your own game.

Production values are low, but I suspect that's intentional. It looks like it is meant to evoke an older, simpler age of gaming, with self-published and mimeographed gaming aids.

So for me (and I speak only for me), it's not useful as an art object, and it's not useful as a game system. It is useful to me as a source of fluff. Is it six bucks worth of useful? Not for me, but others differ.

So, final verdict: not for me. I hope that this brief discussion tells you whether or not you'll enjoy it.

Jails in Ontario

So as a result of a recent brush with the legal system and a side comment while playtesting this current adventure, I thought, "So the Bruce Nuclear Response Team has the authority to arrest people. I wonder where they go?"

That led me into the hole that is the Ontario Correctional System. The short answer to my original question is, "They get put into jail in Owen Sound." (I think. There's some ambiguity there: the Wikipedia page lists the Owen Sound Jail as active, but the Ontario Corrections page doesn't.) And for gaming that should be sufficient.

It turns out, though, that there are several layers to this particular onion. In Ontario, there are a number of types of things we lump together as jails:
  • There are jails. This is short term holding. Technically, we still spell it "gaol" for the names of some of the older facilities.
  • There are detention centres. These are the same thing, but while jails were originally set up by counties, detention centres are more modern. Both are administered by the province, now.
  • A correctional centre holds anybody whose sentence is under two years (that is, if your sentence is two years less a day, you go to a detention centre). If your sentence is two years or more, they move you to the federal system.
  • There are correctional complexes. These are centres that hold both detention centres and correctional centres.
  • Federally there are correction facilities.

Anybody who knows better can correct me.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Investigation in games

This is actually specific to ICONS but it could be adapted for any game with a degrees-of-success mechanic.

Investigation is sort of odd in games. For some games (the various GUMSHOE games, for instance), it's their jam. For other games, it's a roll to give people the info so they can get on to the next encounter.

So you can roleplay the investigation, with the players talking to various characters and hours of playtime can go by, and that's great, if everyone's on board with that.

On the other hand, you can reduce it to a roll or a series of rolls and have a handout or handouts for the players, and it's done quickly. "You spend two hours researching shipping companies, and this is what you get."

Sometimes you want one, sometimes you want the other. And if you're writing an adventure to be played by anyone other than the group you know, then you have to take both mindsets into account.

I don't know if anyone else produces adventures with areas where there are investigation or similar tests. What I've noticed that I have started doing is this:

Topic (whatever the test is about
Difficulty3 or 5 or whatever
Pyramid test?No or Optional or Required
TimeHow long is this test going to take? Sometimes the time is implicit in the task.
Everybody KnowsThis is the background information. Bombs are bad, the Noble family has three kids. You barely have to ask this stuff.
Marginal SuccessDo they get information on a marginal success?
Moderate SuccessAnything for Marginal Success, plus whatever is here.
Major SuccessAnything for the previous two successes, plus whatever is here.
Massive SuccessAnything for the previous successes, plus whatever is here.
ConsequencesThis might be obvious. (Boom or no boom, when disarming a bomb.) But that goes back to something else. If there aren't any consequences,

learn without the pressure of entrance exams or the need for high grades.
     Any high school graduate could enter, but about half would leave
during the freshman year. The classes were small, 2 to 30. A department
head was often the teacher and was readily available for help. This was a
good time to be in college because there weren't any jobs, anyway, and the
cost was low, lower than living elsewhere. In my junior year, my room was
$1.50 a week, and my meals were a $1 a day (or some work). A car could even
be had for $10; it didn't have to have insurance; and a license was $3.
     My degree is a bachelor of arts. By avoiding engineering, I had time
for English, philosophy, psychology, history and German. I believe that the
general academic program is as important as career preparation, not to
mention the social life of campus living: dances, music, teas, walks along
White Clay Creek and football games at Fraser Field.
     I was introduced to the possibilities of independent research at the
University of Delaware. The University gave me a small private lab in the
new chemistry building, Brown Laboratory, and I had use of any apparatus
belonging to the physics department. Using a small plate camera, a
planometer and a small allowance for materials, I proceeded to measure the
size of some heavy molecules and write a thesis, all without credit, just
for the pleasure of doing it. I was also a student assistant in the physics
department, as well as the only physics major.
     Another example of the ideal University atmosphere at Delaware was
that the second in command in the physics department, Mr. Wilson, was
studying for his Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania in atomic and
nuclear physics. In the '30s, this was the leading edge, and he taught us
(our class of two persons) whatever he learned. Grades were assigned before
classes started, and we met at the Deer Park, sitting around a table.
     All this led to a fellowship at the University of Maryland with more
fundamental research and a career at Bell Telephone Laboratories, where the
learning never stops. I will always be grateful for the start I got at
Delaware in a career that has been a real joy.<|endoftext|>Sunday, January 28, 2018

Graphic Novel: a game review

SYSTEM: Graphic Novel

TL;DR version: Graphic Novel is not a game that I would enjoy. There are some nice world-building elements that you can steal for your games. However, the mechanics are so loosey-goosey that they make me wonder why you'd buy this as a game rather than as some GM advice. That being said, I suspect that those who find it works find that it works well.

This is less a review and more of a personal reaction.

Graphic Novel calls itself "A Free Form Supers Roleplaying Game" and it certainly is free-form. That grants a lot of freedom to the players, which is generally a good thing. However, I think I can summarize the mechanics in five points. I'll try, without infringing on the text (except for the term "Destiny Points").
  • Describe your character.
  • Give your character the number of Destiny Points decided on for the campaign.
  • When it's important, roll a d20. High numbers good, low numbers bad. How good or bad depends on your view of the character's competence in that area, but 20 is always success, 1 is always failure.
  • If the result is bad, you can spend a Destiny Point to re-roll as many times as you have Destiny Points.
  • You get one Destiny Point back per hour, or when you do something that "fulfills your Destiny."
Could this work? Of course. And if it works for you, great. As Abraham Lincoln reputedly said, "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they will like."

It is too free-form for me.

As a GM who has gotten into arguments with players in several different systems, the third point is an issue. Expertise for rolls is decided from the vantage point of the character, so Awkwardman might succeed on that roll to defuse the nuclear bomb only on a 19 or 20, while Reed Richards might succeed on a roll of 5-20.

The fifth point is also problematic: do you get Destiny Points back at one per hour of game time ("You sleep for 8 hours, so you have 8 Destiny Points back") or one per hour of play time ("I know we elided over a month in game, but you spent your last Destiny Point ten minutes ago"). I presume it's the former, but the game doesn't say.

It also doesn't tell you to define your destiny: writing it down has to be inferred from the rest of the text. (My question to the author didn't get answered directly; maybe I misunderstood the response, but my question about the answer hasn't been answered.)

The game does provide a lot of fluff, though: it has names of various people, organizations, and cities that you can plunder for your own game.

Production values are low, but I suspect that's intentional. It looks like it is meant to evoke an older, simpler age of gaming, with self-published and mimeographed gaming aids.

So for me (and I speak only for me), it's not useful as an art object, and it's not useful as a game system. It is useful to me as a source of fluff. Is it six bucks worth of useful? Not for me, but others differ.

So, final verdict: not for me. I hope that this brief discussion tells you whether or not you'll enjoy it.

Jails in Ontario

So as a result of a recent brush with the legal system and a side comment while playtesting this current adventure, I thought, "So the Bruce Nuclear Response Team has the authority to arrest people. I wonder where they go?"

That led me into the hole that is the Ontario Correctional System. The short answer to my original question is, "They get put into jail in Owen Sound." (I think. There's some ambiguity there: the Wikipedia page lists the Owen Sound Jail as active, but the Ontario Corrections page doesn't.) And for gaming that should be sufficient.

It turns out, though, that there are several layers to this particular onion. In Ontario, there are a number of types of things we lump together as jails:
  • There are jails. This is short term holding. Technically, we still spell it "gaol" for the names of some of the older facilities.
  • There are detention centres. These are the same thing, but while jails were originally set up by counties, detention centres are more modern. Both are administered by the province, now.
  • A correctional centre holds anybody whose sentence is under two years (that is, if your sentence is two years less a day, you go to a detention centre). If your sentence is two years or more, they move you to the federal system.
  • There are correctional complexes. These are centres that hold both detention centres and correctional centres.
  • Federally there are correction facilities.

Anybody who knows better can correct me.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Investigation in games

This is actually specific to ICONS but it could be adapted for any game with a degrees-of-success mechanic.

Investigation is sort of odd in games. For some games (the various GUMSHOE games, for instance), it's their jam. For other games, it's a roll to give people the info so they can get on to the next encounter.

So you can roleplay the investigation, with the players talking to various characters and hours of playtime can go by, and that's great, if everyone's on board with that.

On the other hand, you can reduce it to a roll or a series of rolls and have a handout or handouts for the players, and it's done quickly. "You spend two hours researching shipping companies, and this is what you get."

Sometimes you want one, sometimes you want the other. And if you're writing an adventure to be played by anyone other than the group you know, then you have to take both mindsets into account.

I don't know if anyone else produces adventures with areas where there are investigation or similar tests. What I've noticed that I have started doing is this:

Topic (whatever the test is about
Difficulty3 or 5 or whatever
Pyramid test?No or Optional or Required
TimeHow long is this test going to take? Sometimes the time is implicit in the task.
Everybody KnowsThis is the background information. Bombs are bad, the Noble family has three kids. You barely have to ask this stuff.
Marginal SuccessDo they get information on a marginal success?
Moderate SuccessAnything for Marginal Success, plus whatever is here.
Major SuccessAnything for the previous two successes, plus whatever is here.
Massive SuccessAnything for the previous successes, plus whatever is here.
ConsequencesThis might be obvious. (Boom or no boom, when disarming a bomb.) But that goes back to something else. If there aren't any consequences, why are you making them roll? If you've got the information listed here


 the script, it took almost one year, and after you finish the movie and post-production, you have to show the videotape to the censors and (it takes) another half a year."

"It's not the fault of a certain person," Lu adds. "It's a system."

Working with Hollywood studio execs in China, producer Dan Mintz describes the censorship process as a moving target. As CEO of DMG Entertainment, he's responsible for bringing blockbuster Hollywood-China co-productions to the big screen including "Looper" and "Iron Man 3."

"If you look at the films that are actually shown here, a lot of them don't really follow the rules," he says.

Mintz references a list published by the government that details what types of films can not be screened in China. Examples of prohibited movies include those that "disrupt social order," "endanger social morality" or "promote cults and superstition."

"If you look at that list, basically you would not really be able to make anything," says Mintz. "That's very Chinese in a sense, saying 'let me say what you can't do, and we'll work our way backwards.'"

Take, for example "Looper." A strict interpretation of the list would have filmmakers shy away from a time travel movie in fear of "promoting cults and superstition." But ultimately, the sci-fi thriller was filmed partly in China and became a major box office success in the country last year.

"Stars have rules, studios have rules, everybody has rules. You just forge ahead and if it's something that's really worthwhile, it will come out," says Mintz.

Eva Jin is also pragmatic in her view of the process: "As filmmakers, we're so used to getting everybody's different input into the process, sometimes from investors, sometimes from producers, sometimes from the talent. We just have to deal with it and be smart about it."

But Lu Chuan is calling for change in the censorship system, hoping that Chinese filmmakers can be governed less by guesswork and more by a transparent rating system.

Lu says there must be change for the sake of his craft and also because his audience demands it.

"In an American movie, you can blow up the White House. We cannot blow up (Tiananmen) Square. It's different. But the audience wants to see a lot of exciting visual things. So I think the leadership will think about that."

He's asking for the freedom to film China's own "Independence Day," the freedom to blow up anything without fear of political blowback.

Just try to get it on film if that gonzo grip is standing by.<|endoftext|>There are galore holding that can get wrong or from bad to worse in a tie... it is heart-rending how abundant couples split-up because of dense reasons. If you have the slightest consciousness that your relation is in risk or if you ask what went mistaken in ex-relationships, yield a fix your eyes on at the register down below.

There are 5 "don'ts" in a link.

1. Betrayal of the partner

Post ads:
phone recorder mp3 / multi line phone recorder / telephone calls recording on computer / monitor your mobile phone / 007 spy email

Absolutely unforgivable-you have seen couples that contravene up because of this, even families. It is arduous to forgive and forget, injured pieces stay behind broken, this is enthusiasm.

2. Being a cloistered eye

If you draft on your significant other continuously, call on unannounced... he/she will get sleepy of the similarity. Everybody wishes freedom, a private space, friends... Love vehicle holding and respect, it is not risible on investigating all the time, do not act as a detective, act as a somebody.

Post ads:
spy audio recording software free / sure signs of cheating spouse / audio surveillance equipment edmonton / how to record my phone conversation on my iphone / sim card spy ear

3. Lack of turbulent give your support to and attention

In a relation shared assistance and limelight are key. We are group and we crave for beingness near our beloved one, for amended and for worse... when it doesn't hap we consistency retiring and forsaken. If you have such as a problem, operate beside it, do not sidestep it. Stay put down the lid to one other.

4. Too some fights

Let's external body part it, in all human relationship in attendance are fights. Believe it or not, specialists say they clarify things, but do not dramatize, or bump up your voice or slight. Things explicate themselves if you have forbearance. In a relationship, when it comes to fights stifle is gilt and too heaps of them demise what you some have improved near liking and exactness.

5. Boredom and want of spontaneity

Do not let dissatisfaction to tread in, be original and instinctive. Think of undivided hobbies, undertakings that kind some of you paradisal. If warmth is in the air, every day would be a occasion of your bond. Even a ride in the park on rollers can be fun, or active to a movie, exhibition, disco, delegation.

Before doing anything that can feeling your relationship, contemplate a bit. Is it charge doing it and ending up alone?

If you discern retiring and bored of active out on dates which never appear to go anywhere, online geological dating might purely be the treatment for you. Try it out released at

drammmno 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()<|endoftext|>Question: Who was the director of Fall?
Answer: Eric Schaeffer<|endoftext|>Browse Locations

Browse Restaurants

Gift Certificates

Deal provided by

Riverside Cafe

What keeps our customers coming back to Riverside Café? Maybe it's the atmosphere. That warm feeling you get when you come in, kind of like being with family. Or maybe it's because of the exceptional service you receive from our staff. Is it the way our prices don't leave you wondering how far you can stretch your paycheck. Then again, with breakfast served all day, the best chicken fried steak in town, and a pan-fried steak like grandma used to make, maybe it's the food. If you want the best Reuben or Philly Steak in town, try Riverside Café! You'll find the food tasty and filling. Be sure to ask about the pie!

Riverside Cafe - 739 West 13th St Wichita, KS 67203
Follow DealCatcher
dealcatcher in the press<|endoftext|>TWU roundup: A legal fight, bus mirrors and dirty stations

I’ve been sitting on a few TWU-related stories over the past week, and none of them are long enough to warrant a separate post. So in the grand style of the link roundups we post periodically at River Ave. Blues, I present a TWU link roundup.

‘Pushy’ conductor wins legal fight

Our first story comes to us from Pete Donohue. He reports that the New York Court of Appeals ruled that a subway conductor who was accused of pushing a passenger after a heated exchange of words in 2006 cannot be fired. The MTA had initially tried to fire Jack Grissett after he fired a homophobic slur at a passenger and then, in Donohue’s words, “‘forcefully’ put his hands on the man.” At the time, an arbitration panel had recommended a two-month suspension without pay, and the Court determined that the arbitration ruling should stand and that the MTA owes Grissett backpay as well. The MTA had won at both the Supreme Court and Appellate level.

While Donohue and his sources portray this to be an example of wasteful MTA expenditures on legal fees, I have a different take on it. It reaches more to the power of the unions and the MTA’s inability to fire its employees acts most workplaces would not tolerates. As PSAs throughout the system remind us, if a rider assaults an MTA employee, the penalty could be up to seven years in jail. Yet, if an MTA employee is found to be guilty of similar behavior, a two-month suspension is a sufficient punishment.

Bus mirrors inadequate, says drivers

According to a Heather Haddon report in amNew York, a few express bus drivers say that replacement mirrors are inadequate and could put pedestrians at risk. Union leaders claim that the MTA’s decision to replace broken mirrors with “a more affordable model” is a flawed one because the mirrors do not allow drivers to see people on the streets or those running for the bus. While Transit officials say the mirrors “meet or exceed” safety specifications, one bus depot in Brooklyn fielded 20 complaints last month alone.

With funds tight, station cleaning shifts go unfilled

For the last few years, the MTA has threatened to eliminate station cleaning crews as a way of saving money. The current setup, Transit officials have claimed, is an inefficient use of manpower. Now, TWU leaders say that cleaning shifts are going unfilled. According to another Heather Haddon article, Transit has let cleaning shifts go unfilled when workers call in sick. She writes, “On a Monday earlier this month, 138 cleaning shifts had vacancies, with less than a

 "You have to allow them to check your script. For the script, it took almost one year, and after you finish the movie and post-production, you have to show the videotape to the censors and (it takes) another half a year."

"It's not the fault of a certain person," Lu adds. "It's a system."

Working with Hollywood studio execs in China, producer Dan Mintz describes the censorship process as a moving target. As CEO of DMG Entertainment, he's responsible for bringing blockbuster Hollywood-China co-productions to the big screen including "Looper" and "Iron Man 3."

"If you look at the films that are actually shown here, a lot of them don't really follow the rules," he says.

Mintz references a list published by the government that details what types of films can not be screened in China. Examples of prohibited movies include those that "disrupt social order," "endanger social morality" or "promote cults and superstition."

"If you look at that list, basically you would not really be able to make anything," says Mintz. "That's very Chinese in a sense, saying 'let me say what you can't do, and we'll work our way backwards.'"

Take, for example "Looper." A strict interpretation of the list would have filmmakers shy away from a time travel movie in fear of "promoting cults and superstition." But ultimately, the sci-fi thriller was filmed partly in China and became a major box office success in the country last year.

"Stars have rules, studios have rules, everybody has rules. You just forge ahead and if it's something that's really worthwhile, it will come out," says Mintz.

Eva Jin is also pragmatic in her view of the process: "As filmmakers, we're so used to getting everybody's different input into the process, sometimes from investors, sometimes from producers, sometimes from the talent. We just have to deal with it and be smart about it."

But Lu Chuan is calling for change in the censorship system, hoping that Chinese filmmakers can be governed less by guesswork and more by a transparent rating system.

Lu says there must be change for the sake of his craft and also because his audience demands it.

"In an American movie, you can blow up the White House. We cannot blow up (Tiananmen) Square. It's different. But the audience wants to see a lot of exciting visual things. So I think the leadership will think about that."

He's asking for the freedom to film China's own "Independence Day," the freedom to blow up anything without fear of political blowback.

Just try to get it on film if that gonzo grip is standing by.<|endoftext|>There are galore holding that can get wrong or from bad to worse in a tie... it is heart-rending how abundant couples split-up because of dense reasons. If you have the slightest consciousness that your relation is in risk or if you ask what went mistaken in ex-relationships, yield a fix your eyes on at the register down below.

There are 5 "don'ts" in a link.

1. Betrayal of the partner

Post ads:
phone recorder mp3 / multi line phone recorder / telephone calls recording on computer / monitor your mobile phone / 007 spy email

Absolutely unforgivable-you have seen couples that contravene up because of this, even families. It is arduous to forgive and forget, injured pieces stay behind broken, this is enthusiasm.

2. Being a cloistered eye

If you draft on your significant other continuously, call on unannounced... he/she will get sleepy of the similarity. Everybody wishes freedom, a private space, friends... Love vehicle holding and respect, it is not risible on investigating all the time, do not act as a detective, act as a somebody.

Post ads:
spy audio recording software free / sure signs of cheating spouse / audio surveillance equipment edmonton / how to record my phone conversation on my iphone / sim card spy ear

3. Lack of turbulent give your support to and attention

In a relation shared assistance and limelight are key. We are group and we crave for beingness near our beloved one, for amended and for worse... when it doesn't hap we consistency retiring and forsaken. If you have such as a problem, operate beside it, do not sidestep it. Stay put down the lid to one other.

4. Too some fights

Let's external body part it, in all human relationship in attendance are fights. Believe it or not, specialists say they clarify things, but do not dramatize, or bump up your voice or slight. Things explicate themselves if you have forbearance. In a relationship, when it comes to fights stifle is gilt and too heaps of them demise what you some have improved near liking and exactness.

5. Boredom and want of spontaneity

Do not let dissatisfaction to tread in, be original and instinctive. Think of undivided hobbies, undertakings that kind some of you paradisal. If warmth is in the air, every day would be a occasion of your bond. Even a ride in the park on rollers can be fun, or active to a movie, exhibition, disco, delegation.

Before doing anything that can feeling your relationship, contemplate a bit. Is it charge doing it and ending up alone?

If you discern retiring and bored of active out on dates which never appear to go anywhere, online geological dating might purely be the treatment for you. Try it out released at

drammmno 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()<|endoftext|>Browse Locations

Browse Restaurants

Gift Certificates

Deal provided by

Riverside Cafe

What keeps our customers coming back to Riverside Café? Maybe it's the atmosphere. That warm feeling you get when you come in, kind of like being with family. Or maybe it's because of the exceptional service you receive from our staff. Is it the way our prices don't leave you wondering how far you can stretch your paycheck. Then again, with breakfast served all day, the best chicken fried steak in town, and a pan-fried steak like grandma used to make, maybe it's the food. If you want the best Reuben or Philly Steak in town, try Riverside Café! You'll find the food tasty and filling. Be sure to ask about the pie!

Riverside Cafe - 739 West 13th St Wichita, KS 67203
Follow DealCatcher
dealcatcher in the press<|endoftext|>TWU roundup: A legal fight, bus mirrors and dirty stations

I’ve been sitting on a few TWU-related stories over the past week, and none of them are long enough to warrant a separate post. So in the grand style of the link roundups we post periodically at River Ave. Blues, I present a TWU link roundup.

‘Pushy’ conductor wins legal fight

Our first story comes to us from Pete Donohue. He reports that the New York Court of Appeals ruled that a subway conductor who was accused of pushing a passenger after a heated exchange of words in 2006 cannot be fired. The MTA had initially tried to fire Jack Grissett after he fired a homophobic slur at a passenger and then, in Donohue’s words, “‘forcefully’ put his hands on the man.” At the time, an arbitration panel had recommended a two-month suspension without pay, and the Court determined that the arbitration ruling should stand and that the MTA owes Grissett backpay as well. The MTA had won at both the Supreme Court and Appellate level.

While Donohue and his sources portray this to be an example of wasteful MTA expenditures on legal fees, I have a different take on it. It reaches more to the power of the unions and the MTA’s inability to fire its employees acts most workplaces would not tolerates. As PSAs throughout the system remind us, if a rider assaults an MTA employee, the penalty could be up to seven years in jail. Yet, if an MTA employee is found to be guilty of similar behavior, a two-month suspension is a sufficient punishment.

Bus mirrors inadequate, says drivers

According to a Heather Haddon report in amNew York, a few express bus drivers say that replacement mirrors are inadequate and could put pedestrians at risk. Union leaders claim that the MTA’s decision to replace broken mirrors with “a more affordable model” is a flawed one because the mirrors do not allow drivers to see people on the streets or those running for the bus. While Transit officials say the mirrors “meet or exceed” safety specifications, one bus depot in Brooklyn fielded 20 complaints last month alone.

With funds tight, station cleaning shifts go unfilled

For the last few years, the MTA has threatened to eliminate station cleaning crews as a way of saving money. The current setup, Transit officials have claimed, is an inefficient use of manpower. Now, TWU leaders say that cleaning shifts are going unfilled. According to another Heather Haddon article, Transit has let cleaning shifts go unfilled when workers call in sick. She writes, “On a Monday earlier this month, 138 cleaning shifts had vacancies, with less than a fifth of them getting filled


Question: In what country is Tocantins?
Answer: Brazil<|endoftext|> and get improved. You are all doing terrifically！Thanks for all the support and guidance！

What would you improve about this program?
I think about the group arrangement
could be more inclusive and diverse.

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8<|endoftext|>Marvelous Margarita Punch (Virgin)

Total Time
Prep 5 mins
Cook 0 mins

Great virgin punch for Mexican themed parties or any occasion. Can add alcohol if desired.

Ingredients Nutrition

  1. Combine the concentrates, powdered sugar, and crushed ice in a large freezer proof container or bag.
  2. Seal tightly and freeze for at least one hour (or for many days).
  3. Slowly pour in the soda and add the lime slices (no need to thaw in advance).
Most Helpful

I am so happy to rate this recipe. I made this punch for my daughter's Mexican-themed graduation party (May 2012). Another daughter who is turning 17 requested it with her birthday dinner. I had misplaced the recipe but was so happy to find it again. This recipe is delicious and so convenient since you can make it ahead of time and keep it in the freezer until needed. A great and convenient recipe!!

Carriekasch March 11, 2012<|endoftext|>Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Henry Kissinger; a Loathsome Toad.

Dog Poet transmitting.......

‘Romance is in the air when you meet her, if you step in some Henry Kissinger’

Well, the Ides of March are here and so...

Oh I do not want to write about this man. I don’t know what I’m going to say and I would appreciate the readers being my temporary research assistant and putting all the details in the comments section. Maybe if one of my new heroes cruises through here he will add his thoughts, cause he has got his own personal encyclopedia walking next to him as an invisible friend.

Henry Kissinger is a loathsome toad. I think that pretty much covers everything that need be said. He is the protégé of Nelson Rockefeller, another one of the most evil men of the last century. He and his brother David are book-ending demons on one of the shelves in Hell’s library, where those so inclined go to read for a few hours of torment. Henry probably was a regular there. It’s where he came from.

There are some pure psychopaths that you can spot just by looking at them. Donald Rumsfield is one, Ehud Barak and Olmert also. Henry Kissinger is one. Henry gives me the impression of a creature that burrows through the brains of dead serial killers in search of special nutrition; my doctor says I’m low on Sinisterium. Sinisterium is the protein that allows you to murder millions and not be depressed about having fallen short of your goals. Although the AMA says that this protein is not essential for rounded human health it does promote long life and it also combines with other proteins to create any number of unknown syntheses, of which there is not a great deal of documentation.

Henry is one of those special few who, like Cheney, Bush and most Israeli leaders, could be arrested in foreign countries. That’s not likely to happen yet but there is no question that will become a reality fairly soon. It’s yet one more side effect of The Apocalypse.

Here are a few quotes by Henry, “Accept everything about yourself - I mean everything, You are you and that is the beginning and the end - no apologies, no regrets.” “I am being frank about myself in this book. I tell of my first mistake on page 850.” “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” “The longer I am out of office, the more infallible I appear to myself.” “The nice thing about being a celebrity is that, if you bore people, they think it's their fault.” “The security of Israel is a moral imperative for all free peoples.” These comments, measured against his actions, make him appear like a bi-polar Oscar Wilde with a butcher knife.

Here are some comments ‘about’ Henry Kissinger; “'Former Nixon aide Charles W. Colson, the Watergate victim who spoke out clearly about conspiracy in high places, has said that Nixon told him as early as December 18, 1973, that Kissinger 'is really unstable at times'.” “'He's got us all buffaloed. He can (and will) lift your security, get you a foundation black ball, bong you at the colleges, put you in Coventry. He's got spies in every department. He's running the Ministry of Fear. All of his phones are tapped and he keeps long dossiers.'” “'Thanks to the sworn testimony of Guerzoni, Italy and Europe but not the U.S. learned that Kissinger was behind the death of Aldo Moro. This tragic affair demonstrates the ability of the Committee of 300 to impose its will upon any government without exception. Secure in his position as a member of the most powerful secret society in the world, and I am not talking about Freemasonry, Kissinger not only terrified Moro, but carried through on his threats to 'eliminate' Moro if he did not give up his plan to bring economic and industrial progress to Italy. In June and July of 1982, the wife of Aldo Moro testified in open court that her husband's murder came about as a result of serious threats against his life, made by what she called 'a high ranking United States political figure'. Mrs. Eleanora Moro repeated the precise phrase reportedly used by Kissinger in the sworn testimony of Guerzoni. 'Either you stop your political line or you will pay dearly for it'. Recalled by the judge, Guerzoni was asked if he could identify the person Mrs. Moro was talking about. Guerzoni replied that it was indeed Henry Kissinger as he had previously intimated.'” Let’s make a new paragraph for appearances sake. Okay?

“'In any case, by 1971 Henry had become, as the Times noted, virtually 'all-powerful in the sprawling sector of the government which seeks to advise the President on national security matters. His dominance of the expanded, 110-member National Security Council was so complete that he controlled every piece of intelligence to reach the President from the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency.'” “'In my book Hank Kissinger is a suspicious, fearful misanthrope surrounded by people who are compelled to maintain a low profile to keep their jobs. I'd sooner dig ditches than work for him again.'” “'Phyllis Schlafly and Rear Admiral Chester Ward (U.S.N-Ret.) produced an exhaustive study of Kissinger deeds, misdeeds, and mentality. Their 800-page analysis, Kissinger on the Couch, concludes that Kissinger is obsessed with both megalomania and defeatism. They contend he is a man so driven by a lust for power that he would lie to anyone, including the President, to achieve a goal.'” “' Another example of the influence of the CFR can be seen in the meteoric rise of Henry Kissinger. In 1955, Kissinger was merely another unknown academic who attended a meeting at the Marine Corps School at Quantico, Virginia, hosted by then presidential foreign affairs assistant Nelson Rockefeller. This meeting was the start of a lengthy friendship between the two culminating in a $50,000 outright gift to Kissinger from Rockefeller. Kissinger soon was introduced to David Rockefeller and other prominent CFR members. Through the CFR, Kissinger obtained funding and entree to ranking officials of the Atomic Energy Commission, the three branches of the military, the CIA, and the State Department. He used this access to produce a best-selling book entitled Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, in which he argued that a nuclear war might be 'winnable.' By the time of Nixon's administration, Kissinger was secretary of state, and he remains a formidable force in world affairs.'

And finally, this, “'From my experience I believe Elvis was a puppet, a pawn, and in the end totally directed, and finally, used by these men in control of him....After awhile Elvis couldn't function any longer. Henry (Kissinger) and his buddies laughed and said that Elvis was like the tin man, all rusted up and ready for the junkyard. They waited for him to become seriously dysfunctional from the increasing amount of drugs prescribed by his doctors. Then they 'stopped his ticker so he didn't have to suffer no more.'”

Looks like I didn’t have to write about Kissinger after all because all I really want to say is that he is a loathsome toad. He and Little Georgie Sorrows are also book-ending demons in Hell’s Library, bearing many similarities of character.

I don’t know if it was Kissinger or The Crown who compromised Christopher Hitchens but it bears thinking about if these things interest you. This will probably come out too because The Apocalypse is pretty comprehensive. The way The Apocalypse works is that it presses down equally on everyone. This force is compounded by the degree to which, whoever it is working on has something to conceal. That’s a nice tight sentence (heh heh) and we all hope around here that Henry gets a nice tight sentence too. The best place for evil men and women at a later

 and get improved. You are all doing terrifically！Thanks for all the support and guidance！

What would you improve about this program?
I think about the group arrangement
could be more inclusive and diverse.

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8<|endoftext|>Marvelous Margarita Punch (Virgin)

Total Time
Prep 5 mins
Cook 0 mins

Great virgin punch for Mexican themed parties or any occasion. Can add alcohol if desired.

Ingredients Nutrition

  1. Combine the concentrates, powdered sugar, and crushed ice in a large freezer proof container or bag.
  2. Seal tightly and freeze for at least one hour (or for many days).
  3. Slowly pour in the soda and add the lime slices (no need to thaw in advance).
Most Helpful

I am so happy to rate this recipe. I made this punch for my daughter's Mexican-themed graduation party (May 2012). Another daughter who is turning 17 requested it with her birthday dinner. I had misplaced the recipe but was so happy to find it again. This recipe is delicious and so convenient since you can make it ahead of time and keep it in the freezer until needed. A great and convenient recipe!!

Carriekasch March 11, 2012<|endoftext|>Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Henry Kissinger; a Loathsome Toad.

Dog Poet transmitting.......

‘Romance is in the air when you meet her, if you step in some Henry Kissinger’

Well, the Ides of March are here and so...

Oh I do not want to write about this man. I don’t know what I’m going to say and I would appreciate the readers being my temporary research assistant and putting all the details in the comments section. Maybe if one of my new heroes cruises through here he will add his thoughts, cause he has got his own personal encyclopedia walking next to him as an invisible friend.

Henry Kissinger is a loathsome toad. I think that pretty much covers everything that need be said. He is the protégé of Nelson Rockefeller, another one of the most evil men of the last century. He and his brother David are book-ending demons on one of the shelves in Hell’s library, where those so inclined go to read for a few hours of torment. Henry probably was a regular there. It’s where he came from.

There are some pure psychopaths that you can spot just by looking at them. Donald Rumsfield is one, Ehud Barak and Olmert also. Henry Kissinger is one. Henry gives me the impression of a creature that burrows through the brains of dead serial killers in search of special nutrition; my doctor says I’m low on Sinisterium. Sinisterium is the protein that allows you to murder millions and not be depressed about having fallen short of your goals. Although the AMA says that this protein is not essential for rounded human health it does promote long life and it also combines with other proteins to create any number of unknown syntheses, of which there is not a great deal of documentation.

Henry is one of those special few who, like Cheney, Bush and most Israeli leaders, could be arrested in foreign countries. That’s not likely to happen yet but there is no question that will become a reality fairly soon. It’s yet one more side effect of The Apocalypse.

Here are a few quotes by Henry, “Accept everything about yourself - I mean everything, You are you and that is the beginning and the end - no apologies, no regrets.” “I am being frank about myself in this book. I tell of my first mistake on page 850.” “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” “The longer I am out of office, the more infallible I appear to myself.” “The nice thing about being a celebrity is that, if you bore people, they think it's their fault.” “The security of Israel is a moral imperative for all free peoples.” These comments, measured against his actions, make him appear like a bi-polar Oscar Wilde with a butcher knife.

Here are some comments ‘about’ Henry Kissinger; “'Former Nixon aide Charles W. Colson, the Watergate victim who spoke out clearly about conspiracy in high places, has said that Nixon told him as early as December 18, 1973, that Kissinger 'is really unstable at times'.” “'He's got us all buffaloed. He can (and will) lift your security, get you a foundation black ball, bong you at the colleges, put you in Coventry. He's got spies in every department. He's running the Ministry of Fear. All of his phones are tapped and he keeps long dossiers.'” “'Thanks to the sworn testimony of Guerzoni, Italy and Europe but not the U.S. learned that Kissinger was behind the death of Aldo Moro. This tragic affair demonstrates the ability of the Committee of 300 to impose its will upon any government without exception. Secure in his position as a member of the most powerful secret society in the world, and I am not talking about Freemasonry, Kissinger not only terrified Moro, but carried through on his threats to 'eliminate' Moro if he did not give up his plan to bring economic and industrial progress to Italy. In June and July of 1982, the wife of Aldo Moro testified in open court that her husband's murder came about as a result of serious threats against his life, made by what she called 'a high ranking United States political figure'. Mrs. Eleanora Moro repeated the precise phrase reportedly used by Kissinger in the sworn testimony of Guerzoni. 'Either you stop your political line or you will pay dearly for it'. Recalled by the judge, Guerzoni was asked if he could identify the person Mrs. Moro was talking about. Guerzoni replied that it was indeed Henry Kissinger as he had previously intimated.'” Let’s make a new paragraph for appearances sake. Okay?

“'In any case, by 1971 Henry had become, as the Times noted, virtually 'all-powerful in the sprawling sector of the government which seeks to advise the President on national security matters. His dominance of the expanded, 110-member National Security Council was so complete that he controlled every piece of intelligence to reach the President from the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency.'” “'In my book Hank Kissinger is a suspicious, fearful misanthrope surrounded by people who are compelled to maintain a low profile to keep their jobs. I'd sooner dig ditches than work for him again.'” “'Phyllis Schlafly and Rear Admiral Chester Ward (U.S.N-Ret.) produced an exhaustive study of Kissinger deeds, misdeeds, and mentality. Their 800-page analysis, Kissinger on the Couch, concludes that Kissinger is obsessed with both megalomania and defeatism. They contend he is a man so driven by a lust for power that he would lie to anyone, including the President, to achieve a goal.'” “' Another example of the influence of the CFR can be seen in the meteoric rise of Henry Kissinger. In 1955, Kissinger was merely another unknown academic who attended a meeting at the Marine Corps School at Quantico, Virginia, hosted by then presidential foreign affairs assistant Nelson Rockefeller. This meeting was the start of a lengthy friendship between the two culminating in a $50,000 outright gift to Kissinger from Rockefeller. Kissinger soon was introduced to David Rockefeller and other prominent CFR members. Through the CFR, Kissinger obtained funding and entree to ranking officials of the Atomic Energy Commission, the three branches of the military, the CIA, and the State Department. He used this access to produce a best-selling book entitled Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, in which he argued that a nuclear war might be 'winnable.' By the time of Nixon's administration, Kissinger was secretary of state, and he remains a formidable force in world affairs.'

And finally, this, “'From my experience I believe Elvis was a puppet, a pawn, and in the end totally directed, and finally, used by these men in control of him....After awhile Elvis couldn't function any longer. Henry (Kissinger) and his buddies laughed and said that Elvis was like the tin man, all rusted up and ready for the junkyard. They waited for him to become seriously dysfunctional from the increasing amount of drugs prescribed by his doctors. Then they 'stopped his ticker so he didn't have to suffer no more.'”

Looks like I didn’t have to write about Kissinger after all because all I really want to say is that he is a loathsome toad. He and Little Georgie Sorrows are also book-ending demons in Hell’s Library, bearing many similarities of character.

I don’t know if it was Kissinger or The Crown who compromised Christopher Hitchens but it bears thinking about if these things interest you. This will probably come out too because The Apocalypse is pretty comprehensive. The way The Apocalypse works is that it presses down equally on everyone. This force is compounded by the degree to which, whoever it is working on has something to conceal. That’s a nice tight sentence (heh heh) and we all hope around here that Henry gets a nice tight sentence too. The best place for evil men and women at a later age is prison, like Madoff. Perhaps Henry could get conjugal visits with


Question: What genre is Brave?
Answer: musical film<|endoftext|>orce.' But action can take place only within the context of a known world (i.e., you should know what you're doing when you do it), and how much something hurts doesn't tell you anything about whether it's real.

      All that being said, there are far better arguments for Side A than this. I didn't treat them at length here, because I was concerned to deal with an argument I think not only fallacious, but, if applied consistently, kind of terrifying. And it also bears saying that, if we accept a Side B ethic, it doesn't follow that there is only one way of dealing with that reality; I think the pastoral concessions sometimes made for heterosexuals should absolutely be made for us too, and that there is good Biblical as well as historical precedent for doing so.

      (Incidentally, when I said 'your argument' above, I did literally mean your *argument,* i.e. the one you were making, which may or may not represent your views; a bit clumsy on my part there. I'm happy to discuss either, but I do want to make appropriate distinctions -- and not put words in your mouth.)

    2. As to the idea that God had no design in mind for sexuality, how could a Christian possibly hold such a view? For if so, either sexuality is so trivial as to be beneath the notice of a Mind with infinite time and energy at its disposal -- which doesn't square very well with Scripture (whether on a B interpretation or an A one); it also doesn't seem to sit comfortably with the idea that there are such things as sexual sins or erotic needs. I mean, if sexuality were really that unimportant, then I'd think the agony of loneliness would be correspondingly unimportant, as would the wrongness of pedophilia among other things. I could see a Gnostic making such an argument, but Christianity surely involves us in the view that the body is part of the image of God, and sexuality is one of the few aspects of the self that involves soul and body in their totality.

      Or, God had no design for sexuality, and the rules He imposes are thus wholly arbitrary and have nothing to do with the good of man. Not an unknown view; but, well, I used to worship that God and found Him monstrous. But I can scarcely believe that you espouse either of those views, so I assume I've misprised you somehow.

      I've always understood 6s on the Kinsey scale to be comparatively rare -- not necessarily few, in absolute terms, but that people who identify as lesbians or gay men are usually closer to a 5, and of course some show fluidity. I'm also given to understand that such research as has been conducted on pedophilia suggests that the impulse (though not, obviously, the behavior) is indeed intractable. However, I consider one person's agony as logically important as a thousand's, and I've been pretty dismayed in the past when the relative number of LGBT people was used as a reason to consider our eccentricity unimportant.

      The argument from bad and good fruit again seems problematic to me. For of course, what's under discussion is whether a given kind of sexual behavior is always, sometimes, or never bad fruit. This isn't to say spiritual abuse isn't a real and horrible thing, and false doctrine certainly encourages it; unfortunately I find that true doctrine can be used for abuse as well. And people's virtues are often asymmetrical: they may be wonderfully good in one respect and need lots of improvement in another. The test of fruit can -- with immense caution and appropriate uncertainty -- be applied to people; I don't know that it can usefully be applied to beliefs at all.

  4. A few quick things, as the family is on its way south (eventually landing in your backyard for a few days)...

    1.) I agree with the caution on fruits. But what do you assert the test of fruit as applied to people is for, and what can it tell us about people, and what "fruit" do we examine to tell us that about them?

    2.) In the original Kinsey data, the exclusives were about 5% (or a little more) of the total sample, which at the time was about 8 million people. You'd likely get numbers nowhere near that high for exclusive pedophiles (I use my terms cautiously here because we don't have great data). Also consider that Kinsey 5's are effectively Kinsey 6's in most cases (people who "experimented" with heterosexuality at 14 or 15 get thrown into a 5 or a 4 on the Kinsey automatically, but in terms of actual orientation, they're 6's... the pressure to live up to heternormative standards obscures the overall scale a bit).

    3.) I see where you're coming from on agony, but I still insist that the argument from harm has to be part of the discussion, for otherwise, God has no ethical/moral foundation, other than whimsy and capriciousness. The argument from harm will get you there 99% of the time when the question is "Why does God allow this or not allow that?" Harm seems to be pretty foundational to God's ethical/moral essence, so to throw the question out when discussing any of God's "designs" is as problematic to me as making conclusions solely on arguments of harm.

    4.) The intractable I was talking about was an *exclusive* orientation towards children...not the orientation towards children itself. (In other words, one may be inclined toward children the rest of their lives, but I don't know that they are exclusively drawn to children the rest of their lives). I have anecdotally heard of pedophiles who, as they aged, lost attraction towards children and became hebephiles instead. In my estimation, there's simply not enough data to warrant comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. But I appreciate your argument that one is the same as a thousand, at the very least for that one person...and therefore for me, because I'm in-tune to "the least of these." I'm just cautious/wary about comparison of issues, because it generally never gets us far, and always has so many caveats as to generally render the arguments/comparisons meaningless.

    5.) Nah, you're right. I'm not suggesting God had no design in mind for sexuality as a whole, nor has any cares about it. I was discussing "original pattern," and even then solely with regard to sexual orientation. The ubiquity of homosexuality across the animal world leads me to believe that God either had no *moral* design in mind with regard to orientation, considering it to be as inconsequential as humans' development of taste preferences, or that he in fact designed it to be there from the very beginning. I could say much, much more here, but alas, packing.

    1. Sorry to have left this so long. And if you feel like hanging out while you're in the area, let me know. :)

      1) I think the testing of fruits, applied to people, is about whom to trust and imitate. This interpretation unites it with the Seven Woes in Matthew 23: 'The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; therefore do whatever they tell you, but do not do as they do.' If the test of fruit were applied to the Pharisees in order to deduce that their doctrines were false, this command would make no sense; if it's understood to mean they shouldn't be *trusted* even when they are obeyed, then it certainly remains a hard saying, but an intelligible one.

      2) That makes sense.

      3) Ah, I should have been more careful in how I phrased things. I do believe that right and wrong, viewed from another perspective, are basically words for 'what's good for humanity' and 'what's bad for humanity.' The unfortunate catch is that human beings are not always very good at discerning what is, in fact, best for us. The traditional contention is that, whatever other beneficial qualities it may have (which need not and should not be glossed over), gay sex is in fact bad for us, and that, whatever suffering it may involve us in, chastity (as traditionally understood) is good for us.

      A logical parallel occurs in the film 'Breaking Away,' where the main character pretends to be an Italian exchange student to impress a college girl; eventually, he confesses, and she is understandably hurt and angry, and leaves him: serious and real suffering follows on doing the right thing, whereas mutual delight existed while the lie remained in effect. That delight wouldn't have lasted, and we can see why; the traditionalist assertion is that the good things involved with gay sex won't last either. Lying is, obviously, not much like homosexuality; and I will say frankly that, for me personally, it takes a lot more faith to believe that gay sex is wrong than to believe that lying is wrong -- I have *no* intuitive sense of the wrongness of gay sex. But the parallel, that doing what's objectively good can hurt like hell, seems to me to stand.

      4) I think wariness of comparisons is appropriate. All of them break down somewhere. I don't much like drawing this particular comparison, given the disgusting history of many traditionalists and ex-gay proponents implying or asserting that homosexuality and pedophilia naturally overlap. But I draw the comparison only in the one aspect of wanting *something* they can never licitly have. If it helps, pica (a disorder in which a person craves to eat things that aren't food, like glass or clay) is

orce.' But action can take place only within the context of a known world (i.e., you should know what you're doing when you do it), and how much something hurts doesn't tell you anything about whether it's real.

      All that being said, there are far better arguments for Side A than this. I didn't treat them at length here, because I was concerned to deal with an argument I think not only fallacious, but, if applied consistently, kind of terrifying. And it also bears saying that, if we accept a Side B ethic, it doesn't follow that there is only one way of dealing with that reality; I think the pastoral concessions sometimes made for heterosexuals should absolutely be made for us too, and that there is good Biblical as well as historical precedent for doing so.

      (Incidentally, when I said 'your argument' above, I did literally mean your *argument,* i.e. the one you were making, which may or may not represent your views; a bit clumsy on my part there. I'm happy to discuss either, but I do want to make appropriate distinctions -- and not put words in your mouth.)

    2. As to the idea that God had no design in mind for sexuality, how could a Christian possibly hold such a view? For if so, either sexuality is so trivial as to be beneath the notice of a Mind with infinite time and energy at its disposal -- which doesn't square very well with Scripture (whether on a B interpretation or an A one); it also doesn't seem to sit comfortably with the idea that there are such things as sexual sins or erotic needs. I mean, if sexuality were really that unimportant, then I'd think the agony of loneliness would be correspondingly unimportant, as would the wrongness of pedophilia among other things. I could see a Gnostic making such an argument, but Christianity surely involves us in the view that the body is part of the image of God, and sexuality is one of the few aspects of the self that involves soul and body in their totality.

      Or, God had no design for sexuality, and the rules He imposes are thus wholly arbitrary and have nothing to do with the good of man. Not an unknown view; but, well, I used to worship that God and found Him monstrous. But I can scarcely believe that you espouse either of those views, so I assume I've misprised you somehow.

      I've always understood 6s on the Kinsey scale to be comparatively rare -- not necessarily few, in absolute terms, but that people who identify as lesbians or gay men are usually closer to a 5, and of course some show fluidity. I'm also given to understand that such research as has been conducted on pedophilia suggests that the impulse (though not, obviously, the behavior) is indeed intractable. However, I consider one person's agony as logically important as a thousand's, and I've been pretty dismayed in the past when the relative number of LGBT people was used as a reason to consider our eccentricity unimportant.

      The argument from bad and good fruit again seems problematic to me. For of course, what's under discussion is whether a given kind of sexual behavior is always, sometimes, or never bad fruit. This isn't to say spiritual abuse isn't a real and horrible thing, and false doctrine certainly encourages it; unfortunately I find that true doctrine can be used for abuse as well. And people's virtues are often asymmetrical: they may be wonderfully good in one respect and need lots of improvement in another. The test of fruit can -- with immense caution and appropriate uncertainty -- be applied to people; I don't know that it can usefully be applied to beliefs at all.

  4. A few quick things, as the family is on its way south (eventually landing in your backyard for a few days)...

    1.) I agree with the caution on fruits. But what do you assert the test of fruit as applied to people is for, and what can it tell us about people, and what "fruit" do we examine to tell us that about them?

    2.) In the original Kinsey data, the exclusives were about 5% (or a little more) of the total sample, which at the time was about 8 million people. You'd likely get numbers nowhere near that high for exclusive pedophiles (I use my terms cautiously here because we don't have great data). Also consider that Kinsey 5's are effectively Kinsey 6's in most cases (people who "experimented" with heterosexuality at 14 or 15 get thrown into a 5 or a 4 on the Kinsey automatically, but in terms of actual orientation, they're 6's... the pressure to live up to heternormative standards obscures the overall scale a bit).

    3.) I see where you're coming from on agony, but I still insist that the argument from harm has to be part of the discussion, for otherwise, God has no ethical/moral foundation, other than whimsy and capriciousness. The argument from harm will get you there 99% of the time when the question is "Why does God allow this or not allow that?" Harm seems to be pretty foundational to God's ethical/moral essence, so to throw the question out when discussing any of God's "designs" is as problematic to me as making conclusions solely on arguments of harm.

    4.) The intractable I was talking about was an *exclusive* orientation towards children...not the orientation towards children itself. (In other words, one may be inclined toward children the rest of their lives, but I don't know that they are exclusively drawn to children the rest of their lives). I have anecdotally heard of pedophiles who, as they aged, lost attraction towards children and became hebephiles instead. In my estimation, there's simply not enough data to warrant comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. But I appreciate your argument that one is the same as a thousand, at the very least for that one person...and therefore for me, because I'm in-tune to "the least of these." I'm just cautious/wary about comparison of issues, because it generally never gets us far, and always has so many caveats as to generally render the arguments/comparisons meaningless.

    5.) Nah, you're right. I'm not suggesting God had no design in mind for sexuality as a whole, nor has any cares about it. I was discussing "original pattern," and even then solely with regard to sexual orientation. The ubiquity of homosexuality across the animal world leads me to believe that God either had no *moral* design in mind with regard to orientation, considering it to be as inconsequential as humans' development of taste preferences, or that he in fact designed it to be there from the very beginning. I could say much, much more here, but alas, packing.

    1. Sorry to have left this so long. And if you feel like hanging out while you're in the area, let me know. :)

      1) I think the testing of fruits, applied to people, is about whom to trust and imitate. This interpretation unites it with the Seven Woes in Matthew 23: 'The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; therefore do whatever they tell you, but do not do as they do.' If the test of fruit were applied to the Pharisees in order to deduce that their doctrines were false, this command would make no sense; if it's understood to mean they shouldn't be *trusted* even when they are obeyed, then it certainly remains a hard saying, but an intelligible one.

      2) That makes sense.

      3) Ah, I should have been more careful in how I phrased things. I do believe that right and wrong, viewed from another perspective, are basically words for 'what's good for humanity' and 'what's bad for humanity.' The unfortunate catch is that human beings are not always very good at discerning what is, in fact, best for us. The traditional contention is that, whatever other beneficial qualities it may have (which need not and should not be glossed over), gay sex is in fact bad for us, and that, whatever suffering it may involve us in, chastity (as traditionally understood) is good for us.

      A logical parallel occurs in the film 'Breaking Away,' where the main character pretends to be an Italian exchange student to impress a college girl; eventually, he confesses, and she is understandably hurt and angry, and leaves him: serious and real suffering follows on doing the right thing, whereas mutual delight existed while the lie remained in effect. That delight wouldn't have lasted, and we can see why; the traditionalist assertion is that the good things involved with gay sex won't last either. Lying is, obviously, not much like homosexuality; and I will say frankly that, for me personally, it takes a lot more faith to believe that gay sex is wrong than to believe that lying is wrong -- I have *no* intuitive sense of the wrongness of gay sex. But the parallel, that doing what's objectively good can hurt like hell, seems to me to stand.

      4) I think wariness of comparisons is appropriate. All of them break down somewhere. I don't much like drawing this particular comparison, given the disgusting history of many traditionalists and ex-gay proponents implying or asserting that homosexuality and pedophilia naturally overlap. But I draw the comparison only in the one aspect of wanting *something* they can never licitly have. If it helps, pica (a disorder in which a person craves to eat things that aren't food, like glass or clay) is also logically parallel -- I didn't use it because food seems so comparatively


Question: What is the capital of arrondissement of Lannion?
Answer: Lannion<|endoftext|> -- Timwi 20:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Currently, when a person A brings up the edit screen, makes some edits, and in the meantime another person B submits an edit to the same article, then person A will receive an "Edit Conflict" screen when saving the page. There is a mechanism in place that merges A's and B's edits if they are to different parts of the article, but if they are not, person A still gets an "Edit Conflict" screen.

This "Edit Conflict" screen is rather confusing, and very intimidating to newbies. It is well conceivable (but not measurable) that a number of valuable contributions have been made by newbies, but have been rejected due to an edit conflict and have got lost because they did not know how to resolve the conflict.

The suggestion[edit]

My suggestion is to remove the "Edit Conflict" screen entirely. Instead, the article itself should reflect the edit conflict. I am envisioning something similar to what happens when there is a conflict in CVS; however, the visual appearance is not important and can be debated separately.

Suppose the article text is:

A Banana is a fruit.

Suppose person A corrects the spelling:

A banana is a fruit.

Suppose person B adds bold markup:

A '''Banana''' is a fruit.

The resulting article might look something like:

(EDIT CONFLICT) Banana (1) banana (2) '''Banana''' (END EDIT CONFLICT)
is a fruit.

This essentially means that the "Banana" portion of the text has been changed by one person to "banana", and by some other person to "'''Banana'''". Again, please remember that the visual appearance of the edit conflict is not important. This is about the general idea of moving edit conflicts to the article text.

  • As mentioned above, the "Edit Conflict" screen is intimidating to newbies. There is no real way of making it any less intimidating, but at least we don't need to expect of the newbie to resolve the conflict. By moving the warning that an edit conflict has occurred to the article itself, the resolution of the edit conflict can be left to anyone, most notably to more experienced users who understand the phenomenon.

(EDIT CONFLICT) Banana (1) banana (2) '''Banana''' (END EDIT CONFLICT) will look absolutely awful in an article. Displaying such a mess to readers of the page is not a solution. Angela 21:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the proposal before commenting on it, Angela. — Timwi 23:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I did read it. I assume you are referring to the fact it says "the visual appearance of the edit conflict is not important"? I strongly disagree. You can not ignore something which is going to have a huge effect on the article like this. Until you do have an alternative to the format you proposed above, then I still hold the view that your proposal is not a solution. Angela 03:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for reading and understanding the proposal before commenting on it, Angela. — Nowhere was I suggesting that anyone should implement this change without giving consideration to the format. But for as long as we don't even know if people generally want this change at all, thinking about the format is a waste of time. If you disagree, then I strongly suggest you provide more constructive criticism, perhaps your idea of a better format, rather than destructively and discouragingly shooting down an idea based on a concern that isn't even under consideration yet. — Timwi 10:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree. The edit conflict as of now is not bad. Everything has a learning curve. The edit conflict page is one of the easier things to learn. Frecklefoot 21:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hence why Timwi stressed that the visual appearance was not what he was asking for comments on, only the principle. It may be that there is no visual appearance that would be acceptable, but it is probably too early to decide that just yet. - IMSoP 21:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, my initial reaction to this is that it would be technically difficult. By that, I don't mean just "how do you expect to code this" (a challenge, but probably not an insurmountable one) but that your claim that "the visual appearance of the edit conflict is not important" may be over-stated. For such a system to work, there would need to be some way of presenting it that allowed:

  1. a casual reader to still understand the article
  2. an editor, preferably even one with little experience, to understand the existence and nature of the edit conflict
  3. an editor, again preferably even an inexperienced one, to see how to correct the conflict

The first point is in some ways both the most important and the most challenging: if an edit conflict is left behind by two inexperienced (or rushed/lazy) editors, a visitor must be able to read the entire article without being distracted by the existence of the conflict. It could be hidden away on a seperate page ("This page has conflicting versions") but what version would then be presented to a visitor, and what would the user be given to edit? And how would we prevent edit conflicts proliferating as naive users edited on top of a version which was in a state of quantum indeterminacy?

The second and third points are important if the new system is to have value over the current one: it must be less confusing for new users, not more; and result in more definitive changes, not more TODO items in the 'pedia. I suspect that in answering the first point, answers would more or less emerge for the second and third ones: a usable presentation and editing system would entail an interface for describing and resolving the conflict.

Note that this is all just initial reactions, and spurs for further discussion, not a permanent position or judgement of the idea. While my gut feeling is just "make the current interface and explanation nicer", it is always useful to look at alternative approaches to things, and evaluate them on their own merits. It puts me somewhat in mind of an idea that's drifted around my head for a while of a kind of pre-moderation mode wiki, where prospective changes could be stored, awaiting official approval, and further changes would build up on top of these prospective versions - perhaps it is this similarity that worries me, since it would seem to block the natural flow of the raw wiki process.

I'll shut up now, and let others join the discussion. (Oh, tee hee, I got an edit conflict while discussing edit conflicts; I notice the resolution screen is still not by-section when both edits are within a section - there's one improvement to be made to the current approach, anyway!) -- IMSoP 21:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I honestly see no problem with the Edit conflict screen. Until the developers program the software to heuristically merge edits or something, this task will have to be done manually. Letting conflicts get into the page with inevitably cause problems, as Angela has pointed out. --Slowking Man 22:43, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

It does merge conflicts automatically, just like CVS. You usually get conflicts when two people try to add something to the same location. This happens quite regularly when they are both replying to the same comment on a talk page. -- Tim Starling 04:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well yes, I know that. I was referring to the problem you just described, and I was speaking somewhat facetiously, as I doubt you can figure out a way to choose a "right" version when, say, two people edit the same sentence in different ways at the same time. --Slowking Man 07:10, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a decent idea, but it will take a lot of work to work well / look good, and IMHO there are more important things for developers to be working on. ··gracefool 22:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about this... If you get an edit conflict, why not just accept the first edit as part of the page, but with a discreet line of text that links to the alternative "unaccepted" edit, your banana article may look something like:

Edit conflict
A banana is a fruit.

Any Wikipedian could then come along to the page and merge the conflicting edits. The Edit conflict text could then be removed from the page.
SimonMayer 05:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about the system warning the second user on the edit page that the article has been retrieved in edit mode x minutes ago and not been saved yet. Only show the warning when unsaved previous edit was less than x minutes ago. The first user may never save any changes, but at least the second user is prepared an edit conflict may occur. Erik Zachte 12:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think that might scare newbies.
SimonMayer 17:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would expect that an advance warning, if phrased properly, will be less scaring than the current edit conflict page. Erik Zachte 22:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Reading all the comments above, it

 -- Timwi 20:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Currently, when a person A brings up the edit screen, makes some edits, and in the meantime another person B submits an edit to the same article, then person A will receive an "Edit Conflict" screen when saving the page. There is a mechanism in place that merges A's and B's edits if they are to different parts of the article, but if they are not, person A still gets an "Edit Conflict" screen.

This "Edit Conflict" screen is rather confusing, and very intimidating to newbies. It is well conceivable (but not measurable) that a number of valuable contributions have been made by newbies, but have been rejected due to an edit conflict and have got lost because they did not know how to resolve the conflict.

The suggestion[edit]

My suggestion is to remove the "Edit Conflict" screen entirely. Instead, the article itself should reflect the edit conflict. I am envisioning something similar to what happens when there is a conflict in CVS; however, the visual appearance is not important and can be debated separately.

Suppose the article text is:

A Banana is a fruit.

Suppose person A corrects the spelling:

A banana is a fruit.

Suppose person B adds bold markup:

A '''Banana''' is a fruit.

The resulting article might look something like:

(EDIT CONFLICT) Banana (1) banana (2) '''Banana''' (END EDIT CONFLICT)
is a fruit.

This essentially means that the "Banana" portion of the text has been changed by one person to "banana", and by some other person to "'''Banana'''". Again, please remember that the visual appearance of the edit conflict is not important. This is about the general idea of moving edit conflicts to the article text.

  • As mentioned above, the "Edit Conflict" screen is intimidating to newbies. There is no real way of making it any less intimidating, but at least we don't need to expect of the newbie to resolve the conflict. By moving the warning that an edit conflict has occurred to the article itself, the resolution of the edit conflict can be left to anyone, most notably to more experienced users who understand the phenomenon.

(EDIT CONFLICT) Banana (1) banana (2) '''Banana''' (END EDIT CONFLICT) will look absolutely awful in an article. Displaying such a mess to readers of the page is not a solution. Angela 21:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the proposal before commenting on it, Angela. — Timwi 23:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I did read it. I assume you are referring to the fact it says "the visual appearance of the edit conflict is not important"? I strongly disagree. You can not ignore something which is going to have a huge effect on the article like this. Until you do have an alternative to the format you proposed above, then I still hold the view that your proposal is not a solution. Angela 03:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for reading and understanding the proposal before commenting on it, Angela. — Nowhere was I suggesting that anyone should implement this change without giving consideration to the format. But for as long as we don't even know if people generally want this change at all, thinking about the format is a waste of time. If you disagree, then I strongly suggest you provide more constructive criticism, perhaps your idea of a better format, rather than destructively and discouragingly shooting down an idea based on a concern that isn't even under consideration yet. — Timwi 10:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree. The edit conflict as of now is not bad. Everything has a learning curve. The edit conflict page is one of the easier things to learn. Frecklefoot 21:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hence why Timwi stressed that the visual appearance was not what he was asking for comments on, only the principle. It may be that there is no visual appearance that would be acceptable, but it is probably too early to decide that just yet. - IMSoP 21:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, my initial reaction to this is that it would be technically difficult. By that, I don't mean just "how do you expect to code this" (a challenge, but probably not an insurmountable one) but that your claim that "the visual appearance of the edit conflict is not important" may be over-stated. For such a system to work, there would need to be some way of presenting it that allowed:

  1. a casual reader to still understand the article
  2. an editor, preferably even one with little experience, to understand the existence and nature of the edit conflict
  3. an editor, again preferably even an inexperienced one, to see how to correct the conflict

The first point is in some ways both the most important and the most challenging: if an edit conflict is left behind by two inexperienced (or rushed/lazy) editors, a visitor must be able to read the entire article without being distracted by the existence of the conflict. It could be hidden away on a seperate page ("This page has conflicting versions") but what version would then be presented to a visitor, and what would the user be given to edit? And how would we prevent edit conflicts proliferating as naive users edited on top of a version which was in a state of quantum indeterminacy?

The second and third points are important if the new system is to have value over the current one: it must be less confusing for new users, not more; and result in more definitive changes, not more TODO items in the 'pedia. I suspect that in answering the first point, answers would more or less emerge for the second and third ones: a usable presentation and editing system would entail an interface for describing and resolving the conflict.

Note that this is all just initial reactions, and spurs for further discussion, not a permanent position or judgement of the idea. While my gut feeling is just "make the current interface and explanation nicer", it is always useful to look at alternative approaches to things, and evaluate them on their own merits. It puts me somewhat in mind of an idea that's drifted around my head for a while of a kind of pre-moderation mode wiki, where prospective changes could be stored, awaiting official approval, and further changes would build up on top of these prospective versions - perhaps it is this similarity that worries me, since it would seem to block the natural flow of the raw wiki process.

I'll shut up now, and let others join the discussion. (Oh, tee hee, I got an edit conflict while discussing edit conflicts; I notice the resolution screen is still not by-section when both edits are within a section - there's one improvement to be made to the current approach, anyway!) -- IMSoP 21:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I honestly see no problem with the Edit conflict screen. Until the developers program the software to heuristically merge edits or something, this task will have to be done manually. Letting conflicts get into the page with inevitably cause problems, as Angela has pointed out. --Slowking Man 22:43, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

It does merge conflicts automatically, just like CVS. You usually get conflicts when two people try to add something to the same location. This happens quite regularly when they are both replying to the same comment on a talk page. -- Tim Starling 04:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well yes, I know that. I was referring to the problem you just described, and I was speaking somewhat facetiously, as I doubt you can figure out a way to choose a "right" version when, say, two people edit the same sentence in different ways at the same time. --Slowking Man 07:10, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a decent idea, but it will take a lot of work to work well / look good, and IMHO there are more important things for developers to be working on. ··gracefool 22:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about this... If you get an edit conflict, why not just accept the first edit as part of the page, but with a discreet line of text that links to the alternative "unaccepted" edit, your banana article may look something like:

Edit conflict
A banana is a fruit.

Any Wikipedian could then come along to the page and merge the conflicting edits. The Edit conflict text could then be removed from the page.
SimonMayer 05:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about the system warning the second user on the edit page that the article has been retrieved in edit mode x minutes ago and not been saved yet. Only show the warning when unsaved previous edit was less than x minutes ago. The first user may never save any changes, but at least the second user is prepared an edit conflict may occur. Erik Zachte 12:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think that might scare newbies.
SimonMayer 17:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would expect that an advance warning, if phrased properly, will be less scaring than the current edit conflict page. Erik Zachte 22:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Reading all the comments above, it seems that most of you are afraid that an edit conflict would stay around for too long. I have to admit,