I can not help it if some sites you have seen do things you think dishonest.

Absolutely you are not responsible for websites which you have nothing to do with.

You are however responsible for the words you write. Like making up stories about another poster immediately after complaining about others doing the the very same thing.

It's called self-pwn3ge

I caught you doing precisely what you were complaining about others doing only a few posts previously.

I mentioned panspermia and never indicated whether I believed it or not. I lack enough evidence to believe or disbelieve but I think it is an interesting theory.

Your words exactly:

I have argued that Fred Hoyle was on to something big with Panspermia for decades. I have argued that with evolutionary Biologists who hate the idea. Many biologists have told me that it is just creationism in disguise! And you support it also!

Obviously libs can't handle strong, good looking, women.

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men." -St Francis of Assisi

This lib just can't handle psychopaths, Governor Palin strongly advocates the aerial hunting of wolves, hardly a sign of someone who has compassion and pity for God's creatures.

St Francis thinks that Governor Palin would treat her fellow humans just like she advocates for wolves.

Who am I to argue with a saint on a question of morality?

It is hard to point out anything in an arena such as this without others thinking that you advocate whatever you point out. Get used to it.

Indeed, you did exactly that to me in your last post to me.

There is a word for that.

Banning books is a BAD thing that America does not expect elected public officials to try to do as their first elected act. Period. Who could honestly -- and I emphasize the word honestly because, while that concept may not matter to Rove and his minions, it actually does matter to some of the voters -- argue otherwise?

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say, I have no problem with the Dems attacking on any number of fronts which they studiously avoid at the moment, including the book banning thing.

I just think that it will be twisted by the Reps to make it appear that Dems support the nastiest things you can imagine. And that a certain subset of Americans will buy that interpretation.

Maybe it's where I live, I honestly can't imagine my neighbors getting upset because someone wanted to ban a book on say, lesbian relationships. When someone speaks of banning books, people always think of the books they themselves would like to ban and I think most people have a list of such books.

Indeed, there are books which it is not possible to find in the great majority of libraries. Try looking for "Steal This Book" or "The Anarchist's Cookbook".

Look, America has the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet Americans still overwhelmingly think of America as "the land of the free". Cognitive dissonance that strong should be agonizingly painful, but it isn't. I can't count the number of times I've dropped that rhetorical hand grenade into conversations and never gotten so much as an echo back, the great majority just refuse to think about cognitive dissonances, the stronger the dissonance the less people will think about it.

I'm INTP, just about off the scale.

I thrive on uncertainty and chaos, I'm fascinated by complex systems and as soon as I understand something I drop it for something else I don't yet understand.

I was once struck by how similar the descriptions of ADD and INTP are.. It might make a good paper for someone.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but it's been my observation that some of the strongest interpersonal conflicts tend to be between xxxP types and xxxJ types.

I have an ENTJ family member with whom conflict is just about a given if I don't censor myself very severely. Of course an ENTJ isn't even going to think of biting their tongue in order to lessen potential conflict, it just wouldn't occur to them.

Guess that's because you don't see much difference between culling predatory animals and killing innocent civilians en masse.

Dead Americans on 9/11/2001 ~3,000

Dead Iraqis since the US invasion ~1,000,000

And, if an intolerance for uncertainty defines (at minimum) 25-30% of the electorate, we have a very difficult road ahead. There is little about international affairs, the economy, or our ecological soup that is certain. The future rarely is.

The future is actually perfectly certain, we will all die.

And there's something about taxes too, IIRC.

On a more serious note: I'm a fan of the MBTI and Jungian typology, there seem to be quite a few people that say it is not a good sorting scheme but it nailed my personality almost exactly (a bit of a shock actually, we all like to think we are unique) and has come close for every person I'm aware of that has taken just the very limited and inadequate online version.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Looking at the various types it's quite clear that some types are far more flexibly minded and capable of dealing with uncertainty than others. I met someone a few weeks ago that told me they actually have a substantial adverse physical reaction to simply being in an untidy place.. Somehow I suspect this person is not going to react well to uncertainty in any form.

Cause I'm guessing that gunning down exhausted wolves from airplanes is NOT in the mainstream of American culture...

Just pretend they're Iraqis, that should ease most American's minds.