erithtotl, so you have a rule that you have to finish any book you start, even if you realize after the first chapter that you don't like the writer's style? That seems like a pretty pedantic rule that would waste a lot of time. There are many more good books than any one person has time read in their lifetime, even if that's all they did, so if I find a particular book doesn't seem to be for me, I move on to another one. Why compound one mistake?

As for Mieville, I read Perdido Street Station, and was impressed by his imagination and vision. However I felt that the last 1/4 of the book degenerated into generic horror/suspense and left me disappointed.

Specifically, what about people who get gender reassignment surgery (GRS)? I'd bet a lot of the people who disapprove of breast implants support people getting GRS. To me though they seem somewhat similar.

In the case of breast implants, someone modifies their body to match society's idea of what an attractive woman looks like, rather than just deciding to reject the conventional standard if it doesn't match who they are.

In the case of GRS, someone feels like their own personality more closely matches society's standard for the opposite gender. Instead of deciding that society's gender roles are just too narrow and rejecting them, they decide they need to modify their body so that their personality and physical form match up according to society's standards.

Both cases seem sad to me. It seems more healthy to me to be able to reject societal standards when you realize they don't match up with reality. However if I'm to accept that people who feel uncomfortable about their gender role are entitled to an operation to "fix" the problem, then I don't see how it's any different for someone who feels uncomfortable about their breast size.

you say wait six month? that doesn't really make sense.

should EVERYONE wait six months? or are you only recommending people who read your column wait six months?

No, everyone who will whine and/or feel ripped off if the newly-released product they bought goes down in price or up in features soon after they bought it, should wait six months. If you don't mind paying the early-adopter tax, then go right ahead.

I see a contradiction Farhad. One paragraph begins with:

It is unclear if this was meant to happen.

The very next paragraph begins with:

But it's clear that the company is playing hardball.

If it's unclear that Apple intentionally broke people's unlocked iPhones, then how is it clear that Apple is playing hardball? It's possible that they are, but it's also possible that they just were aware that their update might be incompatible with some of the unlock hacks, and were unwilling to go out of their way to try to make their software updates work with hacked iPhones, so they just warned consumers instead. This article seems a bit overly sensational given that you don't actually know what Apple's intentions were.

You said this:

Dude, you're a fucking week late on this. Didn't you notice that this has already been amply covered all over the Internet?

Apparently you couldn't be bothered to read where it said in the article:

Massey obtained the video by filing a public records request. He posted it online last week, and since then it's received millions of viewers. CNN, Fox News, and others have covered the arrest as well, putting the video into heavy rotation.

So obviously Farhad did notice.

To the people saying that Freedom of Religion demands that noone should criticize or interfere with the subject of the LW's post, I think you're misunderstanding what Freedom of Religion means. Freedom of Religion means that the government and society won't forcibly prevent anyone from practicing their own religion, as long as it doesn't violate others' rights too much. It does NOT mean everyone gets to live in a bubble, protected from any criticism of their chosen religion.

That said, I agree with others who say the distinction between "legitimate" religions and "cults" is very arbitrary, and usually has more to do with how established a religion is than anything else. Plenty of mainstream religious groups are very manipulative and corrupt, and plenty of small religious groups are pretty benign and yet are called cults by some. Scientology doesn't seem any worse to me than many Christian groups, so unless the LW would have the same reaction if his* friend was joining a Christian group, I suggest he's being a bit irrational himself.

* I'm guessing the LW is a male and the subject of the letter is attractive, and that has something to do with his desire to "rescue" her when he's only just met her.

Let people do and think and believe as they want. It is absolutely no skin off of anybody's nose.

I wish that were true, but unfortunately many religious beliefs aren't nearly as harmless as you make it sound, and do more than just take skin of people's noses.

You said:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

Where did you come up with that idea? Several of the founding fathers were practically atheists, and certainly had a quite negative view of Christianity. Your claim that the founding fathers really intended this to be a Christian nation, and didn't really mean "separation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" literally, is just historical revisionism.