Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Jan 9
Published Letters: 53 Editor's Choice: 7
First off, let me say that I'm reading and enjoying the book. The first two chapters were quite refreshing after a lot of the stuff I've read on this subject.
However:
"If that University of Virginia study [in which a researcher set a laptop near the ceiling so that if patients claimed to have an out-of-body experience, he could ask them what image was on the screen], if somebody did see an image on that computer on the ceiling, I don't think you would change the mind of any skeptic out there. I think they would come up with a reason why the study is flawed. People are devoted to their convictions."
This is just annoying! Possibly it's true for 5-10% of the people out there, but the fact is that scientists would like proof that it isn't a trick, please. If someone saw an image on that computer, the first thing I would do is check for a way that the person could cheat. If I altered the experiment some and the person could still see it, okay, that comes closer to proof.
A good scientist or researcher will in fact make sure that all other variables are accounted for. If you carefully arrange the experiment so that no cheating (conscious or unconscious) is possible, then what is left, however improbable, is likely the truth.
The example that frequently comes up is the Meteor Crater out west. There was a theory that it was created by, well, a meteor. Scientists were VERY skeptical about that, so they came in and did a bunch of testing. Now there is little scientific doubt that, yes, it was created by a meteor. And that's not a question of scientists "changing their minds," simply one of science proving out an initially outlandish claim. It happens, and scientists are actually thrilled when it does.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm eager to see that evidence myself, but I'm not holding my breath until then, lest I find out the hard way!
Mostly, you don't want your husband there because you're going to be nervous enough and don't want to be responsible for his fun as well.
At my ten, I went by myself to the Friday night get-together (at the local bar where we used to all drink underage), which got me over the nerves of meeting people I hadn't seen in years without having to worry about him as well. I explained this in advance, and he had no problem with it. Some other people brought their S.O.s, who ended up watching football and playing pool. At the formal dinner I was comfortable with a number of former classmates, and everyone had brought their S.O.s, so we were all in the same boat. After that, both you and your husband will know whether he's having fun, and can plan for any other events accordingly.
My husband had a pretty good time at my reunion, and I had a blast at his, he had some great friends.
The reunion will be odd but more fun and less horrible than you expect, as long as you've matured since then; you just have to deal with the people who didn't. Friendly drunk people you barely knew will treat you like an old friend; acquaintances from clubs will hand you their business cards; you will be stunned by the number of people who saw you around college or your current workplace but never said Hello; you will marvel at the fact that the football player remembers you from Calc II (there were FOOTBALL PLAYERS in Calc II???)Your friend who knew, I mean, EVERYONE will tell you the gossip on all the people you knew and many you didn't. And you will get all soppy and swear to keep up with everyone, but you probably won't at least until the 15th Year Reunion, if not the 20th.
Oh, and several of the popular people will conform to your worst expectations, but with luck you will have matured to the point where you mostly find it SAD that they truly haven't changed in ten years.
Take several deep breaths, take your husband, and have fun. A 10 Year Reunion is not to be missed. And if you have any lingering petty feelings toward former classmates...nothing beats having a lawyer husband to wave under their noses!
The polls are open until seven freakin' thirty tonight in Ohio. I like to vote before I go to work too, but if I don't get a chance it's never stopped me.
I don't expect a hassle where I go because the Diebold machines actually worked just fine last election. Okay, I poured Holy water on them and they hissed a little, but other than that....
If voting machines are inevitable, and at this point I think they are, it's good that we get the kinks worked out by the 2008 election. My educated guess on this election is that there will be hassle and delay, but nothing really drastic. Witness the fact that some precincts went to paper ballots. They had a backup plan, which made me feel a lot better.
Always a possibility that Allen could still be a serious Presidential candidate contender, but he was supposed to walk with this election, and it'll be a squeak if he does win. As a bonus, he screwed it up mostly by himself. Even if he wins, I think he'll be damaged goods.
It's lovely to have Heather back. And the Heather-haters, of course, what WERE you poor dears doing over the last month???? Go have babies so you can legitimately feel infinitely superior to those of us who enjoy long-winded, wandering columns that suddenly and viciously nail that annoying David Carouso. Go get him, Heather.
Off to TiVo Top Chef.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
