its called recall bias. your friend (intentionally or unintentionally), the media and many other sources have prejudiced you to arab men. therefore, when you think back as to who has harassed you, you are more likely to recall when an arab man harassed you than when a white person did it.

Recall bias is real, but not nearly as pernicious as YOUR bias. You've insulted and demeaned this person based on your own prejudice, making baseless assumptions about her. In light of your prior post, I have to say that you are being quite hypocritical.

its not, its caused by many different viruses and can happen just as often in hot weather.

Um, that's highly misleading at best. Lower temperatures correlate with higher incidences of a significant number of viral respiratory infections. Obviously it's not the only factor, but it's a significant one; our mucous membranes do not defend themselves as well when they're cold, and we're more likely to breathe through our mouth, which exacerbates our vulnerability.

(and not above allowing tech guys to talk to my breasts if that's the only way I can get information)

I'm a tech guy, I don't suppose you're in need of some information?

Soybean may have pesticides, but not hormones.

Soy naturally contains high concentrations of a number of estrogen mimicking compounds.

I don't get this. Why is asking for a little discretion while proferring the necessary tool a rights violation? Nobody asked her to not breastfeed. While I'm all for baring mammaries, I think this was blown way out of proportion from the get-go.

If Democrats were to conversely use libertarian ideals to further "separate but equal" unions, clearly it may appear more palatable to a heterocentrist majority but it is still, however, segregation by a different method.Would gay rights be advanced ? Perhaps, but what the heterocentrist fails to realise is that there is more than legal benefits at stake here. What some of us in the gay community care about just as passionately as hospital visitation rights and social security inheritance is full equality on an emotional and spiritual level.

Well, I'm all for that, but I also know that in our current socio-political context I can't get you that. So, would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Turning down civil unions will not get you closer to marriage - in fact, the vice-versa is more likely. Standing on principle and refusing progress through compromise has not historically been a particularly successful long-term political strategy unless your goal is to appeal to your base rather than to enlighten people's perspectives.

Personally, I think taking a fall on semantics is silly. Have a legal de facto marriage, put on the ring, and if some lawyer insists on calling it a civil union that's just not your problem.

If any place on the net should be an echo chamber, it should be a place like Salon - an unashamedly partisan publication. And yet, we regularly debate issues in the letters sections. Admittedly, the level of discourse in any public forum is often quite low - welcome to the internet version of the unwashed masses - but I don't think it's fair to say it's not there, or that people aren't regularly introduced to novel opinions.

And yet, I also think that improving communication doesn't have to start at highly contentious subjects. Quite the contrary; in general, people gain respect for their adversaries not from dire argument but from common ground. Certainly I've learned more about European political attitudes from table-top wargame forums than from any openly partisan pages.

And then, consider the alternatives: are Fox news and Al Jazeera promoting inter-cultural understanding? I doubt it.

Has it occured to these people that feeding babies are the sole reason breasts exist?

Yes and no. Human female breasts remain relatively large even while not lactating, which is very unusual - and frankly impractical - in the animal kingdom. I think they have indeed evolved into a sexual attraction a la peacock tails.

I see nothing in this private letter that relates to anything the public specifically needs to know about Jack Abramoff. This was a pointless invasion of privacy. Shame on you, Tim Grieve.

Why is God spelled G-D like it was some sort of swear word? What am I missing?

Jack Abramoff is Jewish, and it's fairly common for them to refuse to spell out the word god, considering it to be taking in vain. I think that practice is completely missing the point, but whatever.

Tim Grieve is simply posting the text of an email that the Associated Press already released to the entire world yesterday. If you clicked on his link, you would have known that.

I did, but that's no excuse.

If you think it's inappropriate, then complain to the AP for releasing it in the first place.

I did.

I think liberals deserve to gloat and bask in the schadenfreude every once in a while.

Perhaps, but this wasn't the way to do that. It just makes us look as bad as the AP.

The thing I wonder is if there is any way to evaluate whether these cases really do have merit...

A judge?

Especially when her column is always about "winners" (only her) and "losers" (all the rest of us). It would be more essential to consider who defines "winning" and whether you should accept that definition, but something that complex would make her poor Tiffany earrings smoke.

I guess you've probably long stopped actually reading Heather's columns - I mean, you make so much fuss about how much you dislike her writing (while confusing your personal jealousy with the presumption that it's bad), so I guess it shouldn't be any surprise that you don't read it.

But if you're not going to read it, you probably shouldn't comment on it. Better to let people think you might be ignorant than to post and remove all doubt.