SDS

Well, that's just mean.

That's ok, I had a high-chair waiting for me when I got there...

It was no big deal, she got him a "Centrum Silver" and some Metamucil... I guess that is what "servicing" means at that age.

he left it in my car...

Mr. Info had just gotten out of the pool.... he wasn't at his "best".

that was uncalled for. Clearly, there is a discrepency in the way the drives were recorded in the 4th quarter.

Something tells me you didn't have 54 unique thoughts today, despite the fact that you have posted 54 times. If it is one thing many former posters had in commmon - it was diarrhea of the keyboard.

Fess up - who counted that for you?

Two upsides for sure... Hard to see many more than that though.

Bado... could you give a rationale take here?

???

What future Penn State busts will be at the top of the draft come April?

Have we had many wet games since the new turf went in? It's hard to think Vick could ever have more of an advantage than he already has. If the conditions favor Vick, then they favor Losman too. The Packers playoff game notwithstanding, I would think that any inclimate weather favors us over a dome team.

Geez Greybeard! Did we have to go there????

You guys watch the news? I thought everyone got their news from here?

Must have been a dual photo shoot with Pam Anderson.

Wow, that was eloquent. I think I know enough about "The Dean" to know that it would be best to receive spiritual guidance from another source.

Meaning cohabitation w/o being married. The rest of your comments just indicate the level of hostility you have towards this subject. Clearly, they should listen to YOU as they decide how to conduct their business.

I'm pretty sure the policy DOES NOT say that one parent must be without sin.... Pursuing a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the church teachings is totally different. Even then, they only require one parent to not be engaged in these activities.

For those of you who didn't RTFA: Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences.

I am defending this school's right to set forth its own curriculum and admission policy based upon its interpretation of religious texts. They put forth a set of reasonable guidelines and they were violated. I suggested a possible rationale for their decisions. I'm sure there are many other reasons behind their admission policy that I haven't thought about. Those women chose to ignore those policies plain and simple. I have always found it quite amusing how people who obviously don't subscribe to Christian teachings are hell bent on telling them how to conduct their business.

Unfortunately Ed, I do not think you are capable of rationale discussion on this topic. You pretty much read and twist words at your whim and the only thing it leads to is a pointless argument. Like I said, and you ignored, I used the phrase "a certain set of teachings" on purpose. That school apparently has decided to take a particular stand on gay lifestyles. No one in this thread has said that gay people can't live moral lives, since clearly the term "moral" is ambiguous. But you chose to say that to be argumentative...

Your reaction to this is EXACTLY the reason why the guideline exists Ed. It is a school that teaches a particular set of moral values. If it is known beforehand that the parents do not subscribe to those teachings - then the parents will be directly undermining the lessons being taught. This pits the school against the parents, which they are taking steps to avoid.

As long as silly analogies like these are made, there really isn't any room for thoughful discussion.

Ed has no point. A group of people got together and formed a school where a certain set of values are to be taught along side their academic curriculum. In order to facilitate their moral teachings, and knowing that parental support is crucial in teaching their kids - they decided that at least one parent cannot be in direct conflict with their teaching. They made a set of rules and despite having a partner for 22 years - these two women decided it didn't apply to them. I assume there were interviews and applications to be filled out. I would be shocked if they didn't know about this policy and it is probably a safe assumption that somewhere they just lied to get in to that school. Yet Ed seeks to disparage the Church for sticking to their guidelines, instead of faulting the women for placing that child in that situation?