sherpa

Sleep is one of the most important, managed items for me. In my career, I had a position where we had to take rest brakes to sleep. Generally, four hours on, three hours off, and a comfortable sleeping environment was created, so you had to adjust to being able to fall asleep quickly and wake up quickly. My body became so adjusted to that, that in retirement, it keeps that same schedule. I never sleep more than six hours. Usually four and then I'm awake. I get the required amount over time, but I have to manage it. In addition, that career made me particularly sensitive to unusual noise, so anytime anything unusual sounds, even if it's something as simple as the heating system coming on, I wake up.

Funny thing about wearing a uniform of a company. In the airline business, pilots are not allowed to purchase alcohol or be in a bar in uniform, nor is any employee in uniform allowed to wear anything political. Seattle is completely OK with not interviewing him in this instance.

Not nearly what they used to be before they became a financial management company, and expanded to include basically anybody. Many of us core clients have left. Sickening to me how they play up the patriot theme. Way over the top.

That isn't the hard part. The hard part is that the gov makes a fortune off of airline taxes. Airlines are taxed higher than alcohol or tobacco. 3.7 billion in 1990--->23 billion in 2016. Tax these trains at the same level and watch what happens.

This kind of thing happens frequently, but doesn't get attention because it isn't publicized. The agents would tell the captain. That's how he gets notified. Departing on time is sometimes a judgement with a lot of variables, and sometimes not. If the captain knows the situation, there are a lot of ways to game the system to get someone on board who has at least checked in at the airport. On the other hand, sometimes its just not possible.

Far down the list in many ways. One of the few companies whose commercials annoy me.

I looked. Couldn't find it. Still, if it was a mistake, that's quite a cheap shot on your part. The man blunders all the time. No value in making stuff up about him.

I can't find anything that validates your claim.

Is there a source for this? Yes or no?

What is the source of this?

Violates the first law of commonsensodynamics. If something is clearly broke, you fix it before you grow it.

Too black widow-ish. Chance of male survival post boinkage? Zero.

With this post, I've lost interest.

Really? Last week I was looking at the indulgence thing as part of a reply. I came across an article naming what indulgences are available during Holy Week. Bizarre. And as I've mentioned, you've got the veneration of saints, Mary, the rosary, and the continuing claim of her life long virginity, not supported, papal nonsense and a host of other things the Roman church has invented.

What? What Luther did was expose the "creativity" and fund raising component of Roman Catholicism. You know, actually ask tough questions about popes, saints, Mary, indulgences, fund raising and their legitimacy. Answering those should not have been tough. Didn't quite work out that way, and still isn't.

Interesting post on many levels. Faith is to be enjoyed and celebrated, not endured, and certainly not for family acceptance. Find a Christian church that allows you that. Being an adult means you're free to make your own choices.

Statistical evidence is not hogwash, your father's "example" aside. Because the point will soon be made that the Bills will trade their 12th and a saint to be named later for Pope Paul VI.

Your post seems to indicate an all or nothing vis a vis the Catholic church and faith. Nothing could b e further from the truth. There are plenty of options away from the stuff of Catholic Church doctrine. Thus, the Protestant view.

Your premise would fall on it's face given the statistics. When the father is removed, ie., "punishment for non-compliance," (to use your words), is removed the stats are undeniable. From my link: "The question was asked to determine whether a person’s religion carried through to the next generation, and if so, why, or if not, why not. The result is dynamite. There is one critical factor. It is overwhelming, and it is this: It is the religious practice of the father of the family that, above all, determines the future attendance at or absence from church of the children."

There is nothing Biblical regarding meat on Fridays, nor Ash Wednesday, nor Lent. There is nothing Biblical about Mary being a virgin for life. There is Biblical proof that supports that Jesus had real brothers and sisters. Anyway, the point is that these things always treat Catholicism as some provident authority on Christianity, when that is far from the truth. Catholicism has a bunch of non bionically supported traditions, but that is just what they are.

I'm sure all is well, but when I read things like this I really wish people would understand what the Bible is really about.

I really wish the Christian question was removed from the Catholic question. I did 12 years of Catholic education. Usual stuff. Got married, converted to Lutheran. It made so much more theological sense. The Catholic church, in my view, has a rich tradition that is largely invented for popularity, prosperity and longevity. The pope, inventing the history of Mary, veneration of saints and relics. The nonsense of selling indulgences. It goes on and on. Anyway, our kids have been raised Christians and still are, but Catholic doctrine is totally foreign to them. Interestingly, and to the point of this thread, the single largest influence of whether a child continues on in the faith, is the father. If both father and mother attend regularly 33% of the children will attend church regularly, and 41% will attend irregularly. 25% not at all. If the mother is a regular attendee and the father not, only 3% will attend regularly, but 59% irregularly. 38% not at all. Further, if a father does not go to church, only one in fifty will become a regular attendee, while a non practicing mother with a practicing father will see one third of their children attend. Seems that the father is critical, and portends a number of things if the father isn't ever present. Dads and church In retirement, I teach a course for Christians that is designed to end generational poverty. The 800 pound gorilla in the group that attends is the total absence of males. Just a thought.

da Vinci's painting is based on Catholic tradition at the time. Extremely improbable there wa anything like that table at the meal. They ate reclined with cushions, and very low tables which held the food.

The universal healthcare promise from Chavez was a scam from the beginning, as were all his programs. They imported Cuban "doctors," housed them in an old beach resort, and operated from there. Nobody had any idea what their qualifications were, and of course, by now it doesn't matter. Just a total economic, political and social tragedy, brought about by the "Bolivarian Revolution," a Chavez fantasy modeled after all things, Cuba. What could go wrong?

I know what the Reformation was, and I know how to spell it. Labeling it "a little doctrinal dispute," in inaccurate in the extreme. The Roman Catholic Church, as run by the pope, had gotten non-scriptural in the extreme, to the point of selling indulgences to raise additional money from peasants. There were many other "doctrinal issues," like the Catholics invention of the power of saints etc. Luther tried, in vain, to engage the papal leadership is an attempt to address these issues, and to base doctrinal beliefs on scripture rather than papal inventions, and was unsuccessful. He posted his 95 Theses, and was excommunicated. How it spread had a lot to do with finally translating the Bible into people's native tongues, the printing press, and various nationalistic events that triggered resistance to Rome in specific regions.