Campy

KRC?

No offense taken- It's just semantics, but I don't think he shouldn't be offered the opportunity to resign, he should be sh---canned.

He'll probably one-hop it over the plate - nerves ya' know...

It's the "buck stop here" mentality that has gone the way of the dodo. Anan can shrug his shoulders and claim he wasn't aware of this problem or that irregularity, but ultimately, he's in charge, it's his job to know. And if there is a multitude of serious problems like what the UN has endured under his watch, there needs to be a change. I'm not saying I don't believe him when he says he was unaware of the problems (ie, he may not be directly responsible for them), but I'm saying it's a matter of accountability - put simply- he's the boss, and we're talking about major issues over the course of several years, not just one isolated incident.

Ever stop to think that people are responding more to your condescendingly inane post about protestantism than they are Roman catholicism?

Maybe you should reread the first post on this thread. For the most part, people have been very understanding of the Roman catholics' feelings of the loss of JPII. The first post of this thread came out of left field and the poster deserved the basting he received.

Had something to do with this, no doubt.

FWIW- I voted no, but only on a matter of semantics. He should have been relieved of his responsibilities a year and a half ago. I don't think the UN is intrinsically diabolical or evil, but like all bureaucracies, be it IBM, the NFL, or the US Government, there are people who slide by on plausible deniability, and it's accepted without the bat of an eye. As unfair as it may sound, the person in charge may not always be responsible for the actions that take place under his watch, but he should always be held accountable for them.

He makes great fondu! That's all I got.

I'm still looking for the "infallible pope" verse in my King James version, I'm sure it's in here somewhere...

Wow, missed the point entirely, did you? The percentage may not be accurate. Percentages that are that extraordinarily low in scientific studies are generally nothing more than statistical anomalies.

Wow, that sucks. Get well PJ.

Hey - that's terrific!

I know you're the messenger so I'm not going after you, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the "additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent" cited by the author is not significant enough to be relevant. I imagine that psychologists and sociologists could argue that there are simply too many variables in the test sample to claim such a small percentage. Some variables might be that as lower income people are more prone to marrying cousins, they are also more prone to drinking, smoking, and other drug use during pregnancy. Lower income people also tend to not receive the best health education and healthcare, and they tend live in areas that are more conducive to disease. I'm sure there are others much better acquainted with scientific research than I am, but I gotta' believe that a range that small fits well within a statistical error margin.

It's spelled "ducat." It means any gold coin that was used in Europe. Given its meaning (a form of universal currency), it's probably not Old English - I'd guess it's Middle English.

OMFG

Happy Birthday KRC!

At Shea Stadium?

And whatever happened to being Christian? Is that no longer sufficient by some papal edict?

Not being a protestant, how can you say that? Being a protestant, I can say that we really don't care. Really. Again, you are basing this on what? Something you learned in a confirmation class? There are differences between the different denominations - hence the reason for their existence. Your religious-centric perspective just keeps you from seeing it - you only see that they aren't RC, therefore, to you that's the only thing are.

True, but rarely - if ever - acknowledged by "good" RCs. At my (Episc.) wedding, one of the guests was a dyed-in-the-wool RC. She was blown away that the service was EXACTLY like an RC wedding. Unless one exposes himself to the other, he has no idea how similar they really are.

Great news!

And here I was this whole time thinking that nobody else realized the Civil War was caused by CNN.

I hear my first game was at the Rockpile - sat on dad's lap but I was so young I don't remember it. And truthfully, I can't remember the first game I saw. I know it was in the early 70s, but we went to so many games when I was a kid I can't recall exactly which memory came first. One of my fondest recollections was from about '82 or so. Freezing rain, playing the Bengals when both teams stunk, about 30,000 fans, all huddled together in the lower bowl and making as much noise as we possibly could. I don't remember who won, I want to say Bflo did, but back in those days, I wouldn't be surprised if Bflo found a way to lose.

Oh hell, I can't stop myself... Are you familiar with the Nicene Creed? You know the part where it says "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church"? Ever notice that catholic isn't capitalised? It might help to know the definition of the word "catholic" before you bandy it about as some misguided badge of honor. The word catholic means "of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive; including or concerning all humankind; universal." I'm a cradle Episcopalian, and I'm catholic. What that means is that we believe that Christ's teachings are indeed comprehensive and are of concern for all mankind - but I'm not "Roman" catholic. Other than taking 4 years of Latin, I really don't care too much about Rome, much less some guy that wears a ring that I'm supposed to bend down and kiss. Don't get me wrong, I respected JPII and the work he did, but ultimatley the pope is just another church leader - unless I missed the whole pope section in the Bible... If condescending attitudes such as yours continue to exist, it's no wonder that Roman catholocism a dying denomination.