>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^zombieater:
I've never eaten a comb before; only the honey itself. I'm curious, does it taste different? I imagine it just tastes like crunchy honey.
combs are not crunchy. it is waxy..it's like eating almost tasteless candle mixed with honey. it's a nice experience to try, but it gets stuck in your teeth and overall a bit messy and sticky.


mmm fresh comb honey is amazing. I used to keep bees and this was my favorite treat. The yummy taste and soft chewy texture takes away from the feelings of guilt that you're eating a little fuzzy creatures home.

>> ^zombieater:

I've never eaten a comb before; only the honey itself. I'm curious, does it taste different? I imagine it just tastes like crunchy honey.
combs are not crunchy. it is waxy..it's like eating almost tasteless candle mixed with honey. it's a nice experience to try, but it gets stuck in your teeth and overall a bit messy and sticky.

>> ^zombieater:

I've never eaten a comb before; only the honey itself. I'm curious, does it taste different? I imagine it just tastes like crunchy honey.

The comb is pretty tasteless, and its often artificial. It does add a lil something though, I certainly prefer it with the comb, but I guess you have to try it to understand why.


My mum keeps Bees and is letting the Bees build their own comb (mostly because its a little cheaper if your not worried about yield, but also because there is some evidence artificial comb can increase the spread of disease) and I can't fucking wait for the first harvest to see what it tastes like.

They are fascinating creatures and honey must be the oldest treasure.

I've never eaten a comb before; only the honey itself. I'm curious, does it taste different? I imagine it just tastes like crunchy honey.

LOL. No really I just don't like horror movies. I remember watching "Fright Night" when I was 15 on VHS. It was an ordeal.

I really love the Aliens movies, they're the exception.

1 more thing, I had so many nightmares after watching "True blood" i had to stop watching.

anyway.... I like Jeffery Combs just because I love Weyun from star trek, and I thought that video was really campy!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
ok,
so let me get this straight.
you dont like vampire flicks,especially child vampires...
but sucking and eyeball out to get to the delicious brains using your engorged third eye is somehow less creepy?

i sense a story there...

Agreed - I have instated a 24-hour policy on grading - first of all 24 hours before my students can even ask about a grade (usually they tend to forget after a day and that buys me more time in grading), and 24 hours after they receive the grade before they can ask why they received a particular grade. Like you said, they need that one-on-one feedback so there's no getting around the extra time and effort involved, not to mention planning for classes, keeping them engaged with assignments, etc.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Very true. Speaking from experience, think of it this way, one 2 page paper for an average of 30 students in the room X 6 classes in the day (you do get one prep) = 180 papers you have to comb over and correct. Even if you limit your time to 5 minutes per paper that's 900 minutes (or 15 hours) of work you're taking home.

I can also tell you from experience that the day after a student hands something in, they expect it to be graded. Hell, I've gotten a "How did I do on that paper?" at the end of the day before I even went home. Aside from that though, the students really need quality feedback if they are to improve. You have to get them graded asap for their sake and for yours because the world doesn't stop just because you have a pile of papers to grade.

To make a long story short, every assignment is like that. After too much of it it's VERY easy to get burnt out quickly and the summers off are the times when you can plan ahead for the coming year and re-cooperate from the enormous work load that was on your shoulders during the school year.

So yeah I get summers off, because the rest of the year I'm working 60-80 hour work weeks and not getting paid for any overtime.

In reply to this comment by blahpook:
This is one of the best (if not overly optimistic) responses to this I've seen on the internets so far:


"How many hours a day do you work? 8? I arrive at my school at 7:30 a.m. and leave between 5:30 and 6:30. If I have to meet with a parent, it can sometime go later than that. When you leave work do you take your work home with you to work on later? I review lesson plans and check papers for at least an hour every night, many times longer. Do you work on the weekends after putting in your 40-hour week? I spend many hours every weekend checking papers and preparing for the coming week. Do you have to have a license to do your job? If you do, who pays for that license? I have to have a license, and I have to pay for that license myself. If you have to have a license, do you have to complete a mandatory number of continuing education classes? I do. If you have to complete continuing education classes, do you have to pay for them out of your own pocket? I do. When do you think I take those classes? I take them during the summer. I am at my school until at least the second week of June, and return by the second week of August. That hardly constitutes a whole summer. When people say to me, "It must be nice to have the summer off and still get a paycheck." I always say to them, "Do you remember all of those extra hours I put in over the school year? I am just getting paid for them now." When do you get paid for your overtime hours? Do you have to wait until summer to get paid? Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, I am just telling you the facts. I love my job! I would never want to do anything else. Do you love your job? Do you have children? I hope you have respect for their teacher/s, because most of them work as hard as I do and deserve your respect. And by the way, I like Ann Coulter. and Sara Palin, I think they are brave women. But, I also think Ann misspoke on this one. I would love to have her come and spend a week with me. I bet she would go home and write a book about how fortunate we are to have good teachers."

Very true. Speaking from experience, think of it this way, one 2 page paper for an average of 30 students in the room X 6 classes in the day (you do get one prep) = 180 papers you have to comb over and correct. Even if you limit your time to 5 minutes per paper that's 900 minutes (or 15 hours) of work you're taking home.

I can also tell you from experience that the day after a student hands something in, they expect it to be graded. Hell, I've gotten a "How did I do on that paper?" at the end of the day before I even went home. Aside from that though, the students really need quality feedback if they are to improve. You have to get them graded asap for their sake and for yours because the world doesn't stop just because you have a pile of papers to grade.

To make a long story short, every assignment is like that. After too much of it it's VERY easy to get burnt out quickly and the summers off are the times when you can plan ahead for the coming year and re-cooperate from the enormous work load that was on your shoulders during the school year.

So yeah I get summers off, because the rest of the year I'm working 60-80 hour work weeks and not getting paid for any overtime.

In reply to this comment by blahpook:
This is one of the best (if not overly optimistic) responses to this I've seen on the internets so far:


"How many hours a day do you work? 8? I arrive at my school at 7:30 a.m. and leave between 5:30 and 6:30. If I have to meet with a parent, it can sometime go later than that. When you leave work do you take your work home with you to work on later? I review lesson plans and check papers for at least an hour every night, many times longer. Do you work on the weekends after putting in your 40-hour week? I spend many hours every weekend checking papers and preparing for the coming week. Do you have to have a license to do your job? If you do, who pays for that license? I have to have a license, and I have to pay for that license myself. If you have to have a license, do you have to complete a mandatory number of continuing education classes? I do. If you have to complete continuing education classes, do you have to pay for them out of your own pocket? I do. When do you think I take those classes? I take them during the summer. I am at my school until at least the second week of June, and return by the second week of August. That hardly constitutes a whole summer. When people say to me, "It must be nice to have the summer off and still get a paycheck." I always say to them, "Do you remember all of those extra hours I put in over the school year? I am just getting paid for them now." When do you get paid for your overtime hours? Do you have to wait until summer to get paid? Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, I am just telling you the facts. I love my job! I would never want to do anything else. Do you love your job? Do you have children? I hope you have respect for their teacher/s, because most of them work as hard as I do and deserve your respect. And by the way, I like Ann Coulter. and Sara Palin, I think they are brave women. But, I also think Ann misspoke on this one. I would love to have her come and spend a week with me. I bet she would go home and write a book about how fortunate we are to have good teachers."

I have never felt like watching her show, and normally I do not like Russel Brand at all. This has only challenged my opining of Brand, and not so much about the show, but I too would like to know more.>> ^spoco2:

I've seen this before and I really hate Chelsea, she's glum, combative, negative.
I get that she doesn't like his 'charming' act, but geeze, she's such a bitch. Is there some history there which is informing her horrible behaviour.
She's the HOST for f ck's sake.

I've seen this before and I really hate Chelsea, she's glum, combative, negative.

I get that she doesn't like his 'charming' act, but geeze, she's such a bitch. Is there some history there which is informing her horrible behaviour.

She's the HOST for f*ck's sake.

I guess you missed all his other comments. How's the peanut gallery treating you?

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>


I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.
Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>



I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.

Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say? It makes your dialogue almost purely hyperbole. Slow down son and listen..the methods historians use to verify evidence for something is not an exact science..if you were to say Jesus didn't exist then you would have to say a lot of people in ancient history didn't exist either, because the evidence for Jesus is far better than someone like say Alexander the Great. It's not nonsense, it's reality..if you want to say the methods are bad then discard most of what you know about world history. If however you accept those methods then you should also accept Jesus was a historical person..your position is fairly ridiculous.

>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br> </em>

So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.

There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

>> ^shinyblurry:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm

Can't say I disagree with anything you say!

I was talking shorthand. Nuance gets lost in shorthand.



>> ^NetRunner:

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.
To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.
When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.
As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.
As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.

To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.

When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.

As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.

As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.