text:
The no-final-prepositions rule: Not even half right.
September 2, 2010 in bad arguments, English, formality and tone, grammar, ipsedixitism, ONW, prepositions, prescription, speech, style, Uncategorized, writing | Tags: ben jonson, final prepositions, garden-path sentence, grammar girl, john dryden, where are you at
Every time I mention the no-sentence-final-prepositions rule as an example of unfounded prescriptivism, I always get a response from someone along the lines of "Oh, no prescriptivist actually believes that anymore." I assure you some still do. Others have rejected the blanket prescription that all sentence-final prepositions are unacceptable, but they've replaced that idea with a strange half-prescription that only some final prepositions are okay. In either case, they're still wrong.
Let's review the basic history of the idea that you shouldn't end clauses (especially complete sentences) with prepositions. The entire idea that there is something wrong with sentence-final prepositions was popularized by John Dryden back in the 17th century. Looking over a play by Ben Jonson from 1611 (around 60 years before Dryden was writing), Dryden remarked on Jonson's line "The bodies that those souls were frighted from", noting
"The Preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him, and which I have but lately observ'd in my own writings."
Dryden never saw fit to explain why this sentence-final preposition was a fault.* Before, during, and after the 17th century, sentence-final prepositions have been commonplace in speech and writing. No one's ever really had a good explanation for why they're opposed to them. The only reason you'd want to avoid clause-final prepositions is that they aren't common in formal writing, and that's the case largely because of the misguided prohibition against them.
But mistaken beliefs die the hardest, and so people still occasionally point out sentence-final prepositions to me as an obviously bad thing. It's irritating enough when these are people who have no reason to know any better and are merely reciting out-of-date prescriptions. It's much worse when it's someone who clearly should know better out there advocating that there is a germ of truth in the preposition lie. For instance, I saw on Grammar Girl's Top Ten Grammar Myths that she says it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition. But only sometimes:
"You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition when the sentence would mean the same thing if you left off the preposition. That means 'Where are you at?' is wrong because 'Where are you?' means the same thing. But there are many sentences where the final preposition is part of a phrasal verb or is necessary to keep from making stuffy, stilted sentences: 'I'm going to throw up,' 'Let's kiss and make up,' and 'What are you waiting for' are just a few examples."
So don't allow a sentence-final preposition unless the revision is worse. But that advice only makes sense if there is something inherently wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. Note that (like Dryden) Grammar Girl does not address the issue of why sentence-final prepositions are ever bad, instead taking it as given. In fact, in a longer piece on sentence-final prepositions, she writes
"When you could leave off the preposition and it wouldn't change the meaning, you should leave it off. Really, I can't believe anyone would make such a silly mistake!"
Apparently it's such a silly mistake that it need not be justified. But if sentence-final prepositions are so silly, then presumably you can only leave them in if the alternative is really awkward, even more awkward than the silly sentence-final prepositions would be.
If we look back at Grammar Girl's acceptable final-preposition sentences — "I'm going to throw up," "Let's kiss and make up," and "What are you waiting for?" — it's trivial to make reasonable versions without the final prepositions: "I'm going to barf", "Let's kiss and reconcile," "Why are you waiting?". If you find sentence-final prepositions to be worth avoiding, I can't see why you wouldn't switch to these prepositionless alternatives. Unless, and I'm only going out on a limb here, your proscription is totally arbitrary.
You might argue, as I think Grammar Girl is doing, that there's a difference in that the for in What are you waiting for? needs to be in the sentence as written, while the at in Where are you at? could be omitted. The latter sentence therefore goes against Strunk & White's famous Omit Needless Words dictum. However, as many reasonable people have pointed out (look at this Jan Freeman column, for instance), Omit Needless Words is not a grammar rule of English, no matter how hard Strunk & White try to convince you otherwise. In fact, let me illustrate it with part of the first sentence of Grammar Girl's own article:
" […] ending a sentence with a preposition is often unfairly labeled 'undesirable grammar construction number one' by people who were taught that prepositions have a proper place in the world […]"
All three of those bolded words could be removed without hurting the syntax of the sentence. That would leave us with the sentence "[it's labelled undesirable by] people taught prepositions have a proper place in the world", which is a real rubbish sentence. Sure, you could remove these words, but you'll make the sentence hard to parse. If you want even stronger examples of Omit Needless Words taking you places you don't want to go, consider these two famously incomprehensible psycholinguistic examples:
(1a) The horse raced past the barn fell.
(1b) The coach smiled at the player tossed the frisbee.
It is often good to avoid wordiness and rambling. Brevity is the soul of wit and all that. (I'm sure that, after getting this far into this post, you doubt I believe either of those statements.) But there is a difference between rambling and including a two-letter preposition of debatable necessity. You are not required to drop every word you can, nor are you supposed to. Merely being able to remove a word is not sufficient reason to do so.
Grammar Girl should know that, and at some unconscious level, she does. A reader pointed out that she herself said in one podcast "That's where it's at." That's standard in informal English, because you don't end sentences with it's**, and adding at suddenly makes the sentence valid again. But instead of noting this as evidence against the made-up preposition-proscription, she embarrassedly apologized for it. There's no need to. You know it's right, Grammar Girl! To thine own language be true.
Summary: There's no reason to muck about with silly half-proscriptions. Clause- and sentence-final prepositions are always grammatical, although they can sound informal due to the 400 years of exile they've had to endure. Listen to your sentence and decide for yourself whether the final preposition sounds appropriate for the formality level you're aiming at.
*: David Crystal, in The Fight for English, notes that Dryden was against ending sentences with "an adverb, a preposition, or any inconsiderable word" because this reduced their "strength", but he gave no further reason, nor any reason specific to prepositions. And Dryden regularly broke this rule, ending sentences in his own grammar book with such inconsiderable words as it or him.
**: I was tempted to say you don't end sentences with any contractions, but then I remembered the once-cool Jimmy Eat World song If You Don't, Don't. I think only not-contractions can end sentences, but I'm not willing to bet on it.
I interpreted (still do, actually) the ban on "where … at" as a problem with redundancy, not with prepositions per se. My sense is that people who object to "where … at" think of it as uncultured rather than as a technical violation of a rule. I might be wrong.
FWIW, I find the objection to "where … at" unimpressive, not because of either of these reasons (dangling prep, too many words) but because the construction clearly represents a desire to express something that we have sort of lost in English, namely the distinction between whence (from), whither (to), and where (at), and that's obviously still useful. (Auf Deutsch, "woher," "wohin," and just "wo.")
As for the whole genesis of the proscription, I had always thought (based on half-remembered reading) that the argument was that a post-position PRE-position was a logical fallacy, therefore ipso facto "wrong," QED, the end. There certainly was a period, not entirely over, where people dearly wanted grammatical logic to work as neatly as mathematical logic. Haha, too bad for them. :-)
I think you can end with contracted auxiliaries, as in "if you haven't read To Kill A Mockingbird by now, you should've" but I imagine that's done far – FAR – more often in speech than writing.
I agree with your second footnote, Gabe. I had a co-worker with good but not-quite-native English who would contract "I have" or "I will" even at the end of a sentence. In British English, of course, "I have" can be contracted even when "have" indicates possession — but not at the end of the sentence.
I remembered dimly that there's a Gershwin lyric with a jokey sentence-final contraction — I had to hunt around a bit to remind myself that it's "Biding My Time": "'cause that's the kind of guy I'm."
(Good example, Ridger, though I might tweak the tense slightly. "Did you read it? You should've.")
Regarding Grammar Girl, she makes a couple of other dubious pronouncements in that list:
1. She says that "irregardless" is a bad word and a word you shouldn't use, although she (probably grudgingly) admits that it is a word. Why is it a "bad" word? Why shouldn't I use it?
2. She says that a passive voice is when you don't name the person who is responsible for the actions. This is easily disproven by the sentence "This sentence was written by me", which in clearly in passive voice and clearly indicates who was responsible for the action.
These, combined with the sentence-final preposition half-prescription Gabe mentions, means that if this was a test she'd only get a 70%. I suppose that's a passing grade (barely) for a student, but she's trying to be the teacher. Color me underwhelmed.
Ray Girvan
A lot of people anyway don't seem to grasp that "where are you at?" isn't the same as "where are you?", but has a distinct idiomatic meaning of "what is your current existential position / emotional state / stage in personal development?".
Ray, "where are you" can have that extended meaning as well, and "where are you at" can have the literal meaning. I think the point is not so much that the two forms have different meanings as that they belong to different dialects.
"I think only not-contractions can end sentences, but I'm not willing to bet on it."
Shall we think of more examples? Ok, let's.
I don't think ending sentences with contractions is a problem at all. ("Ok, let's" is a great example, as are "No, they aren't" and "You really shouldn't.") My problem with "That's where it's" is that the contraction it's place the emphasis on "it," the subject, rather than "is," the verb, and that sounds awkward, because you expect something to follow the it's.
John Kilgore
I think "where are you at?" is both clearly a colloquial usage (I can remember a grade school teacher disliking it) and ironically more exact than SE "Where are you?", the supposedly correct alternative. If I'm not mistaken, colloquial speakers will use the Standard phrase to ask for general information — where in general are you these days? — but will add the preposition when they want to add urgency and specificity to the question: where exactly are you right this minute? The "at" is no idle mistake, but a functioning part of the phrase, bearing a meaningful distinction.
So as often happens, the non-standard usage is probably more expressive on its own turf. Still, I would probably need to circle the "at" if I came across it in a student paper, much as I would circle "ain't" "whither," or "he be in the house," though all of these can make powerful claims of elegance and expressiveness. The problem is not that any of these usages is wrong in any absolute sense, but simply that they don't fit the context (unless somehow they did, in which case my red pen would keep still).
BTW Gabe does a nice job of ending his post with a preposition that is perfectly graceful. QED!
Emily Michelle
I was once told by someone or other that the rule about ending sentences with a preposition came into fashion because commentators were basing their observations off Latin, which doesn't allow sentence-ending prepositions (in the same way that you mustn't split an infinitive because it can't be done in Latin). Was I misinformed? In retrospect, I don't know if that makes a lot of sense.
Also, John Kilgore, you have inspired me to set a goal to work the phrase "he be in the house" into a paper.
After some consideration, I think what's really happening with "don't end in contractions" is the rule is really "don't end with with a contraction of the (first element of the) aux.
Should've – should is the first element, have the second
Let's – us isn't part of the verb phrase at all
Wouldn't (etc) – not isn't part of the aux
But I'm not sure of that. It could be wrong.
Indignant Desert Birds » Sunday Morning Reading Material (First Sunday in September)
[…] The fine person at Motivated Grammar explains to us why prescriptivisim needs to die. Preferably in a fire. […]
With constructions like "make up" or "waiting for" (or "waiting on" if you're from the South), aren't we looking at verb phrases anyway and not prepositions at all? The Germans have a thing called a "separable prefix" that I've always assumed was related to the "up" or "for" in these cases.
Indeed, these particles are akin to German's separable prefixes – just permanently separated. Pronoun objects must precede them – that's one way you can identify them. (Put it up, not put up it)
Best Proofreading Service
"Listen to your sentence and decide for yourself whether the final preposition sounds appropriate for the formality level you're aiming at." — Exactly. Simply listening to how the words sound is a major part of proofreading a sentence. If you're a proofreader, your trained ear will tell you whether it's right or wrong.
Joseph Pendleton
This is a fairly simple issue of style guidelines being made into grammar rules. Ending sentences with prepositions or with contractions is not inherently ungrammatical and should not be made into a hard-and-fast grammar rule. But doing so is a style choice. Ending sentences with prepositions or contractions have the effect of creating a more colloquial tone than not doing so, and many authors or editors like to avoid such a tone in their writing or publications.
I actually agree with Grammar Girl's approach and avoid ending sentences with prepositions when I can. Maybe this comes from my years of Latin in college or maybe it comes from a broken synapse in my frontal lobe, but ending a sentence in a preposition is just something I have decided not to do. But I do not agree with how she has cast a style choice as if it were a grammar rule. It just not a rule.
Gabe is correct in challenging her on the status of this of a rule, but he misses that she still has a point; it is a stylistic point, but still a point I think is useful.
Phillip Shaw
A working man–I sell used appliances for a living–I do not understand why I can read a sentence like this one…
…and then look two inches left and read the following, in the About the Blog section:
Its goal is to explain the motivations behind the real grammar of English and to debunk ill-founded claims about what is grammatical and what isn't.
You can hedge your bets all you want, but we know you're hedging them, so why should anyone listen to you? Read your own sentences. Happy PhD, Mr Ivory-Tower-Slumming-It-As-Linguistic-Populist.
Hey all, thanks for the comments. When I posted this, I was smack in the middle of a big paper push, so I forgot to keep up with the comments. Hopefully at least some of you are still around.
mike: Your whence/whither/where point is compelling, and one I'm going to keep in mind in the future.
Ridger/Vance/Alex/Desi: I'm glad you've come up with some other sentence-final contractions. Ridger, I like the no-first-aux-contractions idea. Do you think that stress can be the determining factor? I ask because I am very bad at determining stress in English, but it seems to me that what's wrong with a sentence like "I thought it wasn't, but it's" (for it is) is that is is supposed to be stressed, and the clitic 's can't take that stress?
Daniel: I'm glad you weren't blinded by the final-preposition stuff like I was. I'm a bit willing to tolerate the irregardless point, because I'm assuming she means something like "nonstandard" or "informal" and just doesn't know to say that. But there're few linguistic things that bug me more than misdefining the passive voice.
Ray Girvan/Vance/John Kilgore: Ray, you put that much better than I would've. For me, each form can have the literal or idiomatic meanings in different situations, but it's really important to note the two meanings, because sometimes I manage to use the two forms to distinguish between the meanings.
Joseph Pendleton: I agree that there is a stylistic point against the final prepositions, but I hid my agreement in the summary and couched it in terms of informality. Ending a sentence with a preposition does indicate informality to many readers, and some might even find it wrong. But I weakly disagree that GG is making this point. The problem with her claim is that the anti-preposition readers are, in my experience, indifferent to the question of whether the preposition is easily moved. They just plain hate final prepositions. So if you did follow GG's advice, even as mere stylistic opinion, you wouldn't escape the ire of the prescriptivists. That's why I thought her half-prescription was so silly. If you're talking about the stylistic preference, go whole hog. If you're talking about grammaticality, cut the prescription altogether.
Phillip Shaw: Our misunderstanding is the fault of my poor phrasing in the footnote. By "not-contractions" I didn't mean "things that are not contractions" but rather "contractions containing a contracted form of not". That's why I mentioned "If you don't, don't", which ends with a not-contraction and is grammatical. The "what isn't" sentence is another example of this, as you've noted, and the commenters above noted that some other contractions can end sentences as well. Thank you, also, for the kind wishes at the end. I can only hope it is a happy PhD that I am given; a vicious or manic-depressive one would be the pits.
Can you post the references you use for this article? I'm namely interested in the quote by John Dryden. (Or does this come from Crystal's work?)
Phyllis Schoenberg
Brings to mind the (possibly apocryphal) Winston Churchill quote: "This is something up with which I shall not put."
When I was studying linguistics, a career which ended before its time, I took a grammar class which was descriptive rather than prescriptive in nature. Anyway, it was the first time I had come across the descriptor of 'particle' as a part of "phrasal verb". For those of you who haven't heard of this, it's basically when a word is actually an inextricable part of a verb phrase like 'look for' or 'throw up' or 'take out'. These verbs mean something different than look, throw or take. Anyway, it was the first time I thought of the years of German that I took and connected that 'look for' is what we refer to in german as a 'separable verb'. The only difference between a separable verb in German and in English is that the German infinitive looks like a single word, so it seems more so: 'aufstehen' instead of 'to stand up'. In spanish these concepts are just single words that don't even separate: 'buscar' is 'to look for'. Anyway, to further the argument, they aren't really prepositions (as such) at all. They just look like 'em. They're actually verb particles.
The 7 Grammar Rules You Can (and Should) Break | Everyone Sell Your S#!T Online
[…] this even more flexible advice from Motivated Grammar: "Listen to your sentence and decide for yourself whether the final preposition sounds […]
Linguo
Sorry to be long winded, but please if you don't mind read and consider the points I make, I welcome any rebuttal or criticism. Also, I wanted to get this out before I forgot, so keep in mind I haven't read the article just yet, so if anything has already been addressed, I apologise for my ignorance of the fact. But I will get to the article as soon as I'm done with my reply.
First of all the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition is CORRECT, well mostly. If it goes before something, it's a PREposition. However, if it ends a sentence or goes after something, it cannot be a preposition. If it goes after, it's a POSTposition, like ago (We can never say it was four ago years or even it was ago four years, now can we?).
In English there are phrasal verbs which have mistakenly been accused of prepositional stranding and ending a sentence with a preposition, it's wrong, these are particles, as Jenny mentioned.
We have three types of phrasal verbs: prepositional phrasal verbs, where they truly are composed of a verb and preposition, particle phrasal verbs, where there is no preposition, and prepositional particle verbs, which combine the two. I know this if from Wikipedia, but bare with me for a moment.
Verb + preposition (prepositional phrasal verbs)[4]
Who is looking after the kids? – after is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase after the kids.
Verb + particle (particle phrasal verbs)
They brought that up twice. – up is a particle, not a preposition.
Verb + particle + preposition (particle-prepositional phrasal verbs)
Who can put up with that?
If you'll notice, the first and third examples cannot end a sentence with the preposition, the second one can end on the particle, because it's part of the verb itself. Just try it. If you're a native English speaker, or very advanced learner of English, then it should sound wrong to you.
Who is looking after?
What did they bring up?
Who can put up with?
Who are y'all going out with?
Whose kids are you looking after?
Whose kids are you putting up with?
I would say that in these instances, these are not prepositions. I would say they are particles, that when followed, act as prepositions, and well they are pre-positional and become post-positional.
But not: They brought that up.
Word Wednesday – Breaking the Rules
[…] did a little digging and found out that this "rule"seems to have originated in the 17th century, and not so much as a rule but as an observation on another writer's work. Then again, […]
« I don't care if you don't like it, it's a fact
Evidence? Bah. »


text:
Some Brave Middle School Kids Express Themselves
See what you think about this one, which was posted to the TeachTheFacts listserve today. It looks like there are some really brave and cool kids at Eastern Middle School, on University in Silver Spring.
From The Gazette:
Eastern Middle School seventh-grader Kaz Felix-Hawver says he does not shy away from self-expression. The outspoken student has worn make-up to school and frequently speaks up for the rights of homosexuals and minorities.
But none of Felix-Hawver's past actions have drawn the reaction of his latest statement, which launched an investigation by school administrators, led to teasing from some students and started a mini gay rights movement among others.
On four occasions since Sept. 15, Felix-Hawver has worn shirts with "Gay Pride" written in black marker on the front. One of the shirts, a pink button-down, has "Homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transgenders: All are cool with me," written on the back.
"I have a lot of friends with gay mothers or fathers and I'm sort of the expressive one," Felix-Hawver said Thursday at his Kensington home. "… This is the new way to express things."
Felix-Hawver, who said he is bisexual, didn't unveil the first shirt until his lunch period Sept. 15, at which time he said some students "went in an uproar," saying things like, "God didn't create Adam and Adam," and telling him he would go to hell. Some even asked if he was gay, Felix-Hawver said.
After the students' reaction and a quizzical response from a cafeteria worker, Felix-Hawver said a security guard escorted him to a guidance counselor.
He was given a sweater to wear over the shirt and returned to class.
Principal Charlotte Boucher was out of the school that day but said Monday that because the shirt caused a disruption in the lunch room, it violated dress code.
"I don't have any objection to positive statements referring to civil liberties being worn in school," Boucher said. "Our concern is the academic day not be disturbed."
'Gay Pride' shirts: Free speech or costly academic disturbance?
So -- this t-shirt is against the rules when and only when the bigots catcall and raise an uproar. Isn't that something? If you don't like something, just make enough noise and it will go away. The Citizens for Responsible T-Shirts have been operating that way, under various names, for years.
Sounds like there was a faculty memo on the subject.
The following day, Felix-Hawver wore a "Gay Pride" T-shirt again, this time with support from three friends who wore shirts with similar messages. Seventh-grader Elena Burger wore one that read: "Gays will not be silenced." Seventh-grader Marisa Clery wore one with "Equal Rights" on the front and a plea to stop persecuting gays on the back.
"… I wanted to get in trouble for wearing the same shirt just so it would bring more attention to the issue," said Burger, who lives in Somerset.
But that day the students said they received no reaction from administrators, although they were subject to continual teasing from fellow students.
So now the bigots were still raising an uproar, but the school administration refused to go along with the mob rule.
Felix-Hawver donned the shirts again twice last week. The only reaction came from teachers who asked him to cover the shirt. He refused and declined to meet with Boucher.
Boucher said Felix-Hawver didn't have to cover his shirt on those days because there were no disruptions.
"I don't think they have accepted it; I think they are grudgingly ignoring it," Felix-Hawver said.
I don't see where it says how old this kid is. Middle school, what's that, sixth through eighth grade, somewhere between ten and thirteen years old? This guy is incredible.
As part of a "full investigation," guidance counselors met with students individually to discuss the situation, and Boucher said she interviewed about a dozen staff members to review school policy. She said staff did not violate policy or show intolerance in handling the situation.
Felix-Hawver's father, David Hawver, said he applauded his son's courage but was also pleased that the administration did not continue opposing the shirts.
"I'm really glad the administration changed their minds about the acceptability of it," Hawver said Thursday to immediate protest from his son, who stood up in the family's living room and began a strong, reserved argument with his father about the administration's actions.
His mother Deb Felix wrote a letter to Boucher asking for employees in the school to undergo sensitivity training but since then, the ordeal has been handled "moderately well," she said.
Boucher said bullying and teasing are common throughout society but she takes such behavior seriously at her school.
One thing here, it sounds like this principal showed a lot of leadership in handling this situation. It's nothing really, some kids in t-shirts, but she could have let it get out of hand by sending the kids home or by letting teachers figure out how to handle the situation on their own. I say we give her credit for letting this noncontroversial situation run itself out.
Another thing, it's a circular rule. A disruptive piece of clothing is one that causes a disruption. That means the rule is defined by the behavior of people other than the one who receives the consequences. This makes it essentially impossible for a student to obey the rule, because he or she can't control how people will react to something. Oh, you can obey by being as bland and boring as possible, that's not the world I want to live in!
Last thing, these kids seem to really have their heads on straight. Kaz had the nerve to go ahead and express himself -- and you notice his parents are standing there ready to fight for him -- even when he knows other kids will give him a hard time. And then his friends, knowing they were going to be teased by the ignorant kids at school and possibly punished by the school, went and put on their expressive t-shirts.
Good story, this sort of thing has to happen every day. You can't let the ignorant ones determine how everybody else is going to live and what opinions are acceptable.
Once upon a time, if you were a different skin color and walked into a certain restroom, a school, a cafeteria, a bus ride, or other shared public space, it would cause "disruptions", and punishments handed out accordingly for the "offending" parties (those of a different color skin). Somehow, the very worst of this (KKK for example) was also based on some sort of theological basis that gave people of beige skin color authority to judge those of brown skin color as less than deserving of the selfsame human rights that everyone else was entitled to -
I'll even betcha apples to blueberries that Jesus himself would have approved vociferously at such an interpretation of his words of unconditional love and acceptance for all peoples -
This was based on the very same principle that Jim already stated here - how can someone be held responsible for others' reactions to an external stimulus such as exhibited in the above example.
Good call, Jim.
You can't let the gender confused people determine how everyone else is going to live and what opinions are acceptable. Afterall, they are confused!
Sorry to break your bubble, but i have never been confused since i knew myself at age 4 as the girl i am now. I am about to prove one of your lies right here and right now in front of the world.
Thanks for the perfect example of untruth and falsehood.
Here's the distortion:
You used the term "confused". This, in all of the the CRG's anti-trans and anti-gay propaganda, has originated from the clinical term "disordered". This term of "disorder" has originated from the DISM IV clinical manual which listed gender dysphoria as such.
Here's the lie:
While referring to people like myself as "mentally confused" and "disordered" repeatedly in every forum from here on this blog to press releases and newspaper articles and TV interviews - it's extremely interesting to note that while you use these terms to sow further fear and misunderstanding within the general public about people like me, by validating the same clinical language that you use to define it, yet you never once mention that the only primary recommended course of resolution for this "disorder" or "confuison" is to actually transition or change gender.
This is the lie of hypocrisy you keep trying to sell over and over again.
Not only that, but since the exhaustive batteries of testing required by any conscientious clinical therapist, psychiatrist, or psychologist, must
A): find no almost no evidence of any other mental illnesses or psychoses known to exist by any clinical standard...
and B): Find substantial and undeniable evidence that there is a natural preponderance of INNATE characteristics of the opposite gender to such a high degree mentally, emotionally, and often physically, that there will be no question of the positive benefit to that person to make such a vast and frequently immensely dangerous change. Often meaning extreme discrimination, humiliation, loss of home, loss of job, loss of professional standing, loss of all male privilege in society, and often loss of friends and family as well.
In other words, those of us that do take this course to be completely true to ourselves against all the odds and all the disgust and all the outcry of theological "theory", must be more sure of our gender, clinically and psychologically speaking, than almost anyone else of that gender to begin with, and are willing to risk everything including our very lives to make this truth a living reality.
Interesting that you continually use words like "disordered" and "mentally confused" to scare people which means you actually give creedence to what is the recommended course of resolution, yet NEVER, EVER, publicly validate the rest of the thesis by the same clinical standards you are attempting to use to scare and confuse others with.
This is truly sick, disgustingly incomplete, frighteningly shallow and very dishonest.
Since you feel so strongly about your convictions, then you should also have the guts to claim your own name in the process of publicly stating them, otherwise you are flatly a coward and a liar to the utmost degree for cowering behind the name "anonymous" while making such false assertions.
Most Sincerely and respectfully,
Maryanne A. Arnoe
Maddie H said...
I've never been confused about my sex or gender, but other people seem to want to make me the scapegoat for their confusion.
In other words,
I agree with this if by "gender confused people" you mean people like those in CRG who think that trans women are really men and trans men are really women.
Real gender confusion is believing that everything you need to know begins and ends with the genitals.
California's Prop. 8, which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, is gaining support.
In a poll of likely voters conducted for CBS 5 in San Francisco, Californians favored the marriage amendment 47 percent to 42 percent. The strongest support came from voters ages 18 to 34, a group that has supported same-sex "marriage" in previous polls.
Perhaps it wouldn't be too much to require that kids not wear shirts that define people by their sexual desires.
How about that?
Apparently, freedom of speech only counts as long as it's your kind of speech, Anon?
Lisa, do you believe students in high school should be free to say absolutely whatever they want and wear absolutely whatever they want?
Don't get nervous. Type in slowly and think before you push the "publish" button.
this may change later today but in the realpolitics poll of polls this morning, of the last ten polls, half have Joebama leading by four or less:
reuters 2
GWU 4
Sounds like America is tiring of the lack of specificity in Obama's message coupled with concerns about his radical connections. I wouldn't be surprised to find he even has ties to groups like TTF.
Indeed, the realpolitics average of the polls is 5.1% down from 5.3% yesterday morning and 5.5% the morning before that. And 8% across the board Sunday. Actually, if take out the ridiculously high Gallup 11%, which seems a little outlandish, the average is 4.4%.
They gotta be getting queasy at Joebama HQ.
Something's happening out there. A wildfire of discontent with the congressional Democrats like Obama and Biden who allowed our economy to disintegrate by interferring in mortgage markets to push bad loans on financial institution.
The times they are-a changin'!
Most liberals think FOXnews slants to the right and polls of the viewers would seem to indicate their viewership is more conservative.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, MSNBC is so blatantly acting as cheerleaders for Obama that it is criminal that they don't get a fee for their efforts from the Obama campaign. They have been roundly criticized for their bias which has been the subject of a mocking skit on SNL.
So which channel do Americans prefer?
The debate coverage on FOXnews drew 8.8 million viewers Tuesday night.
MSNBC? 3.8 million.
America has spoken!
AH's favorite poll in September, the Gallup poll, has some intereting headlines this month:
Gallup Daily: Obama 48%, McCain 44%
Slightly closer race now than two days ago
October 2, 2008 (Vice Presidential Debate)
Gallup Daily: Obama Leads McCain by 5 Points
Obama has led McCain by significant margin for last six days
Gallup Daily: Obama Leading by 7 Points
Today marks full week of Obama leading by significant margin
Gallup Daily: Obama Maintains Significant Margin
Lead is eight points, 50% to 42%
Gallup Daily: Obama Leads for Ninth Straight Day, 50%-43%
Poll includes two interviewing days following vice presidential debate
Gallup Daily: Obama Leads 50% to 42%
Obama remains statistically ahead for 10th straight day
October 7, 2008 (Second Presidential Debate)
Gallup Daily: 9-Point Obama Lead Ties Campaign High
Voters prefer Obama to McCain by 51% to 42%
Gallup Daily: Obama's Lead Over McCain Expands to 11
52% share of the vote is Obama's highest to date
Obama's Race May Be as Much a Plus as a Minus NEW
While 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account.
M. Arnow (refuse to use Maryanne), you wouldn't remember back to age 4 and be able to identify yourself as different. A bunch of hog wash. Your anger stems from your battle against your real gender.
You are angry at yourself. A psychiatrist should have seen that. But, a degree doesn't give them all the best answers. Especially if they too have an agenda.
New George Washington University poll out this morning showing Obama's lead dropping from 4 points yesterday to 3 points today.
Astonishing Gallup poll showing 11 point lead for Obama remains unreplicated. New poll being conducted to protect Gallup's reputation.
Meanwhile Obama HQ nervously awaits new revelations from Tony Rezko who has plea bargained a lighter sentence in exchange for testimony about Obama's involvement with corruption in Chicago.
McCain in an interview last night called for some straight talk about when Obama learned about his terrorist friend's, Bill Ayers', activities and what was the nature of their relationship after he learned about it. He said people have a right to know so they can make up their mind about his judgment in associates.
McCain said, "How can you trust someone to conduct a war on terrorism when he is friends with a terrorist?"
I suppose as much as I can trust an adulterer and a partner in a disastrous scheme to defraud the government or somebody who supported Bush 90% of the time with his precious votes (that is, when he had the time to grace the Senate with his presence).
Guess it would be cool for a kid to wear a t-shirt that says, Exgay is OK. Would he be treated the same?
Of course that would be okay, Anon. Why don't you put a shirt like that on your kid and send them to school tomorrow and see what happens.
Ah, yes, that would be the problem -- you can wear an "ex-gay" t-shirt to school, but nobody would.
the prestigious ramussen poll is out
dropped from 7 yesterday to 5 today
the Joebama descent picks up speed
A bunch of hog wash.
That's too good a term for what Anon and his GOP friends are peddling these days. AOL news reports:
Taunting Prospects
As Tommy Christopher has been chronicling this week, a trend has emerged on the campaign trail. Specifically, it has been in evidence most frequently--but not exclusively-- at the rallies of Sarah Palin and John McCain. The pattern springs forth in the form of a taunt, usually shouted and received with cheers or a sly wink. In the past week alone, McCain/Palin supporters have released their pent-up anger at Barack Obama with cries of "terrorist!" "treason!" "kill him!" and "off with his head!" -- among others.
Truly, the basest of instincts seems to have been unleashed (like a pack of pit bulls) at these events. The question before us is whether McCain himself bears any responsibility for the uptick in the impassioned outbursts. If he does not, as some will argue, then they can be put down to the excitement of the pep rally. Words are not deeds, after all. And, let's face it, we can all get a little carried away when it comes to politics.
On the other hand, some might counter that the timing of this sudden flurry of verbal assaults is no coincidence. Indeed, it comes at the very moment when the McCain's campaign itself promised more negativity. This view holds that McCain and Palin are playing more of a call-and-response game with their audience.
Whatever the cause, this issue is now front and center in the campaign. There's no doubt that hotter rhetoric excites the partisan base. In fact, the hotter it is, the more excited they get. Such taunts infuriate and worry the opposition, and they positively disgust independent voters. Still, the controversy remains. Do we have a simple case of lax crowd control? Or is the pattern reflective of a mob following marching orders?
ABC News weighs in today with, "Is Negative Rhetoric a License to Taunt?":
As the rhetoric at Palin rallies has ratcheted up, so too has the language of supporters in the crowds coming to see her.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank described a recent Palin rally in Florida:
Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving their thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a cameraa crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him to "Sit down, boy."
The LA Times contemplates which anger came first, the crowd's or McCain's, in with "McCain campaign ratchets up the rhetoric":
Egged on by a surly crowd, John McCain and Sarah Palin delivered a stark condemnation of Barack Obama's policies and character Wednesday, casting him as an unreliable choice for president.
The edgy tone of the rally here [in Bethlehem, PA.] was set before the duo arrived onstage, when local Republican official William Platt warmed up the audience by twice referring to the Democratic nominee as "Barack Hussein Obama."
On "The Early Show" yesterday, Joe Biden called the McCain campaign's repeated invocation of William Ayers, "mildly dangerous."
Some see a direct correlation between flagging poll numbers and the surge of negativity, such as Salon's Alex Koppleman:
As it's become increasingly clear that the McCain campaign is in serious trouble, they've been shifting from the issues and trying to stoke voters' fears and prejudices about Barack Obama. This turn toward the negative has been ugly, but the invective the attacks are whipping up among the faithful at Republican rallies is far uglier.
Patrick Ruffini, on the other hand, thinks that McCain's only real mistake in all of this was not going this negative earlier:
The Ayers stuff will be useful in solidifying the base and getting Obama's unfavorables to 40. But it's not a game changer. A casualty of McCain's months-long delay in going on offense is that he's had to debut his harshest material in October rather than road-testing it over the summer. In this sense, throwing the kitchen sink now looks desperate and reactive, even thought it was probably inevitable. Still, it would have been far better had McCain given his campaign license to launch these attacks at a time and place of its choosing, rather than having events force his hand.
Cindy McCain has also gotten into the act of warming up the crowd, and recently called Obama's effort, "the dirtiest campaign in American history."
So, we'd like to hear what you think. Clearly, no politician can control what his or her supporters blurt out during a campaign rally. But should John McCain stop and acknowledge these instances in an attempt to restore civility? Or is he, in part, the main instigator in their proliferation this month?
Here's some footage taken recently at a Sarah Palin campaign rally in Ohio."
Well, at least our hate-ranting AH hasn't suggested killing anyone, yet.
"At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving their thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a cameraa crew."
Liberal crowds do this kind of thing to anyone who is not politically correct. You don't hear the press make anything of it. It sounds like typical demonstration activity except it is directed at the media.
Let's face it. In this election, most of the media has dropped all pretense of objectivity and is aggressively pushing the candidacy of Barack Obama. They've become a participant rather than an observer.
"One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him to "Sit down, boy.""
From the number of times this has been repeated in the last few days and considering no other instance has been brought up, I think we can safely say that the racial comment was an isolated incident.
We may be about to make history by electing the first black president. I'm proud of the progress the country has made. I personally don't feel this is the right but still we all rejoice that an important corner has been turned. It's remarkable how little race has been a factor in this campaign.
Sad that the media, egged on by the radical fringe, wants to find any incident they can to stoke renewed racial animosity. They must think they gain something by encouraging this.
Wall Street Journal columnist, Dorothy Rabinowitz:
"NEWS FLASH: THE MEDIA SUPPORT OBAMA
Both time and events have dimmed those defining moments that early on revealed the difference between the two presidential aspirants. Not only did the financial crisis arrive but so, in her uproarious way, did Sarah Palin. Tuesday's debate between two candidates paralyzed by caution altered nothing. It was a relief, of course, not to hear about Sen. McCain's record as a "maverick" -- a word that would, in a merciful world, be banned from public discourse for the next decade. It was too much to expect Barack Obama to spare us further recitals of the McCain-Bush connection.
The single constant in the eternal election remains the media, whose activist role no one will seriously dispute. To point out the prevailing (with honorable exceptions) double standard of reporting so favorable to Mr. Obama by now feels superfluous -- much like talking about the weather. The same holds true for all those reports pointing to Mr. Obama's heroic status outside the United States -- not to mention the cascade of press analyses warning that if he fails to win election, the cause will surely be racism.
None of this means that the media's role will go unremembered -- who will forget MSNBC news, voice of the Obama campaign? Never has a presidential election produced more fodder for the making and breaking -- or tainting -- of reputations.
The same is true of news sources making far greater claims to fairness. So it was only slightly startling to read a New York Times forecast (Sept. 22) about the presidential debate to come in which reporter Katharine Q. Seelye declared, " . . . Mr. Obama should expect Mr. McCain to question his credentials for the job at every turn -- and to distort his views, as Mr. Romney insisted he did."
That first debate brought the usual legions of commentators -- among them CNN foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour. John McCain, she pointed out, had stumbled over Ahmadinejad's name, and as he was supposed to be the expert on foreign policy, it made her giggle.
"That's not fair -- people make mistakes all the time," Anderson Cooper shot back. But Ms. Amanpour, whose capacity for sustained levels of bombast is one of the wonders of the world, was having none of it.
She would go on to raise the theme so central to the Obama campaign, and held, as revealed truth, by the politically progressive everywhere -- that the U.S., fallen low in the eyes of the world, is now in dire need of moral salvation. Everywhere she went in America, Ms. Amanpour declared, she found "desperate Americans" -- desperate, that is, about the low esteem in which the country was held, desperate to have a president who would lift America up.
Mr. Obama could not have said it better himself. He is the leading exponent of the idea that our lost nation requires rehabilitation in the eyes of the world -- and it is the most telling difference between him and Mr. McCain. When asked, in one of the earliest debates of the primary, his first priority should he become president, his answer was clear. He would go abroad immediately to make amends, and assure allies and others in the world America had alienated, that we were prepared to do all necessary to gain back their respect.
It is impossible to imagine those words coming from Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama has uttered them repeatedly one way or another and no wonder. They are in his bones, this impossible-to-conceal belief that we've lost face among the nations of the world -- presumably our moral superiors. He is here to reform the fallen America and make us worthy again of respect. It is not in him, this thoughtful, civilized academic, to grasp the identification with country that Mr. McCain has in his bones -- his knowledge that we are far from perfect, but not ready, never ready, to take up the vision of us advanced by our enemies. That identification, the understanding of its importance and of the dangers in its absence -- is the magnet that has above all else drawn voters to Mr. McCain.
Sen. Obama is not responsible for the political culture, but he is in good part its product. Which is perhaps how it happened that in his 20 years in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- passionate proponent of the view of America as the world's leading agent of evil and injustice -- he found nothing strange or alienating. To the contrary, when Rev. Wright's screeds began rolling out on televisions all over the country, Mr. Obama's first response was to mount a militant defense and charge that Rev. Wright had been taken out of context, "cut into snippets." This he continued to do until it became untenable. Then came the subject-changing speech on race. Such defining moments tell more than all the talk of Sen. Obama's association with the bomb-planting humanist, William Ayers.
These sharp differences between the candidates as to who we are as a nation may not seem, now, as potent an issue for voters as the economy, but they should not be underestimated. This clash -- not the ones on abortion or gay marriage -- are the root of the real culture war to play out in November."
Can America just fire the whole press and start over again?
Anonymous Troll: We are sooooo tired of your attempts to pirate this site. You act as if anyone here is interested in your copious horse-pucky.
btw....have you contacted a Realtor who has some property for sale in Alaska so that you can move there after the election? That should be Nirvanna for you! And who knows? Maybe you could even assume the leadership of the Alaska Independence Party with all of your "lower-48" smarts!
Well golly gee AH. You think it's a NEWS FLASH when a conservative columnist, who has "written approvingly of Republican presidential candidate John McCain in both the 2000 and 2008 U.S. presidential elections," knocks those in her own profession who don't write approvingly of him too?
That's no news flash, that's to be expected. She just doesn't like the facts -- Obama is going to win because the former straight talker has been veering from one campaign stunt to the next until finally arriving at the bottom of the barrel where all he can do is fling poo and hope some sticks.
Here's more of a NEWS FLASH for Vigilance readers. In today's Washington Post a different conservative columnist wrote:
McCain in a Bear Market
By George F. Will
Thursday, October 9, 2008; A21
Time was, the Baltimore Orioles' manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign.
In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.
This, McCain and his female Sancho Panza say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seems surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep."
Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him.
After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability.
Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval.
Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes.
If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections from 1900 to 1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531.
In the 25 20th-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4.
In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the past 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough.
Sounds like George Will is expecting Obama is going to win because McShame's campaign exemplifies "Are you going to get any better or is this it?"
If Obama wins, life will be great around here.
Can you imagine the backlash when everyone when everyone sees what he really represents?
Red Baron said "this may change later today but in the realpolitics poll of polls this morning, of the last ten polls, half have Joebama leading by four or less...the Joebama descent picks up speed".
LOL, you really are pathetic, ignoring the polls with Obama's lead expanding to focus solely on those few which have his lead dropping. Its a classic illustration of just how messed up your mind is - you're living in a delusion world.
In the real world rational people look at ALL the polls and the Realpolitics polls YOU mentioned on average have Obama's lead EXPANDING to 5.6% from 5.3%. Its exactly what I told you would happen yesterday and exactly the opposite of what you desperately fantasized was going to happen.
If I relied on your type of distortions to make claims about Obama's lead I'd say "in the realpolitics poll of polls this morning, of the last ten polls, half have Obama leading by up to 11 points - Mccain has already lost and lost badly". That statement would be just as accurate, no in fact, more accurate, than yours given that on the whole Obama's lead actually HAS grown.
Get used to it loser, Obama's going to be president. Mccain's poo flinging is only furthering his descent into disgrace. Your ignoring the facts won't change that.
Red Baron said "You can't let the gender confused people determine how everyone else is going to live and what opinions are acceptable. ".
We're not confused about our gender. Living our lives as we choose doesn't affect you in the slightest. It is you who is tryint to determine how we live rather than vice versa. The general public will determine which opinions are acceptable and the trend is clear. The majority will soon, if it hasn't already, reject your anti-lgbt opinions as the same sort of bigotry as racism. Become a pariah or change.
Red Baron said "M. Arnow (refuse to use Maryanne), you wouldn't remember back to age 4 and be able to identify yourself as different. A bunch of hog wash.".
Not true I was 4 when we visited Yellowstone park and I have vivid memories of that. I have vivid memories of feeling I was a girl when I was a similarly young age although I'm not clear on exactly how old I was at the time. I was young enough that my mother thought it was no big deal to bath me in the same tub as my sisters, I certainly could have been 3 or 4, I doubt 5. Another woman was present at the time and criticized my mother for bathing a boy with two girls - I was shocked that she thought of me as a boy.
Red Baron said "Your anger stems from your battle against your real gender. You are angry at yourself.".
Nonsense. We accept ourselves as we are. If I may speak for others, we are angry at bigots like you for trying to dictate our lives when they affect you not at all and for trying to suppress who we are. You're like the schoolyard bully, beating up others and then when the victim gets upset claiming that their distress is due to their own flaws. You are the problem. You are the one causing whatever distress we might feel. You are a shameful evil bully.
Until the troll learns how to interpret polling data, nobody should listen to him.
Here's a few sites to look at: Pollster.com, Five Thirty Eight, run by the incomparable Nate Silver, and Electoral Vote.
Don't just look at the data. Plus one or two points in a give day or several days is often statistical noise. Moreover, after a two-week stretch of Obama picking up virtually all of the undecided vote and moving the polls en masse by 6-10 points, he really has nowhere to go but down.
So don't just look at the data. Look at the analysis of the trends, look at the state-level polling, because that's where it gets decided.
On the Obama maxing out idea, see two very good posts. One, by Nate Silver, is here. The other is by Chris Bowers at Open Left.
Not that I think that our own Troll Boy is going to listen to this -- anything with "Left" in it is tainted with entirely too many big words, I'm sure. But for those of you who are worried or concerned about this kind of "Look! Rasmussen moved two points! Obama is F@#!$%^@#%ed! Bwahahaha!" analysis, read Silver and Bowers and see how to do this kind of analysis RIGHT.
Obama remains an 85-90% statistical likelihood of winning this election. Not 100%, but pretty close. Don't listen to me, but to professionals like Mark Blumenthal at Pollster, Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight, and Chris Bowers at Open Left.
Oh, and whoever called me "Good Anonymous" the other day (for my data on abortion polling), many thanks. A moniker has been coined, and I think I'll keep it.
"In the real world rational people look at ALL the polls and the Realpolitics polls YOU mentioned on average have Obama's lead EXPANDING to 5.6% from 5.3%."
That's because Gallup came in again with another 11 point lead this afternoon. I don't know what somebody's puttin' in the kool-aid over there but nobody has replicated this finding.
"If I relied on your type of distortions to make claims about Obama's lead I'd say "in the realpolitics poll of polls this morning, of the last ten polls, half have Obama leading by up to 11 points - Mccain has already lost and lost badly". That statement would be just as accurate, no in fact, more accurate, than yours given that on the whole Obama's lead actually HAS grown."
Sorry, Preya, you don't know how to think. For you to duplicate my statement, you'd say half have had it higher than 4.
Except for the bizarre Gallup finding, no poll has increased Obama's lead since Sunday.
"Get used to it loser, Obama's going to be president."
I'm not worried about it either way. But go ahead and indulge your fantasies.
"Mccain's poo flinging is only furthering his descent"
I'm convinced gays are turned on by excrement. They bring it up whenever they're worried about losing an argument. They seem to take comfort in the thought of it. Maybe, similar to the idea of comfort food.
On October 9th, Anonymous said...
"M. Arnow (refuse to use Maryanne)",
WHY do you refuse to use my legal name, Miss Volz ? My wife recognizes this. The State and all the agencies that provide for YOUR economic comforts as a fellow citizen that you live in recognizes this. The Federal Government you pay taxes to recognizes this. My regular medical doctor at Family Health recognizes this, as do lawyers, legislators, and even some Christian Clergy that i have become familiar and friendly with locally also recognize this - but you - and you alone...
So - based on whatever interpretation of whatever morals and so-called ethcal values you espouse to have, YOU - you and you alone - above and beyond all else, reserve the right to not address me by my legal name while living in a civil society with me ?
THIS is an example of BIGOTRY and social discrimination.
NEXT: Further Example and Illustration of LIES that these people try to sell all of you out there:
YOU SAID: "you wouldn't remember back to age 4 and be able to identify yourself as different. A bunch of hog wash. Your anger stems from your battle against your real gender.
You are angry at yourself. A psychiatrist should have seen that. But, a degree doesn't give them all the best answers. Especially if they too have an agenda."
I'll work backwards on this one -
If i am angry at all with myself it's for not havng the courage to begin this process ealier in my life. But since i was persecuted and beaten and rejected to no end for being smaller, weaker, not sports oriented, more sensitive, highly emotionally expressive (all the things that little boys are not supposed to be in this culture, back then), and superintelligent as a child amongst all of my peers, i hid what i had to, in order to survive the ongoing torment for the first 10 to 12 years of my life in local schools and neighborhoods.
A good psychiatrst did see that, but it clinically has nothing to do with my self-awareness of gender, nor did i need his clinical validation to know what i had already known in every single fibre of my being since age 4.
Being an extremely strict and conscientious professional that is more prone to reject someone that wishes to change their gender, i am glad i found such a strict "gatekeeper" to deal with.
Since all testing standards known to exist in modern psychology found no other mental illness or psychoses or disorder in my mental or emotional makeup, you are wrong about that too.
So - stating clinical facts of my own personal life that you have not EVER witnessed yourself is a LIE - got that part clearly ? Everyone get it ? She is a - L-I-A-R because she gives false witness.
Next - you PRESUME to know, that no one of Six Billion people are able to have clear memory, or self awareness back to age 4 - you said it yourself, and used the term "hogwash" -
Again - you are a LIAR. You cannot give witness to billions of peoples minds and hearts that you have never personally met nor lived diorectly in our heasrts and minds and emotions - LIAR. Distortionist tactic LIAR LIAR LIAR.
Your religion asks you not to judge - I gave actual and honest witness to my own personal experiences from my earliest and VERY CLEAR awarenesses as a girl, and you SUMMARILY judged it by calling ME a liar without ANY single piece of evidence to back up your statement whatsoever -
THAT MAKES YOU THE LIAR, and a BIGOT.
Please prove right here and right now that you were standing witness in my heart and mind in my life at that age - go ahead - prove it.
You cant. Noen of you can. Unless you are a powerful psychic, then YOU ARE LYING to the general public by stating your unverifiable assertions as truth.
Not only this, but in the form of rudeness and personal attacks, which were - just as you did on the Tribune Blog - unprovoked and uncivil and completely unladylike.
Next - you still use "anonymous" - and once again - as i have said - if your faith in convictions gives you the strength to stand up for what you belive in - then stand up and claim it instead of hiding behind a keyboard under a NON-name.
Otherwise this makes you not only a liar, but a hypocrite and a coward that dosent actaully have enough courage in your own beliefs to stand and be recognized for what you say you believe in.
You are mean, spiteful, pathetic, and rude, You are a liar and a coward and a bigot. Grow up.
Most Respectfully,
Maryanne
Don't hold back, Maryanne.
Let us know what you really think.
Maryanne,
Did you ever stop to think that Anon says those kinds of things just to torque your nipples, then sits back and laughs sadistically when you take it personally?
I know you personally well enough to know that later on, when you calm down, you'll regret saying those kinds of things about anyone, even if they are accurate, and even if it is an Annoying Anonymous.
I do find it ironic though that someone who hides behind a gender neutral "Anonymous" moniker, intentionally obfuscating their own gender, will assert that other people are gender confused.
M. Arnow, you are living a lie and hanging with people who also live a lie. You carry alot of anger inside of you and you just confirmed it. Give up the gender switch game and be what you were supposed to be. . . a husband to your wife.
That will be the start to your journey of healing and peace in your life.
Anonymous wrote:
"M. Arnow, you are living a lie and hanging with people who also live a lie."
I have had the distinct pleasure of meeting and spending a bit of time with some of Maryanne's friends and family. They are some of the kindest and most compassionate people I have ever met. Some of them have led very difficult lives and suffered years of abuse at the hands of others. Their lives are far too painfully real to support a lie for any extended period of time. If you ever had the privilege of spending a day with her and her friends and family, you would slowly come to realize just how baseless and crass your above statement was. Who knows, if you are a person of character, you might even apologize for it.
"You carry alot (sic) of anger inside of you and you just confirmed it."
What surprises me is how well Maryanne continues trudging through life given all the crap that has been piled upon her. I've seen all sorts of people suffer far less and come out far worse. I don't know if the compassion that I have now would still be in place if I had to go half the s$%^ that she has. Frankly I can't blame her if once in a while she vents her frustration with some of those who caused it.
"Give up the gender switch game"
Changing one's gender is never a game. It is a difficult, expensive, grueling, life-altering process. It is not uncommon for a person to lose many or all of their family, friends, income, possessions, and even jobs during the process.
You already knew that though, but that didn't stop you from dismissing and trivializing it. Most of my T friends say they would never wish GID on their worst enemy. I can not honestly claim to be so magnanimous. I've met several people in my life that could benefit from the life-threatening inner-turmoil and public abuse that usually comes with GID. I'm sure it would slowly, painfully carve them into a far kinder and compassionate person.
"and be what you were supposed to be. . . a husband to your wife."
I've met Maryanne's wife. Couples all over the world would be far better off if there was half the love and commitment between them that Maryanne and her wife are blessed with and nurture. If this love could somehow be spread to other couples, the divorce rate would plummet over night.
Maryanne has come a long way to finding peace in her life, and so have I. I have found an inner peace that I never even dreamed was possible before transition. While I was going through transition there was no way I could have ever known what was on "the other side." At the time, transition was a reluctant alternative to suicide. If I had known what I do now, I probably would have transitioned decades ago and spared myself years of wasted survival I came to know as "life."
I somehow got to this wonderful place without the advice of people like you about how I should start my "journey of healing and peace." I respectfully recommend you concentrate on your own journey, and not worry about where other people are going. You just might enjoy your own life better.
Heckler's Veto
The principal's action in censoring the student for fear of disruption is what is known as a Heckler's Veto, in which the government silences speech because of the disruptive action or fear of the action of the opponents. This is what Douglass has to say on the matter:
Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) (speaker was arrested to prevent disturbance by crowd of approximately 1000 protesters).
Justice Douglas, one of the strongest supporters of the First Amendment ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote
Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
Note: the govenment may use this only in the case of clear and present danger of a substantive evil. I doubt the teasing in the lunchroom rises to that level.
School administrators often use this basis for silencing speech the consequences of which they would rather not confront. They are almost invariably mistaken in that explication of their action.
Do we know that the school has taken a stand in no longer opposing the students' t-shirts, or has no one noticed the past few days? I know teachers are often lax in enforcing our dress code, mostly due to not really noticing what students wear (e.g. one of my students word a Guiness beer ad all day long without anyone commenting).
As for the ex-gay t-shirts Anonymoid brings up: shirts that are positive about "x-gay" people are clearly protected under the first amendment. Shirts that are pejorative of lgbt people are less clearly protected. In fact, groups such as ADF (Where do they get their funding) are testing the limits of this.
rrjr
"In fact, groups such as ADF (Where do they get their funding)"
They get their support from the mainstream rational members of the public who are concerned about government interference in religion.
"are testing the limits of this"
They are testing no limit. They are opposing a clearly unconstitutional law.
It's not even close to being a close call.
Anonymous said:
"They are testing no limit. They are opposing a clearly unconstitutional law."
What are you talking about? That doesn't even follow sensibly as a response to what I wrote. Is your comprehension impaired in some way? There is no law in question. What I was discussing was schools' interventions in order to provide a reasonably safe environment for their students, and how this interacts with the first amendment.
You have all our support against the scurrilous jibes of the idiotic anon. I suspect Jim did not delete them because he was busy with other things. I think such comments are grounds for be banned from this blog (not to mention the rest of polite society).
Red Baron said "Except for the bizarre Gallup finding, no poll has increased Obama's lead since Sunday".
LOL, hiding your head in the sand from reality again, eh? Fact is that in addition to Gallup Hotline, GSW, and Zogby have increases for Obam ranging from an additional 3 to an additional 7 points. That's not including several polls which I was unable to check. Once again in the poll of polls Obama's lead has INCREASED from 5.6% to 6.2% and anything over 5% is going to be a landslide for Obama and anything over 2% is almost certainly going to be an obama win.
You've been desperately filtering the polls to try to convince yourself over the last couple of days Obama's been sliding but the reality is that his lead has continued to increase. Sucks to be you.
I'm confused.
What scurrilous jibes has the erudite Robert been a victim of?
I definitely think all jibes should be banned and deleted.
That would make the blog so much more interesting!
"You've been desperately filtering the polls to try to convince yourself over the last couple of days Obama's been sliding but the reality is that his lead has continued to increase."
Convince myself. Did you ever think I just like to see you get all apoplectic?
I actually win either way.
McCain wins and Sarah will probably take over in 2012 when McCain retires.
McCain loses and Sarah is the odds-on favorite in 2012 after the country has suffered four years of Obamery.
win-win for pro-family forces
btw, you seem to have a lot of opinions about what the leadership of the greater nation to your south
would you elect a leader in Canada who was friends with a terrorist?
if you did, would the Parliament in London approve him or would the Queen make you pick someone else?
Anon said
"Convince myself. Did you ever think I just like to see you get all apoplectic?"
This is clearly your purpose, as has been noted.
Were you the one who made the comments to Maryanne? They were far, far over the line. The author of those statements should be should have his IP address blocked, without doubt. It isn't interesting, it's embarrasing and shameful.
C'mon Robert. You should be more tolerant of all the anons. Set a true example of tolerance.
"Were you the one who made the comments to Maryanne?"
I don't think so but you've have to be more specific for me to give a definitive answer.
I was addressing Robert and who is Maryanne?
It's confusing when people don't pick a name for themselves. It makes it seem as though there were this person named "Anonymous" who has all these different personalities that don't remember what the other personae have said.
The word "I" has no meaning if no one can recognize you.
"C'mon Robert. You should be more tolerant of all the anons. Set a true example of tolerance."
I myself am tolerant of most anti-lgbt people, as long as they are even reasonably polite. There are limits, though.
Last Note From Australia
The Shower-Nuts Are Still Trying
VP Debate, Brief Thoughts
More Disappointment for the Shower-Nuts
Intentional Violation of the Law: How Will the Gov...
Dana On TV
Checking in From Down Under
Crikey, This Springtime Sun is Bright

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


What is the best way to get a moist, flavorful swordfish steak? I prefer grilling but haven't had a good result and would love some idea for adding flavor.
Oh no--I did it twice! Darn iPhone! OverCOOK.
I grill as well and make a simple marinade first of olive oil, fresh lemon juice, and dill. It flavors the fish but only lightly. When grilling, be careful not to turn too soon (sticking) and not to overlook or the fish will be tough. Enjoy!
I always grill my sword fish. I use a modified two level fire. My steaks are fresh and I get a thick cut, about 1". I don't brine.
What is the best way to cook my fillet steak?
What is the best way to prepare a ribeye steak? grill, broil, pan?


text:
Speech of the Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia during the signing of the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, October 15, 2012
Speech of His Excellency Dato' Sri Mohammad Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak, Prime Minister of Malaysia:
during the signing of the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro
[Delivered at Malacañan Palace, Manila, on October 15, 2012]
His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III, President of the Philippines; His Excellency Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, Chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front; His Excellency İhsanoğlu , Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; honorable ministers; excellencies; Chairperson of the Philippines Negotiating Panel and MILF Negotiating Panel; distinguished guests; ladies and gentlemen:
Today is a day of great hope. A day which sees the dawn of a new beginning for the people of Mindanao. A day when we welcome a unified Philippines when out of the darkness comes a new light, albeit with an old name—Bangsamoro.
The Framework Agreement before us will bring to end of violence which claims so many people and cuts short so many futures. It will protect the rights of the Bangsamoro people and preserve the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Philippines. It is the firm crown on which a lasting peace can be built.
Ladies and gentlemen, this agreement exists only because individuals were prepared to raise their eyes and look to a brighter future. So today, we pay tribute to the quiet bravery of negotiations: to the many years and countless hours spent in search of shared understanding. In confronting their differences and finding common ground, both sides have given something; but the people of the Southern Philippines have gained everything. In choosing peace over conflict, and stability over chaos, both sides have stated their belief, not just in universal principles of democracy, justice, and tolerance, but in their application in the service of a greater good.
In years to come, I believe all those involved will look back and see that their hands laid the foundations for an enduring peace. That their willingness to give and to forgive made possible a better future for all.
Ladies and gentlemen, for decades, Malaysia has been home to those who sought refuge from this conflict. Thousands fled in search of safety. Generations have grown up on our shores. Far from the land of their ancestors. It is our abiding hope that the agreement gives them a homeland again. For Mindanao, there can be no more lost generations.
This agreement and the peace it brings will honor those who lost their lives before they saw it signed. We stand here today in tribute to those who cannot. The document we signed today is an expression—an expression of the trust that people have placed in this process. That trust is hard won. It must be protected, and above all, it must be honored.
Only those responsible for conflict can prevent its return. On this day of hope and promise, we must not forget the challenges that remain. The ink on this paper will not save a single life unless it is matched with a true and immovable commitment to peace. If tension arises, it must be met with tolerance. All Parties must stand by the principles on which this agreement rests. Respect for religion, non-violence, and human rights.
This is not an endpoint, but a beginning. There is much still to be done. The Framework Agreement is a historic document but it does not solve all the problems. Rather, it sets the parameters in which a lasting peace may be found. I hope all sides continue to recognize their responsibilities in the coming months as they work towards the final peace agreement. [Applause]
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a chance to restore dignity to the people of Southern Philippines—those deprived of their humanity by decades of violence. A chance ensure that the Bangsamoro people will enjoy the dividends of peace which they rightly deserve. And a chance for both sides to prove that peace and moderation are the hallmarks of all religions, and not the preserve of one.
The Koran says that whoever saves a single life then it is as if he has saved all mankind. The news testament says that people should agree with one another and live in peace. In faith, as in life, we share more than we differ. Commitment to common values of peace, respect, and tolerance is more powerful in the face of conflict. To live up to the highest ideals when the greatest pressure is brought to bear is a true test of faith. It is a test that the people here today have passed.
On behalf of the Malaysian government, I would like to commend the extraordinary efforts of both sides who have shown trust, tolerance, and perseverance in reaching this agreement. I want to thank all those who have made a personal contribution to peace. I reserve a special praise for President Aquino, for his strong, unwavering, and resolute commitment to a durable peace in the Southern Philippines. [Applause]
Malaysia's appreciation also goes to His Excellency Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, Chairman of the MILF, [applause] for his strong leadership in the peace process and for his personal courage for making that choice over the path of conflict. Our recognition should also be accorded to the lead negotiations and their teams, especially Mr. Dean Leonen, Chairman of the Government of the Philippines Negotiating Panel; [applause] Mr. Mohagher Iqbal, Chairman of the MILF Negotiating Panel; [applause] and our very own, Tengku Dato' Ghafar Tengku Mohammed as the Malaysian facilitator [applause] who has been described by President Aquino as an honest broker and those before him, and those currently supporting him from the Prime Minister's Department and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I also commend all parties in the International Contact Group—representatives from Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and The United Kingdom, from the Centre of Humanitarian Dialogue, Conciliation Resources, Muhammadiyah, and The Asia Foundation, and the observer from the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. [Applause]
Last, but by no means least, the very important role played by the Malaysian Armed Forces as part of the International Monitoring Team, starting with the first commander of the Malaysian IMT General Tan Sri Zulkifeli Mohd Zin, who was then a one-star General, and now the Malaysian Chief of Defence Forces.
Ladies and gentlemen, Malaysia's honored to have played a part in today's agreement. It has been a long and difficult road. I would also like to thank my two predecessors, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Abdullah Badawi, for initiating and honoring their commitments to the peace process. The past decade has strengthened the bond of trust between our nations.
As we look forward to a new era of stability and prosperity in Southern Philippines, Malaysia is ready to help as a partner for peace. [Applause] We are willing to offer training and education, so that the children of Bangsamoro can aspire to a future that their parents could not. We are willing to help build institutions so that the society that grows in Bangsamoro is stronger than what went before. We are willing to help in land development so that farmers in Bangsamoro who were formerly freedom fighters can reap the harvest of peace.
So I give my assurance to all the people of the Philippines—we will stand with you to make this agreement work. [Applause]
Ladies and gentlemen, four years ago, a woman in an evacuation center in Mindanao said, "I was not even married when this conflict began. I was still a young lady when we first had to evacuate. Then, when I had children, we had to evacuate again. Now I have three grandchildren but nothing has changed."
Today, something has changed. Today, we turn our backs on violence. And turn a step towards a new and brighter future. It is my great hope that this agreement brings about a new time of moderation where the practice of religion and the right to peaceful co-existence are never again in conflict, where people of different faiths live together, united by common values, under a common Constitution. The agreement we have witnessed today marks the beginning of that era in Southern Philippines. I congratulate all those who have made this possible and I look forward to the final agreement. After four decades, peace is within reach. Let us grasp with both hands and never let go.
This entry was posted under Briefing Room, Historical Papers & Documents, Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, The Peace Process. Bookmark the permalink.


Sometimes I have crazy fancy ideas. I blame it all on watching the never ending cookery programs on television. As a housewife who has had no training whatsoever, if I can cook this at home I am sure everyone can. I really love doing this webpage to share my ideas.
1) Deboned chicken wings stuffed with prawns with plum dipping sauce to cut through the richness.
2) Deboned chicken wings stuffed with glass noodles with chilli sauce that goes so well with the noodles.
3) Deboned chicken wing lollipops with sticky honey glaze in it's own sauce.
Marinate the chicken pockets with turmeric, light soy sauce, chicken powder and salt and pepper.
Combine prawns, water chestnuts and mince well. Add in finely chopped spring onions and all the seasonings. Mix well and place into a piping bag. Pipe into the chicken wings pocket.
To cook, just pan fry in medium hot oil.
Marinate the chicken pockets with turmeric, light soy sauce, chicken powder, salt and pepper.
Combine the softened glass noodles with sliced french beans, the oils, and seasonings. Mix well and stuff into the chicken wings pockets.
To cook just pan fry in medium hot oil.
Marinate the little chicken lollipops with soy sauce, sesame oil, grated ginger, 5 spice powder and honey.
To cook just place them into hot oven 200C for half an hour from room temperature. Keep the cooking juice as a dipping sauce.
Remember there's no hard and fast rule to savoury cooking. You may need more glass noodles or prawns stuffing. It all depends on the size of your chicken wings as well. Some chicken wings are huge whilst others are tiny. Have fun trying. You can prepare the chicken wings and marinate them overnight. You can also prepare the fillings and put into piping bags ahead.


text:
The Cornell Daily Sun (https://cornellsun.com/2002/09/12/editors-note-3/)
By wpengine | September 12, 2002
Wow, we're in the third week already! It's been perfect gorge swimming weather, but alas, you've had lecture. Blast. But, there are only 84 days of classes left in the semester, so don't sweat it too much — my, how time flies.
Never fear, as a reward for getting this far, we're giving you the good stuff with this ultra sexy edition. First, you're going to wanna check out the new sex column, "M.M. Good", found on pg. 15. This little ditty will appear twice a month, bringing you and your libido a much-earned fix — or, failing that, a little entertainment. We promise nothing.
And guys, ever wonder what women are really looking for? Check out pg. 15 and read Sherry Jun's "Campus Coture" for some quick fashion tips that might help you climb out of the pit commonly called, "ugly." We both felt like she was writing that piece specifically to the two of us, with our unkempt hair and thrift store wardrobes.
If you're looking for something a little edgier than a new jean jacket, check out this week's body art feature for some ideas on how you can permanently scar — I mean, alter your image.
Also, be sure to check out our much acclaimed "Gotta Have It" segment by new daze columnist Adam Matthews. If you'd rather spend your lunch money on DVD equipment than body piercings, this is the place to start writing your wish list.
Remember, this weekend is packed with good music, movies, and events so check out our comprehensive, full-page calendar (pg. 13) and get your rear off the futon — you'll have plenty of couch cuddling time once the snow falls.
And you've certainly already noticed something interesting this time around. The Daily Sun looks a little different today. We're coming out! Our cover is the cover, and when you're done reading you can hang Hunter's well-adourned body on your wall.
As always, please write to us at daze@cornelldailysun.com — we'd love to hear from you and might even publish your two cents, or true sense, or whatever it is.
Archived article by Ben Kupstas
X-C Runs the Slopes At West Point
By wpengine September 13, 2002
It's all about getting ready for the season ahead. When the air just starts to feel a little cooler, then you know it's about time for the cross country teams to get running. Both the men's and women's squads travel to West Point this weekend to begin their seasons on the hills around the Hudson River. The meet gives the Red a chance to tune up for the season ahead and prepare for bigger, tougher races. However, that's not to suggest the race will be easy on the runners. The Army course provides plenty of challenges. "You go up a ski slope two times," senior captain Geoff Van Fleet said. It is a path sure to give the teams' freshmen a thorough introduction to intercollegiate racing. On the men's team the frosh face the delightful challenge of a course three kilometers longer than the ones they ran in high school. There they ran 5k; here they'll do 8k. This race shouldn't place quite as much pressure on the men's team's runners, though. It's only a starting point for the Red. "We're looking at this meet more like a workout," Van Fleet said. "Our focus this year is less on this meet and more on [the contests] later in the season." With that in mind, both senior captains Van Fleet and Dan Dombroski will sit the meet out in an effort to fully recover from injuries. They look to make their season debut in two weeks at the Iona Meet of Champions in New Rochelle, N.Y. In their absence, they look for sophomore Bruce Hyde to lead the way for the Red. "He's looking great in practice, and he doesn't like to lose," Van Fleet said. The team is looking for senior John Castilhos and junior Dan Hart, among others, to step up for the race. They've put in the work over the summer and have run well in practice. Now they aim to convert that effort into better times on the course and hopefully a win for the Red. No matter how the team looks at the race, they're still there to compete, noted Van Fleet. The team wants a win. On the women's team, they feel the same way about victory. "We've won this meet as long as I've been running on the team," said senior captain Carlan Gray. Like the men though, the ladies don't plan to go into the meet full force. Instead, it offers them an opportunity to get used to racing again so they'll be ready for the season. "It's about getting everyone back into a competitive state of mind," said Gray. The team looks to begin the season and start to build upon its success last year, when the Red ranked in the top 25 in the country and qualified for the NCAA championship. Despite past success, Gray declined to predict who would lead the race for the Red. There are just too many talented runners. "The strength of our team is that everyone runs close together," she noted. No matter who is in front, Cornell has a positive outlook for the season. "We have a really good team this year," said junior Lorraine Ricci. "There's a lot of potential." And without a doubt, the Red looks to capitalize on that potential, this weekend and for the rest of the fall. "I just hope people are going into it with confidence, and [they] remember to have a good time," concluded Gray. That, after all, is what it's about.Archived article by Matt James
Cornell Invite Opens Fall W. Tennis Season
This weekend the women's tennis team is hosting its first event of the fall season. Syracuse and Colgate are coming to the Hill to take on the Red in this year's Cornell Invitational. The team is gearing up for its biggest event of the year, the ECAC championship to take place in October. On the weekend of Oct. 11, the Red women will travel to Flushing Meadows, N.Y., the very same location for the 2002 U.S. Open Tennis Championship, to compete to be the ECAC champs. Coach Tom Brownlie '98 looks forward to a strong performance this weekend. With Syracuse as the stronger of the two contenders, Brownlie looks to a number of his returning players to lead the team to some hard-fought individual victories. With only a few practices under its belt due to the Ivy League's new rules regarding the length of each varsity team's season, the Red looks to the weekend as a bit of a warmup for the year. The competition promises to be strong and Brownlie expects good performances from the majority of the team. "We have got several freshmen who are definitely going to contribute, and I am definitely fired up about that," says Brownlie, who looks also to sophomores Akane Kokubo and Erika Takeuchi as strong returning players this season. Juniors Laura Tallent and Kate Sternberg are also strong contributors and will attempt to lead the Red to its first victories of the season. Fans in the Stands As the women's tennis team is looking to kick off the season with a bang, Brownlie is looking to focus on getting more fans in the stands of the Reis Tennis Center to support the women. This year promises great competition and exciting matches for the women's tennis team, and it all starts this weekend. The Red will take on Colgate in singles tomorrow at 10 a.m. and Syracuse in singles at 4 p.m. Sunday will see doubles action again versus Colgate at 10 a.m. and Syracuse at 4 p.m.Archived article by Allison Simpson


text:
Q: Using golang couchbase community sdk with MutateIn When I'm using MutateIn function I always get "No access." error
func (s *service) UserUpdateAvatar(avatarLink string) error {
    key := "profile::1"
    var user User
    _, _ = s.profileBucket.Get(key, &user)
    logrus.Println(user) // printing the user as expected
    logrus.Println(avatarLink) // printing the avatarLink as expected
    mtinb := s.profileBucket.MutateIn(key, 0, 0).Upsert("avatarUrl", avatarLink, true)
    _, err := mtinb.Execute() // throughs "No access." error
    if err != nil {
        logrus.Println(err)
    }
    return nil
}

I'm using go version 1.6, couchbase community 4.0.0

A: The MutateIn functionality will only work on Couchbase Server 4.5 or later. Some pre-release builds of 4.5 may also contain such functionality (aka "subdoc")

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange