Markco Polo asked:


Check out this example post from Just My Two Copper.

Suggestion Box Friday – Feel free to comment on the discussions I offer in this post or on any topic related to making gold in wow. The comments section is just below the ending of this post and you may comment annonymously if you should wish to.

Emails

Michael said…

Hi again- I just wanted to update you on my question, since I found a great answer for it today. WarcraftEcon did a post about the glyph business ( www.warcraftecon.net/?p=967 ) that mentioned an add-on called Lil’ Sparky’s Workshop that does exactly what I was looking for =)

Check out this awesome little add-on that makes working through which glyphs are worth selling a breeze, as well as other crafting items.

Moneh of Firetree said…

Hi markco, here is a sweet farming tip for mages at the seething revenants in stormy peaks.

When agro’d after a few seconds they cast a spell called “Seething Flames” that can be spell stolen. This does a few hundred damage to all enemies around you. This is perfect for mass agroing of the elementals, especially when other people are competing.

I just spellsteal the buff, kill it, then mount up on my epic flyer with the buff. Fly around 1-2feet above the ground so they dont reset, and move around the anvil, agroing and marking them all.

You’ll **** others off, but get most of the mobs.

Enchanting Tip



Brian said…

GCEs are 9-10 on my server. But LCEs sell regularly for 4.7-5g per. So yeah, I’ve been enjoying that market for a while.

Casinos in 3.1?

Sherry said…

Hello Markco, I was reading this post and it just occured to me that the idea of a raffle could turn out to be very exciting in patch 3.1.

A new lockbox will be released, only obtainable by fishing, called the Tiny titanium lockbox

http://ptr.wowhead.com/?item=45986

that could contain stormjewels, the new wotlk epic gems, and also existing rare gems such as scarlet rubies.

I hope you find this piece of news interesting!

To Sherry: Very interesting! Thanks for sharing your ideas

Money from botters?

Kring said…

I have another question. There are the 4 old world dragon pets which are painful to farm. They normally went for about 1900g.In the last few weeks I noticed heavy botting around these areas and the pets started to flood the AH. Yesterday there were about 10 azure pets for 500g each, by two different sellers.I did report 3 bots and the one I put on my friend list did not log on after about a week after reporting it.Clearly, there isn’t a market at the moment. Otherwise, the prices would not drop that low.Would you buy them all out and hope that Blizzard bans all bots and then slowly sell them?Will the market recover? The only possible buyer who might be willing to pay more than the current 500g is a pet collector with money. But why wouldn’t he buy it now? Will people all of a sudden start to collect pets?Or will these pets lose value because with time it gets easier to get the 75 pet achievement (children week, new 3.1 pets) and you don’t need the expensive BoE pets anymore.Can you make money from botters?

To Kring – I’ve found that the pets do make a decent amount of gold and that on my server I can sell one every four days or so. You can be sure blizzard cracks down hard on these botters and eventually the influx of new welps will die down. If you don’t mind waiting it out buy the welps and sell them in the next couple of weeks. Be sure to try selling them on the neutral AH as well as the forums. Pet collectors often check these two places as well as the standard auction house.

The Great Flask Debate

Anonymous said…

The Flasks are getting their duration cut in half . but instead you make double the flasks . If you have 100 flasks right now their times will be cut in half next patch and mean you will be losing a lot of money because they will drop about 50% less price. Also there will be double the flasks to undercut , Meaning more people will be undercutting people and therefor bringing the price down.

Ben said…

It doesn”t seem like blizzard to destroy your existing stock, as this would penalize those two have been preparing. It seems more likely to me that you will have your current stocks doubled (max stack will be increased) or something like that so they retain the same functionality. Do you actually have a link to a post, in blue, saying they will be destroying all the preparations made by alchs for 3.1 over the last few weeks?

The Debate’s Over: http://crossmouth.com/austin-texas-debate/

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Remember the days not too long ago when there more than a half dozen Democratic candidates engaging what was called a debate? And then there were three? Now there’s just two. Obama and Mama head to head!

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in a good old Texas throw down. In this corner, the orator par excellence and in the other corner, the debater of all evil right wing conspiracy theories.

The debate was held on the campus of the University of Texas, and carried live on CNN, CNN International, and on Spanish Univision.

For me the key phrase came from Hillary Clinton at the end when she said “Whatever. Whatever happens in this campaign we’ll both be okay.” That sounds like a resignation to what’s happening and may happen come March 4th. We’ll know in 12 days. Sounds like an hasta la vista Patti. On the other side of the coin, Hillary’s attempt to put in one of those pre-planned cute lines bombed when she said Barack was for “change that was zeroxed”.

And the crowd actually did boo her.

The debate was far more civil than most people thought. So much of a debate has to do with “expectations”. Hillary NEEDED a knock out punch. She didn’t get it. Barack just needed to hold his own. He DID that. Moving from the boo to the most funny line was when Obama said that Hillary was indicating that he and his supporters were not being real, or as what Obama called DELUSIONAL.

He asked. Are twenty million people who have voted for me delusional? Are all of the major newspapers who have endorsed him in Texas somehow DUPED?

So, it’s onward with the Texas-Ohio battle. Will the Obama tsunami keep rolling? Polls show that Obama is closing the gap and moving closer as he has historically done over the past month. And with twelve days to go, more money than Hillary has, and more boots on the ground, I can’t see Hillary winning, at least not in Texas.

Back to the campaign trail where Hillary now has another 527 giving her $10,000,000 to help her sagging television budget. If Hillary loses, sh’ll go out fighting.



Create a video blog

Barbara Brown, PhD asked:


You are getting ready to do one of your least favorite management tasks: have a performance discussion with a poor performer. But before you have this discussion, you want to organize your ideas so you can clearly describe the problems and state your expectations for improvement. You have a standard approach that you use, but your past discussions have not gone particularly well. Consider trying the BID approach:

B-Behavior: Describe specific unsatisfactory behaviors. If the issue is “poor customer service,” describe what the employee does, or does not do, that makes the behavior unsatisfactory. Ask yourself:

1. Is it How the employee does something?

2. Is it When the employee does something?

3. Is it Where the employee does something?

4. Is it about the Quality of the work?

5. Is it about the Timeliness of the work?

I-Impact: Describe who and/or what the employee’s behavior impacts. One employee’s poor performance can have a negative impact on numerous areas. Consider these areas:

1. The employee’s ability to achieve personal, professional, or workload goals

2. The workloads of other coworkers

3. Your workload, as the employee’s manager

4. The delivery of products or services to customers

5. The achievement of team, office, or organizational goals

D-Discuss: Give your own ideas and seek input from the employee on ways to improve. There are several ways to handle the discussion at this point. Consider these four:

1. Discussion Plan One: You ask the employee for suggestions first, you give your suggestions, you both agree on a combination of suggestions, you conclude the discussion with a follow-up plan.

2. Discussion Plan Two: You give your suggestions first, you ask the employee for suggestions, you both agree on some combination of suggestions, you conclude the discussion with a follow-up plan.

3. Discussion Plan Three: Your employee has no suggestions, you give your suggestions, you advise the employee on implementation of those suggestions, you conclude the discussion with a follow-up plan.

4. Discussion Plan Four: Your employee gives you suggestions, you have no additional suggestions, you advise the employee on implementation of those suggestions, you conclude the discussion with a follow-up plan.

Your Approach Determines Your Discussion Success

Talking about performance improvement is never easy. But it has to be done. Your success often depends on your approach. If you use vague terms to describe poor performance, you are unlikely to get the results you want. And you will have a hard time measuring changes in behaviors. So being specific about what you want employees to do, or not do, is important. It’s equally important to describe the impact of unsatisfactory performance. Likewise, involving employees in the discussion about suggestions for improvements is useful.

If the approach you use to talk to employees about unsatisfactory performance isn’t working, or if you are looking for a way to be “just a little more effective” when you talk about performance improvement, give the BID approach a try. 



Create a video blog

MIKE SELVON asked:


The current marriage debate involving ********** marriage can be very confusing. The reality is that this particular marriage debate has been around for quite some time. The current form of the debate is that the notion of traditional marriage is under attack from the acceptance of the ********** lifestyle through marriage in terms of mainstream society.

One fact that is constantly presented by the conservative side is that marriage is on the decline and more people are getting divorces. They claim that this is a direct result of global moral decay. While one in two couples in the United States get a divorce, the rate is different in the rest of the world.

Stats from Germany, for example, have the divorce rate sitting at about two or three hundred couples out of every thousand. Canada’s divorce stats are slightly higher than that, while Italy’s statistics tend to be the lowest in the European Union at around fifty couples out of every thousand.

The divorce arguments factor in to what conservatives in North America consider to be moral decay. The conservatives use this argument to explain why ********** marriage and abortion are “on the rise”. The United States conservatives have elected to blame those two social issues for the perceived social decline in marriage values without actually looking for causes.

Relationships between parents and children are, for example, often centralized because of parents splitting up or because of a lack of role models from both genders. Conservatives often use statistics in terms of child relationships when it comes to ********** marriage.

The comprehensive data at this point determines that gender has very little to do with raising children. The marriage *** or gender of these role models is entirely secondary to simply having role models. This is because of the actual decay of society that is related to living in a world where both parents need to work in order to support a family. In these instances, having both parents with the child are extremely rare.

While conservatives attempt to push the marriage debate and their view on various social issues, it is actually a social-economic climate issue that is largely to blame for the breakdown of the American family. As both parents in a home need to work to support children, the time that the child has with those parents is significantly diminished.

The time that the couple has for one another is equally diminished. This leads to various workplace affairs and other social issues that are in direct response to marriage breakdowns. Marriage licenses are still actively being rejected to otherwise loving people that just happen to be the same gender, while in other places marriage licenses are granted to those that will work fifty hours a week and will barely form a family unit.

In light of all of the misinformation, it is important to realize that there are still standards of marriage to uphold. Those standards, however, are not those currently present due to the political leanings in the marriage debate. Those standards are in place in people’s lives and that is truly the only marriage debate that matters.



Website content

Natasha Vassallo asked:


It may seem odd at first; to phantom that the very natural resources that we need to live, work and play, are also associated with an array of health problems. The truth is a hard one to swallow. So, don’t be surprised that you haven’t heard the following information blasted on local news! However, this crucial information affects our children’s health at epidemic rates.

Amazingly there are 25 million children who live in areas that violate national air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter from coal fired plants and sulfur dioxide. Another 35 million children live very close to power plants and 2 million kids are asthmatic…which is linked to airborne pollutants. A recent health study from the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that air pollution levels in major U.S. cities pose a health risk comparable to second hand smoke. Does this mean that it is just as bad to go outside in the fresh air, as it is to eat in the “non-smoking” side of your local restaurant? Well, you be the judge, however, in some States or Countries… it is better to be in a smoke filled restaurant.

There are so many health hazards, (fossil fuels, VOC’s, smog, etc.) it‘s difficult to begin a discussion without sounding overly negative and pessimistic. So, I would like to leave this “personal disclaimer” before, stating the following information. “The U.S. Government, along with other countries, is making valiant efforts to minimize our ongoing threat of potentially devastating health and life consequences, emitting from our current energy sources.”

But…Clinical trials prove air pollution; including SMOG has devastating effects on our children’s health! The best research we have at the time was researched by USC in 2004, called “A Children’s Health Study”. The study showed that long term exposure to air pollution has long term effects on children’s lungs. This “should be” a National platform for Environmental Change. Yes, Global Warming is factually warming the earth…which has been occurring for 100’s of years. The long term effects of global warming may include, health issues, derived from Extreme Weather Conditions. But, again, our children’s health is currently deteriorating, due to current ozone related issues.

Research has shown that kids who live in certain geographic areas of California, experience a 10%-15% decrease in lung functionality, than kids who were raised in other parts of the country. Further research shows that kids are far more likely to experience Lung damage as an adult from living and growing up in areas where high levels of smog have been measured.

In 2004, The Journal of the American Medical Association linked higher death rates caused by smog or often called ‘ground ozone”.

Smog has the following effect on our children:

• Damaged cells in the lung’s airways, causing inflation and swelling of the lungs.

• Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Sneezing, wheezing and other neurological problems.

• Decreased breathing capacity (cough and chest pain)

• Decrements of lung functioning (reduced ability to take a breath)

• Changes in lung structure with possible increases in lung disease.

Further evidence shown by the University of Southern California, show for the first time that ozone may actually cause asthma. In 12 California communities 3500 children were studied with no history of asthma. The results showed that children who played in areas where there were high ozone levels were 3 times more likely to develop asthma. There was no increased risk for asthma development in areas of low ozone concentration.

• California reports approximately 9,000 deaths annually from complications from air pollution.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment reported that one in every 15,000 Californians — about 66 per million — is at risk of contracting cancer from breathing chemicals in the air over his or her lifetime.

• In New York, researchers estimated that the annual death toll is approximately 319 annually in New York City.

• 23 European cities, found that death from respiratory disease was more strongly associated with ozone exposure that was with cardiovascular rates.

• India (57K), Indonesia (15K), China (16K) Russian Federation(19K) people die of asthma annually.

• The health impact of air pollution in Italian cities is large: 8220 deaths a year.

• When Hong Kong made regulations to reduce sulphur emissions, each Hong Kong resident gained extra weeks of living for every year of breathing dirty air.

Interesting Fact: The Great London Fog In 1952, was responsible for killing over 12,000 people. According to London papers, London was known for Fog, so know one really noticed that they were running out of caskets and flowers until it had been nearly a week. Note: the fog lasted only 5 days!

Geography does dictate and has always dictated healthy outside air quality issues. If you live in certain areas of our country or outside the U.S. your children are more likely to have health issues derived from air pollutants. California is at the head of the list, and has made progress in reducing ozone pollution in half, since 1980, but continue to have the worst air quality in the nation.

If air quality is reducing the future of our young; is it not worth a national debate? Never before have we seen corporate America change their corporate vision to a Green future, as we do now. Are we trading in one current geographical and ozone related disaster for the newest disaster discovery? If you want to get support from the masses of the people, tell them the truth about our current health challenges. Tell them that the one thing they value the most, their children, are being harmed by the current ozone related pollution and particular matter. Tell them that Nine cities, home to 57 million people, are considered “severely” polluted, experiencing peak ozone levels that exceed the standards… by 50% or more. Most importantly, tell them that this is not new-news and why being “Green” means so much now? If money and power were not what drives our national debates, do you think that our children’s health would be the premise for environmental corporate change? What happened to putting our children first?



Create a video blog

Neal Holladay asked:


Over the last 4 years leading up to the 2008 presidential election, the “immigration debate” has been increasing in volume almost exponentially. The attempts by congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform have failed despite fervent bipartisan efforts to address this very controversial yet important issue.

However, under tremendous political pressure, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced new efforts to enforce existing immigration laws and state and local governments are passing new legislation that goes far beyond existing federal legislation. These new developments are putting intense and unprecedented pressure on employers whose livelihood depends on immigrant labor.

DHS Intensifies Workplace Enforcement

Last August, The bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is the enforcement agency, of the DHS published a new mandate requiring employers receiving “No-Match” letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to audit their I-9 records to confirm Social Security Number mismatches or note any discrepancies, and report back to the agency. The new rule also requires the employer to terminate employees who have been unable to resolve SSN mismatches within 90 days of receipt of the letter.

Though immediate implementation of these new directives has been delayed in the district courts due to questions surrounding “safe harbor” provisions for employers, the ICE remains resilient.

According to Mary E. Previc, an attorney with the Keller and Heckman law firm in Washington D.C., The ICE is embarking on a “new campaign” of I-9 Inspections nationwide. Employers suspected of hiring undocumented workers are being issued a subpoena to produce an unprecedented amount of information including: entire payroll records, certified lists of employees and their employment records, and names of all I-9 preparers.

In addition to these new measures, DHS has increased civil penalties an average of 25%. Effective March 27th Minimum penalties for non-compliance start at $375 per infraction. If convicted of knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented aliens, employers on their first offence can be fined up to $3,200 dollars per illegal worker. For repeated violations, as much as $16,000 per incident can be assessed along with a 10-year prison sentence.

States “Filling the Void” on Immigration Reform

Because of the federal government’s inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform, several states have recently passed legislation that requires employers to verity an employee’s work eligibility electronically, through a federally administered computer program called E-verify. In a landmark case, a federal judge upheld a new law in Arizona which not only makes electronic verification mandatory for all employers, it also gives the state the authority to revoke a company’s business license if found to have knowingly hired an illegal immigrant.

Under current federal law, employers are responsible for manually examining documents that prove both work eligibility and identity and documenting that information accurately on an I-9 form. However, participation in E-verify program is not mandatory. According to a recent report commissioned by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, “the data base used for verification is still not sufficiently up to date to meet the requirement for accurate verification, especially for naturalized citizens.”

Despite of the inadequacy of this system, The judge’s decision in the Arizona case has now set a precedent which will significantly embolden other states to pass similar legislation. Bonnie Gibson, an attorney with Littler Global, a law firm based in Phoenix remarked that, “it is likely that up to half of the states will follow Arizona’s lead and will do it in this legislative session.”

Employers Find Themselves in a Difficult Position

Employers in industries such as construction, facilities management, and agriculture who depend greatly on the availability of the immigrant workforce find themselves “caught between a rock and a hard place”. Many small businesses just can’t afford to turn away immigrants, who are often the only ones able and willing to fill manual labor positions.

I participated in the E-verify program when I was a hiring manager in the Poultry industry. Despite paying prevailing wages, offering excellent benefits, and intensive recruiting efforts extending to a 60 mile radius, we would only seem to attract Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants. I found very few U.S citizens who were willing to work in poultry processing.

About 90% of the workers I hired and processed through the verification system received a “tentative non-confirmation” notification which states that the system was unable to verify their work authorization or their SSN. By law I had to hold their position for 10 days to allow them time to correct any discrepancy.

While most individuals receiving these letters never returned, about 15% appeared to have legitimate authorization but their name differed slightly on the “list A” and “list B” documents they presented.

I have seen several cases were an issuing authority such as SSA had juxtaposed Hispanic surnames which triggered the non-confirmation. In other cases I have seen eligible employees adversely affected by this program because their information had not been updated in the database.

To keep the plant from grinding to a halt I had to rely on two different temp agencies and bus workers participating in welfare-to-work programs in from a City 60 miles away.

As part of a large corporation, we participated in the E-Verify system out of “good faith” but the administrative burdens that resulted were excessive. If we had been an independent small business and were required by law to participate in the system in its present form, we would not have survived.

If more states continue to pass legislation requiring employers to participate in the federal E-verify program, a program which the government admits is inadequate, it will make it virtually impossible for small business in key sectors of the economy to survive. Tighter enforcement in the workplace will backfire unless it is counterbalanced by an increase in the supply of legal workers to meet the demand.

Since only the Federal government has the power to “increase” the supply, local governments, no matter how well-intentioned, could do irreparable harm to an economy that is already facing recession. On the other hand if all the Federal government does in response is make a belated attempt to enforce the existing failed immigration policies, I fear that many small businesses could face extinction.



Create a video blog

Peter M.K. Chan asked:


        Theism, or the belief in the existence of a creator God, is usually held on two main grounds. These are known respectively as the causal argument and the argument from design. Briefly stated, what the causal argument rides on is a principle of reason that commonsense has come to take for granted. It is not possible for something to come from nothing. From this, it further follows that since the universe is a kind of thing (albeit a very big one and perhaps bigger than we will ever know), ‘something’ other than the universe itself must have already existed to bring it about. And this ‘something’ is to be understood as a supernatural being called God. As to the argument from design or design argument as it is also called, the reasoning is that if it were not to be assumed that the universe is an designer and engineer in and unto itself, it should follow that all the clock-like operations of nature at large, and the wondrous workings of material nature (living and conscious ones in particular), must have been the work of some supernatural designer *** engineer. And this supernatural being is again to be referred to as God.

(1)   Controversy over the causal argument

        Well, says the atheist, if theism must ground itself on the presupposition that something must come from something, or that it is not possibly for anything to have come from nothing, from what did God come from? What created the creator and what created the creator of the creator and so on? If you feel that this is already quite a mouthful, you should also begin to appreciate the pain. It is that when pushed, all causal explanation would tend toward an indefinite regress, which, in the eyes of many philosophers, really gathers no moss.

        The standard way out of this predicament, invented early by Aristotle, is to say that this kind of causal indefinite regress could in principle be pre-empted if one were to embrace the notion of a First Cause. Since then, it has also been a fashion of sorts for many theists to argue that since God is this First Cause, it should be seen that God must also be the Ultimate cause beyond which there is no other. As to why God as First Cause could possibly be without a cause, it was further surmised that it is because God is eternal, i.e., existing without beginning and without end. This is also why the question as to what created God could not really arise. In other words, if all were to agree that God is not only the First and Ultimate cause, but also existing without beginning and without end, it should also be seen that what has never begun is not something that need to be created or brought into being by any other.

        Unfortunately, persuasive as this traditional move might have seemed, it is in fact not very satisfactory. It should be observed that if this kind of reasoning were allowed, it is also open to the atheist to say that since the universe is eternal (has always been here and is not known to have ever begun), the need for a creator would also have to be seen as not having to arise. Observe the following exchange:

Theist:  How can the universe be eternal?

Atheist:  Well, if your God can, why can’t my universe?

Theist:  How can you say that the universe is eternal in front of Big Bang?

Atheist:  Big Bang is only a theory. It does not in and of itself preclude the possibility of a Big Crunch either. For your information, my universe is a cosmic balloon that oscillates continuously between cycles of expansion and contraction without beginning and without end.

Theist:  How do you know that this fantastic cosmic oscillation scenario of yours is true?

Atheist:  I don’t. But you do not know that it is false either. And as long as you cannot show that it is false, I do not see how you could force me to accept your God conclusion. Besides, I bet you do not know that your God is really eternal either, if It, He or She as the case may be, indeed exists.

        What this short exchange has shown is that even though it may sound more natural to say that God rather than the universe is eternal, the fact remains that the causal argument for the existence of God has not really deliver to the theist the decisive outcome that he requires. For if the atheist were also adamant about the eternity of his universe (a position long held and taken for granted by all ancient naturalists, Greek as well as Chinese), there is no reason why the existence of any supernatural being (or beings, as in the case of polytheism) has got to be entertained. Historically speaking, it was also for this reason that theism had to try and shift its weight onto the design argument.

(2)   Controversy over the design argument

        But how could the universe really stumble into so many good and beautiful designs? In the history of this philosophical debate, it has been the style of modern theists to pitch their position pivotally upon the eye. What an intricate and wonderful organ it is, they were most eager to point out. What they meant to assert is that it is just not conceivable that such a wonderful and perceptive organ could have actually come into being without any supernatural designer *** engineer at all. Suppose, said the theists, you were to come upon a timepiece or watch on the beach of a deserted island, would you not think that it must be the handiwork of some designer with engineering know-how? Or would you instantly jump to the conclusion that it is just another accidental concoctions of stuffs merely material?

        Well, I think more are inclined toward the first scenario. That’s right, said the theists, anyone that fancies the second option is equivalent to saying that it is possible for a monkey to become a Shakespeare if it were to be given the chance and eons of time to poke blindly at the key board of a typewriter. If that sounds silly, said the theists, so is atheism. That is also to say, unless there is some supernatural agent or agents pulling or programming behind the scene, it is difficult to see how material nature itself could have given us such a wonderful show. Thus, according to the theists, unless atheism is able to explain how the physical processes of the universe could have been so fortunate, their theistic conclusion would have to be seen as inescapable. How could the processes of Nature, blind and random as they come, ever get to eventuate in the working out of so many wonderful living and conscious things? If you find this question to be as legitimate as it is enticing, you should also understand why despite having to hop more or less on just this one argument, many are still finding theism to be attractive.

        What gave credence to the design argument, attention must now also be called, is a mistaken assumption implicit to traditional commonsense. It is that no useful function or design could have ever come by way of processes that are blind and random. From what science is now able to tell, this presupposition is no longer to be taken for granted. For instance, the coming together of oxygen and hydrogen to become H2O may be blind and random, their resultant molecular structure has yet turned out to be functionally very useful, not to say beautiful as well — when the intricate patterns of snowflakes in particular are taken into cognizance. Thus, it should be seen that unlike a game of lottery of ping-pong balls (with which the games of Bingo and Mark Six are played), the blind and random processes of the universe are actually dictated by the basic properties of its fundamental constituents concerned. It is by way of their physical *** chemical properties that wonderful and working designs, inorganic as well as organic, have come into being. What this means is that it is no longer necessary to assume that what looks beautiful and/or functional must necessarily be a kind of designer product, i.e., that there has got to be a rigger to every rigging.

        But how could there be any rigging without a rigger? Some theists, I am sure, are still eager to try and exercise their causal argument here. As you can see therefore, these two arguments for theism are indeed well joined at the hip where the guts are. To this, I am sure that some atheists are bound to interject—as if coming to my aid. Given the eternity of our universe (a theme we should by now be familiar), what do you theists think might be doing the rigging? And don’t tell us that it was some First Cause or eternal Deity that had existed before and outside of our eternal and infinite universe.

(3)   From the agnostic’s point of view

        It should thus be seen that the above two arguments of theism are in fact rather lame in ruling atheism out of court. To that extent, it is already quite obvious that the case for theism is actually short for what it is about. Note should also be taken that with respect to this theism-atheism issue, it is theism that must shoulder the burden of proof. As everyone knows that there is really no evidence for the non-existence of anything, it would be dialectically improper to require atheism to do likewise. That being the case, it should also be observed that the only way to settle the issue is for the theist to confront the atheist with some additional proof to shore up his side of the argument. But for all I know, all the theist has managed to offer are not anything that the atheist in particular is able to accept.

        In this connection, let me also say that the above debate has in fact not really gotten anybody anywhere. How is one to know if the universe, or God for that matter, is really eternal and infinite? On what factual ground are we to decide whether one or the other is really so, existing without beginning and without end in both temporal and spatial respects? I would rather think that since all we have are concepts such as ‘eternity’ and ‘infinity’ rather than something to which these concepts could actually be applied, there is really no justifiable ground to side with the theists on the one hand, or the atheists on the other. Both positions are made to burn, if I may say so, on speculative conceptualization rather than fact. In this connection, I would even be tempted to say that there are two kinds of ‘fools’ (observe that the term is purposely quarantined so as not to ignite any unnecessary passion). Those who assert that there is no God (according to the Psalmist), and those who claim to know the eternal and infinite nature of anything (in my humble opinion).

        Under this light, it seems to me that for anyone who regards evidence to be crucial, the only rational position to take, with respect to the God-question, is agnosticism. Yes, this is just a high sounding word for the humble plead of ignorance. What it points to is the fact that given the limit of human cognition as imposed by the kind of neural-sensory apparatus that we possess (scientific extensions not withstanding), no one is really in the position to know what could or could not be outside of human cognition, let alone the universe as a whole and beyond. It also seems to me that for what is in principle inaccessible (given the speed limit of light) and thus unknowable, the only realistic and justifiable position to take is agnosticism, not polytheism, deism, theism, or atheism. There is simply no rational basis to affirm or deny what one is not really in any position to arbitrate. (Pantheism, for all I know, is but a more mysterious kind of naturalism that sees everything as a part of God.)

(4) The Musings of Great Grandma

        Now, to calm the nerve of all concerned in what now looks like a triangular debate, I should like to tell a story about the musings of Great Grandma, real or fictitious. If you like the story, it is for you. Otherwise, just pass it on to anyone whom you think might have a lighter ear (a Chinese way of denoting an easy believer of hearsay).

        As it was in that familiar old song, says our great grandma, there are three coins in the fountain. The question is: which one will be the fountain bless? The three coins I am referring to are theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Theism is an affirmative theory. Atheism is a disaffirming theory. Agnosticism, it seems to me, is a kind of ‘I don’t know’ or ‘don’t ask me’ non-theory of sorts. Which one would you choose? Our great grandma is asking her great grandchild.

        Consider, says great grandma, theism offers a much bigger and more interesting package than all the rest. It has many goodies in it, consisting not only of God, but also winged angels, devils with tooth and claw, if not also lesser spiritual beings such as fairies and ghosts (this last is actually not too nice a label for departed soul, I must say). Now, for his child-like impression that more is always better than less, our great grandchild is of course naturally more impressed by the big theistic package. But he is also a bit worried about what those other not-so-nice characters might do. Don’t worry about them, says great grandma. Just be a good boy, and everything will be fine.

        In contrast, continues our great grandma, atheism does not really have anything to offer. It just says that there is no God. As such, it has also found this ‘empty’ niche to be quite comfortable. Since there is neither proof nor evidence for the non-existence of anything, this disaffirming ploy is already good enough to ward off those who might ask him to justify his position. Thus, the only way for the theist to out-smart the atheist is to try and invite God to confront him. But so far, the theist has not really done anything of the sort. All he did was to point to some subjective indications that he deemed to be pointing toward the possibility of such a supernatural existent. But possibility as such, as we all know, is a far cry to the real thing. The atheist is thus not only unimpressed, but tells the theist straight in the face to peddle his possible goods elsewhere.

        By this time, our great grandchild is beginning to loose interest. This kind of dialectical analysis is just too deep for his naïve little brain. But our great grandma is also by this time already too absorbed with the intricacy of dialectics to notice that her great grandchild is already loosing her. So she just rambles on in her great and grandmotherly sort of way.

        You see my child, she said, with respect to any subjective indication, the agnostic has always been more sympathetic. He is that kind of a guy that is willing to entertain the possibility of almost anything as he entertains the possibility of mermaids, winged horse, and flying carpets. Thus, even though he is also not too impressed with what the theist has claimed to ‘see’, he is yet very hesitant about ruling anything out of court, that is, to assert that it is impossible for God or gods to exist. He says that one should not judge and make commitment about matters with which one is not really in the position to know and understand.

        With this uncommitted posture, continues our great grandma, the atheist is of course not very happy. For he still remembers very clearly that once upon a time, it was this very entertainment business (wondering about the possibilities of this and of that) that was to lead to that eventual leap of faith toward the direction of God and lesser deities. But the agnostic appears to know his facts rather clearly as well. For his reply is that the atheist should not be ungrateful. Had there been no one to do the entertaining and perform the leaping, atheism would still be looking for a job. Besides, he does not understand why the atheist would not just wash his hands (since he is already so dead sure that theism is mistaken) and call it the day. Do you know what I am saying and see which coin to choose, child?

        Why don’t we go for a walk great grandma? Before we do that my boy, says great grandma, let me tell you what great grandpa used to say. It is better, he often said, to believe in the existence of anything that may have the slightest possibility of making a difference to our lives. His reason was that if it does not exist, nothing would be lost. On the other hand, if it turned out to be alive and kicking, so much would have been gained. Do you see the point my boy. It is always smarter not to risk losing anything at all.

 



Caffeinated Content

Diet Debate asked:


The Atkins Diet, introduced by Dr. Robert Atkins in the 1970’s has spurred a legion of low-carb dieters in the United States. For two decades, millions of Americans have restricted their intake of carbohydrates following the teachings of Dr. Atkins. The diet, which was reintroduced in the book Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution, focuses on the restriction of carbohydrates to 20 grams in an individual’s diet at the start of the program and then tailoring his diet to accommodate up to 40-50 grams of carbohydrates during the ‘maintenance’ phase.

During the first phase or the induction phase, dieters are not allowed to have more than 20 grams of carbohydrates and they also can not have any alcoholic or caffeinated drinks. They must also refrain from consuming starchy foods, bread or even fruits. There are no imposed restrictions on meats and other sources of protein and yet weight-loss is fastest during this period. Later on, more carbohydrates will be allowed in the diet but dieters will be asked to watch their intake of refined grains and sugar. By the time a dieter reaches the Maintenance phase, he would already have been used to making smart food choices and would already know the amount of carbohydrates he can consume that will keep him in top shape.

Proponents of the Atkins Diet claim that the program teaches your body to burn calories more efficiently and as a result is said to lessen fatigue, depression, and muscle pains.



Create a video blog…instantly.

James Opiko asked:


The scene of this terrible accident — Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. [The third GOP presidential debate -- Tuesday, 5 2007].

My friend Paul Reyes likened them to a “convention of morticians,” in their last debate. Mark Mellman, a pollster says these candidates make the Republican party look like “a front for the Flat Earth Society.” I equate them with a congregation of angry, trembling middle-aged white men.

In fact, Rep. Tom Tancredo, the Congressman from Colorado might have injested a lethal concoction of “Viagra and Cialis” — judging by his shrill, “blood cuddling” and discombobulated allocution.

They threatened nuking Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, kicking out all immigrants. John McCain even insinuated that Bill Clinton started the Kosovo war, comparing it to erroneously Bush’s “illegal” Iraq war.

For the record: The Kosovo War was a conflict between Serbian and Yugoslav security forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army, an Albanian guerilla group seeking independence. Clinton came into the picture in 1999 — when NATO attacked Yugoslav targets. Clinton and NATO intervened, they did not initiate this war by lying Bush-Cheney style.

With eyes darting uncontrollably, an angry and trembling Tancredo declared — “We will not survive as a nation!” “We are testing our willingness to hold on to something known as the English language, the one thing that holds us glued together,” adding — “this is why I will go after any Republican Senator who supports this bill,” — The comprehensive immigration bill currently being debated in the Senate.

“We are becoming a bilingual country — and that is not good!,” wailed an emotional Tancredo, following this statement with a torrent of distorted attacks at immigrants, ranging from welfare benefits to school congestions, to English, ….!

“Bilingual countries don’t survive!” …., “We need ‘that thing’ to hold us together!” ….yelled Tancredo. Tancredo even suggested that ALL immigration should be stopped …..because America faces “death!”

“It’s simply not fair to say those people get put ahead in the line of all the people who’ve been waiting legally to come to this country,” the Master flip-flopper, Mitt Romney said. Lets enforce the current laws enacted in 1986 — READ: Lets hunt down the immigrants, and suffocate them to submission.

The “communal braying” of the word “Amnesty” without any offer of a workable alternative was nauseating — all they could furnish was a tired chorus: “Enforce the existing laws!” “Enforce the border!” “Build the fence!” ….”They will all self-deport!” …as if 12 million immigrants will depart the United States at the wave of a Republican magical wand!

Shows how out of touch with reality these Republican candidates are.

Meanwhile, Gov. Romney is airing campaign ads in SPANISH, the language of the same group of people he is attacking, so relentlessly — What a hypocrite!

Gov. Tommy Thompson proposed putting George Bush on a “lecture circuit” after his retirement — Bush, a man who cannot pronounce anything right!

Asked how he would use George Bush if he becomes president, Rep. Tancredo recalled that White House aide Karl Rove had once told him to “never darken the door of the White House.” With eyes bulging fiercely, Tancredo said he’d tell Bush the same thing.

Congressman Ron Paul provided the usual theatrics. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani looked like a toothless bull-dog, Duncan Hunter was his usual “anti-immigrant self,” Huckabee emphasized that God created man — but didn’t know how, yet he conveniently refuted Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. As for flip-flopper Romney — why would anyone believe anything said by someone whose “faith” didn’t believe blacks were human until as recently as the the late seventies.

All in all, this was a sorry group of vicious and pandering pretenders. A bunch of middle-aged white-men immersed in “Gunsmoke Freakdom,”…..as my friend Ike, quite correctly states: U.S. Political campaigns become an **** of prevarication . . . One rich guy tells one set of lies, the other rich guy tells a slightly different set of lies, and you get to base your vote on which set of lies you like the best. “I’ll cut taxes!” . . . “I’ll give you better schools!” . . . “I’ll cut crime!” . . . “I’ll cut welfare!” . . . “I’ll build more jails!” . . . “I’ll create more jobs!” . . . “I’ll cut the deficit!” . . . “I’ll end the war!” . . . “I’ll start the war!” . . . “I’ll put a chicken in every pot!” . . . “I’ll keep those Immigrants in their place!”.

Pure PoliTRICKS!

The other Sunday, the Democrats looked more relaxed, more resourceful and much less angry — compared to this Republican group who offered nothing substantive in terms of policy, other than fear-mongering and the usual empty and predatory rhetoric.

VERDICT: Senator McCain won this debate. Simply put — he seems to be the wiser of this Fear-Mongering bunch — his patriotic speech at the end of the debate, I think, was his strongest moment. But his immigration stance will definitely hurt him with the Republican base, a base that has stopped reasoning totally, when it comes to immigration — “because America faces death,” if 12 to 20 million immigrants are assimilated into the system.

If that’s the case, then America should have died already, because these 20 million are already here, and some have been here for 20+ years.

So, what’s Tancredo’s REAL problem? Your guess is as good as mine.



Caffeinated Content

Todd Herman asked:


Well, it would be an uphill climb provided the new member had little new to offer. This is why discussion websites have proven successful. These sites are innovative enough to provide something new to those looking for a reliable format for discussions. Actually, Drupal databse websites are among the most user friendly and innovative discussion sites on the net. It is because of this adding discussion websites to a commercial website can prove significantly helpful.

Simply put, the addition of discussion websites can work wonders as an ancillary component to a commercial website. Regardless of the focus of your business, if you add a message board that ties in with the business, it will complement the site immensely.

That is why this is a proven technique and strategy that is often employed by online companies. Some discussion boards are employed to promote a business exclusively. However, there are those online businesses that understand such an approach can be a little too narrow. That is why they provide great leeway on their discussion websites. So, what would these discussions entail?

Discussion sites have many values. For some, it can be a fun way to interact with others. Usually, the various discussion sites follow particular themes. Some enjoy the discussions centering on entertainment, others enjoy those discussion websites that deal with sports, and then there are those who enjoy discussions surrounding hobbies. Really, there is no limit to the vast array of discussion websites. No matter what your interests may be, there is a discussion going on that shares these interests.

Discussion websites can also provide an excellent source of information on a variety of topics. Many times, people who are experts on various subjects can offer their detailed opinions and insights. This can prove very helpful for those who need a little “extra help” on a variety of topics and subjects.

Really, there is no limit to the topics that take place on discussion websites. This had the positive effect of drawing in various visitors from all over the internet. Some may become members of a particular discussion which, in turn, may convert them into paying customers. That would probably be the most lucrative benefit of the discussion websites.

Also, any time a discussion occurs on one of these discussion websites, the “conversation” will be crawled by the spiders of the various search engines. That means there will become part of the search engine landscape perpetually drawing in targeted traffic to your primary business.

This would also provide yet another critical source of conversions to paying customers. As such, there are a multitude of benefits that discussion websites can provide to an online business. That is why they are so valuable and will remain popular for a long time to come.



Caffeinated Content