Uuhhh . . . a man here . . . and this thread's title was just too tempting. Coming from all of you it was just what I expected, clean and entertaining. Especially funny for me because people hardly ever say "dang" around here, and the last time I heard it was from a Mormon Elder. Need I say more?

Again, a very interesting article. I enjoyed my courses in philosophy as the writings of great minds were examined. I learned that there are many philosophies which appear very logical. Unfortunately, nature appears too complex to be simply described by what man can logically attempt to categorize in several paragraphs or in a book or even a series of books without starting from a basic assumption. The concept of the basic assumption is important as everything after it can be logically correct; but if the assumption is in some way flawed, everything following is subject to the effects of that flaw. I use the word flaw but that word may give the wrong impression. Maybe a better expression would be "a lack of complete (i.e. sufficient) understanding". For example, we see evidence that is commonly interpreted to indicate that statements 4) and 5) below are "laws of nature". (Entropy is the name given for this term (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=entropy ). ). "6 entries found for entropy. 1) Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. 2) A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. 3) A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message. 4) The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. 5) Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society." So my question is: if (and of course it is an assumption) statements 4) and/or 5) is/are correct, how does the present article account for this?

Thanks for sharing ttodd. I always love taking our pets to be blessed in honor of my favorite Saint, St. Francis of Assisi. It is a bit of an ordeal, but I never miss the blessing, as over the years many of our pets have needed all of the "help" they could get. It was something my DD was so very into as a little one. I can remember one year being a bit aggravated at not being able to find one of the cat carriers, suggesting that only two of the three cats could go. She was devasted. I went to the big box pet place and bought a cardboard pet carrier and took everyone. Thanks for reminding me of the memory.

I have to say that my bras are Presbyterian along with the letter D (da*n where did they go!) I also must agree with Happy, I hate to wear a bra and sometimes I will even go to a store to run a quick errand without one!