Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - daksdaddy

Main / The Cries of WAR
Dec 04, 2004, 03:45 PM

A 'poppy' quarter has been coined in Canada with the novelty of blood
red colour on the newly imprinted poppy. That flower is the symbol of
Canadian Remembrance, thanks to a surgeon, an amateur poet and casualty
of the First World War. November 11th, is a date to mark the end of the
warfare that took half this grisly total of 120,000 young Canadians They
are the men who sacrificed of their lives for freedom and honour over
the last century. This day reveres the brutal sacrifice made by these
men, sons and fathers alike, for the protection and preservation of
Canadians and their government. It is a wonder to me that they did it. I
look about me with doubt at the Canada that exists today, long after the
sacrifice of these men, and I wonder why they did it.

I imagine if I try hard enough I might cross the chasm that separates us
in life from them in death; and I ask, "Why did you do it?"; but I get
no answer. I imagine I can look back across the gulf of time that
separates us and I wonder of them; "Why did you sacrifice your lives?",
but they do not speak to me. I ask them why they left their homes and
traveled so far to die their lonely deaths so far from their homes and
family, but they remain silent. I read of the battles where there wasn't
enough left of these men, our brothers, sons and fathers, to bury; and I
demand to know, "Why did you endure these unholy terrors?" Still, they
don't deign answer me.

As I look around me here and now in British Columbia, I find that
Canadian fathers living today are facing a law called 'Family', and a
court that says "Fathers have no rights?" This same court can say
'Homosexuals have the right to marry', and that the purported bride, or
groom, would be a crown attorney, immediately prepared to stage the
event? If the inalienable right to parent your own children is denied,
as if to create a non-existent one, is it also conscionable that child
pornography should be purportedly confused with art, and then even
implausibly impute from that a Constitutional Right of freedom of
expression for kiddie porn? Now, I see that fathers are routinely
deprived of due process of law, evicted from their homes, separated from
their children, robbed of their assets, and virtually enslaved by this
so-called "Justice System".

I continue today to see fathers demonized, and driven to homicidal
madness, or suicidal despair for the loss of their children. Today, a
father's children are not usually lost to him through accident or
disease, or war for that matter, but merely because some purported agent
of what is purported to be our own government thinks it's in the best
interests of the father's own children to remove them from their
father's protection, their father's care, and their father's leadership.

Now, I think I hear an ominous rumbling in the distance, and now when I
listen closely, I think I can at last hear 120,000 dead men shouting;
and they answer me furiously now with one voice:

"NOT for THIS!"
Father Unknown
Children have an innate and inalienable right to both natural parents equally:

Posted on the Bcfathers website.
Main / Question for everyone here.
Dec 01, 2004, 01:33 AM
Would you "Today" be willing to send your children into the armed forces?

Before you answer, please consider this second question.

What exactly; would they be defending?
Rolling Back Women's Rights
 The New York Times | Editorial

 Tuesday 23 November 2004

 Dispensing with legislative niceties like holding hearings or full and open debate, President Bush and the Republican Congress have used the cover of a must-pass spending bill to mount a disgraceful sneak attack on women's health and freedom.

 Tucked into the $388 billion budget measure just approved by the House and Senate is a sweeping provision that has nothing to do with the task Congress had at hand - providing money for the government. In essence, it tells health care companies, hospitals and insurance companies they are free to ignore Roe v. Wade and state and local laws and regulations currently on the books to make certain that women's access to reproductive health services includes access to abortion.

 It remains to be seen exactly how the measure will work in practice. But the intention, plainly, is to curtail further already dwindling access to abortion and even to counseling that mentions abortion as a legal option. It denies federal financing to government agencies that "discriminate" against health care providers who choose for any reason to disregard state mandates to offer abortion-related services. This represents a vast expansion of the "conscience protection" that federal law currently gives to individual doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training.

 The affront to women's rights, moreover, should not obscure the serious threat to the First Amendment involved in enacting what is likely to evolve into a domestic "gag rule" as, one by one, health care providers order doctors they employ not to provide patients with information about the abortion option. This echoes the way Mr. Bush reimposed a blanket Reagan-era gag rule for providers of reproductive health services abroad on his first full day in office back in 2001.

 Unfortunately, vocal opposition from Democrats and a handful of Republican moderates was not enough to stop the pernicious assault on the rights of millions of women from becoming law in the rush to pass the spending bill. At least Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, won a promise from the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, to permit a direct vote on a bill repealing this measure not long into the new Congressional session. In the meantime, Americans, and American women in particular, are officially on notice that post-election, the Republican war on reproductive rights has entered an ominous new phase.
Overall, I'm giving this website, Two thumbs-up.

Make the Children Suffer
With a pile of dead white high school students perched precariously on their backs, media giants are easing away from violent entertainment. Anything that could provoke a lawsuit � greasy Italian mobsters whacking each other and armed-to-the-teeth high school graduates slaying 60-foot ophidian demons, for instance � is facing increased scrutiny from wary executives.

It's the "Post-Littleton" aftermath.

Before Littleton (B.L.), school shootings momentarily provoked outrage, but the hype over a long-awaited film or vaunted finale to a beloved sitcom quickly overshadowed the mournful faces. But Littleton is seared into our collective memory because rarely have so many middle-class, God-fearing, porcelain youth met a brutal demise in one fell swoop.

This is an emotionally charged issue, one in which logic is notably absent. Recent studies estimate that only 20 to 30 youths are murdered at school annually, not quite an epidemic when one considers that there are around 20 million middle school and high school students.

The Center for Substance Abuse Protection estimates that eight young people a day die in alcohol-related car crashes, and the most accurate data on child abuse fatalities currently available estimate that in 1996, 1,185 child abuse and neglect related fatalities were confirmed by Child Protective Service agencies. Based on these numbers, more than three children die each day as a result of child abuse or neglect. Since 1985, the rate of child abuse fatalities has increased by 34%

On the day two boys, ages 11 and 13, killed four classmates, a California mother was arrested for suffocating her three children with duct tape.

A few days after Michael Carneal killed three students at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., three West Virginia parents were arrested for burning down their house, intentionally roasting five children.

The day after 90-lb weakling Kip Kinkle slaughtered two classmates in his school's cafeteria, another California mother was arrested for murdering her two young children and burying them in the national forest.

A child is more likely to be killed by his mother than his Goth chemlab partner, but restricting access to "violent and sexual" material is the quick fix that politicians love. When parents comprise such a large portion of a politician's voter base, appeasing them is a high priority. Telling the fruitful mother with two towheaded crotchlings and a bad case of sperm poisoning that her parenting skills aren't up to snuff assures a politician of a one-way ticket out of the Capitol.

Henry Hyde, exalted leader of the House Committee on the Judiciary, recently proposed a bill that is an affront to the First Amendment, and yet another attempt to lighten the parental burden.

The "Children's Defense Act of 1999" would prohibit any establishment � from libraries to video stores to bookstores � from selling, renting, or loaning violent and sexual material to minors.

Among the no-no's on Hyde's list include: acts of masturbation, homosexuality, and sexual intercourse; physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, buttocks, or breasts; rape; acts of mutilation upon the human body; and, sadistic or masochistic activity. Which basically rules out all of my favorite entertainment.

Violators face up to five years in jail for the first offense, and ten for the second.

"� Suffer the little children �" Jesus once said, and with those words, we've been suffering from them ever since.

Whenever an incorrigible, undisciplined child commits a heinous act, adults are expected to turn introspective and ponder how we can change our behavior in order to improve children's lives. That translates into zapping all the fun from our plodding existences.

Ban porn. Make happy video games. Regulate the Internet. Confiscate copies of "The Tin Drum."

Fuck that. There's only one solution to this problem: kill the children; kill them all; kill them slowly and painfully, listening to their shrill voices cry out for you to make the pain stop because it's time for their 3 O'clock session with an anger management consultant.

The snivelly-wivelly hellions serve no purpose. They don't do chores. They don't milk the cows. They don't mind the farm. They don't know how to spell. They don't behave. They don't have spines. They don't have coping skills. They don't understand the word "polite."

They've been attachment parented. They've been family bedded. They've been num-num booby-fed until they were old enough to ask for it. They've been timed-out. They've been self-esteemed. And, none of it has worked.

They run willy-nilly through classrooms, restaurants, and our lives because there ain't enough Ritalin to go around, and if the Democrats have their way, there won't be enough bullets to go around, either.

So, let's get started before it's too late.
^ Top
The Misanthropic Bitch, 1999
Main / Dr. Dr
Nov 29, 2004, 04:22 PM

Wondering if you recieved my e-mail?
Main / Damn Precise.
Nov 26, 2004, 03:20 PM
Main / This is wierd
Nov 26, 2004, 01:51 AM
Seems to me, that this is in fact a part of "SUNLIGHT"


Last Updated: Sunday, 21 November, 2004, 00:26 GMT
E-mail this to a friend    Printable version
Doctors' therapy 'slows ageing'
Skin around eye before treatment
The treatment works by tightening the skin
Two doctors believe they have the cure for wrinkles - infra-red light therapy.

Eye surgeon Jim Haslam and GP Dr Gordon Dougal based the treatment on a cold sore therapy they developed in 2001.

During tests on skin around the eyes, 95% of the 40 volunteers said the hand-held machine, called Restorelite, made a difference.

The therapy, which the doctors said can take up to 10 years off a person's age, works by stimulating elastin - the part of the skin that gives it tightness.

As well as testing the treatment on the volunteers, the doctors spent 30,000 researching Restorelite at Sunderland University.

Skin around eye after treatment
Doctors behind the therapy say it can take 10 years off a person's age

Dr Haslam, from Darlington Memorial Hospital, said: "Like so many medical discoveries the beneficial effect of this was a chance finding.

"The results have been amazing. Not one of our volunteers was willing to give the treatment back.

"Our experiments have focused on the skin of the eyelids and the immediate vicinity of the eyes, but there is no reason why skin in other areas should not be treated and improved."

But Dr Haslam warned that people who thought the machine, which costs 110, could completely get rid of their crow's feet had to be realistic.

'Easy to use'

"The technology is so new that we do not know whether or not the effects are cumulative when treatment is continued beyond two months - common sense dictates that at some point treatment must be finite."

Dr Dougal, who works in Peterlee, east Durham, said: "One of the attractions is that it is really easy to use.

"People can just sit there watching television and put the device against their skin for 15 to 30 minutes a day - depending on how many wrinkles they have.

"I have been using it for quite a few years now after bags started developing under my eyes.

"I am 48 now and the bags have not come on yet."

Elly Brenchley, spokesperson for the British Skin Foundation (BSF), said: "This is an interesting development, as increasing the levels of collagen in the skin could improve wrinkle appearance. "

But she said more research was needed: "The BSF looks forward to the results of properly controlled clinical trials with interest."
Men in pain take more drugs
By Alex Wilson
November 17, 2004

A STUDY on pain relief given to patients recovering from operations has reaffirmed the old maxim that women are tougher than men.

The Deakin University study, which looked at pain relief offered to 100 patients recovering from cardiac artery surgery at two Victorian hospitals, found men were given stronger drugs for longer periods to deal with their pain.

The chair of nursing at Deakin's research unit at Epworth Hospital, Professor Mari Botti, said the men and women in the study would have experienced about the same level of pain in the first 24 hours after the surgery.

But women had lower daily doses of morphine than men.

And on average, the women stayed on morphine for 12 hours while the men kept taking it for 17 hours.



Prof Botti said one factor which could help explain the difference between the sexes was the perception of pain levels.

"There is no doubt that women who have experienced childbirth tend not to rate their pain up the scale," she said.

Men's reputations as being big softies when confronted with pain could also help explain the result, she said, especially with the nursing profession was still dominated by women.

"Perhaps there is a bit of expectation that males will tolerate pain less well," she said.

"But we have no evidence that males are any better at communicating pain or any more pathetic than the women."

Prof Botti said a further study of the pain management of 300 patients had shown that across the board, people endured pain when their suffering could easily be reduced.

Many people held misconceptions about the risk of becoming addicted to painkillers. Others believed they needed to feel the pain so they could tell if they were getting worse.

"You should expect to be pain-free after surgery and not many people expect that, including physicians," she said.

Part of the problem was the failure of patients to communicate their pain levels to their physicians, she said.

"A lot of people think if nurses aren't asking, you shouldn't be asking," she said.

"Nurses think patients should initiate pain interactions and patients think nurses should be ... so there is no communication."

There needed to be a greater focus on pain management so patients knew it was all right to press the buzzer and ask for relief when they had a burst of pain.

"If you are pregnant you spend nine months planning your pain relief for labour and yet we rarely prepare our patients for elective surgery where pain, especially in the first 24 hours, can be anywhere around eight, nine or 10 on the severity scale."

It is a fact that "female brains" are less dense than "male brains" The conclusion of this study could logically be atributed to that fact (fewer nerve endings).

Of course I'm assuming there are; in fact, fewer nerve endings in a female brain, as i haven't taken into account their obvious superiority...... :wink:  :?
Main / Question for Bender
Nov 22, 2004, 11:52 PM
We should be mindful of the fact that we are not limited to just one choice.  In fact, there is no such thing as just one choice, for the word choice by definition means the option of one or the other..  Therefor, in all of life, and especially the areas concerning philosophical dispositions that affect the way we live, it behooves us to take inventory of the competing schools of thought and to weigh out the merits of each.

For the Purposes of your website, Does this "Inventory" include or exclude Ones own opinions?
Main / Maybe, We really are Pigs!:)
Nov 22, 2004, 11:05 AM
A man is dating three women and wants to decide which to marry. He decides to give them a test. He gives each woman a present of $5,000 and watches to see what they do with the money.
The first does a total make over. She goes to a fancy beauty salon, gets her hair done, new make up and buys several new outfits and dresses up very nicely for the man. She tells him that she has done this to be more attractive for him because she loves him so much. The man was impressed.
The second goes shopping to buy the man gifts. She gets him a new set of golf clubs, some new gizmos for his computer, and some expensive clothes. As she presents these gifts, she tells him that she has spent all the money on him because she loves him so much. Again, the man is impressed.
The third invests the money in the stock market.
She earns several times the $5,000. She gives him back his $5000 and reinvests the remainder in a joint account. She tells him that she wants to save for their future because she loves him so much. Obviously, the man was impressed.
The man thought for a long time about what each woman had done with the money he'd given her.
Then he married the one with the biggest tits.
Men are like that, you know.
Main / Thought i'd share something i found
Nov 21, 2004, 12:52 AM

I was four years old when first I met you my brother;
 My earliest recollection, was a day you returned home
And will forever stay with me.

All those years where were you? At war you said?
 And what did you tell me of this war?

The beauty of Holland, of France, and Belgium,
 You gave me souvenirs, wooden shoes and such,
You played Mom's piano, sang happy songs..

You had a little brother;
 Was this vacation so grand,
You waited four years to see him?
 Did you not care my brother?

If not for books and films and such,
 I may have believed in your vacation,
Even so I had no idea, the effects on you my brother.
 You won that war didn't you?

As a very young father I gazed upon my son,
 He had two eyes, his hair jet black,
I saw two arms, two legs, his head,
 A body soft and beautiful.

But what, my brother held you in your bloody hands
 When you were of this age, three arms, a leg, two bodies,
A head, and inner parts I have never seen?
 Is that what caused your hand to shake?

When I was young I sought like other children,
 Our mother's lap,
For sympathy, understanding and comfort,
 The tears I shed mixed with our Mother's love,
And gave to me, the inner peace I sought.

But you my brother, what is this our Mother tells me now,
You the man, my hero, the soldier tough,
Why also, were you in her lap with tears like mine,
 For sympathy, understanding for comfort?
And why did not your tears mix with Mother's love,
 Give to you the Peace you sought?
Did Mother love me more?

And still your hand shakes,
 And why my brother why?
They said you fought, were wounded,
 Your comrades killed, and why?
For Democracy?? - they say!
 For equality
For freedom of speech
 Protection of laws
All this and more
 And what say I?

Many years have passed
 I have felt unequal before the law
I have had my freedom of speech curtailed
 I have found no protection in the law
I have watched too many individuals lose their rights!!
 All this and more my brother
And still it's called democracy!!

Dad fought the First Great War,
 You fought the second and again in Korea,
With our other brother,
 You fought that my rights would be secure!

Though Hitler and Mussolini have long since gone,
 Their allies still remain,
Hypocrisy, corruption, ignorance, apathy,
 The tools of all the "isms" we hate and fear.

So, now my brother it's my turn
 You fought to preserve democracy,
I fight to preserve democracy
 You fought for freedom of speech.
I fight for freedom of speech.
 You fought for equality of law
I fight for equality of law
 You fought against hypocrisy and suppression
I too fight against these things.

They gave you a gun!
 I have only a pen!
You had a uniform to distinguish you from the enemy,
 I have none.

They called you hero!
 They call me fool.
You fought five years
  I've fought twelve!
You won your war
 Mine has just begun.

As we age my brother,
 I still see your hand trembled,
Worse now,
 I see alcohol taking its toll,
As it has with so many veterans,
 And why?
Could it be your thoughts,
 The innermost self which no one but you understands?

Because of you, my youth was spared of War,
 You fought for our freedom and your son's and daughters'
I too fight for freedom for my sons,

When our citizens listen no more,
I will leave this great Dominion,
And when the seedlings of all the isms' we hate and fear
Grow and again recognized,
Again government will call citizens to arms
Again calling upon my sons and in yours,
Handing them a gun and a uniform,
Again crying HERO!

David John Thornton
Main / This Guy is The "SHit"
Nov 12, 2004, 07:32 PM
Why the hell isn't this dood the PREZ?

Buckshot And Designer Water

Fred And The Election

October 11, 2004

I have received thousands of letters (all right, three letters, but I'm rounding up) asking me to explain the election. Bending to the public will, I'll try.

The way it looks to me is coastal snots against the heartland. The wine-and-cheese folk against pickups with gun racks. Texas against Massachusetts. Maybe that's too simple, but I'm not going to admit it. I don't have to. I'm writing the column.

Put it this way: If Kerry had worn a cowboy hat, he'd be president. Yep, he was a hat away from the brass ring. About size three, I'd guess.

It was the cultural divide. The coastal snots have enormous contempt for Texas, Oklahoma, the South, and any other place where people can change a flat tire. Along the Northeast Corridor the snots talk of rednecks, express wonderment that some of them can read, and regard them as barbarians inhabiting blank spaces on the map with dragons drawn in them. For snots in Massachusetts, most of the country is just an inconvenience in getting to the other coast. Flyover Land. They think that people in Alabama live naked in the forest and eat grubs they dig out of stumps.

The pickup people are tired of it. And the cheese people just found out.

A lot of columnists and talking heads on the coasts thought that the election was going to be a referendum on the war in Iraq. I doubt it was. Nobody in the middle of the country knows, or cares, anything about the world outside the United States. Nobody in Massachusetts knows anything, or cares much, about the world inside the United States. The Bush people have never heard of the Crimea. The Kerry people have barely heard of Texas.

This is why I'd like Texas to make my domestic policy, and Massachusetts my foreign policy. Or maybe have both of them just go away.

People in Oklahoma, I'll bet you, are tired to the eyeballs of coastal, septic, hypersexual sludge forced on their children by Hollyork, of music so foul that you wouldn't clean a toilet with it, of galloping repression of a religion that matters to them, of abortion without representation, of the constant pressure to give up their guns, which they enjoy, because subhuman inner-city savages back East kill everybody who goes into a Seven-Eleven, of the Latinization of America, and of schools run by federal fools so meddlesome and perverted that they would defile a landfill.

It's as obvious as warts on a Prom queen (sez me, anyway) that a whole lot of people are sick of having their lives controlled by people they can't stand, sick of being messed with from afar, sick of affirmative action and racial preferences and partial-birth abortion, the old Sandy Day O'Connor Brain Suck. Well, they just said so.

Me too, by the way. If Bush had campaigned on a promise to toss the Supreme Court into an industrial grinder, I would have voted. For him. And I can't stand him.

Which brings us to the Feddle Gummint. Between the coasts it's seen as the enforcement arm of the coastal snots--a gray, repressive, stupid, intrusive, and alien force, as degrading as having your leg humped by the dog in somebody else's living room. To a lot of people, Washington isn't the capital of their country. It's The Enemy. It pushes on them everything they loathe. They hate it.

Bush somehow feels as if he were with the people against Washington's inroads, though he isn't. In fact he favors bigger and more intrusive government, and spends as Hillary could only dream. But he's against gun control and abortion, the emotional hot issues. That's enough.

When you have seen a thousand impassioned sheep waving witless placards at a political rally, you realize that facts don't matter. Look and feel are everything. Bush and Kerry are both pampered ineffectual rich brats, one a drunk, the other a gigolo. Kerry comes from Massachusetts, though, and you just know he eats curious salads with strange names. By contrast, Bush has a certain ferret-like pugnacity to him and a low-wattage mind that people between the coasts are comfortable with. He isn't going to use any of them high-falutin' words, because he honestly doesn't know them. He won't confuse anyone.

People in Kansas aren't stupid--not given the admittedly sorry baseline for humanity. They are intensely local, though, and use their minds for practical things. When it comes to foreign policy they are better on principle than detail. I keep reading that sixty-some percent of Republicans believe that Iraq did New York. (Given what Republicans generally think of New York, I'm not sure why they aren't grateful.) They know that somebody did something bad to us, and they want to smack the bejesus out of someone for it. That's principle. "Smack who" is a detail.

Bush looks like (and is) a Texan who isn't going to take any crap. For people who have taken an awful lot of it from Washington for awfully long, that's appealing. Whether he has the slightest idea what he's doing doesn't matter. He sounds conservative and patriotic if you don't pay too much attention to what he is saying. He is against ter and terrace. He wants to protect America and smack them infiddles upside the head. It's the spirit of the thing.

There is horror on the coasts over the influence of evangelical Christians. How much evangelical Christianity has to do with Christianity, I don't know. Sometimes it looks to me more like an assertion of independence from federal intrusiveness than a religious awakening. However spiritual it may or may not be, it is an organized, satisfying way of hating the bastards on the coasts.


Rational people, always at a disadvantage in American politics, wonder how Christians can favor bombing cities. Jesus, they say in puzzlement, didn't seem to be persuasively bloodthirsty. True, but irrelevant.

You have to understand that Christians have never regarded the teachings of Christ as authoritative. Christians are as savage a clan as can be found, matched only by Moslems, Jews, and Shintoists. And probably everybody else. Check the headlines.

As the Kerry people believe in separation of church and state, evangelicals believe in separation of church and behavior. What you do isn't the point. It's whose side you are on. In a country where everybody hates everybody else, that matters. And, as we just discovered, it did matter.

That's me on the elections. Air Mexico may give a discount to lynch mobs, but I'll be outa here before you can find your rope
Main / Pics?
Nov 09, 2004, 08:22 PM
How the fuck do I put a picture in here?
Main / Seems A bit strange to me
Nov 07, 2004, 12:02 AM
conflict resolution skills.
Dummed down to the lowest common denominator?
Seems to be the case to me, but at the same time, maybe it has merit.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I seem to see misandry and feminism at work everywhere.

Any comments would be appreciated.
Main / Points to Ponder?
Nov 05, 2004, 10:58 PM
When we consider the good, we consider the ethical conduct of the individual.  The basis of all ethics is reason.  Since reason is the essential defining characteristic of humankind, the practice of ethics is the manifestation of human nature.  Evil, as the absence of good, is the product of the absence of ethics.  Ethics, the practice of reason applied to one's actions, can only exist where individuals are free to choose their actions.  Law - the application of force to govern one's actions - denies the practice of ethics by substituting reason and free will with obedience.  Thus, so long as there exists law, there exists no practice of reason.  Ethics, a product of reason, ceases to exist.  Without ethics, there is no good.  The absence of good is evil.  Therefore, government is, by its very nature, a source of evil.
Anyone have expierience in publishing?

Seems to me that it may be possible to publish a "MENS" mag in the vein of "Maxim, ect..". You know, use all of the current publishing trends in mens mag's, but have a clear and concise "MRA" stance, even if it's just short stories, articles and such.

Any Ideas?
Main / Kind of off topic!
Oct 30, 2004, 12:44 PM
Kind of off topic, but I thought it interesting enough to post on this forum.

I suppose it's relevance is going to be a personal matter.
This Man is dangerous.

I might suggest sending him your opinions on his "advice?".

Just more sh.. , that allows; perpetuates even, self victimhood, stupidity, and the undeniable right to "not be accountable".
Main / HypoCritical Oath
Oct 27, 2004, 12:28 AM
This is the original

This is the Modern

If you take the time to read them, I hope, sincerely that it doesn't make you vomit.

Choose your doctor(s) wisely!

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Main / Some good advice
Oct 26, 2004, 09:38 PM
Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Love Isn't Enough For Newlywed,
She Wants Stuff

Dear Harlan,

I'm 31 and just married. My husband and I have been together for four years. I love him a lot, but feel that I've compromised my values and what I wanted in a husband. I come from an educated family - both my parents have at least one master's degree (and so do I). My husband comes from a blue-collar family, but he did just get a bachelor's degree at age 30. We have different values regarding money, family, friends and raising children. I'm somewhat materialistic. I knew when I married my husband I was not getting want I wanted in a husband. My friends from high school and college have all married and bought houses with men who graduated from school around age 22. They are all successful. Some of my friends don't work, and their husbands make around $100,000. Others work, but with their combined income make around $85,000. Truthfully, I am always jealous, because I wanted their life. I am a teacher and do not make much money. I knew that when I married my husband, I wouldn't get what I wanted. I thought it would be OK, but I don't know if he will ever make me completely happy. Is this crazy? Am I being a complete snob? Shouldn't I make it work, no matter what? Maybe I should give it two years - in good times or bad, and for richer or poorer.

Not Sure

Dear Not Sure,

Congratulations. You're about to have something none of your friends has: an ex-husband. Putting aside your husband's strong character (getting a bachelor's degree at age 30 as a first-generation student is tremendous), his loyalty (four years of commitment to you) and his patience (just reread your letter), why did you marry him? To look over his shoulder at the neighbors with envy while hugging him? Master's or not, you're not sounding too bright...


Are Wimmin really this .....??