Vixen_Poetic

Nicely done. That is the beginning of a very helpful resource. I have to wonder though, how egregious an assault on the english language was the essay that impelled you to write this?

My mom finally saw a doctor for what turned out to be an advanced case of breast cancer a little over two weeks ago. They biopsied the main mass and the results indicate that the cancer is actively feeding off estrogen. My husband went looking online for a list of foods that are high in estrogen and found it and a list of foods that are low in estrogen. The problem I am facing is that the list he found is as long as my arm, has most of the foods she needs to alleviate her anemia issues, and is sorted alphebeticly instead of by concentration of estrogen. Does anyone know where to find on the internet a list of high estrogen foods that is sorted by estrogen concentration?

Fracture it is difficult to remember something that I have never seen. And I keep telling myself that you are 17. One of the worst things that can happen to an otherwise talented, aspiring writer is to be treated nicely. Being nice to someone often means holding one's tongue and telling little white lies like, 'I love your stuff!' A person given only that kind of feedback is given no reason to improve; honesty is required, niceness is optional. For my own reasons I do wish it had not been a school assignment that you had posted but a genuine effort of your own desire to tell a story. If you feel that it is ready to be graded by your teacher, needing no improvement, then hand it in. But if you feel that it is lacking then perhaps you should look again at the only advice you have been given. Feel free to get out a dictionary, it is an essential tool for all writers, new and experienced.

Terry Goodkind's "bestseller" about the Seeker and the Mother Confessor (I can never remember the title) was barely endurable. I could see the world had more scope and potential to develop but the sequel blew the whole premise out of the water. That one I couldn't make it 1/3rd of the way in before I annotated a major flaw and put it down for good.

So you want feedback, Fracture? I'll try to be nice while being honest, but you're not making it easy for me.Firstly, the way you jump back and forth between two persons perspective is rough on the reader. I know you want to tell the whole story, show both their inner selves, but it would be better to either have a narrator, an omniprescient observer, tell the story giving the reader insights into the characters thought processes at apropriate times, or first tell it from one character's perspective then come back with the other character remembering the highlights and get his/her take on it then.Secondly you need to take another look at the characters, their situation and supporting cast. For instance, a princess is not left unattended ever, even if her assigned companion is a maid, and in a time of unrest in the country she doesn't leave the castle without a guard. And 'acting like a princess' does not include pouting, it means grace and manners.Lastly, I can see you are gearing up for a romance. Give the situation time to develop instread of pushing it ahead of itself. Develop the world and the characters and with it will develop the potential for a mutual attraction that is believable instead of contrived.I can see you're really trying to tell a story. I won't tell you to stop trying, through such efforts are writers made, but be prepared to discard a lot of ideas and try again, and again, and again, etc. until you have a story that says what you want it to say and does the art justice.

Don't count him out too soon. Unlike most actors his age he actually took care of himself. I am really looking forward to seeing what script both Steven Speilberg and Harison Ford approved, and whether it will also cameo his father(Sean Connery).

Joshua, thank you for your post. That is quite a list, much of which summarizes the ideals of christianity. I wish this weren't true, but I have met too many people who call themselves christians who, wielding a little power throw aside all ethics to get ahead. And the interesting social phenomenon where the longer a church is in an area the more likely the members are to get clickish(sp?) where they associate with only their circle and heaven help the newcomer, even one to the same congregation. Kinda like watching pirahna.

Velma, that is a spiritually healthy and fulfilling way to live. Thank you for your post. Kansuke, I appreciate your attempt to make peace and I will try to continue this discussion without pushing it into a scene of contention but try to keep, or re-establish it as a place of amicable discussion. I liked the plainness of your diagram and how well it illustrated your belief but now I am going to have to explain that my belief is not the same. Please do not take it amiss. Truefusion, I am not contesting your beliefs, I am trying to explain mine. I appear to have less than sufficiently explained certain aspects of that belief and inadvertently caused some confusion, for which I apologize. You also surprised me by bringing up the main supporting passage for a lynchpin aspect of that belief. Allow me to begin again. 1) God does not lie; though the neccesary translation process can cause confusion He does not intentionally give a false impression. Therefore when the scriptures repeatedly say the same thing I have to think that that principle is true to the original understanding. So when Christ refers to God as his father, repeatedly, and not as another aspect of himself, I glean a distinct priciple that God, the Father and Christ, his Son are two different beings. Christ is a being with a body, born of his mother... where did the stuff that made him immortal enough to live again come from? We've been told that - God, his Father. A spirit does not have DNA as it lacks the physical matter to carry genes, so God is a physical being. I know this seems a weird leap to you, please be patient. Let's run this back a little and look from another angle, one already visited, the baptism of Christ. I was trying to be clear, I apologize for not being clear enough. In that moment when they speak of these three personages they are explicitly described separately, as separate beings. If the Spirit of God were God then to project his voice from the heavens instead of from the presence which is already there would be a deception. The only possibility left to conclude, to my God granted reasoning capabilities, is that God and the Spirit of God are two different beings. 2) (to recap the point) God is omnipotent, but respects our right to make, and live with, our own choices. God is omniprescient and knows every aspect of what is going on in this world and in our hearts, the ultimate sympathetic ear. But as a being with a physical body God is not omnipresent, he has the angels, a spirit corps as it were, to handle the subtle aplication of his deific power for this earth. This is my beleif, I understand if you don't reason or feel the same way. A last note about the word 'presence'. It has at least two meanings or applications in the english language. The most straightforward one is the literal physically standing in the same room, or in close proximity to another person. The other usage of presence refers to the charismatic force or the under-the-skin knowledge of their being there that is felt without their being seen. Also sometimes used to refer to a persons influence on another or on events that is felt or percieved in their absence, but that is a more modern and poetic use. Times up- gotta run.

Very nicely expressed, Kansuke, thank you. Firstly, Truefusion, the first of those verses says something very different than omnipresence. Matthew 3:16-17 specificly lays out that there are three personages acting there in that moment, Christ the Son, the Spirit of God and The Father. Christ being there physically, having just been baptized, sees the Spirit of God "descending like a dove, and lighting upon him" and then the Father speaks from the heavens with the famous line, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And then your second reference, Luke 3:22, backs this up with another accounting of the same event also placing three personages at this critical moment. That this incident is given an accounting of twice and with the same important details says that this is not a mistranslation but a true accounting of events. Remember my first post? "God does not lie." God does not pull a fast one to deliberately leave people with a false impression. Now, John 14:23. You seem to be refering to the last line where he says, A bit ambiguous and patently impossible for him to do for every one who believes if he is not omnipresent which is why 1 John 3:24 becomes important to clarify this. The Spirit that is refered to can be omnipresent, but The Father Himself is not, if he were there would be no reason for the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, to be doing a job that The Father could do. For some clarification check out Acts 2:2-4. Now, I'm tired so I'm done for now. In the meantime you might want to recheck your 1 Corinthians 6:19 reference and look around for references to the Holy Ghost and the Creation.

Kansuke, I am familiar with the contents of that book, but that wasn't the question. Out of your study and your experiences what do you believe? What concept or thought or feeling has lodged in your heart as a ringing truth of this world or the next? Here's another of mine: God loves us and expresses that love as a father does. This means that as a father he respects our free agency (and everybody's free agency) our ability to make our own choices is one thing He won't infringe on, but as a father He is always there for advice and help but we need to go to Him to get it. Is He omnipotent? Yes, but He chooses to not excersize that power in ways that will interfere with our choices, or our right to choose. Is He omniprescient? Yes, He is aware of all that happens, to lie to Him is futile and a reflection of our own choice to try to lie to ourselves. How about omnipresent? No, He doesn't need to be. Being omnipotent and omniprescient obliviates a need for omnipresence. I am sorry for your loss, old though it is I am sure you still miss him, miss everything he should have been for you. I am sorry that well meaning family pushed on you a religeon you were not ready to understand. I have heard prayer described as pleading with thunderstorms and I understand the perception even though I don't feel the same. The need to be accepted is a powerful force and explains many wierd things but not everything. Interestingly the most whole, creative and genuine people I know are ones who have a religeon but have kept an open mind about holistic health and other fringe practices. The first teacher my autistic son had was one such person. She was not young and had fractured the bones in her foot into a lot of little pieces. It looked like extensive and iffy surgery to fix it. She asked for, and was given, a preisthood blessing and when they x-rayed her foot just prior to the surgery all the little pieces had realigned making the surgery much easier and success much more assured. Her doctor still doubted it would ever properly heal, she was around 50 years old, but she knew better. The next summer while school was out she spent her time off working on her energy flows or energy healing or something like that, I never quite understood what she meant, and at her next annual appointment she floored her doctor with a completely well foot.

*sigh* I used to have a high metabolism... An experience of a brother-in-law of mine was similar; tall, gangly and definitely underweight for his height. He was on the basketball team and to try to add a little mass to his frame the coach had him eat a half gallon of ice-cream every day, it still took time for him to fill out at all, he's still skinny as a rail. Here's another little factoid; our bodies are better suited to 5-6 small meals in a day than three moderate to heavy meals. Of course you are hungry around midmorning. I don't know where you live or what policy your school has about outside food, but if you can bring something with you for that midmorning tummy rumble... well, if it's possible, a granola bar would be easiest, half a peanut butter sandwich would also deal with the problem but would require getting up a little earlier to make it(and if you're getting up earlier you might as well have a more filling breakfast) but easier, and maybe most fun of all, again if you can take food to school, would be a little recipe called Peanut Butter Candy. The ingredients are available pretty much anywhere; Peanut Butter, Honey and Powdered Milk. Yes, protein packed with a little healthy carbs for boost. Here's the directions: There are no specific amounts, brands of peanut butter vary too much to make that possible, but start with a smallish bowl like a cereal or salad bowl and scoop a few large spoonfuls of peanut butter into it. Then press a divot in the middle of it with the back of the spoon, much like preparing mashed potatoes for gravy, and fill divot with Honey, about what will stick to the size of spoon you used for the Peanut Butter or 1/4 to 1/5 the amount of Peanut Butter. In the matter of the Honey you can always add more so start with a little and work your way to the right consistancy. Speaking of consistancy, the next step is to mix it up until the PB and Honey mixture self-adheres and comes away from the sides of the bowl. If there's no change when the Honey is fully mixed in, add more Honey; if it's too sticky add more Peanut Butter. Continue to work with it until the entire mixture is in a ball(loosely speaking) in the middle of the bowl. Finally, when you are satisfied with the consistency of the mixture it's time to add the Powdered Milk. Spoon some Powdered Milk around the PB and Honey ball and start working it in much like kneading bread but use the spoon. And remember, don't start with a lot of Powdered Milk, you will add more but too much at any time just makes a mess. Keep working in Powdered Milk by the spoonful until the mixture is malleable, like playdough. Pat mixture out into a squarish shape 3/4 inch or 2 cm. thick on a piece of plastic, enough to wrap it with, or into a plastic container, and cut with a butter knife into squares about 3/4 inch or 2 cm. and wrap. Refrigerate to make stiff like cookie dough or to preserve portions for more than two days. To take to school place desired amount(recomend 4-6 cubes to start) in small container or wrap in secure plastic wrap or baggie. Warning: the Peanut Butter Candy will 'sweat' a light coating of the Peanut Butter oils, do not wrap in fabric or keep in pocket. And Bluebear, I get to enjoy pizza once a week, too, though I have to toss mine in the oven.

Thats an interesting mental excercise but to anyone who knows anything about rabbits it's laughably off. The Fibonachi Sequence, while an interesting mathematical progression (which, by the way Webointer, works without any exceptions if you assume that the null space before the first 1 is representative of a zero) is most fascinating in it's corelation to patterns in nature. The pattern of seeds in the mature head of a sunflower and the spacing of planets (if you include the asteroid belt) in our solar system are the two examples that most readily spring to mind.

"Give me that ol' time religion..."Yeah, there is a problem with it. It does not ask of us to gain an understanding of why it espouses the 'thou shalt's and 'thou shalt not's. Many of them in fact tell us to just shut up and believe. Belonging to a religion because your parents belonged, because their parents belonged, is just covering your ears, closing your eyes and singing 'lalalalala' until the potential for spiritual revelation goes away. As for a common ground... that's difficult. Even among all the groups that claim to be christian, which church a person claims allegiance to is often the cause of a broken marriage, family feuds and much worse. But I think the question is thread worthy. "What do you, personally, believe?" I think I'll go start that thread... *pause* ...done. Maybe that will get you, and me, some understanding of religious commonalities.

Within the broad topic of spirituality and religeon, and without mentioning what religeon you espouse, what do you, in the depth of your heart believe is true?Please keep all discussion friendly... or at least courteous.To kick it off: I believe that God does not lie. Exact words can be mucked up in translations but God, being good, does not tell a falsehood.

A great philosopher once said (don't ask which I don't remember), "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." The problem and grace of a true democracy is that it requires the constant involvement of it's citizens. That is great as long as enough people remain personally involved voluntarily, but when people become complacent... In the declining, decadant days of the greecian city states too many citizens were choosing to just get on with their personal lives and interests and some cities had to hire or assign groups of slaves to round up enough citizens to have the numbers neccesary for their forums to do the job of governing. A true democracy has every citizen having the right, if not the responsibility, to vote on every issue, bill, and regulation to come up before the government. A republic appoints people to make those descisions for the nation. As a republic built on democratic principles we elect by democratic process the people who will make those descisions and have a regularly scheduled review process when we decide if we want them to continue doing the job or want someone else to try their hand at it for a while. A "perfect" system would be a tyrany where every descision is made by a wise leader who has an in depth understanding of 'the big picture' and a similar understanding of human nature. It would take a perfect, uncorruptable person who also would need to be immortal, because his successor may not be perfect and uncorruptable. The worst form of government is a tyrany under a corrupt leader. Can anybody say 'Fidel Castro'? The list of tyrants who have caused terrible suffering among their own people is long, the democracies that have caused similar tragedies... is there one? A true democracy would be possible in the near future with the advancing connectivity of technology, but would any citizenry want to be required to spend between one and four hours every day dealing with the day to day requirements, keeping up with the issues and voting on them, of governing?

My favorite book is, and I suspect will always be, Dune. The following books of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are also quite good, but his second trilogy while interesting is not as good, but then again it would be hard to equal the excellence of the balancing forces and the compelling aspects of the original characters and plot.My favorite author is Terry Pratchett. His Discworld is a compelling place with interesting people doing ordinary and interesting people things. But don't even try to read it in chronological order or the first two books may well lose you. Just find one whose description looks interesting and begin there.

About 95% of the works of Piers Anthony. The first 60 pages of Terry Goodkind's sequel to his 'bestseller', ( gosh it was idiotic, containing a mathematicly unsustainable succession process.) Sorry, stupid zingers tend not to leave an impression.

What can be said about book seven? Yes, there was some predictability; the mission of the seventh book had been laid out in book six. Was Ginny going to go against her established character and accept Harry's choice as the final word? Not a chance. Was Harry really going to walk alone on his journey or be a sole combatant in this fight? Again, no. Book seven did what it needed to do, wrap up a story that had started to become painful back in book five.One of the things I most apreciated about this book, or rather her skill in writing it, was that even as the story stayed with Harry, as it had to, it gave us glimpses of the struggles and heroisms of the other, less immediate, characters around him that made his mission possible.At the end I find that while I would enjoy more works by J.K.Rowling in this fascinating world she has assembled piece by piece for us, even more works about Harry, I don't think I would enjoy another saga revolving around Harry. To successfully pull off another extended story arc I think she would have to draw upon either her secondary characters or introduce a new cast to fascinate us.

Where I live it is easy to get a child on disablity, it's practically rubber stamped if a doctor signs off on it; for an adult it's nigh impossible. Not only does the beuracracy stretch their time limits to the utmost, as a matter of course they turn you down the first time. You can be obviously limited in what kind of job you can take and unable to get a job in any field you theoretically could work in and they still will turn you down repeatedly. It's depressing how bad it is, but worse to keep going back repeatedly explaining how pathetic you are.

Words are fun. We can make them dance, spin and sing to fit our whims. Isn't it fun to listen to lively banter on the tv or among friends, but on the tv some of the insult in the slurs get glossed over and friends know each other well enough to accept dastardly insults without offense. Which is where the whole political correctness phenomenon just skimmed on by me, I find it difficult to take offense at a tool as basic and all-purpose as the english language. If an insult or term is correctly applied to me I can try to deny what I am or I can move on. I'm big into honesty, so I tend to move on. If it is incorrectly applied I can choose to contest the application of the term, or let it go to get on with more important matters. And I have some facility with the arsenal provided by the english language, should I choose to contest an incorrectly applied slur. But Political Correctness is driven by those who chose to take offense, which I think says something about those who get uppity about correctly used words with multiple meanings or contexts.

"What does a hot bath do for you?" For starters it raises your surface temperature and allows your capillaries to open all the way which allows the full and proper circulation of blood. Because you are no longer losing heat your body doesn't have to work to keep up your core temperature though in very hot water it may be working to keep it down. Proper blood circulation means proper removal of the lactic acid which is the cause of sore muscles.

In my observations people afflicted with this public/social anxiety also are not comfortable in their own skin. They're worried about what others may see or think about them or judgemments they may leap to because of where they are. Usually these are little irrational fears, who cares what book someone sees you carrying, or what item they see you purchasing or see you enjoying a little sunshine, or at least that's what I sometimes have to tell myself. But the people who are confident in who they are or where they are have no difficulty adjusting to an unexpected event or chance meeting, and that is the little deception that you can tell yourself, until you believe it. 'I know who I am, I am where I should be and want to be. That is all that is important. What 'they' thing doesn't change me.'Good luck.

I've got news for you, you're all right. Yes, as Verdant points out, once you've stuck your foot in it by giving a solution instead of sympathy shut up and start listening, not to what she's saying it but to why she's saying it. But... no it is not because we were raised to be different but because we are biologically different. Yes Vera, most of the time women are just looking to share their experience and confirm their self identity and social identity. Yes dcshaw, there were times when Verdant generalized but they were usually fair if simplifications of the truth. You reacted badly to some implications of Verdant's post, odds are you've recently had a bad experience related to this male/female relationship interplay or felt unfairly characterized by someone spouting off about this social interaction psycho-babble. Guys, in general, think in concrete ideas, it is part of the genetic programming which means it holds true to varying degrees for each individual example. Guys, if needed, can communicate in grunts. This is because in the context of the moment given an attention getting, querying or definitive grunt the male mind will latch on to the most likely topic at hand and interpret it in that context, and will most often be right. I have seen an example first hand of a conversation consisting solely of grunts, and there was no question that it was genuine comunication where both parties understood the entirety of the conversation. Guys' social worlds are simple, consisting of pecking orders like a wolf pack; alphas and betas and rankings within the group, once these are established they rarely change. And women do not fit into that pecking order anywhere, to the guys' pack, theirs is a social ranking that is separate and individually ranked. Girls, in general, think in abstract ideas, again it is part of the genetic programming which means it holds true to varying degrees for each individual example. Girls understand quickly the complexities of an outlined situation and the implied consequences should action be taken. Which means that they understand that the person expressing their frustrations has already seen the implications and are merely wrestling with the descision process, to act or not to act, (because there are always more implied consequences stretching out like fractals) not the possible solutions. Girls' social worlds are complex, each individual ranked separately against each other individual and potentially changing in each situation and with any change of status. Yes, it is confusing. Each communication becomes not just a chance to share commonality of experience but to confirm status relative to the other participants in the conversation and other's status in the eyes of those you respect or dismiss. Men do fit into this social order but are not expected to understand where or why. Which is good because they don't.

Meet my favorite online time waster, Dice Wars, a risk type strategy game. :-) http://www.gamedesign.jp/flash/dice/dice.html Next entry for favorite time waster, Bolas http://www.gamesheep.com/game/bola/ And then there's Makos http://www.gamesheep.com/game/makos/ And lastly, Floats http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/g3/floats.htm

Next Fox Special One of the simplest, entirely from scratch, one dish meals that I know. Ingredients Ground Beef - 1/4 lb. per person being served round up to nearest 1/2 lb. or lb. Optional: replace Ground Beef with Ground Sausage and reduce spices to one favorite spice Medium sized Potatoes - 1 per person being served Oil - to cover bottom of pan Spices - Mix and match to your taste from; Basil Oregano Majorum Rosmary Thyme any favorite spice Eggs - 1 per person being served. Shredded Cheese Begin 45 minutes. before serving time. For speedier preparation use two skillets, one a large family sized skillet for the potatoes. Break up and brown Ground Beef in a skillet. While browning Beef scrub Potatoes (only peel if being prepared for a finicky eater) and dice into 1/4 to 1/2 inch cubes. Pour oil into skillet and swirl to cover bottom of pan, add chosen spices and potatoes and cover. Cook on medium high frequently scraping the bottom of the pan until potatoes are cooked, ideally the outside of the potatoes are a golden color. When both meat and potatoes are cooked combine in large skillet and add eggs. Work eggs into beef and potatoe mixture, even distribution is not required, and cover to steam contents of pan. Let cook for about a minute then turn mixture scraping the bottom of the pan, repeat untill eggs are soft cooked. Turn mixture once again and sprinkle a layer of cheese over top, remove from heat and cover to let cheese melt.