All categories - 12 September 2006

2006-09-12 00:01:13 · 2 answers · asked by ashte92 1 in Buying & Selling

is it helpful for memory?

2006-09-12 00:01:07 · 6 answers · asked by chinnivanaja 1 in Mental Health

scott is ventilator dependent.he suffered a total transection of his spine at c4. he is only 17. scott pleads wiyh his care givers to be taken off the ventilator."i have the right to refuse treatment! i do not want to live trapped in this body! does he have the rigt to refuse tratment even though he isn't terminally ill or immediately dying? if your answer is yes, pls. depend why and also if you answer is no.

2006-09-12 00:00:46 · 7 answers · asked by jelyn l 1 in Other - Diseases

don't drink
don't smoke
just like a few cones on friday night

2006-09-12 00:00:44 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

If you do not agree, what saying catches your fancy and explains a bit about your heritage?

Have fun and keep it clean folks, it is just a question! LOL

2006-09-12 00:00:14 · 4 answers · asked by Funny Frankie 4 in Other - Society & Culture

(I've put this in Psychology because I'm interested in understanding that part of the psyche that takes interest in these ideas and images.)

And before you say 'It's not real get over it'. I know that so please don't patronize with your answers.

You either love them or hate them. I personally really don't see the point of them, and it disturbs me that people would 'enjoy' watching the torture and gore that these films capture.

I take no pleasure in the watching of them and sometimes wonder if the producers could have been potential mass murderers provided they didn't have the means to create these flicks. (Example: Hostel)

I suppose it puts me in mind of the Romans and their love of the 'games'.

I really don't get it.

Anyone care to explain where the entertainment value lies in a horror film? Particularly 'the gorier the better' type?

2006-09-12 00:00:13 · 3 answers · asked by quay_grl 5 in Movies

It just puzzles me why the UN thought it practical to allocate Jews their own state. Being a Jew is religious, not nationality or race. If the Jews qualified for land on the basis of belonging to a religion, how come no other religion qualified for land allocation even at that time? Jews are multi-race from black to white, showing clearly that they are a religious group. Why did nobody question this at the time?

Also how come the Jews were allocated in the middle East where they stand out like a sore thumb? The most obvious place would have been the deserts of the Arizona or maybe part of Europe such as Spain/the Balkans etc where the population are already warlike.

2006-09-12 00:00:01 · 13 answers · asked by Mai C 6 in Politics

2006-09-12 00:00:01 · 12 answers · asked by Thebronx 5 in Other - Politics & Government