Fish is a perfectly fine addition to sandwiches, I also like throwing in mustard. BTW, in this context, "Fish" means "whites", "mustard means "colored items", and "sandwich" means "doing laundry". BTW, anyone know why my socks turned pink? Why to go Scofield! lol

Sure, Eric, just pick any one of the ones where they have been chased out of town, lynched, etc. Moron... And, yes, this shit does happen.

But, that is the whole point. Its purpose is to block reproductive health care, abortion is simply employed as the "wedge" to end all of it. They, the ones pushing the thing, want women back in separate tents during menstruation, and denied the right to be anything other than baby factories (and some of the women that follow these lunatics have said that they agree with this, and see the whole, "freedom to be anything but a silent house wife", thing as a horrible mistake, which they will take advantage of, to spread word about how horrible a mistake it was). Imho, we really, badly, need to be able to declare at least some of these damn people clinically insane, but as PZ recently posted, the nutcases say something stupid, the "progressives" retreat from the field, on the grounds that we all need to try to get along, and everyone else gets told to shut up, for how dare we point out that the emperor isn't just nude, but painted himself green, and claims to be a duck. Its so much better to just pat them on the head, and say, "How nice", rather than try to fix the damn problem, by admitting it *is* one, getting them frakking help. Oddly, to me, that would qualify as "progress".

Kind of hard to see how you would get reliable data without going door to door and asking, but I am thinking a giant map, with every town and city on it, which shows how nasty the place tends to be, by people's own statements. A system that asked your state and town, then had a poll, would semi-work, but it would only show what people that use the internet think, and... not sure how skewed that would be, never mind the near impossibility of verifying that each vote was actually unique. Still, its would, unlike a lot of other polls, which just try to track trends, be harder to muck with. You would need some clown to keep entering Blah, TX, random age, and checking, "We don't mind them.", or what ever, over and over, to really screw with the result as badly as you would otherwise get with the straight one, which didn't track location. Also, one solution is to not give a "see the results", sort of thing, unless you figured out some general metric to show, but kept the specific data on state, and individual city levels, closed until you finalized the result. Door to door would work better for the "adult" trend, the net version, better for those under 30, probably, but, like I said, its hard to keep people from messing with the numbers, even if just "grossly", by voting random cities, and claiming they like atheists, or hate them. But, and "poll", run RL is going to skew to the people least likely to reflect future trends (i.e., those already set in their opinions). And, you are never going to get an honest answer from anyone under 18, if the parents have to be there "watching", or they are in a crowd of others, who push them to the "correct" answer. Closest you could get is track IP, but that wouldn't work either, since you end up with only a single result, from each house, if you end end up with that. :( All of which doesn't even answer, "What questions?" I don't think its as simple as yes or no, since that ends up landing in the "perception" category. I.e., they might be willing to accept "quiet" ones, but not, "pushy ones". That this is a stupid distinction, doesn't change the fact that the perception that they are pushy, by some, is likely to skew the answer in a way that demands they answer, "I don't like them.", to all atheists, when a wider range of options would show that there is a, "I don't mind them", category they do accept (entirely based on their own biased view of how pushy atheists are being, and nothing else). Still, would be interesting if a real effort on the matter could be made. As an example of the sort of problem you run into with this stuff though, it is sort of like how it would be nice to see someone do a rational examination of who is "Republican Tea Party", "Libertarian Tea Party", "I am too stupid to even be a Libertarian Tea Party", and the "I am concerned about government spending, because: list of clear abuses, problems, defects in systems, and need to reform them Tea Party". The last one I would even join. But, as things stand, you can't even *get* most people into the last one, when its the one they would actually prefer, because there are too many people in the other 3 categories. People that either, in order of above, a) don't believe in the existence of the problem being discussed, except that it helps them hide the very problems that need to be fixed, while not fixing them, and chasing nonsense as a distraction, b) those who help come up with the moon beams, magical unicorns, and damned government leprechauns they all babble their concern about, and the first group pretends to pick up nets and go hunt, and c) people that class *everything* as bad, if its government, because they, literally, don't know enough to balance their own check book, so can't understand what the government actually *does* need to do to balance theirs, other than, "spend less money", which btw, they can't manage themselves. Point being, there are a lot of questions that can only be answered with, "What the hell is really going on?", and instead get, invariably, answered with, "What do you think is going on, without us bothering to make the slightest attempt at clear, precise examples, instead of vague, useless statistics." And, something like the "atheist" question is bound to, if you let them know what the trend in their own town is, in the process of collection, leave some morons with the need to ignore the real results (healthcare and social security anyone?), and/or skew, the result in favor of what they *want to be true* (as in, "our town hates them atheists, even if 90% of the people say they don't"). Still, some attempt is better than letting the village idiot collect nearly useless information, which is what we are *currently* dealing with.

My experience has been that you get pure sex scenes, most of which are crap, famous ones like the whole emanual ones, which are crap for an entirely different reason (gah I hate soft porn where the only thing that differs from what they can show on TV is that "both" are nacked, and they moan a lot.. seriously..), and some others that actually do a halfway decent job. The problem, as I see it, is that most of them are made a B-movies, with the same acting, the same lack of imagination, with regard to the story, and the same general lack of quality. What you "rarely" see are some older ones, like Lady Chaterly's Lover, or the newer ones, like the porn spoof "Pirates". So, I agree entirely. The industry, sadly, survives on horny idiots, buying up stuff that *maybe* sometimes goes in for a bit of kink, and thus has "some" merit, but is mostly the sort of stuff that, if it was some insanely stupid BS like Refer Madness, *might* make some of them cult classics, only, most never even manage to be "that good" at being "that bad". Most of the producers of the stuff just don't give a frack. As evidenced by the Shotime series one remaking "Deep Throat", in which is rapidly because obvious that everyone on "both" teams, where total idiots, and what ever "either" of them came up with, it was probably going to be total crap. At least the prior "Family Business" one didn't try to make the pretense that they where making some "great new film", or trying for quality that they where ill equipped to reach. Point of fact, that shows people *might* have done a better job remaking it that the idiots in the remake one. lol The remake show was.. a perfect example, imho, of why most of the stuff put out by the industry is, in fact, an absolute train wreck. These people couldn't Roleplay an dead elf in a table top RPG, never mind a living person that couldn't be replaced with a CG model, which would probably "still" be better at the sex, never mind the acting.