News

[Stargazer86]

I've heard about women not knowing they were pregnant, but I find it a little hard to believe. They move around in there. One of mine had the hickups for the last three months! I wonder what I would have thought about that if I hadn't known I was pregnant

I also find it VERY hard to believe that by 8-9 months a woman doesnt know she's pregnant. I find that damn near impossible to believe! I've heard of girls not knowing until they're like 6 months for thier first pregnancies. Between weight gain, baby movement, irritability, frequent bathroom use, and the zillions of other pregnancy symptoms its astounding that some people just do not realize.

[Zee.]

... well that's because everybody is different..
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to the fact it is true. There have been countless situations where women have gotten very bad cramps, gone to the toilet and had their baby. Like i said, a fact like that doesn't need to be "believed" by anyone. It's a medical truth. Just because you aren't confronted with it daily does not make it any less realistic.

[Wilde woman]

I saw this on my local news last night. A banker in Washington randomly saw a family of ducks on top of a building. The ducklings started jumping off the ledge and the guy ended up catching all of them, and then escorting the mother and all her ducklings through the city to the river. He's being called the "Duckman" now. So cute!

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prRmQ-OldyE

[Scheherazade]

A New Zealand couple nearly found themselves in a financial hole when their three-year-old daughter bought an earthdigger in an internet auction.

The child, Pipi Quinlan, was trying out her online skills while her parents were asleep in bed.

They only unearthed the truth when they received an email demand for NZ$20,000 (£8,000) from the seller.

Pipi's mother, Sarah, had left the computer logged on. The owner of the digger is not insisting on the sale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/8063769.stm

[Scheherazade]

An association of blonde women in Latvia says it hopes to dispel some of the Baltic state's economic gloom with a parade and ball in the capital, Riga.

It hopes to field 500 fair-haired women for a weekend of events, including a concert, a fashion show and "blonde golf", said organiser Marika Gidere.

"People are depressed, they don't have enough positive emotions," she added.

Latvia, home to 2.3 million people, is going through one of the most severe recessions in the European Union.

Unemployment is rising and public sector salaries are being cut.

"The economic situation is such that society needs these types of events," Ms Gidere, head of Latvia's Blondes' Association, told the French news agency AFP.

"And this is something very positive and fun. And we know that blondes have more fun."

Sunday's blonde parade, to be held under the motto "Make the world a brighter place," will involve an orchestra composed of fair-haired women, she told the Russian news agency Ria Novosti.

The parade will be followed by a ball and contests to find the best "blonde lawyer", "blonde journalist" and others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8072955.stm

[Nightshade]

After 68 years of waffling, Archie Andrews has made his choice. It’s the raven-haired heiress over the girl next door, Veronica Lodge over Betty Cooper.

Just eight days after Archie Comics announced that Archie would finally choose between his two high-school hotties, the word is out: Archie gets down on bended knee to present Veronica with his proposal and a ring while poor Betty looks on and wipes away a tear. Veronica replies to the proposal with a resounding, “Yes!”

The red-haired all-American boy’s choice is likely to upset many Archie fans. Ever since news that Archie would get married broke, they have been filling the message boards at ArchieComics.com with their opinions on which girl should get the ring.


It’s not even close. A strong majority feel wholesome Betty should get the nod over snooty Veronica.

Not the people’s choice
“I hope it's Betty! I've read these comics for over 30 years and waited for the day he woke up and chose Betty,” wrote fan Rachel.

“I think he should ask Betty,” agreed reader Rob. “Veronica is too sophisticated and too richy rich for him. Betty is very laid back, sort of like the All American Girl she has always been. Betty has a big heart, she would make a great wife to Arch, and I would be disappointed if Archie chose Veronica! Good luck to Archie.”

Among the minority who felt Veronica was the obvious choice was “archielover,” who wrote: “OMG! Pick Veronica! He doesn't deserve Betty, he always makes her do all his chores and fix his car and help with his homework, while he treats Veronica like a little princess! I can't wait to see what happens ”

But mind you, Issue 600 will deal only with the engagement. Whether Archie and Veronica actually get hitched as the story plays out over several issues remains to be seen. Given Archie’s history of indecision, would it be unreasonable to assume that there are more plot twists ahead?

morehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30983247/

[breathtest]

I read that a three year old girl accidentally shot her younger brother in California after finding a gun in the house . This is such horrible news and i think this will finally make the american government put in place laws to prevent the legal purchasing of fire-arms. If this doesn't, i don't know what will

[Emil Miller]

I read that a three year old girl accidentally shot her younger brother in California after finding a gun in the house . This is such horrible news and i think this will finally make the american government put in place laws to prevent the legal purchasing of fire-arms. If this doesn't, i don't know what will

In this particular case I think the parents should be charged with negligence rather than blaming the gun. It is inconceivable that anybody that had a fire-arm on their premises would not have it kept it safely out of the reach of children. I have nothing against people arming themselves in a lawless environment and, in any case, isn't the right to bear arms written into the US Constitution?

[The Atheist]

An association of blonde women in Latvia says it hopes to dispel some of the Baltic state's economic gloom with a parade and ball in the capital, Riga.

Oh boy, are they selling tickets?

There was another great Kiwi story a day or two before that - a country doctor without proper medical equipment borrowed a drill from the janitor to drill holes in a boy's head to save his life. The boy is recovering well.

I read that a three year old girl accidentally shot her younger brother in California after finding a gun in the house . This is such horrible news and i think this will finally make the american government put in place laws to prevent the legal purchasing of fire-arms. If this doesn't, i don't know what will

The second coming.

In this particular case I think the parents should be charged with negligence rather than blaming the gun. It is inconceivable that anybody that had a fire-arm on their premises would not have it kept it safely out of the reach of children.

Quite right. Out of reach and locked up with the ammunition locked up elsewhere. They should shoot the parents.

I have nothing against people arming themselves in a lawless environment and, in any case, isn't the right to bear arms written into the US Constitution?

Certainly is.

[breathtest]

In this particular case I think the parents should be charged with negligence rather than blaming the gun. It is inconceivable that anybody that had a fire-arm on their premises would not have it kept it safely out of the reach of children. I have nothing against people arming themselves in a lawless environment and, in any case, isn't the right to bear arms written into the US Constitution?

Well yes but if the gun wasn't there in the first place then there would be nothing to be negligent about. By making guns illegal, less people will die from accidents involving guns and from deliberate shootings. You can say that people need them for protection, but i believe that less deaths would occur from people not having guns to protect themselves than psychos going round massacreing people or from accidents like this one.

[JBI]

In this particular case I think the parents should be charged with negligence rather than blaming the gun. It is inconceivable that anybody that had a fire-arm on their premises would not have it kept it safely out of the reach of children. I have nothing against people arming themselves in a lawless environment and, in any case, isn't the right to bear arms written into the US Constitution?

Isn't it an amendment? The irony is, that if it is an amendment, meaning it was added later, what difference would it make if it was amended over, in terms of legality. There have been enough bystanders killed in violence between gun waving nutters that even a rare tragedy like this shouldn't be a wake up call.

As for the bit about lawless society - when last I checked, lawlessness can be attributed in many places to gun ownership. Either one has to accept that guns are necessary in maintaining order in the country, implying that the government is a failure, and the country's civil justice and enforcement is a failure, or quite simply, guns should only be in the hands of those who need them, which is very, very few people (or should be, if no body else owned guns).

Quite simply, if a case arises when a gun must be used, one can be damned sure that the person one is going to shoot will be carrying a gun too. Either way the day ends in some sort of disaster; one might as well avoid that. The myth that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is also rather silly. The US Army, with full force, could quite easily plow the entire population to the ground if it wanted to - in truth, it could probably wipe out life on this planet - I don't think some pistol-waving-tobacco-chewing-gun-nuts are going to stop them.

Quite simply, the parents should, if this were a functional system of justice, be charged with second-degree murder, and put on trial for that.

[breathtest]

I second that!

[Jozanny]

Isn't it an amendment? The irony is, that if it is an amendment, meaning it was added later, what difference would it make if it was amended over, in terms of legality.

Here is one version of the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Most contemporary American Constitutional scholars interpret it as the right of the state to maintain the national guard. The SCOTUS recently disagreed after never ruling on 2A directly, the majority opinion being that an individual right is implied, though restrictions are applicable. It was based on the draconian restrictions instituted by our capital banning hand guns. The majority opinion overturned these restrictions, and SCOTUS rarely overturns itself out of respect for stare decisis.

If you are going to argue about the morality of owning weapons like guns, maybe you should have some facts on hand.

[Emil Miller]

Since the Dunblane shootings, in which 16 chidren and a teacher were killed in 1996, the UK goverment has banned all firearms from the country except for those required by the army and police. The result is that we now have what police describe as a gun culture, because prohibition has made guns more glamorous and they are easily obtained from smugglers bringing them in from abroad. There have been numerous shootings in the UK since the ban was introduced, which raises the question as to why ban something if the ban cannot be enforced?

[1n50mn14]

It still cuts down on legally obtained firearms. Despite having a higher population than us here in Canada, and a more condensed population, we have far more shootings in the city of Toronto alone in a few months than you do in your entire country in a year. (That may be an exaggeration, but certainly not a gross one.)