Yes -t-- that is a pretty apt description of my boss.

Superweak, Sophia.

ita, thanks!

But the authors of the new study used different methods of statistical analysis from those in an earlier one that was widely publicized, making direct comparisons difficult.

It what where now?

Challenging earlier findings, two studies from the Heritage Foundation reported yesterday that young people who took virginity pledges had lower rates of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases and engaged in fewer risky sexual behaviors.

This is another example of the Neocons blatant disregard for truth. The study is a misrepresentation of the data (this 'study' is based on the same data as the earler studies). It's a dirty stinking lie that could never be published in a legitimate journal. But it won't matter. These lies will be repeated over and over again. That's why the scum at the Heritage Foundation cooked them up.

The study is a misrepresentation of the data (this 'study' is based on the same data as the earler studies).

Shouldn't it be called a meta-analysis, if it was only a re-analysis of somebody else's data? Or, a meta-non-analysis, which is a more accurate description of what these people actually did.

I'm in agreeance with Rick that telling lies about science is bad and, let me check, I think sends Christians to hell. I mean, the scientists know they're lies, and that means at least some of the public policy people will know they're lies, but the number of people who won't know they're lies, and the number of people who know and don't care, makes me want to throw things.

Like, glass test tubes, or HCl, or neurotoxins.

Thanks, Brenda!

Does he get it logically, that he's screwing up recovery? What I mean to ask is, is it a battle between head and heart and heart wins?

Not him, but me (and others at the centre) -- there's a lot of love there too. If you told me it was between me going into the office or not, it'd be easier (though not effortless, I still have problems) to take care of myself.

Maybe if you don't admit you're invulnerable, the world won't notice.

The study is a misrepresentation of the data

I just don't understand why they would do this when the lie is hurting their children, leaving them sick, and in some cases probably unable to have children if an STD goes without treatment.

It's as if they're still bleeding people who have the flu, or something.

Why deny your children information that will keep them safe and healthy?

Maybe if you don't admit you're invulnerable, the world won't notice

I need to put that on a t-shirt for Hubby

Why deny your children information that will keep them safe and healthy?

Well, the information could lead them to having the sex...

Maybe if you don't admit you're invulnerable, the world won't notice.

Can I quote that?