Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (9687)	4/13/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 71178

I got so caught up in the technical end of this query that I plumb forgot to consider the human dimension. The night thoughts behind the dry practical question. And I know they're in there. Gaugie must be red-faced about something. Gaugs, I've been, like, not paying attention. Sorry.

To: Rambi who wrote (9687)	4/13/1998 3:25:00 PM
From: Gauguin	Respond to of 71178

Thanks Alex. I knew I was asking the right person. Penni, "It's really bothering me. I've been thinking about it for the past ten minutes." I'm sorry, I guess I could have private-messaged it to Alex; but I thot there might be some other focking scientists who might want to weigh in. It's been bothering me, for about ten years. I don't know what made me think of it today, maybe bliss and jealousy over Alex's succulent civic Garden, and hummingbirds what take a speek into his brain. And over this way, that Conservatory with all the o-ranji~pink begonias inside; and that wife of his, with her brain, flit flit 20,000 times a minute, kinescope, going really fast; fast as a hummingbird flying through the park; banking up and around to look for eggs in space this Easter; flying soo fast.....so fast your face could catch on fire. I'm not sure that's what happened, exactly, but it must have been something like. Was a long time ago now, but that's what I remember. I crossed over the Coast just above Cliff House. Performed heat tests somewhere around San Diego. I don't think Alex's plane overmachs at sea level, altho there'd be a lot more heat, so we're up around seventy thousand, dark blue, no gray whales this time, and we'd be freezing our bums off if we weren't glowing red. (That's why you left the bum in the park.) There. Home again. About ten or fifteen years ago, I was studying a text on chimneys, and static versus the other kind of pressure; I was working on something, and sometimes you study for a long time and really get into it; and MJ came home and said what ya studying, and I said chimneys or air or something, and she said what's this, and I said I was wondering how fast you would have to go for your face to catch on fire. Sometime right after that came up that discussion about wives who put their husbands through school and don't get anything out of it.

To: Rambi who wrote (9687)	4/13/1998 5:05:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71178

penni, from the world of news comes this important communique: Teens have no constitutional right to sex SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Teenagers have no constitutional right to have sex -- even voluntarily and with each other, a California appeals court ruled Thursday. The court upheld a lower juvenile court ruling that said the right to privacy does not cover consensual sexual activity between minors. "There are freedoms which adults enjoy which are beyond those afforded minors," Justice Ignazio Ruvolo wrote in the court's unanimous opinion. The case involved a 16-year-old boy in northern California's Alameda County who was arrested and charged with statutory rape for having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. The boy challenged the arrest on constitutional grounds, saying that sex was a fundamental right covered by privacy laws that apply to minors as well as adults. His lawyers also argued that the statutory rape provision was intended to protect minors from adults, and not to hinder their relations with each other. The court, in a 3-0, ruling, felt otherwise. "While we do not ignore the reality that many California teenagers are sexually active, that fact alone does not establish that minors have a right to privacy to engage in sexual intercourse," the court ruled. It said that precedents such as earlier court rulings that overturned a law requiring parental consent for abortions did not mean that minors were now free to behave as they liked in the sexual realm. "While they may have the ability to respond to nature's call to exercise the gift of physical love, juveniles may yet be unable to accept the attendant obligations and responsibilities," the court said. The court upheld the lower court's decision to put the boy on probation. dailynews.yahoo.com