Musing

Hi Mark, Time to unzip my lip.....I have found many of your and your followers comments enlightening. Hope I can do likewise. For SA, I was party to the discussions on the name for Singles and Friends Toastmasters, and Mark is correct on the thought that if a person's status changes, there was no intent to make them "persona non grata"...which is why the name includes "Friends". It appears to me that SA, you may be fixated on the name "Singles". I also invite you, SA and others interested to a S&F Toastmasters meeting to visit, participate and enjoy. "Past President of S&F Toastmasters" And Season's Greetings to All!!! HBB, Calgary

. . .

HI Mark. Good email on Friday. I think that all generations produce(d) people who bother to concern themselves with things that are wider than the day to day and also those who don't. In the 2000's those who don't think sometimes sound as if they do because they have taken training courses or are quoting a trendy book. But is there less ignorance when much of what they "know" is factually in error - or dumbness numbness that you so accurately described - or is applied thoughtlessly? Concerning Hemingway, does he mean that a psychopath should not be restrained by our courts because he feels good (possibly a sense of accomplishment) after killing someone? Or is it okay to hurt someone else when you personally benefit. Concerning the Supreme Court, in addition to who is going to decide what is harmful, what about harms that flow to others that are not involved in the actions before the court? Many might think that the Court made the "right" decision here since these are consenting adults in a private place. Applying the harm criterion to other situations might not suit our culture. For example, should we have unrestrained hunting because environmental harm resulting from eliminating species is not a direct consequence of each act of hunting. Possibly this is all too much for Christmas. All the best on the new year, LHE, Calgary

. . .

Merry Christmas Mark !, RC, Calgary