^ I don't know about "proving" this to you but I want you to think along, and research, this idea: you must believe in flight and airplanes, right? Well, a plane such as the Concorde flies at altitudes of 60,000 ft. The stratosphere (the region between our atmosphere and outer space) is about 100,000 ft. So it's not inconceivable that man has reached outer space. Once you've reached that altitude, you break from earth's gravitational pull and you're 'roaming' free space. The distance to the moon is vast but quite doable compared to other celestial bodies out there. Read more about it here. P.S. Avoid the apfn.org site. It's not healthy for you.

^ I feel you. But the difference between right and wrong is clear. If it is true that this writer committed plaigiarism (and it seems this is the case), then he did so with full knowledge of the risk of exposure and an expectation of fame and/or fortune. Legally, there is motive, opportunity and a bloody glove. You can't be emotional about this, Femme. What if it's your work that was stolen? It's good to be protective of Somalis but we've got some pretty rotten apples (the least of whom is this writer) and we need to clean the house.

^ Thanks for the expert description of Plan B. Originally posted by SeeKer: I dispensed Plan B to a girl once who had a pierced navel and hot pants. As a muslim, did you find this questionable in any way? Originally posted by SeeKer: Plan B is not abortion because its only taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex. You can't even find out if you are pregnant within that amount of time so I don't think a woman who decided to have unprotected sex to begin with,is "irresponsible" by taking the initiative of not making others(child) suffer for her "dumb" mistake. Interesting, so if it's just an egg and a sperm, it's not abortion. P.S. Your 'liberal' views are welcome and appreciated on SOL.

^ What, then, should he have done instead? I'm not even a writer and I'd expose him. Theft is theft, whether of goods or of literature.

^ They're both absolutely untrue. Where are you hearing this stuff from? Man has landed on the moon. The Quran does not say man cannot land on the moon. The moon's atmosphere is inhospitable for humans but that does not mean it hasn't been landed upon. P.S. The earth is not flat.

^ What about fat Faaraxs? You know, the over weight lovers?

Originally posted by GEEL-JIRE: There is something un-modest about it! That is, as they say, my personalment gut-feeling. Your gut and your argument, sir, are both full of shidh.

This was on 60 minutes tonight. Does this count as abortion, at least in Islam? If there was a men's section, it probably belongs there. -------------------- Why is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) trying to regulate the sexual morality of American women? Barr Pharmaceuticals wants to be able to offer its morning-after contraceptive levonorgestrel, marketed as Plan B, over the counter rather than by prescription. Plan B consists of two high-dose contraceptive pills that either interfere with ovulation or fertilization, or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. It has no effect once an egg is firmly implanted in the uterine wall. On average, if 100 women have unprotected intercourse once during the second or third week of their cycle, eight will become pregnant. Taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex, Plan B reduces the average risk of pregnancy among users from about 8 percent to about 1 percent—an 89 percent reduction. The product, marketed only by prescription in the U.S. since July 1999, could be sold for around $30 per dose over the counter. On December 16, 2003, a joint panel of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee and Non-prescription Drugs Advisory Committee voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the FDA approve the application to make Plan B available over the counter. At the hearing proponents and opponents weighed in. One particularly interesting comment was made by Jennifer Taylor of the anti-abortion Human Life International. She declared that women who use emergency contraception show an "inability to control themselves in sexual situations." One of the four panel members voting "no" was controversial pro-life Kentucky obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. W. David Hager. Dr. Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women and recommends that women with premenstrual syndrome read Scripture and pray. Hager is also the author of As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now. In February 2004, 49 Republican members of Congress signed a letter to President Bush urging that Plan B's prescription-only status be maintained because wider use could result in more sexual promiscuity and venereal disease. On May 6, 2004, the FDA rejected the advice of its scientific advisory boards and refused to approve the over-the-counter sale of Plan B. The FDA claimed Plan B had not been tested in enough adolescent females to prove that it's safe for them to use. However, proponents saw the FDA's assertions as a political move to appease the Bush administration's pro-life allies. After all, agency staffers noted that this was the first time this issue had ever been raised. "The agency has not [previously] distinguished the safety and efficacy of Plan B and other forms of hormonal contraception among different ages of women of childbearing potential, and I am not aware of any compelling scientific reason for such a distinction in this case," wrote John Jenkins, director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs, in an internal memo leaked to The Washington Post. So Barr Pharmaceuticals is being forced to jump through further hoops to try to get Plan B approved for sale without a prescription. Now the company has proposed an arrangement in which Plan B would be available to women over age 16 without a prescription behind the counter. That is, a woman would have to ask a pharmacist to hand her a package of the pills before she could buy them. (Women under 16 would require a prescription.) The FDA is expected to rule on this new proposal from Barr later this month. A new study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that women who had been supplied with Plan B beforehand were twice as likely to use it as those who had access to it only through clinics. Also, women who had Plan B at home were no more likely to engage in unprotected sex than those whose access was restricted. Interestingly, the study found "women in the pharmacy access and advance provision groups did not experience a significant reduction in pregnancy rate." This undercuts the hope of Plan B proponents that wider use of the pills could cut in half the nation's 3 million unintended pregnancies each year and in turn prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions. Never mind if both the hopes and the fears of how women will actually use Plan B are exaggerated—those who want easy access to it should be able to have it. And even if the availability of Plan B did encourage women to have more unprotected sex, why is that any business of FDA regulators? Sure, having sex with lots of partners without using condoms increases the chances of being infected with venereal diseases and becoming pregnant. But that's the woman's and her partners' lookout, not that of the bluenoses who are apparently running the FDA. The FDA is supposed to approve drugs that are safe and effective for their indication—in this case preventing unintended pregnancies after unprotected sex. Plan B clearly does this. If the FDA wants to prevent or cure sexually transmitted diseases, then it should worry about approving vaccines and drugs for that purpose. In the meantime, as far as the available scientific evidence goes, there is no reason why Plan B shouldn't be on drugstore shelves right next to the Trojan and Durex displays. Source

^ There must be a reason why I was that furious at you at the time. I'm past that now.

^ It's better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all. Will try again in another 6 months.

^ Atheer with all the sophisticated surveillence and spy techniques out there, why would the CIA send a Polish student to spy on expat Somalis on a web forum such this? Are you related to Alle-ubaahne by any chance? These things are usually hereditary.

You'd be surprised what a person "like" me cares about. If you think it's not worth the effort to explain your stand then it's not it worth having that stand. You're right in a way though, I'm not interested enough in this to hound you about it. I'm out.

Originally posted by Callypso: I was think of something more concrete than that. Men have their four wives and concubines, and women are exhorted to dress modestly so as to make it easier for the men resist sin. Women have none of these, but they are still burdened with this biological urge which is never explicitly recognized. Instead, the prevailing myth is that only men need these measures because women just want one good man thank you very much. Any of our resident Islamic scholars want to tackle this?

^ Thanks for the update.

^ Johnny Bravo, there's no evil censorship here. Not in this thread anyway. Femme's post is on the first page.

Originally posted by WinningEleven: They dont need your tears blad, keep it back for your troubles coz am sure you will be tested too.. you have no idea what the police are doing your somali ppl and you talk like you dont give a dam.. your time will come and i say that with a smile.. May be my tongue lashing is what's getting you hot and bothered. You need to focus on what's really important here. It's never a good thing to speak generally on an issue one knows little about its details. Now, these dudes were arrested. True? They were arrested either because they were suspected of killing that cop or they knew those that did? True? Is it not fair to conclude then that if they were mere material witnesses, they'd not have been arrested? And even if they were arrested, they'd not have been released on bail for being material witnesses? Atheer if you know intimate details of this case (due to relationship with such people involved) and I'm way off the mark, then say so. Don't just talk rubbish about being tested and some such nonsense. If a 13 year old is hanging out with another 13 year old that smokes and skips school, I'd call him deliquent. If a 25 year old hangs out with those either capable of killing someone (or have killed someone), I'd call them criminal just as well. Are you saying these guys were unjustly targeted by they police? Or are you saying they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer? What are you saying saaxib, besides being emotional and incoherent?

^ That's awful. So what happened after 8 months? You managed to "if" your way out of it?

Originally posted by Kashanre: Either your Somalinimo is under question again or you cant read Somali! This reminds me of a christian evangelist I argued with some years ago. His favorite line to convince me Jesus was "god" would go something like this: "either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or he is lord". That's a fallacy. It's a fallacy because Jesus could have been something other than the three options forced upon me by this evangelist. So, now that you've voluntarily walked into this trap, how do you plan to rephrase your statement above into something I can reasonably respond to.

^ The proud people that we are, saaxib, it's tough for us to say we're sorry. Until, that is, you run into my sister. A few years back, I made the unintentional mistake (for I knew no better) of saying I was sorry if she was offended. Boy did she catch a case! My head was immediately severed from the rest of my body and I was told exactly how my apology was as bad as, if not worse than, my offence. It was a painful lesson for me but one that has paid itself off many times over. I hope we can all learn from it.

Originally posted by Rahima: Obviously it wasn’t clear, but it was meant to be a tease, no harm or hostility intended. If it came out as such then I’m sorry . That's cool, Rahima. Apology conditionally accepted. This reminds me of something I encourage my family and friends not to engage in. I learned it a few years back. Check it out.

By Susan McCarthy Just say you're sorry. Never say you're sorry "if." Say you're sorry. "I'm sorry I was rude" is good. "I'm sorry if I was rude" is not. It weasels. It implies that maybe you weren't rude. It implies that the person being apologized to has a twisted little worldview if they think "Oh, shut up, frog-lips" is rude. An apology should give the sense that you actually feel some form of regret. "Sorry if" is a conditional apology. Conditional apologies make things worse, not better. "I'm sorry your frog is dead" is better than "I'm sorry if your frog's death causes you pain." Similarly, "I'm sorry I taunted you about your frog's death" is better than "I'm sorry if my taunting you about your frog's death caused you pain." When "I'm sorry" is an apology, it conveys remorse. "I'm sorry" can also be an expression of sympathy, a thing people occasionally forget. "I'm sorry your frog died." "Why are you sorry? You didn't kill my frog!" But what if you did kill their frog? "I'm sorry I killed your frog" is better than "I'm sorry if my killing your frog caused you pain." Making the if silent does not help. "I'm sorry my killing your frog caused you pain" contains a silent if, because it still implies that your regret is not for the action (killing the frog) but for the suffering it caused (oh, boo hoo), which by implication need not have followed from the action. It implies an argument about the value of the frog, and although you may differ on this subject, an apology is not the time to bring it up. Do you say, "Sorry about your whole family being killed, but, you know, I never liked them"? No. What if there is genuine uncertainty? That's different. "I'm sorry your frog died" contains no silent if. "I'm sorry if your frog died" is a different sentence that implies that the frog may turn up at any moment, having just stepped out to catch a movie and forgotten to turn its pager back on. "I'm sorry if my anvil fell on you -- it didn't? -- Oh, I'm so glad." Even worse than "sorry if" is the poisoned apology: "I'm sorry my taunting you about your frog's death caused you pain. You should seek therapy." Taking personal frogs out of the matter enables us to take an objective look at more general apologies. "I'm sorry that hundreds of frog species around the world are going extinct and that woodlands that once throbbed with their gladsome croaking are now silent." This denotes simple regret. "I'm sorry that my air-conditioned car has contributed to a situation that has caused hundreds of frog species around the world to go extinct and that woodlands that once throbbed with their gladsome croaking are now silent." This denotes regret and acknowledgement of personal responsibility. "I'm sorry that you feel that my air-conditioned car has caused hundreds of frog species around the world to go extinct and that woodlands that once throbbed with their gladsome croaking are now silent, but would you please move your bicycle?" This includes a skillful substitution of "that" for "if," and denotes faux regret and implicit announcement of imminent homicidal attack. It does not count as an apology. Let's try some examples without frogs. (An editor suggests that these lessons are too simplistic. But first of all, you might be surprised at how hard it apparently is for certain people to understand the most basic principles of a modest apology -- it's like it would kill them to say they're sorry! Second of all, those who require this information include not only individuals but nations. And when you are explaining things to nations, you cannot make it too simple.) "I'm sorry for what I said" is better than "I'm sorry if you took what I said the wrong way." "I'm sorry we bombed your embassy" is better than "I regret the suffering you experienced upon learning of the bombing of your embassy, and the suffering, though it was surely quite brief, of any who were in your bombed embassy, and indeed the suffering of anyone in any bombed building anywhere in the world today is something I regret, even if it was accidental, in fact I regret all suffering. It is sad that there is suffering. I regret it. OK?" "I'm sorry your pilot is dead" is better than "I'm sorry if your pilot's death has caused irrational national mourning." It is also better than "I'm sorry our airplane knocked your pilot out of the air," which is in turn better than "I'm sorry if our airplane knocking your pilot out of the air is something you insist on taking as a national insult." Having established that "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" is far better than "I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings" we might also note that specificity is also a crowd-pleaser in apologies: "I'm sorry." "For what?" "Everything." "You mean for standing me up at the restaurant, making a pass at my best friend and telling my mother it was my fault for drunkenly cracking up your car when in fact it was you who totaled it when you swerved to run over a frog?" "Yeah, yeah." "Say it!" "OK, OK, I'm sorry about standing you up, I'm sorry about hitting on Chris, I'm sorry about what I said to your mom, OK? I'm sorry!" "What about the frog? Are you sorry about the frog?" Here the dialogue can go two ways: "Yes, I'm sorry about the frog." "Thank you. I appreciate the apology." Or: "No, I'm not sorry about the frog. The frog was asking for it. The frog kept me up all night with his incessant croaking and this whole thing would never have happened if I was better rested." "Oh? Well, I don't think we can be together until you've learned to accept responsibility." "Oh? Well, maybe you should tell Chris that. Chris understands how I feel about frogs. I'm going to call Chris right now." Because specificity is so valuable, "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings," while good, is not quite as good as "I'm sorry I called you flaming dog poop." We now understand that the "if" in "I'm sorry if my calling you flaming dog poop hurt your feelings" is not good, implying as it does: "I'm sorry if my calling you flaming dog poop wasn't something that you were able to accept in the lighthearted spirit of give-and-take in which it was intended and in which most well-balanced people certainly would have taken it. My previous significant other -- God, how I miss that merry jokester! -- wouldn't have minded a bit." There are various wording subtleties that can confuse the distinction between "sorry" and "sorry if." "Sorry for" is one such variant. "I'm sorry for what I did" is OK. "I'm sorry for you" has come to be a deadly insult and is often used in "sorry if" phrases: "I'm sorry for you if you can't understand that 'space cadet' is a term of endearment" or "I'm sorry for you if you can't see that my setting your clothes alight was a friendly joke, a gesture of intimacy." Fooling with the basic "I'm sorry" formula is not as good an idea as you think. "Regret" and "rue" just make people suspicious. "Remorse" can work, though, especially if you describe just how eaten through you are with it. "I apologize" is good, although if you have a history of issuing weasel apologies it can be worrisome: What kind of apology did you make? Was it a "sorry" or a "sorry if"? Tip: If you secretly feel that your apology left your pride unbowed, it may have been a weasel apology. To sum up: "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings": good. "I'm sorry I made fun of the way you walk": better. "I'm sorry if my making fun of the way you walk hurt your feelings": bad. These rules do not describe the entire world of apologies. Creative souls will always find their own way. "I'm sorry if it seemed like I was making fun of the way you walk: I was bringing my sister her purse and I choked on a moth at the same time as I slipped on a dead frog and turned my ankle": good if you can carry it off.

Which other post? I can't find it.

Originally posted by Rahima: You’re so innocent HA. Castro invented the whole movement of saqajaanimo just like his ancestor discovered camels. It’s a family tradition of discoveries . Reasonable people would agree that this is an unambiguous declaration of hostilities. Now, the question is, does the aggressor have the same defences as the offences she boasts?

Waryaa Horn, ina kaladaa saaxib. I'm trying to cut down on some of the nonsense that goes on here. Here we have someone advising others to relinquish clannism but if you mention his clan or his hometown, he'd turn red and start foaming at the mouth. That's the kinda rubbish I have to deal with. So, while you, and may be others, are busy questioning my 'somalinimo', I'm out to do some house cleaning. You know, calling a spade what it is.

Originally posted by Curling Waterfall: I must be the only one who doesnt get the 'bun' joke Atheer don't sweat it, even Sherlock 'Rahima' Holmes had no clue what the 'bun' joke was about. You know what a pun is right? Well, some time ago, someone mistakenly called a pun, bun. Playing on that misshap, I used that as a double joke as in gay = happy, but it also means homo. That's where the 'bun' part comes as in buttocks. Capisce? I know. Weird, huh?. Hey, it wasn't meant for the average reader. Brown is the only one that got it I think.