As long as we are fiddling with grammar, I have been on a campaign for years to allow an exception for switching to the third person when dealing with indefinite gender. Using “he or she,” is a horrible reaction to gender neutrality. Choosing which sex comes first is also gender bias. When should it be “she or he”? Shouldn’t they alternate? If there are an odd number of instances, one will inevitably still be dominant.Using the third person “they,” is a much more elegant solution and could also include transexuals and whatever other combination may emerge someday. So what if it violates another trivial man-made rule that is no longer useful?

Good: Easy to park and not likely to be stolen.Bad: You would need a shoulder harness with mirrors to see where you are going, but you would never get there because of all the people stopping to ask, WTF?!.

Maybe the psychosis of insisting on using “I,” is the reason English became the dominant language of global commerce, and the focus on the individual rather than the community has resulted in a psychotic world bent on self-destruction.There is really no time in history when one could say that the world was not psychotic, but changing a simple rule of grammar might be the cheapest way to save the planet.

I believe that the interrobang has already been universally simplified to wtf. No need for special characters.

It’s odd that Michael Lerner didn’t even ask about 9/11, or Iraq. Either he failed to predict 9/11, which would have exposed serious flaws in his method since it claims to be so granular in everything else, or he did predict it, which would expose criminal negligence by the administration and lies about having advanced warnings, or a conspiracy to allow it to happen.

Lerner didn’t bother to ask about Iraq either. Two major inexcusable lapses in basic journalism. I can believe Cheney would have ignored the warning about Iraq. If this article is for real, I can’t believe he didn’t know about it.

How can a claim that the National Security Advisor/Secretary of State is the co-author, fail to include any reference to the greatest catastrophes of out time?

This story smells like one of those CIA plants.

I predict that the 3% failure rate of Bueno de Mesquita’s system, included 9/11 and Iraq.

Please do not expect us to believe he was not consulted before hand about these easily avoidable national catastrophes. I am at a loss to understand why he was not asked such an obvious question by the interviewer.

I am at a still greater loss to understand why I haven’t seen this in the major media by now. I’m sure Dr. Rice will clear up all our questions when the book come out.

Yeah, sure.

As long as we are fiddling with grammar, I have been on a campaign for years to allow an exception for switching to the third person when dealing with indefinite gender. Using “he or she,” is a horrible reaction to gender neutrality. Choosing which sex comes first is also gender bias. When should it be “she or he”? Shouldn’t they alternate? If there are an odd number of instances, one will inevitably still be dominant.Using the third person “they,” is a much more elegant solution and could also include transexuals and whatever other combination may emerge someday. So what if it violates another trivial man-made rule that is no longer useful?

Good: Easy to park and not likely to be stolen.Bad: You would need a shoulder harness with mirrors to see where you are going, but you would never get there because of all the people stopping to ask, WTF?!.

Maybe the psychosis of insisting on using “I,” is the reason English became the dominant language of global commerce, and the focus on the individual rather than the community has resulted in a psychotic world bent on self-destruction.There is really no time in history when one could say that the world was not psychotic, but changing a simple rule of grammar might be the cheapest way to save the planet.

I believe that the interrobang has already been universally simplified to wtf. No need for special characters.

It’s odd that Michael Lerner didn’t even ask about 9/11, or Iraq. Either he failed to predict 9/11, which would have exposed serious flaws in his method since it claims to be so granular in everything else, or he did predict it, which would expose criminal negligence by the administration and lies about having advanced warnings, or a conspiracy to allow it to happen.

Lerner didn’t bother to ask about Iraq either. Two major inexcusable lapses in basic journalism. I can believe Cheney would have ignored the warning about Iraq. If this article is for real, I can’t believe he didn’t know about it.

How can a claim that the National Security Advisor/Secretary of State is the co-author, fail to include any reference to the greatest catastrophes of out time?

This story smells like one of those CIA plants.

I predict that the 3% failure rate of Bueno de Mesquita’s system, included 9/11 and Iraq.

Please do not expect us to believe he was not consulted before hand about these easily avoidable national catastrophes. I am at a loss to understand why he was not asked such an obvious question by the interviewer.

I am at a still greater loss to understand why I haven’t seen this in the major media by now. I’m sure Dr. Rice will clear up all our questions when the book come out.

Yeah, sure.