On the Threshold of Bigotry

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Respectfully submitted on behalf of those who ask: When do minority opinions become so correct and true that those who hold them can call those who don’t “bigots”?

---

Nonsensical question. Bigotry isn't about minority or majority opinions. It isn't about "correctness." Instead, bigotry is withholding from others that which you demand for yourself.In the case of your pharmacist, I would presume that he would demand that he be allowed access to the medications his doctor has prescribed for him without having a third party who has no standing stick his nose into the decision that he and his doctor made concerning his medical treatment.Because the pharmacist is denying to others that which he would demand for himself, that makes him a bigot.In the case of your lawyer, nothing changes with regard to those who currently can get married. Nothing is being taken away from them, nothing is being denied them. Therefore, since he is not denying to others that which he is demanding for himself, he is clearly not a bigot.Again, bigotry isn't about a "correct" opinion. If you think abortion is wrong, nobody is going to make you have one. If you think marrying someone of the same sex is a sin, then nobody will force you into one. But insisting that others not be allowed to do what you demand to do yourself is the essence of bigotry.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Is it bigoted to ask: Why can't gays be happy with a DP (domestic partnership) status if it does everything legal for them that a civil union does for married heterosexuals?

---

In the sense of robotically asking the question? No. That's because the answer is quite simple:"Domestic partnership" can never "do everything legal for that a civil union does for married heterosexuals." The law is quite clear on this matter: There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By making a second contract that is called something different from the current contract, you necessarily create a distinction between the two. If they were the same thing, you would use the same name. Because you are not using the same name, you are necessarily indicating that the two are not the same. And if they are not the same, you necessarily indicate that they can be treated differently.We see this in practice: In every state that has tried to "keep the name" of marriage but provide for same-sex couples, the contract that has been drawn up has always been different from the contract for mixed-sex couples. Even in Vermont where the courts there told the legislature that they had to come up with a solution that provided identical rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples that are provided for mixed-sex couples, the legislature came up with a "civil union" contract that was not identical to marriage.In California, where the legislature was trying to do the same thing, the "domestic partnership" arrangement they came up with did not provide identical rights and responsibilities that "marriage" provided.Since it is impossible to treat different things the same, the only solution that guarantees equality at all levels at all times is to have only one.That's the robotic answer to the robotic question. But, people aren't robots. The reason you keep getting tagged as a bigot is not because you ask the question. It's because despite knowing the answer to the question, you still persist in claiming that there is something different all the while insisting that you're not trying to denigrate anybody despite your specific descriptions of groups of people in disparaging terms.That is, you are asking the question not because you actually want to know the answer but because you want to find some sort of justification for denying to others that which you demand for yourself.And that's what bigotry is.

quote:

---

My new definition of a bigot: Anyone who is so indisposed by his or her beliefs that he or she must invoke the term "bigot" against holders of an adversarial opinion.

---

Ah, yes...the silly claim that refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because the pharmacist is denying to others that which he would demand for himself, that makes him a bigot.

---

​

If the Pharmacist was preventing the patron from getting the drug anywhere then you would have a point, but no free person should be forced to act against their own will.

---

And if the pharmacist were being forced to be a pharmacist, then you would have a point. But he is not being forced to act against his own will, so he must comply with the oath he took as a pharmacist when he got licensed. If he cannot handle the requirements of being a pharmacist (which is to assist the doctor and patient who are the ones who decide what the treatment is going to be), then he should find another line of work.

quote:

---

If a mechanic suggested someone get new tires but the tire salesmen wouldn't sell tires for 14 inch rims would he be a bigot?

---

Out of a deliberate act, yes. The salesman, we presume, would expect that the decision he and his mechanic made regarding his need for new tires would not be foiled by a third party who has no standing.Denying to others that which you demand for yourself is bigotry.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you think abortion is wrong, nobody is going to make you have one.

---

​

And even if you think abortion is right, nobody is going to make you have one. So what?

---

That's the point. The act of bigotry is denying to others that which you demand for yourself. Whether or not you think abortion is right or wrong is immaterial.If you don't want the pharmacist contravening the decision you and your doctor made regarding your medical treatment, then you can't be that contravening agent with regard to someone else.

quote:

---

This whole diddy of yours, Rhain, is that gays would suffer somehow if they couldn't call their domestic partnership or their legal civil unions "marrriages."

---

Since every single attempt to create a "civil union" has resulted in a contract that is not identical to marriage, you're going to have to justify your claim that no harm is being done.

quote:

---

You're all atwitter over a single word that means a civil union between a man and a woman.

---

(*chuckle*)Nice try, but that's my argument to you. I don't care what the contract is called. Whether the sole legal contract is called "Red" or "Blue" is immaterial. The only thing that is important is that there is only one contract.Now, given that there are literally thousands of laws written that refer to a contract that is called "marriage," it would be a nightmare trying to change them all. And this raises the question of what to do with all of those people who have "marriage" licenses. Do they need to turn it in to get a "Red" license?Contrary to your claim, it is not I who is "all atwitter over a single word." If you're so insistent on keeping it separate (see...you think there's a difference, which means they're not the same, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that they are), then you are the one who needs to come up with a new word for your contract. If you want to call your relationship a "special friendship," you go right ahead. It's your relationship.

quote:

---

I'll give you everything you want except the word

---

And so who's the one going into apoplexy over the word?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

a third party who has no standing.

---

​

The pharmacist has standing as a person being required to act.

---

But not as a medical practitioner. The course of treatment was decided by the doctor in concert with the patient. For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license. When he became a licensed pharmacist, he took an oath to behave in a certain way. If he cannot live up to that requirement, then he needs to find another line of work.People's lives are at stake.

quote:

---

This is as lame as the "they can move to another state" crap. One has the right, if capable, to work in ones chosen occupation.

---

Indeed. And if the pharmacist wants to play doctor, then he can become a licensed physician. But he's not a doctor...he's a pharmacist. For him to insert himself between the doctor and the patient is for him to practice medicine without a license.And even if he does decide to become a doctor, he still has no business interfering with the decisions made by the patient in consultation with his doctor. He may be "a" doctor, but he is not "the" doctor that the patient consulted with.That is what being a pharmacist requires.

quote:

---

What is the consideration give by the State in return for requiring the pharmacist for acting against his interests? Allowing him to ply his trade? Coercion does not a valid contract make.

---

"Coercion"? What coercion? If you wish to be a pharmacist, you have to become licensed. You're dealing with potentially lethal chemicals. One of the requirements is that you will behave in an ethical manner.Which means that as a pharmacist, you will not insert yourself between the doctor and the patient. That's not your role. You are not there to practice medicine upon the patient. Not only is the pharmacist not a doctor, but he is also not the patient's doctor.

quote:

---

Are there other tradesmen you think that the State should be able to relegate to servitude?

---

Plenty. Doctors, nurses, emergency personnel, lawyers, etc. When you work for the public trust, you are being charged with assisting those who are in need of help. If a person does not wish to help the public, then jobs involving the public trust are not the ones to enter.

quote:

---

The reasonable interest for government regulation is assurance of competence. Not enforcement of compliance to the social will.

---

Huh? There is more involved with medical treatment than mere assurance of competence. You're dealing with people's lives. When a doctor and patient have decided upon a course of action, it is not for the pharmacist to second guess them. Now, a competent pharmacist will keep track of the medications being taken so that if there is a contraindication, the pharmacist can consult with the doctor to verify treatment. The pharmacist will also be charged with ensuring that the drugs that are prescribed are not being used for illegal purposes. The job of a pharmacist is not just filling bottles.But a pharmacist is not a doctor. He is not the patient's doctor. It is not his place to insert himself between the doctor and patient.

quote:

---

The patron has the right to get the pill

---

Who's he going to get it from if not from the pharmacist? Why are you assuming that there's another one to go to?You have to justify where the pharmacist gets off inserting himself between the doctor and the patient. Since they have decided upon a course of treatment, who is the pharmacist to delay or deny it?That's practicing medicine without a license.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license.

---

​

He's not stepping in, he's stepping out.

---

Let's not play dumb. Where else is a person supposed to get drugs except from a pharmacist? "Stepping out" means that even though the doctor and patient have agreed upon a course of treatment, the phrarmacist has decided that it will not go forward. Since this can be time-sensitive, treatment delayed means treatment denied.Congratulations, dear pharmacist, you've just killed the patient.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why are you assuming that there's another one to go to?

---

​

Firstly, it's irrelevant.

---

Tell that to the dead patient. "We're very sorry, Family Member, but the pharmacist decided that his personal feelings were more important than the life of your relative, even though his job was to help people get the medications they need to live."

quote:

---

Secondly, I didn't assume, I counted them. I didn't count them all, of course. Once I got as high as two .

---

And where, precisely, do you live that you have two? How fortunate for you. And even if there is more than one, what happens when they all decide that they are more important than the people whom they are entrusted to serve? Exactly where is a person supposed to get the medications they need when the pharmacists decide they're not going to do their job?If a substitute can be found such that treatment is not delayed, then that's fine. But that makes it the pharmacist's responsibility to find the substitute, not the patient's. And if no substitute can be found, then it sucks to be the pharmacist, doesn't it? Part of serving the public trust is doing things you wouldn't personally wish to do but you must due to the fact that you are working for the public trust.When you're a public defender, you're the one who needs to defend people you know aren't the ones you really want loose. But because you decided to go into that position, because you took up a position to serve the public trust, not only must you defend them, you must do your best to give them the best defense possible. If you don't, you'll be brought up on charges and depending upon just how much of a failure you are, might possibly get disbarred.By your logic, a public defender should have the right to refuse defending people he doesn't like.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

And that is why we need to get the law out of the business of marriage.

---

But you don't believe that. If you did, you wouldn't have been married three times. You wouldn't refer to them as "marriages." You wouldn't bring this up only when the question is about equality of rights.And most importantly, you wouldn't care what the name was. But you clearly do. As you said yourself, "I'll give you everything you want except the word." Ergo, you really do want the law in the business of marriage...specifically to deny it to gay people.And to deny to others that which you demand for yourself is the definition of bigotry.

quote:

---

But I do care what the laws do, since they affect me whether I like it or not.

---

For the umpteenth time, how does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Will you be required to give them an easement? Will you suddenly be forced to tear down the second story on your house? Will you be forced to walk your dog on the other side of the street?Be specific. How are you affected by the neighbor's marriage?

quote:

---

My apoplexy notwithstanding, it is you who is insisting that "gay marriage" is that same thing as marriage between a man and a woman.

---

"It is you who is insisting that 'interracial marriage' is the same thing as marriage between two whites."If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to gay people?

quote:

---

Rrhain, unless you are illiterate and stupid, which you clearly are not, I am astonished that you can't recognize the difference.

---

I keep asking you to spell out the difference and so far, you haven't been able to come up with a single thing. What, specifically, is the difference?

quote:

---

I wonder if they know where the threshold of bigotry really is, since they are crossing it all the time by way of their accusations.

---

Since you are seeking to deny others that which you demand for yourself, what is it you are having trouble with?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

the laws already apply equally to straights and gays: both are permitted to enter heterosexual marriages

---

"But the laws already apply equally to blacks and whites: Both are permitted to enter into same-race marriages"If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? I have asked you that question straight out numerous times and so far, you haven't answered.

quote:

---

What you and others are calling for is a change in the meaning of marriage

---

So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. It "changed the meaning of marriage," and thus was wrong.If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

And for that I am called a bigot.

---

You wish to deny others that which you demand for yourself. That's the definition of bigotry. What's to be surprised about?

quote:

---

Therefore, the threshold is subjective and impossible to resolve without a popular consesus. No?

---

No. If you wish to deny others that which you demand for yourself, that's bigotry. "Popular consensus" doesn't enter into it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah, yes...the silly claim that refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry.

​

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

​

Rrhain, I do believe your have squared the circle.

---

(*chuckle*)See, in advanced mathematics, squaring the circle is easy because we learned that you don't have to use just a straightedge and compass.Please explain why it is that refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry. How is it that your ability to not marry someone of the same sex is hampered by letting the neighbors do so if they choose?How are you affected by the neighbor's marriage?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I don't oppose legalizing DPs for gays. And whatever the insurance companies do is a private matter with their subscribers.

---

So you want a separate and unequal contract for gays, denying to them that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Bigotry has an unmistakable negative connotation attached to it. And while we all feel justified in calling someone else a bigot, usually to denigrate them, the reality is we are all a little suspect.

---

So? Your argument seems to be that because all are found wanting, that makes it OK.To quote Breathed: Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.

quote:

---

But, hey, maybe that's my own bigoted thinking manifesting itself.

---

You seek to deny others that which you demand for yourself. What part of that are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

Those of us who are bigoted towards rapists are quite happy being utterly intolerant to it -- I know I am.

---

Why? What part of "due process" are you having trouble with? I will remember this when you become subject to the power of the state that you are perfectly happy doing away with it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

It's like the term "homophobe." Not only does the word make no sense in conjunction with the prefix and the suffix

---

Ah, yes...the homophobe's complaint. Upon being caught in their bigotry, they complain about the term.What part of the portmanteau of "homosexual" and "phobia" are you having trouble with? "But I'm not scared of gays!" I hear you cry. And yet, clearly you are.A "phobia" is an irrational fear of something, usually because there is no actual threat. And yet, the behaviour of those that get termed "homophobes" clearly indicate that they are scared of something for which there is no threat. When asked to define just what it is that would change were gay people to be treated the same way as straight people, no answer is ever given.F'rinstance, I have asked you and Hoot Mon many times just what exactly will happen if gay people are allowed to get married and the only thing that has been mentioned is some harebrained scheme about Social Security as if straight people don't already do that and as if there were a significant number of gays to make a noticeable difference. In short, the only thing that was said was a claim that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.And what is that if not an irrational fear of gay people.Ergo, "homophobia."

quote:

---

but it is also slung around rather carelessly by those who would slander someone who seems even slightly in opposition to their view.

---

Right...because the denial of fundamental rights to people who are gay is of no consequence. Pointing it out is "slander."Someone who is secure in his sexuality doesn't worry about the sex lives of other people because he knows it doesn't affect him. Why on earth get upset over something that he will never encounter?If you don't like having sex with someone of the same sex, then don't have any. Nobody is going to make you do so. So since there is no threat, why are you so agitated?

quote:

---

Does this help clarify at all?

---

Indeed. You want the right to be able to poke your nose into other people's lives, uninvited, and shout, "EWWW!" all the while expecting nobody to respond that nobody asked you for your opinion.Go ahead and have your opinion. Nobody cares what it is. Even let other people know what it is. Being rude is everybody's right.It becomes bigotry when you decide that other people don't get to do what you demand you be allowed to.

quote:

---

And their use of the word often indicates their own bias, their own prejudices, and their own... bigotry.

---

So refusing to accept bigotry is...bigotry?Right.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

As I have said before, over and over again, I'm willing to share the arbitrary legal advantages with everyone.

---

No, you're not. Married people get insurance benefits. Since you don't want to allow gay people to get married, then you don't want gay people to have that which you demand for yourself.The only way to guarantee equality under the law is to have a single contract for everyone. But you don't want that. You want to keep them separate. But by keeping them separate, you necessary make the legal statement that there is a difference between the two. If they were the same, there'd only be one contract. Because there is two, that necessarily means there is a distinction to be drawn. And if there is a distinction to be drawn, that necessarily means that there can be legal effects based upon that distinction.And that means the contracts are not equal no matter how many times people insist that they are. After all, every single time a state has come up with a "civil union" contract distinct from marriage, even though they were ordered to make it identical to marriage, it wound up being different: Rights and responsibilities that were granted to those under the contract of marriage did not wind up in the "civil union" contract.How many times do you need to be taught the "separate but equal" lesson before it sticks?

quote:

---

I'm willing to grant gays legal DP or civil-union status.

---

But that isn't the same thing as marriage. Therefore, you want to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

What I am such a dirty rotten bigot for is insisting that "marriage" is a civil union only between a man and a woman.

---

Because you want to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself.What part of that are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

Let the gays get their DPs and have all the legal frosting on their civil-union cake.

---

But a "domestic partnership" and a "civil union" do not carry the same legal standing as a "marriage," this necessarily means you wish to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

But I guess it is "bogus, blind and based on bigotry" to ask them to come up with their own term, like "garriage" or "fairriage" or something that fits their special situation.

---

What "special situation"? Be specific.You're the one having a conniption fit over the word. Therefore, since you're the one that wants to make a distinction between your relationship and those who are married, it is your responsibility to come up with a new term for your "special friendship."

quote:

---

That's all I have on my protest flag against "gay marriage," which still seems to me to be an oxymoron.

---

"That's all I have on my protest flag against 'interracial marriage,' which still seems to me to be an oxymoron."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

And I'm rather proud to be bigoted against suicide bombers.

---

And look how well it turned out for us. Back in 1993 when we treated it as a law enforcement issue and made sure that the law was followed, we caught the perpetrators and locked them up where they can't do any more damage.When we decided to follow the bigotry of denying them the same due process we would demand for ourselves, we let them get away where they attacked other people.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

Sucks even more to live in a small town, San Diego (say hi to my brother) for instance, where there is only one pharmacist.

---

(*chuckle*)What makes you think I have my pick of pharmacists? I have to drive out of my way to go to the pharmacy that will fill my prescriptions because the one that's nearby isn't on my insurance plan.

quote:

---

You realize, of course, that the Dr. could have supplied the RU 486, the medicine in question.

---

Really? There's a pharmacy in the office?

quote:

---

Not that it's relevant, people aren't public utilities.

---

I never said they were. I said the job was one to serve the public trust. People choose to take on the responsibilities of the job. That's why we have the phrase, "comes with the job."

quote:

---

Your public defender is an example. It's his job to do his job as decided by his employer.

---

And who is the employer? There are two entities involved, you know: There's the state who is the one who provides the lawyer in the first place. And then there's the client who will direct the lawyer. By taking a job as a public defender, you will be required to defend people you wouldn't normally choose. But it "comes with the job." You're there to serve the public trust.

quote:

---

"In the public trust" applies to government EMPLOYEES. Not to self-employed pharmacists.

---

So an EMT is...what, precisely? They're not employed by the government. So are you suggesting that an ambulance company has the right to deny treatment to people they are charged with helping?

quote:

---

Self-determination comes at the price of having to give it to others as well. Even pharmacists.

---

Indeed. If they self-determine to become a pharmacist, then they are required to engage in the activities that "come with the job."Query: Should a pharmacist be allowed to deny treatment based upon the race or sex of the person asking? If not, why are they allowed to deny treatment based upon the medication?Remember: A doctor can prescribe any medication for any reason. Why does the patient need to explain to the pharmacist why they are getting a prescription? The pharmacist's assumption of the use is just that: An assumption. Given HIPAA restrictions, where does the pharmacist get the notion that he has a right to know the diagnosis of the patient?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.