http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspxWhile it's true that Grey's Anatomy is pretty formulaic so we shouldn't expect any surprises, let's not forget that Desperate Housewives has a dead character who still features relatively prominently and Six Feet Under routinely featured dead charactersen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60556Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:26:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60556 Jack Weber, Fairbanks, AKAck! I finally got used to the other format, and now the whole article's on the main page again! What gives?http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60578Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:53:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60578JE, DetroitIn regards to the Grey's topic at the beginning of your post: I agree with you that they could kill him off. And having the show named after your character doesn't guarantee immunity! There used to be a show in the 80's called Valerie, until they killed Valerie off--then they changed the name to The Hogan Family. She was never mentioned in the show again. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60629Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:23:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60629Will FemiaJack, that was me forgetting a few steps before publishing. :)http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60660Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60660PB, Milwaukee, WIThe Power of Makeup is a little misleading. I believe the Extreme Makeover show was not just hair and makeup, but also plastic surgery and weeks of dieting and exercise.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60665Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:06:36 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60665Chuck H., Summerville, SCHi Will. Love your blog, but your flowcharts kinda struck a nerve with me. Not that there might not be some validity to it, but frankly I'm so tired of people who know nothing of faith constantly deriding those of us who base our life on it, at least in part if not all. Frankly, I've known of and read of plenty of people in the scientific community who were so set on a theory that they refused to ignore evidence to the contrary, and there are plenty of faith-based people who do pay attention to evidence and fact. For "objective" thinkers to easily lump everyone into these two categories is, honestly, not something that holds up to evidence. This sort of bias is just as destructive as the against-all-evidence-faith these people are so self-righteously trying to deride. The idea that people of faith are just sheep is becoming prominent, and is completely wrong. Would MLK Jr, Gandhi, or Mother Theresa qualify as "sheep?" I think we would all agree no, but yet their life and work was, at least in part, molded by their faith. Faith is not meant to make us sheep (contrary to what the "logical ccommunity" would have you believe). I will agree that there are many who use it as a crutch, never turning on their minds for anything. But, quite frankly, this isn't a state of faith so much as it is just a state of most humans, in general. But that's a whole other post.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60683Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:35:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60683Stephon Hollywood, FlIn regards to the "McMissle" case. I dont understand what the commotion is about. She could of killed those people by throwing something into there car. When i was driving home,there were 6 teenagers throwing water balloons into my car from the back of a pickup causeing me to swerve off the road. My girlfriend was in the passenger seat,She could of died. We cant tolerate this kind of behavior.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60695Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:44:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60695AdamThrowing something at a moving car is pretty serious. In this case, it didn't cause an accident, but it very well may have. While two years does seem a bit much, I'm bothered by the fact that the woman who threw the cup doesn't seem sorry for what she did. It seems to me that a plea deal for less time or community service could have easily been reached... my guess is the cup thrower refused such a deal, assuming the jury would find her innocent. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60701Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:45:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60701Sandy PerchanceThe Deniers of Evolution will always fall back on their Faith when challenged on their assumptions of Racial Equality and why different human races have so different abilities. Anyway, keep up the great work, Will! http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60714Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:57:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60714Erwin, Providence RIWill, about your makeup link. Some of those girls are actually from a makeover show and recieved extensive surgery. Some things not even makeup can do.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60777Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:55:59 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60777Ben Johnson, Chicago ILRegarding the 'McMissile' case, the jury should have found her not guilty, even though she clearly was guilty according to the law. In cases where the 'minimum punishment' is clearly overkill for the circumstances, the resulting punishment does not fit the crime, making it unconstitutional to find her guilty. Everyone needs to read up on jury nullification; it is the people's last defense against unjust laws. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60793Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:16:33 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60793Laura, ChicagoThose makeovers are purely done with make-up. I believe a few of them were on the reality show The Swan and so some have received cosmetic surgery, as well (and weeks of supervised diet and exercise). You can tell in some shots that show a before picture with teeth and an after picture with teeth. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60833Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:42:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60833Ali, Morton, IllinoisThis blog is anti religious. Bigoted if I may say so. No more MSNBC for me.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60851Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:50:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60851Neesha, CanadaWhile I agree that the 2 year sentence was harsh (community service makes more sense), I have to also agree with some comments I've read on a message board about this topic. No one would be complaining about the sentence if the throwing of the cup had caused the driver in the other car to have an accident. Now, of course, all we get is "he said/she said" in the article on what happened. But I don't agree with people saying that because she had 3 (unruly) kids in the car and a pregnant sister that she had the "right" to have road rage. Control your kids and just calm down, if you have to pull over and get the kids or your anger under control. Also, the sister should have a seat-belt on, how did she manage to almost hit the dashboard? I could understand if they were going really fast and had to stop suddenly that she'd be flung forward against the seatbelt, but from what I understand they were in a traffic jam which was just moving. I don't blame the jury as they gave her the lightest sentence they could. Unfortunately their only other choice was to say she was not guilty even though she had admitted to throwing the cup. Now it's up to the judge.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60893Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:02:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60893Dennis, Long Beach CAWill, I enjoy your blog and read it almost daily. However, an anti-religious that I have noted seems apparent today. The "Flow Charts" link is really just an ad hominem attack. People of faith often have better reasons for what they believe than some of the "science" we see bandied about these days. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60902Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:06:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60902Bob, St. LouisWill, although you included a Google Cache link for the Hunter’s original post, you forgot to include a link for his “abject apology”. Here it is: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ldEAJHvKgc0J:outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html+http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us It’s amazing how fast and hard he backtracked in the face of that outrage. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60929Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:18:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60929Will FemiaBob, that entry hadn't made it into the cache when I checked last night. I've added it. Thanks.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#60965Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:33:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:60965Jessica, SLC, UTI was almost hit yesterday by someone who pulled into my lane without looking. The front of my truck was even with her back door so this isn't even just being cutoff, it's being run off the road. I had my two 5 month old babies in the back, and the thought of almost getting into an accident because some moron couldn't use her neck muscles made me incredibly angry...but I resisted the urge to run her over and pull her out of the car and beat her senseless even though I wanted to badly. The reason I never act on my road rage (other that yelling from the car) is because you never know who might be carrying a gun in their car. That lady is lucky she didn't get shot after flinging her "missile."http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61000Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:46:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61000HopeWill, I was surprised to see myself in one of the photos in your makeup link. It was taken by my wedding makeup artist before and after she did my makeup trial. Im not sure about any of the other photos but when she took mine, she had me wash my face and pull back my hair so she could get a "good" before shot (I don't actually look like me in my before shot, which i think was the point) if you would like to see a normal photo of me let me know and I would be happy to send it!http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61045Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:01:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61045JE, DetroitWow. I've been reading this blog for a long time and I never even realized it qualified as anti-religious! Now I'm going to enjoy it twice as much! Seriously, people. Get a grip. I'm about as anti-religion as you can get, but I don't get the anti-religion "vibe" from Will. I was actually very surprised to see that flow chart here. (Surprised, but happy--my respect for Will jumped many notches). When I need a good dose of anti-faith, this is not the blog I come to. Will provides links to interesting stuff. Period. Some of that stuff will appeal to you, some won't. I've found him linking to bloggers who are quite conservative, giving a viewpoint I wholeheartedly disagree with. Big deal. I skip over that stuff. When I find a great link, I don't care about the politics or religion of the person who provided it. But then again, I'm a liberal, and that's why liberals are so great. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61046Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:01:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61046Will FemiaWow, I didn't expect such a strong reaction to the flow charts. If someone wants to draw up another set of charts, I'll link to it. I'm thinking the other perspective would have the science all wishy washy, making one declaration after another with ideas coming from grant money and commercial incentives instead of theories and evidence and there'd be a box in there about distorting the findings in a ridiculously over simplified version released to the public. The religion side probably wouldn't have "get an idea" as the starting point. The "ignore evidence" part might have more boxes that have to do with testing and exploring faith. Would there be a "reinterpret faith in light of new evidence" box? Anyway, if someone wants to re-do this cartoon in a pro-religion light, let me know and I'll link.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61057Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:07:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61057Will FemiaHope! Wow! Are you angry? Did you know your photos were going to be spread all over the Web?http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61063Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:10:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61063Erik, Austin, TX"This blog is anti religious. Bigoted if I may say so. No more MSNBC for me. Ali, Morton, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:42 PM)" I think Will has always made a pretty good case for all points of view. Some people don't seem to realize that he didn't create this content, he simply clicked on it. As for the poster I quoted above, good riddance.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61073Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:16:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61073Neesha, CanadaJust another note about the mcmissile case... In the article (well the version I found on msnbc) there's a line that reads: "Under state law, the judge can only decrease the jury's sentence." Based on that, I go back to my comment from before that says, let's wait to see what the Judge does first. I do have to say to Ben Johnson, maybe finding her not guilty would be a good stand against the law, but just think of how many people would take that as it being OK to throw things at cars. Hopefully, this law will now be looked at and they can reword it to better apply to all situations, maybe a different minimum sentence if no one was injured by the action.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61177Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:55:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61177John BrakFor the victim's sake, I'm glad the felonious McMissile chunker got two years. An ex-girlfriend threw a cup of cold coffee on me once and I cannot describe the shock and panic attacks I suffered for months around beverages. I would insist on being notified of her release. (If the driving didn't tick her off, I'm sure me pursuing her indictment and two years of incarceration sure will!)http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61192Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:00:43 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61192Paul, Alamo, CAThe "Flow Charts" was clearly supposed to show a fundamental difference in the methods and model of Science vs. Religion. It represented the way Science as a body (group) is supposed to work. Of course some scientists ignore contrary evidence, but that is what peer review is for (and that does work very well). Religion by nature is about faith in what you cannot test. The flow chart was a little unfair, but it was showing that the model is not based on a continuous changing and adapting and even discarding of whole theories (beliefs); religions of the world do not change and adapt much, and not through that kind of process; most change based on councils deciding to make small changes here and there, but not based on the same kind of process. A better flow chart might show a new religion branching out in response to new information as well as some changing a bit in response to changing times. But, instead of calling it anti-religious, perhaps someone can explain how religion uses a feedback model to adapt to new information? It is also notable that religions are "grand unifying theories", of which Science has none (in spite of trying). That said, it is also true that Science goes through the equivalent of the Anglican split every so often. For example, String theory in Physics is a current case (although no bombs involved so far). And, certainly you have the equivalent of "sects" in Science who will hold onto a discredited theory for a while. So, the flow chart gives Science a bit too much credit if looked at in the short term.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61218Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:12:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61218Isaac Luria, University of FloridaWill, car and motorcycle batteries have a series of electrodes dipped into a dense electrolyte liquid usually lead acid. The electrolyte fluid allows for the free flow of ions to produce its charge. The chemistry is a little more complicated than that, but basically the ions allow electricity to flow through the liquid. When you shake the battery, you loosen up all the crud and corrosion that builds up on the electrodes and simultaneously mix the electrolyte fluid restoring a small amount of of the ions to solution. That's why this works. Obviously this only works for liquid electrolyte batteries like for cars, not for most other batteries (they are called "dry cells" for a reason!) Hope that explains the concept. P.S. People so eager to be offended by flow charts ought to get a grip. How can people who profess to have the strongest faith also declare that it is threatened by a flow chart (or a 9 year old girl taking communion with a gluten-free wafer if you remember that story)?http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61348Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:01:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61348HopeWill, I am kind of annoyed a picture of me was put up without my permission for all the web to see without any context other than "look what we can do!" I'm trying to figure out If I can be taken out of it, but I doubt it. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61405Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:20:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61405Ben Johnson, Chicago IL"I do have to say to Ben Johnson, maybe finding her not guilty would be a good stand against the law, but just think of how many people would take that as it being OK to throw things at cars. Hopefully, this law will now be looked at and they can reword it to better apply to all situations, maybe a different minimum sentence if no one was injured by the action." I do not think someone should receive an unjust punishment before the public does something about an unjust law. True, jury nullification may result in some 'encouragement' for further criminal behavior, but it would also force the public to realize the unjust law must be changed ASAP. Criminal law does take into account extenuating circumstances in murder trials (crimes of passion etc); also, the effect of the crime is considered (attempted murder vs murder). I do not see why either the law should not have been written differently, or they should get rid of the minimum punishment. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#61477Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:44:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:61477AN, Los AngelesRe The Power of Makeup: It should be the Power of Hair and Makeup and Wardrobe and Lighting and maybe even a little Stocking-over-the-lens fun. Having been a headshot photog in NYC (doing makeup myself), it's all about controlling the shot. Most of these extreme "after" women don't look like that in real life, or say, on video. That's why the before and after shots are in different places with different lighting.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#62666Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:02:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:62666Thom, Grandville, MIHere is another nice flowchart for your entertainment: http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/index.htmlhttp://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#63039Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:10:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:63039EdScience Fanatics are just as dangerous and ignorant as Religious Fanatics. Keep in mind, I am not talking about RESPONSIBLE scientists, but the ones who make false claims, invent research results, and generally mislead people to get the result they want. Don't deny the fact that they are out there. I know most of you will say, "Those people are not representative of the scientific community." Well, guess what? Religious Fanatics are not representative of the people in this country who truly have faith in God-any god. Fanatics of any kind are dangerous. People should not be judged for the things they believe, but for the actions they take. That is why Fanatics -religous, science, sports, anything- are dangerous.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#63078Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:42:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:63078Paul, Alamo, CAI have to go with Ben on this "McMissile" case. First of all, just because one case is vacated or nullified does not mean all cases are. If someone thinks it is license to start throwing things from cars, they are likely to find out the hard way that it is not true. The point is that punishment should fit the crime. We already mete out harsher sentences when people are harmed in various crimes, as well as based on intent. Although it is possible that someone could be hurt from a paper cup full of ice, the chances are very very slim, especially as they were going at very low speed (and both cars were going at the same speed). The woman was well aware of that factor (if they had been going 70mph, things would be very different). The problem is that the minimum sentence is an abuse of the justice system and does degrade people's faith in it (such as with this case).http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#63962Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:26:35 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:63962Paul, Alamo, CAEd, although I agree that Science crazies/fringe are out there, I do not agree that it is 1:1 comparable with religion. The point of the flowchart is that religion based decisions are not made based on testable evidence, in the way that Science is. In fact, what allows Science to weed out the lunatics is precisely this. If they make a claim, others can try the same experiment or pick apart their method and discredit their conclusions/theory. In religion, you are basing it on belief that is not testable. I cannot reproduce your test to determine if your God is the "right" one. I cannot reproduce a test to determine if your savior died and was resurrected, or went into the desert and received God's word, or heard from an Angel, etc. I agree that Religion is only an "issue" when someone uses it to make decisions for others (e.g. what is taught in school). But, unfortunately, it is more than just the fanatics who feel religion charges them with the right to tell others how they can and cannot live.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#64550Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:44:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:64550Emma MorrowIt's not that people are upset about flowcharts, people are upset about the mindset of those MAKING the bigoted flowcharts and those that take such delight in them. Religious Bigotry comes in many forms: making devious illustrations falsely depicting another's views is certainly one of those forms. Don't honor such Hate Speech by linking to them from your site.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#64564Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:52:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:64564Fannie BarkerBut does science really weed out the lunatics in time? Just look at the debate about Global Warming - it's certainly reached a religious fervor, driven almost entirely by politics. I won't trust an Environmental Scientist for another two generations, at least, for the scam they are trying to foist over us now.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#65069Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:35:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:65069Gary, Reston, VAWith regard to the "McMissle" case, in Virginia the jury cannot recommend a sentence below the statutory minimum. The judge, however, can review the case and alter the sentence downward (only) in the interests of justice. In this case, the judge has done just that and sentenced the defendant to time served and five years probation. According to the news reports she is supposed to be released today (Thursday).http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#65574Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:10:14 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:65574Paul, Alamo, CA"Just look at the debate about Global Warming" -- Uh Fannie, I am not sure I understand your point about Global warming. Scientists around the world are quite convinced, including those from outside that specialty (once they look at the data). I am thinking maybe you have been the victim of politically motivated smears trying to suggest it is not real? We are not talking about local weather effects, but issues at the polar caps and unprecedented changes in the ocean currents. Any (legitimate) debate has been over details, not the connection between Carbon (CO/CO2) and impact on atmospheric conditions, and how they are affecting temperature averages.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60344.aspx#69864Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:03:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:69864Clint, Bates City, MOThis is in response to your 2-19-07 entry. I know it's a little late, but I'm a week behind, what can I say. Yet again you post to a link that potentially can lock up my machine, Windows 2000 XP Home Edition that is current with all published Microsoft Updates other than IE7. The specific link is to wired.com that then suggests a link to Creative Commons. I know you are not responsible for Wired, but damn, it seems someone somewhere would catch this stuff. I encounter this situation about once a month, either directly from your site or the sites you offer links to. It's extremely frustrating. If you think that the problem is associated with me or how I'm using my machine I challenge you to query your readers.