OOX XXX d?

[Jack]

Whistle question.

I realised on my cane low F whistle I can get (the equivalent) of a second octave d in three ways.

XXX XXX
OXX XXX
or
OOX XXX

In theory, isn't that last one not supposed to work? It doesn't really work on any other whistle.

[Bloomfield]

I am not so sure that it would help to discover that homosexuality or heterosexuality are genetically based. The gay rights movement, in its infancy, fought very hard to establish that sexual orientation was not a matter based on the body. At that time the prevalent medical view (forget the Church) was that homosexuality was an illness. Something that could more or less be treated, and something that one caught like influenza or perhaps better like depression or hysteria. Certainly not a choice.

If you look around today, the movement has been successful in establishing that sexual orientation which deviates from the heterosexual norm is not an illness. If homosexuality turns out to be genetic, wouldn't people start regarding it as a disease again, like trisomia or other genetic defects that the medical profession is hoping to treat and cure some day?

[Jack]

Oh my God, I love you Bloomfield!

[antstastegood]

Doesn't work on my Clarke. But the odd thing about my Clarke is that I can get a second octave E with OXXXXO.

[Jack]

Quote @ antstastegood

Doesn't work on my Clarke. But the odd thing about my Clarke is that I can get a second octave E with OXXXXO.

Mine, too!!

[Bloomfield]

This is a picture of my cat. His name is "She", or "She, Herself" for short.

[Jack]

Awwww. Is he really your cat? She is beautiful! A cutie pie if there ever was one!

[Bloomfield]

Awwww. Is he really your cat? She is beautiful! A cutie pie if there ever was one!

On the internet no one knows whether you have a cat.

[Jack]

Nobody knows if you have an STD, either. Right, Nanohedron?

Bloomfield, I wasn't sure if you were just being frivilous (nothing wrong with that!) or really wanted a response to your first post so I made this tiny.

Just because something is biological doesn't mean it's an illness. Being born with homosexuality will be the same as being born with blue eyes. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) affect your ability to live a normal productive life. Your genes cause your eyes to be blue, and no professional is going to come out with "we need to change your eye color, it's an illness". Point is, it isn't long until homosexuality is widely seen as a natural variant of being normal, all around the world. It is normal.

[Bloomfield]

Tiny it is. I was being frivolous by placing it here, serious in my point. I see your argument. But it is a tough one to make, that I wouldn't want to rely on. As in: I don't think homosexuality is normal. I don't mind it or think it's wrong. But it's not normal. Just like some metabolism disorder may be genetic, and not normal. See how that works? Also, I find that it's morally irrelevant whether something is genetic or not. It the Determinism debate, warmed over.

[Tak_the_whistler]

OOX XXX for D Works on a Sunreed D. Still working on a flute so I'm not sure, but found this interesting.

>antstategood, Cranberry,

OXX XXO works on mine as well. how about your fingerings for 3rd octave D and E?

mine
OXX XXX for D
XXO XXO for E.

as for 3rd E, I found it easier to sustain the notes with the G open (i.e. XXO XXO) than seal 2 - 6 (XXX XXO).

[Tak_the_whistler]

>Bloom

BTW, I read somewhere in a novel, that;

'If you're a cat person, then you're a faithful dog, ready to serve the frivolous King'
'If you're a dog person, then you're a lonely cat, desiring not a master'

I have a dog, so I guess I'm a dog person...and I like to be free, and I rarely stick to the principle, be it religious or set up on my own. How about the people who have both cats and dogs??

[Jack]

If you heat a lemon in the microwave before squeezing you will get twice the amount of juice.

I see your point, but I disagree in that homosexuality can't or shouldn't be seen as a biologically normal variant of heterosexuality. Homosexuality exists in most if not all higher mammals, birds, and some other animals (our closest relatives) including dolphins, just the same as color variations do (black leopards equated to people with blue eyes, both are normal, but minorities). Debating the definition of the word "normal" is actually a very fine point, in my opinion, one that is a bit silly when you think about it because for each person "normal" will no doubt be different.

[Steven]

Actually, Cranberry, I'm gonna have to agree with Bloomfield that people won't necessarily take it as normal just because it's genetic, no matter how much sense it makes. Many people have decided that homosexuality is wrong. They don't care what evidence is put before them. They'll just interpret that evidence to support their preconceived notion. As Bloomie pointed out, when people thought it was a disease, they thought it could (ie, should) be cured. When that notion was debunked, they said OK then, it's a choice, and you made the wrong one, so change it. If it then turns out to be genetic, they will do exactly as Blooms said, and call it a disorder. You may see your point as logical, and I may agree with you, but that doesn't mean that will immediately, automatically, or in any other way become the common way of thinking about it.

Steven

[glauber]

This thread is discriminating against those who have genetic predisposition to shortsightness.