ScottSA

I sure do like you...

Green is in fact the flavour of the month. What matters in the election is people's pocketbooks.

You should probably stay out of any discussion on science. In fact, to extend that logic I don't know why you type anything at all. 300,000 tonnes behaves the same way as a plate. Well perhaps, but a plate with 300,000 tons on it behaves quite differently from a plate with nothing on it when each is held up on stilts. The empty one will corkscrew off, or lever over on the stilts, but it should come as no particular surprise that a plate on stilts will collapse straight down when 300,000 tons is dropped on it. Thanks for the advice on my career choice, but I figgered out a while ago that science wasn't my forte. Which is not to say it's your's either, because it obviously isn't, son. I did get to study logic a bit, a subject that has so far eluded you, so it's not a total loss...

Well, let's see...so far Harper has out-thought, out-maneuvred and out-legislated Dion, and now it looks like Harper has out-fundraised him too. What has Dion done? Shoved his foot in his yap with the Greens and almost learned how to speak English. Ok, so the last one was a bit generous.

Actions speak louder than words: ...But Dvorkin drew attention to past Soviet-era space weapons. “One might remember Soviet anti-satellite spacecraft that were capable to close in on unfriendly satellites and kill them,” he said. These were space-to-space combat systems, operating from orbit — unlike other anti-satellite weapons, such as a U.S. system that involved basing a missile on Earth and firing it into space. The Soviet system, considered a genuine space weapon, had the potential to operate anywhere in near-Earth space that its booster rockets could send it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8089747/ Yes, but you have to understand...anything the US does is evil and everything anyone else does is sweetness and light.

I love all the angsting over whether we're "racist" or "bigotted" or whatever...meanwhile the little brown folk we are all so concerned about loving as fellow human beings are all too helpful in allowing that we are in fact bigotted and that if we really want to change ourselves, we'll adapt ourselves to them instead of the other way around. What a milquetoast culture the west has turned into...half our time spent apologizing for the past and the other half worrrying about how best to kill our own culture.

It hinges on whether particular arguments are reasonable though, and in most cases only scientists working in the field are going to be capable of determining that. For example is it reasonable to suggest that co2 levels might be rising because of the oceans? Is it reasonable to suggest that all of recent warming may be caused by the sun? Many arguments against AGW will exist which are simply are not reasonably backed by current scientific knowledge. That's why it's a case by case basis and some (not all) skeptical scientists might back ideas whcih have no solid foundation and that's why they are discriminated against. And who exactly is to be the arbiter of these hypotheses? The only "unreasonable" argument I see surrounding this topic is the notion that one can, by selective input, determine through modelling what the earth's temperature is going to do decades down the road, AND announcing that it's somehow "proved" that man has affected a phenomenon which has come along numerous times in the past without his help. But aside from all that, science of this sort is highly politicized and the determinant of what is and isn't reasonable has more to do with public opinion than science.

The sad fact is that when an visible immigrant culture reaches a certain critical mass, it stops integrating and becomes insular. Sure, some on the fringes move around a bit and integrate, but the great mass of such a culture contracts, organizes, and starts flexing its collective political muscle. If that doesn't work it starts looking for other ways to gain ascendency. Several immigrant populations are reaching that critical mass in Canada, among them Sikhs and Chinese. Europe's problem at the moment is that the immigrant group reaching or having already reached that critical mass is Islam. These problems can and will only get worse. I shudder at the problems we're leaving for our kids, and it's much worse because it's only going to sneak up on the naive liberals who dreamed up this mess, and they'll never figure out what went wrong...prefering as usual to make "root causes" up.

Tipping is a rotation. Then stick 300,000 tonnes on the plate and show great surprise when it falls into its own footprint, taking the hand holding the pencil with it.

None of this is at all surprising, because it all begins from the sterilized premise that homosexuality and heterosexuality are defined as sexual preferences between adults...a completely arbitrary definition. Where the confusion arises is that a minority of pedophiles can also be attracted to adults but even if this is the case which is quite rare, these two different attractions operate independently they are not the same. Two separate processes are going on.[/quote Why? This is a completely arbitrary claim, and no more valid than if I claimed the opposite is true. But again, that is irrelevant. If the youth of the victim were the sole or even predominant characteristic of this alleged category of sexuality, then the gender would not matter a whit. It makes no difference whether the perp defines himself and "gay" or "straight", or martian. If he is a man who prefers male victims, he is a homosexual pedophile. This is not "confusion" on my part, it is the application of logic to a completely arbitrary pronouncement. No, what is simple is that you make this arbitrary claim that homo and hetero sexuality only applies to adults, and expect it to be accepted on the grounds that you make it. It has no more psychological validity to it than the old claim by the various psychology bodies that homosexuality is a disease, or the later claim that it wasn't. Those claims and the one you are making now were entirely driven by politics and painted with a very lame veneer of science to lend them credibility of sorts. This is a case in point of politics driven "science". According to your definition, this is true, but that's like me claiming that green is a color except in the case of pine trees, in which case it is a hue, and cannot therefore be considered a color. It's simply defining the issue away by using arbitrary definitions.

Pretty much did after that point. Actually, no. After Agincourt armour underwent its final and greatest technological leap in becoming both lighter and stronger. Not entirely because of Agincourt. but in aid of mobiolity

I love it! A favorite tactic of the GW "researcher" crowd is to pick the start dates for their great discoveries so as to arrive at the conclusion they want. Slide the dates forward or backward a bit and you get radically different results. In fact, if one were to use a start date after 1999 or before 1920, one would find a below average melt. Not, of course that there is any possible way to measure the tonnage of ice at the poles with any degree of accuracy at all...

Ah yes, a lie about a consensual blowjob is much worse than a lie that results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars Yes, the only minor distinction being that Bush didn't lie but Clinton did. And I might add that your original thesis was that "a lie is a lie is a lie"; presumably meaning that it is the fact of a lie that is important and not the content of a lie. That would seem to negate the value of your second point that one lie is worse than another lie, itself based upon a false premise that there exists a lie at all in the case of Bush. That makes you doubly wrong.

I absolutely hate that I agree with you on something.

There is nothing new or magic about an energy beams. Microwave ovens, flashlights & loudspeakers all emit energy beams. One must assume that there are other types of energy beams that are weaponized that you have not seen mentioned in Popular Mechanics or on the Discovery Channel. So Bushitler and the Jewbankers rigged a big microwave in space, designed it to make microwaves that were really really long waves and blew up the WTC? How is that a "controlled demolition?

It's no more discrimatory than peer review itself. Some ideas won't get published, and that's not always unjustified. The sole fact that someone lost their job because of a view they held is not alone unjustified, anymore than someone not getting a paper published is unjustified. If there weren't so many new ideas floating around all the time, most of them wrong, then it would be a lot easier for the genuine ones to get through. I just don't get your logic. I think what you're trying to say is that a bit of Occam's Razor needs to be applied, and ideas of the sort which posit the moon being made of green cheese and so on ought to be discarded. To that I agree, but that has no relevance to the GW debate where two sides with extremely reasonable arguments exist. One side is being attacked and censored, not because it is out in left field, but because the issue has been politicized. It's like the AIDS debate a few years ago, when doctors showed, beyond a statistical shadow of a doubt that in the west, AIDS was being spread overwhelmingly by homosexuality, needle use and blood transfusion, and yet the homosexual lobby screamed and yelled and censored the debate, claiming AIDS was a "heterosexual" desease. It's dishonest crap, and it sure as hell isn't science.

If one were to abide by "proper clinical" distinctions, then one would have to posit that a man attracted to a 13 year old boy is of a completely different sexuality than a man attracted to a 14 year old boy, and so on for whatever ages of consent exist around the world. Sheer and utter nonsense. Further, if the gender of the victim is of no consequence relative to the youth of the victim, then one would suppose that the gender of the victim wouldn't matter to the pedophile, and I would hazard a guess that it does matter very much. If you are familiar with the "clinical" terms, then you must also be familiar with the statistics surrounding the gender of the victims of pedophiles...am I wrong? Finally, the self description of the pedophile as "heterosexual" is like pointing to the self-description of 90% of the inmates of penitentiaries as "innocent" and taking it at face value. Here we have a criminal who has been caught doing something he knows is wrong, and trying desperately to normalize himself as much as possible under the circumstances. Of COURSE he's going to claim that he's straight. How many queers in the closet admit to being homosexuals? A pedophile is by definition in the closet. These are arbitrary clinical arrangements of sexuality for no other discernable reason than to whitewash the fact that a hugely disproportionate percentage of pedophiles are attracted to the same sex and are thus homosexuals. If a man is attracted to a peepee, he is a homosexual.

Ah, the "lied about WMD" meme? Of course a lie is not necessarly a lie is not for sure a lie if it's only about blowjobs, right? And besides, a lie about WMD which wasn't actually a lie is worse than a lie about blowjobs which was in fact a baldfaced lie, because ummmm... The point is...ummmmm....

I searched but failed to find content. Glad you had a chance to blow some of that self-righteousness off your chest though...it must feel good!

That's hardly a "hair split". In fact, it's the very heart of the Kyoto issue. If we're dealing with natural cycles, then taking actions that hamper economic activity are futile, a waste of time, and an imposition on poor and middle class people who cannot afford to buy "carbon offsets" (link). What an excellent business idea! Like opening a perfectly legal mugging shop.

Funny how you demand respect for some religions but not others. You're angry at me for calling belief in scriptures and religious teachings as superstitious, yet you go on to be completely insulting to Hindu people. I don't demand respect of some religions. I simply call down the sophomorically dismissive arguments that I've heard from atheists here. I also think Christianity holds the moral high ground in a face off with Islam, because its present day adherents don't blow themselves and others up all over the world every day of the year. I also call down the double standard of people when they forgive little brown people their idiocy but lambast Christians for their's. I daresy you wouldn't worry too much about "disrespecting Christian people", now would you?

What didn't Crooks do? Let's have the juicy undetails...

No, not entirely. If you'rrre a trrrue Scotsman, you'll be able ta eat ten haggis an' only throwup once. I'll wager you've neve een shagged an ewe.

I punched in the same info three times and got 7 years, 6 years, and 2 months respectively. Seems a little like a climate model: junk in, arbitrary answer out.

I rather like the conception that death is a transition from earthly hell, and that hell is a place to spiritually mature. I also like the idea of re-incarnation, although it tends to concede the temporal state as the object of 'reality' as opposed to the spiritual state. But aside from the concepts I find personally intriguing, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that existence doesn't end with death.