Newtonian

Sorry bud , Children should disobey when their parents are in the 'wrong'. Children usually do not have superior judgement! Children do not owe anything to their parents! These can only be the words of a child,or one who has never brought up children Children are just that childrenthe most precious of jewels,which all parents try to the best of their ability,to protect,educate,and instill moral and ethical guidance.The end result being a confident well adjusted individual able to enjoy life to hopefully its natural conclusion. How can a child possibly know its parent is in the wrong.I have 4 children in their late teens, they may disagree with some of my decisions.But never disobey.My intention and duty is to protect them(I place no onus of understanding this on them).As they mature into adults they may look back and understand "you were wrong there dad".Because as adults they can thus make that distinction(we are not infallible). Children do not usually have superior judgement!. They dont have superior judgement fullstop.As any parent of teenage children can testify. Children do not owe anything to their parents! I owe my parents eternal gratitude,not because it is required or asked of me.But because i was brought up with love and guidance.I am the person ive become because of them not inspite of them.Without getting all soppy i will just say etc etc.And i show this frrely at every opportunity,which is everyday. Parents dont ask for dues to be paid in full from their children,maybe later in life you will understand that it isnt a debt.

Dont hide behind famous peoples skirts,regardless of his claims(which you dont know as you have not read the book)how can you dismiss a subject that you dont know.Science progresses its inevitable,clearly saying 'utter nonsense'! isnt meritable.Attack his points scientifically ! We could argue or agree over scientific data,but we cannot debate 'utter nonsence'. Ps Im not standing up for the book per se only your approach.(yes ive read it)

Child abuse. A good reason it should not be allowed!

I have posted this to ask opinion of others.Im finding it difficult to accept that the religious section merits its inclusion in the science forum. Many other science forums have dropped this section why dont we. Its apparent the religious section is only attracting atheist (not very nice comments),which serves no purpose but to cause trouble. If people stuck with the format Ie: im only interested in math so i post in that section.They would be no problem. But many religious members would like to air their views or questions in the relevent thread.Instead of this happening,the same old faces are infiltrating the threads,with the same crap. Faith isnt about proving anything.Many whom are religious would enjoy this section discussing the subject.But its spoiled by idiots so i would like to request its removal based on members opinion. editremoved BS.sorry for any offence caused

Agreed.The intention was to remove some peoples blinkers and irrelevent comments.The final theory is in fact a very old hypothesis with added glitter,im sure you know the subject matter.However its apparent others dont know exactly what their trying to discredit with daft remarks.

Until a century ago physicists believed the universe was filled with a type of ether.As light travelled in a wave it would require something to move through.Its been thoroughly rubbished for over 100years....yet just recently experiments are being conducted on the premise those views could be wrong. Ive noticed many here offer ridicule of this book without even showing us that they have the basic understanding of what he is trying to convey.Simply stating that its ''clearly utter nonsense'' or "i was a bit too scathing" doesnt quite cut it as an informative opinion.I would if possible like to read your review Cap'n Refsmmat.I like your posts so look forward to reading it.

In short NO.However ongoing observations of mercury have yielded high radar reflectivity near the south/north poles.Thus indicating a possibilty of ice.One would think that mercury is too hot(500-700k)but it rotates very very slowly so who can say it isnt possible . Ive never really considered the data(lack of interest really) i will try to find you something Vertgonight.

Budullewraagh your answer is as ridiculus as the question.I need not elaborate on the post more than this..I hold you in high regard please dont post like this again.

Sandi my thoughts go out to your family,hopefully everything will turnout ok.

"I'm getting a divorce," said Phi to his friend, sayo. "The wife hasn't conversed with me for 6 months." sayo thought for a moment & then replied, "Just make sure you know what you're doing, Phi. Wives like that are hard to find."

A seven year old boy was at the centre of a courtroom drama today when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of the boy. The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge awarded custody to his aunt. The boy however confirmed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and refused to live there. When the judge suggested that he live with his grandparents the boy cried out that they beat him more than anyone. Then in an unprecedented move, the judge dramatically allowed the boy to choose who should have custody of him. In a final ruling yesterday, custody was granted to the England Rugby Team as the boy firmly believes that they are not capable of beating anyone.

True Steven Hawking only scored 96 on 'test the nation' recently.He said he had trouble with the pen and paper..Yeah right any excuse!!!

like a lie detector!!

Neopets....NEOPETS....what? This is a science forum.....do you see a childrens pokemon section here,or anything of similar nature.

Is your OS fat32 or ntfs..whats the file sys on your added HD?

LOL cratering indeed. Based on current models of solar system formation,one can say its around 4.5 billion year old.Give or take a few year

When someone goes on hunger strike,and nobody intervenes,that is allowing someone to die.To deny an incapacitated individual nourishment and water,is to kill them . Im happy we finally agree on the definition. My only hope is that an autopsy reveals massive brain damage and as stated she had no cognitive functions.I find it abhorent that in this day and age,that her passing was allowed to happen in this way.We treat pets more humanely than that.

Syntax wether its rubbish or not.Do you not think after the events of 9/11 it should be a priority of your country and fellow citizens that a thorough investigation should take place.Its evident that this has not been the case. For instance many have seen the M.moore and A.Jones documentaries.Regardless of their editing abilities to portray conspiracy.Irregular and inconsistancies of fact merit full investigation.If you feel that it has been investigated fully,thats your opinion.Equally TT has his own opinions. I have one glaring anomaly i would like explanation of.In previous documentaries the plane that the heroic passengers made crash over pensylvania.It was the finding of those documentaries, crash investigators said that the debris was spread over too large an area to be a crash.On appearence it looked like an explosion in flight. How odd then that very recently your secretary of defence in a TV interview gave reference to the plane being 'shot down'.Before correcting himself,are we to assume that it was a simple slip of the tongue.Or something else. Or what about your president giving an interview saying he seen the first plane hit on the news...it wasnt on the news until the next day.When amatuer film was presented to the media. It doesnt mean anything sinister actually took place,but i know for the two most important people in your country to say those things.Im not suprised that people like TT want answers,it certainly merits a fuller independant inquiry

But eating a genetically manipulated animal,without neccersary experimentation isnt good practice.Prions are quite nasty! I remember a certain minister shoving a burger in his sons mouth and saying"theres nothing wrong with beef".

I have the official committee findings on that Syntax if your interested.They new the attack was imminent.Rather than a conspiracy it was the incompetence of individual men,and their failure to communicate.One of which was Roosevelt himself.

I see no problem with cloning,however circumspection should be the in word.While it is a scientific achievement worthy of merit.I would feel more comfortable if generation after generation was observed first.I think as we do not know the pitfalls of genetic manipulation a lack of forethought could be disasterous. I certainly believe it should be kept well away from the food chain for decades.Who knows what the repercussions will be on our bodies.I recall Dolly the sheep having a few problems. For all we know we could have a degenerate effect on our own cells.And end up aging faster or prone to cancers.

Ophiolite you certainly do have a pedantic writing style. Lol We are amused. However being as grammatically challenged as Cadmus.As long as i can convey my point to the reader in a coherent manner ,im a happy bunny. What did Cadmus expect?. My Scottish gran used to say"If you insist on standing behind a cow.Annoyingly tickling its ass with grass.Dont be suprised if it shits on you."

This is one of many things you have said in this thread,which i object to.It shouldnt be neccersary to say why? The others were similar in opinion devoid of facts.Which became increasingly annoying,when one is trying to post factually. __________ I will respond to your recent post out of politeness.BTW no im certainly not misogynist. On a subject like the Schiavo case,occasionally emotions run riot on both sides.The discussion gets heated and words are exchanged.Which on reflection we regret and should not have said. The situation between Cadmus,Blike and myself has been resolved amicably,we have moved on. You however feel the need to attempt to reignite the situation.Which gives me the impression you're preoccupied not in debate but stirring up trouble.You are as guilty as anyone regarding insults.I recall you being quite insulting as regards Syntax on his physical appearance(from an old photo),this had nothing to do with the discussion.You just thought you would throw it in.Maybe because he debated better than yourself? I personally found this obnoxious behaviour.Im certain you would rather be called 'stupid' than someone telling you, that you looked "like a scruffy old fishwife" Coral would you not. To finish when im emotive and insult,i immediately offer sincere apology,regardless at the time if i felt justified.The fact is its wrong. Unlike yourself who feels you are above apology.As you say 'if i dont mean it ,i wont say it".Which means you fail to act on a situation that warrants an apology.Merely because toyou, you can say what the hell you like,and dont have to apologise because it wont be sincere.How righteous. __________ Anyway i dont like you or your attitude,and will not respond to any further post from you regardless of thread.

Have you ever heard of a place called Coventry! You may end up there or worse!