Dak

i use yellow dots when nessesary ............................like this so what is the tag for?

the first one was good. and the motorway scene of the second one... but that bit at the end was just cack. "you decline to cognate the gross magnitudisity of my thesorical polyglotany, neo. ergo, you must aquiest to my verbiose inclination and furthermore, to my vocabicular agilisity and so -- i distend -- even succum to my dissembled linguistic feculance." if he was that clever he could have learned english. does anyone know if/what mythilogical beast those two albino twins were based on?

is human humor understood yet? it could be a bit tricky spotting animal humor if we dont actually know what constitutes human humor.

of course the majority oppinion could always be based on the results..? i dont know what the protocols in psycology are to prevent bias. i know that they exist, but i cant comment on how good they are. although id like to point out that it was psycologists themselves that desighned the double-blind test which most scientists are required to perform if possible, that explained the plascebo effect and its relevance in scientifical studies involving humans, and spotted alot of other annoying facts that scientist have to take into account in order to get accurate, representitive and unbiased results, so i assume that the anti-bias protocols would be relatively effective in the field of psycology ::EDIT::oh and desighning tests to show up a result which then fail to show up that result can be almost as good as desighning a test to show up the opposite result, and i believe (but do not know) that psycologists are alot more inclined than most scientists to publish negative results.

mistakes can be traumatic. the AoC is just as much about when people are old enough to have accumulated enough wisdom and experiense to make there own disisions correctly as it is about when a person is old enough to be ready for sex.

as a scientist, iv been trained to be overly paranoid of the "you didnt referense daemon", which lives in our lab coat pokets and gouges out our eyes if we forget to referense (so that we cant see the evil 'you plagarised my client lawer' when hes coming). a quick link/referense to, say, a book in which it is published will usualy do the job, by convinsing the world you arent trying to claim the work as your own, and allowing any lawers/daemons to find the original sourse, even if they do have to follow your sourse to the book, follow the books referense to another book etc. with reports and studies, the citation should be given so that others can check out the report in full if they want to to check your interpretation of it and also the validity of the study (no personal offense intended - as scientists we are trained to be even more wary of the big, bad 'idiot incompetent scientist' than we are of the daemon) or a less insane response - referense studies, and either referense a quote or make it clear your quoting someone and cannot remember who it is. just for legal reasons more than anything. like i said, scientists get overly paranoid. but its not nessesary for you to go on a quest just to find one attribution -- sory if my 'oi referens stuff' comment made it seem like you had to.

anyone, of any age, could not be ready for sex -- and anyone, of any age, who is not ready for sex may also be not aware of what they are doing/may not be experiensed enough to make a well informed disision. the older someone gets, the more 'ready' for sex they become; the older someone gets, the more experiensed they become and so the better at making desisions they will become; and the older someone gets the more mistakes they will have made and so more care they will put into any descisions that they have to make. (apologies for the gramma) as previously stated, theres no magical event that happens on your (insert contry of residence's age of consent here)th birthday which magically transforms a person from a sexually unready child into a sexually ready adult -- however the older the age group, the more unlikely they are to be ready and/or make an error of judgment as to their readyness; conversly, the younger the age group, the more likely they are to be unready and the more likely they are to make an error of judgement as to their readyness. most people here, reguardless of their sexual orientation, have accepted that having sex before being mentally ready is a detrimental experiense, and i would further sujjest that it is a significantly detrimental experience (id site some studys but im quite buisy at the mo with uni work, can nock off a quick responce but cant hunt around on pubmed my appologies). imagine a very very young child (hensforth, 'a child of a certain age') a child of a certain age is quite likely -- not certain, but quite likely -- to not be ready for sex. the statement also holds true if you replase 'not ready for sex' with 'be inexperiensed enough to make the wrong assesment of their readyness and the risks' or 'be inexperiensed enough to not put enough care into the desision' and, by logical extention, 'that the experience will be detrimental to them' this is why childeren of a certain age are prohibited from having sex, and adults are prohibited from having sex with them - to protect them from making mistakes. now imagine an adult. an adult is more likely -- not certain, but more likely -- to be sexually ready and also able to correctly assess their readyness, and so less likely to make a mistake. whilst it is by no means guaranteed that an adult will not err, there comes an age when you (ie community, govournment etc) have to just say 'ok, your an addult, you cannot be molly-coddled all your life -- we looked after you when you were young, we're still here if you need us, but most of it is up to you'. which means there has to be a transitional age, whereby the govournment/society stops protecting the person and desides that it is time to allow them to make their own desisions/risk assessments. this is the age of consent. whilst it would be better to have a system which desides on a case by case, this would be unfeasable. so there is an age of consent instead. it is not perfect, it prohibits some people from having sex who dont need to be prohibited, it allows some people to have sex when they are unready, but it is better that any alternative and should be adhered to for the saftey of childeren in general, reguardless of their own/the paedophiles assesment of their readyness for sex, for the simple reason of the magnitude of the chance that a mistake is being made. its much like holding a childs hand as they cross the road. they may not like it, and they may consider themselves to be old enough to cross unaided, however reguardless of their protestations their hand is held untill they are deemed to be old enough that the guardian can let go. And this is for their own safety. i'll finish with an analogy. when i was 12, me and my friends started raiding our parents alcohol cabinet, and would get drunk on 'vodsky', which for those of you who didnt drink when you were young/have never been a student, is a mixture of any spirit available, usually primeraly wisky and vodka, hense the name. i knew full well that the AoC for alcohol consumption was 18, but thought 'hey, sod the rules, i can make my own desisions, and yes they bloody well will be informed cos just because im a kid doesnt mean im an idiot so licensing laws' etc. and, in line with my 'making a well informed desision', i was careful not to get drunk too oftern, for fear of doing damage to my body. 'arent i smart' i thought, as i proseeded to get completely and utterly wankered out of my face (on vodsky, remember) every fortnight ('which isnt too oftern - how mature and responsible am i being' thought i) now, after four years of this when i was 16, after a particulaly heavy party, my liver got a bit annoyed with me, my eyes started to go yellow, and my stomach started to expel most of what was put in it. it turns out, much to my annoyanse, that irregular binge drinking is much more damaging than regulaly drinking in moderation. luckaly, i got better and could eat properly again after about a month, and as far as i can tell i suffered no permanant damage from my mistake -- although it was over a year untill i could drink again (the smell made me sick -- i didnt even try for over about a year). the moral of the analogy? the younger you are, the more prone to mistakes you are. not guaranteed to make those mistakes, but inclined enough to warrent intervention by those more responsible and experiensed.

im confused by this. how can a paedophile know he/she is a paedophile at a very early age? when i was 11, i was attrackted to adults but also to other 11 year olds, did that make me a young paedophile when i was young, despite the fact that im not a paedophile as an adult? how would a young paedophile know that he was a young paedophile and not, say, a normal pubescent boy who's attraction would shift exclusively to women as he got older?

and what is the point of the code tags? i though the point was that anything entered would be displayed as it is typed, eg tags within the code tags is ignorred, but look: [quote]hello[/quote] i would have assumed it would look like this [quote]hello[ /quote] (but without the space before the /quote)

shouldnt that start off 'a man walks up to the checkout with a microwave meal for one'? and you still owe a joke from your first reply to callipygouse ok, whats brown and sticky?

plus, it originally came out in the 70s/80s. when special effects consisted of human + plastasine, and i guess theyre carrying on the tradition yourdadonapogo: was that supposed to be a link? if so, its broken

dogs cannot lose heat by sweating like humans can, and most of their heat is lost through their mouth, by respiration and lolling their toung out. and a sustained internal body temperature change of just a few degrees can prove fatal. if the dog was sick then its immune system may have been raising its internal temperature anyway so to combat the infection. so yes, it is entirely likely that the duct tape killed it, either by suffocation or over heating.

ok, i dont watch it myself, but my dad is a trecky and so iv seen a couple of episodes, and i always wonder how true to actual quantum theory all the stuff that they spout is? i mean, i saw one episonde where worf (or whatever his name is, that big clingon dude) died, but then his second heart kicked in and he came back to life, and as a biologist i could argue that the chance of an alien species evolving that was prettymuch identical to a human in apperance with the exeption of a few wierd gill-like facial ridges is slim, but on the other hand the humanoid shape is a very good one so i suppose its not that unbelievable, and i suppose that theres no reason that a second heart couldnt be shoved in somwhere (and redundansy is allways good) etc but im in no position to comment on the quantum phisics... so how accurate is all the stuff about the rotation of tachyons and hyperdrive and wormholes and time-space matrices and photon cannons and gravity inversions etc? always been curiose...

not a recipy as such, but a couple of healthy alternatives to sweets: #break a carrot in two #look at its cross section, and note the lighter couloured circle in the middle #the outer carrot can be broken away from this lighter inner carrot with relitive ease. the lighter center of the carrot tasts yummy MMMMMM as do sugar snap peas, and both make healthy alternatives to sweets for tasty snacks inbetween meals ok theyre not that great, but they dont tast like arse like most vegetables do, and they're healthyer than sweets

brrrrrr.... 1984 springs to mind

thought it might be better as a 'top ten players' as opposed to a 'top ten scores'. make it more competitively fun, like.

noone seems to have noticed the third encrypted phrase in this thread

to paraphrase callipygouse, maybe we should all chill abit? after all, critisism is only constructive if its constructive critisism. sorry if this comes off as all high-and-mighty, but its better to calmly teach him why it was wrong in the hope that he'll learn (and thus not do it again), rather than just to shout at him. christ slave - wether a dog dies or not, duct taping its mouth shut is cruel. they may not be as intelligent as humans, but they still feel, everything from phisical reports (eg pressure, texture, temperature) to 'push-pull' feelings (pleasure, pain, satisfaction, stress) to emotion (happyness, sadness) and as such should be treated with courtasy and respect. noone is suggesting that you give your dog a room all of its own with a four poster bed and cook it roast beef every day, but duct taping its mouth shut would have been uncomfortable and unpleasant for it. youll notice iv said nothing of the dogs death -- many people accidentally kill their pets by giving them chocolate (which contains a chemical which can be fatal to animals) and so the accidental killing of a pet is forgivable -- but even ignoring the fatality, duct taping a dogs muzzle shut is unnaceptable. you said that the dog had caused problems before with barking? maybe you should have invested in some classes to learn how to properly and effectively train him. it would have been more humane for him, and more effective for you. after all, you put him in the position whereby he resided in your house -- the descision as to his residense was entirely yours -- and so you had a responsibility to his well fare.

yes, but duct taping his muzzle shut isnt even nice enough to qualify as treating him like a dog, it qualifies as treating him like an innanimate object. werent you telling us to lay off a little while ago

muzzles are desighned to be safe and cause as little discomfort to the dog as possible DUCT TAPE IS NOT! and its a masters duty to care for the pet. anyone capable of comming up with this kind of bushism is in no position to comment on the sanity of others

cheers phi. phew! now we, mensa, and arguably all haddocs everywhere, can rest easy at the lack of impending fish-related violense. looks like dan was right (you genius, you) and mena were wrong (frickin' idiots)

so hang on wait, are you telling me that mensa only put the answre, and not the actual method of working it out? what, in their infinit wisdom did they not deduse that people might be a bit curiouse as to how to work it out? haddocs all round if that be the case this is really bugging me. I WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWRE!!! im one of those people. i need to know the answre. has anyone worked it out yet?

why, oh why, do macrophages posess CD4 molecules, and why, oh why, do no immunological text books contain the reason that macrophages posess CD4 molecules? i know that CD4 recognises MHC-II molecules, but i cant figure why macrophages would need to do this, unless its to prevent them from attempting to phagocytose other antigen-presenting cells (which would posess MHC-II)?

my bad. i misread your post, and thought that you were claiming that the reasons for accepting paedophillia are the same as the reasons for exepting homosexuality. i know' date=' and i dont believe i ever said that it was. i dont savvy.

sorry, im non-too great at phisics. i mean occilate as in wobble a la sine wave. ie eletrons wobble as they go along. golfballs also wobble, but relative to their size the wobble of the eletron is greater than the wobble of a golf ball.