Dak

atg is a start codon, and taa is a stop codon. i didnt mean to say that all ORFs start and end in atg and taa, (as there are other start/stop codons), but all the ORFs in my example did -- ie, they are all legitimate genes, with a start and a stop codon.

^^ its not just a question of phisical damage... i know for a fact that id be mightily irked if my foreskin was removed when i was young. you have to take into consideration that the infant may grow up to wish he had retained his foreskin. 'newborns are uncapable of making that descision, so it should not be done untill the person is old enough to make that descision' is a very valid alternative to your above statement (not saying your statement was invalid tho). its a pitty that it is in scripture that it has to be done within 8 days of birth... am i right in thinking that jews have a 'coming of age' seromony (umm... bar mitzvah?)? it could have been a decent compromise to forgo the circumsision untill the comming of age seromony wer the '8-day rule' not existant.

From what iv heard and personal experience, both m$ beta and the spybot-adware-spywareguard-spywareblaster tetrad are pretty-much as good as each other, although some things will only be spotted by m$ antispyware, and some things will only be spotted by ad-aware/spybot. Spybot has a similar function to the 'annoying' m$ antispyware one, asking for your permission for registry entries/changes, which is a cunning way of preventing infection if you know how to use it. re the mozilla infections: theres even one now that gets passed the first line of FF's defense, and then 'hops' sideways to IE, where it gets past ie's last line of defense* -- so if you have both firefox and internet exploder installed there was little you could do to prevent infection from that specific malware (although i believe the update to v1.0.3 was in order to combat this) and for the record, ie can be made to be roughly as secure as ff... but it takes alot of tweaking. ------------------------------------------------------------------- *not entirely sure how it does this -- i believe its something to do with the sun java used in ff and the m$ virtual machine java used in ie having different 'sandbox' measures, and by getting passed from ff to ie the java trojan somehow manages to completely break out the sandbox(s), whereupon it downloads malware onto your pc.

unfortunately, as long as microshaft persist with their annoying insistance that 'you must have internet explorer version x.y or above' to use their windows update site, then you either have to have and occasionally use IE, manually keep a list of the installed updates, and manually look through their catalogue of updates for ones which you do not yet have, and then download and install them one at a time using a non-ie browser, or accept the security holes in your operating system, which increases the chanses that you will get infected with malware. so, pile of wank that it unarguably is, the penguine-meister does still unfortunately need ie.

its still what someone believes extremely strongly to be right. non-jews attempting to tell jews that they cannot practise this scripture because they (non-jews) believe it to be wrong is analogouse to jews trying to tell non-jews that they have to follow this scripture because they (jews) believe it to be right. Not saying that it shouldnt be done' date=' only that it should be bore in mind that preventing jews from circumsising there child at birth would be screwing with their (presumably) strongly held beliefs, and so should only be done if absolutely nessesary and justified. In anglo culture, having a foreskin is the norm. I believe that americans are quite oftern circumsised, but us british are quite attached* to our foreskins. oh, and cheers for the HIV links ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * pun intended.

DEATH TO INTERNET EXPLODER!!! Did adaware/spybot sort the crap out? Id advise visiting the microsoft update site to make sure that IE is the latest version; also, do you have an antivirus and firewall installed? (jus tryin to prevent you getting infected again)

Does anyone know what the actual reason for holding them in guatamalo bay (as opposed to the US) was? I heard that it was so that, being outside of the US, the detainees wouldnt be covered by the constitution and/or american legislature: ie the american captors wouldnt have to 'behave themselves' as much as they would were the detainees taken to america. Whilst i am against playing the 'anti-american' card, i have to admit that the above does sound as if it could be mere america-bashing. so does anyone know the actual reason that they were detained in guatamala instead of america?

None of those sound too bad or too hard to shift. how did you 'remove' internet explorer, by the way? would you mind telling me where you downloaded the internet explorer file from please, if you can remember? if you put the the web address of the download site in your responce, could you put a space in the middle so that it doesnt become a link please. The 'internet explorer' program which you installed may possibly try and reinstall all the crap after you remove it, so if the stuff is still there after adaware and spybot finish and you have rebooted, the 'internet explorer' program may have to be killed (iv always wanted to do that )

gnuh: fizix arent eletron-microscopes essentially cameras with a better resolution than the human eye due to there use of eletrons, which have a smaller wavelength than light (and which also possibly changes the rayleigh criterion allowing for better resolution in a theorietical 'perfect' EM, although im crap at phisics so im not sure)? or do you mean cameras as in kodak?

scripture is more than tradition. to change a tradition requires giving up a generation-spanning habbit; giving up scripture would involve declairing part of your holy-text uninportant. as atheistic as i am, i can see how that's an unfair thing to ask of a person... same as i can see how it's unfair to chop parts of peoples bodies off without their permission... as i said, a problomatic issue.

The judge may not have passed centanse for the crime of administering alcohol to a child in light of the fact that, because of his actions re:kids, he had to endure an arduouse and damajing (ie punishing) trial on the charge of paedophillia -- its called natural justise. he did something; he suffered as a result. further punishment may have been demed unnesesary. If someone starts a fight and gets the s*** kicked out of them by their intended victim , jurors oftern go light with, or forgo, the centansing for similar reasons.

Sorry its in a wierd format, its part of a 'canned' response. All these programs are free. anti-slyware programs: Download and install all of the following: Spybot S&D and Ad-Aware SE and Spywareblaster and Spyware Guard. Make sure that you update these programs regulaly. A part of the Spybot S&D program (called tea-timer) will ask your permission before allowing changes to the registry. Use common sense -- if you have just changed some settings or installed a program, it is probably safe to click 'allow'; if the change comes out of the blue, or if you dont recognise the program making the entry, then click 'block'. These four programs between them perform pretty-much the same function as an anti-virus program, but with one key difference -- whereas anti-virus programs are targeted at viruses, these programs are targeted at adware, spyware, diallers, browser-hijackers etc. Ad-Aware SE and Spybot S&D are both scanning programs. Spybot-S&D also offers active protection of your computers registry. Spyware Guard scans programs just before they run, and prevents any programs which it recognises as slyware from running. And finnally, Spywareblaster prevents your web-browser from accessing certain sites which are known sites which slyware redirects your web browser to, and prevents the downloading of slyware active-x components. Updating is inportant so that the anti-slyware programs have the latest lists of how to recognise slyware alternatively, you could install microsoft antispyware beta, which performs all of the above functions, but will not be remaining free for much longer (i dont think). whichever option you take, make sure to update the definitions by clicking on the update button of the program(s), and then scan (either with ad-aware se AND spybot S&D, or with m$ antispyware beta). have the program(s) remove everything that they find, and then reboot. Whats actually up with your pc?

reformat is not in my vocabulary . hmm... it never did it before. Maybe an update installed incorrectly? I might try uninstalling and reinstalling FF. I doubt it, seing as the problem came on all of a sudden. also, i run the mighty crap cleaner every month, and manually clean parts of my reg aswell. no recent installs which coinside with the start of my problems... still, ill turn things on and off randomly in an attempt to pin the problem down. cheers.

My PC is under spec, and running xp and firefox is a bit of a strain for it, but i maniged to tweak it so it runs ok and has been doing so for the past year. Recently, however, it has been slowing right down: Espescially when i use firefox. Bear in mind that this PC doesnt have the recomended specs to run XP (which is what its running), and that firefox is a hefty program, but still, its never been this bad. Opening up firefox takes for ever, as does going from one site to another. Even using the firefox scroll bar causes slowdown: if i open up task manager and then use firefox's scroll bar to look further down the page, i can see in taskmanager that firefox's CPU usage jumps up to 95%, as my system tries to follow my commands with the speed and enthusiasm of an arthritic tortoise on ketamine. i checked for malware (none), and i checked my prosesser fan (glued on tightly and working), and the only thing that i can think of is that my processer is dying on me. Whatcha recon, does it sound like that? is there anyway in which i can check the diagnosis?

Well then, if it is actual jewish scripture then that presents an interesting problem... obviously, it does count as mutilation, as a quick comparison with other unnesesary surgery on infants will reveal: foot binding, female mutulation, any other form of body-damaging practacies on babies without adequate medical reasons (exeption: see 'body piersing' below) are all viewed as unnaceptable body-mutulation of an infant who is far too young to give there consent. On the other hand, do we have the right to tell them that they cannot do it? What with it being written in their scripture, and all. also, i would assume that many jewish boys, born into jewish families, would continue to be jewish into there adult life, whereupon they may understandably be annoyed if their circumsision within 8 days of birth had been prevented by law. On the other hand, though, it quite obviously would be within our (society's) rights to prevent the mutilation, were it too severe. Im sure that if judayism required the removal of the left hand within 8 days of birth, that this practice would be forbidden by law, even if it was in scripture, and even if it did annoy a few adult jews who had been denied the infantile-hand-amputation that they, as an adult, feel they should have had. The question, i suppose, would be: is the removal of the foreskin unnaceptably severe mutilation? Which is greater, the parents rights to follow scripture or the infants rights to retain his foreskin untill he is of an age where he can himself give his informed consent to its removal? Bear in mind that whilst allowing the circumsision undoubtably results in some adults who are pissed off that there foreskin was removed without there permission, disallowing the circumsision would result in adults who are pissed off that they were pervented from being correctly indoctrinated into the jewish faith as a child (if im understanding the inportance of the circumsision correctly). Finally, body piersing: (from personal correspondance with my local piersist) in the uk, there is no minimum age limit for body piersings: a parent can (and many do) have their babys pierse, ranging from ears, to nipples, and even genitalia. Whilst the piersist who i got this information from refuses to pierse those under 16 (21 for genitalia, 14 and 15 for ears with the parents permission), there is absolutely no legislature that requires him to do so, and many piersists will pierse a babys genitalia at the request of the parent. Similaly, tattoes have no minimum age limit, and are not easaly reversable. As long as the uk allows this practice, it would be highly hypocritical of us to disallow the cicumsision of young jewish male (US law may be similar).

The moderators on this forum seem to be quite restrained as far as barring people goes. Willow (an insane fool who was incapable of grasping logic, and who continually accused athiests of being satanists) was tolerated because he tended to keep his rantings to his own threads. the paedophiles who turned up for the paedophile thread were tolerated, despite the wishes of quite a few members of the forum. embarisingly, i remember a totally unjustified vitriolic insult-fest which i launched on opholite once and which went unpunished, presumably because i appologised. many transgressions of the rules, common courtosy and sanity are tolerated by the mods here. On the other hand, trolls are generally barred semi-quickly. its impossible to have a discussion whilst there are people present who will argue moot points to death, put words in others mouths, embark on ad-hominin attacks, and ignore inconvienient evidence. i do not know for certain, but i suspect that johnny5 would have been barred for the above reasong. questioning commonly accepted scientifical facts is acceptable, but when you attack them (at great length) by ignoring the evidence in favor of them, the system of open discussion is somewhat marred. as i said, i have no idea why exactly johnny5 was barred, but judjing by the normal restraint of the mods on this forum, i would assume that it wasnt without reason. and as far to submiting to the judjemnt of the mods goes, it is only usually applicable to breaches of logic, such as strawmanning etc, or outright insults towards other members of the forum. If, for example, Phi for all argued that HIV does not cause AIDS, i would certainly argue with him, and i do not believe that i would get in trouble for it (unless i worded my argument "no, you insane toss-piece, what you said is untrue, and i am most certainly not going to acknowledge or adress the fact that you linked to scientifical evidence to back up your claim, instead im just going to say disparaging remarks about your mother. your mother is a hampster. consider your argument rebuked"). that is the kind of person who generally gets barred from here.

Unless, of course, by 'reading this thread' you mean actually reading this thread, in which case your argument tends to fall apart. If you expand your definition to mean reading the contents of this thread, including the quotes, and including folowing the links, and actually considering the points raised, then your argument gets redused to mere unsubstantiated ad hominins, which funnily enough adds weight to atm's last post.

Is there actually anything in the jewish holy texts which commands circumsision? Is it analogouse to christian baptism? or is it just a convention?

the website that i linked to is a website dedicated entirely to proof of why certain argumentative tactics are logicaly faliciouse. i believe my statement that you quoted was, therefore, entirely accurate. You asked me for proofs and i supplied them. or did you want me to explain in detail that putting words in my mouth counts as strawmaning because it allows you to attack an argument that i never made? Or that accusing me (entirely unfoundedly and innacurately) of equating patriots with nationalist neanderthals is poisoning the well because it attempts to brand me as a patriot-hater, which would then cast doubt on the objectivity (and thus validity) of my comments on patriotism? Had i aquiested, i suspect that you would have gone on to demand an explanation from me as to why being a strawman invalidates your argument. Had I complied to that, i suspect you would have demanded that i fully define the word 'argument', before you were finally forsed to fall back on your tried-and-tested tactic of spouting out a random insult and changing the subject.

No. The proofs are on the website that i linked to. citing the name of the falicy is an acceptable way of pointing out the logical crapness of your arguments. you go look up the definitions of the falicies, and if you dont believe that youv commited them at the points that i quoted, then you defend your comments, and explain why they arent falicies, and why the falicy that i cited doesnt fit.

I cant be arsed to point all of them out as it would take too long, but heres the first one i found: This is a strawman, with a twist of poisioning the well. the majority of your falicies are actually too plain dumb to be addressed in the nizkor files: 'faliciously ignoring evidence' isnt listed, surprisingly, although I believe it is generally refered to as 'arging from pigheadedness', or 'trolling'. Or, from one paragraph in your most recent post: falitiously ignoring evidence. appeal to ridicule and ad hominin argument from pigheadedness. it has been substantiated. you have failed to adequately refute, or in many cases even address, the substantiations.

oh, if only we could: but it takes two to play that game, and you seem unwilling. both me and atm have presented evidence, in the form of both logical reasoning and literature, to support our oppinions. you ignoring the evidence does not mean that it does not exist/has not been presented. please read through the Nizkor project; familiarise yourself with the logical falicies; and then attempt to refrain from commiting them.

which is another good reason why it should be discussed: so that people who base their assumptions on irrelivent things can have their logical inaccuracys pointed out. which segyouweeys nicely onto my next point...

IANAL = I am not a lawyer