gcol

Here is a relatively rare event.....I totally agree with Severian. Plus, my initial, secondary and tertiary reaction is yuk, yuk, and yuk again. It is enough to make an otherwise sane man become vegetarian. Perhaps this is their sneaky underhand plan?

Well, that would be start.....

The term paranormal is, I think, being used too narrowly in this legislation. If passed, it will suffer the law of unintended consequences that is the fate of much trash law. If I were a smart lawyer, I would be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of arguing that all religious activity is paranormal, and thus any broadly religious activity which has a paid for element, however disguised, should be illegal. Loads of potential fun there.

A bit unhelpful and unbecoming, methinks. Would you make that comment to someone who said: "Hey, I've just come accross and read the works of Charles Darwin, such great insights and food for thought". Surely the publication date of a book is by itself no relevance to the ideas presented. People are still reading Einstein, how old hat is that. A young (?) person suddenly coming upon mid-expanding and thought-provoking ideas should be encouraged to continue.

I am all in favour of politicians speaking their minds in the hustings, a rare and noteworthy event. But is it statesmanlike? It might have worked in the old days of gunboat diplomacy (or are they still here?) but when the dollar is weakening, the economy stumbling and your enemies can give you so much grief on the battlefield you soon realise you have bitten off more than you can chew then speaking your homespun mind with its racial, ethnic and class prejudices just ain't going to cut the mustard. He would not last five minutes in face to face talks with the Chinese, with that attitude. If his intention is to polarise the vote, I think he may have miscalculated the numbers

I knew a girl with three nostrils who could play three-part harmony on the Mongolian nose-flute. A rare talent.

Bilateral directional olefactory senses..... Now I know how I can immediately tell which luncheon companion has farted. Very handy, problem solved. Then again, if having two nostrils is so useful, perhaps the question should be why only two?

If boycotting is a form of blackmail, then it can be argued that governments can be blackmailed into enacting legislation by concerted action by special interest groups. Even the act of voting against a party, or the threat of a negative vote, can be construed as blackmail. In turn, governments do it and call it, for example, a trade embargo. So I suggest that boycotts could never be illegal, because under different names, the practice oils the wheels of international trade and politics, and no sensible politician would enact legislation that may come back to bite them.

That seems such a significant, not to say fundamental question. Does it not call into question the nature and existence of gravitons? if gravitons can escape the event horizon, then one or the other is not what we are led to believe it is, surely.

I at first decided to vote no, but changed my mind when working through the reasons for my no. I came upon my usual stumbling block, the woolly understanding of the many words used, e.g. extortion, threats, coercion, etc. Too many to argue, and all subjective. Then I realised that "illegal" is a general term that is capable of exact definition by the law of the land, even though it will vary between jurisdictions. Therefore it (boycott) has no universal legal meaning as to whether it constitutes blackmail. Perhaps a group decision to cease using goods or services from a specific supplier could be harshly called a conspiracy, again having no common national definition. Last point: There are the laws of the land, (man-made and subject to political whim), and there are natural laws. I have to bow to the man-made variety through threat of punishment, but I try to adhere to the natural variety through force of morals, ethics and conscience. So still a don't know because of the old question "ah, that all depends on what you mean by......."

I was tempted to paste this into the Tibet thread as an example of a general argument in favour of an Olympic boycott, substituting repressive regimes for corporate giants. But I won't. Unfair, sneaky, and possibly out of context. But the thought sprang to mind, and as I don't have an amnesia pill.........

I was intrigued enough to look into first the many and strange forms that ice can form at different temperatures and pressures. Then I read the article completely. In it (from about halfway through) there is evidence as to how RNA could evolve from cyanide in micro-environments within the ice. The whole thing is fascinating, even if only for an insight into how instant "wham-bang-thank you-mam" science can miss replicating the slow processes that nature often uses to go about its business quietly. Shame that so many samples of experiments in progress were destroyed by short sighted scientific vandalism.

I have not read all the posts so forgive me if the 1980 and 1984 boycotts have already been mentioned, but they set a prescedent. The first was in retrospective protest at Soviet military action which had already taken place and the boycott was therefore ineffectual and the second was tit-for-tat. Cold war politics. Any protests or boycotts this year would be proactive and preventive, the only peaceful actions that are available. It is a polite way for the ordinary world citizen who has no political, financial or military axes to grind to turn his back on a rather distasteful command and control economy of the old unreconstructed communist era type. I am all for it. Perhaps I was a Tibetan in a previous life. The ethos of the olympics has changed. It is now a moneymaking media circus. I would not be sad to see its demise, especially as an Englishman who is planning to batten down the hatches to survive the upheaval and disruption when the circus comes to London.

Paranoia: I think you might have blurred the difference between suicide and euthenasia somewhat. Anyone can do suicide, no problem, no outside assistance needed. Euthenasia requires an accomplice, a conspirator in some degree of murder. Only the state can get away with that. How about State Euthenasia Centres? Queue up, in you go, a drug induced halucinogenic haze, and hello heaven. Then recycle the body into fertiliser or pig feed. Very environmentally friendly. I like the Youth In Asia gag, very droll. I understan there are many YIA's who would willingly assist the suicide of Youth In Europe/America. (Joke!)

We have had politicians being economical with the truth, and now we have one embroidering the truth. Embroidering is much prettier, don't you think? And such a typically old-world feminine passtime. In principle, there is not much difference between sexing up the WMD dossier, and dramatising an airport visit. But one resulted death and destruction, and the other showed an interesting insight into a personality that many thought already flawed and unsuitable for the job. (Don't think much of the other one either, so I am being even-handed).

Someone remind me when one his first came out, Childhoods End. Bought it in paperback when it was first published. Seems like a lifetime ago. More fantasy than science though, but with some fine imaginative descriptions of extraterestrial planetary topography and scenary. Oh, damn, perhaps it was C.S. Lewis..... memory fading.

Let me put it another way: Wisdom is a subjective value. One man's wisdom is another's folly. Knowledge is quantifiable and can be subjected to the rigours of scientific evaluation. A self-styled wise man who says he can make the best possible judgement in any given situation is, in my opinion, more likely to be a pontificating dangerous lunatic or at least suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom. Wisdom is knowing what to do for the best with whatever knowledge you have. Having too much knowledge can reveal too many possible courses of action, realising none are ideal, and resulting in indecision, prevarication, and inertia. Wisdom on its own seldom got the job done.

Peer review does not really stifle creativity, but it can stifle the dissemination of the fruits of creative thinking. Peer review is, after all, a kind of well-meaning censorship. It is a blunt edged weapon to sort the wheat from the chaff. Creative thinking and new ideas can germinate quite readily within the isolation of a hermit's cave. Fortunately the internet allows non-peer reviewed ideas to be published widely, beyond the control of peer review bodies. Independant and innovative thinkers can sidestep the process, often to the chagrin of the establishment perhaps, but that is the way of the wired-up world. Perhaps a parallel can be seen in the explosion of ideas that accompanied the invention of the printing press.

Are there not scientific "laws" accepted by both theists and atheists? If so there is no conflict. Such laws stand above and independant of belief. It is a logical travesty for either side to invoke them in justification of their claims. Neither side owns them. For me, they are a truth above belief. In a court of law, such arguments should be struck out as irrelevant to the case.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3393161.ece What a coincidence. Just as this forum is kicking off a debate involving the dreaded Re****** , appears an article in my morning paper (Times uk) headed "Why do we believe in G*D? This appears to be a stub of the main article. Sorry about that, but would not want to short-circuit the inventiveness of debaters. Oxford University academics have been given £1.9m and 3 years to find out. Seems a snip at the price. I am surprised it can be answered so cheaply. "They will use the cognitive science disciplines to develop a "scientific approach to why we believe in G** and other issues around the nature and origin of religious belief"" Perhaps this thread will allow space for the flurry of hit and run posts and general intrusions that get in the way of bona fide debaters. A couple of quotes from the main article: "believers.....are like three-year-olds who assume that other people know almost everything there is to be known". And, apparently and importantly, "The researchers will not be troubling themselves with the matter of whether or not G** exists, merely whether belief in G** maybe gave man a Darwinian evolutionary advantage; or whether it is a result of man's sociable nature." Nietzsche's riddle (of which I was not previously aware), "Is Man one of God's blunders? or is God one of Man's?" Is mentioned in an editorial piece accompanying the main article. So if Academics = Scientists ( subject for debate in its own right, perhaps), will we soon have the answer to Life, Religion and everything?

YAWN...... What's all the fuss? The chinese did it to show they could, and generated a lot of space debris. The Americans will do it, to show they can, and will leave a lot of debris, too. Next the Russians will do it, for the same reasons and same result. Same old, same old, arms race and sabre rattling. The real news story will be if they miss, if a highly secret chunk falls into commie hands, or damages a third world subsistence farmer's opium crop. Wake me up if that happens.

My ol' granpappy used to say When we start to look back with nostalgia, we are either: Getting old, Uncomfortable about the present, Or worried about the future. In my case, all true.

In America, the principle seems to be "Welcome to America and be like us", whereas in Europe it is "Open house to all, and we promise to be like you". Different attitudes to free speech seem to reflect these different philosophies. I am not passing an opinion on which is correct.

I reluctantly agree with 'shade and elas. Anything else is but the fevered wishful thinking of "adults" who still believe in fairy tales. Our imaginations can run free, but our feet should reassuringly remain rooted in reality.