Area54

It doesn't seem to be implying anything. Several recent posts have focused on motive. geordief's post focuses on that too, noting - as you agree is the case - that the police have very little idea of motive. I see no hint that geordief thinks the police behaviour is unusual. How did you get that out of his post?

I thought it was an improvement.

I can't help but wonder why you cannot cease playing the fool and give direct answers. Is it because you realise you are trying to walk on quicksand.

I remind you of my words. " I don't mean the ersatz honesty you have likely used up till now, but the soul searching, bone marrow probing honesty that you expose yourself to in the small quiet hours, once or twice a decade. " If you are concealing this here, you are not being wholly honest. Of course this is entirely your choice and taking romantic advice from an anonymous person on the internet may be extremely foolish.

Yes, I suspected that was the case, but I felt the point was important enough to make. What are your thoughts on the claim, from a day or two ago, that the Police Dept. had followed up 10,000 leads? They have a large police force (5,000) and presumably the FBI and other resources will be involved, but that seemed a suprsingly large number. I partially suspected "creative accounting" to in order to give the impression of progress, but then I have no idea of police procedure that hasn't been corrupted by watching Inspector Murdoch.

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, and potential future Prime Minister. I would be very surprised if he doesn't have the figures committed to memory.

The First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, unsurprisingly since she heads the Scottish Nationalist Party, spoke in support of the desire to hold the referendum, noting “It is of course entirely legitimate for Spain to oppose independence for Catalonia, but what I think is of concern anywhere is for a state to deny the right of a people to democratically express their will,” There were public demonstrations in Scotland in support of the referendum.

I believe you have accurately described the current situation. If someone has clear, contrary information they should feel free to post it.

My UK geology honours degree required a thesis based upon 8-10 weeks of independent field mapping. This did not contribute directly to the final degree, but was used to distinguish between, for example, a 1st and a 2.1, where the Finals results were marginal.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes. If she reacts badly you can blame it on some fool on the internet and show her the evidence.

Are you aware - I'm not asking with sincerity - that sources of graphic objects are often embedded in the object? Perhaps if you had used the link to wikipedia and the associated references that I provided earlier you would not have needed to embarrass yourself with such a neophyte request.

Well, you could try the approach that rarely fails: total honesty. I don't mean the ersatz honesty you have likely used up till now, but the soul searching, bone marrow probing honesty that you expose yourself to in the small quiet hours, once or twice a decade. Sincerity is the hardest thing to fake, so don't fake it.

Hire a small team of psychologists. Have them conduct a study of your method, then submit a report on it to your fiance that explains your method is bullshit and you are a fantasist. This should solve the problem one way or another.

That explains almost everything.

Thanks. Fingers crossed.

I was locked out with repetive 502's from about 6:15 to 7:20 pm BST. Some pages are taking 15+ seconds to load.

I hate that dreadful word "closure", but there is little doubt that many of the survivors and the relatives and friends of those who died will be able to better to come to terms with the events if they know why Paddock thought this was a good idea. It is also possible that we may gain insights that would help to recognise warning signs and prevent future massacres.

That's perfectly OK with me. I have no objection to you remaining ignorant. I admire consistency.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Until reading your earlier post I had always assumed it was rotational energy that was being tapped, but I had not thought the process through. Your post makes everything clear. Thank you again.

How gracious of you. A provisional reading of these answers reveals the same acerbic, dogmatic, angry style that seems to pervade your posts. Just as a point of information for you: this style inclines readers to think "What a dickhead" and then to ignore what has been written. You're not stupid, so perhaps you are doing this deliberately. Perhaps you want to evoke emotional reactions so you can take an imaginary moral high ground. Frankly, I don't really care what your motivation is. I will tell you I don't like the end product and if this dialogue is to continue you will post in a polite, measured fashion. If this strikes you as disagreeable I shall just have to think of you as Scarlet. As to the substance of your replies, I'll allow 24 hours or so to pass in order to wash the cant content from my memory, and then reply.

You should broaden your reading patterns, in that case. This wikipedia page has an adequate summary and enough links to get you started. Let us know if you have difficulty with any of it.

You should raise the matter in a thread where discussion of the phrase is relevant and not pollute Silvestru's lighthearted thread. Silvestru, my apologies for adding to the pollution.

Background Reminder: I don't know what you were studying since 1991, since you were ambiguous in your original post and declined to provide an answer in your last post. I had to make a reasonable guess that it fell somewhere within the field of US Politics. It clearly cannot be the Las Vegas incident, since it had not occurred in 1991. Now, of course length of time does not determine the accuracy of one's viewpoint. The length of time studying a topic is relevant only the the student. We rely on our experience and knowledge - I would hope - in all circumstances and situations. But I do not say to you, for example, A=M, you can rely upon this because I have a lot of experience in this area. That would arrogant and fatuous. I would say, A=M, this has been demonstrated by this research here, or is discussed in that textbook there, or can be seen as likely by following this line of reasoning. So I remain adamant that the time you have spent studying anything is of no interest for the matters being discussed. If you cannot suport your assertions with independent evidence then those assertions can be dismissed with the same flippancy. Do you dispute any of this?

What we are often doing is rendering our knowledge more granular - we are adding detail. In turn, that typically means greater complexity. This can make our older views appear simplistic, when a more honest appraisal would be that they were simple.

Your responses were relevant. How you arrived at them, not really. If you are making assertions I - and I think other readers - wish to see citations and links and arguments that support those assertions. We don't really care when and how you came across them, or how long it took you to do so. It simply isn't relevant. I specifically noted that my own exploration of this area, although carried out over twice the time you have been studying it, was not relevant to the discussion. Someone who has been studying the issue for a week may have a position and supporting data that outargues both of us. I'm sorry you feel that the time you have spent studying the issue is somehow relevant, but it is that mistaken belief that has led you to waste time, not my observation. Anyway, my questions remain. You already have the answers, apparently. I'm here ready to read them, when you are ready to post them.