Radical Edward

I had to swap to XP because 98 just wouldn't cope with my meaty 512Mb ram... it kept running out of memory... hah! I started off by running it so it looked like 98, but made it far more fancy when I discovered stylexp

You have not in any way negated my original point. You can't just say he has WOMD without proving it. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraque/0,6119,2-10-1460_1327533,00.html furthermore, resolution 1441 was a farce all along, and no justification for war at all.

Isaac Newton said something very similar, and I doubt we even know 10%

I wish I was one of those mice. who says genetic engineering is bad?

"In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac." Robin Cook. It`s a pretty good resignation speech. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,916359,00.html

I think it would be relatively easy to overthrow saddam without destroying the country, since they are very weak anyway. However since US companies are already bidding to rebuild iraq, we can see where the oil and the oil money are going to go.

The Emperor`s new Mind - Roger Penrose.

computers? I think any species with genuine intelligence would have a notion of self. to not have a notion of self I think, would be highly disadvantageous in selective terms, when evolutionary forces come to play. furthermore, the application of the logic relating organisms here on earth here isn't really relevant in my opinion, since we are attempting to talk to creatures that do not appear to be sapient, or at least have no formal language structure. Intelligent species however, would.

yeap, mastery over the environment is all you need. once you have that you have everything.

this is one thing I wondered about deep impact... or was it armageddon. At the scene on the beach, why were there no surfers there? I think it is inevitable that in that kind of situation, there will ALWAYS be surfers there, waiting to catch that one big wave....

what is your opinion based on?

and what exactly is the us going to do if saddam and sons DO leave the country? they will still have to invade now regardless of what happens.

Furthermore I find it somewhat Ironic that he intends to impose a free and democratic state on the Iraqi people, when the decision to go to war itself was not democratic. Perhaps he will apply his newfound love for unilateral action to internal US politics, in abandoning the constitution, elections, and other such inconveniences, and imposing his own unilateral rule over the will of the American people, much as he does in the rest of the world.

I assume you have proof. maybe you should have told Dr Blix. Furthermore, regarding Bush`s statement, I feel that none of the options really express my feelings about it. Bush, unfortunately for someone of his position, is a cretinous idiot, with absolutely no concept of foreign policy whatsoever. This whole issue has been delt with completely inappropriately. Whether saddam has WOMD or not, this does not make him a threat, however stirring the hornets nest like this stands a very real chance of causing major, and long lasting problems. A superpower America may be, but the biggest peace time atrocity against your country was carried out by nothing more than men with knives. and there are plenty more men with knives where they came from, perhaps now even more determined to spill blood in revenge for their fallen brothers. I can only hope now that for the sake of humanity, that this war is over quickly and efficiently, with as little loss of human lives as is possible, and that indeed Saddam`s brutal regieme is ousted and, at the very least, a more liberal fairer order put in its place. This still does not mean that I support the current fallacious arguments that are being put forward by the Bush administration, in order to distract from the real problems in the world, both externally to the US, such as Israel, and internally, such as Bush`s economic principles, which state that it is possible to cut tax AND spending, putting the US a trillion dollars into the red, provided everyone is looking at Iraq while you do it.

assuming there is something better.

but if the statement is entirely self contained and denies it`s own reality, then what can you say?

is that literally all it is? a qualitative study? or is there some sort of mathematical structure to it too? It`s always been something that has interested me, after hearing things about how a mug is topologically the same as a donut and things like that, as well as the obvious mobius strip and klein bottles (which suprisingly I only understood a few months ago....)

If you are going to post links to evidence, post decent ones. oh and try to keep the debate intelligent, you are failing so far.

you've forgotten another word too: credible... since the likes of the Raelians would consider their theories scientific. and nope. well none that I have seen in a peer reviewed journal anyway.

his question, is how did the chirality occur in the first place, since in a purely random chemical process, it wouldn't happen. However that is making the assumption about what sort of molecule came first. It could have been som rudimentary molecule that spliced amino acids together... and then it could have happened more easily.

quite a few actually...... in the beginning................

okay, I can see how it might apply to that, since the example is of something external to the statement, however you also have to make assumptions about the position of the thing being talked about. but how does the 'this statement is false' example fit in? even in a fuzzy way, it can't be partially correct. Furthermore, that statement is different to mine, which taking the strict meaning of the words, is still contradictory, regardless of what mathematical formalism you use.

what do I think? I try not to. I like my eardrums intact

I'd like to see any alternate theory in a peer reviewed journal.

that's because the original statement is in itself slightly vague, and open to interpretation. One could argue that the sun is shining even if it is night time. The fact that the earth is in the way is irrelevant A statement like "Everything I say is a lie" however does not fit in with this fuzzy logic, since it is purely self contradictory.