Sayonara

What is the "efficiency of words", and how are the values derived?

Not at all, but hijacking another thread to make those points is not acceptable. I don't know what thread you have been reading, but it is extremely clear that Syphill laid mines with the explicit intent of getting a vehement reaction. When s/he got it, s/he revelled in the response, and took the opportunity to be extremely offensive. Whether or not she actually said that she wanted Klanger to be raped again is a moot point: the fact is that implying any part of this community is "wishing" it to happen is an effront, and offended people in a way that can be - and was - easily predicted. This thread is over.

I'm not sure where you get arrogance or insult from, what with it being a question, but you're right about the noncommunication. Sorry - put it down to fatigue and flu, plus being pissed off at the trolls masquerading as bastions of morality. Yes, I have read and understood your posts. Yes, you have some valid points. No, I don't think you're here to help anyone. No, I don't expect to have to explain why I want this thread back on topic. Read our rules. Read our posting guidelines. Obey or leave. You seem to be saying that the question asked in the O/P is beneath your contempt. If this is the case, then you have no reason to be in this thread.

Yup, and nobody's complained about that over the past few thousand years.

Anyone who tells you that you can't is probably a creationist. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life and is not intended to, so it doesn't have a lot to say about the core ideas of creationism.

There's nothing wrong with hyping object-orientation itself; the point of computer science is to narrow the gap between the real world and the model that is being represented via metaphor. Object orientation provides a much better system of metaphor construction than non-OO languages can. Although some problems are just as easily solved with old school programming as they are in an OO language, OOP is more advanced than Basic-style linear programming. Whether we like Java or not, or think it's over-hyped, is beside the point, surely?

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. Which, of course, doesn't make him "wrong", but means that he cannot claim to be "right".

Or if you want to be really cynical, "some biological factor".

I suppose it really hinges on what you mean by "colonise". Do you mean in the sense of a permanent, partially civilian population? In all likelihood we'd eventually want a presence on both, but they'd differ in their population makeup and long-term objectives.

Yes, conspiracy would be a lovely thing to get these people on. The problem is that it's hard enough to detect the crime, never mind put together compelling evidence for the CPS. Read http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/ for some entertaining descriptions of crime detection (or non-detection, as the case may be)

Yup: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2479

I think we've done this before.

It does not follow that he has been "preaching racism for a while unprosecuted" just because he has been arrested for inciting racial hatred. The law requires specific conditions have been met in order for an arrestable offence to be detected. "Man talks to peers in meeting about subject they agree on" doesn't meet those conditions. "Man shouting at people in the street to burn the Jonny foreigners" does. What Newtonian is claiming - that people are not charged for the latter based on their race - is demonstrably factually wrong. I'm not even sure where John Tyndall and Nick Griffin are supposed to fit into this.

Please search for other threads on this. There are many.

It's the first time since the changes in the law that the necessary evidence was captured, one assumes.

Don't suppose you'd care to specify which bit, and then qualify that rather strong statement? "Society in changing law for the better" shocker. If you think people can or should be arrested for things that aren't a criminal offence then I'm not going to be surprised by anything else you say about this. No, anyone who disagrees is probably looking at the facts in a rational and non-reactionary manner. Yes. Under the same laws that saw Abu Hamza get banged up. What's your point? I live with a detention officer, and I can tell you now that that ^ is the "unsubstanciated [sic] claptrap". You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Which is just a waste of their time, because for the most part spam in science threads lasts about an hour.

Oi

Posts in general discussions don't affect your post count.

Nationalism can involve the use of propoganda, but it is not the same thing.

It really, really doesn't say that at all.

I don't think I actually used the term "excision method" in the other threads. Just check for the most recent threads dealing with time travel and conservation.

Say hello to Crap Cleaner, champion of champions.