Sayonara

Sayotopia. It's the only way forward. (You may also see it referred to as Davocracy, or Blikanomics.)

If you eat fish, you are - by definition - not a vegan. You are a pescetarian. Kind of, by selection. You have to realise that selection works across whole populations (in the main) and dozens (if not more) of generations. Lamarckian acquisition is supposed to be a direct parent->child change.

Fashion is a necessary evil, because most people can't get their head around the concept of style.

There are several open source book projects on the web. I suggest you start by googling for those.

For the last time, that does not necessarily hold true. If conservation is your only "barrier" to time travel, then you are accepting a navigable and inseparable space-time continuum, which renders the conservation barrier meaningless.

Perhaps if you read the thread you might find some answers to those questions are already here, on account of that being the topic of discussion.

From post #68: Am I the only one who sees a problem with that?

Really not adding anything, are you?

I think it's fairly clear that's not what cliff331 was after. Generally when people ask "can we clone a human", they aren't talking about the embryonics.

"Honest belief" is not going to carry you very far if you don't even perceive a mechanism.

Browser specificity. Anything based on the old Mosaic engine won't preserve w/s in a <code> block. The BB tags are parsed into the HTML <code> tags.

Did he say "those who invade the country", or did he actually say "immigrants"?

Since Lord Sutch died their policies have become depressingly sensible.

This reaction is common to you, me, and most of the population. The reason this becomes an emotional issue with people is that they fail to recognise that the distaste is due to chemical responses, and instead ascribe it to nebulous moral notions that nobody has ever defined. "It's just wrong", and so forth. This allows a convenient lapse in memory when it comes to understanding that the lack of those responses removes the reaction of distaste, and therefore removes the major internal barrier to that attraction.

gets parsed by the VB script and replaced with the html tag <code>. Other VB between the [code] tags is parsed as normal. The function of code markup blocks in HTML is presentational (in the sense of monotype fonts and preserved whitespace). It doesn't do anything special like syntax highlighting, or escaping reserved characters.

Granted I don't know Bettina very well, but I think there's a good chance that will offend her, given her strong feelings on the subject/s.

If memory serves Bettina has some interesting* views on homosexuality too, so possibly not the best example. * i.e. not really based on terribly practical things.

If you feel this is a serious problem (and you have now blamed poor reactions to your posts on it in several threads), it can be changed easily enough. Just PM me if you want a new username. I have no intention of responding to the rest of that guff. You made academic promises you were unable to deliver, yet somehow it's the whole world's fault but yours

Report them for what? Having an internet connection? Seriously, I'd bet they'd all give me permission to pass on their IP addresses just to see exactly what you do with them, and which agencies' time you waste in the process. You don't think concern is an emotional response? You certainly seem worked up to me. There is nothing wrong or abnormal about having these reactions, obviously, but this is not the appropriate place to express them. You don't need to go away - you need to change your approach to this topic. If you do not after being told twice you will receive warning points, which is not really something I want to do on the basis of someone having emotions, so please don't make me.

Let me put it another way: You coming up with a possible motive this chap might have had for murdering a child doesn't actually make him more of a murderer, nor does it somehow make pedophiles more motivated to murder than anybody else who might happen along. Suggesting it, therefore, in the context of "reasons why pedopilia should go away", is intellectually dishonest. This is why we have laws. To stop emotive flapping around from tearing society to shreds.

Wrong about what exactly? You appear to think that I said something controversial and interesting like "pedophiles never murder people", and that you are now arguing against it.

...which, in fact, is another reason why the "conservation" refutation is broken. Us not understanding the "rules" doesn't mean they aren't there.

Marking up code. Handy eh? I suggest reading the W3C specifications if you want to know the rationale behind every HTML entity.