Sayonara

Webster is the worst dictionary out there (well, of those aimed at adults). On the other hand, unless you're using the Dictionary of Evolutionary Science (which may or may not exist), any such book is only going to give you a copy-editor's parred down version of a non-biologist's summary description of something he is not even attempting to explain. Aimed at the lay person.

I am seriously considering writing a module that scans for more than two paragraphs of waffle and automatically blocks that user from the subforum in question.

That makes no sense.

He's not ticked me off. Unnamed dictionary has.

... really really bad.

You'll have to wait until it's happened, I'm afraid.

The one that physics aims to describe?

I disagree. That was fun.

Because that's not how it works. Not only does that fail to explain anything, it actually raises more difficult questions.

What's the point of this thread?

People who knew what they were talking about must have got involved.

He doesn't seem to be offended at all. He seems to be saying that logic is not sufficient for answering the question (which happens to be true).

Let's design a new vehicle for them. I mean, it can't be any worse than those old things.

We already have new plans for the religion section.

He quite clearly didn't.

I certainly was not.

I find that quite ironic, seeing as you seem to let other minds speak for you.

Seeing as I've never seen any evidence that it is, and seeing as the BBC has absolutely nothing to gain from being what you nebulously term a "propaganda machine", I'd much rather assume it isn't (and remain open to new evidence) than just imagine it has attributes I've never witnessed.

Fixed.

A ~10gig SCSI ought to do the trick for most ppl.

Activation mail re-sent.

(a) "knowledge" includes things that have been written down, which are a part of society as long as they can still be read, (b) IQ is not a useful measure for this kind of investigation. First rule of analysis and interpretation: Correlation is not causation.

No thanks.

Similarly, if you don't know whether or not a clone has a soul, why call it "not good"? I don't think the official stance of any given religion actually changes anything to do with the clone itself, in any case. Unless there's burning at the stake involved, or elevation to godhood, or something like that.