Sayonara

And parasitism is the "opposite" of academia and/or media is it?

What? The UK went in with the USA, and Australia deployed its forces there too. Remember? How we got more reports of Australians being missiled by gunships than we did of Al-Quaeda cells being found? It was only three years ago, for god's sake. Whether or not a nation is invading another country at the time has nothing to do with whether or not they can make promises to that country.

That second report is largely hogwash, and has been debunked in previous threads. Stop dragging up old arguments. Like the "weapons" they found. Pish-tosh and poppycock; they found a handful of old shells that had been buried because they were used in the last conflict. You can't have your cake and eat it.

If memory serves, in another NK thread you argued that there was no independent evidence for that. Or maybe it was ATM. Anyway... general question: why in god's name would the USA want to nuke North Korea in the first place? As usual this thread is taking the bizarre direction of "removing reasons why they shouldn't".

That article is very funny. Thanks for the cheap laugh.

If by "firmly convinced that this energy has" you mean "perfectly aware that it hasn't", then yes.

Let's not forget the hormone craziness.

When I say "we", which part of that suggests I'm talking about the USA?

Is 2004 leap?

Assuming it is always on the same date, it will be a Monday.

Do the human trials in any way reduce the intensity of the animal trialing, or is it an extra step?

I mean actual creationists. From the viewpoint of some creationists the attribution of creation to god may seem just as valid as the attribution of change to evolution, regardless of whether they believe in god or not. So I'm pretty sure it's an aesthetic decision (plus you get to flame nerds) in some cases.

"I don't have a problem with [implicitly directing criticism at you]" is just the same as me saying that I don't have a problem with calling you fatty fatty oink oink. Because it doesn't make you fatty fatty oink oink. I hope that tangential analogy makes things clearer.

You should spend some time in a business environment. You'd be helpless with laughter.

I'm not sure that all creationists strictly believe in god, despite the obvious contradiction.

Well, that depends on to what degree such trialing would be subsidised by the government, and matters only if the companies and institutes in question are more interested in profit. Check out these guys - they do it already, as do many others: http://www.covance.com/

I'm sure there are more than 1/60 of us suffering already, but on crappy pay.

There may be differences in the make-up of the soil found in Reading and Aberdeen; possibly something unique to Reading.

Animal testing for me falls into the "needless" category. We already have literally millions of people who are paid quite well to perform dangerous roles which they know will most likely shorten their life spans. Some examples would be police, fire fighters, any kind of miner, soldiers, people working in chemo- or bio-hazardous environments, and people working with radioactive materials. If people can accept those risks with the proper compensation, why not allow human testing at a professional and regulated level?

There's a difference between raising an issue with a flaw in evidence, and lauding that flaw as damning proof against an entire discipline. The difference is so great that it makes identifying either case quite easy.

I don't have a problem with that. Whether or not I like the topic is irrelevant. Let's move on and try to get some structure and order back into the debate.

Can I refer you to the site changes thread, in which the topic of our forum structure has come up several times.

Yes. Spelling. Romaji represents the sounds of the Japanese language. What you wrote has literally no meaning. Stop being obtuse. The "debate", as you call it is, being conducted in a farcical manner. Exactly why you are projecting your own negativity onto that statement by assuming it was aimed diretly at you, or that it is analagous to criticism of your ideas, is your problem and not mine. Anyway, that's beside the point: if you are repeating my name back to me as a super-clever means of dismissal, then you've already been dismissed by the same device. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

The Bonn Agreement didn't just appear out of thin air in front of the signatories, who all just happened to be in Bonn at the same time, in the same building. The Agreement itself is just that - "the agreement". It would be fairly stupid to refer to things like "the seventy-third-to-last discussion before the Agreement was reached, between France, Burundi and Finland, on the topic of votes for all in Afghanistan". It was arrived at by promises on one side and hope on the other. You should know as well as anyone here that the stipulations of a final document are not necessarily a good reflection of the intentions that brought it about in the first place. Since I have actually read the Agreement too, I am very much aware that you have grossly over-simplified it for the purposes of making a catchier post. I don't see how you can hope to sweep aside any criticism of ongoing human rights abuses with "well, they were only promised democratic elections and they had those already". It's pretty callous to use that as the basis of a semantic argument about the way I phrased a glib post.