Sayonara

Regardless, responding to criticism with a flame reflects on him more than anyone else.

Really? The evidence - i.e. the fact that you can't follow a logically consistent argument - indicates that you are the one with the comprehension problem. As you just said. I recommend you stop goading me.

Pretty poor' date=' seeing as there is no "gay gene". That's not a dilemma, that's just a question. A dilemma is a[n impossible] choice that needs to be made between two equally convoluted or difficult alternatives. Good enough for this thread, I can assure you. If you wish to question my "credentials", it would be an idea to do it off the back of something I actually said, rather than as some random pre-emptive strike in a conversation where genetic biology has not actually appeared in any quantifiable form. To get back to the topic: ed84c's rambling paraphrasing from memory of a study into one aspect of the area, presented by a pop-media science show, is not the definitive answer to the question of homosexuality.

I don't know what the behavioural demographics are in your area, but if there's any kind of ratio then that simply supports what I said. I agree that the overly-camp should grow up (which is, of course, an opinion); what I'm saying is that this doesn't only apply to homosexuals.

This might come as a shock to some, but homosexuality doesn't actually require campness, and the reverse is also true.

I think his interpretations of the results are wrong, and I don't think you know what a dilemma is.

See post #15.

I agree, but by higher genus I meant 'things that can learn' (in a general "it's got a brain" sense). I.e. not beetles, moths, nematodes, sea cucumbers... and so on.

If he changed it to "aFTL" he'd have almost gotten away with it.

Because fruit flies aren't "gay" in the same way that humans are. Their behaviour is primitive and hard-wired, and the measured behaviour would have been sexual only.

IE Mac is a bit like nightmares about vomit.

Where does chemotrophism fit into that model?

I'm telling you, that armoured bra just fell on me officer.

IMDB is your friend.

Only if you happen to be in a higher genus. Nobody said you did. In fact by asking you if you know what they are, I am deliberately avoiding saying that you think a niche is X. Do you see how that works? Ecological niches don't work in the same way as marketing niches, so try and avoid thinking about them in those terms. I only asked a simple question

Erasure are not materials scientists. Must try harder.

I'm guessing only one of your mothers contributed genetic material, so the answer to that would depend on the dominance/recessivity states of the genes in question.

Errr... it does. Click the little arrow after the last poster's name in any forum/search overview, or the "View first unread" link at the top-left of any thread.

No it isn't. He didn't know genes existed - nobody did then.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7243

If anyone said that to me, I guarantee you I'd make them cry.

With that kind of support he's... uh... sure to win.

By 'definitions of intelligence', do you mean with regards to the collection of social interaction mechanisms that lead to it?

If you really wanted to figure it out, you'd learn how ports work. If you just want to be told what to do, you can go and look on a "hey we're 13 yr old script kiddies and lonely key-punchers, come be our friends and we'll irresponsibly give you naughty treats that'll make you look cool" web site. Red Hat's technical support services would be a better place for your second question.