Sayonara

Because it contains ranitidine hydrochloride, an H2-receptor antagonist. Should have the same effect as Benadryl. Not as good as an Epi but better than nothing.

I could just stock up on Zantac I suppose. Wonder what the shelf life is?

Soft fur just makes them more easily-swallowed. GO SNAKES.

They're only juveniles right now - not big enough to eat locusts, never mind pinkies Still ordered The Extractor from a webbie in the US though. Trying to find a UK pharmacy that sells EpiPen over the counter, just on the off chance it's ever needed

Generalising horribly, the temperature usually ranges from -10 in the most vicious parts of winter to +35 on the hottest days of summer. Throughout this autumn it has been a mild 10->14 celsius, and the temp. recently plumeted to about -2->+6 celsius.

Following an earlier suggestion... Find your favourite quote from these forums!

I have not made a claim either way, so I am not required to model anything. My contention was that Artorius' reasoning is flawed, not that B is wrong and A is right.

I very much doubt Artorius modelled the relative positions of the moon, sun and earth before making his claim that the objects illuminated in shadow are evidence of a conspiracy, which would suggest he is just picking the "theory" he wants to believe in. Let him defend it to the very hilt if he wants to.

The plant is the producer. The cow is the primary consumer, and the human is the secondary consumer. If by mineral salts you mean micronutrients like nitrogen, potassium etc, then no - these aren't part of the energy flow into the plant (well, they may be involved in energetic reactions, I can't really remember to behonest. But if so, it's insignificant compared to the energy derived through photosynthesis). Bacterial decomposition of a body does represent an energy flow.

No, I don't mean "any" creature, I mean that one specifically. Loch Ness is huge, allowing countless refuges even for large animals. The visibility is less than 2m due to the high level of organic matter in the water, and there are no large predators. You'd need highly significant (by which I mean "ridiculously unrealistic") selective pressure to drive the emergence of camoflauge under such circumstances.

Utter crap - they all pose valid questions, with no flames in sight. Sarcasm maybe, but no flaming. Respond to each and every one of those posts, or your part in this thread is over. You have 12 hours from the time I press "submit".

I prefer not to categorise people since it is necessarily and irreparably arbitrary, completely open to abuse, and utterly subjective. You can stick people in boxes all you like, but every single person in that box will have characteristics or beliefs that are not typical of the population of the box. You end up making so many categories that you may as well deal with people on an individual basis. Hence, labelling people is a primitive means of organising a political argument. This is why we discuss views, and not people. I don't. I am me. I exist. I do as I do, because it seems right based on the information available. I do not constrain my thoughts or actions based on any arbitrary set of criteria that exist only in someone else's head, and I certainly don't constrain them based on what other people decide to openly or privately label me. What is wrong is that you are not using the attributes of the people to decide on a label - you are instead marginalising their positions by bundling them into a generic category and sticking a label on them, based on your interpretation of "where they stand" relative to your views. That is not a sophisticated means of reference and has no value in a discussion other than to allow opportunities to blur distinctions and/or get sweeping generalisations under the radar. Nonsense. Other people have been doing it for centuries* so I really don't see that it can be that difficult. * not individuals, obviously. They generally don't live that long. None of that affects the fact that you said WI has more trees now than after the last glacial period, which is a bit like me saying "this cookie jar has more cookies in it now than it did when we finished off the last lot". Now that is more like an argument that the forest fires are mis-managed. Don't talk crap. I quoted the sections I had issues with. Quoting unnecessarily is considered to be bad etiquette. It is rude - inferring indiscriminacy that can only come from not reading the quoted post properly - and wastes both database space, and the time of people reading the thread. What a lame attack - "if you only quote excerpts you must be dishonest". I think you'll find that does more damage to you than to me. You know **** all about my values and morality and have about as much right to scold me as I have to ram a lawn umbrella into your eye socket.

Compassion and accountability are key attributes for any democratic body.

You'd probably get a better response if you didn't start by stating that you are spamming this all over the web. It would be more appropriate to display this on a personal blog or project web site of your own, rather than posting it unsolicited on different forums. I also have to wonder if you have permision to duplicate those emails in the public arena.

This is just gibberish, and I'm getting sick of having to check for posts by people who don't understand the concept.

Why would they evolve camoflauge?

Maybe it's not that they don't add up, but that you can't add them up properly. Since you are so interested in determining the truth you have to accept this as an equally valid possibility, The explanation you have given for objects in shadow being illuminated is - as you have said - a pretty poor one. However: a) Your refutation of it is equally poor (the light reflected off the moon, for example, does a pretty good job of getting back to Earth again and illuminating objects in shadow here), and b) It's not the entire explanation for objects in shadow on the moon being illuminated anyway, so you are voluntarily arguing against a strawman. The critical words here are "to my knowledge". Does it not occur to you that the accuracy of the planned descent in such an underpowered craft as a command module is going to be strongly related to the gravitational field of the body it is landing on? Which should come as no surprise. This in itself is not evidence of anything - only the reason for it can be (e.g. because their radios were broken, because the transmissions were not there, because they all died etc). Yes, well we've already seen that what you don't know doesn't seem to exist to you, so it comes as no surprise that were you in charge of the return operation you'd have sent them out into the population without the precautionary measure of making sure there were no hidden surprises that were previously undetectable to us.

If this keeps up we'll have to add @home to the word censor list.

We had snow on saturday up here.

Looks like re-inventing the wheel to me - complete with baseless sweeping statements.

Actually, unless there's some "opt out of income tax and national insurance contributions" option for smokers that nobody told me about, smokers pay for their health care twice over at the least. So yes, it is very profitable for the .gov. ps - the full stop and comma are your friends.

This rings a faint bell - I don't think it does depend on it as such. I'm sure someone explained why in another thread somewhere.

I would bet quite a lot of cash that it's because Windows XP has the SysRq button unmapped.

Actually, the revenue the .gov gets from tax on fags is about the same as the [acr=National Health Service]NHS[/acr] budget. Smokers are self-sustaining in cost-of-care terms.