Sayonara

Cars that are designed with killing or maiming in mind as a primary function of their design are few and far between.

Talk about missing the point.

I will... if you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist first. ROFL, what unmitigated crap. Complete, utter lies. People becoming desensitised to the threat of HIV is one of the reasons infections are rising fast, so if you're going to link to such complete tosh do it somewhere else please.

If they were going to cover something up, they'd hardly put damning evidence on their web site.

They manipulate the spine (and therefore associated nervous system elements) in a way that supposedly alleviates disease.

I understand that. My point was that you can't expect the people who read this thread to grab the URL for the source page from the properties of every image, and go off hunting for the details that are meant to be part of your argument. Why not just provide a source link?

I know how to find the source of an image thanks.

They have been stripped of their context and legends, so you can expect a lot of people to just skip over them.

Depends how much this project would cost, I'd imagine. Another consideration might be that, even if the law wasn't in place, other countries might object quite strongly if NASA decided to launch nukes into orbit.

You should probably have researched the forum and its users before passing off suggestions like "NASA put nukes in space" as fact. You won't get anywhere on here by saying "if you disagree with me, you're stupid." You will find plenty of people here who are open to considering the possibility, but you're going to have to provide evidence instead of speculation and unsourced images. Also don't use the word "guestimations", it robs you of the credibility you need to pull off a thread like this

Why? The full explanation was immediately below it. I definitely thing you should buy a cannon.

That may well be "true", but there still aren't any nuclear weapons up there. Nor have there ever been.

No.

-1 redundant It's true, but already demonstrated in reply #200.

Well, as you can see two people have voted "duh! no" without offering any reasoning, which is what happens when the first post is biased.

That's what comes of trying to scan every new article in just a few minutes

A more distant, larger object was found recently - check out the news forum.

The site is run by Quackwatch, and the National Council Against Health Fraud. Don't you think that if they had proof positive that chiropractic was utterly ineffective, the site would be called "no more chiropractors" instead of "the reluctant sceptic's guide to getting the best of it"? The majority of the material I have looked at there repeatedly states that the site is intended to raise awareness of the high percentage of chiropractors engaged in dubious practices, which is commentary on the academic and regulatory shortcomings of the profession, and not the actual practice itself. Can you say "bad data sample"? You haven't earned the right to decry it as false. You have no "proof" that it has no effects. You haven't done any studies, research, experimentation or sampling. You have no results, hypothesis, or conclusions. All you've done is decided to take a side, slapped a web site down and said "there we go chaps, find some stuff in there that makes my opinion look scientific, then agree with me in this poll". Now that is quackery. Furthermore, since your poll question indicates specifically that you want peoples' opinions and not any sort of actual evidence, you need to give an out clause that acknowledges the scope of opinion alone can't sufficiently address the issue. So option 4 stays. "You didn't read anything..." Irrelevant. My issue is with your approach, not the material. You might as well be saying "I read OJ's testimony and he said he didn't do it, so I think he didn't do it. I'm going to make a poll now, and get other people to read it and vote."

Oh they prove it do they? Is that your medical opinion? There's a risk associated with any surgery. Does that make surgery quackery too? OMG my insurance broker won't cover me for blasting myself with radiation to kill the bacteria on my skin. That must mean it won't work!!! * Note that I am not claiming chiropractic works, just that your evidence is crap. ** Not crap as in nonsense, but as in badly presented and selected because it supports one side, rather than impartial representation of fact.

How exactly is that "proof to the contrary"? Did you even bother to read their mission statement? Stop bandying the phrase "proof to the contrary" around like a toy.

You do know what proof is, right?

People with guns do kill people. I made no assertions about all killings being perpetrated with guns, or all people with guns undertaking killings. The phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" gets on my tits because it is worse than a truism - it's a retard's truism that chooses between two potential factors, each of which have equal validity, just to emphasise the chosen position without any justification.

Even if you were right, which you aren't, my response would be "so?", because you are asking me to justify something I did not state as being fact. You seem to be under the impression that I called Cruithne a moon.

Is your middle name Dawn?

Fixed.