Sayonara

Before anyone gets excited, note the key word in there.

See reply #95. In any case, I was describing the change in the scope of the discussion in general - and others have certainly discussed morality. Not everything is about you, y'know?

No dude, in a confused argument. You could do with consolidating it all with clearer terms of reference. It seems to be generally agreed that sexual acts are out of scope, the same can probably be said for morality.

Alkalines aren't really strong acids though, are they? I think mossoi's point is that while an acid might react well with A, it might not do so well with B. Or something.

No, it just moved to the General Science forum.

Not sure actually. If it specifically says "2" or "ye seconde edition" on the front cover, then one.

atm got me that for Xmas.

"The placement of lanthanum in the d block instead of the f block of the table is controversial ... and may change." Interesting. Sure taking their time deciding.

That's half the fun of biology

DAMN.

"a less contrloed reaction would be less explosive" Think about that. Assuming you have reactions A and B going on, with equal explosive potential. Control one reaction, and not the other. Which one's going to react more violently?

WTF? He makes more cohesive arguments than you have in this thread. I think by now "writhing" is a better word than "evading".

Do I win a prize?

(Without having checked the conversions) I'd guess that the way yeast does it releases more energy per unit energy invested.

In this context, the wave of muscular contraction that moves food through parts of the digestive tract.

I see what you mean now. I agree that there is potential for bias in either direction. The problem I have is that his conclusions regarding so many facets of homosexuality are so flawed, that I do not think it is right or fitting to publically purvey them as 'fact'. Perhaps this causes me to over-suscribe to the opposite position, but if it does it's the least of the reasons and, imho, no bad thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3472179.stm I want to hit those two with a stick. A big stick, with splinters on it.

They're being paraded in front of you, so you might as well discuss them.

Tim?

If you are talking about something being "good or right", you're discussing morality. QED.

How? Check the boxes for the posts you want to multi-quote, then click "reply". I find it helpful to copy and paste to notepad for long replies Agree. I don't know how many times I have to state that sexual activity has nothing to do with it, but apparently it's somewhere in the region of "enough".

Well, he's going to have to actually make a start before he gets any data...

If that wasn't what you meant, what was the point of posting it? I don't think you can complain people aren't reading your posts properly when you yourself make posts about morallity despite the good arguments (further up this thread and in others) that morality can't be arbitrarily assigned to biological functions.

The association was implied.

He's only doing it because he's mad. (Don't discourage him, his fruitless efforts to redefine all of maths in computing are funny)