Sayonara

Yes, but how would you have any knowledge distinguishing that from a non-tautological claim of truth? Or was that the point of the thread...

Juvenile morons don't tend to stick around.

It's nice to see TED talks that are actually about the wonder of discovery. Just yesterday I watched a 3 1/2 minute talk about one woman's experience with a brain tumour which was spliced onto another 3 1/2 minutes of adverts.

Wouldn't a tautology be a tautology only because we agree that it is so, and not necessarily because it is objectively true?

Interestingly enough, there are plenty of cases in which out homosexuals have, later on in life, discussed their own homophobia in the years between being too old to not have heard of homosexuality, and too young to really understand their own sexual identity. In the current "It Gets Better" meme on Youtube, several notable gay Youtubers have told similar stories of their early school life when they became aware of homosexuality and learned from the group reaction to revile it. This was of course before they really understood anything at all about adult sexuality, and before they started becoming aware of themselves as sexual beings.

I can certainly appreciate that this is not at all a happy day for you iNow but I am quite sure you will be well aware that this has been a long time coming. The benefit of having you heroically challenge false assertions no longer outweighs the damage done by your chosen methods, and as I said you have been made aware of this on previous occasions. So no member of staff is likely to be influenced by appeals on the basis of "usefulness in a debate". Take it on the nose and have some faith that as always we are actually trying to figure out a third option that is compatible with both our aims for the site, and your aims for the time you spend here. A "DMZ Forum" has been mooted which is an intriguing and potentially very fun idea. As for Pangloss... well we do not allow staff to run rampant, and YT2095's absence should be a constant reminder of this. Although it might not seem like it at times the admins are watchful and do take action when necessary.

When all I am doing is suggesting one of many possible explanations as to why your post might not be responded to on a time-scale that would necessarily make you happy, do not start your reply to me with the word "Listen". And don't characterise yourself as "bumping the thread simply to get a status" when in fact you were being deliberately petulant.

Yes, you have had your access to the Politics forum revoked. The reason for this is because of your attitude towards other users, which is basically Harris-style "controversial intolerance". While not quite opposed to our rules and values it isn't exactly harmonious with them either and consequently you have been warned many times about your inflammatory and aggressive posting style when discussing others' opinions and intellects. All of the admins have access to the records of these warnings, both in staff threads and in private messages. May I remind you (and all other users, in fact) that access to the Politics forum is contingent initially upon a posting record that is appraised in quantitative terms by automated scripts, but subject to ongoing approval based upon qualitative administrator appraisal. I am sure I don't need to remind a long-standing member such as yourself iNow of the reasons we adopted this policy. Insulting behaviour is not a substitute for requesting citations. The fashion in which you respond to others is your responsibility, not anybody else's. The permissions can be altered so that you have read-only access to politics, but I would have thought that would be agonising.

You might consider iNow that for most people in academic circles it is currently the beginning of a new semester, and SFN will for many of them be low down on the list of priorities. As always, we will get there eventually.

Here's a fun game: "Spot the Gay Soldier". Ready? Go!

We know it can't be as it is advertised because the advertised machine violates well-established principals of physics. Apologetics won't change that. Your entire account - errant punctuation and all - is blatantly dedicated to being a shill for Kender. Get over yourselves.

How far in the past are we talking here?

Well for starters to make the muscle strength scale up with volume, you'd have to make the muscle tissues far more densely packed, which would quickly strangle nutrient and oxygen supply to the fibres. IOW, you're working against your own goals.

Just a reminder that there is a Team SFN on the BOINC network, which you can join if you are running programs such as Seti@home. Blike set it up a while ago but I don't think it was ever advertised http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=134923

! Moderator Note Please only post material, citations, and points which address the OP's question. Hijacking a thread to promote a hobby horse is not okay.

I guess they will just have to be robots.

So when you say "intent", what you are really talking about is "not random". IOW, you are perpetuating this discussion as if it's some interesting debate when in reality you are stating a tautology and masking it with incorrect terminology. You really are the epic internet win, aren't you. This farce is over.

Some act I deliberately perform has a secondary outcome that was mechanically inevitable but which I neither desired nor intended, nor did I have the information at hand to personally predict it. Was that outcome random? If "yes", please explain why. If "no", there's your third way.

While I think it would be very difficult to make the case that "being gay" is a fetish, what we find when we look at adult sexual behaviours is that there is a surprisingly high incidence of straight men who fantasise about or actively take part in sexual activities that we would strongly associate with homosexual males. I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between an activity and a state of being; one lends itself to being described in terms of fetish; the other not so much.

In addition to what Sisyphus said about randomness, a lack of randomness might coincide with intent but it does not by any means necessitate it. Randomness in events is reduced or removed by the occurrence of constraints. A constraint can occur regardless of whether or not there is any conscious intent to influence the outcome of the events in question.

Thank you for attempting to provide some docs to back up the claims. However not one of those sites mentions planes from wars decades ago showing up again. Although one of them does quite rightly mention that the Mary Celeste had nothing to do with the Bermuda Triangle, which is encouraging.

However, that's just describing their attributes. It doesn't answer the question that was asked.

Unless you're investigating a black hole?

Suit yourself. See my later post for a constructive suggestion.