zapatos

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=how+is+a+second+defined

I think you need to define what "respectful" means to you. Is eating meat 'respectful' of the environment? I imagine it is for some while it is not for others. I suspect that 'better' falls under the overall heading of 'sustainable'.

What exactly doesn't make any sense? Can you expand on that a bit and explain why it doesn't make any sense?

Something I found on this topic... https://www.illinoisestateplan.com/storage-of-original-estate-planning-documents/

Don't simply assume that the rules applying to real estate transactions apply to Trusts.

Also, some legal documents are not valid unless there is an original. If a judge is presented with only copies but no originals he may have no choice but to proceed as if the trust never existed in the first place.

My understanding is also that copies are not valid documents. They must be original signed documents. However, there is no reason you cannot sign more than one copy of the trust documents. Every copy you sign is considered an original signed document. (I am not a lawyer.)

If the primary purpose of animals is to provide food for others, please recognize that this applies to you serving as food for others also.

How dare you disparage an entire generation (not to mention my children!) People like you disgust me.

How about we interpret it to mean that "we do not understand how this works or which country built it, but it is clear from the G-forces that it is an unmanned craft." Correct. So here is your choice. 1. It is something built by humans and is more advanced than what humans have previously built (we've seen humans build more advanced things millions of times), or... 2. it was built by aliens (we've seen aliens build exactly zero things, and in fact have no evidence of alien life anywhere in the universe.) "Common sense" does not tell you that option two is the simplest explanation.

Many of us are. The issue is that humans have conflicting needs and values. We want to protect the environment but we also want low costs, convenience, safety, jobs, etc.

What has that got to do with your theory?

Can you add just a bit more detail please?

So, back to the evidence...

Exactly. It has nothing at all to do with the veracity of her argument. So why call it "problematic"? Actually she should be able to affect her government. Unless you want to change her Constitutional Rights. Again, you are dancing around what you actually said. You asserted that her age and voting status were "problematic". You didn't simply "state her age" No one is "offended" by knowing her age.

"Mentioning her age." That's a generous way to describe your post. You claimed her age and voting eligibility were "problematic", thus subtly casting doubt on the veracity of her arguments. How are those things germane to her message? How is that not an ad hominem attack?

Perhaps I just misunderstood you. If you were not discrediting Greta due to her age, what was the intent of the following statement?

The topic of the thread is how the public is making this about Greta. That is, a discussion about how others are using aspects of Greta to hype her message or destroy her message. This thread was not an invitation to jump on the deify/demonize bandwagons.

I'm surprised by how many people here are making this about the messenger, rather than about the message. Typically we strive to ensure the former is not the focus. Discussing the hype that is surrounding her makes for interesting conversation. Discussing whether her delivery seems rehearsed, or her credibility due to her youth, is missing the point by a mile. The problem is not that she is 15, or of voting age, or a girl, or being used, or being made the face of a movement. The problem is that people have such a hard time focusing on the message rather than the messenger. If she is right, we should be behind her. If she is not, then we shouldn't.

Yes, I saw the post you were replying to. You were saying that having a speech written for you or rehearsing your speeches is a sign of being used by others. It is a ridiculous assertion.

That is so weird. It also seems like world leaders have speeches written for them, and that they rehearse!!! Something spooky going on!

Well, that's the problem for YOU. It is not a problem for me. LOL!

Me

Why don't you tell us what answer you'd like, and we'll provide that instead. If you don't want a scientific answer, then don't ask questions on a SCIENCE forum.

I was not trying to make any kind of statement at all by posting the story. I had never heard of Henrietta and thought people in this thread would find the story interesting like I did. If anything I was surprised she did not seek criminal charges against the perpetrator(s).