zapatos

I thought StringJunky's comment was very good and relevant to the conversation. Perhaps Michel you should read his comment more carefully as he did not state that 'gravity is metaphysics', but that the "'is' and 'why'" of gravity is metaphysics. And given that your contribution to the thread consisted entirely of the word "time", you may want to be careful about throwing stones. You know, glass houses and all that.

Be gone.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were purposely putting it on floors, just that Moon's floor was in place long enough to pick up radium when it was still in use in the US. It is also interesting to note that the home was previously owned by a doctor, considering radium was used as a medical treatment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium The factory mentioned here is maybe 400-500 miles from Moon's home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

Certainly sounds like it could be radium. Right color, old floor, and was previously pretty common.

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that proof too.

You might want to try sauteing yellow squash with onions, garlic, and sweet peppers in olive oil, then stirring in stewed tomatos. Mmm Mmm Good!

As regards the first sentence of your post I would say:- Think very very hard as to why that picture represents that thing in you who refuses to debate and endlessly repeats himself. That thing is chasing you wherever you go. You must try to escape that thing. It is very ugly. As regards the second sentence of your post I would say: - You are welcome to your feelings.

I'd kind of like to see you prove it too.

Excuse me? You can't be serious.

Ok, one last question then. Given that you say... and... how do you feel comfortable making the following statement? As far as I can tell, you are saying that we don't know when alternatives can take over, we don't know when fossil fuels will run out, but everything is going to work out fine. My take on things is that not knowing when alternatives can take over, and not knowing when fossil fuels will run out, can only justify the statement that we don't know enough to make the claim that everything is going to work out fine.

Automatic transmissions are fast, but the change gears when they want to, not when you want them to. By changing gears manually you have more control over how the car performs. Changing gears in a race car is very fast also, but I've never seen a comparison of gear shifting between manual and automatic.

Yes, I stepped into this and described the situation as I saw it, and I expected a response. So, no problem there. My objection is not that I feel you are badgering me, but that you are judging me unfairly. Either I was correct in my analysis or I wasn't, and if you thought I was not correct I fully expected you to say so. What I didn't expect was that you would not only decide I was wrong, but that you would conclude I was being dishonest and biased. The above points you made were not refuting what I said, they were suggesting that what I said was based on my dishonest or biased analysis. That of course was a possibility, but why make that assumption? Since I didn't feel I was being dishonest, I took objection to your portrayal of me. Actually what I was doing was supporting mooeypoo's right to draw the conclusion she did. And I decided to support mooeypoo because when I read what Anders had said I concluded that she interpreted that statement correctly. I thought you were quite harsh in criticizing mooeypoo for responding to the words Anders actually wrote in that post instead of interpreting what he really must have meant based on the entire thread. The primary onus for clear communications lies with the speaker. Had you criticized mooeypoo for reaching the conclusion she did at the same time you criticized Anders for not being clear in his post, I would have said nothing. I realize you don't feel there was anything to criticize Anders for, which is why I started my first post with "I'm not so sure she got it wrong.". No hard feelings though. I was happy to get the chance to argue with you as I find you and a few others on this site (e.g. iNow) to be a real challenge. I know that if I don't make a good argument you guys will rip me a new one. You guess correctly. EDIT: Oops! I started this post a couple of hours ago and just now got back to it. I apologize if this was too far off topic. I also hope you leave this here.

Har har!! This thread is getting better by the post.

Last night I had a dream that a hamburger was eating me!!

So then you want to store the ice in the tropics?

I don't know what part of the world you are from, but pretty much every scientist I have ever met or heard of is an internet user.

My mistake for not putting [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] around the word 'leap'. If I interpreted his words incorrectly it can be simply resolved by him telling me otherwise. Since me acknowledging from the outset that this could simply be a 'misunderstanding' is not enough for you, after this post I'll gladly fall on my sword. Did you read any of my previous post? If not, let me repeat one part of it: "I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery." If you have managed to interpret my posts in such a negative manner, I have to believe that you harbor some prejudices yourself.

I thought it was being awake that had that effect on some men.

You may want to reread the posts. I never said his position was unclear, I simply suggested he may have misspoke in his most recent post. You on the other hand, said: So please don't accuse me of 'making excuses', and doing so by attributing your quote to me. Regardless, I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery. But if he misspeaks the penalty should go to him, not to the person who responds to what he said.

I responded properly to the words he wrote. I acknowledged in my first sentence that this could just be a misunderstanding. I then went on to explain why I interpreted it the way I did. It is a bunch of crap that I should be criticized by you for doing so. Tell me, is Romney for or against universal health care? First he said yes, then he said no. I myself will avoid commenting on it so as to avoid expecting him to reconcile one comment with another. Yes, I saw that but thank you for posting it again. How is that different from interpreting him as con-slavery again? You acknowledged that his position wasn't clear. As a wise man once said, "You don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality."

Yes, this just may be a misunderstanding. Ok, good point. Well, yes, I did think he meant *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. It was completely consistent with his statement "...it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus. Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights". He is saying 'taking away the rights of the fetus' is 'Just like... taking rights away rights from business owners'. I know he thinks taking the rights from the fetus is wrong, so how do I interpret that other than that taking the rights away from business owners is wrong? I made the leap myself that if taking rights away from business owners to give civil rights to others was bad, then taking the rights away from business owners (who own slaves) to give 'civil' rights to others (slaves) was bad. I think I interpreted him corretly. It is not my fault if he misspoke. I feel like I am too. Given that he is supportive of 6" probes being inserted in women's vaginas and forced sterilization of women my interpretation of his postion did not seem unreasonable to me. I guess we are both being selective in which things we see.

I'm not so sure she got it wrong. Anders specifically equated Civil Rights with slavery two sentences after stating that Civil Rights took rights away from business owners: I did not, however, see where he limited Civil Rights to 1964-1965. It seems to me that slavery was very much a Civil Rights issue. I believe Anders is indeed suggesting that you have to take rights away from business owners to give people civil rights, and you have to take rights away from slave owners in order to give rights to slaves.

So you said. I guess I'm old fashioned. I choose not to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet who cannot cite any reputable sources to support his assertions. Whether I think we will sit twiddling our thumbs or harness fusion energy in 2013, thus solving the world's energy problems, is irrelevant. zapatos, with the Bugs Bunny avatar, is not a reputable source. Lovely story. Convenient for you that it has a happy ending. But it is irrelevant. I could tell a story that does not have a happy ending. Here is an example... As supplies of cheap energy dwindle, suppliers of oil, seeing the writing on the wall, begin to hoard their reserves resulting in worldwide recession. Politicians refuse to act in a timely manner, thus driving us over the energy cliff. Countries that did not have the economic ability to build solar and wind infrastructure struggle to meet food demands and hundreds of thousands starve. Local economies are in shambles as northern cities struggle to provide heat for their citizens. Tourist destinations are empty. Millions freeze in Russia. Local conflicts break out all over the world. China and the United States threaten a worlwide conflict as they both covet the oil and natural gas remaining in the Middle East. Thank goodness that people were working on this issue in the year 2012. They were finding more efficienct routes to work, buying hybrid cars, and countries were investing in alternative energy sources. Because of their foresight, the gap between fossil fuel depletion and the rise of sufficient alternative energy sources only lasts about 10 years. Unfortunately millions die in that time, and the world experiences economic stagnation for decades as the transition from fossil fuels to alternatives is completed. iDevonian -- Your optimism is not enough. Until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary, my scenario should be considered as likely as yours.