John Cuthber

If you look into it, the stuff isn't as terrifying as the media say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura_stramonium#Etymology funny how often that happens

Did you not realise that you were citing something that has nothing much to do with the question the OP asked? Again, this makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about. Did you actually read the page?

No it is not, and a simple web search would have stopped you showing that you do not know what you are talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

It is not possible to tell from that picture. If the container is black then it will almost certainly block UV. If you want to be really sure, wrap it with aluminium foil (the sort used in cooking).

If it worked,someone would probably have done it by now. To me, that strongly suggests that it won't work.

Probably that they were then ninth and third examples of their types that were isolated.

My colleagues who do computational fluid dynamics on 24 core machines with enough throughput that they need specialist cooling, get tired of waiting 2 or 3 days for the computer to do the arithmetic for them. I rather suspect that the power you need depends on the job you are seeking to do.

No.

Just a quick nitpick on your nitpick. not all things are material things

Why do you think that? There's an even bigger difference in chromosome numbers for a start.

They have different chromosome numbers a viable cross is practically impossible.

Thanks, you seem to have put forward a bunch of things that I can, in fact, visualise. Did you think you had a point there somehow?

http://www.arcticsilver.com/arctic_silver_thermal_adhesive.htm Others are, no doubt, available.

We can prove that 1+1=2. you can't http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html What does that tell you about who it is that knows Jack about the universe?

"could-a-wolverine-and-a-honey-badger-produce-a-fertile-hybrid-offspring" No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B_07noCPc4kC&pg=RA4-PA119&lpg=RA4-PA119&dq=%22honey+badger%22+%22chromosome+number%22&source=bl&ots=u298OJ0adH&sig=ahvlBT0LNLmF5be_oLZAPugmHP0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirkMDcn6zJAhWB7xQKHeNHDSkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=%22honey%20badger%22%20%22chromosome%20number%22&f=false

Nice claim. Got any evidence? Once again I'm simply asking you to demonstrate that you tare not making stuff up. What can't I visualise?

If the "cut off" was set to 30 posts and the limit was applied to this thread, then whatever someone posts next would be the end of the discussion- even if it was total nonsense.You could post anything, and there wouldn't be a reply. Also, cutting people off would either look like censorship or drive them to start new threads which clutter the place up even more.

Do you realise that somewhere someone is writing (presumably in Arabic or something). I am saying that it is OK for the French Our Brothers in the faith, in this case to go against their constitution and normal important human rights of its citizens, in a state of emergency and close its cross the borders contrary to EU principles, raid homes, question Syrian infidel nationals, and bomb a sovereign country (Syria insert name here) to eliminate a threat. Reactionary and Jingoistic as it may be. And I stand with her them in her their efforts and pledge my own blood and money to the removal of Da'esh infidels from the planet. Ok, now when do you both stop? Don't get me wrong. If I thought your stance would help I'd be right up there with you; but not only will it not work, but it is obvious why it wont. Every stray bullet (and most bullets go astray) risks killing or wounding some bystander. Every one of those bystander's family will then consider you as the enemy and will join up to get revenge. If only Confucius had been right when he said " If you go on a journey seeking revenge, first dig two graves". It's not two; it's dozens.

That's not inconsistent with having a sticky topic with the rebuttals of all the usual dross.

I like this idea. OK, I accept that if we send them off somewhere else they will get the same rebuttal but doing so somehow seems to me like we are refusing to discuss it. There are no areas of science which we should not be willing to discuss. On the other hand, creating the list of Q and A would be tiresome. Perhaps we could borrow the stuff from talkorigins (we'd need to ask them, of course).

There is some professional opinion which says that at least one of them has. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/22/top-u-s-psychiatrists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder-textbook-case/ I can't see anything that singles him out as markedly different from the other senior figures in the party. Can anyone else?

Why are you arguing for testing something which has already been shown not to be possible?

Yes, it's because they offer some sort of support to a group of people who see persecution from everywhere else.

OK, I will cite it. Ypor post, the text of which says this Also says *as a graphic,so it's not quoted that E=IR which shows that E is proportional to R Which is the opposite of what you kept on saying. Now, if I can cite you as a source to show that you are wrong, what did that citation achieve? You already knew the facts- you just refused to listen.

It does when they keep repeating it, even after it has been pointed out (by more than one person) that they are wrong. Every time you say the resistance is inversely proportional to the voltage, you are always wrong.