John Cuthber

The sales of books do not influence their accuracy. But the converse is not true, and not always in a good way. And the article in the rag isn't science. Why did you cite it? Anyway, since it only takes one counter example to trash a theory, and my nephew is that example, you can stop worrying about it now. (Obviously, there are lots of other like him too, but just 1 is enough)

Miser- the bloke who won't play with himself, because it might reduce his intellect, but takes acid which is known to damage the brain. "Not everything needs to be defined." It does if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.

This "Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone" is impossible from a chemistry point of view. It's generally true that testosterone helps to lay down muscle, but "So, to restate feminine; on a spectrum of 1 being indistinguishable from a girl and 10 being Arnold, " I have met some girls that are hard to distinguish from me, though I have a full beard and moustache and I'm going bald.

Oh, I see, it's true because someone trying to sell a book says so, and has published this in a non- peer reviewed magazine. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Suffer_the_Children.html?id=N1j1C_Pg-vYC Still, it's an interesting theory. From it I deduce that either my brother and his wife suddenly moved from France to the US between their first child and their second (odd, I'd have thought I'd have noticed- particularly since they seemed to be in the UK) Or, perhaps, having raised on child, they forgot how to do it with the second.

SFAIK = So far as I know. The things that became chalk were tiny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccolithophores

Is this "Fully aware of selection bias, but we are not at the full mercy of it. We've all had social interactions with people (I hope) and we all have opinions. Let's hear it " because you want to hear lots more examples of selection bias? Well, OK, here's my biassed opinion. "do feminine men complain more? " Not as far as I have noticed. "Are there research that confirms this?" I don't know but I doubt it because it would be damned near impossible to check. Getting ethical approval without informed consent might be rather difficult. Getting a blind experiment once you have informed consent would be impossible.

I guess it's some sort of progress. "Our entire government got it wrong, knowing this risk existed and doing nothing about it except hope the problem would go away." OK, so we ignore the hyperbole about "our entire government" because it's silly. The guy who washed the tea cups is part of the government, but he's not responsible. So I guess you mean "At least some people high up in government (maybe including the President?) got it wrong." OK, now you need to say what they got wrong. What risk did they ignore? Was there some specific indication of a threat to the embassy that they knew about and ignored? How do you know that they knew about it? Was if because they said so on Fox? If they did nothing then you need to explain that this situation was in some way different from plenty of other threats faced by embassies round the world. There simply are not the resources to make them all fortresses and, even if there were, it would be inconsistent with their diplomatic status. After all, they probably also didn't beef up security al all the other embassies that week. How could they? Unless you can show that they were aware of some specific threat to the embassy in Benghazi, then they didn't do anything wrong. It's like going to a bank the day after it was robbed and telling them it's their own fault because they didn't hire lots of extra security that day. How could they have known about the robbery in advance? In the same way, this "Not a thing except take away what little security that was there and knowing the possibility of such an attack" is a serious allegation, but you need to be able to show that they knew about the attack in advance in such a way that they could have prevented it. There's always some threat of attack, so saying that they knew there was doesn't add anything. And, as I said, there are many calls on the resources. You can't tell in advance where you are going to need them I have already pointed out that terrorist groups (and random rabbles too) are not in the habit of emailing the white house in advance of an attack. So, other than a so-called news channel, have you any evidence about that statement? Are there emails that we can look at? Is there a record of the president talking about the attack before it happens? Is there any evidence at all that he knew? Or is it just something Fox made up?

And to add to that, good discipline in a child can also prevent ADHD. http://xkcd.com/285/

DH, I think you may well be right. It's perfectly possible that Rigney can't actually answer the question. If that's the case then we might as well close the thread and forget it since there's no way of knowing what the OP was about. However, I think part of the problem is that he just has a very short attention span so he only responds to the last post. So, once again, may I respectfully request that others' don't post until Rigney has clearly answered the question and told us what this whole tread is actually about. I'm concerned that, if anyone posts something he will reply to that and ignore the fact that he hasn't yet told us what wrong he is claiming was done and by whom. It's kind of difficult to address that. So I'd like the next post to be from Rigney, clearly spelling out: 1 who did something wrongly? 2 What they did? And 3 why he thinks this is so? Once we have that we can comment on it- otherwise this thread isn't going anywhere.

SFAIK they only take on nutrients from solution, but it hardly matters. If they are sat on a rock made of calcium carbonate or silicate and they take up the calcium then the rock will dissolve. And yes, there's a lot of carbon there. People have proposed this as a way to scrub CO2 from the air.

Most cells have ion transporters (or "pumps"). They can pull things like calcium from the water ( there's always some calcium dissolved in seawater) and then the cell can use it. The cells that eventually became chalk used the calcium to make a skeleton of sorts. But the ion transport systems are part of living cells so they couldn't have exited before there were some sort of living things in the sea.

Mr Rayon, do you know that eyelash is not the same as eyebrow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyelash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyebrow

I first asked as post 55 in response to your comment in post 41 And, I wonder if I can ask the other people here for a favour? As it stands, this thread is 24 pages long and is debating Rigney's original starting point. However, he hasn't actually clearly stated what that point was. May I respectfully request that others' don't post until Rigney has clearly answered the question and told us what this whole tread is actually about. I'm concerned that, if anyone posts something he will reply to that and ignore the fact that he hasn't yet told us what wrong he is claiming was done and by whom. It's kind of difficult to address that. So I'd like the next post to be from Rigney, clearly spelling out: 1 who did something wrongly? 2 What they did? And 3 why he thinks this is so? Once we have that we can comment on it- otherwise this thread isn't going anywhere.

For that sort of chemistry you are probably better off looking at a specialist site like this http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/methylenation.html

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue? Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

Why don't you answer the questions?

I have, so to speak, a dog in this fight because I'm a member of this discussion forum. Wouldn't you find it easier to just answer the questions, rather than ranting bout me being English? Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue? Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

Is this the sort of thing yo mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_transporter

That website claims that Obama and Hillary lied. Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue? Or is this just another of your vague allegations? (It's impossible to tell from the site since the video of them has been removed)

In addition to the risk of getting sued, anyone who was involved in the work would be an accessory to murder. The government might have immunity, but the individuals wouldn't.

I think what makes you look like a loony (right or left) is making vague assertions and refusing to clarify what you meant and why. perhaps you would like to set that straight now. You may remember that I asked this a few times before. Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

So, your summary is "Read what I said: I'm not being self righteous"

Your tacit assertion that part of my house is outside my house is absurd. Can you point to those bits for me? Russell was considering sets that don't include themselves: that's where you get problems.

I didn't say that you were. I am saying that your approach is unscientific. Realistically, you can make observations about the behaviour of 1 person- yourself. You can't exclude the probable selection bias and you certainly can't do blind testing. The you extrapolate to half the population of the world. You continue to do so, even when it has been shown to be inconsistent with observation and established theory. That's not science Which of us is being self righteous?

My house is finite and it contains itself. The set of all possible sets is infinite and it contains itself. There's no difference.