John Cuthber

"So my question is this: are there any good, reliable scientific studies into the paranormal?" Yes "And if so, what were their conclusions? " If the science found any truth in those stories the phenomena would be "normal" not "paranormal". (also someone would have collected a million from the James Randi Foundation. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

I'm pleased that you were able, as far as I understand your post to pay cash for a house to live in. If I were in a position to do that- say I won some cash on the lottery- I wouldn't need to pay a mortgage. That would save me about 16% of my income (after tax) which would be nice. Also, I'm lucky: I bought my house before the prices went up suddenly (due, incidentally to people speculating on them fuelled by the low rate of tax on that income). If I were setting out now I think roughly half of my income would go directly towards getting somewhere to live (rent or buy). So having a lump sum that paid for it would, in effect, double my income. That would make the difference between me being rather skint and quite affluent. Sorry to have to break this to you, but - since you already own a house- you don't count as poor. Enough cash to buy a house outright doesn't count as poor.

True, but it might make a whole lot of things that we don't know work just fine. Or, as Douglas Adams put it "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

In the interest of balance, perhaps someone should indicate what Libertarians are good at. Also, if some newbie came here and said "Everyone can make capital gains, rich or not." then failed to support or even discuss it we would probably start looking at the rulebook.

It seems to methat this wasn't so much censorship- where someone is prevented from speaking- as much as it was just someone with nothing to say (from a scientific point of view).

Bollocks and I'm perfectly certain that I couldn't do that . But I guessed someone would be able to and would have put it on youtube, so I checked and there it was. You really don't understand science do you? You also don't understand what it means not to believe in something.

I realise that you won't bother to answer this but I will post it (again) anyway. We don't get our morality from the bible. If we did then you would offer your under-age virgin daughters to a group of gay men as sexual partners in order to (so to speak) save your own arse (technically, that of two house guests). Would you consider that moral? If you wouldn't then you plainly don't get your morality from the bible. (and if you would then you are seriously deranged). Lest be clear about this The bible is morally wrong in promoting that sort of activity (as well as many other similar abhorrent acts.) Even if you don't accept the arguments for absolute morality that have been put forward (an you have yet to come up with a good reason to reject them) Then it's not consistent with the teaching that you should do unto others as you would have other do unto you. Go you get this? The bible is wrong and inconsistent.

Talking of counterpoints that get ignored., and at the risk of repeating myself. like iNow, I'd still like to see ParanoiA back up the assertion that "Everyone can make capital gains, rich or not."

Believing what the best current evidence says (and changing what you think when new evidence comes to light) is not, on the other hand, insanity. Believing that the Earth is stationary in the heavens, even though the evidence proves that it rotates, is insanity. Guess which side of the Sane vs Insane divide you find religion? It was, of course, perfectly possible for Newton to be batshit crazy about astrology and alchemy, but fairly close to perfectly correct about mechanics.

Shockingly, when referring to the illegal war I meant the illegal one. Now, since the there's just as good a video of Mr Rumsfeld supporting Saddam as there is of Mr Galloway doing so, I think you must concede that it it isn't just the left who pander to dictators. So why did you make the assertion that ... forget it. I doubt anyone cares why you decided to say what you did about the left wing supporting dictators: it was wrong anyway. The Right installed Saddam in the first place.

I think that may qualify you for the twit of the year award. I tell you what, why don't we look at some of the people who really, knowingly, documentedly supported Saddam and see how left wing they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shakinghands_high.OGG

No, it wasn't legal. The international law according to the UN is clear "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Since the UN (in particular, the security council) didn't call for military intervention there was no UN mandate for military action. If there was it will be documented somewhere. If you plan to argue about this point then the first thing you will need to do is show me a reference to the agreement by the UN to military action. If you can't do that then please don't bother to reply. And it's still off topic.

"Those that want a higher capital gains tax are simply resentful." Damned right I'm resentful. I resent being charged tax at a higher marginal rate on my income than people who can better afford to pay, just because I'm not rich and powerful enough to ensure that the system is fair. It is true to say that rich people are the ones who make the most money from capital gains and it's true that this leads to a regressive tax system. Most people say they want a progressive tax system. Some prefer a flat tax (and I rather suspect that those people tend to be rich). I don't know anyone who openly advocates a regressive tax regimen (one where the % tax you pay falls as your income rises). But they do advocate a lower rate forcapital gains because they can thereby hide the intention to avoid paing tax.

"You refer to this as a "windfall", as if it is somehow ill gotten gains." There's nothing ill-gotten about windfalls- they are just unpredictable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain So, it's more than likely that you and your siblings will end up with money that you didn't earn (your parents sort-of did by making investments). I don't see the problem with taxing that income.

This example from waitforufo "The first reason is best explained by example. You work for a wage. You pay taxes on that wage. You save your post tax dollars. With those post tax dollars you purchase an investment. Years later you sell that investment for dollars. Over the period of your investment there was inflation. So when you sell your investment, some of the dollars you receive simply account for inflation. To tax those inflated gains is simply increasing the income tax that was paid in the past. Why should people be taxed for saving for future security? You think that is fair? " suggests that the income from capital gains is always a long term thing. In particular this "Over the period of your investment there was inflation. So when you sell your investment, some of the dollars you receive simply account for inflation. " suggests that a significant part in the rise in cash value of the investment is due to inflation. However, if I buy some shares today, then sell them at a profit tomorrow inflation isn't responsible for that money I made. It's just income (if you like, its money I made by me being clever at judging the future price of shares in much the same way that footballers make money by being clever at kicking a ball about). So yes, I think it is perfectly fair that it is taxed as income. His second example "The second reason is because a lower capital gains tax encourages investors to take gains when they are available thereby incurring taxable events. The more they incur these events the more tax they pay. Government revenue goes up when the capital gains tax is lower than the income tax rate. Think of it this way. I saved my entire life for retirement, but I have to be careful spending my money because I just might run out before I die. But I check my investment portfolio and find that my stock in XYZ Corporation has had significant gains. If I sell some of my XYZ Corporation I can take that trip to Yosemite Valley I always wanted to take. When penciling out the expenses I have to consider taxes. If the taxes are too high I'll stay home and hope my investment grows some more so that maybe next year I can go. If taxes are low maybe I can sell a little bit of XYZ every year and go on a trip every year. See, more taxable events and yearly revenue for the government and more happiness for retired people. Why do you think this is bad?" fails because it doesn't take account of the other outcome. It says " I have to be careful spending my money because I just might run out before I die." The other scenario is that someone dies before the money runs out. That money (possibly after death duties) goes to the next of kin who gets this "windfall". They might decide to invest it for their own retirement, but they may well choose to take the same trip to Yosemite. If anything, they are more likely to do so because there's simply more money per capita in the system. (the system here is the original investor and their next of kin. when one dies the amount invested doesn't change much and the one left behind gets richer). And, like iNow, I'd still like to see ParanoiA back up the assertion that "Everyone can make capital gains, rich or not."

That's an absurd response to a post where I mentioned that it killed six million Jews in concentration camps. (Of course, it also affected a whole lot more people elsewhere). Were you expecting to be taken seriously? (BTW, the word you should have used is "affected" but that's not really the point)

Here is a web page I found which provides some data. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_mar_rat-people-marriage-rate If it's right then the US has one of the highest marriage rates. Notwithstanding their gun laws, death penalty and lack of proper healthcare, I think most people would still say that the US is a developed country. So the original premise seems to be false and so there's no need to look for a reason. (and God alone knows what JohnStu was on about.)

" If this sounds bananas to you, Carl Jung and Isaac Newton were also nuts." They were.

"I said they were demanding he stay in power. " No they did not. They just wanted a better way of kicking him out. Specifically, one backed by the UN. That would have needed to wait for the UN's nuclear inspectors to finish. The effect would have been to show that the whole world was against Saddam- rather than just the US and it's followers. That would have made the action legitimate and legal. You are complaining that the Leftists actually wanted this done legally. The video is a fine example of propaganda. "At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and ended his speech in English with the statement "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability".[62] In a January 2007 edition of the BBC's Hardtalk he stated that he was saluting the "Iraqi people".[9] Galloway's speech was translated for Hussein. Anasal-Tikriti, a friend of Galloway's and a Respect candidate, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain said: "I understand Arabic and it [Galloway's salutation] was taken completely out of context. When he said "you" he meant the Iraqi people, he was saluting their indefatigability, their resolve against sanctions. Even the interpreter got it right and, in Arabic, says salutes the stand of the Iraqi people'."" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Controversy Anyway, enough of that. Perhaps we should get back to the topic.

As I said, I saw plenty of people protest that a war isn't a good way to deal with problems. What evidence was there that they actually supported Saddam (and, since it was your original assertion) what evidence was there that they were left wing? Did you go and ask them? Were they carrying placards saying "CPGB supports Saddam"? Or did you just make up the asserted link because it suited you?

It must be difficult to live your life without being able to understand the difference between one shameful act by one soldier and the wholesale deliberate slaughter of six million people.

The lid stops you putting your finger on the live wires.

To me the socket by the skirting board looks more like TV antenna connector. If that's true then it may have been the power connection for a TV.

It's rather far from clear that he was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism However it's hard to see why it would matter anyway.

The fact that it's in the UK and has those colours of wires indicates that it is, or at least was, a mains power connection for something. Be very careful.