mooeypoo

Appolinaria, he doesn't need evidence, he has claims like these: Obviously said from first-person experience, which is highly regarded in scientific thinking. But wait, I'm just saying that because I didn't grow out of my man-hating sadistic phase. Maybe you will see things better, as a compassionate child-loving adult woman. Does anyone else here notices how infuriating, women-degrading, and horrific this thread has degraded to? We're no longer discussing the potential mistreatment of boys (without evidence), we're now describing girls as brainless sadistic torturers, who's only grace is their ability to rear children which makes them somewhat compassionate when they miraculously "pop" into womanhood at 18. Yay for biology making a woman compassionate and protective of children by nature! It's not misogynistic at all. I don't think Green Xenon is even realizing what he's saying at this point, quite honestly. ~mooey

You lock him up. You don't advocate he be raped by another drunken man to "learn his lesson". Dear gods, I hope you don't. Are you really equating the "mistreatment" of boys (which, as I said before, can actually be viewed as gross mistreatment of GIRLS) to sex offender victimizing girls? This is getting offensive, Green Xenon. Either you are being purposefully offensive, or you're not quite grasping reality. I think the best way to proceed, on everyone's part, is for you to bring actual evidence that this "gross mistreatment" of boys, the way you say it, is actually grossly harmful to the boys. C'mon now, we're a science forums. Look for scientific and psychological studies. Here's a good article about how what you claim is 'preferential treatment' to girls, is actually extremely detrimental to girls: http://academics.ham...equity/ge4.html Another study on how to improve girls' interest in physics due to society's favorable slant towards boys http://www.d.umn.edu/~bmunson/Courses/EdSe4255/GirlsInPhysics.pdf Girls don't go to sports and physics because society treats boys better in these fields. Do the study before you make radical claims about it, and then have the audacity to propose we blame and punish the girls. There are tons of other properly cited psychological overviews of this subject. YOUR OWN personal interpretation and life experience does not equal to what actually is the psychological situation here. You are probably the farthest thing possible from a women's rights activist if you support mistreating girls for the sake of punishing society. Do you even read your own claims? So, now you're filling the thread with baseless accusations. Boy-abusing sadists? I grew up in the same society you have, am I a boy abusing sadist? You're not just being ridiculous, you're making remarkably unfounded claims, and those are not accepted in the forum, especially when they are so infuriating. You think you're right? Bring evidence. Stop talking emptiness. You're reducing women into low-level retarded idiots with a vengeance against men, and that, my friend, is about the farthest anyone can go from being "a feminist". Look. If you want to make psychological claims, you need to bring studies. Enough with this circular crazy talk. ~mooey NSF's Girls in Science and Engineering: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0659/nsf0659.pdf NSF Research on girls/women in science: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03207/start.htm Girls start on the same "footing" as boys, and yet dislike school a lot more when they're in highschool. Preferential treatment seems to be given to the boys. Statistics snippet: Figure A. Percentage of high school seniors' responses to the question, "How do you feel about school?," by sex: 1980 and 2001 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/6_4/8_1.asp#1 Myths about girls and women in science: Source: http://www.livescience.com/7349-top-5-myths-girls-math-science.html Can we actually discuss reality in this thread rather than the twisted view you seem to insist on, Green Xenon, or is that too much to ask coming from a radical men-hating sadistic spoiled woman? ~mooey

Not according to psychologists and society. Threats and actions are a bigger problem; that doesn't make the "want" not a problem. Anyways, that's besides the point right now. Yes, which is why I said you're being inconsistent. On one hand you say 'passive' and on the other you want to punish little girls to fix the problem. I feel just fine, I'm not the one advocating for a non-supported psychological approach that goes against actual psychological methodology. We're not a mumbojumbo forum, we're a science forum. Maybe it's time you start supporting your lovely system with actual evidence rather than personal opinion and lack of clarity. What if those who do wrong don't realize it? Do they not deserve some benefit of the doubt, and an attempt to first correct their wrong? You're fixing a wrong by making another wrong. That just makes you wrong too. This is actually cynically amusing; see, women-rights movements actually consider these "better treatments" of not pushing girls into science and math as *NON PREFERENTIAL* treatment. It's part of the claimed reason of why girls don't go to science and math, and it is something women's rights try to change. Women seem to be told they should be delicate and leave sports and science alone -- that's actually *against* girls, not for them. The world has shades of grey in it, not just black-and-white, and believe it or not, not everyone went through what you specifically went through; did you ever consider how this "preferential" treatment feels like from the girls' perspective? You are making absolutely zero sense in things that wold take you just a very small amount of effort to really check the validity of. Do you not notice that by being so adamant in doing evil to the supposed evil-doers, you are making yourself one of those evildoers too? ~mooey

There's a difference between angrily saying "doh! I wanna kill this guy!" and not meaning it, and really wanting to kill someone (even if not acting on it). Wanting to kill someone is a problem. I think you need to find help, Green Xenon. Acting on the desire to kill transforms the problem from "needing help" to "needing to be locked up". No, you're not, you're advocating for being evil to girls. Don't ignore my post, Green Xenon. You are advocating for actions against innocent little girls -- that's evil. You might think you are "against the other evil" but you're no better than the ones you fight against if you are as evil as them. ~mooey

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. Surely, you mean the first *published* line of Genesis. You know, the one the Council of Jamnia essentially created by deciding which scrolls to bind into the "Tanach" and which not to. If that's what you mean, then the above is the first line of said edited publication. Yes, let's. According to religion, the answer is a very comfortable "YES!" about God, which is funny because when scientists suggest anything else, religious folk jump to ask "BUT WHAT WAS BEFORE!". So... what was before God? If the question "what was before the big bang" is relevant, so is "what was before god" and if the answer to the latter is "nothing, it always existed", then it cannot be claimed it's a bad answer for the former as well. Consistency is a magical thing. ~mooey I would suggest that you stop preaching and get off your high horse. You are the one who came to this forum, this scienceforum, trying to convince us. We're participating in the discussion, and being condescending won't benefit to your cause or our niceynicey feeling. If you're here to ridicule us, I suggest you save yourself the trouble. If you're here to debate, then get off the attitude. Whatever happened to treating your neighbors the way you want to be treated, eh? Apparently that only counts for neighbors you agree with. ~mooey

How is this any different than wht the system you're so adamantly fighting against does? What you seem to be saying, really, is that you understand the "perpetrators" so much, that you're willing to do exactly what they're doing, while punishing an innocent party. You say it's not the boy's fault, but people mistreat boys. Then you say that you want to mistreat girls to teach the system a lesson, even though it's not the girls' fault. You became what you fight against. And if you're no better than those you claim are so heartless, than what does that make you? I'm sorry but we're a science forum, and your attempt to make this "AFFGRD" a "system" when all you did was provide crappy reference for crappy self-appointed-subjective-interpretation of psychology for things that clearly stand *against* psychological data is so ridiculously unscientific, I would kindly ask you just stop pretending it is. Let's stop beating around the bush here. You want to f** up little girls because you're angry that society treats them favorably. You have not provided much evidence for this so-called "favorable" treatment and for the "fact" that it comes at the expense of little boys, but we will ignore that for the moment. So let me repeat this point, because it's so utterly ridiculous, that it stands in direct violation to your entire point, and yet here you are once again, missing it: You want to f** up little girls because you're angry that society treats them favorably. You want to punish an innocent party, just like your version of society punishes the victim. You are no different. Stop beating around the bush, please. You advocate for the mistreatment of girls while admitting they are not at fault. That's just as much 'evil' as the mistreatment of boys when they're not at fault. Either accept the fact you're doing the same thing you fight against, or start rethinking your strategy here. Congratulations. You completely eliminated any and all potential difference between you and whoever it is you're fighting against. Kudos. ~mooey

The irony here is that in the midst of a really radical not-quite-rational jump to the extreme statements of "hating" little girls, you actually might have a point. And yet all this radical 'hating on girls' thing makes people totally miss the actual point that might be of interest here. All people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexual preferences, skin color and any other such difference. Women, men, elderly and children, are all included. We are mishmashing points, though; women in general are not treated better than men. There are quite a number of long long statistical points in this huge thread that show it well. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that there are not cases where males are treated less than women. Of course there are, and this is a good point to discuss. For instance, men (children and adults alike) who were raped, are treated much worse by society than women who were raped. That is a sad fact that should be addressed and changed. That doesn't mean we should "hate girls", since it's not the girls' fault. That also doesn't mean that men in general (or boys in general) are treated less favorably in general. It just means they might be treated less favorably in this particular case. You also need to take into account that, perhaps, what YOU experience(d) is not necessarily what everyone else experience(d). Perhaps, Green Xenon, you should take a step back, examine what you're trying to point out, and make your points without devolving into the extreme, so that we can actually debate on the issues at hand and not disagree with you outright just because your extreme points are making whatever valid points you may have sound utterly ridiculous. Try to stay focused on the point you're making, you might get some success in explaining yourself and in having people debate (and shocker, agree!) with some of what you're trying to say. ~mooey Let me get this straight; you accuse adults of treating girls favorably, and you want to punish the girls? How's that "right" exactly? Is the girl responsible for the "crime" of the adult? You aren't making much sense here, and you're being awfully inconsistent.

The video is a mocking vid, so yes, it's extreme and it doesn't represent theists, it represnts the 'extreme' theists -- the evangelical in-your-face preachers. Overall, it has good points despite the fact it's a mocking video that goes to the extreme, which is why I put it in. It's not a replacement of actual claims, but I thought it had interesting points.

How is this generating free energy, exactly?

It's called a joke.

Equal or bigger than? or equal or bigger then?

We're not asking for money or fees for your papers. If you want to discuss your actual papers and the science, please explain it here and we'll discuss it. Otherwise we'll close the thread. ~mooey

There are quite a lot of things in ironman that probably could be feasible, and yet quite a huge number that is absolute bunk; I guess that's the greatness of good action sci-fi movies, especially ones that are based on comics. Replacing his heart, for instance; we know that we have heart transplants nowadays, and the technology is moving forward to "creating" organs. I could also see how organs would be augmented, eventually, in the distant future, with some sort of nano technology. However, replacing someone's heart with a glowy magnetic chest plate is scientifically ridiculous. It works great for drama, and in these kind of movies you really do have to suspend your disbelief (I love that movie even if it's not science) but, yeah, that part is completely ridiculous. The computer parts in the movie could also, at some point, be more or less realistic. The LCD screen in the helmet is something companies already work on, and the voice-command computers get better and better. We're not yet there as to a full blown voice-command computer that really understands context in commands, but this part is probably a bit more realistic in terms of future tech. Also, I have to say, relative to other scifi "comic book style" movies, the flying part in ironman is, at least, only a little preposterous. Other "superheros" have absolutely no mechanism for their flight (they just.. do) but ironman's use of rocket backpack (well, "hand" pack..) is, at least, a bit more realistic. There are a lot of problems with this type of device especially in the speeds the movie claims it works in, but at least it's more or less feasible as a *general* concept. There are companies that work on some sort of rocket backpack, so I don't know if we'll get to having it fully operational in a suit of armor (issues of pressure, weight, fuel, time of flight, etc) but that makes it a bit more realistic, I guess.

Has anyone stopped to consider that the particle that was discovered was named after "Alpha", and not the other way around?

Point taken, but we might as well be organized.

! Moderator Note fake Steven Hawkings, if you continue to hijack threads, you will be banned. Your thread was closed, and another exists. Do NOT flood other threads with your pet theory. That's your last warning.

This seems to answer the questions http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/493249/mythbusting-game-design-and-copyright-trademarks-a Source: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Eh, okay, here we go: Your links aren't working, because they're copy/pasted from yahoo email. We don't allow for posting email addresses and personal information in posts. I removed those. You realize you're replying to a convention confirmation, yes? I'm not sure what you want to show with this, but it doesn't show that your papers were peer reviewed. It just showed you were registered to a convention. Good for you. There are a lot of companies around the world that work in "reviving" the desert and doing a lot of technology in agriculture in the desert, like Mexico and Israel, and those are easier and better to use than to create rains. The main issue with desert farming is not the rain (it actually does have rain) it's the type of soil. Making rain in the desert won't help you. No one will "just" publish your papers. There is a methodology to the scientific method, and you're not going to skip it. If you want to discuss your science, lay it out OUTSIDE the pdf. If you have something scientific (research) you want to publish, please summarize your points OUTSIDE the document you're attaching and we can try and help you with the science. DO NOT REQUEST MONEY HERE, commercial or "donations", both are not acceptable, and will get you banned outright if you do it again. ~mooey

Which bible is it that we're discussing? The pre-interpreted translation, or the original scrolls, half of which were lost? You really need to stop proselatyzing, zorro. We're not here to listen to you preach; when we ask for evidence, we mean evidence outside the bible. If you have none, it's no evidence. Very simple. I can also prove that Harry Potter exists just because it's written in 8 very popular books, and if you ask me for evidence, I'll show you quotes from inside Harry Potter. I'm sure you can see how that's not evidence. Neither is evidence *inside* the bible for the truth *of* the bible. Circular logic might work in the pulpit, but it doesn't work in science. Also, our rules are against preaching, so beyond it being a request for our sake, it's also one for yours. Go over our rules please, and decide if you want to cooperate with the forum *you* decided to come to, or if you don't. No half ways. ~mooey

This seems to be on point here. Change "God" to "mysticism" in that video, and it's pretty much the same.

It was at the end of the sentence when I quoted it. Ha. (See, that was capitalized.)

You mean "it's". And I agree.

That didn't take long to raise Godwin's Law.

No! I'm convinced now! Newton believed in Astrology, that's enough for me! While I'm at it, I will also reject General Relativity, because Newton didn't believe in that. Good bye, GPS, yee figment of my relativistic imagination, and welcome, oh gods of the stars, who move in elliptical orbits without interaction with one another, and are just shiny dots in the fabric of the atsmophere, regardless of their true distance between one another. I am converted. Now where's my bucket, I need to swim in water. ~mooey

Not if I close it. I'm a Pisces.