mooeypoo

We'd be more than happy to see your theoretical mathematical proof, all you have to do is share it. ! Moderator Note As it's yet to be proven and mainstream, this moved to speculation.

Yeah, let me tell you something, guys, "Years ago" is an understatement. I've been reading my own posts here and I'm a tad disturbed by them. I guess we live and learn, eh? All current scientific data shows (a) no real effect of EM waves on the brain (unless from VERY VERY close, and even then rather small one) and (b) no evidence for ghosts or anything "paranormal". I am not too sure we can revive this thread like this. If you guys want, maybe you should open a new one, it's such a long time ago that I bet I'm not the only member to shift positions a bit and get wiser with age. And... education (graduating with a physics degree tends to get your feet back on firm ground of reality ~mooey

! Moderator Note Guys, I remind you, we are not here to give out answers, we're here to help people find their own way to a solution. Shay, you have to show us that you are trying and what you think you should do, and we might be able to help steer you the right way. That said, I can't say I'm too happy about the fact you stated this is a midterm, but regardless, we would have done the same whether this is a midterm or homework. Show work, tell us where you got stuck or there's nothing we can do. Moved to HW help

Actually no. He technically can, but in PRACTICE he gives that right to the Captain. I was once punished (a stupid little fine, don't ask) by my own direct CO for something a visiting General thought was offense. (If you care, I was wearing work uniforms when I accepted him into the base rather than the 'show' uniforms he expected). He COULD punish me right there. The custom is that he doesn't. He gave up dominion; he went to the Captain (mine) and gave him the story; my own captain not only punished me, but chose the punishment within guidelines. Giving up dominion and rights of punish provisionally is absolutely logical. For that matter, God may have the ABILITY to punish, but he gave the right to to someone else. Whether it is man or Satan is something I'm still not clear on based on some of the mixed up posts in the thread. Does this make sense? Actually, that seems to be against what you're saying. Religious folk believe they do ask permission before they do things, so that leaves dominion with God. If he can't delegate, then he didn't give it up, and it's his. I'm a tad lost with regards to your point now.

Guys, this is a science-minded forum, not a religious theologians forum. We respect opinions, but in this forum we must work with evidence. In the case of religion, that has to come with logical arguments, avoiding logical fallacies and explaining your reasoning. Saying "this is the way it is" is insufficient unless you explain WHY you think this is the way it is. Otherwise, it's nothing but preaching. You can say "it's clear" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are DOZENS of denominations within Christianity that disagree with the "clear" thing, not to mention other religions (like Judaism) that have their own interpretations. If you don't support your claims or make a logic-driven statement, I really don't see what I can answer. Example: This is preaching, my friend. It has no logical basis, just a combination of statements that you deem true. That's all fine and dandy, and you have the right to believe whatever you want -- but if you're in this forum to debate, you need to support your statements. For that matter, your logic is flawed. A person DOES have a choice but to propogate his own essence. I was in the army, and I can tell you for a fact that there are a HUGE number of people who are absolutely and utterly lazy, and yet they make it seem like they're the best workers out there. The cheat the system, and it works, and people think they're the best ever -- and they get promoted. Sometimes they get found out at some point. Sometimes they don't. A person can absolutely hide his true nature from unsuspecting people. That's why we have conmen on the planet, and hoaxters and deluded psychics (or hoaxters psychics, we have tons of those too and they're very successful). So what you're saying makes no sense, and is also not really supported by anything other than your own opinion. Please support your statements with logical explanations. You can open a blog if you just want to state what you think is obvious, that's not what we're here for. That's so vague I can't even begin to answer it. So let me ask you something, if we have a person that has no spirituality per say (an atheist, call it, or agnostic or secular, whatever you wish) -- and that person spends their entire life volunteering in starving villages in Africa bringing food to the masses, and yet seeing the devastation and suffering just proves to convince him further of his secular'ism -- that's devil's work? In opposition, a religious person goes on to Africa to push messages of anti-protection against HIV, messages that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people --- that's Godly? I don't quite get your distinction here. Yeah that's just preaching again. Any proof that our consciousnesses are linked? Scientifically speaking there's not a shred of evidence for that. Supply evidence, prove your point, and substantiate your claims. That's what discussions here are like. I grew up Jewish, and I read the OT in its original form (hebrew/aramaic) from start to finish about 3 times, so I can't claim expertise about the new testament. However, even I can find examples in the text where Jesus becomes angry and abrasive (especially ni his younger years) which would make his "exmplary life" less than exmplary. He's supposed to be the son of God, which would mean he would need to be perfect *from the start* rather than "learn to be perfect". Also, it seems to me there's a 30-year gap in the depiction of Jesus' life in the bible. How do you know his life was exemplary in those 30 years? You cannot know if there's no record of it. The Jews were awaiting their Massiah, which was, in their eyes, NOT Jesus. Hence the separation between Jews and Christians. I understand you have conviction in your belief, but I would appreciate if you try to make your claims a bit less definitively-true and a bit more explained. I explain my views with logical explanations and examples and references, you should do the same, otherwise we won't really achieve anything other than agreeing to disagree. Now, there are no writings *EVER* from Jesus' actual time. All writings are from future perspective, and were not written by the Jews, so your last statement that "when jesus came the writings were about what happened at that time" is plainly false. Lastly, I would like to remind you that while you state the book is one single book, you keep quoting english translations of it. If you truly think the bible is the word of infallible god, I would think you'd go study the original language it was written in and study the nuances of it. I can tell you for an absolute fact (and I am not the only one saying it, Christian theologians have been saying it for years as well, a tleast those with enough self credibility to go study the hebrew/aramaic and greek to read the texts) that the translation is written AFTER it was INTERPRETED. That means that while in English things are oh-so-clearly-said, they are NOT so clearly said in the original language. If you insist on arguing about what the bible says, have the least bit of integrity to at least admit you're not reading the actual original version. Really? The bible interprets itself? Is that why there are so many denominations out there each claiming to hold the true interpretation? You glossed over this question in my last post, I would like you to consider it now. Also, where does the bible says that faith without works is dead? I know of quotes where God says he just wants belief in him. In fact, there's quite a lot in the OT about how NOT to worship, and about how the worship that did happen was more about customs of purity that the followers did to distinguish themselves and praise God, and less about what God actually requested. You keep ignoring my points, here again. TWO issues here: First, the OT is filled with places where God kills a whole bunch of people on his own right, from the flood to conquest, to ordering people to kill their children (who are innocent!). Is that satan's work? The bible clearly states it as God's work, so either God did it, or the bible is fallible. Pick one. Second, even if that's the case, that means God GAVE UP DOMINION to Satan. There's a lot of evil stuff happening out there, my friend, and if all of those are Satan's work, it means God doesn't do anything to stop it --- which means he gave dominion over them to Satan. Your points do not lead to the conclusion you stated. ~mooey The bible is severely lacking in facts, though, like the size and shape of the earth and mechanisms that allow it to work. If it's the word of God meant for the future, I'd expect allknowing God to know a bit more than hinting at a "perhaps" circular shape and "perhaps" too many stars to count. By th way, we can actually count and approximate, the number isn't infinite at all.. how did God not be able to do that? Is he not almighty and infallible and all knowing? Figuratively by whom? The word "Har" (Mountain in Hebrew) is used extensively in the bible, and never in the context you imply. This is wishful interpretation without any evidence. I lived in Israel, I went camping in Megiddo close to 15 times. It exists, and the ruins stretch out to around 3000 years ago, which is well before the apostle. Also, the biblical text is quite clear in describing the place to the letter. It's not an imaginary place, it's a real one, and it exists in archeological digs. You're more than welcome to go to Israel and visit it. It's quite lovely. What? Jos 12 (HEBREW alongside english, link here). Jos12:7: And these [are] the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel smote on this side Jordan on the west, from Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon even unto the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir; which Joshua gave unto the tribes of Israel [for] a possession according to their divisions; No mention of Har Megiddo, or Armageddon. Joshuah 8 speaks of the destruction of Ai. I didn't see a mention of Megiddo, Har Megiddo, Tel Megiddo, or Armageddon. Joshuah 21 is about the spoils of war and how they're distributed between the tribes. Beyond the bible, Megiddo is recorded at around 609 BC (before the apostles) to be a site of a battle between the Egyptians and Assyrians, so we have historical records beyond the bible for the site's existence (namely, archeological finds). Right, Ahazaia died there, which makes it a real place, not a symbolic one. I can't argue with personal interpretations liek this. If this is right, then EVERY place in the bible can be also interpreted as a symbolic sign of something or other. This place is ESTABLISHED to exist, and to exist a long time *AND* to exist as a battleground. The fact it is then described to be the meeting for battle of multiple rulers makes sense if it's a repeatedly-disputed location -- which is it. If you INSIST on finding ways of how this is otherwise, I'm pretty sure you can move the goalpost a number of times more and do the same for any location. You're not quite being consistent, though. Christians chose to take Armageddon as their symbolic huge battle of the souls -- that's their choice. There's no actual text that says so, though, only interpretation that must rely on a unique circumstances that ONLY fits to this PARTICULAR location. That's not much evidence. That's not in mount megiddo, nor is it in "Har Megiddo" or armageddon. Fine, you guys chose that location for yourself, but at the very least admit it's an interpretive choice. The bible does NOT claim this place as anything other than battlegrounds until Christianity declared it as so, which is why Jews have no problems going there and do not see it as a symbolic place of destruction. So you decided that kings mean governments (that's not a clear definition in the bible, sir) and you decided it means that it's the end of the world-war. Why ca't it be a middle-of-the-world war? A 'cleansing' war in the symbolic sense, where people fight to find their true spirit? Those "symbolic wars" are *AAAAAALLLLL over the bible*. Why is this different? .... you must be jesting. Show me one prophecy that came true, I'll show you 10 that did not. This might be good odds for a human psychic wannabe, but I would say those are LOUSY odds for an almighty God. God should have 100% accuracy, not 20%, and he should be very CLEAR about the prophecies, not give vague descriptions that can fit any vague event big enough to be recorded. That's not really impressive. In fact, I can find predictions in the Kaballah as well, and in the Quran, and in Harry potter. The same reasons you would likely dismiss them are the reasons I dismiss the ones in the bible. If you spend 10 minutes actually THINKING about the statement I just made, you might realize I have a point. Yes. What does that mean? If you eat it, you will die. They ate it and lived. By the way, the hebrew text has "Mot Tamut" this is a double emphasis on the word "Death", and the sentence begins with "The day you eat this, you shall die." == this is an immediate threat, not an implied one for the future. Eat = death. Adam and Eve ate. They lived. Who's the liar? This can also be interpreted as to say that bliss feels like forever. Most of the hindus believe that, I believe. That does not serve much to say that Adam and Eve would've stayed alive forever. Another issue here: God punished Adam and Eve by kicking them out of Eden, which is kicking them out of his side. That would mean that they stopped "living forever" because he kicked them out, not because they ate the fruit. No, Adam lived 930 years (in some weird numbering scheme of the bible, most likely) after he was kicked out of Eden. Perhaps he would've lived 1000 years if he stayed in Eden. You can't know that, and the text is quite clear that the reason a person suffers in life and then dies is PART of the punishment for eating the fruit, it's not part of the side effects of eating the fruit. The text is quite clear. God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit or they will die. They ate the fruit and the side effect was that they "knew" one another, and hid their nakedness, etc, which we could argue was symbolic to the loss of innocence. *THAT* was the effect of the fruit. God got angry then and punished them; he made the woman suffer through birth and the man work his entire life and both were kicked out of Eden and suffered and died without being at God's side. God lied about what the fruit would do. They die because he kicked them out in punishment, not because they ate the fruit. Do you see how it's not? I have quite a lot to say about your quotes on Job, but I have to go out to do stuff for a different kind of job, so I will have to postpone answering until later. ~mooey

Of course it does, that's why there's only one Judeo-Christian interpretation and one single denomination.

You're putting your own interpretation. It's nice, but I can do the same by stating the exact opposite and we will be stuck in a permanent tie. All of those are vague. "Ruler" can be God when he's good and Satan when he's bad, and yet God acts badly quite a lot. You skipped about 90% of what I answered you, I ask that you go over my post and try again, I'm not going to participate in a one-sided discussion, I raised good points, you should be able to answer them. Also, I'm mooeypoo, not moneypoo. It's only rudimentary respect to copy/paste a nickname you think is hard to pronounce or write.

Qwerty, you keep coming to the IRC channel, but you have to do your "homework" first. Here are a few video lessons that can help you: Limits: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/introduction-to-limits--hd?playlist=Calculus Limit Example 1: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/limit-examples--part-1?playlist=Calculus Limit Example 2: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/limit-examples--part-2?playlist=Calculus Limit Example 3: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/limit-examples--part3?playlist=Calculus Each one of those videos is about 7-8 minutes. They're short, but they're very informative. You have to know the basics before we can help you solve these questions, we're not going to start redefining and teaching the entire course from scratch. Enjoy ~mooey

If this was against a single reply of yours, we'd be happy and dandy. It isn't, and you know it. We have rules here and in the Religion forum the rules are even higher standard for reasons that SHOULD be obvious. We tell religious folk not to preach and patronize, and we do the same to the nonreligious folk. If you think that you're exempt from the rules just because you have the supposedly-scientific-side you are mistaken. The note was not about the content of what you said, it was about the way you chose to say it, which is against etiquette rules and against our forum rules. Period. The point of staff notes is to give the poster a nudge in the right direction, not to start an argument about the rules. You agreed to follow the rules the moment you signed up to this forum, and this isn't a discussion about whether or not you should be following them. Your attitude must change or you will not stay here, regardless of the content of your posts. This, I hope, makes things clear enough for everyone to be able to *NOT* respond (and force staff to take action) and move on with the proper subject. If you truly wish to, feel free to send one of the staff members a personal message or use the "REPORT" button and report whatever offense you think was done to you. Please go back on topic.

Tsk tsk on your attitude, you're not making it easy to agree with what you're saying, and I seem to be more or less on your side. Let me just remind you that my "tsk tsk" has a bit more teeth. Pleas go over our rules, Greatest I am, and don't make the staff take action here for your blatant disregard of our rules -- especially in the religion forum, which we hold in even higher standards of discussion. We can have a discussion without personal attacks, soap boxing, preaching and patronizing. I promise you, it's possible. ~mooey So wait, Satan is the government? Is it ALWAYS the government regardless of what the government does, or is it just a secular government? If we elect a religious government of your particular flavoring (whatever your denomination is) will it still be Satanic just because it's a government? I'm tryingt o make the point that *you* seem to know exactly what God says and what Satan is, and yet your conditions are vague and seem to depend on your personal views rather than on rules that are clearly separable between good ("God", supposedly) and EVIL. If you can't make this distinction clear, it's hard to say who has dominion over the earth - Man, Satan, or God - and who gave it up. Actually, the bible is *full* of predictions that are very vague and did not come true, either. But let's gloss over that part of the sake of sticking to the topic. Armageddon is not what English-speaking christians seem to claim it is. Armageddon comes from "Har Megido" in the *original* hebrew/aramaic bible. That would be "Tel Megiddo" (which is actually a very beautiful place to go hiking, see some pics here http://en.wikipedia....iki/Tel_Megiddo) This place was an important route through history and saw its share of conquest, each conqueror flattening out the town and building a new one on top of it (which is why in our current day it is a mound). It's built on a layer of approximately 26 flattened-out-towns. Let me quote wikipedia here: So Armageddon isn't quite armageddon in the bible. There goes that prophecy. Hang on a second, Satan told Adam and Even the truth. He told them that God lied to them, and that if they eat the fruit they actually will NOT die. They ate the tree and did not die. They "die today" because God kicked them OUT of Eden. Read the text, it's quite clear. The lie wasn't satan's, it was God's. I will also gloss over the question of who let the serpent *into* Eden if God is almighty, powerful and all-good. That's an old question and I assume you have a few ready-made answers. We can discuss those in another thread (I am pretty sure we have a few of those open already). You decided to interpret the text to say that God is the true-speaking one, but CLEARLY he lied to adam and eve because they did NOT die when they ate the fruit. The first lie is God's. We can argue about that too, by the way, as Jews claim a completely different interpretation for this, but I will (again) gloss over on that issue. The point is that even if Satan was the taunter, God was the ACTION taker. If I stand next to a bully and bet him that he can break every bone in your body, the fault is with me, but if the bully goes on and breaks every bone in your body, the fault is with him too. God wanted to play. God played. This whole idea that many Christians have that God's this benevolent lovely true all good creature despite Job always baffled me. I can accept "Almighty". But he succombed to Satan's taunts and tortures the hell out of Job for no other reason than to prove a point *to Satan* (not even to "teach job" or any other reason like that). This would not pass any ethical reviews for anyone else other than God, so I don't quite understand how god passes that at all. Also, take a look at that last bit there. God tells Satan not to interfere with Job's life. God says *I* will do it. So this isn't a case where God stands aside to see Satan mess things up and test Job's resolve. This is a case where God *actively* plays the Devil. And you say you can absolutely and with certainty separate what acts are "Satan's" and what acts are "God's" ? How, if there are cases where God is acting as if he's Satan, for whatever reason? You call this protecting? He goes on to kill his children, his crop, his wives, give him disease.... that's protection? No no no. See, if God would have stood aside and let Satan do all these horrible things -- maybe we'd have a point of argument here. I'd still argue that this makes God immoral (any person standing aside of such horrific acts when they have the power to stop them is immoral, in my view) but I would at least admit that this is Satan's work. But it isn't the case. Satan didn't touch Job. Satan looks from the sidelines as God torments Job. God does not give man "time to test out this taunt from satan", God actively torments man. How is this an analogy to our day and age, unless you claim God is actively tormenting the entire population of the earth to test our faiths? If that's the case, I'd say we have a problem with dominion in general, since it's clear he has no intention to let man control ANYTHING if he's the one taking things away and tormenting people. Your analogy falls short. How is that? Jesus was sent by God, he wasn't really a man. So God proved Satan a liar by sending his own son (or.. himself.. however that goes) to prove that he's right. That's a nice trick, but it's not really proof of lie. That said, we could also read the end of Job and come to a clear conclusion that God (by being a horrific tormentor) proved Satan wrong, because Job remained loyal to God despite the torments. Why do we need yet another proof? Why does GOD need another proof? He's all-powerful and all-knowing, does he have such low self esteem that he needs to boost his ego with repeated evidence cases? Now you're the one who's preaching. I am not quite sure how to answer the above other than tell you that there's no way for you to know that, especially when there are so many cases where Satan and God's actions are indistinguishable. Unless you claim you have a direct line to God (and, of course,can prove so) I don't see how you can claim to know any of his plans. Or how you can claim you know which plan is the REAL plan versus which one is the fake one Satan is trying to confuse us with. How do you know it's not the other way around? What? Where? Show me in the bible where this is written. I can tell you it's not written in the "Old" testament, for a fact, since "Satan" isn't quite the devil Christians seem to make of it at all, but other than that, I am not quite sure where you see Satan took over the world in teh new testament either. Please give references to that. However, even if this is true, this right there makes your whole argument moot. If Satan took over the world, the Satan has dominion, which means God GAVE UP dominion. If God still has dominion, it means he has control. He's obviously strong enough (being omnipotent) to prevent Satan from doing his tricks -- let alone take over *RULING* it -- and yet, if Satan is RULING the earth, he has dominion. And if Satan has dominion over the world DESPITE the fact God is omnipotent, it only means God gave it to him (or let him have it). This means he has the merit of rule, which also means he has the right to punish -- this is something that comes from the right of ruling. Which means God lost that right when he gave it away to Satan. You can't eat the cake and leave it whole. Which is it? That's not what the bible says armageddon is about. That's not what the bible says God has done. Nowhere does it say God gave up his ruling to Satan. EVEN if that's the case, though, then the only conclusion here is that God gave up his ruling (even if it's temporary as you claim) and hence gave up dominion, and hence gave up the right to punish. Which makes your own argument agree with the initial premise of this thread. So either agree with it (even temporarily until Jesus returns to kill all the nay-sayers) or explain yourself better. ~mooey I see what you did there, and I respect your logic. However, I am not quite sure it fits here. Entities (human and, supposedly, superhuman/gods/whatever) can give up their dominion in practice even if they have a right to it. It's done all the time in hierarchical companies, like, for instance, the army. A General has dominion over his subordinate Captain, who has dominion over his Lieutenant. Obviously, it means the General has dominion over the Lieutenant, in principle, but the entire point is that the General gives up that right for practical reasons so that the Captain can operate well. It goes as far as to have rules against "interfering" with command structure; so a General is *able* to command the Lieutenant, but most armies have some sort of rule in place to make it go trhough the Captain. The Captain has to follow the order, but it's up to him as to HOW to do it, which is given to him by his dominion. Rarely do you get a General giving an order about a *particular* soldier; you will get orders that are about a task or what to do -- the Captain has dominion even though he must follow teh direction of the person who has dominion over him. I'm hoping I made it clear enough. The idea is that while the General is still "above" the Lieutenant and, in principle, could "break the chain of command" and go directly to him to control him, he, in essence and practicality gave up his PRACTICAL dominion. In this sense, God might be able to reassert dominion (that's a given even just by the idea that he's omnipotent) but it is completely possible for him (or her...) to have given it up to someone else provisionally. Does this make sense?

Wouldn't that mean we should have a perfect life now? Adam lost a perfect life in Eden, Jesus gave it back--- to who, exactly? ... how? And, I'm sorry, but what do you mean with "Satan's Taunt"? For that matter, how do you know what's Satan's 'taunt' and what is God's will? I was always confused on the matter of Satan and God, but that is a different subject. What bugs me in this particular case though is that you seem to know EXACTLY what God did versus what Satan did, and yet its not like God did only good things and Satan did the bad things -- God did quite a number of bad things too... so how could you differentiate between what Satan "Taunt" is and what God's will/plan is? If you can't, by the way, it seems to render the "Jesus proving that wrong" statement rather moot. That said, you are raising another point about the dominion and the right to punish by bringing up Satan. If Satan is so adamant in making people's lives hell (or rather in pushing them towards hell) doesn't that, in itself, take away from God's dominion? If you have full dominion over something, it comes with full control (by definition) -- and yet, Satan is out there in the world messing up God's plan. So if Satan exists and works against God, either God does not have dominion, or God likes Satan's work (in which case we go to whether or not God good at all and that lovely familiar argument) or Satan doesn't exist and it's all God's big plan to confuse us (in which case how can you trust ANY of the text). Which is it? I'm not clear on what you're saying in this last point. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Greatest I am, people will find it a lot easier to discuss issues with you if you stop preaching and start debating. This isn't your personal blog, it's a discussion forum, and regardless of whether or not people agree with the content of what you say, you should follow our rules and conduct in a civil argument. Preaching and 'soap boxing' is against the rules. Do not make things worse by arguing with a moderation note. Take it to heart and follow the rules.

Duplicate thread closed. Use the other one, please.

Also, while you're explaining this question more, please tell us what you've already tried and which method you think you should use to solve this question. We'd like to help out but we need to know how you started this question and where you got stuck with it.

Which is why this forum has this policy of not giving out the answers with a spoon, and why I insisted he shows us, at least, what he is trying to do. We can't know if something is a test or not or if people are cheating -- that, quite honestly, is the responsibility of the individual and the professor that chooses to trust them with a take-home exam. What we *can* do is try to make sure the poster cooperates and, at least, "gets" something out of it -- understands the material, sees where their problems are, or how to solve similar problems. I tend to be suspicious when a poster posts multiple questions in a series as this one did, too... if you can't do ANY of the problems you were given for a homework assignment, there's a much much bigger problem here. I'm not too sure we can solve that, though. ~mooey

qwerty, you need to, at the very least, TRY. If you give us a bit more of your OWN steps to the questions (what did you try? what do you think should be the beginning, etc) we can help. Otherwise, we can't really start teaching calculus from scratch without a direction of where to go with it.

You got help in the IRC channel, qwerty1, calm down. You posted this TONIGHT, and people aren't here 24 hours a day. This is why you shouldn't delay homework for the last moment, or come to a forum of volunteers and demand we drop everything and help you out. That said, I'm finding it hard to see what exactly you're asking. In the first question you wrote "Give upper and lower bounds for lim x->0+ f(x) and lim x->3^- f(x)" So it seems the 'upper and lower bounds' are stated as x from 0 to infinity. Is that what you're asking? Question 4 is also unclear.. I don't understand -- you're giving us a question with an answer and then ask for clarification? Is this answer your answer or is it someone else's that you're trying to understand why they answered the way they have? Do you know how to check for continuity at all or is this just a specific question regarding ln and sin? We're not here to feed you answers, we are here to help you answer the questions. I will need a bit of help from you to know how to start helping you out. ~mooey

I try to give the benefit of the doubt, although admittedly in this case, I had to really force that one.

! Moderator Note Greatest I am, your post doesn't really give much of an opportunity to debate. This isn't a personal blog or a soapbox - we're here to debate, not antagonize and patronize. If there's a question you want to raise, please clarify it better -- and do it in a civil manner.

In case you never heard of it, the IgNobel award is given to actual scientific research taht first makes people laugh and then makes them think. It's done in an amusing fashion, but the research itself is quite real, and so are the amusing awards. If it's not too late, you guys should watch the IgNobel live, it's on September 29th at 7:30PM EST. If it is late for you, watch it recorded after the fact. Regardless, you should watch! It's brilliant. http://www.improbabl...g/2011/webcast/ I can't wait to see who this year's winners are. ~mooey

Attendance in this forum is voluntary, Pincho Paxton. We have standards of debate and standards of evidence here, all explained properly in our rules and in the speculations guidelines. If you don't like those, you're more than welcome to simply not come back. We are not going to lower our requirements just because you think we should. That said, we are not in the habit of denying our members. If you wish to be banned, feel free to use the report button on your post and request it from the staff. I would think it's a lot easier to simply turn off all notifications and remove the bookmark from this site and simply never typing the address again. SFN withdrawals are not deadly, I assure you. ~mooey

Email address erased. ! Moderator Note esanchez, if you have a link to share, share it publicly. We're a discussion forum, not a recruitment facility for potential spam. You're more than welcome to participate in a discussion - but make it a public one.

The first step of anything would be of you getting off the patronizing attitude and not argue with forum rules. He didn't call you a troll, he said you're trolling, which is an interesting observation that might or might not be true. Go back on topic and do not make things worse by arguing the rules you agreed to when you signed up to this forum.