Phi for All

Overridden by the righteous zeal of those who just want justice for baby eaters.

So it's in the GOP's best interests to urge their senators to convict T...., for the future of the party. Or perhaps they'll just offer him $300M or so to fuhgeddaboudit.

It's more like a shockwave of understanding that's left an eggy residue on some painted faces. Golly, did a New York carpetbagger take us in, again?! What's River City going to do with all these trombones now we know the Trouble isn't real?

... which is similar to what an athlete trying to condition their sports muscle groups might experience early on. Hopefully the cramping and the puking and the stress taper off as the muscles grow stronger. At least this was the message in the article I read, that the eye muscles (possibly ears as well) need exercise just like any other.

I don't need a noise to drown out unwanted conversations. My trivia filters are too robust as it is. Start talking about how "it isn't the heat it's the humidity", and I start hearing a windy roaring sound. I always thought of it like the whistling from a pressure differential due to the 0 PSI coming from an empty head. OTOH, it seems reasonable that any muscle that can be isolated and worked beyond what is normal has the potential to offer returns on that investment. One of the functions of the tensor tympani muscle is to protect the ears from sounds that could compromise the function of the ear. Perhaps exercising these muscles now might prevent some hearing loss in later life? I recall reading an article a long time ago that claimed we wouldn't need to artificially correct our vision if we all did the author's special eye exercises as part of a daily calisthenics routine.

You could ask the nice lady who just moved in to the big house across the grounds for a cookie....

The muscles involved in moving your ears the way you'd seen other people do, right. Pretty sure that's what's doing the work to produce the sound you're hearing. Not everyone can move their ears independently at will. So something involved in moving this muscle causes a change that produces a muffled roaring like wind. The tensor muscles in the ear can affect the quality of the sounds we hear, especially if they're too loud, so I suppose it's possible you've learned to move them in a way that causes this sound for you. Perhaps you're hearing the function of that part of your head, and the rush of blood sounds like wind across a microphone.

Vellus hair on and in the ear might be partly responsible. That close to the ear, sound can be distorted. Tweezing those hairs, for instance, can sound like fabric tearing instead of pulling peach fuzz.

All of you? Part of you? Which part? Is it similar to the sound you get if you cup your hand close to your ear, which changes pitch if you open some of your fingers?

Because it's obviously a kind of righteous ambiguation you're using wrt women accusing men of rape. Your fair justice ignores that today's courts don't start from your proverbial middle ground. Women have always had to prove MORE in rape cases just so people with your stance never have to see even a single incidence of a man being falsely accused. Women suffer twice under the system you're defending.

"One incident is one too many" is how you defend the men in these highly uncommon instances, but for the myriad of women who've gone through being assaulted all you want is fair justice. They need more from all of us.

NO! That's a rhetorical bandaid for YOU and other men who've felt wronged by women in the past. This is about the women, and the unfair challenges they face in assault cases with men. Yet you want to squash the one movement that's trying to do just that, because you want to be clear about you being fair and not being a rapist.

This seems like the stance of a man who has good intentions wrt women, someone who would never assault a woman, and desperately wants NOT to be lumped in with the rapists. But why would you think that "believing women" somehow means innocent-until-proven-guilty no longer applies? The problem NOW is that many cases don't start from "the middle", or a neutral clean slate. Do you think what a woman is wearing is any defense against rape, or how late it was, or that she didn't say NO enough times? That's where the defense usually starts from, which is the "middle" you seem to be defending.

And that doesn't happen in these cases because the presumptions are often that the woman was dressed in a certain way, or had been drinking, or somehow hadn't made her wish not to be raped clear enough. What "believe women" means is to remove this bullshit and start from "no presumptions whatsoever are made". And as in any case that goes to court, you start with the premise that the accuser is going to tell the truth in a court of law.

Because you aren't being intellectually honest with your argument. You've perverted the idea that we should start by believing accusers into "believe them 100% without doubt". Then you and others piled on with anecdotes from the radio where this perverted argument was repeated, claiming it's only what you've heard. It's pretty sick because once again you're making it harder for victims to get justice from a level field.

! Moderator Note I'm going to steer you away from conspiracy arguments really early here. We don't like them, because science. And please don't make slurs against large groups of people, we don't care for that either. You have a couple more posts on your first day before the anti-spam measures kick in.

! Moderator Note It's not a proper speculation if you don't bother to search for supportive evidence. It's a WAG, and not what we're looking for. Pony up, or this gets shut down quick.

Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/

I don't think it makes sense to bury anything of value with its former owner in a society that has so little. Were they appeasing the spirits of their ancestors, or possibly a superstition had grown up around using things that belonged to someone unlucky enough to die?

Oh, me too.

... and then you agonized about how to stop it because it's inevitable. Oh, and you pointed out several times how LOGICAL this all was. I don't think you think about what you write before you write it. That's how fear works, in a way. Because you wrote this: swansont corrected your physics misconceptions. It was YOUR JOB to relate that to your fears, not his. Why doesn't it make a difference to you that you've misunderstood so many things? Why do you persist on imaging the worst?

Of course! Hopefully you feel the site has become better since you joined over a decade ago, and if you stay it should continue to improve.

I don't LOL that often lately, but this struck a chord. I got the part of a newscaster in a high school play because I used my incredibly accurate Ted Baxter impression. Years later I tried out for the voice of the judge in a local production of Twelve Angry Men and my Judge Smails was less well received.

Or you can assume this is exactly what happens in each applicable instance. I don't want any more paperwork to do. Remember we're already spending the time backstage discussing whether someone is just venting and do they use fallacies a lot? and that's not very civil and they need to answer the questions and is this a sockpuppet? and that's bad science and wow that's a sneaky way of getting your homework answered.

If you put a potato in your trousers, you may not need the phone. -- Groucho Marx, I think