Phi for All

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_perception Most abortions happen well before 30 weeks.

I resent that.

You cut off my smiley when you quoted me. It wasn't meant to be antagonistic. You said you hate everybody, it seemed funny you were giving relationship advice. I understand you hate me too, but don't think I was trying to make you resent me.

Well I can see how a thread called Relationship Help would attract you.

Most things you like about people are probably things they like about themselves already, but yeah, you understand the whole purpose behind this type of compliment. It's honest and ego-stroking at the same time.

Hart Intercivic makes VOTING MACHINES: http://www.hartinter...c.com/pages/154

I still say tell her something you like about her, rather than how you feel about her. The difference may seem subtle but it's huge.

This is such a cheap argument. Not all pregnancies are aborted, not all are unwanted, not all babies would be a punishment, so please don't try to push that strawman on us. The facts remain that bringing a child into the world and caring for it is a completely different prospect for every person in the country, while the need for intimacy is very basic. It's ridiculous to expect that every child conceived be brought to term. Abortions will happen whether we want them to or not, so we need to make sure they're done safely.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of those. No one gets banned or even suspended based solely on the vote of the single Mod who posts it in Banned and Suspended Users. It takes at least four Mods agreeing to ban someone. Although we do end up seeing those rep points as a testimony to how annoying the user was to the rest of the membership. Or for reasons that don't seem right to you. As I look around at the responses to your posts, the reasons become clearer. The fact that you can ask this shows how inconsistent you are with our purpose.

I rarely check a user's total rep. Rep points do make a difference to me in a thread, I have to say. But it's not a guarantee that I'm going to agree. I've often given positive rep to someone who got a negative point I didn't agree with, especially if it's on the opening post. It's not necessarily an indicator of how helpful or smart someone is. I think it's more an indicator that someone has made posts that other people thought were particularly well done or particularly badly done.

If you fail at what? If you do what, you don't gloat?

His post quality was much improved after he was banned. He re-joined as ACUV and earned -2 rep in 85 posts. It could be argued as well that the longer he was here, the worse his post quality became as more and more people objected to his posts. It tends to work that way with people who troll discussion forums. If they start out uber abrasive, they get banned uber quickly, and they know that, so they usually start out with more civility.

I try to NOT give negative reputation on anyone's OP. That's just my personal policy, though. I don't think there are any bad subjects to bring up, although it's possible I may have marked down someone who was opening a thread with some copypaste creationist garbage that's been refuted a few hundred thousand times.

Well, you and I think so, but that's why I quoted what illuusio said about "huge arguments when it's time to cash collected credits, maybe even lawsuits".

Thanks, that's why you sound familiar. You're questionposter, and Steevey (who you created to give yourself more rep points the last time you argued against the rep system). If the system is so bad, why do you use so many underhanded methods to make yourself look better? If this site is so horrible, why do you keep creating more users every time you get yourself banned?

! Moderator Note Moved to Religion, since that's the direction it's heading.

Let me ask you a few questions. Your original idea was poorly supported and had many flaws that kept it from being taken seriously, you've said this yourself. If nine more people were to come on board your collaboration, take the work you started and really make it work, doing all the things you're unable to do, make the calculations, develop the model and present the paper to peer review in a way that gains it a true standing within the scientific community, is your share of the credit going to be an equal tenth, or would you require more because it was your concept originally? How are you going to justify to your fellow collaborators that you've already applied individually for patents based on the idea you're collaborating on? If your original concept gets abandoned but leads the other nine collaborators to something much more productive that eventually becomes accepted theory, what should your share be?

Well, I called it, and now we see what the magician was doing with the hand you couldn't see.... http://www.forbes.co...causes-concern/ http://www.sciencefo...513#entry709513

I haven't completely read this article about it for accuracy, but Forbes was the name I trusted most in a search. And thanks for those other links, rigney, +1.

So one one hand you argue that liberal intellectuals don't like separation of powers in government, but on the other hand you claim that supporting a separation of church and state makes them afraid? I find this type of cherry-picking very typical of Republicans. You want every embryo protected but don't want your taxes to support all the unwanted children once they're born. You want your right to bear arms and then scream that we need more police and prisons but we have to stop growing the government. You want less regulations that stop businesses from harmful practices and more regulations that bar citizens from suing businesses when they're harmed. You want less taxes so you can create jobs for America and then you create those jobs overseas. And the big deal is not some quick mention of literal Biblical interpretation, the big deal is that some of these ultra-conservative, Republican parents want evolution and a great deal more removed from the curricula because higher order thinking is causing their children to question what these parents hold sacred, and that seems un-American to them. Progress, intelligence and knowledge are becoming anathema in this country thanks to your "What is the big deal" attitude.

Substitute any nationality or skin color for the word "women" and you should have your answer. What Romney (and Hoveland, apparently) have forgotten is the word "qualified". If people are equally qualified for a position, using race or gender or any other metric that has nothing to do with capability is unproductive and discriminatory.

That is an incredibly inaccurate and self-serving assertion. I can't think of a single person here or anywhere else I've heard of that would support this. You're going to leave a lot of animals sleeping on the cold ground if you continue to make your strawmen this big.

Does a cactus have some magical ability to divert radiation to itself, or are you placing the cactus between you and the computer screen? If, IF there was any harmful radiation coming out of your monitor, there are many things that could block it more effectively (and less painfully) than a cactus, but you would have to block the screen completely and that really defeats the purpose of a visibly (non-harmfully) radiating screen.

As iNow said, telling her how you feel isn't always the best way to approach women. You can still be honest and tell her what you like about her. Don't lay it on too thick, pick one thing and tell her about it. "I really like talking to you, since most people forget to use their brain a lot." Although if she smiles at that, you could probably add, "OK, I like your smile, too, but that's it."

Do you ever get an opportunity to just talk to her, without a ton of other people around?