Phi for All

! Moderator Note Last warning, Mr God. Trolling is against our rules. Another post like this and your account will be suspended.

The government doesn't need to monopolize anything. They can award charters to safely manufacture and distribute, and simply tax and regulate accordingly. I'm not sure I'd approve of this without some severe restrictions on normal market processes, like a curb or ban on advertising. A large portion of the taxes should be set aside for education, obviating much of the need for more expensive treatment. Avenues for rehabilitation are actually already in place, with courts requiring it for public intoxication offenses. If they're smart they do. I just read where General Electric paid lobbyists $84M to get Congress to approve $8.4B in tax breaks for them. Lobbying can bring a greater return on investment than selling your actual products.

! Moderator Note max13, this is a discussion forum. You have started seven threads and haven't responded to questions asked of you in ANY of them. If you don't respond in the next three days, we'll have to assume, since most of your threads mention movies, that you have some kind of commercial agenda. Since this is against the rules you agreed to when you joined, your threads will be deleted at that time.

How about, "Joe is First Cause, a dishonest person who treats trolling as an artistic endeavor". Would that solve the puzzle?

Now I recognize his picture. michel fled France and moved to Greece to avoid the Sûreté's charges of identity theft.

Oh, that's just wonderful, michel. You have absolutely convinced me that the last thing in the world I want is someone like you collating my personal info to use against me.

First thing to do is a cost-benefit analysis. It's pretty expensive to get a rocket off-planet, especially one filled with heavy materials. Edit: Ooops. Cross-posted with DrRocket.

Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much? Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?

Well, it's possible for sperm to make it past an intact hymen, making pregnancy without intercourse possible, if not very probable. The question becomes "Is a woman a virgin if she allows a man to ejaculate into her vaginal opening without full penetration or breaking of the hymen?" There's probably no shortage of men who's excitement peaks just as they reach the gates.

Oh, come on michel, why should swansont have to do that with every newcomer? And it obviously wouldn't have worked in this case since JiggerJ doesn't "care if [swansont's] the pope". And I know it's hard for you to understand because you probably aren't in this situation, but some people, staff included, could face an either/or challenge if their employers find out how much they post here. Please respect the need for anonymity that might be compromised if too much personal information is given. You should understand, given that you had pointed out that whacko who threatened Obama was out of jail and posting here (that WAS you, iirc?).

NO. It's a science discussion forum with rules, rules you agreed to when you joined. Chatting is much less formal, and we have a chat room available as an informal part of the discussion forum. This is NOT a chat forum. I can appreciate that you may be having a bad day. It must be the worst day EVER for you personally attack one of the most respected, prolific and knowledgeable members on the entire site. That would have been rude, AT WORK. No one at your work showed up there with the express intent of learning about science. Unlike, say, HERE. You are so far off base here that you're running into cars in the stadium parking lot. If you weren't just expressing an opinion, I'd say you owe swansont an apology.

But don't read anything interesting. Economics textbooks are good for falling asleep. Also avoid reading anything that will make you angry or bewildered. Anything written by Republicans will keep you up gnashing your teeth and coughing due to the smoke coming from your ears.

Fortified walls were made superfluous by many advancements, the biggest of which was probably armed aircraft. But constant expansion was a factor too. Cities grow, so the outer walls became inner walls, and more outer walls were needed. You reach a point of diminishing returns. Strong walls don't keep everything out.

I'm guessing bot now. These are pointless threads.

I can imagine any group who would seriously want to compromise the liberty of Americans would just love it if citizens started protecting their rights with their closet guns. Citizens + guns + media spin = terrorists threatening national security.

Are you serious? You think stopping your heart is something nature would ever find beneficial? You think killing yourself is a superpower?

#1 Walter Hartwell White.

I think Texas needs to start realizing they live on this world. "The American Way" is a fiction; we've changed a lot since the 50s and trying to hold on to those times is more than pathetic, it's criminal. Take any aspect of "The American Way" you want, whether it's commerce, the military, our social structure, housing, it's ALL CHANGED in the last 60 years. And the really pathetic part is that those who have changed it for the worse are often those who cry out that we need to honor "The American Way". They want taxpayers to subsidize their businesses while their businesses pay no taxes. They want a smaller Federal government but only when it comes to regulations. I don't like Obama's view that professional politicians should handle government for the People so they don't have to bother, but I hate the idea of someone like Mitt Romney bushing us up the a** and paving the way for big business to keep waving the flag as they move overseas.

I'm sure you mean me. In fact, in a thread right after you had joined, you misunderstood something hypervalent_iodine said so I clarified what she meant. Then you started spamming my profile page with vile accusations about me chastising you in public and calling hypervalent_iodine a drunk Australian and me a racist. That's OK I guess, I can choose not to approve things on my profile page. Next, you started copy/pasting other people's work without citation, and plagiarism is against the rules you agreed to when you signed up. In that regard, I am a policeman here, and I think the membership appreciates my efforts. Perhaps I let myself wonder why someone who claimed to have a doctorate degree would post the work of others and not give them credit. You should know better. Then I Googled your name (which you have provided) and saw all the other sites that have suffered your sheepskin-shaking. This comes on the heels of a thread where we had been talking about Appeal to Authority fallacies, so perhaps I was a bit pre-conditioned to view your claims skeptically. But I'm completely willing to believe you got off to a bad start and can improve. In fact, if you think I unfairly judge you, I can recuse myself from moderating your account. We have others on Staff so it's not a problem and will hopefully be more fair for you.

It seems weighted on the negative side with a lot of petty crap. I couldn't even find an article about Obama "attacking" Boehner about smoking. And personally, I'd put Libya in the win column. Anyone who objects to the money spent there should compare it to Iraq.

I can see why pompous is the theme of this thread. I don't know why pompous is a religious topic, or what we're supposed to discuss, but I think it's pompous to mix your own quotes in with those of famous people. Btw, you added the "rich" part to the Don Adams quote, which is dishonest as well as pompous. Missed it by THAT much!

That's your job, not mine.

How arrogant of you to assume you know what I would say! I would NOT say this. I would say, "There isn't ANY hair on the bottom of my feet, there never has been and I don't ever expect there to be". Again, I would NOT say that. My stance is that you can't turn lead into gold, you've never been able to prove you can, so why on Earth would anyone ask me why I believe you can?

I look at it this way. Before religious belief systems, no one had one. How can you claim that the first religion automatically spawned two belief systems? Village A comes up with this religious belief system, and just because Village B didn't you're saying Village B also has a religious belief system?!

Then it's off-topic and against the rules.