Phi for All

Plagiarism is a bad thing, walkeroukor.

We're OK for now. We just don't want to get into, "Ur stoopid fer bleeving dat!" or "Really? I think you're wrong because...." That way lies madness. Madness, I say!

I don't know, I've never been able to afford one. Between the added velocity of the drop and the mother sitting on the nest, it's tough to get them with the shell intact.

As noted in post #2, this is not a religious discussion, since such are not allowed under our present rules. This thread is merely for polling in a general way and expressing your own opinion. Any more criticism of another's views in this matter will cause the thread to be closed.

In case you ever have any computer problems again, you should pre-write some posts and save them to disk. Just some non-specific things like, "Good point, I'll have to think about that and get back to you", and, "That's not the way I learned it, but your way makes more sense", and of course, "iNow, you really piss me off sometimes, but at least you're being honest". Then, at regular intervals, have a friend log on to your account and post them for you. Then we won't have to sit around wondering where the hell you've been. Good to have you back.

I know we don't have all the answers. I am quite certain that if a higher power exists, it's powers will be explainable through the physical laws of the universe. I am also certain we don't know everything about the physical universe. I am also certain that I have never heard a definition of "God" I could have faith in.

I wouldn't think kangaroos would have much meat on them, but I've heard that some hoppy creatures have legs that taste like chicken.

I found at least one Control agent using a shoe phone. Chaos has once again been thwarted. Really awesome photo, btw.

I'm guessing the Mounties don't want to have to chase down anything bigger than a buffalo already is. And buffalo *are* scary big. Like moose, you don't think about them much until you're really close, and then you wish you were much further away.

These are the Canadian regulations from Alberta? That *is* interesting. Almost an admission that the stimulants are a bad thing. Either that or they don't want downtown Calgary ravaged by Buffzilla. I wonder if the US has similar attitudes towards buffalo husbandry.

This thread has obviously run its course. For the future, this is a good example of how not to post to threads in General Medicine. Thread Closed.

They must have eaten little strawmen, based on this question. I doubt any forests are being trashed. I think your proximity to buffalo herds makes it a good environmental alternative as a protein source. I've heard various claims about the fat content, but what would sell me most on buffalo is a lack of growth hormones injected for market potential. I don't know that buffalo has less but I've heard it does, just because the scale of production and the larger size of the animal makes it unneccesary. Do you notice much difference in taste, Norman?

How about: I have this 12 ton block of raw sodium on the balcony of my apartment, which overlooks a big swimming pool and I hear this ominous creaking sound....

Was the bread you put in just as hard and cold when it popped out? I had that same toaster....

Perhaps with the new presidential administration and their promise to reinstate science to it's rightful place, Mr. O'Brien will find his employment status changing. Btw, I hear Jennifer Aniston is going to be on Discovery when it visits the International Space Station in February. They're airing a live cable special called Vapid Valentines From The Void. You heard it here first.

This is a good point. Some people can use the tags to (seem to) destroy an argument peicemeal, like tearing a tapestry thread by thread because it's too strong when whole. It's usually a lot of little straw men designed to hold little bits up to ridicule. But, as in the case of this post, I chose to highlight the part of iNow's post I wished to agree with and elaborate on. He can safely assume I agreed with the rest but had nothing to add. It's as clear why I did this as it is when someone misuses it when you're paying attention. I actually think it makes spotting fallacious arguments easier because the fallacies are applied to specific bits and not the whole post.

I disagree. Many people are right most of the time but have a few bits wrong, or they use good reasoning in most places but fall to fallacy at a weak moment. The quote tags allow you to support and add to good arguments without giving that support to the bad parts. Given the human inclination to key on the negative, I think many posters would look less favorably on posts that held a few negative comments among the positive. With tags, you can single out the parts that you object to.

Please make sure this statement does not lead off-topic for the Astronomy/Cosmology section.

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy and was not devised by the person posting it.

You have exceeded your interest potential with me. You are no longer worth the effort.

I was referring to your telling me I didn't understand your purpose and therefore tried to define your purpose. I didn't, and used careful wording to ensure that what I wrote was strictly my opinion. You free to hold your own opinion of my opinion.

Let's be clear. Any faith I have is not rooted in anything firmer than a skepticism that science may be overlooking something it can't observe, merely for the fact that we observers are limited within it by the senses we possess. I don't even really call it faith, and I certainly don't call it religion. Think of it as an absurd amount of skepticism. I agree and would never try to do so. Neither would I completely and utterly dismiss something purely on the basis that it is highly improbable. I'm not big on absolutes in anything. We discovered, through science, that some fish can sense EM fields. We didn't always know this, even though science has been observing fish for some time now. I think there is a very low but existing probability that there are aspects of the universe we are currently incapable of observing.

The old Macs were truly amazing when the rest of us were using Franklins and Commodores. Even the Apple IIs were greenscreen junk once the Mac's proto-windows made navigation so intuitive and we'd had a taste of a DOS-less diet.

I agree with this completely. "Belief" is a culprit. "True" has some culpability as well. There are varying degrees in just about everybody's definitions that causes problems. "Proof" and "evidence" are also often misunderstood as well.

Please don't do this again. I chose the word "suggesting" rather than "stating" to avoid trying to strawman you by claiming to know your "purpose". In much the same way, in post #2, I carefully used the word "implication" rather than claiming that "evolutionist" was absolutely an attempt to equate faith with rigorous study. I'm not comfortable with generalizations, as stated many times in this thread. It is fine where it is. I would have reported it and suggested it be moved if it was inappropriate, something every member can do. What I suggested was, in light of subsequent posts, that the implication of a psychological reason for "why some people get so pissed off by such a universally used term like 'evolutionist'", coupled with the evolutionist = belief equation, might have given the intervening fire some substantial kindling.