Phi for All

OK, now I'll moderate. Last couple of pages were nothing but recriminations. If there is nothing of substance left to discuss I'm going to close the thread. I actually love stuff like this when evidence can be laid out objectively and discussed without jumping to conclusions really early on. It's when people make up their minds and refuse to be objective that I can't trust the process anymore. I really don't like the fact that the FBI didn't release the security camera footage they confiscated from the hotel and the convenience store. I can see why the Pentagon might not like for people to know where their surveillance cameras are located but the hotel and the convenience store cameras aren't detrimental to national security. If the footage shows nothing, you release them. If you wait five years and release them and they show nothing then many people will believe they were doctored in the interim. On the other hand I have never heard of anyone who questioned the employees at the hotel who supposedly viewed their tape several times before the FBI confiscated it. What do they say it showed? Are they allowed to tell? Have they told and claimed it was a 757, which would be as interesting to a conspiracy theorist putting together loaded information? I couldn't find that out.

Strawmanning and spamming have nothing to do with honesty. Using JFK as an example is a logical fallacy and doesn't help prove corruption in the 9/11 case. Taking your own thread off-topic by bringing in the JFK pic as an example doesn't help either, but pointing that out is not saying you are dishonest and deceitful. It's just saying your tactics don't support your argument. Yes. It was an example. I got it. It was a mistake. Stick to your topic, which shouldn't be ALL conspiracies. It should be the specifics of what bothers you about 9/11 Have I tried to moderate this thread? I thought I was posting as an interested member. When I said I wanted to "step in", it was to post my hopeful resolution to the extremist crisis I saw developing.

And, of course, I was referring to Murder One. I don't follow you here. I was trying to say that a bit more time spent as children learning to value life might make for fewer people who see murder as a means to an end. And perhaps not in Mr. Underwood's case. Some people may be completely incorrigible. For them, life with no hope of parole seems actually more fitting and may help deter others. I don't need to see them dead to give me a sense of justice and killing them just shows others that killing solves your problems. I agree with all the above except the punishment. I don't consider executing a prisoner a "kill or be killed" situation.

Under the current system, in a state with the death penalty it may be apples and oranges. I don't think capital punishment sends the message we want it to send, the message we think it should send. Law abiding citizens think it's justice to kill a killer. The killers obviously couldn't care less. He's a murderer. Calling him a monster just makes it more justifiable to kill him. Do you assign some kind of point system in your mind for murderers and say, "Murderer A just pointed a gun and took a life. Murderer B raped and tortured before he killed so he's a monster and deserves to be killed more"? I think if all life were considered more precious we wouldn't have as many murderers. Under the current legal and societal system he is personally responsible. I simply don't think the DP works the way we think it should, and it sends a message about the value of a human life that isn't consistent with what I believe. Yeah, I think you have some interesting images in mind about psychological screening. It doesn't have to be "thought police". Perhaps catching a tendency towards certain behavior could lead to some special classes or training. I think a nudge earlier is better than a shove later. I'm more of an early prevention as opposed to deterrant kind of person. Tough to see how prison is a deterrant for anyone except honest people. I think the lesson that everyone needs to learn is that a human life is worth more than everyone thinks it is.

The death penalty is just plain wrong. What this human being did to another human being is absolutely terrible, and we would just be compounding what he did by killing him. You can call him a monster to make yourself feel better about killing him but ultimately it's still shifting responsibility for whatever our society did or did not do to create someone so sick. Perhaps we need psychological screening to catch this type of person earlier. It will be costly in the beginning but what if it eventually made a good portion of the penal system unnecessary? The DP is not a deterrant. It just teaches us that it's OK to solve your problems by killing someone.

You are just polluting your own argument and proving that you are only interested in conspiracy, not in drilling down into the 9/11 questions. Big mistake to bring in Kennedy. Strawman, spamming your own thread and losing whatever scrap of credibility you might have had with anyone reading this. Man, I'm really disappointed in you, Franklin.

Wow, I stepped away and this thread really bloomed! The precedent issue I was referring to was in allowing one state to make it illegal to do ANYTHING in another state. I see why Ohio is doing this with the abortion issue but doesn't it open the door for Utah, where gambling is illegal, to enact a law making it illegal for any citizen of Utah to go to Nevada to gamble? And how is Ohio planning on monitoring this? Are they going to be checking medical records from nearby states for Ohio citizens obtaining abortions?

There's a nice precedent to set.

Let me step in at this point and clear up some issues. I'd like to stop having the far ends of the conspiracy/anti-conspiracy spectrum trading insults here. First off, from the evidence (remember this word) that I've seen, there is every reason to be suspicious of anyone who says this is an open and shut case. Much is unexplained, much is very unorthodox, and much has no precedent to draw from. On the other hand, evidence is not proof. Evidence is factual data drawn from the scene and individually points in no direction. There are many things I don't like about the 9/11 conspiracy/anti-conspiracy zealots. I don't like that footage from security cameras near the Pentagon was confiscated and never released. I don't like that because a few cell phone calls from the planes made it through when most don't it becomes a conclusion that they were faked. There are many things that make me skeptical about both ends of the spectrum, and I've found that's a healthy place to be. I'm certainly not trained to put together an evidence trail in a manner that can lead to successful conclusions, but I am certainly capable of being swayed by a carefully constructed appeal. I feel both sides trying to do just that. I choose not to buy into either side. I don't think the truth is completely known about the events of 9/11.

This could actually be the cure for the common cold. My wife fixes a hot curry soup that gets the sinuses flowing whenever I'm congested. We just have to figure out where we can rent titanium tongs and a Level B suit....

I can't even imagine a pepper so hot they recommend that you cut it up outside on a windy day to avoid stinging your eyes too badly. I have some friends who can be pretty obnoxious when it comes to bragging about how hot they like their curries and chili. Might be kind of fun to see them gasping and whimpering after a dose of Dorset Naga (evil ).

Welcome to the club, ladies and gentlemen! I see jdurg is in the audience tonight. Besides being one of our Resident Experts in Chemistry, jdurg loves to golf. I actually caddied for him early Sunday morning before last and his game has really improved. He misses the ball much closer now. And jdurg is very committed to the game. He asked me if I thought playing golf on a Sunday was a sin and I told him, "The way you play, it's a sin ANY day!" He said, "You don't like my game?" and I replied, "It's OK, but I prefer golf!" The course manager kept getting on the loudspeaker asking jdurg to please tee off from the men's tees, NOT the ladies' tees. Finally I had to turn and yell, "Would you let the man take his second shot!?!" We finally got onto the fairway and he looked at the green and asked me if I thought he could get there with a five iron. I said, "Someday, maybe." He said he'd move heaven and earth to break 100 on this course. I told him to try heaven, 'cause he'd already moved most of the earth. Many, many strokes later he said, "Would you stop looking at your watch, it's very distracting!" I said, "It's not a watch, it's a compass!" We lost his ball and when we finally found it he said, "This can't be my ball, it's too old!" I said, "Well, jdurg, it's been a long time since you teed off!" Then he proceeds to shank it right into the lake he's standing next to. He tells me he just wants to drown himself and I ask him, "You think you can keep your head down that long?" When we finished that evening he says I'm the worst caddy in the world. I tell him, "I don't think so, jdurg, that would be too much of a coincidence!"

I took Transdecimal's post to mean that a truly shallow person's desire to have sex with someone and then forget them afterwards is "like using their body as a masturbation device".

No strawman because you were the one who said metal bent outward indicated a bomb. You're downsizing that to "force from inside" and a strawman is something new introduced which is easier to argue against. Would all the energy from a plane running into a building necessarily go in one direction?

"Love it or leave it" is like putting blinders on. Being part of a democracy means being cognizant of it's shortcomings as well as it's strengths. Even if there is a conspiracy it can't be the entire administration who is behind it. If there are those who wanted us to go to war in the Middle East over oil and felt something like 9/11 was necessary to gain support it didn't have to be the entire Bush administration. This is where the conspiracy theorists make their biggest mistake, by trying to implicate everybody and say that everything that's ambiguous or unknown is part of the conspiracy. I'm skeptical about a conspiracy, but I'm also skeptical about closing the reports and dusting our hands and calling it over when there is still evidence being uncovered. Let's wait and see how it all falls out before making too many rash judgements.

Or maybe you should become a priest of Dionysus.

ROFL. I can't believe you're talking about casual sex on Easter! Just because bunnies do it constantly doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. Oooh, there's your answer. Religion usually wants a couple to be married before they can have sex whenever they like. It's a holdover from times when sex education and birth control weren't as sophisticated. If you don't want a lot of love children running around with no responsible adults to take care of them, you make sex the province of the church and then there's no wow without the vow. It could also be a retaliatory effort on the part of women to compensate for the sex reputation disparity. You know, guys who have a lot of sex are studs and gals who do are sluts? If I was a woman I would definitely want that changed (even as a man I think it's ghastly). And remember guys, if a woman calls you shallow she may just be saying that you don't penetrate deeply enough.

Shallow is a perception. If you never call again you might be shallow. If you're more interested in satisfying yourself than you are your partner then you're probably concerned only with the obvious. On the other hand, if you want to know a person beyond what they show to most others and are looking for a deeper, more meaningful expression of the feelings you have for... WHOA! Look how short that girl's skirt is! I'd like to show her the time of my life! Um, what were we talking about?

Because Franklin was NOT the author of what was posted earlier, even though it looked like it. The original information can be found here.

Click Reply, see Additional Options, Attach Files, Manage Attachments, browse your hard drive till you find what you want, upload it.

I stand corrected. I was wrong. I was confusing variation with interpretation.

Do you see how different this statement is from: Your original claim invoked the principles of science, the second invoked the principles of faith. Science and faith, while not incompatible, should never be used interchangeably. It's only because you've touched on a sensitive issue. You are not the first to come here and declare science can prove heaven doesn't exist. Soooo... you're saying, "You show me yours but mine is too personal"?

Of course I meant that. The OP didn't tell me anything about his system or his environmental requirements, other than he was too hot in his computer room in the spring/summer and he has AC capability. I could make a case for electric baseboard heat and a tankless water heater if the user were single, lived in a 500 s.f. home in Atlanta, showered every other day, worked 12 hour days and slept at his girlfriend's house three nights a week. The same system wouldn't be as efficient for a couple with an infant in Fargo ND who work from home.

As cheap as electricity is for most things, it's always one of the more expensive methods of heating a building. I don't have any figures and they would vary widely due to most energy not coming from regulated utility companies anymore (Chicago uses Dominion Energy, right?). I still think a propane heat system would be cheaper than an all electric system. Burning gas, oil or coal and using electricity to power the blowers is just cheaper. You mentioned heatpumps earlier and they are great in the Southwest since you don't have to heat during freezing temps like you do in my area or in Chicago. Heatpumps can heat and cool and if it rarely snows in your area they are really efficient. I'm a fan of radiant barriers as well. Two sheets of reflective aluminum sandwiching a mylar center to avoid conduction helps radiate heat heat back to it's source, keeping homes cool in summer and warm in winter. A radiant barrier usually lays on top of your attic insulation and can also be used on either side of the batting between studs in your walls, though it's less effective there.

I'm relatively sure you have natural gas forced-air heat and AC system (if your AC condensing unit is outside it's a split system, and if the attic unit pulls refrigerant from an outside unit it's a fan and coil system). The AC runs solely on elecricity so it costs more. The furnace uses gas to heat and electricity to run the blower and is therefore cheaper. I like swamp coolers because they force air over a moist pad and the water does the cooling, but you don't need any more humidity with Lake Michigan helping out. Your attic fan keeps the attic cool in the summer so that heat doesn't penetrate to the house through the roof. This helps a lot. Do you have any fans going in your room? If not I would suggest an inexpensive oscillating fan ($12-$50) which doesn't cool as much but can be aimed so it doesn't blow papers off your desk. If you have a light fixture in your ceiling you could easily install a ceiling fan ($40-$150) that would really help in circulating air but it might cause a paperstorm when it's on high. Fans help in cooling and there's the psychological factor of feeling the breeze as well. Don't go cheap on fans - get a good one or you'll hear the hum of the motor. The alternative is to talk your dad into a room AC unit that fits in your window ($180-$700). They'll draw electricity but not as much as your central system that's trying to cool the whole house.