Phi for All

All bananas used to have seeds, but they have been slowly bred out of the most popular varieties by planters wanting a seedless fruit. The darkened center is where the seeds used to be. The #1 export variety, the Cavendish, is in danger of being wiped out by a disease it is particularly susceptible to. Growers spend up to 25% of the total cost of growing trying to fight this disease. http://www.biotech-info.net/extinction.html

Giving up on finding ways to overcome obstacles most humans have been struggling successfully against for thousands of years will make you weak, and that much more likely to justify technology that doesn't allow you to grow as a person. For women who couldn't give birth without an artificial womb, I might relent in my opinion on a case by case basis. For men who don't want to face the challenges and pressures of dealing with relationships and think that raising children will be easier, I say definitely NOT.

Oh, goody! A sudden sharp rise in the gene pool of men who can't relate to women, who fear to discuss prenatal manipulation with them, and consider them hags if they don't just fall head over heels in love with a single look. I think this is a bad idea. Have you ever considered that things which are difficult (pregnancy, relationships, etc) provide the most satisfaction when they're experienced fully and successfully? Take away the obstacles and the lack of challenges will make us weak.

Why don't people use the Search feature? No one can ever give me a definite answer.

Sounds like the kind of tubes they put in old landfill sites they cover up and forest over. The tubes vent methane buildup from the organic garbage way below.

Seriously, everyone needs some sort of weapon to wield as well as a physical description. Do you want to reserve the lightsaber or should the artists start working on a monkey with a whisk? Or do you prefer "heavy weaponry", as you put it earlier? And I apologize if the button remark sounded patronizing. You know I would never willingly risk your wrath for a cheap joke.

Like I would forget you! We're still looking for a t-shirt that's tight, clingy and has room for your name while still having a neckline that plunges to your navel. Also no sleeves so you can swing a lightsaber. It would be easier if you would agree to just wearing two small buttons, one says "Azure", the other says, "Phoenix".

The bait to catch the trolls, with a pun on "debate". You got it, that's what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of a zoom or a slow dolly/zoom (as long as it doesn't give the impression of a third party sneaking up behind the person). The door should open up smoothly, simply showing that you are entering a room with a person at a computer. Enough time should be given before the alarms to establish that the person is typing/posting (maybe muttering under his breath). Why would he put up BRB if no one will see it? I'm not wedded to this, and I was actually thinking of what he might take with him, but this became too character specific (if he takes his katana is it supposed to be Sayo?). The sign was a way to indicate that the person knew they'd be gone for a while. How about the sign says, "DO NOT SHUT DOWN!"?

Government corruption is tied directly to big business interests and always has been. Very few people seek power in government for its own sake. Making or manipulating the rules to benefit those who have the money to pay for it is all too common, probably in every country. It is so hard to tell a valid contract for "consulting services" never rendered from a kickback. And unless flags are raised that signal something fishy to auditors, it's apparent that billions of dollars can be illegally manipulated by reporting false numbers, "filling the gaps", and padding executive performance bonuses, and in a fairly short period of time at that. To bring this all back to the OP, isn't the common thread that many of these mega-corps have figured ways to wiggle through our legal system? Isn't the use of plea-bargained testimony simply the last ditch attempt to put the perpretrators behind bars where they belong? They are so good at working the system and are so ultra-rich they can afford legal defenses that stagger the imagination. Are we supposed to let them go free as long as they have covered themselves well enough? How many more are out there who are below the radar of federal auditors, who play the game of screw-the-market-protect-the-stockholders much better than Lay or Scrushy?

Possible Titles: 1.Troll SurFiN 2. GeekSeekers 3. Debate to Catch DeTrolls 4. SFN: Agents for Truth Opening scene: We start with the SFN logo on a pale background, then add the Title below it. Hold for a couple of seconds, then the background (which is really a bedroom door), along with the title, opens to reveal an anonymous SFN member from behind (more realistically drawn than the eventual characters will be) seated in front of his/her computer (the logo stays and is now centered on the back of his/her t-shirt. He/she is hunched over the keyboard furiously typing. Suddenly, a warning light flashes on the computer and a metallic voice says "TROLL ALERT... TROLL ALERT...." He/she reaches into a drawer and hangs up a sign on the shelves in the background that says, "Gone Fishing", then presses ESCAPE on the keyboard and is immediately sucked into the computer screen, where he enters our more toonish, South Park type character world.

Then everyone involved needs to give those details. I have medium length brownish-blond hair, a mustache and a triangular flavor-saver under my bottom lip, and I wear rimless glasses. I prefer a green t-shirt.

Visual representations: simple toon-types (similar to South Park), SFN members with t-shirts with their names on them, variable hair color/length, beards, mustaches (I know Mokele has big honkin' sideburns). Can we do this?

Oh, there's no love lost between Clinton and I. I think he did his share of selling out to big business. As I've said many times before, mega-corporations pay to stay in the faces of politicians in a way voters do not.

Infinity is not a real number, it's just a representation of an idea.

I don't want to speculate too much, since it is just that. Since UBS Warburg will not allow an audit of the books of Enron Online from before its acquisition in 2002, we'll probably never know. But since Enron was a prime candidate for book-cooking, it's very suspicious that it was allowed to be sold quietly in a sweetheart deal to a foreign corporation, rather than trying to get more money out of it through the bankruptcy courts. http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/ebusiness/story/0,10801,67584,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/02/business/business_williams0204.htm Pangloss, you had brought up the question of whether or not tainted testimony should be allowed when it seems to be the only evidence. When the US Bankruptcy court allows an asset to be sold off before an investigation into its bookkeeping practices can be launched, sometimes tainted eyewitness testimony is all you've got. And when we can't even get the books audited with the aid of a friendly nation like Switzerland, it makes me wonder who the system is helping.

Since you bring up Enron, I've heard that if the US Bankruptcy court hadn't allowed Enron Online be sold to UBS Warburg (a Swiss corporation, I believe), the evidence in that subsidiary alone would have been enough to put Lay away for the next century. It was quietly done for no money down. I think, since the deal entitled Enron to a percentage of future profits, the records should have been obtainable through extradition. But the Swiss have some pretty strict laws and we can't force them to do it. Or we don't want to force them to do it. Or somebody knew we wouldn't want to force them to do it. Or something.

Aye, there's the rub. Understanding that the eyewitness testimony is suspect due to the bargain they receive in giving it, it makes it tough unless, by their testimony, the prosecution is able to uncover evidence (yes, even circumstantial) which corroborates the witness account of matters. If it comes down to a case of your-word-against-mine, the testimony will probably be thrown out anyway. If the testimony digs up more dirt, or raises inconsistencies, or causes the defendant to break down at the trial screaming, "YES, I DID IT, I TOLD THEM TO COOK THE BOOKS, MWA-HA-HA-HA!", then yes, I think it's okay to use plea-bargained testimony for a conviction. Isn't it really the idea of letting the smaller fish off the hook to catch the big one that really rankles? I mean, they were just as guilty even if they were following orders from the CEO. To me, it would seem to encourage this sort of thing, especially if CFOs get the idea that they will incur minimal risk as long as they rat out the big guy. Who knows, might it not be the financial guys who come to the CEO with book-cooking schemes in the first place, hoping to get the nod and a fat performance bonus from the board of directors come Xmas time?

Fingerprints on a smoking gun are circumstantial evidence. The victim's blood in a trail of footprints leading away from the body directly to your shoes is still circumstantial evidence. Eyewitness testimony of another's deeds is not circumstantial evidence. Or did I miss something? Weren't the CFO's testifying that Scrushy knew about the illegal bookkeeping in some direct manner? I guess I got that inference from your OP, since I'm not that familiar with the case.

Unfortunately, yes. In these book-cooking instances, it's often the only way to get at the person who gave the nod to the illegalities. I wish there was some way to always insure that the testimony was not completely fabricated in order to get a lighter sentence, but in many cases like the one you mention, the CEO is like the commanding officer in the military, and is ultimately responsible for the actions of those directly under him in the chain of command. The plea bargain is a hideous arrangement, imo, but when it nabs those who would otherwise be untouchable, it must be tolerated.

Because threads like these further our scientific knowledge so much?

They're everywhere! Actually, since I used it as the opening argument, it can't be a Straw Man. Had the creationist started the argument with, "Creationism is more logical than evolution", then Dak's statement would be a Straw Man, or a Red Herring at the very least. Didn't mean to hijack the thread. I wonder what Susan would think?

It's a form of Red Herring fallacy, where someone uses something semi-related to the argument to throw a line of debate off-course. Where Red Herring leads an opponent down a path that takes him off-topic, Straw Man specifically changes the debate target from a strong position to a weak one: Dak: "Evolution has more scientific evidence to back it up than creationism does." Creationist: "Like suddenly a creature mutates a complex organ like an eyeball? Come on, evolution is totally ridiculous!" Notice the creationist invented (set up a man made of straw) a false argument different but similar to the original statement, then refuted that one (knocked the straw man down).

It was from a thread in Evolution (which you could have found on a Search for Susan Gobblehat) where a troll was flaming Sayo: Shortly after this post, it became his custom user title. It should be noted that Susan didn't even give the troll a warning for disrespect. I later banned the troll for excessive strawmanning and a trolly agenda in a different thread.

I normally give a lot of leeway to GD threads, but I see absolutely no value, either for scholarly study or for entertainment, in the speculative discussion of anyone's sexual preferences, dead or alive. Thread closed.

You're just lucky I gave you a "spam" warning test. I could have made it a Bananable Offense! It isn't spam if you make a valid point. I, for one, find your posts highly inflammatory and radically unsuitable for innocent eyes. I particularly mark the way your fist around the throat of those-who-would-preach makes their voice go all high and squeaky. You are a rebel and the staff has been warned to be alert to your wicked ways. No, but you get 2 points for the funny. We are pleased. You may rise.