Phi for All

Ooh, let's go with this theory. I think (flexibly) it makes the most sense. Way to go! aswokei -- 1, Hyebeh -- 0.

I thought no one would pick up on that. Sayonara was filmed the year I was born. Coral, I'll bet you rock at Trivial Pursuit.

Oh, good. Be sure to include some bits from the novel and the musical.

He's fleeing military persecution, after all. Do you think he would give his real age here? I said it was the end of WWII. MacArthur was SCAP and had lots of British officers working with him to rebuild Japan. There's even a funny story about Sayo putting soap bubbles in Mac's pipe one time. But he should really tell it.

Legend has it that Sayo was a major in the RAF at the end of WWII, reassigned to a Japanese air base. A number of his fellow soldiers became romantically involved with Japanese women, in defiance of military policy. Ordinarily an officer who was by-the-book, Sayo sided with a buddy of his who fell in love with a Japanese woman and married her. Sayo risked his position by serving as best man at the wedding ceremony. Major Sayo also fell in love, with a beautiful Matsubayashi dancer. He was asked by a reporter to comment on his proposed marriage to the Japanese woman, a move that was sure to get him kicked out of the RAF. Sayo told the reporter, "Tell 'em we said, 'Sayonara, sayonara, sayonara.'" Sayonara³. At least, that's the story I remember hearing. Somewhere.

It was neither subtle nor an insult. Hyebeh said "the smatter (sic) you are, the longer it will take you to solve it". It was an observation based on accumulated data, you big dummy.

Your threads keep getting thrown in the trash because no one here is interested in doing your homework for you. You are also posting in the science discussion sections, rather than the helpful Homework Help section a little further south on your Forum Index. There you will find more tolerant treatment, though I doubt anyone is going to just hand you any answers.

No unemployment for arms dealers. Yay.

I think the attraction is more pronounced when they are hidden. Men, perhaps humans in general, don't like to be denied access to anything. The more you're told you can't see something, the more you wonder why, the more you want to see it (them). And since we don't have them in the first place, that makes our fascination even greater.

<Makes note: add 4 point warning for chuckling at 3 warning points for "Disrespect Towards Forum Leaders"> Sort of the least of all offenses, isn't it? You get more points for posting "LOL" than for posting "**** off, you ****ing ugly excuse for a Moderator!"

That would make a classic spit-take. yourdad: "What's this from Science Forums.net?" (takes huge gulp of drink) SFN: "... Flaming, Copyright Theft, Racist Remarks, Hazardous Materials Violation..." yourdad: (spews Pepsi all over computer screen)

Tends to happen when the answer is spot on.

There are several places in the Rocky Mountains where streams seem to run uphill. I remember staring at one for quite a while when I was younger and eventually it began to seem as if I were watching a film being played backwards as the water burbled along the wrong way. Very unsettling when you're standing there in the flesh watching it, but as others have stated, it's all due to slanting topography and optical illusions.

If they're persistent after you've explained their error, it could be construed as flaming. I've seen a lot of posts where statements were made for the sole purpose of starting a row. Were you recently falsely accused?

Analogies can often be strawman fallacies, especially if they force the debate towards the analogy with excessive vividness.

I suppose that since evolution strives for adaptation and proliferation rather than perfection, it technically does count as a strawman. Especially if your opponent in the debate continues to argue from that point. That's very typical of strawmanning. They keep wanting you to attack something they can easily defend.

A strawman is a logical fallacy used by scurrilous debaters to make you defend a position of their choice, not the one you started out defending. Callipygous: "I think we should all pay $100 a month in dues to be members here at Science Forums. It would get rid of the people who aren't serious about science." Scurrilous Phi: "Callipygous, I don't see why you want to keep my daughter from going to college with your silly dues idea."

Are you the "Rev. White" I find the above copy/paste job attributed to? If not, you are a plagiarist, among your other "talents".

I feel so... so... used! I'll never be nice again. Ever. And I guess I will always read the whole thread next time.

You must be the smartest person in the world.

This is the last sentence in the OP. Are you sure the title used to be different? I agree, they would seem to ask different things. Did any Mod or admin change this title for gib65? If there is no good reason for the change and gib65 has no objections to the edit, I can change it.

The request was made by PM. Baldur had some citations he had found, only to discover the thread had been closed. If you would like a thread reopened for a good reason, you only need ask. In fact, if you would like me to reopen the pedophile thread again for another round, that's fine, too, let me know and I'll reopen it for a time. The only reason it was closed at all is so it wouldn't get bumped months from now with repetitive opinons. People often don't back-read threads that long. Title of his post or title of his thread? Post titles are as editable as the posts themselves, although we now have a 6 hour time limit for editing so people can't go back and erase all their past posts (it's only happened twice while I've been moderating but it was a real PITA, makes the whole thread look goofy). Editing the title of threads requires a Mod or Admin. If this is what you were referring to, let me know which thread it was and I will track down the reason and, if necessary, have the offending Mod or Admin struck repeatedly with something unpleasantly hard and heavy. That's what we love to hear.

Warning Maturity is the number of days it takes for the warning points to go away. You could get a temporary ban for 10 days if you were cited for 5 counts of spamming (4 pts each, 14 days maturity) and a count of copyright violation (5 pts, 10 days maturity) for a total of 25 points. After 10 days the copyright violation matures and the ban is lifted, but for the next 4 days you still have 20 points of warning. We know you all want posters to stay on-topic and it wastes everyone's time to read posts that say simply "LOL" with nothing else attached. We know you all appreciate the quest for knowledge and intelligence and this is the fairest way to improve our scientificalatiousness.