Phi for All

It's only a possibility. Areas of high radar reflectivity near the poles could possibly mean there is ice. Related NASA article .

Coral has a great suggestion here. Are you talking about forceful discipline, like spanking or caning, or are you talking about beating them up? As has been mentioned earlier, abuse, by it's definition, is always bad. For example, one can drink alcohol with no adverse affects, but if one abuses alcohol, one risks alsoholism or worse. Please define your terms.

If you are going to criticize people in this manner ever again, you will elaborate or you will refrain from posting, or you will risk suspension of your account. Your choice of words is obviously inflammatory and begs an inflammatory post in response. If you have a problem with a person's response or opinion, give them a reason they can refute.

I switched to a bigger candle. Thanks for keeping us posted, especially with your ISP problems.

Did you send in your membership fee? Just kidding. So far you've only posted in General Discussion. Those posts don't count toward your totals. We had people who didn't contribute scientifically yet had huge post counts. We want your science, so give it up.

There is no problem with letting our members know there are other science forums on the net. We are grateful for our membership and encourage them to seek knowledge from diverse areas. I'm not sure what legalities are involved linking to other sites, however. They may not be as open-minded about sharing members. blike owns this site, so perhaps you should PM him about this.

Name calling, while it may satisfy some deep inner need for you, actually detracts from your credibility. You have shown many times in the past that you are better than this.

Thanks, but I didn't mean it as a criticism of you or your point. I try to refrain from speculations of guilt during court trials and I refrain from comments on other's speculations. My verdict before the fact is hardly valid. I was commenting on a seemingly conscious pattern with those I mentioned where they use abnormal behavior as a shield against criticism. The sad part is it seems to work well for them. And those aren't the only examples. People forgave former DC mayor Marion Barry of all kinds of bad behavior because he admitted to a crack problem. He even got reelected. And we all know people who get away with sheer rudeness just because they have a reputation as a grumpy old man or woman.

Alcoholic: "Hey, you can't hold me accountable, I was drunk!" Bush: "Hey, you can't hold me accountable, I say things wrong all the time!" Michael Jackson: "Hey you can't hold me accountable, I'm weird!" Ugly pattern.

No offense TT, but I'm seeing way too much of this on the forum these days (not just you and not just in politics). When someone makes a statement that you know you can refute, DO NOT make THEM look it up. Find the link yourself and post it since you are the one who wants to refute their statement. This is common courtesy that has the added benefits of making your argument really powerful and feeling really good ("Cite your evidence." "Here you go." * link * * link * * link * mwahaha!).

When you do post in the scientific parts of the forum, please do not make statements like the above without corroboration (links, citations, authors, etc.). Other members will ask you for them, so please include them to begin with.

You can add a poll to your thread using the thread tools. Consider your wording carefully. People live to be over 100 now. Are you talking about average life expectancy? I think humans can expect to live over 100 years on average only if certain criteria (besides available medical technology) are met. Carcinogens will have to be reduced. Excercise needs to be increased and weight reduced. Overall, I think people need to stop thinking that advances in medical technology allows them to abuse their bodies.

Tipping the scales again. How nice we have scaled down to "sexual affair" on one side while scaling back up to "mass murder" on the other.

It was my understanding that the Mod who deleted your tasteless, blatantly crude, deliberately offensive use of oral sex post actually PMd you about it. You seem so unhinged by this thread that you are unable to make distinctions with regard to propriety. Allegations against the US President in a political debate forum are allowed, lurid sexual references for shock value when our membership includes 12-year-olds are not. You are branching into whole new areas of rule-breaking. Is there any hope that you will not force your own suspension?

I just lit a candle, which may be very unscientific, but is one of the best things I do in a situation like this. Let me know if there is anything I can do or anyone I can call for you (I have unlimited long-distance in the US and Canada). I'm sending positive thoughts your way, Sandi.

I've heard acid rain can get as bad as pH 1.7, but I'm not sure your plant would survive till just before the 5 weeks were up. Perhaps you could do a 2-day test for the effects of what is essentially battery acid on a single plant. This might help you set your parameters.

I've heard that light acid rain (pH 5.5) can actually be beneficial to strawberries, tomatoes and corn. Soybeans are affected more adversely. You may want to start at pH 5.5. Btw, don't post the same thread in multiple forums. If we don't get you some good answers here, ask and a Mod will move it into Biology for a while. We just don't want to confuse the community. Thanks.

Am I remembering correctly that only our last 500 posts are kept in queue? Bummer. It would be interesting to see our first posts.

A transition that seems to be the true beginning of our creative lives. I forget where I heard it or who said it, but I'll never forget the words, "Now that you realize you are nothing, perhaps you can become something."

I haven't gotten on before because the few experiences I've had with chat left me pretty cold. I like to post because it gives me a bit to think about what I'm saying. I chat vocally on the phone for a living. To sit and type to talk live grates like a fork on bone. But I'm willing to try it again. It might be different chatting with the fine folk here. Prod me no more, Dave. A convert I will be.

Done.

Clashings of opinion are normal. Keep them from being personal and you'll have no problems with your account. On a side note, and this is for EVERYBODY reading this, it would be nice if we could move on with other pertinent arguments when one argument fails to bring needed clarity to the threads. To keep endlessly rehashing the same points seems to foment these personal-type attacks and name-calling, which is certainly not limited to this thread or even sub-forum.

I'm getting them more and more, or at least I'm getting peeved with them more and more, which may make them seem more prolific. Using Firefox 1.0.2, and it only happens when trying to link from email notifications & specific thread links. I can get them three times in a row from the same link and then it works the fourth time. Very erratic. Very frustrating. I'm American, you can't forbid me anything or I get irate.

And that is obviously ample justification for your opinion, but if you want to refute the opinion of someone else, you need to do more than hide behind the findings of the 9/11 Commission (which TT has reasonably pointed out may be biased, and even given you credible reasons why), or ask loaded questions with foregone conclusions like why Ruppert hasn't interviewed Rumsfeld, Rice, etc, or strawmanning TT's "Bush may be complicit" into "President is a murderer", or even suggesting that your opinion is that of all Americans. I think we all realize how highly offended you are by TT's suggestions, but he has raised his points in a debate forum in a valid manner. Debate him likewise, bring out your own studies and refute him point by point, but STOP attacking him with ad hominem, straw man and poisoning the well fallacies. I don't view TT's opinion in this matter as an implied affront to my judgement. That is your anger talking. And my views on the Bush administration are not partisan at all. I don't like much about what the man has done while in office, and there were many things I didn't like about what Clinton did in office (mostly his FCC changes and corporate kowtowing; the Monica thing was not government). I don't hold the office of US President sacred the way you seem to. I think it's important to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. I want to hear what the fringe is accusing the administration of, and I will continue to take most of it with a grain of salt, but I will also continue to weigh the arguments. I have not heard good rebuttals on many of the 9/11 issues, especially from the Commission. They are puzzling and not in a fun kind of puzzly way. Even you would have to admit that, while there was little complicity on the part of the administration implied when the 9/11 Commission was formed, the fact that there is now does put a bit of a pall on the validity of their findings.