DrP

Yes - it is quite a jump to that conclusion. How do they get from -"stimulation from radiation" - which we all know happens.. to "so therefore we can control your mind"? - think about it -- what was the source of the paper? - I wouldn't trust that source again. We ARE talking about it.. Don't get huffy just because we think it is rubbish. We are attacking the crazy suggestion that because the skin is stimulated by radiation you can conclude that mind control is possible through the TV, we aren't attacking you. ;-)

Just answer the questions... nothing you have put forward has held any ground under scrutiny at all. No one is forcing anyone to take oxytocin or drugging them so that they accept immigrants. What has lead you to believe this? Who are you talking to that is putting ideas like this into your brain? - maybe it is your world view that is wrong and you are worrying for the wrong reasons. It is a possibility. I can't speak for all, but I think you are confusing people's desire to see wild claims backed by evidence with anger and hate. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we are angry or hateful... read back and see - you have jumped into some defensive stance mentally... might be due to the 'cognitive dissonance' phenomena or something like that - it is quite common. Especially if you think the whole world is against you. Take care anyway - I'm out.

How do you jump from this "Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation" to this ... "It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set" - you can't just draw that conclusion and accept it - it is totally ridiculous.

1 - what issue are you talking about - the world is complicated and there are a lot of issues. 2 - 'They' are looking for a reason and a solution?... Who exactly? And what solution to what problem? Science remember - you need to define who and what you are talking about. Not just spout some paranoid woo and expect us to understand what you are on about. - it 'seemed' that you were claiming people were being forced oxytocin so that they would accept immigrants... but surely you can't mean that.... I mean, you would come across as totally crazy if that were the case and it said nothing about it in that paper you put forward to support your claims. So - please enlighten us.

What is rude about questioning your stance on something?... that's the thing with Twitter.... there are a lot of yes people who will just agree with your conspirasy theory rubbish without questioning it or researching the facts... this is a science forum so any unsupported claims you make will, rightly, be challenged. It's how we sort out the made up paranoid drivel from the facts.

It says Oxytocin helps people be positive to strangers. No surprise. It seemed from your tone and your writing that you thought 'they' were forcing it on people to control then so as to force them to accept immigration. That clearly isn't what the paper says. You then claim that you do not actually think this, but are still seeming to take some aggressive stance against 'them' for some reason... so please clarify for us - what are you on about?

I suppose the only 'recent' event that blacked out the whole world would have been the Krakatoa explosion in 18 hundred and something? We were taught at school (although I have been caught out before parroting something I heard from school only to find it is untrue) that the explosion was heard about 7 times as the shockwave echoed round the earths atmosphere and that the ash particulates blocked out the sun worldwide for a few days.

Thanks. I think Zaps gets what I'm saying, even if he doesn't fully agree. You summed up what I was getting at exactly, although maybe the 'undue pressure placed on people' is a bit over stated. All the collectors i have ever met have seemed nice. A couple have glared at me if I mention that I think their cause should be government funded that is all. lol I don't think anyone needs to apologize. Maybe I should for the confusion, lol. PS - on further reflection I will apologize. I will apologize for referring to the collector that glared at me as a moron. It was uncalled for. I do not know them nor them me. Good luck to them all in raising their funds for this excellent cause.

Not really Zaps... I am happy to give from time to time and have done in the past and probably will do again. The air ambulance service saves many lives each year. I don't think it fair that it is funded by the poor... (which, by hanging around the CO-OP they are targeting).... when they could get a fair and negligible contribution from all. Name calling? Is that because I called them morons? I don't remember calling them any other names... I suggested they be moronic because invariably they take umbrage at any suggestion that there is a better way to get funding. This is cognitive dissonance imo because there are clearly better ways to raise the money but any suggestion to such is met with anger and disgust as if I am just apposed to giving my money... which I am not.

I think the cost should be shared out across the board by everyone.... thus the suggestion of taxation. I don't think it should be paid for by getting a team of OAP voluntary workers to beg for money out side of shops to take money from the normal everyday poor people who shop at the CO-OP by playing on their sense of guilt. They guilt many old people into parting with pounds and pounds. There are over 1.5M people in our county. So - for the £3M they need each year... that's 16p per month each person added to the council tax. Sorted - no-one is going to miss 16p a month. Surely that is better than fleecing the gullible for tens of pounds outside of shops and sneering at them if they don't give. "They" do not need anything... it is the air ambulance team that needs the money. "They" in their ignorance may not realise that there is a better, easier, more stable way of having the precious air ambulance funded rather than begging in the streets outside of shops. Maybe it makes them feel better or useful or fulfilled to be doing something constructive... personally I think it is a waste of time when it could all be covered by adding 16p onto peoples monthly bill.... which is already hundreds of pounds even in the lowest bracket. Why don't they go and beg outside of the stock exchange in London? Surely they will get more money there from all of those rich brokers, no? ;-)

Same here... when I suggest that it should be paid for by taxes I feel I am helping them out.. no more need for begging on the streets, stable supply of money that is guaranteed every month, acknowledged needs that all people see as necessary and all pay into... but no - they just see some ass hole who doesn't want to give to charity. Morons. The little old lady that was collecting for them a few years back looked at me with such hatred... even though I gave her cash, lol. I had a simple and easy idea to totally fulfil the financial needs of the air ambulance for decades... send the bill to the tax payer to avoid her having to beg on the street corners for the funding... she hated me (Cognitive dissonance maybe)..

I got glared at again for sharing my views with another Air Ambulance charity worker outside of the shop the other day... The Air Ambulance, as the workers so enthusiastically point out, is essential. OK - if it is essential, which I believe it is, it should be covered by the money we pay in taxes... 20p each on our tax should easy cover the air ambulances 1 or 3 million a year they need to sustain. A drip in the ocean for the government coffers. It would be a lot fairer to make EVERYONE pay for it as a very small percentage which we won't even notice, rather than resort to begging off of little old ladies outside of grocery stores and supermarkets. I wont give to air ambulance out of principle - as an essential service it should be covered by the government imo.

Saying over and over just doesn't make it true though. Your 'daily affirmations' may well help you keep up your faith.... that's because you are brainwashing yourself.

So do I. I was going to look that up when I got home. I think it might have been you that posted it originally.

Yes there are, there are loads! - we have had threads discussing them before... there are videos showing the contradictions. I'll look one of the vids up and post it for you. He hates imperfection, but we are ALL imperfect according to the bible... so he hates us? No - he loves us. He loves everyone, if they are perfect, if not, it doesn't matter because he'll forgive you if you repent.... otherwise you will be tortured for all eternity .. unless you are Canaanite... then he just kills you anyway. But he loves you so that's alright. Can't you see that this is total BS? You are believing this claptrap out of fear of hell.. It is clearly nonsense as it/he/she/the thing/entity/idea you call god just doesn't exist.

Maybe the animals outwards appearance would look the same... I say this due to evolution being driven by the needs of the animal to adapt and evolve to suit it's environment rather than being driven by it's chemistry. There are many cases of convergent evolution occurring like the Ichthyosaur and dolphin for example. If a swimming like animal had a triple helix it would still eventually grow into a dolphin/fish shape, because this is the best shape for swimming.

What 'appeals' is irrelevant. What evidence are you drawing the conclusion that there is a hierarchy above us from? If there is one - it is pretty brutal. My pet spider was eaten by another spider... I came in to find a spindly husk and a smaller, but leaner nastier looking beast had taken it's web and had drained it of life. I didn't like the look of this newbie who had eaten my pal - I was going to bump him off but decided to leave it... the whole lab was moved the other day anyway and it has now gone of it's own accord. Here she is. . Before she was cruelly taken from me. Eaten in her prime.

....so, nothing to do with science then. I am still unsure how you confuse 'science' with 'secular'.... although a secular society may well be the result of what we have learnt from science, it isn't the same thing.

Thanks for the insight.

The bible actually says: "The secret to a happy Christian life is contentment". I can't remember which NT chap/verse this is... but it is there in the teaching for sure.... it is THE SECRET to a happy life according to the book/manual for Christianity.

This only because the president seems to back them or see them as equal in their views... (which I know you sort of go on to say anyway). Without his support for their protest they would not have been so emboldened. How he bundles confederate generals in with past presidents I do not know.... I am probably showing my ignorance here but I thought the whole civil war was to do with race and slavery.... the confederates lost. So why glorify their memory at all unless you are harbouring some sort of desire to return to the slave trading days? In his speech he genuinely did not seem to see a difference between the likes of Lincon and Lee.... He genuinely believes what he says... he is just like my (and some other peoples) dad... he won't listen to anyone and will see any disagreement with him as a personal attack.... But we 'all' could see he was like this before we voted him in, so, I am not sure what people are so shocked about.... we saw it all coming a mile off. Here Here.

I don't think he meant that at all ( I might be wrong). They are different completely. Secularism is just society without religion.... it says nothing about science. There are ways people search for contentment in a secular society. Maybe some of the religious teaching that promotes contentment is useful.... things like learning humility, grace, mercy and forgiveness... maybe there should be more stress on these things when teaching people about the world through love. Being fair - does science even need to deal with contentment and happiness... other than to study it objectively. Secular society on the other hand might well learn something from the babies in the bathwater they ditched when they dropped the god myth.

I have to agree with MigL here - This is why BREXIT happened imo... anyone in the UK even dared to ask a question about immigration concerns or dared to criticise and of the bureaucracy of the EU over the past couple of decades has been shouted down and called a racist. They aren't allowed to talk about it in public without being shouted down, so they talk about it with others that want to talk about it and then become subject to their own confirmation bias because the only people they ever discuss the matter with are racists and xenophobes. Whether these people have obnoxious racist beliefs or just have seemingly ignorant questions about immigration people should engage them and educate them of their ways rather than cutting them off. They just congregate somewhere else and get sucked into their own echo chambers... some of these people genuinely believe what they are saying, they aren't necessarily evil.... although some are clearly just obnoxious c*&%s.

It is a very pretty metal for jewellery... and as ranger said above it is so inert and doesn't cause allergies that some other metals cause.... It is truly amazing how girls can wear anything at all.... but suddenly when they get married or into a serious long term relationship they become allergic to base metals and can only wear gold.

I had a conversation at work last year sometime.. It was about probability and coincidence. I was arguing that for a system to be random you MUST see patterns which look non random from time to time... I argued that if you threw a bucket of Dice from the top of a skyscraper, although the probability is immense, it HAS to produce all 6's sometime.. (if you repeat the throw over a billion years they will come up.. or at least have a chance of coming up). My point was that you cant use the fact that something is unlikely as proof that it cannot happen. That evening I played a table top game with some friends... I mentioned my conversation at work because we were about to roll some dice... We had to roll to see who went first. We both rolled 6's so had to roll again... we both rolled 6's 7 times before one of us lost the roll off. It was very spooky, but a beautiful demonstration of what I was talking about. My opponent said it must mean something.. I just said that it proved my point. The whole game was riddled with rolls of all 6's all 1's and things like that.... but totally random. I have rolled a lot of dice... sometimes they seem random, sometimes you get remarkable demonstrations of probability in action.