Ophiolite

I did. You ignored it, other than responding with further unscientific statements and unsupported statements. I only apply neg. rep. for consistent failure to provide support for assertions, or for self delusion, or for cherry picking, or for failing to directly address objections, or for being rude. You have not been rude.

Couldn't manage the beer, but I hope the +rep compensates.

Oops. I intended to give cladking a neg. rep, but inadvertently applied it to Mootanman's post that contained the target post of cladking. Would someone please reverse that with a positive rep on post #23 please. Sorry about that Moontanman.

I don't know anyone who does. This is often called being alive. Quite a few people (roughly seven billion) experience it on a regular basis. Then you will be familiar with the specific figure of speech involved when I say bullshit.

An interpretation of reaction to archaeological theory that is simultaneously snide and irrelevant. More snide irrelevancy. It seems to be your speciality. Experiments are routinely done in historical contexts. Either you are lying, or ignorant. In either case it wholly devalues your opinions in these matters. As noted, of course experiment is possible. And why should every archaeologist conduct testing, if the relevant testing has already been conducted by others? I would not be surprised. I would be amazed. Please provide appropriate citations to support your claim. Include citations that refute the points made by Strange about the evidence for ramp use. Alternatively, and preferably, admit you are wrong. Provide the citations to justify this claim. More snide ignorance. I am at a loss as to why your nonsense is tolerated. Huh?

Perhaps before you start experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs you should stop experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs.

And diamond.

Perhaps we should end on this positive note, where we are all in agreement.

Perhaps it is a matter of definition, but 1. Your thread title specifically asks about "talking during lectures", not about using technology. 2. If you are looking at code, created by a fellow student, then that is not a lecture, that is a workshop, or a lab, or some sort of hybrid. Rules peculiar to that beast should have been created and made very clear. When I teach I recently moved from a policy of "lap tops down" to "lap tops up". But I make it very clear that I can spot a Facebook using face from 200m, in the dark, with my back to the user!

Excellent proposal.

We are half the same then. I also think quickly. Another almost similarity. I know a reasonable amount and can smell bullshit up to 8kms away. Further with the aid of the internet. But seriously, please provide a single peer reviewed item of research from an archaeological journal that supports your contention that Egyptologists think the ancient Egyptians were changeless.

Then he is a crap Professor. It would take fifteen seconds. "Professor, I wanted to apologise to you and the class on behalf of Peter and myself for disrupting yesterday's lecture with our whispering. It will not happen again."

Never give up a dream.

Bottom line it is rude. And stupid. And inefficient. Did I mention rude? I find it enormously disruptive to the point where I am listening to their conversation and not what I am saying. At that point I adopt GregH's approach and stop talking and look at the offenders. Silently, until they too are silent. It is a rare occasion when anything more than this is needed. Did I mention that it is rude?

I regret that human anatomy is outside my area of expertise. You are correct that stomach muscles are involved in it in some way, but which ones and what other muscles is beyond me. However, simply googling muscles and finding our old friend wikipedia, I think what you are looking for could be found here, or one step from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_muscles_of_the_human_body

We don't need a treatise. You mention Newton's Third Law. How about just showing us how that can be derived from your equation?

Members on this forum have often complained that other members posting their "theories" do so with a distinct lack of mathematics. Here is an example of a theory that claims at the heart of it is pure mathematics - a simple, allegedly universal, equation. When we examine that equation we find its "meaning" is so trite, so trivial, so mundane and obvious that calling it "meaning" is probably a corruption of language. In that regard the equation perfectly captures the essence of the hand waving, word salad offered by way of explanation: a perfect blend of words and symbols.

I do not understand the question. Sleep is governed by the level of certain chemicals in the brain that influence the amount and type of brain activity. There is no role, that I am aware of, for any part of the muscular system. Did you mean to ask which muscles are used to help you rise from a prone position to an upright one?

Since the exploration of space and - one may hope - eventual colonisation of some form are long term processes we should not expect the major returns to be in yet. Give it three or four hundred years.

"Going to" is an acceptable and standard option for the future tense. As others have pointed out the "going" refers to a movement through time to a future time. Your doubts about the correctness of the usage are unfounded. (I cannot comment on the situation in Spanish, or any other language.)

Are humans, chimpanzees and gorillas varied?

It is an apparently honest attempt to make the oft made statement that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled if we accept the creation accounts in Genesis as metaphor. It does not deserve the three negative reps awarded by some members who, frankly, should be ashamed of themselves. Great way to encourage a new member guys. I have removed one of those negatives. It would be nice if a couple of you removed the others.

Whether it is important or not is likely irrelevant. We are genetically inclined to be curious. And so we are. The result, as they say, is history.

It is illogical to claim that person B is worthless because they have accomplished less, or later. Therefore persons A's claims in this regard can be ignored. As described, the bullying can be stopped by ignoring it. B should respond to A thus "If I valued your opinion I would be offended." Person B should simply accept person A is a dickhead and get on with their life. (Edit: If Persons A and B are married, then it is probably time for a divorce.)

To some extent, I think, the use of the adjective primitive is a survivor of the times when humans were thought of as being at the pinnacle, the end point, of evolution. In that regard you could say that the use of the word primitive in that way is itself primitive. More properly, and more technically, primitive can be used to mean "lacking in specialisations that are present in other member of the genus, or family, or order."