Ophiolite

That is in danger of being a strawman argument. Trolls, members looking for an easy insult and irredeemable pedants are surely the only persons who would criticise poor grammar in a post whose meaning was clearly conveyed. The objection to poor grammar is for those many cases where it prevents the writer's message from being delivered. Poor grammar creates ambiguity, or even unintelligible nonsense. That serves neither writer, nor reader. I make enormous allowances for persons for whom English is a foreign language, or for an obviously young person. I think this is true of nearly all long standing forum members. I am much less sympathetic towards a native speaker who cannot be bothered to make the effort to write clearly and is indifferent to acquiring the skills to produce clear, effective written English. This is especially annoying in those who are claiming some deep scientific insight while being devoid of grammar, maths and technical knowledge. In those instances the poor grammar is simply one more symptom of an impoverished mind. Of course it is, but there is often a strong correlation between the quality of their writing and the quality of those ideas. I don't know. I've built a fifty year career on the back of high quality bullshit.

That doesn't seem very rigorous. I share my ancestry with tomatoes. Does that mean we are subpecies? What degree of genomic similarity determines the taxon level an organism will be assigned to? The aptness of these two questions suggests your definition is not rigorous, but sloppy.

I have around 30,000 non-archived emails on my computer and an uncounted number more in archives on my machine. If I didn't run it like that I would need to be online in order to read my emails. I estimate I receive/send around sixty emails a day, but I am not running the State Department.

I am not clear what you mean by asking about "the nature of the amphibolite lenses". I don't think you mean identifying their mineralogy, since by describing the lenses as being amphibolite you must have noted their mineral composition. I don't think you mean the structural character of the lenses, since you have also described that. I don't think you mean the origin of the lenses, since - given the context of lenses in marble - that is likely prograde amphibolite facies metamorphism of a dolomite, or limestone with interbedded clays and marls. So, what am I missing?

I am not a mod, but I have been one here in the past. I read through some of your posts. I didn't spot the thread hijacking or refusals to clarify, but I did note that many of your posts were belligerent and patronising. That is often evidence that the poster is more interested in a fight than a discussion. You might wish to consider that.

Well it wasn't up to your usual high standards Koti and that attracted my attention. And in regard to the distraction of the six month old - forget the forum and give that distraction your full attention. They will have six month distractions of their own in a surprisingly short time!

Well, you lost me right here. As written you are saying that all mass is moving at the speed of light. I don't think you mean that, so you need to rephrase your statement so that it makes sense. (On the other hand if you do mean that I can safely ignore everything else you have written.) Velocity is not equivalent to speed. Velocity is already a vector property and so mentioning direction is redundant. I am suspicious of any hypothesis that makes such a fundamental error in the opening sentences. Perhaps English is not your native language.

Come on! 1. I don't click links without having been given more insight as to the content than provided by a lengthy, but ultimately uninformative title. I believe it is good forum etiquette to provide a brief description of the topic. 2. This is a discussion forum. What did you want to discuss about the subject?

Thank you for your reply. At the risk of sounding, or even being, patronising, it is not a good idea to devote a substantial part of a 'pitch' to details that have no practical relevance. It is likely to obfuscate and frustrate. Having scanned your attached document I am confused by your statement "the composition of a means for cataloging the diverse methods of modeling astropause/spheres." The paper seems rather to offer a means of assessing the results of diverse methods through comparison with observation. Would you clarify this please. The concept appears to be a potentially useful one. I wish you success with it. I do suggest you get a good editor to attack the text: it needs substantial work.

I am not very bright, so I am probably missing something here that is meant to be obvious. It seems you are looking for some relationship between the ratio of the size of an atomic nucleus to that of the atom compared with the size of a star, to its system's limit as defined by the astropause. If that is what you are looking for I am forced to ask , why? Why would you imagine such a relationship would reveal something? If you meant something else, perhaps you could explain it in simpler terms. Edit: I see I have been anticipated in my puzzlement by John.

I can certainly agree that they share characteristics, but I feel their central nature is quite distinct. A weakness is, surely, a negative. It is a lack of quality: of strength, of skill, of knowledge, above all - in the context of this thread - a lack of self confidence. In contrast, softness is a style that is constrained, but this constraint arises from the presence, not the lack, of self confidence. The individual displaying softness does so because they feel no need to pontificate, brag or threaten. Their inner strength gives them the confidence to behave gently, softly as a mild mannered person. The cliched expression, an iron fist in a velvet glove comes to mind. Caveat: the distinction may be one of perspective. You may see the overlap of character as larger than I do and the central core located in a different place.

The original paper is available here.

?

Wouldn't weakness be more apposite?

This is extremely difficult to answer without drawing it out, in which case I have done the first part of your homework for you. Try re-arranging the instructions. There is a 5kg mass resting on a table. A 3kg mass sits directly above it. The latter is adjacent to a peg (which must therefore also be immediately above the 5kg mass on the table. Can you take it from there?

In this instance your critiques are superficially accurate. However, those who know me in person are well aware that I rejoice in verbosity. It is only the extensive, extended, even overbearing, use of this style that I seek to avoid. Day to day, mundane verbosity I relish. I certainly cannot agree with you that vindictive behaviour is an ulterior motive. I have known many individuals who have flaunted the vindictiveness of their actions. So, I thank you for your input, but in this instance I shall disregard it.

As the title suggests, researchers have found a fossil parrot much further north than any previously discovered. Fans of Monty Python may be curious to know if it is a Norwegian Blue. (Lovely plumage.) http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/10/20160717 Abstract Modern parrots (crown Psittaciformes) are a species-rich group of mostly tropical and subtropical birds with a very limited fossil record. A partial tarsometatarsus from the late Early Miocene of Siberia (Baikal Lake) is the first pre-Quaternary find of crown Psittaciformes in Asia (and Siberia in particular) and is also the northern-most find of this bird order worldwide. This find documents a broad geographical distribution of parrots during the warmest phase of the Miocene (the so-called ‘Miocene Climatic Optimum’), which has implications for the historical biogeography of Psittaciformes. The presence of parrots on both sides of the Pacific Ocean at the end of the Early Miocene implies a (most probably eastwards) trans-Beringian dispersal which likely took place about 16–18 Ma. The broad Eurasian distribution of parrots in the past further supports a hypothesis that ancestors of modern genera Coracopsis and Agapornis could reach Africa from Eurasia.

Thank you. An excellent example of poor quality editing resulting from multiple mental rewrites while typing the sentence.

I can become slightly upset if someone criticises an error in my writing. I do become apoplectic with rage if they fail to criticise an error in my writing. This is permanent permission to criticise any failure of grammar, lack of clarity, or excessive verbosity anyone should find in my writing, unless it such criticism is conducted for ulterior motives, or delivered vindictively.

Since he is not the only one befuddled by your ongoing comprehensive lack of clarity and focus, one tends to suspect the fault lies somewhere other than with Strange.

In ten or twenty years time I shall be dead and yet the world will still be peopled by fools. At times one can become discouraged.

You seem to have inadvertently inserted an extra word in that sentence. Here is a corrected version. Trump seems entirely oblivious to this reality.

The Earth has no problem dealing with high or low levels of CO2. Life will adapt. That adaptation will involve the migration, extinction, or evolution of species. When a new equilibrium sets in the biosphere will recover from any negative consequences of the change. (The consequences are likely to be substantial in this iteration as a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of change.) Humanity should have no worries about survival. There are seven billion of us and we have proven to be a versatile species. The problem arises if we wish to make it through the century without experiencing, at best, massive reductions in standard of living, and at worst, wide-scale famine, epidemic, and civil and international war, including nuclear incidents. Even if we are entirely mistaken in the very sound science on which the concerns are based, a sensible approach would be to take some modest steps to substantially reduce the risk factors. Of course, if you are the sort of person who doesn't bother to check left and right when crossing the road, then I can understand why such actions would seem pointless to you.

Would you think it reasonable for someone who was not a medical doctor to propose a new surgical procedure? Would you treat there suggestion seriously if they admitted they new very little about anatomy? Do you think they should be free to discuss their proposal from a position of ignorance?

You appear to be saying that you can only select one of those three options. That seems very limiting. Assuming you can take two I would suggest Bio and Chem. Caveat: I know next to nothing about forensic science, but a grounding in chemistry would certainly be essential and one cannot moelecular and cell biology without such a grounding. Heads Up: like most work, forensics will contain large segments of tedious, mundane, repetitive analysis. It will be nothing like the TV renditions. However, like all work, it will also offer the opportunity to excel and enjoy. Good luck.