Newtonian

 

That gargling hot salt water idea is not neccasary' date=' may not help, and would be extreamly painful.

 

 

You have many many lymph nodes, 16 if I remember correctly, and removing the tonsils does not significantly reduce your immune system's strength. (In fact my sister is due to have a lymph in her groin removed.

 

The bit about nitrates in meat is compleate rubbish, there are not nearly enough nitrates in meat to cause problems, and they are only in cured meat anyway.

 

I find your remark about animals highly offensive. Pets are in no way "filthy". You disgust me by suggesting that he get rid of pets. The bacteria that other animals have are rarely compatable with humans anyway. Keep any pets you have, Kermit.

 

And please, metafrizzics, don't copy and paste posts without citing your recourses.[/quote']

I dont know were to correct you first!

 

I thought meta's opening paragraphs were spot on.....he then completely ruined the decor of his cell,by rubbing excrement over the walls to which he had to be sedated.

 

However gargling with salt is recommended BY doctors.Sore throats are due to edema.This may be from viral,bacterial,allergy or physical injury.But in all cases results in an inflammatory response .Gargling with a saltwater draws out edema fluid from the mucosa of the throat(in the same way pouring salt on slugs!!)and gives temporary relief to the sore throat(though cannot remove the cause)

Its also beneficial in cleansing area's as salt does have anti bacterial properties.

 

Nitrites in meat is not rubbish...nitrites is a preservative that forms nitrosamines in the body which are carcigenic,nitrites cause cancer full stop!

The debate is at what levels in meat(sausages,bacon etc)they become dangerous to health.And how to counter the formation of nitrosamines(cooking your suasage assists in the formation of nitrosamines btw).

 

But its not all doom and gloom,nitrates are in tap water!.Nitrogen in chemical fertilizer oxidisers into nitrates which are absorbed by plants so lettuce sandwiches have nitrates in em.But dont worry our veggies are rich in antioxidants,minerals and vitamins(vitamins c & e in particular prevent the formation of nitrosamines....thats why manufacturers of processed meats add these vits to their product)And gov research shows the levels of preservatives are tightly controlled and therefore not harmfull(we take that with a pinch of salt eh..lol..joke).

Anyway meat without nitrates perishes faster,and eating partially decayed meat isnt good for you.

Im more concerned in the dyes used to colour meat.As you may be aware it was taken at face value that manufacturers used those of natural origin.And seeing how little regulation was actually in place,we've all been eating sudan 5 !!!.

 

Oh yeah pets are filthy smelly creatures which cause a multitude of nasty bacterial thingymebobs.Though not kissing their anus,rubbing their faeces in our childrens eyes,french kissing them or having unprotected sexual encounters .They are generally safe to have around,as long as you wash your hands regular...

So, if this person behind the intelligent design existed, then he must have been quite complex. But then he must have been intelligently designed by someone else, and that someoneelse was designed by someone else! oh snap, is there no end in sight.

Not the old man with grey beard again??

[HIDE]On a calendar...[/HIDE]

i think

If you can right down the full error address i can be more specific!!

Uh i just read the OP...BSOD....is one of 3.Its almost always memory though so check this first!!.HD failure (which usually starts intermittantly with corrupt sectors..before failure) and the third is virus related.Black screen of death is graphics card.

Ah just read post 13...you have it up and running and the original OS partition is showing corrupt files.If you can run the new Os on your other partition with no ill effects...then the original is definately infected(DONT COPY ANY FILES INTO YOUR NEW PARTITION or it will go the same way).Better would be to accept that the files are lost and do a full format of the original C partition,and a reinstall of OS.

let me know what your present status is and i will help you further.

Or use the bicycle more.

IMO i would err on Instinctual behaviour,affection for strengthening the social bonding of groups.Kissing starts very early,infants are kissed constantly.

Regardless of sex,we all have kissed most members of our family unit.

Kissing's function as a precursor of sexual activity is a non sequitur.One can get too freudian here.You dont kiss aunt Mabels lushious ruby lips at christmas,have a release of endorphins as you imagine how lovely her labia must look!! Do you??

Noticing males also can have fuller lips,Uncle george just doesnt do it for me!

iT RAINS TO PISS US OFF

So yeah' date=' was just thinking about this on a bus.

 

Suppose you have a bus length l and a suicide bomber intent to kill as many people as he/her can. Assume the position where the bomber sits/stands has pdf 1/l (inside the bus). Also take injury/death which has a strictly decreasing pdf symmetrical around the bomber (like the bell curve or something linear, does it matter?).

 

What is the safest place to be in the bus?[minimise the prob of death/injury'] Does it even exist?

 

The solution is probably trivial or something, but I cannot think of an intuitive answer

The one behind!!

This is maddening after life itself the CE was the most significant event in history.Evolution has never had such a free reign again.Think of now as evolution as a one legged octupuss.Evolution is fact it occurs...otherwise you would be reading this in your burrow,while munching on a fat juicy worm!!....but it neither confirms/negates 'creation'.What we read from both sides is more a lack of understanding of evolution.

Which leads to these daft arguments.

Its very frustrating to read people discuss evolution citing DNA,amino acids etc with no understanding of the complexities of each.Anyway if one can comprehend the probabilities of life happening in the first place...these comments would not slip off the tongue so flippantly...i will say one thing ..protein..protein..protein..ok i said it 3 times,but i only said one word.

Evolution is not a ladder of progression from bacteria to man.However many times members (and i wont mention by name,buy YOU know who you are)often post to the effect.Your misrepresenting and misinterpreting evolution.

Evolution is the change in a gene pool of a population over time.The evidence of which we have in abundance, is micro-evolution(such as the popular example of the moth...going white to black)So evolution occurs! ..

Okay "cambrian_exp" the moth is still a moth..This fact is irrelavent however,evolution as defined 'a change in the gene pool' is sometimes accompanied by the manisfestation of morphological change(catapiller-moth).So evolution occurs!

Using the hypothesis ' Natural selection'as a driving force we assume macro-evolution is cummulative micro-evolution.Until something better comes along we use this model

Evolution can occur with/without MC...and vise-versa..MC can occur without evolution!!we are doing it now,man is taller now than over the last few thousand years .This isnt evolution !!! no change in the gene-pool.People continually harp on about environment as a major influence,but enviro changes alone see only very subtle changes in Morphology such as size. MC is determined by both its genes and environment. MC induced solely by changes in environment is not evolution, because this change is not heritable,not passed on to offspring.

This is why we can as a species swim daily and not have offspring with gills.

T-Rex to joey the budgie takes a little longer time and is macro-evolution(morphological change).A little more difficult to explain and is often misunderstood when discussing evolution.We see evidence in this thread,as well as others from supposed advocates of evolution.T-rex to joey is a change in the gene pool so is evolution.But i cannot be bothered in a long explanation TBH...

IMO you are not an evolutionist simply by declaration,your a member of SFN and are afraid to get shot down by the "Red Baron Sayo" or you like it over creation(biblical)If you dont understand either paridigm it makes no sense.

The biblical account of creation is short and vague by simple people(with no comprehension of timescale....who does ? can you honestly comprehend a billion years?),as one would expect passed down through the ages by word of mouth, until such a time people were able to write the account down.It doesnt have to be scientifically correct.It certainly does not have to be contradictory to evolution.

Anyone believe that Robin Cook's death was natural

1)

 

Here's a big list of transitional fossils:

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm

 

 

Here's what I found in two seconds of google searching:

 

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

 

http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting

 

 

This is just silly. It doesnt merit the effort of refutation.

 

 

These bizarre creationist assertions have been around for years. And since the internet' date=' creationists have copied one anothers assertions to such an extent that you can predict what nonsense is found on the site before even visiting.

 

Its nothing but pseudoscientific [/url']:

Arguing with a creationist ? and then posting links whose authors are so pro-evolution,as to be nauseating.Two of which are only bloggs.Please post links from scientific sources please.

Well' date=' that is a problem, one that I vaguely recall has gotten attention in the scientific community. The issue with adressing it, however, is the penis. Birds lack a copulatory organ, but all reptiles except the tuatara have a penis or paired hemipenes, the former being the case with the closest extant dinosaur relative on the other side of birds, crocodilians.

 

So if a male dino had a penis, it could become suitably long (and possibly even dextrous as in whales) to deal with the issue of a tail in the way, but if not, it'd be hard or impossible for some species to mate. And since the naughty bits don't fossilize, we don't know which it is.

 

Personally, I suspect they had penii. This is due to the fact that there'd be no advantage in losing it, and many have tails that would have obstructed or prevented mating without it. IMHO the begining of flight was probably the most likely time for the loss of penii, because loss of the penis would reduce weight and the reduction of the tail to a short stub would allow for cloacal juxtaposition.

 

Mokele[/quote']

Im trying to get something published on this subject...so i get the credit .I will let you know later..

More academically intelligent yes ,but not smarter.

Because its pre-programmed it must have purpose(perform a task).Otherwise it would end up as neurotic as us asking itself WHY???

Does the prohibition of drinking while pregnant imply that the life or well-being of a fetus matters before it becomes a person?

Yes it appears to .......If the women intends to carry the pregnancy full term.It is the potential of the fetus becoming a person that *matters* .But it can be contradictary as concern for the fetus development is more prominent as the pregnancy develops.Until this time one places no real moral value on the fetus(at least not our own....we are animals after all)

Others have mentioned that its immoral because a future person will be born disabled' date=' but to me this reads like the fetus coming to personhood caused the past actions to become wrong - but how does that make sense . Either the womans actions were wrong at the time she had acted, or never wrong at all [/quote']

I think you've misunderstood, i dont believe thats what people have been trying to say at all.Certainly not me!.A pregnant women has the choice to terminate,or have the child(many complicated issues and problems come into making that choice, which are private.Without knowledge of facts one must respect that).

Its not the fetus coming to personhood that makes the past actions wrong !!,its the intent to have the child from the very beginning of gestation.It is wrong from the beginning to abuse ones body that may harm development of the baby,that the mother intends to bring into this world..

 

And if yes, then shouldnt acknowledging this fact imply that life is morally valuable at any stage of preganancy?

In the early stages sorry but to be blunt No.....One cannot place moral value or have empathy for jello with potential! ....we are morally obligated to the wellbeing of the mother..thats the way it is until we can lay eggs.

Obviously in the latter stages of gestation value of life increases,but morally we are still obligated...

I think the present laws about abortion are correct....we dont want the state deciding and god forbid those ghastly pro-lifers.These people can have no morals when their concern is more for potential life, than that of a 12 year old pregnant rape victim.

 

EditOne should be thorough before posting,saves all the editing in choice of words.

So' date=' it makes me wonder how people can justify the simultaneous belief that the unborn person is not a life for the first 6 months (implying that its not morally valuable or cannot be harmed) and the prohibition on women using alcohol at any time while pregnant.

[/quote']

This isnt a cryptic quiz,i find people have addressed your points quite well considering they are not privy to what is going on in your head.Unless you ask specific questions i fear nobody will provide what your looking for.

 

I can't find in any post in the thread of people justifying abortion because the *fetus is not a life*.

 

I would tend to think its the the opposite,the often difficult reasons for terminating and subsequent trauma are compounded because one considers the fetus to be a life.Regardless of gestation period.

The second point is ambigious at best,i find it silly.It has been adressed logically just why people frown on women abusing their body with harmfull substances .On the premise that they are going full-term .Which statistically has potential ill effects for the child.Again no justification for abortion has been asked for here.

People have tried to discuss what you wrote,and only that.To finish i dont think anybody would be concerned in the least of a pregnant female ,drug taking,drowning herself in large quantities of spirits,while base-jumping from the eiffel tower.If they knew she was booked into the clinic next week for the needle!!!!!

First one although mainly stolen ideas ...was the best.

2/3 were pap.....they were so cheesy .It kinda went down hill after the Oracle died (really)...plus parts of the story just didnt make any sense....great special effects though

oh yeh i forgot the corny singing....lmao "zion...zion.." It was only surpassed by LOTR return of the king daft singing, and at the end..were they all come in to frodo's bedroom and that daft git expression of his mouthing ..."Gandolf...aragorn..."

also the alternate end of King Arthur was far superior to the naff wedding and every bugger clapping.....films are all catering for girls n gays....we want to leave the cinema after an half hour sitting in your seat with awe....not leave it like staying there was a chore

no it isnt

People took it upon themselves to answer what they percieved to be a definitive question in the OP.There was no question to answer.

Your opening sentence "about the different ways people have tried to justify abortion",and you gave "pro choice....her body"as such an example.

The second part you merely made a statement " almost everyone agrees that alcohol abuse during pregnancy is a very very bad thing".Which it is.But this is nothing to do with abortion or its justification.

People have went off on a tangent debating the substance abuser having/not having a baby.Be they for/against/indifferent.

As i said there was no inconsistancy in your OP.

option 1;

Read the actual posts and comment on their easily understood content.!

option 2:

Make up your own post from your imagination,a nicely fabricated story of adjacent fields and so forth,maybe add a homicidal farmer spraying gallons of pesticide to kill those critters.Comment on your own content and scenario's then add a previous posters name at the end...

That should make everyone content?????

The means by which one becomes pregnant are well known. So are the means to prevent pregnancy with better than 99% success. Given all this, unless a women's life is in danger,or she became pregnant via a nonconsentual sex act, abortion should not be allowed. We should err on the side of protecting life. The women made her "choice" when she decided to have sex without birth control or to run the 1% risk of getting pregnant with birth control.

So you want the streets to be full of 13 year old sexmad rampant irresponsible children pushing prams.....you have no problem with children caring for children or not as in many cases and the child suffering all the nasty after effects etc etc.....havent we enough of them already,they are approx 60,000 17yr old and under every year.

I conclude (by atm's admission) that it's none of ATM's business if a child is terminated through abortion' date=' but it *is* ATM's business when a crack baby is born.

 

Which is what I wanted to hear from ATM........but didn't get it.

 

Amen[/quote']

Probably because its daft...it isnt any of his business if a crack baby is born,nor if a fetus is aborted after the accepted timeline.What i read from his posts in answer to the OP, he was saying is society in general is against/voices concern when a druggie/alcoholic abuses her body when she intends to carry the baby full term....and that under other circumstances wereby the mother wished to terminate the pregnancy for whatever reason he didnt have an opinion.Why is that so difficult to accept.

You are entitled to disagree and be pro-life under any circumstance,but for now and hopefully forever here in the UK its the womens choice...god help us if we let the state decide

I certainly have found Atinymonkeys posts easily understood and coherent.In fact if he is guilty of anything its repeating himself but phrasing it different.I find he has offered a common sense approach and conducted himself brilliantly.Im very suprised he hasnt gave you all his very severe tongue lashing.

The OP was offering a very vague question.

It is not against the law yet to smoke or drink,whilst neither habits are healthy for either mum or developing fetus.Certainly in the early stages there is no statistical evidence that the fetus will suffer long term damage.Society frowns upon those whom do abuse their bodies if they intend to carry the baby full term and justifiably.However if a person wishes to terminate by going to have an abortion / drinking whiskey in a hot bath or throwing themselves downstairs.Then thats none of your goddamn business.We can certainly offer an opinion but thats it.

The only inconsistancy i can see is you want human rights in one breath/then cry abuse of human rights if the state control every aspect of you.....china springs to mind...would you prefer pregnant people to be sent there..no choice then!!!

I was thinking about the different ways people have tried to justify abortion. And' date=' it occurred to me that there is a strange justication for pro-choice that goes something like "its her body, her choice" and "the unborn person is not a life".

 

I dont think people reason consistently about this. For instance, while there is a sharp divide between people who believe in "her body, her choice", almost [i']everyone[/i] agrees that alcohol abuse during pregnancy is a very very bad thing.

 

So, it makes me wonder how people can justify the simultaneous belief that the unborn person is not a life for the first 6 months (implying that its not morally valuable or cannot be harmed) and the prohibition on women using alcohol at any time while pregnant.

I dont see an inconsistency given your above examples.I believe in the "its her body,her choice" as long as its early in the pregnancy(differs slighty in different countries),im supportive of the womens right to choose to terminate her unwanted pregnancy.

The second example is only abhorent if the alcholic abuser wishes to carry the fetus full term.,thus putting the childs development in the womb at risk.But if the two were identical in wanting an early termination i find nothing wrong

I find myself repeating old warnings.To play god may be a nice intellectual exercise and show how smart we are.But seriously they dont think.

We all know what happens /monkey mam has undetected virus/human genes injected into fetus/virus mutates into cross species super bug/monkey bites scientist who sneaks home not wanting to get sacked...develops cough and decides to have holiday in paris/global infection almost all are wiped out.

Have we not got enough to worry about heck When the BSE kicks in, in another 10 years together with drug resistant HIV were doomed.....doomed i tell you