StringJunky

927 A.D. when it became the Kingdom of England, led by King Aethelsten. Prior to that it was a group of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. 'Anglo-Saxon' is an archaic descriptor. It's like calling modern Canadians 'Franco-English'.

One can be English and Ango-Saxon, but one cannot be Ango-Saxon and have non-white immigrant ancestry. It's a way of distingushing white English people from naturalised English people i.e have non-English ancestry. The motives are malign.

Nope.

It's a means of separating a group from others in an elitist/racist fashion.

Politically, using 'Anglo-Saxon' connotes with labels like 'Aryan', and all that it implies. Funny really because Anglo-Saxon is French! They are saying 'We are English because our roots lie in France'.

Have a look at Vespel, but it's very expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespel#:~:text=Vespel is mostly used in,hostile and extreme environmental conditions.

Brevity leads to more potential interpretations, potentially.

Is it right that when you apply energy to separate quarks, new quark pairs are formed from each one once a certain threshold is reached? This is why they can never exist in the free state? I read a some Quora posts yesterday from a couple of physics professors that mentioned this.

I am totally open-minded, and there is nothing you can say to change that.

@Genady Yes.

Isn't that what gluons do?

If it was reversed, I would probably be watching the women's game. I can't exclude the fact that I'm my age group and it's all I know.

Aren't you projecting a monolithic viewpoint that you think women have? Again: I watch football because they are men, I'm not interested in the female style of play. Note that I said "style of play" and not "men are better footballers than women". As a parallel, consider,say, pre-sixties football style was much more physical and aggressive, with balls that weighed a ton wet. Compared to them, modern footballers are frail, athletic gazelles... they wouldn't last five minutes playing then.

I'm on the old side. It's not always the case, but paradigm social change, like towards less rigid notions of gender, perhaps require generational lengths of time to become 'normal'.

I'm on the wrong side of 60.

The first thing that needs to change before things like this can be largely embraced is that the old farts need to embark on their heavenly travels. Their page is already printed.

Why, are they going to win all the competitions?

I get it now, he's preaching to the choir.

Call me thick but I don't get it.

This an example of what's wrong: gun ownership and handling is not treated with enough respect. Get this:

The Russian military bloggers have apparently been moaning about the problems the army has been having and that it is so hard to get passed their own government's propaganda for reliable information.

Yes, that's another approach. We 've discussed this many times over the years I've posted here, and it's just the same hand-wringing every time there's a massacre. The system seems set up to resist change. An influential number of Americans love their guns too much.

Next... we know what's wrong.

100000's of years is too short for observable evolution, AFAIK. We can only measure H. sapiens existence on that scale.

I think it's a case of men have had more opportunities to play sport and was less culturally acceptable until more recently.