Sayonara

Last warning.

Before that hypothesis has any value, you need to actually show that a significant portion of crime is caused by the "pleasurable feeling" that adrenaline causes. You have not done this, and since the vast majority of crime is acquisitive I'm going to go ahead and suggest that one can't.

No, in this analogy rep power is the size of the thing being jerked.

Clearly nobody wants to discuss the OP, not even Coberst.

Walsh, if you carry on like this you will be banned.

I don't see what is so spectacularly evil about that ostensibly quite straightforward ownership dispute.

Moved to the Support Forum. I can virtually guarantee this is not an issue with the forum/server, but with your browser settings.

That's because - despite the current culture - the sort of people talking about such things with any semblance of confidence are used to having an educated audience. They'll eventually learn and continue the paragraph. Darwin didn't have an understanding of genetics, no. But more importantly he didn't have an understanding of the numerics of evolutionary ecology, or of game theory, or of complex population dynamics and the equilibrium models. The evolutionary sciences have moved on considerably since the Beagle so don't put too much stock in Darwin's musings. Pivotal breakthrough yes, comprehensive description no.

Thanks. It would be Monsanto, wouldn't it?

He's running the "evolution is not a theory" bit, only with recrimination and what is supposed to be intellectual table-turning. Because that's never been done before.

Pipped to the post

A "GMO" is a genetically modified organism. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Can you cite a case? I would be interested in reading up on that.

Not to mention the rather obvious question mark that hangs over why exactly he thinks he will find this "Theory of Evolution" he's so desperately seeking on SFN, as opposed to in the peer-reviewed literature.

Get over yourself.

Unless you are tone-deaf; then you're stuffed.

Sigh. Saw it coming as soon as I saw "test" number five.

Perhaps the appropriate mathematics would be a more fitting tonic.

If he is against "the mixing of races", it could be either or both. You would have to ask him for a more specific answer, but it doesn't look like you would get an honest one.

Isn't that worth like a platinum trophy in the racism awards or something?

Well, Star Wars takes place in another galaxy and the canon history shows that the space-faring races have been developing their technology for at least several tens of thousands of years. Star Trek takes place several centuries from now (although admittedly the first crude warp flight was in 2063). So I don't think 20 years from now is a fair comparison

Neveos, if your attitude does not improve significantly by the next time you post you will be banned outright. No ifs, no buts, no pleading, whining or recriminations... just *poof* - the nasty, unpleasant, rude poster who cannot grasp the purpose of this site suddenly vanishes for good.

The object appears to get larger because the light reaching the person's eyes comes from the future, where the object reflecting it is much bigger. The light knows which person to aim at because, coming from the future, it is much more intelligent than present-day light.

Yeah. Exasperated explanations of dimensionality aside, I am just being irritatingly pedantic.

No, it isn't.

Yes, because your earth-shattering question has rocked the boat that much