zapatos

Oh for God's sake give it a rest.

No. It's when you act like an arse you come across like an arse. You manage to do that under any number of situations. Surely you are aware of your confrontational approach.

You have a tendency to come across like an arse.

No, I wouldn't. So I'd be careful about making the claim without evidence. I can think of plenty of liberals and conservatives who are rich, and also plenty who are poor. I would have guessed it's a fairly even split based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, but you two seemed to be pretty confident it leaned one way or the other. Seems silly to debate the point if no one has evidence to support their position.

So that's a "NO" then.

Do either of you have citations? Not saying you are wrong but I've not seen evidence one way or the other.

The first is a blaspheme, the second a vulgarism. Both are curse words; that is, offensive words uttered in anger or annoyance. At least I believe that to be the commonly accepted definition of cursing.

Sorry to take this off topic but I'm really curious. If 'fuck' is not a curse in your mind, what is?

I'm delusional? You think your thoughts on the nature of a supernatural being are rational, but mine are delusional? Give me a break.

Actually people would have twice as many hardships as they have now. God is caring but can only do so much.

No, someone robbed Peter to pay Paul... No, wait, I think Peter paid the piper...

How do you know Peter is not broke?

You are of course correct. Thank you. I suspect in the case of the tree pictured above, which seems to be deciduous, that there is a good chance it will have dormant buds.

Trees lay down dormant buds along the trunk and branches as it grows. When a tree is pruned, hormones activate the dormant buds. Often times a tree can even survive if it is cut down to ground level.

So what exactly are you picturing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_in_a_teapot

You really want to go this route? You are not talking to adolescents here. Your little psychological ploy to get us to do some introspection to address our prejudices and fears and thus listen to this video you are so enamored with, assumes we have prejudices and fears to begin with. If you want to talk science, fine. If you want to manipulate us into buying into creationism you are barking up the wrong tree.

I thought that a mobile phone connected to a tower, which then routed the call over copper and/or fiber, and ultimately to the recipient. Is that not necessarily the case? Might calls simply travel from tower to tower wirelessly from caller to receiver?

It's unlikely that many people are going to spend over an hour on a video unless they've shared your eight year quest for answers. I know it is too much to ask of me. You will have more luck generating discussion if you share with us some of his thoughts and go from there. People come here to talk, not to get Youtube recommendations.

So you do have an agenda. Good to know I didn't misread your intentions.

Because you said it with such confidence ("It happened exactly because they are trying to be politically correct. They figured..."); because of your 'single oppression' vs 'double oppression' analysis; and because your default position for a science-based, cutting edge organization, is to assume they suddenly changed their mission configuration because their anti-racist choice of a black woman could be made double-dog-dare-anti-racist by swapping her out for an Hispanic woman. All without offering a shred of evidence that supports this claim.

I have no evidence for this claim, but I think anyone who could come to a conclusion like you just did has either an agenda or a chip on his shoulder.

You said: "I have no real opinion about the story because I have no idea at what level these types of decisions are made at NASA but I see no reason for doubt to be the default position." I was just seeking clarification on what you were referring to when you said "I see no reason for doubt to be the default position". Both NASA and the brother of the astronaut made statements. Did you mean 'I see no reason for doubt of NASA to be the default position', or possibly 'I see no reason for doubt of the brother to be the default position'?

You didn't answer my question.