Phi for All

Best of luck to YT2095 and Dak. If the nervousness is more pronounced than any other time you've tried, perhaps it's because you know you're going to be successful. You have wiped the smile off the smirking Nicotine Monster's face and he is feeling quite jittery.

That was slick the way you stole the pony vote from mooeypoo, despite it being her custom user title and all. Classic move!

It's the kind of question that's asked and responded to on C-SPAN. I've seen other questions of impropriety with much less to back them up come up on pundit shows on Fox. Why is it inappropriate for an internet forum?

My internet security software blocks it as an undesirable site. There may be dirty pictures there now.

It's downright scary to me. The Repoobs I know are waiting for their own Barack to surface and cling to him with all the resources they can muster. They are mostly Reaganites, but I do know a couple of neo-cons (who don't see anything wrong with what Wall Street is doing with the bailout money and wish they were in a better position to take advantage) and even a few Christ-wingers (who still oppose stem cell research, even though the cells used now are from your own body; I tell them this and they purse their lips, convinced we'll switch to fetal cells as soon as their Bible is turned). I'm just afraid the Reaganites will get caught up by anyone who pushes their buttons (they still think Palin is HOT), regardless of the candidates real motivations. That the Rep leadership can continue to make such stupid moves is unbelievable. If there's one thing I hate more than the two party system, it would be a one-party system. I like everything Obama has said up to this point and I really hope he delivers the magic, but he's still not in office yet and he's got an awful lot to do and way too many detractors to overcome.

Some people don't visit GD much. And Banned Users really is more of an announcement than a discussion. It's a closed thread saying, "Ding dong, the witch is dead! It's safe to read the science sections again!"

By leaving their Home and getting out into the Community!

Nothing at all, why do you mention them? Viola is my French teacher. That reminds me of a night I spent in a Chicago hotel. The "bump. bump bump. bump bump bump" from next door made my imagination leap a lot. Turned out to be the ice machine though. I guess we could also remove the Announcement section from showing up on the front page.

Soooo... it's not going to be stickied anymore? All we have to do is leave it stickied in Announcements (a good place for announcing bans) and just bump the New User Intro thread afterwards. Viola.

I cleaned up the poo and now I'll just go back to my crypt.

But Dak said they do it this way because it's easier "to remove the fur whilst they're alive". Is this true and if so, why?

I immediately thought it was a thread in the Mods forum remarking on your grandiloquence. But you have earned some awe over the years. Just not enough to raise the character limits so you can have your tick.

Age: 51 How long have you been driving?: 36 years Gender: Male Race: Caucasian TYPE OF CAR YOU DRIVE: Year:2000 Make: Ranger (this is actually called "Model") Manufacturer: Ford (this is actually called "Make") Do you text while driving (or waiting at the traffic light)?: No If so, how often? (all the time, most of the time, sometimes, rarely) Do you talk on the phone while driving (or waiting at the traffic light)?: Yes If so, how often? (all the time, most of the time, sometimes, rarely) sometimes Do you listen to music while driving (or waiting at the traffic light)?: Yes If so, how often? (all the time, most of the time, sometimes, rarely) Most of the time Do you eat while driving (or waiting at the traffic light)?: Yes If so, how often? (all the time, most of the time, sometimes, rarely) Rarely Have you been involved in any accidents while you were driving? Yes If so, how many total (in all the years you have been driving)? 4 While you are driving, how often do you talk to the other passenger in the car? (all the time, most of the time, sometimes, rarely) Most of the time (if there is one)

I'd have to know the biological reason behind this statement before I could even attempt an answer. Sorry if they mention it in the link but I'm still having my morning coffee with my Corgi at my feet and didn't need the visual.

I'm bumping to keep this thread above Banned users on the sticky list.

As Sayo pointed out to me about another thread I stickied, the most recently posted-to threads stays on top. I don't know if they can change that, but maybe we just need to make more positive announcements. Thanks for the suggestion, CaptainPanic. I bumped the Introduction announcement, so now we don't seem so menacing.

I congratulate you for trying, I congratulate you for your noble ideals, and most of all I congratulate you for being able to see where you went wrong. That is rare in the Speculations section, where so many theorists refuse to admit they made a mistake. Don't stop trying.

I think, after so many threads on the subject, that there is no such thing as a good cheap microscope. However, if you take the money you have available to you now and put it in a shoe box, then add $10 a month, by the time you would have posted 10 threads about cheap microscopes, you will have enough for a good microscope at a good value. Keep in mind that a low purchase price is often less cost-effective over time than buying the best quality model.

What you're asking is getting a negative response because it's like asking someone to take a job or buy a house without checking it out first. You wouldn't become my business partner and invest your time and money without seeing my plan first, would you? Can you please post what you have so it can be checked out?

This is a silly argument. Would anyone deny that his transition is unique in American history and that our circumstances warrant a bit of leeway in this regard? Perhaps if we weren't at war, in a recession and divided as a nation he would have waited another few months before changing .org to .gov. But we are, we are and we are. Judicial Watch my ass.

And I think if you post that policy (I've seen it quite a bit) you are well within your rights. I actually thought of that for the restaurant owner. He should have dashed back to his office and printed a little notice about not accepting pennies and posted it near his cash register, rather than cause such a stir in front of the other patrons.

I don't find this instance funny at all. I saw no implication that the establishment deserved such behavior. I could see it if the restaurant or the waitperson had done something, maybe in the past, to deserve this kind of retribution. But do you realize what it would cost a waiter in time and tips to count all those pennies out after he had given decent service with a decent meal? And with the parking ticket example, again I don't find it funny unless there is a good reason for it. If the meter police had barely started to write me up yet insisted on finishing even though I showed up to move my car or feed the meter I could see paying in pennies. Otherwise I'm just foisting my problems off on the clerk who had zero to do with my receiving a ticket.

The owner of the restaurant wasn't thinking. He should have said, "No problem, I'll take this in payment if it's the proper amount. You can either count it yourself to my satisfaction, which would mean it needs to be wrapped in 50 cent wrappers, or you can wait until I have a staff person who's free to do it, which should be around midnight. If you choose to walk out before it's counted, I'll have to call the police." The patron might argue that it's the merchant's responsibility to verify the sum, but the merchant isn't obligated to drop everything and count the pennies right then. Slow service doesn't give one the right to walk out on a bill, does it? Only the right to not patronize the establishment the next time.

The above is 100% true -- I don't understand what problem you have with a true statement like that.:confused: I agree with Pangloss on this, iNow. This was bad form, old boy. How could you possibly misinterpret the "100% true"?

This much is obvious in your lack of rigor. Please point such instances out, as that would be Strawmanning and we give infractions to people who persist in fallacious logic like that. Well done, sir. I think all here have fallen prey to this particular human frailty at some point. Apology accepted. We are here to have scientific conversations. Intelligent conversations, as you have evidenced here, are at the whim of your definition of intelligent, which seems biased against scientific rigor. Please identify the kettle you are speaking of, granpa pot. You see a flaw but instead of learning whether you're right you simply point a finger and scream. This is neither science nor good learning. I agree. Your bubble seems comfortable to you and it is cold and harsh outside of it.