Phi for All

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.

A combination of a worldwide population of 6.6B, the highest intelligence of any earthly species, 24/7 news coverage, and various frustrations brought on by too much focus on unimportant issues and rapid shift of priorities from hunter/gatherer to agrarian to modern civilized city dweller, imo.

I'm going to sticky this now because I've just read it and still lost it a minute later. Can an Admin move this down the sticky list so Introduce Yourself is still at the top? I don't think I can do that.

No. The argument is that because alcohol is legal, pot should be legal. What you suggest is a strawman. The argument is also that alcohol is legal and growing hemp, even for making fabric and paper and rope and oil, is illegal. There are those who claim that our old friend Big Oil is once again to blame, since prior to it's being outlawed in 1937, hemp was used for many markets that petroleum coveted. I think alcohol's deleterious effects are quite well known, and by a majority of people. The attitude seems to be that since it's legal it's OK, even though it kills or destroys the lives of tens of thousands of people worldwide every year. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that we could use hemp again. It's stronger and less harmful than cotton to the environment. We could stop cutting down trees to make paper. We could have renewable oil supplies (I'm pretty sure IC engines could be made to run on a derivative of hemp oil). I've imbibed alcohol and cannabis in the past, but don't use either anymore so I feel I can say without too much bias that there are no reasons why we shouldn't have both if we have one. I can live without both but why should I dictate what everyone else can or can't put inside themselves?

Not really. It's primary function should be to provide order. From there it can establish ways to resolve conflicts (including how best to protect the people) but order should be the prime directive, imo. How does hemp compromise our ability to protect ourselves? And again, do you drink alcohol? And even if you personally don't, why should alcohol be legal while marijuana is not?

There's a great custom user title! I, for one, didn't see any abuse of power in Pangloss' post. He was asking a poster to dig a little deeper. He does the best job of walking the tightrope between participation and moderation, imo.

Do you drink alcohol?

Self-medication to avoid your responsibilities can be done in many ways, and not all require that you abuse a substance. Too much time on the computer, too much reading, too much exercise and too much TV are popular choices as well. The fact that some drugs, like alcohol and nicotine, are legal while others are not is more of a political situation than a medical one. I think legalizing hemp in all its forms would be a good experiment to see if other industries and society as a whole would survive. But I agree that Obama will most likely not address the issue formally. I wonder if he can use the unofficial pressure system Bush used on various departments (like having Parks downplay geology and evolution angles in places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone) to "suggest" to law enforcement that pot possession prosecution needs to be curbed.

[moderation] moved from Homework Help to General Discussion. Newbies: don't post here with links or we will assume you are joining to advertise. Please don't make this thread your first post! [/moderation]