MigL

Being directly under Dim's post, I would assume you'd understand it was meant for him. I think we're all arguing for the same thing INow, but different ways to acheive it. You seem fixated on the rights of the small underbrush in the forest to get access to sunlight, and want to cut down neighboring trees to give them that access, thereby disadvantaging the neighboring trees. I want to see the underbrush re-planted in an open field, so that the underbrush AND the neighboring trees are not disadvantaged.

Seems Peterkin wants to eliminate any, and all, options that a person can make that would be unlawful. Shift all responsibility from the person to 'society'; that will solve all sorts of problems ( 😑 extreme sarcasm 😑 ). All depends on your definition of torture. If your two year old child, being curious, wants to stick a fork in the electrical outlet, do you slap his/her hand hard enough that they remember the pain and never do it again, or do you explain the dangers of electricity to them, and hope that they understand, and don't kill themselves the next time you're not looking ?

Like the Moby Dick/Melville references, Joigus. Here's one of my favorites ... There's also the quote from Star Trek: the Wrath of Khan ... “…To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart, I stab at thee; for hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.” - Moby-Dick, quoted by Khan Noonien Singh Seems Star Trek writers liked H Melville.

I shouldn't have to... But essentially, society ( and sporting bodies ) should provide for equal opportunity for all, which means cis females should be able to compete against people of similar capabilities ( which we have been saying all along ); not cis men, or trans females who have the capabilities of cis men. Once that is provided by society, you, personally have to make the extra effort to excel and come in first in the competition. Equality of outcome is a pipe dream; if everyone gets gold, even the person who strolls to the finish line in the 100m race, that is not competition. But it might be the 'game' you keep referring to.

It seems some of us don't know the difference between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome'. Everyone should have the former. Not everyone gets the latter.

Are you perhaps struggling to see your own bias against differing opinions 😄 😄

I guess you finally realized the unfairness of the situation, INow. The US national Women's Team got trounced, and could not compete, against the Canadian National Women's Team, at the Olympics, because we have a transgender, non-binary player named Quinn ( not their full birth name ). They are the first transgendered, non-binary person to medal at the Olympics. Where are the American transgendered, non-binary athletes ? Don't ever accuse Canadians like JC, or I, of being non-inclusive, or transphobic. 😄 😄 😄

Sorry, you are right INow. I shouldn't have included JC, but I have certainly never brought up chromosonal differences as a metric. After all,, a pre-pubescent girl is just as strong and fast as a pre-pubescent boy; it is the hormones that become active with puberty that differentiates their later physical prowess in athletic competition. ( remember when USSR girl gymnasts were given puberty delaying drugs so as to give them an advantage in strength to body mass ratio ? ) I will allow JC to make his own arguments with respect to chromosonal differences.

Most ( if not all ) eyeglass lenses have anti-glare, or anti-reflection, coatings. I'm fairly certain some household cleaning chemcals will attack those coatings ( IIRC ammonia might ) Do be careful what you use. I used to be strongly myopic ( till I had my cataracts removed ), and to get relatively thin edges on the lenses, I would get 1.8 index glass. Very thin in the center ( 2 mm ) but glass can be heavy. I never had to worry about scratches, and would clean them with dry tissue paper. I now use plastic ( polycarbonate ) lenses, but even with the 'hardness'coating, or treatment, they will scratch relatively easy.

Who are these 'people'? We have repeatedly stressed the performance differences in competitions, and the need to have categories which allow the largest number of people to compete as fairly as possible; including cis, and trans, women. I don't think either JC, or I, have brought up XX/XY chromosonal differences. How many times have you brought it up ?

Visited my aunt in Switzerland two years ago. She lives North-East of Zurich ( Dietlikon ). Didn't like it at all. There are no houses; only small apartment buildings, and they all look the same. Society is very neat/ordered however, and they have sit-down bars in liquor/wine stores; so not all bad. ( I liked Southern Germany much better; and cheaper ) My cousin took me to Rhinefalls, and said "This is the largest waterfall in Europe". I said "Meh, we have Niagara Falls" But I did have a coffee in the cafe that A Einstein frequented when he attended Zurich Polytechnic.

That's pretty neat. I could use one of those to chase, and shoot at, my cat.

As long as the output voltages are equivalent, and well regulated, higher output amperages are not a problem. I say 'well regulated', because some switching power supplies ( mostly cheap computer supplies ) need a minimum output amperage on the main output, to regulate properly. Your original, and the replacement are close enough that it shouldn't be a problem.

Sometimes, first order approximations are used because the rest of the terms are trivial in comparison ... If basketball players could increase their height through medical means, I'm sure there would be rules put in place, to 'discriminate' against them. But if they are born tall ( or a woman ), you cannot do so. Can we please stop with the peg/hole, basketball, or 'Mike Tyson has a sex change' analogies ? None of them reflect the fact that including transwomen in the women's competitive sports categories discriminates against ciswomen. The alternate, transmen, competing in men's categories, does not. ( but it may relegate the transmen competitors to the back of the pack )

There is a certain amount of inspiration provided by world class competitors, for us common folk. I wonder how many people join a gym, or go do some laps in a pool, after watching Olympic feats. Or get together with friends to kick a soccer ( football ) ball around, or join a league, after watching World, or Euro, Cup soccer. Or toss a pigskin around on a Fall day after watching a ( American ) football game. Maybe without these sporting competitions, obesity would be even more rampant.

I might squint a lot, and am usually unshaven when not working, but I'm no 1960s Clint Eastwood.

Seems a little early to be worrying about events several billion years in the future ... I'm trying to decide what to have for lunch tomorrow.

I remember reading/hearing about S Weinberg, A Salam, and S Glashow, in the early 80s while finishing up my degree. I have his books, at least one of Glashow's, and Salam's Nobel acceptance talk ( in book form ). All excellent. He seems so old in the YouTube video, compared to 40 years ago. ( don't we all )

Ahh ... bourbon. I like Woodford Reserve; cheap and good. Warms you right up during those Canadian winters. ( just to stay on topic )

I did not introduce the peg/hole analogy. It was introduced here ... Swansont opened the door; I walked in.

I don't think it's a 'right' or 'left' issue. It has more to do with the politicization of the electorate ( American, in particular ), and the distrust of the elected Government. It's a sad state of affairs when people are willing to get sick, and possibly die, for their political party.

Right, in 1920 women weren't allowed to compete in 16 compettions that men participated in. But since then, also in the past, some sports, including the ones women were barred from in 1920, have become available as an equal platform, for women to compete in. I don't see why you interpret 'the past' as 100 years ago, but not 60, 40 or 20 years go. And we're trying to tell you that triangular pegs don't fit into round or square holes. Your solution ( without gender categories ) seems to be same pegs and same holes. So that we end up getting rid of 50% of participants ( women ) in competitive sports, because they simply cannot be competitive anymore. All to benefit INow's 6 competitive trans athletes 😄 . The claim was made for some sports. Obviously not in 1920, but certainly for some sports since then. Don't be so selective about what is considered 'the past'. Quite right. It's just another slippery slope strawman style argument... Then what exactly is being suggested ? We are told a triangular peg won't fit into a round or square hole, so the choices are either triangular holes for triangular pegs ( as we are suggesting ), or, same pegs and holes. If you are not suggesting same pegs and holes, are you trying to suggest 'shoe-horning' triangular pegs into square or round holes, thereby mutilating the integrity of the pegs or the holes ? Then you've been taking part in your own little imaginary discussion, because for 25 pages we've been talking about competitive sports, at the elite level, where athletes earn a living from the competition. Those have been all the examples presented, along with the suggestion that rules are needed for some cases. It's a little late to try and spin it as a different argument after 25 pages. I like discussing things with you INow, but it really bothers me when you imply that anyone who disagrees with you argument is transphobic. Please stop doing that. Also stop tryng to equate 'stuffing' transwomen into women's competitive sports categories, with gay marriage, or gay rights. It was explained to you about 22 pages ago why the two are not the same. One doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights ( gay marriage ), the other does ( transwomen competing against ciswomen ).

You don't seem to understand. The universe isn't ( necessarily ) a hologram. Rather, there is a mathematical model that describes certain aspects of the universe ( reality ), and allows us to make predictions ( within certain limits ) about other aspects.

We seem to have gotten a little off-track. Sure generational ships are a way of getting to nearby stars systems. But are we saying the actions of the aliens, once they get here, makes sense, in any way, after a couple of hundred year generational journey ? Is the expense in resources, and lifetimes, needed to get here worth playing hide-and-seek with military ships/planes ? Is it worth anally probing some yokels from the Southern US ? I don't think any of the alleged 'alien' encounters are worth the mobilization of a planet's economy, to send a few dozen people, on a several hundred year journey, that sees them grow in number to a couple of thousand, along with equipment/supplies for those numbers, so they can come here and play 'games'. Unless, of course, they are as bat-shit crazy as the people who believe they would.

I'm glad we didn't do it! I'd hate to have missed out on Spider Robinson, William Gibson, John Irving, Ted Gonzales and a whole lot of other smart, talented, good people. I just want a wall to keep all the anti-vaxxers, contaminated with the Delta variant, out. And Canada isn't cold at all. But ask me again next January/February; I might have changed my mind by then.