DrP

Seems to be the case.

What happens when you dry a potato or a cucumber? (it shrivels). What happens when you let the air out of a balloon or a tyre?

... and to never mention what sex they are on pain of being lynched by the press? What process do you think led millions of xenophobes and racists and sexists to hide their feelings and never discuss them openly in public until the ballot day? I am not dissuading discussion about it - I am dissuading witch hunts over the most minor of issues that cloud and hide the real issues that need discussing. As soon as you start getting all school teacher like towards these people they close up and deny anything they've said they believe, pass it off as nothing and keep their hideous beliefs inside... which then comes out at the ballot box. Which we have seen here on both sides of the Atlantic over the past couple of years. I have held ignorant and horrible views and beliefs in the past. It wasn't a bollocking from a school teacher that changed them. I am sure we share the same dream of a world without war, discrimination and prejudice, no starvation, rape etc.. a world where logic and reason and love for fellow living beings is the driving force behind politics rather than a greedy grab for more money for those that are already the richest... I don't think we will see it in either of our lifetimes. Keep up the good work friend - you are a soldier in my eyes.

Well in over 40 years of living it has never been offensive (or no one I have met or known has said it was offensive) to identify between the sexes using he/she or man/woman. If 1 person pops up now 40 years on and says he is offended by my use of identification of sex in language (which has never happened to me) do I consider them a revolutionary or some kind of weirdo? ;-) There are plenty of terms that get used that I think are offensive and that are generally accepted to be offensive. If you start pulling people up on non issues (perceived by me and many to be a non issue anyway) then they won't take you seriously when it matters and your message is important. I know some will groan - but this is why the Trump supporters and Brexiteers don't take you seriously (imo). You raise hell over non issues and when you have something important to say they just see the mouth moving and a drone coming out as they stopped listening long ago.

Why mention it at all... why use she or he either then? Where do we stop? I fancy a pint and some nuts now! :-)

They can be - but not normally - If I say 'that woman is stupid' it is clearly not meaning all women but one woman.

What? Surely that is identical though no? 'She's strong' is pointing out that the person you are talking about is a woman. How is that any different from saying 'strong woman'

Oh come on! They (politicians in parliament) are at each other's throats all the time - have you ever seen prime minister's question time or any footage from the house of commons when they can't agree on something? Don't say this is whataboutism - it isn't - they insult each other all the time... particularly from members of the other party and it is never in the papers afterwards. ... so the Tories spread it as fast as they could to cover Corbyn's objections to them casually accepting the 'ah well - no worries if we cant get a deal we'll just go WTO' he and the opposition and anyone of any sense doesn't want there to be a 'no deal' leave. Most of the Tories do and will do anything to cover it up.... including feigning offence at a nothing comment when they are guilty of far worse themselves to distract and waste more time as the clock counts down to us leaving without a deal. I can't do that as I haven't conducted the survey. Can you point me to those that were offended? Obviously NOT the Tory MPs that were trying to cover their desire for a no deal leave by trying to distract the public - but to the actual statements or studies that show, as you claim, millions of men and women across the nation that found it offensive.... and if that study is conducted by The Sun newspaper then you can just forget it. PS - I'm not disputing there is unconscious bias that leads to sexism and racism... I am saying that in this instance it is a massive finger pointing scam that... er, well I was going to say that fools no-one, but seemingly the ploy has worked just fine.

So who did he offend? No one heard what he said and no one was offended until it was plastered in the paper - I am still not sure who was supposed to be offended. Who actually said that they were offended by what he still claims he didn't say? Being honest - when I first saw the clip I honestly read it as 'people'.... then I started to see it as 'woman'. It doesn't matter - the comment was directed to no-one and no one was offended and he still claims he didn't say it. Lip readers were torn as to which he said. Members here that I respect say he said 'woman'... although I still think that is debatable whatever has been said over the last 20 pages. I think the right wingers are laughing as this accusation has had exactly the effect they intended - for the left wingers to argue about it and to split their opinions regarding Corbyn. It is even plainer than Fox news trying to discredit Clinton with all the publicity about her e-mails. I totally despair that so many fall for it.

I didn't think it was either of you. I wouldn't have minded if it was- if someone thinks it deserves it then it probably does. It was a repeat of what I'd said about 4 times already - it is why I haven't participated much in the last 10 pages or so - I don't see the point going round and round in circles. I meant to reply to Phi's post weeks ago but didn't get the chance and also thought we might be going in circles - I didn't think that my 'what about isms' were truly that - as iNow said above - it is DEBATABLE as to if what he said was sexist or not - not fully agreed upon.... so - after 10 pages of more circular stuff I repeated my point. So - in reply to Phi saying that my concern over the comments from the opposition being just 'what about ism' I disagree - I (and many others) believe it is a direct attack on JC by the press to keep the public frightened of him and to keep his appearance as unelectable so that the mogals like Rupert Murdock wont have to pay their fair share of tax. It isn't what about ism - there is no comparison between the standard set for both sides. If one side say 'stupid woman' once under his breath in private..... and the press go mad at him for days on the front page - the Prince says something about gollywogs or wanting to not go to China in case he gets slitty eyes and they laugh it off as an old guy just being lovable or Boris Johnson's continuous blunders being brushed under the carpet and we are told there is nothing to see move along - that isn't whataboutism - it's biased taking of sides in politics from the press.

Same here - when you live here in the UK and come from certain council estate areas it is clear that xenophobia was the driving force. I still here it all the time - 'It ain't fair they come over here getting free benefits' 'taking our jobs' 'free health care on our NHS - we have to pay if we go over there'... 'bloody scroungers', 'charity begins at home - what about our squaddies and the disabled and homeless here in the UK?' 'aint right housing them when we are chucking our pensioners out on the street', 'why do we have to give all our money away in foregn aid so the Indians can go to the moon - feed our pensioners first!' 'we'd be fucked with Corbyn - he's an idiot - he'll disarm all our nukes and leave us defenceless'. Honestly - I was in no way surprised by Brexit or Trump.... saddened, but not surprised at all. In fact - I was sickened by how surprised 'everyone' was about the results - if you didn't see them coming then you have had your head in the sand. Every point they make has clear logical factual rebuttal - but they wont believe it or listen to any of it - first point you rebuff and they start shouting about any of the other points... address that and they change to another non incident or unfactual xenophobic hatred filled rant which has no basis in fact. If you are lucky you might get to go full circle and rebuff every point... but then it's... 'no way - it's in the paper they wouldn't be allowed to print it if it isn't true - your brainwashed by the elite'. You can't talk to them the way you would have a discussion here - they do not care about your facts - they have their own from The Sun and the Daily Mail. I doubt the referendum would be any different if you repeated it now. I admit that these people feed greedily from the hate filled propaganda that came out of Russia - but it only fuelled what they already believed and they would have voted the same anyway. If you say different then I doubt you know these people very well at all.

No - it wasn't using the language correctly. If someone is a Jew it denotes that they are born of a certain lineage or follow a certain religion. When used to mean a penny pinching miser it is offensive slang that generalises all Jews by the reputation that some have for being tight/greedy with the money. This is generally considered to be racist. Would you use the word nigger to identify someone with darker skin? Is that proper language? I wouldn't because it is known to cause offense. I can only assume my red rep mark was due to the fact that we are going in circles and that I differ with your opinion - whatever. I disagree - if you want to neg rep me for that then do so but I think whoever done that is pretty thick if they can't get their point across in the text. The word 'WOMAN' is a normal word in the English language and is not offensive. I agree it can be used offensively, but not as an identifier to gender as identifying gender in conversation is considered normal English language. I was not aware before this thread that anyone found gender identification offensive. You learn something new every day.

Being honest with you - I personally don't think it would have made a bit of difference. He was clearly not attacking women or using the identifier as a negative towards women. The Jew thing is obviously worse/different for the reasons MigL pointed out. Why attach it to any thing in conversation at all then? If we didn't - then his words would have been offensive, but we DO, so they were normal and were not.

I think the water could make the IR quite messy. Would GC/MS work for this sample?

Isn't this just the same as this: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61212-strange-self-induced-feeling/?tab=comments#comment-1089398

K- Thanks. It is mainly when here at work on the network. My browser breaks and shuts down after a couple of warnings about the site being broke. I seem to be able to make it work occasionally. Lucky to get on to post this enquiry. Not Win 10 though I don't think.

Is there an issue this week? I keep getting kicked out and my browser closes. Even if I visit the site without logging in.

Yea -thanks. From the same link it also mentions about phenocryst content which can be assessed visually apparently... They are still obsidians though like you suggested in the first reply. I can't tell from the photo if the lighter areas on the black rock are just chips and marks or actual phenocrysts. Are there similar rocks in the area? I guess you could also get a geological map of the area to see what sort of rocks you would expect to find to see if it fits with anything know to be common there.

... ... oh no - please let's NOT!!! lol.

...convenient that. I guess they put that rule in to avoid embarrassment. ;-) I did say that it would be very complex and multiple trials would be needed with blinds etc... some taking meds some not, some believers some not etc. Repeated for different types of ailments. Again - I am guessing that there could be a placebo. I had some AMAZING co-incidences crop up as answers to prayer when I was a Christian. Looking at the back of someone from across the room in a church wanting them to experience the same joy as I felt during my 'baptism in the Holy Ghost' I raised my hand like a priest or wizard and prayed they'd have it too... then watching them throw their hands in the air gasping for breath due to the ecstasy they are in and falling to their knees in tears of joy... happened a few times - like zapping someone with power... although - this happens all the time in churches so it could have been a co-incidence that they emoted and dropped at the same time I projected my love at them. They were probably praying for that feeling. That - or there may be some connection between us - I can't explain the Holy Ghost... A video from Derrin Brown gave some good suggestions I saw once where he gave an atheist the same experience as baptism in the holy ghost... so I am guessing it is a state of body and mind.

Or a large tektite? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektite My guess would be that it was placed there by human hands who also thought it was an interesting rock.

That is interesting. Although do we know who the test subjects were? Although this is more assumption from me I would think it is very complex and you could run the experiment 20 times with different results. There are so many variables. Are the prayed for believers or non believers? What are their expectation for the prayer to be considered positive. What are they praying for? (relief from a minor ailment or raising from the dead)

I would assume everyone can do it. I haven't done it since I was an infant. I used to all sorts of weird things as a child. I think children explore things like that. I can't think why it would be useful to an adult though.

It can be untaught too... although it is hard work what with the human disposition towards cognitive dissonance.

I assume they concluded that there was a placebo effect? I also assume that 'the faithful' would have a slight increase of perceived positive answers to prayer based on further placebo through stronger belief and maybe a touch of Pareidolia with some good old wishful thing and maybe some misunderstanding of probability? What did they find?