atinymonkey

If you mean did man exist in the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago, no evidence has been found that shows that would be possible. Very few mammals lived in the cretaceous period, so it's not really possible that complex lifeforms such as man existed. But if you literally mean could they exist at the same time in history, then yes. Dinosaurs such as alligators and sharks still exist to this day. No. It would just get wet. There is a finite amount of water on the planet, and it would continue to run off the land into the sea. You might want to stay away from the rivers and flatland though. Well, it would not be a nuclear winter but yes, and it can be extrapolated based on size and speed of the object. It can't be proven, without the asteroid strike, it's just a theory. Like throwing a baseball into a pile of flour will make a mess. Smaller events have happened that validate the theory; - http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/meteors/impacts.html Nope. For one thing, the bone has been replaced by sediment making it a fossil. Secondly, carbon 14 only has a 50000ish year range before it become ineffective. No. Physically close to it, but not in the same strata. It doesn't mean much though, as the world is a huge place. For instance, try and find a umbrella on top of a cheese sandwich sitting on a blue table. Er, you mean like Joey's big book o' evolution? No. It is not one theory, it's is a set of theories. Yes. The Vatican has stated repeatedly that creationism is bunk. The factions that still believe in creationism are ignored by every mainstream religion that exists today. It's somewhat pointless to argue with creationists, as it's a matter of faith rather than logic. Like a five year old and Santa.

For a second time, I will ask that your read the links. They are the statements from the Oxford Council on Good Governance. The US state department called on them to make a ruling on what the situation was with the prisoners held in Guantanamo bay. This is what we call a 'point of law': - http://://www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf or in html:- http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Pc7NL0Rh9eUJ:www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf[/url Undermining the Oxford Council is not a rebuttal of the findings. This ruling is substantiated, unlike your option. The issue is not solely based on the detainees not being POW, as the Conventions in article 3 cover them in the event that they are not classified as POW's. I suggest you justify your legal position. Try actually reading article 3 of convention 3 this time: - http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention3.html Ok. I'll spell this out for you. I have made no objections whatsoever. Nether have I presented any arguments for or against the situation with the prisoners held in Guantanamo bay. What I have presented is the facts in relation to situation, as substantiated by the legal representatives of the global application of the Geneva Conventions. You are just arguing for arguments sake, and not paying the least attention.

Ah, yes sorry about mistyping your name btw. It's been a lazy day. Good comeback Perhaps patriotism was not quite the right word, but if it were not for patriotism it would not matter if the detainees were Iranian, English, American or Korean. On a moral level, country of origin is immaterial. You are quite right about the dehumanising aspect, once that is achieved then I think the moral line has been crossed. Publicly? It's hard to find a similar example. Privately, yes I think it happens quite often. Ireland was a common place for solders to be stuck in a similar situation, protected from physical harm due to the bargaining potential they afforded. However, most cases I've have heard second hand. Could all be tall tails, which is what makes it hard to judge.

I can't really answer that tbh. In a Utopian society, no. I trust the judicious use if it in the UK simply because it's one of the least violent prevention methods that we have in a 'war' against terrorism. As with most people, I would trust my country to implement it properly, but no other. At teh end of the day, I'll just sit on the fence on this issue. It happens fairly often. But thats calling patriotism into the mix, which is already on the forefront of our American members arguments. No. It was a very specific post explaining which section the prisoners would come under, and why the US is not currently in breach. Article 3 protects the rights of the prisoners. It's not an admission, it was a statement. Here is the advice prepared on request for the US state department by Oxford Council on Good Govenence. It's the international view of the situation by the leading world experts. See section 10:- http://www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf or in html:- http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Pc7NL0Rh9eUJ:www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf Of course, others argue that they should be covered by article 5 or 4. The US state department denys this as it would mean classifying the prisoners as POWs, which they claim that they are not. http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=190 http://prisonerswithouttrials.net/analyses/Document.2004-04-19.5200516464 Morals are not law. It's a moral tightrope for those who understand morals, not to those that understand law. There you go, I simplified your statement for you. And the answer is, we are not discussing Rikers Island, Picards Island or Kirks Island. We aren't discussing the US domestic judicial system at all. We are discussing Guantanamo bay and it's treatment of foreign nationals. Mudding the waters by bringing US domestic legislation into direct comparison with Guantanamo bay is pointless. None of the foreign critics are commenting on the US domestic criminal policy, they are concerned only with the treatment of the foreign nationals at Guantanamo.

Yes' date=' it applies all over the place. There are a damn good reasons why it does. You worry that it fosters a society where people are taught to ignore one another and lead an isolated compartmentalised existence, and in a way it does. I agree that it's an increasing aspect of the nanny state that restricts the more humanitarian instincts people in society have. However, that aside, it is not perverse morality. It is drumming into people what is appropriate and what is not. If someone doesn't know when to use the Heimlich maneuver and when a tracheotomy is required, nobody would be comfortable leaving a choking man and a knife in there hands. The same applies with a good natured fool and an emotionally fragile person seeking support. Even if loopie is genuine, the offered help is dangerous to lepidoptera because he has no idea what he is doing. I don't know what training you have as a nurse in regards to patient attachment, but even the act of becoming someones support can damage the person you are trying to help. If a person needs emotional support, they can very easily become dependent on the person giving that support. Once that dependence is in place, it's only a matter of time until they get let down. I can pretty much guarantee* that will set the person back to where they started, or worse. Yes, it was meant to be blunt. Loopie triggered a number of warning bells, which I'm happy to share with you:- 1) loopie has only posed in this thread in this forum. He specifically posted to solicit an email dialog. He has not posed anywhere else since. 2) The advice loopie offered was vague and unhelpful. I think if he had detailed involvement in the treatment of ocd he would not had offered such odd advice, it would have been specific. Something that was backed up by the second post referring to ocd as 'not normal'. Half the people in my office have ocd, are fully functioning individuals and earn a great deal of money and respect. 3) There are skilled and trained people on email who can offer professional councilling and support. I linked to them in my post, to direct lepidoptera to people who have the tools to help. 4) As Phi pointed out, there is no way any internet communication can supplant the professional. All the advice she can get from loopie, or any of us, is meaningless. 5) pro-active is not a word or a phrase. You can be reactive, or active. The 'pro' is redundant in proactive, and the majority of people who use it are just regurgitating terminology that they think makes them sound competent. It's management talk, and it irks me. ( yes, I know this one is a personal reason but I'm being honest). 6) loopie has no email set up on his profile, and I doubted he would be able to offer the sustained commitment to check and reply to his pm's more than once. I was replying to loopie as a cover to make a point about anyone wanting to set up similar email communications. tbh, I didn't think he would ever return to read the post. The comments were for lepidoptera only. Loopies suggestion was in many was ill advised, and the slight on his 'honor' may help to prevent him actually hurting someone he is trying to help. Which all seems beside the point, as at the end of your diatribe your post statement actually agrees with me. Almost as if you didn't like what I said, but ended up saying the same thing. *i.e. have been trained, shown case studys, read the suicide notes of patients, watched the dependency build up, had to plan withdrawal of care etc etc.

Ah, interesting. Thanks!

Whatever motives you put forward are immaterial. Soliciting the attentions of teenage girls over the internet is in no way acceptable. Nobody can perceive your intentions over the medium you are using, even if they were genuine you are being remarkably stupid to both put yourself in a position where your motives could be viewed as dubious. The internet is not anonymous. Take a reality check, and stow the moral indignation. If you genuinely wish to offer support, do it through regulated channels such as support groups. That way you protect both yourself and the person you are attempting to help, and you both have the support of other people and the advice of professionals to help guide you.

What is the connection to Bush? Was there no legal system in the corporate areas pre-bush?

Well, it would depend on the weight and the power to propellent provides. For a normal glider, 75cm would do fine. But you could have a lot of power, where a snub wing would suffice. You could probably even get away with repositioning the wings so they are straighter. Your best bet it to ask the experts: - http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/index.php It'd take forever for me to work it out!

Article 3 of Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War covers armed conflict not of an international character. This section covers the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention. Specifically it's subsection C and D that the discussions are revolving around. Section A, which covers torture of non combatants, has been avoided by not allowing physical torture to occur in Guantanamo. Discussions around this area are moot, as the international courts have been unable to decide if the actions at Guantanamo bay are in breach of article 3. This is because they are based on a careful manipulation of methods in order to avoid the article, by the British security forces during the troubles in Ireland. The consequence of this is that in order to damn the activity's in Guantanamo the international courts would have to take onto account that these methods have been, and continue to be, used in counter terrorist situations across the globe. Basically, it's a moral tightrope that many country's are forced to walk. A little further either side and the country becomes either a soft target or an oppressive regime. This just happens to be the most visible implementation of the method, it's not even the largest or longest running. In many ways, it's both surprising and commendable that it's visible.

A delta wing design is dependant on constant speed and weight. The weight of your small craft will be diminishing rapidly after takeoff, affecting the trajectory and airflow over the delta wing which causes the stall. You'll be needing a fixed straight wing, even if it doesn't look cool. The straight wing will present a greater area for uplift, and help prevent the stalling. Have a look at glider designs, as they will provide the greatest distance from the force applied.

Never email strangers on the internet. Not even men who what to 'help' 14 year old girls, like loopie does. Legitimate support groups are listed here http://www.ocfoundation.org/ or for emotional support you can email Jo at http://www.samaritans.org.

Jonathon Crane is a big girly girl. He's supposed to be pathetic and manipulative, it's how he gets his kicks. At least, it was last time I read a scarecrow story.

The Demons Head is the lead villain, Ra's Al Ghul, just as he is in the comic. And I think both Batman and Batman Returns were a bit poor. Batman Begins is a whole class above the predecessors.

I have an issue with this too. The advanced search option does not allow you to search for all posts in the last 24 hours, unless you ask it for a specific word (and the word is not too common). I suspect it's something to do with reducing the server load, by reducing the number of large searches run on the database.

Yes. Well. Not quite sure I'm on the same page of the book here, or even using the same language, but we generally consider evidence to mitigate arguments. If your expecting feces instead of coherence, perhaps that is where the problem is. *sigh*At least we are all remaining civil about it. No poo jokes here. I can honestly say I have very little idea which preferred frame you are referring to. I'm assuming you are using it as a derogatory expression because, well, it's you saying it. I'm extending that logic to cover you thinking a preferred frame is something a crank would argue, by that token that you take me as a crank. Which is rather odd as the term 'preferred frame' is rather common both inside and outside of Physics to describe the condition more commonly known as 'thinking inside the box'. The correct usage in a sentence would be 'a preferred frame of reference'. It means defining the parameters of a problem before you attempt to solve it, giving a focus to the task. Which would mean by removing the preferred frame you prefer to work unhindered by logic. Unless what your saying is completely garbled, and what you actually mean is argue around a constant frame of reference. Which would be sadly ironic from someone who ignores references. Well, after all that it's is nice to see that you can admit you are not being intellectually honest. I see there is still a need to place your tag after each diatribe. Is this some sort of positive affirmation that you need, in order to validate whatever you post? Whatever the reason it's just a pointless distraction, which again is sadly ironic.

Changes are coming. Gotcha. Cheers.

Meh, I see most of the arguments as pure conjecture based on Jacksons appearance and physical traits. Rather like Peter Lorrie, who was hounded after he portrayed a pedophile on film, the justification for branding him guilty is based on the most superficial of reasons. Much as it discomforts people to know it, pedophiles do not have obvious traits. You cannot spot them in a crowd, no method of speech is common, they do not act in a particular fashion and they are not (for the most part) in any way conspicuous. If someone looks and behaves odd, the likely conclusion is that they are unbalanced or socially inept, not that they are a deviant. I agree with Ophiolite, I'm not going to damn a man based on the court of public opinion. I certainly won't do it based on his appearance and demeanor. Unless it's Cherie Blair, of course (the evil baby eating cow). You can be found guilty of slander. Unless you continue to express your opinions as ungrounded, bias and shallow judgements. Which I'm guessing you are not inclined to do.

Just two minor points I'd just like to take this time to offer my personal thanks to America for it's continuing support in Bosnia. I'd also like to thank America for it's tireless efforts preventing Aids, and caring for sufferers globally. There are so many other areas that the US is always involved in, prevention of child labor, helping developing country's economy's, being ever present at natural disasters with relief, protecting human rights, working for peace. No. Wait. Hang on a second......... That's not America I'm thinking of, it's the UN. Why, it's almost as if declaring war is not the UNs main task. It almost seems to encourage sort of non war state. I think any organisation that is ever present, even when there are no votes to garner and no CNN, continually helping those people in dire need should not be accused of lethargy. We can all declare war, but there has to be an opposite faction fighting for peace and helping the survivors. We either respect that, or we are all dammed to hell. Actually, the UK defense budget is about 10% of the US (£30.9 billion and $417.4 billion respectively). And that's not including the British Commonwealth troops. I'm somewhat doubtful that China has a smaller budget than the UK, even if they say it's tiny. Now, I'm off to have a baked potato. Which may be a little off topic, but it's true.

Given that there is a entire book on the subject, how do they not? If we are just going to play the handwaving game, in the hope evidence will disappear, I'd rather know now.

It would be my pleasure to provide reading material to educate you: - A rather nice article about authoritarianism and nationalism in the Reich: - http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html The article, although short, also provides a comparison with US politics. An overview of the development of nationalism in Germany, leading into the creation of the Reich: - http://www.pganuszko.freeuk.com/dissertation/nationalism.htm This also outlines the development of the Nationalist Religion in the Reich. In the words of Adolph, a minister in Germany at the time: - http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/nsdap/docs/aims.html A Book review of a Historians account of Religion and Nationalism in the Reich: - http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr17.htm Or, you could go straight to the horses mouth and read Albert Speers account of how the National socialist party utlised religion: - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684829495/qid=1118754001/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-5706840-0859919?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Which is the first hand account of events within the Reich chancellery