Interestingly, I'm suspicious that you'd find an equal number of American males of the same desire.

Much appreciated.

Thank you for your question. I am, in fact, entirely serious. While the OP did manage to put "When" instead of "What", the rest of his sentence made his intended wording clear. I believe(or rather hope) that most people who read his comment understood the mistake and forgave it, while mentally correcting it in order to understand it clearly. They may not have made that mental correction as I assumed, which would explain the confusion, but would not explain my inappropriate outburst, for which I apologize.

You're right. He's only explaining why [climate] scientists are attacked. Which is pretty much what I'm trying to get across. Now all clear?

As a college student, I'll likely never get around to it, but is there a book/site that you could recommend where I could read about this?

Actually, scientists determined that the world was round, and pretty confidently settled on the issue, hundreds of years before one particular religious orthodoxy decided that it must be flat. And even then sailors knew to ignore it.

Tell me this story of which I am ignorant. No sarcasm intended, I'm innocently curious.

In what part of his post does he so much as imply that any science, study, or related is wrong?

Should he touch it? And how frustrated would you be if your paint job was smudged by some idiot who went and swiped the wall to make sure you were telling the truth?

GOD DAMNIT READ HIS POST.
You're the third person to claim he's attacking the scientist(s), and you even quoted the freaking sentence!

When[what] climate scientists say is often used

Often used? By the scientist(s)?

to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.

Nope! Turns out he said absolutely nothing about whether or not the scientist(s) is(are) wrong, or right, or ordering you around, or simply providing information. He said that the information provided by the scientist(s) in question is used by *someone* to justify restrictions. You are attacking the OP for saying the exact same thing you yourself are saying.

All clear?

I can see clearly that the User was human. No machine would use unusual grammar such as "maths problem", or mix expressions like "5" and "two".

Well, the alternative is the possibility of doing an inadequate percentage, so... I think I'd rather that people checked, and I'll continue to check myself as well, and learn that way. Good luck to you though.

No. Laser pointers are to BB guns as this is to a frag grenade, because the damage will not be contained to a single point - if it touches off anything reflective(white paint, a chrome car bumper, anything really) it will cause retinal damage to anyone not wearing proper protection. There's no reason for Average Joe to even have one of these, what the hell do you need a laser that stupidly powerful for outside of a controlled lab setting? Seriously.
The real problem though is that Joe isn't going to read or care about the manual("Yeah yeah, I accept the terms, *click*"), and when he gets careless, someone else's eyes are fucked. There's no way around it, this is a retarded product to be selling to the general public.

You're mixing time and point of view(or more accurately, time and light's travel time).

you could travel to Procyon (11.4LY away) and watch Shrub take the oath of office on the White House lawn. For us, it happened 11 years ago. For Procyon, it's about to happen.

11 years ago, it happened. Period. It happened here and it happened in Procyon. The fact that Procyon doesn't see it happen til 11 years later doesn't mean it didn't happen 11 years ago, it simply means that Procyon is 11 light years away and can't know it happened until the point that they see it. You see?

The thought would never have occurred to me had you not represented it. I'll turn in my geek card.

If Mary wasn't a virgin? Jesus conceived in the typical fashion? Then the people of the world would have ground to say "This guy's a loon, he's just as human as the rest of us".
All of what you've said is rather broken and odd to me. I learned and believed that all scripture was God breathed(2Tim 3:16), and that men were supposed to use that scripture to eat(spiritually[Matt 4:4]), and rejecting any of it seems rather heretical. On top of that, to say "I believe in Jesus" is to say "I believe the word of God"(John 1:1), so to say "I believe in Jesus" and "I believe in parts of God's word" also sounds very contradictory.
To clarify what I'm getting at, the whole Quaker method as described here seems like religious dogma in and of itself, and contradictory, and heretical(assuming you accept the entire Bible as truth and the word of God[which I do - though you probably noticed that ^^;]).

I'd also like to ask another question which will probably be as offensive as the rest of what I've said here, but I need to clarify regardless. The pamphlet in the pew says "We emphasize personal experience with God over religious dogma"; is that meant to suggest that the Bible is or is related to dogma?