Probably the same reason most of us don't bother, because some yahoo has the article set to page them the second that someone edits it. They then jump up and down and revert it while throwing a hissy fit in the talk section.

Zing! And you missed it, and having listened to the entire bit about that little presentation, it's exactly the same. One is the media saying "listen and believe, don't examine" the other is a person which the media is giving clout to saying "listen and believe, don't examine."

Perhaps you'd like to explain the differences between a person which the media gives clout and refuses to examine her claims, and the media running with exactly the claims that aren't examined.

Who said anything about agreement? I'm talking about restricting speech to walls, "safe zones," "trigger warnings on lectures," "disrupting lectures by trying to shout down people" "pulling fire alarms because of subject matter they don't like." Perhaps you should spend a bit more time looking at exactly how messed up millennials are. And boy are they messed up.

Funny enough "listen and believe" is one of Anita Sarkisian's prime points, don't think just listen and believe. And people wonder why there's an entire generation of fucked up people out there.

Millennials are the same group marching along trying to restrict speech on campuses. Saying that they're better informed seems to be off by a fair bit.

But it doesn't dooooooooooooo anything. Fucking derp on a rope.

Nowhere did I say anything about malware, abuse, or severe annoyance: you are taking a simple hypothetical and using an unstated extreme possibility to suit an unyielding position.

If a website uses one or two small, innocuous ads that aren't animated, I'd see no problem with it. You seem to be taking the extreme stance that any advertising at all is a personal affront to you. If that's the case, you are being unreasonable and such an opinion shouldn't matter to most people.

Now, it may be difficult to find an ad host that doesn't push giant, screaming, in-your-face ads, but that wasn't the point.

You're right: intravenous tuna use doesn't sound healthy at all! Salmon, however, is another matter entirely.

Because newspapers have the resources to get companies to advertise on their pages, it is part of their business model. A small open source project website, for example, can't afford to go out and find people to advertise on their website. But they can get help with hosting costs by using a company whose focus -- and business model -- DOES include finding people to advertise with them.

Most normal website owners are not comparable to newspaper publishers in any meaningful way.

Then you'd best learn some history. After all, the ones who didn't run and stayed in Israel are citizens to this day. Mainly Druze, the ones who ran when the arab countries said "we're going to kill every jew there, and you'll get the land afterwards" are the ones that are living in your 'open-air' camps that have a standard of living beyond what most do in the other arab countries.

Says the anon that is distorting text 1441. It required full co-operation and full compliance of all sites, inspectors were refused entry at many sites. That was a violation of the ceasefire.

Not much really. Hell they used to let kids play with mercury in science class, even allowing them to put it on their skin. Those were the kids in the 40's 50's and 60's and it turned out fairly well, I mean we did have that fuckup with the 70's but we seem to have done okay.

Since I'm already a organ and tissue donor on death, and have been in at count 20 different trial phases for migraine medications, I think I've got that covered already. How about you?

In other news, medical research slowly comes to a crashing halt in test phases. Millions of people die due to reactions which were not seen in simulations. Environmental moonbats everywhere cheer.

I keep hearing that, and every time I look up for factual information on it I end up on a deadend of sites, or non-existent papers, or articles in non-scholarly journals. And considering I've been digging through this off and on for the last 20 years, and always end up at the same state, that leads me to believe that it's simply being used as a hyped up bit of propaganda work. I'm not saying there aren't extinctions, I'm saying that they're not at the level that people claim it is.

You know, much similar to the end of the world, or global warming will cause the earth to have no ice caps by 2000(said in early 70s and again in the 90s), or the arctic ocean will be free of ice by 2010(early 80s), or New York City will be like Ft. Lauderdale by 1995(said in late 60s).