Go on....

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr...

Actually - from what I can tell most of the climate scientists just want a rational conversation about the situation much like what you've done here. If *that* were the reply from climate change contrarians then we'd finally have a discussion and potential ideas on solutions (probably with a mixture of preparing for the worst while doing what we can to stop it).

But that would be all too rational.

Only if that's beyond their capability to measure.

Wait 'til you hear his theory about how the Sun has a role in all of this!

You know - word processors may be relatively new but typing isn't. Secretaries, personal assistants, etc. have used typewriters for a long time and "know how to use a shift key."

I've found that for "normal people" it's very confusing when the computer does things they don't expect. But they just accept it as "that's how computers are."

Of course you don't. You're well represented. Now imagine you're a 14-year old suddenly realizing that you're different from 90% of the rest of the culture. And that there still exists taboos telling you that *how you are* is somehow wrong. In fact there is an entire section of the population telling you that you are immoral through no fault of your own. In fact there's a very real fear that you could be disappointing your family if you admit it to them.

NOW try to picture sitting at home playing a game to relax and realizing that even here there you are an outcast.

Sure in the big picture "it's just a game." But what's wrong with people who are struggling for acceptance as it is pushing back to get greater acceptance in every area of life - including games?

Also want to add - not all studies are conclusive. That "a" study shows a potential link does not mean there necessarily is a link. If the study wasn't properly randomized, blinded, had large drop-out rates, had a small sample group, was performed with human analogs rather than humans, (the list goes on) then there are a ton of ways the results can be misleading.

As I pointed out in my other reply - more and better studies have been done and so far there is no evidence that artificial sweeteners are bad.

If you're unconvinced perhaps it's because you're the one ignoring the studies. Aspertame has been *extensively* studied after all the hoopla in the '90s.

European Health Commission report as one example:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc...

500 studies have been evaluated on aspertame with non showing any clear danger. And you forget that these products have been around for a long while now. So epidemiological studies on the public at large can be done. So far no clear evidence of any increased risk.

Heck - from your own source: "According to the National Cancer Institute, there's no scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer."

But hey, lets just ignore the experts????????????? (is that enough question marks?)

Fear of something is not justification of the fear itself.

Good news then - there are no potential side effects from artificial sweeteners. Unless you intend to ingest them in *very* large quantities (but then the sugar would also be just as deadly).

Coke is sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Not fructose. HFC is (typically) 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Cane sugar is made of Sucrose which is 50%/50% fructose/glucose.

Fructose is not the problem. Eating too much of any sugar will add calories.

What you said doesn't contradict what I said. What you're actually asking is that Manning provide the evidence that Levin *should have had* when he was running off his mouth. This is punishing Manning for trying to defend himself through the only legal means available to him.

I say - if you're running off your mouth about lies for which you have no evidence then you're just as guilty of libel whether or not what you say is true. Or at least should be discouraged. Otherwise that gives me the ability to go running around slandering others as a way of forcing disclosure of whatever I want (transactions, proprietary data, sex tapes, etc.).

So the goal is to allow a guy who made baseless claims to go hunting for a base?

Well put #46776163.

Guns are more *personal*.

I'm absolutely fine with saying the Bible is not the inspired word actually. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think I am. I'm a bit surprised you are...

See - this is what Christians do when presented with the unpleasant bits of the Bible. All of a sudden "it's man's word." But find parts you agree with and it becomes "God's word" again. I don't know your personal theology. But to me it sounds like we partially agree. The Bible was written by man and is therefore no more important in many regards than anything else - except as an historic text. It proves nothing divine.

How do you know this? And how do you know other parts aren't? What justification do you use for cherry-picking parts you like from those you don't?