Maybe they think he faked it. RIMSHOT!

I did. I found fourteen different sources that confirmed that you are an asshole. I looked carefully at their methodology and saw nothing objectionable.

If you're referring to my reference to the Puritans, you need to read more carefully.

Moon or satellite? That's what I get for not proofreading enough. It was meant to say "planet or satellite".

The choices are:

1. Conspiracy theorists who get this wrong and claim that these artifacts were found on another moon or satellite.

2. Conspiracy theorists who get it right, but claim that things were found which have been hushed up because scientists "can't explain them."

Bets are on which ones will get more air time. Who's in?

My money's on the second. The first might have some initial popularity, but that will wane quickly as corrections are hastily issued. Then the second will take hold for the long run.

That might only apply to "kicking it". I'm not certain, though. This requires further study.

This particular discovery is new. If you're more interested in new techniques than discoveries, I can see how this would bore you. Otherwise, I think it's rather exciting. Particularly because this discovery will likely be adding to humankind's store of knowledge for a very long time. I look forward to see what happens with it.

One could conceivably argue that this is indeed what happens sometimes. Though theoretically it happens less now than in the past. At least when reputable scientists are involved. There's still plenty of unscrupulous looting anywhere you find things of archaeological interest, but it's generally more for business than science.

"Aliens vs. Predator" had a plot? I don't think I can bring myself to try watching it again, so I'll only have your word for it. So... are you sure? This isn't one of those cognitive dissonance things where you expected one thing, saw something else, so your mind collaborated a new version of reality to make everything make sense again?

Please explain Michael Bay.

How does this help me get my porn more efficiently?

Other people have pointed that out in a much better way.

(You knew that was coming, right?)

I agree with your words, but something makes me want to protest and I'm not exactly sure what I'm protesting.

I suppose it's that "hint of sourness" thing. I like a little more than a hint, especially when there's a citrus-like quality as I used to find in most African coffees or the earthy quality that I find in a good Robusta. So why does that bother me?

As an American who really likes that sort of thing, it's really freaking hard for me to find it. It was actually easier when the US was in your "no coffee" list, because specialty shops would cater to people like me. Now it's nearly impossible for me to get Robusta without finding a ridiculously expensive online dealer. Oddly enough, I can find Greek coffee a LOT more easily these days. I still can't figure that one out.

Regardless, overall the United States has not developed a very sophisticated tongue for coffee, but it's become chic to pretend we have. Because of this, I and people like me suffer. If we really had one, the specialty shops might go back to carrying things for slightly different tastes, rather than carrying "good enough" because one-size-fits-all.

Besides, what's likely to come from the increased popularity of coffee in the US is that hysterical idiots like the AC who went off on a rant about how evil coffee is will eventually scare enough people into starting a huge campaign, replete with pseudo-scientific "facts" and anti-coffee PSAs all over the TV, and eventually turn public opinion against it, meaning a punishment tax (something that, as a smoker, I'm very familiar with) and a greatly reduced availability overall.

I suppose what really bothers me about what you said is that sycophants in this country read and use things like that, statements that represent the generalized tastes of one single region, and parrot it in order to be "cool" without going through the bother of developing a real taste for it. Since they lack imagination, they'll all go for the same damn thing, the preferences of a single region, and in this case, of course it'll be whatever's most popular in Europe (since Europe is "teh coolest" to these people and the place from which to get cultural fads) and that's all that will be available. And while you guys like some good coffees, as I said, I prefer it with more of a tang and that simply will continue to be unavailable because people won't even bother to try it. I guess I'm just as bitter as the coffees you're complaining about.

Sigh. I need a refill.

And fuck you, Puritans, for making so many of us complete assholes.

Corporate personhood was never actually granted. It was denied and then the clerk of the court (a relative of a railroad baron (hint: the corporation in the case was a railroad)) wrote that corporations are persons in the header notes. What happened? Nobody actually reads all these cases, they look at the header notes for a summary. Thus, our judicial branch of government has made legal decisions based on the opinion of a clerk not otherwise involved in the case.

Doesn't matter, though, because the clerk's fabricated precedent only applies to corporations in the United States. I anal... I mean, IANAL, but it seems obvious that a "person" that doesn't exist elsewhere can't be sued here, especially if they also don't exist here. Unless, maybe, the post office delivers thousands of bits of mail to the courtroom and proves that there really is such a person after all. There was a precedent for that way back in Virginia, involving New York. Or in New York, involving Virginia. I think it was Burl Ives that didn't exist.

Anyway, this is a stupid idea and will never happen, but I support the thought behind it.

Gary Larson had prescience years ago to see that, with their superior cranial size, it will be trivial to put these super-nerds in a headlock.

Just one of the very many bits of wisdom to remember from The Far Side.