The only part of your post which is accurate is that Assad is a puppet. He is a puppet of the Iranian government.

Since you seem to be slow on the uptake, I will try again. ISIS has declared that one of their goals is conquest of the United States. This means that assisting ISIS is treason as defined in the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, the IRA never, as far as I am aware, made any kind of war against the U.S.. These two facts means that the two things you said were similar, are not actually so.

Supporting a group seeking to wrest control of a particular area of land from its current government is quite different from a group fighting to gain control of multiple countries which has a declared goal of controlling the entire world (and which has stated that it is at war against the U.S.).

Why, yes he had. Or perhaps you were not paying attention to what has been going on in Lebanon and Jordan over the last few years. Jordan has remained stable and most of the damage in Lebanon was done by Assad's father, but that does not change the fact that Assad has interfered with their internal affairs.

Actually, there is a difference. As far as I am aware, the IRA never considered the conquest of the United States one of its goals. ISIS on the other hand considers conquest of the entire world to be its divinely appointed mission.

The laws were written to hold you responsible for helping if you provided the book and there is a reasonable argument that they should. On the other hand, if they just ask for the book without mentioning what they plan on doing as soon as the car is fixed means that you cannot be held responsible for their intentions. In addition, if you can make a believable case that you did not believe them when they said they were going to Syria to kill westerners, etc, you are also off the hook. Or if you can make the case that if you can't afford a mechanic to fix your car, you can't afford a ticket to get to Syria either. If you can reasonably see no connection between the aid they are seeking and their criminal goals, you cannot be held responsible for providing that aid.

Well, yes, if someone is targeting my data they are more likely to get it if I host it on my own system with security I rolled myself than if I host it on Google or Amazon cloud. However, if someone is just targeting valuable data, they are more likely to target Google's or Amazon's cloud than they are the system I am hosting.

The summary says that the evidence shows that they were trading "hundreds of years earlier than previously thought." That phrasing indicates that they were thinking that they weren't trading. If it was just a matter of not having evidence the phrasing should have been "evidence that the Romans were trading in Aksum hundreds of years earlier than previously." By sticking the word "thought" on the end they are saying that no one thought they were trading that early.

I did not actually address your point about voicemail. Personally, I do not find voicemail to be a greater pain in the ass than typed messages. As a matter of fact, my experience is that people who leave bad voicemail messages are even worse when it comes to typed communication. I have found that when people call me and do not leave a voicemail, they also do not communicate the reason for their call by any other means.

The result being that small problems I could have resolved easily become big problems which require a great amount of effort to fix. I am pretty confident that this would not change if they did not have the option of leaving me a voicemail.

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of things I call someone about that are just not important enough to me to type a message about. With significant frequency they are of greater importance to the other person.

You missed the part where I only do the follow up email and text if it is urgent. The reason I do that if it is urgent is because some people get one or the other of those even when away from their phone.

However, if it is not urgent, I don't waste my time typing the message. I can leave a voicemail in much less time than I can send a typed message and even if I couldn't, I am already connected on the phone so taking the time to open an email or text message to the person is time I would rather not spend.

Except that most of the time when I leave a voicemail message, the information I am leaving is enough to give the person on the other end a starting point on the reason I called them and an idea about how urgent it is for them to get back to me. Generally, I am calling in the first place because the topic of conversation is one that requires a lot of back and forth that takes entirely too long to resolve when done in typed messages. If the reason for the call is urgent I will usually follow up with an email, IM, and text message (the last two depending on their availability with the person I am trying to reach).

Well, actually I recall being taught Aether Theory in physics class with an explanation about why the theory was believed for a time and why it stopped being believed. It was a great way to teach how science works.

However, the example given does not actually say that the presentation taught the "Answers in Genesis" theories, it merely told the students about them and gave them the link to where they were presented. The most important part is that they gave not one but two links which countered the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis".

Your response does not surprise me, all too many people claim to want to teach children to think as an excuse to not teach them at all. Then they insist on only allowing them to see information which agrees with their own point of view. If you want children to think, you need to teach them to look at the arguments made on both sides of an issue. The "Answers in Genesis" arguments are believed by a large number of people. The reason for that is that they make some good arguments. You will not defeat those arguments by hand-waving and saying "real scientists don't believe that." You need to actually make the counter-arguments.

I did not read the article. However, the summary states that the presentation which refers students to the "Answers in Genesis" website also refers them to two sites which are critical of "Answers in Genesis". That seems like a good idea to me.

It is likely that students in Louisiana are going to come across the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis" sooner or later. Don't you think it would be a good idea for them to exposed to those arguments AND the counter-arguments at the same time?

Except of course as soon as the industrial pollution was reduced so that the dark butterflies were visible again, the butterflies reverted to the same colour they were before. It turns out that these butterflies actually come in both light and dark colours all the time. The difference being that when the bark of the trees they typically rest upon are white, birds see, and eat, the dark butterflies. When the bark is dark, the birds see, and eat, the white butterflies. As a result, when the bark is dark, there are few white butterflies, when the bark is white, there are few dark butterflies. If the change involved actual evolution, the butterflies coloration would not have reverted as soon as the color of the bark did. (BTW, there are serious problems with the original study upon which that butterfly story is based.)

Interesting, so "new" means "better" to you, and you believe that Adolf Hitler was better than Caligula.

It derives from the "progressive" view that is taught so thoroughly in most schools (especially colleges and universities) that "new" means "better" and that history is irrevocably moving from worse to better.