You're right about that. Their failure to see the obvious implies that what they may be good at is gathering data, but what they are bad at is understanding what it means.

What's your point?

In 45 years of cycling, I was hit by cars four times. Once, I was sideswiped by a careless motorist who stopped and apologized. The second time I was sideswiped, it was intentional. The crazy bastard yelled an obscenity, just like the one you used in your moronic post. The fourth time I was hit was by a guy who signaled a right turn, changed his mind, and swung left attempting a u-turn. He got two of us.

The other time? I was stopped at a red light. You never saw a cyclist stop for a light? I guess that other jackass who hit me from behind didn't either.

Me.

For clarification about arabica coffee: in my late 20s and early 30s (a very long time ago), I worked in the coffee import business. As I recall, there are two basic types of coffee; arabica and robusta. The arabica beans, no matter where they come from, are the superior coffee, at least with respect to flavor. Robusta beans are generally used as filler, or in manufactured coffee products like freeze-dried coffee, or in extremely dark roasts. Robusta beans do have one thing going for them (besides being cheaper); they have higher caffeine content.

Throughout the coffee growing regions, there are many varieties of arabica coffees. Depending on where and how they are grown, subtle, and some not so subtle, differences among the varieties can be appreciated. There are guys on the Green Coffee Exchange in New York, and no doubt elsewhere, who can correctly identify the origin of coffees in blind taste tests. I wasn't one of them, but I learned a good deal about coffee while working among those folks.

One thing I learned is that for most people, how a given coffee is roasted has more to do with how it tastes than does where it's from. Also of great importance is how the coffee is brewed. Coffee graders always roast and brew in a specific way so that when grading, they taste the differences inherent in the beans.

While I definitely agree that arabica coffee is what I would want, I think that a blanket statement about what region's coffee to avoid would be hard to support if given the chance to compare well made arabica coffee from Colombia, Hawaii, Jamaica, and elsewhere.

Also, it is interesting that one would have a preference for arabica coffee from Indonesia in particular. So little of it comes from there. Indonesian coffee is 90% robusta.

Note that although prairie voles do form life-long bonds, they are not sexually monogamous. The pair will stay together, and cooperate in raising offspring, but will copulate with others. That looks a lot like actual human behavior.

You complimented me on my "nice ad hominem". Thank you, but I get no credit there. My saying "Self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument in the form "my opponent is bad (or good), therefore my opponent's argument is bad (or good)". An observation of a person's behavior is not an argument at all, and therefore not an ad hominem. Had I said "dressing well appears to be a habit with you", the form would have been identical, but you would not likely have mistaken it for an ad hominem. The complimentary antecedent would not have blinded you to the absent consequent the way the unflattering one did.

My assertion that self contradiction appears to be a habit with you was a statement of fact, not an argument. You, however, disagree with the truth of my asserted fact. What can we do to resolve whether the fact is true or not? Argue from evidence! Here is my evidence:

1. Writing "I decline to play this game" as your move in the game is a self-contradictory statement. You made the statement; therefore, you contradicted yourself.

2. You wrote "If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own." Then you wrote "I claim God exists in a realm outside our own....I reason that he must". The second statement contradicts the first. If it is unreasonable, you cannot reason it. If you can reason it, then it is not unreasonable. You made both statements; therefore, you contradicted yourself.

3. and 4. You wrote "I decline to play this game" early Tuesday morning. But, by Tuesday evening, you played your next move, saying, among other things, "I commented on the "game"...but I did not play it". Given that commenting is the game, you contradicted yourself twice. First by playing after saying you decline to play, and second by making the self-contradictory statement that you played it (by commenting) but did not play it.

If the four examples attributed to you were made by you, then you contradicted yourself at least four times in our very brief acquaintance. Therefore, my assertion that self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you is not only not an ad hominem, but also not unfounded.

He said, ironically, while taking his final shot from the free throw line.

Self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you.