Excellent. Pedantry is the sure sign of knowing your logic is bad.

Huh.... Uh, no.

"Girl - you write some pretty smart, insightful comments from time to time."

Yeah... no.

Pedantically, you're correct. The actual quote (which I just watched a video of her saying) is:

Perhaps you could provide a link to a the entire "context" so people can judge for themselves? Relying on your word seems so... shallow of thought.

"And the law does not require the provider to drop it."

A complete untruth. The new regs make many currently existing policies illegal, as they don't provide the ***required*** coverage.

McCan, no. Romney, yes.

Tut, tut. Some of us do. You can't find chokecherry, elderberry or persimmon (tastes like champagne) for purchase, you have to make it. And it's very simple to do.

I had a friend, Terry, who was around two hundred and eighty pounds. He bought one of those. Luckily for him, it came with a small stylette for pushing the minuscule buttons. His finger was damned near as wide as half the watch. Funny as hell to watch him hunched over (why, I don't know) poking tiny little buttons with his face about six inches away.

Last part of last sentence of abstract, by the way

And to which I say, big deal. Jaguars, spiders, raptors, poisonous mushrooms, etc, etc, etc. All of the above have. It's called their environment and snakes are no more important to a squirrel monkey than a Harpie eagle.

Actually, I think that would be good. I'm pretty sure the majority of papers would drop as well because shoddy work would get you the wrong kinds of headlines and those submissions would dwindle. You can ensure that by providing in synopsis form the papers that you rejected and the reasons.

psychological and sociological studes

These are not fields of science other than as repositories of anecdotal evidence. The vast bulk of each discipline's studies and experiments cannot be reproduced. You venture correctly.

Took 29 minutes to get from the story being posted to "CLIMATE SCIENTIST ARE LIREZ!!11!!1"

He neither said that nor implied it. What he said was that any criticism of AGW is met with a defense akin to a religious fervor. This is a true statement.

As demonstrated.

Did you even * notice * the irony in your last sentence?

Yep. English doesn't really do glottal stops.

Let me try to explain this in simple terms for you. People do not blame Linux for Knight's trading losses because *they do not believe* the error had nothing to do with Linux. People do blame Microsoft for the LSE outage because *they believe* it had everything to do with Microsoft.

Emphasis added. You reversed the negative on your first phrase (should have be anything), but it's still a religious argument.