eightyknots

I agree with that. All theories should be tested by the wheelbarrow loads of evidence that comes to light on a regular basis. No scientist, and no person, should have such a faith in a Belief System, that they cannot test ALL scientific theories by the evidence. Such a notion would go against the whole basis of science. Nevertheless, more scientists than ever have succumbed to the 'close our minds to other theories' trap.

How's this for an explanation of the strangeness of the English language? We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes, But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes. One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese, Yet the plural of moose should never be meese. You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice, Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice. If the plural of man is always called men, Then shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen? If I speak of my foot and show you my feet, And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet? If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth? Then one may be that, and three would be those, Yet hat in the plural would never be hose, And the plural of cat is cats, not cose. We speak of a brother and also of brethren, But though we say mother, we never say methren. Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him, But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim! Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England . We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes, We find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, Grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend. If you have a bunch of odds and ends And get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English Should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? We ship by truck but send cargo by ship. We have noses that run and feet that smell. We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway. And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, While a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language In which your house can burn up as it burns down, In which you fill in a form by filling it out, And in which an alarm goes off by going on. And, in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop? And if people from Poland are called Poles Then people from Holland should be Holes And the Germans, Germs. And let's not forget the Americans, who changed s to z, but that's another story.

When I was young, nearly all fairy tales started with "Once Upon A Time ........". With all due respects, M61A1, that clip was an interesting animation but sounded very little different from the 'Once Upon A Time' stories . There was no evidence given for any of the assertions throughout the clip.

It is important to not allow evolution to become a Belief System without looking at all plausible theories for the explanation of the origin of the earth. Yes, the “missing link” (or mid-species) fossils should be in abundance but have not yet been found and I believe will not be found.

Other scientists that come to mind who were christians: Michael Faraday - considered the "father" of electricity and (according to Wikipedia) was “one of the most influential scientists in history” James Clerk Maxwell - an important 19th century physicist (dealing with light and electromagnetism) who had enormous influence on 20th century physics. Sir John Fleming - invented the thermionic valve (known as tubes or toobs in North America);only older people remember them as they have been replaced by solid state devices.

There used to be an underwater basket weaving course but no one seemed to want to employ anyone with a certificate in that qualification. I don't think it is on offer any more.

Where do you buy this Facthunter.com program?

....or dehydrated water to save weight and space. Guess what you have to add to reconstitute the dehydrated water to the drinkable stuff? ....you got it: H2O!

[ATTACH]47378._xfImport[/ATTACH] This formula applies equally well to a 'dot-com' business. I will illustrate this by changing a few key words to adapt the plan: Get yourself a miners hat nerdy haircut, an Intel t-shirt and torn jeans and form a $2 company. Enlist on the stock exchange where the value of each share would be about 2 cents. Between you and a trustworthy friend buy and sell shares to each other giving the image on the exchange that investors are clammering to buy into your company. Put out false announcements that a big strike is about to be made you are on the cusp of developing an amazing computer program that will revolutionise the world. Organize regular capital raisings promising big future returns. By now the value of the stock has gone up to maybe 10 cent. How is the time to sell the shares you bought before at 2 cents. Let the dust settle and do the whole thing over again conning new "investors". Now you have two options!

Mark, it looks as if Sapphire has suggested a business plan for you below:

Hi Herm, Good to see you on the Forum. It's been a while since I last 'saw' you on here. Now:

Have a quick look at this!

What about the "just-add-water" dry flakey stuff. For instance Deb (or the 'improved' version New Deb).

Which country has ever gone broke due to currency speculators, Nev?

Do you remember Pauline Hansen? One of her advisers did some calculations on a "transaction tax" which meant that every MOVEMENT of money would be taxed, whether it was your income received, bills paid, etc. His calculations worked out that, if this was set at a pretty low rate, income tax could be abolished. This idea also had the advantage of not stinging the poorer people: because they have less money to spend and they earn less, they are slugged with less tax. On the other hand, higher income people would pay a larger transaction tax when earning their income and also when paying for their Moets and Boats, etc. It seemed a pretty reasonable idea at the time and a university economist did some checking on this and found it workable (if there was a staged introduction over several years). But, because the idea became attached to the One Nation brand, once that party "sunk", so did the idea of a revamped, workable, fairer taxation system for our country. Perhaps it's worth dusting off and looking at it again??

Just as well you had a Sixth Sense about this and took some action. That saved your bacon so to speak. There are many people who have doubts about a potential scam and then do nothing. Those people who do nothing allows the scammer to make a 'profit' from their activities and makes it worthwhile for scammers to keep scamming.

This thread reminded me of a really interesting telephone approach to a pesky telemarketer. After a few minutes searching, I found it on youtube. A similar technique may be worth adopting for persistent and annoying callers:

Some of that description may be useful for Aircraft Pilots too!

I'm with you ayavner. Who needs facebook when there are plenty of friends at aircraftpilots/recreationalflying?

There you are, I "like"-ed that comment Tomo because I agree with you, life would be pretty vacant if life depended on likes. For starters we would have no politicians in Canberra, and who would run the country then??