OT: A description of some of the "designers" here...

sure. but only as an extra on a vaudeville show and usualy blind drunk.

typical lefty tactic. its all they have.

I wonder why Jim thinks that Cursitor Doom is human? Anybody who can read and believe the Daily Mail has lost any claim to rationality.

A search on the way my name is spelled, rather than Jim's phonetic representation of the way it is said, might correct that delusion.

Phil Hobbs once found it in a physics text on photomultipliers (which rather surprised me, and Phil).

Jim's name is notorious amongst those who ever tried to get the MC4024/MC4044 combination to work - it can be done, but the 4046 is a lot easier to use, though it took the 74HCT9046 to get most of the bugs out.

Sadly, the voltage controlled oscillator isn't as good as it was in the 4046, though not all that different from the MC4024.

Is Cursitor Doom a person? He used to self-identify as Eeyore, which is something of a clue. I do spend some time demolishing the clueless, but only to discredit their unfortunate misapprehensions.

John Larkin's opinions on anthropogenic global warming are wrong, and would be even more dangerous if more widely adopted. You opinions on human evolution aren't quite as dangerous, but are still regrettably superficial.

Sadly, the evolutionary goals are what is driving female behavior - as you have been claiming all along - and those goals are little more complex than you seem willing to credit. Modern women can get laid without getting preg nant, but they still tend to contrive to get laid for strategic reasons tha t advance the long term goal of getting pregnant by somebody who will contr ibute - and continue to contribute - to raising the woman's kids.

he

y.

een

There's nothing particularly one-off about a survey that exploits a huge ne w pool of genetic data, and what are the the "cherries" that you want to cl aim have been picked? What the paper says is that there is a lot of selecti on going on right now, and the gene selection seems to be more energetic no w that it was back when we branched off from the chimpanzees.

ite

Dream on. There are popular science books on evolution, there are academic texts and there are peer-reviewed published papers. Each level requires pro gressively ore background knowledge before you can make sense of them, and each level offers more detailed information - though at the peer-reviewed l evel a lot of the information isn't going to take you anywhere useful.

's

up.

it

So it does pay for us non-genes to pay attention to the kind of group we ar e a member of, and the kinds of changes that might be making the group coop erate more effectively.

He does seem to be an exponent of the higher bullshit. Cosmologists - Steph en Hawking is another example - do seem to exploit the fact that they have useful things to say about some aspects of the universe to get a platform f or some of their less useful opinions.

are

vel

ven

er

Knowing Schrodinger's wave equation won't help you book a ticket on a plane . High level constructions are supremely useful in practical applications (li ke getting laid), even if they aren't a necessary part of a complete explan ation of what is going on.

se

Freudian slip there.

This is a fantasy.

may > be others that might show me a thing or two that I have misses, but

Dream on.

But not so drunk that I can't spell "usually". The closest that I ever got to vaudeville was writing scripts for a university revue. A couple of them made it into the production, and got laughs, but it was clear that I was be tter off investing my literary skills in getting my Ph.D. thesis finished.

Jim Thompson probably could - and should - have done a Ph.D. but it would h ave taken him too far outside his comfort zone, and he's regretted his lack of courage ever since, and manifests it by resentment of those whose circu mstances were a little different.

Accusing someone of ad hominem attacks is - of course - an ad hominem attack, and our resident right-wing lunatics do seem to be fond of doing it.

Complete nonsense. Informing someone that their argument is logically fallacious because it is an attack on the person, not the argument, is an entirely legitimate defence against that fallacious argument.

And...you just won't stop. There is no realistic change that anyone posting here is an actual "lunatic". Such a term is, today, only an insult, devoid of any critical value.

-- Kevin Aylward

ng

Since the word "lunatic" originally meant somebody influenced by the moon, it is indeed purely an insult. The "phrase right-wing lunatic" is rather mo re specific - if equally insulting - and neatly captures quite a few of our more politically conservative participants.

I've never really bought the argument that identifying somebody's pattern o f behavior as a familiar one really qualifies as an ad hominum attack, or i s in any way logically fallacious.

If the arguments are familiar, so are the refutations, and it saves time to point out where they are coming from, and leave out the line-by-line refut ations which - as you have pointed out - take up too much space to be entir ely practical here.

Scarcely restricted to the left. And it isn't the only tactic the left can and does deploy, though it's the only kind of attack that Julian Barnes can cope with, which is why he ignores all the others, and leaves them in the "too hard" basket.

I rarely shop... buy most everything I need from Amazon, even get my groceries via ClickList on the web, then drive by the grocer and they load my trunk.

Yesterday my wife convinced me that I need new shirts, somewhat smaller due to my weight loss.

So we trot off to San Tan Village Mall.

I was astonished at the women at the mall... majority of whom seemed to be well in excess of 300 pounds... and they were wearing shorts :-(

Some of the exposed "hams" would put Smithfield to shame >:-}

Can they not understand how unappetizing a 350 pound woman is ??? ...Jim Thompson