(BTW, I think "e.g." would have been more appropriate than "i.e."...)
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,334
hammegk said:
The standard punctuation rule for an elipsis is three periods. Three shall be the number of periods to count to, and the number of periods to count to shall be three. Two shalt thou not count to, excepting that thou proceedest immediately to the number three. Five periods is right out!
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Beerina said:
It always confused me, when reading Charlie Brown comic strips, that Schultz used .. after every statement. Is it a more emphatic full stop? Or are they abbreviated ellipses? If the latter, is it meant to suggest unspoken but understood words? If so, it can come across as rather threatening.
"Lucy, I'm going to the pumpkin patch."
versus
"Lucy, I'm going to the pumpkin patch.." with its unstated "..and you KNOW what happens there. Say goodbye to your pet kitten. Cthulhu is hungry for sacrifice!"
I think I can safely say we all share a fondness for good tit pictures:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021207085002/www.nice-tits.org/pics.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20021207085002/www.nice-tits.org/pics.html
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Mycroft said:
I think this one is one of those things you can't simply. There are different facets.
Everyone supports stem cell research to some extent.
Do you support private sector stem cell research?
I think most people would answer yes.
Do you support government funded stem cell research?
I think most people would answer yes to funding work using existing stem cell lines.
Do you support creating human embryos for destruction for stem cell research?
Here I think you will have some splintering along religious and philosophical lines.
Do you support government funded human embryo destruction for stem cell research?
And here is where I think the big schism is. On one hand you have your libertarian types who think the government shouldn't be paying for medical research when the private sector can do it, on the other you have religious types who this deeply disturbs, on the other hand this has a freakout factor beyond faith that disturbs non-believers to some degree as well.
So when you say we all agree on stem cell research, it is too vague. And when you take it down to the linchpin issue, you will find we perhaps do not all agree.
(mind you, I havent decided what I think about government funded research that includes human embyro creation for destruction, I think about more mundane topics like fighting wars, taxes, and regulation)
I think that well-educated, computer-literate, non-religious people tend to have certain traits in common. I think Mycroft's list is accurate.
I think we value education more.
I think we are more arrogant and contrarians.
I think we tend to libertarianism but I would guess we have a higher percentage of technocrats (socialists-lite) as well.
CBL
I think we value education more.
I think we are more arrogant and contrarians.
I think we tend to libertarianism but I would guess we have a higher percentage of technocrats (socialists-lite) as well.
CBL
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Re: Re: Things we have in common
You know, maybe you're more up on the issue than I am, but I was under the impression that all the stem cells required for any kind of research could be had from waste tissue. Why would anyone ever create a whole new fetus just to harvest some cells?
corplinx said:
You know, maybe you're more up on the issue than I am, but I was under the impression that all the stem cells required for any kind of research could be had from waste tissue. Why would anyone ever create a whole new fetus just to harvest some cells?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Re: Re: Re: Re: Things we have in common
Start here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214800.stm
With the exception of nanotechnolgy I've never seen such an over hyped science and at least with nanotechnolgy most of the stuff given that lable has some use (although the lable is missleading).
Oh steamcells are really interesting scientificaly but anyone who claims they might be of use in the near future is lying.
Mycroft said:
Start here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214800.stm
With the exception of nanotechnolgy I've never seen such an over hyped science and at least with nanotechnolgy most of the stuff given that lable has some use (although the lable is missleading).
Oh steamcells are really interesting scientificaly but anyone who claims they might be of use in the near future is lying.
