Page 1 of 104 1231151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 3111

Thread: Read that again?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006

    Read that again?

    Sometimes the statement just needs to be re-read or explained.

    Like this.
    A [local] student at St. Mary School in Elyria received a state award Wednesday for winning the national missing children's poster-essay contest
    You get this award for winning an award.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    I protest! Their award criteria discriminate against all the non-award-winners.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,816
    It takes awards to make awards

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    136
    Sweet. I've always wondered if there was an award for awards. You know, "Best Directing Award of the Year"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,056
    I forget where I saw it - a skit.. "The Award Show for Award Shows" - of course, I didn't understand it, never having watched an award show.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Here's a reporter with a good grasp of the english language.

    A Record-Breaking Guitar Solo
    1,683 people showed up to play Deep Purple's "Smoke On The Water."
    Solo?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,165
    I thought they had cancelled this. Technically you can have more than one guitar playing the solo part. But the result is not a solo. But unless these people stood around only playing the solo (which i doubt) seems to me the headline is flubbed. So what else is new?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,586
    Here in Europe we used have a "Cup Winners Cup" in football, where all the cup winning teams from different countries used to compete to win the "Cup Winners Cup", and the winning team were the "Cup Winners Cup" winners.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,538
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Here's a reporter with a good grasp of the english language.

    A Record-Breaking Guitar Solo
    1,683 people showed up to play Deep Purple's "Smoke On The Water."
    Solo?
    Yes, but each of the 1,683 people played it in a different key, or at a different tempo, so it still counts as 1,683 solo performances.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Being reported here now
    COASTAL FLOOD WARNING in effect for :
    Ashtabula, OH CUYAHOGA, OH Lake, OH

    Lake Erie?
    Per the weather channel definition...
    Coastal Flood Warning - land areas along the coast are expected to become, or have become, inundated by sea water above the typical tide action.
    Now what the local channel is saying:

    ...HIGH RISK OF RIP CURRENTS UNTIL 8 PM EDT THIS
    EVENING...

    NORTHWEST WINDS OF 15 TO 25 KNOTS TODAY COMBINED WITH WAVES OF 4
    TO 6 FEET WILL ALLOW FOR RIP CURRENTS TO OCCUR ALONG THE
    SHORELINE OF LAKE ERIE.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,165
    Neat, so you guys get all the weather-related dangers of say, Florida, without all that pesky beautiful scenery to get in the way. Lucky dogs.

    I remember when we were vacationing in upper-Michagen they had a rip-tide warning. One swimmer "bravely" (stupidly) defied it and swam out into the water. The tide grabbed them and slammed them into the jagged rock cliff that flanked the beach. It was the last "brave" thing they ever did.

    [edit: on a completely unrelated side note: I also remember from that vacation that the "kiddie pool" that was next to the main pool in the lodge area had clearly painted "Depth: 6 inches. No diving." Even at age 10 it seemed to be a "well, duh!" thing. Although if there's a warning it means someone's probably done it in the past...]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    [edit: on a completely unrelated side note: I also remember from that vacation that the "kiddie pool" that was next to the main pool in the lodge area had clearly painted "Depth: 6 inches. No diving." Even at age 10 it seemed to be a "well, duh!" thing. Although if there's a warning it means someone's probably done it in the past...]
    There's a warning because that "duh" someone was just smart enough to sue the pool maker... and probably won the suit.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Step by step, researcher looks for sexuality clues

    Ok; whether you agree or disagree on the cause, it doesn't hurt to research. But this one got me thinking...
    Critics see no gay genetics, point to lack of inherited orientation
    If rare/recessive traits require both parents to carry it, then wouldn't that mechanism be logistically impossible anyway?
    So, if it were found to be genetic, it still wouldn't be inherited?

    Beside; we should just rely on the poll... if 56% of Americans think that orientation is not learned, then it must be.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    6,213
    Critics see no gay genetics, point to lack of inherited orientation
    But...

    Scientists at the University of Texas, Austin, say they have found the first strong evidence of a physical difference between lesbians and straight women -- a finding that the inner ears of gay women work more like those of men.
    (snip)
    Previous research has found that two parts of the brain are different in gay and heterosexual men. Other studies have found that some genes differ between gay and straight men.
    From 1998
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Tog_ View Post
    But...
    From 1998
    It's the "inherited" part that I am questioning. How do you inherit from two homosexual people. Doesn't it require heterosexual sex to inherit a gene from each participant?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    It's the "inherited" part that I am questioning. How do you inherit from two homosexual people. Doesn't it require heterosexual sex to inherit a gene from each participant?
    I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals who have taken part in heterosexual sex over the years --- and vice versa.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    6,213
    Well, yeah, it would. I worked with a guy who was gay but sufficiently in denial about it for about 7 years of marriage. He has a son. Another woman I worked with was married with two kids. We would have some very frank talks from time to time and from those she expressed no curiosity at all about being with another woman. She seemed similarly convinced about her husband. Despite this, her youngest kid, age 5, is showing a serious interest in dresses and make up, and has told her that he wishes he had different plumbing. (I don't recall the way she said he called, but I know it's not board friendly) A former girlfriend did choose to prefer women after some bad experiences with an uncle. She wasn't opposed to guys, but given the choice, preferred women.

    If it is genetic, then it would seem that is something recessive in just about everyone.

    My point with that link was that the one guy in the story said that there was no evidence at all to indicate that it was anything other than a choice. In 1998, it seemed there was. Looks like I butchered the links and quotes often enough trying to post it that missed adding that bit from the article.
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by pghnative View Post
    I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals who have taken part in heterosexual sex over the years --- and vice versa.
    But the child is not the product of TWO same sex homosexuals...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    If rare/recessive traits require both parents to carry it, then wouldn't that mechanism be logistically impossible anyway?
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    But the child is not the product of TWO same sex homosexuals...
    Go back to Mendel and the pea pods. In the hypothetical case of a recessive homosexual gene, some heterosexuals would still carry the gene. Just as a blue eyed child can be a product of a blue eyed parent and a brown eyed parent.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by pghnative View Post
    Go back to Mendel and the pea pods. In the hypothetical case of a recessive homosexual gene, some heterosexuals would still carry the gene. Just as a blue eyed child can be a product of a blue eyed parent and a brown eyed parent.
    But they are arguing that statistically among parents of homosexuals...so, statistically, it really doesn't matter because one of the parents is not homosexual. So, if the heterosexual partner can be a carrier, then statistically, there should be no difference in parents.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,441
    Quote Originally Posted by pghnative View Post
    I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals who have taken part in heterosexual sex over the years --- and vice versa.
    Um... well... depends on your definitions... certainly male and female sexual material have to be united in some fashion. Whether that happens in the traditional fashion or in the laboratory, or in the traditional fashion in the laboratory, is the only question...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    Whether that happens in the traditional fashion or in the laboratory, or in the traditional fashion in the laboratory, is the only question...
    Did you leave out turkey baster?
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,352
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    But they are arguing that statistically among parents of homosexuals...so, statistically, it really doesn't matter because one of the parents is not homosexual. So, if the heterosexual partner can be a carrier, then statistically, there should be no difference in parents.
    It is more than possible that both parents are homosexual. A homosexual couple wanting a child may have another homosexual of the opposite sex be the other parent. I've known it to happen. If they're going for a biological child, at any rate. Homosexual couples also adopt fairly regularly.

    But yeah, we can't discount the possibility of the closeted marriage, the recessive trait--I've a great-aunt who never passed her own genes for just that reason, but she had at least two siblings who had children. And, of course, bisexuality. My best friend's mother is bi leaning toward lesbian. True, my best friend isn't planning to breed (family history of severe mental illness on her father's side), but if she did, she'd be passing those genes.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    8,604
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    But they are arguing that statistically among parents of homosexuals...so, statistically, it really doesn't matter because one of the parents is not homosexual. So, if the heterosexual partner can be a carrier, then statistically, there should be no difference in parents.
    No. A person displaying the recessive trait would pass the recessive gene on to all their children. A person displaying the dominant trait would pass the recessive gene on less than half the time.

    So a dominant/recessive mating would be much more likely to produce a child with the recessive trait than would a dominant/dominant pairing. It's not impossible in the latter, but it is less likely.

    So what the article says is correct - if it's genetic, it should be more common among children with one homosexual parent than among children with two heterosexual parents.

    Unless, of course, a lot of homosexuals are pretending to be heterosexual.

    No, let me reword that:

    Unless, of course, a lot of supposed heterosexuals are actually (genetically) homosexuals.
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    So what the article says is correct -
    Ok; I'll stop now and accept it, but I did have to take a double take on the original statement..

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    if it's genetic, it should be more common among children with one homosexual parent than among children with two heterosexual parents.
    Now for the other side of the coin. Does the word "genetic" automatically imply inherited, or can it be random mutations or something else?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    JUST IN: No terror link found to London car bomb

    LONDON (AP) --Officials say British authorities have found no terrorist link to the defused London car bomb during the early hours of their investigation.
    London police say the bomb could have caused "significant injury or loss of life."
    So this was what? A car bomb used for hunting?

    Ok; so it was not Iraqi insurgents or maybe not even an organized group. It is still a weapon used for terror.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    6,213
    From a link on that page:
    Neighbors upset with naked strippers on golf course
    So... what are they taking off if they're already naked.?
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Tog_ View Post
    From a link on that page:

    So... what are they taking off if they're already naked.?
    A agree... just because someone is naked out on the golf course that's no reason to conclude that person is a stripper!! When will people stop jumping to conclusions like this...

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,165
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    JUST IN: No terror link found to London car bomb
    So this was what? A car bomb used for hunting?
    Ok; so it was not Iraqi insurgents or maybe not even an organized group. It is still a weapon used for terror.
    Well, yes and no. From the first description I read when this was "Breaking News" this morning, I could tell this was more an object for personal attack. At least, that's what it sounded like to me. You'll read about lawyers and judges (mostly, for some reason) here in the states that are killed this way from time to time.

    They keep saying "car bomb" but that implies the whole car was rigged to explode. What gave away that it was something more like a pipe-bomb that was IN a car was the description that it was "Packed with nails". Common way to create shrapnel.

    Basically it's just the media jumping to conclusions to make "breaking news", then calling it "breaking news" when they revise their story to reflect (closer to) what is actually going on. Two stories for the price of one.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    Well, yes and no. From the first description I read when this was "Breaking News" this morning, I could tell this was more an object for personal attack. [...] What gave away that it was something more like a pipe-bomb that was IN a car was the description that it was "Packed with nails". Common way to create shrapnel.
    Judging from what is coming out at the moment, it was designed for many casualties.
    Manhunt for London bomb suspect
    Security sources told CNN that the "relatively crude device" found in the first car near Piccadilly Circus contained at least 200 liters, or about 50 gallons, of fuel in canisters.
    Clarke said the explosives would have resulted in significant injury and loss of life had they detonated

Similar Threads

  1. Im sorry! But please read!
    By Ticket To Heaven in forum Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-10, 08:18 AM
  2. What to read first?
    By mgladstonez in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-26, 12:47 AM
  3. How does this read?
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-01, 03:01 AM
  4. Read this
    By skywatcher in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-14, 03:10 AM
  5. Must Read!!!
    By Deep_Eye in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •