ryyannon

Since we're on the subject, are there any real HGH precursors available on the market? Of course, I don't mean the commercial junk you can find on the Internet, but a molecule that really does the job. My own interesst is from the point of view of a guy who had always been in good shape, but who's currently turning the corner into the 'golden years' which mainly consist of spending far too much time in front of my computer screen with the associated problems of weight-gain around the mid-section and lack of muscle tonus. Living in France as I do (where HGH is illegal) I could take the train to Brussels (where it's legal) once a month and procure pre-loaded hypodermics of the real stuff. But that's already more exercise than I generally like to do, plus the fact that I've got some serious medical reasons to avoid taking HGH itself.

Not necessarily for the video, but for the music: The Balinese gamelan orchestra serves to accompany sacred and secular dances:

They don't have nanoseconds?

So all that blah-blah just to tell us that you think that the Stingray is the best Sub? Dude....

Wow...leave it to a thread like this to bring out the old, fine blood of RWG: How you doing, Omni?

Rare photo of CrAZySAleMAn hard at work with his specially constructed industrial-strength CrAaaZy FAx MaCHinE: I wonder who the lucky customer is?

I just sort of hatch them, if you know what I mean.

Yeff Fur?

Thanks...it's just that sometimes I get the feeling that I just don't fit in here....

I always thought I was a pretty hard-boiled guy, but you're cracking me up, Andy.

Because. Now please stop egging them on.

Why can't people stay On Topic in this thread?

Amos. Or was it Andy...?

Don't worry - these sort of mistakes happen all the time.

Re my last post above: looks like ya punked-out, Nanuq.

cRAzySaLEMaN is the absolute best source for TRLs - as well as same-day (sometimes same hour!) delivery. Personally, I wouldn't order from anyone else.

He's always been my prefered dealer! I ordered a Pam 112 from him a while back and it came through a bit smudged around the edges. Five minutes later, he sent me a new one in perfect condition, plus a second beautiful strap as a free gift. CrazySaleMan is da Man!

Thanks for replying, Nanuq...personally, I'm pretty comfortable with Groucho Marx. My second response is that an intelligent mind can entertain (and admit) two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time: I have no problem in admitting both Darwin and I.D. as part of the Big Picture. Where I do hesitate, is when people start teaching kids that our ancestors lived with the dinosaurs, that the earth is 4,000 years old, and that some guy with a long white beard is overseeing it all. You know what I mean. There are a lot of parasites who've latched on to I.D. and who are spinning it in ways that simply aren't acceptable. Just as the Nazis - to name only one example out of many - attempted to use Darwin to justify their programs to 'improve the race.' Darwin's message* is actually one which is quite compatible with the tenets of Christianity (speaking morally and ethically here, rather than scientifically): it is one of a natural order of connectedness and compassion in the universe: if that's not another way of saying Intelligent Design, then call me Herman Goering. Just think of it: if survival were simply survival of the fittest (meaning the meanest, cleverest and toughest) we'd already all be gone. Only TTK would remain. Thank God (my apologies to the atheists and commie rats out there) for Intelligent Design. And bravo to Uncle Darwin for having the intelligence to have figured it out. In the meantime, here's something else for you to chew on, and which is creating a great deal of buzz at the moment: Garrett Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything", which is Lisi's own Unified Field Theory using E8 root mathematics. I've already left the same links posted here and there in other threads in the hopes you would have gone for the bait. As for me, I love his statement that (paraphrase) "any mathematical model of the universe should reflect the beauty of the universe itself" - but then, I'm just a hopeless romantic (to put it charitably) as some of you already know. First, a general introduction from the press: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../scisurf114.xml Followed by the paper itself with all its glorious mathematics and graphics: (can't seem to access his .pdf file right now - but I'll try to post it ulteriorly. In the meantime, here's the host page): http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770 And for the mathematically challenged (like me): *In his own words and his own clarifications: He was appalled at the simplistic distortions that were made concerning the concept of 'the survival of the fittest.'

Upward and Onward in the I.D. Debate: Is God (or similar) a meth-head? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cultur...human-evolution

Could have been worse, Vicky: At least he wasn't spanking his monkey

Did you read any of what I linked? It speaks very specifically of enzymes, proteins, and their combination. Pure biology. It also speaks of combinations and permutations and efficacy. Pure math. C'mon Nanuq: you of all people should know that 'pure' biology and 'pure' math don't necessarily result in pure 'science'. If memory serves, all sorts of half-witted racist theories - just for one example - have used 'science' to back up their assertions. Can you point out a section of that article that's flawed? Or perhaps the errors you're claiming are in his reference material, like the Journal of Molecular Biology? Science magazine? The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Scientific American? International Journal of Developmental Biology? Once again, reassuring, but not the end-all. Hint: those are peer-reviewed periodicals. You don't get published there otherwise. As was his paper: my mistake in not noticing it the first time. Personally, I don't have a horse in this particular race: if it turned out that Pugwash was responsible for the creation of the universe, it would neither surprise me or bother me one bit. But someone using mathematics, statistical analysis and biology to prove that Pugwash is da Man? Uh-uh. I need something more credible. Even Pugwash's word for it would be more convincing than trying to use the logical to try to posit the existence of the theological. Word games indeed, but no more so than what can be done with 'pure' science. Despite all the flawless math, it still doesn't add up for me.

Thus, whether one envisions the evolutionary process beginning with a noncoding region of the genome or a preexisting functional gene, the functional specificity and complexity of proteins impose very stringent limitations on the efficacy of mutation and selection. In the first case, function must arise first, before natural selection can act to favor a novel variation. In the second case, function must be continuously maintained in order to prevent deleterious (or lethal) consequences to the organism and to allow further evolution. Yet the complexity and functional specificity of proteins implies that both these conditions will be extremely difficult to meet. Therefore, the neo-Darwinian mechanism appears to be inadequate to generate the new information present in the novel genes and proteins that arise with the Cambrian animals 1. Before getting to the above, which is a sort of preamble to the justification of Intelligent Design, there are umpteen pages of specialized genetic and biological logic and math that no layman could possibly follow. Which means that he may be either offering a flawless demonstration, or the proverbial Tale Told by an Idiot, or yet again, something in-between: his spin on the question, with its lot of errors and oversights. Can anyone here either validate or refute his hypotheses? I sure can't. Granted, this paper has been peer-reviewed, but for most of us, this guy could be saying anything. 2. For me, one of the problems with the idea of Intelligent Design is the word Intelligent - particularly when applied to our own perception of ourselves and the universe.

Well, if you really want to know, I'd like to see more..... (Hey, you saw it was me posting. What else did you expect?)

Good one, Pug.

From what I've read about his cruelty towards those dogs, he deserves every minute of the time he's going to serve.