taks

like i said, comfortable on a black slope. that requires a fair amount of skill and typically means you can handle turns well as well as speed. once i get to that point, i'll take a powder lesson and maybe a bumps lesson. i learned how to surf even quicker than this, btw, and it's MUCH more difficult. taks

10 days and i'll be comfortable on a black slope... if you really think it takes 10 weeks, maybe you should work on the foot-eye coordination thing a bit more? (j/k) taks

it only takes 10 days or so to get fairly decent. i have 3 days under my belt and i can ski blues (though not well). starting when you're 10, btw, makes a big difference in the learning curve, too. my son will be on skis at 3 1/2 (3 is the youngest they'll allow at most places, but john turns 3 right after the season ends in 2006 so he won't go till that fall). taks

that's not proof. using the lack of proof to the contrary argument is logically called "argumentum ad ignorantium" or (from infidels.org): while i agree we probably don't "absorb" dna as you are saying, the argument wasn't that we are becoming plants or animals because of ingested dna. the argument was that ingested dna doesn't affect us. prove that... taks

hardly justification for such childish behavior from adults, hades... should we go around spouting "it's OK, they do this all the time in europe!" with everything? i hope not. taks

i didn't say you do... the argument was that it does not affect you, which mkreku did not disprove. but again, show proof that you don't absorb random genetic material from things you eat. i can't either way... the "commonly accepted" theory, btw, applies to things you are commonly taught in your run of the mill education for the most part, maybe so far as a general scientific college education (this is a gross generalization, i agree, but i think the lines are fuzzy). but to delve into genetics as anything "commonly accepted" is a stretch, unless any of us have education and experience working in the field? (i don't...) taks

, i shoot pool quite well... taks

uh, hate to say it mkreku, but that isn't a defense of the argument. well, it's a defense that lacks scientific proof (at least proof provided by you). you used an anecdotal argument which may make sense on some level, but still hasn't been proved by you. i think that's what aegeri's point was... taks

ok, we're hitting the slopes for the first time of the season friday morning. breckenridge is 117 miles from the springs so my wife and i (as well as two other couples) are driving up at o-dark 30 in the morning to start the season... only 7% of the slope is open but they're making snow like mad. my wife is nervous since this will be her first time (breck has a good "learn to ski school" which she will attend). i'm a noob, but confident enough that i rented skis for the season. we all went out saturday night and caught warren miller's Impact, which was nothing short of amazing... ok, if you can't tell, i can't wait till friday. nuff said taks

i quite know this, glad i'm not alone the reason it is worthwhile to point out how out of touch PoTC's claims are is that false information spreads like wildfire. if i can put out just one of those early fires before it spreads, i've made the net a better place to surf taks

as horribly bad as all these conspiring factors are, isn't it just a touch odd that people live twice as long as they did only a few centuries ago? there are new ways to die every day, yet, somehow, we still live longer now than ever before... ahem. go figure. taks

excellent point, degana. i concur. taks

that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. my reality is based on thousands of years of accepted scientific practices including a little bit known as "the scientific method." the latter principle is something you just don't seem to understand. i'm sorry if you can't handle the fact that my reality really is reality. there's a reason the entire rest of the world believes in these practices and it isn't because we're all "in on the conspiracy." it's because they work. plain and simple. maybe some day you'll decide to actually educate yourself with real science and not these trumped up ramblings that you so often choose to cite... till then, i think newc's comment says it best. taks

We know how cancer comes about; we just don't know how to stop it. I haven't looked into AIDS but I assume there are some plausible theories about it by now. In any case, I do not see your point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> if you don't understand already, i'm sure you soon will, althernai... 99% of PoTC's argument is typically based on logical fallacy (too numerous to list), generally without substance. for example, the above statement is meant to imply that "since we don't know for sure, there must be something sinister going on" or, even better, "since we don't know for sure, then the worst possible reason must be to blame." with a little bit of research, i could probably find a dozen fallacies just with this one quote... he's good at that, no doubt. the flaws in his argument are only exacerbated by the fact that there is very little scientific evidence to back his claims. should he ever decide to provide real evidence of his claims, or attempt to provide valid counter-arguments, the logical problem won't be as devastating to his argument (perhaps even something to be overlooked). until then... this is his standard MO, btw, unchanging and unwilling to do so. pointing out valid science results in "but they're in on it, too" replies. every once in a while, he'll mention something worth discussion, but it's buried so deep within the rhetoric and self righteousness, nobody cares. taks

i realize that... but it was not referred to as a standard before automatics came out... either way, i was only pointing out the oxymoron in the statement. taks

my manual car has a kickass bose stereo as well... chick! taks

yeah, oddly enough. the term standard, i'm guessing, comes from when automatic was an option. it's been reversed in recent years. taks

automatic is actually considered the standard in most vehicles. just from an economics standpoint, it was several thousand more for the auto than the manual anyway. i got options in return for going with a tranny i like better anyway... taks

*sniff* my wife has the santa fe AWD... i wonder what it's like. the seats are too stiff for me (bad back) so i don't drive enough to pay attention to such details. well, except for trips we take around the mountains. taks

hehe, got that impression JE living in colorado, AWD is very attractive. unfortunately, it did not come out till after i got mine. i did the annual year end sale that infiniti always does, which got me into the car with 2.9% financing and a fair reduction from MSRP. i'm actually ahead on my loan after 15 months and only a few thousand down... uh, kumquat, i kinda thought the G35 was based on the skyline in the first place? at least the coupe... i'm waiting for infiniti's new "M Concept"... just gotta figure out how to raise the $57,000 it'll take to get the one i want... taks

but we don't have evidence of this, therefore my statement is logically (and scientifically) correct. i do not fail. you are trying to make an assumption that something might exist in the absence of any evidence to prove it. but those other cases do not have anything to do with this one, either. just because a plane crashed in NY does not mean the flight you're taking to CA will crash as well... it is a logical fallacy to say so, btw... perhaps you should revise your methods... sorry, but you're reaching for something you can't prove. taks

hehe, ah yes, a favorite statement by pseudo-science (i'm not saying that's what you're preaching). in essence, it is nearly impossible prove a negative. proving that something doesn't exist is a folly at best. in the absence of data to prove the positive, however, we have to assume the negative is true. i.e. since there is no proof of a link, we are bound to assume there is no link. at which time proof such a link exists, then we may revise our assumption that it does not exist. contrary, should proof such a link does not exist, then we have proved our assumption true (though this is difficult to do). this is a fundamental principle of scientific research (skepticism). taks

yeah, maybe, but there is no evidence supporting such a link... speculation and circumstance at best, from what i can tell. taks

good choice. taks

well, if all evidence traces back to him, then that puts him as the source... otherwise, if there was another source, then the phrase "all evidence traces back to plato" wouldn't hold, would it? i haven't had a chance to read chemchok's links yet to comment... network problems at home and i've been busy at work. this is one area i'm certainly open for ideas on... of course, i am a skeptic. the bummer is that we'll never know what really drove plato to the scant description he provided. taks