Unknown, the classic method of discovering food allergies is to maintain a strict diet of meat and veg for a few weeks, and then slowly add foods and watch the results. Requires a lot of dedication and faith that something beneficial will surface. It helps to be fat, more motivation .

Dusting has such a charming way of being condescending.

Be really good match, in ways that are hard to pin down at first, for the one you're interested in? And when you're interested, make it clear, and not just by the sort of flirting that anyone could do?

Maybe not, but I have evidence that it works. We'll see what comes of it at the next stage... which is about two weeks away.


If, on the other hand, you meant finding women on the 'net in general... you need a good profile (on the computer dating sites). A really, really good profile. Women get a coupe of orders of magnitude more view than men, and you have to stand out (in a good way, please). And they're not guys, so a great picture alone just ain't gonna do it. It has to be well-written and creative. Also, it has to be real, really who you are, else you get one date but nothing much to show for it in the end.

A tricky proposition.

well, I think everybody who is an atheist just doesn't understand particle physics

So if there is condescention there it isn't directed specifically at Atak

I'm in trouble then. I got stupidly good genes, in terms of body type. I have been heavier than I wanted, by as much as about a dozen pounds, only twice and those were with the help of mood stabilizers that were notorious for doing it. And if I don't exercise for a year or two and don't eat consistently, I still retain good musculature. Unfair.

But then, certain other things are unfair too.

Favourite pinball machine?

I know some atheist physicists.

I'm not Roger Penrose, but I have a basic understanding of particle physics (where by "basic" I mean undergrad).

It occurred to me long ago, as in thirty years or so, independently afair, that it was possible for a god to live in the uncertainty, as it were, without obviously violating our understanding of how things worked. (He/she/it couldn't affect the world in a big ways very often, but that's fine.)

But possible doesn't mean there's any reason to believe it. From what I know there is absolutely zero reason to believe that any of those wave functions' convergences have ever been affected by any supernatural force. None. Yes, it could have happened, but if that makes me an atheist then all atheists are either crazy or stupid, as anything could be true in the largest of senses — but that's not what atheists mean , I don't think. To me it simply makes no sense to allow for the possibility in any real-world decision, because the probability is so small that I might as well think of it as being zero. Maybe that makes me an agnostic for purposes of philosophy discussions only, but if that's true then really, so what?

(This is strangely reminiscent of some of the problem with the approach the string theorists take, at least when they're explaining their work to non-experts: they essentially say that because it could explain the universe that we see (never mind that they don't have the math worked out; we're conveniently ignoring that for the moment), it does explain it, it is true. If that gets them grant money and fellowships I understand their doing it, but it doesn't make them intellectually honest.

As for why those uncertainties and such do exist, why tunneling and the like really do seem to occur at completely random times... we don't have a solid philosophical underpinning for it yet, Dancing Wu Li Masters be damned. So yes, there are unanswered questions, but they don't point to anything resembling what most humans would call a god.

Centaur, the one I played. I don't like the more modern, pointy-flipper types that Williams gave us, particularly because they're less fun to manipuate (by sliding and sliding and slapping the machine, I mean) and because the action tends to be more controlled — they're more point-and-shoot than machine-gun craziness. On the other hand, older machines than that just didn't have enough going on. Multiball and fifty different attargets and ramps and such aren't the end of the wolrd, but they're fun to have available.

Dancing Wu Li Masters is pure cheese.

I don't believe in the supernatural just fwiw or in God even. Which may seem paradoxical given my post, but its not at all.

I'm also pretty sure that the string theorists are onto something but thats always been one of the things that I've wanted to learn more about but at the same time don't really see a reason to.

I think I've seen numbers to the effect that somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of physicists in the US are atheists; the numbers are different for other sciences. Disturbingly (to me), only about half of MDs (who are not scientists by any means, but still) in the US are atheists.

Your observation about string theorist is interesting. The same could be said to be true of climatologists.

fwiw
I tend to agree with you on God.

I have tried on a number of occasions to believe but I just do not think it is in my DNA.

Given I cannot find a non-rational way of believing and there is scant concrete evidence of a rational basis ---> I end up being an atheist as a default position.

Need pic of box cat, ofc.

How about 8 Ball or spy hunter?

God is too western.

People get too caught up in God.

You mean Western?

Or does God where cowboy boots?

Don't know 'em. Not an expert at all. But if they're of exactly that sweet spot between generations, I'd probably like 'em.

Unfortunately it does take a while to learn any given game enough to appreciate its subtleties (unless you're really, really good, which I never was).

occidental

Just cause I think some of your views are essentially fascist D, doesnt mean you are not one of my favourite posters.

digger,

what is wrong with facism?


more imporatntly, what is wrong with communism?

It is not appropriate for me to hijack Ataks thread giving a polemic against totalitarianism.

Catching up, this gets me through #250, I think:
Probably not a lot like me - I'm too cautious to be a great villager in the early game to secure tough mislynches (and get away with it) as a wolf. Still, I think he'd have my ability to slow down and see all sides before acting — when it was right.

Also:

• The ability to FPS at appropriate times, but not so much that it's standard.
• A solid technical understanding of the numerical aspects of the games — it amazes me how many people don't get that. I mean, probably a solid majority of players don't even know who many villager peeks, or wolf peeks, or a combination (note: trick question) are necessary for a seer lock, nor could they even figure it out.
• Technical creativity, too — understanding beyond the basics and able to formulate new approaches. Matters more in mishmash games.
• Work ethic. Believe it or not, more important as a wolf than as a villager.
• A willingness to die for the team.
• The ability to spot subtle nuances — this is for seerhunting.
• The ability to see thing from multiple points of view, and to change one's mind.
• Experience: there are no great new werewolf players. There never will be one imo.
• The ability to present a strong case, and to adapt it to who needs convincing. And not just a strong case technically, but a forceful one. It doesn't matter that you're right if you can't change people's minds.
• A persona that doesn't irritate people so much that they won't listen. This one hurts some otherwise-great players.

Re your game: iirc you are sometimes so aggressive that I, at least, have trouble focusing on your arguments because I'm thinking about you and your role. Tht has its moments, but you need to be able to shift to a softer mode.


Weird one for me. On the one hand I think there are no inherent rights and we should be focused on overall utility, which seems to argue that if torture works we should use it. But I don't think that. I think we should choose, as a society, to have limits on what we will do, limits that are absolute, and torture is where I'd put the limit. Intentional infliction by the state (the embodiment of society) of excruciating unhappiness is simply inconsistent with the society being one that values happiness. If we torture, people learn that is sometimes OK to impose that on another.

Yes, I see the inconsistency with the button-pushing, but I believe in this sense torture is a much bigger deal than death. One cannot be unhappy if one is dead.

Also, I understand that provate actors are going to see it difefrently — I'm talking about state-sanctioned torture.

To be clear: there is no number of people whose saving would, in my opinion, justify the state's torturing someone.


Other than what's been talked about here, I have no close experience with death. Strange to think about it, but true.

I do think that the experience of it will simply be a cessation of whatever the person was experiencing before (thus very dependent on method). BAsed on what I know of biology, though, this isn't necessarily trie for death that deoan't inviolve very rapid elimination of the brain's oxygen supply — when death is occurring but oxygenated blood is still flowing, I think hallucinations, dreams, half thoughts, or the like will probably occur.


With all my love of travel it might surprise you that I really would like a place I could stay comfortably, most of the time. It would be beautiful, with mountains, lakes, trees, and abundant wildlife; t would also be near enugh to a large population center that I could quickly have access to whatever I wanted. Beyond that I don't know that the details matter too much. I isolate myself that I could settle in anywhere, given some time — I don't form bonds I can't break.


People will tell you that if you do what you love, the money will come. they're wrong, as a rule. Accept this, and decide which you're going to pursue: material success, or some activity or pursuit that you love. If they happen to coincide, all the better, but make your choice in case they don't.


I don't know why. Because it feels right, I guess. All of this is unprovable one way or the other. I can make an argument about complexity and entropy and the like, but that wouldn't be why I believe the Earth matters; I just do.

And I think everybody who is a theist just doesn't understand particle physics. As it turns out, we are almost certainly both right.

By this, do you mean what society thinks versus what you think is right?