Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

At the bottom of the offending post, click where it says "Aware Wolf has not yet responded".

There should be ZERO moderation in chat. Second, a chat would be private (save for Percy being able to view the logs) without the community being able to intrude on the conversation.

Kinda goes against the whole purpose of "chat" then.... Plus, IMO, it would clutter up the forum as a whole. People would start "chat" threads needlessly. Do I see a need for it? Not personally, but apparently there is a want for it from other members. The only use I could see for it is because it is difficult/obscure to see the (1)message blinking. Perhaps others would, though.

Email clients no longer even do this (not even the atrocious Outlook ffs).... no more endless "FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Funny cat lol" I couldn't think of a worse idea for a forum.

Can someone help me to understand the meaning of polemic? I have looked up the definition but I appear unable to grasp it.... For example: if someone were to accuse me of being polemic, that would mean ____? This is hypothetical, of course.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Hmm. Ok. I guess I had trouble understanding because from the phonology of the word, it seems to carry a negative connotation. The main reason I asked is because I have been listening to a lot of the Non-Prophets and Atheist Experience podcasts and Matt Dillahunty claims that people "accuse" him of being overly polemic, so I took it to mean something more negative and that preconception didn't jive with the definition.

Ok, then I am again confused. How could the act of simply arguing ones point be construed as negative?

Ahh, ok. I get it now. I found a different definition that helps at WiktionarySo it is not merely a reference for someone defending themselves, but someone who is in opposition to a particular "thing".Thanks jar.

Much to his chagrin, I'm sure, Artemis actually made a valid point in Message 106 that I hadn't previously thought of and hasn't been mentioned about the current rating system allowing lurkers to participate.Good point, fuck stick.Edited by hooah212002, : I'm only kidding. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

I think it says more about this board in particular. Yes, we need creationist members. However, the nature of EvC is that of "back up your claim with tangible evidence or GTFO" and that tends to favor the science side because let's face it: creationists simply lack ANY evidence. I think we would see more "equal" ratings if we just allowed creationist members free range to post whatever BS they wanted.For example: the one creationist poster who did the whale evolution thread (I think). Didn't he have a 10 for some time? He didn't stick around, but what he did post was honest, to the point and had evidence. It wasn't just a bunch of PRATTs. He seemed like he wanted to learn. We could use more like that.

can someone tell me what this means?

quote:

---

The limit of 10 ME is theoretically inspired: when planets form in a typical protoplanetary disk of gas and dust, 10 ME is roughly the critical mass above which hydrogen can be accreted and retained by the growing planet, turning it into a Neptune-like giant.

---

SourceDoes it mean that a planet larger than 10 Earth Mass cannot be terrestrial and can only be a gas planet?

The image displays fine for me. Since it is hosted on your own website, there is likely some DNS wonkiness and your browser is looking in the wrong place for the image (ping dwise1.net: does it return 50.63.92.13?) Try a different browser or a browser using a device on a different network, like your phone on its mobile network perhaps, assuming you are on a PC or laptop connected to your home wifi using your normal browser.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.