Milky Jade

That's boring. I want a superhero death-match. Invisitards vs. elementals vs. mutants vs. ... God tiers may not compete, so we'll be the commentators

I remember - waaaay back, in school even - that the entire school cross-dressed on our first day of the motto-week (there's 5 mottos therefore). The guys generally did way better. Girls mostly wore baggy clothes and drew beards on their faces, showing how little attention to men we really pay... but the boys, they really went out of their way. Borrow clothes from their sisters or girlfriends, stuff their bras, have them apply make-up and some of them had small enough feet to don high-heels. Sometimes guys do make the better girls, no? Yeah, definitely!

Hue Actually that reminds me, I could make a minor case for Raven from Teen Titans (emotional.. retaining was her theme), but it's kind of beside the point to say "someone once decided that there needs to be an emotionally strong character, that character is raven, I have made a great contribution to this thread with this post"

Dumbledore was second to none in wizarding ability, but Minerva ranges in at the top 5.. with Snape and Kingsley, perhaps, and Aberforth. Try to find a flaw in McGonagall. I daresay you won't be able to. She's very.. ideal. Both for me personally as well in the sense that she's a glaring example of what you can achieve if you really want to, how you can be both an ice cold tower of pure logic and still be likeable, not take nonsense from anybody and reject it indiscriminately, and be highly reliable because of all of the aforementioned. What can I really say? Dumbledore.. he admits to have made a few mistakes. I could argue why we might want to take his word for it, but it's not pertinent to the topic of this thread. TL;DR Minerva rules

Well, in chamber of secrets and half-blood prince, we do But we still really don't need to see it: she was chosen by Dumbledore as his deputy, and he ought to know what it takes to be a headmaster, and *we* ought to know why she is the best suited for that task.

Would..... could..... has..... Well, aside for when Dumbledore was dumbledoring around the world and she jumped in (she's deputy headmistress by the way), there's also the time after the battle of hogwarts where she remained headmistress until retirement, so I reckon she must've done a good job She's everything I ever wanted to be

1. Minerva McGonagall. Simply put, she is not keen to lose her temper. She is emotionally invested, like any emotionally strong person would be too, but does not discriminate therefore. She is known to dock house points from her own students if she deems it necessary to do. Her emotional composure has been retained magnificently throughout the first six years, with the only exception of her losing her temper when the Minister ordered a Dementor to kill Barty Crouch Jr. in order to silence him (rather than having him confirm the return of Lord Voldemort to the world). Put even more simply "The door swung open at once. A tall, black-haired witch in emerald-green robes stood there. She had a very stern face and Harry's first thought was that she was not someone to cross." 2-5: I don't really know, my only other suggestions off the top of my head would be exemplars of what constitutes as a definitive lunatic

Bcuz eye am yuckaree BTW ponifications of things suck

I can't really say for certain, I have "current favourites", but songs that stayed my favourite in the past for the longest time would definitely include this one

Christopher Hitchens, if he classifies as a celebrity by any stretch. His voice deteriorating in his last years made me want to cry and/or hug him hard every time I heard him on telly or the radio.

Manipulation of conceptual borders (insert ponyfaic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YCN-a0NsNk My whole point from the beginning should have been clear to anybody ♥ It's still all up there should one want to challenge parts or the entire thing

I did, in fact, refer to the possibility a few posts above, if you would care to read your way up. Let's try to quantify it for the absurdity of it: J/m² (langley) is impractical, but Watts/m² is what we need (Joules per second in a defined square area), so I'll just take the solar constant, which is at its highest 1.362 kW/m², or 1362 W/m². For the sake of argument, I'll let the average human skin area be 2 square meters. Ideally, all of it would be exposed to light, so you just have to imagine on your part how that might go. I'm taking 1 square meter and hope he is exposing only the right areas every day. Let the average human Calorie consumption be 2000 kcal/Cal (8 368 000 Joules). Assuming he does nothing all day but sunbathe, anyway. He lives in germany. The annual sunshine amounts to 1500 hours per year, averaging at only about 4.5 hours a day. http://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/germany/ Which is 16200 seconds. Now we simply insert. The solar constant for one square meter gives us 1362 Watts, which is 1362 Joules per second. Mr. Whatshisface is exposed to sunlight for 16200 seconds a day, at maximum, which amounts to 22 064 400 Joules within 4 hours. I calculated around 68M Joules for Yuma, which appears to be the sunniest place on earth, with an average of 11 hours per day. The sunlight is surely enough, if you can convert it at will to a medium your body can work with. (he would still perish because lolvitamins) In 2006, however, the attempt was made to stipulate acceptable terms for scientific testing and Rico Kolodzy declined, evidently not ready to submit himself to a scientific environment in order to prove the verity of his claim. Randi put him off for exactly the reasons I stated. It would be completely unrewarding to louse up the operation and 3 weeks for juvenile claims and receive the subsequent ridicule of pretty much everybody. _________________________ from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmuheen In 1998, she appeared in her first film, a six-part direct to video documentary called The Legend of Atlantis: Return of the Lightmasters. The Australian television programme 60 Minutes challenged Jasmuheen to demonstrate how she could live without food and water. The supervising medical professional Dr Beres Wenck found that, after 48 hours, Jasmuheen displayed symptoms of acute dehydration, stress, and high blood pressure.[2] Jasmuheen claimed that this was a result of "polluted air". On the third day, she was moved to a mountainside retreat about 15 miles from the city, where she was filmed enjoying the fresh air, claiming she could now successfully practice Inedia. But as filming progressed, Jasmuheen's speech slowed, her pupils dilated, and she lost over a stone (6 kg or 14 lb) in weight. After four days, she acknowledged that she had lost weight, but stated that she felt fine. Dr. Wenck stated: "You are now quite dehydrated, probably over 10%, getting up to 11%." The doctor continued: "Her pulse is about double what it was when she started. The risk if she goes any further is kidney failure."[2] Jasmuheen's condition continued to deteriorate rapidly due to acute dehydration, despite her contrary insistence. Dr Wenck concluded that continuing the experiment would ultimately prove fatal. The film crew agreed with this assessment and stopped filming. ____________________ What you can expect to happen if your ethereal relationship with heaven sucks. It's a sad day for Jasmuheen, too. Happy days and sunshine ahead?

The reason for me saying this is because he's in effect dragging along hundreds of claims which are implicit in his statement. He is neglecting energy, a basic property in this universe. Nobody is interested in whether or not he can pull it off. We are interested in why it should be possible, and as it goes unanswered, it would be 'intuitive' to write him off. Mathematical series being beyond your common membrane isn't unheard of, but I don't know why it is relevant. The matter of whether or not someone will die if exposed to malnutrition is not in the province of intuition. You're challenging physics. Not intuitive physics, but very important axiomatic statements (of a certain Isaac). If you want to make the case that I have to be accomodating of any chance lunatic because high school math is only half-true and intricacies of science tend to blow my mind, well, then I apologize because I'm not going to buy that pencil. Let me examine this statement again. In order to make a choice, you have to make the assumption that one is preferable over the other. The next question is: Do I want to suspend my trust in everything which I know about physics in order to give this man the benefit of the doubt and test his extraordinary claim? If the answer is yes: Why can't the evidence responsible for the forthcoming destruction of our scientific basis be produced by any other means than starving oneself? If the answer is no: Can you live with yourself not knowing for a fact whether or not he was telling the truth? And the next questions are: What makes him different from other people that made extraordinary claims? Do we have to test every single claimant so as to sort out the liars? Does every astrologist need to be tested too, because it is strictly worse to assume (read: predict) that they'll fail the test? Is it -not- in fact unscientific to ignore the perfectly nonambiguous results produced by these tests? When will pseudo-sciences ever produce something of genuine consequence? Is it false to claim that after a history of failure, one should not be called upon to give them infinitely many free retry-vouchers?

Which are based on the assumption that he will die if not supplied by the proper amount of nutrients: which is exactly what the man is trying to show he is able to survive. so yeah.. it's the only way, which works in accorance with his claim. At some point it must be understood as obvious that I'm not seriously considering any of it to happen. He will starve, end of story. You'd be spitting in the face of science by wasting three weeks on intuitively wasteful experiments that could've seen better use elsewhere.

Actually, you can. It's called "forensic science". But it's not important to my case. The main use of the scientific method is to attest the predictive capabilities of any set of assumptions. We don't have to leave the province of assumptions so long as they show predictive capabilities. As far as I'm aware, science does not much care to prove the historicity of events within retelling capacity. Even though it is surely possible to verify that Teddy existed, to find his signature on the germane papers, his photograph and so on, and prove his inauguration with the methods of forensic science, if you will - most sciences are not concerned with historicity, because their aim is to be useful in the present. I can not in fact prove that Aristotle existed: there is always the counter-assumption that he is a fabrication of the tellers and/or writers of history. But the fact whether or not he existed is completely useless to me. His thoughts and ideas, fabricated or not, are. An assumption does not require evidence. It's not a factual claim. His claim is non-falsifiable. Randi is using scientific methods within his ability to prove the verity of a claim. If a claim cannot be falsified, then it cannot be proven. The proof of the pudding is in the testability. His claim has no business in Randi's show, which is all about proving or disproving claims. Now: If he were to claim that he is able to survive for another three weeks, then that can be tested. That's a claim not many, but still a much larger audience would be willing to pay attention to. I personally would not, to be honest. Unless you have a reliable live stream, or the ability to participate, -and- the patience to go with, you will most likely not believe the evidence (even if it is genuine) anyway, because it would be far too easy to rationalize it as manipulation, the media whoring with whatever they can come up with, et c. . I'd even be willing to assume that he swallowed slowly dissolving vitamin capsules beforehand, or taped them to the roof of his mouth, or has a drip hidden in the leg of his chair, or something absurd along those lines. Do you see the complication yet? You are in fact about to prove that bodies can function without sufficient energy intake, perhaps by pulling it out of nowhere or utilizing the sunrays or whatever - but nobody is going to believe you anyway. It's a sad, sad day for Mr. Kolodzey.

The scientific method does not discriminate. Everything which can be observed, can be tested by it. Do you disagree? Actually, I agree. You won't see me agreeing very often, on a side note. In a show about wasting your time with the champions of fraudulence, the vanguard of the lot should be an honour guest. And here's the catch: 3 weeks of effort and the result is a dead smart-arse. Do you know what that does to showbusiness? In regard to what I said one quote above - there's a profound difference in wasting an evening and wasting 3 whole weeks. How Mr. Kolodzey didn't see this coming is beyond me. His claim is not un-falsifiable. You can let people starve for the fun of it. Just don't tell me the burden of proving that the peril of starvation does in fact no apply to him is upon Randi. And don't tell me that he should be called upon to defenestrate money in the babyish conduct of letting someone starve on camera.

I don't own any figurines, which is probably for the better, because I'd do something appalling with them in all likelihood.

The scientific method doesn't work without first assuming that you can it apply it to everything in order to test everything. "Mr. Kolodzey: (This is a hard-copy of the e-mail response sent to you today.) Please don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims. Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it? If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter. Signed, (Signed, 'James Randi') James Randi PRESIDENT" And there we have it, ladies and gentlecolts. James Randi is a loser. I mean, after letting in so many dowsers and other mystics, why wouldn't he give this one a chance? Did he have a bad feeling about him? Like.. Randi knew that he was going to lose One Million Dollars if he gave him that chance? .... Seriously though Who wants to spend 3 weeks surveilling a person in solitary confinement in order to ascertain the verity of his claim?

1. Afaic, science is more or less about "anything is possible, unless it isn't". This bromidic statement is the foundation of the scientific method. If you can produce any genuine consequential evidence of telepathy, go for it. Read my mind. Science will be forced to re-evaluate itself. The assumption that only a lunatic would make such a claim does not bowdlerize consequential evidence. 2. The last time I've heard this complaint is when somebody tried to make the case that precognition is possible, and that mind comes before matter, metaphysically speaking. Generally, this complaint happens when somebody isn't being listened to. It's just how it is. Bottom line, everything starts out as pseudo-science. Just as anything starts out as alternative medicine. Now, what is the pseudo-science and alternative medicine called which braved the rigid tests of science and time and is proven to work? Surely, it is science. and medicine.. And about the precognition/psi stuff:

I haven't the foggiest how to attach images

The thing about Elfen Lied is that it is actually trying too hard with exactly what you've described. It's my main source of disagreement with it. It seemed to want to make you feel sorry for its characters AT ALL COSTS. The manga is not much different, to be honest. The only manga-exclusive character, called Nozomi (which only exists to sing moerike's "Elfenlied" basically), is plagued by incontinence, forcing her to wear diapers. Don't let's forget the dog scene in kaede's childhood - number 35 toying with number 7 - that homeless girl - which was also raped - and all of nana's existence. I don't mean to sound snooty, but this is a thinly veiled tragedy carpet bombing to net some 'feels'. I want to refer everyone to The Pet Girl of Sakurasou, which was a right feel-splosion without needing to rely cheaply on overt suffering.

Well... that feeling is called POLYRHYTHMS Sometimes it's very... difficult to wrap your head around the rhythmic progression of their riffs. I mean the last riff of this song took me more than an hour to accurately get down. They (and other extreme/djent-y bands) are known for these riffs. The repetition of a riff in an odd interval causes the feeling that it shifts against the drum progression (called "Rhythmic displacement"), and will be accented by the snare differently in every iteration because they're in different counts. For instance, if you opt in favour of prime numbers, the superposition of their recurrency rate with any other is generally the lowest, but it happens sans for even counts, and I guess 2 is a prime number, too, so barring that one as well.. I will choose a note accenting going against the drum count this time, but a more easy to detect one There's seven notes to an iteration, which causes the snare to accent a note earlier every iteration, and it cycles through that way