Kimmo

remove the peripherals, and what is this argument about again? whether or not bin laden was assasinated? whether we should unequivocally trust the guv's narrative? whether or not the guv is capable of subterfuge?

the only thing i'd use occam's razor at this point is for suicide.

do you think jim will respond with "fair enough", or "oh my god i can't take this anymore"?

does calling them names increase the productivity level? i have no interest in separating myself from the fold, nor being "smart"; i'd venture a guess and say what really annoys you is that you don't agree with me, nor do you have the patience or desire to address the issues at hand. both positions are understandable.

"contrarian"? Me? i think you are just easily annoyed. :kisss:

whenever one refers to the "authority" of "law", best be wary, since often it signals a lack of a pertinent argument addressing the issue at hand.

well, i was gonna say "leap of faith", which it was.

Obama was executed? Holy Shit! You are a moron. care to expand on that rather erudite argument?

Actually no, logic says the simplest explanation is the likely closest to the truth unless other evidence is laid out - or if you rather - the law of parismony, or an extrapolation upon Aristotle - if you want to get esoteric about it. Freshman logic class - really. quite a leap of logic there, i'd say. i think you are venturing into the territory of statistics, something to logically be leery of when dealing with geopolitics and the like.

and what are those opinion? care to recap?

and everyone knows that any deceit or incomplete information by a governmental body is a perfect analog to, ummmm, the tooth fairy? unfortunately, par for the course from bob.

ummm i don't think bob has any other options available.

if everything went down as we are being told, is anyone else surprised by what seems to be bin laden's lack of a sophisticated escape plan? i mean, 4 years living here? most hunted man in the history of the planet, perhaps? what, 40 minutes between chopper landing and bin laden's shooting? ummm maybe a tunnel or two?

while explaining the technical workings of a tv, maybe you can also dig up where there was an "admission if(sic) guilt", one that would support a conviction. i really don't think there was any plan to take laden alive; it would have been a nightmare for the US in every way to have him alive and in their possession.

@clay: thanks for the feedback, and good luck with the survey! after almost losing my children and house to a survey, i have reason to be cautious.

really? that's the point? then you prattled on some more about some other things, but i really don't give a damn. hope you had fun with the survey!

well, i was gonna be an ass, but it's true, you are sometimes funny. in the middle-age heavy-weight category. with some kind of golf handicap added, of course. this is from a middle-age heavy-weight, so take it as a complement. boom.

you nailed it haha omg.

and, without wasting my precious time that could have been spent sniffing out the next US government conspiracy, let me just say that people in the US government would never lie to you.

and for his next trick, bob will explain, in detail, the workings of a television. without resorting to wikipedia. bravo!

i don't necessarily see any "danger" per se, but i don't like misrepresentation (if indeed this has happened); do you?

amen. but exactly how is the survey doing either of the above? if i posted a survey, i would certainly answer questions about said survey if someone posited them; wouldn't you? my original question was put forth a few weeks ago; all that happened was that he/she posted the survey again in a new thread. could be he/she thought my questions to be insubstantial; fair enough. but not getting any response (coupled with a rather weak medical survey) makes me question his/her aims. perhaps you have a more logical/studied response?

i'd say yes to that. i don't know what other forums he's posted in, so maybe you can do that, but since the survey itself is rather vague, coupled with him not responding to any questions about its purposes....

hey, fun read on the tr. good stuff.

pretty good points, but just to pick a little: depends on what you're doing. with rock-climbing, i'd argue this point. if you weigh 150, and are at 12% bf, dropping to 6% would put you in the 130's. if you drop this intelligently and don't lose strength, it's not very intelligent to claim this wouldn't make a difference in your climbing. firstly, i doubt there are many "anorexic" climbers in danger of losing their lives. secondly, "radical exclusion diets" can work to drop weight for a specific goal. in this context, speaking of their "eventual" failure doesn't really make sense; one isn't necessarily trying to make a lifestyle of starvation. the rest is pretty spot-on.