The sum of us: Rugby league hero Steve Mortimer proud of his son's gay union
- Thread starter lsz
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
-
We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
I highlight the points, but seems to be beyond some to comprehend that. Had I cut just those points and pasted I would have been accused of partial disclosure. Where were you when the others were bandying about the names like homophobic and bigot without a shred of justification.
Leave out the "Accepting Gay/Lesbian Rights" because had you been paying attention I have never entered into that discussion.
On the Alien life form discussion, when discussing probability, a balanced view is about as relevant and useful as introducing the bible.
Something to leave you with, a mentality if you like.
With an estimated 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and with an estimated 100 billion galaxies, the number of planets and moons is too large to write without scientific notation. The odds that Earth is the only place where life formed is that small as too be immeasurable. (Given that the basic elements for life are abundant throughout the universe)
If only one in a billion of these planets, moons or asteroids have suitable conditions then we are still faced with a staggering number of possibles.
To quote Stephen Hawkins, on the probability of finding life in the Universe, "It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when."
Technical Coach
Bencher
I find it more interesting that you took my investigations seriously.(i always get nervous using "took" it sounds so Bogan and wrong. (please intelligent educated people correct me if i am wrong)---yes if you are reading this i am referring to you---grab your chance at fame on Silvertails.
Last edited:
This is classic stuff.
I must confess from a personal view I had no interest in the thread, have no issues with people's sexual or religious preferences but just prefer talking footy on here....until now.
My curiosity won the day after noticing 20 plus pages had to take a peak....
There it was - aliens, gods, sexual content, accusations...it was almost Jerry Springer meets Silvertails!!
My sense of humour even loved Franks calls on how ridiculous it was, was almost crying laughing by that stage....
Just to add my open opinion, believe in more than we see both spiritually & the odd spaceman, woman or flower out there somewhere across the universe....
Keep it up please!!
I must confess from a personal view I had no interest in the thread, have no issues with people's sexual or religious preferences but just prefer talking footy on here....until now.
My curiosity won the day after noticing 20 plus pages had to take a peak....
There it was - aliens, gods, sexual content, accusations...it was almost Jerry Springer meets Silvertails!!
My sense of humour even loved Franks calls on how ridiculous it was, was almost crying laughing by that stage....
Just to add my open opinion, believe in more than we see both spiritually & the odd spaceman, woman or flower out there somewhere across the universe....
Keep it up please!!
Technical Coach
Bencher
It's not a matter of if or when we are discussing (i've never debated that point "had you been paying attention") it is about gauging the probability off the back of evidence that we have thus far, you determine it is high, i still feel it is low.
You are trying to point out I'm wrong(in a condescending way from the start which is your real reason to prolong your annoyance) I'm just pointing out i'm entitled to a different view---i disagree but not saying you can't intelligently form a different view either way.
The way you discuss the topic lends itself to a way of thinking that is "the probability of any moment or happening occuring is high with very little hard evidence required, the odd bit of evidence combined with a lot of theories and potential is enough for a high probability)
Actually, I don't think any one if us has entered that discussion.
Frank
Bencher
So you're not a stalker. I am relieved.
Your feeling that the probability is low is irrelevant to the discussion. Probability is determined by a mathematical equation. The Mathematical equations that are relevant are:
The Drake Equation deals with Intelligent life forms
The Drake equation is:
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and
R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space
The Seager Equation is:
The new equation looks like this:
Where:
- N is the number of planets with detectable biosignature gases
- N* is the number of stars within the sample
- FQ is the fraction of quiet stars
- FHZ is the fraction with rocky planets in the habitable zone
- FO is the fraction of observable systems
- FL is the fraction with life
- FS is the fraction with detectable spectroscopic signatures
If I sound condescending it possibly arises from frustration, I have tried to point out that this is not about opinion, it is about fact.
It is not a fact that alien life exists.
It is a fact that the probability of alien life existing is extremely high.
Technical Coach
Bencher
No not a stalker but a hacker, hope that puts you at ease lol.So you're not a stalker. I am relieved.
Captain Moondog
Absolute Superstar
The evidence is incontrovertible
Top End Eagle
Bencher
I've had a good time here. And like you I have an open mind. But it's time this thread acknowledged our experience with ghosts.
I have personally lived in a haunted house. It was the pits. When my two year old daughter woke up screaming in her room and I tried to comfort her she kept saying 'make that man in the corner go away'. I cracked my ninth super dry and put her in bed with us.
Technical Coach
Bencher
Drake equationYour feeling that the probability is low is irrelevant to the discussion. Probability is determined by a mathematical equation. The Mathematical equations that are relevant are:
The Drake Equation deals with Intelligent life forms
The Drake equation is:
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and
R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space
The Seager Equation is:
The new equation looks like this:
Where:
Rather than prolonging my annoyance, you are advertising your ignorance. Whilst I am not normally in the consensus must be correct camp, in this instance I am. The majority of all scientists, from biologists to astrophysicists all measure the probability of alien life to be extremely high.
- N is the number of planets with detectable biosignature gases
- N* is the number of stars within the sample
- FQ is the fraction of quiet stars
- FHZ is the fraction with rocky planets in the habitable zone
- FO is the fraction of observable systems
- FL is the fraction with life
- FS is the fraction with detectable spectroscopic signatures
If I sound condescending it possibly arises from frustration, I have tried to point out that this is not about opinion, it is about fact.
It is not a fact that alien life exists.
It is a fact that the probability of alien life existing is extremely high.
noun
Astronomy
noun: Drake equation
- a "speculative equation" which gives an estimate of the likelihood of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life in the galaxy, formulated by the US astronomer Frank Drake in 1961.
Top End Eagle
Bencher
I think your auto correct added an 'er' there TC.
Technical Coach
Bencher
From Wiki
Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are well-known, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but the other terms in the equation become very speculative. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful.[54]
One reply to such criticisms[55] is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.
Your struggling again, speculative is a word in mathematics that can be used to describe any mathematics not dealing with a proven law in fact pure mathematics used to be called "speculative mathematics."
Again as I stated the Drake equation deals with the probability of "Alien Civilisations" the criterea for which are far more complex and demanding than "just life". I simply used the Drake and Seager Equations to again unsuccessfully demonstrate to you that probability is based on mathematics not your feelings.
However, if I ever am successful my next challenge will be to teach evolution in Mississippi.
Last edited:
highlandeagle
Where eagles soar
This article just about sums up Rex and this thread perfectly.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...84d6993c90014cd1d91b2bb45#load-story-comments
ONE of the puzzling aspects of political correctness in Australia has been its durability, its capacity to bounce back and repeatedly defy the laws of commonsense in society. Many of us thought this repressive doctrine had been defeated in the late 1990s.
Leaders from both major parties, such as John Howard and Bob Carr, had declared a new era of free speech and it appeared to be working.
Political correctness had come and gone as an aberration, a mutant strain in our national life.
The notion that a bunch of self-appointed inner-city elites could dictate to the rest of the country how we should speak, think and feel had been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Or so it seemed. Now the evidence suggests the PC monster has returned, worse than ever. It has grabbed hold of our university system, where Australian history is being rewritten and the use of sarcasm outlawed.
At Sydney University, the Evangelical Union has been threatened with deregistration because of the so-called “discriminatory practice” of requiring its members to believe in Jesus. In government schools, classes previously devoted to the teaching of maths, science and English are being replaced by “respectful relationship” and “anti-bullying” programs.
The new curriculum is a Trojan horse for attempts at neo-Marxist social engineering.
The Safe Schools program, for instance, is 5 per cent anti-bullying and 95 per cent gender propaganda: encouraging students to believe the genetic reality of male and female has become obsolete; and that swapping genders is as easy as swapping underpants. Even preschool students are not immune from this nonsense.
Early Childhood Australia teaches toddlers about sex and cross-dressing — consistent with its belief that young children are “sexual beings”.
Its Start Early program includes tours of the opposite sex’s toilets as a way of “valuing difference” and “reducing family violence”. This is what Left-feminism has become: a wacko factory arguing that if three-year-old boys inspect the girls’ loo they will grow up to never hit anyone. Elsewhere there are daily reports of a domestic violence “epidemic” and “national emergency”, inferring we’ve become a nation of wife-bashers.
Yet official figures show an annual domestic assault rate against women of 1 per cent. In their critique of men and “patriarchy”, Left-feminists never let the facts get in the way of a good story. In the new PC era, a man only needs to look sideways at an attractive woman to be labelled a “misogynist” — as the West Indian cricketer Chris Gayle found out when he flirted with Mel McLaughlin during last season’s Big Bash. While normal people spend their downtime watching My Kitchen Rules or Married At First Sight, the elites sit around dreaming up negative labels with which to denigrate the everyday fun of suburban life.
Chat up a pretty girl: “Sexist”. Laugh at a joke involving race or gender: “Bigot”. Enjoy a good-natured pun to do with sexuality: “Homophobe”. Barrack against a footy player you don’t like: “Racist”.
Taking offence used to be a choice in life. Now it’s a mandatory source of outrage for every two-bit Leftie living northeast of Marrickville.
Government agencies are adding to the PC plague. In Tasmania, the state Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has found the Catholic Church has a case to answer for speaking out against gay marriage (an institution the church has never supported).
Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, has gone a step further: redefining the meaning of tolerance, such that citizens can now be judged to be racist “even in the absence of racial malice”. That is, one can mean no harm to another person, say with the use of innocuous terms such as Muzzie or Negro — but still be found guilty of what Soutphommasane calls “unlawful racial discrimination”.
What’s behind this resurgence of political correctness in our national life? I can identify two causes: money and ideology. In the digital age, traditional media companies such as Fairfax are under severe financial pressure. Their response has been to chase clickbait — hits on their websites from exaggerated headlines about PC outrage (which then attracts extra advertising revenue).
Ideologically, on foreign and economic policy, Left activists have run out of issues on which to campaign — turning instead to “widespread cultural change” as a way of achieving their goals. Neo-Marxism’s credibility on foreign policy collapsed with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
On economic issues, the triumph of modern capitalism (especially in Australia with its 25 years of unbroken economic growth) has rendered the Left impotent. Twenty years ago it was talking about central planning and protectionism, but now these ideas are laughable. Trying to engineer cultural change is all it has left, a strategy exercised through influence in universities, schools, government nanny-state agencies and media outlets.
This is the new Leftist Cultural Revolution, a political movement no less manipulative than Mao Zedong’s original version 50 years ago. When the elites talk about “the need for widespread cultural change”, what they are actually doing is trying to transform human nature — a dangerously authoritarian process.
They are trying to re-engineer society in their own image, such that:
● People no longer speak the truth about their beliefs or the things they see around them for fear of upsetting the feelings of “minority groups”.
● The natural urge for people to laugh at all forms of satire and absurdity is suppressed, in deference to the (overblown) sensitivities of race, gender and sexuality.
● School students are taught that it’s natural to have no gender differences in society, only gender choices.
● Men no longer flirt with women or even playfully touch another man for fear of being accused of violence and harassment.
● The meaning of intolerance is redefined to exclude malice — thereby sanitising our language and increasing the thought police powers of various “human rights” tribunals.
Resisting cultural re-education of this kind is the greatest, most important fight in modern Australia.
We need to resist the suffocating propaganda of political correctness.
Otherwise we will become a nation of Leftist clones, our lives refashioned to fit the neo-Marxist mould.
1000% correct. If I could give you a hundred trophy icons I would. And now its over to the hand wringers and bed wetters....!
Technical Coach
Bencher
"You're" not "your struggling" but it is fine keep digging a hole for yourself.
If you want to cut and paste a Formula and attach it to yourself to give off an "Intelligent Facade" to your conversation skills make sure you also employ a proofreader and fact checker while you are(you're)at it.
By the way I'm no grammar police as i struggle in this department enough as it is, just a "basic person" lending you a helping hand occasionally.
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
10 | 9 | 1 | 124 | 20 |
|
9 | 7 | 2 | 72 | 16 |
|
9 | 7 | 2 | 49 | 16 |
|
11 | 7 | 4 | 59 | 14 |
|
9 | 6 | 3 | 57 | 14 |
|
10 | 6 | 4 | -10 | 14 |
|
11 | 6 | 5 | 107 | 12 |
|
11 | 6 | 5 | -9 | 12 |
|
10 | 5 | 5 | -56 | 12 |
|
11 | 5 | 5 | 30 | 11 |
|
10 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 10 |
|
11 | 5 | 6 | -12 | 10 |
|
9 | 3 | 6 | -71 | 8 |
|
10 | 3 | 6 | -9 | 7 |
|
9 | 2 | 7 | -69 | 6 |
|
10 | 2 | 8 | -91 | 6 |
|
10 | 1 | 9 | -186 | 4 |
