SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#4837 Apr 11, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a WAP, too. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant:-)
Ah,...well
I guess lie somewhere between that and Wild Azz Pagan...
depending on who you might ask....
another place where individual perception becomes a factor....?

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#4838 Apr 11, 2014
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah,...well
I guess lie somewhere between that and Wild Azz Pagan...
depending on who you might ask....
another place where individual perception becomes a factor....?
WAP or SAP, I am eternally grateful that the Universe is not misanthropic:->

(WMP or SMP)
Who Knows

Chippewa Lake, OH

#4839 Apr 12, 2014
Well, it's time to report on my second double blind homeopathic trial. Last Sunday, 6 days ago, I took the mystery dose. To recap, this whole thing is hinged on waiting to see what will be the response to the known placebo. Namely, that response to the placebo has to be a "no-response" in order that homeopathy is a real phenomenon so that I can rule out that I might be just "programmed to respond" to the remedy; IOW so that I can rule out the possibility that homeopathy is a placebo itself.

Speaking of "programming" and placebo effects, I am so anxious to finally find out the response to the known placebo that one might wonder if I am not programming my subconscious to have a non-reaction. Yet, as the days rolled on since the mystery dose, I was feeling effects and the effects I was feeling were not explainable by anything else but the remedy.

So, my final answer was that I took the remedy......and ....
I was right, again!.

It's too bad that we have to wait another 4 to 6 weeks before I can do this again in hopes of finally taking that darn placebo in order to make this conclusive. But that's the way it is. At least I got it right, again. That's two for two.

By the time Christmas rolls around and I do this like ten times, I'm sure several of those times will consist of me taking the placebo, and I'm aiming for 100% correct answers. If that happens then I don't see who could deny it anymore. At least not before going out and finding chronically ill homeopathic patients that have a very distinct reaction to their remedy and doing their own homeopathic double blind trial like I am doing. It's about time they test this thing the right way.
Who Knows

Chippewa Lake, OH

#4840 Apr 12, 2014
Here's a math question. Let's just say that homeopathy is placebo. IOW let's say that these trials I am doing are nothing different from a coin toss.

When does it get beyond 'statistically impossible' to believe that the coin will land on "tails" every single time. Like, one could imagine that it might be possible to land it ten times in a row. But does it become statistically impossible after ten straight "tails"? Twenty? Is there even a way to approach that? Is it even a fair question?

Of course, I think the trials are different from a coin toss because there is another variable in there, and if I end up having a no-reaction to the placebo, then in my mind I don't even need any more convincing (because I am the subject of the experiment, the one that feels the effects or lack of them).

I'm just wondering how many correct answers it would take for someone else to believe it. I don't think any of you have given me a direct answer as to how many times it would take me to get it right for you to believe it is real. Surely if I get ten in a row it should be a slam dunk?

I realize that one wrong answer would blow the whole thing but still; I'm hoping I won't have any wrong answers. I could see being unsure about whether the remedy is working but if I am wrong even once about the known placebo, then I'm totally out (IOW, if I feel the typical effects of the remedy from taking the placebo). There have been a few times where the effects of the remedy are quite subtle, in the instances I had been able to take it dilute enough under ideal conditions, but for the purposes of this trial I am taking it in a more potent dose so that I don't make that mistake.

But I can't keep doing that; it's not in my best interest. I'm willing to do it at least until I choose the known placebo.

Since: Dec 13

Ludhiana, India

#4841 Apr 12, 2014
Time is actually an interesting topic. I always used to wonder if the concept of time that we feel as human is the same for other animals. They, at least most of them, don't think. So for them, they don't worry about future and probably learn nothing from past. The only thing they may carry forward is adaptations carried over generations, which are probably genetic in nature than "learning". But for human, it is an entirely different story. We remember and plan our lives. So does that mean that notion of time differs among living beings? Is that then a real thing? Or is it just a measure of the period between the natural clock of mfg date and expiry date? Another aspect is the scale of time that we talk about in this small planet. There are creatures that live only a few minutes or even seconds. Some them live for centuries. Compare this with the Universal scale. Time in billions of years... distance in billions of light years...we are nothing, are we?

Since: Dec 13

Ludhiana, India

#4842 Apr 12, 2014
Hi atif - sheep do not get a reputation for intellectual excellence yet as anyone who works with them can testify they seem capable of learning things that will reward them (usually food ) and things to avoid ( things that have hurt ). They also seem capable of distinguishing between familiar humans and strangers, whereas some humans can not tell one sheep from another. Our own temporal experiences are not fully explained as the apparent passage of time is affected , by what we are doing , age, and familiarity, or otherwise, with our surroundings. Because we require to synchronize with clocks and calendars, it is assumed that this is faulty observation on our part, though it could be that we all inhabit our own time frame and, as naturally as breathing, synchronize with our immediate environment, but set the clock rate according to circumstance. Many report time appearing to slow when in extreme circumstances, such as battle or dangerous sport. I would think that birds such as swallows would see us as lethargic when they are flitting about catching insects. If you have ever driven down an unfamiliar road, it almost always seems shorter on the return journey, or if you repeat the journey. What if time is a quantum thing and each bit of mass comes with it's own quanta of space time?. Pure speculation of course,but that's how a lot of theories get started.

Since: Mar 14

Ludhiana, India

#4843 Apr 12, 2014
After reading the article and learning that some physicists think time may not exist, I was confused. How can theoretical physicists ignore local examples of evidence of time? Using biology and what has been demonstrated about the evolution of species on this planet, we can pretty solidly determine that, over time, species have evolved from prior versions. This kind of example seems to remove the concept of our personal "experience of time" from the equation and still points to "rock solid" ;-) evidence of time as a basic component of understanding our world and therefore of the universe. Don't fossils and "evolved" genes require that time exists, whether one dimensional or 3 dimensional?
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#4844 Apr 13, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
Well, it's time to report on my second double blind homeopathic trial. finally taking that darn placebo in order to make this conclusive. But that's the way it is. At least I got it right, again. That's two for two.
What are the variables involved ?....What role does faith play...

It seems the tests you are performing have a strong individual component.....

I've taken enough "pills" to know that what works for one may not for another....
So,....what ever works with the lest side effects works for me....

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#4845 Apr 13, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
Here's a math question. Let's just say that homeopathy is placebo. IOW let's say that these trials I am doing are nothing different from a coin toss.
When does it get beyond 'statistically impossible' to believe that the coin will land on "tails" every single time. Like, one could imagine that it might be possible to land it ten times in a row. But does it become statistically impossible after ten straight "tails"? Twenty? Is there even a way to approach that? Is it even a fair question?
Of course, I think the trials are different from a coin toss because there is another variable in there, and if I end up having a no-reaction to the placebo, then in my mind I don't even need any more convincing (because I am the subject of the experiment, the one that feels the effects or lack of them).
I'm just wondering how many correct answers it would take for someone else to believe it. I don't think any of you have given me a direct answer as to how many times it would take me to get it right for you to believe it is real. Surely if I get ten in a row it should be a slam dunk?
I realize that one wrong answer would blow the whole thing but still; I'm hoping I won't have any wrong answers. I could see being unsure about whether the remedy is working but if I am wrong even once about the known placebo, then I'm totally out (IOW, if I feel the typical effects of the remedy from taking the placebo). There have been a few times where the effects of the remedy are quite subtle, in the instances I had been able to take it dilute enough under ideal conditions, but for the purposes of this trial I am taking it in a more potent dose so that I don't make that mistake.
But I can't keep doing that; it's not in my best interest. I'm willing to do it at least until I choose the known placebo.
This will go on until Christmas? That's a long haul and I wish you luck.

As for the breaking point of the coin toss, I'm not mathematician but if I got three tails in a row, I would begin looking for physical influences on that coin like maybe air drafts, magnetic fields, etc. because variance that far from a 50/50 probability is pretty extreme beyond just 2 Tails.
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#4846 Apr 14, 2014
If a coin (the same one) were flipped in a vacuum using a device that imparted the same energy at the same point on the coin would it come up the same every time ?
As variables are removed the likelihood should favor an identical outcome....
If macerated frog wart cured cancer 100% of the time over a period of ten years in all individuals I would tend to find hat statistically unbelievable....
I think statistics may be more believable if we were all genetically identical....
I believe pharma companies use statistically acceptable ?

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#4847 Apr 15, 2014
SoE wrote:
If a coin (the same one) were flipped in a vacuum using a device that imparted the same energy at the same point on the coin would it come up the same every time ?
As variables are removed the likelihood should favor an identical outcome....
If macerated frog wart cured cancer 100% of the time over a period of ten years in all individuals I would tend to find hat statistically unbelievable....
I think statistics may be more believable if we were all genetically identical....
I believe pharma companies use statistically acceptable ?
You bring up an interesting point of conjecture.

The problem with your mind experiment comes down to the "ifs".

* There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

* Any device cannot impart "exactly" the same energy each time.

*...and do it on "exactly" the same spot on the coin each time

* As variables are removed, we don't really remove them so much as lessen their influence.

To put it succinctly, "pure", "exact", "precise", etc. are hard to find inside of the cosmos.

Pure crystals can't be found but much better ones can be grown in weaker gravitational environments in low Earth orbits.

No absolutely precise Electronic Power Supply will ever exist but much more accurate ones can be designed and using better materials.

The perfect coin will never be stamped

Perfect vacuums don't exist even in distant voids of space.

Perfection can always exist inside of our mental experiments and this allows us to pursue the old adage that "perfection is a goal but never a destination".

Which leads to this: considering all of the "imperfect" variables inside this universe, what were the probabilities that Life would/could begin? This question goes much deeper than one might expect at first glance. If perfection was an absolute necessity in the cosmos than why does the Periodic Table consist of so many Isotopes....Isotopes that still comprise living cells and tissues and crystals and minerals whose chemical reactions are unaffected by those Isotopes?

It can be said fairly that Imperfection is a critical part of the cosmos because it allows for variability which leads to higher complexity in all scenarios. If Perfection were to be an absolute necessity in Nature then all trees would be of only one kind, all Cardinals would be absolutely the exact same bird and all humans would be cookie cutter versions of the same animals(aside from environmental effects). As it is, though, we are all different and unique which allows for ever increasing complexities.

I think it is a brilliant insight to possess this knowledge. Did you know that transistors and all versions of Solid State electronics use crystal "impurities" to create the functions of each unique device?

So your mind experiment using a coin inside of a vacuum flipping it perfectly is just that - a mind experiment - but never one to be built inside of the "imperfect" cosmos.

What is the last digit of Pi?

The square root of 2?

How many numbers are there?

How many Infinities exist?

What is perfection?
Who Knows

Lodi, OH

#4848 Apr 15, 2014
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the variables involved ?....What role does faith play...
It seems the tests you are performing have a strong individual component.....
I've taken enough "pills" to know that what works for one may not for another....
So,....what ever works with the lest side effects works for me....
Well, I mentioned the word 'variable' only to suggest that homeopathy, whether real or placebo, is not just a coin toss. If homeopathy is real, then the effect of the remedy is real but can be affected by physiological and environmental variables at the time. If it is placebo then the same applies, only the source of 'effect' is different.

In order to prove the nature of homeopathy (real vs placebo), I feel I kinda have to compare it to a coin toss as a worst case scenario. Patients as sensitive as I am can feel effects every time they take their remedy. In my case, I have taken the remedy over 30 times during the last several years and it has had the same basic effect on me (to varying degrees of course). Problem is that I cannot be sure that what I am feeling is actually due to the remedy or due to my believing it is the remedy (placebo).

Since I have reacted to the remedy every time (30 times over) then at this point we can conclude the following.
Either
1) It is placebo and I am programmed to respond because I believe it is real
or,
2) it is real, and that will be confirmed when I finally choose the known placebo and show a 'no-reaction' to it (in order to rule out subconscious programming)

To answer your question, faith is only required in the case this is a placebo effect. I aim to figure out whether it is or not, very soon here, by doing these double blind trials.

"It seems the tests you are performing have a strong individual component....."
Homeopathy has a "strong individual component", that's why two people with outwardly like symptoms will likely be prescribed a different remedy. But, the trials I am doing would be the same for anyone; it's comparing 'a person's reaction to their known remedy' to 'their reaction to a known placebo'. Just that, at the time of administering, no one knows what is taken until the patient decides for themselves and puts in their "bid".
Who Knows

Lodi, OH

#4849 Apr 15, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
This will go on until Christmas? That's a long haul and I wish you luck.
Well, thanks, but it's not as bad as you think. I mean I would be taking the remedy anyway, just that for the purposes of this trial, I am trying to take a more concentrated potency of the remedy so that I don't make any mistakes. That makes my "aggravation phase" harder to handle but if it gets too much I can always take the edge off by "antidoting" with camphor.

The fact that there is an "antidote" kinda makes it seem like the whole thing has to be a placebo, but the results are not in yet. I'm betting that it is real, no matter. And once I choose the placebo, I will pretty much be convinced of the nature of homeopathy and so after that I may resort back to taking a more appropriate dose concentration. If it turns out to be placebo then I don't know what I am going to do to carry my placebo effect forward. But I'll worry about that later.
As for the breaking point of the coin toss, I'm not mathematician but if I got three tails in a row, I would begin looking for physical influences on that coin like maybe air drafts, magnetic fields, etc. because variance that far from a 50/50 probability is pretty extreme beyond just 2 Tails.
Thank you, that's what I was looking for. Still it's possible to throw a bunch of tails in a row. Just like it's possible for my administrator to reach into a box and blindly choose the same bottle (out of two) a bunch of times in a row. I've been considering purchasing a few more bottles of my remedy and starting out with maybe four bottles of each (remedy and placebo) rather than one of each. But either way, I'll eventually get the known placebo and settle this thing once and for all.

What I'd like to do in the case I prove to myself that it is real, is, well, I don't expect that I can just march into the halls of science and convince everyone that there is a physical component that is beyond our detection that has a real effect on the detectable realm. But I'd like to think that they would be interested enough to perform their own trials according to my design idea.

I mean, we absolutely have to choose people with a track record of obvious reactions to their *particular* remedy in order to prove either possibility. If enough of them react to placebo, then that is ample evidence that homeopathy is entirely placebo. But if an overwhelming majority of average people with a headache react to placebo then we can't be as confident in our conclusion. Same with the opposite effect. If average people improve with homeopathy, does that really tell us much?

We need people like me that have reacted 50 times over, to a particular remedy. They are either programmed, or they are being affected.
Who Knows

Lodi, OH

#4850 Apr 15, 2014
If a controlled study was performed, then it would not take long to conclude. It would only take one trial. Maybe a couple more, just for confirmation?

If '500 chronically ill people with a known record of reacting to their particular remedy' were chosen from volunteers to take part, then the test could be performed differently then what I am doing. In that case, there would be no need to blindly choose from two bottles in a box. There would be 250 placebo and 250 remedy bottles and there could be a panel of people that decide how to identify which half of the bottles are remedy and which are placebo, and then there would be a panel of people that dole out the bottles so that neither the dole-ers or the patients know what they are working with. Of course, the 250 bottles of remedy will correspond to different individuals, so they will have to get that right, but it's not rocket science.

If 400 out of 500 of them were able to identify the correct answer, then I would say that homeopathy is real. 4 out of 5 is enough to get into grad school. 3 out of 5 maybe not so convincing but 4 or more is a big deal. What if it did turn out to be like 450 out of 500? Or even 499? If no one does such a test then I will go out there and fund it myself before long; all because I feel this is something science should not ignore in the case it is real. Science cannot afford to ignore it.
Who Knows

Lodi, OH

#4851 Apr 15, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
You bring up an interesting point of conjecture.
The problem with your mind experiment comes down to the "ifs".
* There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
* Any device cannot impart "exactly" the same energy each time.
*...and do it on "exactly" the same spot on the coin each time
* As variables are removed, we don't really remove them so much as lessen their influence.
To put it succinctly, "pure", "exact", "precise", etc. are hard to find inside of the cosmos.
Pure crystals can't be found but much better ones can be grown in weaker gravitational environments in low Earth orbits.
No absolutely precise Electronic Power Supply will ever exist but much more accurate ones can be designed and using better materials.
The perfect coin will never be stamped
Perfect vacuums don't exist even in distant voids of space.
Perfection can always exist inside of our mental experiments and this allows us to pursue the old adage that "perfection is a goal but never a destination".
Which leads to this: considering all of the "imperfect" variables inside this universe, what were the probabilities that Life would/could begin? This question goes much deeper than one might expect at first glance. If perfection was an absolute necessity in the cosmos than why does the Periodic Table consist of so many Isotopes....Isotopes that still comprise living cells and tissues and crystals and minerals whose chemical reactions are unaffected by those Isotopes?
It can be said fairly that Imperfection is a critical part of the cosmos because it allows for variability which leads to higher complexity in all scenarios. If Perfection were to be an absolute necessity in Nature then all trees would be of only one kind, all Cardinals would be absolutely the exact same bird and all humans would be cookie cutter versions of the same animals(aside from environmental effects). As it is, though, we are all different and unique which allows for ever increasing complexities.
I think it is a brilliant insight to possess this knowledge. Did you know that transistors and all versions of Solid State electronics use crystal "impurities" to create the functions of each unique device?
So your mind experiment using a coin inside of a vacuum flipping it perfectly is just that - a mind experiment - but never one to be built inside of the "imperfect" cosmos.
What is the last digit of Pi?
The square root of 2?
How many numbers are there?
How many Infinities exist?
What is perfection?
Everything will be alright, providing you didn't carry on where you left off, in front of the mirror, for the next two hours :)
Even if you did, everything will be alright, providing you didn't toss your tv through your window and your toaster through the wall.
And even then, everything will be alright, providing you didn't, well, everything will be alright, "you'll feel just a slight pinch here" ....:)

Yet, I can't help having the thought that there is a most fundamental level of existence that *is* perfect, from which springs this imperfection, from which, in turn, springs our diverse apparent reality.

Without being able to probe deeper to confirm, we currently assume that every electron is identical to another. That sounds like perfection on a fundamental level to me.
Who Knows

Lodi, OH

#4852 Apr 15, 2014
teginder81 wrote:
After reading the article and learning that some physicists think time may not exist, I was confused. How can theoretical physicists ignore local examples of evidence of time? Using biology and what has been demonstrated about the evolution of species on this planet, we can pretty solidly determine that, over time, species have evolved from prior versions. This kind of example seems to remove the concept of our personal "experience of time" from the equation and still points to "rock solid" ;-) evidence of time as a basic component of understanding our world and therefore of the universe. Don't fossils and "evolved" genes require that time exists, whether one dimensional or 3 dimensional?
You cpoy/pasted comments from a different forum using two different registered topix screen names. That's a little strange.

Anyway, it throws me when I hear the statement that time does not exist. As an entity in and of itself I don't see how it can exist, but as an emergent property, sure it seems it does. The full version of that statement is that the past, present and future are all already in existence on a fundamental level, as per Einstein, I believe. I'm guessing that, by that, they're guessing that, over the entirety of existence, the emergent properties of time cancel out kinda like the sum of energy in existence remains the same.

Question is, what is time an emergent property of? Of motion? Or of existence itself, and only measurable when motion is detectable? Does there have to a be a beginning in order for their to be a timeline?

I like to think that existence itself requires that time also exist, whether there is any local and/or overall motion.

Where's my toaster? I need a toaster. How about a tv? Anything? Darn these padded rooms. Theyr'e good for playing "molecule", but that's about it.
Who Knows

Lodi, OH

#4853 Apr 15, 2014
You know, "molecule". Like, you pretend to be a molecule and bounce off the walls, and it's best when other people (molecules) are present to bounce off of, in addition to just the walls. Of course I can't play molecule anymore, like I did in college (when I was "mature" :)), can't handle the high impact sports anymore. That was a cool game; there are no winners or losers, just players. Don't know how the elevators and the rest of the campus survived us.

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#4854 Apr 15, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text> Well, thanks, but it's not as bad as you think. I mean I would be taking the remedy anyway, just that for the purposes of this trial, I am trying to take a more concentrated potency of the remedy so that I don't make any mistakes. That makes my "aggravation phase" harder to handle but if it gets too much I can always take the edge off by "antidoting" with camphor.
The fact that there is an "antidote" kinda makes it seem like the whole thing has to be a placebo, but the results are not in yet. I'm betting that it is real, no matter. And once I choose the placebo, I will pretty much be convinced of the nature of homeopathy and so after that I may resort back to taking a more appropriate dose concentration. If it turns out to be placebo then I don't know what I am going to do to carry my placebo effect forward. But I'll worry about that later.
<quoted text>Thank you, that's what I was looking for. Still it's possible to throw a bunch of tails in a row. Just like it's possible for my administrator to reach into a box and blindly choose the same bottle (out of two) a bunch of times in a row. I've been considering purchasing a few more bottles of my remedy and starting out with maybe four bottles of each (remedy and placebo) rather than one of each. But either way, I'll eventually get the known placebo and settle this thing once and for all.
What I'd like to do in the case I prove to myself that it is real, is, well, I don't expect that I can just march into the halls of science and convince everyone that there is a physical component that is beyond our detection that has a real effect on the detectable realm. But I'd like to think that they would be interested enough to perform their own trials according to my design idea.
I mean, we absolutely have to choose people with a track record of obvious reactions to their *particular* remedy in order to prove either possibility. If enough of them react to placebo, then that is ample evidence that homeopathy is entirely placebo. But if an overwhelming majority of average people with a headache react to placebo then we can't be as confident in our conclusion. Same with the opposite effect. If average people improve with homeopathy, does that really tell us much?
We need people like me that have reacted 50 times over, to a particular remedy. They are either programmed, or they are being affected.
Note:*ANYTHING* is possible. That's a fact.

But not all things are *PROBABLE*. That's also a fact.

It is possible that I could die from a meteor impact to my forehead tonight but it is not probable.

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#4855 Apr 15, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
If a controlled study was performed, then it would not take long to conclude. It would only take one trial. Maybe a couple more, just for confirmation?
If '500 chronically ill people with a known record of reacting to their particular remedy' were chosen from volunteers to take part, then the test could be performed differently then what I am doing. In that case, there would be no need to blindly choose from two bottles in a box. There would be 250 placebo and 250 remedy bottles and there could be a panel of people that decide how to identify which half of the bottles are remedy and which are placebo, and then there would be a panel of people that dole out the bottles so that neither the dole-ers or the patients know what they are working with. Of course, the 250 bottles of remedy will correspond to different individuals, so they will have to get that right, but it's not rocket science.
If 400 out of 500 of them were able to identify the correct answer, then I would say that homeopathy is real. 4 out of 5 is enough to get into grad school. 3 out of 5 maybe not so convincing but 4 or more is a big deal. What if it did turn out to be like 450 out of 500? Or even 499? If no one does such a test then I will go out there and fund it myself before long; all because I feel this is something science should not ignore in the case it is real. Science cannot afford to ignore it.
Every body is different. I think SoE alluded to this in an earlier post. Taking Penicillin will kill some folks but not others. I love a Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwich while my next door neighbor would get violently ill consuming one.

I have cat allergies. I started taking some OTC remedies a few years back and one worked - for only about 5 months. After that, it's remedial effect completely disappeared. I tried other brands and remedies and, to date, nothing but Nightime NyQuil works. Daytime NyQuil is useless. I get drowsy as hell at times but that is all that is available to me.

I spoke to a pharmacist about it and she told me that it is common that many people become immune to remedies, unfortunately. Sometimes, she said, stopping a remedy for a year can eliminate the immunity to that remedy but then the immunity will again return with continued use.

This could throw your placebo vs remedy trials into limbo. If any remedy's effect is time-variable as I mentioned above, along with each individual body being more or less sensitive to a remedy or even to a placebo, your trials could become so muddled as to become useless.

IMHO.

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#4856 Apr 15, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
You know, "molecule". Like, you pretend to be a molecule and bounce off the walls, and it's best when other people (molecules) are present to bounce off of, in addition to just the walls. Of course I can't play molecule anymore, like I did in college (when I was "mature" :)), can't handle the high impact sports anymore. That was a cool game; there are no winners or losers, just players. Don't know how the elevators and the rest of the campus survived us.
I like playing Sperm & Egg but it takes two to play.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 2 hr Bored n Broke n 186
Sam's Club Launches Electronic Medical Record (... (Apr '09) 3 hr Calvin James 2
Wi-Power high-speed Internet, Digital phone ser... (Jun '10) 4 hr Tell Me AnotherOne 58
China posts fake rocket launch story (Sep '08) 4 hr McQuan 691
Government schools brainwash, children the mock... 5 hr Jaimie 7
Real Estate Agents: Single-Family Homes a Hot R... (Jun '12) 6 hr erkn 132
Stem Cell Transplants for Parkinson's Edging Cl... 6 hr Alice Lazzarini 2
More from around the web