"The pattern is very interesting though. RRP call Mikebell stupid numerously, goes talks on two board what a cretin he is with his idiotic bet and how he will rip him, etc. Then he doesn't take a bet."Zerdna, I think you pointed out how Bell's bet structure could have left him open to being strung along and ripped off, so I don't think it would be worthwhile to try it....drat you've foiled me. As for not taking Mike's bet, there was not a concrete bet on the table...seriously, follow the thread. Anyway, good luck on your investigation of Radium Gate. "The use of uranium, in its natural oxide form, dates back to at least 79 AD, when it was used to add a yellow color to ceramic glazes (yellow glass with 1% uranium oxide was found near Naples, Italy). The discovery of the element is credited to the German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth who in 1789 found uranium as part of the mineral called pitchblende. It was named after the planet Uranus, which had been discovered eight years earlier. It was first isolated as a metal in 1841 by Eugene-Melchior Peligot. Uranium was found to be radioactive by French physicist Henri Becquerel in 1896, who first discovered the process of radioactivity with uranium minerals."I'm not supposing the Romans were interested in glowing ceramic ware but they did use it according to this blurb.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenHA HA!Next someone's going to say that you can use an extract of willow bark to ease pain!Crazy!Next, someone is going to recommend we use mercury for syphilis. So, what's your point?!Marsden, you're WAY too dogmatic to be a scientist. Also, where the heck did you learn to argue?! You've been constantly using logical fallacies in this thread in your "arguments". I'm not sure if you're doing that on purpose or you just don't know any better. For instance, this latest "argument" of yours is a poorly constructed red herring. Seriously, do you honestly think you can argue with educated people by calling them names and by using overly obvious logical fallacies?!So, please SHOW us some proof that this "alternative arthritis treatment" that, I presume, is the cornerstone of Kerry's health plan, actually does something. Can you quote some studies (evidence based medicine), for example, which prove the efficacy of "gin and raisins (excuse me... WHITE raisins)?" Why isn't The Arthritis Foundation recommending this AMAZING cure?! What happens if I soak them for 3 weeks? Also, why only 9 raisins? What happens if people take 10 (or god forbid... 11 raisins!)? What's the average size of the raisin that Dems are recommending? Can I use california raisins (which are slightly larger than European ones)? Also, what about gin... is Beefeater OK or do I have to shell out big bucks for Bombay Sapphire or do I need to buy gin from Democratic party? Please, tell us more... I'll package this and make millions (maybe even billions like Newton). If Dems get elected, can you put in a good word for me so I don't get sued by FDA/FTC for selling this amazing concoction? It's amazing what Dems will stoop to... they're promising that cripples will walk and that they'll cure your arthritis... but only if you vote for them. Absolutely crazy!

QuoteOriginally posted by: RowdyRoddyPiper"The pattern is very interesting though. RRP call Mikebell stupid numerously, goes talks on two board what a cretin he is with his idiotic bet and how he will rip him, etc. Then he doesn't take a bet."Zerdna, I think you pointed out how Bell's bet structure could have left him open to being strung along and ripped off, so I don't think it would be worthwhile to try it....drat you've foiled me. As for not taking Mike's bet, there was not a concrete bet on the table...seriously, follow the thread. Anyway, good luck on your investigation of Radium Gate. You're just looking for a way out. I've read your comments about this on that other site and they were very telling. There's no concrete bet?! LOL... I've placed over $150K (heck, we can round it up to 200K if you want) on the line and asked of you to place 50% of that amount and suggested a term of 5 years. What's so hard to understand?! As for the lawyer... I will give you his name in private exchange only. Yes, gambling is not 100% kosher but there are ways around that (i.e. setting it up in a different jurisdiction). But from your posts I can see that you're just looking for a way out and that you'll find any reason not to enter in an agreement with me. In any case, I want everyone to see that here on the board. I'll do pretty much anything to make this bet happen... I'm just extremely confident about my odds. We can wait until Ken loses but MANY sources (people who were in the audience that day) have said that he will win 74 games and lose in 75th so I don't see we have to wait until that happens. Either put up or shut up.

"You're just looking for a way out. I've read your comments about this on that other site and they were very telling. There's no concrete bet?! LOL... I've placed over $150K (heck, we can round it up to 200K if you want) on the line and asked of you to place 50% of that amount and suggested a term of 5 years. "Mike, there is a world of difference between saying that you have 165k+ to kick around on this vs. putting 150k on the line. Shoot me your info, we'll call the lawyers and see if we can't hammer this out. Also see your previous posts as for not having a bet. I think that you've said let's wait to see when the run stops to hammer this all out. Now you've decided that we shouldn't wait. I don't think that having these terms change is indicative of a concrete bet. Also you've added in a provision to wire 1/5th of this amount up front. Not in the original terms, not concrete. So shoot me the info, let's get legal on board, you can pick your law firm and we'll use them subject to my approval.

QuoteOriginally posted by: RowdyRoddyPiper"You're just looking for a way out. I've read your comments about this on that other site and they were very telling. There's no concrete bet?! LOL... I've placed over $150K (heck, we can round it up to 200K if you want) on the line and asked of you to place 50% of that amount and suggested a term of 5 years. "Mike, there is a world of difference between saying that you have 165k+ to kick around on this vs. putting 150k on the line. Shoot me your info, we'll call the lawyers and see if we can't hammer this out. Also see your previous posts as for not having a bet. I think that you've said let's wait to see when the run stops to hammer this all out. Now you've decided that we shouldn't wait. I don't think that having these terms change is indicative of a concrete bet. Also you've added in a provision to wire 1/5th of this amount up front. Not in the original terms, not concrete. So shoot me the info, let's get legal on board, you can pick your law firm and we'll use them subject to my approval.I said over $150K. AFAIK, 165 is over 150. We can wait, no problem.... I think we can hammer out an agreement ahead of time, get everything ironed out and then pencil in the final number of games when his run officially ends.

I said over $150K. AFAIK, 165 is over 150. We can wait, no problem.... I think we can hammer out an agreement ahead of time, get everything ironed out and then pencil in the final number of games when his run officially ends. Mike you really are a forest for the trees kind of guy. The point was not that 150K and 165K are different numbers, you've managed to figure that out yourself, congrats. The point is that there is a difference between saying you have 165K to kick around on this bet vs. placing over 150K on the line. You've placed nothing...go to your local OTB and ask them when a bet is placed. It isn't when the guy walks in and says, I've got 50 bucks in my pocket that I'd like to bet on a horse. Shoot me your info and we'll get this party started.

RRP, enough of this online bickering. PM sent. We'll get this thing started.Now back to the original topic.. Here's a piece on Edwards from Jewish World Review.QuoteEdwards' loathsome display of demagoguery: I never expected a candidate for vice president to give paralysis sufferers false hopeBy Charles Krauthammer Editor's note: The author is confined to a wheel chairhttp://www.jewishworldreview.com | After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word "plan" 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry's pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan — nay, a promise — to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.As a doctor by training, I've known better than to believe the hype — and have tried in my own counseling of people with new spinal cord injuries to place the possibility of cure in abeyance. I advise instead to concentrate on making a life (and a very good life it can be) with the hand one is dealt. The greatest enemies of this advice have been the snake-oil salesmen promising a miracle around the corner. I never expected a candidate for vice president to be one of them.Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.George Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush "ban" on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding.In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, Kerry referred not once but four times to the "ban" on stem cell research instituted by Bush. At the time, Reeve was alive, so not available for posthumous exploitation. But Ronald Reagan was available, having recently died of Alzheimer's.So what does Kerry do? He begins his radio address with the disgraceful claim that the stem cell "ban" is standing in the way of an Alzheimer's cure.This is an outright lie. The President's Council on Bioethics, on which I sit, had one of the world's foremost experts on Alzheimer's, Dennis Selkoe from Harvard, give us a lecture on the newest and most promising approaches to solving the Alzheimer's mystery. Selkoe reported remarkable progress in using biochemicals to clear the "plaque" deposits in the brain that lead to Alzheimer's. He ended his presentation without the phrase "stem cells" having passed his lips.So much for the miracle cure. Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at NIH, has admitted publicly that stem cells as an Alzheimer's cure are a fiction, but that "people need a fairy tale." Kerry and Edwards certainly do. They are shamelessly exploiting this fairy tale, having no doubt been told by their pollsters that stem cells play well politically for them.Politicians have long promised a chicken in every pot. It is part of the game. It is one thing to promise ethanol subsidies here, dairy price controls there. But to exploit the desperate hopes of desperate people with the promise of Christ-like cures is beyond the pale.There is no apologizing for Edwards's remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.I love the cartoon they included with this piece:

Quote"The use of uranium, in its natural oxide form, dates back to at least 79 AD, when it was used to add a yellow color to ceramic glazes (yellow glass with 1% uranium oxide was found near Naples, Italy). The discovery of the element is credited to the German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth who in 1789 found uranium as part of the mineral called pitchblende. It was named after the planet Uranus, which had been discovered eight years earlier. It was first isolated as a metal in 1841 by Eugene-Melchior Peligot. Uranium was found to be radioactive by French physicist Henri Becquerel in 1896, who first discovered the process of radioactivity with uranium minerals."RRP, thanks for that historical excursion on uranium, was it related to anything i or someone else said or is it an unrelated proof of your general knowledge in geology, metallurgy, etc? I am guessing here, but maybe it relates to my reply to Dominic. I spoke to Dominic about radium, he said it was in standard commercial use in the time of Lincoln. My reply to this was that Marie Curie must have gotten two nobels for nothing. Please don't post the history of copper or iron in reply to this.

QuoteOriginally posted by: mikebellSo, please SHOW us some proof that this "alternative arthritis treatment" that, I presume, is the cornerstone of Kerry's health plan, actually does something.Are you related to the mikebell who posted the following?QuoteOriginally posted by: mikebellDespite the laughter, Dr. Steven Phillips, director of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Nevada quickly supported the prescription.Phillips, on stage with Heinz Kerry as part of the panel, said sulfur and sulfides found in grapes are increased by the alcohol and could perhaps alleviate joint pain.Dr. Michael Gerber, a noted homeopathic doctor in Reno, also said the formula has merit.“It makes sense,” said Gerber from his office. “People go to hot springs to soak in the water and that water is very high in sulfur. So Mrs. Kerry’s remedy is pretty plausible.”Now I guess you'll tell me, following Zerdna's cue, that we can't trust these crafty doctors, certainly not with anything as important as our health.

I think Kerry's probably going to win the election. I think this, because prominent conservatives like Lynne and Dick "Potty-Mouth" Cheney and Charles Krauthammer are claiming to be "outraged" over trivialities of Kerry and Edwards' statements, and are pretending to protect the sensitivities of people who probably would never had noticed whatever injury they were supposed to have suffered but for the beign told again and again how painfully fragile and in need of protection they are. Poor Mary Cheney probably never knew how ashamed she was of being a lesbian until her dear, dear parents went so far out of their way to condemn John Kerry for refering to the fact that indeed that is what she is; and all the poor paralyzed people around the world who might not have realized how unrealistically high their expectations of being able to walk again were until good Dr. Krauthammer damned -- damned! -- John Edwards for suggesting that expanding stem cell research in the way scientists had suggested might lead to a cure for paralysis.What a bunch of phonies! I'm f***ing drowning in crocodile tears!

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenQuoteOriginally posted by: mikebellSo, please SHOW us some proof that this "alternative arthritis treatment" that, I presume, is the cornerstone of Kerry's health plan, actually does something.Are you related to the mikebell who posted the following?QuoteOriginally posted by: mikebellDespite the laughter, Dr. Steven Phillips, director of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Nevada quickly supported the prescription.Phillips, on stage with Heinz Kerry as part of the panel, said sulfur and sulfides found in grapes are increased by the alcohol and could perhaps alleviate joint pain.Dr. Michael Gerber, a noted homeopathic doctor in Reno, also said the formula has merit.“It makes sense,” said Gerber from his office. “People go to hot springs to soak in the water and that water is very high in sulfur. So Mrs. Kerry’s remedy is pretty plausible.”Now I guess you'll tell me, following Zerdna's cue, that we can't trust these crafty doctors, certainly not with anything as important as our health. perhaps Dr. Phillips should have his license revoked. You still have not explained to us why 9 raisins and why 2 weeks. Also, you have not shown to us ANY studies that have studied this quackery. Come on Marsden, SHOW US the study! Go ahead, go on PubMed and JAMA and FIND us the studies these quacks are prescribing.

Dr. Michael Gerber, a noted homeopathic doctor in Reno, also said the formula has merit.“It makes sense,” said Gerber from his office. “People go to hot springs to soak in the water and that water is very high in sulfur. So Mrs. Kerry’s remedy is pretty plausible.”Now I guess you'll tell me, following Zerdna's cue, that we can't trust these crafty doctors, certainly not with anything as important as our health. perhaps Dr. Phillips should have his license revoked. You still have not explained to us why 9 raisins and why 2 weeks. Also, you have not shown to us ANY studies that have studied this quackery. Come on Marsden, SHOW US the study! Go ahead, go on PubMed and JAMA and FIND us the studies these quacks are prescribing.You won't find many homeopathic doctors able to get anything published in Lancet, the British Medical Journal, JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine or any other medical publication worth a hill of beans.Homeopathic medicine is a contradiction in terms. I put more stock in shamanism, which isn't much.Matthew

QuoteOriginally posted by: mdubuqueHomeopathic medicine is a contradiction in terms. I put more stock in shamanism, which isn't much.OK, that made me laugh. Hehe

QuoteCharles Krauthammer, winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post in January 1985. Krauthammer also won the 1984 National Magazine Award for essays Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor of The Washington Post, calls Krauthammer's column "independent and hard to peg politically. It's a very tough column. There's no 'trendy' in it. You never know what is going to happen next." A column, notes Krauthammer, is not just political philosophy. "Much of it has to do with common sense. One of my many missions is putting up a first-line defense against the various enthusiasms of the age – everything from the nuclear freeze to identity politics to the 'recovered memory' movement – which tend to roll over the culture at regular intervals." Krauthammer was born in New York City and raised in Montreal. He was educated at McGill University, majoring in political science and economics, Oxford University (Commonwealth Scholar in Politics) and Harvard (M.D. in 1975). He practiced medicine for three years as a resident and then chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. In 1978, he quit medical practice, came to Washington to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration, and began contributing articles to the New Republic. During the presidential campaign of 1980, he served as a speech writer to Vice President Walter Mondale. He joined the New Republic as a writer and editor in 1980. He also writes essays for Time and the Weekly Standard. In 1997, the Washingtonian magazine named him among the top 50 most influential journalists in the national press corps. Krauthammer lives in suburban Washington with his wife Robyn, an artist, and their son.

Mars, what i said was that you don't let scientists judge importance of their own research. You could let them judge importance of the research of others, but that's not what you proposed. This is not a revelation, it is commonly understood. A while back you said, being serious, that you re-read only your own posts in some thread, because they are so much smarter than posts of the others. Guys like you would get all the money for their research, Niels Bohr would have gotten zilch in this competition. Do you think yoursef it is such a great allocation mecahnism?