Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

[RealityStrikes]

Mr Pseudo (A.k.A SmaterThanHick) said............

"So let's review the dumb things you've tried to say in this thread so far, leaving the semantic games aside:

1. Homosexuality is a choice because no gene has been found
2. Homosexuality only counts if acted upon, regardless of attraction to a member of the same sex
3. Homosexuality is the same as gender identity
4. Gender roles are defined by what you think they ought to be, without any reason or supporting evidence
5. A secret homosexual agenda hurts public policy in what we say to Uganda
6. Homosexuals should not be afforded the same civil liberties and equal rights as heterosexuals
7. Equality and human civil rights in regards to sexuality should not be taught in schools for any reason
8. California requires parent signatures for students to take sex ed
9. Electromagnetic forces govern attraction between two individuals
10. Physics is not a part of medicine


All of those points are incorrect."

Wrong again Pseudo.
1. this can't be proven either way officially, so #1 cancels out.
2. according to God's Laws it's true. So I stick by that.
3. I never equated homosexuality to self identity in general. So don't put words in my mouth.
4. No, gender roles are created by society. You NEVER see panties and bras being sold in the Men's section of a clothing store in any mall, do you? I wonder why? Every mall in the USA and around the world are bigots too?
5.Gays interfering in poor 3rd world countries business's (Africa in particular)is definitely signs of an agenda.
6. Putting stupid words in my mouth again
7.no, Homosexuality or ANY sexuality PERIOD should not be FORCED on kindergartners.
8. Dummy, each district creates their own policies on how to implement sex ed classes. Many districts require signatures of parents' approval. But they must do this WITHIN CALIFORNIA LAW. And in the Vallejo case, it's not being done, under the law. A judge made their own ruling and turned from what the law states. That's why there is an appeal going on as we speak. You aren't even from here so you wouldn't even know.
9. you were proven wrong again
10. Physics isn't part of MY profession, I NEVER said it isn't part of medicine in general. Stop putting words in my mouth Pseudo.

Everyone of them are incorrect....but you will never see that.....unless some day, someone close to you comes out at gay and you finally realize that we are people too, due the same legal considerations as any other American and that we are not "out to get you."

You seem like a really cool guy. To be honest with you, I'm a little upset at myself for having a negative tone towards gays on this thread. But what happened was, I was taken the wrong way early on and got ganged upon without having anything bad to say except that I believed it to be a choice, based on what my gay family had explained to us. I didn't think that would make some gays on here go absolutely ballistic on me. I figured as long as I was respectful to all, I was free to express my opinion without hostility. I guessed wrong and got ganged upon by some valiant individuals I must say. I do admire people who fight for what they believe to be right no matter what the cause. It may be hard for many of you gays to believe that based on my previous posts, but it's indeed the truth.

So I got a little offended, and decided to fight fire with fire. My purpose on here was to gain a better understanding of gays because I have only gotten opinions from my gay family members and friends. But I want to know how other gays think as well, so I can learn to get along.

I was disrespectful to SmarterThanHick, only because they declared that they would be my "downfall" without even wanting to fully hear me out. That was a threat that I really dared to see happen, because I'm a very strong willed and highly competitive person. I even tried to tell them that gays have a right to be with whomever they chose and that it's their prerogative. But SmarterThanHick wasn't trying to hear anything. All they saw was blood at that point, and I was labeled a closet bigot at minimum.

To any gays out there, I apologize for offending you. But I would however like to express the fact that having an opinion that doesn't spell hatred, shouldn't be put into the hatred category until total understanding is established. This way, we can all agree to disagree in a positive way and get along without animosity and hostility. I'm still learning, so give me a chance.

Thank you.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Why debate the fine points with him Moe?
It all boils down to:
Choice is defined as many options.
Sexuality DOES NOT work that way.
You know it, I know it so why debate someone that WILL NEVER know it?

You are quite correct, but to answer your question: because it's incredibly amusing to me, and sends a message to bigots like him and others like him who are reading this thread that such prejudices are not being tacitly agreed upon.

First off, I won't even bother to go any further with you regarding my education. That whole conversation is trashed. Let's cut the B.S. And get to the bottom line. you are now entering into my field of play. this right here is my forte. The human body not electromagnetic?......

Oh I see. Now that I called you out on your false claims regarding the background you so willingly put forth previously, you don't want to go into it. Here's the psych interpretation: Two kinds of people readily jump to stating their credentials: really insecure people, and liars. The former category would immediately jump to their highest credential, such as having an MD, whereas the latter category would continue to make things up as they went to "raise the stakes" and sound as if they were more important. When confronted to prove their claims, the insecure person would do so, whereas the liar would be averse to getting caught by supplying simple details. It should be no surprise you did the latter.

not only do I believe our entire bodies may act as electromagnetic fields, (wwwwaaaallllaaaaa!!!!) our brains do too!!!!. The human body, let alone the brain acting as an electromagnetic field is considered preposterous to you? Pseudo is what Pseudo does.

I don't doubt that is your belief, but it is not supported by scientific knowledge. As I mentioned before, the heart and brain have measurable electrical impulses. So you claim they can act as electromagnetic fields outside the body? It's interesting that every medical technology that needs to read those electrical impulses, such as EKG and EEG, require direct contact with the body, and large amounts of amplification just so we can get a basic idea of those electrical impulses. Even our most expensive magnetic resonance imaging scanners need to APPLY a magnetic field to the body just to image it, because no such field is emitted from the body to produce any information.

Of course you'd know all of that if you were actually an MD, which you're still not, and thus conclude that electromagnetic forces that are too small to detect without amplification on the body surface in fact do not project outside of the body, let alone interact with other people's electromagnetic fields.

Mr Pseudo said...........

"the entire human body does not put out an electromagnetic field that interacts with other people to create attraction. That idea is preposterous. The fact that people can find attraction to others over the internet, half a world away from one another, should support that point."


You need to stop relying on your perception Pseudo. That's the Pseudo way. Use evidence to back your points, not yourself.

That sounds like an excellent idea. Can you provide a single published scientific study that shows love, physical, or emotional attraction between two people is a result of the electromagnetic fields generated by those people? Just one study anywhere in any scientific journal, instead of random internet forums? This is your claim, after all. Surely you have some scientific evidence to support it?

Look I'm not a message board groupie like the rest of you. I'm in a rush the majority of the time I'm on here. It is obvious you guys judge posts based on how credible you believe the site to be. That's fine. However, if that same post that you labeled unreliable, had the exact same message as a credible site, would there be any kind of redemption towards that particular post on your part?

Well yes. If the same information came from CNN, where an actual named author with a long-standing history of credibility wrote it, with specific citations to supporting evidence, it would be much more credible. The random opinions of random unqualified people posting to an open internet board is not.

Mr Pseudo (A.k.A SmaterThanHick) said............

"So let's review the dumb things you've tried to say in this thread so far, leaving the semantic games aside:

1. Homosexuality is a choice because no gene has been found
2. Homosexuality only counts if acted upon, regardless of attraction to a member of the same sex
3. Homosexuality is the same as gender identity
4. Gender roles are defined by what you think they ought to be, without any reason or supporting evidence
5. A secret homosexual agenda hurts public policy in what we say to Uganda
6. Homosexuals should not be afforded the same civil liberties and equal rights as heterosexuals
7. Equality and human civil rights in regards to sexuality should not be taught in schools for any reason
8. California requires parent signatures for students to take sex ed
9. Electromagnetic forces govern attraction between two individuals
10. Physics is not a part of medicine


All of those points are incorrect."

Wrong again Pseudo.
1. this can't be proven either way officially, so #1 cancels out.
2. according to God's Laws it's true. So I stick by that.
3. I never equated homosexuality to self identity in general. So don't put words in my mouth.
4. No, gender roles are created by society. You NEVER see panties and bras being sold in the Men's section of a clothing store in any mall, do you? I wonder why? Every mall in the USA and around the world are bigots too?
5.Gays interfering in poor 3rd world countries business's (Africa in particular)is definitely signs of an agenda.
6. Putting stupid words in my mouth again
7.no, Homosexuality or ANY sexuality PERIOD should not be FORCED on kindergartners.
8. Dummy, each district creates their own policies on how to implement sex ed classes. Many districts require signatures of parents' approval. But they must do this WITHIN CALIFORNIA LAW. And in the Vallejo case, it's not being done, under the law. A judge made their own ruling and turned from what the law states. That's why there is an appeal going on as we speak. You aren't even from here so you wouldn't even know.
9. you were proven wrong again
10. Physics isn't part of MY profession, I NEVER said it isn't part of medicine in general. Stop putting words in my mouth Pseudo.

1. While nature or nurture cannot be proven either way, CHOICE has never been shown to be the reason. Ever. In any scientific study.
Belief in the "free choice" model of homosexuality... [J LGBT Health Res. 2007] - PubMed result
Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: the role of... [Soc Sci Res. 2009] - PubMed result
Look at that: peer reviewed articles published in a credible scientific journals which are direct supporting evidence for everything I've been saying! The fact remains that nature and nurture are both areas that are incredibly difficult to study. However the topic of CHOOSING something, a conscious or even subconscious decision, can readily be examined and determined. Nonetheless, not a single scientific study has EVER shown that to be the case with regards to homosexuality. Notice how the article states that only bigoted people believe that. Take the hint.

2. According to "god's law" the earth is 6000 years old and flat, evolution doesn't exist, dinosaurs walked with man, talking snakes and other magical creatures exist, and a demon is really responsible for all the bad things we do. Luckily for modern civilization, we use logic and reasoning to gain understanding. All of medical knowledge and insight on this topic disagrees with you and "god's law." But you'd know that if you were an MD.

3. You stated homosexuals aren't true to themselves because they want to be the opposite gender. So yes, you did definitively link sexuality and gender identity.

4. And society has no inherent reason to restrict gender roles. Only you do.

5. The "interference" was a letter asking the US to abide by its own standards and laws. If the "agenda" is human equality, then I certainly have one too. What's yours?

6. Oh I put words in your mouth? So you believe homosexuals SHOULD be afforded the exact same civil liberties, rights, and equalities as heterosexuals? Marriage? Portions of the educational curriculum? The ability to write to their political representatives without being implicated in conspiracies? You sure haven't manifested that idea so far in this thread, my dear hick.

7. Why? Kindergarten is when children are naturally learning about gender roles, and culture norms. It's also when they start learning that all religions and races should be treated equally. Why not sexual orientation as well? Do you have any reasoning past "because I don't want it?"

8. Oh I see. Can you name a district that does require parent signature approvals for an opt-in sex-ed class? Because so far the only evidence that has been presented is the exact opposite.

9. see above where I state how electrical impulses govern aspects of each person's body, yet no scientific study has ever showed it to extend outside the body and affect another person's electrical impulses.

10. No, you stated "in my profession, we concentrate on (bio)chemistry, biology, micro/molecular biology, neurology, physiology etc. and not physics" So you think biochemistry, neurology, and physiology aren't direct practical applications of physics?



And you wonder why I doubt your claimed education.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm a little upset at myself for having a negative tone towards gays on this thread.

And then you wonder why I call you a bigot?! AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So I got a little offended, and decided to fight fire with fire. My purpose on here was to gain a better understanding of gays because I have only gotten opinions from my gay family members and friends. But I want to know how other gays think as well, so I can learn to get along.

If you wanted to "get along" you would be using scientific knowledge of the field instead of your unsupported opinion because some other dumb hick on a random other message board agreed with you. If you truly wanted to "get along" you wouldn't immediately identify anyone who defended human equality for all sexuality as gay, and you would support equal civil rights for all sexualities. But you exhibit none of these traits. Just ignorance and prejudice based off your unsupported pre-conceived notions.

I was disrespectful to SmarterThanHick, only because they declared that they would be my "downfall" without even wanting to fully hear me out. That was a threat that I really dared to see happen, because I'm a very strong willed and highly competitive person.

Actually, I claimed I would make you be your own downfall, which is clear to everyone including yourself to be true, since you are apologizing for all of this.

I even tried to tell them that gays have a right to be with whomever they chose and that it's their prerogative. But SmarterThanHick wasn't trying to hear anything. All they saw was blood at that point, and I was labeled a closet bigot at minimum.

Seeing as you yourself have acknowledged your negative tone throughout this post towards homosexuals, I think it's clear now that I was right, at minimum.

To any gays out there, I apologize for offending you. But I would however like to express the fact that having an opinion that doesn't spell hatred, shouldn't be put into the hatred category until total understanding is established. This way, we can all agree to disagree in a positive way and get along without animosity and hostility. I'm still learning, so give me a chance.

OK ok you asked nicely, so I'll give you a few pointers. It's your choice after that as to whether you'd like to continue your previous ways or not.

First and foremost, you should get it out of your head that there is any difference between the attractions that you have for a member of the opposite sex, and the attractions that a homosexual has for a member of the same sex. It's exactly the same, no better, no worse. You can choose who to date, but love is an emotion which cannot be chosen. It is not a gender.

With that mindset of equality as your goal, the second piece of advice I have for you is to drop any idea that people are being false to themselves. There is a term in the gay community for not being true to self: being closeted. Pretending or acting to be any sexuality which does not feel natural has been shown to result in increased psychiatric problems, just as bullying for those issues also produces.

Third, people of all sexualities should be given completely equal rights. This is a big point. Marriage. Taxes. Hospital visits. Release of legal information. Zero discrimination.

Start there, and you'll do just fine.

 

[RealityStrikes]

I'm a little upset at myself for having a negative tone towards gays on this thread.

And then you wonder why I call you a bigot?! AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So I got a little offended, and decided to fight fire with fire. My purpose on here was to gain a better understanding of gays because I have only gotten opinions from my gay family members and friends. But I want to know how other gays think as well, so I can learn to get along.

If you wanted to "get along" you would be using scientific knowledge of the field instead of your unsupported opinion because some other dumb hick on a random other message board agreed with you. If you truly wanted to "get along" you wouldn't immediately identify anyone who defended human equality for all sexuality as gay, and you would support equal civil rights for all sexualities. But you exhibit none of these traits. Just ignorance and prejudice based off your unsupported pre-conceived notions.


Actually, I claimed I would make you be your own downfall, which is clear to everyone including yourself to be true, since you are apologizing for all of this.

I even tried to tell them that gays have a right to be with whomever they chose and that it's their prerogative. But SmarterThanHick wasn't trying to hear anything. All they saw was blood at that point, and I was labeled a closet bigot at minimum.

Seeing as you yourself have acknowledged your negative tone throughout this post towards homosexuals, I think it's clear now that I was right, at minimum.

To any gays out there, I apologize for offending you. But I would however like to express the fact that having an opinion that doesn't spell hatred, shouldn't be put into the hatred category until total understanding is established. This way, we can all agree to disagree in a positive way and get along without animosity and hostility. I'm still learning, so give me a chance.

OK ok you asked nicely, so I'll give you a few pointers. It's your choice after that as to whether you'd like to continue your previous ways or not.

First and foremost, you should get it out of your head that there is any difference between the attractions that you have for a member of the opposite sex, and the attractions that a homosexual has for a member of the same sex. It's exactly the same, no better, no worse. You can choose who to date, but love is an emotion which cannot be chosen. It is not a gender.

With that mindset of equality as your goal, the second piece of advice I have for you is to drop any idea that people are being false to themselves. There is a term in the gay community for not being true to self: being closeted. Pretending or acting to be any sexuality which does not feel natural has been shown to result in increased psychiatric problems, just as bullying for those issues also produces.

Third, people of all sexualities should be given completely equal rights. This is a big point. Marriage. Taxes. Hospital visits. Release of legal information. Zero discrimination.

Start there, and you'll do just fine.

Wow. You don't give up. Who died and made you spokesperson for everyone? The apology was not meant for you. It was for Gadawg73 and bodecea. Anyhow, I will deal with you later. I'm going out of town for a couple of days and will be returning on Wednesday. Then I will comment on your continuous immature ways. Anyone getting kicks and amusement off of sensitive issues like this should be ashamed. it just shows your true level of maturity and you obviously have no life. You actually believe that I lied about being in the bio tech industry and thought up a career/ education in that thread just to attempt to prove a point? Haha. Believe what you want to believe.

 

[Ropey]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uixc025fZRE"]The Killing of Georgie Parts 1 & 2[/ame]

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Wow. You don't give up. Who died and made you spokesperson for everyone? The apology was not meant for you. It was for Gadawg73 and bodecea. Anyhow, I will deal with you later. I'm going out of town for a couple of days and will be returning on Wednesday. Then I will comment on your continuous immature ways. Anyone getting kicks and amusement off of sensitive issues like this should be ashamed. it just shows your true level of maturity and you obviously have no life. You actually believe that I lied about being in the bio tech industry and thought up a career/ education in that thread just to attempt to prove a point? Haha. Believe what you want to believe.

Scientists in the biotech industry have the education and training to discern what credible scientific information is. Citing a post in a random message board that is written by an alias and has no supporting evidence or citation does not meet that standard. You may in fact work in "biotech" as there are a number of accounting, cleaning, secretarial, and "technician" jobs that are supportive within the industry, but you are certainly not a scientist, and clearly never attended Stanford School of Medicine.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Ok, Mr. Pseudo, I'm back. Let's see what you wrote..........

"I don't doubt that is your belief, but it is not supported by scientific knowledge. As I mentioned before, the heart and brain have measurable electrical impulses. So you claim they can act as electromagnetic fields outside the body? It's interesting that every medical technology that needs to read those electrical impulses, such as EKG and EEG, require direct contact with the body, and large amounts of amplification just so we can get a basic idea of those electrical impulses. Even our most expensive magnetic resonance imaging scanners need to APPLY a magnetic field to the body just to image it, because no such field is emitted from the body to produce any information."

You sill have not learned, have you? You are clearly full of contradiction. You first stated (your exact words)......

" being that we aren't electric or magnetic." Then you go on ahead to babble this.......

"Of course the human body contains electrical impulses. And followed by that, you turn super Pseudo again, attempting to preach to the choir by saying this.......

"I don't doubt that is your belief, but it is not supported by scientific knowledge. As I mentioned before, the heart and brain have measurable electrical impulses. So you claim they can act as electromagnetic fields outside the body? It's interesting that every medical technology that needs to read those electrical impulses, such as EKG and EEG, require direct contact with the body, and large amounts of amplification just so we can get a basic idea of those electrical impulses. Even our most expensive magnetic resonance imaging scanners need to APPLY a magnetic field to the body just to image it..."


All I have to say is.... WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!

1. It is heavily backed with scientific knowledge.The brain and our bodies are by nature, electromagnetic.

If there is one single concept that helps to explain much about human interpersonal communication, it is the concept that humanity has an inherent connection with its environment, the basis of which is human consciousness itself, something which is now quantifiable, at least on a theoretical basis. The electric charges coursing through the human brain are measurable by means of an electroencephalogram. Humans thus have an electromagnetic energy field. As a result of this, the human body could act as an aerial that has the potential for simultaneous transmission and reception of energy with its environment (Samways, 1992).
Keywords: consciousness, superstring, electromagnetic energy.
Journal of Theoretics - Nonprofit peer-reviewed Journal of scientifically credible theories from all disciplines. Original article.

"The constantly fluctuating electromagnetic fields of our own hearts and brains are a rich source of environmental information to our cells, as well as signals from other sources. In a truly elegant process, "a tiny field, far too weak to power any cellular activity, triggers a change at the regulatory level, which then leads to a substantial physiological response."

"The physical realities of electromagnetic fields, lingering scents, polarized light, sonar waves, and electrical fields, all elude the awareness of the human senses. Stop for a moment to observe all of the things you are unaccustomed to being aware of. A new and heightened sense of awareness begins to emerge. • Becoming Aware As you consciously encourage yourself to become more aware, you are led to the brink of the virtual realm. This is where you begin to recognize that the entire world of your experience is a manifestation within your own mind."
- Richard, Dr. DiCenso, Beyond Medicine, exploring a new way of thinking (Get the book.)


The 100 trillion cells of the human body communicate with each other by subtle low electromagnetic signals and through biochemical reactions. These signal pathways carry the information that becomes translated into all the biochemical and physiological processes of the body. Continuous exposure to electromagnetic radiation can drastically distort and disrupt these cellular communication pathways resulting in abnormal cellular metabolism and ultimately, disease.
Effects of Electropollution On Hormones and Breast Cancer | Toronto Canada alternative health natural medicine green living

Most of the molecules that make up the human body interact only weakly with electromagnetic fields (EMF) that are in the radiofrequency or extremely low frequency bands. One basic interaction is the absorption of energy from the EMF, which can cause tissue to heat up; more intense field exposures will produce greater heating. This heat deposition can lead to biological effects ranging from muscle relaxation—as produced by a diathermy device—to discomfort to protein denaturation to burns. Many nations and regulatory bodies (for example, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) have established safety guidelines to limit the EMF exposure to a non-thermal level, which can either be defined as heating only to the point where the excess heat can be dissipated/radiated away, or as some small temperature increase that is not detectable with current instruments (such as a heating of less than 0.1°C).
Bioelectromagnetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bio Electric Health Technology

And then you went on to say this............"That sounds like an excellent idea. Can you provide a single published scientific study that shows love, physical, or emotional attraction between two people is a result of the electromagnetic fields generated by those people? Just one study anywhere in any scientific journal, instead of random internet forums? This is your claim, after all. Surely you have some scientific evidence to support it?"
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/EnergeticAttractions.pdf

2.While you may have your "theory" that people who say being gay is a choice is a bigot(that's fine with me. I'll be a bigot), I have mine. So read it and weep with anger if you haven't already.
Science vs. the "Gay Gene"

3.Here are a few of California's Districts which require signatures for sex ed.
http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/board/Board Policy/6020-FamilyLife.pdf
http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/li...Domain/49/HSEAC_Booklet_updated_September.pdf
http://www.mrbiroswebsite.com/Comprehensive Sex Ed Permission Physio.pdf
(Benicia is only 10 min from Vallejo.)
http://www.mantecausd.net/handbookEN03.pdf

4. You swear up and down that Physics applications MUST be present in Bio chemistry, biology, Immunology, Virology, Physiology etc. Sorry, but you are wrong.
Mathematical Atlas: A gateway to Mathematics

Oh, and just in case you happen to suddenly become illiterate and can't comprehend the atlas, All the analytic areas and # 92 are the scientific applications needed for my profession. Physics is nowhere to be seen. Believe what you want to believe. I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Wow. You don't give up. Who died and made you spokesperson for everyone? The apology was not meant for you. It was for Gadawg73 and bodecea. Anyhow, I will deal with you later. I'm going out of town for a couple of days and will be returning on Wednesday. Then I will comment on your continuous immature ways. Anyone getting kicks and amusement off of sensitive issues like this should be ashamed. it just shows your true level of maturity and you obviously have no life. You actually believe that I lied about being in the bio tech industry and thought up a career/ education in that thread just to attempt to prove a point? Haha. Believe what you want to believe.

Scientists in the biotech industry have the education and training to discern what credible scientific information is. Citing a post in a random message board that is written by an alias and has no supporting evidence or citation does not meet that standard. You may in fact work in "biotech" as there are a number of accounting, cleaning, secretarial, and "technician" jobs that are supportive within the industry, but you are certainly not a scientist, and clearly never attended Stanford School of Medicine.

All I have to say is you are nothing. All you say is null and void. You are extremely Pseudo and full of contradiction. I will NEVER be the downfall to the likes to you. If you want to brag about being smarter than morons via your profile name, suit yourself. Because you can never be any comparison to anyone with basic common sense. You are nothing, and I'm glad to be a bigot. (in this case)

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You sill have not learned, have you? You are clearly full of contradiction. You first stated (your exact words)......

" being that we aren't electric or magnetic." Then you go on ahead to babble this.......

"Of course the human body contains electrical impulses.

Yes. We use electrical impulses on a molecular level. We as human being do not produce any discernible electromagnetic field that can interact with or even be measured at any distance outside our bodies. Even when measured at our body surface, amplification is required just to analyze the internal signals. Similarly, humans are not a liquid, though we contain liquid.

1. It is heavily backed with scientific knowledge.The brain and our bodies are by nature, electromagnetic.

If there is one single concept that helps to explain much about human interpersonal communication, it is the concept that humanity has an inherent connection with its environment, the basis of which is human consciousness itself, something which is now quantifiable, at least on a theoretical basis. The electric charges coursing through the human brain are measurable by means of an electroencephalogram. Humans thus have an electromagnetic energy field. As a result of this, the human body could act as an aerial that has the potential for simultaneous transmission and reception of energy with its environment (Samways, 1992).
Keywords: consciousness, superstring, electromagnetic energy.
Journal of Theoretics - Nonprofit peer-reviewed Journal of scientifically credible theories from all disciplines. Original article.

Journal of THEORETICS! And you wonder why no one buys your stories about being a scientist or having gone to medical school. Well I have to say, it's at least better than a random forum entry from someone who goes by an internet alias, but have you looked at your own link? This is not a scientific publication. It's not even a publication at all! It's just a rambling published to an internet site that some random person e-mailed in. Do you even know the credibility of the author? It's not peer reviewed, it holds no scientific argument, does not use the scientific method, and gathers no data to draw its unsupported conclusions. In short: this too has zero credentials to it. It is not scientific.

Here's a searchable database of scientific literate: PubMed home
have fun not finding any supporting evidence.

NEVERTHELES, this still has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Congratulations, you're still pointless.

Most of the molecules that make up the human body interact only weakly with electromagnetic fields (EMF) that are in the radiofrequency or extremely low frequency bands. One basic interaction is the absorption of energy from the EMF, which can cause tissue to heat up; more intense field exposures will produce greater heating. This heat deposition can lead to biological effects ranging from muscle relaxation—as produced by a diathermy device—to discomfort to protein denaturation to burns. Many nations and regulatory bodies (for example, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) have established safety guidelines to limit the EMF exposure to a non-thermal level, which can either be defined as heating only to the point where the excess heat can be dissipated/radiated away, or as some small temperature increase that is not detectable with current instruments (such as a heating of less than 0.1°C).
Bioelectromagnetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. This shows that microwaving tissue, or using any other form of radiation, causes burns. It does not show humans possess electromagnetic fields that jump out of our bodies and interact with other people.

Bio Electric Health Technology

I have land to sell you. There may be a brooklyn bridge on it.

You seem to have a rather difficult time discerning conspiracy theorists from scientists. Allow me to provide you the education in science you area clearly lacking. The basis of all scientific reasoning is based off of the scientific method, whereby a testable hypothesis is created, data is collected to address that hypothesis, and logical conclusions are drawn. To ensure the standardization and quality control of this process, scientists publish their findings in peer reviewed scientific journals, where other members of the scientific community scrutinize the findings and ultimately accept or reject the idea based on those standards. This blocks conspiracy theories, unsupported assumptions, and poor science from reaching publication.

So far, you have provided zero references to a scientific publication.

2.While you may have your "theory" that people who say being gay is a choice is a bigot(that's fine with me. I'll be a bigot), I have mine. So read it and weep with anger if you haven't already.
Science vs. the "Gay Gene"

Oh yes. A religious website. This certainly rivals the scientific publications I previously posted. Somehow you think that by claiming it's not genetic, it MUST be a choice, when that is not a valid conclusion.

3.Here are a few of California's Districts which require signatures for sex ed.
http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/board/Board Policy/6020-FamilyLife.pdf
http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/li...Domain/49/HSEAC_Booklet_updated_September.pdf
http://www.mrbiroswebsite.com/Comprehensive Sex Ed Permission Physio.pdf
(Benicia is only 10 min from Vallejo.)
http://www.mantecausd.net/handbookEN03.pdf

Oh hey look at that. You finally managed to support something you said! Well done. What was your point again?

4. You swear up and down that Physics applications MUST be present in Bio chemistry, biology, Immunology, Virology, Physiology etc. Sorry, but you are wrong.
Mathematical Atlas: A gateway to Mathematics

Yes, math is a part of those things as well. So is physics. Showing an old website that says math is part of those things does not exclude physics from also being a part of those things. You can't name a single topic in physiology that doesn't use physics. Not one. But that would mean you actively think about physiology in a scientific manner, which you've already proven to not be the case. If you still disagree, just name for me a single area in physiology that does not use physics.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So let's again review the dumb or false things you've tried to say in this thread so far, leaving the semantic games aside:

1. Homosexuality is a choice because no gene has been found
2. Homosexuality only counts if acted upon, regardless of attraction to a member of the same sex, in direct contradiction to all medical knowledge on the topic
3. Homosexuality is the same as gender identity
4. A secret homosexual agenda hurts public policy in what we say to Uganda
5. Homosexuals should not be afforded the same civil liberties and equal rights as heterosexuals
6. Equality and human civil rights in regards to sexuality should not be taught in schools for any reason
7. Electromagnetic forces govern attraction between two individuals
8. Physics is not a part of physiology
9. You graduated from Stanford School of Medicine, yet can't say how many students are in each class
10. You claim to work in biotech, and have no understanding of the scientific method or standards

All of those points are still incorrect.

 

[OmegaPh.D]

After reading the debate going on in the latter part of this thread, I will have to say I'm amazed and in total shock regarding some of the core segments of your arguments. Thus, I would like to get a better understanding of what triggered this scientific debate and how it is applicable to Homosexuality.

I would like to first ask RealityStrikes: If you are indeed in the Bio tech Industry like you claim, what particular field? What is your employment job title? I'm just curious.

I would also like to ask SmarterThanHick: You seem to have broad knowledge of all aspects of science, based on your arguments. May I ask if you are educated in Physics? The reason I ask this is because your personal explanations are quite graphic and highly detailed without links to back most of them. But I'm just a bit skeptical on the authenticity of it all. It's almost as if I could read your arguments directly from a journal or book.

 

[RealityStrikes]

After reading the debate going on in the latter part of this thread, I will have to say I'm amazed and in total shock regarding some of the core segments of your arguments. Thus, I would like to get a better understanding of what triggered this scientific debate and how it is applicable to Homosexuality.

I would like to first ask RealityStrikes: If you are indeed in the Bio tech Industry like you claim, what particular field? What is your employment job title? I'm just curious.

I would also like to ask SmarterThanHick: You seem to have broad knowledge of all aspects of science, based on your arguments. May I ask if you are educated in Physics? The reason I ask this is because your personal explanations are quite graphic and highly detailed without links to back most of them. But I'm just a bit skeptical on the authenticity of it all. It's almost as if I could read your arguments directly from a journal or book.

Wow, ok. So finally we have someone who may be able to see where I'm coming from. Now, let me answer your question.

I am a Senior Associate Bio Analytical Researcher. I have been in the industry full time since 2001, starting off as an intern in 1999. Thanks.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

After reading the debate going on in the latter part of this thread, I will have to say I'm amazed and in total shock regarding some of the core segments of your arguments. Thus, I would like to get a better understanding of what triggered this scientific debate and how it is applicable to Homosexuality.

I would like to first ask RealityStrikes: If you are indeed in the Bio tech Industry like you claim, what particular field? What is your employment job title? I'm just curious.

I would also like to ask SmarterThanHick: You seem to have broad knowledge of all aspects of science, based on your arguments. May I ask if you are educated in Physics? The reason I ask this is because your personal explanations are quite graphic and highly detailed without links to back most of them. But I'm just a bit skeptical on the authenticity of it all. It's almost as if I could read your arguments directly from a journal or book.

I think I should take that as a compliment. I am using my own knowledge on these topics, if that is what you are asking. If there is any particular area in which you would appreciate citation, I'm sure it would not be difficult to find a credible source to support anything I've said.

I am a Senior Associate Bio Analytical Researcher. I have been in the industry full time since 2001, starting off as an intern in 1999. Thanks.

Which means nothing. A "Researcher" can be anything from a highly trained scientist with a PhD and extensive knowledge of his field, to a lab rat who blindly follows protocols and has a fancy title. Based on your repeated lack of knowledge in the scientific method, what determines scientific credibility, lack of knowledge on human electrophysiology, and unsupported claims of attending Stanford's School of Medicine despite not knowing its class size, I'd say you belong to the latter.

Actually, I revise that: I believe I had you pinned from my overview of how dumb lay people lie on the internet.

 

[OmegaPh.D]

After reading the debate going on in the latter part of this thread, I will have to say I'm amazed and in total shock regarding some of the core segments of your arguments. Thus, I would like to get a better understanding of what triggered this scientific debate and how it is applicable to Homosexuality.

I would like to first ask RealityStrikes: If you are indeed in the Bio tech Industry like you claim, what particular field? What is your employment job title? I'm just curious.

I would also like to ask SmarterThanHick: You seem to have broad knowledge of all aspects of science, based on your arguments. May I ask if you are educated in Physics? The reason I ask this is because your personal explanations are quite graphic and highly detailed without links to back most of them. But I'm just a bit skeptical on the authenticity of it all. It's almost as if I could read your arguments directly from a journal or book.

Wow, ok. So finally we have someone who may be able to see where I'm coming from. Now, let me answer your question.

I am a Senior Associate Bio Analytical Researcher. I have been in the industry full time since 2001, starting off as an intern in 1999. Thanks.

Let's not get over confident. I have my doubts based on how you have presented yourself on this thread. But I'm also open minded enough to hear you out completely before placing my own perspective. "If" (and that's a huge if) you are in bio analytical sciences and are a Sr. Associate like you claim, then you would be able to answer these few questions I have. And let me warn you: The answers aren't available online. So searching for these answers online will lead you nowhere. Being that I am also in the Bio Tech Industry as a R&D Director, I am fully aware of every aspect of Analytical Sciences.

1. There is a standard analytical method in which all bio analytical researchers must follow in regards to Oligonucleotides. What is it?(In your own words and in detail) And why?

2.What types of modifications take place? And using what kind of chromatography?

3.When improving Reverse Transcriptase Activity and increasing efficiency of c-DNA Synthesis, what is ultimately improved as well?

This is all standard in Bio Analytical Sciences. I don't believe you can answer this. But I'm giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

 

[OmegaPh.D]

After reading the debate going on in the latter part of this thread, I will have to say I'm amazed and in total shock regarding some of the core segments of your arguments. Thus, I would like to get a better understanding of what triggered this scientific debate and how it is applicable to Homosexuality.

I would like to first ask RealityStrikes: If you are indeed in the Bio tech Industry like you claim, what particular field? What is your employment job title? I'm just curious.

I would also like to ask SmarterThanHick: You seem to have broad knowledge of all aspects of science, based on your arguments. May I ask if you are educated in Physics? The reason I ask this is because your personal explanations are quite graphic and highly detailed without links to back most of them. But I'm just a bit skeptical on the authenticity of it all. It's almost as if I could read your arguments directly from a journal or book.

I think I should take that as a compliment. I am using my own knowledge on these topics, if that is what you are asking. If there is any particular area in which you would appreciate citation, I'm sure it would not be difficult to find a credible source to support anything I've said.

I am a Senior Associate Bio Analytical Researcher. I have been in the industry full time since 2001, starting off as an intern in 1999. Thanks.

Which means nothing. A "Researcher" can be anything from a highly trained scientist with a PhD and extensive knowledge of his field, to a lab rat who blindly follows protocols and has a fancy title. Based on your repeated lack of knowledge in the scientific method, what determines scientific credibility, lack of knowledge on human electrophysiology, and unsupported claims of attending Stanford's School of Medicine despite not knowing its class size, I'd say you belong to the latter.

Actually, I revise that: I believe I had you pinned from my overview of how dumb lay people lie on the internet.

I meant it as a compliment and constructive criticism as well. So you aren't actually educated in physics? Quite amazing. However, without proper credible knowledge one would assume it to be difficult to prove your points based on assumption alone. To be honest, you have made good arguments (IMO). whether or not they all were correct is another issue. Because I'm not here to play "Judge" per say. I'm rather curious about the arguments going on in this thread.

And in regards to "researchers" being lab rats, pretty funny way to put it. But a Sr. Associate actually would be closer to being a certified (licensed) scientist than a lab slave or "rat" as you put it. hahaha.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Ah, I think there was a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that I am not using the internet to look up these concepts. They are from my own internalized understanding based on prior education. You are right in what that title generally implies, but this particular user has continually increased his "credentials" every time his unsupported ideas have been challenged. First he supported his claims by saying he was in biotech. Then he claimed he is an MD, or at least went to medical school. Now he claims he has that title. It's foolishness.

Interesting questions for Reality. I am interested in the answers myself. #3 fidelity?

 

[HUGGY]

Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority


Without lubrication?????

 

[RealityStrikes]

After reading the debate going on in the latter part of this thread, I will have to say I'm amazed and in total shock regarding some of the core segments of your arguments. Thus, I would like to get a better understanding of what triggered this scientific debate and how it is applicable to Homosexuality.

I would like to first ask RealityStrikes: If you are indeed in the Bio tech Industry like you claim, what particular field? What is your employment job title? I'm just curious.

I would also like to ask SmarterThanHick: You seem to have broad knowledge of all aspects of science, based on your arguments. May I ask if you are educated in Physics? The reason I ask this is because your personal explanations are quite graphic and highly detailed without links to back most of them. But I'm just a bit skeptical on the authenticity of it all. It's almost as if I could read your arguments directly from a journal or book.

Wow, ok. So finally we have someone who may be able to see where I'm coming from. Now, let me answer your question.

I am a Senior Associate Bio Analytical Researcher. I have been in the industry full time since 2001, starting off as an intern in 1999. Thanks.

Let's not get over confident. I have my doubts based on how you have presented yourself on this thread. But I'm also open minded enough to hear you out completely before placing my own perspective. "If" (and that's a huge if) you are in bio analytical sciences and are a Sr. Associate like you claim, then you would be able to answer these few questions I have. And let me warn you: The answers aren't available online. So searching for these answers online will lead you nowhere. Being that I am also in the Bio Tech Industry as a R&D Director, I am fully aware of every aspect of Analytical Sciences.

1. There is a standard analytical method in which all bio analytical researchers must follow in regards to Oligonucleotides. What is it?(In your own words and in detail) And why?

2.What types of modifications take place? And using what kind of chromatography?

3.When improving Reverse Transcriptase Activity and increasing efficiency of c-DNA Synthesis, what is ultimately improved as well?

This is all standard in Bio Analytical Sciences. I don't believe you can answer this. But I'm giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

This is hilarious. I wake up to a challenge in the form of a quiz. Ok. You have your doubts but let me change them for you. I can answer this for you with no problems at all.

1. You call it standard, but we call it "traditional". And the answer is quite simple to me being that it is kind of a bio analytical slogan. that "traditional" analytical method is none other than .....using oligonucleotides through anion exchange HPLC using the DNA pac PA-100. Why? Because of great separation and reproducibility, of course. It allows efficient diffusion using the standard or "traditional" HPLC, resulting in resolution of up to 60-mer primers.

2.Ok now you are making this harder I see. I would have to say they are most likely big, bulky type hydrophobic modifications using highly ion- pairing reverse phase chromatography. I think that's right, but I could be wrong.

3. I believe that the sensitivity of RNA-based diagnostic assays are improved also.

Well, there you have it. I am pretty confident that I am right about at least 2 of the 3. hopefully my credibility increases after this. but I also see that you have showed favoritism towards who I call a Pseudo Intellectual. According to them, this is their own made up knowledge. That should tell you something.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Ah, I think there was a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that I am not using the internet to look up these concepts. They are from my own internalized understanding based on prior education. You are right in what that title generally implies, but this particular user has continually increased his "credentials" every time his unsupported ideas have been challenged. First he supported his claims by saying he was in biotech. Then he claimed he is an MD, or at least went to medical school. Now he claims he has that title. It's foolishness.

Interesting questions for Reality. I am interested in the answers myself. #3 fidelity?

You are really something. You act as if you can comprehend this. your Pseudo abilities won't help you here. So sit back and enjoy me proving OmegaPh.D wrong while laughing at you at the same time.

 

[OmegaPh.D]

Wow, ok. So finally we have someone who may be able to see where I'm coming from. Now, let me answer your question.

I am a Senior Associate Bio Analytical Researcher. I have been in the industry full time since 2001, starting off as an intern in 1999. Thanks.

Let's not get over confident. I have my doubts based on how you have presented yourself on this thread. But I'm also open minded enough to hear you out completely before placing my own perspective. "If" (and that's a huge if) you are in bio analytical sciences and are a Sr. Associate like you claim, then you would be able to answer these few questions I have. And let me warn you: The answers aren't available online. So searching for these answers online will lead you nowhere. Being that I am also in the Bio Tech Industry as a R&D Director, I am fully aware of every aspect of Analytical Sciences.

1. There is a standard analytical method in which all bio analytical researchers must follow in regards to Oligonucleotides. What is it?(In your own words and in detail) And why?

2.What types of modifications take place? And using what kind of chromatography?

3.When improving Reverse Transcriptase Activity and increasing efficiency of c-DNA Synthesis, what is ultimately improved as well?

This is all standard in Bio Analytical Sciences. I don't believe you can answer this. But I'm giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

This is hilarious. I wake up to a challenge in the form of a quiz. Ok. You have your doubts but let me change them for you. I can answer this for you with no problems at all.

1. You call it standard, but we call it "traditional". And the answer is quite simple to me being that it is kind of a bio analytical slogan. that "traditional" analytical method is none other than .....using oligonucleotides through anion exchange HPLC using the DNA pac PA-100. Why? Because of great separation and reproducibility, of course. It allows efficient diffusion using the standard or "traditional" HPLC, resulting in resolution of up to 60-mer primers.

2.Ok now you are making this harder I see. I would have to say they are most likely big, bulky type hydrophobic modifications using highly ion- pairing reverse phase chromatography. I think that's right, but I could be wrong.

3. I believe that the sensitivity of RNA-based diagnostic assays are improved also.

Well, there you have it. I am pretty confident that I am right about at least 2 of the 3. hopefully my credibility increases after this. but I also see that you have showed favoritism towards who I call a Pseudo Intellectual. According to them, this is their own made up knowledge. That should tell you something.

Incredible. How did you get the answers? I can't believe this. Are you sure you didn't get the answers from someone else? This is unbelievable. And yes, #2 is correct. I'm almost persuaded but I have a feeling somethings not right in how you somehow came up with the right answers. You definitely (IMO) don't seem like Bio analytical material, based on your representation. Nevertheless, you answered correctly.

But I have to ask 2 more questions in regards to your education before I concede. You said somewhere back in your earlier posts that physics wasn't part of your "profession". What do you mean by that? Did you take any physics courses in post-grad school? If so, which?

Btw, I'm not taking any sides here. From what I have seen in your previous posts, your arguments were not only off point, but kind of in accurate in a way. However, your proof was correct in what you were trying to say, which is interesting. We are attracted to each other based on chemical reactions and bio electrical responses (hormones). But not from electromagnetic forces like you were arguing. It's called Interpersonal attraction. All of your examples somehow lean towards that direction, while your arguments go astray. Pretty bizarre.