Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
And yeah, I've heard a variation of this one, which is that the reason men feel sleepy after orgasm and women don't is so that when the tiger comes along, it gets to eat the now-useless man, while the woman, carrying the genetic future of her species, gets to run away.
Bitch could have woken me up before she buggered off. Lost half me leg!
-
So yes, Tiger eats Bolt.
It's for these incredibly useful pieces of information that the internet was built :)
-
So why doesn't Professor O'Hare resign from academia, enter Parliament and get in a position where he can directly influence government policy and legislation? Scientists aren't exactly an occupational group that is grossly over-represented in the legislature.
I think he possibly considers that he's doing some good in his current job.
I'm no expert on what he's saying, but shouldn't internationally recognised scientists and their research inform policy and law, which is exactly what he's asking for in the article?
-
Oh yes, ho ho ho. Isn't that moustache-growth amusing?
I didn't know Paul Henry was a doctor!
-
Ask a refugee of war or a family starving due to crop failure if they are worried about Global Warming.
Apart from the obvious fact that crop failure is often linked to global climate change, you can often link war and civil war to environmental issues, particularly water, but also food.
-
Seriously though, I was watching Fox the other day (in Pittsburgh, PA), when on came this ad:
I do despair.
As I understand it, in previous times the earth has been hotter than it is today with higher concentrations of CO2 and the earth and life did just fine, so that assumption is wrong.
James, if you could put this hat on and go sit in the corner facing the wall? Cheers.
-
Much like "suffer the little children to come unto me" doesn't mean what you might think.
All this time!
-
Sorry for the jack but when it comes to voices of reason and authority, I think we can grade Auckland Grammar and Kelston principals John Morris and Steve Watt F for epic fail.
What they need is something to keep the spectators and players apart. Something that lets them still see the game, but stops them jumping on the field of play. Some big boards around the playing field - also help keep the ball in. But the top part of the boards could be glass, so they could still see.
And then if they put the game into hyperdrive and make it more physical, that would be good too. And a big block of ice underneath to help keep the players cool from all that exercise.
You can see a sample at the Dunedin Ice Stadium this Saturday 7pm, Sunday 4pm, when the Australian Ice Hockey team takes on our Ice Blacks. Game 1 will be delayed on Sky Sport 3 at noon on Sunday, game 2 live at 4pm.
[Any segueway to promote the game]
-
What I do have a problem with is with others assuming this is somehow a definitive view - that she is right and others are wrong. It is merely another interpretation, using a particular set of sources with a particular methodology.
I think the debate in the field is going to be between those who argue this, and those who are just flat out saying she is wrong wrong wrong. That's pretty much always Charlotte Paul's answer.
History is often a non-definitive field. But sometimes people stray far enough from the path of a broad truth and they get called on it rather than some wiffle-waffle "I think their interpretation differs from mine in emphasis..."
-
As I said, Barton's story was worth reading and I fail to see how it was served (let alone improved) by a lead trying to construct a Matheson vs. Bryder cat fight.
I can say with confidence that Bryder's book and people's reactions to it will destroy friendships and lead to serious arguments in the academic community. I can't begin to imagine how patients who feel strongly about what happened to them will be feeling about it.
But would there have been any acceptable way for Bryder to nuance the accepted wisdom? I suspect, for some people, no. There's just too much invested in it.
Yes. Historians and other academics do it all the time. You write a paper or book, you present your research at conferences and receive feedback and criticism from your peers. You then publish with confidence.
If you go into left/right field and your conclusions and/or methods don't match stand up to the criticism of your colleagues, and you publish anyway, you're going to catch it, which is what's happening to Bryder now.
The field would welcome solid research and revision which takes a new look at the material and comes to different conclusions.