Honestly, stop making me do stupid shit like taking out my laptop, tablet etc. Let me keep them in my bag because you can see everything you need anyway. Don't make me take off my shoes because you're also scanning right through them. Don't assume I've got liquids until you actually scan them THEN enquire.

And well, there you go. Other than the horrendous lines, which can be partially attributed to the enormous amount of time the above three things takes every person. We'd be all good, you can do your pointless shit and I'll carry on with my life.

The liquids gets everyone because we're all so damn frightened of maybe forgetting we drank some water to stay alive, that we're all checking our bags, wasting time, just in case we might have some.

Seriously, any other non-US airport, where you just throw your bag on, walk on through some scanner, pick up your bag and walk along. That's just fine, I'm at my gate from check-in in like 20mins.

Are we suggesting that all terrorism will only ever occur boarding from a US airport? I mean wouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Come on.

Well... My mom filled out a raffle ticket on my name when i was two, we won a SAAB 96 and traded it for this model, 99. Almost the same color (metallic paint was for US export model...). My family kept it for 25 years, it served us really well. I learned to drive with it and that thing handles like a dream (it has heavy steering but is is so stable and responsive, just wonderful, plus ours had aftermarket short gearbox from police unit and bored cylinders, small tweaks to oomph the torque for caravan use. Finnish police used SAAB for a loong time, it accelerated like a rocket..).

Seeing the inside of that just brings me memories. Mom, Dad, my big brother and me and a full sized double bass, all inside (you can't transport it outside when it's freezing, the thing can explode..). It meant that i had to ride shotgun, seat fully front and back against the front door, head on dashboard. Backseat folded and mom and bro at the back, equally cramped. We used to say that first comes the bass, then the family if they fit in and there is always room in the boot (joke.. ). The day he started to play cello was a blessing and a curse. Have you ever had to live with a person that learns to play cello? It's horrible but i paid him back when i got full blown PA in my room, cabinets from floor to ceiling.. Musicians family is always a bit eccentric and weird..

My dad still has SAAB (fourth one) as they are just amazing to drive, handles winter conditions like nothing and are great for long roadtrips. I just hope i can get him the Citroen CX he has wanted from his teens...

Even I think Dutch is an insanely hard language. And I am Dutch!
So many rules and exceptions to rules.

Example: Let's say you want to wright down 'pancakes' in Dutch. A decade ago that word just changed in all dictionaries, because it used to be 'pannekoeken' (pancakes) and now we need to write 'pannenkoeken' (panscakes!?). All because you can bake pancakes in multiple pans. I'm not making this up.

One more actual commonly needed rule:
If you combine a word consisting of two parts of which one is an animal and the other an animal, you need to write plural for the first word.. (I'm not kidding, this an actual rule)
So, for example 'paard' (horse) and 'bloem' (flower) in English becomes 'horseflower'.. We need to make it plural, so in English it would be horsesflower (paardenbloem in Dutch)

Just don't even try to learn the language, we all speak decent English and most also speak French and German, so we'll just adapt to you, that's better for all of us.

I never claimed you were responsible for my emotional state, nor did I even comment on it...it's you who's whining that the sift is ganging up on you (for bullying others with ranting diatribes I might add). Once again you've set up a straw man to deflect from your own argument's inadequacies. When you've taken the time to read and understand my positions, you've often come to agree with me and also agreed that it's YOU that caused the upset on both sides by (in your words) 'going off cocked' after making huge leaps of logic and assumption to find something to rail against angrily. You also admit that you post with a design to upset, often not believing what you write (devils advocacy) but writing it simply to get a reaction, all so you can deride the responder with walls of pre-pubescent quasi-intellectual text.
So, you tire of atheists because they have repeatedly made their point?...then how do you think the sift feels about you and your position 'everyone and everything sucks slimy donkey balls but me and the little that I find proper' that you spout in your 'schoolgirl with a thesaurus' manner numerous times daily? Then why do you lurk here on a site where a large vocal atheist contingent resides? Then why do you fill the comment section of posts about atheists with your angry post walls knowing it will garner response? I'm beginning to feel it's because negative attention is better than none, and that's all you can seem to get from others.
I must commend you on writing in a 'normal' fashion in your last post, it was the most intelligible post of yours I can recall, and a refreshing change.
...and I think you are incorrect that the religious have slunk into a corner here on the sift, I see them here near daily spouting intolerance and derision or claiming superiority, it's true though, they often get shut down quickly.
If calling you out on your behavior that you yourself has admitted is improper and designed to inflame and anger is bullying, I'm a bully. Sure.

"Car at 1:38 barely made it out."

It very likely didn't make it out in all actuality. You can't out-drive a tsunami; you can only escape vertically.

Did I miss anything of what you wrote?

> "and i am ok with that.
> if we can limit government intrusion.
> allow companies to tank when they fail."

Great!

> "rewrite the corporate charter (or dissolve them completely,or as i suggested
> previously make them accountable and put back the phrase "for the public good").
> reign in bank fraud and make the rules to keep em honest."

Yes. And all this you can do without a government monopoly lording over it.

> "in my opinion the only thing we really seem to disagree on is when it is in regards
> to labor."

I don't know. What's the perceived disagreement about labor?
The problem with not being able to have an employee owned bar has to do with not having a free market. In a free market, you can own whatever you want to own with whomever you want to own it with (as long as they agree too).
Or is there some other labor "disagreement" I missed?

It seems there is some confusion as to what "free market" means. It means "free."
Unrestricted except by voluntarily entered contracts and adherence to non-aggression of person/property.
Non-aggression being a "natural" contract of sorts.
Making it "illegal" to have an employee-owned bar violates the rights to voluntary agreements/contracts, self-ownership, property, and voluntary associations.
There is no enforceable "common good" except respecting individual rights to self and property.

Recycled mix (using old asphalt with other "stuff" that can be put into mix to get rid of it..like rubber tires) doesn't lay as well as new asphalt mix or hold up as well.

Since old mix uses old asphalt, it typically has oil, gasoline, diesel, etc soaked into it. All of these substances degrade/eat asphalt over time. It's why they don't use asphalt around fuel pumps, because all of the constant and pure spillage would eat holes in it. Turns the asphalt gummy...goes right into it and sometimes thru to the sub-grade rock and then soil. Also motorcycle kick stands don't do well on asphalt, contaminated or not..especially on hot days. Asphalt will become pliable on really hot days and a focused direct pressure like a motorcycle kickstand can punch a hole into it that be deep enough to let the bike tip over. Use a wood block or piece of plywood to fix this and spread the pressure.

I used to work in the asphalt business, mostly rolling it. My dad worked in it more substantially than myself working on airport jobs, highways, etc. Many of those jobs won't allow old asphalt to be used in their mix. And they are big enough to force plants to switch over from remixed (old and new) to all new mixes. You'll notice that jobs done with the new mixes hold up much longer, look better, lay better, hold their heat better during the laying process, and come out much smoother looking and less "dirty looking" upon finish. I am guessing at this, but I believe it to be because the asphalt has more tar and less other chemicals and the tar is able to absorb any dirt you might pick up when you move to existing surfaces onto the new asphalt. Where the remix (containing old) has gasoline, etc breaking down the tar and less fresh tar to begin with, so that little bit of dirt you pick up transfers to the remix asphalt like a magnet.

Highways probably won't have as much surface area covered in long term spillage as stop and go traffic where it will be focused at the lights, stop signs, along edge of the streets where people park. But the highway will have big sections of highly contaminated asphalt where semis flip, car wrecks occur, etc. So these same sections if they are remixing it on the go, will end up with a bunch of really bad asphalt on or just after it if they don't throw it out.

And to clarify a few things upon incase people are unfamiliar.

Asphalt plants are usually multi purpose. They are usually a stone quarry with an asphalt plant situated somewhere on site. They filter and crush the stone into piles for sub grade work of various needs. And they draw from these piles to feed the asphalt plant. They do new mix and recycled mix (old mix) which I'll explain below. They also often times have sealer (the black coating you put on parking lots and driveways), I'll explain it below. Roofing tar, regular/asphalt tar, and crack filler..and I'll cover these below as well.

The plants have some human guesswork involved, they have to estimate tonnage and how much tar should be added. They screw up pretty often. It wasn't unheard of for us to get super tarry asphalt mixes where it was like goo coming out of the truck. Or no-tar mixes where it was just slightly black painted rocks. Or mixes where we called them "burnt" where they pumped in their cleaning mixture into the mix and it was breaking down the mixture to help get it out of the hoppers of the plant. These were usually people being trained who hit the wrong button without realizing it.

The plants have to clean the mixtures out of the hopper (where they dump it into the truck) to cycle over to a new mixture they keep in on-site silo looking things that stir and heat it. Which the silos also have to be cleaned at the end of the day or heated all night lest they hardened and stop up the whole thing. They usually stop heating all night as it gets closer to winter season because they don't do enough business to make it worthwhile.

Ok mixtures:

I didn't mention base mix anywhere...but it's why they typically have to switch over to different mixes, because places need base mix instead of finish layer....the layer you see when finished looks less rocky than base and is pliable.

Base mix = larger aggregate rocks, much more rocky. Doesn't have much fine rock in it. It's meant to be something you can quickly lay that will hold up the weight of heavy vehicles right away. Usually this is only used on fresh roadways where they are laying directly over rock sub-grades. It makes it easier to lay the finish layer smoothly, makes for a cleaner looking job by locking the rock and it's dust in...and is cheaper than using all finish. You can almost go from laying base mix to laying finish layer right on top of it with no delay. You can't do this with two layers of finish, because it's too pliable and it has to cool down for the heavy vehicles to drive over it without squishing it out and messing up the layer you just laid.

New mix asphalt = Tar mixture with aggregate like fine almost sand like rocks along with larger rocks to give it stability larger rocks are maybe the size of your pinkie nail at the largest. Tar is mixed throughout, the whole mix is constantly stirred and heated inside the plant, drawn into the hopper and dumped in a truck that pulls underneath. I am told that this mix used to be even better in the past, but now air regulations require them to "inject" their dust from rock crushing into the mixes so again this can cause the mix to be less tarry due to the dust being absorbed and they can completely ruin it by injecting too much.

SCAM ALERT: Look below remix as it pertains to both.

Remix (old and new) asphalt = Very similar to new mix, except they grind up old asphalt that they have sitting on-site in the stone quarry congealing into a big pile depending on it's contamination. This will depend on percentage they are legally required/allowed to put into these mixes. Less of the remix in the mixture, the better it is....less contaminates. Sometimes they even put rubber tires and other rubber products into the mixture. Although they don't do that much here. SOMETIMES it is desirable to have rubber in the mixture like running tracks, where they are springy. This is a special mixture, and it's a massive PITA to lay because it's really gummy and sticks to everything along the process.

SCAM ALERT: They typically do this to older people. But someone will stop and tell you they are working on a big site close, and they are going to have some extra material at the end. Usually you would dump this at the plant or somewhere you have set aside. They want to help you get a new looking driveway. They will lay the asphalt less than an inch thick. It will look really good when they finish. A year later it will be broken apart in most cases. Because they didn't tar, and they laid it too thin. You can lay asphalt thinner if you tar really well....but you want to lay it at least a inch and a half per layer or so. Sometimes you have to lay it thin near man holes and drains to not block water. So don't go crazy on somebody because of this if you see them doing it in certain places. Generally they try to average an inch and a half across a job per layer on finish. Thicker on base mixes since it has larger rocks in it and it has to be at least as thick as the biggest rock in it.

Sealer (the black coating you put on parking lots and driveways) - This is almost like a black paint in some circumstances. Some of it has chemicals, I think creosote, which react to the sunlight and cure it to seal it to the asphalt. Depending on what you buy, you may have to mix water into it to make it suitable for the task. Some come pre-mixed and you just have to stir. Usually you put two coatings on new asphalt, one coat if it's been sealed before. Sealer WILL NOT make your driveway last longer by any noticeable degree. It will make it look dark, and repel chemical spills to some degree. However chemicals will still penetrate as you can't clean up everything that drops. ALSO, sealer makes your driveway much slicker. This is why they don't use sealer on roadways, if they are using some kind of treatment it's something else because sealer fills in all of the fine holes in asphalt and makes it more slippery because of this..especially in the rain. Sealer has to cure for a couple days, you can't drive on it and it can't get wet. So listen to them when they say they don't want to seal it due to weather. Don't let them seal it in the spring or fall. Do it in the summer so it's nice and hot and not much moisture. Sealer looks more brown going down than black. But it cures to black.....it almost looks like chocolate cake mix. Dunno if they taste the same.

If you are sealing your own driveway, do not get it on you. It burns like a mother, I've gotten it on myself and if you don't clean it off right away it will burn you like a really bad sunburn after being exposed to sunlight for awhile. Some people are not bothered by creosote (if this is the correct chemical in sealer)...but better to not find out..because it hurts if you are.

SCAM ALERT: People will seal your driveways with motor oil or even too watered down sealer. They look very similar going down. There is no easy way to tell the difference besides knowing what they smell like. The first rain will turn your motor oil covered driveway into a mess. We have gypsies in the area pretend to be local businesses and pull things like this, it's bad. They disappear at the end of summer and the businesses are left with people pissed off.

Roofing tar - Runnier and less thick than regular tar. It's meant to be pumped onto roofs and run down to fill in holes and places water can get in. If you use this on your driveway, you're pretty much going to end up with a huge mess for years. Because it will continually heat up in the sun and liquify again being tracked into your house over and over and over.

Regular/asphalt tar - Use this, like in the video, along curb sides and between old and new layers to help seal out water and keep the layers sticking together as you put down the new layer. You wouldn't need to tar between a base and finish layer if they were laid a day or two apart because the base layer would heat up again from the finish layer and stick. However if the base layer is older..like a couple weeks or a month. You would probably tar between them. Anything else..you tar between...concrete, old asphalt. The only exception would be sub-grade rock, however sometimes you even tar this, especially if it's in a grade critical location...where you can't have the asphalt humping up even a little. But on a typical driveway, the rock layer has enough jags and spaces that a layer of asphalt will cling to it just fine.

Crack filler - You would use this before sealing your driveway, not after. You can also use it alone to fill in gaps in your driveway and try to seal out water. So it doesn't get into the crack, freeze and blow your driveway up. The best crack filler is rubberized, so it will expand and contract. Plus it also isn't as prone to liquify again in the heat and stick to your car tires and shoes. It has to be heated up substantially to liquify, but I've seen non-rubberized begin to liquify in direct sunlight on a 95+F degree day. I try not to step on the cracks on the really hot days, as I'd rather not find out if it's going to stick to my shoes.

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one. This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

Your argument eats itself. If there aren't any absolute laws of logic (including that one), then there are no rules period, and thus no logic. If there is no such thing as logic then I could say "The cucumber faints west in the umbrage" and it would be an entirely valid response to anything you say. Yet you continue to make absolute statements like:

"All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction."

"This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications"

"you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective"

The sea cucumber faints west in the umbrage, my friend.

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)

No, I can't 100 percent prove I am not actually a circus peanut dreaming I'm a man, but it doesn't matter what I can prove to you. What matters is what is true. You have absolute freedom to live in total denial of reality if you want to, but reality isn't what we dictate it is. Just because you have no way of figuring it out doesn't mean no one does. The one who does have it figured out is God, because He created it. Because He is God He can make us absolutely certain of who He is and what He wants from us, transcending all physical or mental rationale.

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

If everything is permitted then it is equally valid not to permit, which means you have no argument. Your way isn't better than any other way according to your logic so all that you can argue is that you prefer it.

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

I can't prove God exists to you, but He can. God isn't hiding from you; He has been knocking on your door your entire life. It's your choice whether you want to open the door, but you are going to meet Him one day regardless of what you choose.

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

I was created before I had a mind. The Universe has a beginning, it was created, and the Creator is the judge.

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.),

The Catholics borrowed those from the Pagans..you won't find those in the bible.

the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

Sources?

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which..

Let's see some sources..

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))

I know exactly what it is and I am very familar with it.

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)

Abraham is the father of the Jewish people and he worshiped the LORD.

I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)

Because I know Him personally and His Spirit lives within me.

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?

To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no Christianity without Him. He is the only way to know God:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He wasn't pointing to Himself, He was pointing to God.

This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.

This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

You do realize that the word son and the word sun, in hebrew or in egyptian, aren't even remotely similar don't you? The word Christ does mean the anointed one, that is what the Messiah is. Jesus *is* the Christ. In regards to Horus being Christ, and a lot of other things you said, please take a look at this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.

Read the gospel of John and pray to God and ask Him to help you understand it.

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment.

John the baptist said he wasn't the Messiah and Simon was outdone by Philip.

I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).

The missing part of this theory is the explanation for the empty tomb.

Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

The quran isn't accurate, but if you read the Old Testament without humanistic glasses on, you'll find it was the humans who were malevolent and God was who long suffering with them.

Actually, I have read the details in the case, Canada is NOT a free for all where you can do whatever you want because you think you know better than everyone else. CANADA IS NOT AMERICA. You should properly store your firearms. There should be a trial regarding these charges, and if the situation (gun instructor, imminent threat to life) warrant that the charges be DROPPED in this case, I would find that to be fair. However, regulations such as these stop assholes from keeping their heat ready just in case they need to rapidly without thinking end a human life. You right wing Americans make me sick how you see everything in black and white, you've swallowed every lie told to you by the gun manufacturers and your right wing politicians you don't know how to see past your own blurring ignorance. But of course.... *I* must be wrong, and not the right wing wannabes at the SUN. LOL. Which is why the top search results for the story are all right wing papers beating the drums of war.

>> ^Reefie:

I'm wondering what the ratio of lucky to unlucky Russians might be... I mean are we talking for every lucky Russian there are 10 unlucky Russians, or are the Russians just super-lucky and this is an expected outcome regardless of the individual involved?
Hmmm... I guess the driver wasn't so lucky since he was attempting to get away from the police!


There're a lot of bad, "snuff" videos out there from Russia. Though this is true for most, if not all regions. You can go find out for yourself and become horribly desensitized to all forms of sex and violence, or you can trust me on this.

>> ^robdot:

these stories are all bullshit. you can not overpower the brakes in any car with the engine. ITS NOT FUCKING POSSIBLE !!! its always operator error.
[citation needed]



Oh, hey, how about this?

these stories are all bullshit. you can not overpower the brakes in any car with the engine. ITS NOT FUCKING POSSIBLE !!! its always operator error.

Good to know all possible techniques though.

A friend's father just recently died from choking on a brussel sprout.

Choking on food is a ridiculous way to go, so any and all methods you can have in your head to get the food out are welcome.

I would disagree with one thing they said as it may be sooner or later true. I know it VERY MUCH ISN'T real or that it even exists right now, but it will only be a matter of time most likely--so they may have jumped the gun a bit on that comment (they should have said, "There is no test to see if your genetic structure makes you more inclined to be attracted to males, RIGHT NOW."--that would have been far more correct. Homosexuality DOES have a source; since it occurs across the entirety of the animal kingdom you can basically safely assume that its cause is a genetic trait (AND even if it was psychological, it would STILL be a genetic cause!).

So, YES, sooner or later there WILL BE a test for it. When this happens it's how we use this test that will make us a good people or horrific one (as I'm sure all of you can see how this per-knowledge could lead to huge issues--even worse what happens when people decide if they want a straight or gay baby...scary stuff indeed). I think we'll find as with most things we will use this ability to test for sexual preference (something tells me they may be linked to the same sequence, so we'll probably find both to be serious) it will have both good and bad reasons and applications (for all we know being straight may have certain co-morbidities and homosexuality will also again have its own independent list of co-morbidities...).

But for now, I'm glad there is absolutely no test... What an absolute Pandora's Box that will be!