dust

Language is of interest here. A 'supplement' is something added that makes up for a deficiency. It completes/improves something that is otherwise incomplete/faulty. If I eat a good amount of fruits and veg and nuts, I am generally not going to be deficient in most vitamins. (And the only thing animal products are good for is B12.) Adding something that I do not need is not supplementation, it is... waste. And of course it can be poisonous. It is dangerous to drink too much water, or inhale too much oxygen (and as the article points out, oxygen can be dangerous in other ways!). What the article is talking about is not strictly supplementation, but people following Pauling's notion that more vitamins = better health. It's just so obviously a silly idea (in retrospect!). What I mean is, lots of people take 'supplements', but not to actually supplement a deficiency. The vast majority of people are not deficient in vitamin C, or E, or selenium, or likely any of the others mentioned in these 'fatal' studies. So this doesn't mean that there isn't a place for supplements. A lot of evidence shows that there is widespread vitamin D deficiency among many populations, especially in nations with less sunshine, and that with our sedentary indoor lifestyles (lack of sun exposure) it's basically impossible to get enough vitamin D from diet alone (we'd have to consume ridiculous amounts of fish or eggs to the point that we wouldn't have any space left in the belly for those fruits and veg!). I certainly get less happy in the darker days of the year, always have, but I'm taking a vit D supplement now and it does appear to be helping.

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tcm-meridians-and-fascia-what-do-they.html?m=1 Some interesting ideas and cool videos. Fascia, tensegrity, dynamic stretching, etc. Side note: how about that video of Stefan Holm?! Hopping hurdles his own height as easily as I get into bed...!

Yes... taiji... Little things I encounter -- here or elsewhere -- keep nudging me towards getting back to taiji. This is certainly one. I've been waiting for a beginner's class with my old teacher (as it's been 13 years!) and hopefully the new year will be a good starting point. As to your question.. I've not really thought about my fascia much till now. Most of my movement practice in the last 13 years since drifting away from taiji has been weightlifting and the odd bit of rock climbing and running, so the notion of fascia being an integral part of lifting weights and holding things together under high stress certainly struck me, as did the dismissal of the traditional lever model of bones & muscles; the article certainly makes sense. And I think my 'tensegrity' is decent. But (as you might have noticed in my stretching topic) I have been quite inflexible for many years and am wondering if decreased fascial flexibility is playing as much a part in my slow mobility improvement as decreased muscular flexibility. So yes, this could be an argument for taiji and acupuncture, I think. edit: Nope, only just hearing about Rolfing. A little sceptical as far as gravity being the primary factor...but the notion of fascial restructuring/massaging/etc sounds well enough

I'm trying not to take this too seriously or read too much into it, but... drawing a parallel between Trump and Christ, no? Even in a silly parable like this, portraying Trump as running/walking on water, hinting at a comparison with 'Our Lord & Saviour'? Then again, Jesus thought a lot of himself, pretended to be able to do things that were not in his power, and many of his supporters are fanatical lunatics who will believe anything they read as long as it makes them happy, so... maybe the comparison is apt.

Another way to look at it: the PRC and the ROC both claim to be the one true legitimate China. The clue is in the name: Republic of China, not Republic of Taiwan. It's not just the PRC that wants sole recognition as 'China'. This being the case, each other nation in the world basically needs to recognize one or the other, PRC or ROC, as the 'true' China -- not both. So, though we as individuals can all see that they are separately governed nations, in international relations they are both as guilty as each other of being petulant about being recognized as China. If the USA wanted to switch recognition, that's up to the USA, but as a soon-to-be president of a powerful nation, when Trump plays games with the issue it is to be expected that China will say something. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/is-trump-calling-out-xi-jinping/ "Across Asia, every capital is waiting to see how Xi Jinping responds, for a matter of face would seem to be involved. On the trade front, China is deeply vulnerable. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods would cause a sudden massive loss of income to factories in China and a stampede out of the country to elsewhere in Asia by companies now producing in the Middle Kingdom. On the other hand, without China using its economic leverage over North Korea, it is unlikely any sanctions the U.S. and its allies can impose will persuade Kim Jong Un to halt his nuclear-weapons program. China can choke North Korea to death. But China can also step back and let Pyongyang become a nuclear-weapons state, though that could mean Seoul and Tokyo following suit, which would be intolerable to Beijing. Before we go down this road, President-elect Trump and his foreign-policy team ought to think through just where it leads—and where it might end."

Assuming one can find a cheap school, that's a good idea. One thing to bear in mind, perhaps, with this, is that the police can be quite aware of foreigners. If you register with police in one area near the school, and then go off into the mountains to live for 2 years, they might not be too happy that you're not living where you're registered. But depending on where you go, they might not care, I suppose.

Another example of your apparent kindergarten-grade reading level. I did not dismiss the whole thing, I noted that it is still absolutely not sufficient evidence for millions of illegal aliens voting and getting away with it. I asked for any evidence because you never provide any. I thanked you for the belated effort, to show my appreciation that you finally bothered to bless me with a taste of your sacred information, but cannot pretend that what you've given is even remotely sufficient to change my mind on the original issue. For what it's worth, I later continued to scan the document and continued to not find sufficient evidence. Almost everything on there is legal citizens embroiled in voting scams; illegal aliens registering and voting illegally? Not so much. Put as simply as I can so as to confront your truth-avoidance radar head-on: You have insufficient evidence. You hint and hide and pretend that all your evidence is out there, but that unless someone else finds it they must be stupid or prejudiced. But you NEVER provide enough evidence. Trump had insufficient evidence. His claims about illegal aliens voting are utter nonsense. In everything I've ever argued with you about, you have been wrong. Not only unable to produce sufficient evidence, but guilty of the willful ignorance you accuse me of. Welcome to my ignore list.

Yes, 'political correctness', but unlike the relatively minor things we normally label 'PC' and complain about -- not saying swear words, for example -- a politician dealing with crazy foreign politicians and international affairs does actually have to watch what he says. To think that all being a leader is about is saying whatever is on your mind, whatever the consequences, is a bit simple. At this point in history, if all world leaders started telling the truth we'd all be dead in weeks. I'm not saying the truth doesn't matter, it does. I'm saying that what's true and what's false is secondary to what might destroy the delicate relationship that has been cultivated over the last few decades. I've had a similar discussion on truth with Aetherous once before, if I recall. His opinion was that speaking the truth is good always, never to lie. I believe that sometimes it's preferable to lie, or to be diplomatic in one's speech. If you were hiding Jews in your attic in '40s Germany, and the SS asked you straight out... you wouldn't lie? And how is Trump being defended all of a sudden as some kind of beacon of truth? He lies almost every time he opens his foul mouth. He tells non-truths all the time, it's what got him elected. And now suddenly he's a great leader because he decides to piss off the USA's third largest trading partner and largest holder of debt? Nobody's pretending that...

It doesn't really matter. As president-elect, he is as representative of the nation as Obama now. Everything he does from now on is being watched, and carries the unofficial seal of approval of the nation. Using the fact that he's not president yet as an excuse, or pretending that he doesn't understand the levity of the situation, is either reckless or childish -- or he's playing a deeper, more dangerous game. And it's all well to say "But Taiwan is a separate nation so they deserve to be recognized as such," but I think we all know that international politics isn't that simple. We can recognize Taiwan openly, but a world leader needs to step more carefully. I don't know what his game is, but I know I don't trust it.

Nice to read. Simply, nice to see an admission that you know you're not always right. It is not always apparent that you are aware of this... I once called you a 'Muslimophobe' (I think that was the word), but I'm not sure of other 'name-calling' or character attacks. I call you out sometimes, ask for more. Feel free to do the same to me. I've never called you stupid or crazy or evil or fat or ugly, only questioned your opinions, or your approach to dealing with a subject, or asked for your sources. And I maintain that any time you have deigned to link a source, it hasn't been as significant as you would have had me (or others) believe. Either way, "you called me names" is a fairly weak excuse for not bothering to add appropriate information to any conversation. Thank you. OK so I'm scanning for 'registration fraud' and looking for illegal aliens who have committed it. The first I notice is an unidentified man in Arizona this year. A green card, SSN, and driver's licence; not an illegal alien. It should not have been possible, but it happened -- then again, he's not an illegal alien. The second I notice is Arizona again. Caught and dismissed. Looks like there might be a problem with Arizona's system? Scanning another few pages I find no further illegal immigrants committing registration fraud. I'm sure there are more cases, but most of what I'm seeing is legal citizens doing various illegal things. There doesn't seem to be enough ratio of illegals to legals to warrant assuming that millions of illegals are committing registration fraud. Does there?

In black and white terms of right and wrong, one might believe it is wrong to deny the people of Taiwan the recognition that they are a separate nation -- and yes, they are a separate nation, whatever China would have us believe. But politically, I don't think that's the main point. The main thing, however bad it smells, is to play nice with the ever-increasing superpower that far outstrips Taiwan in basically every area. And yeah, to the majority of Westerners who don't know much about the politics involved, it might seem reasonable. Trump is just talking to the president of a friendly country! What's the fuckin' problem! But I think it's a little naive for those of us 'in the know' to believe that Obama and all his predecessors didn't notice that Taiwan is a separate nation -- of course they did. They're not buffoons. They knew very well, and they also knew that it's more important to pretend that China is the only China. Do it first hand? The only way to understand the situation is speak directly to the president? And then he needs to tweet about it? He could easily have a secret phone call, if it were really necessary. Actually I think we can assume that most recent US presidents have had communication with Taiwan's government... but they don't shout about it to piss of the Chinese! He's clearly playing games! Maybe not WW3-level danger games, but still pretty stupid. And... I'm pretty sure that Taiwan is democratic. The fact that the current governing party is the DPP, not the GMD (KMT), is a decent indicator (that free elections have resulted in a change of ruling political party). However, I am not entirely clear on the election process, so if you have info showing that their elections are not meaningful I would certainly be interested (though it probably would deserve its own thread!).

As far as the phone call... Trump should have every right to make or receive a phone call to or from anyone he wants, right? But the vast majority of Chinese citizens believe -- truly believe -- that Taiwan (Republic of China) is part of China (People's Republic of China). They believe that it does not have a legitimately separate government or military or economy or anything else. And the Chinese government has an interest in continuing to have them believe that. The CCP need the people to believe that they are the government of the only legitimate China; the only legitimate government. And however wrong it might seem, I think it's in the USA's best interests to keep China pacified for the foreseeable future. Politically and in various other ways, China is way more important than Taiwan. It was more important in 1979 when official ties between USA and Taiwan were cut, and it's even more important now. So Trump's behaviour is really rather reckless. Whatever one thinks about China -- and for most of us, a democratic state like Taiwan is preferable -- one cannot ignore the reality of China's modern power on the international stage, and that pissing them off without a really important reason is not a great idea. There are surely better ways of dealing with the China situation than yet more puerile 'tweets' from Trump.

In case you're serious... It has nothing to do with peacefulness, it's political. One factor is reciprocity; Australia recently started trialling ten-year multiple-entry visas for Chinese tourists, so I guess it's likely that the same will happen in China for Australian tourists, if it hasn't already. Also, the homicide rate in Australia is higher than in the UK Well, unless you're working/on business or studying at a school that will help you get a student visa, tourist visa seems to be your only option. Meditation visa is not a thing.

Yeah, I claimed that. I didn't say that I never make claims or have opinions! You suggested that if you showed me evidence, I would not believe you, so you don't bother showing me evidence. To which I responded that I am generally able to change my opinion if contrary and convincing evidence is presented, or if I find it myself. But, assuming you are always right and you always have 100% solid evidence backing you up (which you seem to believe), I can't find all this evidence by myself. Even if I look for it, it may very easily pass me by. Again, I'm not claiming to be some superstar researcher. And you seem to have terrible reading comprehension. This was, I think, the first result I looked at: http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/ It is obviously on your side. But from what it said, I was able to extrapolate (big word) that the poll never actually mentioned 'illegal aliens' or anything of the sort -- it mentions noncitizens, never 'illegal'. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/24416 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/?utm_term=.c23ada6cbe29 "... shows that nearly one-fifth of CCES panelists who said that they were not American citizens in 2012 actually reported being American citizens when they were originally surveyed for the 2010 CCES. Since it’s illogical for non-citizens in 2012 to have been American citizens back in 2010, it appears that a substantial number of self-reported non-citizens inaccurately reported their (non)citizenship status in the CCES surveys." People get shit wrong all the time. Nearly a fifth of respondents apparently not able to respond correctly to whether or not they are a citizen. A study this large, and still so much respondent error. You think a poll of 800 is likely to be more accurate? As I noted before, in another survey only 49% of Latinos were able to say with certainty that they were registered voters; in this Mclaughlin poll, a whole 86% of those who claim citizenship say they are registered. That's a big discrepancy. The fact is, a weak poll claiming that 13% of noncitizens are registered to vote proves neither that they are all voting nor that they all have no right to vote (I posted a link in another post showing that in some cases, legal noncitizens are granted the legal right to vote). Yeah... do you believe that everyone who enters the US stays? All illegals just stay put, forever illegal? Some will eventually become citizens; some will leave quickly; some will leave later; some will, indeed, remain illegal for a long time. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2F "Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014 ... More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S. From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico." So.. yeah. Aside from your inflated numbers, though (inflated number of illegal aliens, inflated number who are registered to vote, inflated number who are willing to risk being caught voting [and deported] to cast a vote), do you have any evidence of in-person voter fraud or any illegal immigrant voting (in a presidential election, for simplicity's sake) in the last few cycles?

From my perspective, the only times I ever ignore or get annoyed with or angry at people on here are when they make claims but refuse to provide evidence. If I am aware of evidence, I do my best to take a balanced look at it. This is why, for example, when I signed up to the forum I was a die-hard meat-eater, but am now a fairly convinced veggie. (This wasn't much to do with the forum, but my own research, but still serves as an example). If you or any other member has provided me with good evidence for something and I've dismissed it out of hand, please let me know. As far as internet access: yes, we all have it, and yet I still seem to be among the few who actually use it to find and post evidence on things in order to inform discussion on the board. I'm certainly not always right, but I do try. Erm... the fact that they can't provide proof of citizenship wouldn't be enough? This is the kind of thing that it would be helpful to post evidence for. Am I just supposed to happen across it? I make no claims at being an all-star researcher. One of the points of being on a forum like this is to share information, not simply suggest that everyone else's supply of information is inadequate. First, 13% of those interviewed "admitted" to being noncitizens, but this does not necessarily mean illegal aliens. Second, I don't know how this information is verifiable...? And why are these illegal aliens openly admitting to voter fraud? And one poll of such a small sample (800)? Third, even if these noncitizens are all illegal and should not have been granted the right to vote, 13% would be 1.5 million across the nation. 30% would make up for Trump's gap in the popular vote, assuming they're all voting Clinton, but this is quite a leap. edit: You might note that in another survey, fewer than half of Latinos said they are "absolutely certain" that they are registered to vote. So how far do you trust a source that claims that a poll that talks of 13% noncitizens is actually talking about 13% of illegal aliens, and how sure are you that these illegal aliens are certain when apparently half of registered citizens in this ethnic demographic aren't certain?

Aaaand... there we go again.

Also,

No, but if Trump really wanted to show how correct he is, that 2-3 million illegal votes were cast in Clinton's favour, wouldn't it behoove him to suggest a validation and subsequent recount? In fact, wouldn't it be his responsibility to make sure that this verification and recount happens, and that such a destabilizing blow to legal democracy doesn't happen again? And you don't need to provide e.g. a social security number? And there's no citizenship verification? http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, they’ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. They’ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls. ... Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not. That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration.

I'd be interested to see how you or anyone else explains exactly how illegals are able to vote. Seriously. There seem to be many claiming it, but rarely an indication as to how it's done*. Even legal citizens who are not registered to vote, or people who have already voted and want to vote twice, have a hard time doing it. Voter fraud is extremely rare. *(let alone how it's possible that 3 million illegals could vote without anyone apparently noticing for weeks after) I didn't say the recount is reasonable... I give no opinion on the Stein/Clinton recount thing. I only ask that if Trump really wants people to believe he actually won the popular vote and that it was all rigged and etc etc, why not ask for a recount himself? I'm sure the recount thing is a desperate attempt to not lose. But do you honestly think Trump wouldn't have asked for one? He literally said he would not accept the result if he lost (and then backed up and said something like "We'll see"). I would say that it is truly disingenuous to avoid the issue in question: that Trump is continuing to lie straight out of his arse. Sanders is not wrong to question his motives. It's farcical, the shit he gets away with!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-illegal-votes-evidence-debunked-214487 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/01/how-a-dubious-tweet-about-illegal-votes-found-its-way-to-trumps-megaphone The claims Trump et al are making are utter nonsense, yet again. There is none of this illegal alien voting, or at least no more than a trickle that would have no bearing on the overall result. And even if there were millions of illegals voting, 100% would have to have been voting Clinton in order for the margin of the popular vote to be erased in Trump's favour. So what's the reason behind his nonsense? Sanders might be wrong about the specifics, but he's perfectly reasonable in being paranoid. Trump is using bad information to claim that he's more popular than he is, and to claim that a substantial percentage of those who voted should not have voted. And lots of people likely believe him. Also, if he and his supporters genuinely believe that he should've won the popular vote, why object to recounts? Surely, if they eliminated all these supposed illegal votes, he'd be sitting pretty?

What passport do you hold? http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/gdxw/t1330627.htm Looks like USA and UK nationals can get 2 or 5 or 10 year visas, though probably under certain circumstances. Anyway, my experience with regular re-entry is that it's not much fun. On tourist visas, you either get a visa, stay for 60 or 90 or maybe 120 days, go to Hong Kong, get a new visa, go back, repeat... or get a multiple-entry visa, stay for 60 or 90 or maybe 120 days, go to Hong Kong, go back, repeat... If you're getting a new visa each time in HK there's no guarantee it'll be granted. (Last time I was in HK mine was fine, but I met a guy who'd been living in the hostel for a month because they kept denying him entry and there was talk that they were going to start being harder on people using HK as a quick re-entry point.) Either way, going in and out requires trains or planes, time and money. I don't know any 'loophole' for being able to stay a longer uninterrupted duration on a tourist visa unless you simply ignore the law, stay past your visa date, and get in trouble with customs when you do eventually leave. And to be clear, I am not recommending that.

The things the mainstream media cover often seem quite random to me. Anyway, as far as Gatlinburg... Searching 'gatlinburg' on Google News, I see results from Monday and Tuesday, from Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, Daily Mail, BBC, Huffington, CBS, NYT, and others. So it has been covered, if not pushed to the front of the news. Perhaps one reason it hasn't been covered so heavily because wildfires are burning all over that area of the US right now and it takes something more extreme to catch attention. (See this map: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/PublicInformation/index.html?appid=4ae7c683b9574856a3d3b7f75162b3f4) I too hope that those of you in the vicinity of any of these fires are safe and remain so. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live in an area where that is a real fear.

What is your "national identity"?

Are you sure? In answer to the OP... my understanding is that some believe and some don't. From a post-positivist existentialist Daoist perspective, the "afterlife" is whatever the universe does after you're dead. The whole Great Thing is a pre-life, peri-life, and post-life party. edit: also I'm not sure why this is in Textual Studies...?

My legalese is not very good. Anyone care to confirm what this says? http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0143/cbill_2015-20160143_en_2.htm#pt1-pb2-l1g5 5 Definition of “lawful authority” (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has lawful authority to carry out an interception if, and only if— {a} the interception is carried out in accordance with— (i) a targeted interception warrant or mutual assistance warrant under Chapter 1 of Part 2, or (ii) a bulk interception warrant under Chapter 1 of Part 6, {b} the interception is authorised by any of sections 37 to 45, or Investigatory Powers Bill {c} in the case of a communication stored in or by a telecommunication system, the interception— (i) is carried out in accordance with a targeted equipment interference warrant under Part 5 or a bulk equipment interference warrant under Chapter 3 of Part 6, (ii) is in the exercise of any statutory power that is exercised for the purpose of obtaining information or taking possession of any document or other property, or (iii) is carried out in accordance with a court order made for that purpose. ........................... 38 Interception by providers of postal or telecommunications services (1) The interception of a communication is authorised by this section if the interception is carried out— {a} by, or on behalf of, a person who provides a postal service or a telecommunications service, and {b} for any of the purposes in subsection (2). (2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1) are— {a} purposes relating to the provision or operation of the service; {b} purposes relating to the enforcement, in relation to the service, of any enactment relating to— (i) the use of postal or telecommunications services, or (ii) the content of communications transmitted by means of such services; {c} purposes relating to the provision of services or facilities aimed at preventing or restricting the viewing or publication of the content of communications transmitted by means of postal or telecommunications services.