That's a mighty fine straw man you've built there, but I don't see the resemblance.
I'm trying to find in either of my previous posts where I said I was 'happy' that the fundies shot themselves in the foot on this one. Be a sport and point it out for me, will you?
How exactly does that 'prove your point'? To quote your earlier post:
Spend two minutes in a class watching the kids actually recite a pledge, and you'll realize it's noting more than rote recitation of an outdated "poem".
So, no I don't understand why it's chilling to them. If the kids believed what they were saying, maybe you'd have a point.
So your contention is that the children who recite the Pledge by rote (who, according to you, don't even believe what they are saying) every day because they are expected to (perhaps not required to, but most certainly expected to) are actually doing it because they desire to. While the immigrants, who have worked hard to fulfill the requirements to become legal citizens of this country, are reciting the Pledge only because they are being forced to.
Ah yes, it's another year divisible by two, as you can tell by the haunting call of the red-breasted politician:
Won't somebody think of the children? Won't somebody think of the children???
From TFA:
Fitzpatrick and fellow Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, on Wednesday endorsed new legislation that would cordon off access to commercial Web sites that let users create public "Web pages or profiles" and also offer a discussion board, chat room, or e-mail service.
That's a rather wide range, and a quick perusal of the web (Google is your friend) gives ample reason why this is such a moronic idea:
We've all heard stories of children on some of these social websites meeting up with dangerous predators.
Well, we've heard stories of various congresscritters involved in all sorts of shenanigans....perhaps we'd better just outlaw Congress.
Now, I'm not trying to deny that online predators exist and are a problem, but a better solution than a draconian ban on all discussion-type websites might be to actually educate your child about the danger...after all, the predator can't molest your child through the computer, and if a child knows better than to give out sensitive info, it's over before it begins. But of course, parents would rather have our legislature raise their children than take a little responsibility themselves, and the legislature is more than willing to pander to the irrationality of the general populace, especially in a year divisible by two. The problem with this approach is that everyone gets treated like stupid children that need to be protected, and that's unfair to those who still have their wits about them (although they seem to be in the minority).
I think you're misinterpreting me here...I myself am in no way in favor of the.xxx domain proposal, but I'm just pointing out that by opposing it for their own myopic reasons, the fundies shot themselves in the foot.
I'm actually very grateful the initiative is dead, because of the slippery-slope argument. Sure, we can all agree that the hardcore stuff can be legitimately classified as 'porn', but what about the nude photo you mentioned above? What about nudes in art? What about nudes in medical texts?
No, the.xxx domain is better off dead, but the reasons against it I cited are not the reasons it was killed. It was killed because the fundies were upset that its creation would legitimize smut, seemingly not aware that it was the killing of said initiative that really did the legitimization.
By managing to force ICANN to kill this initiative, you've made certain smut remains where it belongs...out of sight and out of mind (your sight and your mind, anyway).
Never mind that by stopping the.xxx domain you've neatly made it impossible to protect minors from exposure to pornography (your ostensible goal)...after all, the style is more important than the substance, and 'heroically making a stand against the legitimization of pornography on the Internet' sounds quite stylish, doesn't it?.
Never mind that porn is as old as the human species, and will continue to be present on the Internet just as it has been present in every other media in human history.
Never mind that your rejection of an accepted place for it to be located just insures that it will remain in unacceptable places.
Nope...it's much more important (not to mention easier) to address the hot-button issue of the legitimization of adult content, while conveniently ignoring the reality: that porn isn't going anywhere, no matter how much the fundies shout..
So porn on the Internet will remain where it belongs...all-pervasive and impossible to effectively block...but at least you made your 'stand'. Well done.
A physics professor and his assistant are working on liberating negatively charged hydroxyl ions, when all of a sudden, the assistant says, "Wait, Professor! What if the salicylic acids do not accept the hydroxyl ions?" And the professor responds, "That's no hydroxyl ion! That's my wife!"
Hu says she and her fellow moderators try to steer what they consider negative conversations in a positive direction with a well-placed comment.
So she's a professional astroturfer as well as an informant.
Some more:
Hu is a small part of a huge effort in mainland China to sanitize the Internet.
'Sterilize' the Internet would be more appropriate.
And finally:
"I don't think anybody can possibly control any information in Internet," said Ji Xiaoyin, 20, a third-year Shanghai Normal student studying mechanical design. "If you're not allowed to talk here, you just go to another place to talk, and there are countless places for your opinions. It's easy to bypass the firewalls, and anybody who spends a little time researching it can figure it out."
Ji Xiaoyn, please report to your local Party official for reeducation.
Agreed, Gary is an idiot. His moonbat UFO-tech stories notwithstanding, anyone who breaks into systems by exploiting blank administrator passwords really isn't much of a 'hacker', and anyone who says they managed to get a UFO picture, but didn't save a screen dump is either a moron or a liar.
All that said, 70 years? Incarcerating Gary for what amounts to a life sentence for his harmless sightseeing is more than too harsh...it makes him a martyr to hackerdom...a martyr that actual hackers would much rather not be associated with.
Instead, how about some action against the clueless sysadmins who left vital Army, Navy, Air Force, and DoD systems vulnerable to such a sophomoric and elementary 'attack' by not passwording administrator-level accounts? If I ever failed to protect my network against such an intrusion, I'd be cleaning out my desk at the end of the day.
Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.
Of course, if the U.S. is just looking for another 'terrorist' to keep the public's fear level at fever pitch, I suppose the uber-hacker Gary McKinnon will do nicely.
Pricing for a feature film will be about the same as the DVD release.
Warner added that whether a TV show or feature film, it will only play on the initial computer used to make the download.
The downloads will not therefore work on other PCs or standard DVD players.
So let me get this straight...I can download a feature film, but can only play it on the system I downloaded it to, while for the same price I could have a DVD that I can play anywhere I wish. Hmm.
Also the issue of extra content (out-takes, deleted scenes, yadda yadda yadda) is not addressed. The article says I can download a 'feature film', but it mentions nothing regarding the bonus features (personally, I despise the bonus features, but I know many people who purchase DVDs with the bonus features specifically in mind). Even if the extra content is included (making for a hefty download), that still doesn't justify the price tag, seeing how the download is locked to one machine.
This doesn't really sound like Warner Bros. "believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film"...it sounds more like:
Warner Bros. wants to appear as if they are supporting movie downloads, while,
Warner Bros.' actual objective is to discourage the adoption of downloadable content as a standard.
Thanks for nothing, Warner Bros..
Why aren't they trying the $1.50 experiment here in the U.S.? Apparently, we're not pirating enough.
Re:Um, Rupert Murdoch isn't a logical fallacy, so
on
Alaa Has Been Detained
·
· Score: 1
Good point. I am often guilty of making the assumption that my opponent is debating me in earnest, regardless of the misguidedness of their views or the feebleness of their arguments.
You are entirely correct. I've been trolled most egregiously.
GuloGulo, feeding time is over. Hope you got your fill.
Re:Um, Rupert Murdoch isn't a logical fallacy, so
on
Alaa Has Been Detained
·
· Score: 1
Wow...the wheels have certainly come off now, haven't they? You've completely ceased making any sense at all.
Try to follow along here:
My original statement directed you to check the documentary 'OutFOXed' to see how Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology. You claimed this as an ad hominem (whiich it clearly isn't...you might want to actually read the Wikipedia entry you so blithely linked to).
Sure sounds like a defense...although it is a particularly sloppy one.
You also defended Rupert indirectly by denying my assertion that FOX news is incapable of generating an unbiased story. As I explained in my last post, Rupert owns the network and makes the rules. He decides what airs and what doesn't. Therefore, by defending FOX news, you're defending its owner and main architect.
Again, sounds like a defense.
As for the rest of your post, nothing but sound and fury...nothing of value whatsoever.
My challenge still stands, but don't worry....no one expects you to actually accept it.
Do me a favor, quote the exact place where I defended Rupert Murdoch.
"Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted..."
Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy.
Done.
Then explain how my defense of individual stories is equivalent to a defense of Rupert Murdoch.
Because Rupert Murdoch owns the network, and he controls what airs and what doesn't.
Then explain why you insist on acting as though they are the same.
See above answer.
Then explain why you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion when you're incapable of telling the difference.
A better question mught be: why do you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion, when you're seemingly incapable of making the connection?
One last thing, a spelling error? Is that the only way you could refute me?
Hilarious. Apparently all my other refutations have gone completely unnoticed. That's the level of attention I'd expect from a person who boasts that they use their 'brian' instead of relying on movies to do their thinking...
But of coue, all of this is entirely beside the point (which was obviously your intention). The point remains that:
You've watched the documentary 'OutFOXed' (or you at least claim to) and,
You maintain that FOX News is capable of acting in an unbiased fashion.
And before you waste more of my time asking me to supply the quote, here it is
"If you actually watched OutFOXed [outfoxed.org], you wouldn't bother trying to maintain that FOX News is capable of generating an unbiased story."
I have and I do.
In my last post, I challenged you to refute the material presented in 'OutFOXed'. So far, I've seen nothing of substance from you...which, sadly, is exactly what I expected.
But that's because I use my brian [sic] instead of relying on movies to do my thinking for me like you have.
Well, with a 'brian' like yours, perhaps you ought to rely on movies a bit more, although I doubt that would help.
If you've actually watched OutFOXed, and you still persist in defending Rupert, perhaps you could offer some refutations of what was presented. Surely your 'brian' can come up with a few...
If, however, you're lying (which I strongly suspect), you 'll continue to offer nothing more substantive than your baseless personal attacks.
Wow...all those words, and you managed to say absolutely nothing. You do know that the White House Press Secretary position has already been filled, right?
If you actually watched OutFOXed, you wouldn't bother trying to maintain that FOX News is capable of generating an unbiased story.
Here's a downloadable version (Part 1 Part 2). Watch it and get back to me...and then try to tell me that my language regarding Rupert Murdoch was inappropriate.
(P.S. If your opponent has truly 'lost', then you shouldn't have to state in your post. Making that assertion without any support only makes you look stupid.)
So because a news organiziation admits bias, that automatically moots all their points?
In a word, yes.
A news organization that is biased is no longer objective, and is therefore worth much less than an unbiased news source. Fox News is demonstrably biased, so much so that their 'news' is worthless.
Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology.
[Fox News] is hardly a bastion of Conservative thought.
What a joke. Especially since the bias has been admitted by Fox itself.
But perhaps you're right...perhaps I should peruse Powerline, Opinion Journal, American Spectator or National Review. As I am a bit short on time, could you please provide links to articles in said blogs and magazines reporting the discovery of WMDs in Iraq or proof of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
After all, these publications couldn't possibly be muzzled by the 'liberal media conspiracy', or else you wouldn't be placing so much faith in them, would you? Surely these publications will be 'trumpeting' these important facts...
WMD actually have been found in Iraq as well as the intent to manufacture them.
Liar. Cite proof of this or admit your lie.
Ties to Al Qaeda have also been found.
See response to above.
BUt I doubt the media is trumpeting that much.
If WMDs were actually found in Iraq (or ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda were discovered), do you really think the current administration would spare any expense 'trumpeting' this information? And seeing how the new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, was a former White House news anchor, your cute little fantasy about the 'liberal media' keeping the American public in the dark to promote 'their agenda' is revealed as the bullshit right-wing propaganda it is.
I could respond to the rest of your 'points' in the same manner, but this is already getting too long, and I don't feel like wading through two more paragraphs of non-sequeturs, ad homenim attacks, and outright lies. Take your astroturfing elsewhere...most readers here are smart enough to not watch Fox News.
Funny, that, liberals and Europe want intervention in places like Darfur and Iran but when it came to US securing itself, it was somehow unjustified, even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.
Iraq has never attacked America. Saddam's regime was no threat whatsoever to Americans. If you're going to try to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, then go ahead and do so, but in case you haven't been reading the papers, the total number of WMDs (the ostensible reason we attacked in the first place) discovered in Iraq remains zero.
Civil liberties in America are no different today than they were pre-9/11.
Nice astroturfing, but all a reasonable person need do to know just how many of their 'inalienable' rights have been stripped away by the current administration is to read it, your smokescreening notwithstanding.
-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
From TFA (emphasis mine):
The standard big bang theory says the universe began with a massive explosion, but the new theory suggests it is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs and big crunches - where every particle of matter collapses together.
And also from TFA (again, emphasis mine):
With each bang, the theory predicts that matter keeps on expanding and dissipating into infinite space before another horrendous blast of radiation and matter replenishes it.
Now, I'm no cosmologist, but these two descriptions of the theory seem to be in conflict...does the matter in the universe come together in the Big Crunch, or does it fly off into space forever, replenished by subsequent Big Bang events?
If the Guardian Unlimited doesn't even know what the theory is proposing, why are they reporting it?
Fortunately, we needn't depend upon Guardian Unlimited for our cosmology news...Nature.com happens to have a much more informative article on the subject. What's especially amusing is that they've had this article since April 26th of 2002.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a mighty fine straw man you've built there, but I don't see the resemblance.
I'm trying to find in either of my previous posts where I said I was 'happy' that the fundies shot themselves in the foot on this one. Be a sport and point it out for me, will you?
How exactly does that 'prove your point'? To quote your earlier post:So your contention is that the children who recite the Pledge by rote (who, according to you, don't even believe what they are saying) every day because they are expected to (perhaps not required to, but most certainly expected to) are actually doing it because they desire to. While the immigrants, who have worked hard to fulfill the requirements to become legal citizens of this country, are reciting the Pledge only because they are being forced to.
Is that really your position?
There's a first time for everything, I guess.
Here's one, at least.
Yes, that's comforting....problem is, we're under it, and when it collapses, it's gonna hurt.
Ah yes, it's another year divisible by two, as you can tell by the haunting call of the red-breasted politician:
From TFA:
That's a rather wide range, and a quick perusal of the web (Google is your friend) gives ample reason why this is such a moronic idea:
And from Speaker Hastert's statement: Well, we've heard stories of various congresscritters involved in all sorts of shenanigans....perhaps we'd better just outlaw Congress.
Now, I'm not trying to deny that online predators exist and are a problem, but a better solution than a draconian ban on all discussion-type websites might be to actually educate your child about the danger...after all, the predator can't molest your child through the computer, and if a child knows better than to give out sensitive info, it's over before it begins. But of course, parents would rather have our legislature raise their children than take a little responsibility themselves, and the legislature is more than willing to pander to the irrationality of the general populace, especially in a year divisible by two. The problem with this approach is that everyone gets treated like stupid children that need to be protected, and that's unfair to those who still have their wits about them (although they seem to be in the minority).
I think you're misinterpreting me here...I myself am in no way in favor of the
I'm actually very grateful the initiative is dead, because of the slippery-slope argument. Sure, we can all agree that the hardcore stuff can be legitimately classified as 'porn', but what about the nude photo you mentioned above? What about nudes in art? What about nudes in medical texts?
No, the
By managing to force ICANN to kill this initiative, you've made certain smut remains where it belongs...out of sight and out of mind (your sight and your mind, anyway).
Never mind that by stopping the
Never mind that porn is as old as the human species, and will continue to be present on the Internet just as it has been present in every other media in human history.
Never mind that your rejection of an accepted place for it to be located just insures that it will remain in unacceptable places.
Nope...it's much more important (not to mention easier) to address the hot-button issue of the legitimization of adult content, while conveniently ignoring the reality: that porn isn't going anywhere, no matter how much the fundies shout..
So porn on the Internet will remain where it belongs...all-pervasive and impossible to effectively block...but at least you made your 'stand'. Well done.
From TFA: So she's a professional astroturfer as well as an informant.
Some more: 'Sterilize' the Internet would be more appropriate.
And finally: Ji Xiaoyn, please report to your local Party official for reeducation.
Agreed, Gary is an idiot. His moonbat UFO-tech stories notwithstanding, anyone who breaks into systems by exploiting blank administrator passwords really isn't much of a 'hacker', and anyone who says they managed to get a UFO picture, but didn't save a screen dump is either a moron or a liar.
All that said, 70 years? Incarcerating Gary for what amounts to a life sentence for his harmless sightseeing is more than too harsh...it makes him a martyr to hackerdom...a martyr that actual hackers would much rather not be associated with.
Instead, how about some action against the clueless sysadmins who left vital Army, Navy, Air Force, and DoD systems vulnerable to such a sophomoric and elementary 'attack' by not passwording administrator-level accounts? If I ever failed to protect my network against such an intrusion, I'd be cleaning out my desk at the end of the day.
Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.
Of course, if the U.S. is just looking for another 'terrorist' to keep the public's fear level at fever pitch, I suppose the uber-hacker Gary McKinnon will do nicely.
Mplayer will play Windows Media Player format in Linux, although like the Mac Windows Media Player, DRMed content is not supported.
From TFA: So let me get this straight...I can download a feature film, but can only play it on the system I downloaded it to, while for the same price I could have a DVD that I can play anywhere I wish. Hmm.
Also the issue of extra content (out-takes, deleted scenes, yadda yadda yadda) is not addressed. The article says I can download a 'feature film', but it mentions nothing regarding the bonus features (personally, I despise the bonus features, but I know many people who purchase DVDs with the bonus features specifically in mind). Even if the extra content is included (making for a hefty download), that still doesn't justify the price tag, seeing how the download is locked to one machine.
This doesn't really sound like Warner Bros. "believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film"...it sounds more like:
while,
Thanks for nothing, Warner Bros..
Why aren't they trying the $1.50 experiment here in the U.S.? Apparently, we're not pirating enough.
Good point. I am often guilty of making the assumption that my opponent is debating me in earnest, regardless of the misguidedness of their views or the feebleness of their arguments.
You are entirely correct. I've been trolled most egregiously.
GuloGulo, feeding time is over. Hope you got your fill.
Wow...the wheels have certainly come off now, haven't they? You've completely ceased making any sense at all.
Try to follow along here:
My original statement directed you to check the documentary 'OutFOXed' to see how Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology. You claimed this as an ad hominem (whiich it clearly isn't...you might want to actually read the Wikipedia entry you so blithely linked to).
Sure sounds like a defense...although it is a particularly sloppy one.
You also defended Rupert indirectly by denying my assertion that FOX news is incapable of generating an unbiased story. As I explained in my last post, Rupert owns the network and makes the rules. He decides what airs and what doesn't. Therefore, by defending FOX news, you're defending its owner and main architect.
Again, sounds like a defense.
As for the rest of your post, nothing but sound and fury...nothing of value whatsoever.
My challenge still stands, but don't worry....no one expects you to actually accept it.
Do me a favor, quote the exact place where I defended Rupert Murdoch.
Done.
Then explain how my defense of individual stories is equivalent to a defense of Rupert Murdoch.
Because Rupert Murdoch owns the network, and he controls what airs and what doesn't.
Then explain why you insist on acting as though they are the same.
See above answer.
Then explain why you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion when you're incapable of telling the difference.
A better question mught be: why do you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion, when you're seemingly incapable of making the connection?
One last thing, a spelling error? Is that the only way you could refute me?
Hilarious. Apparently all my other refutations have gone completely unnoticed. That's the level of attention I'd expect from a person who boasts that they use their 'brian' instead of relying on movies to do their thinking...
But of coue, all of this is entirely beside the point (which was obviously your intention). The point remains that:
and,
And before you waste more of my time asking me to supply the quote, here it is
In my last post, I challenged you to refute the material presented in 'OutFOXed'. So far, I've seen nothing of substance from you...which, sadly, is exactly what I expected.
But that's because I use my brian [sic] instead of relying on movies to do my thinking for me like you have.
Well, with a 'brian' like yours, perhaps you ought to rely on movies a bit more, although I doubt that would help.
If you've actually watched OutFOXed, and you still persist in defending Rupert, perhaps you could offer some refutations of what was presented. Surely your 'brian' can come up with a few...
If, however, you're lying (which I strongly suspect), you 'll continue to offer nothing more substantive than your baseless personal attacks.
Which will it be, I wonder?
Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
What a joke. This sentence alone shows the worthlessness of this 'study'.
Wow...all those words, and you managed to say absolutely nothing. You do know that the White House Press Secretary position has already been filled, right?
If you actually watched OutFOXed, you wouldn't bother trying to maintain that FOX News is capable of generating an unbiased story.
Here's a downloadable version (Part 1 Part 2). Watch it and get back to me...and then try to tell me that my language regarding Rupert Murdoch was inappropriate.
(P.S. If your opponent has truly 'lost', then you shouldn't have to state in your post. Making that assertion without any support only makes you look stupid.)
So because a news organiziation admits bias, that automatically moots all their points?
In a word, yes.
A news organization that is biased is no longer objective, and is therefore worth much less than an unbiased news source. Fox News is demonstrably biased, so much so that their 'news' is worthless.
Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology.
[Fox News] is hardly a bastion of Conservative thought.
What a joke. Especially since the bias has been admitted by Fox itself.
But perhaps you're right...perhaps I should peruse Powerline, Opinion Journal, American Spectator or National Review. As I am a bit short on time, could you please provide links to articles in said blogs and magazines reporting the discovery of WMDs in Iraq or proof of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
After all, these publications couldn't possibly be muzzled by the 'liberal media conspiracy', or else you wouldn't be placing so much faith in them, would you? Surely these publications will be 'trumpeting' these important facts...
Thanks in advance.
Perhaps because the newspapers only print stories that promote their own agenda.
Oh...you mean like Fox News?
WMD actually have been found in Iraq as well as the intent to manufacture them.
Liar. Cite proof of this or admit your lie.
Ties to Al Qaeda have also been found.
See response to above.
BUt I doubt the media is trumpeting that much.
If WMDs were actually found in Iraq (or ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda were discovered), do you really think the current administration would spare any expense 'trumpeting' this information? And seeing how the new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, was a former White House news anchor, your cute little fantasy about the 'liberal media' keeping the American public in the dark to promote 'their agenda' is revealed as the bullshit right-wing propaganda it is.
I could respond to the rest of your 'points' in the same manner, but this is already getting too long, and I don't feel like wading through two more paragraphs of non-sequeturs, ad homenim attacks, and outright lies. Take your astroturfing elsewhere...most readers here are smart enough to not watch Fox News.
Funny, that, liberals and Europe want intervention in places like Darfur and Iran but when it came to US securing itself, it was somehow unjustified, even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.
Iraq has never attacked America. Saddam's regime was no threat whatsoever to Americans. If you're going to try to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, then go ahead and do so, but in case you haven't been reading the papers, the total number of WMDs (the ostensible reason we attacked in the first place) discovered in Iraq remains zero.
Civil liberties in America are no different today than they were pre-9/11.
Nice astroturfing, but all a reasonable person need do to know just how many of their 'inalienable' rights have been stripped away by the current administration is to read it, your smokescreening notwithstanding.
I don't believe that the Patriot Act is truly trying to usher in a fascist state, but I can see where a later administration could really abuse it.
You might want to check out the following links:
From TFA (emphasis mine): And also from TFA (again, emphasis mine):
Now, I'm no cosmologist, but these two descriptions of the theory seem to be in conflict...does the matter in the universe come together in the Big Crunch, or does it fly off into space forever, replenished by subsequent Big Bang events?
If the Guardian Unlimited doesn't even know what the theory is proposing, why are they reporting it?
Fortunately, we needn't depend upon Guardian Unlimited for our cosmology news...Nature.com happens to have a much more informative article on the subject. What's especially amusing is that they've had this article since April 26th of 2002.