A web-friend from another site is a theoretical physicist at IBM and he's told me outright he's religious. He just interprets his belief through science and humanism and considers all the religious mythology to be allegorical, but perfectly reasonable if interpreted honourably.

Strictly speaking the Scientific Method itself is by definition agnostic. This begins and ends with the very first rule of scientific method: all hypotheses, extrapolation and theorum are falsifiable.
There's even math for the fact no fact is a fact, even though it is.

The statement "scientifically atheist" is non-sequiteur, it is meaningless and claimant presenting pseudoscientific opinion, rather.

Well you see the thing is, the situation in Kiev is what Europe has always been like just under the carpet, this whole time that it's been around.
It's never been any different. Kiev is just with the blanket removed. It is what is underneath.
It is nothing new or remarkable to the Europeans, the difference between there and home is they're presently a bit ungoverned.

It's really kind of Americans and international extremist groups who freak out over all this stuff, half of which is grossly exaggerated by cherry picking coverage, by commercial mediae, and by political and business agendas among them.

For Enron to get to the Caspian and cut deals with Ossetians, with US military support against the Russian ownership of the oil table, Russia still has to be villainous in the American public mind. Otherwise things like that could bring down the government.

But Europeans have no use for these kind of fictions. They don't own Enron.

Laws are limited.

Having a rule of law means that you have to use the same laws for everybody. It also means you have to use a limited number of written laws for every situation.

No set of words is capable of doing either very accurately.

A painting would be better. If the laws were drawn as paintings instead of written in words we would all understand them much better.
But they couldn't be used in a court anymore.

So all laws are going to be imperfect. It is the role of the court to interpret the law and apply it to a specific situation and people.

When you have a consenting 16yr old having sex with a 25yr old and in that state it is statutory rape, and the girl's conservative parents pressed charges on her behalf as a minor...
What happens is the judge is supposed to sentence only a slap on the wrist and a conviction (eg. a suspended sentence or time already served in remand).
FYI this is also the reason some civil rights groups and the authorities are against publicly accessible sexual offenders registries, there is no governing of leniency for reasonable situations that were still recorded as convictions due to imperfect laws.

But, when you have a 16yr old that is perhaps mentally retarded, who is bullied into consenting for sex by a predatory 25yr old drug dealer that lives down the street, well the judge can hand down maximum penalties for that statutory rape even if they can't get the arsehole on drug charges yet.

So that's the time the imperfect law is working for you.

Legally, the way that statutory rape came about is because of a medical term called "qualified consent" or "informed consent", meaning you have to be mentally capable of consenting to consent, even if you consent verbally. Otherwise the decision of consent defaults to a guardian or blood family.

Statutory rape is designed to protect people who can't protect themselves, it is not designed to seek out evil alien invaders amongst us called "criminals" and destroy them.
Laws are to protect.

But are imperfect.

And yet the facts remain the same.

A person with an enforced right to lawful, physical freedoms and liberties elects to remain within an abusive environment.

Such people abuse themselves primarily.

Ergo the only possible achievement of lending emotional support to the decision of remaining in an abusive environment by choice, with shaking fists at the sky and elves for so damning them, is to waste resources better spent on individuals who don't elect to remain in abusive environments, but physically have no freedom of choice in the matter, such as the destitute being forced to live in a slum and their children being born into such a horrible existence nobody on earth actually wants.

They deserve the resources an idiot who stays with an abuser by choice would otherwise usurp for no goddamn reason other than pretentious greed and self worship.

Misdemeanor assault means "to give an apprehension of violence."

If I assume you mean felony assault, you'd need to qualify that with injury.

So I'm going to go with misdemeanor assault.

Was the big scary girl scary to you?

Let's say you do mean injurious assault, are we talking her nails scratched you whilst she hopelessly tried to (ahem) pummel you into submission with her gigantic fists?

It's a bit convoluted to suggest...but technically what you can do is lawfully resist an unlawful arrest by the perpetrator of the phone call.

Whenever your public causeway is specifically impeded by a person, it is legally an arrest. The legal term means literally, your physical freedom is being arrested by an individual.
It is the basis of by-laws like placing obstacles on public paths being illegal.

What this means is, shoving your way past the person impeding you no longer becomes misdemeanor assault, but becomes resisting an unlawful arrest.

Except a spiritual forum would use qualified references such as cultural and historic meditation techniques, inyodo, shugenja mikkyo, tibetan mysticism, gogyo setsu, gotonpo, none of which mention anything about ups and downs.

It's inward or outward.

It's not really a tremendous surprise a person which illustrates pretentious regard so absolutely doesn't understand other people's points of view.

Men do.

So move there it's so real. Don't expect anyone else to think it's real (ie. her) until you do.

Who are these "most people" whom "think this and that" about your decisions?

Are they possibly, all in your mind?

The right time to do any damn thing I feel like is whenever the hell I feel like it. That'd be because I self-govern and don't do anything or even want to do anything that I don't want to, all consequence and inspiration included within measure.

There is no such thing as "wrong" in personal decisions about lawful behaviour. Just plain no such thing.

Better man up son. You're trying to play the girl's game.

That whole outlook can work for a woman. The only thing it can do for a man is get you destitute and living in a shelter whinging about how the world is so evil and you are so kind.

Men just do the job. Let the women wish for other people to do their job.

Just to add a little more qualified theology, which religious fundamentalists like to ignore for obvious reasons like personal agendas or mental illness,

Lucifer which appears in christian bibles is a hebrew monarch title, like "Richard the Lionheart", Lucifer means "shining light" or "morning star" and was given to Nebudchannezzar, whom also appears in the bible. It was his political title. It's not a fallen angel or anything like that.

In fact there is no mythology in old hebrew. It's all just records and politics and legislative minutes. Quite boring actually. Kabbalists introduced all the mythology and pentacostal christians took it to new heights that we have to (unfortunately) live with today.

Anyhoo, Lucifer is just Nebudchannezzar, just some regular king who was a bit of an arse-monkey.

Also:
Demon, originally meant angel or nobleman. Pretty interchangeable words in old hebrew actually, nphlm and serphm (by encounter or dream respectively). Also mistranslated as giant.
Some rabbi in the 1st century did a pinnacle mistranslation of hebrew to greek which turned "divine messenger" into "ancestral spirit" (greek: damon), which in latin bibles reads "spirit" (latin: demon), which then when the British got involved, turned into "malevolent spirit" (middle english: deuil, modern english: devil).

And devil as a word didn't even exist until after the 13th century. No such thing in early scriptures original documentation.

These concepts are pagan, not hebrew, christianity adopted them, but not from its claimed roots. From people it was converting along the way, who believed in angry spirits we should all fear and stupid ways like that of running a society.

Do you go to work and kiss your wife because you're scared of angry spirits? No. So it doesn't build a damn thing.

And yes, women argue about everything, constantly.

Could be something to do with blokes trumping them on fists.

But yes, strictly speaking, the word fits. A neutral word, not a bad word, and it is a necessary element of humanism.

Well, just because you seem sincere...

Satan is an old old hebrew word completely mistranslated to mean some pagan god that got mixed into early christianity around the 3rd century.

What satan actually means, in hebrew, is "defence advocate" or public legal representation. Strictly translated it means "arguer" but that was the word used for public advocates back then.

It doesn't mean anything bad. It is a completely neutral title, and not a name, not a noun, it is a verb and a title.
A child arguing that they did not steal some cookies is playing the role of satan. That doesn't mean you need to kill the child. It means they're making a legal defence, and you should make an intelligent prosecution of your case to satisfy them, and maintain civilised proceedings within your house.

As opposed to animist egotism and rule by dictatorship, which gets parents, not children killed rather, you'll invariably find.

Well occasionally I've tried really hard to be completely retarded because occasionally a person thinks that's what they need to be to please other people and become socially successful, but I gotta be honest. I just can't get there.

It could be something to do with not being retarded.

Religious affiliation could be no greater descriptor of violence than eye colour.

What you require is a person in a position to willingly perform violence, secondarily comes their eye colour and affiliations.
Anthropologist Society of America statement of Ethical conduct (on their website): "Correlation does not infer causation."

It's repackaged old news. Journals sometimes do that to gain the interest of new generations. A bit like an article saying, "New findings suggest quanta maybe both a particle and a wave, pub.2002."
Well, yeah, we were reading about that in 1895 and read the confirmations by experimentation in 1916.

People forget I guess, so science journalism likes to remind them by claiming it's something new. Wow, so now all the new students with a dream switch over from social-sciences to theoretical-astrophysics.

Seriously, like really old news. 1930s old news. Everybody knows this about Einstein. And he fudged some findings too. Nothing new.

Also known as the ionosphere, well the lower belt a contributor anyways.

No need to try to destroy them. Every time you send a body through them it diminishes them. Back in the 80s it was theorized they'd be largely gone by 2030 at contemporary pace of high orbit launches.

These "scientists around the world" are by no means a consensus, but like an extremist right wing party being used to represent all politics. It's just one group, not a particularly rational group.

Yes we need them. The ionized particles help deflect the solar wind. They're part of our magnetosphere.
Without it, the atmosphere literally gets blown right off the surface of our planet, just like Mars. That simple.

Back in the 80s there was terrific concern about the damage satellite launches was doing to the belts. That concern has increased, not suddenly been replaced by some counter-intuitive epiphany.


A far greater, actual threat to any further manned orbits is nicely characterised by the recent movie "Gravity", the artificial space junk left up there for the last 60 years is far and away a greater danger to any manned orbits than anything else whatsoever.
Only debris the size of a tennis ball can be tracked and avoided, but anything the size of a match-head will down a manned anything, and literally blow it smitherines in the process.
There's tens of thousands of known artificial debris being tracked, estimates are in the realm of millions of pieces that utterly deadly to any manned mission that can't be tracked, and it just multiplies everytime one bit hits another bit.

Just a stab in the dark but maybe here is where their target market is to be found?

It's kind of like, why are there so many commercials on tv. Or why does commercial media tell blatant lies.
The very question says the method is working. It's no longer working when you switch off the tv and look up your own journalist references regarding current affairs.

And scammers no longer work against you when you ignore them before it has time to even bother you.