Is there skepticism on this forum?

[consistency]

[Weaver]

Here is where our new friend has elected to "test the waters."

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... l#p1824718

It's not going too well for him. I fear we're a great disappointment.

Please provide a neuronal definition of 'disappointment'. Without one, you'll just continue to chase your own tail. About time someone set this discussion on the right track.

All this focus on neuronal levels just goes to show that the "skeptics" here don't understand things on a biochemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or quantum level. Until people can engage in a discussion of how everything relies on the Higgs Boson, I'm afraid further engagement is futile.

[SkyMutt]

Hello, consistency--you wouldn't happen to be a hairy little man, would you?

[Spinozasgalt]

Welcome. Come on in, consistency!

[reddix]

On behalf of the Ratskep Super Secret Repetitive Redundancy Society (RSSRRS), welcome consistency.

[Spinozasgalt]

We should all welcome consistency.

[Cito di Pense]

We should all welcome consistency.

I prefer the consistency of pudding, but whatever consistency you prefer, the rheologists have been there before you.

Here's a new word for you: thixotropic. Another one: rheopectic.

Shake, shake, the ketchup bottle
First none'll come, and then a lot'll

That's thixotropy!

[Spinozasgalt]

I prefer the cookie dough analogy, but this isn't the place for it. We'd need a graveyard or pagan temple.

[Scar]

Finally we have some consistency on this board

It's truly woonderful!