This brings up a good point, although it’s kind of an aside.
It’s about waffles. I love love love homemade waffles. But I don’t care for the flavor of maple much, so I make my own syrup, usually with melted sugar of some kind. I put in vanilla and/or rosewater and etc. as flavoring. It’s so good! BUT recently I bought a big bag of cane sugar; you know, the “turbinado” or “sugar in the raw” kind. It was hella cheap at my local Mexican store.
—> It is an order of magnitude better than regular sugar. I kid you not.
I checked the second one but I want to clarify my position. I think that the question as worded is ambiguous because it doesn’t say what scope “the offical explanation for 9/11” covers. As far as the physical fact that nineteen members of al Queda hijacked four airplanes and flew two into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon, I agree of course. However, does the offical explanation also include the fact that their motive for doing so was that they hate our freedom, that it’s part of a ‘clash of civilizations’ between the West and Islam, and so forth? Certainly plenty of officials have said or implied as much over the past ten years. I disagree with that. The member of al Queda typically joined up and agreed to attack the United States because they were pissed off about American soldiers occupying Saudi Arabia, American support for Israel, and America’s general attitude of arrogance and dominance in the Middle East. Hating our freedom and wanting to destroy our civilization has nothing to do with it.
UFOs - unidentified flying objects - definitely exist. There are records of hundreds if not thousands of them. The question is whether or not they are alien spacecraft.
In the very VERY loosest sense of the word, I believe that some alleged UFO sightings may have involved alien craft, in a one-in-a-million-shot sort-of way. I mean, there’s no way of knowing for certain, really.
–And this, along with many other reasoned responses above, I think is a rational kind of attitude. Sure there’s some things we can pretty much know will never happen. I am not going to grow daiseys out of my head. (I can’t speak for Morticia’s sister, though.)
On the other hand, there are many things that, although unlikely, may happen, have happened, or may have happened. For instance, it turned out that you can actually turn lead literally into gold by messing with the number of protons.
It confuses me when occasionally I see someone who has not just an opinion that something is unlikely, and not just an opinion that it’s impossible – but who gets all worked up in a vehement froth at the idea that somebody somewhere may believe something that they think is ridiculous.
If I was like that, I would have exploded a long time ago!
I’ve seen that attitude here many times - that it is somehow personally offensive to some people that other people think different things than they do.
I think that the corn subsidies and sugar tariffs that make HFCS a viable sugar alternative are the most harmful part of the equation, not the substances themselves.
For #1, I don’t have an opinion about HFCS, but aspartame is different. One and a half years ago, I had sudden and complete hearing loss in 1 ear. My ENT said that research showed a possible (though not probable) link between Aspartame and sudden hearing loss. (The jury is still out on that question.)
Admittedly, I was drinking A LOT of caffeine-free diet coke - about the equivalent of 12 - 15 cans a day. After the hell I went through with that (and I’m still going through) I stopped all diet sodas. I’m not willing to risk my other ear, even if the link between the two isn’t proved. Better to eliminate that possibility than put my other ear at risk, even if that risk is low and presently unproved.
So I chose #1, but for different reasons than I think you intended.
