It’s not contradicting itself though. Your first quoted statement says “using high-resolution scanners”. The last one says “conventional MRI studies”. The methodology is what is different.

Fourth character reminds me of a character my friend played. His name was Jim Spoons, and his backstory was that his wife was murdered and he was trying to find out who the murderer is and avenge her. He carries this out until the final session, when it is revealed that he in fact was the one who killed his wife, and that Jim Spoons is an anagram for… OJ Simpson

I woke up with mold growing in my hair because of this comment

They wrote mean words on one jar of rice, nice words on the other, and the one with mean words grew mold, illustrating that you should choose your words carefully. That was their intention at least.

No it’s the mean words

He’s the husband of the vice president, that makes him the second gentleman. If she becomes president, then he would be the first gentleman.

I honestly think Bernie can do more good as a senator than as vp.

Believe it or not, my criteria for prosperity is more than “literally somebody survives to propogate my species.”

Not to say I agree with everything the person you’re responding to is saying, but it’s gatekeeping because you keep repeating “actual atheists.” You’re commiting a No True Scotsman fallacy by saying in order to be a true atheist, you need to act a certain way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Blueshift

Essentially yes

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

ITT: people missing the point