I usually use jazz as background music for studying; it's generally complex enough to keep me awake, but not so complex as to distract me from my work, and there's plenty of instrumental jazz out there with no lyrics to distract you. I'd start with Miles Davis and Duke Ellington, but that's just my personal preference!

AE Repeatedly, publicly talking about "Axis Of Evil" countries. Also calling North Korea's leader a "pygmy", and various similar statements. Apparently with no thought to how any of this would be received abroad, or how it might impact attempted diplomatic relations with those countries.

He has produced a copy, you can see it right here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

Personally I love last.fm, mainly because the artists and genres that I tend towards listening to are very well-represented in its streaming offerings.

This is from the article that I've linked below:

"According to CNN polls from this year [2007] and last, 80% of Americans support "allow[ing] illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes ... And the CBS/NY Times polls, also from this year and last, find slightly more than 60% back "giv[ing illegal immigrants] a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status" over "deport[ing them] back to their native country." "

So just to make it clear, you are not speaking for the majority of the American people when you say that you "want the illegals OUT".

Google, for the reasons stated above. Also, the various other Google products (Notebook, Gmail, etc) tie in well with Google search, and Google makes it easy to implement their search in other websites.

I noted my SAT score only in relation to the comment you made as to my supposed "selective reading comprehension". Apparently we share that affliction. I would also note, in case it has escaped your attention, that you are the only one in this debate that has felt the need to depart from debating the subject at hand, in order to attempt to impugn specific peoples' mental abilities/grasp of logic. You have such a fantastic grasp of logic and reason, you shouldn't need to get into extended arguments with people as to their relative understanding of said concepts. Your arguments should speak for themselves.

Of course it's not my place to tell you how to behave, but being as you are involved in academia and an American citizen, it's my opinion that you have an obligation to keep an open mind and ear, and to be willing to learn from anyone, even those younger or in some way "below" you. To be make a habit of treating your students in a pretentious and condescending way would tend to shut you off from any possibility of some knowledge gain on your part. Also, some of my very close friends are a family that are very well educated (2 PhDs and 4 masters between the 4 of them), and which includes 2 current college professors. I have never seen any of them be the least bit condescending or pretentious—ever, to anyone. So you can't quite tell me that becoming a pretentious, condescending snob is an integral part of being well-educated.

You have not offended my "dainty sensibilities". But you have attempted to treat me as if you were my superior, without earning my respect.

I have a very firm grasp on what I would define as logic. I scored a perfect 800 on my SAT reading comprehension, and my habits are not your concern. And debating with you would be considerably more enjoyable if you were not so condescendingly pretentious.

No, it's still an entirely pointless example, because it was built on your mistaken idea that penguins didn't have feathers. You can't make a logical argument that penguins aren't birds based on the fact that they don't have feathers, because they do, thus invalidating your argument.

Firstly, penguins do have feathers, so that argument's not exactly the best example. Not to mention the fact that if there were birds without feathers, then saying that "all birds have feathers" would be a completely false argument. It would not be logical to state that all birds had feathers, if some birds did not. But thank you, because I'd never before gotten to post a link anywhere relating to penguin biology.

To me, you're essentially making the argument that any stance on a god or gods' existence cannot be built on solid logic, being as there is no solid evidence, which I agree with. But I tend to view "illogical" as meaning going against logic and/or reason, and being as there is no solid logic and/or reason on the side of believing in god/gods either, it doesn't seem to work.