False Myths

There are a lot of myths going around which most people assume are facts. If something isn't completely outrageous, and is common knowledge, we generally believe there must be a good reason for believing it. If we hear several people casually tell us that all polar bears are left handed, we're likely to believe they are for the rest of our lives. After all, if they weren't, where the hell did everyone get the idea that they were? They must have done some study, at some point, and that's how the fact came to be known, right?

...Wrong. I have no idea how certain myths begin to circulate, but they do and are, and the chances that you believe several of them right now to be true are almost certain. This thread is for ridding its readers of some of that false mind contamination. I'll post a few here to start.

1) Myth: All polar bears are left handed.

Spoiler for Source:

Polar Bears International

Quote:

---

Great white bears are not left-pawed. Scientists observing the animals haven't noticed a preference. In fact, polar bears seem to use their right and left paws equally.

---

2) Myth: You swallow an average of [insert # here, usually 4-5] spiders in your lifetime.

Spoiler for Source:

Burkemuseum.org: Spider Myths: Gulp!

Quote:

---

For a sleeping person to swallow even one live spider would involve so many highly unlikely circumstances that for practical purposes we can rule out the possibility. No such case is on formal record anywhere in scientific or medical literature.

---

3) Myth: Wait a half hour after eating before you can safely go swimming.

Spoiler for Source:

Medicinenet.com (Debunking summer medical myths)

Quote:

---

While it's true that the digestive process does divert the circulation of the blood toward the gut and to a certain extent, away from the muscles, the fact is that an episode of drowning caused by swimming on a full stomach has never been documented. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the American Red Cross makes any specific recommendations about waiting any amount of time after eating before taking a swim.

---

I used to be told not to bathe with a full stomach. But I would most probably not do any form of exercise after eating because I like to stuff myself silly, don't want myself to vomit all over.

Then there's the argument whether homosexual is nurture or natural?

Is ghost a myth? Or people are being delusional the whole time when they see or sense something there?

I think the most common myth in our daily lives is people complaining how bad a certain laptop brand is when different results occur with two different people using the same laptop. There can be people claiming that Acer is a bad brand when the users themselves don't look after their laptop or overwork it.

Can we discuss "false myths" that actually matter?

Bigger fish to fry than polar bear hand usage, laptop preference and if we swallow spiders.

Like what?

Myth: God is real. <---- ???

lol (somehow I doubt that would end well, this isn't in ED)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Like what?

Myth: God is real. <---- ???

lol

---

Not going to take the bait.

I like the source of your #2 myth. Who knew I had a museum!

Also for the spider one I heard that it was about 8 a year, not 4-5 in a lifetime.

Myth: opposites attract.

The correct idiom is in fact 'birds of a feather flock together'.

Similar personality types are more attracted to one another and their relationships are more likely to last for a long time.

We just learned that in my psychology class the other day. I wasn't surprised at all, that myth always struck me as naive.

Yeah, I learned it in the Yale psychology lectures, which are online for free.

It wasn't surprised either, the more similar somebody is to me in interests and personality, the more attractive I find them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, I learned it in the Yale psychology lectures, which are online for free.

It wasn't surprised either, the more similar somebody is to me in interests and personality, the more attractive I find them.

---

gotta love free lecture/courses. mit and yale are great.

Definitely. I was actually relieved to hear that, I thought maybe I was doing something wrong for wanting that in a relationship. It is probably why I'm still single though lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Myth: opposites attract.

The correct idiom is in fact 'birds of a feather flock together'.

Similar personality types are more attracted to one another and their relationships are more likely to last for a long time.

---

Not necessary true. You can be attracted to an opposite but it wouldn't last long.

No, honestly, it's necessarily true. It's a statistical observation.

It isn't a law of course, but it's one of the most important factors.

Who wants to guess what the single most important factor is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phion

gotta love free lecture/courses. mit and yale are great.

---

Totally, I completed the vector calculus course and it really shored up my knowledge. That Aroux guy is a great lecturer. I knew 95% of the stuff already, but getting a different perspective is very helpful. Was gonna look at linear algebra this summer before I do representation theory next year. May also look at Electromag and Classical Dynamics for the lulz; not gonna be a physicist though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Totally, I completed the vector calculus course and it really shored up my knowledge. That Aroux guy is a great lecturer. I knew 95% of the stuff already, but getting a different perspective is very helpful. Was gonna look at linear algebra this summer before I do representation theory next year. May also look at Electromag and Classical Dynamics for the lulz; not gonna be a physicist though.

---

linear algebra is neat, i use(d) poole's textbook.

I've done a couple of courses in it now. Very dry stuff in my opinion. But like I say, it's good to retread the basics from a different perspective... our courses are rather pure, compared to MIT's more practical and intuitive bent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It wasn't surprised either, the more similar somebody is to me in interests and personality, the more attractive I find them.

---

We always knew you were a narcissist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, I learned it in the Yale psychology lectures, which are online for free.

---

Link? .-.

Myth: Crack is purer than powder cocaine, and is more potent.

Fact: There is no pharmacological difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Crack cocaine is simply powder cocaine which has been converted into a solid "rock" form that may be smoked. The effects of smoking crack cocaine may be more intense, but this is a result of the mode of ingestion rather than the drug's purity. Regardless, it is difficult to rationalize the extreme sentencing disparity between crack and cocaine.

"We only use ten percent of our brains."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litost

"We only use ten percent of our brains."

---

It's true of the people that believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Link? .-.

---

Introduction to Psychology | Yale Video Course

I watched all of these in a couple of days last term when I should have been studying maths. Definitely recommend.

The first thing I thought when I saw this thread was the "we only use %10 of our brains" myth which I get tired of hearing.

The other one I can think of (but not as popular) is how hypnotism is some kind of evil mind control.

Edit: Oh and "if you die in dreams, you die in real life". HA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louie54

The first thing I thought when I saw this thread was the "we only use %10 of our brains" myth which I get tired of hearing. !

---

I hear someone tell me that one more time, and I will beat them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

The statement "If you farted consistently for 6 years and 9 months, enough gas is produced to create the energy of an atomic bomb." is false. It would require you to eat over 5 million calories a day or constantly produce farts equal to 330 horsepower

---

Posted at Random and Cool Facts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldSparta

I hear someone tell me that one more time, and I will beat them.

---

How many % do we use then?

Most women experience PMS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

How many % do we use then?

---

We use pretty much every part of the brain. Not all the time, but over about the course of a day you will have used every part of the brain.

Source: Neuroscientist that came to give a talk and a Scientific American article.

The myth doesn't even seem to have any proper definition. Do only 10% of neurons in the brain ever fire? Or does it mean that at any given moment, only 10% are firing? Or is it 'parts' of the brain? What's a 'part'?

The only purpose of this statement is just to be a meaningless aphorism for New Agers trying to impress people. Neither they nor anybody else could tell you what it actually means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Myth: opposites attract.

The correct idiom is in fact 'birds of a feather flock together'.

Similar personality types are more attracted to one another and their relationships are more likely to last for a long time.

---

Unless you're talking about pheromones in which case we are attracted to people with the most different immune system.

Opposites already ruins the other idiom though. When it comes to personality types, the fuck is an opposite? The reality is not that opposites attract but that differences attract. And even then, only to a certain degree. If they are too different then there won't be enough compatibility. So while birds of a feather flock together, within that feather-grouping they're still looking for the most variation compared to the others in that feather grouping. Especially regarding pheromones, obviously regarding personality types and physical appearance the details are far too complex to ascertain any proper trends.

There's also the matter to be considered of general superiority vs acceptable compromise. For example most women are attracted to strong men. Being muscular generally appears to being a superior trait in the dating game when it comes males. There's no attraction of differences here, a woman simply looks for the most superior male she can find in intelligence, strength, etc... and if she finds one who's superior in some traits but not others, then it becomes a matter of acceptable compromise, or finding a well rounded guy. And if she's ugly, her level of acceptable compromise is much lower. So figuratively speaking, ugly people don't get together because they're birds of a feather, they get together because their self-esteem or general inferiority disables them from finding a better partner.

Myth: Your eyesight gets damaged if you read in bad light or use glasses that are not adjusted for you.

Not true because I read it somewhere and I rarely forget facts I read.

Oh, and you don't also pee your pants if you play with fire.

*EDIT* Forgot to add something I've been wondering about and I'm sure I can google it but for this thread's sake I'll ask it in here instead. My mom's always told me since I started spending more time indoors instead of outdoors that the body needs fresh air, like as if the air's somehow defect indoors. I guess it might contain more carbon dioxide and less oxygen if it's not very ventilated, and you get the sunshine which makes you smile when you're feeling blue. But it can't really matter much can it?

The real question is.... would you love yourself forever if you could be two separate people (think a clone of yourself, but possibly the opposite sex. This only works as a hypothetical). Getting at the root of, if you're EXACTLY the same as your partner, would that be good or bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artelis

The real question is.... would you love yourself forever if you could be two separate people (think a clone of yourself, but possibly the opposite sex. This only works as a hypothetical). Getting at the root of, if you're EXACTLY the same as your partner, would that be good or bad?

---

Actually no, there's a sweet spot, like a range of dissimilarity. Someone too similar is less attractive than someone slightly different, but someone too different is less attractive than someone more similar. It's also been theorized that we look for traits which, combined with our own, would produce offspring of a generally superior order. For example a hook nose would be more attracted to a ski jump nose because the offspring would land right in the middle and have a perfectly shaped nose. However, this theory predates most modern conceptions of evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matte87

Myth: Your eyesight gets damaged if you read in bad light or use glasses that are not adjusted for you.

Not true because I read it somewhere and I rarely forget facts I read.

Oh, and you don't also pee your pants if you play with fire.

*EDIT* Forgot to add something I've been wondering about and I'm sure I can google it but for this thread's sake I'll ask it in here instead. My mom's always told me since I started spending more time indoors instead of outdoors that the body needs fresh air, like as if the air's somehow defect indoors. I guess it might contain more carbon dioxide and less oxygen if it's not very ventilated, and you get the sunshine which makes you smile when you're feeling blue. But it can't really matter much can it?

---

Fresh air itself is doubtfully a necessity, the lungs only collect a fraction of oxygen when they breathe so as long as the room is well ventilated you won't have a problem with carbon dioxide. 90% of the air is nitrogen anyways. However there are studies showing living an active life decreases your chances at cancer, heart disease, diabetes and that whole range of illness. Also breathing deeply is better for you than shallow breaths, and sitting down all day is terrible for your body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Introduction to Psychology | Yale Video Course

I watched all of these in a couple of days last term when I should have been studying maths. Definitely recommend.

---

Thank you for the link. I'm on the second now and have never watched something educational that I find so entertaining. It makes me miss school a bit.

Oh, and I remembered another important one (to me).

Myth: Cracking your knuckles is bad for you.
Is Popping Your Knuckles/Back Bad For You?

I crack my knuckles, maybe a few times a day, and am sick of hearing people tell me it's bad for me, that I'll get arthritus, etc.

Homosexuals are both nurtured and nature. Nature: I have no other memory than that of being attracted to females, even as young as 2 years of age. I never even considered it an oddity. Nurture: I have known many individuals who were sexually molested resulting in homosexuality that was before hand not existent.

Spiders can also be consumed while eating.
FDA Approved: The Maximum Amount Of Defects Allowed In Your Food (PHOTOS)

Myth: Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Myth: Cracking your knuckles is bad for you.
Is Popping Your Knuckles/Back Bad For You?

---

There is a link between having a weaker grip and habitual knuckle cracking, but not arthritis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaelyn

Homosexuals are both nurtured and nature. Nature: I have no other memory than that of being attracted to females, even as young as 2 years of age. I never even considered it an oddity. Nurture: I have known many individuals who were sexually molested resulting in homosexuality that was before hand not existent.

---

I think the real myth is that we understand the first thing about the cause of homosexuality. So far I think we've only ruled out possible causes. Homosexuality is tricky though, we know it's not a choice, but all the evidence also opposes a genetic trait (namely that the genetic offspring of homosexuals show no greater chance of being homosexual than the offspring of straight couples). So how can something be nature based but not genetic? That's not say nurture is choice based either, obviously. Being molested into a conditioned sexual orientation is hardly a choice, after all. But we know molestation is a comparatively rare cause, and it's doubtful there's anything particularly noteworthy taking place in the womb. The myth is that homosexuality is anything other than a complete mystery. I think Satan did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artelis

The real question is.... would you love yourself forever if you could be two separate people (think a clone of yourself, but possibly the opposite sex. This only works as a hypothetical). Getting at the root of, if you're EXACTLY the same as your partner, would that be good or bad?

---

I know it wouldn't work our for me, but that's because I'm difficult to get along with and not willing to put up with difficult people.

Myth: Daddy long legs are spiders

Unless you live in Australia where they have a different, actual spider they call daddy long legs, the daddy long leg spider (harvestman for specifics) belongs to the arachnid class but not the spider family. The Araneae family is what we call spiders but the daddy long leg is part of the opiliones family. For more clarification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JK2dR8ei5E

Mr. Rogers was a sniper in the marines. He wore long sleeves on the show to cover up all the bad ass tats he had. The guy who played Paul in 'The Wonder Years' ultimately became Marylyn Manson.

Auron is white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burke

Myth: Daddy long legs are spiders

Unless you live in Australia where they have a different, actual spider they call daddy long legs, the daddy long leg spider (harvestman for specifics) belongs to the arachnid class but not the spider family.

---

I happened to look this up last week and concluded the same thing, except harvestmen are everywhere, not just Australia. In the video he mentions the 'cellar spider' in Australia which is an actual spider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artelis

The real question is.... would you love yourself forever if you could be two separate people (think a clone of yourself, but possibly the opposite sex. This only works as a hypothetical). Getting at the root of, if you're EXACTLY the same as your partner, would that be good or bad?

---

If the day you're born determines your base character, that would mean if I managed to find another person born on the same day as me, we would find ourselves rather similar. I managed to find a person born on the same day and month as me, but he's exactly a year older. It's too awkward talking to him. Probably we're already half-expecting each other's respond to anything that was said.

Myth: Long feet equal long......

I'd rather not tell you how I know that :D

Because you have size 16 shoes?

By the way this is a good page

List of common misconceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some of my favorites

"The left side of the brain control logic and organization, the right side controls creativity and emotion"

"You stop developing brain cells when you turn 21"

"Vaccines cause autism"

"Thomas Edison invented the light-bulb"

"Al Gore claimed he invented the internet"

"George Washington had wooden teeth"

Curse you, Omnis ;) I've been reading that site for almost 30 minutes and forgot to record my dreams before getting sucked in .

In all seriousness, thanks for the link. Awesome information!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

If the day you're born determines your base character, that would mean if I managed to find another person born on the same day as me, we would find ourselves rather similar. I managed to find a person born on the same day and month as me, but he's exactly a year older. It's too awkward talking to him. Probably we're already half-expecting each other's respond to anything that was said.

---

Really? I've met people born on the same day as me. Same year, too. We were nothing alike. The time you're born might shape your cultural viewpoint, but also the region you're born into, the socio-economic class you're born into, the state of your parents (are they nice, abusive, etc), the friends you cultivate early in life, your relationships with teachers, whether or not you were introduced to a pet at a young age... I could keep going forever. The TIME you were born barely has any actual impact on your personality as it is only one factor out of many that shapes you.

THANK YOU!

"Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children.[248][249] Double-blind trials have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or those considered sensitive to sugar.[250]"

My kids never acted insane around me after they had sugar. I plainly told them at a young age that it is an excuse to ACT wild. And if they acted that way around me, I simply wouldn't give them any more sweets. :evil:
When they acted up for other people (babysitters, relatives) though, those people often blamed sugar. It used to drive me bonkers lol

I have a Buddhist friend who said Buddha was a God.

>_>

There are different strains of Buddhism.

>_>

<_<

V - ^

(>^_^)>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There are different strains of Buddhism.

>_>

---

There's also different definitions of Buddha. And different levels of understanding. In fact if you actually visited a Buddhist Family and asked them if they meditate, they'd laugh and tell you to go to a Monastery if you want to meditate. Most common practitioners of Buddhism in the East focus more on Merit, making Buddhism into a dogmatic system of control as much as Christianity

Myth: dimethyltriptamine is produced in the pineal gland of the human brain.

Fact: DMT has never been found being produced in the human brain. This myth begins with Dr. Rick Strassman's hypothesis that the pineal gland releases a massive amount of DMT during death, based on the fact that several test subjects administered DMT experienced NDE-like hallucinations.

Fact: DMT has been found in trace amounts in blood, urine, feces and the lungs. But we know pretty well how it's biosynthesized at this point, and it's not produced by the Pineal

Here's another that I wish our public schools would understand:

Myth: Different parts of your tongue are keyed into different tastes

Fact: Every single tastebud is receptive to all 5 types of taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

By the way this is a good page

List of common misconceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Oh wonderful - so pretty much my entire education was a series of lies.. :voodoo:

Yeah, reading that article feels a little like being repeatedly slapped in the face with a wet towel by reality.

In fact it causes one to wonder as to the fate of urban myths in the post-net era.

Another one: the Big Bang was not an outward explosion of space from a point, but rather an inflation of space itself. You cannot go 'visit where the Big Bang happened', it happened at every point in modern space. In addition, the observational boundary of the universe is not the boundary of the universe; it's just the furthest we can see. Nobody knows what the geometry of the entire universe is, but the most common hypothesis is that it's infinite.

That wiki page was awesome, I was corrected in a thing or three and will now be even more annoying when I correct people around me who think they know stuff. The funny thing is I've never really believed people when they say like: "Dogs can only sweat through their breathing, that's why they're panting when it's hot" unless it's been logical. When I was a kid I absorbed most things adults told me and I actually believed that "sugar" was the word for "butter" for a very long time since I saw it on a TV show. When I got older I realised that most adults just hear things other adults have heard and not to seem like a know-it-all they accept it as fact. This is something I've been experimenting with at work a bit, there's no way for people to know if the stuff I talk about is true or not as long as I talk about the subject confidently. No one can be bothered to look things up and if they don't believe you, they talk about it behind your back instead.

Myth: Batteries last longer if you keep them in the fridge.

Fact: The older ones did last longer, but not the new ones. (This is something I've heard and not checked out properly, sorry!) *EDIT* Okay the newer ones last less than 5% longer, but you can't use them if they're cold so you'll have to warm them up first. It's not recommended to store any new batteries in the freezer or fridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matte87

When I got older I realised that most adults just hear things other adults have heard and not to seem like a know-it-all they accept it as fact. This is something I've been experimenting with at work a bit, there's no way for people to know if the stuff I talk about is true or not as long as I talk about the subject confidently.

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_syms.svg.png

One thing about that wiki page - it's a wiki page, and can be edited by anybody. I mean, I'm not saying they're all lies, but at least it would be good to hear some information to back some of the claims up. A few do provide at least minimal info, such as the idea that pilgrims wearing big buckles and all black clothing was a result of artistic license and the 19th century idea of buckles as 'quaint'. I suppose we're all free to investigate further on any that pique our interest. That can be a catch-22 though - you can find contradictory evidence for any claim and it can be hard to determine which is truer. Though most of those myths do seem rather silly and I don't doubt that most of the counter-claims are true.

It seems like the information age is a time of increasing attempts at historical accuracy (as well as a time of lies and misinformation spread willy nilly all over the web). I'm not sure how I feel about that - it's disconcerting to say the least to have so many 'facts' disintegrate all at one blow - part of me is glad to be seeing through the veil and getting closer to the truth, part of me is angry that I was lied to (though undoubtedly unknowingly for the most part) and part of me feels like at my age it hardly matters - I could have happily gone to my grave misinformed and not knowing any better. Buy all in all I must say I'd rather know the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_syms.svg.png

---

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

One thing about that wiki page - it's a wiki page, and can be edited by anybody. I mean, I'm not saying they're all lies, but at least it would be good to hear some information to back some of the claims up.

---

Wait... you know how Wikipedia works, right..? :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Wait... you know how Wikipedia works, right..? :|

---

How is what he said different from how it works?

As I understand it, anybody can edit anything, so for instance if someone with an agenda wanted to they could change articles to suit their own aims. Of course, eventually I assume someone else would change it again. Or have I been decieved about wikipedia too?

I'm pretty sure that's how it works and don't know what Xei's talking about. There are people who will re-edit things every day about more important issues. My Biology professor once told us that he edited some error he found, but his edit was gone the next day. Unless I've been deceived about how it works too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

As I understand it, anybody can edit anything, so for instance if someone with an agenda wanted to they could change articles to suit their own aims. Of course, eventually I assume someone else would change it again. Or have I been decieved about wikipedia too?

---

Yes... every controversial fact has a citation. That's what the little numbers are for. I think every claim on the page we're talking about has one or more.

How does that change anything? People can still edit it to whatever they want, without providing citations, or citing websites that promote their viewpoint.

You know, I've never actually clicked on the numbers before. I did assume they were citations, and it's good to know they are. Now I feel like an idiot. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

How does that change anything?

---

...well it changes the conception expressed in Darkmatters' post? That is, that none of the claims on that page are backed up by anything. That's what we were talking about.

Myth: Anyone can add anything they want to wikipedia

Fact: If you edit things erroneously your username can be flagged and if you continue to troll wikipedia with randomness you can eventually be prohibited from editing altogether. Granted you can always just make a new account.

Also all edits are flagged instantly and wikipedia has a legion of interested scholars to comb through edits. Then they have the opportunity to discuss the validity of edits. That's why sometimes you get the message that the information is not verified and may not be true, and sometimes the edits are just removed. Typically if the guy who wrote the original article doesn't like what you added, it'll just get removed, whereas if someone writes a new article with unverified information, it'll just get flagged as unverified.

This is why I hated it when teachers said we weren't allowed to do research on wikipedia. I think the opportunity for open, unfiltered scrutiny makes wikipedia more accurate than a source of information from a bunch of obdurate elitists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

You know, I've never actually clicked on the numbers before. I did assume they were citations, and it's good to know they are. Now I feel like an idiot. :lol:

---

Actually I worded that very poorly - I should have said that I know they're citations, but I hardly ever bother to click on them, unless something really jumps out at me and makes me say WTF??!! - so I usually don't even think about the citations, and hadn't bothered to click on any tonight. In fact it wasn't until I made my comment here (only AFTER reading partially through the wiki article) that I even thought about citations etc.

An example of not caring enough to write out a detailed explanation so I just spit out some stupid statement that's only half true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

An example of not caring enough to write out a detailed explanation so I just spit out some stupid statement that's only half true.

---

this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4chan

this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends

---

Not with a whimper, but with a bang. Who are you, 4chan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There are different strains of Buddhism.

>_>

---

>_>

Oops :O. I couldn't find a single page on the internet that said he was a God though >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There are different strains of Buddhism.

>_>

---

Scientists predict that in 15 years it will have mutated into an incurable super strain that wipes us all out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

...well it changes the conception expressed in Darkmatters' post? That is, that none of the claims on that page are backed up by anything. That's what we were talking about.

---

Okay, fair enough. But I doubt most people actually check the citations. If what Omnis says is true, though, bad information won't likely make its way there. For popular or important topics, at least. But I'd still imagine some more obscure and less popular topics might have bad information.

Mannnnnn, life ain't nuthin but bad info. Respec.







or is that a myth?

Hmmm interesting thread... i'll think up some myths tomorrow that i often got told before :P But the most famous ones were already mentioned here.


Also.. back to the spider swallowing one... What if the spider goes in through your nose or ears?! o.o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlezoe

Hmmm interesting thread... i'll think up some myths tomorrow that i often got told before :P But the most famous ones were already mentioned here.


Also.. back to the spider swallowing one... What if the spider goes in through your nose or ears?! o.o

---

Or in your food? Many spiders are so tiny you'll never see them in a salad or bowl of cereal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Or in your food? Many spiders are so tiny you'll never see them in a salad or bowl of cereal...

---

Insects are a good source of protein and many cultures eat them as snacks and even meals. If I eat them and I don't notice them then I thank those spiders for making me healthier :)

I once saw a program that showed how a toothbrush left out is often visited by creepy crawlies in the night. The suggestion was to cover your tothbrush to prevent this.

If I'm not aware of them cooked into my food in small amounts I doubt I would pitch a fit but having them crawl on my toothbrush bothers me. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melanieb

I once saw a program that showed how a toothbrush left out is often visited by creepy crawlies in the night. The suggestion was to cover your tothbrush to prevent this.

If I'm not aware of them cooked into my food in small amounts I doubt I would pitch a fit but having them crawl on my toothbrush bothers me. :P

---

I keep mine in a small teacup filled with baking soda as to avoid unhealthy bacteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burke

Insects are a good source of protein and many cultures eat them as snacks and even meals. If I eat them and I don't notice them then I thank those spiders for making me healthier :)

---

Ummm..... ok, I'll ask. HOW go you know to thank the spiders if you didn't know they were there to begin with? :shadewink:

Or is it more of like a mass communal thanking ceremony once a month or so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melanieb

I once saw a program that showed how a toothbrush left out is often visited by creepy crawlies in the night. The suggestion was to cover your tothbrush to prevent this.

If I'm not aware of them cooked into my food in small amounts I doubt I would pitch a fit but having them crawl on my toothbrush bothers me. :P

---

Hmmm.. hadn't heard that one, but from what I also hear about bathrooms that isn't the worst thing you need to worry about getting on your toothbrush:

DO ALL TOOTHBRUSHES CONTAIN FECAL MATTER IF THEY'RE IN THE BATHROOM?

I guess greenhavoc is safe from this one too... might need to try the teacup/baking soda trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Or in your food? Many spiders are so tiny you'll never see them in a salad or bowl of cereal...

---

That's impossible for me :) I always check what food i put in my mouth. I don't eat anything that i didn't look at carefully before.

Yeah... :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ummm..... ok, I'll ask. HOW go you know to thank the spiders if you didn't know they were there to begin with? :shadewink:

Or is it more of like a mass communal thanking ceremony once a month or so?

---

Mass communal :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melanieb

I once saw a program that showed how a toothbrush left out is often visited by creepy crawlies in the night. The suggestion was to cover your tothbrush to prevent this.

---

While in Costa Rica, I once left my toothbrush out on a shelf and in the morning there was a huge beetle on top of the brush. So maybe there's some truth to this, especially in places with a lot of bugs like Texas. Or maybe it was just a strange coincidence. I couldn't help thinking at the time that it was attracted to the moisture or material or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Not with a whimper, but with a bang. Who are you, 4chan?

---

Just another solitary flâneur, another faceless man, another myth. Mind you, I'll tell more once I've sufficiently peppered my spleen.

Is this a 4chan raid or something? Not very effective if so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Is this a 4chan raid or something? Not very effective if so.

---

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.co...6160978074.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litost

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.co...6160978074.jpg

---

Myth: It's cool to post like this.
Not to mention all of the other completely off-topic posts in here. Why does every dv thread break down to people just pussy-footing around?

Myth: People from NYC are mean. My one year living in NYC wasn't exactly ideal, but the people were all insanely friendly. I chatted up just about every person making my food, random people in lines, etc. Ask for directions, someone usually stops and points you in the right direction pretty quickly. The movies make it out to be full of people that are either mean or too busy to stop for two seconds. This is hardly the case. I currently live in Boston, and the people here are much less friendly to strangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artelis

Myth: It's cool to post like this.
Not to mention all of the other completely off-topic posts in here. Why does every dv thread break down to people just pussy-footing around?

---

Fact: That Myth is true. It makes forums more fun.

Also, that facepalm was well deserved :P

I don't understand why the facepalm was used. Was it directed at me or 4chan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I don't understand why the facepalm was used. Was it directed at me or 4chan?

---

At you. :roll:

Why? I said it wasn't very effective because it only had like 5 posts, hardly a raid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I don't understand why the facepalm was used. Was it directed at me or 4chan?

---

You were the one who was quoted...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

we know pretty well how it's biosynthesized at this point, and it's not produced by the Pineal

---

Do please continue

You want me to explain the biosynthesis of DMT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4chan

Just another solitary flâneur, another faceless man, another myth. Mind you, I'll tell more once I've sufficiently peppered my spleen.

---

Banned? You've no patience, friend. :(

False myth? That sounds like a contradiction to me. A myth is something that's not true. A false myth would be something that's in fact true, right?

:banana:

People say that when u count between the lightning and thunder that u can roughly estimate how far the storm is. This is true but the numbers are not. A lot of people say 1 second = 1 kilometer away.

But it's actually around 300 meters, probably a tiny bit more then 300 depending on the air if i remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silent_Lucidity

False myth? That sounds like a contradiction to me. A myth is something that's not true. A false myth would be something that's in fact true, right?

:banana:

---

myth

noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ekyu

People say that when u count between the lightning and thunder that u can roughly estimate how far the storm is. This is true but the numbers are not. A lot of people say 1 second = 1 kilometer away.

But it's actually around 300 meters, probably a tiny bit more then 300 depending on the air if i remember.

---

I've always heard that every three seconds is a kilometer. This is closer to the real number of 343 meters per second, assuming light travels instantaneously (which it pretty much does, compared to sound).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Link? .-.

Myth: Crack is purer than powder cocaine, and is more potent.

Fact: There is no pharmacological difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Crack cocaine is simply powder cocaine which has been converted into a solid "rock" form that may be smoked. The effects of smoking crack cocaine may be more intense, but this is a result of the mode of ingestion rather than the drug's purity. Regardless, it is difficult to rationalize the extreme sentencing disparity between crack and cocaine.

---

I believe crack cocaine is actually LESS pure than cocaine. It is made by mixing cocaine with some other substance... That's where it became a problem in poor communities. Because cocaine is so expensive, coke dealers made it into crack so they would have more drugs to sell, and the fact that crack became more addictive just made it even better for them because they could charge outrageous prices for it

They're both cut, pure cocaine is practically impossible to find the United States. The difference is the ingestion process of coke renders all the shit it gets cut with to useless filth while the baking soda you mix crack with intensifies its effect on the nervous system. A small amount of cocaine can produce a lot of crack while if you cut it with an equal amount of crap you still only have a small amount of cocaine.