Universal power switch symbols are counter-intuitive. A straight line ends. It doesn't go anywhere. It should mean "stop." A circle is continuous and should mean "on". A line penetrating a circle has certain connotations that means keep it going (or coming) but definitely not "standby". How can we change this?

I will just point out here that: You still haven't explained what caused this completely insane over-reaction that led you to judge not a book by its cover but the personality of the author based on a thumbnail of the cover, despite claiming you 'want to help'.

You have made a further, equally unwarranted assumption here. I didn't go through and downvote every one of your posts. Multiple people have downvoted your posts in this thread, and any one of them could have done so. Or it could just be that a lot of people find your posts downvote-worthy. Or you could easily be lying. I am not, incidentally, the person who downvoted the post to which I'm replying (which stands at -1 as I type, and if you doubt this I will gladly prove it to you by doing so.

You made very, very serious allegations against the professional ethics of multiple people (because as I pointed out, all those books were written by multiple authors, despite your expert opinion on the covers leading you to think they were written by someone incapable of collaboration. Clearly your expert knowledge of the covers didn't go so far as looking at the bits where the authors were listed).

As for the last:

"I could have eliminated the offensive speculation in my interpretation. I took a risk at including it as it makes me look silly. But I did because without it there didn't seem a point in commenting at all."

Quite. So you'd rather 'look silly' by speculating offensively about people and subjects you know less than nothing about, because if you didn't do so there would be no point in commenting. In which case I'd suggest just not commenting unless you have something worthwhile to say.

Just ran across this quote from John Holt and thought it might apply to this discussion:

The true test of intelligence is not how much we know how to do, but how to behave when we don’t know what to do.

That's a bit like saying that you should describe the colour of fire engines as 'blue' because some people won't understand 'crimson'. Surely 'weak-willed' is better than 'hypocrisy'.

I seem to recall a study that studied intuition in emergency situations such as fire fighters and ER doctors. What they determined was that the more experienced the person, the more likely the intuition was to be correct meaning that it probably wasn't intuition at all but the person's brain working on available data faster than the person was consciously aware of.

What has always fascinated me about fasting, particularly water fasting, is the issue of cravings versus hunger. Skipping a meal or two usually produces cravings. Cravings could signal a need but more likely mean an addiction (and I'm using that definition loosely here. think coffee, salt, wheat).

My understanding is that 24 hours is the minimum for the detection of unhealthy cravings and that 3-7 days is the average time needed to overcome them. The idea that skipping meals (some even consider skipping snack-time IF) will produce beneficial effects I can only guess is the result of giving the body an unlikely time to rest.

I exercise regularly and found that exercising on the non-fasting days was not a problem.

Did you mean that fasting days?

You probably should teach her not to do it in public, though, for reasons unrelated to her physical health.

Most of what gets caught by nasal mucus ends up in the digestive tract anyway. I once had an ENT specialist nurse tell me all the assorted bodily substances that find their way into your stomach without you even noticing. It's one of those things you just have to shrug off, I think.

The anti-reductionist kind, the user rating kind, or some other kind?

Why? What is your maxim of action?