Giant Asian Hornets

Martin Rees at the end of the article saying "I don't see that this need be" does not count as "dismissal with prejudice". fuzzy1's reminder that the article presents a hypothesis, not ready to be called 'law' until it's been through the usual process to get there, does not count as "dismissal with prejudice".

Neither is even close to what "dismissal with prejudice" means in the court system, where that term comes from.

 

All ya'll are heretics in the church of "getting excited about the newest science-based realizations!"

 

A person can be plenty excited about new ideas, and still reserve maximum excitement for the ones that turn out to be true.

 

Or a person can be grumpy and old and never be excited about anything and try to bring people down if they don't conform to their close minded dim bored view of the world.

I'm glad you don't do that as much as some of the usual trolls on here that I click the "ignore" button on... I appreciate your consistently substantive participation!