Sayonara

<font> is deprecated, you evil IE-hugger.

The page with the flash movie in it is being displayed in a frameset - I suggest checking the path.

Structured Query Language.

If anyone is really interested we can get the total number of birthdays from the DB with a simple SQL query.

Cards. Wednesday is the name of the horse.

In the same way that cats and chairs are. Honestly, don't you know any physics?

He's walking. He's a priest of some sort. He married couples together.

Did we get an answer to "are there any doorways"?

No, I didn't think it would be. I'll give it another go shortly.

Fixed.

I get either "11.59" or "never", depending on how much trickery is at work here. But I'm guessing it's not that obvious.

Honour disappeared the day parents began teaching children to worship the self.

A quick an easy poll this time around. Don't forget to add your reasoning!

Anyyyyyyway, this is (a) completely off-topic, and (b) it's been done before, over and over and oh my god my eyes over in the religion forum.

The definitions in that dictionary are child-like and lacking in any insight when compared to other major dictionarys, such as Oxford or Collins.

Just to let you know registered members have a limited quota for storing attachments

It's called democracy.

You should always check the FF support forums whenever there is a new release. I am sure there will be a fix for this already, if not there will at least be an explanation.

Well yeah, if you're under contract to deliver a web site and the client wants it to reach as many people as possible as soon as possible, I can see why you'd pick IE. However I'd have a problem then with (a) the ethics of not informing the client that around %10 of their customers will be landing on their site, experiencing problems, and not bothering to come back, and (b) the fact that no effort was made to allow cross-compatibility when the truth is that virtually all differences between browsers and W3 implementations are documented in exruciating detail. But then of course a lot of companies are just out to make a buck or two. On the subject of Firefox, the first production release is now out. It's definitely worth noting that this browser is so good, it stole 6% of the market share from Microsoft alone while it was still in beta. Bloodhound, I am fairly sure you can turn off the "go" button as I have never had it displaying on my FF browser. If you can't find it in options, type about:config in the address bar and see if there are any registers for the interface.

I have been trying to think what you could mean by this for a while now, as it seems to be a reversal of your argument. I call hand-waving. When Darwin was on the Beagle, he was forever quoting Biblical morality to the sailors and chastising them directly from the good book itself, because that was his belief system - he even described himself as being "quite orthodox". His belief that the Old Testament did not represent an authoratative view on the early world came about gradually; partly as a response to the evidence all around him (you know, things that actually existed in the world), and the realisation that - and I quote - "from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." Arguing against this stance as point of belief requires that one also acknowledges the counterargument is a point of belief. In other words, one cannot reasonably expect to "prove" (in any applicable fashion) the bible by citing the bible as evidence. I've said it before and I'll say it again - both creationism and genesis would work better with evolution in them. Unless god is too stupid to make sure that his creations can respond to changing conditions, and we have simply made up the overwhelming evidence that they do. First half is back to front. Second appears to be an obfuscation of nothing. Could you clarify this point? No it doesn't. Do you not mean "this is what I say Genesis means"? There are no Darwinists. Contrary to the popular belief, Darwinism is not the same as evolutionary theory. What he did was spot a pattern in the relationship between related species and their differing habitats, and correctly ascribed that to a mode of selective racial progenition (which he described in the Origin of Species). Darwin's contribution to biology at the time (although not as appreciated as it should have been) was astounding, but our knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution now are much more developed and expanded. If there are any evolutionists who are claiming that evolution as a process disproves Genesis, I'd be as interested in seeing them demonstrate that as you are. Chances are they don't know what they're talking about (and note well that this would not prove your argument - it would simply mean that there isn't one.) Yet you choose only to express this by attacking the phantom supporters of a man who is long dead. How bizarre. If there is any I doubt it comes from evolutionary theory (well, apart from the god making man part. But that passage is wide open to myriad interpretations, and I see no reason to arbitrarily accept the interpretation that you chose to keep your "beef" from collapsing in on itself.) This would appear to be a criticism of the "scientific worldview", or an evolutionary one. I have to say I find this ironic. Which is the more restrictively filtered view? That which is taken from of the natural world around us, modelled from direct observation of repeatable and testable hypothesis that are drawn on things that happen, or that view which is taken from a single book that was written centuries ago and has been reinterpreted many times since? Bearing in mind of course that it is possible and preferable to answer that question without involving value judgements about the usefulness of the bible as a religious text. So what? I didn't want to get personal on this one, but seriously: Don't talk crap. a) There are no Darwinists, b) Evolution does not aim to replace any religious message, deliberately or otherwise, c) You are pre-supposing the belief of a creator which not all involved parties subscribe to, and therefore d) This is a situation of your own making. You are free to believe what you wish to believe, but that does not make the above an objective view of reality. The Darwinists who exist only in your head. This is getting boring. No they don't. You are confusing cause and effect. Ahh, hypocrisy. My favourite flavour of whining. It has already been pointed out why this is nonsense. Because they are created by, and serve, society maybe? "Scientism", lol. If you are going to present yourself as the spokesperson of god I think it only fitting that you show appropriately impressive credentials confirming your right to do so. This is what we like to call hearsay. It's only important to people who believe in it - trying to scare people into "switching sides" is not the best argument ever, in any case.

Yes, I too have tried to breach their impenetrable underground contact/help bunker. What a task.

Not only was it mentioned, it's been key to some arguments. I don't blame you for not wanting to read through 150+ posts, but it helps

I have taken a look at this web site, and I have a question: In light of the fact the question askers are paying for the information your experts give them, how do you ensure that they get the right information? Or is this just stupidity tax for people who can't use existing methods? (In which case, rock on. Stupid people shouldn't be allowed money.)

That's how all rail guns work - electromagnetism. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4022

FireFox 1.0 Released