zapatos

Back then you did all those things because they were state of the art and fit with your economic situation, not because you were being 'green'. There is no question that in many first world countries there is more of an emphasis on being 'green' now then there was 'back then'.

They are?!?! I must have missed that in the OP.

"Never sit on the ground in a month with an 'r' in it, or you will get piles".

When making pickled onions, the way to determine when you have enough salt in the brine is to place an intact chicken egg in the water, then add salt until the egg floats to the surface.

A 10% return is outstanding. If you can manage a sustained 10% annual return on investments you can be one of the highest paid financiers on Wall Street.

Savings Bonds, Savings Accounts, Treasuries, CDs, Money Market Funds, Corporate Bonds, Dividend Paying Stocks. And don't forget there are many types of risks. For example, a lower investment risk also means a lower return, which increases your risk that inflation will deplete your wealth.

Yes, they would say that to your face. The latest catechism was updated in 1992 and communicated by John Paul II. It is the document that is used by the church as the basis to teach its members about Catholicism.

I'm not sure I understand your question. You acknowledge it is in their teachings, then ask if they teach that. It is from the catechism, "a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians."

According to the Catholic Church, you are judged immediately after death and will go to heaven if God wills it. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

Please provide the scientific evidence that there is no life after death.

If it is cast iron you can turn it upside down on a gas stove and cook it off.

As I have no idea what you are talking about I think I'll bow out at this point.

Can I ask what you mean by 'worthless comment'?

Well, as he asked for advice and seemed like he genuinely wanted to improve his approach to posting on this site, many of us thought we should give him the benefit of the doubt and not shun him for behavior that he seemed to be unaware was off-putting.

As compared to them using fallacious arguments and telling another that their thoughts are not worthy of consideration because they don't have sufficient credentials.

Why is telling someone to use proper etiquette bad advice?

Let's look at it from his perspective. Here is a guy who is self taught in physics. He has an idea and gives it a lot of thought, then wonders who he can share this idea with. He looks around and finds a discussion forum. He joins the forum, starts off with a disclaimer that he is self taught so as to not mislead, then lays out his thoughts for others to see. Right off the bat, after his very first post on this discussion forum, he is greeted with the statement that his thoughts can't be taken seriously, and that he should not even attempt voicing any other original thoughts on this topic, as any thoughts on this topic that come from him specifically are not worthy of consideration. Ouch! I would have given you two neg reps if I could have.

If you go into your Settings you can choose to ignore John's or anyone else's posts.

What are you basing this statement on? A previous event, or is it more of a 'gut feel'? Can you please tell me how you determined the relative costs between fixing the existing organization and a complete reboot in the case of Ferguson? I'm also curious how you plan to avoid bringing in only people who are not prone to the types of behaviors you are trying to eliminate.

Another explanation could be that the sightings are not of aliens, whether from our plane of existence (whatever that is) or from another. If you want to assume that the sightings are indeed of aliens, then I would think that visits from another world, rather than another plane of existence, is more likely, as we at least know that other worlds exist. The same cannot be said of other planes of existence. As the universe is billions of years old, the fact that a trip from another planet to earth would take possibly thousands of years does not seem to rule out the possibility that aliens could be here.

Which part of the report were you referring to?

Oh, FFS.

If someone does something good or bad on the job, are they treated as individuals?

Can you tell me how you think that would play out in practical terms? For example, if Wilson had been punished, either through jail/suspension/etc., should the rest of the force also be punished? Or since none of the other officers were accused of wrongdoing in the Michael Brown shooting, should Wilson not be singled out for punishment? If an officer gets a promotion due to hard work and dedication, should the rest of the force get a promotion? Or do you not give anyone a promotion, because not everyone is deserving?

Agreed. Very well said.