zapatos

I understand the point, but that sounds to me to be splitting hairs. Sort of, 'in the absence of a sense to feel gravity, you will not feel gravity'. Or, 'in the absence of eyes, you will not see light'. I mean, I don't actually see light, I experience nerve cell stimulation to light. It may be true, but is it meaningful?

So you claim juanrga's views are "extremely, incredibly, unbelievably farfetched." But you present your view as reality. I suppose then that your view does not warrant respect either, under your own definition.

So when I get stabbed, I don't actually feel the knife entering my body, but the resistance of my body to the knife?

No textbox should appear, but if you hit the 'quote' icon to reply to someone, then clicking on the toggle icon will toggle between seeing their quote in a box, or seeing their quote surrounded by [ quote] [ /quote]. If you paste someone's text into your post, you can put the [ quote] [ /quote] around their text. Then when you Preview or Post the text will be inside the box. Or am I still misunderstanding your question?

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to do, but you can still hit the quote icon (looks like a baloon) then paste inside. You can also hit the toggle on the upper left to toggle between a) using all the format icons or b) seeing the [ quote] [ /quote] and other format code to do it manually.

Can you tell me what is such obvious bullshit with relativity?

I mostly agree with your argument, but the neg or pos rep means more than just Right/Wrong. It can also mean: Positive Rep 1. That was funny 2. I feel the same way but there is really no reason for me to duplicate what you just said 3. You answered the quiz question correctly 4. Thank you for taking the time to explain 5. etc. Negative Rep 1. I've already explained three times why you were wrong to say Einstein and Shakespeare were the same person, and I don't intend to do it again. 2. Calling people names is not acceptable behavior on this forum 3. Dodging the question over and over again is getting old 4. No, you are not just like Newton 5. I think Phi for All has beady eyes also, but you need substantiation to say it 6. etc.

Not too easy, I think we just have similar taste in music. I grew up listening to The Ozark Mountain Daredevils, Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, New Riders of the Purple Sage, John Prine, Allman Brothers, etc. I imagine most people did not have a clue about who this was. How about this: This band is originally from your neck of the woods. They played American southern rock as well as a mix of genres. The band is named for a law officer, and the name of the lead vocalist makes one think of children. One of my favorite songs is about a quest for a meteorological phenomenon. Name the band, lead singer, and song.

Cleared out the cache and all is right in the world again. Once I almost had a dryer completely taken apart before I realized the settings were incorrect. When will I learn to try the easiest things first, whether they seem likely or not. Thanks all!

Heh heh. Keeps getting better. I don't have a little toggle thingy. I just created a .jpg out of a print screen that I was going to attach for you to see. But while I can do a browse to find the .jpg, I no longer have an option to attach it or insert it into this post. I seem to be driving the tricycle version of the editor while you are all on Harley's.

Ok, thanks. I seem to have a bigger problem though as I no longer have that top row of the post editor window.

Thanks, but what I meant was that if I look at the posts under Topic Summary while I am working on this, the first post I see is the page one post from dave saying "You will probably have noticed that following a couple of hours upgrading, we have successfully upgraded to the latest version of our forum software". Before the upgrade, if I had looked at the posts under Topic Summary the first one I would have seen would have been yours, saying "It may not be obvious (took me a bit to figure it out) but if you want to respond...".

When I am replying to someone, in the old system if you scrolled down to previous posts, what you saw were the most recent posts first. Now when I reply I see the posts in reverse order. That is, if I scroll down while replying the first post I see is the original post in the thread. The order previously seen was, IMO, better as I often look at recent posts as I am writing my response.

Hmm. Seems to be just the opposite for me. While I am in the editor I can see "quote name="ydoaPs" post="716849" timestamp="1354639382"", but after I hit 'Add Reply' I don't see see any of that information in my published post. I also don't see any buttons at all in my editor.

I just noticed we no longer have header information displayed when we quote someone. It would be nice if we still see the name of the person we are quoting, etc.

Can someone tell me where my emoticons are? When I post I can see an option to 'Enable emoticons', but I don't see then anywhere.

I did not realize that, and defer to those who have experienced both scenarios.

This reminds me of a fridge situation I've always wondered about. I notice that when I empty a plastic gallon jug of milk, if I put the cap back on and place the jug on the counter, within 30 seconds the pressure in the jug increases to the point where I can hear the expulsion of air if I remove the cap. I guess this is simply the opposite of the low pressure in the fridge. Live and learn!

Remember that if you add the feature of making public who voted you up or down, you are also taking away a feature: anonymity. The reputation system currently is the only way to let someone know what you think of their post without identifying yourself like you do if you simply respond. If a user does not care to discuss a post, or is intimidated by a poster, takng away anonymity may limit their ability to respond in any way.

As Moontanman's earlier post showed by example, I should have further defined what I meant by 'unable'. There are many reasons you may be unable to contemplate God's existence. If you are unable to do so due to immaturity, I would not consider you to be broken. If you are unable to do so due to a brain injury, then I would say you are broken. I think that generally speaking for something to be considered broken, there must be something wrong with what was expected. So an immature person is not broken, a person who has not yet bothered to examine God is not broken, and a person who has a brain injury is broken. But what if a person has all the prerequisites to contemplate God and still comes to the conclusion that God exists? Is this person broken? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps a trained psychologist/psychiatrist could examine the person and determine if their ability to work to work to a logical conclusion is flawed, thereby determining if they are broken. But you could be broken by arriving at either conclusion (God or No God). Knowing if a person is broken or not has nothing to do with the conclusion they have arrived at, it is dependent on whether or not their capabilities functioned as expected. So to say that a person is broken simply based on the conclusion they draw about God is, in my opinion, flawed reasoning. It would be similar to saying that one football team is better than another based simply on the outcome of a single match between the two. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on similar data.

If you run out of neg reps to use you can also let them know what you think of them the hard way; write a response to their post. I feel that having more than one per day to hand out may make people less motivated to respond with words.

I would have thought there was no light in a black hole. That is, light travels at c until the photon is absorbed by some matter in the black hole, then it ceases to exist as light. No different than a photon being absorbed by the earth.

Both of my sons took Accutane for their acne with great success. My older son had bad acne starting at about age 14, covering his back and face in particular. After being treated with Accutane he has had nothing more than a few pimples over the past nine years. My younger son had good success although he required an additional treatment after about one year and still occassionally has pimples.

Seems like random is still not getting a straight answer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-can-a-person-sur