zapatos

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

I think iNow did a very good job of summarizing this thread. If I remember correctly I believe the majority of participants in this thread agreed that a subset of believers could be excuded from the deserving the title 'broken'. That includes people who do not have the maturity, training, education, etc., to think logically for themselves. An example being children who are told by their parents that God exists, much like they are told by their parents that Santa Claus exists. Once we moved past children the concensus rapidly evaporated. I would also like to point out that individually, there were participants in this thread whose view of the statement "People who believe in God are broken", ran from 'completely agree' to 'completely disagree', with plenty of positions in between. From my own perspective, I feel that in order to be considered 'broken' you must be unable or unwilling to critically contemplate god's existence. I feel there are many who are never challenged or bother to do so, even as adults. I used to believe that the US was primarily responsible for the downfall of Germany in WWII, mainly because that is how it was always presented to me as a kid. It wasn't until I started reading history on my own that I understood the impact of Russia on Germany's ability to fight. I don't feel I was 'broken' for my misguided belief prior to a more mature review of history.

Still sounds about right to you. Still sounds too broad of a statement to me. Absolutely. I probably got more out of this discussion than any other on this site. But I think new blood is required if it is to go much further. We beat this one into the ground. I wonder what the record is for most pages in a thread. This one must be near the record. And to think the OP started with three words. For the purposes of this thread, it was probably best that no serious attempt to define god was made.

I often use my back yard as a refrigerator, cooling down cooked food or bottles of beer before putting them in the refrigerator. (and no, I will not give you my address!)

It is a beautiful example of how evolution can develop a highly efficient parasitic lifecycle utilizing multiple hosts. Can you expand on this please? I don't understand why having no choice to give us a chance at life is better than making the decision to give us a chance at life.

This could be part of the issue. Regretting that you told people there isn't enough evidence to substantiate your claims makes you appear underhanded. Does this mean that next time you will continue to claim you are right even if you know you are wrong? If you win the argument by deceit, what is the benefit? Trying to paint yourself in a better light by the liberal use of adjectives and adverbs (admitting modestly..., spelling variants..., you fixate on trivial details..., was but a generalization..., etc.) is also unseemly. Is this another one of your "underahieving-internet-dweller generalization"'s?

It seems to me that you are following two different lines of thought at the same time. Your first question was "would I worship a creator of the universe if it's existence were proven?". You then proceeded to assign negative attributes to this newly proven god. So that is an easy one; it would be difficult to worship a god that did bad things. But what if this newly proven god was found to only have positive attributes. For example, what if he created the universe, to the best of his ability, to the detriment of his own existence, and did his best to shield us from harm, simply for altruistic reasons? At that point it is no longer difficult to worship him. Your second line of thought seems to be, how can you have a positive view of the creator based on what we know now, which is that there is disease, and that there is no proof of god. In this case, I believe it is how you look at things. You look at the bad, assume it was done to harm us, and conclude he cannot be worshipped. Others look at the good, assume it was done for our benefit, and conclude he can be worshipped. A simple answer to how you can worship a creator is easy. All you have to do is believe he exists, he gave us the heavens and earth, that all that happens to us is to our benefit whether we understand it or not, and that he would even sacrifice his son so that we may live forever. Sounds like a good guy to me. Again, I find that you do not understand the views of those who believe. A child is given a car by his parent. He is not grateful as the car breaks down occassionally, he can't always get where he wants to go, he has to pay for gas and repairs. Far from perfect. So what does he do? Assume the parent is purposely causing distress for him because the gift was not perfect, or assume the parent gave him a gift out of love and with the best of intentions? You seem to tend to assume the worst. Believers tend to assume the best. I also admire them. I find the laws of physics and the resultant universe rational and elegant. In fact, the only thing that ever causes me to question my atheistic views is this very point. It almost seems too inspiring to not have had a cause.

Well, sure they do. But you just stacked the deck against worshipping the god you described. You started out well enough just by asking "would I worship a creator of the universe if it's existence were proven?", but you then proceeded to make him someone people would not be comfortable worshipping, by giving him the attributes of a genetic-disease-creating hater. The fact that you find it difficult to understand how such religious concepts/ideas are so successful as memes stems from the fact that you do not understand that people who worship god generally do not view him in such a negative light.

It's a shame you are just waiting around with a chip on your shoulder instead of responding to the content in the link. It was a very good article. If you are confident that iNow's comments are wrong it should be easy enough to counter his evidence and arguments. Acknowledging that what you said is stupid does not excuse it, if you you knew it was stupid before you said it. A simple apology would probably have been more appropriate, and would have gone a long way to keep things civil.

You are right. There are two ways to judge the situation: superficially, or after sufficient effort has been applied. While the two judgements may turn out to be the same, it is only the one based on sufficient rigor that should be considered a reasonable judgement. I errred by making a judgement based on insufficient evidence.

According to this Newton said "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses". Forgive me for paraphrasing. You are being obtuse. Chris was looking for understanding, not an actual 'clue'. Are you trying to confuse Chris more? Whose question are you providing a clue to? Chris did not ask how to link gravitation and time.

The employees are now unemployed. Unless their true objective was to shut down the company and join the ranks of those seeking work, then they look (in hindsight) silly. The past misdeeds of Hostess doesn't change that. If we are going to dig into their history before making pronouncements we may want to dig further than just the union's unbiased position on the matter.

So... Newton basically said 'I don't know why, and therefore choose not to give an answer'. And StrinJunky basically said 'It's hard to say why, and physics does not answer that kind of question well'. What exactly do you find so different about these answers?

I was wondering the same thing. I cannot yet tell if it was the union reps who misread the situation or if it was the rank and file. And while in hindsight the union seems silly for not heeding the warning from management, I believe management made the threat to liquidate once before and did not follow through. Sad day for everyone.