- Post
- #735771
- Topic
- Random Thoughts
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/735771/action/topic#735771
- Time
I'm glad you're non-dominational--it makes for a more peaceful world--but I believe your intended spelling was "non-denominational."
I'm glad you're non-dominational--it makes for a more peaceful world--but I believe your intended spelling was "non-denominational."
How are the pieces supposed to line up with the edge of the board? It looks as if they don't go right up against the edge, and since I've had to play with the spacing between the armies (and will have to do so more) in order to make them fit into the board, I'm concerned that we're going to end up with different set-ups at the end of all this....
A lot of people pronounce it as a word now, rather than "L-O-L" (leastwise in my generation), and I found it odd that people seem to have chosen "lawl" as the way to say it. I read it as a word because it's evolved beyond the meaning of "Laugh Out Loud" and doesn't have periods. I tend to lean away from pronouncing whatever-the-word-is-for-those-things-that-aren't-acronyms-but-are-similar-because-they-only-use-the-first-letter-of-each-word as words.
And the differences have always been significant. The DVD was the first time Star Wars was on DVD and included the SE. The Blu-Ray was the first time it was on Blu-Ray, and there were new special features. If they're going to release it on Blu-Ray again, they need to do more than just repackage it.
I suppose I could see that...trailers and whatnot, exclusive to the Blu-Ray would probably attract a lot of people to it.
Is it? Why would releasing the same thing again be more profitable than releasing something different?
Am I the only one who thinks the most obvious way of pronouncing "LOL" as a word is with a long O sound (as if it were "lole")? Apparently "lawl" is the more common way of saying it.
Received, downloaded, and opened. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get things back into alignment, as our former little trick doesn't work, nor do many other combinations of things. How far zoomed in/out are you on yours? The hex background doesn't zoom in or out with the pieces, so that could be the problem.
There seems to be a bit of a problem with the file. When it opens after downloading, a window pops up telling me that "Excel found unreadable content in [the workbook]" and asks me if I want to recover it. When I click yes, it says it was successful, and tells me this:
Popup Window said:
Replaced Part: /xl/worksheets/sheet1.xml part with XML error. Load error. Line 2, column 59825.
It then gives me a blank spreadsheet.
Could you try reuploading it, perhaps?
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
By the way, just because I might disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't necessarily think they are smart.
Well then! ;)
EDIT: Darn, I misread that...
A circle? :P
:(
I don't suppose you'd want to continue, but disallow any communication between the two of us in terms of strategy?
EDIT: I could have walked across the hallway to ask that...it goes to show how lazy I can be. :P
You answered my questions well in your second post. It seems that fairmormon has already addressed the letter here:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director
To which the author of the letter responded here:
http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/
Fairmormon again responded here:
I do not find some of fairmormon's responses satisfactory (e.g. its explanations for the KJV errors in the Book of Mormon), but I spent the better part of my afternoon going through fairmormon.org and cesletter.com, and have found that much of Jeremy Runnells' methodology seems flawed (some of it I would not have noticed without you pointing it out). I think that I would have found him less convincing if I had been more knowledgeable about Mormonism to start with.
As time goes on, I'm seeing patterns on both sides of the debate between Christians and critics. Christians often have a tendency to dismiss good arguments from the other side rather than responding to them, while critics tend to exaggerate, and find parallels where there are none (e.g., the place names in the Book of Mormon compared to real or Biblical names, or in a more obscure example, comparing Jesus of Nazareth with Jesus ben Ananias (I think that's the name) in Josephus, and drawing out the parallels with sneaky wording. Reading the passage in Josephus about him makes if fairly clear that they're different stories).
Thank you for taking the time to give such a lengthy response. I appreciate the effort, and you've answered quite a few things satisfactorily. Assuming fairmormon.org is reliable, the author of the PDF seems to have been quite dishonest.
darth_ender said:
Probably. What issues are you getting hung up on again?
You've directly answered some of them and I found the answers to others through links you posted in your second post, so I'm happy for now.
Maybe I used this link before, but here are Martin Harris's five churches following his departure from the Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Strangite.2C_Whitmerite.2C_Gladdenite.2C_Williamite.2C_Shaker
Note that four of the five are Mormon split offs; only the Shakers were not. That intrigues me, as the Doctrine and Covenants specifically addresses Shaker doctrine as false.
I know wish I had checked out the Wikipedia article earlier, as I probably would have saved you a lot of time. It appears that the author of our PDF used Wikipedia as his sole source for his info on Martin Harris, down to using quotations from Wikipedia's citations in the same order as presented on Wikipedia. That seems like a bad method to follow.
You should have thought to ask me before you moved.
P-11pq
;)
My real move is the one you want: B-10uv
DuracellEnergizer said:
I have no problem with theistic evolution or, as I prefer to call it, evolutionary creationism. The idea that God designed the universe to allow life to come into existence through natural evolution isn't only valid in my eyes, but beautiful as well.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish altogether. While it superficially resembles theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism, it posits that certain biological features COULD NOT have come into existence through natural evolution and COULD ONLY have been designed by an intelligent entity. That is just pure "god-of-the-gaps" pseudoscience without any basis in fact.
My mistake. I've always assumed they were the same thing.
It appears that I began receiving them again at about 7:00 EST (I believe it was around 9:00 the night before that they stopped).
In what way?
EDIT: I should clarify, just in case you aren't familiar with the English term, that this is different than creationism. The Intelligent Design Theory theorizes that God created life through evolution.
What's wrong with the Intelligent Design / Theistic Evolution Theory?
Oddly, I stopped receiving email notifications at all at some point during the evening. If I'm still not receiving any tomorrow, I'll report back.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
RicOlie_2 said:
How much historical credit do you give the (canonical) gospels? Do you think Jesus was crucified and buried, but didn't rise from the dead, or do you not think he was crucified at all, or do you think he didn't exist or was only based on someone historical (historical in this case meaning real)? Do you think he was a healer of some sort, or just a preacher, or none of the above?
I am not even sure he existed. There is essentially no physical evidence, and no contemporary written record of such. He could just be a mythical figure. It is hard to believe that someone so influential and considered so dangerous (at the time) wouldn't have something written about him during his life.
Do you have any views on the Testimonium Flavianum? Do you consider it good evidence for Jesus' existence?
Maybe I'll check them out sometime...
LOL--I can't believe I still do that. It's more muscle-memory than anything, but I hang my head in shame anyway.
BTW, your thread title is grammatically incorrect. It should be "non-member" rather than "no-member", but "Ask no member of all churches" would also be grammatically correct.*
Perhaps, but not at all news, and in fact recently brought up in this discussion (not in relation to that article, however).