knapplc

You are correct. But the funny thing is, this debate has occupied mankind for the last four or five millennia. Weird. ADDENDUM TO MY EARLIER POST - I meant to say the opposite is true of car keys. So much funnier that way.

Note: Also applies to car keys.

A hit! A palpable hit! Touché!

Here's a screen grab of the page. Feel free to translate the Hebrew if you like, but Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't the one who posted "death to all arabs."

Sub, are you intentionally posting stuff to get a rise out of people? Benjamin Netanyahu didn't post "death to all arabs" on his Facebook page. There was a bus accident in Israel, people were killed, and Netanyahu (or a crony) posted a message of condolence. UNDER that message, in the comments sections, someone else posted "death to all arabs." It was removed by Netanyahu (or a crony). This took all of ten seconds to google and find out. How many boys crying wolf do we need in this forum?

Good luck to him! Hope it's the time of his life.

I don't agree that Mitt Romney represents "the people." I think Romney represents a very small portion of the population.

Fine, I edited out your quote. Too late. The damage to my reputation is already irreparable. Seppuku at dawn is the only way to save honor now.

I don't think that's the official Wisconsin flag, is it? I don't think the real flag has 1848 on it. EDIT - this is why you google before you post. That is the official flag. Oops.

I agree with you, and I go to every Spring Game for the fun of it, but that's the impression I get for why attendance goes up or down.

NUance, I think I fixed your pic in the OP. Had some funky extra HTTP code in it.

I'm exactly half a year older than you. Happy Birthday!

It depends on whether or not you think it's a person. If it's a person, abortion is murder. If you don't think it's a person, abortion is a medical procedure not much different than an appendectomy.

Why do people give things up for Lent? What does it do?

You talked of "proof". As have about a dozen other posts in this thread. It's just weird that you stuck that in there, and quoted me as if it was relevant to my post.

I did not say that I was correct in my personal beliefs. I did not say others were wrong in their personal beliefs. I did not comdemn anyone else to hell, New Jersey, or any other foul place. I am trying to follow scientific methodology... but am stuck at #4. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. I'm trying to figure out why you quoted my statements and responded with this. In no way was that directed at you, and in no way does what you posted have anything to do with what I wrote.

Wait a second. You're expecting me to believe that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on his opinions at various times throughout his political career in an effort to appease the electorate he stands in front of at the time? How dare you, sir.

For current pre-universe existence theories, look up string theory and branes. It's fun reading.

We can quibble over the choice of words I used if you want. "Evaluate talent" wasn't maybe the best phrase. I based that off of this paragraph: However you want to verbalize that, the intent is to better understand who they're recruiting, and how they can help the team.

Whether we "need" it or not isn't relevant. We're going to get it. There was a whisper campaign recently by some Republican insiders asking whether they shouldn't have yet another new entry into the race at this late stage, since none of the current candidates are electable. Just astounding.

Also, in the absence of a present and readily perceivable god, that's all we ever will have. The discussion of "proof" simply cannot advance in a meaningful way while god remains hidden. We already have the Bible, and it is a finished product, unable to be added to, because there is no more Jesus, no more burning bush, no more overt acts by God to influence mankind, and we know this because the Bible tells us that Jesus is the final covenant, and there will be no more. It is an exceedingly convenient situation for the Church, because they can continue to point to the Bible and demand that it be accepted wholly on faith, without any proof. It's just that the world is, more and more, unwilling to rely on such explanations.

The single greatest influence on Spring Game attendance is whether or not we win the bowl game. If we lose, attendance will be down because people are generally in a funk or just down on the program. If we win everyone is happy and in the mood to party. I think the vast majority of people realize it's just a glorified scrimmage, and an excuse to get out in the sun after a long winter and have a party. People just don't feel like partying when the mood around the program is down.

Take it to the Shed.

You could take it that way, and that is what he said, but isn't it far more likely that what he intended to convey was a firm conviction in his beliefs, and those words weren't the most politick?

It's just getting ridiculous at this point, Mills. I don't see anybody here asking for proof, or even saying that people can't believe what they want. I've spent this entire thread trying to show the futility and utter arrogance in putting supreme confidence behind one's own beliefs. Yet, no matter what I say, they continue to provide "proof", necessitate their ability to provide proof and defend their narrow viewpoints because it's "faith." I don't know how many times I can say that people can believe whatever they want, just understand that they could be wrong and others have different view points. You must remember that also!! By the way as science tries to disprove the bible they have actually found some stories may be true (E. G. Sodom and Gomorrah). EVERYONE must remember that. It's OK to have your belief. It's OK for me to have mine. But when we start ridiculing each other for our beliefs, that's when our points of view lose merit. I'm going to disagree with you and you're going to disagree with me (the generic all-encompassing "you" and "me" BTW), but as long as the discussion is civil and respectful of the beliefs of others, the discussion has merit. Simply bickering back and forth, denegrating others for believing other than you believe, etc. is fruitless and, in fact, counterproductive.