insane

Of course, we used pencil and paper, and figured out the equations ourselves :P Again, I never "had" one, as we didn't use them. And I'm pretty sure using a calculator that makes things easier is irrelevant, or inverse to class difficulty. *I would here insert an eye roller if I didn't think they were revolting :P*. I scored an 85 in grade twelve calculus at the highest level in one of the hardest marking schools in my region.

What's with everyone "needing" graphing calculators... we use them for like... one class in all of high school so they just have 30 that we borrow for a class. Do you actually need these on a daily basis? :P

Yea, it would seem like a given but I often forget to wash my hands before putting them in/taking them out.

DSL!

If she's willing to cheat on him, she won't stop from cheating on you.

That's what I thought when I was 14 :P problem is, you're looking through tainted glass. Wouldn't you tell a 10yr old that they're too young?

I...I...II... Erm.... :shock: Well yea, it's not like you won't blink when you're sticking a piece of plastic onto your eyeball :P you've gotta keep em open somehow...

Neil Peart from Rush he went to the same highschool as me :P

You're going to hate me for saying this but - you're only a freshman - just be her friend, any relationship that's going to go anywhere can wait until later than 14 years of age.

Faithfuless

I would tend to agree, even though this isn't sitting right within me. Appeal to authority is often mistaken for equivocation on the word authority. Just like commercials say "experts say that this toothpaste is the greatest!"... what experts? Car engine experts?.... right, thanks for conveniently leaving that part out. I think appeal to authority isn't all that fallacious if the authority in question is actually an authority on what he/she's speaking about. For all intents and purposes, we have to believe what they say about their products, else we'd be epistemological relativists, and that's just ridiculous....

Yea I don't mind that at all... there's something about it...

Yeah, and that way you won't ruin it when you force your eyes open with your fingers.

Yea, and why? Did Ruzbeh say that it's appearance is relevant to performance and feel? No, I think not? Cluck just wanted to flame him. Toucḫ̩̉̉ :) though the italics in his post made it seem like he thought it was bad for it...

Got problem with ps3 joypad? You don't know what you feel like when you try use this joypad yet. Sjeez, what's your problem. He's just stating that it looks like a boomerang, which it does look like. He doesn't complain about how it feels or how 'good' it is. Learn to read, stupid fanboy. His point was appearance is irrelevant to performance and feel, and performance and feel is what matters in a controller.

honestly id love to throw my laptop in the dishwasher to clean it...but unfortunatley due to uhhh circumstances with water and electricity.... interesting thing about water and electricity, water is a good conductor for electricty. that means if you throw a plugged in radio into a bathtub full of water, and you are in the water, you are going to be electricuited, right? well, for 99.99999% of the time, yes, but not because of the water (well, it kinda is and kinda isnt). the electricty passes through the water and through your body, and the down the Metal drain. you and the water are just part of the circuit, just a conductor for electricty. but say your bathtub, and about 6 feet of your drain, is all completly made of rubber. you throw a plugged in radio into the bathtub full of water, and you are in it, and what do you know, you dont get shocked. electric device thrown into water, and nothing happens (well, the radio probably wouldnt work anymore, and it might flip a breaker). This is quite true, but I think what he was meaning to infer is what you said. The lappy won't work anymore... And if you want to get technical... it's not the water conducting electricity it's random ions added to clean it that conduct e-. Distilled (pure) water, does not conduct electricity well at all.

LOL :D Those are Kingrazo's work ;) though he doesn't post here anymore. They were free for me as well :D

Then become a scientist. Science hardly covers all human possibilities for objectiveness, sorry - not to mention scientists are some of the most subjective people to others that don't share their views (which is ironic seeing as very many of them believe in subjective truth) - you want an example? When you said that creationists are considered "laughable" by the scientific communtiy. If that's objectivity on science's part, then I'm a horse. The Bible should be taken objectively in the matter of God's revelation about Himself - not about science or history - though it is historically correct in most cases, imo.

As long as it's help, and not just doing it for them.

Yea, I wasn't disagreeing with them calling things possibly symbolic (again, they cannot be *proven* to be symbolic), I'm just very unsettled with them taking the authority upon themselves to decide which verses are "true" and "untrue"... seems realllly dangerous. Also I'm with you on that article, the new pope is extremely conservative - I can't see any of this happening with his full knowledge.

Totally agree. :) Wow... did I just say that? :P

....lol, you certainly showed us alot of respect there. Okay, I see where we're differing here - it's in our premises. I'm assuming the Bible is truth, describing an objective, absolute morality, whereas I beleive you are thinking morality is subjective, progressive. Assuming subjective morality, yes, you are 100% correct - but assuming my idea of absolute morality, given to us through the Bible, then I am correct. However, I am not going to get into the absolute/relative argument here, that would take us on a huge tangent >_> But yeah, kind of weird how premises can do that to arguments, and make them both look valid, but you never really know how to counter them, and then you realized it's just a premise difference.... Again, that difference in our premises... By condemn do you mean promote? Because I would think a religious leader condemning the crusades would have been very refreshing for the time the crusades were happening (and probably was existent, just kept out of the majority).

Since when does time invalidate something? I'm sorry, this is illogical. There comes a *time* when a *2000 year old book* isn't valid anymore? Not only is that an oxymoron, it was proofless, unexplained, and you didn't even tell us why we should believe it. Sure, society is changed, but that's because we've strayed from it's teachings, not because it's no longer applicable. It shouldn't control the religion that bases everything it believes in it? That's absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, that's like saying a scientist shouldn't be governed by the laws of science. Hahah, that's actually really funny :P Incorrect. It's people using the book the justify their wrongs that has held us back. Application vs. Principle. My goodness people, when will you ever learn that because something is APPLIED wrong, doesn't make the PRINCIPLE less true. It's the most basic logical thought ever, yet no one ever gets it.

Ah, I understand now. I am meaning, that when looking to the original languages, we need to be able to take it literally, else the catholic church loses the foundations on which it is based. Of course things can be lost in translation which is why I only use the NASB or NIV for English, as all others try too hard to be "readable" and lose alot of literal meaning.

And that's the ticket. The crusades were a *brainless* following of the Bible's words - it makes the crusades invalid, *not* the Bible. As for how old the world is? I have no idea. It is not beyond God to create the universe with fossils already in the earth etc... though I don't believe he'd do that - it's only my opinion, and it's entirely possible he created the universe already aged. However, in the creation account in Genesis, it talks about God creating the world in 7 "days"... the Hebrew word for day here is "Yom", which translated could mean age, era, year, etc... it has no specific value :) So it is just as possible that God created the world in 7 ages, or 7 eras, see? Therefore, I believe evolution is one of the greatest proofs *for* God - but who knows, I'm pretty sure the age of the universe is irrelevant to my faith ;)