iNow

The election of George W. Bush in 2000, and then again in 2004.

More off topic evasions from the actual request...

It's telling that you continue to do little more than evade the central request for examples and evidence, and proceed with the waffling, hand waving, and off topic nonsequiturs.

Well, it's at least completely inaccurate. Ronald McDonald is a mascot, not the head of the organization...

Why not use the advanced search this site offers? Put your username, a timeline, a few key words... whether you want results returned as your posts, or as the thread in which the post was added... and voila? http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=search&search_in=forums

Listen. I understand that. It only takes a few seconds, however, to reply to a post that this can/cannot be done, or that it will be another week... or two weeks... whatever. If Cap'n weren't posting elsewhere on the site, or hanging out in chat, I wouldn't think anything of it. However, he has been posting, and he has been active, but wasn't replying here... So I was bumping the thread simply to get a status. Ah. Of course. That would have been my guess, too. So... Oh... Wait. I don't program in PHP. In laymen's terms, can you please describe how this addresses the issue?

Silence for 8 days... So I asked again: Got a response, but then had another 7 days of silence... Silence for 3 more days... Then last response was that week the one active site Admin had exams. So, I know it's only been more than a month since I originally brought this up, and I am merely being incredibly impatient waiting for such a short time... but I figured I could check-in. Will this be happening?

Good luck on your tests, but aren't there like 3 or 4 site admins to help with this site issues when one admin is busy with life? Why are you the only person holding down the fort?

Hhheeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooo??!??

Any luck with this?

Not political, per se, but some of the conversations in Politics remind me of it: This one, however, pure politics:

And, what about this one?

In the search results (like View New Content), can the characters allowed for thread titles be increased? You did this in the old version, and it was very helpful, but we're again experiencing truncated titles in the search results since the upgrade. Thx.

Blackholes and Timewarps by Kip Thorne. The Magic Furnace by Marcus Chown. The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

Woman Marine Pilot The teacher gave her fifth grade class an assignment: Get their parents to tell them a story with a moral at the end of it. The next day, the kids came back and, one by one, and began to tell their stories. There were all the regular types of stuff: spilled milk and pennies saved. But then the teacher realized, much to her dismay, that only Janie was left. 'Janie, do you have a story to share?' 'Yes ma'am. My daddy told me a story about my Mommy. She was a Marine pilot in Desert Storm, and her plane got hit. She had to bail out over enemy territory, and all she had was a flask of whiskey, a pistol, and a survival knife. She drank the whiskey on the way down so the bottle wouldn't break, and then her parachute landed her right in the middle of 20 Iraqi troops. She shot 15 of them with the pistol, until she ran out of bullets, killed four more with the knife, till the blade broke, and then she killed the last Iraqi with her bare hands.' 'Good Heavens,' said the horrified teacher. 'What did your Daddy tell you was the moral to this horrible story?' "Stay away from Mommy when she's been drinking."

It could go either way, guys. "And" is clearly not a number, nor is it part of the number, it's just something we often add when speaking the number out loud. One hundred one One hundred two One hundred three... One oh four One oh five One oh six... One hundred and seven One hundred and eight One hundred and nine... The and is conventional, not part of the number, but I do give a lot of credit to shyvera for the very astute observation, all the same.

President Barack Obama is expected to nominate Jesus Christ, an immigrant originally born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem, to fill the new vacancy on the Supreme Court. Although Mr. Christ is over 2,000 years old, He is immortal, so Democrats and Republicans expect that He will serve on the high court forever or until He decides to start the End Times. Republicans are expected to fight the nomination on the grounds that Mr. Christ would radically move the Court to the left. The GOP is also concerned that, despite decades of controversy and speculation, Mr. Christ has never revealed his position on abortion. Mr. Christ, according to many authorities, is expected to oppose the death penalty in all forms. Michael Steele, the head of the GOP national committee, issued a statement: "Christ is a complete mystery to us. He won't reveal His physical appearance and many of His positions are unknown or the subject of speculation. He is a stealth candidate. Why won't He reveal himself? Who does He think He is?" Republicans are reportedly outraged that Mr. Obama even considered Mr. Christ, who has been widely quoted for his sentiments supporting the poor over the wealthy. In a Facebook post, former half-term Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin called for an investigation into the Bethlehem chapter of ACORN because of what she termed the "highly suspicious" coincidence that both President Obama and Mr. Christ had each spent three years as community organizers. In her post, Palin also wrote that "More and more of good God-fearing smalltime Americans from hardworking smalltime towns from great parts of this real America, West, South, East, North, are seeing more and more every day that Christ is a community organizer. We don't need another community organizer in the White House!" Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) asked, "We're not even sure where He was born. Why is He afraid to show us his birth certificate?" Bachmann also announced that she would vote "no" when the Christ nomination came before the House of Representatives. Later, her congressional staff released a statement saying that the Congresswoman had forgotten that the House does not vote on judicial nominations. According to Rush Limbaugh, "Christ doesn't know anything about free enterprise. This is part of the Obama conspiracy to drag us to socialism. If this guy is approved, I'm moving to Costa Rica." Sobbing, Glenn Beck attacked Christ's support for the separation of church and state, telling his audience "You know who else wanted a separation of church and state? Hitler." Several Catholic priests were contacted for comment but refused to discuss the issue, and, even though they weren't asked, all empathetically denied that they had personally molested any children. Democrats are optimistic about their chances of shoving Mr. Christ down the throats of Americans using normal constitutional and parliamentary procedures. Many Democrats are hopeful that Mr. Christ's past associations with prostitutes will earn him at least one Republican vote, that of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). If confirmed, Christ will be the first Supreme Court Justice who has at least one American city named after him: Corpus Christi, Texas

As well as sodium and cadmium telluride.

Yeah, because varying interpretations of such clear and precise language is not at all possible. Psst... My meaning is this: That could mean anything you want it to, so is really without utility.

Right then, but that wasn't the context of the thread. We were asked why we are not theist, and I responded in order to concur with John C's point. In the course of so doing, I mentioned that I struggle to understand why people still believe in this nonsense, and I was promptly reminded of the rules, and admonished for being so callous as to use the term "nonsense." I do love how I've now been called childish and how it's been implied that I'm acting like a kindergartner, and how this has been done by the very people talking about how important it is not to be mean and not to be rude to posters. It's sort of a pot meet kettle moment, but whatever. Regardless, since you asked Dak, I'll elucidate (despite the fact that this was not the topic to which I was originally responding, I'll gladly offer more since it's been directly requested of me to do so). Religious belief is worthy of rejection because it is all based on faith, and often that belief is held in direct opposition to evidence due to the fact that faith is prioritized over evidence. Ultimately, in these discussions with theists, the argument of existence comes down to faith, and faith alone. Theists invoke special pleading by asking that their faith be granted merit, and they request that we apply different standards to their claims (whether implicitly or explicitly) than we would apply to all other claims in all other arenas. I use the shorthand of calling it nonsense instead of repeatedly asking why we are supposed to accept peoples faith as a valid form of evidence when it applies to their personal belief set... when we would not do the same thing for someone who believed in unicorns because of their faith, or when we would not accept someones faith in Thor as valid evidence of existence, or when we would not accept someones faith in the tooth fairy as valid evidence of existence. If faith is so critical, and so important, why then do they reject faith when it is presented as argument from others with differing beliefs? Why is it good enough to support their personal beliefs, but not good enough to support the validity of beliefs held by others which differ from them? Theists have literally nothing other than their personal faith in support of their claims, and they are essentially invoking special pleading and using double standards of evidence since they would not accept faith alone as evidence of Zeus being a god or evidence that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. What I'm here trying to point out is that we should unashamedly refuse to accept this double standard, and to remind readers of the importance of being consistent with our standards of evidence. We must continually ask... why faith is somehow good enough for beliefs with which these theists agree, but seemingly faith is not good enough for beliefs with which they disagree (let's say belief in Allah or belief in Zeus or belief in easter bunnies). Either ALL claims of faith are equally valid, or none are. Theists everywhere have only thus far managed to offer personal faith as their argumentative foundation; faith alone as the reason for their beliefs. Since they have nothing more than faith alone their assertions and beliefs can be safely dismissed as vacuous and without utility. Again, all we need to do is ask ourselves why someone's "faith" in unicorns or leprechauns or tooth fairies is not good enough to avoid derision and dismissal by all of us... by society at large... but somehow their faith in Yahweh or Jesus are somehow supposed to be exempt from the aforementioned derision and dismissal? Either theists have something more than just their personal faith in support of their claims, or they have nothing whatsoever. Thus far in the centuries during which these discussions have taken place all we've been presented in support of the god existence question is faith, and that's just not good enough. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit lazy sometimes and summarizing all of the above by simply calling it nonsense.

Ok, so long as we say astrology itself is bullshit, we're good. On that note, religious belief in deities is bullshit. I'm not talking to any religious believers, though, so I'm fine since I'm not flaming.

I still fail to understand why so many people buy into this nonsense, but hey... whatever.