tricky77puzzle

Some people think otherwise. They believe that self-control is a virtue, and that showing your emotions is a very weak thing indeed.

So you're basically saying that God does exist and that that is a proven truth... I don't disagree with you. I don't really care. We can both go on our separate ways. Do we really need to know if God exists to lead good, virtuous lives? Anyway, theology is not the same thing as mathematics. There is room for gray areas.

I believe what he (she?) is talking about is, that you should put any religious text's quotes under quote tags. People aren't doing that, as far as I can see.

I don't think any religion is the "one true" religion. But who really cares? You follow your religion, I'll follow mine. It doesn't really matter, as long as everyone is happy.

The world would probably be the same with or without religions. The only reason religions exist is to give the followers something to do and to follow. Humans get disoriented if they don't have mindset to use. I wish there was an "it would stay the same" option in the poll. I would have chosen that one.

Or, alternatively, if you want to use the timer to keep track of some event, instead of a reminder, you can set the following as well: Dim seconds as Integer = NumericUpDown1.Value * 60MsgBox("The timer was set to " & seconds \ 60 & " minutes and " & seconds Mod 60 " seconds.") The backslash is integer division. Basically, 3 \ 2 = 1.5, which rounds down to 1. To make this work, you will have to preset the Timer's interval to 1000, as well as add a label. Name it Label1. In the code display, under Timer1.Tick, add the following code: seconds = seconds - 1Label1.Text = seconds \ 60 & ":" & (seconds \ 6) mod 10 & seconds Mod 60 This little tidbit of code displays the minutes:seconds. For example, if the time left was 8 minutes and 30 seconds, It would display "8:30". Then add: If seconds = 0 thenMsgBox(TextBox1.Text) like the original program.

Huh. I just figured out something else. By hacking another IPv6 address in the same domain {F0AC:D0B4:0000:0000:0052:3CD4} nd looking through the records, I got the following email: To: George W. Bush From: Sgt. Stanley R. Wicken I picked up an alert on address {F0AC:D0B4:0000:0000:0056:9278} on port 2415. A person from the IPv4 address {0000:0000:0000:0000:C038:3434} tried to hack our database today. They might have extracted classified information. I will be blacklisting this address from further access, and if he tries again, he will meet a smart virus that will destroy his computer hardware. It seems like Sgt. Wicken picked up my traces. I can't hack that server anymore, but I think I can still access most of the domain.

If you like winrar ane 7-zip, you could consider using ALZip - it's the program I use and it supports a variety of formats and compression speeds.

So finally Microsoft has decided to make an alternative to Flash. Oh, goody.I've installed it so that I can view all pages on the Internet. I don't really like the concept (considering they could have just used Flash) but I'll still use it if I have to. After all, it's not like about 90% of the web uses it... like it does Flash.

What I mean is, we try to be accepting of all religions, so basically, it's not one religion that dominates. Just like your own arguments suggest, it's up to them to resist peer pressure. Well, at least know of. Even Christians don't follow the rule sometimes. To live in the present doesn't mean that those events can't haunt you forever. You can just push them aside. Yeah, I didn't complete my response. I clicked send before I could finish, but didn't bother to go back and

1. The only reason we exclude religion from legal and moral arguments is because we want to be accepting of all religions. 2. This problem is starting to arise in Canada too. However, trying to convert them to Christianity or some other religion is not the answer. They might have heard a different or flawed version from their parents. First give them basic rehabilitation, and then try to convert them. But, don't use force. That never gets anyone everywhere. 3. Solely using religion isn't much better. Sure, it gets the job done more quickly, but not all points of view were considered. (Sometimes not even God's.) 4. Well, I don't think religion is the motive of these people. Maybe they want to defend their own, or something like that. 5. The Crusades were an example of how Christainity has morphed over the years. Nowadays is is being reformed to fit modern social ideals. If it were the "true" religion, it wouldn't have changed over the years, like God hasn't. (One thing hasn't changed, and that is the Golden Rule, which is present in all religions: "Do to others only what you would want them to do to you, or what they have done to you.") 6. True. But that's not his (her?) fault. This topic has strayed off its original point a little. 7. Without religion, sex can be used for anything. But if we use sex for the sole purpose of reproduction (procreation), there is no pleasure in it. (Well, that's what God wants, right...) It's not like you really care what happens in someone else's bedroom... respect people's privacy, won't you... 8. [n/a] 9. It's more like mutual respect. Instead of promoting respect upwards of age, they promote it both ways. However, children like to get more than they give. You could argue that it's human nature. 10. Early sex is a decision. Don't have sex unless you think you're ready. If you have overwhelming peer pressure around you, but you don't think you're ready, then don't have sex! It's that simple. If they reject you for that, then they're not real friends, are they... 11. I don't see how infidelity has anything to do with sex for procreation. Even atheists follow the Golden Rule. 12. It doesn't? Maybe these people were disturbed by some event in school that haunted them forever. 13. I don't get this statement at all. Are you saying: "Even though the principle of an eye for an eye is righteous, individuals should not carry it out themselves, and should leave it to God"? 14. America didn't go to Afghanistan to fight terrorism. They went to Iraq for that. I believe they went to Afghanistan to

People read the Bible, and they read, "no one knows the exact day and hour". Of coruse no one knows the exact date. But that doesn't keep them fron trying to approximate. Anyway, I think about 60% of the people here haven't ever read the Bible. (Well, maybe 40%. I could be wrong.) Anyway, the Mayans never predicted that the world would end on any date. They said that the world will undergo a dramatic change of some sort. Who knows, maybe it will come with the election of the new President in 2012.

I don't believe in reincarnation. I believe that when you die, you can go one of two ways:1. You go to either Heaven or Hell, depending on whether you've been good or bad, or whether you believed in Christ or not.2. You lose all consciousness in your first body. It degrades and you begin as another body. Not a reincarnation, but your consciousness will be reset and you will be born in another body, possibly in another universe, all over again.

I believe he (she?) is talking about the Van Allen radiation belt. The radiation here is much more intense, and would have caused what they propose for it to have caused, had the space shuttle not been protected at all. But, it was protected, and quite well at that. Identical, square millimetre by square millimetre. You might notice that one is a bit to the left of the other. Although they're miles apart, it's a pretty distant background. 390 K? That's only 120°C! The film wouldn't have even softened by then! I don't think that was actually placed by the Apollo 11 people.

Sure. I have no problem with calling it sin. Because that's just what it is. But don't try to go the extra mile and try to call it something even worse. Don't overdo it, otherwise you might hear that people won't see your message for what it is and might criticise the messenger for being too, well, fantastic. But then again, I don't think people really like to be absolutely honest with each other. Then people would say things like, "I don't like you. Not one bit. In fact, I actually hate you. But I respect you for who you are as a human being and that's why I'm lending you 5 bucks." They'd pretty much punch you in the face for that.

The moon is flat as well. That's why you only see one side of it. If you were to see the other side, you'd be seeing a giant glowing red patch of lava.

You ever heard of Google? They do the same thing to emails. Of course, they don't do it at the same level; they only do it on their servers, which is completely legal. I think this is bad enough. But one thing I am confident of is that I am safe, because the Free Communications Act in Canada contains the following ground rules: The user of the computer and internet connection is allowed, without restriction, to: 1. restrict access to and from the computer. 2. modify any information sent directly from the computer to any outside connection, except where this would infringe right c) below. 3. modify and expect the integrity of any information coming into the computer, except where this would infringe any licensing restrictions that the computer has. (I'm not quoting this from anywhere. I'm not sure if it's even right.) Phorm pretty much violates all three rights.

Well then again, they're both joking. It's factually inaccurate that people going to Heaven or Hell automatically get a wings or a tail. These two boys never did their bible study homework, did they?

I believe you are referring to partial-birth abortion, which I am also against myself. Not all types of abortion are like that. In fact, this type of abortion accounts for 0.17% flat of all abortions in the US. What kind of world do you live in... a world where partial-birth abortion is the only type practiced? You are seriously miseducated, my friend. That's your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. It may be moreally right, but what is moral is not always just, and what is just is not always moral. (Just like your quote from Hippoparchus [Hipparchus?]. Not everything is mutually inclusive.) But I'm not pro-abortion, per se, I'm pro-choice. Although no one would ever do that thing about running around naked, they will have that choice. A lot of people who are in the abortion movement are solely pro-choice, and would never have an abortion themselves. Did I say everyone? I only said to provide the education. If they don't accept it, fine, it's their problem. Bring it down on them as hard as you like, but give them the information first. (Huh. The issue was resolved. Never mind.)

1. The reflective paneling on the lunar module itself could protect the astronauts from radiation. 2. This is all a matter of contrast: bright objects will bleed out into darker objects in photos, and the crosshairs were black. 3. Implausibly? NASA uses state-of-the-art technology. I'm pretty sure they had 250-dpi film back then. 4. There were no stars because the window was frosted. I get this all the time when I ride planes and try to see stars. The window gets frosted up and I can't see anything. Also, on the photographs, you can't see stars because the magnitude of the sun (I think almost -40 on the Moon, where there is no atmosphere to refract it) plus the brilliant whiteness of the astronaut's suits, prettty much bled out most of the stars. 5. You ever heard of mountains? Even if the picture is taken miles apart, the mountains will look the same, if they are far away enough. 6. Maybe the film box's outside was white as well. And anyway, the film that they used only started to melt at 250°C, which the temperatures at the moon weren't close to reaching. 7. It didn't need to. The fuel that they had left at that time was barely enough for 20 seconds of propulsion. They didn't use full power when they landed. 8. It didn't? Show me a picture that shows that. 9. It didn't flap at all. On Wikipedia, there are 2 poctures taken about 3 seconds apart that show while the flag looked like it was flapping, it actually wasn't. And here's also something to think about: Even if these things were there, like the flag being completely still or the stars being there, it could still have easily been a very carefully (right to the last planck's-constant-th of a microdetail) planned-out hoax as well. Or it might not have been. So just because these things are there, doesn't prove that it was a hoax.

There are power stations on the ice wall? What do they use - negative thermal energy? Anyhow, I'll be looking into all the coding issues. Any codes you have, send them to me, and I'll decode them for you. Good luck on your trip!

'Well "He" is a third person pronoun. It's not exactly a name. I would understand if the word was like the way you sometimes see LORD in Bibles (I capitalize this because it's a name), where the entire name is capitalized. That I can understand, to not confuse it with "Lord" in some situations. I don't think he (He, by your standard) would really care if his (His?) pronoun was capitalized. I mean, there are no capital letters in Hebrew. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Did God care then? I think capitalizing one's name as a form of exaltation is kind of weird. I guess it's just a custom among Christians that I don't really follow.

This rejection stuff, and reading Scripture (huh, I'm capitalizing this. Not because it's important, but because it's not "important" enough in common language.) is all fine and dandy. But remember, God and the Bible are there the help you through the situation, not drag your feet through.

Absolutely true. My viewpoint is, people are so obsessed with caring for their mind and body, and only a few percentage let out what's in their soul. These are the "creators", the artists. They are the only ones who actually find some meaning in their lives. Don't believe in God or even Christ because you have to. That's not a good way to go. Believe in him (Him? I never capitalize it, for some weird reason.) because he's (He's?) necessary for you to find meaning in your life. If he (He? I seriously don't understand why people capitalize it. It makes God look fake. Capitalized things aren't objects.) isn't, then by all means, don't believe in him (Him! Argh.).

Hey, I just found something out myself. By hacking into the IPv6 address {F0AC:D0B4:0000:0000:0056:9278}, I managed to extract some more code: BVC-DHPL: 208.54327BVC-PHFT: B4CD972DBVC-IP: 1827:0716 It uses the same algorithm that you used to decode the original message. I wonder if that means something...