truefusion

I just copy and paste the beginning part of the bbcode and close any parts before it. For example: [quote name='Nameless_' date='Aug 13 2009, 06:07 AM' post='454355']Don't know how to do multiple quotes like you (when it's all from the same person), so I won't do that...[/quote] When it is said that "God created everything," "everything" is intended to be restricted to the term "matter." Otherwise, i would agree that it is false to include literally everything, as that would include God Himself—showing how fallacious it really is to include literally everything, which no believer would admit to having said or intended. Therefore if you assume that "everything" when it is said that "God created everything" includes literally everything (physical, metaphysical, et cetera), then anything following it would itself be fallacious. Therefore such a statement doesn't make sense to you, and therefore you ask, "Why rape?" Given the post record for this topic, you were the one that introduced the idea that "everything" within "God created everything" meant literally everything. It's not safe to assume such a position and then argue from it without first proving or showing that God really did create those things you say He did. Concerning sex, all God did was create sexual, reproductive organs and told us to have children (Genesis 1:22, 28). God isn't Zeus, who i've been told, according to Greek Mythology, would often transform into a goat and rape women. But sex isn't condemned in the Bible, only certain forms of it. I could (can) not derive that from the question you asked. Lions are known to mate with lionesses that enter "their territory" regardless of whether or not the lioness wants to mate. I'm only certain of lions, though, from when i saw it on the Discovery channel. But in the video the lioness was trying to get the lion off.

The first and the second part of the question assume His existence: the first part (the if part) due to the fact that, in this case, only yields two possibilities; the second part due to the use of the word "he." So i don't think it is practical for one to derive the possibility of His inexistence from the question. I figured that much, but i wasn't satisfied with rpgsearcherz response. God's existence isn't dependent on whether or not someone can argue for His existence, therefore we're not necessarily talking about a contradictory God. But given the implications, if God didn't exist, chances are, existence itself would not exist. I'm not sure if i understand it now. Do you mean, "What if rape was a natural occurrence for procreation and non-procreation reasons and there was no God who created everything?"? If so, then assuming existence is possible without God, then it wouldn't matter if rape was the dominate course of action, that is, at least concerning morals. If people don't like it, then they should try to do something about it. But there would be no moral justification for either side. But if that's not what you meant, then, no, i don't understand. Although the assumption that an action is able to be caused in the same sense as matter is unnecessary here, sex, in the case you propose, would be for non-reproductive reasons. The reason for choosing something over the other is wholly dependent on the individual making the choice, that is, where free will is present. Therefore i cannot provide any absolute reasons why a person, or animal, would choose to enforce themselves upon another individual. Nevertheless, it tends to always come down to lack of self-control. With animals they tend to have no self control unless perhaps when watched over. With people that can also be the case, but with people there are exceptions (even if they're rare).

The "if" part of the question can be left out, as it is not required to introduce the remainder of the question. Also, if the only reason we have for answering the question is due to the "if" part, then we wouldn't need to answer the question, since God didn't create rape. But the answer to the question would be something like: if pleasure from sexual intercourse induces reproduction, then it's an observable design pattern for His command in Genesis 1:28. As for the second question, given the context, it could be asking why God created sin or why do humans sin. Obviously the former is illogical, leaving the latter. Why people sin depends solely on the person. I can only remember one explicit reference and that's Deuteronomy 22:25-27, but there may be more. Yeah, there are many different kinds of thoughts (scenarios) that can come into play here. But i guess the enjoyment requirement is a good, practical standard for judging whether or not a person is how they think. When i think about it, a person who enjoys evil (at least to me) is on some level evil.

Having homosexual thoughts does not necessarily show that they're a homosexual; they would have to enjoy the thoughts (do note that "100% homosexual thoughts" is slightly ambiguous); "to enjoy" is an act. Since preference implies choice, choosing to be a homosexual would make them a homosexual, since that implies having committed a homosexual act. Since in this case he would be enjoying the thoughts (rather than being disturbed by them), the guy would be labeled a cheater and guilty of adultery, and should not be married to his wife.

I've seen this kind of wishful thinking in the past before. In an attempt to figure out the roots of it, it generally comes from appeal to consequences. And this appeal to consequences often comes from self-acceptance; that is, the person accepts themselves no matter who they are and what they do. Hence they often declare that they're a "good person," which shows why they would believe that they would be accepted by their "god." But this is often the reason why they don't believe in the Biblical God, because the Biblical God doesn't suit them. But the truth of a matter isn't dependent on what suits a person. And if you didn't have control over things you don't understand, then it would be impossible to grow in understanding.

I suppose "Godly union" is more accurate than the term "marriage," but the term "marriage" is less ambiguous than "Godly union." Biblically, marriage does not require any paper work (except for divorce, but still not as complicated as certain countries make it out to be), a ring (which i hear wedding rings are from pagan origin), ceremonies (e.g. weddings) or what-have-you. Therefore whenever a friend of mine calls his girlfriend his "wife," i accept it. I mean, Adam and Eve didn't go through all of that stuff, yet Eve is labeled Adam's wife, and Adam her husband. Special pleading, again. Anyway, i don't consider someone a "homosexual" unless they commit a homosexual act. In the same way, i don't consider a person a "baker" unless they know how to bake things (and perhaps does it for a living); i don't consider a person a "fisherman" unless they fish regularly; et cetera. "Loud" is often considered by how the person reads the posts. If you feel there is emotion within the post, then you'll most likely consider it "loud." If you read things with the assumption that the person was calm, then you'll most likely see it as calm. Actions speak louder than words, therefore i do judge them by "who they really are." Hence i don't call someone a "homosexual" just because they claim that they are interested in the same sex in a way that is different than how i'd be.

And that's the problem. You have to uninstall them through the very same panel (or some other PHP script), as they now bear a different owner than you, and only that "owner" can delete the files. This is like having the user "root" create a file (or directory) in your ~/ directory. You won't be able to delete the file (or directory) since you don't have ownership of the file (or directory).

He (currently) doesn't have any warnings, and his posting record doesn't show that he accomplished that many myCENTs in one day. Given the dates of his posts, it seems his myCENTs have been "stuck" for over a week. But rvalkass did bring up a good point that cannot be determined by his posting records: whether or not he changed his e-mail. But if that is not the case, then i'm not sure what it could be.

The verses i had in mind imply and explicitly mention that humans are to be heterosexual; not necessarily monogynistic, but according to the Bible, divorce is only allowed because humans are foolish. Even if the definition of a word was changed, or if more definitions were added to the word, you can still use context to determine its meaning. And it's not as ambiguous as you're implying. Likewise, many words used back then aren't even used today (you can even see this within the English language when comparing old English and today's English), therefore those old words are left untouched. I actually don't need to. Homosexuality is generally disowned among the religions. In fact, concerning many laws, they agree on many parts. So, concerning these, i would really be indirectly referencing them. Anyone can pull up the word itself, practically any word, so long as it is out of context, and show how it has changed. It can basically be argued that slavery is illegal today because it did not at least follow the slavery laws written in the Bible. In the Bible slaves are to be set free every seven years (unless the slave themselves insist on remaining a slave—which implies that the master proved to be beneficial to the slave). When they are set free, they are not to be set free empty handed and are to be provided some resources for temporary survival outside of their ex-master's home. Also, if a slave were to be punished for disobedience or for perhaps stealing from their master, if they lose some bodily functional parts due to the punishment, they are to be set free. In the USA when slavery was legal, some masters would often cut off their slaves' thumbs. Likewise, by Biblical law, if a slave were to be killed due to punishment, the master would in turn be punished. There are many differences between Biblical slavery and the slavery that was banned in this country. Nevertheless, the Biblical laws were merely standards that one were to follow. It is merely a minimum, where no one should act lesser than. Acting greater than is allowed. I get the impression that this part was also meant to answer the first question in the quote you provide of me. In other words, to me, you're implying that laws are unjustifiable by nature. I know this part isn't directed to me, but i am interested on what you believe humans are supposed or meant to be.

Unless you can tell me of a "middle man" (since i can't think of one for this situation), then something can only be either natural or unnatural. In which case, it is left up to the definition of "natural." Natural in this case can be considered anything in its original state, or closest to its original state if its original state can no longer be achieved or maintained. But saying they should just because they should isn't a good reason for actually doing so. And the arguement "its old or cliche" isn't good enough of a reason to do stop basing their morals off of something long ago. Many if not most laws today (at least in the USA) can be found in the Bible—that's pretty much the reason why they're not against God's Law. But even if something declared illegal or taboo doesn't make them such, neither does it mean that they aren't. To argue for either case implies that there is an absolute moral standard out there that can justify either side; otherwise you'd be arguing forever and be basically making things up as you go. The definition for "natural" that is implied here runs along the lines of what i gave. Either it has been stated or it hasn't—you can't have it both ways. (I can actually pull up a verse that implies it.) However, following from the logic, since anything following would be man-made, how would you justify any new law? Since they are "man-made," can't it just be easily brushed off as well? In which case, why have laws in the first place?

Back in another topic of yours, i checked to see if anyone had asked if you already had a registered domain, since your current myCENT earnings cannot get you a domain name. Someone did ask, but no answer from you. From this i can only assume that you did not already own a domain. If that is the case, that would explain your problem. You're only supposed to enter a top-level domain (i.e. not a sub domain) if you already own a top-level domain. If that is not the case, you would have to check your DNS settings for your domain. You could probably access your site with the IP address of the server hosting your site, but i am not certain what that would be.

Yeah, that's what i mean. You could post there about those things instead of here, but i'm not sure of how quick of a response you'll get (as i see them as having less members). But you can test out how fast of a response you'll get with your next technical question or problem.

The testimony of one witness is not something that can be considered as "evidence" (at least in a court of law). Evidence would be if you brought in these people and they testified themselves. While logically you may be able to still argue that they are just actors, that would, however, be irrelevant. The reason being is because all matters should come to a conclusion, even if the conclusion does not go the way it would have if the judge were to be omniscient and wholly just. The conclusion should be allowed to pass if the system did everything that was humanly (and justly) possible given the situation. I should mention, though, that i do not mean to imply that them saying they are born gay would make it true. I mean, it would show that the stories you bring up really did happen in one point in time. What should have followed is, "Why is everyone treated different?" If the law is written, then it is the judge's (and jury's) duty to know the law. Hence, in a court of law it is not required. However, neither is it required outside a court room. Citizens have the right to know their rights and they should take the time to know them, especially if they moved here or are visiting from another country. An unfortunate irony is that even though one may be fighting for equal or more rights, they could be doing so bearing ignorance of the fact that they already have the right they are fighting for. But if you were to show that a heterosexual got a slap on the wrist for the same crime a homosexual committed, while that homosexual got jail time, i would expect for the heterosexual to be given the jail time. I do not equate "being treated differently" with "loss of rights." Also, if they did not have the same rights as the heterosexual, i would not see why you would be attempting to show that a heterosexual got a mere slap on the wrist for the same crime as the homosexual. I realize that the intentions of another individual, group, organization or governing body may differ with common sense or what is to be expected, but i don't care about their intentions if they're not consistent. So it was a false assumption. You don't even consider that it was the only logical conclusion that one can formulate (regardless of who it is) given the information that was present. I realize the margin of error that was present, but if you're one that judges by a person's actions, then you should at least be considering that your responses to my posts showed that you were ignorant of where to obtain my arguments or reasons and my beliefs and ignorant of my arguments and beliefs themselves. You don't have to click on them, but i would have figured that you would at least be consistent with your words since you have multiple times requested for the very same information and have accused me in the very same posts of not publicly displaying them. Even if you were to just "run into" them while browsing the Internet, what's the difference between clicking the links here or in some other area? Preference[1][2][3][4]. Okay, i "thought it over." But i should also mention that if you're going to not accept this because i "believe homosexuals aren't born gay," then you should at least also realize that the reason why you are declaring it false, wrong, or flat out denying it, is because you believe that homosexuals are born gay. In which case, you are committing the fallacy of special pleading. Remember, you haven't really shown that homosexuals are born gay, you just said that you trust their word. I do not equate "being treated differently" with "loss of rights." And i am for the enforcement of rights. As mentioned before, if i give up my rights, or if i admit that i have no rights, then i would not be able to uphold the rights i lost. ! And here i thought you were doing that this whole time. In fact, i could argue that this is about as explicit as it has been in an attempt to discredit me for Who knows what reason. I had figured your hate for me was pretty deep, but this makes things less of an assumption and more of a fact. But even though you believe that you know me well, you are not describing me well (though i'm sure what you consider "describing me well" is even less desirable than what you have mentioned). I am not necessarily confident in our courts of law, but i would (and do) agree that the witness's testimony should be considered unreliable if they're known for lying, even if logically one can argue that not everything they say is really false. The only exception would be if every other witness (assuming there are more, as one witness isn't really enough) told the same story. You can assume my statements as false all you want; that doesn't bother me. In fact, you could probably argue that i've been doing likewise to you (though not really all of your statements, and it's more along the lines of "until proven true"). But if i've ever lied, i can't remember, especially considering my post count. I will, however, admit that i have been wrong and have made illogical arguments in the past, but i wouldn't say that being wrong is the same thing as lying (and to do away with the implication, i am not implying that you said or implied that). I noticed the straw man late, but i'll work on being able to realize things better. But sure, i give you the right to state that i believe homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. You more than anyone should already know that i could debate a point all day too. Since the discussion turned out to be over the interpretation of certain terms, evidence isn't really any longer required. However, it would still be interesting if you referenced scientific evidence that showed that homosexuals are born gay. You should keep in mind, though, that if the subject cannot be declared consistent under the scientific method, that it cannot be considered scientific evidence.

It is nothing new. However, "weird" is a different story. If you define "weird" as "not normal," and if "normal" is "whatever is in the majority," then it can be considered weird. And "strange" is synonymous with "weird." "Love" is too ambiguous to use in such a definition. For example, i can love a friend of the same gender without being sexual about it. If your definition would be used, that would make me a homosexual, when i know i'm not. While i do realize that "God created everything" is fallacious (since "everything" is ambiguous), homosexuality is nevertheless not an object, it's an act; therefore not only making it impossible to group in the same category as matter but also making the statement terribly blasphemous (though even if homosexuality was an object, it would still be blasphemy, just, i would say, not necessarily to the same degree). But i don't expect you to care if it is blasphemous or not. No, it's not, at least concerning the animal kingdom. It's one mate for their entire lifetime. I think the (American) bald eagle is an example of one—it only sticks to one mate. But this information is from what i can remember from middle school, so you'll have to verify that. Technically, these two statements are basically mutually exclusive. Also, i've seen a dog mate with a household mop before. I really doubt that was its survival instincts kicking in. But if you consider the dog scenario, the argument "homosexuality is natural because animals do it too," following from that logic would make mating with household mops a natural thing. Therefore the argument that homosexuality is natural because animals do it too becomes impractical and loses weight.

I'ma assume the last question here follows from the first. In either case, it begs the question anyway. No one implied or mentioned the discrimination of females, neither does Adam and Eve's "fall" imply female discrimination. Allowing for something to happen does not mean that He wanted it to happen, in the same way that letting go of a person (i.e. allowing a person to leave you) does not mean you wanted to let them go. God does not interfere with free will except under certain conditions, and those conditions were not met in Adam and Eve's case. The irony with these questions or statements is, when you get rid of one, another one that is merely a paraphrased version of the last takes its place. For example, if there was no Tree of Knowledge, and Adam and Eve would have "fallen" anyway, you would in turn argue, "Why did God create Adam and Eve in the first place if He knew they would disobey Him?" But to answer your questions: There is no Biblical explanation as to why He created the Tree of Knowledge. However, given His omniscience, He would know that no matter what He did, they would still disobey. Therefore the Tree of Knowledge's creation is irrelevant. In which case, you would merely argue what i said you would argue in this case. So, your argument is really pointless. That's because your arguments mostly consist of straw men.

Astahost is considered more technical than these forums. These forums are more loose than how things are managed over at Xisto. I really doubt most Xisto users will like it if these two forums were to be joined or if these forums were to be picked over the other. Plus, a merge is impossible, given the fact that accounts may conflict with each other—and we wouldn't want that to happen.

Being a very good (or "near perfect," as you say) creation allows for stupidity. Even the smartest person alive today can appear stupid by the definition implied therein (and even without the definition implied therein). That is, the definition of "stupidity" here, given the context, is failure to listen to God. By that definition, everyone is practically stupid. Just like with Adam and Eve, people always act in the present, often times not thinking about the future, since they are being occupied by the present. While we may not be perfect (in more ways than one), we still have the power to overcome temptation. But people more often than not fall to temptation. You say the story still doesn't make sense to you. Since you didn't deny or speak against everything mentioned in response to this topic, logically we are somewhat forced to assume that perhaps you have accepted what you didn't speak against (until you say otherwise). Therefore, from this assumption, we can conclude that there is more to the story than what you bring up in your starting post that doesn't make sense to you. Given the topic, anything related to Adam and Eve is considered relevant to the discussion. However, you did bring up something concerning reality and truth concerning reality. If it is the case that if God wanted things to be a certain way that there would be no way around it (which implies reference to His omnipotence, which also implies whether or not we have free will), then it would follow that if there is a way around a matter, that it is not something that God wanted to be absolute. Wherever there is a choice in the matter, God allows for free will. Saying, "What if God wanted it to be like this?" is an attempt to avoid a(n undesirable) discussion or (undesirable) situation. In its own way, wouldn't that be someone trying to make sense out of reality, hence, by your understanding, mere conjecture? But this leads us to another matter: How do you define truth? Do you admit that there is such a thing as truth? Or is even experience and what is observable (wholly) false? Nevertheless, doesn't truth require logic? That is, doesn't truth have to make sense? Isn't that the reason why you don't believe in whatever it is you don't believe? But we don't know what "doesn't make sense." So, perhaps it is not that you seek truth, but, rather, the truth of a matter is not important to you. But all of this somewhat goes to waste if left like this.

If ignorance is not an excuse, then it follows that those who support ignorance have no excuse for supporting it either. But i asked for evidence to clear doubt. However, i no longer need it; my doubt has been cleared. It wasn't necessarily that i was wrong, but, rather, how you interpret "equal rights" that had you declare that i was false. At first i was wondering where this popped out from, but it appears to be following from my response concerning whether or not people are born a homosexual. Bringing up depression and suicide is slightly out of context, but i can see how one can link each up given the surrounding similarities of each. For example, in the case of depression and suicide, consider the position of the one trying to prevent any suicide from occuring: What is stated as truth? "I'm depressed." What action are they trying to justify from the truth? "I think i'm going to kill myself." So, in turn, what is the listener's position? Is it not to try and convince them out of this? Are you not indirectly telling them, "No, you're not depressed; no, you don't want to kill yourself"? So how is the listener now appearing as? The listener is appearing as a disbeliever. Indeed, you realize there is a problem, but the only way to solve the problem is to convince the other side that their position is not the right or safe way to go. This is sounding very familiar, wouldn't you say? But i should mention that i don't appeal—or at least i try not to—to ad hominem statements. The reason why you feel justified in calling me a hypocrite and saying that i have no evidence for my beliefs, like there is a God and that there can only be one, and others, is due to ignorance on your side. I've already told you in another topic that claiming that there is more than one god is fallacious, as it runs along the lines of special pleading and that the universe only implies one God. Since i've already explicitly mentioned this to you, there is more than ignorance here—there is willful ignorance. Likewise, one need not look any further than my Xisto profile for my (current) arguments for the existence of God. Likewise, i have argued for the existence of God in these forums many times. You can even look in my signature for arguments against arguments against Christianity. I have asked you a long time ago whether or not you browsed the forums with signatures and avatars off, but for the time i waited i did not receive an answer from you. Therefore i was only left with one option: to assume that you surf with them off. Otherwise, how could you continue telling me i provide no reasoning or evidence for the things i believe in? Preference implies choice. Even i don't accept contradictions from my friends, as i wouldn't want them to accept my statements when my statements contradict each other. If i don't show favoritism, then i can increase the chances of others doing the same to me. And there is a middle man from the position you assert. I don't believe you're lying to me when you say homosexual friends of yours told you they were born gay, and i do believe you when you tell me things from your personal experiences. But that doesn't mean i have to accept as truth, as you have, what your friends have told you were true. But i don't believe you know enough about my religion to claim that my religion is filth and promotes lies or that it degrades human beings. You don't need thousands upon thousands of dollars to take a big company to court. Likewise, as you say, their rights would be acknowledged in a court of law, especially one with a jury. But choosing not to fight for the rights you have is the same as giving up your rights, in which case, why even bother claiming lack of equal rights? They had the same rights in this country ever since the Declaration of Independence. But non-sense managed to creep in anyway. While practically it may be the case that rights are only as good as those who enforce them, following from that logic, you would have to admit that no one has all the rights they've been promised. But i wouldn't declare that i have no rights from that, as i wouldn't be able to uphold them myself. Even you said they made an assumption concerning one thing they said about their brother, which implies you know exactly what they're talking about, like as if they told you personally. But that doesn't mean you know exactly what they're talking about. You make yourself sick, assuming conclusions for me when i had yet to mention my position on it (though you didn't really give me any chances to do so, therefore it would be out of my own accord if i were to do so). But it doesn't bother me how i am seen in your eyes. I already know you have to be a citizen of this country to bear the rights therein. But i will admit, here you provide more insight as to why you call me ignorant. I was never talking or arguing from a State level. Perhaps i should have made that explicit, but i had figured since the context was about laws that every state has, it shouldn't have mattered. I really doubt you're going to tell me there's at least one state out there that doesn't have the right to marry anyone. That's why i said homosexuals have the same marital rights. Which brings me to another point: you are the one taking things into a more general level. I said that homosexuals have the same marital rights, and you took that and removed the word "marital" from it. Which means you were arguing a straw man. I've already responded to this part.

Florida is known as the sunshine state. But Florida isn't as hot as other states, like those to the west. It just so happened to be hotter than normal in many parts of the U.S. this year. Though i'm a bit amazed that people still go to the beach in such hot times. Thunder and lightning is normally one of the least of our worries during severe thunderstorms. Interestingly enough, even on days that don't rain, things like waterspouts can occur.

If i'm not mistaken, you need at least 5 posts before they show up. Currently, you only have 4 posts.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that for the sake of taste we sacrifice our health for it, even if health can be spared while maintaining good taste.

I await your evidence. Others not taking the time to protect the rights they have doesn't show that they don't have the same rights. From what i can get from your post, the only areas they have trouble "protecting" their rights is in personal matters, not in places like an actual court of law. I get the feeling that you understand it by at least 45% (maybe 43%). You (plural) can't state something as a fact that contradicts itself (and expect everyone to accept it). Would you accept something mentioned as truth when there is no evidence for it, when others take their time to use these "truths" to justify themselves? Apply this to any situation. Would you accept it? From what is observable in this statement of yours, one could conclude that truth isn't necessary for you in order to support something. That is, "it may be true" is enough to consider it "true." They have the same rights. Discrimination does not equal lack of rights. The situation you bring up states that the situation was handled personally, not on a federal level. From what can be obtained from this quote of yours, one can conclude that your friend's friend just left without a fight from the apartments. Likewise, it shows that your friend didn't really fight for her friend either (since you are leaving us ignorant on anything that could have happened further, probably as an attempt to prove your case, or because it's too personal). Since it was the apartment manager that refused, if the apartment manager is the one that fills out any reports, obviously the reports would be bias. Hence requiring monitoring from any citizens living at the apartments. However, if one were to consider that too much of a hassle, then obviously these situations will always occur. Ironically, it usually doesn't matter what the topic is about. You tend to unleash yourself on me anyway. It becomes slightly difficult (though not too difficult) to stay objective when you do. But i have trouble staying objective when i get emotional, hence requesting that i show emotion, even if it is just a little, on a subject where objectivity is key is counter intuitive. Then show me the evidence i'm waiting for. Don't keep me ignorant.

To mention a similar method for GIMP users, the same effect can be achieved under Filters > Render > Pattern > Grid. If you mess around with the intersection column and others, you can get some more complex or more interesting grid patterns. For example:

Here's one way to go about it:Start a new document whose width and height are small but equal to each other (e.g. 20x20) (i.e. if you want a square, rather than rectangular, pattern). Make sure the background (or only available) layer is transparent. Make an "L" in either black or white. That is, use the one-pixel width and height selection tools and select the left (or right) edge and select the bottom (or top) edge. Then fill in the selection with the black (or white) color. Deselect the selection and click on Edit > Define Pattern (unless it's else where; i haven't used Photoshop since CS2). After providing a name and accepting, you can now use it as a pattern and fill any layer with it.

Unless the files are uploaded to that directory, i don't see why you would want them copied (or moved) into that directory. That is, if you can nevertheless play them without moving them, then just add their file names to the database and (if you don't have one already) make a column that marks these files "special." Then make a script that loads on the front page (or wherever you want the video to play) that keeps track of server's time and that'll only display or "echo" the video player within that time. But due to what you want implies, this means that you'll have to find other methods of skipping ahead in the video if you want the video's play time to match the server's time. Otherwise, these videos will always start from the beginning whenever a user visits between 8 and 9 P.M..