truefusion

Proposition 8 doesn't prevent them from being together. It doesn't remove any rights from them, unless you consider marriage a right that was established by government and not religion. But can you inform me of all the rights they lose from this? Is this the only "right" they lose? I ask seeking an answer from you; i do not intend to be rhetoric. But concerning rights, i ask you, should priests be forced, by law, to do something against their faith? That is, should they be forced to marry gay couples? By forcing them by law you are removing their right of Freedom of Religion. In order to maintain the right of everyone, as you so appear to be in support of, you would have to have government ordained marriage set-ups. But if that were to happen, marriage would be degraded, it will lose its essence, for it would be considered just another thing on the side. Why then consider marriage? They say marriage is so you can be together. No, it has to be more than that, for you can still be together till death without marriage. If they want to be together, they can be together—they don't need marriage for that. So what is it that they seek for concerning marriage? That is what i wonder indeed. It's unnecessary to argue from biasism. Here are two things about the statement: 1. In order for your statement to remain true, you yourself would have to have a religion. I'll show you why: 1.2. When you are for or against something, you are biased. There's no way to avoid it. I have a question for you: if it is impossible to be unbiased, or if you can't argue morals, then why say gay marriage should be allowed (as you do below)? If opinions are always biased to whatever degree, why do you rely on your opinion? Even if it is to get a word out, you argue against yourself. Following your argument above this one, your arguments lead to paradoxes. That is to say no one has the right to uphold laws, but at the same time you can't tell them that, because no one has the right to do so. So then you are left with a problem—albeit more than one—so we should in turn release all prisoners, for we have no right to place them in jail for doing "so-called" immoral acts. That is to say, you have no right to tell a person it is wrong to break all the bones in your body and just leave you in an area where you cannot obtain help—them being a sadist. Though you may not believe me, i will still say this was not a "hate post," as you call it, from me.

Even bearing good intentions, it cannot (or, rather, shouldn't) be allowed the kind of assitance you are offering for obvious reasons. Not only is it a security hazard, even if you could be fully trusted, you would require equal or near equal knowledge of the IPB boards, the inner and outer workings of the system implemented by Xisto, the credit system, etc, that OpaQue knows. Otherwise you'd be in a similar or equal spot that you are now. For that reason, instead of helping in updates, you should instead be helping us moderators catch violaters of the rules. You can do so by doing two things: mark a post as spam if you see it as spam and report the post. Not reporting the post and just merely rating a post as spam isn't as helpful to us as doing both. Therefore it is better to do both. As a member who's been here for a while, you should know what classifies a post as spam.

I always argue that the chicken came first because it took the chicken to lay the egg. By those who have asked me this question i've answered in that way, and, after they thought about it, they agreed with me. To me it makes sense.

Even if the source provided by Saint_Michael is for a forum, you can still study the code and get the general concept of it, even if PHP is foreign to you (it's an easy language to learn—though you may not need to learn it to get the general concept). Also, i'm assuming you already have some user management script available to you (probably even coded by you) for this credit system that you want. Otherwise you should be more concerned with that if you haven't already, since a credit system has to be able to integrate itself with a user management script, like those found in forum scripts. But since PHP is quite a common language for these kinds of scripts and because it is not a language your are compotent in, it would be harder to help you, especially if the language(s) that are native to you is one that very few people (if any) on this forum knows.

It will now in this code since you added the single quotes. But you don't need the single quotes for the numbers; they are taken as integers and get parsed properly without the single quotes.

On my G-mail account these e-mails don't get through into my inbox, but quite a few of them get into my inbox on my Yahoo! account—almost on a daily basis, too. I haven't really noticed an increase of them; they appear to be coming in the same amount as they have been. Yeah, they'll love that—proof that there's a person on the other side of the e-mail address.

Your problem is not in the JavaScript itself but in the HTML: <script language="text/javascript" language="Javascript"> You have the attribute language defined twice. The first instance should be "type" instead of "language" (but you can do without the language attribute): <script type="text/javascript"> Now the next problem you'd have would be that the variable test is not defined: <a href="java script:creatediv(test,test.html,300,250)">Test Link</a>

Check the mime type configuration on your account, and see if "htm" is set to be considered as a PHP file.

The way the credit system was designed to consider how many posts you have. As you post more the more you are required to write in order to earn credits like the way you did in the beginning. But you should consider signing up with the new system to receive myCENTs instead of credits, it's more beneficial if you do.

Actually, the trial, if any, should be dismissed. The article says that the guy willingly gave his account information away to the woman when they were "married." Although he didn't consider the risk probably due to his "love" for her, he should have still known the consequences of his action. Therefore the woman committed no unauthorized hacking. Otherwise the guy is as silly as the woman as SM says in his post; for who gives out account information for the fun of it? The guy also, i'm sure, has and had the ability to change his account password, he just didn't think this would happen. But if someone values virtual reality more than actual reality—the place where things are actually capable of being rewarding—then that tells you something about the person. Therefore the difference between these two gamers and someone uprooting someone else's vegetables is that the owner most likely makes a living from the vegetables. It'd be a slightly different story if the male gamer had entered a contest that offers money to the winner(s) and his character was one of the best out there, but that still wouldn't be equal to the scenario of the proud allotment owner.

There are a few things to consider here: Don't you consider it rude that they're taking up the whole walkway? Failure to ask means you are part of the "problem," possibly 50% of the "problem" would be you (i quote the word problem because if you did not want to be somewhere at a specific time, it would not be a problem, or just a small annoyance). "Because it's rude"—does this mean you don't ask nicely? "May I get by?" should be enough. In cases that it isn't, keep asking. If necessary, have someone ask with you. Also, traffic should be considered before planning to go anywhere; that is, get out earlier than usual when possible—plan ahead.

Why do you seek to fill yourself with smoke and not God? Place your burdens on God, for it is written: and again, Therefore take up Christ's yoke, for he says, How much can a counselor do for you? Will they be with you always? Can they provide you with a job? Can they convert the mindset of your girlfriend? How can you pay to visit one when you lack the funds? God can do all these things and you don't even have to pull out money from your pocket. Even if you did go see a counselor, in the end you'll be returning back to your reality, where the present will become a burden to you again. But let me inform you about those who place all their trust in God: Hated, flogged, and tossed in prison; they had every reason to mourn for the situations they have been through. But the present didn't bring them down, and they sang and rejoiced, for their trust was in God.

It takes a while for it to update. And checking my status, i just noticed that mine updated; however, as of this post my CENTs are in the negatives. To post a question concerning this, is there anything for me to be worrying about if my CENTs are in the negatives? And how did it end up in the negatives?

Yes, it's possible to do that; many companies that run Linux do that. You'd have to set up your own Debian repository on the central computer. Then on the beneficiaries, edit their sources.list file to include the LAN source. These links should help: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Trying to prevent people from "stealing" your HTML is unnecessary and a waste of effort. Even if you disable their right-click, there are still ways of getting passed that. Then there is their cache, where they can right click () and pick "Open with...". But there's really no point in trying to "steal" HTML from others. Also, any HTML specialist can not only figure out how the site is structured and coded, but also won't have any need for "your" HTML. Even if you prevent your pages from being cached, there's still ways around that. But that'll just increase your bandwidth consumption.

I think you may be making it appear harder than what it really is. Consider the following code: while($rows = mysql_fetch_array($result)){$images[] = $rows;}if ((intval($_GET['id'])-1) < 0){$prev_id = 0;} else {$prev_id = intval($_GET['id']);}if ((intval($_GET['id'])+1) > count($images)){$next_id = count($images);} else {$next_id = intval($_GET['id']);}/* Post current image */echo "<img src=\"get_image.php?id=".$images[$_GET['id']]['id']."\"/>";/* Post Previous and Next */echo "<a href=\"image.php?id=".$prev_id."\">Previous</a> <a href=\"image.php?id=".$next_id."\">Next</a>";Do note that i have not tested this piece of code and it obviously has a couple of flaws, but you should be able to get the idea nonetheless.

I play KDiamond on my KDE4 setup, instead. It may not be as good as Bejeweled, but it's entertaining nonetheless. It was actually nice to see it in the KDE4 games package.

There's really no difference between the server edition and the desktop edition of (K)(X)Ubuntu, other than the server edition bringing no GUI. If you download the desktop edition, you can skip most of the hassle you've been going through. Ever since 8.04, i believe, you can skip entering the LiveCD environment and go straight to the installer. With the amount of RAM you have, i'd suggest Xfce rather than KDE—that is, Xubuntu. You can still install KDE programs within Xubuntu, the package manager will take care of all the dependencies, without having to install the entire KDE package.

Though not entirely supported, consider OpenOffice.org for Mac. You may require the ODF converter integrator for docx files.

What would happen if i do the research, provide some sources[1][2][3][4][5] (to provide a few), and i still end up with the same conclusion: that the Big Bang theory means the universe had a beginning? Can you provide me where you got your information, that the Big Bang theory does not mean the universe had a beginning? I have seen many studies about micro organisms provided by you, but i have not seen any of them that were attributed to Charles Darwin. A lot of books[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] (just to point out a few) provide outdated material (without warning). Research should be done to see if it is still valid today and if any later editions still promote invalid information. You have just previously mentioned that almost every science book supports the theory of evolution. If it wasn't dependent, then it need not be mentioned in almost every science book. Regardless, i constantly hear from atheists that the theory of evolution is so highly supported by science that in order to disprove it, i would also have to disprove the following fields: biology, archeology, geology, etc. Like in this page. You say it is mutable, that page says that the theory of evolution is not absolute because contradictive data can still appear. Darwinists and the like constantly say that the theory of evolution is so widely supported by evidence (though they rarely, if at all, provide any sources). So, believing this, would one piece of contradictive evidence put an end to the theory of evolution? No, because the theory of evolution "is overwhemingly supported by evidence." People will just find a way to do away with this contradictive data. Creationism can be backed up and be friends with a lot of what is being taught in science books. And creationism is mutable, you just have to find something that it mentions in detail and show that that is not the case. I have already provided my analysis on what you have showed me. I am waiting for your rebuttal—i have been waiting for it for a long time. And if the denial or non-acceptance of another's opinions is to be closed minded, what have you accepted from me? But choosing to not provide a rebuttal to my statements is to allow the continuation of my statements. The theory of evolution may be more than that, but without change on a macro level it cannot be itself. I am still waiting for your proof that it is just a metaphor, a tale. And i have already shown how creationism can be tested. I can get quite inventive, but that is irrelevant. Kindly refrain from placing emotion within posts—i don't place emotion within my posts except maybe when i laugh or use exclamation points. Everything that goes through my mind is subject to scrutiny—everything. You should have seen me arrive at my Christian faith. But i didn't make anything up, and i am still waiting for your rebuttal. Darwin himself defined "natural selection" in his book, the Origin of Species, in chapter 4: Hidden This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. To put it in more simpler terms, it means that anything that benefits the organism is kept, and anything that doesn't is rejected. This happens naturally, as the name suggests. However, although the name contains "selection," Darwin does not go into the kind of detail one would expect for the term "selection." He starts speaking metaphorically, suggesting that mother nature is the one that does the selections. This is quite paganistic. He could have stated that the organism itself, at a microscopic level, is what does the selection; however, he makes it clear that such a selection is done in an unconscious level: So as it is it must occur naturally and unconsciously. The subject is still on public schools. Sunday schools is outside of that. But what you call "basic science" is not necessarily required knowledge for survival in today's day and age. Learning what plants and foods to avoid is. Learning about nutrition and health is. But i can only expect people to be similar to today. Respect: to acknowledge the value behind something. (Your turn.)Nice: not be hurtful. Prove: to provide reasoning for one or more statements. Disprove: to provide reasoning against one or more statements. Discredit (the one without the bad connotation): to disprove. I never claimed to be respectful, nor did i claim to be disrespectful. Accusations came from third parties. As i have mentioned before, everything that goes through my mind is subject to scrutiny before acceptance. Where i don't see the need for feelings, i leave it out. But weren't you the one that said that if i wanted to prove creationism to disprove the theory of evolution? In fact, you called it your conclusion (i have you quoted in my previous post). I don't see it just to accuse me of something that you have asked for. But i also don't see it just to accuse me of the same act you commit. This is science itself: science is filled with scrutiny. If this is how it is handled within science, that people are accused of things unjustly, then science needs to be cleaned up. Or maybe it isn't your field. I have merely been asking for rebuttals to my statements. If you want to put an end to my statements, you need a valid rebuttal. What has been mostly occurring is a lot of red herrings. As i mentioned before, science is scrutiny. You may not like that fact, but i can't, apparently, do anything about it. I ask for your scrutiny, your rebuttals, for i have already provided mine.

Hmm. Have you also tried these?:/snews/jim/snewsIf so, try just commenting out the line. I've installed sNews on my side, and it works with and without RewriteBase (if RewriteBase is /snews, that is).Messing around with it, i tried /snews2 for RewriteBase, and clicking on the links says that it can't find /snews2/index.php. If i comment out the RewriteBase line, everything works again. I haven't fully studied the source code yet, but it seems that if RewriteBase is commented out, it defaults to $db['website'].

Firefox has default settings for tables, like border, padding, etc, that other browsers don't or may not have. You can see the same thing when comparing Opera and Firefox concerning tables. If you want them removed, then use the border, cellpadding and cellspacing attributes.

File > Export > [Pick your format]... Every musician was once a newbie. All you need is inspiration. https://support.image-line.com/jshop/shop.php I recommend the XXL edition. Believe me, you're going to want all that it brings.

Try this: Replace the RewriteBase line with this one: RewriteBase /jim/snews/snews16_email

Since i expect myself to run out of quote bbcode, consider my responses aligned to the same structure as the one in the quotes. Although creationism within itself can include any amount of gods, based on its history it appears to be publically preposed only by adherents to the Abrahamic religions, mostly Christians. Have you referred to the post i have previously linked to? If you want more verses, you can ask for them. You already acknowledge the Big Bang theory (from what i got from your posts), so the part about the universe having a beginning and entropy from my post shouldn't require any referencing. As for the water cycle, i suppose the Wikipedia article on the water cycle may be sufficient for you. I will accept your concept though i don't find it to be new, as i have said similar: Saying that something is false is not in itself a valid reason. You must provide sources, reasoning, etc, for it in order for your statement to be valid. Even if you see patterns from me that you say you have seen from other creationists, do not automatically conclude that i am just like them. The main reason why i do not accept manyâif not mostâof your statements is because from what i have been receiving from you have been, "this and that is already proven to be false," "that is what you believe," and that you have been reverting the burden of proof unto me regardless of any reasoning i have provided. I don't mind providing my reasons after reason, for in the end they will be there. But i do not necessarily need to disprove the theory of evolution in order to prove creationism. Simply by proving creationism i would in turn disprove the theory of evolution in the same way you would say that by proving the theory of evolution, one would disprove creationism. In case you have included micro evolution into the term "theory of evolution" wherever i have so mentioned it, let it be knowned that whenever i say "theory of evolution," i mean "evolution on a macro level through natural means that benefits the organism that is evolving, which causes one species to become another species." For i have no problem accepting micro evolution. You may use this a starting point if you want. If science is so dependant on the theory of evolution, then you should hope that the theory of evolution is not ultimately brought down. Although your thought on this may be similar to, "Don't worry, it won't be," i will say that most of the scientific advances which you have been talking about, like medicine, have been from the study of things from a microscopic level. The theory of evolution involves macro as well. Although micro evolution may open the possibility of a macro evolution to the extent that the theory of evolution bears mention of, that does not within itself prove that species have a common ancestry, etc. For that could be an appeal to probability. I have looked at plos.org but could not find any articles concerning this topic. If you have any bookmarks, please provide. Nejm.org, as i see it, does not do you any good. What it tells me is that there are many problems that can and do occur on a microscopic level, and, if left on its own, can only cause the organism trouble. This to me contradicts the theory of evolution within itself, for many of these problems are life threatening and cause mutations that do not benefit the organism in any way. As far as i'm concerned, much, if not more, of scientific studies on organisms were done to try to solve and prevent problems that naturally occur within a species. And a change in environments, i would say, can only make things worse for the organism. "You" can be taken as plural, so "them" should be capable of being taken as singular. English has many exceptions, so i wouldn't be surprised if even English teachers haven't mastered the language. The article found on ScienceDaily does not disprove creationism. I am also willing to go as far as to say that it doesn't prove the theory of evolution either, for the theory of evolution requires natural means. The article talks about evolution that was human guided, where humans intervened. If anything, what you are telling me is really a mixture of creationism and the theory of evolution, in that an outside, conscious being was required in order to form a macroscopic change in a species (even though, in this case, they're still the same species). In either case, it was done outside of natural means, therefore supernatural is allowed. You are welcome; however, you do not need to accept or deny anything to read something. But thank you for your time, too. What i meant by "you can't say ..." is that you can't say it and expect for your statement to remain valid from an objective viewpoint. I would say that it is of some, if not utmost, importance if it involves loved ones and what they learn. If it were a matter of choice, then creationism should be included in public schools, for what if the child wants to learn creationism in a public school? Or why not have a separate, specialized school for the theory of evolution where people can go to if they so want, without having to teach it in public schools? Indeed, let there be a section for each subject where the child so chooses to be part of, where they have full say in denying the remaining sections. If the people have any say in where their money goes, then it should be allowed that creationism be taught in public schools. For unless the government is providing the financial support to these schools outside of taxes, then why should people not have a voice? Is it because you say that most people believe in God? Although i do not see how you obtained from my statement that you quote that i said that if one religion should be taught, all should be taught, i will ask, how is it absurd and ridiculous to play fair? And, no, you would not have to exclude all that you mention. Creationism does not need to involve religious doctrines, only the parts that are relevant to the understand of how the natural world works. A lot of what is already taught in schools would be included. But Darwin's theory is not based on science, for it was required that science come into the picture in order to see where Darwin's theory can actually be useful in. Darwin's theory was postulated through things which he considered while observing the world. (I do not in any way mean to imply any support from me concerning how Darwin constructed the theory.) But you're assuming that creationism has nothing testable or verifiable. I have already provided verses that prove that it does. Secondly, all evidence is interpreted, yet these interpretations are still taught: they're called "theories." Should we discontinue them? It should be more than obvious what i believe in; though, this topic is whether or not both theories should be taught in public schools, not what i personally believe in. But what is it that makes me appear like i am arguing for the sake of arguing? Is it that i am not accepting what you say? Could you point to me the openness of everyone else that you say so exists? For i don't see it. If you're implying that in order to be seen as open you have to seek that creationism not be taught along side the theory of evolution in public schools, then i am fine being seen as closed. And, actually, i can believe in all that i talk about. I don't remember any change in my way of arguing, but if you could point that out to me, then i will agree that i can't believe in all that i talk about. You're implying that the theory of evolution is basic knowledge. Why is it basic? What makes it basic? It can't be anything that can also be said about religion or creationism. But even though you say that people shouldn't be forced to be taught anything they don't believe in, you allow that the theory of evolution to be mandatory any way. If whether or not one should learn something was dependant on one's belief system, then creationism should be taught in public schools. Let them choose what they want and don't want to learn, right? The only reason why creationism isn't taught in public schools is because it is seen as an advancement to religious doctrine, it contradicts the theory of evolution, and because people say it is not verifiable or testable. The first one can be avoided if no religious doctrine is taught. The other two are not valid reasons, for the second reason shows biasism and the third is false, as i have so shown in this topic. The government does not want to be seen to be supporting one religion. Ironically, that is inevitable, as it is all over America's currency. So as it is, all reasons for not wanting to financially support creationism in public schools are invalid. If by respect you mean "accept," then you'll have to refute my reasoning for my statements. But at the same time, you say you show respect for others, but i only see the very same thing you are accusing me of. Therefore, "respect" does not mean "accept" by your standards. And i am still waiting for the definition of "respect" which you guys want me to follow. But i have already mentioned that this topic is not about my beliefs, but that it is about whether or not creationism should be taught along side the theory of evolution. I am not looking for anyone's respect. I do not see how calling someone "chicken" is respectful or nice. But to answer your question: Yes, creationism should be taught along side the theory of evolutionâthis is a summarized form of all that i already mentioned in this topic. If you want my reasonings for it, you can read all my previous postsâthose not pertaining to you specifically. I have already provided some insight on how time could be made for creationism in this post. But a lot of things taught in school aren't required in life unless you choose to follow such an advanced subject as a career. Therefore, teach what is required for every day life in public schools. Let everything else be for colleges, universities, and spare time, where time is not really of a concern concerning education. Again, choice. And, no, i am not implying that what is required involves creationism. Creationism is the explanation of how God created something to function. Since it involves the natural, the interpretations do not come from religious text, but from the evidence concerning religious text. As mentioned before, all evidence is interpreted. Because it is interpreted it does not mean that conclusions should not come from these interpretations of the evidence present. Otherwise there'd be no science.