truefusion

It would all depend... Do they know that they're a Mexican? Are they really doing something gross? Etc... If you say that for them looking at you, then you would be saying it to basically almost everyone in the busy street, for many are bound to look at you as they pass by. Also, if they are looking at you from a distance, you can state, "Oh, it could be something behind me or next to me, and it just looks like they're looking at me." The pointing is what would clear all doubt.Also, [1] and [2] contradict each other. 'Cause in order to ask that question to yourself, you would have to care about what they're thinking about you—whether or not it was about your hotness. [1]The way this starts off implies that the jokes were started to offend others.[2]There are plenty of jokes out there that there is nothing wrong with them. [1]Isn't that the reason why i am debating this?[2]Just 'cause it's allowed doesn't mean it is right. [3]That's him. Also, merely pointing out what kind of person the person ("main character") in your joke is isn't insomuch the wrong part. For example, the joke could lie somewhere in the Chinese person making two random people look bad. Nice analogy. Makes me think hard. For example, their second favorite could be the color black, and your second favorite could be the color blue. But to keep things short and simple, i've never heard of someone killing another person just 'cause they had a different 'taste' in color (excluding skin color). So, no, you could continue. However, my argument doesn't feel strong enough; though, it feels like the only direction where i would encounter less trouble in.

I think you do see it. I would agree. I don't see anything bad about claiming that a Mexican is hot. In fact, i think the Mexican would love it if others call them hot—just like any other person who gets pointed out for their "hotness." What were the adverts trying to do, be politically correct? Not in this case. Would you find it rude if you were pointed out for your "hotness?" So, there's no such thing as other kinds of jokes? [hr=noshade]One more thing: Just 'cause there's laughter doesn't mean there's approval as well.[/hr]

And i don't think you ever will. These artists and bands want to get paid for their work—just like everyone else; it's the whole reason they started, to make a living off of it. The most you'll probably find is a freebie song (at maybe Mp3.com)—and chances are it's not the song you want. You can purchase songs on iTunes if you want. Each song is only a dollar; you can spare a dollar, right?

This was posted in the counseling forum. But this topic is more of a technical thing. By the place it was posted in, it implies that you want advice to help you stop watching "bad" things—which would be the better thing to do. Uninstalling these spyware programs may not help you stop getting in trouble. There are many ways to find out what you did on the computer—not just by using spyware programs. If you want to stop getting in trouble, the answer is simple: Stop watching "bad" things. Since your dad knows his way around a computer (probably Windows), he may go all out even more if he finds out that you were messing around with his "parental" settings (which wouldn't be a hard thing to figure out). That would get you into more trouble than what you are already are in.

"Lighten up, it was just a joke..." or "So long as it's funny, it is okay." Anyone see the fallacy in that? When does racism get too far? When one gets offended. "They just need a better sense of humor." Or is it that you just need to be more caring? If you allow one thing, it can get out of hand—it usually does, doesn't it? I mean, so long as someone gets a laugh, right...? It's like someone hitting someone else out of the blue, then asking them why did they hit someone else and them replying, "'Cause i found it entertaining; so don't worry, it's okay."

FaUZaNeVVa, how about your OS and desktop? Why ask for others' OS's and desktops but not provide information about yours? But i dual-boot with XP and Kubuntu. If you want a screenshot of my Linux one, go here.

I left the update run all night—the servers were a bit slow (i'm sure due to mass upgrading) and i had to install updates for over 1000 files. I like the new style that came with it. Removed 9 obsolete files. (By the way, i'm using Kubuntu.) There are some apparent differences between the versions, not much though; some visual effects added.

Yes, borders will be good for when support for tables within a table is implemented.[hr=noshade] So far, this new bbcode has helped better organize my sig space. [/hr]

By default as rendered in the browser, the TD's should evenly divide themselves—no need to predefine the width for each TD; so long as the table has a predefined width. Within the TD tags (which, i guess, would be inside the TABLE tag, in a sense), just like regular HTML.

Ah! Tables! Finally, i've been waiting for this! And, yes, perfect for signatures. ;)Question, though: Will there be an added feature where we will be able to have colspans and rowspans?

In my opinion, eyecandy is nothing without organization. I prefer 9 over X because of the themes. The non-graphical themes it had had everything all nicely organized. Site tools and stuff on the top, site stats on the bottom. Again, in my opinion, you can still upgrade MySQL and PHP, etc without upgrading Cpanel. Installing things manually was not a problem for me—everything went smoothly—whether they were forums or CMS's; no need for fantastico; and chances are the scripts installed were more up to date. I didn't try to install anything when Cpanel X was in 'cause i didn't need to really—i already had everything i needed installed.

I for one do believe there is life out there besides us; however, not so much other organisms, if you catch my drift. [1]This reminds me of something.[2]I wouldn't say they are ignorant or have a small mind. Some people require proof. By that i mean if other life doesn't come into contact with us, to them, everything is just words placed together to make it seem logical and like as if there is life out there or there would be a high possibility of life out there. Until any contact with them and this other 'life' is made, there is no proof and just mere words for them—which in reality that's what it all seems to be. The farthest they'll come to believe would probably be just bacteria, but that's not what they had in mind, as far as i'm concerned.

If i'm not mistaken, you can do without the action="<?php $PHP_SELF; ?>" part since it'll be loading the same page. That is, <form method="POST">

[1]If you have no dots, then the folder "includes" with all of its files in it would have to be located in the DOCUMENTROOT folder (which is probably "htdocs", assuming the file you're testing is located in the same folder; or whatever DOCUMENTROOT is set in the Apache httpd.conf file). Two dots mean "up one folder"; one dot means "current folder". If you have no dots but the path starts with a slash (/), then that means it'll look in the root folder.[2]Whatever you want.

Although recently some have been getting into my inbox, i must say Gmail is my only email account that doesn't receive as much spam as the others. I probably receive probably less than 10 a week, while in the others probably over 200 a week. The trick is not to give out your email freely out there on the internet.

Well, if you want a complete tutorial on how to install more things along with Apache and PHP, you can check out a tutorial i made on my website. Though, i must admit the section on PHPMyAdmin is a bit out of date, for the newer versions don't require you to edit anything, really. [hr=noshade]Also, try this code: switch($page){ case 'idx' linenums:0'><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"><title>Testing PHP include functions.</title></head><body><a href="?p=idx">Index</a> - <a href="?p=test">Test Page</a><?php$page=$_GET['p'];switch($page){case 'idx':include (".../includes/testphpinclude.html");break;case 'test':echo 'Test!';break;}?></body></html>[/hr]

I'm guessing you just performed a typical Apache installation, meaning if you want your files to get "picked up" by the server, place them into your "htdocs" folder that is located in the Apache directory. Delete all files in there if you want, then just put all your site's files in there. To see if it shows your site, of course, go to LOCALHOST/ or http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/. This is all said with the assumption that you have set up Apache to load up with PHP support.

The one that ends the relationship is usually the one that moves on first—sometimes at a surprising rate. They say if you let them go and they come back, to never let them go again. But, unfortunately, many do come back but are not accepted. That makes things worse—evenmoreso when you keep coming back, and not just for you; it shows just how attached you are. Your story seems relative, only i wasn't as young as you were when i got in a relationship. One of the hardest things to do is to let go of a loved one, one you may claim to be your beloved. Anger is the quickest—but not recommended—way of letting go. I hope you got answers for any questions you may have had to ask her—some people are left empty-handed... Once you've managed to let go you may realize that you were bringing yourself down for little or nothing. Then you'll realize that there are others out there that will never leave if they get together with you—and chances are they are those who've been through the same things you have. You never know what you have until it's gone—but there are two senses to this. 1) You realize that they were everything or 2) you realize that they have become a new person—one you did not fall in love with. The pain makes people unstable and does not allow them to see what others see—no matter how many times they are told the same things. If any one has told you why you should move on—more than just, "because you should"—i want you to let those words sink in, just enough to see a new path, and probably even a new life. Once you see it, grab on to it. Once you have it in your grasp you'll be able to move on. Until then, i wish the best for you.

Actually, we are all basically born agnostic. You can't be born an atheist, for a baby can't really decide things and claim it to be absolute or a fact. Just 'cause you don't bare knowledge of basically anything at that time—which in this case is the knowledge of God's existence—doesn't mean you're an atheist. You're right that it is a choice, but if prophecy gets fulfilled again, then people can end up being wrong.

You mean like your current avatar? It disturbs the life out of me. But to me abortion is abortion—no matter what the gender. Usually always done and decided upon for the wrong reasons. Yes, it is a sad and horrible thing that females are actually targeted. We need the women; we truly "can't live without them" as part of the proverb goes—i'm not really fond of the other half of the proverb. Anyways, i don't have much to say on the matter besides that i am against it—i'm not gonna even try to explain why such a thing exists.

Oh your way with the topic title provokes curiosity! Pun intended? Hopefully Anna's son will be treated properly.

Although you quote your source, when i perform a search on it, i don't find the source. But glad you cleared it up. [1]To not sin.[2]Because they agreed to follow them (Exodus 19:8), and God knows how stiff-necked these people are (Exodus 32:9). If you agree to follow something and accept the consequences that come with them but fail to do so because of your own will and you bear conciousness of your own actions, then it is just for you to receive the punishment stated for willingly choosing to disobey and accepting this way of living. I highly doubt that there wasn't even one occasion. Another thing, just 'cause some people didn't treat them equally doesn't mean God should be blamed for (all of) it. One more thing, the Bible tells people to honor women, and to treat them as one's self (Exodus 21:10; Leviticus 19:18; Proverbs 31:30-31; Isaiah 1:17; Ephesians 5:28). [1]Why wouldn't she scream for help? The verse provided (Deuteronomy 22:24) claims two requirements before the woman gets stoned along with the rapist. The first one is being in a town. The second is not screaming for help. There's no guarantee she would live after being raped and so go on to tell who the rapist was. Because of which, why should she be afraid to scream for help when 1) she is in a town and 2) is uncertain of whether or not she'll make it out alive after the rapist has his way with her? Did you know there are people out there who get angry for having sex with someone they wanted and forced to have sex with?[2]No it doesn't. [3]If you had a better case, then your claim would be justified. The woman that didn't scream for help could have enjoyed it... Or was put to death by the rapist before any intercourse occurred. [1]I wouldn't say it was more about the laws. The Bible does mention some things about sex that can be inappropriate for children to be reading at such an age, and using terms like "made love to" would be more appropriate.[2]Did you know many laws of the US are derived from the laws in the Bible? [3]I am quite certain they are the same laws; although they may imply only for adults—but same goes for the laws in the US. [4]Define "nasty". Strict? [4:2]Breaking a law stated in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean death comes afterwards. There are many laws in there that when breaking it does not get you stoned. Fear has been known to be the best possible way to prevent someone from doing something, in this case something evil. However some people aren't afraid until after getting caught. [1]2,500,000? You must've estimated it to the nearest... Actually i have no idea to what you estimated it to, and the plus sign that comes after it, evenmoreso i am unaware of your source for such a number (it can't be from the SAB, for you can't come up with that estimation from the number provided by the SAB).[1:2]If God allows it, the people are basically forgiven (Exodus 21:12-13). Secondly, the devil's personal plans isn't insomuch here to kill people. The devil's plan is to promote selfishness, self-indulgence and self pleasure; less care for others, more care for one's own well being; full and complete separation from God; and more of having the people kill themselves or choose an ungodly life. The devil strikes with a long-term affect, if you will. [2]You seem to be forgetting about God's prophets. You know, the ones sent by God to give the people a second or third or fourth, etc chance that told the people to repent and change their ways before judgment comes upon them (Nehemiah 9:16-31). [3][3:1]Wait, i'm getting mixed messages here... The former imples the time of Noah, and the latter implies the time of Job. [4]Oh how i wish i was done with those less than 50 verses you gave me from the SAB! For i have and am explaining why they were killed, although i've implied the reasons plenty of times in this topic already. [4:2]How is just merely meeting someone punishment? No, it's the actions that proceed that event. [5]That would depend. Would i be struck down by them for meeting them? Or will i be sent away after meeting them? Or was i sent there to put an end to his (emphasis on the small "h") or her ways? Surely there has to be a reason. [1]Oh please tell me you read those verses! They explain themselves; here, you can read them yourself: Genesis 19:31-38. Even i question Christian websites' articles before promoting them—unless they're long and i get lazy. Pop-tart! :9 The sugary, "fruit"paste-filled treat that kids wouldn't mind getting their hands on. That child may dive under the bed just by telling them there's a monster-sized pop-tart under there! But i get your point. Whoops! I thought that part was a continuation of the Hilter thing. Nevermind! Didn't notice you meant about the video provided by saga. They are much fewer then the ones that make you go to church on sunday. Much, much smaller. Most adults just make there kids do everything to be a christian. The following also kind of replies to the other thing you stated below this statement. [1]If you tell your mom/dad you don't believe in it/him/her it's a big deal. [2]When my best friend gets mad at his parents he theatens them with becoming a Jew or something other then Catholic. If you can threaten someone like that and they get that worked up then you don't have much of much of a choice to be whatever you want to be until you move out unless you hide it. (Speaking of christians of course [3]because i grew up like that)(Hmm, i've run out of quote tags to use. )At the local church i go to, all the children that come to church with their families are either babies or children who are either playing with toys or are in the next room watching a movie or just talking with a friend and forgetting about everything else. [1]Of course it's a big deal. The parents want what is best for their children. If you believe your child is going down the wrong path, of course you'd try and do something about it. [2]By the way your friend is using his religion as a form of power, i don't think he's limiting his freewill but rather using his religion to gain more freewill or the ability to do more of what he wants. [3]Wait, you used religion as a means to have things your way? I'll get that verse TF and also i have to admit [1]you get me thinking more then anyone else in this forum. [2]What would i do without your responses! There is no one to debate with other then you <_<[1]I get that a lot. Only not really from people in forums, but someone else i know (a friend of a friend who became a friend). [2]And what would i do without your topics?! You people help me with my Bible study.

I agree with you fully that they have every right to no longer want the dogs. However they must give proper and just reasons if they wanna get rid of them. No longer wanting the dogs is one thing, but getting rid of them is another. You may have said that the parents could have handled it differently, but you also have mentioned that you find them to be completely reasonable. 318520[/snapback] Where was the reasoning between all of this? If there was any reasoning between any of this, i could easily get beyond the means, but for now i base my judgment on what i am provided with until any further ignorance is dealt with. And how do you know rejected doesn't pay some bills as well? What if he comes on here and mentions that he does pay some of the bills or a percentage of the mortgage? I hope the parents took names and addresses of the people they gave them away to. A dog is a man's best friend—and in this case there were two. I don't recall any proverbs about cats being a person's best friend. Perhaps we should think about making one.

[1]A large result of religion: Care for others. Hmm, contradiction... What does that mean? I guess we must define what a true follower is. If one mentions one truth, shouldn't we mention the whole truth?[2]Are you implying that everyone is a terrorist and use certain teachings and stories as an excuse for their terrorism? [3]Is it the religion that says so or the people? If the religion, i guess this is where people start proving that statement.

Although this topic is old, i too have an opinion on the matter. In my opinion, what the parents did was utterly wrong. I do believe the parents weren't the wise ones here (as Watermonkey implied that they were). If i'm not mistaken, being wise means searching out for the best possible solution—with or without inconvenience—before going to the last possible solution (the one that brings sorrow and grief to loved ones). What if the dogs were scaring the cats? I know people who own both dogs and cats in the same house—how is it that they manage? What about keeping the dogs outside most of the time and the cats inside? What about keeping the dogs in one room (which i'm sure rejected wouldn't have minded if they were in his room most, if not all, of the time) and the cats in the rest of the house or in another room? If i'm not mistaken, dogs can't jump onto counters, tabletops, and other hard-or-merely-impossible-for-dogs-to-reach objects. In my opinion, the parents were selfish. I wonder just how much time the parents spend with their cats—that is, i hope they weren't hypocritical; surely they have jobs and their own things to do. I myself own four dogs, so hearing about this really gets to me.