웃

***Last 4...I'll say Black Swan and Insidious were the best....then Hanna...then H2O for elephants...all weird though
Black Swan - today - weird, trippy, crazy, but phenomenal
Water For Elephants - Interesting, cool story, also a little weird
Hanna - Amazing action movie, also a little weird
Insidious - Fantastic if you like horror movies - definitely weird at times

Revelation 12:4
New International Version (NIV)
4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.
http://www.biblegate...2:4&version=NIV
What is the problem with this verse? This was actually a huge eye opener when I personally read it myself as a believer many years ago. It immediately proved to me that primitive (dumb) man wrote it. You ask yourself how a man in 100 AD pictured the size of a star? And how many were in the sky? The author obviously only thought there were a few thousand stars in the sky and he thought they were a lot smaller than earth. So it made sense for him to write that a dragons tail would whip 1/3rd of all the stars and fling them onto the earth. But in reality this makes no sense.
But believers have faith and they lie to themselves. And they don't accept reality. And they find excuses to justify such idiocy. "It is not literal." Or whatever nonsense they come up with to throw the verse out and pretend it isn't there.

Good grief you are a tool.

BS! This latest mass shooting involved the deranged shooter using his momma's guns. If she didn't have the rifle it could be speculated that he might have tried to buy or steal one but that speculation would have very little basis!
Speaking of idiotic babbling!!

Why?? The other threads go to over 200 pages before being locked....This is barely at 36!

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase "global climate change." She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.
Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, "climate change" without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)
Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.
A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.
Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.
http://www.desmogblo...e-one-pie-chart

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase "global climate change." She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.
Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, "climate change" without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)
Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.
A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.
Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.
http://www.desmogblo...e-one-pie-chart

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase "global climate change." She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.
Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, "climate change" without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)
Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.
A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.
Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.
http://www.desmogblo...e-one-pie-chart

There is an incredibly strong correlation that shows the more religious a nation is the poorer and crappier it is there. If they want to prosper they should educate themselves, and run as far away as possible from 2000 year old myths / superstitions invented by bimbos that were ~200 decades away from the invention of electricity.
You would think religious people would accept this fact, and ask themselves why the most religious states/nations are the poorest. Does God not intervene/favor/listen/help them? "Sky Mommy" is very busy (not existing).
My prediction is Sky Mommy is going to ensure Uganda remains an impoverished nation for centuries to come.

There is an incredibly strong correlation that shows the more religious a nation is the poorer and crappier it is there. If they want to prosper they should educate themselves, and run as far away as possible from 2000 year old myths / superstitions invented by bimbos that were ~200 decades away from the invention of electricity.
You would think religious people would accept this fact, and ask themselves why the most religious states/nations are the poorest. Does God not intervene/favor/listen/help them? "Sky Mommy" is very busy (not existing).
My prediction is Sky Mommy is going to ensure Uganda remains an impoverished nation for centuries to come.

one of the cool things about student organisations at major universities -
members get to learn from their mistakes...
Diocesan Power! Diocesan Power! Diocesan Power! Diocesan Power! Diocesan Power!
You can bet yer sweet bippy that there will be some reps from the Diocesan Council attend this wonderful little get together, asking for further clarification

Yes, thinking thoughts silently to yourself and believing the Creator of the Universe is listening to you, and making your life better is just like science on so many levels.
So is believing that after you die you either go to hell or heaven. So many similarities.
The bible and Newton's "Principia" are like two peas in a pod.

Sexist 'baiting' thread has been closed.

In Islam, we beleive humans are not born with original sin and do not need to be "baptised". Why would a perfect God create humans to start out as sinners from birth? Therefore, we don't beleive that Jesus or anyone else died for our sins because humans are not born sinners. We bring our own sins upon ourselves and are responsible for our own sins. As well, we don't ask another human (a priest) for forgiveness, WE ASK GOD DIRECTLY, for forgiveness, no middleman needed.
We beleive God and Jesus to be separate entities. As I mentioned before, God created everything....heaven, earth, planets, humans, animals, etc.
Very simply......if God existed and created the earth and everything else before he created humans, and Jesus was a human (not even the first human), how could Jesus be God and create all of those things before he even existed or was born? So,correct, we do not beleive in the holy trinity.
Jesus never called himself "God" and never ordered everyone to pray to him. Praying to another human is praying to false Gods, which is a sin.
Islam is not complicated or confusing. But I have always found Christianity full of confusing and convoluted,long explanations of simple things, illogical reasoning and not making much sense.

Source of what? That Jesus existed and he was a human? All 3 major religious holy books in Islam, Christianity and Judaism beleive Jesus existed as a human being. He lived and died as a human who was a great prophet.
I'm not here to be convinced otherwise and I'm not here to convince anyone of anything they don't want to beleive.
Peace
Not necessarily more, but it's logic and common sense.

[quote name=' timestamp='1353336254' post='5831324]


Is what fair?

The word constraint doesn't mean what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_Philippines
Terrorism in the Philippines
Terrorism in the Philippines[1] are conflicts based on political issues conducted by rebel organizations against the Philippine government, its citizens and supporters. Most terrorism in the country are conducted by Islamic terrorist groups. The most active terrorist groups in the Philippines are the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Moro National Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf,[2] Rajah Sulaiman Movement[3] and Jemaah Islamiyah.
Since January 2000 radical Islamist groups and Islamist separatist forces in the Philippines have carried out over 40 major bombings against civilians and civilian property, mostly in the southern regions of the country around Mindanao, Basilan, Jolo and other nearby islands.[4] Numerous bombings have also been carried out in and around Metro Manila, though several hundred kilometres from the conflict in the southern regions, due to its political importance. In the period from 2000 to 2007 attacks killed nearly 400 Filipino civilians and injured well over one thousand five hundred more,[5] more casualties than caused by bombings and other attacks in Indonesia, Morocco, Spain, Turkey, or Britain during the same period.[4]
Public transport and other gathering places, such as street markets, have been the favoured bombing targets, however large-scale abductions and shootings have also been carried out by the groups, predominantly by the Abu Sayyaf the Rajah Solaiman Movement, two groups that had claimed responsibility for most of the attacks.[5]
For brevity, the definition of terrorism used is drawn from the United Nations General Assembly condemnation of "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[6] is used.

No.

the best shemales in all of asia

How much would a 'family plan' of 50 or more employees cost per employee? I'm thinking the crappiest health insurance will be between $50 to $60 per employee a month.
So a 40 hours per week employee would get a $12.50 to $15 wage increase per week, or a 32 to 38 cents per hour raise. Is this really that crushing?
Source?

This is VJ, where we appear to have an infinite appetite for the minutiae of each other's lives like we were celebrities. But some of us are "Superstar Members"! In the interests of feeding the collective curiosity of VJ, I propose we report on the everyday aspects of our lives like the celebrities we know we are.
Think of it as TMZ for VJ.
So today, I got up a full fifteen minutes earlier than usual, because my cat woke me up. I didn't need to wash my hair, so I had some extra time and got to have an extra cup of tea before work. I prefer Tetley's British Blend! (No sugar.) The commute was pretty unremarkable. I was stoked because the Staples delivery had come over the weekend and I got the labels I needed! I also spent a couple of hours on Westlaw looking at stuff about compelling discovery. It was pretty "compelling" stuff! (Terrible joke, I know.) I'm leaving work in fifteen minutes, and I'm calling my mom on the way home. Tonight I'll be out having a few beers with my friend Reid and talking about Skyfall, which I saw this weekend with my boyfriend. My boyfriend who I normally sleep naked with but couldn't this weekend because he hasn't had his pilot light lit yet so we were freezing and I had to wear SOCKS.
Please feel free to share, superstars!

Kip, for being pro-union, you sure don't understand that this is the same kinds of tactics/arguments made by companies that oppose union wages or even raising the minimum wage.