Round is a shape. Thus I do not fit in your description.
Search Posts
My favorite shot of the game was the kid with the playbook in his lap on the sideline, studying like crazy (you know he's taken probably zero reps in practice probably since the middle of the season) with Cutler next to him looking bored and disinterested. It is that disconnection Cutlet exhibited in Denver. Cutler could be one of the best passers in the game if he just took the steps to do so. Its always been a desire question with him, commitment.
You are not worth talking to. Sorry. You don't get it. Typical partisan response. Make an excuse so you dont have to acknowledge it. Ignoring the issue wont make it go away. In fact, its this type of response that is the problem with todays politics
You missed a heck of a comeback then, the kid was one bad pass away from ruining Wisconsin's day. Based on the kids performance, Cutler should be worried. Not just how he played, but the fact that he had good preparation, even being 3rd string. How many more years on Cutlers contract?
The only target of this spell is the landing point. If the caster was targeting the person in the gullet, I would agree. We have to acknowledge a few things about this spell. It doesnt target a mob, it targets a spot. Once hit, its an AOE based on volume. If something takes up space, it will fill in elsewhere (think of how the effect works in a hallway) In this case, the mouth and throat of such a large creature could indeed fill with fire. It is a space of decent proportion. The question would be if the head resided in the AOE. If the creature was taller then the AOE, and the caster targeted the ground, the head (throat cavity) wouldnt be in the effect. The swallowed individual would not be affected. Additionally, this is magic fire, as I said before, it melts soft metals (2000 degrees). its instantaneous, intense heat. Considering the situation, DM judgment takes place. If I was DM, based on what is said in this thread, I probably would make this decision The save is a reflex save, indicating the ability to dodge or move in a lessor effect of the heat. I would then say If the T-Rex saves, the occupant doenst have too and takes no damage. However.... If the T-Rex fails, it takes the full brunt of the Fireball, including, inhalation. The occupant would take half damage, but would get no reflex save since they are pinned in the gullet and dont really have a movement base. Magic resistance or any other defensive magic would apply for damage reduction purposes (Protection from Fire Spell for example)
I hate to say it, because Jay Cutler is one of my son's favorite players, but he is pretty hit and miss. I am of the camp that he should have been pulled earlier since the backups seemed to do a better job on Sunday than he did. But slamming him for leaving the game for an injury is pretty ridiculous. When I was 25, I broke my ankle in 3 places. These were fractures without separation. In addition to the break was a severe sprain. I played Left Field and was lead off hitter. Grant it, softball isnt football, but I soaked my cast off, wrapped it and played. I took pain meds, iced it in between innings. I went 3 for 3. No, its not football, but its about desire. Desire has always been a question mark for him as a QB. Jack Youngblood played with a broken leg in the Superbowl (Rams vs Steelers). He plays for the Bears, a team with a rich history of gritty toughness. I think the questions are valid
They're all pedaling smug superiority and anger, imho. QFT
Seriously, I can't stand either party. I just pick on the left since y'all apparently think your s&** doesn't stink. This isnt a Liberal trait. Its a political trait. Politics is about half truths presented in a format to steer your perception down a desired road.
No more then "you get your info from <insert liberal media source here>" Funny thing, people always preface their post with qualifiers like you did. You do realize that the Lefties dont believe you. It didnt add credence to your post because you typed that.
Think DEEP FRIED ICE CREAM Crispy on the outside but still cold in the middle ;) Cold but not frozen completely. Its partially melted and affected by heat. edit: I cant remember where I read it, but doesnt a fireball have the chance to melt metals? I mean, fried ice cream is about 350 degrees. Melting metal is like what, 1000 degrees? Just checked, raw gold melting point is 1947 F.
Liberal POV: Olberman told the truth. (I LOLd) Conservative POV: Olberman was a hate mongering hypocrite. (True, but then, so is Rush) /thread I will add this. Ive been familiar with Olberman since he did sports on KTLA 5. He was a bitter, ascerbic whiner then, and he was a nobody. He didnt seem to change much.
Geistlinger is banned for thinking I would stoop so low as to use slang. Gruumash is banned for believing Geistlinger thinks
The missions into Pakistan wont start a war that isn't already started.... It continues a war
No secret really. Doesnt change things either
All those drones doing the bombing aren't flying those missions on Bush's orders....
Did you notice how many Republican incumbents (and how few Democrat incumbents) were defeated in the primaries? AYUP
Charles Scholz is banned for being a worse joke then neil told.
Oh, when the Dems get slaughtered in November he'll do his best to pull a Clinton and say "I didn't really mean all that stuff I did the first two years". Problem is, he isn't Clinton. He couldn't hold Clinton's humidor. I wouldnt have too much confidence. The Reps are fighting the Bush Sunsets because Obama wants to let the high brackets revert to old law, but keep the low brackets. While indeed, the rich pay their way, its the middle class who vote them in. Considering the huge cost impacts of the health care plan, middle class America is about to revolt. Not just against Dems, but Reps too. The Tea Party isnt winning because they offer (pardon the pun) Hope and Change. Their headway is because people are sick of the incumbents of any party. Any incumbent should be sweating bullets in November. People are fed up with the status quo of both parties. Remember, in each party, you have the line voters who will always vote by party, not by person. Obama won because the Moderates were sick of Bush. They are sick of Obama atm too. The question is, who else is out there
Kobald Cleaver is banned because he did not talk like a pirate on talk like a pirate day. Arrrr I of course even though it is not talk like a pirate day today am a pirate so can talk like that every day. Gruumash is banned for expecting others to be lemmings on Talk like a Pirate Day
If you're dealing with people who will kill you over a book, or a cartoon, then you're dealing with people who are anxious to kill you over any slight -- perceived, actual, or invented. Placing the blame for this incident directly on Jones seems a bit bizarre. Additionally, we are dealing with a people who have been at war for centuries. Either with Christians, or amongst themselves. As I said before, it is the Species of Man that will use any excuse to convince others to war. In this case, they use parts of Religious text. My God vs your God. God is with me, so that means its okay to take your life etc.
I'm pretty sure it has more to do with warm fronts, cold fronts, humidity, storm systems in other areas, directions of the prevailing winds, and a multitude of other factors. While i'm sure that past data comes into play at some point, I doubt that it's the main determining factor. From what I understand They take the current conditions, the warm fronts, cold fronts, humidity, storm systems in other areas, directions of the prevailing winds, and a multitude of other factors and match them to the like conditions of the past, and then say % chance of this event They come up with that % based on how many times that even occurred with same conditions. So, if they say 80% chance of rain, that means, in the past, with the above quoted conditions, it rained 80% of the time.
Charles Scholz is banned for not demanding Kajehase share his homemade Bolognese with me.
Indeed, I'm pretty sure the weather forecast isn't pulled out without some basis or facts behind it... From what I understand, the forecast is really a statement of past facts. In essence, when they say 80% chance of rain, what they are saying is: Under the current conditions, it rained 80% of the time in the past. So its not really a prediction, as it is a statement of past data.
Vacuums.... Vacuums suck big time. Plug it in, turn it on, epic suckage yeah, vacuums....
Thank you for reminding me of that horrible dialogue.Sorry... No youre not.
Spanky is banned for not doing a jig to the sounds of ABBA. Xabulba is banned for not eating an Abba Zabba
I think our semantics is how we apply the definition of prediction. I consider your previous examples using reasoning to come to a conclusion. Your conclusion has a basis in known data and you were able to apply those conclusions to resolve an unknown issue based on that data. Like in your Statins example, a doc didnt just spuge statins and go, OH LOOK IT WORKED! He has a basis of data to come to a reasonable conclusion of effectiveness of treatments. A prediction is something one pulls out of their rear with no real basis or fact to support it.
ACLS and ATLSGood; I'll very happily defer to you in matters involving life support. In matters involving the basic scientific method, or specific hard sciences... not so much. Science is the background of medicine. In diagnostics, it is a matter of ruling out what you think it would be through tests, what remains is probably the diagnosis.
That isnt a predictive hypothesis. The hypothesis, is accepting as an unproven as truth, that depressing the key has a definitive result. This hypothesis didnt come out of nowhere, it had information that allowed you to draw a conclusion. (you pressed teh key before, it has a letter S on the key, you see the letter S on your monitor. Now, if you said, pressing the S key would make the Jets win this weekend after sucking offensively last weekend, that would be a "prediction". A known result isnt a prediction. Especially when you consider that a hypothesis is a presumption or conclusion (usually based on data) that something is true. Example: Powerball will pick 6 numbers. That isnt a hypothesis, that is a known result. Powerball will be 2 34 54 12 7 56 That is a prediction. While similar in statement (both are 6 numbers) they are not the same. You may call it semantics, but I see a distinct difference.
WTF???? That's why we test hypotheses. If they accurate predict the outcome, they pass. If not, they have been disproven, and are modified or discarded. That's a fundamental basis of the scientific method. Your "having been in medicine" (a nurse? physical therapist?) evidently didn't ground you solidly in the basics. ACLS and ATLS Prediction is not a Hypothesis job. It doesnt "predict" it theorizes. that isnt a prediction.
1. No, it's not. It's about evidence, and the predictive power of hypotheses. Youre half right. Its not about the second. Its about evidence and coming to some hypotheses of the evidence. Its not predictive power. 2. Each person, for him or herself. That doesnt seem to be what you were doing. You seemed to dictate relevance in our discussion. 3. If you want to convince others, then you have it. I don't care if you believe in God or not; it doesn't affect me in the slightest bit. So I'm not in any way interested in "disproving" Him, even though you keep telling me I can't, and somehow should. However, you do act as if my non-belief is some sort of a threat or personal affront to you, which I find curious. If you for some reason want me to accept him, the burden is yours, whether you see the need for it or not, because belief is not the default state here. On my end, I'm not interested in "de-converting" you, so I have no corresponding burden. I have yet to try to convince anyone. I merely stated the inaccuracy of the science statement earlier. In no way have I tried to convince anyone here. 4. You misunderstand -- I'll assume it isn't willful, so let me explain: science disproves positives; it does not prove positives or negatives. If I say "convection cells in the mantle cause the continents to move," I look for evidence. If the evidence indicates that this isn't so, I've disproven the hypothesis. So far the evidence is in favor, so I preliminarily accept that -- it's not "proven," but it's a workable assumption. What I cannot do is say "I'm going to prove that there's no such thing as ether." That's a logic fail from the get-go, because I'm sure you'll agree that an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Logically-speaking, one cannot prove an absence, even if one had the motivation to do so. I may have misunderstood your statement. I agree that science is about the known facts. Science is also about recognizing the unknown facts. I dont remember who it was who said what we dont know is infinitely more important then what we do know. We create our hypothesis, and adjust it on the way. Rarely are we correct on the first try. As we find out more, we change how we look at things. 5. Accept them? I'm a practicing scientist. I'd suggest you understand them better yourself, before telling me what I should do with them. I wasnt incorrect in my statement based on what I understood what you were saying. Indeed, I have seen many people (who also claimed to be practicing scientists btw) say science has PROVEN God doesnt exist. Having been in medicine, I too have a bit of background in the field of science my friend.
That's not really the case at all. Science is there to explain what is observed. Mathematics is used to predict what will be observed, but if the observation doesn't match what the math predicted, then the scientists go back to the math to find the error. Very little is truly "proven" in science. Instead, there is just the theory that currently works best. When something is discovered that doesn't fit the theory then the theory is modified. Science is about understanding, not proving. I agree with this statement. Science is about the Whys and Wherefores. In these discussions, science allows us to say why water has 3 states. At no point does science ever try to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's beyond its parameters. Yes, many atheists fall back on science as part of their reasoning for not believing in God, but that is hardly the case for all of them. There are many scientists who are atheists, but there are also many who are devout believers, and many who are just agnostic about it all. I agree here too. My entrance into the convo was because there were some people who seemed to indicate that science has proven or explained something.
I think that is vaguely his point. It is fine to say that you don't believe in supernatural beings. It is fine to say that you do believe in such beings. But it is probably inappropriate to claim the reason you do or don't is because of "science". As you point out, science plays no part on the supernatural, thus it is ultimately irrelevant to someone's believe or lack of with regards to the supernatural. Everything is supernatural, until science can explain it. Imagine how a simple flashlight would seem to someone before electricity was even considered? Light in a tube, ITS MAGIC!
Why would we want to? Cause science is about proof? If His existence or non-existence irrelevant to our interests -- why spend time on that? So who defines His relevance? Then there's the concept of "burden of proof" In every discussion, it seems the Atheist crowd is the one deciding the burden. I see no need for a Burden. -- if I claim I have an invisible unicorn steed, it's up to me to prove it, not up to everyone else to disprove it. Is it? You seem to be assigning needs to others that dont exist. Finally, there's the logical nonsense of trying to "prove" a negative. So one of the basic tenets of science is nonsense? I think our discussion is over. Seems you just pick the points that support your faith in your philosophy, assign needs to others based on your needs, to epeen your opinion that youre factually correct. Until you can accept scientific principals, I suggest you eliminate that word from your reasoning. All that leave you is Faith that God doesnt exist. How ironic.
]If you can pull your remarks back towards something vaguely resembling the point I made, I'll be delighted to respond. I did make a point. You can choose not to respond, that doesnt mean the point wasnt made As far as the rest of your reply, I see a lot of Byronesque langauge, but very little meaning underlying it -- just unsubstantiated opinion. Unsubstantiated opinion, unlike you? LOL Funny how you and others base your "opinion" on a conclusion that violates the basic rule of scientific conclusions.
Science recognizes its own short comings. It is actually built into the process. Not sure how this makes it "correct" now... If it is wrong now, and corrected later, it is still wrong now.... Speaking for myself, I do not ignore the possibility of there being a god. There is also the possibility of there being a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy. We can not, beyond a shadow of a doubt, disprove their existence either. Why are you not equally quick to defend their possible existence? Santa Claus was real. The story of Saint Nicholas was documented. The difference between the data of the Tooth Fairy, and God is when the coin was left, etc, we have the parent admitting doing it and calling the tooth fairy responsible. Please use a better defense then documented fairy tales. And your position that god does exists is based on what? Does it matter? I believe in God, you dont. I have a Bible, the absence of proof that it is a "fairy tale" as your above quote comparison attempts. Much of the events in the Bible has been proven true. This is often referred to as 'moving the goal posts'. This is often referred too sticking to a position despite the possibilities. In short, those who claim "science" as their foundation of not believing, have yet to show that God doesnt exist. You claim possibilities without knowing all the information to determine accurate odds. In short, your belief that God doesnt exist is based on anecdotal information, and ... shall I say it? Faith.
]No; only pointing out that, unlike religion, science itself recognizes that shortcoming and allows for it. Incorrect. Interpretation of the Bible has been, and currently is, incorrect with many faiths. Look at all the differences in faiths with just one book? Look at all the different conclusions? Heck, you have people who added and disregard historical texts based on what they want to believe? You keep jumping to conclusions about me that are incorrect. It seems to me you supplant your preconceptions of someone with faith on all of us. Does that mean all Atheists are Stalinesque? Yes -- if he pops out and shows Himself, instead of conspicuously hiding in the gaps of our ignorance, then, yes, His existence will be the study of scientific work. Until then, He's not necessary to account for the things we're studying, so there's no need to invoke him. Science doesn't attempt to disprove God -- it just ignores Him as irrelevant. Your conclusion is based on Him not popping out for your benefit? How full of yourself you must feel. You eliminate relevance without proof based on your philosophy. It almost seems like a bitter statement. Pardon me if I made some preconceptions about you... Again, science corrects itself when it's wrong. You guys don't. And I don't assert that God doesn't exist -- just that He sure doesn't seem to. Just because it corrects itself later, doesnt mean it isnt incorrect now. Then a lot of fundamentals claim that YOU have it wrong. Yes they do, just like you seem to think I have it wrong. So? What makes you so sure you're right? I dont necessarily think I am right. But I am not insisting you are wrong. I am merely stating your decisions are based on an imperfect system that has a history of being incorrect. It seems to me having an open mind to all possibilities, rather then pising in someone's corn flakes with condescension would be more appropriate. The fact is this, science has not proven one way or another the answer. Thus, to claim science as your reason is to present a pie crust position. Easily made, easily broken As an atheist, I deal in likelihoods, not absolutes -- i.e., "Given what we know, God seems like a pretty lame hypothesis," as opposed to "there is no God." Notice the difference? Actually, your predisposition draws your conclusion. I actually use science with other information to come to my conclusion. As a non-literalist, it makes sense, at least to me. IMHO, Time and its definition is the key to understanding. Time in the eyes of God, days etc would have a completely different perception and definition then to you and I. What is a day to an immortal (as we understand immortality)???
Charlie Bell is banned for still impling my name comes from LotR, it comes from a 1978 anime tv show. Gandal is banned for partaking in white sauce (ewww)
So you demand perfection from the get-go? Not sure where I made a demand..... I recognize science's short comings. Seems you are having issues accepting it. Every hypthesis by every scientist has to be correct to the last detail or "science is wrong"! gets shouted all over? Hyperbole isnt helping you. I merely stated, science is not perfect. The self-correcting mechanism is built into the scientific method precisely BECAUSE our knowledge is limited, and we recognize that fact, and we make allowances to expand on it as we learn more. So in the future, a correction could be the discovery of God? This seems to be a possibility Atheists ignore. People's intepretation of what God supposedly wants is noticeably lacking in that mechanism. Whether we agree isnt the issue here. I will ask you, does that make them wrong? What if they are the ones who got it right in the first place? Your presumption is they are wrong, and you base that on science, which has been wrong in the past as well. In short, your position God doesnt exist is based on an imperfect tool, that is limited in its knowledge and scope. On that one topic, assuming you define "God" and "not interacting in any dectable way with observable reality," okay. But that's not the God that most people worship. A lot of people's concept of a God requires that the Earth is 6,000 years old, which is demontratively false. Im not a literalist. When the Bible talks about creation, earth and sun (our measure of time based on a rotation) isnt created until later in the week. If we are to believe that God is immortal to our understanding, "a day" could have a very different meaning by our limited definition of time. Science should NOT be neutral about that. Well-meaning religious people write all kinds of theological stuff into thermodynamics and bacterial falgella and quantum meachanics, too -- again, things that are not true -- and science should NOT be neutral about that, either. Science should want the truth, that is all. But if Science says, Lets prove no God, then it will search for information to support that response at the expense of information that may prove God. That doesnt help science.
I'm not really sure we can call it science that believed that the world was flat or that we where the centre of the universe. I mean thare have been times and places where this was the commonally accepted fact but without anything resembling a scientific method I'm not really sure that this qualifies as science. They had the tools of the time. Your statement seems to say it wasnt science because the tools were archaic? I wonder what would be said 1000 years from now .... presuming the Mayan Calendar was just printed to the date, and not a doomsday prediction..... As for the atom - no one new if it was dangerous or not. I think it was Openhiemer who put the chance that the first test would destroy the world and maybe all existence at 1%-5%. There was definitely some small fear that once one started splitting atoms it would cause a chain reaction that would simply not stop or maybe not stop until there where no more atoms around to split. If they expected danger, precautions would have been taken. The splitting of the 'topes wasnt thought to be a harmful process. The Drs eventually died of radiation exposure.
And religion has never been wrong..... The thing about good science is that it is self correcting and it will constantly test its self. That is the point of peer review, There are very few laws or absolutes in science is theory open to review and test Religion is not. Not the point. The point is, at the time, it was wrong. Religion on the other hand likes the status quo - we have the power don't change anything. Keep the peasants illiterate, suppress all other forms of thought or philosophy not of our own. In some cases, not all. That is like saying all Atheists are like Stalin. It was religion that tried to suppress the fact that the Earth was not the centre of the universe when science worked it out though advances in technology (odly discovered by scientists) have a look at a Galileo. But it was scientists who originally made the claim. Those were scientists who were wrong, but the Church interceded. Hence, science should have no precognition of a result. i.e. I want to prove there is, or there isnt a God. Science should be neutral. Splitting the atom has a fvcking huge harmful effect ask the people in Hiroshima. One theory was (among several theories) before the atom was first split that splitting the atom would cause a chain reaction and destroy the universe as stated before it was a theory among many and it was wrong and proved wrong by science. That wasnt my statement. When the first Isotopes were played with, they didnt know it was harmful. Splitting them threw off radiation, that eventually killed the Drs.
Xabulba banned for looking like a part of the St. Pauli football team's flag.Kajehase is banned for sujesting I would follow any team but ManU. Kajehase is crit by one side of the two sided ban hammer for thinking futbol and football could be misinterpreted. Kajehase is crit by the other side of the two sided ban hammer for not following ManU
I was under the impression that most faith is blind, after all, the definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched or smelled or measured in any know scientific method. Science has been wrong before. Since you cannot prove a negative, one must consider 2 possibilities 1: It doesnt exist because I cannot prove its existance. 2: I do not have the knowledge or tools to prove its existance most people who rely on science ignore #2 EDIT: "Science" once believed we were the center of the universe, the world was flat, splitting the atom would have no harmful effect.
I agree. I simply feel that some tools are better suited for this use than others. It's true that I can kill a man with a drinking straw, if killing is what I want to do. Killing him with a hammer is easier, though. Killing him with a Glock is easier still. I wholly agree here. The mastermind (for lack of a better term atm) will use the tool that has the highest effectiveness. Blind Faith paired with ignorance plays into that. EDIT: But let us note, most faiths dont want "blind" faith. Ignorance is the tool of "Blind" faith.
Hmmm, I think where we disagree is the perception of the tool. I think extremists today arent the zealots of the past, but manipulators of greed and power. Youre reference to the old applications of understanding vs today is interesting. Personally, I think you have men of power or control, the pastor over a parish, muslim warlords over a region, who use the religion as a tool to get their earthly delights. I dont think the "fanaticism" is faith based in today's world. I think its the excuse used to market the actions. I dont think the systems are designed for fanaticism. I think the Species abuses the tool for its own gain and exploits the systems
You do realize communist russia (stalin/lennin) was atheist in nature, right? In fact, history shows a terrorist like attempt at exterminating religion in russia.Communist Russia was anti-Christian, insofar as Christianity conflicted with the state religion of Communism and party worship. It was equally anti-secular humanist (secular humanism being the philosophy that most Western atheists espouse). Using Stalin as your poster-boy to represent Western atheism is therefore a lot like using Pontius Pilate as a poster-boy for Christianity. You miss my point. I wasnt using Stalin in the way you say Ive seen numerous statements that religion seems to be the cause of so much. Ive also seen many atheists take a *forgive the pun* holier then thou attitude. the point I am making is this: Its not religion, or lack there of, that manifests this brutal act, its the human species. The species uses what ever excuse it can lay its hands on, to perform its brutality. You can all lay these actions, the stupidity of this Pastor, Bin Laden, whatever you wish on whatever excuse, but its the species that is at fault here.
Kajehase is banned for being philosophical. Charles Scholz is banned for pulling the football out from Kajehase.
You do realize communist russia (stalin/lennin) was atheist in nature, right? In fact, history shows a terrorist like attempt at exterminating religion in russia. go figure.
People need to understand what terrorism is. Terrorism, is the application of tactics to create fear. This fear is magnified and used as blackmail to coerce decisions to benefit those applying fear. How that fear is applied doesnt define terrorism. So whether random bombings, or a selected individual, doesnt matter. Its the design of the event. So int he case where the Doc was targeted, it communicates that other Docs will be targeted if abortions do not stop. That IS terrorism.
I think he is fanatical an extremist, not wacky.
Just to be clear, the pastor didn't bring up the NYC issue, until the Florida Imam got involved. There is some disagreement on how it was brought up, whom promised whom what, what was offered in exchange for what. Im not sure if that matters. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that with teh ongoing mosque debate, and the amount of media time the iman gets, that he wouldnt get the opportunity to comment. You and I both know the Pastors timing isnt a coincidence.
WHAT DID YOU SAY?!?!?!
|