q10..they forgot one question.. would you let a 30 year old man in diapers inspect your ward robe?.
see opening picture..
Please disregard my post above. It is entirely unwarranted!
I just realized that there is a little indicator next to each post that tells you how long ago it was made. And when you mouse over it a little pop-up tells you the exact date and time of the post. So readers can use that info. to determine or calculate what "today" and other relative time references mean.
i have noticed that there are posts that use relative time terms like "today", "yesterday", "tomorrow", "last month", "next week", etc but give no dates.
these relative time terms are only useful for identifying the referenced time, if the post is being read on the day it's posted.
but posts remain indefinitely and months or years down the road these terms would only be useful to professional forensic investigators.. it would be good if posters remember to provide a date when referencing information that is specific to a particular day.
i have noticed that there are posts that use relative time terms like "today", "yesterday", "tomorrow", "last month", "next week", etc but give no dates.
these relative time terms are only useful for identifying the referenced time, if the post is being read on the day it's posted.
but posts remain indefinitely and months or years down the road these terms would only be useful to professional forensic investigators.. it would be good if posters remember to provide a date when referencing information that is specific to a particular day.
I have noticed that there are posts that use relative time terms like "today", "yesterday", "tomorrow", "last month", "next week", etc but give no dates. These relative time terms are only useful for identifying the referenced time, if the post is being read on the day it's posted. But posts remain indefinitely and months or years down the road these terms would only be useful to professional forensic investigators.
It would be good if posters remember to provide a date when referencing information that is specific to a particular day. In some cases the particular day being referenced isn't really important. But in other cases it is. For example, imagine there is a post referencing "today's watchtower study" and which does not mention the date of the session nor the date of the magazine. How is a future reader, 5 years down the road, intent on finding that particular study article, going to find it?
I was wondering if it's possible to create a special script that would read an OP, scanning it for relative time references like "today", "next month", "yesterday", etc and variations thereof ("todays", "today's",...), and automatically append the appropriate date or insert a caption-thingy so when you point at the reference the appropriate date, month or year is displayed based on the specific time reference given and the date of the post. So for example an OP is uploaded today (March 14, 2016) that reads:
"Next week's CLAM meeting is going to be full on cult mode!"
During processing the script searches the text for relative time references and sees "Next week's" (which is listed in its "database" of relative time terms). It then looks to see how that term is to be treated and sees that the date of the week after the upload has to be inserted. So it then inserts an html tag on the term "Next week's" such that when a user points at it a yellow tool tip or caption pops up displaying the date of the week being referenced "March 21-27, 2016"
q10..they forgot one question.. would you let a 30 year old man in diapers inspect your ward robe?.
see opening picture..
I just want to make a quick suggestion about posting time-sensitive information. Please don't take it harshly because I know it's just an oversight. And I see it often on other posts.
The post talks about today's Watchtower. Yesterday (March 13, 2016) the use of the word "today" enabled one to know exactly which day was being referenced. But a reader reading this post 6 months in the future, would not know exactly what day is being referenced because no date is mentioned.
Since posts remain on the site indefinitely, we all have to try to remember to post a date whenever we refer to events that relate to a particular day. That way future readers can, for example, read this post and go look for the specific Watchtower article that was being referenced, based on the date provided.
It's easy to forget to do this because we live in the now and we generally don't think about the fact that posted information isn't just being read now, but also being read in the future.
What would be good is if there was some special automated script that would automatically tag on the date a post was made, at the end of the first occurrence of the word "today" in a post. So for example a poster writes:
"The congregation bible study today was crazy!".
But when the post is being processed the script runs and adds in the date and final post that's uploaded reads:
"The congregation bible study today [March 14, 2016] was crazy!"
Or maybe the script can insert a tool tip on time words like yesterday, today, this month, etc so that when you point at them with your mouse a little pop up or tool tip displays the date.
Knowing the exact date being referenced can be helpful for future readers.
anyone fall into this category?
anyone fall into this category?
It's the intellectual equivalent of having to endure skin crawlingly obnoxious sounds like nails scraping on a chalk board.
It's like attending a gathering filled with smiling people who are adamantly convinced that puppies are evil demons, and you have to sit quietly and watch as they cruelly torture them to death, while convinced that they're doing the right thing, and anyone who questions them is of the devil and needs to be dealt with.
Sometimes you can feel the frustration welling up inside you and you feel strongly tempted to just drop a TTATT bomb on them! But you have to exercise great self-control and bottle it all up. Sometimes it gets to the point that you actually feel physically sick!
protesters shut down a trump rally.
massive numbers of people are out in chicago and have shut his event down.
there were scuffles inside the event.. despite his lame attempt to pretend the violence he instigates is nothing to do with him it's clear that it is as the cnn quotes during the last event showed only too well.. this doesn't happen at anyone else's events - candidates have even given up the stage to protesters, not called for them to be beaten and punched.. trump is an ugly person and this is just a small taste of what a future under his rule would be like.. shame on the gop for not kicking his ass out.
Racism against blacks is because blacks have made the news more for crimes and violence and wearing their pants on the ground, etc.
You have that all wrong. The disproportionate amount of black Americans being in the news for crimes and the wearing of their pants on the ground, etc are all symptomatic of problems in the American black community that are the result of them being subjected to decades - centuries - of racism.
the god of christian theism values faith.. "without faith it is impossible to please god, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" - heb.11.
faith and evidence are inversely proportional - the more evidence there is that god exists the less faith you need in that proposition and vice-versa.. so how can a christian criticise any other faith-based belief?
for example they can protest that all the evidence is against the claims of scientology, but that just means that scientologists require more faith than christians.
Here's a real life example from the news, highlighting the folly of faith.
Another thread by Cofty? Dang bro/sis. You are getting out there and living a full life, right?
I don't know JACOB Meza but I hope he is not one of those theists that attempt to shame voices of reason into silence by saying things like he said. No fuller life can be led than making intellectual contributions aimed at transforming human society for the better, in this case, by exposing the folly of faith.
the god of christian theism values faith.. "without faith it is impossible to please god, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" - heb.11.
faith and evidence are inversely proportional - the more evidence there is that god exists the less faith you need in that proposition and vice-versa.. so how can a christian criticise any other faith-based belief?
for example they can protest that all the evidence is against the claims of scientology, but that just means that scientologists require more faith than christians.
Here's a fictional scenario that highlights the folly and danger of faith:
A deeply religious man starts hearing a voice in his head. The voice tells him that it is God. "God" tells him that it would make a great nation out of him if he obeys his commands.
The man tells others about it, but they don't believe that it's really God talking to him. He doesn't seem crazy though, everything else about him is normal except for him hearing the voice. He develops strong faith that it really is God that is talking to him.
One day he has a terrible seizure followed by a coma that lasted a couple days. Doctors scan his brain and discover a tumor in his brain. Because of the location of the tumor, doctors know that it is the cause of the auditory hallucinations the man has been having.
They inform the man but he refuses to accept it. He has faith in his "God". By faith, he perceives that the doctors are misled by Satan. He perceives that they were sent by Satan in a bid to destroy his faith. It was a demon that entered into him and gave him the seizure. The whole incident was all an elaborate machination of Satan to get the man to renounce God! This he perceives clearly, by faith.
Later, "God" speaks to the man and asks him to sacrifice his three year old son to him. His wife and son come to the hospital to visit him shortly after this and when his son hugs him, the man, by faith, grabs his son by the head with both hands and snaps his neck.
the god of christian theism values faith.. "without faith it is impossible to please god, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" - heb.11.
faith and evidence are inversely proportional - the more evidence there is that god exists the less faith you need in that proposition and vice-versa.. so how can a christian criticise any other faith-based belief?
for example they can protest that all the evidence is against the claims of scientology, but that just means that scientologists require more faith than christians.
The requirement of faith also exposes the fact that the God of the bible is man-made and not a real supremely wise, truth-loving being.
A real supremely wise being that values truth would not value faith as a virtue because faith leaves people vulnerable to being deceived and is no way of determining what is really true.
Every single major religion uses faith as the cop-out to justify belief in the unproven. They even use faith to justify belief in claims that can be, and have been, scientifically disproved!
So faith actually serves as an excuse to believe lies and pretend that they are true. A truly wise supreme being would know this and would not require faith of his worshipers knowing what it leads to.
But humans who want to deceive and control other humans by getting them to accept their unproven claims - religious con-men - they value faith, because it serves their ends. It gets people to credulously drink, hook, line and sinker, their ridiculous claims while telling themselves that they are good and noble for being credulous!
You see the claims of religion cannot stand up to scrutiny and logic so religious con-men had to come up with a way of demonizing scrutiny and logic in order to survive. So they came up with the idea that God wants people to whole-heatedly believe and accept fanciful claims without doubting. And they also demonize doubt. The whole concept of faith was created by very early religious con-men as a means of countering logic, reason and evidence.
It's so fricking obvious! Faith is not a virtue but the enobling of credulity to get people to believe insanity. Faith is no way of knowing what is true but a way of justifying believe in just about any crazy claim. Why can't religious people see right through it?!
