Great to see you've got it working. (or did you?)

I don't think I'll EVER install Chrome. I can't stand that Google uses my information on a constant basis. I find it an invasion of privacy. Without going into a rant, by switching to Chrome, you are basically inviting them into your computer and closing your eyes while they install a camera, poke in all the cupboards and rifle through your drawers.

I also understand they do this without me using chrome but Chrome just means I approve - and I don't.

*Steps down off soapbox

I've been saying since 1974 that men need to have their Liberation Movement. Why the heck he has to frame it in relation to the Women's Movement, if this summary of his point of view is correct "Warren argues that society has been mislead by the feminist movement into perceiving women as victims of male oppression. He believes that the reverse is true; women have most of the rights and privileges whilst men are treated like 2nd-class citizens."

It does none of us any good to turn real issues into a pity party as to who is "oppressed" more.

.....Ah!!! I've just listened to the first 4 minutes and the summary is pure crap!

From the second part: He began to "speak on behalf of both sexes rather than just on behalf of women."

I love this man. The summary is crap, but Warren is top drawer.

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.

They don't make a cup/newspaper/car/bush/cellphone/chest of drawers big enough.

She didn't chose the locations, but she chose the room, the angle, the lighting, the composition of the shot. I'm sure there were much more flattering places especially to have that one woman than a long empty poorly-lit room. You don't get to be a television journalist without learning to compose a shot.>> ^Matthu:

>> ^messenger:
Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.
The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.

It's not her fault a homeopath works out of a sales office and scientists work out of labs. Although, I get your point, I just don't think she chose the locations for the interviews.

Indeed, that does just about sum it up.
Kceaton doesn't need to try to negate your Christian god's omniscience (assuming the proposition that he exists in the first place is true, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate). You did that just swimmingly all on your own, assuming again, that you're not a liar or playing Devil's Advocate and earnestly believe what you just typed.
Thanks for saving anyone with any inclination to refute your imaginary friend a whole lot of time by doing it for us. Also, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. I would say that you were a fantastic example of it in action but that means you would need to actually recognize (in some form) the incongruity of your own silly, self-contradictory beliefs and/or be bothered by it.






Reading comprehension must not be your strong point. Kceaton claimed his very post negated Gods omniscience. That is quite an amazing statement and I was curious as to how that was so. He also asked why the devil was evil, which I explained. He set the terms for the conversation, and I replied. Then you enter and attempt to speak for Kceaton, which no one asked you to do, as if you're the borg collective speaking with one voice. You completely misunderstood everything that is being discussed, glossing over the entire conversation with shallow conclusions, insults, and with absolutely no merit to anything you're saying. I mean I've stepped in deeper puddles.

You also claim that *my* post negates Gods omniscience. Then you go on to say my post negates Gods very existence. Wow. So you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I can understand that. I've met many teenagers on the internet who have difficulty forming cohesive arguments in their juvenile desire to attack anything which places their superficial worldview in jeapordy. Perhaps you're just used to shouting at people on XBOX live where you're dealing with beet level intelligence, but in the real world when we open our stupid traps to tear someone else down, it's helpful not to act a complete fool in the process, because when your hypocripsy is exposed (you're not a deep thinker) your criticisms ring rather hollow, and actually serve to show you up instead.

>> ^messenger:

Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.
The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.


It's not her fault a homeopath works out of a sales office and scientists work out of labs. Although, I get your point, I just don't think she chose the locations for the interviews.

Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.

The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.

That was great!

I'd love to think that Nathan hadn't fully considered the interpretation of "rattle the silverware in my drawers" before he said it, but I suppose it is great whether planned or not...

my kids and i eat a mostly raw diet. i'm also insanely busy and i don't have a lot of time for food prep during the week. and honestly after work and school and the kids stuff, i often dont even feel like putting a lot of work into dinner.

i also noticed i was throwing out an exorbitant amount of fruits and veggies every week because we just didnt get around to eating them all.

this is something excellent we've started doing, that makes our diets healthier and saves a ton of time and money.

every saturday we go to the farmers market and stock up on our produce and raw nuts and seeds etc. then we spend sunday chopping all our veggies and fruits. we portion out what we think we will eat for the week and put them into small tupperware containers. now all i have to do at dinner time is (or when the kids want a snack) is open a few tupperware containers! done! the nuts and seeds get seperated out into individual serving size baggies (that we recycle week to week) and put into the snack drawer. they keep for a long time and we go through them quickly anyhow. but again, easy access for snacks or to throw on top of our salads.

for the excess fruits and veggies (what we know we wont eat in a week) they get portioned out into individual serving sizes, vacuumed sealed and put in the freezer. frozen grapes and strawberries make excellent snacks, but there are lot of things i just dont think taste good after theyve been frozen and thawed ... so instead of eating them whole i will throw them into my juicer or make a smoothie out of them and it works out perfectly. ill also make sauces and dressings and jams out of my thawed out produce from time to time.

it's healthy, saves me a ton of time and we don't waste even 1/4 as much as we used to.

it is an amazing thing. an amazing thing I'll probably never take again - but I did get to see a youtube life-time timelapse video of myself when I looked in the mirror and my yard looked like mars until the fences and buildings started sinking into the ground and the bottom floor of my entire apartment building popped out like a desk drawer, it was like watching a storm coming in - the sound of the city around me wasn't a sound anymore but sort of this whispy buzzing feeling. For a while I thought I was just listening to some ambient loop which was the lively ambiance of the city blocks around me, it was really confusing. Then I tried to eat a burrito... which ended up being like one of those funny anti-lsd commercials from the 60's - it didn't talk to me it just looked so disgustingly beautiful that I could not even enjoy one of my favorite staples, haha! My burrito looked like it might if it were on the Ren & Stimpy show. I remember trying to read something on my computer screen but all I could see were THE's. Tens of THE's sticking out at me. If I ever do it again I'll make sure to bring pills for the later portion of the trip which sort of got on my nerves.

That being said, in my humble opinion everyone should be encouraged to muster up their positive energies and take the splurge into this strange world in your head at least once.

I am a product
I am a symbol of endless hopeless fruitless aimless games
I'm a glossy package on the market shelf
My contents aren't fit for human consumption
I could practically injure your perfect health
My ingredients will seize up your body's functions
I'm the dirt that everyone walks on
I am the orphan that nobody wants
I am the stair that everyone walks on
I am the leper that nobody wants to touch (much)

I am a sample
I am a scapegoat of useless futureless endless mindless ideas
I'm the number on a paper you file away
I'm a portfolio that you stick in the drawer
I'm the fool you try and scare when you say:
"We know all about you of that you can be sure"

Well I don't want your crazy system
I don't want to be on your files
Your temptations I try to resist them
Because I know what hides beneath your smiles

I am a topic
I am a subject for useless futureless endless mindless debates
You think of ways that you can hide me from the naive eyes of your figurehead
But don't you find that it ain't easy?
Wouldn't you love to see me dead?
Your answer is to give me treatment for crying out when you give me pain
Leave me with no possible remnant
You poke your knives into my brain

I'm an example
I'm no hero of the great intelligent magnificent human race
I'm part of the race that could all spare possesions
Part of the race that's wiping itself out
I'm part of the race that's got crazy obsessions
Like locking people up not letting them out

I hate the living dead and their working factories
They go like sheep to their production lines
They live on illusions; don't face the realities
All they live for is that big blue sign that says:
"Ford"
I'm bored, bored, bored

I am a product
I am a symbol of endless hopeless fruitless aimless games
I am a sample
I am a scapegoat of useless futureless endless mindless ideas
I am a topic
I am a subject for useless futureless endless mindless debates
I'm an example
I'm no hero of the great intelligent magnificent human race
(The great intelligent magnificent human race)
The great intelligent magnificent human race

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

wife says "where is the oven. Its not practical without an over."


Good point. ..and I bet those drawers and cabinets right under the stove get uncomfortably warm.

Overall, I think this stove is pretty rock'n. The flexibility to throw a big griddle on there for simultaneous evenly-heated pancake, bacon, and egg cooking, ..while still having a full stovetop of traditionally sized burners when they are needed is quite nice.
I think my biggest worry about this thing would be keeping it looking decent. I house sat for some friends that have a glass-topped stove and even a little drop of water on the bottom of a pan would instantly boil down to a mineral stain that was a pain in the but to remove.

Hmmm, well you could do something cool with it like use it as a kitchen PC if you pop it out of the case and use something like a kitchen cabinet or drawer to house the components and thread the cords for the keyboard/mouse/monitor up behind the counter top or through the wall or a wall socket. That would be a fun project too.

Or like you said you could use the old pc as a server but you might want to pop in a new hard drive if you're doing something like that b/c by now the hd in the older pc will have suffered through some wear n tear.

Or there is always this: http://www.seniorark.com/Images/computer%20grill.gif

>> ^qualm:

At :47 and elsewhere you hear the camera guy's normal voice. I'm sorry to disappoint your "Tea Party" theorizing. It's a pretty common racist "joke" here in British Columbia - to mock FNs with that stereotyped speech pattern.


Dude, you're on crack. He was in the midst of a spit of laughter. Are you serious right now?

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^ForgedReality:
The only problem I see here is qualm's outright accusation, like he's constantly on the lookout for stuff like that. There is a term for people like that, which I can't recall at the moment, but essentially, it amounts to someone, who he himself is a racist, by expecting it, and projecting it onto others, as if perpetually fearful of it. As a result, they attack first, often incorrectly accusing others.

Holy cow! There's a single word that sums up all that?

There's a word I can't remember but it means that feeling of amazement you have when someone tells you something completely surprising and it really intrigues you but at the same time you're a little doubtful but you're thinking, "hey, why would he lie about something like that", but at the same time you're wondering if maybe that person's a little confused but despite all that you're still really interested to get to the bottom of it and you think maybe you might invest some time into figuring it out but, "Oh, Hey! Is that a bag of Reese's Pieces in my drawer? I forgot I had those...what was I talking about?"
Ugh...can't remember the word for that.

Race baiting, maybe? Defensive racism? Often, people who point out and are on the lookout for racism, are, in fact, racists themselves. Especially when there is no sane explanation for that person's perceived racist impression.


How is that so difficult for you to understand?