Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yup.
Only I prefer to call it "constructive criticism."
I've been [falsely] accused of that so many times, I'm almost starting to believe it, myself.
When I see someone appealing to Netiquette to make a point -- however valid that point is -- I usually consider it a desperation tactic.
In your case however, something told me to look up your post count, so I did.
I used to have a couple of guys with very low posts per day play Miss Netiquette with me, and it doesn't work.
So I noticed.
You'll forgive me if I think it's fake ... I hope?
True, even the best of us can. However, I wasn't annoyed with the points he presented, it was just the fact that it was off-topic and I've observed justa do this on more than once occasion.Everything we think, do, or say "annoys" you guys.
I can't even post in the Numbers forums without "annoying" someone.
Well, as I told someone else here (can't remember who) ... if your fake concern is indeed real, then I submit you have a real problem with us here.
You keep badgering me about my opinion, florida, and you're going to end up averaging 1 post per day.How is my concern 'fake'? I don't understand what you mean. If my concern was fake (ie. my concern was not real) why would I write the post?
You keep badgering me about my opinion, florida, and you're going to end up averaging 1 post per day.
Florida, I'll try this one more time, since you're probably a scientist; meaning I feel sorry for you.I still don't understand your motivation, so I was just asking.
Florida, I'll try this one more time, since you're probably a scientist; meaning I feel sorry for you.
But here it is -- one ... more ... time.
When a person breaks radio silence to hold Netiquette over someone's head, it piques my interest.
So I usually ask their motivation.
If they say it's because they are irked, then I'll usually give them the benefit of a doubt and assume it is "fake indignation."
After all, if they are truly indignant about it, then I submit they have a problem with tolerance.
If indeed it is the real McCoy, then people like that scare me.
Referring to the NASA working definition of life:
My turn, I did not find that in the article. Could you show were this came from? Quotes would be good.No wonder that stupid proposal did not pass.
As a working definition, I think it reasonable for what it was intended to do.And you are the follower of that proposal.
Dizredux
Florida, I'll try this one more time, since you're probably a scientist; meaning I feel sorry for you.
But here it is -- one ... more ... time.
When a person breaks radio silence to hold Netiquette over someone's head, it piques my interest.
So I usually ask their motivation.
If they say it's because they are irked, then I'll usually give them the benefit of a doubt and assume it is "fake indignation."
After all, if they are truly indignant about it, then I submit they have a problem with tolerance.
If indeed it is the real McCoy, then people like that scare me.
I do not see where does the Bible say that.
On another topic, when presented with clear evidence for evolution above the species level in plants, a creationist said this:So, I am curious, is this the opinion of most creationists? Do they really think that plants evolve and animals do not? And if plants were created the same way as animals why would they evolve while animals do not?
Yes, of course we can. But can we survive on it?
No. But neither a snake.
If a rock is heated to a higher temperature, it WILL change. So is human.
It is not the nature of the function, it is the capacity of the function. The criterion is the same.
Rock can. If you put a rock under the sun for one day, it will not change.
So if you eat nothing but rocks, will you survive?
Exactly. A rock will take no action.
A human, on the other hand, will. They will get sunburnt. They will start sweating to keep cool. Also sorts of changes will take place in order to maintain a constant internal condition. A rock doesn't, it will just heat up.
Seriously, why do you not get this?
Rubbish. Snakes are perfectly capable of altering their internal condition in response to an environmental change.
And that is not the rock altering itself, is it? It's the environment causing the change. It's simple flow of heat from one area to another. That is NOT what I was talking about. If you cool a rock, will it change it's internal condition to maintain a temperature? Life forms do this all the time, in response to temperature how much water there is, chemical balances for certain reactions. Rocks do NOT do this, therefore your point fails.
And it doesn't happen in rocks.
Yes, a rock will alter itself under the influence of extreme temperature (beyond what it can take, for example, 100°C.)
It depends on how fast you cool a rock. If cooled too fast to respond, the rock will be "hurt".
A rock is very sensitive to its chemical environment. If you put it in water, it will behave differently than it does in air.
I agree on your wise observation.
But this does not say the rock is not alive.
Yes, a rock will alter itself under the influence of extreme temperature (beyond what it can take, for example, 100°C.)
It depends on how fast you cool a rock. If cooled too fast to respond, the rock will be "hurt".
A rock is very sensitive to its chemical environment. If you put it in water, it will behave differently than it does in air.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?