metadigital

Do you have a home network? I doubt you'll be overly inconvenienced by XP Home; just go for it.

Ah, but do you have an onboard sound chip, too? Motherboard default and all that ...

You'll need a special motherboard to connect them all up, if they are all PCI-e ...

Did you buy the Axim?

this post gets 'the least understanded award' from me for this year. Really, I didn't understand it, whats up to Lady Crimson again!? Maybe you should give up, then, as web programming seems to be beyond your comprehension.

I use pen, paper and pseudocode.

Yes. And I have a veto.

OMG I agree with Volo! I think it's pretty obvious that the billionaire was not too impressed with his relatives, hence the marriage ... (what, he couldn't just have an affair with her?)

A History of Violence: excellent. Not for the younger audience. Crisp script and terrific performances. Paycheck (sic). I watched this with trepidation, as Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman aren't on my top 100 list of actors ... though the fact that it was based on a PKD novel did urge me contrariwise. I must say it was remarkably okay (hardly worth an entire film, but a neat idea).

I am vinning zee war (despite not being able to fully understand what the boffins and wonks are saying ...)!

(Lotus Notes is a groupware application (that's email and information-sharing for you-who-don't-know), and the book is to pass both the administration and programming exams.) Just imagine how many people have ordered this to trigger a pre-order targeted marketing narrowcast ...

You could pretend that the piggie is a hairless cat.

I take it to mean the sweat from hard work just accomplished.

You get a cookie for that ... oh wait, um ... how about Psychosomatic FTW!

^ Does that mean you are normal whilst viewing it? (Disturbing a disturbed ..? never mind ... )

Perhaps she mentioned it in passing :D ... certainly, however, it wasn't "elude".

Don't spam the thread, Jorian. If it's not interesting to you, don't read it and definitely DON'T spam it. Let us analyze some of the words used to describe God as per Wikipedia, which do not apply to Brahman: Omniscient - Brahman does not have a mind, it does not think. Hence, it is not omniscient. Omnipotent - Brahman does not act or perform any actions. It has no powers and no authority. Hence, it is not omnipotent. Omniprescence - The universe is superimposed on Brahman Perfect Goodness - Brahman has no emotions, hence, cannot be good, evil, or even neutral. A Personal Being - Brahman is not even a "being", neither does it have a personality Cause/Creator - Brahman is neither the cause, nor creator, of the universe. Source of Moral Obligation - Brahman is not a source of moral obligation. Now lets see how Brahman differs from God: Akarta (non agent) - Brahman does not act, nor does it react. It does not influence, create or cause anything. So what is the point of Brahman, then? It doesn't add anything to the universe. All you are doing is adding a non-entity. The above quoted characteristics are all cited for godhead.

Dolph Lundgren did a great action spoof, too (Men of War?) I still remember him being shot in the knee and then immediately standing up using that knee. Excerrent. Rocky Balboa So many people have been harping after Stallone to stop making unrealistic films, well, this one is the most realistic of all of his œuvre, and (my low expectations notwithstanding), was a pretty pedestrian affair. Just re-watching Deep Impact, actually I bought this because it was really cheap; next I'll re-watch Full Metal Jacket and the remake of The Poseidon Adventure (which were both also cheap).

I take it sport is just not an option for these weirdos.

Actually that is not a good example... because (although I hate to look like I'm switching sides) previously in the same book they state "Eye for an eye" which does sort of elude to vengeance... Christianity is meant to be built on the New Testament; Old Testament is superseded (hence two commandments, not ten). And "An eye for an eye" was an improvement for the contemporary cultures; until this the standard response was "two eyes for an eye". PS I think you meant "indicate", "evince", "imply", "indicate", or even "foretell". PPS Your "Road to Damascus" conversion is very similar to another philosophy, one of the most famous (in the UK, anyway) proponents of which is Noel Edmonds, who wrote a book about it called Positive Happy; basically you ask the "Cosmos" (or whatever they call their version of godhead) for what you want and you get it ... no need for all the Roman Catholic overhead. " Hate? I hate nothing, currently. I refuse to believe in something without proof, that's all. There is no argument that convinces me that life needs a creator / godhead, so I use Occam's Razor and strip it away from the explanation. The question is also pretty meaningless, so I guess I'm a bit ignostic, as well. Dystheism Apatheist.

A deist, maybe? Other than that...wow. Very deep and at the same time touching. Very true, too. Props to ya. "i believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -Einstein He (the lapsed Roman Catholic father of Ravenskya) certainly wouldn't believe Ravenskya's story. :D Deism seems most appropriate. That's my Dad's take on the world, not mine. But apparently Ben Franklin and a few others thought the same way. It's got a name, I just don't know what it is. The thinking is that God created the world and now he sits back and watches like and experiment, and one day he will be done with it and the end will come. I don't believe it, but my Dad had to suffer through Catholic school where he was beaten by nuns and such, so the fact that he believes in God at all makes me feel a little better. that is deism in a nutshell... the old clockmaker hypothesis.

I'll have to do some research on Hindu culture (and read through all of your post ) before I can make any positive contribution to your second point, which I shall over the next little while. In the meanwhile, for fun, let us discuss atheism. You believe in Brahman, and you claim to be an atheist. Let's put this to logical rigour to establish your universal quantification. Formally we state the problem as below: Hypothesis: Brahman is not a godhead (given⇒roshan). (Corollary: roshan is an atheist.) Antithesis: Brahman is a godhead (less confusing to disprove a positive, than disprove a negative). define Brahman We have two testable deterministic qualities: Immanence Transcendence [*]Compare Brahman and Godhead What are these metaphysical elements? Observation: immanence is a theological concept used to describe the divine.

No. Okay, how about: unread marks seem to be updating on the topic but still pointing to the initial (cached?) post, rather than the latest post.

clickie

Moved to Skeeter's. No more spam or offenders will be punished.