Evidently you are someone to judge because you are judging "yes".

Yea sure... have you seen the goals? Montreal goals have been perfect plays, beautiful shots into the corner... and every single boston goal has come from lucky bounces, redirections... not to mention the fact that all of you are too chicken to take on Laraque.

John Piper says that he doesn't think that the second coming is any time soon.

Ok, keep skating...

IT DOESN'T FOLLOW

I never said that I was answering your question. On the contrary, why would I answer a question that shouldn't be asked?

If you want to know why it shouldn't be asked, refer to my response and keep reading it until it clicks.

You completely missed my point. Yes I gave that imperative, but then I developed it....

No no... we act based on our state of mind but to a verrry limited extent. I'm not going to wack someone who cuts in the line at the bank because I'm extremely upset in that moment.

Yes your feelings slightly affect your experiences, but there's a serious problem if your mood determines how you act.

It's not an answer, it's a way of pointing out that your question doesn't hold water.

There are two possibilities, we can either know things or we can't know anything.

If we can know things, then your question doesn't need to be asked.

If we can't know anything, then there is no meaning to anything, not even a question. In this case, your question is simply meaningless and should not be asked.

You see... if you are asking a question with hopes that the answer can rationally be given, then that rationale has to be based on knowledge. On the other hand, if you are asking a question on the basis that nothing can be known, there is not point to asking the question.

You follow?

What you can do if you work from home is to claim everything you buy as a business expense and it's all tax deductible. You can save a loooot of cash, but you will pay through your nose if you ever decide to sell your house.

Because the judge might think that you act on impulse.

I don't think that's a smart answer to give in court...

Because if you don't believe that there are things that we can know beyond a doubt, there is no meaning in anything. If there's no meaning in anything, then your question is irrelevant and you shouldn't even be asking it.

That's why I'm soon to be an accountant; so that people like you can claim every deduction in the book!

In tax class, we refer to the government as "the guy on top of the mountain".

I wouldn't count on the instant messaging as it doesn't work for everybody due to firewalls and stuff.

Nice to have another Canadian though. That's one more for our side!

Let me just clarify the debate once and for all.

Neo-pluralistic philosophy basically says that everything is relative and there are no objective right and wrongs, and that's oversimplifying it to say the least but that's the basic idea. However there is a catch. You see, while everyone has the right to their own opinion, the person who says that someone else's opinion is wrong, is wrong. You see, people can believe that same sex marriage is permissible, and others can believe that it is not permissible, but the person who believes that it is wrong to believe that same sex marriage is permissible, is wrong according to pluralistic philosophy. CAN YOU SEE THE BI-STANDARD? Pluralism says that everyone has the right to his/her own opinion as long as that opinion does not consider someone else's as wrong.

To sum it all up, the same people who argue that they can choose what is right and wrong for themselves have to live with the fact that others can choose that their choice is wrong, because they're making the choice on the same pluralistic basis.

She chose to not compromise her moral beliefs in order to get ahead in a stupid pageant. Must have been tough, working so hard to make it that far and then having to decide between giving a 'socially correct' response (especially coming from Miss California) or sticking to her values.

Good for her!

She chose to not compromise her moral beliefs in order to get ahead in a stupid pageant. Must have been tough, working so hard to make it that far and then decide between giving a 'socially correct' response (especially coming from Miss California) or sticking to her values.

Good for her!

How about... ummmmm, 36 and a half years???

*GULP*

Buuuut, I want a girl to enjoy talking with me regardless of my cutieful face...