|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ThaFleastyler
26
« on: November 21, 2009, 12:45:25 pm »
Good call, Cobra :asian:
My question is this:
Who sends people PMs in a public discussion which has been running fine till now?!
27
« on: November 19, 2009, 04:53:24 pm »
As an Irish soccer fan who was 10 when they made it into the Italia 90 World Cup for the first time (ever?), and reacted by painting my face every day for a month - I can even remember Ray Houghton scoring against Italy in the group stage, with a strike from damn near half way - I have to say, I'm pretty gutted.
28
« on: November 16, 2009, 10:08:45 pm »
pretty sure they were the team he supported growing up etc, he wasnt unhappy at all about going there. Yeah, I know ... he's just made some pretty stupid comments about the fans and stuff. He seems like a bit of a jerk. Maybe I'm wrong? Also, I guess I'm probably hacked off because Orton is doing so well with the Broncos. he doesnt have anyone decent to throw to really This is a good point - no clear star receiver PLUS his o-line couldn't block me and you at this point. Between that and the defense, they should just change the Chicago logo to a picture of a sieve 
29
« on: November 15, 2009, 10:41:02 pm »
Its dumb.
The coaching staff - Lovie Smith, et al - just had no idea how to use Kyle Orton effectively. Hence why, when he went to the Broncos (who have an in telligent coach) he has been mega-effective. Now they have no idea how to use Jay Cutler effectively. Also, Cutler might be an asshole who doesn't want to play for Chi-city. One or the other.
30
« on: November 12, 2009, 09:37:52 am »
I support the Chicago Bears. Allow me to sum up their season with a picture: *facepalm* 
31
« on: October 30, 2009, 11:22:30 am »
LOL Flea was she like full on yodeling or just improvising? She's a freestyle yodeller :chuckle:
32
« on: October 29, 2009, 09:15:20 pm »
My daughter came round singing "High on a hill was a lonely goatherd, ay-yodelay-yodelay-hee-hoo". Now its stuck on repeat in my head.
33
« on: October 14, 2009, 10:22:03 pm »
Planning to see them both at Soundwave in Brisbane, Feb 20th :rnr:
34
« on: September 23, 2009, 06:02:09 pm »
I LOL'd at this part of the OP, back in '07: After the first episode, i have never been hooked or so keen to watch more since Heroes. Given how Heroes went down the gurgler, this is almost an insult to the BBT guys, haha!
35
« on: September 23, 2009, 09:26:51 am »
If you dont accept that humans evolved you are rejecting evolution Isn't that like saying "if you think Lost Series 2 was shit, then you must think that all of Lost is shit"? Or, "if you think St Anger sucked, then you think Metallica sucks"? Look, as I said, I don't know enough about evolution to make any kind of statement on it. In the case of microevolution, I feel like what I have seen, read and understand shows that it is a foregone conclusion. In the case of macroevolution, the evidence is pretty solid as well. But I'm not a biologist or anything, so I'm making my statement from only a laymans understanding of the issue. Note: You seem to think that I have an opinion on evolution concerning animals, and then a separate opinion on evolution concerning humans. First off, I don't, and secondly, how dumb do you think I am? I understand perfectly that theories of evolution apply to all species, so if I comment on it or give my own opinion, its my opinion for all species I also want to take issue with this: So you dont know enough about the evolution of humans but you are quite happy with the level of evidence you have recieved around the evolution of non-human animals? That seems like an inconsistent world view, which smacks of a religious adgenda This is pretty petty mate - as I've said and as I believe I've shown repeatedly in this thread, I have no religious agenda. I just call things as I see them. In fact, if you look back through my posts here, I'm probably as skeptical of the church as most people here. I don't believe everybody should believe the same as me - like I say, I just look at things and make my own decision. I'm free to believe what I want, and everyone else is free to do the same.
36
« on: September 23, 2009, 07:49:58 am »
i thought you didn't accept that humans evolved I don't know enough about it all to have a real educated discussion on it. But I know that I don't reject evolution, which disproves your point that Christians don't accept evolution. As Ngati said, fundamentalist Christians dismiss evolution, but, as I've tried and tried and tried to explain before, fundamentalist Christianity is a different beast than the kind of Christianity practiced by 90% of Christian churches in NZ.
37
« on: September 22, 2009, 09:42:42 am »
There are a number of christians who embrace evolution. +1 ... take me, for example.
38
« on: September 15, 2009, 03:59:03 pm »
That page just reminded me, ASP is also a no-go.
39
« on: September 15, 2009, 03:55:16 pm »
Its HTML only.
The bastards at *a particular hosting company* talked my boss into changing to a more expensive plan that didn't support CGI - which sadly our form utilised. We had our forms directed to a handler on the server; now there is no handler available to use and our forms have stopped working.
Would it be possible to host a form handler somewhere else?
If so, where could I get a form handler that works? (I know zero CGI).
40
« on: September 15, 2009, 03:49:34 pm »
Thats a good idea - but I really need it to just send the form off without making people send it via their email.
41
« on: September 15, 2009, 03:40:57 pm »
Hey guys,
Wondering if someone could help me - I've just found out that our web hosting plan at work doesn't actually support CGI or PHP.
Can anyone tell me a way to set a form to send results to an email and point to a "thank you" page, using only HTML? The form is pretty simple - just textboxes and 1 drop-down box.
Thanks in advance,
Chris
aka ThaFleastyler
42
« on: September 11, 2009, 01:55:42 pm »
Radiohead - "Optimistic"
43
« on: September 10, 2009, 02:43:48 pm »
Solid brass old style pc keyboard.
More here, interesting site > http://www.datamancer.net/ Reminds me of the old school looking PC gear in Warehouse 13. Win!
44
« on: September 04, 2009, 03:37:17 pm »
Thought you guys might like the label from our bathroom cleaner at work. Sorry for the pic quality - my phone is useless at pics.  "Magic" Bathroom Cleaner
Mightiness except germ's effect good
Except germ Disappear feculent Go sludge... makes perfect sense ... :asian:
45
« on: September 03, 2009, 09:20:31 am »
[video]tlpvXOuIJT4[/video] "Oh-a-oh-oh, oh-a-oh-oh, my my my poker face, my puh-pokerface." ... get out of my head 
46
« on: August 21, 2009, 04:52:44 pm »
Thrice - "The Weight"
My favourite song right now, from my favourite album right now, Beggars.
Highly, highly recommended.
[video]_PYxPCnZ2QQ[/video]
47
« on: August 19, 2009, 07:54:24 am »
Horse riding. You're doing it wrong.
48
« on: August 15, 2009, 08:30:11 am »
[video]LnaeImQ0TSg[/video] Hehe, I mentioned these guys on the last page. Their album is completely different to pretty much anything I've ever heard. Definitely worth a listen, even if its just for the uniqueness.
49
« on: August 14, 2009, 01:10:18 pm »
to me lying to vulnerable people is criminal, if prayer worked there would be identifiable evidence but there is no evidence. I understand that. But in this case, they are a) praying for people who likely already believe prayer can work, thus making them not vulnerable, as vulnerable people would be roped in against their will - as far as I can tell, if you end up in this prayer place, chances are you went looking for prayer to begin with anyways; and b) ensuring they still seek proper medical care. It would be different if they were getting people in under false pretences - but they aren't. What they appear to be saying is "hey, keep up your medical treatment, but why not let us pray - it can't hurt" (and maybe "... and after we're done praying, take a look at why you should donate" lol). There is a difference between being against something because it is damaging and being against something because you don't agree with it.
50
« on: August 13, 2009, 11:52:50 pm »
Try to let me answer this one "Aggressive" prayer is like regular prayer, except louder, more pleading and begging God than usual, and typical goes for longer too. Often it can involve singing, and also can involving "exorcising demons". I'm fairly skeptical of the practice - if one believes prayer works, then one must believe that prayer works regardless of the "aggressiveness" displayed; thus, "aggressive" prayer is merely an attempt to illicit (sic) an emotional reaction. As for the money-making, I'm sure that probably happens too, sadly. To me, prayer is something that should happen behind closed doors - if a person wants prayer, they should just seek it out, not sit in a waiting room and wait for it. For shame! That said, as long as they encourage regular medical treatment, I kinda think 'no harm, no foul'. The real problem comes when persons of any belief - and fundamentalist christians are probably most guilty of this - start to claim that they don't need regular medical treatment. That is a tragedy, and should be treated as a crime, imo.
|
|
|
