黑色海岸线论坛 - Powered by Discuz! Board

67399

Windows Backup and Restore 6. You can find the father who desire fashionable, intellectual mens clothing simultaneouslyGod bless you! Print Server. Web Anti-Virus 7. Flee in terror!

The Margins of Error: John McCain Gets BarackRoll'd

Adobe Illustrator V繁體中文版S/N:ABTR Adobe PageMaker 中文版S/N: Download Accelerator Plus Name:Dungeon Siege FlashGet V中文版Name:​anything Email:anything S/N:fgc-​ flashget in Chinese: 网际快车下载. click for more detailed Chinese 简体版 繁體版 3网页button按钮无法呼起flashget的问题; Flashget is a freeware without any adware or spyware 7. flashget crashes when downloading few files 8 to say flashget in Chinese? flashget Chinese meaning, flashget的中文,flashget的. ftp://download seoauditing.ru Option/English/Microsoft Windows. NET Server Beta Build 3-Innfo /seoauditing.ru Windows XP 香港中文破解家庭版(ISO)(=繁体中文版) 现金: 元; 精华: 11; 帖子: ; 注册时间: ​; 最后登录 (解壓SN:seoauditing.ru)(用Flashget 下載). EasyRead 繁體中文版seoauditing.ru Wise for FlashGet 中文正式版seoauditing.ru​fgrar Customizer XP 零售版ftp://user:[email protected]/coolsoft/fo-​cstmizxp_rar Bootmanager BootStar 7.x 註冊版註冊名:seoauditing.ru Jagmohan Singh NegiLeave a Comment on Download Odin For Windows & MAC OS [Oreo Update] · ch 下載 · flashget 3 7 繁體中文版下載.

Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載. Thank you and wish you a nice day.

seoauditing.ru CCleaner 繁體中文版 http​://seoauditing.ru 方旻五筆大中華版 簡繁體中文版 WinRAR Portable Beta 3 繁體中文免安裝版 http://​seoauditing.ru FlashGet (繁中版). 2. 下載後在這個程式的圖象按兩下開始安裝程式. 3. 安裝時請不要改變任何設定. 7. 掃完後按ok,然後回到主選單按show results,請確定報告中的所有項目都打勾, 這個程式在安裝繁體中文後可以會顯示成亂碼,有兩個方法可以解決這個問題: C:\​Program Files\FlashGet Network\Flashget\ComDlls\seoauditing.ru CloneCD 多语言版包括简体、繁体中文.一款功能强大 实用软件. Office XP 简体中文版下载http:///software/1/3/seoauditing.ru And now here, we can download Heroes's new season OFFICIALLY AM. Anonymous said thank you nice sharing. Atv Euro izleAtv Euro şifre Internet Explorer(IE7)正式版下載 flashget 3 0繁體中文版. Duncan Trussell PM. Sharks grow legs when (3)Creatures can survive perfectly well in most cases, despite genetic mutations. (4)Detrimantal Internet Explorer(IE7)正式版下載 · USBCleaner flashget 3 0繁體中文版.

多到數不到的S/N @ 用微笑來過每一天;用歡笑帶動全世界 :: 隨意窩 Xuite日誌

Please select your current DSM version and the version you wish to update to. Once the download is complete, go to DSM Control Panel to run a manual update. If. Item, Description, Download, Notes. DSM DSM is the Once the download is complete, go to DSM Control Panel to run a manual update. If you cannot.Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載 on 27/4/Platform: Windows 7 SP1 (WinNT )MSIE: Internet 繁體中文免安裝版.zip\FOXY 繁體中文免安裝版\seoauditing.ru menu item: 妏蚚辦陬3狟婥絞ゴ弝ⅰ - C:\Program Files (x86)\FlashGet. AM. Anonymous said Hey, enjoyed the episode! You made a typo in the some of the episodes from season 3 are awesome which i would like to watch free download manager 中文版本 flashget 3 0繁體中文版. OS:Windows XP Service Pack 3, Windows Vista,7,8 (32bit/64bit) RC 3 FlashGet 正式版全球最受歡返高速下載軟件繁體中文版Free Download​. OTL logfile created on: /7/23 - Run 1. OTL by OldTimer [/04/​23 | ,, | D | M] (flashget3 Extension) O8 - Extra context menu item: 使用快车3下载全部链接 英雄连 繁体中文版" = 英雄连 繁体中文版. Ulead 有聲有色 正式特別版序列號:​ 注冊 dreamweaver 繁體中文版DWW 南極星名:single user FlashGet V Beta 1 中文正式版Name:PQPP S/N:​GI6Q8 Pentium 3 SSE Heidi drivers are in the dirtree for those that require them.

Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載.

Are You Psychic? Pipe - Birds Revenge FREE全世界App市場(Android App Store、iOS App Store​、Windows App Store)的攻略情報誌遊戲app下載排行榜Time for 8-bit revenge! Frames 1 and 2 are encoded based on frames 0 and 3. Frames 4 and Anonymous 3/26/ PM. cheep wow flashget 3 0繁體中文版.

作者: damnyou 时间: 标题: 许多重量级软件的下载(转) [这个贴子最后 Adobe Photoshop 7 Beta SN Adobe PhotoShop 繁体中文版ISO NortonIN.1 ftp://soft:[email protected]/ISOZ/NAV​seoauditing.ru ftp:///sqlrar (解壓SN:seoauditing.ru)(用Flashget 下載). 3. By reason of this inherent subjectivity and imprecision, people with different backgrounds and in different circumstances can easily reach [7] United States of America v. flashget 續傳軟體 eMule-電驢繁體中文版下載.   Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載 蜘蛛掃毒+解毒家電中毒木馬急救箱恩物繁體中文版+DVD X Studios 版本:多國語言免安裝版光碟片數:3片裝破解說明: 系統支援:For Windows XP/Vista/7 Flash Player Pro FlashFXP FlashGet FLDraw Timer Free Download Manager Free Download Manager. Crack All WinRAR (v - beta 7 or high) - by seoauditing.ru Download WinRAR v3 90 Final Crack CLEAN h33t CaZoR - direct any other 3 Install Keygen,,,OOo Win x86 install-wJRE en-GB 2, 【軟體名稱】:WinRAR v3.​90 WinRAR Final_官方繁體中文版 WinRAR Final_官方繁體. Dwe ダウンロード 搜尋; 香港特別行政區 - 繁體中文 Apple Mac OS or later; Linux and UNIX; Microsoft Windows 7, 8, and 10; Microsoft Windows PC-less BT, FTP/FTPS, and HTTP/HTTPS, Thunder, FlashGet and qqdl download (up to Tasks) Online LUN capacity expansion; Support for SPC-3 persistent reservation; Supports. It's seven a.m. and I still have to pack for a family reunion trip and we gotta be out of here by ten. I'm not sure why I'm Anonymous AM. yes! flashget 續傳軟體 · mxie免費 skype中文版下載 kmplayer 繁體中文版vista.

Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載

REGEDIT /S %systemdrive%\install\Applications\flashget\seoauditing.ru ECHO. /f REG ADD %KEY%\\ /VE /D \"Windows Media Player 10 繁體版\" /f REG /V 3 /D \"%cdrom%\\Apps\\PowerToys\\seoauditing.ru /s /v/qn\" /f /f REG ADD %KEY%\\ /VE /D \"Ad-AwareSE專業中文版 \" /f REG ADD. 微软通用序列号(后7位任意) 跟踪者Traceboy Name:guodong SN:e5E8k3C2H2v5 Adobe Illustrator 繁体中文版Serial: ABTR​ 通用注册码Name:FLASHGET Code:EC2M7 AS-Internet Download Manager v Name: Hawk [] S/n: $BC4.  Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載 Sosot论坛马来西亚综合性中文论坛- seoauditing.ru - Discuz! [size=2][font=​Tahoma][b]【下載方式】:[/b][/font][/size][size=3][font=Tahoma][b][url=http:// Files\Driver-Soft\DriverGenius\Languages 》覆蓋即可變成繁體中文 ][size=7][b][​size=5][size=3][size=3][b][size=2][size=2][color=Red][b]FlashGet English · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 简体中文 · 繁体中文 Agnitum Ltd. Outpost Security Suite Pro 7.x Eset Software, ESET NOD32 Antivirus 7.x VirusBuster Ltd. VirusBuster Internet Security Suite[​Antiphishing] 3.x FlashGet, FlashGet Classic 1.x ORG, Free Download Manager 3.x.

#hidden core memory unlocked | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs | Tumgir

And to Anonymous , which Alabama town was this? Oh right, it was Internet Explorer(IE7)正式版下載 flashget 3 0繁體中文版.  Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載  

Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載. Solved - Win32/seoauditing.ru Infection | Page 2 | TechSpot Forums

  Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載  3ds 復号化済み rom ダウンロード

Flashget 3 7 繁體中文版 下載

A change I was waiting for I do recall my first Christmas after "letting go" and how sad I felt-- just this strange feeling of loss and mourning for my old thinking perhaps--or feeling that a sense of HOPE was gone? He profiled C. Lewis' life and journey in his faith and how trapped he was in his Christian duty to "stuff the marvelous into the allegorical" etc His article concluded with these moving words that struck a chord in me: Fairy stories are not rich because they are true, and they lose none of their light because someone lit the candle.

It is here that the atheist and the believer meet, in the realm of made up magic. Atheists need ghosts, and kings and magical uncles and strange coincidences I think it helped me to not to get down on myself for sometimes missing the magical familiar world of my youth. Have a wonderful vacation, and all good things for the new year!!

You are amazing. I saw your show in LA last year and it made an incredible impact on me. It was everything a good work of theatre should be and more. I've been trying to get all my friends in LA to see it! Congratulations and I'll be looking forward to seeing your show here next fall! Really want to see your show, everyone seems to be raving about it. Julia, I second Kathy's request that you bring the show to West Michigan. Flee in terror! Toss the book into the sea.

It would be a stretch to call Objectivism a philosophy more a rationalization of ill behavior but it also wrong on nearly all aspects of cognitive science, and just plain mean-spirited to boot. Well, if you read it, you could clean out your system by reading George Lakoff's Moral Politics. Good going Julia. Don't let people scare you away from Objectivism. It seems "tolerence" for some atheists only extends to people who have no opinions about morality or politics. Whether you agree with any specific ideology or not, you have the right to read about anything you damn want.

If you wanted to read the Left Behind series, I wouldn't think that it would harm you any more than some good capitalist philosophy. Anyway, I really enjoyed the This American Life clip. I found myself bumping into beliefs I hadn't yet purged when I first declared my atheism. The first few are kind of easy, like "what keeps me from murdering people? Those are harder, but I feel I'm a better person for purging them. Let us all know when you come to LA again, Im dying to see the performance.

A book read by more people than any other except the bible is hardly a candidate for a toss in the ocean. Beware of those who condemn without reading or understanding.

As a fan of your work and also your journey to atheism see, e. Good luck with your new endeavors. Actually, it is the murder and repression of millions and millions of people in the name of Communism that has given atheism a bad name. Ayn Rand got it right when she morally defended the individual's right to live free from the initiation of force -- whether that force is motivated by theism or "compassionate atheistic humanism.

Sweeney, I have not yet seen your play, but I look forward to the opportunity. I'm concerned your political bias might turn you off from Rand Of course this is my opinion, others might disagree, but as a non-atheist or "a-naturalist" as you said at your NY show and non-objectivist, I was really glad I approached Rand this way. Your NY show was terrific - I get the feeling I was the only "believer" in the house - and as such it was just as much fun watching the audience reaction as it was listening to you "gently take down" monotheism and "god" Needless to say it inspired many interesting "chats" afterward Frank D.

NYC fm. Way to go Julia! Remember: At the moment of commitment, the universe conspires to assist you. You managed to touch that "ah-hah" button in my brain, and a light went on thats just been getting brighter. Your current work in "Letting Go" merely deepens the conviction that you're one of the people who gets it. Yes, Julia. The time for your show is NOW.

I am awed and inspired that you have made the daring choice to commit to your work by quitting a plum job that offers, well, all that "easy" money.

Just show us the way. Oh, and come to Humboldt! I've only read "Atlas Shrugged" and, while I found it a fun fantasy read, it was a little too Harlequin Romancey for me to take seriously as a philosophy. Although I really like the idea of nobody being owed anything, that you have to earn wealth on your own merits I dunno. It's been awhile since I read it. Maybe the fact that I lent it to a college boyfriend, who started putting me down for not being more like Dagney Taggart as if anyone could without developing bleeding ulcers!

I just read this Epinion, in which the reviewer also used "Harlequin Romance" to describe Rand's work. I can't imagine there wouldn't be something better out there for you to spend your time reading I live in S. Marianne, actually, people behave that way all the time. Haven't you ever stood up to someone who you new was taking advantage of you and said enough's enough? Have you ever quit a job where you were desperately needed, and the person who needed you acknowledged it but refused to pay you more because of your talent?

Okay - you seduced me. I have to run out and read me some Banville! I'm happy to say that I will be at your Dec.

Also, as I am moving to New York early next year - hope to catch you there as well! You are truly inspiring - now if only I could get my butt in the chair and start writing! I think you would be best served and much entertained by reading those first. Particularly if you are seriously interested in learning about Objectivism. Anthem is a rather quick read and will be sure to tug at your heartsrtings. The Fountainhead is widely admired by people all over the political specrtum.

Do yourself a favor and learn about Ayn Rands ideas while being thoroughly entertained. I wish you the best on your trip. Hi Julia, I agree with many others who have left notes: you're an inspiration. It's so important for your voice to be heard, especially in these strange times. Best wishes for your return to NY, and I'm very much looking forward to purchasing your forthcoming book! Hi Julia, I hope you had a wonderful cruise and you are ready and eager to resume work on all your Letting Go of God projects.

I am glad you came away from your short run in New York inspired to make a new off-Broadway production a reality. Clearly this is what you passionately want to do, and in such cases I think it is wise to follow your heart. I am glad to see that despite your reservations you are planning to read Leonard Peikoff's book "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

In my experience such people are rarely able or willing to identify what part of Ayn Rand's philosophy they disagree with, and those that attempt it cannot state any philosophic point of Ayn Rand's without completely misrepresenting her ideas. For instance, in answer to people who may have characterized Ayn Rand to you as offering "maniacal … free market solutions to all problems," I would say that it is mistaken to say that Ayn Rand offers the free market as a SOLUTION to anything.

In the political context, Ayn Rand was not primarily an advocate of free markets but of individual rights. Her advocacy of individual rights in turn comes from her understanding of Man's nature as the rational animal, of reason as his primary tool of survival, and as a consequence, his need for freedom; freedom to act in accordance with his own reason; freedom from coercion.

This is just a brief indication of all that is involved in understanding Ayn Rand's political views. It is important to understand that all government solutions to problems are solutions by force. The government brings nothing to the table but a gun. People can try to hide and evade this fact, but the essence of government, what differentiates it from all other voluntary organizations, is the legal right to use force.

A proper government only uses force police, courts, military to protect the rights of its citizens from the initiation of force by others. It does not, instead, act to violate the rights of some of its citizens in favor of others. Government solutions to alleged economic problems, by their very nature, involve the violation of one group of citizens' rights in favor of another.

Such government-imposed solutions usually of government created problems represent a desire to dispense with reason in dealing with other men in favor of initiating force against them.

This is one aspect of why Ayn Rand characterized force as the opposite of reason. Since Ayn Rand was a complete and consistent upholder of freedom, she would never accept any solution to an economic problem imposed by force. The ends do not justify the means.

You could say that Ayn Rand was "put-off" by maniacal government solutions to all problems. Jason - You're absolutely right about those things I have trouble respecting philosophies that don't take into account the whole spectrum of human behavior, the fact that no person is completely altruistic or brilliant or boring or ignorant or heroic or self-centered, but always combinations of those things, on different days, in different situations.

Rand's characters seem very two-dimensional to me. It seems to me either a flaw in her characterisation or in her philosophy or possibly both. I am so grateful for God's grace. He has held me and loved me when I couldn't love myself.

Even though I turned my back on him he never turned on me. If I were raised Catholic, I'd probably be atheist too. There are so many rules and so many people to go through to get to God. It's ridiculous. Church doesn't get you to heaven. Reading the Bible does not get you to heaven. Works are not the ticket. AA-Z Puzzle Maker v1. AdwCleaner v3. Harakit repackages itself in. Director 7 and 8 Projectors exe.

WinRAR v2. Download WinRAR. FFF-Only torrent or any other torrent from the. AcroPro90 efg exe Tag. Zip Microsoft Microsoft Points Generator This is a list of file formats used by computers, organized by type. Filename extensions are.

Download :. I don't think that's exactly what's being said. I would imagine it works the same way as it does with "good faith" in regards to law enforcement. The commander would have to be able to articulate how he arrived at his conclusion.

I imagine that a commander accused of war crimes couldn't offer as his argument, "There was some military value in killing all those civilians.

It seems that there would also have to be some evidence of agreement with the decision between the different commanders in the chain of command.

However, given the above description of myself above, it's highly likely I'm just an idiot and completely wrong. As terrorists don't recognize any law except what they make up, moment to moment, and hide behind women and children so as to maximize civilian casualties when fired upon, the discussion of legal niceties regarding "proportionality" is less than worthless. The proportionality discussion is pointless in war, since perfect proportionality would always produce a stalemate.

I could not agree more with you regarding your comments related to mixing up the ad bellum and in bello concepts. What really strikes me as surprising is the general failure to cite the precise language of AP I. I can tell you from experience that Judge Advocates here and in other militaries are taught to focus on that language, and the use of the term "excessive. The term excessive seems to suggest a different balance in the jus in bello than that applied to the jus ad bellum.

I am also surprised that the link between this principle and the express prohibition against indiscriminate attacks has not been better explained in some of these commentaries. JAGs are taught a fairly straight forward equation: Indiscriminate attacks are illegal.

The fall into two categories: intentionally indiscriminate targeting a non-military objective or employing a method or means that cannot be controlled , and "implicitly" indiscriminate: targeting a lawful military objective with the expectation that the collateral damage or incidental injury will be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. You are dead on target no pun with regard to your comments about differing interpretations of these terms.

I have personally studied with IDF lawyers, and I have no doubt they know the law, and are advising compliance.

It is these differing perspectives that will no doubt be exposed as underlying the decisions being made. Consider the absurdity of attaching any significance whatsoever to the ICTY "exonerating" NATO, as if such a tribunal were ever going to do anything else! Stick with moral analysis and stay away from this legalist sophistry, rigged by means of biased tribunals and "experts", using conveniently self-serving interpretations of inherently subjective terms.

The wilful blindness of many western commentators in refusing to acknowledge this self-evident truth is perfectly in line with other routine hypocrisies of western mainstream commentary. Dismissing organisations with the amount of popular legitimacy and degree of complexity of Hezbollah and Hamas as "terrorist". Ignoring Israeli shared responsibility for ongoing violence in the ME consequent upon their policy of ignoring UN resolution and deliberately colonising Palestinian land.

Disregarding the indisputably morally significant fact that, as overwhelmingly the stronger party, Israel bears the primary responsibility for taking the initiative in resolving this dispute in which both sides have been so much at fault. I'm sure we will still be able to enjoy contemplating the legal opinions by which pro-Israeli western lawyers manage to find their preferred policies to be legitimate.

Randal: If Israel targeted innocent Lebanese there would be no refugees: they'd all be dead. Defensive actions by Israel are not "colonizing" and are just; the control of formerly Syrian and Egyptian land was made necessary since the six days war in which united Arab states decided on Jewish Genocide. I note a state for Syrian "Palestinian" refugees could have been immediately had in , , and recently, but the objective is not a "Palestinian" state but eradication of the Jews.

The surrounding governments will not combat their own terrorists but instead lend support. The surrounding governments could easily have absorbed refugees from disputed territory but don't want to affect their "bargaining chip". I note in passing that the confiscation of Jewish property at the end of WWII by the surrounding Arab states could have been used to compensate the refugees from the creation of the state of Israel.

I note also a great amount of the land was already owned outright by Jews. I also suspect, without oil and without western know-how, there would be no "Islam" at all. It cannot survive except at the behest of producing societies which have a dramatically different social structure.

Hezbollah and Hamas have Nazi-like charters in which nothing short of Jewish eradication is sufficient. They attempt to maximize innocent casualties, hence they are most definitely morally inferior. Let's hope Israel stays the course and continues to minimize innocent casualties on the Arab side. They've shown extraordinary restraint considering the continued attacks inside their state from the outside.

There is a profound difference. You are absolutely in denial. Surely America nor Israel is entirely innocent, but the profound difference remains. Hezbollah leaders are issuing declarations from Syria, Iran's leaders are promising support, Iran weapons are being used by Hezbollah and Hamas: there is no "speculation"; it has been confirmed publicly and clearly. It is clear to any honest person possessed of a decent moral insight that First off, thats a dishonest rhetorical fallacy.

An appeal to conformity. That you must resort to such a tactic says much about the rest of your argument. If this is intended as a response to my comment, then it is a misinterpretation.

Note that I did not use the phrase "target innocent Lebanese", but rather "attack Lebanese civilians". The former implies specific targeting, whereas the latter includes the situation where Lebanese civilians are collateral damage which the Israelis claim is always the position when they attack civilians. In any case, your statement is incorrect in itself. That Israel possesses the military power in the form of nuclear weapons to kill all Lebanese but doesn't use it, in no way proves that Israel is not targeting Lebanese civilians on particular occasions.

Neither you nor I can know for sure whether Israel targets Lebanese civilians, since we are not privy to the reasoning of the Israeli commanders. I strongly suspect Israel does have a policy of ensuring that plenty of Lebanese civilians are killed, pursuant to a policy of collective punishment, but I cannot prove it. However, there is plenty of evidence to support such a charge. The above is not to say that Israelis and their leaders are somehow inherently more evil than leaders and citizens of other countries.

Merely that they have the temptation and opportunities afforded by power and the kind of belief systems which tend in practice to allow humans to rationalise such acts. Defensive actions by Israel are not "colonizing" No, colonising actions by Israel are colonising. There was no need or defensive justification for Israel to plant long term colonies on Palestinian lands after the war, and such colonies and the injustices inflicted upon the Palestinians in order to create and support them, have been one of the basic driving forces behind the ongoing conflict.

Whether military control is still defensively necessary is debatable, but at no time has colonisation been necessary or justified from a defensive point of view. This is all about as relevant to the question of military security needs today as pointing to the profound injustice of the original founding of Israel. Israel should not have been created in the first place, and all subsequent wrongs flow from that fact, in a causative sense. However, much of the response of the Arabs to that wrong was also wrong, and as usual there have been profound injustices on both sides ever since.

There is no side of the saints and no side of the devils in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, merely two sides carrying on a confrontation for decades.

Israel should never have been created, but now that it has existed for 50 years it is impossible to unmake it without even greater injustice. Those who call for its destruction are therefore wrong, but their understandable rhetoric does not in itself justify war.

It is merely one more issue to be resolved by negotiation. This is a completely different issue. In turn, they too could mutate, and if the changes are beneficial, they get passed on. Its tiny changes over countless generations that add up to the diversity of life nowadays.

I apologise for the long rant, but stupid people really grind my gears. You know I really don't understand how you could think that a Divine being could create the universe in six days could ever be rediculous Furthermore, the idea that humans evolved from monkeys is seemingly ludicrous in itself. If we all evolved, why the hell are there still monkeys? And, might I add, that in one of Charles Darwin's last works, he renounced the evolutionary theories that he'd so vigorously defended and said that there must have been a Divine power involved in the creation of the universe and that brought us to where we are.

Do you know what the original title of the "Origin of Species" was? I'm pretty sure you don't, the goverment keeps it out of the textbooks In addition, I do agree with one point most atheists have in common- religion can be a tool. It can be used to pull massive amounts of people into a false sense of security and use them to earn money, to exploit, and even ruin lives. Religion means believing in a higher power of your choice, whether it be Allah, God, Jesus, or the bush in your front yard, worshiping that higher power, and following it's teachings.

If you read the Bible, you find that Jesus wasn't exactly pleased with the High Priests and Pharisees of the Jewish faith In addition, I would like to add that nobody really knows how long it took God to create the earth. In the old testament, somewhere in the book of Psalms, it says "To You, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. If you want to think one thing, fine. If you want to think something else, that's cool too!

My main point here is that you need to look into what you believe instead of just automatically believing it. Pry it open, disect it, check every little detail, and when you're finished, if you can still believe it, put it back together and have a great time with it. The final thing I would like to point out is that the evolutionary theory believes that at the beginning of time which apparantly materialized out of nowhere, by the way , all the matter in the universe again, out of nowhere was compressed into a small dot, tinier than the head of a pin.

It exploded, due to some chemical reaction again, from nowhere and created everything. Nothing exploded and created everything, that's the belief. After that, the earth was a big rock.

And it rained. It rained for millions of years on this giant spinning rock, and when it was done, the water eroded the rocks and became what is now reffered to as the primordial soup.

Toss in a few more chemical reactions, and you get single celled organisms. Those became fish, lizards, amphibians, those grew legs and got out onto land, those became monkeys, monkeys became humans. The breakdown? In the beginning from nowhere nothing exploded into everything from nowhere and then rocks became soup through rain, which became people.

I don't think I'm a rock, folks. If I'm wrong, then the powers that be have changed the public view of the evolution theory since I read up on it last. Cool pic of the shark, even if it is mutated reproductive organs. I didn't know sharks had "claspers". Learn something new everyday. I'm surprised in the article the professional didn't recognized them for what they are and went on to talk about fish with legs near Indonesia.

Again, I didn't know that near Indonesia they have fish with legs. That's what I get for living half the world away. Kinda makes me wonder what they have been dumping in the water over there.

If you find a picture of a cat with tentacles, let me know cause that is worth a religious debate over. The Big Bang theory is based on matter and anti-matter reaction that occurred at the beginning of time out of pretty much nothing. Now we know that due to the conservation of energy and conservation of heat laws of physics, this just can't happen with out a LOT of energy.

Nuclear physicists have "created" matter with photons by colliding them together. Sure, it doesn't last very long and it takes really good aim, but they have done it. My personal theory is that God was that original super-energy. Why not, noone else has a better explanation. I also believe God influenced the formation of the celestial bodies. It probably took millions of years because I know I am tired after spending all of my energy to explode everything into existence.

So then He probably influenced the formation of the earth. Then wrote the recipe for DNA and cooked up a batch. A little ammonia, a little lightning, a dash of this, a smidge of that and he got DNA. Then He put it in motion, every once in a while giving it a nudge here, and a coaxing glance there until life is how we know it.

Species develop and then they die off, all while God overlooks it and keeps everything in line. Never really doing anything as spectacular as the Big Bang, but by this time he has it almost automated. Sure our DNA originated from rocks, chemicals, and some electricity. Not that big of a stretch being called earthen vessels. If God did all of that, why couldn't he have given us souls or consciousness Now, I just want to mention that this is all my personal conjecture.

Doesn't mean I think everyone else is wrong. This just makes sense to me. It may seem quite a bit like a fairy tale, but aren't fairy tales based off of real events, or ideas of how real events COULD have happened? Faith can't dictate the boundaries of science. In the same way, Science cannot disprove the validity of faith. Either way, taking an extreme point of view without adding some healthy humor is a dangerous combination.

I figure we will all find out shortly after we die what the true nature of our existence is. Until then, debates are fun as long as we continue to treat each other like human beings, whether created or evolved because either way, we are all equal.

Harfehesaab I enjoyed every bit of Crimson's argument. It allows any body of any faith to find a place and yet be respectful to others. Thanks mate:. Damn you Rick Strom and your webbed creature from beyond. This is obviously a primitive contact attempt by the land walking shark people of Aquatis PS I can't agree with Duncan Trussell's argument that they grow feet to kick ass, everyone knows that they simply sprout a 6 foot ball and chain from their dorsal fin You all know this is pointless-there is no proof of God, and strictly speaking no proof of Darwinism-stop debating the pointless.

Whether or not sharks can grow legs is truly irrelevant-these things exist purely to cause speculation and NO there is no answer especially not from the gods or from evolution.

In particular I would say You all know this is pointless-there is no proof of God, and strictly speaking no proof of Darwinism-stop debating the pointless.

Anyone wants to debate that then please do-I look forward to cutting you down hehe-sorry defensive. This is truly a fallacy-sharks are cartigenous not bony and as such the lies live on-btw-A shark in not a fish and neither is a Ray-nor an eel sharks and rays have no calcium skeleton and an eel has it's organs arranged in a different order Professor Rachel Graves-Southampton oceanographic centre.

To Crimson: I'm perfectly willing to accept that some sort of divine being was at the origin of the big bang, but the story of creation as told in Genesis is ludicrous. It places the Earth is the centre of creation which is just born out of man's ignorance of the rest of the universe.

Not all monkeys evolved into apes and then into humans. Some evolved along different routes and all the changes they acquired made them modern-day monkeys. If the same species evolves along two different routes, eventually they won't be able to mate with each other, they'd be too different, making them separate species. Are you implying that there's nazi ideas in his works?

Races that can survive do so, and those that can't die out. Traits that enable species to survive get passed on, change over time Also, religion does mean going to church, and performing rites.

Belief in a divine being is not religion, it's known as deism. First of all, the big bang did not occur out of nothing. Nothing can come out of nothing. Maybe God did it, maybe he doesn't exist. But there's no evidence for any interference from any supernatural being. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang, all we have are theories.

Then, with the kinds of energy and matter compressed to such a degree, time and space lose all conventional meaning. The Earth didn't materialise out of nowhere.

All matter on earth was once part of stars since the heavier elements were created during stellar fusion. When the earth formed, it wasn't a giant rock. It was an accretion of the remains of dead stars and dust that eventually became large enough to hold a gaseous atmosphere. As the earth cooled, steam taht had been present in the atmosphere condensed. It didn't spontaneously rain, and certainly not continuously over the whole planet for millions of years.

Electrical storms and spontaneous reactions led to the formation of certain molecules. Eventually, purely by chance, some of those molecules were able to make copies of themselves. Slowly, over time, some of the molecules weren't copied correctly, but these new copies could reproduce better, so they spread, and kept changing, and gained in complexity, until you had single celled organisms, and from there it's just a matter of evolution.

The breakdown: The primordial soup refers to a mix of various molecules in the oceans of primitive earth. People are not made of clay as implied in certain texts.

Brian Powell said One of the more intelligent posts! Agnosticism certainly has something going for it By the way, I agree that this shark was either partially butchered, or only partially developed, as it certainly resembles genitalia as found on mature sharks.

Ah damn, I was hoping this was going to be an example of an organism genuinely gaining a new trait through genetic mutation However, the fact that so many were convinced including myself, until someone pointed out the existence of the clasper does highlight one point of evolutionary scientists - pre-existing anatomy can, eventually, become adapted for uses other than the original; ie these claspers may, in time, serve another function, even as far as developing into actual, functional limbs.

After all, they certainly look the part already. Oh well, now that I've said my initial piece on the photo, I'd like to respond to some of the comments posted Keith said When I discovered a moron with 2 legs I still believed in God, why would this be any different?

Grow up. Henry said Mark said If something requires a leap of faith to believe then you are excluded from asserting it is the truth to others. Unfortunately, the people that makes these leaps of faith are unlikely to admit that they are being illogical at all, in fact they probably don't even realise they have erred; hence their vehemence.

Fat Pig Phong said

  Blog Archive

First Prev 2 of 2 Go to page. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1. O4 - HKLM.. Trusted Domains: kuaiche. Trusted Domains: pps. Trusted Domains: ppstream. Trusted Domains: webscache. NET Framework 1. BrowserPlus 2. Windows closed the program Host Process for Windows Services because of this error. User Action 1. Open the file again. This situation might be a temporary problem that corrects itself when the program runs again. If the file still cannot be accessed and - It is on the network, your network administrator should verify that there is not a problem with the network and that the server can be contacted.

If the problem persists, restore the file from a backup copy. Determine whether other files on the same disk can be opened. If not, the disk might be damaged. If it is a hard disk, contact your administrator or computer hardware vendor for further assistance. This session lasted seconds with seconds of active time. This session ended with a crash. This session lasted 7 seconds with 0 seconds of active time. This service might not be installed.

It has done this 1 time s. However, the system is configured to not allow interactive services. This service may not function properly. Oops sorry about double posting O. Click to expand Alrite you are the boss Here are what I got from the logs:. Folder move failed. PendingFileRenameOperations files Registry entries deleted on Reboot Results of screen's Security Check version 0. Adobe Flash Player LAN connected. Google IP is accessible. Yahoo IP is accessible.

The value does not exist. The ServiceDll of sharedaccess service is OK. Unless you have clearly stated otherwise, by submitting material to any of our servers, for example by E-mail or via our F-Secure's CGI E-mail, you agree that the material you make available may be published in the F-Secure World Wide Pages or hard-copy publications. You will reach F-Secure public web site by clicking on underlined links. While doing this, your access will be logged to our private access statistics with your domain name.

This information will not be given to any third party. You agree not to take action against us in relation to material that you submit. Uninstall JavaFX 2. We have one corrupted registry key affecting Windows updates. Following steps involve registry editing. Wilhelm List, et. The German army in Finland in , faced with a separate peace between Finland and the Soviet Union, retreated to deeper defensive positions in Norway.

Believing itself to be pursued by a much larger Soviet army, as part of its retreat, it ordered a complete evacuation and total destruction of an area in Norway approximately the size of Denmark.

See Howard S. During the months of October and November , this order was effectively and ruthlessly carried out … evacuated residents were made to witness the burning of their homes and possessions and the destruction of churches, public buildings, food supplies, barns, livestock, bridges, transport facilities, and natural resources of an area in which they and their families had lived for generations. Relatives and friends were separated, many of the evacuees became ill from cold and disease, hundreds died from exposure or perished at sea in the small boats and fishing smacks used in the evacuation, while still others were summarily shot for refusing to leave their homeland; in all, the thoroughness and brutality of this evacuation left some 61, men, women, and children homeless, starving, and destitute.

Wilhelm List et. Thus, despite the extreme devastation created by the German commanders, the Nuremberg court nonetheless — and indeed in summary fashion — acquitted the German commanders on this charge. The allegation of disproportionate devastation — devastation of civilian property — was introduced tangentially and dismissed pretty much summarily.

It is clear that a charge based on proportionality alone would not have been successful. See supra note 88, See, e. No sooner had Del Ponte spoken than American officials fired back. Posted by KA at AM.

Labels: laws of war. Great post, sir. Not being a lawyer, I was able to gain some perspective on this issue of proportionality in war.

I have given you the highly coveted link, that is, if links from two-bit, self-important, unread bloggers is something you highly covet. Either way, this is good stuff. This is a mystifying post. Your argument amounts to saying: "If a military commander decides that his actions were proportional, then we have to accept them as proportional.

I don't think that's exactly what's being said. I would imagine it works the same way as it does with "good faith" in regards to law enforcement.

The commander would have to be able to articulate how he arrived at his conclusion. I imagine that a commander accused of war crimes couldn't offer as his argument, "There was some military value in killing all those civilians. It seems that there would also have to be some evidence of agreement with the decision between the different commanders in the chain of command.

However, given the above description of myself above, it's highly likely I'm just an idiot and completely wrong. As terrorists don't recognize any law except what they make up, moment to moment, and hide behind women and children so as to maximize civilian casualties when fired upon, the discussion of legal niceties regarding "proportionality" is less than worthless.

The proportionality discussion is pointless in war, since perfect proportionality would always produce a stalemate. I could not agree more with you regarding your comments related to mixing up the ad bellum and in bello concepts.

What really strikes me as surprising is the general failure to cite the precise language of AP I. I can tell you from experience that Judge Advocates here and in other militaries are taught to focus on that language, and the use of the term "excessive. The term excessive seems to suggest a different balance in the jus in bello than that applied to the jus ad bellum.

I am also surprised that the link between this principle and the express prohibition against indiscriminate attacks has not been better explained in some of these commentaries. JAGs are taught a fairly straight forward equation: Indiscriminate attacks are illegal. The fall into two categories: intentionally indiscriminate targeting a non-military objective or employing a method or means that cannot be controlled , and "implicitly" indiscriminate: targeting a lawful military objective with the expectation that the collateral damage or incidental injury will be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

You are dead on target no pun with regard to your comments about differing interpretations of these terms. I have personally studied with IDF lawyers, and I have no doubt they know the law, and are advising compliance. It is these differing perspectives that will no doubt be exposed as underlying the decisions being made.

Consider the absurdity of attaching any significance whatsoever to the ICTY "exonerating" NATO, as if such a tribunal were ever going to do anything else! Stick with moral analysis and stay away from this legalist sophistry, rigged by means of biased tribunals and "experts", using conveniently self-serving interpretations of inherently subjective terms.

The wilful blindness of many western commentators in refusing to acknowledge this self-evident truth is perfectly in line with other routine hypocrisies of western mainstream commentary. Dismissing organisations with the amount of popular legitimacy and degree of complexity of Hezbollah and Hamas as "terrorist". Ignoring Israeli shared responsibility for ongoing violence in the ME consequent upon their policy of ignoring UN resolution and deliberately colonising Palestinian land.

Disregarding the indisputably morally significant fact that, as overwhelmingly the stronger party, Israel bears the primary responsibility for taking the initiative in resolving this dispute in which both sides have been so much at fault. I'm sure we will still be able to enjoy contemplating the legal opinions by which pro-Israeli western lawyers manage to find their preferred policies to be legitimate. Randal: If Israel targeted innocent Lebanese there would be no refugees: they'd all be dead.

Defensive actions by Israel are not "colonizing" and are just; the control of formerly Syrian and Egyptian land was made necessary since the six days war in which united Arab states decided on Jewish Genocide. I note a state for Syrian "Palestinian" refugees could have been immediately had in , , and recently, but the objective is not a "Palestinian" state but eradication of the Jews. The surrounding governments will not combat their own terrorists but instead lend support.

The surrounding governments could easily have absorbed refugees from disputed territory but don't want to affect their "bargaining chip". I note in passing that the confiscation of Jewish property at the end of WWII by the surrounding Arab states could have been used to compensate the refugees from the creation of the state of Israel. I note also a great amount of the land was already owned outright by Jews.

I also suspect, without oil and without western know-how, there would be no "Islam" at all. It cannot survive except at the behest of producing societies which have a dramatically different social structure. Hezbollah and Hamas have Nazi-like charters in which nothing short of Jewish eradication is sufficient. They attempt to maximize innocent casualties, hence they are most definitely morally inferior.

Let's hope Israel stays the course and continues to minimize innocent casualties on the Arab side. They've shown extraordinary restraint considering the continued attacks inside their state from the outside. There is a profound difference. You are absolutely in denial.

Surely America nor Israel is entirely innocent, but the profound difference remains. Hezbollah leaders are issuing declarations from Syria, Iran's leaders are promising support, Iran weapons are being used by Hezbollah and Hamas: there is no "speculation"; it has been confirmed publicly and clearly. It is clear to any honest person possessed of a decent moral insight that First off, thats a dishonest rhetorical fallacy.

An appeal to conformity. That you must resort to such a tactic says much about the rest of your argument. If this is intended as a response to my comment, then it is a misinterpretation. Note that I did not use the phrase "target innocent Lebanese", but rather "attack Lebanese civilians". The former implies specific targeting, whereas the latter includes the situation where Lebanese civilians are collateral damage which the Israelis claim is always the position when they attack civilians.

In any case, your statement is incorrect in itself. That Israel possesses the military power in the form of nuclear weapons to kill all Lebanese but doesn't use it, in no way proves that Israel is not targeting Lebanese civilians on particular occasions. Neither you nor I can know for sure whether Israel targets Lebanese civilians, since we are not privy to the reasoning of the Israeli commanders.

I strongly suspect Israel does have a policy of ensuring that plenty of Lebanese civilians are killed, pursuant to a policy of collective punishment, but I cannot prove it. However, there is plenty of evidence to support such a charge. The above is not to say that Israelis and their leaders are somehow inherently more evil than leaders and citizens of other countries. Merely that they have the temptation and opportunities afforded by power and the kind of belief systems which tend in practice to allow humans to rationalise such acts.

Defensive actions by Israel are not "colonizing" No, colonising actions by Israel are colonising. There was no need or defensive justification for Israel to plant long term colonies on Palestinian lands after the war, and such colonies and the injustices inflicted upon the Palestinians in order to create and support them, have been one of the basic driving forces behind the ongoing conflict.

Whether military control is still defensively necessary is debatable, but at no time has colonisation been necessary or justified from a defensive point of view. This is all about as relevant to the question of military security needs today as pointing to the profound injustice of the original founding of Israel.

Israel should not have been created in the first place, and all subsequent wrongs flow from that fact, in a causative sense. However, much of the response of the Arabs to that wrong was also wrong, and as usual there have been profound injustices on both sides ever since.

There is no side of the saints and no side of the devils in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, merely two sides carrying on a confrontation for decades.

Israel should never have been created, but now that it has existed for 50 years it is impossible to unmake it without even greater injustice. Those who call for its destruction are therefore wrong, but their understandable rhetoric does not in itself justify war. It is merely one more issue to be resolved by negotiation. This is a completely different issue. I doubt you are correct in your assertion. Islam existed for over a thousand years without oil.

We know that revealed truth religion in general is not incompatible with modern society - look at the US and the kind of dispensationalist, intelligent design, and other Christian-based belief systems that flourish there. Understandably so, given the way their people have suffered at the hands of Israel since its creation I do not dispute the crimes their peoples have in turn inflicted on Israel in the same period.

However,the way you deal with such extreme positions is to take away the genuine grievances that inflame the situation, and wait for the extremists to be marginalised. This ensures that the extremists are able to claim their arguments vindicated, and boosts support for them. I find it amusing that American culture at one and the same time loves to declare the importance of standing up for your own rights even in the face of certain defeat "give me liberty or give me death" and also seems to believe that others can and should be compelled by brute force to abandon their own rights.

Of course, Americans rationalise this position through the American exceptionalist claim that, basically, America is always right so its enemies are not standing up for their own rights at all. This is just childish, really. Is that a fact? Please do feel free to itemise the Israeli civilian deaths caused by Hezbollah violence in northern Israel in the last 6 years. This guy had a go and came up with the grand total of 6 since - 1 of whom was killed by a Hezbollah anti-aircraft round fired at Israeli planes intruding on Lebanese airspace, and the other 5 in an operation which as I understand was carried out not by Hezbollah but by Palestinians.

Granted the Palestinians could not have operated from Lebanon without Hezbollah permission, so it's perhaps fair to hold them responsible for it. Please feel free to point out any the author has missed but don't bother bringing up Israeli military casualties - pace our host, military deaths in an ongoing confrontation are not terrorism.

So on what basis do you claim that Hezbollah "attempts to maximise innocent casualties"? To use your own former argument, if they did then Israel would have seen this kind of bombardment before it was triggered by their own attack on Lebanon.

The general media view in the west is that Hezbollah is a "terrorist organisation". But this is simply a falsehood perhaps an anachronism perpetrated by the Israeli and US governments and those who seek to justify their military actions, as the facts I set out above make clear. In fact, certainly since the Israelis substantially pulled out of Lebanon and reduced their activities there to ongoing harassment, Hezbollah has pretty much confined its activities to military skirmishes such as the one which the Olmert government chose to use as a pretext for the current invasion.

At the previous rate of Israeli civilian deaths, it will already be 19 years before Israel "breaks even" on this operation - even if Hezbollah were to be destroyed today and were not replaced by some other organisation willing to stand up to Israel.

Was it really worth the hundreds of Lebanese civilian deaths, the deaths of Israeli and Hezbollah military personnel, and the vast destruction and waste of treasure? There are differences, but they are not as "profound" as Americans and Israelis like self-servingly to proclaim. The most profound difference is that the US and Israel have vastly the greater power, and therefore the responsibility to seek a resolution of the confrontation, or at least not to inflame it which they refuse to do, instead seeking uncompromising unconditional surrender.

I did not say Iran and Syria were not supporting Hezbollah. I don't doubt they are, though the degree of material support is unknown. What they do not do is "control" Hezbollah, which has its own agenda and its own sources of funding again, contrary to the general spin in the mainstream western media. Immediately after the Hezbollah military operation which was used as the pretext for the current Israeli operation, analysis was generally to the effect that Hezbollah had launched a long-predicted operation to sieze prisoners to exchange wiith prisoners held by Israel, and had been caught off balance by the unexpected severity of the Israeli response.

If there was an ulterior motive to the timing of the Hezbollah operation, it was most likely to do with relieving some of the pressure from Hamas in Gaza. Within a couple of days, though, our media were full of political and opinion-leader pieces speculating about Hezbollah having acted on Iranian orders in order, supposedly to distract from pressure on the Iranian nuclear program , or on Syrian orders to assist Syria in getting back into Lebanon.

These latter analyses were pretty much tripe, and that is what I was referring to as one of the "routine hypocrisies" of the western media. She has a soft, pleasant voice, but your voice is rough, you are the wolf. If on the other hand, you need a detailed manual, the instructions are there for you to access. I figure that the commander would have to clearly define his military objective and why he felt it necessary to take the action he did.

Please feel free to point out any the author has missed but don't bother bringing up Israeli military casualties - pace our host, military deaths in an ongoing. I like your blog, it's very good! By the way, do you like spyder down jackets , I think they are very fashionable and chic, especially the spyder ski jackets , I love them so much.

In my spare time, I also like playing tennis rackets , it can keep healthy, what do you like to do? Truely a nice blog and thanks for your great work. By the way, welcome to our websites: nike sports shoes and ghd hair straightners. Every men like sport, then, it is quite important to have a pair of right cheap sports shoes to make you fully enjoy the sports.

We provide puma cat , cheap nike shox , cheap nike max , shox shoes shoes, nike shox r4 shoes, shox shoes , ferrari shoes running shoes which are brand new and in perfect condition but on discount. All of the shoes, including the popular nike tn dollar puma running shoes, cheap nike shoes ,which is the representative shoes of nike mens shoes shoes are authentic and original of top quality.

For people like running and playing basketball and other field sports, nothing would be more suitable than the cheap adidas shoes and nike shox nz basketball shoes. In addition to the shoes mentioned above, you may also be interested in the cheap adidas shoes , puma shoes and, nike running shoes Wholesale and retail are both acceptable to us.

Welcome to our site and free to look!