The reason i know this to be fairly true is i've had friends in my life who actually have been or still are addicted to crystal meth, when they can't get it, they take Ritalin because according to them it has the exact same effects as street crystal meth! Why are kids given these pills?Is it true that Ritalin is basically like crystal methampetamine in a pill form?
it is not like crystal meth in the way you are thinking. ppl who have add/adhd have different brain chemistry than ppl who don't...ritalin calms them down and allows them to focus. same thing with coffee. when ppl who don't have add/adhd take add/adhd meds, their brain reacts differently to it, and it causes them to be even more hyper, like an effect that meth causes.
kids who truly have add/adhd are given these pills b/c they work. they have been approved by the board of medicine (or whatever it's called). ppl keep saying that too many parents are medicating instead of dealing with their behaviour, or that add/adhd isn't real...it is real, and i've seen ppl off their meds and it is not pretty. why would we medicate for other things, such as epilepsy to stop seizures, and not medicate ppl who have add/adhd so they can focus and be attentive, resulting in being able to pay attention in school and get better grades?Is it true that Ritalin is basically like crystal methampetamine in a pill form?
I don't know about crystal meth, but for ritalin, it's been given out like candy to anybody who says their kids move around too much. Many times it's the parent's lack of patience with active children. It's normal to have a child that runs everywhere, talks loud and climbs on things. But people nowadays look for answers in pills instead of using their heads. In many cases they should medicate the parents, not the children. My sister's had to take it (believe me, really had to, not a figment of my parents' imagination like many) and she's in her 30's and still has to take it. Giving a child ritalin should be a decision made on many factors and not just because parents (and teachers) like to get quiet time.
No, but it's close. I don't think that Ritalin is as destructive to the body as crystal meth, but I know people who do it to get high (which I frown upon) and I know people who do crystal meth and sometimes I can't tell them apart. I think that's why it's called the poor man's crack. Don't quote me on this though, I've never touched any of those drugs. Check out the link below, it's all about Ritalin abuse...
And I don't know why kids are given these drugs. Of course most kids can't pay attention in school, they're KIDS for crying out loud. I know some kids do need it, but I think most are given it because mommy and daddy thinks it'll help them do better in school, little do they know they're actually giving their kids a possible life-long drug addiction!
They are both stimulants. So I guess you could ALSO say that 'caffeine is basically meth in coffee-form.' But no, they are not 'the same' in their effects on the brain or behavior or addictive potential. [Assuming that Ritalin is used as prescribed.]
(Addicts who use Ritilin instead of meth use it in MUCH higher doses, and they usually grind it up and inject or snort it.)
It is similar but not the same. For this reason when they diagnosed my son with adhd I choose NOT to give him medication. I am trying different approaches bc I dont want my son to be on it. You said you have friends who do it. Okay so you know long term what a tweaker looks like, right? Now go and look at a 7 year old boy whos been on it for two years and I bet they look way differently. A tweaker tends to pick at thier face or thier face looks sunk in, it affects thier teeth, etc. A child on ritalin normally does loose some weight but does not have any of the other consequences......
Anywho- your friends just take it to help them coming down bc it 'sorta' feels like it but yeah like I said not the same....
I hate all these stupid medications for all these stupid ';disorders';. The moment a kid gets too hyper for the school or parents to know what to do with, they automatically start pumping them full of meds. It sickens me. As for the ';feeling'; that people get when they use it.... I wouldn't know. I've never used Crystal meth nor Ritalin, so I'm not educated on how it makes you feel. lol
By the way, your photo creeps me out. I lived in Wichita, KS when 'he' resurfaced. People were calling into work because they were too scared to leave their houses. It was a CREEPY few months until they finally caught him.
its speed alright
not crystal meth
but people grind it snort it
smoke it
kids are given these pills to addict them
so the fda will have drug dependant adults needing pills to handle their emotions and life stressors
its all a money making bizniz
Well if that is the case then the same can be said about Heroin because I know a few people who took Ritalin as a child and were hooked on Heroin later in life. I think it is because if a child is used to taking drugs then by default as an adult he still needs drugs.
Methylphenidate, not Methamphetamine.
C14 H19 N O2 compared to C10 H15 N
Definitely not the same.
its not the same chemically perhaps it gives them similar side effects like calming them down but its definitely not as strong as Meth lol.
Close, but no cigar. They are both amphetamines, though Ritalin is not addictive when used properly.
Not quite. It's an Amphetamine based drug, but not Meth-amphetamine. Which is why Meth abusers should not take it.
Some people need these pills to focus. Others just do dumb stuff. Not they are not the same.
NO
yep not a good thing for your child!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Why is it the older we get the harder it is to form true friends?
Because as we get older, we realize that true friends aren't just people you hang out with and have a good time with. They're the people who will tell you the truth every time whether you want to hear it or not because they care about you. They stick around when things get bad and help you through bad times.
Most of our friends when we're younger don't live up to that.Why is it the older we get the harder it is to form true friends?
because so many selfish people around, and look after their own needs only, besides having no company is better than bad company...Why is it the older we get the harder it is to form true friends?
There becomes a maturing stage . You need to be aware of your personnal needs and immediate family. They become your real friends ; plus they say there are more women in the world than men , but, you'll never see it in the real world. Safest route in adult life is follow the money and everything else will come.
Because you are better able to see what rats people are :-)
We are more careful of whom we chose as friends from learning of our mistakes of the kind of people we can trust and let into our lives
I think much of it is because, as adults we have adopted the idea of thinking too much. Kids just accept people no matter what. They are lovely little free spirits that don't judge people.
It is hard to form true friends because when people enter your life it is always about motives. It is our duty to decipher what that motive is. If we realize it and are able to nip it in the bud then we can actually find friends who possess the qualites of a real friend. People are very selfish and self-centered and if you find someone who can sacrificial then you have found a real friend. It seems the older we get the more selfish we get and then we are unable to create the bonds we need to create with real people. We have been hurt thru life so much and have hurt other people and then we no longer trust people the way that we should so we never really get a chance to bond as we should as we get older because we feel that people are ';out to get us'; so the speak. But if we stick to figuring out peoples motives then you will be able to create those lasting bonds. And last but not least, treat people the way you want to be treated because in life we all reap what we sow at one time or another. If we want a true friend, be a true friend to someone who needs one.
Most of our friends when we're younger don't live up to that.Why is it the older we get the harder it is to form true friends?
because so many selfish people around, and look after their own needs only, besides having no company is better than bad company...Why is it the older we get the harder it is to form true friends?
There becomes a maturing stage . You need to be aware of your personnal needs and immediate family. They become your real friends ; plus they say there are more women in the world than men , but, you'll never see it in the real world. Safest route in adult life is follow the money and everything else will come.
Because you are better able to see what rats people are :-)
We are more careful of whom we chose as friends from learning of our mistakes of the kind of people we can trust and let into our lives
I think much of it is because, as adults we have adopted the idea of thinking too much. Kids just accept people no matter what. They are lovely little free spirits that don't judge people.
It is hard to form true friends because when people enter your life it is always about motives. It is our duty to decipher what that motive is. If we realize it and are able to nip it in the bud then we can actually find friends who possess the qualites of a real friend. People are very selfish and self-centered and if you find someone who can sacrificial then you have found a real friend. It seems the older we get the more selfish we get and then we are unable to create the bonds we need to create with real people. We have been hurt thru life so much and have hurt other people and then we no longer trust people the way that we should so we never really get a chance to bond as we should as we get older because we feel that people are ';out to get us'; so the speak. But if we stick to figuring out peoples motives then you will be able to create those lasting bonds. And last but not least, treat people the way you want to be treated because in life we all reap what we sow at one time or another. If we want a true friend, be a true friend to someone who needs one.
Is it true that some people think our solar system was formed after a supernova?
I read on a website that it was because of heavy elements that are formed in the sun near the end of its life cycle. But our sun is to young to do this.Is it true that some people think our solar system was formed after a supernova?
Not all stars were born at the same time. The first stars formed after the Big Bang were composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. Life did not exist around these star systems. These (population 3) stars were massive and had short lives. When these stars died by supernova, they produced heavier elements and ejected them into space. As newer stars formed (population 2), they formed not only of hydrogen and helium, but of heavier elements as their nebula passed through the debris of the older stars. In fact, it may have helped cause the nebula to coallesce. The nebula that came to form our Sun (population 1) passed through not only population 3 debris but perhaps also some population 2 debris thus not just composed of hydrogen and helium but also of some of the heavier elements. Without these heavier elements, life would not be possible.
mark- maybe you should print up a religious response that you can put onto all astronomy questions in the same way that you post your carbon copy response to all alien/UFO questions.Is it true that some people think our solar system was formed after a supernova?
You're quite right, but our sun wasn't the supernova. The heavy elements were formed in previous generations of stars.
When massive stars explode as supernovas, they create heavy elements (iron, nickel, and heavier ones) in that explosion and expel those elements out into interstellar space. The clouds of dust and gas (and those heavy elements) start to collapse (often due to the shock waves of that same and other supernova) into the next generation of stars.
Our sun is theorized to be a third-generation star, formed after 2 ';waves'; of supernovas enriched the gas and dust in space with heavier elements.
Its those heavier elements that became the rocks of the planets in our system.
The material in the earth and other planets was formed in the deaths of other stars.
Yes, all the heavier elements like iron, gold, uranium, etc., could only have been produced in the intense temperature and pressure of an ancient supernova(s). Most of the elements in your own body were created that way. As Carl Sagan liked to say, ';We're all made of star stuff.';
God created the Universe people. period.
dont be arrogant to believe.
!!!
All of the elements came from inside dead stars. Everything originated from hydrogen and it takes the tremendous heat inside stars to fuse atoms together to create the other elements.
Yes, some people think that is true. And after lots of study I think that they might be correct.
it was... we have a lot of heavy elements on the earth including Uranium. these could only have been formed in a dying star. we are second maybe third or fourth generation. some of the heavier stars live brief (millions of years) lives.
yes scientist do believe the world started from the big bang
Not all stars were born at the same time. The first stars formed after the Big Bang were composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. Life did not exist around these star systems. These (population 3) stars were massive and had short lives. When these stars died by supernova, they produced heavier elements and ejected them into space. As newer stars formed (population 2), they formed not only of hydrogen and helium, but of heavier elements as their nebula passed through the debris of the older stars. In fact, it may have helped cause the nebula to coallesce. The nebula that came to form our Sun (population 1) passed through not only population 3 debris but perhaps also some population 2 debris thus not just composed of hydrogen and helium but also of some of the heavier elements. Without these heavier elements, life would not be possible.
mark- maybe you should print up a religious response that you can put onto all astronomy questions in the same way that you post your carbon copy response to all alien/UFO questions.Is it true that some people think our solar system was formed after a supernova?
You're quite right, but our sun wasn't the supernova. The heavy elements were formed in previous generations of stars.
When massive stars explode as supernovas, they create heavy elements (iron, nickel, and heavier ones) in that explosion and expel those elements out into interstellar space. The clouds of dust and gas (and those heavy elements) start to collapse (often due to the shock waves of that same and other supernova) into the next generation of stars.
Our sun is theorized to be a third-generation star, formed after 2 ';waves'; of supernovas enriched the gas and dust in space with heavier elements.
Its those heavier elements that became the rocks of the planets in our system.
The material in the earth and other planets was formed in the deaths of other stars.
Yes, all the heavier elements like iron, gold, uranium, etc., could only have been produced in the intense temperature and pressure of an ancient supernova(s). Most of the elements in your own body were created that way. As Carl Sagan liked to say, ';We're all made of star stuff.';
God created the Universe people. period.
dont be arrogant to believe.
!!!
All of the elements came from inside dead stars. Everything originated from hydrogen and it takes the tremendous heat inside stars to fuse atoms together to create the other elements.
Yes, some people think that is true. And after lots of study I think that they might be correct.
it was... we have a lot of heavy elements on the earth including Uranium. these could only have been formed in a dying star. we are second maybe third or fourth generation. some of the heavier stars live brief (millions of years) lives.
yes scientist do believe the world started from the big bang
True or false...? Reaction of an acid with a base usually forms a salt plus water.?
A base is the opposite of an acid. An alkali is a base that will dissolve in water.
In general terms:
Acid + Base = Salt + Water
If the base is a carbonate, then:
Acid + carbonate Base = Salt + Water + Carbon Dioxide
If the base is a reactive metal:
Acid + Reactive Metal = Salt + Hydrogen
Hope this helpsTrue or false...? Reaction of an acid with a base usually forms a salt plus water.?
true
In general terms:
Acid + Base = Salt + Water
If the base is a carbonate, then:
Acid + carbonate Base = Salt + Water + Carbon Dioxide
If the base is a reactive metal:
Acid + Reactive Metal = Salt + Hydrogen
Hope this helpsTrue or false...? Reaction of an acid with a base usually forms a salt plus water.?
true
Please give me Advice for true lucky lotto lottery free services form website?
I want to try my luck if any website is available in web bases please share me I want to try my luckPlease give me Advice for true lucky lotto lottery free services form website?
The Big Lotto
http://www.thebigbiglotto.com/index.php?鈥?/a>
You can buy tickets for any major western lottery onlinecash advance
The Big Lotto
http://www.thebigbiglotto.com/index.php?鈥?/a>
You can buy tickets for any major western lottery online
Hindus: Who is Indra in its true form ?
Is he just an unjust cruel, fighting head of Gods, as shown my Maxmullers %26amp; Co.
Or he has some deeper esoteric personalityHindus: Who is Indra in its true form ?
Indra is also a manifestation of ParaBrahman. He is also the king of the plane of another dimension called ';Swarga'; similar to heaven or Jannat.
In the Veda the name Indra was also used as the name of ParaBrahman called Parmeshwara the supreme God.
Idi Parmeshvarye Dhatu + ran prifix = Indra. So first meaning of Indra is Parmeshwara or God.
He is also a Dikpaala or Lokapala the protector of the directions called ';the east';.
From BrihatSamhita:-
Two arms, Vehicle is ';Eravata the elephant';, weapon is Vajra
From Vishnodharmottara Purana:-
Four arms, Vehicle is ';Eravata the elephant';, weapons and other arm positions are Lotus, Vajra, Ankusha and embracing Shachi(his wife) with his forth arm.
From BrihatSamhita and RoopMandana:-
Four arms, Vehicle is ';Eravata the elephant';, weapons and other arm positions are VardaMudra(giving blessings), Vajra, Ankusha and the vessel of water.
He is really the Vigorous manifestation of ParaBrahman.
Indra is also called YagyaPurush( the main reason of Yagya) of Yagya.
Coz he is the supreme God in the Sakar realm of ParaBrahman.
What is Vajra?
Vajra also called Srika, Hayshir and Trisandhi because it has three knots and thousands blades. It was prepared by Twashta to kill Vrittasura a Brahmin demon or BrahmRakshsas. It was made of the bones of Dadhichi that had later turned as hard as diomond and as solid as iron. That is why diamond is also called ';Vajra';.
Edit:-
Zuko, B'ful answer ! :)Hindus: Who is Indra in its true form ?
Indra - Characteristics
In art, Indra is depicted as a muscular, red man, sometimes with four very long arms.
Indra's weapon, which he used to kill Vritra, with the help of other gods), is the thunderbolt (Vajra), though he also uses a bow, a net and a hook. He rides a large, four-tusked albino elephant called Airavata. When portrayed having four arms, he has lances in two of his hands which resemble elephant goads. When he is shown to have two, he holds the Vajra and a bow (Masson-Oursel and Morin, 326).
Indra lives in Svarga in the clouds around Mt. Meru. Deceased warriors go to his hall after death, where they live without sadness, pain or fear. They watch the Apsaras and the Gandharvas dance, and play games. The gods of the elements, celestial sages, great kings and warriors enrich his court.
Indra - Relations with other gods
He is married to Indrani (whose father, Puloman, Indra killed), and is the father of Arjuna (by Kunti), Jayanta, Midhusa, Nilambara, Rbhus, Rsabha. Indra is also the father of Vali and Surya. He is attended to by the Maruts (and the Vasus), children of Diti and Rudra. Indra had murdered Diti's previous children, so she hoped her son would be more powerful than him and kept herself pregnant for a century, practicing magic to aid her fetal son. When Indra discovered this, he threw a thunderbolt at her and shattered the fetus into 7 or 49 parts; each part regenerated into a complete individual, and the parts grew into the Maruts, a group of storm gods, who are less powerful than Indra.
According to one belief, Indra pulled his father, Dyaus Pita, from the sky by the foot; he fell to his death; afterwards, Indra married his mother Prthivi, who supported the murder.
Zeus of Greece is very similar to Indra.
Indra - Stories about Indra
Indra is not a perfect being, and is ascribed with more human characteristics and vices than any other Vedic deity. Perhaps consequently, he also has the most hymns dedicated to him: 250 (Masson-Oursel and Morin, 326). A well-known story about Indra tells of a sin that he committed and how he was punished for it.
Indra had an affair with Ahalya, wife of Gautama Rishi. He was punished by Gautama with a curse that ten thousand phalluses would protrude of his body in a grotesque and vulgar display, and that his reign as king of gods would meet with disaster and catastrophe. Gautama later commuted the curse, upon the pleading of the gods of Heaven, to ten thousand eyes, instead of phalluses.
Due to this sin Indra's throne remains insecure forever. He is repeatedly humiliated by demonic kings like Ravana of Lanka, whose son Indrajit (whose name means victor over Indra) bound Indra in serpent nooses and dragged him across Lanka in a humiliating display. Ravana released Indra when Brahma convinced him to do so, but Indra, as the defeated, had to pay tribute and accept Ravana's supremacy. Indra realized the consequences of his sin, and was later avenged by the Avatara of Vishnu, Rama, who slew Ravana to deliver the three worlds from evil, as described in the epic Ramayana.
Vritra, an asura, stole all the water in the world and Indra drank much Soma to prepare himself for the battle with the huge serpent. He passed through Vritra's ninety-nine fortresses, slew the monster and brought water back to Earth.
In a later version of the story, Vritra was created by Tvashtri to get revenge for Indra's murder of his son, Trisiras, a pious Brahmin whose increase of power worried Indra. Vritra won the battle and swallowed Indra, but the other gods forced him to vomit Indra out. The battle continued and Indra fled. Vishnu and the rishis brokered a truce, and Indra swore he would not attack Vritra with anything made of metal, wood or stone, nor anything that was dry or wet, or during the day or the night. Indra used the foam from the waves of the ocean to kill him at twilight.
In yet another version, recounted in the Mahabharata, Vritra was a Brahmin who got hold of supernatural powers, went rogue and became a danger to the gods. Indra had to intervene, and slew him after a hard fight. A horrible goddess named Brāhmanahatya (personified sin of brahmin murder) came from the dead corpse of Vritra and pursued Indra, who hid inside a lotus flower. Indra went to Brahma and begged forgiveness for having killed a Brahmin.
';Vajrayudha'; which Indra possessed is believed to be prepared from backbone of a sage Dadhichi to kill Asuras.
Indra is God of lightning, king of Devas and head of Heaven
Personality wise he is golden in color and always drinking somras
Once Saint Gautam cursed him for having sex with his wife Ahalya so that his body is covered with 1000 vaginas and later the vaginas become 1000 eyes
Friend, i should say one thing, this Max mueller and other british scholars are cheaters! They were paid by British government, to show wrong info about, Hinduism!! Indra, is great, he was most worshipped by Vedic people, but many times, they gave wrong ideas about him! Indra and Rudra are similar, so you can't say he is cruel!
Shri Krishna says:
vedanam sama-vedo ’smi
devanam asmi vasavah
indriyanam manas casmi
bhutanam asmi cetana
Translation
Of the Vedas I am the Sama Veda; of the demigods I am Indra, the king of heaven; of the senses I am the mind; and in living beings I am the living force
Krishna himself, says that he is Indra. Then how can he be cruel?, There are some incidents, which shows that indra, used to rape wife's of Rishi's and sage's, but it was a play (leela)! When indra, wouldn't attack or do something wrong, then the creation would not go further,it would fall. Its all a play of, God-head!!
Edit:
Thanks Crimson! Nice answer guys!!
Maxmuller got it all wrong that he realized in his lost days almost on the death bed. Indra is the Lord of the heaven as he controls the heads of all the eight directions of the universe that enables people to reach heavenly abode.
In rig veda, it talk about Indra, But we worship Shiva and Krishna?
What is the connection here?
There is no Existence of Indra, It is all fabricated by man.
Trust you frist, then people - it is equally worship god
Oh, let us forget about old Maxmuller and Co.
You have all good answers, excellent! But I go with Mano, whose answer I really admire.
(No offense, Crimson and all you my dear friends!)
Or he has some deeper esoteric personalityHindus: Who is Indra in its true form ?
Indra is also a manifestation of ParaBrahman. He is also the king of the plane of another dimension called ';Swarga'; similar to heaven or Jannat.
In the Veda the name Indra was also used as the name of ParaBrahman called Parmeshwara the supreme God.
Idi Parmeshvarye Dhatu + ran prifix = Indra. So first meaning of Indra is Parmeshwara or God.
He is also a Dikpaala or Lokapala the protector of the directions called ';the east';.
From BrihatSamhita:-
Two arms, Vehicle is ';Eravata the elephant';, weapon is Vajra
From Vishnodharmottara Purana:-
Four arms, Vehicle is ';Eravata the elephant';, weapons and other arm positions are Lotus, Vajra, Ankusha and embracing Shachi(his wife) with his forth arm.
From BrihatSamhita and RoopMandana:-
Four arms, Vehicle is ';Eravata the elephant';, weapons and other arm positions are VardaMudra(giving blessings), Vajra, Ankusha and the vessel of water.
He is really the Vigorous manifestation of ParaBrahman.
Indra is also called YagyaPurush( the main reason of Yagya) of Yagya.
Coz he is the supreme God in the Sakar realm of ParaBrahman.
What is Vajra?
Vajra also called Srika, Hayshir and Trisandhi because it has three knots and thousands blades. It was prepared by Twashta to kill Vrittasura a Brahmin demon or BrahmRakshsas. It was made of the bones of Dadhichi that had later turned as hard as diomond and as solid as iron. That is why diamond is also called ';Vajra';.
Edit:-
Zuko, B'ful answer ! :)Hindus: Who is Indra in its true form ?
Indra - Characteristics
In art, Indra is depicted as a muscular, red man, sometimes with four very long arms.
Indra's weapon, which he used to kill Vritra, with the help of other gods), is the thunderbolt (Vajra), though he also uses a bow, a net and a hook. He rides a large, four-tusked albino elephant called Airavata. When portrayed having four arms, he has lances in two of his hands which resemble elephant goads. When he is shown to have two, he holds the Vajra and a bow (Masson-Oursel and Morin, 326).
Indra lives in Svarga in the clouds around Mt. Meru. Deceased warriors go to his hall after death, where they live without sadness, pain or fear. They watch the Apsaras and the Gandharvas dance, and play games. The gods of the elements, celestial sages, great kings and warriors enrich his court.
Indra - Relations with other gods
He is married to Indrani (whose father, Puloman, Indra killed), and is the father of Arjuna (by Kunti), Jayanta, Midhusa, Nilambara, Rbhus, Rsabha. Indra is also the father of Vali and Surya. He is attended to by the Maruts (and the Vasus), children of Diti and Rudra. Indra had murdered Diti's previous children, so she hoped her son would be more powerful than him and kept herself pregnant for a century, practicing magic to aid her fetal son. When Indra discovered this, he threw a thunderbolt at her and shattered the fetus into 7 or 49 parts; each part regenerated into a complete individual, and the parts grew into the Maruts, a group of storm gods, who are less powerful than Indra.
According to one belief, Indra pulled his father, Dyaus Pita, from the sky by the foot; he fell to his death; afterwards, Indra married his mother Prthivi, who supported the murder.
Zeus of Greece is very similar to Indra.
Indra - Stories about Indra
Indra is not a perfect being, and is ascribed with more human characteristics and vices than any other Vedic deity. Perhaps consequently, he also has the most hymns dedicated to him: 250 (Masson-Oursel and Morin, 326). A well-known story about Indra tells of a sin that he committed and how he was punished for it.
Indra had an affair with Ahalya, wife of Gautama Rishi. He was punished by Gautama with a curse that ten thousand phalluses would protrude of his body in a grotesque and vulgar display, and that his reign as king of gods would meet with disaster and catastrophe. Gautama later commuted the curse, upon the pleading of the gods of Heaven, to ten thousand eyes, instead of phalluses.
Due to this sin Indra's throne remains insecure forever. He is repeatedly humiliated by demonic kings like Ravana of Lanka, whose son Indrajit (whose name means victor over Indra) bound Indra in serpent nooses and dragged him across Lanka in a humiliating display. Ravana released Indra when Brahma convinced him to do so, but Indra, as the defeated, had to pay tribute and accept Ravana's supremacy. Indra realized the consequences of his sin, and was later avenged by the Avatara of Vishnu, Rama, who slew Ravana to deliver the three worlds from evil, as described in the epic Ramayana.
Vritra, an asura, stole all the water in the world and Indra drank much Soma to prepare himself for the battle with the huge serpent. He passed through Vritra's ninety-nine fortresses, slew the monster and brought water back to Earth.
In a later version of the story, Vritra was created by Tvashtri to get revenge for Indra's murder of his son, Trisiras, a pious Brahmin whose increase of power worried Indra. Vritra won the battle and swallowed Indra, but the other gods forced him to vomit Indra out. The battle continued and Indra fled. Vishnu and the rishis brokered a truce, and Indra swore he would not attack Vritra with anything made of metal, wood or stone, nor anything that was dry or wet, or during the day or the night. Indra used the foam from the waves of the ocean to kill him at twilight.
In yet another version, recounted in the Mahabharata, Vritra was a Brahmin who got hold of supernatural powers, went rogue and became a danger to the gods. Indra had to intervene, and slew him after a hard fight. A horrible goddess named Brāhmanahatya (personified sin of brahmin murder) came from the dead corpse of Vritra and pursued Indra, who hid inside a lotus flower. Indra went to Brahma and begged forgiveness for having killed a Brahmin.
';Vajrayudha'; which Indra possessed is believed to be prepared from backbone of a sage Dadhichi to kill Asuras.
Indra is God of lightning, king of Devas and head of Heaven
Personality wise he is golden in color and always drinking somras
Once Saint Gautam cursed him for having sex with his wife Ahalya so that his body is covered with 1000 vaginas and later the vaginas become 1000 eyes
Friend, i should say one thing, this Max mueller and other british scholars are cheaters! They were paid by British government, to show wrong info about, Hinduism!! Indra, is great, he was most worshipped by Vedic people, but many times, they gave wrong ideas about him! Indra and Rudra are similar, so you can't say he is cruel!
Shri Krishna says:
vedanam sama-vedo ’smi
devanam asmi vasavah
indriyanam manas casmi
bhutanam asmi cetana
Translation
Of the Vedas I am the Sama Veda; of the demigods I am Indra, the king of heaven; of the senses I am the mind; and in living beings I am the living force
Krishna himself, says that he is Indra. Then how can he be cruel?, There are some incidents, which shows that indra, used to rape wife's of Rishi's and sage's, but it was a play (leela)! When indra, wouldn't attack or do something wrong, then the creation would not go further,it would fall. Its all a play of, God-head!!
Edit:
Thanks Crimson! Nice answer guys!!
Maxmuller got it all wrong that he realized in his lost days almost on the death bed. Indra is the Lord of the heaven as he controls the heads of all the eight directions of the universe that enables people to reach heavenly abode.
In rig veda, it talk about Indra, But we worship Shiva and Krishna?
What is the connection here?
There is no Existence of Indra, It is all fabricated by man.
Trust you frist, then people - it is equally worship god
Oh, let us forget about old Maxmuller and Co.
You have all good answers, excellent! But I go with Mano, whose answer I really admire.
(No offense, Crimson and all you my dear friends!)
Online data entry form filling job are this true which is provided by company in paper adds?
we can earn sufficient money frome this data entry are this true or cheating?tell me.Online data entry form filling job are this true which is provided by company in paper adds?
';If a company requires initial payment from you in order to work for them, they are not legitimate.';
There are a few legitimate data entry companies but are not hiring and have large waiting lists (1-2yrs). The majority of data entry jobs you seen online are scams. A real company will want you to have skills inc fast typing, may want you to know MS Excel, and will usually ask that you have high speed internet. Once in a long while you may found one online on a job website but thats rare.
If you do an advanced search on yahoo, you will find previous answers, sometimes the info on these is good as the info they gave is likely to have been verified if the answer was voted as 'Best'.
';If a company requires initial payment from you in order to work for them, they are not legitimate.';
There are a few legitimate data entry companies but are not hiring and have large waiting lists (1-2yrs). The majority of data entry jobs you seen online are scams. A real company will want you to have skills inc fast typing, may want you to know MS Excel, and will usually ask that you have high speed internet. Once in a long while you may found one online on a job website but thats rare.
If you do an advanced search on yahoo, you will find previous answers, sometimes the info on these is good as the info they gave is likely to have been verified if the answer was voted as 'Best'.
Which statement is not true of the zygospore-forming fungi?
a. they are in the phylum Zygomycota
b. Ascospore are found in an ascus
c. Rhizopus is a representative genus
d. a zygospore is formed after fertilizationWhich statement is not true of the zygospore-forming fungi?
b. Ascospore are found in an ascus = This is NOT-TRUE
From = A Botanist
b. Ascospore are found in an ascus
c. Rhizopus is a representative genus
d. a zygospore is formed after fertilizationWhich statement is not true of the zygospore-forming fungi?
b. Ascospore are found in an ascus = This is NOT-TRUE
From = A Botanist
Is it true that humans are only form of life that make love face to face?
No, not really.
Many species ';face'; each other.Is it true that humans are only form of life that make love face to face?
NOT true, above poster! Many animal species have sex for fun. Look at a dog next time it humps your leg and tell me he's not having fun. They simply lack birth control, so it's mere coincidence they have offspring every time.Is it true that humans are only form of life that make love face to face?
dolphins and humans are the only life form that have se* for fun
dolphins make love belly to belly so i don't know if it counts
I don't.
The bonobo, or 'pygmy chimpanzee' makes love face-to-face. They are the most sex-oriented species on the planet, other than humans.
i dont think so. i know that humans are the only animals that make love for pleasure. every other animal makes love just strictly for reproducing
Going to test the theory out now down at the zoo.
No, it's not. But it 's a romantic idea.
Not True, I can Honestly say,I have been with a few good hearted cows in my time. So there Clever Dick!
Has someone else gotten hold of your keyboard as this is bordering on being a sensible question?
I have no idea!
Ahhhh.... I see, someone must have gotten hold of your organ then!?!?
Only humans and hedgehogs!
Except for sea cucumbers.
No, whales and dolphins do, and i think other aquatic mammals as well. This is one reason why some people believe our ancestors went through an aquatic phase.
Oh! So that's what you are supposed to do.............
Whales make love face to face, they have to, to inpregnate.
There is info and a pic, if you're chompin at the bit to see.
Most hermaphrodite creatures tend to';make love'; face to face, yet it's hard to define it as such, seeing as how they don't have traditional intercourse. You almost can't count a dolphin as making love- avg. ejaculation time 12 sec.
They are known to be very horny though, they've been caught dry humping sea turtles- no lie. Check out the factolas!
No....I think dolphins do....don't ask how I know this.
Did you mean
';Are humans the only form of life that makes love in every concievable position, includung face to face?';
There's a few mentioned here that do. Snakes do aswell.
Many species ';face'; each other.Is it true that humans are only form of life that make love face to face?
NOT true, above poster! Many animal species have sex for fun. Look at a dog next time it humps your leg and tell me he's not having fun. They simply lack birth control, so it's mere coincidence they have offspring every time.Is it true that humans are only form of life that make love face to face?
dolphins and humans are the only life form that have se* for fun
dolphins make love belly to belly so i don't know if it counts
I don't.
The bonobo, or 'pygmy chimpanzee' makes love face-to-face. They are the most sex-oriented species on the planet, other than humans.
i dont think so. i know that humans are the only animals that make love for pleasure. every other animal makes love just strictly for reproducing
Going to test the theory out now down at the zoo.
No, it's not. But it 's a romantic idea.
Not True, I can Honestly say,I have been with a few good hearted cows in my time. So there Clever Dick!
Has someone else gotten hold of your keyboard as this is bordering on being a sensible question?
I have no idea!
Ahhhh.... I see, someone must have gotten hold of your organ then!?!?
Only humans and hedgehogs!
Except for sea cucumbers.
No, whales and dolphins do, and i think other aquatic mammals as well. This is one reason why some people believe our ancestors went through an aquatic phase.
Oh! So that's what you are supposed to do.............
Whales make love face to face, they have to, to inpregnate.
There is info and a pic, if you're chompin at the bit to see.
Most hermaphrodite creatures tend to';make love'; face to face, yet it's hard to define it as such, seeing as how they don't have traditional intercourse. You almost can't count a dolphin as making love- avg. ejaculation time 12 sec.
They are known to be very horny though, they've been caught dry humping sea turtles- no lie. Check out the factolas!
No....I think dolphins do....don't ask how I know this.
Did you mean
';Are humans the only form of life that makes love in every concievable position, includung face to face?';
There's a few mentioned here that do. Snakes do aswell.
I have been told that I have cervical cancer and i should stop drinking any form of alcohol. Is this true?
I have been diagnosed with cervical cancer about one year ago and my GY NO told me to stop drinking to help cure the cancer. I am a young women who would like to know what i should do.I have been told that I have cervical cancer and i should stop drinking any form of alcohol. Is this true?
Well, not drinking isnt going to cure the cancer. However, drinking when you have cancer is not recommended, expecially if you are going through treatment. The alcohol can interact with the meds you are on, as well as just add complications as most meds used to treat cancer are pretty harsh on the body already.I have been told that I have cervical cancer and i should stop drinking any form of alcohol. Is this true?
Drinking doesn't cause cancer and not drinking won't cure it. However, alcohol may interfere with your chemotherapy's effectiveness, impair your general health, and otherwise cause undesirable consequences.
If you are in the habit of drinking, then I can understand why you may wish to continue given the emotional stress of your illness. However, you should consider the potential negative effects of alcohol and follow your doctor's advice to avoid it.
Defeating cancer needs to be your number one priority right now . . . so put down the drink.
Don't drink alcohol and listen to the doctor as they told you that for a reason. They went through seven years of training, so they know what they are talking about. Just don't drink it and find other nice drinks. Stay strong and fight it!! GOOD LUCK
Well, not drinking isnt going to cure the cancer. However, drinking when you have cancer is not recommended, expecially if you are going through treatment. The alcohol can interact with the meds you are on, as well as just add complications as most meds used to treat cancer are pretty harsh on the body already.I have been told that I have cervical cancer and i should stop drinking any form of alcohol. Is this true?
Drinking doesn't cause cancer and not drinking won't cure it. However, alcohol may interfere with your chemotherapy's effectiveness, impair your general health, and otherwise cause undesirable consequences.
If you are in the habit of drinking, then I can understand why you may wish to continue given the emotional stress of your illness. However, you should consider the potential negative effects of alcohol and follow your doctor's advice to avoid it.
Defeating cancer needs to be your number one priority right now . . . so put down the drink.
Don't drink alcohol and listen to the doctor as they told you that for a reason. They went through seven years of training, so they know what they are talking about. Just don't drink it and find other nice drinks. Stay strong and fight it!! GOOD LUCK
The ocean floor is as old as it was when the eart frist formed true or false?
Errr....kind of false. The surface is constantly being changed with plate tectonics and what was once ocean is now land and vice/versa. The plates slide over and under and, over the course of about 5 billion years it can't be the same.The ocean floor is as old as it was when the eart frist formed true or false?
FalseThe ocean floor is as old as it was when the eart frist formed true or false?
False. The oceanic crust is very new. It is newer than continental crust. It is being formed right now at spreading centers such as the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is one of the fundamental observations that support the theory of plate tectonics.
TRUE: The ocean floor is incredibly young were the tectonic plates meet and make new earth. New earth is being made all the time there, so TRUE because if you date the same 'earth' it ages, but the same AREA doesn't.
SO, IT NEVER AGED?....TIME DOESN'T EXIST DOWN THERE?......
FALSEcash advance
FalseThe ocean floor is as old as it was when the eart frist formed true or false?
False. The oceanic crust is very new. It is newer than continental crust. It is being formed right now at spreading centers such as the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is one of the fundamental observations that support the theory of plate tectonics.
TRUE: The ocean floor is incredibly young were the tectonic plates meet and make new earth. New earth is being made all the time there, so TRUE because if you date the same 'earth' it ages, but the same AREA doesn't.
SO, IT NEVER AGED?....TIME DOESN'T EXIST DOWN THERE?......
FALSE
Is it true that phospholipids form the core of all biological membranes?
trueIs it true that phospholipids form the core of all biological membranes?
Yes, the phospholipids are contained in every membrane. The phospholipids have two parts a hydrophobic and hydrophilic (water hating and water loving) part. The hydrophilic parts are on the outside of the membrane and the hydrophilic parts make up the inside, much like a wreath. There are some added proteins for various functions, and some cholesterol to maintain fluidity.Is it true that phospholipids form the core of all biological membranes?
Aye, 'tis true.
Yes, the phospholipids are contained in every membrane. The phospholipids have two parts a hydrophobic and hydrophilic (water hating and water loving) part. The hydrophilic parts are on the outside of the membrane and the hydrophilic parts make up the inside, much like a wreath. There are some added proteins for various functions, and some cholesterol to maintain fluidity.Is it true that phospholipids form the core of all biological membranes?
Aye, 'tis true.
Is it true that the silver surfer forms with dr.doom fantastic 4?
the new movie coming in june its the new fantastic 4 i want to know what the relationship with Dr. doom and silver surfer is do they merge or what do they do thats all i want to knowIs it true that the silver surfer forms with dr.doom fantastic 4?
I'm not really sure, but go to http://www.yahoo.com/movies then click on ';Coming Soon'; there you can read a brief summary of the new Fantastic Four.
I'm not really sure, but go to http://www.yahoo.com/movies then click on ';Coming Soon'; there you can read a brief summary of the new Fantastic Four.
Esters generally have a higher boiling point than the carboxylic acids from which they are formed? True/False?
False, the carboxylic acid group is more polar so it has a higher BP
Esters generally have a higher boiling point than the carboxylic acids from which they are formed? True/False?
False, the carboxylic acid group is more polar so it has a higher BP
Is it true that muay thai and the indian form of muay thai, adithada originated in africa?
could you guys help me find techniques of the african version if you find any. could you help me find adithada techniques?Is it true that muay thai and the indian form of muay thai, adithada originated in africa?
No.
Muay thai originated in Thailand, and adithada originated in Southern India, adithada is not the Indian version, it includes grappling and pressure points.
Good luck finding an African version, to my knowledge, there isn't one (I'm sure there are combat systems, but not one like the muay thai sport).Is it true that muay thai and the indian form of muay thai, adithada originated in africa?
Africa has many martial arts ZULU STICK FIGHTING ANGOLAN WRESTLING BANTU KICK FIGHTING no hands all kicks below the waist to name a few.They have some similaritys to other methods but doubt they have any influence as the AFRICAN arts developed by themselves after the great migrations by ancient peoples and primitive man out of africa.
Most cases if not all incidents of one country effecting another countrys martial arts came by way of trade and diplomatic relationships.
OKINAWA for instance in it's early developement was influenced by SIAM now called THAILAND and CHINA In later years 1700s to present time it was influenced strongly by CHINA and later by JAPAN and CHINA.
There are no records of AFRICA having trade missions or diplomatic relations with anyone.
Thailand
No.
Muay thai originated in Thailand, and adithada originated in Southern India, adithada is not the Indian version, it includes grappling and pressure points.
Good luck finding an African version, to my knowledge, there isn't one (I'm sure there are combat systems, but not one like the muay thai sport).Is it true that muay thai and the indian form of muay thai, adithada originated in africa?
Africa has many martial arts ZULU STICK FIGHTING ANGOLAN WRESTLING BANTU KICK FIGHTING no hands all kicks below the waist to name a few.They have some similaritys to other methods but doubt they have any influence as the AFRICAN arts developed by themselves after the great migrations by ancient peoples and primitive man out of africa.
Most cases if not all incidents of one country effecting another countrys martial arts came by way of trade and diplomatic relationships.
OKINAWA for instance in it's early developement was influenced by SIAM now called THAILAND and CHINA In later years 1700s to present time it was influenced strongly by CHINA and later by JAPAN and CHINA.
There are no records of AFRICA having trade missions or diplomatic relations with anyone.
Thailand
Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
i just finished reading ch.87 of the manga
BQ: Do you like candy?Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yachiru-chan~~
^_____^
YESH~
The anime is different, of course!
They generally are. %26gt;.%26gt;
[[ not gonna include spoilers~! %26gt;:O ]]
And the manga is a lot longer, since it's ongoing. The (completed, at 25 eps) anime pretty much follows the general timeline, and just cuts off in the middle of the manga timeline. But there ARE differences. %26gt;.%26gt;
For example:
';The anime has many differences from the manga, and the anime ends in an open ended way, just after Ikki has won in the Devil's 30-30. However, unlike the manga, Ikki does not go through training from Sora.';
-- from wikipedia
O.o';';';';'; Oops, that might have contained a bit of spoilers. Not much tho, hopefully...
BQ: Do you like candy?
xDD YESH~ Of course!
What is Yachiru-chan's favorite kind? =D
baibai~~Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yeah,it's a little different.
And why yes,I do like me some candy.
x]
Heya~!
Well yes, they say so :P
u prefer air gear over bleach T~T
hehe:P
Cya~!
oo ya right .. yes me likes candy ^^
oo wait .. u changed ur avie .. super cute XDcash advance
BQ: Do you like candy?Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yachiru-chan~~
^_____^
YESH~
The anime is different, of course!
They generally are. %26gt;.%26gt;
[[ not gonna include spoilers~! %26gt;:O ]]
And the manga is a lot longer, since it's ongoing. The (completed, at 25 eps) anime pretty much follows the general timeline, and just cuts off in the middle of the manga timeline. But there ARE differences. %26gt;.%26gt;
For example:
';The anime has many differences from the manga, and the anime ends in an open ended way, just after Ikki has won in the Devil's 30-30. However, unlike the manga, Ikki does not go through training from Sora.';
-- from wikipedia
O.o';';';';'; Oops, that might have contained a bit of spoilers. Not much tho, hopefully...
BQ: Do you like candy?
xDD YESH~ Of course!
What is Yachiru-chan's favorite kind? =D
baibai~~Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yeah,it's a little different.
And why yes,I do like me some candy.
x]
Heya~!
Well yes, they say so :P
u prefer air gear over bleach T~T
hehe:P
Cya~!
oo ya right .. yes me likes candy ^^
oo wait .. u changed ur avie .. super cute XD
Is it true that aspirin is the best form of birth control?
I was told that all your lady has to do is hold it between her thighs.Is it true that aspirin is the best form of birth control?
Not in your case the aspirin will end up in your mouth. :)Is it true that aspirin is the best form of birth control?
Well, if you're holding an aspirin in between your legs and you never open them, then yes, it is. I also heard it was a nickel.
This is what doctors told women in the 1950s. Combine that with the term ';baby boomers'; and you have your answer.
... no...
... but thanks for playing!!!!!!!!! : )
That means keep your legs closed and don't have sex.. Abstinence is the best birth control .. YES
No. Picking your nose is.
not brushing your teeth for a few years will do the trick too.
Well the way I heard it is...you must hold it between your knees.
yes
Not in your case the aspirin will end up in your mouth. :)Is it true that aspirin is the best form of birth control?
Well, if you're holding an aspirin in between your legs and you never open them, then yes, it is. I also heard it was a nickel.
This is what doctors told women in the 1950s. Combine that with the term ';baby boomers'; and you have your answer.
... no...
... but thanks for playing!!!!!!!!! : )
That means keep your legs closed and don't have sex.. Abstinence is the best birth control .. YES
No. Picking your nose is.
not brushing your teeth for a few years will do the trick too.
Well the way I heard it is...you must hold it between your knees.
yes
Is it true that the blood form your period stops while underwater?
Absoutlely, 100% not true. Water can help with cramps and other symptoms related to your period, but it does not stop the blood flow. Use a tampon, and happy swimming!Is it true that the blood form your period stops while underwater?
NO, it DOES NOT STOP.
People only think their period stops because the water disperses the menstrual flow quickly, so it only LOOKS like it stops.
But the flow DOES still go into the water, which is why if you are in the water on your period you MUST wear a tampon.Is it true that the blood form your period stops while underwater?
its not that your peroid stops, the uterus reacts to the water. but if you are wearing a tampon the flow usually stays the same.goodluck;)michele
no,it just may seem like it bc the water dilutes it,
though water does ussually stop bleading but that is only if its a skin lesion, but since its so deep inside body so it cant stop it....
Um.... no.
NO! ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!! It will continue in the water! and when you sleep.
i have always found that it does if the water is on the cool side. make sure you just check when you get out.
no it just disspates really fast in other words you cant see it
no, it jsut dilutes it and doesnt really appear, unless you are bleeding heavily.
No...its not true. I just gets dilluted. You dont have to avoid the pool though. Just wear a tampon and change it every hour or so you are at the pool.
No big deal.
no .. because you can still get it in the pool
NO, it DOES NOT STOP.
People only think their period stops because the water disperses the menstrual flow quickly, so it only LOOKS like it stops.
But the flow DOES still go into the water, which is why if you are in the water on your period you MUST wear a tampon.Is it true that the blood form your period stops while underwater?
its not that your peroid stops, the uterus reacts to the water. but if you are wearing a tampon the flow usually stays the same.goodluck;)michele
no,it just may seem like it bc the water dilutes it,
though water does ussually stop bleading but that is only if its a skin lesion, but since its so deep inside body so it cant stop it....
Um.... no.
NO! ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!! It will continue in the water! and when you sleep.
i have always found that it does if the water is on the cool side. make sure you just check when you get out.
no it just disspates really fast in other words you cant see it
no, it jsut dilutes it and doesnt really appear, unless you are bleeding heavily.
No...its not true. I just gets dilluted. You dont have to avoid the pool though. Just wear a tampon and change it every hour or so you are at the pool.
No big deal.
no .. because you can still get it in the pool
Is it true that Christians Conservatives are going to work on forming their own 3rd party?
This is just a rumor I saw floating around on a few conservative and not so conservative message boards.
On the conservative message boards they were blaming McCain for not attacking on moral issues.
On the not so conservative message boards, they were blaming his choice of Palin and saying if went with a moderate he would have won.
What do you think?Is it true that Christians Conservatives are going to work on forming their own 3rd party?
That would be great. It's always easier when you can identify the Taliban.Is it true that Christians Conservatives are going to work on forming their own 3rd party?
The right-wing religious zealots of the Republican Party are a big part of the reason that John McCain lost this election.
They have enough numbers so that the Republicans need them but their views on creationism in the public schools, no right to choose an abortion in the case of even rape or incest, and their reluctance to have the government help anyone in need put them way outside the norms of the general electorate.
So if a Republican running for office doesn't cater to them, they lose. If they do cater to them, they lose.
I suspect that the right-wingers will be shocked to see just how far to the left the Republican party will move over the next two years or so. The party will have to appeal to more groups that are unattainable unless they drop the religious stuff.
It's either that or die! And there aren't enough right-wing religious conservatives to form their own party and win more than a few seats in the House and Senate. They would NEVER win the White House. (Now there's a scarry thought).
God's law does not supercede man's law in the United States and we can only ';pray'; that it stays that way.
Conservative Christians like myself have no one to blame excpet ourselves. We knew John McCain was a moderate but we allowed him to be nominated by not rallying behind a real conservative, but unfortunately we became divided between Romney and Huckabee. I don't see a thrid party forming unless the Republican really starts drifting left.
I think Palin was a mistake. Social conservatives are a minority. To win, a candidate has to reach out to the center, and Palin was feared and hated by the center. So she did well with the social conservative base, but she drove more educated fiscal conservatives into the arms of the Democrats. Lieberman, who McCain really wanted, would have been a much better choice.
well McCain was the moderate. Palin was the hard core conservative. so the big reason he chose Palin was to gain support with those christian conservatives.
Given their rationale on what happened in the election i'd say it isn't going to happen since they don't know anything about what they are complaining about.
oh, without a doubt
there is no question whatsoever...the christian far rights will break off and be the party of the surburban white older folks and anti-intellectuals.
the real republicans will be close to the center and reject the other party...
the republican party will no longer be a single party...they will split to neocons and moderates...even the top conservatives are saying that on both sides..some saying they need to go much further right, and others saying they must now gain the trust and vote of the young and urban voters...
dont expect to see another republican president for at least 16 years, perhaps more.
Well there is actually a group called the christian coalition and it basically already does the things that your thinking of. Why would you attack morals? that's not being an ethical speaker. but his choice of sarah palin deffinitly was not a good one. although it is the opposite of mccain she is not a intelligent speaker and her ideas are very dry and simplistic and plain. I think he lost only because since the economy crisis and the wars that the republicans have been the pres and a majority in the congress seats, so people think if they change the party the change the direction our country is going in.
Going to take too much money to make a real go at it against the existing 2 parties. There are plenty of 3rd parties that end up endorsing major party candidates. Unless they're running their own candidates, they'll never get anywhere. Don't look for it to happen quickly. They're just not that patient.
I disagree with the Palin argument, but would definately support a third party.....and a fourth and a fifth. There are too many differences in core values out there to be satisfied and adequately represented by the two existing parties. Parties have come and gone throughout our history. They were formed in response to the issues of the time in which they existed. It is time again.
I think it would be a good idea. The Republican party cant afford to keep associating themselves with the right wing christian conservatives. They will not be able to win another election if they do that. It is obvious that the majority of people are more to center.
Liberals hate Palin. Watch, I guarantee you they won't stop attacking her. There's a reason for that. She is a true conservative.
As for a 3rd party, no. Conservatives need to take control of the Republican party back from these so-called moderates.
I think that we have never seen the hell that we will in the next few years.
By the time Hussein is finished the Christians will be driven underground like rats.
What he doesn't know is that every time evil has tried to do this, it has always backfired.
Christians (and I am one) cannot bring themselves to agree on hardly ANYTHING enough for something like that to be successful, hence the numerous denominations. Besides that, Jesus is King of Kings, and you do not vote for a King.
I think that would be a great idea, they will stop voting republican and all be grouped up together... it would be great for us Democrats I say go for Yest proved to me that their aren't as many ideological nuts as I thought their were in this country
I'm a fiscal conservative and I'd rather get the neocons out of the GOP and keep the moral conservatives. At least they don't pretend to be something they aren't.
Republicans with their divisive politics ended up dividing their own party. Palin and Bush can't be the best ambassadors for Christians in this country.
When have religious conservatives and not so religious conservatives ever agreed on anything? The rumor you are seeing is probably a...Rumor!
If they're not, they should be. Rush said today that Conservatives didn't lose the election; they weren't even on the ballot!
I hope that they do. That will hopefully destroy that part of the Republican Party that has no business in politics.
Their will be talk but most reasonable people know the Republican party has no chance if it splits.
Ewww...I hope not.
The last thing we need is a bunch of Jesus freaks making decisions based on how they interpret the bible.
They don't need to, they already have one, its called The Republican party.
don't they already have the so called 'moral majority' ? where is ole jerry falwell these days ?
The pity-party
They won't win anything and will disband as fast as they form.
Doubtful. The numbers aren't there.
probaby.
probably.
They should.. So they can lose again, maybe they will ';get it'; the next time around.........
I bet the majority of Republicans would love for them to leave.
No Christians need to get on their knees more and convert more sinners
On the conservative message boards they were blaming McCain for not attacking on moral issues.
On the not so conservative message boards, they were blaming his choice of Palin and saying if went with a moderate he would have won.
What do you think?Is it true that Christians Conservatives are going to work on forming their own 3rd party?
That would be great. It's always easier when you can identify the Taliban.Is it true that Christians Conservatives are going to work on forming their own 3rd party?
The right-wing religious zealots of the Republican Party are a big part of the reason that John McCain lost this election.
They have enough numbers so that the Republicans need them but their views on creationism in the public schools, no right to choose an abortion in the case of even rape or incest, and their reluctance to have the government help anyone in need put them way outside the norms of the general electorate.
So if a Republican running for office doesn't cater to them, they lose. If they do cater to them, they lose.
I suspect that the right-wingers will be shocked to see just how far to the left the Republican party will move over the next two years or so. The party will have to appeal to more groups that are unattainable unless they drop the religious stuff.
It's either that or die! And there aren't enough right-wing religious conservatives to form their own party and win more than a few seats in the House and Senate. They would NEVER win the White House. (Now there's a scarry thought).
God's law does not supercede man's law in the United States and we can only ';pray'; that it stays that way.
Conservative Christians like myself have no one to blame excpet ourselves. We knew John McCain was a moderate but we allowed him to be nominated by not rallying behind a real conservative, but unfortunately we became divided between Romney and Huckabee. I don't see a thrid party forming unless the Republican really starts drifting left.
I think Palin was a mistake. Social conservatives are a minority. To win, a candidate has to reach out to the center, and Palin was feared and hated by the center. So she did well with the social conservative base, but she drove more educated fiscal conservatives into the arms of the Democrats. Lieberman, who McCain really wanted, would have been a much better choice.
well McCain was the moderate. Palin was the hard core conservative. so the big reason he chose Palin was to gain support with those christian conservatives.
Given their rationale on what happened in the election i'd say it isn't going to happen since they don't know anything about what they are complaining about.
oh, without a doubt
there is no question whatsoever...the christian far rights will break off and be the party of the surburban white older folks and anti-intellectuals.
the real republicans will be close to the center and reject the other party...
the republican party will no longer be a single party...they will split to neocons and moderates...even the top conservatives are saying that on both sides..some saying they need to go much further right, and others saying they must now gain the trust and vote of the young and urban voters...
dont expect to see another republican president for at least 16 years, perhaps more.
Well there is actually a group called the christian coalition and it basically already does the things that your thinking of. Why would you attack morals? that's not being an ethical speaker. but his choice of sarah palin deffinitly was not a good one. although it is the opposite of mccain she is not a intelligent speaker and her ideas are very dry and simplistic and plain. I think he lost only because since the economy crisis and the wars that the republicans have been the pres and a majority in the congress seats, so people think if they change the party the change the direction our country is going in.
Going to take too much money to make a real go at it against the existing 2 parties. There are plenty of 3rd parties that end up endorsing major party candidates. Unless they're running their own candidates, they'll never get anywhere. Don't look for it to happen quickly. They're just not that patient.
I disagree with the Palin argument, but would definately support a third party.....and a fourth and a fifth. There are too many differences in core values out there to be satisfied and adequately represented by the two existing parties. Parties have come and gone throughout our history. They were formed in response to the issues of the time in which they existed. It is time again.
I think it would be a good idea. The Republican party cant afford to keep associating themselves with the right wing christian conservatives. They will not be able to win another election if they do that. It is obvious that the majority of people are more to center.
Liberals hate Palin. Watch, I guarantee you they won't stop attacking her. There's a reason for that. She is a true conservative.
As for a 3rd party, no. Conservatives need to take control of the Republican party back from these so-called moderates.
I think that we have never seen the hell that we will in the next few years.
By the time Hussein is finished the Christians will be driven underground like rats.
What he doesn't know is that every time evil has tried to do this, it has always backfired.
Christians (and I am one) cannot bring themselves to agree on hardly ANYTHING enough for something like that to be successful, hence the numerous denominations. Besides that, Jesus is King of Kings, and you do not vote for a King.
I think that would be a great idea, they will stop voting republican and all be grouped up together... it would be great for us Democrats I say go for Yest proved to me that their aren't as many ideological nuts as I thought their were in this country
I'm a fiscal conservative and I'd rather get the neocons out of the GOP and keep the moral conservatives. At least they don't pretend to be something they aren't.
Republicans with their divisive politics ended up dividing their own party. Palin and Bush can't be the best ambassadors for Christians in this country.
When have religious conservatives and not so religious conservatives ever agreed on anything? The rumor you are seeing is probably a...Rumor!
If they're not, they should be. Rush said today that Conservatives didn't lose the election; they weren't even on the ballot!
I hope that they do. That will hopefully destroy that part of the Republican Party that has no business in politics.
Their will be talk but most reasonable people know the Republican party has no chance if it splits.
Ewww...I hope not.
The last thing we need is a bunch of Jesus freaks making decisions based on how they interpret the bible.
They don't need to, they already have one, its called The Republican party.
don't they already have the so called 'moral majority' ? where is ole jerry falwell these days ?
The pity-party
They won't win anything and will disband as fast as they form.
Doubtful. The numbers aren't there.
probaby.
probably.
They should.. So they can lose again, maybe they will ';get it'; the next time around.........
I bet the majority of Republicans would love for them to leave.
No Christians need to get on their knees more and convert more sinners
Is it true that distributaries form in all deltas because the deposited material blocks the river channel...?
...and the river has to split to go around it???Is it true that distributaries form in all deltas because the deposited material blocks the river channel...?
A distributary, or a distributary channel, is a stream that branches off and flows away from a main stream channel. They are a common feature of river deltas. The phenomenon is known as river bifurcation. The opposite of a distributary is a tributary. Distributaries usually occur as a stream nears a lake or the ocean, but they can occur inland as well, such as in an endorheic basin, or when a tributary stream bifurcates as it nears its confluence with a larger stream. In some cases, a minor distributary can ';steal'; so much water from the main channel that it can become the main route.Is it true that distributaries form in all deltas because the deposited material blocks the river channel...?
Damn, I'm calling my cable company. I don't even get the River Channel!
A distributary, or a distributary channel, is a stream that branches off and flows away from a main stream channel. They are a common feature of river deltas. The phenomenon is known as river bifurcation. The opposite of a distributary is a tributary. Distributaries usually occur as a stream nears a lake or the ocean, but they can occur inland as well, such as in an endorheic basin, or when a tributary stream bifurcates as it nears its confluence with a larger stream. In some cases, a minor distributary can ';steal'; so much water from the main channel that it can become the main route.Is it true that distributaries form in all deltas because the deposited material blocks the river channel...?
Damn, I'm calling my cable company. I don't even get the River Channel!
Is it true that the lemons are the best form of birth control?
I read somewhere that if you squeeze lemon inside your partner before sex, it will kill all the sperm and she won't get pregnant.Is it true that the lemons are the best form of birth control?
That is NOT a good idea. Not only do you risk pregnancy, but also all manner of STDs.
Use a condom. If you and your partner are exclusive and committed and don't want to use condoms, she should go on the pill.Is it true that the lemons are the best form of birth control?
people like you need to just not have sex, but then your dumb enough that you'll probibly just mess it up anyway.
ive been wondering if it was accualy possible to mess up a wet dream, I figure if anyone could do it, it would be you. how dose that work?
That is not true, i suppose the acid in the lemon juice might kill the sperm, but the chances of it happening are slim, i also wouldn't like someone putting lemon juice inside my vagina lol!
Use a condom or birth control.
No that's not true. Abstinence is. Don't do something stupid- use condoms and spermicide if you are going to have sex, NOT lemons.
Haha try it i dare you see how many girls you get pregnant and how many STD's you get :D
%26lt;3cash advance
That is NOT a good idea. Not only do you risk pregnancy, but also all manner of STDs.
Use a condom. If you and your partner are exclusive and committed and don't want to use condoms, she should go on the pill.Is it true that the lemons are the best form of birth control?
people like you need to just not have sex, but then your dumb enough that you'll probibly just mess it up anyway.
ive been wondering if it was accualy possible to mess up a wet dream, I figure if anyone could do it, it would be you. how dose that work?
That is not true, i suppose the acid in the lemon juice might kill the sperm, but the chances of it happening are slim, i also wouldn't like someone putting lemon juice inside my vagina lol!
Use a condom or birth control.
No that's not true. Abstinence is. Don't do something stupid- use condoms and spermicide if you are going to have sex, NOT lemons.
Haha try it i dare you see how many girls you get pregnant and how many STD's you get :D
%26lt;3
Is it true that women find stubble the sexiest form of facial hair?
*NOTE* I'm not talking about which one is better for kissing when you are in a relationship, but rather only from looks perspective.
Telegraph says it is true. that women find men with stubble best for short and long term relationships. Is that true, or you rather have clean shave? Obviously we're talking about average guys here. Anything looks good on David Beckham.Is it true that women find stubble the sexiest form of facial hair?
It's interesting to hear these responses because I love to see a bit of stubble on a guy. Clean shaven looks odd, but of course it does depend on the type of stubble you grow. If you're too young or too old and scraggly/gray, it might not be the best idea. But twenties, maybe thirties? Go for the stubble, in my opinion! It evens out the face to me, makes them look stronger and manlier, you know? I think women like to see differences between themselves and their man so that they can feel more feminine, like how girls like tall guys, how girls like to be thinner than their guy, less muscular, etc. Girls can't grow facial hair (usually...), so the difference becomes sexy. I would extend that comparison to lots of male features, but NOT body odor. Stay clean! :)Is it true that women find stubble the sexiest form of facial hair?
Clean shaven!
No. Facial hair in any form=gross.
i dont like ANY facial hair....Lolzzzz
no i like a chin strap
Telegraph says it is true. that women find men with stubble best for short and long term relationships. Is that true, or you rather have clean shave? Obviously we're talking about average guys here. Anything looks good on David Beckham.Is it true that women find stubble the sexiest form of facial hair?
It's interesting to hear these responses because I love to see a bit of stubble on a guy. Clean shaven looks odd, but of course it does depend on the type of stubble you grow. If you're too young or too old and scraggly/gray, it might not be the best idea. But twenties, maybe thirties? Go for the stubble, in my opinion! It evens out the face to me, makes them look stronger and manlier, you know? I think women like to see differences between themselves and their man so that they can feel more feminine, like how girls like tall guys, how girls like to be thinner than their guy, less muscular, etc. Girls can't grow facial hair (usually...), so the difference becomes sexy. I would extend that comparison to lots of male features, but NOT body odor. Stay clean! :)Is it true that women find stubble the sexiest form of facial hair?
Clean shaven!
No. Facial hair in any form=gross.
i dont like ANY facial hair....Lolzzzz
no i like a chin strap
A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
We live in a society today where a seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality that can cost you your life.A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
True, people screw everything up, and get pissed at others for no reason. Parents are the worse. Yes, especially when it comes to their children. They see the bad in everything, even a simple conversation started by the child.A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
Don't know what you are asking,but if a kid accuses you of anything,you bet you got legal problems even if the accusations are false-you're guilty until proven innocent and then you are still guilty.
You would have to be more specific to answer this question. Taken out of context, the statement could be interpretated several ways.
Looks like you learned some words today huh?? Good job!
True, people screw everything up, and get pissed at others for no reason. Parents are the worse. Yes, especially when it comes to their children. They see the bad in everything, even a simple conversation started by the child.A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
Don't know what you are asking,but if a kid accuses you of anything,you bet you got legal problems even if the accusations are false-you're guilty until proven innocent and then you are still guilty.
You would have to be more specific to answer this question. Taken out of context, the statement could be interpretated several ways.
Looks like you learned some words today huh?? Good job!
A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
We live in a society today where a seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality that can cost you your life.A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
True, people screw everything up, and get pissed at others for no reason. Parents are the worse. Yes, especially when it comes to their children. They see the bad in everything, even a simple conversation started by the child.A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
Well, you're definitely gonna need to provide more information. Care to get more specific, or do you just want people to respond to your hypotheticals?
stop touching little children
...what?
True, people screw everything up, and get pissed at others for no reason. Parents are the worse. Yes, especially when it comes to their children. They see the bad in everything, even a simple conversation started by the child.A seemingly innocent confrontation with a child dictates a unwarranted form of legality. Think it is true?
Well, you're definitely gonna need to provide more information. Care to get more specific, or do you just want people to respond to your hypotheticals?
stop touching little children
...what?
Is it true that the kiss comic book is made form the blood of the band members?
I hared this on the internet but is it true?Is it true that the kiss comic book is made form the blood of the band members?
Yes, of course. You didn't know?Is it true that the kiss comic book is made form the blood of the band members?
Actually, it is true. The first run of the comic book had the band members blood mixed in with the red ink for the illustrations. It was documented by a public notary, and signed by all the members. If you search around a bit, you'll find more info.
They mixed a ';small'; amount of the band members' blood into the ink used to print the comic book. Not a big deal, really, but it was a huge marketing ploy when I bought the book in the 1970's.
That's been a preview clip for the TV show Myths and Legends for a week now. The show aired last night...I didn't watch it, but from what I've seen of that show it seems 'most everything they air on it is myth (no truth to it).
if it is a comic book, then how could it be made from blood? books of any type are solids, and blood is a liquid...so no, that is not true...
Think about it. Of all the comic books out there that will require a lot of blood. So much blood that they would be drained of their life.
No its not true
You heard it on the internet. I think that answers your question.
Yes, of course. You didn't know?Is it true that the kiss comic book is made form the blood of the band members?
Actually, it is true. The first run of the comic book had the band members blood mixed in with the red ink for the illustrations. It was documented by a public notary, and signed by all the members. If you search around a bit, you'll find more info.
Report Abuse
They mixed a ';small'; amount of the band members' blood into the ink used to print the comic book. Not a big deal, really, but it was a huge marketing ploy when I bought the book in the 1970's.
Report Abuse
That's been a preview clip for the TV show Myths and Legends for a week now. The show aired last night...I didn't watch it, but from what I've seen of that show it seems 'most everything they air on it is myth (no truth to it).
if it is a comic book, then how could it be made from blood? books of any type are solids, and blood is a liquid...so no, that is not true...
Think about it. Of all the comic books out there that will require a lot of blood. So much blood that they would be drained of their life.
No its not true
You heard it on the internet. I think that answers your question.
Is it true that Israelis 'ethnically cleansed' Palestinian land to form their state ?
Someone mentioned it in another answer but I find that hard to believe.Is it true that Israelis 'ethnically cleansed' Palestinian land to form their state ?
Depends on your point of view.
But you could argue that SOME Israeli's did with the massacres of Palestinian civilians after the invasion of Israel by surrounding nations after it was formed.Is it true that Israelis 'ethnically cleansed' Palestinian land to form their state ?
Uh, no. Even revisionist historians find that a hard claim to back.
You see, in 1920 when the Ottoman empire collapsed the British received the mandate of what was then known as Palestine, under condition that they help form a Jewish state.
At the time, the Jews and Arabs were living there more or less peacefully.
During WWII antisemitism flared and it became cool to hate the Jews.
The British therefore provided the Arabs with weapons to fight the Jews.
The Jews found themselves fight a war on two fronts against the Arabs who wanted to exterminate them, and the British who were supporting the Arabs.
Eventually, the UN approved a Jewish state to be formed, and the British had to leave.
There was a major war in 1948 as soon as the British left and the Jews declared an independent state (with international backing).
Then it was a fight against all the surrounding Arab countries.
In conclusion, I would say that not only did the Israelis not try to ethnically cleanse Palestine, but the Arabs DID try (and still are) to ethnically cleanse Israel of the Jews.
No, the people who sanctioned the land of Israel was the British Empire. The Arab inhabitants were not forced to leave their homes- in fact, the Arabs (now Palestinians) who fled to Gaza and the West Bank did so of their own accord. Instead of fighting off the invading Arab armies, as they were encouraged to do as Israeli citizens, they fled on the promise that the Jews would be cleansed and they could return to a Muslim state. Long story short, the Jews won, thus leading to Hamas, Hisbala, etc.
Gaza was originally meant to be a refugee camp for fleeing residents, preferring to live in a shanty area rather than their homes, which the invading Arab countries had threatened to bomb if they fought with the Israelis. Thanks to Israeli efforts, this refugee shanty now has electricity, running water, and buildings. Unfortunately, there's not much to be said about their future (or their government, for that matter). These Palestinians have nowhere to go. It would be foolish and irrational to let a million hatred bearing people (don't kid yourself) into civilian areas. That would be a bloodbath.
No Muslims or the Palestinian state don't want anything to do with anyone that does not believe the way they do. Think of india in the days of Gandhi. That is how Pakistan was formed the best thing that happened to india was divided by religion by the most peace full person that was around. To bad but they in the middle east think they have a right to certain land.If they do or don't they will fight about it till the end of time.
Not really no.
Israel was created after the second world war as a ';home for the Jews';. Since that time Israel has illegally occupied parts of the West Bank and Gaza, and has tried to force Palestinians out of these places, and other boarder areas. However, you can't really call it ethnic cleansing, because they're not trying to kill everyone who's from Palestine, just trying to steal their land...
From all that I've read, in 1948 the U N gave the land to the Jews...partly because it was their Holy Land and partly because of the guilt everyone felt over the Holocaust. When more Jews began to arrive in Israel, the Palestinians began to leave. Many lost their homes and businesses and became nomads, or ending up in ';tent cities'; in countries that didn't want them. I don't think they left voluntarily!
Its using a fairly new term. Basically the answer is yes, but others, notably Britain, did it for them. The Isrealis just stuck to terrorism. Its almost funny how they condemn such tactics now, when their first President boasted about killing British soldiers. As Clinton almost said ';its world capitalism, stupid';xx
No, it's not true. Much of the land in Israel was purchased. When the Arab-Israeli war started, most of the Palestinian population fled in the belief that the Arab armies would quickly destroy the new state.
NO Lord Balfour along with the americans and the UN decided that the Jews can have the lands of Palistine. The settlers have been looking for Zion for centuries and basically the UN said oh well look have this land :
|It was done, just not by Israelis.
The ones who kicked them out were America, Britain, France, China, and the former Soviet Union (now Russia).
The Israelis weren't consulted anymore than the Palestinians were.
Basically. They were there first but the settlers came and kicked them off their land and made a state.
no, in fact there are millions of Palestines still living in Isreal, many in positions of power.
No it's not true. However, I bet you could find out the truth about the birth of Israel with just a few short clicks on goggle.
according to msnbc...
Depends on your point of view.
But you could argue that SOME Israeli's did with the massacres of Palestinian civilians after the invasion of Israel by surrounding nations after it was formed.Is it true that Israelis 'ethnically cleansed' Palestinian land to form their state ?
Uh, no. Even revisionist historians find that a hard claim to back.
You see, in 1920 when the Ottoman empire collapsed the British received the mandate of what was then known as Palestine, under condition that they help form a Jewish state.
At the time, the Jews and Arabs were living there more or less peacefully.
During WWII antisemitism flared and it became cool to hate the Jews.
The British therefore provided the Arabs with weapons to fight the Jews.
The Jews found themselves fight a war on two fronts against the Arabs who wanted to exterminate them, and the British who were supporting the Arabs.
Eventually, the UN approved a Jewish state to be formed, and the British had to leave.
There was a major war in 1948 as soon as the British left and the Jews declared an independent state (with international backing).
Then it was a fight against all the surrounding Arab countries.
In conclusion, I would say that not only did the Israelis not try to ethnically cleanse Palestine, but the Arabs DID try (and still are) to ethnically cleanse Israel of the Jews.
No, the people who sanctioned the land of Israel was the British Empire. The Arab inhabitants were not forced to leave their homes- in fact, the Arabs (now Palestinians) who fled to Gaza and the West Bank did so of their own accord. Instead of fighting off the invading Arab armies, as they were encouraged to do as Israeli citizens, they fled on the promise that the Jews would be cleansed and they could return to a Muslim state. Long story short, the Jews won, thus leading to Hamas, Hisbala, etc.
Gaza was originally meant to be a refugee camp for fleeing residents, preferring to live in a shanty area rather than their homes, which the invading Arab countries had threatened to bomb if they fought with the Israelis. Thanks to Israeli efforts, this refugee shanty now has electricity, running water, and buildings. Unfortunately, there's not much to be said about their future (or their government, for that matter). These Palestinians have nowhere to go. It would be foolish and irrational to let a million hatred bearing people (don't kid yourself) into civilian areas. That would be a bloodbath.
No Muslims or the Palestinian state don't want anything to do with anyone that does not believe the way they do. Think of india in the days of Gandhi. That is how Pakistan was formed the best thing that happened to india was divided by religion by the most peace full person that was around. To bad but they in the middle east think they have a right to certain land.If they do or don't they will fight about it till the end of time.
Not really no.
Israel was created after the second world war as a ';home for the Jews';. Since that time Israel has illegally occupied parts of the West Bank and Gaza, and has tried to force Palestinians out of these places, and other boarder areas. However, you can't really call it ethnic cleansing, because they're not trying to kill everyone who's from Palestine, just trying to steal their land...
From all that I've read, in 1948 the U N gave the land to the Jews...partly because it was their Holy Land and partly because of the guilt everyone felt over the Holocaust. When more Jews began to arrive in Israel, the Palestinians began to leave. Many lost their homes and businesses and became nomads, or ending up in ';tent cities'; in countries that didn't want them. I don't think they left voluntarily!
Its using a fairly new term. Basically the answer is yes, but others, notably Britain, did it for them. The Isrealis just stuck to terrorism. Its almost funny how they condemn such tactics now, when their first President boasted about killing British soldiers. As Clinton almost said ';its world capitalism, stupid';xx
No, it's not true. Much of the land in Israel was purchased. When the Arab-Israeli war started, most of the Palestinian population fled in the belief that the Arab armies would quickly destroy the new state.
NO Lord Balfour along with the americans and the UN decided that the Jews can have the lands of Palistine. The settlers have been looking for Zion for centuries and basically the UN said oh well look have this land :
|It was done, just not by Israelis.
The ones who kicked them out were America, Britain, France, China, and the former Soviet Union (now Russia).
The Israelis weren't consulted anymore than the Palestinians were.
Basically. They were there first but the settlers came and kicked them off their land and made a state.
no, in fact there are millions of Palestines still living in Isreal, many in positions of power.
No it's not true. However, I bet you could find out the truth about the birth of Israel with just a few short clicks on goggle.
according to msnbc...
Is it true Gordon Brown plans to outlaw all forms of fun when he becomes Prime Minister ?
Certainly not! He intends to increase the fun.
Great fun to -
* tax us on the amount of rubbish that we put out for the bin man (has he not heard that we already pay for it in out council tax)
*to rob us of our gardens
*to spy on how many rooms our homes have
*pinch more of our pension funds
*use our green areas for more housing
*encourage immigration
*use our police force as the 'thought police' whilst ignoring calls from members of the public for help against robbers etc
Ohh I could bore you for hours. No wonder he is becoming Jolly Gordon of No10Is it true Gordon Brown plans to outlaw all forms of fun when he becomes Prime Minister ?
Excuse me but who the hell is Gordon Brown and what sort of fun do you think he wants to ban? Never heard of him Downunder!Is it true Gordon Brown plans to outlaw all forms of fun when he becomes Prime Minister ?
not outlaw just tax them, like the new green tax, he has even proposed council tax be raised for those witha larger garden and houses with a nice view, the son of a ***** plans on taxing our views, i am going to get off my backside and vote this time and it will be labour outcash advance
Great fun to -
* tax us on the amount of rubbish that we put out for the bin man (has he not heard that we already pay for it in out council tax)
*to rob us of our gardens
*to spy on how many rooms our homes have
*pinch more of our pension funds
*use our green areas for more housing
*encourage immigration
*use our police force as the 'thought police' whilst ignoring calls from members of the public for help against robbers etc
Ohh I could bore you for hours. No wonder he is becoming Jolly Gordon of No10Is it true Gordon Brown plans to outlaw all forms of fun when he becomes Prime Minister ?
Excuse me but who the hell is Gordon Brown and what sort of fun do you think he wants to ban? Never heard of him Downunder!Is it true Gordon Brown plans to outlaw all forms of fun when he becomes Prime Minister ?
not outlaw just tax them, like the new green tax, he has even proposed council tax be raised for those witha larger garden and houses with a nice view, the son of a ***** plans on taxing our views, i am going to get off my backside and vote this time and it will be labour out
Is it true that a form of battery was being used around 4000 years ago?
By the mesapatamiens. Apparently by using a metal rod %26amp; vinegar, or something like that. is this true.Is it true that a form of battery was being used around 4000 years ago?
WE BELIEVE it may be a battery.
http://www.kundalini.se/eng/battery.jpg
I'm of the yes it was believers. Others are not so sure. It could have been used for alot of purposes, such as gold leafing, soldering, or any number of things. There's the Baghdad Battery, the Parthian Battery, even an ancient spark plug, highly corroded was once found.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/im鈥?/a>
Pictures
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/im鈥?/a>
Rods of RA at Abydos
http://www.rodsofra.com/faq.htm
http://www.rodsofra.com/images/abydos1.j鈥?/a>Is it true that a form of battery was being used around 4000 years ago?
'Raiders of the lost ark'
Yeah its called a lemon
yeah
if so, what did they use it for?
No, the fact that the component parts was found in the same general area is true.
But whether they used it for a battery is doubtful, what would they use a battery for?
No bulbs for light,
No electric motors,
No nothing!
';The earliest known artifacts that may have been batteries are the Baghdad Batteries, from some time between 250 BC and 640 AD. The modern development of batteries started with the Voltaic pile developed by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta in 1800.';
';Such ancient knowledge in the history of electricity bears no known continuous relationship to the development of modern batteries. The hypothesis that these devices had an electrical function, while plausible, remains unproven, as with devices discovered in Egyptian digs that are alleged to be batteries as well. There are no writings or drawings or other evidence such as wires or electroplated objects to substantiate the proposed use of the objects as electrical cells.';
So the answer, according to Wikipedia, is no. The earliest battery use occured closer to 2,250 years ago.
Yes. there was a special on The History Channel not to long ago.
WE BELIEVE it may be a battery.
http://www.kundalini.se/eng/battery.jpg
I'm of the yes it was believers. Others are not so sure. It could have been used for alot of purposes, such as gold leafing, soldering, or any number of things. There's the Baghdad Battery, the Parthian Battery, even an ancient spark plug, highly corroded was once found.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/im鈥?/a>
Pictures
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/im鈥?/a>
Rods of RA at Abydos
http://www.rodsofra.com/faq.htm
http://www.rodsofra.com/images/abydos1.j鈥?/a>Is it true that a form of battery was being used around 4000 years ago?
'Raiders of the lost ark'
Yeah its called a lemon
yeah
if so, what did they use it for?
No, the fact that the component parts was found in the same general area is true.
But whether they used it for a battery is doubtful, what would they use a battery for?
No bulbs for light,
No electric motors,
No nothing!
';The earliest known artifacts that may have been batteries are the Baghdad Batteries, from some time between 250 BC and 640 AD. The modern development of batteries started with the Voltaic pile developed by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta in 1800.';
';Such ancient knowledge in the history of electricity bears no known continuous relationship to the development of modern batteries. The hypothesis that these devices had an electrical function, while plausible, remains unproven, as with devices discovered in Egyptian digs that are alleged to be batteries as well. There are no writings or drawings or other evidence such as wires or electroplated objects to substantiate the proposed use of the objects as electrical cells.';
So the answer, according to Wikipedia, is no. The earliest battery use occured closer to 2,250 years ago.
Yes. there was a special on The History Channel not to long ago.
Are these words still true: ';Dissent is the highest form of patriotism';?
These words were uttered by Hillary Clinton, during the Bush administration.
Are they still true now, under the Obama administration?Are these words still true: ';Dissent is the highest form of patriotism';?
Yes, she's right. And the words are still true now.
That's why I'm a patriot, and the idiots that swallow down the Obama/Biden/Clinton drivel are traitors.Are these words still true: ';Dissent is the highest form of patriotism';?
Not when it means preventing Americans from hearing both sides of an issue, like with health care reform, because they also do that in Iran. Forget patriotism, the Republuicans have turned dissent into GOP suicide, because the only ones who they have convinced are those who side with them already. They should realize what they are really doing.
While I am sure that Hillary Clinton was not the first person to utter these words, dissent is a form of patriotism. Actually fighting for America and giving your life for the American ideals, is actually the highest form of patriotism.
And doesn't Bill Clinton look quite the statesman next to President Obama?
Every American has the right to peaceful dissent. Period.
I'm sure the people who are railing against this healthcare bill think so.
Are they still true now, under the Obama administration?Are these words still true: ';Dissent is the highest form of patriotism';?
Yes, she's right. And the words are still true now.
That's why I'm a patriot, and the idiots that swallow down the Obama/Biden/Clinton drivel are traitors.Are these words still true: ';Dissent is the highest form of patriotism';?
Not when it means preventing Americans from hearing both sides of an issue, like with health care reform, because they also do that in Iran. Forget patriotism, the Republuicans have turned dissent into GOP suicide, because the only ones who they have convinced are those who side with them already. They should realize what they are really doing.
While I am sure that Hillary Clinton was not the first person to utter these words, dissent is a form of patriotism. Actually fighting for America and giving your life for the American ideals, is actually the highest form of patriotism.
And doesn't Bill Clinton look quite the statesman next to President Obama?
Every American has the right to peaceful dissent. Period.
I'm sure the people who are railing against this healthcare bill think so.
Is it true that all potassium is a form of radiation?
does this mean that i am getting slight amounts of radiation when eating a banana? i know that the human body has radioactivity...because of potassium right? but we can tolerate that amount?Is it true that all potassium is a form of radiation?
Many things in the environment (including potassium) have radioactive isotopes that contribute to background radiation. There is no need to worry about this radiation.Is it true that all potassium is a form of radiation?
potassium iodide
is a medicine used in the treatment of radiation.
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_i鈥?/a>
Potassium iodide may also be used to protect the thyroid from radioactive iodine in the event of an accident or attack at a nuclear power plant, or other nuclear attack, especially where a nuclear reactor is breached and the volatile radionuclides, which contain significant amount of 131I, are released into the environment. Radioiodine is a particularly dangerous radionuclide because the body concentrates it in the thyroid gland. Potassium iodide cannot protect against other causes of radiation poisoning, however, nor can it provide any degree of protection against a dirty bomb unless the bomb happens to contain a significant amount of radioactive iodine. In case of a nuclear emergency,
Some more stuff. From:http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s60p778.ht鈥?/a>
Prophylactic use of potassium iodide in peacetime nuclear accidents.
When the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident was worsening and it appeared that the reactor's containment structure might rupture and release dangerous amounts of radioactive iodines and other radioactive material into the atmosphere, the Government rushed preparation of small bottles of a saturated solution of potassium iodide. The reactor's containment structure did not rupture.
The 237,013 bottles of saturated KI solution that were delivered to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-mostly too late to have been effective if the Three Mile Island accident had become an uncontained meltdown -were stored in secret in a warehouse, and were never used.
Since this famous 1979 accident, that injured no one, the Governors of the 50 states have been given the responsibility for protecting Americans against radioiodines by providing prophylactic potassium iodide. By May of 1986, only in Tennessee have Americans, other than some specialists, been given potassium iodide tablets; around one nuclear reactor some 7,500 residents have been given the officially approved KI tablets, to assure their having this protection if a nuclear accident occurs.
In April of 1982 the Bureau of Radiological Health and Bureau of Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services released ';FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS, Potassium Iodide As A Thyroid- Blocking Agent In A Radiation Emergency: Recommendations On Use';. These lengthy recommendations are summarized in the FDA's ';mandated patient product insert';. (See a complete copy in the following section.) This insert is packed with every bottle of non-prescription KI tablets sold. However, the lengthy FDA recommendations contain many facts not mentioned in this required insert, including the following: ';Based on the FDA adverse reaction reports and an estimated 48 x 106 [48 million] 300-mg doses of potassium iodide administered each year [in the United States], the NCRP [National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements] estimated an adverse reaction rate of from 1 in a million to 1 in 10 million doses.'; (Note that this extremely low adverse reaction rate is for doses over twice as large as the 130-mg prophylactic dose.)
you are insane! potassium is ok. Monkeys eat bananas all the time, they're ok. Nature is ok.
arghhhhhhhhh! what the holy hell? who told you this? damn, arghhhhh, hmm, can this cause me grow another wang?
Well, if that's the case don't eat banana's, potatoes, rice. Matter of fact, just to be safe, STOP eating anything.......that way the radiation that's already eaten your brain, will diminish...........slightly, hehehehe.... sorry people, I just couldn't resist......
You would get more harmful radiation from stepping outside in the sunshine or wearing an old analog watch with the glow-in-the-dark tips on the minute and hour hands.
Potassium has a naturally occurring radiosiotope that is part of the natural background radiation dose you receive everyday. This background radiation also comes from other radiosiotopes and the decay of uranium and thorium. Two thirds of the dose a person receives is from these terrestrial sources - most of it from radon gas. The other third comes from cosmic rays from space. Total radiation from background sources is around 1.5 milliSieverts per year. A chest x-ray or several hours airplane flight will increase your dose by about 0.04 mSv.
yes your are correct :D
nah on a serious note, it has no effect at all, it can only go radioactive enough to harm you if they strapped uranium around it. whoever said that was either tipsy or thinking of something else he heard about
If no one has ever died from natural potassium radiation especially from eating a banana,then you have nothing to worry about. Many elements including potassium have radioactive isotopes but these are in minute amounts that would never add up to a harmful dose under normal conditions.
In Physics, Radiation is defined as :
a. the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.
b. the complete process in which energy is emitted by one body, transmitted through an intervening medium or space, and absorbed by another body.
c. the energy transferred by these processes.
I think the answer to your question is no, eating a banana will not give you slight amounts of radiation.
Potassium is an electrolyte found naturally in our body and outside and works totally in a different biochemical process in producing energy and in affecting our lives.
No.
The extent of how it is asked is not like you think, as when you consume food. NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
Its ok to consume its just a source that reacts to radiation so to speak.
In certain degrees of consideration, potassium and carbon, have radioactive isotopes.
(read under)
Radiation inside the human body and
Terrestrial sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_鈥?/a>
Here's info on the element
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium
Amongst the idea of exposure to radiation
they mix what they call potassium iodide.
In which saturates it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_i鈥?/a>
So some have worked on some type of protection agent, maybe a pill or cream or something for someone who may or may have come to the exposure.
http://www.ki4u.com/potassium_iodide.htm
Many things in the environment (including potassium) have radioactive isotopes that contribute to background radiation. There is no need to worry about this radiation.Is it true that all potassium is a form of radiation?
potassium iodide
is a medicine used in the treatment of radiation.
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_i鈥?/a>
Potassium iodide may also be used to protect the thyroid from radioactive iodine in the event of an accident or attack at a nuclear power plant, or other nuclear attack, especially where a nuclear reactor is breached and the volatile radionuclides, which contain significant amount of 131I, are released into the environment. Radioiodine is a particularly dangerous radionuclide because the body concentrates it in the thyroid gland. Potassium iodide cannot protect against other causes of radiation poisoning, however, nor can it provide any degree of protection against a dirty bomb unless the bomb happens to contain a significant amount of radioactive iodine. In case of a nuclear emergency,
Some more stuff. From:http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s60p778.ht鈥?/a>
Prophylactic use of potassium iodide in peacetime nuclear accidents.
When the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident was worsening and it appeared that the reactor's containment structure might rupture and release dangerous amounts of radioactive iodines and other radioactive material into the atmosphere, the Government rushed preparation of small bottles of a saturated solution of potassium iodide. The reactor's containment structure did not rupture.
The 237,013 bottles of saturated KI solution that were delivered to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-mostly too late to have been effective if the Three Mile Island accident had become an uncontained meltdown -were stored in secret in a warehouse, and were never used.
Since this famous 1979 accident, that injured no one, the Governors of the 50 states have been given the responsibility for protecting Americans against radioiodines by providing prophylactic potassium iodide. By May of 1986, only in Tennessee have Americans, other than some specialists, been given potassium iodide tablets; around one nuclear reactor some 7,500 residents have been given the officially approved KI tablets, to assure their having this protection if a nuclear accident occurs.
In April of 1982 the Bureau of Radiological Health and Bureau of Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services released ';FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS, Potassium Iodide As A Thyroid- Blocking Agent In A Radiation Emergency: Recommendations On Use';. These lengthy recommendations are summarized in the FDA's ';mandated patient product insert';. (See a complete copy in the following section.) This insert is packed with every bottle of non-prescription KI tablets sold. However, the lengthy FDA recommendations contain many facts not mentioned in this required insert, including the following: ';Based on the FDA adverse reaction reports and an estimated 48 x 106 [48 million] 300-mg doses of potassium iodide administered each year [in the United States], the NCRP [National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements] estimated an adverse reaction rate of from 1 in a million to 1 in 10 million doses.'; (Note that this extremely low adverse reaction rate is for doses over twice as large as the 130-mg prophylactic dose.)
you are insane! potassium is ok. Monkeys eat bananas all the time, they're ok. Nature is ok.
arghhhhhhhhh! what the holy hell? who told you this? damn, arghhhhh, hmm, can this cause me grow another wang?
Well, if that's the case don't eat banana's, potatoes, rice. Matter of fact, just to be safe, STOP eating anything.......that way the radiation that's already eaten your brain, will diminish...........slightly, hehehehe.... sorry people, I just couldn't resist......
You would get more harmful radiation from stepping outside in the sunshine or wearing an old analog watch with the glow-in-the-dark tips on the minute and hour hands.
Potassium has a naturally occurring radiosiotope that is part of the natural background radiation dose you receive everyday. This background radiation also comes from other radiosiotopes and the decay of uranium and thorium. Two thirds of the dose a person receives is from these terrestrial sources - most of it from radon gas. The other third comes from cosmic rays from space. Total radiation from background sources is around 1.5 milliSieverts per year. A chest x-ray or several hours airplane flight will increase your dose by about 0.04 mSv.
yes your are correct :D
nah on a serious note, it has no effect at all, it can only go radioactive enough to harm you if they strapped uranium around it. whoever said that was either tipsy or thinking of something else he heard about
If no one has ever died from natural potassium radiation especially from eating a banana,then you have nothing to worry about. Many elements including potassium have radioactive isotopes but these are in minute amounts that would never add up to a harmful dose under normal conditions.
In Physics, Radiation is defined as :
a. the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.
b. the complete process in which energy is emitted by one body, transmitted through an intervening medium or space, and absorbed by another body.
c. the energy transferred by these processes.
I think the answer to your question is no, eating a banana will not give you slight amounts of radiation.
Potassium is an electrolyte found naturally in our body and outside and works totally in a different biochemical process in producing energy and in affecting our lives.
No.
The extent of how it is asked is not like you think, as when you consume food. NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
Its ok to consume its just a source that reacts to radiation so to speak.
In certain degrees of consideration, potassium and carbon, have radioactive isotopes.
(read under)
Radiation inside the human body and
Terrestrial sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_鈥?/a>
Here's info on the element
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium
Amongst the idea of exposure to radiation
they mix what they call potassium iodide.
In which saturates it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_i鈥?/a>
So some have worked on some type of protection agent, maybe a pill or cream or something for someone who may or may have come to the exposure.
http://www.ki4u.com/potassium_iodide.htm
What is the true form of ';supporting the troops';?
raising flags?What is the true form of ';supporting the troops';?
Supporting the troops means that you ensure that you do stand up for them.
If you claim the war is 'illegal' then you are calling the troops criminals and thus are not supporting them.
If you repeat the propaganda about war crimes and torture - you are not supporting the troops because you are claiming that they are criminals.
If you attend an anti-war rally you are increasing the danger to the troops because US troops deaths spike after these events.
If you repeat claims about wounded US troops routinely being charged thousands of dollars - then you are not supporting the troops.
If you think that 'supporting the troops' means denying them a victory they have earned - you are only supporting your political opinions.What is the true form of ';supporting the troops';?
Right on, speckofdust! Did you know that the government has been demanding thousands of dollars back from wounded soldiers who were sent home? They say they have to pay for the remaining time they weren't able to serve! I think we all know which party is behind that too.
[edit]
Apparently some of you don't believe it, so I added some links below. Read them and weep. This is how our government is treating our soldiers maimed in combat.
Paying taxes. It's how we pay for and support troops and their families.
I actually heard a guy one day lecture a group of people about supporting the troops and later brag about cheating on his taxes because ';they are too high';. (Guess what party he belonged to.)
There is nothing more disgusting than a war supporting flag waver trying to find loopholes (or actually cheating) so he doesn't have to pay taxes.
How about going to Walter Reed hospital in Washington and bringing t-shirts, boxer shorts, socks, books, magazines, puzzle books, etc. and sincerely expressing your thanks for the sacrifices they made and will continue to make?
Holding our congress people responsible, regardless of who hijacked our country (yes including military) and is driving our nation in to the ground.
well for me its having dinner ready and the uniform ready when my hubby comes or goes.
TO ME IT IS VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME FOR THEM
I supported them by becoming one. Since I'm out I volunteer and help make sure single soldiers get mail in my husband unit.
It is important that we do not criticise the wars in which our troops fight.You may think that this is noble and may spare our forces further casualties.However,this is not the case,showing open discontent,lends comfort and support to the enemy who then steps up their campaign with renewed resolve,hoping that our public appetite for war will implode.
One must show complete and utter solidarity for the cause,thus bolstering the morale of our soldiers and demoralizing the enemy.
Bringing them home, and impeaching the idiots who put them in harms' way for no good reason.
there are many ways, like donating money or items to be sent over seas for them, or you can send letters and x-mas cards to them, or you can lend moral support by wishing or praying for their good luck,
ways you don't support the troops is by praising the enemy, by calling them courageous freedom fighters, or demanding captured terrorists be set free to return to battle against our troops, or by hoping for the defeat of the u.s. forces in Iraq
voting for politicians who will not put them in harms ways until all other measures for peace have been exhausted!!!
and visiting soldiers in rehabilitation and honoring their funerals!!!
bringing them back to the families who love them.
Supporting the troops means that you ensure that you do stand up for them.
If you claim the war is 'illegal' then you are calling the troops criminals and thus are not supporting them.
If you repeat the propaganda about war crimes and torture - you are not supporting the troops because you are claiming that they are criminals.
If you attend an anti-war rally you are increasing the danger to the troops because US troops deaths spike after these events.
If you repeat claims about wounded US troops routinely being charged thousands of dollars - then you are not supporting the troops.
If you think that 'supporting the troops' means denying them a victory they have earned - you are only supporting your political opinions.What is the true form of ';supporting the troops';?
Right on, speckofdust! Did you know that the government has been demanding thousands of dollars back from wounded soldiers who were sent home? They say they have to pay for the remaining time they weren't able to serve! I think we all know which party is behind that too.
[edit]
Apparently some of you don't believe it, so I added some links below. Read them and weep. This is how our government is treating our soldiers maimed in combat.
Paying taxes. It's how we pay for and support troops and their families.
I actually heard a guy one day lecture a group of people about supporting the troops and later brag about cheating on his taxes because ';they are too high';. (Guess what party he belonged to.)
There is nothing more disgusting than a war supporting flag waver trying to find loopholes (or actually cheating) so he doesn't have to pay taxes.
How about going to Walter Reed hospital in Washington and bringing t-shirts, boxer shorts, socks, books, magazines, puzzle books, etc. and sincerely expressing your thanks for the sacrifices they made and will continue to make?
Holding our congress people responsible, regardless of who hijacked our country (yes including military) and is driving our nation in to the ground.
well for me its having dinner ready and the uniform ready when my hubby comes or goes.
TO ME IT IS VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME FOR THEM
I supported them by becoming one. Since I'm out I volunteer and help make sure single soldiers get mail in my husband unit.
It is important that we do not criticise the wars in which our troops fight.You may think that this is noble and may spare our forces further casualties.However,this is not the case,showing open discontent,lends comfort and support to the enemy who then steps up their campaign with renewed resolve,hoping that our public appetite for war will implode.
One must show complete and utter solidarity for the cause,thus bolstering the morale of our soldiers and demoralizing the enemy.
Bringing them home, and impeaching the idiots who put them in harms' way for no good reason.
there are many ways, like donating money or items to be sent over seas for them, or you can send letters and x-mas cards to them, or you can lend moral support by wishing or praying for their good luck,
ways you don't support the troops is by praising the enemy, by calling them courageous freedom fighters, or demanding captured terrorists be set free to return to battle against our troops, or by hoping for the defeat of the u.s. forces in Iraq
voting for politicians who will not put them in harms ways until all other measures for peace have been exhausted!!!
and visiting soldiers in rehabilitation and honoring their funerals!!!
bringing them back to the families who love them.
Only single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
False, its the other way round.
Single celled orgarnisms have only one cell. this cell has different components that help it become multi-funtional. this means that its single cell are not specialised. for example. an Amoeaba which is a single celled organism has a nuclei which it uses for its metabolic processes, its mitochondria for energy, its cell wall for movement. so this one cell of an amoeba can perform different functions.
multi cellular ogarnisms have different cells that have been specialised for different purposes. e.g respiratory cells are for metabolic processes, growth cells are for growth, digestive cells are for digestion.
the digestive cells in a multicellular organisn come together to form digestive tissues. the digestive tissues will come together to form a digestive organ, different digestive organs will form the digestive system. different systems form the body.
thanks. chaooOnly single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
enough with the cell/tissue questions...if you'd read your school materials with all the time you are spending asking us, I bet you'd learn something.
read...and think, kid...how can a SINGLE CELL organism have specialized CELLS (in the plural) that join for any purpose???? DUH!Only single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
False- single-celled organisms only have 1 cell, so they cannot have ';specialized cells that join to form tissues.';
quit cheating on your homework.
Single celled orgarnisms have only one cell. this cell has different components that help it become multi-funtional. this means that its single cell are not specialised. for example. an Amoeaba which is a single celled organism has a nuclei which it uses for its metabolic processes, its mitochondria for energy, its cell wall for movement. so this one cell of an amoeba can perform different functions.
multi cellular ogarnisms have different cells that have been specialised for different purposes. e.g respiratory cells are for metabolic processes, growth cells are for growth, digestive cells are for digestion.
the digestive cells in a multicellular organisn come together to form digestive tissues. the digestive tissues will come together to form a digestive organ, different digestive organs will form the digestive system. different systems form the body.
thanks. chaooOnly single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
enough with the cell/tissue questions...if you'd read your school materials with all the time you are spending asking us, I bet you'd learn something.
read...and think, kid...how can a SINGLE CELL organism have specialized CELLS (in the plural) that join for any purpose???? DUH!Only single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
False- single-celled organisms only have 1 cell, so they cannot have ';specialized cells that join to form tissues.';
quit cheating on your homework.
Only single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
False, its the other way round.
Single celled orgarnisms have only one cell. this cell has different components that help it become multi-funtional. this means that its single cell are not specialised. for example. an Amoeaba which is a single celled organism has a nuclei which it uses for its metabolic processes, its mitochondria for energy, its cell wall for movement. so this one cell of an amoeba can perform different functions.
multi cellular ogarnisms have different cells that have been specialised for different purposes. e.g respiratory cells are for metabolic processes, growth cells are for growth, digestive cells are for digestion.
the digestive cells in a multicellular organisn come together to form digestive tissues. the digestive tissues will come together to form a digestive organ, different digestive organs will form the digestive system. different systems form the body.
thanks. chaooOnly single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
enough with the cell/tissue questions...if you'd read your school materials with all the time you are spending asking us, I bet you'd learn something.
read...and think, kid...how can a SINGLE CELL organism have specialized CELLS (in the plural) that join for any purpose???? DUH!Only single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
False- single-celled organisms only have 1 cell, so they cannot have ';specialized cells that join to form tissues.';
quit cheating on your homework.cash advance
Single celled orgarnisms have only one cell. this cell has different components that help it become multi-funtional. this means that its single cell are not specialised. for example. an Amoeaba which is a single celled organism has a nuclei which it uses for its metabolic processes, its mitochondria for energy, its cell wall for movement. so this one cell of an amoeba can perform different functions.
multi cellular ogarnisms have different cells that have been specialised for different purposes. e.g respiratory cells are for metabolic processes, growth cells are for growth, digestive cells are for digestion.
the digestive cells in a multicellular organisn come together to form digestive tissues. the digestive tissues will come together to form a digestive organ, different digestive organs will form the digestive system. different systems form the body.
thanks. chaooOnly single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
enough with the cell/tissue questions...if you'd read your school materials with all the time you are spending asking us, I bet you'd learn something.
read...and think, kid...how can a SINGLE CELL organism have specialized CELLS (in the plural) that join for any purpose???? DUH!Only single celled organisms have specialized cells that join to form tissues true or false?
False- single-celled organisms only have 1 cell, so they cannot have ';specialized cells that join to form tissues.';
quit cheating on your homework.
Is it true that the freed American slaves that formed Liberia are now eating each other?
I just read that the gas station attendant from Boston and former leader of Liberia is being accused of ordering cannibalism. What happened to this beacon of hope for Blacks? Are there any Black nations in existence that are not completely dysfunctional? Haiti, Congo, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia. Why can't they seem to get it together?Is it true that the freed American slaves that formed Liberia are now eating each other?
Liberia was created by former slaves, the country is in chaos and the former leader is on trial for corruption black people are just as greedy as white menIs it true that the freed American slaves that formed Liberia are now eating each other?
Those freed African American slaves are all dead.
I find the terminology you use very insulting. I dont like how you use ';Blacks';. Second of all you cant really blame african nations for not being successful. Its not all of their faults. Imperialism has affected them greatly. Im not saying its not their fault but it put them in a whole and made it though for them to digg out of it.
Liberia was created by former slaves, the country is in chaos and the former leader is on trial for corruption black people are just as greedy as white menIs it true that the freed American slaves that formed Liberia are now eating each other?
Those freed African American slaves are all dead.
Report Abuse
I find the terminology you use very insulting. I dont like how you use ';Blacks';. Second of all you cant really blame african nations for not being successful. Its not all of their faults. Imperialism has affected them greatly. Im not saying its not their fault but it put them in a whole and made it though for them to digg out of it.
Is it true at pearls start to form ';baby'; pearls over time?
My friend told me that some REAL pearls will start to form a new pearl, a ';baby'; pearl she said. She even showed me an example (not a very good one) of a pearl necklace she owned and one of the pearls had a little bump. Can a pearl expert give me the lowdown on this? ThanksIs it true at pearls start to form ';baby'; pearls over time?
No...Pearls are formed indiviually by clams or oysters. It's their reaction to a grain of sand or some other irritant in their mantle. They simply form a smoothe shell around the irritant. Pearls DON'T have babies!!
The little bump on your friend's pearl, was simply an irregularly shaped irritant that had been covered...probably a parasitic worm that got into the clam.Is it true at pearls start to form ';baby'; pearls over time?
Pearls are created when a foreign object such as sand gets into the oyster's shell. The object irritates the membrane of the oyster and its response is to secrete nacre to coat the object -- relieve pain. Layers of nacre continuously build up, slowly, over time creating the pearl. The example your friend showed you is probably due to the uneven shape of the initial foreign object.
They are lovely. I prefer the gold tinted ones.
lol i dont think so maybe she showed you some fake pearls
No, pearls do not have babies. Pearls are formed when something (usually a grain of sand) gets inside of a mollusk. The mollusk generates a protective secretion that envelopes the grain of sand so that it stays separate from the shell. if she had a pearl with a bump, then, more than likely, whatever got into the mollusk was shaped like that to start with.
No...Pearls are formed indiviually by clams or oysters. It's their reaction to a grain of sand or some other irritant in their mantle. They simply form a smoothe shell around the irritant. Pearls DON'T have babies!!
The little bump on your friend's pearl, was simply an irregularly shaped irritant that had been covered...probably a parasitic worm that got into the clam.Is it true at pearls start to form ';baby'; pearls over time?
Pearls are created when a foreign object such as sand gets into the oyster's shell. The object irritates the membrane of the oyster and its response is to secrete nacre to coat the object -- relieve pain. Layers of nacre continuously build up, slowly, over time creating the pearl. The example your friend showed you is probably due to the uneven shape of the initial foreign object.
They are lovely. I prefer the gold tinted ones.
lol i dont think so maybe she showed you some fake pearls
No, pearls do not have babies. Pearls are formed when something (usually a grain of sand) gets inside of a mollusk. The mollusk generates a protective secretion that envelopes the grain of sand so that it stays separate from the shell. if she had a pearl with a bump, then, more than likely, whatever got into the mollusk was shaped like that to start with.
Is it true that you burn calories form cellary?
i was told that you burn more callories digesting the cellary(idk how to spell it) then are actually in cellary. is that true?Is it true that you burn calories form cellary?
Yes, the neat part of celery is that it has negative calories, which means that you burn more calories digesting it than you do from eating it.Is it true that you burn calories form cellary?
I have always heard that celery is considered a ';negative food'; meaning that it takes more enegry to chew and digest it than it has. It has 6 calories for an 8'; stalk. Here is a link to Snopes, the myth buster website, with more detail:
yes there is like 1 calory in it and its really hard to chew and get through ur system, which takes more energy than the one calory you get from it. shame it tastes so bad
Yes as you eat you gain negative calories. Hense, ';burning calories.';
Yess.It is good for a diet too.
Yes, the neat part of celery is that it has negative calories, which means that you burn more calories digesting it than you do from eating it.Is it true that you burn calories form cellary?
I have always heard that celery is considered a ';negative food'; meaning that it takes more enegry to chew and digest it than it has. It has 6 calories for an 8'; stalk. Here is a link to Snopes, the myth buster website, with more detail:
yes there is like 1 calory in it and its really hard to chew and get through ur system, which takes more energy than the one calory you get from it. shame it tastes so bad
Yes as you eat you gain negative calories. Hense, ';burning calories.';
Yess.It is good for a diet too.
Did anyone see the episode Prey in smallville? Did Davis Bloome show his true form as Doomsday?
He shows his true form next week.Did anyone see the episode Prey in smallville? Did Davis Bloome show his true form as Doomsday?
No he didn't
No he didn't
Is it true that most pill-form multivitamins never even dissolve in your digestive tract?
And you end up eliminating them out without even absorbing the vitamins? What are the best multivitamins in terms of absorption?Is it true that most pill-form multivitamins never even dissolve in your digestive tract?
I have heard that. A good way to find out is to put your multivitamin in a glass of water, and put one in a glass of vinegar. See if they dissolve. If they don't, especially the vinegar one, you are wasting your money. By the way, only vitamin A,D, E, and K are fat soluble, which means your body stores them up. All the other vitamins are water soluble, if your body has enough of a certain vitamin (for example C) and you give it more, it will just eliminate it. The other 4 fat soluble vitamins are being stored and you can actually get sick if you have too much of a certain vitamin in your body.Is it true that most pill-form multivitamins never even dissolve in your digestive tract?
use formula 2 vitamins and a product called cell activator together. this gives the maximum absorbtion possible so you get all the goodness. go to myhealthabcmall.com and look in the weight management section. good luck
I don't know the answer to that question, but I DO know that to find out if something is even helping your body and being absorbed, put it in pure vinegar. If it doesn't start dissolving within minutes, then it just stays solid in your system until you get rid of it! I think it takes about half an hour in vinegar. Try it!
Well, the cheaper multi vitamins do. The only one that I know is absorbed in only 30 minutes is called Alive! This is a whole food supplement and it is by far the most potent and complete multi-vitamin that I have ever tried.
I have heard that. A good way to find out is to put your multivitamin in a glass of water, and put one in a glass of vinegar. See if they dissolve. If they don't, especially the vinegar one, you are wasting your money. By the way, only vitamin A,D, E, and K are fat soluble, which means your body stores them up. All the other vitamins are water soluble, if your body has enough of a certain vitamin (for example C) and you give it more, it will just eliminate it. The other 4 fat soluble vitamins are being stored and you can actually get sick if you have too much of a certain vitamin in your body.Is it true that most pill-form multivitamins never even dissolve in your digestive tract?
use formula 2 vitamins and a product called cell activator together. this gives the maximum absorbtion possible so you get all the goodness. go to myhealthabcmall.com and look in the weight management section. good luck
I don't know the answer to that question, but I DO know that to find out if something is even helping your body and being absorbed, put it in pure vinegar. If it doesn't start dissolving within minutes, then it just stays solid in your system until you get rid of it! I think it takes about half an hour in vinegar. Try it!
Well, the cheaper multi vitamins do. The only one that I know is absorbed in only 30 minutes is called Alive! This is a whole food supplement and it is by far the most potent and complete multi-vitamin that I have ever tried.
Is is true that women find stubble the sexiest form of face hair?
I was wondering if that's true. Telegraph says it is. that women find men with stubble best for short and long term relationships. Is that true, or you rather have clean shave? Obviously we're talking about average guys here. Anything looks good on David Beckham.Is is true that women find stubble the sexiest form of face hair?
I, personally, don't like stubble. It hurts to kiss men who scrape my face. It looks cute but not practical for kissing.
Clean shaven or well groomed facial hair is cute. No in betweens or extremes. =)Is is true that women find stubble the sexiest form of face hair?
i think its just a personal preference. i prefer my guy to shave and have a smooth face. otherwise when we kiss my chin turns red and gets all irritated.
=/
so i would say a clean shave
that's most definitely true!
Uhh, stubble gets rough and scratchy when you're making out. The best is clean shaven.
ew i don't like stubble. it pokes you when you kiss their facecash advance
I, personally, don't like stubble. It hurts to kiss men who scrape my face. It looks cute but not practical for kissing.
Clean shaven or well groomed facial hair is cute. No in betweens or extremes. =)Is is true that women find stubble the sexiest form of face hair?
i think its just a personal preference. i prefer my guy to shave and have a smooth face. otherwise when we kiss my chin turns red and gets all irritated.
=/
so i would say a clean shave
that's most definitely true!
Uhh, stubble gets rough and scratchy when you're making out. The best is clean shaven.
ew i don't like stubble. it pokes you when you kiss their face
Is it true that in nature, homosexuality is a form of population control?
I can't remember where I read this, but I recall that, in nature, if a species becomes too numerous then the percentage of homosexuals will increase, so that over-breeding is combatted. Is there any truth to this?Is it true that in nature, homosexuality is a form of population control?
I don't think there's truth to this, no. Perhaps it's true in some species I've forgotten about; there are certainly studies in which various odd organisms switch gender based on environmental conditions.
This isn't my field, but when I browse articles in Science, the occasional one describing homosexuality in non-human animals just tends to observe that it occurs, not that it's a form of population control. I may incorrectly recall that overcrowding leads to more homosexual behavior in some animals, but I don't think it leads to less heterosexual behavior or to population control. It may be Rat Stress Relief.Is it true that in nature, homosexuality is a form of population control?
The human population has never stopped increasing - see link below. After 10,000 before present day the population growth really takes off as the rise of civilisation occurs and we spread out around the world in greater numbers. Hyman's ability to use tools and intelligence to overcome challenges meant to population could just keep on increasing - and all the better! A population needs to reproduce to make it more likely to continue the species and, theoretically, reaches a balance with its environment when it reaches its capacity. Humans didn't, and still don't need to do this - we can out do the factors that limit population growth. Homosexuality is only partially genetic and environmental factors cannot be passed on. A population never evolves for the group as a whole as the key factor is survival of the fittest - it doesn't matter about everyone else, each individual is out for itself so homosexuality, and the urge to NOT reproduce would not be considered beneficial. So I'd say no.
I have not heard the ';population control'; idea. However, I have heard of recent research that shows that the gene that encourages homosexuality in males of various species of animals increases the sex drive and the fertility of females.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617鈥?/a>
This means, while the sons are gay, the daughters are hyper-sexual. If you think about it, this also discourages inbreeding, which is detrimental to the gene pool.
Well I am in a same-sex relationship but was previously married and have two children - so if that is the case, it obviously doesn't work! Actually, I don't think there is a single ';reason'; for being gay. It is simply programming with, like so many factors in being human - no rhyme or reason.
Its one theory, but if you think about it, its a pretty lame form of population control, considering one straight man could theoretically impregnate women one all day every day. Population control in nature is based around predators, breeding in season etc etc.
Lol i never heard of that theory. But it could be true. I would believe if you have too many of one gender in an area and limited ones of another homosexuality is strongly possible to happen
Nope i cannot beleve this theory, i think percentage of homosexuals SEEMS increasing becos of more acceptance bi the society.
I never heard of such a thing, but it may be true. You should check the literature (PUBMED or other scientific journals) to see if that claim is true.
Give us a kiss and I'll tell you. Only kidding...honest!!
I don't think there's truth to this, no. Perhaps it's true in some species I've forgotten about; there are certainly studies in which various odd organisms switch gender based on environmental conditions.
This isn't my field, but when I browse articles in Science, the occasional one describing homosexuality in non-human animals just tends to observe that it occurs, not that it's a form of population control. I may incorrectly recall that overcrowding leads to more homosexual behavior in some animals, but I don't think it leads to less heterosexual behavior or to population control. It may be Rat Stress Relief.Is it true that in nature, homosexuality is a form of population control?
The human population has never stopped increasing - see link below. After 10,000 before present day the population growth really takes off as the rise of civilisation occurs and we spread out around the world in greater numbers. Hyman's ability to use tools and intelligence to overcome challenges meant to population could just keep on increasing - and all the better! A population needs to reproduce to make it more likely to continue the species and, theoretically, reaches a balance with its environment when it reaches its capacity. Humans didn't, and still don't need to do this - we can out do the factors that limit population growth. Homosexuality is only partially genetic and environmental factors cannot be passed on. A population never evolves for the group as a whole as the key factor is survival of the fittest - it doesn't matter about everyone else, each individual is out for itself so homosexuality, and the urge to NOT reproduce would not be considered beneficial. So I'd say no.
I have not heard the ';population control'; idea. However, I have heard of recent research that shows that the gene that encourages homosexuality in males of various species of animals increases the sex drive and the fertility of females.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617鈥?/a>
This means, while the sons are gay, the daughters are hyper-sexual. If you think about it, this also discourages inbreeding, which is detrimental to the gene pool.
Well I am in a same-sex relationship but was previously married and have two children - so if that is the case, it obviously doesn't work! Actually, I don't think there is a single ';reason'; for being gay. It is simply programming with, like so many factors in being human - no rhyme or reason.
Its one theory, but if you think about it, its a pretty lame form of population control, considering one straight man could theoretically impregnate women one all day every day. Population control in nature is based around predators, breeding in season etc etc.
Lol i never heard of that theory. But it could be true. I would believe if you have too many of one gender in an area and limited ones of another homosexuality is strongly possible to happen
Nope i cannot beleve this theory, i think percentage of homosexuals SEEMS increasing becos of more acceptance bi the society.
I never heard of such a thing, but it may be true. You should check the literature (PUBMED or other scientific journals) to see if that claim is true.
Give us a kiss and I'll tell you. Only kidding...honest!!
What is true about this: a preimage is reflected to form an image?
A. It is similar and congruent to the preimage.
B. It is similar but not congruent to the preimage
C. It is congruent but not similar to the preimage.
D. It is neither similar nor congruent to the preimage.What is true about this: a preimage is reflected to form an image?
It is A becuase when an image is reflected it will be similar and congruent, they will be the same; reflections makes similar images
B. It is similar but not congruent to the preimage
C. It is congruent but not similar to the preimage.
D. It is neither similar nor congruent to the preimage.What is true about this: a preimage is reflected to form an image?
It is A becuase when an image is reflected it will be similar and congruent, they will be the same; reflections makes similar images
TRUE or FALSE? The delta usually forms when a river empties into a large, still body of water? THNX 4 THE HELP
true!!TRUE or FALSE? The delta usually forms when a river empties into a large, still body of water? THNX 4 THE HELP
TRUE,
Mud is picked up from the flow of the river and is held in suspension as long as the flow is sufficient. When the river meets a large body of water, either a lake or an ocean, the flow decreases due to the expansion of the flow channel. (the water doesnt need to move fast anymore to get out of the way since it is no longer confined to a small channel) When the water slows, the particles in suspension drop out and deposit themselves.TRUE or FALSE? The delta usually forms when a river empties into a large, still body of water? THNX 4 THE HELP
true.
Delta forms because of the difference in the concentration of salt in between river and sea/ocean which changes the solubility of mud particles in the river water and causes sublimation of mud which forms the delta. Believe me, I know 'cause I live on the largest one in the world! And the formation of delta has actually little effect on whether the water is still or running.
TRUE,
Mud is picked up from the flow of the river and is held in suspension as long as the flow is sufficient. When the river meets a large body of water, either a lake or an ocean, the flow decreases due to the expansion of the flow channel. (the water doesnt need to move fast anymore to get out of the way since it is no longer confined to a small channel) When the water slows, the particles in suspension drop out and deposit themselves.TRUE or FALSE? The delta usually forms when a river empties into a large, still body of water? THNX 4 THE HELP
true.
Delta forms because of the difference in the concentration of salt in between river and sea/ocean which changes the solubility of mud particles in the river water and causes sublimation of mud which forms the delta. Believe me, I know 'cause I live on the largest one in the world! And the formation of delta has actually little effect on whether the water is still or running.
Anyone own a sealy true form?
Tried out a firm one to help my back. Seems supportive for a 265 lb guy. How do you like it?Anyone own a sealy true form?
It's a good mattress because it distributes the weight evenly. I would just recommend that you rotate it frequently to prevent indentations too soon (it's normal for the mattress to ';sink'; an inch after about a year, but you don't want it to sink lower.)
The great thing about this mattress is that it doesn't retain body heat as much as other mattresses do.
It's a good mattress because it distributes the weight evenly. I would just recommend that you rotate it frequently to prevent indentations too soon (it's normal for the mattress to ';sink'; an inch after about a year, but you don't want it to sink lower.)
The great thing about this mattress is that it doesn't retain body heat as much as other mattresses do.
I sit true that seismic waves may form wherever faulting occurs?
I am trying to complete a science paper that is due tommorow but I am having trouble because I missed some of school when I was sick and I did not learn some of what I am doing!!! Please help me!!!I sit true that seismic waves may form wherever faulting occurs?
Yes, and those specific seismic waves are called Body waves.
Yes, and those specific seismic waves are called Body waves.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Is it true that texting is free form Verizon to Verizon?
It is only free is you have the texting plan, it doesn't use your texts if it is Verizon to Verizon. Otherwise, it does cost money..Is it true that texting is free form Verizon to Verizon?
You need a texting plan costing at least $10/mo to qualify for unlimited in-network texting. You've got a 500 texts/mo, which costs $10/mo. That means you've got it!Is it true that texting is free form Verizon to Verizon?
If you have a texting plan that includes free verizon to verizon, then yescash advance
You need a texting plan costing at least $10/mo to qualify for unlimited in-network texting. You've got a 500 texts/mo, which costs $10/mo. That means you've got it!Is it true that texting is free form Verizon to Verizon?
If you have a texting plan that includes free verizon to verizon, then yes
Poll: True or false, love comes in various forms?
Sure, you could love your child and love someone of the opposite sex romantically, but would you love them both the same way?Poll: True or false, love comes in various forms?
True xPoll: True or false, love comes in various forms?
True.
True .
sure do
true
True xPoll: True or false, love comes in various forms?
True.
True .
sure do
true
Is it true that love is only a form of need?
It seems that all relationships exist based soley on the needs of each counterpart. Does everyone have a hidden agenda? These are all blanket statements that have a technical answer of ';no,'; but where is the real proof? I feel like people (girls epsecially) are just beings built on conniving, using nothing but their own interests to propel them through so-called ';love'; and everything else in life. Is there no right and wrong as they say, just what is beneficial to me and what is not?Is it true that love is only a form of need?
Just as people can lust after someone for their body, they can also lust after emotional highs. The idea of love that books and movies bring to people gives them a taste for this emotional high which is mistaken as love. If one is searching for the emotional highs then they desire lust and the conniving hidden agenda shows up.
Love is not about the self but about the other. It is about caring about the person and not the high. Lust is to put value in a feeling while love is a choice to value the person themself.
There is love between friends that seems to be higher than the so-called love between boyfriend/girlfriend and even at times that of husband/wife. When a friend feels your hurt and sits silently by your side throughout the night during a hardship you are suffering, this is love.
The truth is that few people grasp the true concept of love because they want the feeling without the work. It is not easy to think of the other's feelings above your own. With so many people bottling up to protect themselves from hurt it is hard to find those who are willing to put themselves in the midst of the battle to protect others. But when people see that someone is taking the risk to help them, they will be more likely to begin taking risks to help others.
Love is risky and it's hard. People want it to be easy so they choose the easier definition of so-called love. The question is are you willing to work for the real thing or will you settle for the fake stuff?Is it true that love is only a form of need?
No true love is Giving. It's not needing or expecting anything in return. That is REAL love.
This is not love, just ';ego merchandising.'; You're describing females totally identifying with their learned (programmed) egos. Realize this and you will connect with someone real - who has a deeper awareness of Self and purpose.
In its truest sense, we are WHAT we love and who we attach ourselves to OR love demonstrates that. You obviously want a more satisfying like-minded relationship of shared interests. Accept it.
I think all relationships are, in a sense, a matter of convinence. If two people who are in a relationship could not be there for each other, do for each other, and depend on each other to get through all the details that life throws at you then what would be there use for one another. Life kinda makes it like that, I don't think we have agendas. Well I'm sure some do.
Need is not love
need is LUST
Love is holier than lust
Love is one's unstoppable quest
to
emotionaly %26amp; physicaly
explore, donate %26amp; depend
on another
Casey,
Love takes many forms. You have to define your concept of love for yourself... what is it that you are looking for? Love is not taking it is giving. Yes, there are people out there (male, female and trans gender) that are out for what they can get and will use every trick in the book to screw you over. If i read between the lines it appears that you were recently conned, hence your post. Do not be bitter about these things as it will poison future relationships. Most people just want someone to love in the purest sense of the word.
Yes it is true ';all is fair and love and war';. Steer you life with an open heart and if your expectations of a perfect love are not based on material or physical attributes I can almost guarantee that love will hit you out of the blue... and you will not be able to stop it.
Even GOD is after human love. Why not girls?
Just as people can lust after someone for their body, they can also lust after emotional highs. The idea of love that books and movies bring to people gives them a taste for this emotional high which is mistaken as love. If one is searching for the emotional highs then they desire lust and the conniving hidden agenda shows up.
Love is not about the self but about the other. It is about caring about the person and not the high. Lust is to put value in a feeling while love is a choice to value the person themself.
There is love between friends that seems to be higher than the so-called love between boyfriend/girlfriend and even at times that of husband/wife. When a friend feels your hurt and sits silently by your side throughout the night during a hardship you are suffering, this is love.
The truth is that few people grasp the true concept of love because they want the feeling without the work. It is not easy to think of the other's feelings above your own. With so many people bottling up to protect themselves from hurt it is hard to find those who are willing to put themselves in the midst of the battle to protect others. But when people see that someone is taking the risk to help them, they will be more likely to begin taking risks to help others.
Love is risky and it's hard. People want it to be easy so they choose the easier definition of so-called love. The question is are you willing to work for the real thing or will you settle for the fake stuff?Is it true that love is only a form of need?
No true love is Giving. It's not needing or expecting anything in return. That is REAL love.
This is not love, just ';ego merchandising.'; You're describing females totally identifying with their learned (programmed) egos. Realize this and you will connect with someone real - who has a deeper awareness of Self and purpose.
In its truest sense, we are WHAT we love and who we attach ourselves to OR love demonstrates that. You obviously want a more satisfying like-minded relationship of shared interests. Accept it.
I think all relationships are, in a sense, a matter of convinence. If two people who are in a relationship could not be there for each other, do for each other, and depend on each other to get through all the details that life throws at you then what would be there use for one another. Life kinda makes it like that, I don't think we have agendas. Well I'm sure some do.
Need is not love
need is LUST
Love is holier than lust
Love is one's unstoppable quest
to
emotionaly %26amp; physicaly
explore, donate %26amp; depend
on another
Casey,
Love takes many forms. You have to define your concept of love for yourself... what is it that you are looking for? Love is not taking it is giving. Yes, there are people out there (male, female and trans gender) that are out for what they can get and will use every trick in the book to screw you over. If i read between the lines it appears that you were recently conned, hence your post. Do not be bitter about these things as it will poison future relationships. Most people just want someone to love in the purest sense of the word.
Yes it is true ';all is fair and love and war';. Steer you life with an open heart and if your expectations of a perfect love are not based on material or physical attributes I can almost guarantee that love will hit you out of the blue... and you will not be able to stop it.
Even GOD is after human love. Why not girls?
Is it true in USA officials forms doesn't ask you your religion? Does it means ';freedom of religion?';
then does it also means no matter what country you are from and what religion you follow does not matter in USA as all the
foreigners has to accept the US religious laws or rights to religion and is it documented ? Is there a web site for this ?Is it true in USA officials forms doesn't ask you your religion? Does it means ';freedom of religion?';
Yes, it is true that in the United States official forms never require you to list your religion. Under a law called ';Equal Opportunity Employment'; your faith can not be used to offer you an advantage or disadvantage for any employment.
In and of itself the lack of having to declare your faith does not mean freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means that you have the right to freely choose what faith you follow, be in Islam, Buddism, Christianity, Judaism, Pagan faiths or even none at all.
Freedom of religion is a part of our Constitution, and is considered a basic human right in the United States, which means that it is a right extend to all persons born and not born with the US within the country's borders.Is it true in USA officials forms doesn't ask you your religion? Does it means ';freedom of religion?';
Thank you all for answers, you guys are great.
Why would the government want to know your religion?
You should be glad they're not asking, considering how intrusive governments are lately.
Besides, it's not like a century ago when you could make it a multiple choice question with 5 options. Nowadays, there are probably thousands of different religions.
And this is not related to freedom of beliefs. You have freedom of speech and government forms are not asking about that. If you have the freedom, it means that you have the power to make your own choice and be responsible for the consequences.
The US has the separation of chruch and state.
There are no religious laws in america that need to be followed.
Actually, there are provisions in U.S. Law which make such questions as ';What is your religious affiliation?'; not illegal or actionable to ask prior to employment.
Now, I'll step aside and let those remaining debate just what I mean by that.
why should it matter if you are qualified for the job?
Every US citizen has the right to follow any or no religion, and the government will have no say over your private exercise thereof. It's in the Constitution.
It's called the constitution.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/enc鈥?/a>
foreigners has to accept the US religious laws or rights to religion and is it documented ? Is there a web site for this ?Is it true in USA officials forms doesn't ask you your religion? Does it means ';freedom of religion?';
Yes, it is true that in the United States official forms never require you to list your religion. Under a law called ';Equal Opportunity Employment'; your faith can not be used to offer you an advantage or disadvantage for any employment.
In and of itself the lack of having to declare your faith does not mean freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means that you have the right to freely choose what faith you follow, be in Islam, Buddism, Christianity, Judaism, Pagan faiths or even none at all.
Freedom of religion is a part of our Constitution, and is considered a basic human right in the United States, which means that it is a right extend to all persons born and not born with the US within the country's borders.Is it true in USA officials forms doesn't ask you your religion? Does it means ';freedom of religion?';
Thank you all for answers, you guys are great.
Report Abuse
Why would the government want to know your religion?
You should be glad they're not asking, considering how intrusive governments are lately.
Besides, it's not like a century ago when you could make it a multiple choice question with 5 options. Nowadays, there are probably thousands of different religions.
And this is not related to freedom of beliefs. You have freedom of speech and government forms are not asking about that. If you have the freedom, it means that you have the power to make your own choice and be responsible for the consequences.
The US has the separation of chruch and state.
There are no religious laws in america that need to be followed.
Actually, there are provisions in U.S. Law which make such questions as ';What is your religious affiliation?'; not illegal or actionable to ask prior to employment.
Now, I'll step aside and let those remaining debate just what I mean by that.
why should it matter if you are qualified for the job?
Every US citizen has the right to follow any or no religion, and the government will have no say over your private exercise thereof. It's in the Constitution.
It's called the constitution.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/enc鈥?/a>
Is is true that the air currents form North Atlantic warmed by the Gulf stream?
does it keep temperatures more mild in western Europe?Is is true that the air currents form North Atlantic warmed by the Gulf stream?
yes
yes
How do you meet new people to form true friendships?
i just got out of a relationship where i was 10 years older then the guy i was living with.( im 39) now i feel like i dont have any friends my own age and its bothering me because i spend to much time on my own now and i hate it - i used to have friends to hang out with all the time and now it seems like everyone is gone and or has moved away. i still have my life long friends but we have grown really far apartHow do you meet new people to form true friendships?
You could invite them out to eat sometimes. That can definitely strengthen the friendship again. Since your older, I know it seems alot harder to keep friends, and when you were younger. But bringing them back together can bring good memories back, as well as the friendship.
Good luck.!
You could invite them out to eat sometimes. That can definitely strengthen the friendship again. Since your older, I know it seems alot harder to keep friends, and when you were younger. But bringing them back together can bring good memories back, as well as the friendship.
Good luck.!
No element is monoatomic in solid or liquid form- this true?
If this statement is true then does that mean that single atoms of any element cannot exist in nature in solid or liquid form?No element is monoatomic in solid or liquid form- this true?
Two separate questions. Liquid mercury, for example, contains mercury atoms that are not bonded to each other and are therefore monatomic. Most metals are also monatomic in solid and liquid state, because heating them will cause them to separate (therefore they have a physical and not a chemical bond). However, ';liquid'; and ';solid'; refer to the interactions between atoms, so you cannot talk about the ';form'; of a single atom because without other atoms to interact with, there is no meaning to the ';liquid'; or ';solid'; terms.No element is monoatomic in solid or liquid form- this true?
Mono-atomic substances do exist, but cannot take a form of matter such as a solid or liquid, instead they exist as an form of a mixture with the other substance taking the form of matter. To take a form of matter would require the mono-atomic particle to give up its mono-atomic state and form bonds with other materials, and thus would then become a molecule.
yes because one atom cannot have a ';state of matter'; because a state of matter irs reletive depending on the atoms around it
Yes and no. Yes at stp but at high altitude radiation can knock one loose to form an ion of a highly excited state.cash advance
Two separate questions. Liquid mercury, for example, contains mercury atoms that are not bonded to each other and are therefore monatomic. Most metals are also monatomic in solid and liquid state, because heating them will cause them to separate (therefore they have a physical and not a chemical bond). However, ';liquid'; and ';solid'; refer to the interactions between atoms, so you cannot talk about the ';form'; of a single atom because without other atoms to interact with, there is no meaning to the ';liquid'; or ';solid'; terms.No element is monoatomic in solid or liquid form- this true?
Mono-atomic substances do exist, but cannot take a form of matter such as a solid or liquid, instead they exist as an form of a mixture with the other substance taking the form of matter. To take a form of matter would require the mono-atomic particle to give up its mono-atomic state and form bonds with other materials, and thus would then become a molecule.
yes because one atom cannot have a ';state of matter'; because a state of matter irs reletive depending on the atoms around it
Yes and no. Yes at stp but at high altitude radiation can knock one loose to form an ion of a highly excited state.
If I took off my shirt, sprinkled glitter on my chest, said ';this is my true form'; would you want my babies?
you're gonna get glitter in my eye and i'm going to have to dropkick youIf I took off my shirt, sprinkled glitter on my chest, said ';this is my true form'; would you want my babies?
I would definitely want to sex you up.
But not until you tore up some trees and introduced me to some crazy vampires.If I took off my shirt, sprinkled glitter on my chest, said ';this is my true form'; would you want my babies?
very much :)
WTF ¿¿¿¿????¿¿¿¿????
No. I hate glitter.
';This is what i am in the light!!!!'; Lol
Hell yeah glitter babies.
lololol twilight lolol
only if i could have some glitter too...
lol only if you can run super fast, and are super duper emo
I think not.
I'd cut your penis!
no
Well ..........Bill .......does Hillary know what you are up to ...?
.....what????
who'd want a gay man for a father?
I would definitely want to sex you up.
But not until you tore up some trees and introduced me to some crazy vampires.If I took off my shirt, sprinkled glitter on my chest, said ';this is my true form'; would you want my babies?
very much :)
WTF ¿¿¿¿????¿¿¿¿????
No. I hate glitter.
';This is what i am in the light!!!!'; Lol
Hell yeah glitter babies.
lololol twilight lolol
only if i could have some glitter too...
lol only if you can run super fast, and are super duper emo
I think not.
I'd cut your penis!
no
Well ..........Bill .......does Hillary know what you are up to ...?
.....what????
who'd want a gay man for a father?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)