text:
Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
You likely have noticed that I have significantly changed the title of your post. I hope you don't mind. I prefer to have a dialogue about DMOZ/ODP that is cast, in most circumstances, in positive proactive terms: "What to do?" not "Why is it so bad?"
In your case I think you raised an interesting issue for discussion but cast it in terms that were likely to bring out more flamming posts than anything else.
It is a very interesting question though.
IF DMOZ is "so bad" then why is it that no other attempt to supplant it has ever taken hold in the past ~5+ years that it has been the de facto Google approved "directory of authority".
If it's so bad then why hasn't there been a ground swell movement to build a better mouse trap, so to speak?
Is it in the nature of whiners, whingers or complainers to go no further than to criticize? If it's so easy to "do it better" then why aren't they organizing themselves to do it better?
If so many folks are so displeased what's stopping them from doing DMOZ better than DMOZ?
Why isn't there a better version of DMOZ if it's so bad the way it is?
It's a socio-economic system which is merely one of many IMPLEMENTATIONS of the "obvious" idea of "using the web to facilitate cooperative work on a very large project." (It isn't even the only cooperative web indexing project. It's merely the only one remaining.)
The question is, suppose someone WANTED to cooperate on an ODP-like project. (Clearly, not everyone does.) Would he be better off by making the ODP better, or starting to build a similar project from scratch? Well, obviously, making the ODP better would be a better return on investment UNLESS:
(1) the ODP tools were so flawed as to impose significant inefficiencies in directory building (which is simply not the case: the tools are a joy to use, fast, efficient, and intuitive.)
(2) the ODP community is, for some reason or another, excluding enough likeminded people capable of building their own competing community. Now the ODP certainly excludes a lot of people, some of whom are certainly interested in building a directory, some of which are certainly capable of building a directory, and some of which are certainly capable of building a community.
The questions then are:
(a) The social question: is the intersection of those three groups large enough to replicate (more or less) what the ODP community has already done, in order to begin building the "better" part? (I suspect not.)
(b) The economic question: given the niche market of general-purpose web directories, would those people choose to to go through the effort of go do that, rather than doing something else that hadn't already been done? (Again, I suspect not.)
The information system economy tends to support no more than three visible players in each market: the big commercial effort, one big public effort, and a small commercial competitor.
Thus in operating systems: MS-Wind, Linux, Apple
In browsers: MS-Exploder, Mozilla/Firefox, Opera
In directories: Yahoo, ODP, MSN
In personal finance: Quickbooks, (name escapes me at the moment), MSN Money
In word processors: MS-*urd, OpenOffice, WordPerfect
and so on.
I suspect the reason for this is: by nature, it's hard to motivate people to cooperate in competing with a cooperative project -- they either focus on competition (and thus can't work with each other) or on cooperation (in which case they just cooperate with the other cooperators.) And I suspect (hope) that most of the cooperative, knowledgeable people that the ODP loses, either participate in other information-based projects, or go off to focus on building (on their own) the specific bits that the large projects are lacking.
I would like to see new ways of indexing the information content of the web. But I suspect that any new way that was sufficiently user-oriented to be of interest to me (as a user, and as an advocate of other users) would be complementary, not competitive, with the existing models (Wiki, directory, search index). And if such a new way appeared, many ODP editors would be among its most enthusiastic users.
Why isn't there DMOZ alternative? Simply because nobody uses directories any more - I got 11 deeplinks in DMOZ and they get me only 30 visitors a month - original long time forgotten idea behind DMOZ was surfers creating directory for other surfers not listing service. Search engines simply become too good and wikipedia took over as easiest way to find information you need.
Alternative to DMOZ is Yahoo dir which charges a fee but you can still get a listing for free if you have a good website. :-)
joined:Mar 8, 2002
votes: 0
Dep[ends on what you viewed the ODP as - a link farm or an orgaisation of the world's information. With the latter, Wikipedia is way better.
Google hasn't updated its copy of DMOZ for two years now so I doubt it still considers it "directory of authority".
That's interesting
What about Google search? Does Google spider the current DMOZ or do they use their own (2 year old) copy instead?
Given that there are limits to the number of businesses that are online - lots of business website pages but not necessarily billions of businesses - I have never been convinced that Google should remain the be all and end all of commercial search.
In my view one of the reasons for Google's emergence was the poor execution of an online strategy of the existing entities who had expertise in commercial/business search. They simply didn't get their heads and IT management wrapped up and around the long term vitality of moving their data online. Now they are playing catch-up ball.
In my view it's still too early in the game to call a winner. Sure, there is ample proof of Google's dominance. Yet, there are some big players slowly beginning to get their act together. YellowPages.com is one example of a player that is slowly getting its game on. There's likely more to come, especially in various verticals.
So I wouldn't write off directory search any time too soon.
The very fact that some think of Google as the IT suggests that there will be any number of businesses looking at other channels. In other words, if EVERYONE is looking to be #1 in IT only so many can do that on any day. What does one do then to drive traffic?
If another search vehicle emerges that gets the job done for you then Google is what?
I'm forever amused by those prepared to call the search game over. I might be the fool in this bit of amusement, befuddled and therefore fooled by my own thinking. I'll give you that. But since I'm prepared to say I may be the fool that means I'm also willing to say that I think we're still in the first inning of the process of learning to connect with businesses online. Finding a website or a company ain't all search.
You may have noticed, for example, the push into social media marketing of business. Who needs search when "your network" can refer you to a business?
Review sites? They're still working on the model.
News media working it's way into a sustainable online business model?
CraigsList as the preemptive local city (subject matter) default search for many?
Any number of these eyeball aggregating sites may offer - or do offer, in some fashion - a version of hierarhical "directory search".
Just because they don't call it the CraigsList directory doesn't mean that's not exactly what's going on. Take another look at CraigsList and tell me what you see when you take off the "this isn't a directory" blinders.
Ditto tag clouds / Digg. Ditto a whole world of "voting directoies": "Let's get together and vote on (subject X), create and rank a list." Voila. Another directory is born and people search within it.
Why do you think Google didn't stop with its search page? Maybe Google sees the future as being a time where search is fractured, diversified, specialized.
But don't let my "1st inning" analogy - or rationalization - stop you from abandoning all hope of ever executing a plan that might work in serving the search or directory space.
[edited by: Webwork at 7:49 pm (utc) on July 9, 2007]
I may be long winded. I may speak as if I know what I'm talking about. I may labor under the title of volunter unpaid moderator . . but that doesn't mean I am possessed of knowledge or that I may not be woefully misguided.
Just do me one small favor: Don't just call me a knucklehead when I get longwinded or "hold forth". Prove, in a compelling way, that I'm a knucklehead. It feels so much better that way. ;0)
Thats not stricty true. Google have not used the DMOZ RDF dump to update the categories in the Google Directory for almost 18 months (not 2 years).
Google have been using recent DMOZ RDF dumps to update the Google Directory search function - just search the Directory for a site recently added to DMOZ - it shows up in the Directory search results with a link to the category (but its not listed in the actual category).
Maybe because 100 people working full time for a year would not be able to match the size and scope of DMOZ
Just how long does it take to review a website? If these employees review an average of 30 websites a day, 100 people could add a million new listings per year. So I suppose you would need about 500 editors to build a new Dmoz within that time. And just two programmers.
Ah, very good, someone has Done The Math.
But don't forget this: the majority of websites aren't listable. You might have to review 3, 5, 10, or 1000 websites (depending on the category) to add one listing. The ODP gets about 10-40 suggestions for every listable site.
However, I think your programming estimates are a bit low: it's probably more like 10 man-years' effort -- so far as I can tell, that's about what it cost the ODP. That might mean Richard Stallman and a friend for a year, or 100 Microsofties for a decade. But there aren't that many Stallmans.
You are assuming thats all that needs doing. There are discussions re category structures and what goes where; taxonomy issues; there is building a consensus with the rest of the community; spam fighting; re-review of listed sites; etc etc etc
Dynamic search engines are easier to use
Not sure I agree with you on that point. To me the search engine SERPs are often a mess of mixed results, with unclear titles and descriptions, with spam results mixed in, with website pages ranking based upon factors that have nothing to do with what I'm looking for.
Easier to use? That's a bit sweeping.
They may be easier when I want to quickly zoom in on a particular business: Joe's Deli in Brooklyn. That is when it works. Sometimes I get 4,000 results. Sometimes the SERPs don't make it clear. Then I realize "Oh, maybe I need to refine my query" or something else.
The Wikipedia people see themselves as carefully and deliberately NOT competing with the ODP -- and, I understand, have recently modified their guidelines to make that more explicit. Like McDonald's and Citibank, "they don't sell burgers and we don't cash checks."
WP is a SUMMARY of information, the ODP is an INDEX of information SOURCES. They are quite different things, and just because I volunteer on only one of them, doesn't mean I don't highly respect the other one. (Some people are active in both.)
However, I think your programming estimates are a bit low: it's probably more like 10 man-years' effort -- so far as I can tell, that's about what it cost the ODP. That might mean Richard Stallman and a friend for a year, or 100 Microsofties for a decade. But there aren't that many Stallmans.
Having written my own directory script (although not on the scale of the OPD), I have some insight into what it entails. Realistically you'd need a small team of competent developers, at least 2 but probably no more than 10. You can also include a lot of spam-fighting measures in the script, cutting the junk submissions and making it much easier to find decent websites to approve.
What explains the absence of a real alternative?
Maybe it's easier to criticize the ODP than it is to build a better version?
Please, if you have something to add to that analysis - post it here.
If you have issues with DMOZ, per the Charter, please take them up directly with DMOZ.
Thank you.
[edited by: Webwork at 3:37 pm (utc) on July 12, 2007]
What explains the absence of a real alternative?
The amount of manpower to accomplish a large scale human reviewed/edited "general" directory is a huge task. To actually review a site, check to make sure it does not have mirrors that are already listed, and actually write a proper description showing "no" favoritism and properly done will take you 15 minutes a submission, 7-10 if you are really good and it's not a spammy category.... That adds up to a huge amount of time.
Besides, not knocking dmoz as it's the best at what it does, but general directories with a title, short description, and url are not that helpful to the masses ....
I think the next large directory will have to do more...a lot more, to attract the masses.
Maybe it's easier to criticize the ODP than it is to build a better version?
Yep, it sure is ;)
You might start off wanting to replace Dmoz, but the more you do it as opposed to talking about it, you quickly realise that
Either you'd rather be the next Yahoo/Google/msn
You might as well join Dmoz anyway :)
I wouldn't call Dmoz a waste of time, its a potentially valuable resource, but methinks it requires a certain mentality to want to be with them, in that particular kinda structure
With hundreds of emails arriving every day our email database needs a good directory structure to stop it rapidly descending into an unusable quagmire.
(Unlike DMOZ we do not have the luxury of being able to ignore/queue these requests and therefore need to keep on top of things by dealing with them in a timely manner)
And yes like DMOZ we get far higher quantities of spam to also deal with too. But unlike DMOZ this is not allowed to pollute the areas where the work is done from.
The directory structure has grown over the last 10 years and like dmoz it's many layers deep. For the last few years we have had specialist search which enables the revrieval by any word(s) in any email body or header that returns matching emails usually within 5/100ths of a second or less.
All the users also have favourites pointing to directory paths they work on a on a daily basis.
Of the three ways to access the data; directory traverse is now used less and less. Search simply for speed and accuracy has replaced the directory traverse for data retrieval.
For day to day working favourites (directory path shortcuts) enables user to target groups of data.
On large data sets other than adding, editing, removing data a directory traverse is for the vast majority of tasks an extremely inefficient use of time.
Pick any category in one the other directories - compare it to the equivalent category at DMOZ -- how are they even remotely better at DMOZ when you look at whats listed (or more correctly, paid to be listed in the case of the directories you mentioned)
[edited by: Webwork at 8:44 pm (utc) on July 19, 2007]
[edit reason] Prior post removed. We're not going to discuss 2d and 3d tier directories by name. [/edit]
It's an interesting thread "as is". For all the whining and whinging I've read about the DMOZ no one has ever managed to build a better mousetrap.
That's not to say that we all don't hope for DMOZ to do an even better job than they already do. I'm sure they're working on improvements.
Anyone from DMOZ have any insights they are allowed to offer about improvements that are being worked on?
Any plans for upgrades or new procedures or improvements on any front?
>> why hasn't a competitor emerged? <<
If it was that easy, someone from the many thousands of people who have already proposed this in the last few years would already have done it.
The only value mainstream onliners seem to see in ODP - is it's value in the eyes of G.
Once G does another spin - what value would it have?
Not Easy? it still can be achieved.
However, building a project of this scope and when done see G switching lanes, is not easy!
Simple. DMOZ is the best at what it does, and I think it's the best that anyone with an all volunteer, unpaid, untrained workforce COULD do.
Most of the 'problems' that most webmasters who submit to DMOZ complain about like slow turnaround, slow or no response, unedited cats, corruption among editors, apathy among editors, etc... they all center around the editors. This isn't surprising considering that all of the editors are unpaid. It should be stated that I'm in NO WAY blaming the editors that are there and do their job faithfully and helpfully to the benefit of the directory. Soliciting volunteers is great, but they tend to not hang around for long, and the amount of volunteers you get that are really decent will be small. That leaves volunteers who's only real concern is either mucking things up, or listing only their own site. This is counter productive, of course, and only leads to tougher restrictions on editor acceptance... which leads to less editors overall... which makes it harder to get listed... which entices webmasters to apply as editors for the sole reason of listing their site... which makes it necessary to more throughly screen editors... which leads to less editors...
You get the picture.
These problems are also in no way the fault of DMOZ itself. It's my belief that almost any system that follows the same structure is doomed to... criticism, due to lack of editor support. That's what it all boils down to.
You may say that WikiPedia would have the same problem, and maybe it does, but you don't have a whole plethora of webmasters crying about it because WikiPedia doesn't exist to list websites, as DMOZ does (even if it says that's not its real job). The job of WikiPedia is to list information. I'm not trying to list my website on WikiPedia, so I'm not going to be upset if they don't list me. WikiPedia also has a great feature where, if an article has been deleted, you can view the reasons why... DMOZ offers NO feedback.
So while DMOZ may be frustrating, maddening, and even hated in some circles... I think most of us know, deep down, that any such venture to directly compete would end up almost the exact same way. As almost any DMOZ editor will tell you, it certainly isn't the tools, the site, or the structure. It's the human element that gets us every time. If you were to build a directory that is only edited by machines and tries its very best to list good sites in such a way that they're easy to find, you might have something.
Something tells me it's already been done. Maybe I'll go look it up on GOOGLE.
[edited by: Duskrider at 2:21 am (utc) on July 20, 2007]
Most of the 'problems' that most webmasters who submit to DMOZ complain about like slow turnaround, slow or no response, unedited cats, corruption among editors, apathy among editors, etc... they all center around the editors.They may center around the editors, but they really center around the expectation of a service from DMOZ. DMOZ does not provide any sort of service to webmasters. Perhaps those who want to complain should try and ask for a refund.
Or, which is logically equivalent, "I'm not interested in what the editors are interested in."
And ... that's OK. I think it's OK that you have interests that are different from any particular person in the world (including myself). But if you don't think it's OK, you're welcome to change. If it'd help you, I'd even forward you a list of my interests, and you can start studying up.
But it's OK if you're not interested.
The model, if made strict enough to keep out junk, will always be too strict for webmasters in general... and as such will be a failure in the eyes of the majority... at least on Webmaster World.
[edited by: Webwork at 3:39 pm (utc) on July 23, 2007]
[edit reason] Keeping the focus on the issue, per Charter [/edit]


text:
A remarkable look at one of the most influential figures in jazz, from Birth of the Cool to his collaborations with legendary pianist Gil Evans to his controversial 1970s albums and beyond. This engrossing British documentary shows the complex layers of this magnificent and mercurial artist. Through rare footage and interviews, we learn of Davis's middle-class upbringing and his early days with bop legends Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker. The most penetrating and poignant portraits of Davis come from musicians who played with and were influenced by him, including Shirley Horn, Herbie Hancock, Joe Zawinul, and Keith Jarrett.
The Miles Davis Story (DVD) November 26, 2002
Share The Love
- Miles Davis on Facebook
- Miles Davis on Twitter
- Miles Davis on Google Plus
- Miles Davis on Vevo
- Miles Davis on Spotify
- Miles Davis on Instagram
Visit www.OnGuardOnline.gov for social networking safety tips for parents and youth
Legacy Recordings
© 2019 Sony Music Entertainment. All Rights Reserved.
LEGACY and the "L Legacy" logo are registered trademarks of Sony Music Entertainment.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Have a great day today. Our own favorite "Cupid" George O'Brien is aiming to please. We'll be back very soon with more Tinseltown rants and raves!
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Happy Valentine's Day!
Labels: bows and arrows, George O'Brien
3 comments:
- Gingerguy said...
Happy Valentine's to all. That picture made me feel warm, but not in my heart.
- February 14, 2017 at 8:56 AM
- joel65913 said...
Happy Valentine's Day! Bless that George O'Brien's uninhibited little heart.
- February 14, 2017 at 9:05 PM
- Poseidon3 said...
George O'Brien possesses what I call transcendent handsomeness... He would be just as yummy today even as he looked in the 1930s as far as I'm concerned (though by many standards, he'd be considered "fat!" Not mine...!) Dreamy face and smile, to boot. Thanks!
- February 15, 2017 at 4:12 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
The Pleasure Slave by Gena Showalter
Imperia #2
Publication Date: 1 February 2005
Genre: Adult Paranormal
When Santa Fe antique dealer Julie Anderson was curiously drawn to purchase a battered jewelry box, she never expected it to contain her own personal love slave. Especially not tall, dark and sinfully handsome Tristan-a man hard to resist, and determined to fulfill her every desire.
Though Tristan was a rogue of the battlefield and the boudoir, making love with Julia was like nothing he'd ever known. Yet revealing his true heart would break the centuries-old spell and separate them forever. And Tristan would do anything to go on loving Julia. . .even remain a slave through all eternity. . .
Purchase the book:
Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars
What I Felt
I read this with no idea that this was the sequel to The Stone Prince until I saw familiar names. However, The Pleasure Slave can be read as a stand-alone as it does not reference heavily to The Stone Prince.
The idea of the man in the box is interesting. It is almost like genie in the lamp except that this 'genie' is hot and literally cursed to serve the holder of the box, until he finds his true love. It does remind me of fairytale in a sense, with the happily ever after.
I love Julia's reaction to Tristan's sudden appearance from the box and how it wasn't an instant love. It is enjoyable to read how both strengthened their bond and a little heart-breaking near to the end when they are apart.
However, the book is not without its fault. There is little explanation about the time progressed on Earth and Imperia. Nevertheless, The Pleasure Slave is still an enjoyable read.
Connect with the author


text:
Rathana Thera's karma
Posted on February 16th, 2017
Editorial Courtesy The Island
February 16, 2017, 9:38 pm Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) big guns fought quite a battle to oust President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2015. Today, they have ganged up against Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thera. They say he, as a UNP National List (NL) MP, has no right to remain independent in Parliament and must resign forthwith. Interestingly, Rathana Thera as well as other JHU heavyweights endorsed defections from the Rajapaksa government to bring the present administration to power! Now, his erstwhile chumps are all out to hound him out of Parliament for breaking ranks with them and the UNP-led coalition. Karmic forces at work!
We don't intend to get involved in the JHU's internal dispute, but those who are demanding Rathana Thera's resignation have apparently ignored some arguments anent NL appointments. The fact that the NL mechanism is blatantly abused by some party leaders has led to the belief that all NL MPs are beholden to their political bosses for their appointments. This may be so in the case of political rejects catapulted to Parliament through the NL. The UNP has gone so far as to appoint Sarath Fonseka, who contested from a different party and suffered an ignominious defeat, as an NL MP. It is antithetical to all democratic norms for politicians rejected by the people, in whom sovereignty is said to reside, to be appointed NL MPs and Cabinet ministers.
However, there is a school of thought that the MPs appointed from a party's NL, presented to people at a parliamentary election, are justified in arguing that they, too, have been elected, to all intents and purposes, in that the voters have endorsed their nominations.
One may also argue that a considerable number of supporters of Rathana Thera voted for the UNP at the 2015 general election because he was one of its NL nominees. On the other hand, all prominent SLFP and UPFA politicians who defected from the Rajapaksa government and threw in their lot with Maithripala Sirisena and subsequently contested the parliamentary polls on the UNP ticket were returned. Champika Ranawaka, Rajitha Senaratne and Navin Dissanayake are some of them. The UNPers were grateful to them for their contribution to the 2015 regime change, which enabled the UNP to make a comeback. Therefore, Rathana Thera may argue that he, too, could have won like Ranawaka if he had contested the last general election as a UNP candidate.
Moreover, the late Ven. Sobitha Thera and Ven. Rathana Thera were among the leading campaigners who helped defeat the Rajapaksa administration. The UNP had suffered many electoral defeats until then because it opposed the war and was seen to be subservient to separatists. The two monks helped the UNP leaders effectively counter the Rajapaksa government's malicious propaganda and regain lost ground. Rathana Thera may, therefore, argue that he is not indebted to the UNP or anyone else for his NL appointment and has a right to remain independent in Parliament.
Ven. Sobitha Thera died crestfallen because he felt cheated by the yahapalana leaders, who unconscionably used his social position, popularity, integrity and credibility to rebrand and remarket themselves and make their political project attractive to the public. They wouldn't have had any peace of mind if he had survived his illness and bounced back; perhaps, they would have ditched him in such an eventuality. Rathana Thera has got the so-called karapincha (curry leaves) treatment—he has been used and discarded—because he has had the courage to voice dissent without being railroaded into submission.
Whether the JHU's efforts to oust Rathana Thera will reach fruition or not remains to be seen. But, we believe that the Thera has, as a politician, set an example for others to follow in Parliament. The past one and a half decades or so have seen many lawmakers defect and join other parties either for dosh or positions. There has been a proposal to ban crossovers by way of a remedy. But, such action will only put an MP in a constitutional straitjacket and pave the way for the dictatorship of party leaders in that they will be able to suppress dissent ruthlessly and reduce their parliamentarians to mere putty in their hands. A way out may be to make it mandatory for the MPs who decamp to remain independent.


text:
Stevens Pass, Crystal Mountain & The Summit at Snoqualmie have teamed up again to bring you the Cascadia Pass! Get three days of skiing or riding at each of the partner resorts when you purchase a qualifying season pass.
This Cascadia Pass add-on is geared towards locals living in the Puget Sound who want to explore other local mountains while still having a season pass at their home mountain.
There are no restrictions. You can choose to visit anytime you like. Simply present your season pass at the ticket window to redeem a day ticket.
To qualify you must first purchase a qualifying 2018-19 season pass to one of the three resorts and you'll be given the option to add the Cascadia Pass at the time of purchase for just $199 through May 31.
More Information
- Tickets are non-transferable
- Tickets redeemable by Cascadia Pass holder only
- Tickets will expire at the end of the regular 2018-19 season
Got Questions?
Crystal Mountain Resort - email@example.com or (360) 663-3050
Stevens Pass Mountain Resort - firstname.lastname@example.com or (206) 812-4510
The Summit at Snoqualmie - firstname.lastname@example.com or (425) 434-7669


text:
A friend of mine just recently signed up for online dating. As someone who got together with her husband in 2001, online dating was not a "thing" when I locked myself down, at least not nearly like it is now. Now, it seems everyone is doing it.
Back then, I did try it for a week, though. I met one guy and went out a few times with him. It wasn't a love match, but he is still a friend of mine to this day. The one thing I didn't do, however, is put up a photo. Crazy, no?
In fact, it was genius. My friends who online date and who are attractive say they are bombarded by requests for dates and end up on some really bad ones. Meanwhile, those who are less attractive are constantly accused of putting up old photos, lying about their looks, or not being attractive enough to be asked out. Here's a simple solution: Bag the photo.
It may seem radical, but it's kind of freeing. A man who takes the time to read a profile without a photo is the kind of man I would like to get to know. The kind of man who only wants to date me because he thinks I have a nice rack? No thanks.
There is always the chance that you won't get a guy who only dates women with photos, but hey, there is also always the chance a guy will miss an amazing woman (who also happens to be hot) because he only dates women with photos.
Personally, in my VAST one week of experience, I did find the missing photo did weed out the type of guy I wanted to weed out and what I was left with were guys I could see being friends with at the very least. Sure enough, I think the guy I met in my week of online dating is one of the coolest and smartest guys I know.
Meanwhile, my friends with more experience agree. A couple friends also skipped profile photos and had great success in finding true love and marriage. There is something about the guy who takes the time to read what you say regardless of what you look like. Plus, he is really looking at YOU, not your six-pack or big boobs or green eyes.
Obviously, attraction is a part of the deal, but assess that in person. I have never been able to tell from a photograph whether someone is really hot anyway. Chemistry and attraction are qualities that can only be measured while in someone's company.
The man I ultimately married was someone I had known all along (since I was 10), and our attraction grew from games of pool and flirtation. It wasn't just because either of us thought the other looked good in a bathing suit (though we did think that, too).
Ladies who want to find love: Try to skip the photo. And fellows: Don't overlook the lady without the photo. She may very well be hotter than anyone else in the ways that matter.
Would you ever consider going photo-free?
Image via Banalities/Flickr


text:
Fifth Round
Pastor Stephen Feinstein
Hello everyone,
Russell Glasser finally responded to my last post, and per our agreement this is our last exchange. Read his response here:
Please read his response prior to reading my response that follows since it will provide you with the context of all that follows. The same patterns that I have used in terms of quoting Russell also apply in this post.
If you are just now discovering this debate, the following links will catch you up:
The game plan is as follows: Russell will offer one more response and then we are done. If he brings up anything that warrants a response, I will respond to it on this blog, but he is not going to link it. If he writes more on this afterward, I also will not link it on my blog. So as this debate wraps up, please enjoy. I ask that people think through all of our responses carefully before they start leaving comments once they are enabled. With that said, I can begin.
I thank you for your response, and given its length, I may not be able to be as brief as I would have liked. First let me state that I have not reimagined my role in this debate, but instead I merely took a logical step based on what you said at the end of your second response. You claimed that unless I prove atheism is untenable, then, I "will have lost." Well, given that your materialistic brand of atheism posits a chance governed universe (you still are ducking this point), and the universe operates off of uniformity and predication, then your atheistic presupposition is impossible. Therefore, I did prove that atheism was impossible, and therefore by your own statement in your second response, I claimed victory. It's pretty simple Russell, you made yourself the arbitrator and judge with that statement, and I just followed suit. I'll address your proposal at the end.
Concerning your summary of my third post, I think you still missed the point of the argument, and I mean no insult over this, but I am starting to think that the presuppositional argument is going over your head. Your comments demonstrate that you simply have not understood it. There were strong philosophical arguments in my third response (persons coming from persons, one and many problem, necessary vs. contingent beings, and so on). So indeed, you are blowing smoke. It is easy for you to assert that I had no argument, but it is entirely another thing to be brave enough to honestly address the argument and come to terms with the savaging of your worldview. That you have not done.
You went on to quote my statement about your assumptions being inconsistent with your presuppositions, but then rather than attempting to deal with that, you committed the red herring fallacy by putting the same argument you made in your second post, namely that I need to demonstrate that the existence of the Biblical God avoids the "so-called" arbitrariness. First off Russell, your position is arbitrary, so labeling it as "so-called" does nothing to alleviate your problem. Secondly, I did demonstrate through the "necessary and contingent" argument that the arbitrariness disappears. I find it fascinating that you just don't understand this. Truly I do. I want to remind our readers, especially those of your camp, that your simple insulting dismissal of the argument does NOT constitute a counterargument, but instead it is another red herring. It demonstrates to me that mocking a sound argument rather than refuting it is all that your camp is able to do. I am fine with that.
Your attempt to demonstrate this argument to be guilty of begging the question was weak at best. Please, quote me correctly. I said "contingent" is something that it is "caused" by something outside of itself, "sustained" by something or a variety of things outside of itself, and "determined" by factors outside of itself. You twisted my words into defining contingency as something that needs an explanation. By the very definition of what contingent means, all contingent things require an explanation. This is simple stuff, and yet you missed the point again. You need proof? Look at the pen on your desk. It is caused (by a manufacturer), sustained (by uniform laws of nature), and determined (by a manufacturer). You can't just look at the pencil and say it needs no explanation. Sure, you can write with it without knowing the explanation, but it still is not "self-existent" because a contingent object cannot be self-existing. So now, look away from the pencil and look at yourself, your desk, a rock, the earth, the sun, the moon, the galaxy, and the universe. If you are honest, you will have to conclude that each meet the same criteria as the pencil. Even the universe according to your own fairy tale of cosmology started as a singularity that built pressure until it exploded/expanded for 380,000 years, until temperatures cooled to the point of 3,000 Celsius, I believe, and could then enter dark ages until stars began to form 400 million years later. Each of these sequential steps is caused by factors outside of themselves (gravity, motion, heat, movement, time), are sustained (by uniform nature), and are determined (either by chance or design). Let me pretend for just a second that your highly imaginative story was true. The singularity still was contingent since it was compiling pressure prior to time. I wont even ask how it compiled pressure before the existence of motion and time, since pressure implies motion and time is a category of motion, but instead I will simply grant the fairy tale for now. The bottom line is this. Since the singularity is contingent, it is caused, and therefore it had to come from something that is NOT itself. And yet, according to your cosmology, it is the first of its kind. So the chain ends at the singularity. But the singularity itself cannot be self-existent since it is contingent. Therefore, a necessary being that is transcendent (outside of the physical universe) had to create the singularity.
By definition, the universe cannot be self-existent. Yet, the universe exists. Thus, the creator exists. This is not arbitrary, nor is it begging the question, but instead it is a philosophical necessity. A necessary being cannot be contingent (caused, sustained, and determined), and therefore if you have any contingent objects or people, we can trace it back to the first of its kind, and right there at that point a necessary being is necessarily necessary! Until you understand this, or come to terms with it, you will continue to erroneously apply the fallacy of begging the question to this. I need spend no more time on this. In the third response, I did in fact show why the Biblical Triune God is the necessary being. Scoff if you want, but you have not refuted my argument in the least. Your bravado will not fool anyone paying careful attention.
And now to my "Call of Duty" analogy. Really Russell? The teleological argument? That is what you got out of that? It is as though you missed the whole point again. I did not say, "The game bears evidence of design; therefore there must be a game designer." Instead, I said the game has preconditions for its existence. These are entirely different philosophical arguments. Of course, you wasted a lot space refuting an argument that I never made, while at the same time being totally unoriginal by using David Hume's basic refutation of the teleological argument. By the way, his refutation was countered long ago, but it is moot because I was not making an "argument from design." I was simply stating that the if game exists, you cannot axiomatically assume that preconditions to it's existence are unnecessary. Instead, it existence depends on manufacture, design, technology, etc. Sure, you can play and even master the game without knowing anything about its preconditions (that I granted in my last response), but it still does not change the fact that all contingent things have necessary preconditions. This entire analogy was in response to your desperate appeal to the Axiomatic Theory of Truth by which you argued that you do not have to consider the preconditions of reality because you can simply assume that reality exists and leave it at that. You can assume this, but it is irrelevant to whether or not preconditions do exist, and the truth of the matter is that they do. Reality has the uniformity of nature and the laws of logic, both of which are impossible in a godless chance governed universe. Russell, this was another transcendental argument concerning our presuppositions, not an argument from design. At least get my argument right before you negligently dismiss it.
And I shall move now to the laws of logic, or deductive inference. Russell, did I ever say that the "laws of logic must have a creator?" Interestingly enough, you put that in quotes thus giving the impression that I said that. I did not. I'll give you an explanation in a moment, but first I am going to use the laws of logic as my second major argument to show that atheism is "irrational, untenable, and impossible."
Let me start by quoting a statement from your first post. I am cutting and pasting this directly so that you cannot accuse me of "deliberately" changing words. If the words end up different on your website, then it means someone altered your site after September 7, 2012. You said, "And I personally do lean towards materialism, humanism, and a scientific approach to learning about the world." I am going to focus on the fact that you said you lean "towards materialism." Given that you said that, the very existence of logic savages your position. Let me start with a basic explanation of logic – human beings deduce conclusions with the laws of logic, and these conclusions are considered to be genuine knowledge. Deduction is when a person takes a group of information (classes and categories) and then applies certain laws of thought and relationships to that information, and then draws a conclusion.
So why is this a problem for you? If you are a materialist, then your position is that all of reality is merely matter in motion. Reality is only physical if the materialist's presuppositions are true. So then tell me Russell, are classes and categories material things? For example, is the class or category of "humanity" physical? Please do not misunderstand this. Individual humans – the class "particulars" – are indeed physical, but is the concept of humanity itself something that is physical? If so, show it to me. Where is it in time and space? You are trapped by this question. You cannot touch or smell the concept of humanity because it is not physical. It cannot be punched, burned, tackled, frozen, cuddled, jump-kicked, etc.
What about the class of height? I am not talking about the specific height of six foot, one inch, because that is a particular. Instead, I am talking about the concept of height, which is the universal. Sure, specific heights measured within space and time are indeed physical, but no class or concept is physical. You could never meet the burden of proof to show that these "thoughts," which are so universal and objective that we dub them "laws," are indeed physical. Yet, with these immaterial concepts, and immaterial thoughts and mental laws (logic), humans can relate immaterial classes and categories together that allow us to have knowledge of the material world that is not based on empirical observation or experience. This goes back to that example I gave in my second response about knowing that no human in Israel is 50 feet tall. And yet, I have not empirically studied all 7 million people in Israel, but I am still confident in my conclusion due to deductive inference. Thus, there can be no doubt that these non-physical concepts are real since they influence our ability to dominate the physical world.
Even something like simple mathematical reasoning proves this point. If you were in my classroom and I wrote, 5+5=10 on a whiteboard, and I asked you what is this sign "5," you would answer, "It is the number five." If I then asked, "Is it really and truly five," and you said, "Yes," what happens if I erase both "5's" from the board? Have I destroyed "five" from the universe? You would then have to reconsider whether or not the mark on the board was truly five. No, instead you would conclude it is a symbolic representation, and hence a material "particular", of the immaterial "universal" of the concept "five." If I said I am going to pull five out of the closet, your natural question would be, "Five of what?" That is a good question because I cannot pull the immaterial concept of five out of the closet, but instead I can only apply that immaterial concept to material objects and then pull five of those objects out of the closet. Are you getting my point?
Atheists who claim that all reality is physical speak and think in a way on a daily basis that betrays their claim. They talk about numbers and concepts, which are immaterial, yet they claim all reality is material. Given that you said in your first post that you lean towards materialism, you are not living consistently with your presuppositions. Your presuppositions state that reality is only matter, and ultimately that matter is governed by chance. By the way, I will address your absurd claim that I am guilty of the equivocation fallacy later.
Russell, you have a huge problem. If you are going to claim that all things in existence must be physical or material, then you need to deny the existence of the laws of logic since classes and concepts are not made out of physical matter. Ultimately, then, there can be no numbers, concept of humanity, class of height, and laws of logic. Without these things there can be no deduction, and without deduction there can be no reasoning since reasoning itself is deductive. So at this juncture of the debate, your chance-based materialism cannot account for a world with inductive inference (uniformity of nature) or a world with deductive inference (laws of logic). Not only are your presuppositions unable to account for them, but also even worse, if your presuppositions were true, then we could NOT have uniform nature (chance negates it), and logic could NOT exist (materialism negates it). Yet, both uniformity and logic exist. Therefore, atheism based on chance-governed materialism cannot be true.
For whom are the laws of logic truly a problem, the Christian or the atheist? It certainly is not the former, but the latter. Yet, based on our debate thus far, I imagine you saying, "But the laws of logic exist! It's axiomatic and I don't have to justify them." It goes right back to us staring at a video game and you saying that it doesn't have preconditions.
With that now said, I can respond to your argument that the laws of logic somehow undermine the Christian worldview. First, let me say that you do not understand the Presuppositionalist position on logic. If you did, you would not have advanced this argument as you did. As I argued above, the laws of logic are simply the laws of thought. They are immaterial, but they help us dominate the material world. Thought was not created, as your argument supposes. The Christian position is that the necessary being is an absolute person. Hopefully you recall that I made that distinction in my opening statement. This means that God's personhood is uncaused, unsustained, and undetermined by anything outside of Himself. He is the original person and we are derivative persons. The Medieval Scholastics used projection and negation to figure out some attributes of God, though this was unnecessary since the Bible speaks on each attribute. They basically reasoned that since we are derivative and God is original, we can project our attributes back to God, but in Him they will exist to an infinite degree, whereas our derivative attributes are limited by finitude (a fact that makes human epistemology problematic). One attribute of personhood is sentient thought. Therefore, when projected from its contingent derivative form in us back to its necessary original form in God, it stands to reason that His thoughts then are uncaused, unsustained, and undetermined by anything outside of Himself.
Thus, the laws of logic are simply the laws of immaterial thought that exist in the infinite mind of God. Humans, unlike fish, dogs, chimps, etc. are made in the image of God, and as a result we too have sentient minds by which we depend on the laws of thought known as logic. Logic is what it is because it stems from the mind of God. He did not create logic, but yet it would be a fallacy to say God is logic. Instead, God is a person, and persons think according to immaterial laws of thought, and thus God's thoughts are the basis of our thoughts. We simply in an analogical form do what is original to God each and every time we use the laws of logic.
Given the fact that the laws of logic are objective rather than relative, and given that all humans everywhere have access to them just by mere thought, this proves that they cannot be grounded in chance. We have already had this discussion. Logic would change as chance directs. And even though not everyone claims to believe in logic, everyone unknowingly lives by it. Keep contradicting the person who says they don't believe in the law of contradiction, and you will see that their annoyance with you proves that they truly do believe in the existence of contradiction.
So here we are, using these mental laws that seem universal among sentient minds, and yet we did not create these laws, but we know that the existence of our mind is the necessary precondition to access them. If they did not originate in us, but our use of logic is contingent (caused, sustained, and determined by factors outside of us), and yet logic is a product of mind and thought, then our derivative and contingent logic also needs a necessary being as the ground of logic. Logic exists because God exists. God cannot arbitrarily make a square circle because a square objectively has four sides whereas a circle has none, and these exist this way because the logical mind of God determined this as a product of His mind.
Thus your question and argument demonstrates two great inadequacies. First, you demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what logic even is. If they are laws of immaterial thought, and thought requires minds, then original logic (not our derivative logic) is simply a function of God's mind. It is not something He created, nor is it something He arbitrarily controls. When you think logically, are you arbitrarily controlling it? When you think logically, are you creating these thoughts with a "hammer?" So, why is it any different with God, the original and absolute person, from which your derivative personhood is derived? You are actually guilty of the self-excepting fallacy. Second, if you truly knew what logic was – immaterial laws of thought that assist us in arriving at conclusions in the material world – then you would have avoided this argument altogether since the existence of something immaterial undermines your atheistic materialistic position. Sadly, your own words demonstrate that in your heart of hearts you know this. You said, "Axioms, tautologies, and logical inferences aren't the same kind of entities as buildings, watches, and software…"
Where is my arbitrariness? Are you going to say I am appealing to a magical tiara again? If so, that is quite dishonest. I am appealing to an absolute person with an absolute mind as the ground of logic, which are simply the laws of the mind. Much like the uniformity of nature, since logic exists, the ground of logic must exist too. That ground must be an absolute personality (since logic is the function of persons), and of all of the religious philosophies of the world, only Christian theism presents a God that is not self-contradicting (via the Trinity and the creator/creature distinction). So once again, your move Russell.
If you are asking me to lead you to a burning bush, I say that you are the one not entering this debate on good faith. Everything that I have done thus far has demonstrated that the Christian God is an ontological necessity due to everything else that exists. He is the necessary precondition, which means that ONLY Christian presuppositions are consistent with what we see in the real world. As I have already demonstrated, atheist presuppositions contradict what we see in the real world. Therefore, I can agree with you that reality exists, and the laws of logic exist, but only my position offers the preconditions for these things; and like the video game, there are indeed preconditions.
At this point, I have spoken enough about this, save one small point. You sure accused me of saying a lot of things about logic that I never said. You would do well to know what I actually believed before creating a straw man to kick down. I am beginning to lose count of all of your logical fallacies. Also, you implied that if I did present a position that God and logic are connected to each other, then logic is necessary and I have somehow contradicted myself (according to your straw man). Not true. Human use of logic is contingent and thus God's logical mind is the necessary use of logic that our usage depends on. The use of our logic necessarily presupposes God's logic. I wanted to spell it out clearly here so there is no misunderstanding.
As you apparently thought you were building momentum, you then asked how does a transcendent being manufacture consistency? That's easy Russell. God is logical, orderly, and His creation exhibits it. Just like a bicycle is orderly so that it can function, so too is the universe. God obviously made the universe so that life is sustainable, but even more than that, He made it with the intent of us also being able to learn and grow in it. Don't you agree that the uniformity of nature is a necessary ingredient for that? You should, because in my third response I demonstrated such with an analogy of dropping a marker.
You then asked me, "why should anyone believe that the state of a creatorless universe is inconsistency?" You smuggled more arbitrariness into that question. That question presupposes that it is even possible for humans to "know" (epistemology matters here) what the "natural state" of an uncreated universe is. If the universe were godless, how would you know what its natural state is? Wouldn't you need to be able to simultaneously observe all parts of the universe at once to satisfy the epistemological demand? If you could, then God does exist and you are He. Instead, you are a finite man with a three-pound brain who possess no exhaustive knowledge of any single thing. You cannot even possess exhaustive knowledge of a single square inch of earth, since that would require total knowledge of each subatomic particle in the past, present, and future along with the conditions immediately above and below that inch. Autonomous human knowledge is actually epistemologically impossible. So you cannot even demonstrate the possibility of knowing the natural state of godless universe, even if a godless universe existed. So your question betrays your own finite ignorance.
And yet, we as humans seem to know things. Well, it is not on our own. Instead, the very ability for us to possess certain knowledge depends on the mind of a being that does possess omnipotence and omniscience and for us to exist dependently in His image and to be able to use the laws of logic. The very fact that we know things and use logic necessitates this. What you and your people have failed to grasp about transcendental reasoning is that it should be applied to every single experience of man, such as knowledge, thought, fun, etc. And when we make such applications, and then start asking about presuppositions, each and every time, atheism ends up dead on the ground. This is why it is no wonder to me that you want to duck presuppositional reasoning and epistemology and instead focus on blindly accepting axioms uncritically.
And by the way, thanks for brining up inertia. Inertia cannot exist in a chance-governed universe. Instead, uniformity must already exist prior to inertia's existence. So you admit that chance then does not govern the universe, but uniformity does. Great, so how did the universe get here then? Meaningless chance? Come on, Russell, isn't that the heart of existentialism?
Your next point was that I am guilty of special pleading by saying that epistemology overturns your axioms forcing us to discuss preconditions while at the same time saying this cannot apply to God since He is necessary. I understand your frustration with this, but it is not because I am using special pleading. I cannot change definitions. Words and concepts have particular meanings. An axiom by nature is contingent. It is caused, sustained, and determined by our finitude's inability to epistemologically justify many presuppositions that do not have the Biblical God as the ground. So many fields of study need axioms, and yet this does not remove the fact that an axiom is contingent upon us. There are no axioms to God since He by definition and nature is omniscient. His reality is true reality, and in true reality there are no axioms. Our reality is contingent reality understood through our finitude, and thus we create axioms in order to have starting points. Given that we create them, they are contingent. No matter what we do, we cannot apply preconditions to a necessary being since by nature and definition a necessary being does not have preconditions. I am not special pleading, but instead I am pointing out what must be the case by the very nature of definitions. With that said, I am not declaring victory by "calling an axiom by a different word" (for a necessary being cannot be an axiom), instead I declared victory because the existence of reality, logic, and persons are impossible if your presuppositions are true.
You may try to say that if God is not an axiom, ontologically speaking, then the concept of God employed by believers is an axiom that we appeal to based on our finitude. I would give you a little more credit if you clarified your argument to that, but even so you are still wrong. The existence of contingencies renders God necessary, and thus His existence is not an improvable assumption, but instead it is a transcendental requirement of our own existence. Since we exist, He must, and therefore this is not axiomatic but necessary. Thus, you still have no argument.
Moving on, you responded to my alleged "smoking gun," which was just me showing everyone that your statement implied that you were tossing out rationality. Russell, the smoking gun has been everything else that I have said concerning presuppositions, uniformity nature, and the laws of logic. You simply dismiss these arguments because either you do not understand them, or you cannot truly answer them and so you are directing your camp away from your position's damning problems. Concerning my "deliberately" changing your words, I can assure you that I did not. Given that it has almost been five weeks since I responded to you in that post, I cannot remember exactly how I confused the words. However, looking closely at it, I still captured your thoughts. You said that it would bring you no closer to "justifying the claim that this God exists," and I quoted you as saying, "it does not prove that God exists." What is the difference Russell? The bottom line is this. You wrote that if we agreed that the existence of consistency depended on the Christian God, and that consistency does in fact exist, then we are still no closer to justifying the claim that God exists. In your most recent post, you clarified your position and said that such a thing would make it "absurd to not accept God as a conclusion."
What I did show was that consistency depends on the uniformity of nature, and the uniformity of nature depends on God rather than chance. You simply refuse to accept this. Yet, your denial of the obvious does not change the fact that what I said is true.
Furthermore, you claim that I employ a "usual double standard" in this debate, but this causes me to wonder how close you are paying attention. Why do you think I spend so much time on explaining the details of necessary vs. contingent and using the correct syntactical definition of "chance," and so on? It is to show you that I am not using a double standard, but instead I am demonstrating why my position accounts for reality and yours does not. However, you have either missed the point or instead deliberately ignored it to throw our readers off.
I enjoyed your video game dialogue between us, but again it demonstrated a lack of understanding of my position. I never implied that you needed to come to terms with the game's preconditions to be able to play the game. Instead I said, "Although it is true that you do not need to know the preconditions of the game's existence to be able to play the game, this is irrelevant to the fact that the game still has preconditions." So your dialogue misrepresented my argument, yet again. So where then have I confused "what" with "why" and how have I used the "argument from ignorance fallacy?"
This then brings me to your final point about my "odd relationship with the scientific method." First, let me use the "Call of Duty" analogy to reiterate that you do not need to know the preconditions of the game to play the game. Likewise, a physicist does not need to know the preconditions of physics and the philosophical necessity of God in order to successfully perform physics. Because the universe is uniform, the physicist can discover many wonderful things without ever researching into the preconditions of intelligibility. It is no different than a kid beating "Call of Duty" 100 times, while never looking into the manufacture of the game. The mere fact that most scientists for the last two centuries operated off of impossible presuppositions does not negate their ability to discover things via the scientific method. The scientists of the two centuries before them made amazing discoveries while operating off of Biblical presuppositions. This goes to show that your argument made in our game dialogue agrees with what I am saying here. The mere existence of a uniform nature, the laws of logic, and uniform processes of the human mind make such discoveries possible regardless of what presuppositions one holds.
This does not make presuppositional reasoning useless for science, however. I believe with the correct presuppositions that even greater discoveries would be made. I am simply offering an explanation as to why there are more atheist scientists than creation scientists. The number of people holding to a particular position is irrelevant to the truthfulness of a position. To argue otherwise is both the fallacy of ad populum and the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Otherwise in 1930s Germany the Nazi's must have been right. Of course, we know that is absurd. There were atheists in the days of Copernicus and Kepler too, but the majority of European scientists were Christians. Does that fact mean Christian assumptions were more likely to be true? No.
So then, let me move on to my experience in university science classes. Most of my degrees except for my theology degree come from secular California State Universities. In my Biology 101 class, the professor did in fact make the argument as I stated it. In my "Life in the Cosmos" class, the professor (a professor of Physics) made a similar argument. He and I entered an e-mail conversation and he conceded some points in front of the entire class. For his honesty, I respect him greatly. In both classes, the professors offered the typical evidence for evolution that has been debunked for decades (vestigial organs, embryo similarities, genomes, and numerous examples of microevolution), and yes I paid attention. They spent maybe ten minutes on the "time + chance" formula, and weeks on the other issues. My point was those weeks are meaningless if the initial unobservable presupposition that it depends upon is false. That was my whole point in bringing this up. Time and chance cannot cause stellar evolution, the formation of planets, and the abiogenesis emergence of life. The uniformity of nature cannot be self-existent due to its contingent nature. Thus, God created the universe uniform, and He did not use macroevolution.
Obviously, this requires another 5 to 10 response debate to adequately respond to these matters. But I can assure you that I love science and I am very well read in many of the fields that such a debate would require us to discuss. Creationists are not ignorant of your arguments, or even your evidence. And without uniformitarianism, you lose deep time, and without deep time, you lose macroevolution. Rates and conditions have been measured perhaps for a century, and so to take so few years of data and to then extrapolate that into billions of years is epistemologically impossible. It is a presupposition that if disproven would cause many fields of science to have to reevaluate literally everything. The only reason why I am even brining this up is because this is all we will get to say on it in this debate. I simply want readers to think it through logically and not to fall for the ad hominem attacks against Creationism, but instead to evaluate assumptions, presuppositions, and to see what happens to data interpretation when you begin from a different set of presuppositions. Both camps look at the same data, but they come to different conclusions. And yet these conclusions are based on the various starting point of certain presuppositions, of which most are not falsifiable on both sides. Neither side is "anti-science." Instead, the secularists are anti-supernaturalist and the Christians are anti-naturalist.
Russell, the only other thing I need to say about evolution is that it is naive of you to dismiss the chance argument. Spontaneous generation depends entirely on chance, and even natural selection, hereditary adaptation skills, variable survival rates and speciation (which does no harm to the creationist arguments based on "kinds") are not directed activities. In many respects, it amounts to brute random chance, being at the right place at the right time, and a number of other factors that each life form has no control over. And ultimately, evolution is more than just a biological theory, since stellar evolution is taught in astronomy classes. I am opposed to the notion of natural evolution of all kinds (accept for micro in biology), not just biological evolution. Atheism clings to these theories, and at the heart of materialistic atheism is a universe governed by brute chance.
I too could post some links offering counterevidence against macroevolution, and say that you are not interested in seeing evidence that shatters your theory. I should also accuse you of absurdity by insinuating that I reject the "science that built the modern world." The science that built the modern world did not depend on uniformitarian assumptions, but instead would have progressed just as smoothly under any form of catastrophism. It is a fallacious to apply as a cause to an effect something that does not necessarily lead to it. This is a form of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Are you going to tell me that assuming rates and conditions do not change somehow helped us get a man on the moon? Actually, if rates and conditions do not change, why didn't Neil Armstrong sink? This is a different discussion for a different time I suppose. The point is, your point was fallacious.
With that, I can wrap this whole thing up by addressing your "wrap up." I did not commit the equivocation fallacy with my use of "chance." Yes, there were six other definitions, but the syntactical usage of the word "chance" in this discussion is that of the first definition. You do know what syntax is, right? It violates the basic laws of grammar to apply all six definitions to the word "chance" when syntax narrows its specific usage down to a single definition. The first definition is what many atheists refer to as the governing principle of the universe. If you need me to provide quotes, I can oblige. Furthermore, the equivocation fallacy is when a person changes the definition of the word to other definitions within the argument. Where did I do that? I am not sure if you are rightly applying this fallacy.
Apparently, you must not believe that the universe originated via random chance. You insist that it is directed, though you could never account for its direction. You are still left with the contradiction of undirected direction. Since your response to having this problem pointed out to you was simply to repeat the fallacy, I'm not going to waste any more time than it takes to repeat the reason it is invalid, which I just did a few sentences ago. If you believe random chance started the universe, but now it operates off uniformity, then you do in fact believe randomness caused its antonym, uniformity. Russell, your attempt to escape this is nothing more than folly. Assert it all you want; it doesn't change the fact that you are trapped by this unless you are willing to dismiss chance as the cause of the universe. If you dismiss chance, then you are left with a bigger problem. Where did the contingent uniformity come from?
Finally, concerning your suggestion about judging this debate, I am not surprised by your suggestions. Suggestion One: Let's put the decision solely in the hands of Matt, an atheist! He set this debate up because he wanted to see if you could counter the presuppositional argument. I believe you did not even come close, but that is beside the point. Matt set this up hoping I would lose. Why would I put the decision in his hands? Suggestion Two: Let's post a survey online and let people vote. First off, truth does not reduce to a matter of majority rules. If so, then imagine if a Jew debated a Nazi in 1936, and then it was left up to the masses to determine who won. I wonder how that one would have turned out? As it stands now, there have been about 5,000 to 6,000 views of each debate response on my blog, and these are linked from your website; there are about 400 to 500 from other sources. You guys have your own TV show and a following. I pastor a small church, and just recently created my first blog for this debate. A few people are blogging about our blog, and guess what? They are all atheist bloggers (at least the ones I read). So if we opened this to the public there would be about 6,000 atheists who are going to say you won, and maybe 500 Christians who will say I won. All of the Christians who have personally commented on this debate think that I have defeated you soundly, but I am pretty sure that the atheists you have spoken to give you the same line. So suggestion two is out of the question. Suggestion Three: Let's allow an agnostic to decide. Agnostics are not neutral people, typically. How you would like it if I said, "Suggestion Four: We submit it to a Christian University to decide. Christians are honest!" I doubt you would agree.
So of course you are "willing to submit to any or all of these methods of concluding the debate." It is stacked in your favor. Nice try. Look, if we had evenly sized crowds, I would consider option one, but I just don't have that many people reading this. I believe that I have met the demand that I set out in the first debate. I also believe that you have done nothing to adequately defend atheism or refute my Christian arguments. Having 6,000 atheists vote against me will not change my mind any more than 6,000 Christians voting against you will change your mind. You even said in our initial Facebook in-box chat that you were not going to be convinced and you did not expect that I would either. So what is the real purpose of your suggestion? Is it simply strength by numbers?
To assist people with their personal decision as to who actually won this debate, I would like to remind the readers of what was accomplished:
- From the opening statement I made it clear that this is a battle of worldviews and that our presuppositions would be tested by transcendental logic to see if our worldviews are even possible. Russell has ducked this responsibility by openly admitting that he can take his worldview for granted and therefore does not have to put it to the test.
- Atheism is a philosophy like any other, even if Russell does not want to admit it. As a philosophy it is totally inadequate. Two arguments were used (though I hoped to use four): inductive inference and deductive inference. Both shattered Russell's worldview.
- In my second response, I countered Russell's statement about it being better not to assume things without good reasons. I said it is better not to assume the universe made itself through random processes. Notice that Russell did not object to my use of the word "random" at this point. Like every other atheist, he seemed fine with assuming chance-based origins.
- Once my third response refuted the possibility of a universe being grounded on chance, only then did Russell try to distance himself from the typical atheistic usage of the word "chance." Readers, this is a very telling point. Russell's only recourse was to ignore syntax and say I misused the word, when in fact I did not.
- On more than one occasion, I brought up problems based on observation (farmers producing farms, workers making tractors, persons come from persons), which is contrary to everything Russell's position assumes.
- Russell's attempt to accuse me of circular reasoning was debunked in my third response as I demonstrated his position to be guilty of narrow circularity, whereas mine only had broad circularity (which is impossible for any position to avoid).
- Russell on more than one occasion attempted to get out of his dilemma by appealing to a magical tiara in such way as to say that is what my position amounts to. This demonstrated a great lack of philosophical precision on his part and that the presuppositional argument from the uniformity of nature was not understood by him. I believe even now, at this point of the debate, he still has not really attempted to refute it. A God that is an absolute person, that is distinct from creation, and sovereign over it, and triune indeed does meet the necessary preconditions for the uniformity of nature. Think on each of the four points, and it does not take a rocket scientist to see how these can account for uniformity. Russell's response? A magical tiara.
- Throughout Russell's third and fourth response it is clear that he did not understand the necessary vs. contingent argument.
- My fourth response was a refutation of everything Russell said in his third response, which was the closest thing he gave in terms of counterarguments. However, his argument was that he is permitted to take his assumptions for granted as long as he hides behind the concept of axioms. He then went back to the tiara again. I removed this misguided attempt throughout the fourth response.
- Finally, this last response of mine demonstrated how the laws of logic savage the materialist's worldview, and I forever buried Russell's straw man argument against the Christian view of logic.
- Truly, Russell's last response was nothing more than bravado. Serious arguments damaged his position, and his best defense was to play it off as though it did not affect him. My hope is that the readers look with keen eye and mind and see that he did not nullify a single argument made by me. They all still loom over him.
- I responded to his attempted arguments and I feel they were soundly silenced.
- Finally, it only took Russell four days to respond to my opening statement. No argument was made, and so no pressure was placed on him. I responded to him within two days, where I only slightly began to introduce the way the argument was going to go, and it took Russell eight days to respond. I then responded in two days again, and this time I advanced the first argument (inductive inference). In this case, now that the argument was coming against Russell, it took him nearly two weeks to respond. Since I was driving across the country at that time, it took me four days to respond to his eventual post, but then after that it took nearly five weeks to get a response from Russell. I am sorry, but for all of the bravado, why is it taking so long? If these arguments of mine are so easy to dismiss and counter then we shouldn't be seeing this kind of delayed time. We're both busy men. The time it takes to receive responses betrays the confidence and bravado in Russell's responses.
Whoever reads the entire debate can judge for themselves the outcome. I can sleep with a good conscience knowing that I have left you even more so without excuse. My only suggestion to you is that you repent of your sin and trust the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul. You are a guilty sinner who has broken the holy God's laws, and as a result you will one day stand before Him in judgment. Yet, in His grace and mercy, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, paid the debt of sinners by bearing their punishment. By receiving such grace by faith, your sins are forever removed because the substitute paid the fine for them, and in return you will receive the credit of every righteous thing Jesus did. For He was the only one to perfectly obey God's holy standards. To place faith in Christ leads to justification, where God declares a person righteous because of Christ's righteousness being imputed into their account. Russell, and your followers, I exhort you to repent and receive this grace. If you do, you will receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (third person of the Trinity) as the gift, and you will then know by experience the things I have written about. The choice is yours.
Click the following link to read my closing reflections as a response to Russell's final post:
My Closing Remarks


text:
Let's make a book deal
It's oh-fish-ul; I have a new book deal with Random House (Or Penguin Random, or Random Penguin, whatever the new name is post-merger). The hopeful release date for this unnamed novel is 2015, so gods willing, there won't be such a wait between books.
Speaking of waiting, we're getting close to nailing down a cover for SONGS OF WILLOW FROST. When we finally have the art in hand I'll post the cover along with my roughs, like I did last time for HOTEL. I didn't want to be another cook in the design kitchen, but they asked what ideas I might have, so as a former art director I booted up Photoshop and went to town. Nice to flex those creative muscles once in a while, if only to see that they haven't completely atrophied.
In other news, HOTEL continues to find it's way into colleges, high schools, or in this case HOTEL was being read by a precocious bunch of eighth graders. Their feedback was most enjoyable, especially the part about Henry turning into a zombie.
Dear Jamie,
It was such an amazing experience getting to Skype you this morning! I loved getting to hear about the book from your perspective and about the process of writing this book. The way you write your books was very interesting to me. I have never thought of planning the ending of the book before I start it to let that guide me. It seems so logical and simple, yet I have never tried that. Not only did I enjoy learning about the book and the writing process, but I enjoyed learning about your life as well. All I have to say is that you did not seem like Chaz. Thanks again for taking time to answer our questions.
Hello Jamie,
Thank you so much for Skyping with us. I thought it was really fascinating to hear about how you wrote Hotel at the Corner of Bitter and Sweet, as well as your writing life in general. I especially liked learning about how you created the characters, like Chaz being a kid who threw rocks at your father when he was a kid, and Henry, in some ways, being your father. Again, thank you so much for Skyping with us, and I am really excited to finish the book, and good luck on your next book.
- Mads
Dear Jamie Ford,
Thank you so much for skyping our class! I have enjoyed every second of your eloquently crafted novel, and look forward to reading your next book. It was amazing getting to meet you and here your inspiration for the story and characters, as well as learn about your writing process. I just want to compliment you on your story. I feel like this is a very accurate representation of life because every character in every group of people is very bitter and sweet. Everyone has there own problems. It's rough all over. I really love your book. I think it's ridiculous Hollywood wants to make Henry white. This only further proves how pretentious these moviemakers are. P.S. I really hope that Henry doesn't turn into a zombie because that would mean Marty was a zombie and he ate people which would totally change my view on Henry as a person. P.P.S. My grandfather is a writer too.
Dear Jamie Ford,
It was such a pleaser to "meet" you! The Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet is such a fun and interesting read. I have been enjoying every page and I can't put it down. Every character seems so realistic and I feel like I now all of them personally. I learned so much and I am very inspired. One thing that I learned was that you wrote a book in three months! I was astonished that your very own father wore a "I am Chinese" pin. I can't wait to read your next book!
Thank you,
Dear Jamie,
It was super-fun Skyping with you and discussing your book Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet. I have read ahead a little and I am intrigued by the decisions that Henry makes. I am very excited to find out if Henry ever sees Keiko again in 1942 and 1986. I loved how you made the story just like your father's life in World War Two. Thank You for giving us the rare opportunity to talk to an author about their book.
Dear Jamie Ford,
Thank you for Skype-ing with our class and answering our questions about Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet. Thank you for answering my question about the writing process and how long it took to write the book. I was really surprised that it took twice as long to do the research than to actually write the book.
Paul M.
Dear Jamie,
Thank you of talking to us through Skype today about your book, Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet. I really enjoyed hearing about the writing process and the characters. I thought it was interesting that you would consider yourself most like Marty. I also found it intriguing that your father wore a "I am Chinese" button during the time of WWII like Henry does as a child. Thanks again for taking time out of your day to Skype with us.
Thank you,
Dear Jamie Ford,
Thank you so much, for teaching us about your book and taking your time to Skype us and answer all of our questions. I learned so much about the process of writing books and all the challenges that you have overcome to come out with a wonderful novel. Such as having to edit your book for more than three months.
From, Abner
Dear Jamie,
Thank you so much for finding time to Skype with us about your novel. It was a really interesting experience to hear what the author intended to express in the book that we are currently reading. Something that I realized while talking to you, was that writing a book isn't just putting words on a page, it's really about letting the characters come alive and form their own personality. This was an interesting topic that I think will help me when writing in the future. Thanks!


text:
The sweltering summer days will be here before you know it, which means it's time to switch up your cocktail game. As the bartender, it's your duty to provide refreshing and refined libations at the brink of each season. Put down the barrel-aged whiskey. It's time to move on to lighter and brighter ingredients. Think: cachaca, pisco and mezcal.
Restaurant critics have been singing praises of the aforementioned liquors for some time now. But if you're new to the restaurant scene or simply haven't crossed the threshold from server to bartender, you probably don't know much about them.
Cachaca's charm
For instance, you might not know that many varieties of cachaca are made from 100 percent distilled sugarcane, yet the makers of this alcohol don't dare call it rum. Further, you may be entirely unaware that if you simply crush four or five limes, add two ounces of cachaca, a spoonful of sugar and shake vigorously, you'd be making Brazil's National Drink – the Caipirinha.
The Caipirinha is no ordinary drink. Leblon Cachaca stated that making the cocktail is an art form in itself. One slip of the finger and your drink will be too sour, sweet or unbalanced in some other way. Spend some time learning the intricacies of this bold summer drink, then you can move onto cocktails that call for additional labor.
Pisco's pristine presentation
Meander over to Peru to learn about its proud contribution to the food and beverage industry – pisco. As New York Times contributor Andy Isaacson pointed out, Peruvians believe that a pisco made the right way won't give you a hangover. Isaacson, who's tried several variations of the liquor, doesn't agree with this philosophy.
Still, his feature on a 2012 trip to the Latin country provides excellent insight into not only a juicy back story on pisco, but how to make several versions of the almighty Pisco Sour. In the same way that Brazilian's take the Caipirinha seriously, Peruvians practically worship the Pisco Sour. The light yet strong libation has its own national holiday and has been the drink of choice at Peruvian diplomatic affairs since the early 17th century. The classic recipe calls for lime juice, egg whites, bitters and the star of the show – pisco.
Add a modern spin to the 17th-century cocktail by turning to some of Peru's swankiest watering holes for inspiration. The NYT lauded Enrique Vidarte of Cala restaurant, claiming that his concoctions promised "a perfect showcase" for the spectrum of pisco options.
In a margarita glass, combine mint leaves, a spoonful of sugar, lime juice and pisco Italia to recreate Vidarte's "El Verdecito." You'll have to buy a ticket to Peru to learn more of his secrets, but don't let that stop you from coming up with something entirely your own.
Once you're satisfied with your mental sojourn to Brazil and Peru, your last stop to build the ultimate summer cocktail list is Mexico for mezcal.
Mama mia, mezcal
It's best to work your way up to mezcal because there are more varieties than you can wrap your mind around. Conde Nast Traveler contributor Stacy Adimando frequented San Francisco's little hotspot La Urbana in 2013 where there are more than 57 varieties on the menu.
Unless the bar where you work specializes in Mexican fare, you only need to know a few key facts about mezcal. The most important is how it's made.
"People often think mezcal and tequila are the same."
People often think mezcal and tequila are the same, but they're not. The primary differences lie in production and location. A liquor is considered a mezcal if it's made from agave plants, while tequila comes from one specific agave plant – the blue agave.
When deciding which style mezcal to stock behind the bar, mixologists should hone in on a few things. According to La Urbana's bar manager Lucas Rangzuglia, it's all proof and presentation.
"In Mexico, they have an expression that mezcal is meant to be kissed – you're supposed to sip it very slowly, allowing a connection with it," Rangzuglia told Conde Nast Traveler. "They insist it should be something you share and drink with somebody else, not something you rush through."
If that doesn't get someone to try mezcal, what will? Keep the agave-based liquor, cacacha and pisco on hand this summer to offer your bar guests a list of far-flung drink options.
Brought to you by Shoes For Crews, the trusted leader in safety footwear to industrial employees for more than 30 years.Share this article


text:
Dark and Natural 5 Minute Permanent Hair Color Natural Black1ea
Frequently bought with...
- $999
- $697$9.99
- $979
- $559$7.99
- $329
- $979
- $459Buy 1, Get 1 50% OFFearn points
- $1049
- $549
- $179
- $399Buy 1, Get 1 50% OFFearn points
- $100
- $429Buy 1, Get 1 50% OFF
- $649
- $679
- Arm & Hammer 2x Concentrated ...50 fl oz$629
- $829Buy 1, Get 1 50% OFF
- Listerine Cool Mint Antisepti...500 fl oz$499
- $099$1.69
- 2/$300or1/$1792 for 3 dollars and 00 cents or 1 for 1 dollars and 79 cents$1.99
- $479
- $399
- $099$3.49
- $399
- Arm & Hammer Plus the Power o...45 fl oz$629
- $069$0.99
- $400
- $1599
- Gillette Series After Shave G...2.5 fl oz$269
- $999
Quick view
Dark & Natural 5 Minute conditioning permanent haircolor is specially designed for men of color. This moisture rich formula locks in color and leaves hair soft, manageable and healthy-looking. Rich, deep color provides natural-looking gray blending coverage that lasts up to 6 weeks while conditioning in softness.
Natural - Looking Haircolor
This Kit Contains:
- Shampoo - In Permanent Haircolor
- Conditioning Developer
- Conditioning Shampoo
- Plastic Gloves
- Easy to Follow Directions
- Fast acting color blends away gray
- Mess-free
- Easy to use
- Drip-free. Liquid cream-gel
Moisture Rich Formula
- Blend away Gray, condition in Softness
- Honey and Aloe Vera help to fortify and moisturize hair
- New Pleasant fragrance
- Ammonia-free formula
- Superior conditioning shampoo
- Shampoo - In Permanent Haircolor: Water (Aqua), Trideceth 2 Carboxamide Mea, Propylene Glycol, Hexylene Glycol, PEG 2 Oleamine, Polyglyceryl 4 Oleyl Ether, Oleyl Alcohol, Alcohol Denat., Polyglyceryl 2 Oleyl Ether, Oleic Acid, Sodium Diethylaminopropyl Cocoaspartamide, Ethanolamine, p - Phenylenediamine, Pentasodium Pentetate, Ammonium Acetate, Resorcinol, m - Aminophenol, Fragrance (Parfum), Sodium Metabisulfite, N, N - Bis (2 - Hydroxyethyl) -p - Phenylenediamine Sulfate, Erythorbic Acid 2, 4 Diaminophenoxyethanol HCL, Phenyl Methyl Pyrazolone, Oryza Sativa/Rice Bran Oil, Hydrolyzed Rice Protein
- Conditioning Developer: Water (Aqua), Hydrogen Peroxide, Cetearyl Alcohol, Trideceth 2 Carboxamide Mea, Ceteareth 30, Glycerin, Pentasodium Pentetate, Sodium Stannate, Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate.
- Moisturizing Shampoo: Water (Aqua), Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Polysorbate 20, Cocamide Mea, Phenoxyethanol, Polyquaternium 7, Fragrance (Parfum), Methylparaben, Potassium Sorbate, Glycol Stearate, Polyquaternium 10, Polyquaternium 47, Citric Acid, Sodium PCA, Disodium EDTA, Hydroxypropyl Trimonium Honey, Hexylcinnamal, Butylphenyl Methylpropional, Limonene, Benzyl Salicylate, Hydroxyisohexyl 3 Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde, CI 15985/Yellow 6, Aloe Barbadensis/Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Tocopheryl Acetate.
Made in USA
Questions or Comments? Call U.S. Toll Free 1-800-442-4643 Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm EST. or visit softsheen-carson.com
Follow the usage advisory. Read and Follow Insert.
©SoftSheen - Carson LLC
Haircolor can cause an allergic reaction which, in certain rare cases, can be severe. Therefore, you must follow these precautions.
Do Not Use If: You have already had a reaction to a haircolor product. You have a sensitive, itchy or damaged scalp.
If you have a tattoo the risks of an allergic reaction may be increased.
Perform a skin allergy test 48 hours before each use of this product (see insert). Remember to buy your product 2 days ahead of time.
Developer contains hydrogen peroxide. Colorant contains: p - Phenylenendiamine, resorcinol, ammonia hydroxide. Avoid contact of this product with eyes and skin. If product gets into eyes, rinse immediately. Wear gloves provided in kit. Thoroughly rinse hair after application. Wait at least 14 days after bleaching, relaxing or permanent waving before coloring. Do not use over compound henna or progressive color. Keep product out of the reach of children. Do not apply on children.
This product contains ingredients which may cause skin irritation on certain individuals and a preliminary test, according to accompanying directions should first be made. This product must not be used for dying eyelashes or eyebrows; to do so may cause blindness.
This product can be shipped to a Walgreens store for FREE
This product cannot be shipped to the following state(s):
Shipping Weight (in lbs): 0.35
Product in inches (LxWxH): 2.3x 3.5x 6.3
Item Code: 743366
*Many of these answers are provided by manufacturers or other customers. Walgreens does not review, verify, or endorse those answers, which represent the sole opinions of those parties.
Customers who bought this also bought...
- 10/$500or1/ $07910 for 5 dollars and 00 cents or 1 for 0 dollars and 79 cents
- $500Buy 1, Get 1 50% OFF
- $500Buy 1, Get 1 50% OFF


text:
On the Island of Borneo
We couldn't finish out the year without including a posting about the island of Borneo, which we visited in September. Borneo is one of those places you hear about but never expect to see; it sounded far away to us, too, until we got our car in Singapore and the dealer's license plate said "Borneo Motors." Turns out that Borneo is only a couple of hours' flight away, even if you're visiting (as we were) the far side, the Malaysian state of Sabah.
Sabah is a strange and fragile place, in which the truly exotic rain-forest flora and fauna are forcibly intermingled with the ever-encroaching roads and palm-oil plantations. The great rain forests of northeastern Borneo have been squeezed up against the muddy Kinabatangan River until only two narrow strips are left. This means you can see a lot of wildlife from the river, since their only habitat is right up against the banks, but there's an overwhelming feeling (perfectly captured by this article in a recent National Geographic) that the days of this precarious paradise are numbered.
Just beyond the rain forest's edge, the neat rows of lush green palms look beautiful (and environmentally sound, as the oil they supply often goes into American and European biofuels). But the impact on Borneo's plants and animals is inescapable. Spend some time watching the monkeys and orangutans swing (or even jump) powerfully through the rainforest foliage, and you begin to understand: with the rows of palm trees, there's nothing to grab; the monkeys are reduced to crawling slowly along the ground.
We couldn't visit Borneo without seeing part of the Gomantong Caves we'd seen on Planet Earth, replete with swarms of bats, skittering cockroaches, swallowtails, and workers climbing a hundred feet high on flimsy ladders to harvest empty birds' nests for soup. David Attenborough never mentioned the happy and enthusiastic stray dogs that serve as self-appointed tour guides, though. They love to meet visitors at the entrance and lead you along the slippery boardwalk inside, making sure you keep up with your group and don't fall into the massive heaps of bat guano. Perhaps they belong to a breed without a sense of smell...


text:
Wanted e-mails (ie, not spam) which clutter inboxes.
published on: Schott's Vocab
Reporting on Gmail's new priority inbox, Paul Boutin wrote on The Time's Gadgetwise Blog:
Spam e-mail is no longer the biggest problem most e-mail users face. The bigger problem today is keeping up with the volume of stuff you do want to receive. For many people, messages from co-workers and friends are sprinkled among Facebook notifications, Twitter direct messages, mailing lists to which they've subscribed, offers from online merchants with whom they do business and news alerts on favorite topics.
There's a new slang word for all that stuff: bacn.
The idea is that bacn is better than spam, but you don't have to eat it right now. The problem with bacn is that the constant stream of new messages in your in-box can cause you to visually overlook an important e-mail, leaving a crucial issue unresolved.
In article for NPR, Eric Weiner noted the increasingly popularity of the term, and observed:
The blog tracking site Technocrati rates "bacn" as a top search term. There's an official bacn Web site. And already, derivatives have popped up, such as "FakinBacn"— spam posing as bacn.


text:
New Hair Color at the new Vivere Salon Glorietta 2!
Beauty. Fitness. Fashion. Food. Travel. Unicorns. World Peace. Digify Corporation.
11 Lovely Thoughts
The salon looks so high end. The interiors look pretty and the color scheme mean business. :) Btw Miss Martha, your new hair color looks good. :) And in the last photo posted, you looked so fine. :)ReplyDelete
Yeah I also experienced the Mercury Retrograde, it something you just go through. Thanks for sharing your experience with Vivere. Love your new hair color too. Gorgeous Ms Martha!ReplyDelete
Gorgeous color, Martha! I just had my hair colored too a few weeks ago. xDReplyDelete
the hair color is so gorgeous! it looks so good on you :)ReplyDelete
I love it. I love your new hair color Ms. Martha, your so pretty.ReplyDelete
You look very sophisticated with this hair color (or maybe it's just the salon screaming "classy!" to my face) :) I prefer dark hair on you Ms. Martha, it really brings out your features and you look more youthful! The color also complements your dark brown eye color, your gaze looks much more intense now :) And Lord, you look smoking in this top!!! What a way to highlight your assets! <3 :)ReplyDelete
Wow you look younger but still gorgeous as ever in your new hair Ms. Martha :)ReplyDelete
Your new hair color looks better on you :)ReplyDelete
you look young hehe! just colored my hair few weeks ago but its brown with highlights :)ReplyDelete
Wow! Look what a good hair color can do! Any other hair colors you may recommend because I've been stuck with brown, and golden brown colors since I first colored my hair. I'm afraid to try risky colors like ash brown or ash gray because if it doesn't look good, there's no turning back. I hope you can enlighten me regarding this issue, Ms. Martha! Thank you!ReplyDelete
bombshell curls love it ms MarthaReplyDelete