Disqus - Latest Comments for pandammonium

Re: Daniel Feeney is Buffer’s First Weekend Warrior!

pandammonium — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:01:12 -0000

Well done — and well timed ;)

Re: pandammonium • Day 105/365 Wednesday I am informed that I am...

pandammonium — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:28:07 -0000

Thank you :) And also @TeaganTheDog and @TheDogsMum :)

Re: Expert of nothing

pandammonium — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:32:59 -0000

How about "journeyman of some"? http://jtauber.com/journeym...

Re: Youtube and Wordpress (self-hosted)

pandammonium — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:30:15 -0000

I haven't the faintest idea! I never publish videos anywahere, either on my blog or on youtube. I only created a youtube account because my shiny new webcamera has an option to easily upload videos made with it!

Re: Hen Night + Stag Night = Hag Night

pandammonium — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:53:04 -0000

Heh - thanks! We liked it :)

Re: Twitters from today

pandammonium — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:17:59 -0000

Glad to hear it, but I hope you'd meet them in court, rather than in a dark alley!

Re: Twitters from today

pandammonium — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:17:45 -0000

Not as much as we were! ;)

Re: CSS “variables”

pandammonium — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:00:09 -0000

Sally: not to worry - I'll get back to my usual drivel soon!

Phill: thanks. I dislike hacky fixes muchly, and in the case that led me to this rant, I can't use PHP on that server, which is annoying in itself. But it did lead me to discover about server-side includes, so I'm letting it off slightly there. Maybe I'll look at doing the hacky fix.

Re: Twitters from today

pandammonium — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:44:36 -0000

I'm disappointed I don't!

Re: Twitters from today

pandammonium — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:05:01 -0000

I'm just glad not everyone is as cynical as me, Sally :)

Re: Google v Cuil

pandammonium — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:54:34 -0000

Hi Aaron,

You're right, of course. Searching Cuil does require a different approach to searching using Google. Unfortunately for Cuil, I think Google is more intuitive. I say this because back when I first started using it, it behaved in the way I expected. Now, I assume either it still works like this or that I'm just used to any quirks it does have because it's all I use now. Maybe I'll give Cuil another go.

Thanks for taking the time to comment!

Pandammonium

p.s. Thanks for drawing my attention to this post - I was trying to remember what the domain and range and everything were again, and I'd forgotten which was which, as usual, plus, I'd also forgotten about this post - duh!

Re: Romanian is dead

pandammonium — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:03:22 -0000

Shame indeed.

Hope you enjoy your new course as much as you did the previous one!

Re: Last weekend

pandammonium — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:24:49 -0000

Glad to be of service, Sally!

Re: Muphry’s Law

pandammonium — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:50:34 -0000

Heh :)

Re: What happened to the water?

pandammonium — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:53:18 -0000

Yeah, I realised that at some point between this morning and yesterday. That's what happens when you follow Internet guidelines and do a "reset" thing so that all browsers start off with the same blank canvas and forget to style all tags used thereafter. *rolls eyes* :)

Re: What happened to the water?

pandammonium — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:24:49 -0000

Just a quick reply about the tags: I thought it was supposed to work with HTML tags. I think something odd is going on with the comments in general. Your tags are actually there when I look at the source code in WP, but they're just not showing. I shall look into that more fully.

I will also reply to the main part more fully later.

Re: What happened to the water?

pandammonium — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:43:06 -0000

Incidentally, it seems the pope said something very similar to what you said: wikipedia link.

Re: What happened to the water?

pandammonium — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:22:40 -0000

Thanks for the reply.

Heaven and sky translate into Spanish as the same word as well, cielo.

I define believing as accepting as true (or likely). I don't think the events of Genesis are likely or true, hence I don't believe it. I would like you to look up the original Hebrew, if you wouldn't mind - I think it would be interesting. I have to say I love the idea of a scientific text being written in poetry! I agree it's unlikely.

If what you say about what Genesis is saying, though, why wasn't it written in such a way to make that clear? Why does it leave so much open to interpretation? Admittedly, it does say creation is good, I'll give you that! ;)

If you've rejected creationism and accept evolution, do you accept big bang theory? I know it's unlikely, but it seems the best we've got (to date).

I take on board what you say about where to start, but I'd like to read the Old Testament first - after all, that's what Jesus grew up with.

Incidentally, I should hope Christians are Christians because of Jesus ;)

Don't apologise for the length of your comment, either - there's no word limit as far as I know!

Re: What happened to the water?

pandammonium — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:41:17 -0000

Hi, Phill. That's the passage, yes. Thanks for the tip re translations.

I was reading Genesis because that's the start of the book ;)

If it happened your light-hearted comment was right, and heaven is indeed between the Earth and the clouds, I hope everyone in heaven is either immune from precipitation or there's a lot of umbrellas up there!

Ok, now to the serious stuff, and pardon me if my tone seems a bit off - it's not meant to be. Where does it say a) you're not to believe certain parts of the bible, and b) which parts you're not to believe? This is a big problem for me. Creationists are wrong, in my opinion: there is enough evidence to convince me that evolution is a valid phenomenon. In fact, when I was no more than ten years old, I realised for myself that the modern elephant must be descended from the woolly mammoth.

Some more enlightened, for want of a better word, Christians accept evolution. This means that they are knowingly rejecting part of the bible because science has a better theory about how we have the animals and plants around today as compared to, say, the Jurassic period. Consequently, this means they reject that Earth is 6000 years old (I think that's the figure the creationists give - correct me if I'm wrong) because the Jurassic period was well over 6000 years ago.

As a teenager, I was thinking about all this. I noticed that the Romans had various gods, each to explain various natural phenomena, and man-made stuff as well. I imagine there to be very few people today who believe in the old Roman gods - and Greek and Norse variations. I reckoned this must have been because people came to understand how the sun and moon worked after a while, and had no further need of these gods to explain this. Either that, or a different god was used to explain it, I suppose. The point is, I have thought for a long time that religion is used to explain things we don't understand - *long before* I'd even heard of Richard Dawkins, who calls this the god of the gaps (The god delusion).

Re: God is cruel

pandammonium — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:02:46 -0000

Yeah, God must know, that's for certain, what with him being omniscient and everything ;)

But if he's refraining from interfering, that implies that there's something going wrong that needs to be interfered with. That means there's a flaw in what God's up to. So he's actually either cruel or incompetent.