Yes that's right.
Example from Wikipedia. Here is a homogeneous polynomial of degree 5, in two variables:
x^5 + 2x^3y^2 + 9x^1y^4A homogeneous polynomial is one which all of the terms are of the same degree? is this true?
Well, homo means same, so yes.
Like some fashion designer guys and guy models, they're homos.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Is it true that Yahoo can say that you violated the terms and conditions if...?
one of your questions was not answered? I asked a question about music (it didn't get any answers lol) and after 4 days it was deleted and I was told I violated something. Is this right? I am a bit confused.
Thanks xxxIs it true that Yahoo can say that you violated the terms and conditions if...?
That is a conversational question not a question seeking knowledge. It really is more that chatting. Check the community guidelines. You will find this under the ';Bad'; title.
';Chatting or otherwise violating the question-and-answer format.
Yahoo! Answers is a community of questions and answers, not a chat room. If a post is neither a question nor an answer, it doesn鈥檛 belong here. If you鈥檙e looking for a place to chat with others, try Yahoo! Groups or Yahoo! Messenger Chat Rooms.';Is it true that Yahoo can say that you violated the terms and conditions if...?
You would need to give us the exact context to help. All questions that are not answered after 4 days are removed (7 days if extended). You get your points back in that case.
There are several reason questions are removed:
1. It is a violation of the rules - you will get an e-mail when that happens. If you get one, post it here in a question and the users can tell you the problem. There is no statute of limitations on breaking the YA rules.
2. There were zero answers when the time expired - no e-mail sent.
3. The BA was reported as a violation - no e-mail sent.
4. During voting, ';No Best Answer'; was chosen as the best answer - no e-mail sent.
Look in your e-mail, including the spam folder, for a violation e-mail. If not there, check your activity tab in your profile. If nothing about a violation there, then the Q was removed for one of the other reasons.
If it was something like ';where to download free music or where to download movies'; or something related to illegal-ness [lol] then someone might've reported your question and they might have deleted it as Yahoo Answers doesn't allow talk of illegal stuff as THEY can get in trouble for it too.
I don't see anything wrong with that question is it was in the polls section. It makes sense, it is a question, yahoo may of got it wrong.
i have had answers and questions deleted that has been resolved that was several months old.
that is why you see many people keep their questions and answers private
Well I asked a question called: What is your favourite number? and it got deleted too but people answered mine... Why was it deleted?
Thanks xxxIs it true that Yahoo can say that you violated the terms and conditions if...?
That is a conversational question not a question seeking knowledge. It really is more that chatting. Check the community guidelines. You will find this under the ';Bad'; title.
';Chatting or otherwise violating the question-and-answer format.
Yahoo! Answers is a community of questions and answers, not a chat room. If a post is neither a question nor an answer, it doesn鈥檛 belong here. If you鈥檙e looking for a place to chat with others, try Yahoo! Groups or Yahoo! Messenger Chat Rooms.';Is it true that Yahoo can say that you violated the terms and conditions if...?
You would need to give us the exact context to help. All questions that are not answered after 4 days are removed (7 days if extended). You get your points back in that case.
There are several reason questions are removed:
1. It is a violation of the rules - you will get an e-mail when that happens. If you get one, post it here in a question and the users can tell you the problem. There is no statute of limitations on breaking the YA rules.
2. There were zero answers when the time expired - no e-mail sent.
3. The BA was reported as a violation - no e-mail sent.
4. During voting, ';No Best Answer'; was chosen as the best answer - no e-mail sent.
Look in your e-mail, including the spam folder, for a violation e-mail. If not there, check your activity tab in your profile. If nothing about a violation there, then the Q was removed for one of the other reasons.
If it was something like ';where to download free music or where to download movies'; or something related to illegal-ness [lol] then someone might've reported your question and they might have deleted it as Yahoo Answers doesn't allow talk of illegal stuff as THEY can get in trouble for it too.
I don't see anything wrong with that question is it was in the polls section. It makes sense, it is a question, yahoo may of got it wrong.
i have had answers and questions deleted that has been resolved that was several months old.
that is why you see many people keep their questions and answers private
Well I asked a question called: What is your favourite number? and it got deleted too but people answered mine... Why was it deleted?
Is it true Jonas fans are denouncing God when they use the term OMJ?
I mean replacing God with Jonas should be considered an insult to Christians, right? Isn't it like saying Xmas instead of Christmas? What about this ';peace love jonas'; thing too? By replacing ';hope'; (which is what it really is) with their name, it is the same as saying no one in this world needs hope. These modifications to such phrases are not very pleasant. What do you think?Is it true Jonas fans are denouncing God when they use the term OMJ?
I don't think they mean to actually do that. When something new comes out that alot of people like, they come up with phrases that they think are ';cool';.
They want to express how much they adore the Jonas Brothers by replacing words in popular phrases with something related to them.
For example, people say Oh My God alot (which is a sin, to my religion anyway) so they replace the word God with Jonas.
It's dumb. Like saying you have Obsessive Jonas Disorder. Some people could be offended by that.
My little brother has a mild form of OCD.
But I don't take it to seriously. I'd rather just live my life, and not care about what fans are obsessing over.Is it true Jonas fans are denouncing God when they use the term OMJ?
Hello to Christians Oh My God is misusing gods name. As in using it as a bad way. Like for us What The Hell is bad. So I say either Oh My Gosh or What The Hey. So now with Oh My Jonas I can show I'm a Jonas fan and not say anything wrong. Peace Love Jonas is nothing. Get over it. You don't really care. Some Christians think the word Suck is bad. But I am a Christian btw.
not at all.
dont take it seriously.
you've thought about it a little to much havnt you?
christan people dont say ohmygod anyway.
cuz thats kind of defacing or something.
i say ohmygosh.
anyway...
answer mine?
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind鈥?/a>
well the x in xmas stands for christ. or at least chi. or something.
but I think OMJ is really stupid but my mom said I shouldn't say oh my god because it devalues the name God and we're supposed to say oh my gosh instead.
I never say Oh My God, because it is misusing God's name.
I say Oh My Gosh.
So if people want to replace Gosh with Jonas, that's fine.
You shouldn't say that anyways.
no,because saying Ohhmygod is bad anyways because its saying his name in vain so actualy it better
It's showing that the Jonas Brothers are a cult. Sad generation.
that's just overly religious people with a stick up their a$$ that are complaining about that
wow youre so annoying....
dont take it seriously!
not at all you jonas haterbest myspace
I don't think they mean to actually do that. When something new comes out that alot of people like, they come up with phrases that they think are ';cool';.
They want to express how much they adore the Jonas Brothers by replacing words in popular phrases with something related to them.
For example, people say Oh My God alot (which is a sin, to my religion anyway) so they replace the word God with Jonas.
It's dumb. Like saying you have Obsessive Jonas Disorder. Some people could be offended by that.
My little brother has a mild form of OCD.
But I don't take it to seriously. I'd rather just live my life, and not care about what fans are obsessing over.Is it true Jonas fans are denouncing God when they use the term OMJ?
Hello to Christians Oh My God is misusing gods name. As in using it as a bad way. Like for us What The Hell is bad. So I say either Oh My Gosh or What The Hey. So now with Oh My Jonas I can show I'm a Jonas fan and not say anything wrong. Peace Love Jonas is nothing. Get over it. You don't really care. Some Christians think the word Suck is bad. But I am a Christian btw.
not at all.
dont take it seriously.
you've thought about it a little to much havnt you?
christan people dont say ohmygod anyway.
cuz thats kind of defacing or something.
i say ohmygosh.
anyway...
answer mine?
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind鈥?/a>
well the x in xmas stands for christ. or at least chi. or something.
but I think OMJ is really stupid but my mom said I shouldn't say oh my god because it devalues the name God and we're supposed to say oh my gosh instead.
I never say Oh My God, because it is misusing God's name.
I say Oh My Gosh.
So if people want to replace Gosh with Jonas, that's fine.
You shouldn't say that anyways.
no,because saying Ohhmygod is bad anyways because its saying his name in vain so actualy it better
It's showing that the Jonas Brothers are a cult. Sad generation.
that's just overly religious people with a stick up their a$$ that are complaining about that
wow youre so annoying....
dont take it seriously!
not at all you jonas hater
True or False? The term for the Palestinian uprising against Jewish settlement in the ancient lands of ?
the Bible is “Intifadah”.True or False? The term for the Palestinian uprising against Jewish settlement in the ancient lands of ?
.. more towards jihad-ism for the moslems....
.. more towards jihad-ism for the moslems....
What is more powerful in terms of love, First Love or True Love??
true loveWhat is more powerful in terms of love, First Love or True Love??
my first love is my true love too bad she's married and doesn't even know I existWhat is more powerful in terms of love, First Love or True Love??
First Love, its so much more intense when your younger!
First love is always special, its the best feeling since its your first time and you'll never know what to expect. Its always one of your best experiences in your life. It also can be one of the most painful.
True love is when you're a little more aware of what love is. re-living your life as it should be, could be better than the last one. But you still might expect a few new things, so it might be better.
But the first love is always a little special, even if true love prevails in terms of being ';powerful.';
Its special enough to change a person. ;3
They are both powerful but different intensity when you feel it.
true love..if your first love is your true love then your made in the shade man
true love coz it will make you whole
my first love is my true love too bad she's married and doesn't even know I existWhat is more powerful in terms of love, First Love or True Love??
First Love, its so much more intense when your younger!
First love is always special, its the best feeling since its your first time and you'll never know what to expect. Its always one of your best experiences in your life. It also can be one of the most painful.
True love is when you're a little more aware of what love is. re-living your life as it should be, could be better than the last one. But you still might expect a few new things, so it might be better.
But the first love is always a little special, even if true love prevails in terms of being ';powerful.';
Its special enough to change a person. ;3
They are both powerful but different intensity when you feel it.
true love..if your first love is your true love then your made in the shade man
true love coz it will make you whole
3 phase system in house is more cheaper than single phase system in terms of current consumption. is it true?
how does tht work...3 phase system in house is more cheaper than single phase system in terms of current consumption. is it true?
Yep, it would be more efficient than single phase. But not practical for home purposes.
Nikola Tesla invented our AC polyphase electrical system, as well as motors that make use of it. His motors don't actually run directly on ';current'; or even ';voltage'; in the sense that DC motors do --- they merely chase oscillating currents in the AC system. It's really much cleaner and more efficient . You probably have these Tesla ';inductive'; motors around the house -- in your washing machine, dryer, swamp cooler. They last a long time. Since they're small motors with low output requirements, single-phase is usually sufficient. Big industrial motors can make use of an added phase of oscillation, so industrial areas are usually wired to handle the extra power line.
A really great intro to how the grid is wired to your house, as well as a ton of fun electricity stuff can be found at:
http://amasci.com/ele-edu.html
Great article in there about why various plugs (polarized, grounded, etc.) have been designed. Great site for kids, too...3 phase system in house is more cheaper than single phase system in terms of current consumption. is it true?
3 phase is only for industrial equipment. It would be very expensive to run 3 phase into your house. Most household appliances run off of single.
Nope. Everything you have is made for single phase. (really dual phase, but everybody calls it single just to confuse things) You can use two of the three phases to run your stuff, but the voltages will be off, and you won't have a neutral so you could electrocute yourself. Since you had to ask this question, it's a pretty good bet you shouldn't be fooling with stuff that can kill you.
if your running industrial motors, but it is expensive to have three phase run into your house and regular appliances would only run on one of the phases any how.
Power consumption would be about the same.It would only be cheaper if electricity charges is cheaper for 3 phase system.
Yep, it would be more efficient than single phase. But not practical for home purposes.
Nikola Tesla invented our AC polyphase electrical system, as well as motors that make use of it. His motors don't actually run directly on ';current'; or even ';voltage'; in the sense that DC motors do --- they merely chase oscillating currents in the AC system. It's really much cleaner and more efficient . You probably have these Tesla ';inductive'; motors around the house -- in your washing machine, dryer, swamp cooler. They last a long time. Since they're small motors with low output requirements, single-phase is usually sufficient. Big industrial motors can make use of an added phase of oscillation, so industrial areas are usually wired to handle the extra power line.
A really great intro to how the grid is wired to your house, as well as a ton of fun electricity stuff can be found at:
http://amasci.com/ele-edu.html
Great article in there about why various plugs (polarized, grounded, etc.) have been designed. Great site for kids, too...3 phase system in house is more cheaper than single phase system in terms of current consumption. is it true?
3 phase is only for industrial equipment. It would be very expensive to run 3 phase into your house. Most household appliances run off of single.
Nope. Everything you have is made for single phase. (really dual phase, but everybody calls it single just to confuse things) You can use two of the three phases to run your stuff, but the voltages will be off, and you won't have a neutral so you could electrocute yourself. Since you had to ask this question, it's a pretty good bet you shouldn't be fooling with stuff that can kill you.
if your running industrial motors, but it is expensive to have three phase run into your house and regular appliances would only run on one of the phases any how.
Power consumption would be about the same.It would only be cheaper if electricity charges is cheaper for 3 phase system.
Is it true that Pro Active is really bad for your skin if used long term?
Ive heard that if you use Pro Active for too long it makes your skin worse than it was to begin with.... Also that it bleeches your towels, pillows and sheets? Anyone know why?Is it true that Pro Active is really bad for your skin if used long term?
Different acne treatments work differently for different people ;-) but I have compiled some info on Proactiv for you, based on reported experience:
Proactiv Negatives
===================
- irritating
- dry out skin
- expensive to keep having it sent to you month after month
- clear face up, but as soon as you stop using it the acne might come back
- it bleaches the cloth...
- doesn't seem to work as well on blackheads
- skin became darker
- temporarily red in areas
- slight burning sensation when applying toner/repairing lotion
Proactiv Positives
===================
- really does work
- clears your face up pretty quickly
- leaves your face feeling soft
- reduce the appearance of poresIs it true that Pro Active is really bad for your skin if used long term?
the chemicals in proactive are what bleaches your towels, pillows, and sheets.....but it is true that if you use proactive for a long time it does stop working and you don't see results anymore
It contains only 3% Benzyl peroxide....it's not really THAT strong. it's safe to use, unless you have crazy sensitive skin. THat also CAN cause bleeching of towels, but that never happened to me!
Yeah! It is benzoyle peroxide. Peroxide bleaches a lot of hair lighteners use peroxide to lighten hair.
yah i think so. well it was bad for my skin.
Different acne treatments work differently for different people ;-) but I have compiled some info on Proactiv for you, based on reported experience:
Proactiv Negatives
===================
- irritating
- dry out skin
- expensive to keep having it sent to you month after month
- clear face up, but as soon as you stop using it the acne might come back
- it bleaches the cloth...
- doesn't seem to work as well on blackheads
- skin became darker
- temporarily red in areas
- slight burning sensation when applying toner/repairing lotion
Proactiv Positives
===================
- really does work
- clears your face up pretty quickly
- leaves your face feeling soft
- reduce the appearance of poresIs it true that Pro Active is really bad for your skin if used long term?
the chemicals in proactive are what bleaches your towels, pillows, and sheets.....but it is true that if you use proactive for a long time it does stop working and you don't see results anymore
It contains only 3% Benzyl peroxide....it's not really THAT strong. it's safe to use, unless you have crazy sensitive skin. THat also CAN cause bleeching of towels, but that never happened to me!
Yeah! It is benzoyle peroxide. Peroxide bleaches a lot of hair lighteners use peroxide to lighten hair.
yah i think so. well it was bad for my skin.
Is it true some women can carry a baby to term without having a positive home pregnancy test?
how?Is it true some women can carry a baby to term without having a positive home pregnancy test?
Anything is possible and YES you can have periods when your pregnant, in fact you can have periods all the way through your pregnancy and if you can't check information like that before you give it then you shouldn't give any.Is it true some women can carry a baby to term without having a positive home pregnancy test?
No....some women, it may take a while longer for it to show in a hpt....but a blood test would confirm it. HCG is always being produced in the body when pregnant. Why do you ask??
I had my period for the first 4 months with my first daughter and for the first 3 with my second. It is totally common and yes, depending on the positioning of the baby, the fetus' size, and several other factors it is definately possible to have a baby without a test. A case I heard of was with a 19 year old woman who went on vacation with her family to the islands. She appeared to have gained maybe 10 pounds, but still looked fantastic in he bikini and had a blast. While lying on the beach she began having incredible abdominal pain and was taken to the hotel doctor for examination. Upon a detailed physical examination it was determined that the young woman was nearly full term and delivered a healthy 5 pound daughter. She did not know the whole ime that she was pregnant, and the baby was not active, so she had no suspicion, nor did her family. Odd things happen every day.
Yes some woman don't excrete HCG in their urine which is how the HPT tests for pregnancy.
I did. The only reason my doctor could give me was that for some reason my body DID NOT carry the HcG in my urine.
Please Note: I know my body VERY well, and the day I missed my period was the day I knew I was pregnant. Went for blood work 2 days later and confirmed this. I couldn't imagine going an entire pregnancy and NOT knowing I was pregnant.
Doubt it, since a woman's body produces HCG during pregancy. HCG levels are detected in all pregnancy tests thus a positive prenancy test. If you don't have HCG you are not pregnant. Check out the following link.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringp鈥?/a>
i never took a home prgnancy test i just went to the doctor....i had my period for the first 3 months of pregnancy. im sure you dont have to take a hpt to carry a baby to term as i am 33 weeks so no you dont have to take one but if u were taking them im not sure they could stay showing up negative when you are pregnant
I would say almost everything is possible. Women have indeed carried babies to term while experiencing spotting or bleeding. http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/c鈥?/a> Somewhere around a third of all pregnant women will have some degree of vaginal bleeding. In early pregnancy, before the lining of your uterus has fully attached to the placenta, part of the uterine lining could possibly shed. This is most often caused by an imbalance of hormones. Decidual bleeding is not considered harmful or dangerous to you or to your developing baby. Women have also become pregnant while NOT having periods, for whatever reason (usually hormonal, but could be caused by stress, poor nutrition, dieting, etc). Women can also become pregnant from having intercourse during menstruation, although they would think this is the safest time. Humans are funny animals. They are designed to procreate. Conception, gestation, and birth can happen within any set of circumstances. Considering all the things the human body CAN do, I would not be at all surprised about the failure of a home test to detect pregnancy. It all depends upon the level of hormones in the woman's urine, whether that test will work at all.
anything is possible.
I know someone who carried for seven mos without knowing she was pregnant. LMAO!
I mean SEVEN MOS??
anyway, she was in denial about it so I don't know if she was testing herself or not...
It is true but very very rare. So rare that Dr.s don't even consider it a possibility until they have seen it for themselves but it has happened. There are instances where people have a period while pregnant also. That is how you hear of these women that have no idea that they were pregnant until they went into labor. As I said it is extremely rare. Spotting while pregnant is also a possibility. It is also a rare occurrence but happens much more often than people realize and much more often than the other 2.
never heard of that before so i would say no, it's not true. just like you can't have your period while pregnant.
Anything is possible and YES you can have periods when your pregnant, in fact you can have periods all the way through your pregnancy and if you can't check information like that before you give it then you shouldn't give any.Is it true some women can carry a baby to term without having a positive home pregnancy test?
No....some women, it may take a while longer for it to show in a hpt....but a blood test would confirm it. HCG is always being produced in the body when pregnant. Why do you ask??
I had my period for the first 4 months with my first daughter and for the first 3 with my second. It is totally common and yes, depending on the positioning of the baby, the fetus' size, and several other factors it is definately possible to have a baby without a test. A case I heard of was with a 19 year old woman who went on vacation with her family to the islands. She appeared to have gained maybe 10 pounds, but still looked fantastic in he bikini and had a blast. While lying on the beach she began having incredible abdominal pain and was taken to the hotel doctor for examination. Upon a detailed physical examination it was determined that the young woman was nearly full term and delivered a healthy 5 pound daughter. She did not know the whole ime that she was pregnant, and the baby was not active, so she had no suspicion, nor did her family. Odd things happen every day.
Yes some woman don't excrete HCG in their urine which is how the HPT tests for pregnancy.
I did. The only reason my doctor could give me was that for some reason my body DID NOT carry the HcG in my urine.
Please Note: I know my body VERY well, and the day I missed my period was the day I knew I was pregnant. Went for blood work 2 days later and confirmed this. I couldn't imagine going an entire pregnancy and NOT knowing I was pregnant.
Doubt it, since a woman's body produces HCG during pregancy. HCG levels are detected in all pregnancy tests thus a positive prenancy test. If you don't have HCG you are not pregnant. Check out the following link.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringp鈥?/a>
i never took a home prgnancy test i just went to the doctor....i had my period for the first 3 months of pregnancy. im sure you dont have to take a hpt to carry a baby to term as i am 33 weeks so no you dont have to take one but if u were taking them im not sure they could stay showing up negative when you are pregnant
I would say almost everything is possible. Women have indeed carried babies to term while experiencing spotting or bleeding. http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/c鈥?/a> Somewhere around a third of all pregnant women will have some degree of vaginal bleeding. In early pregnancy, before the lining of your uterus has fully attached to the placenta, part of the uterine lining could possibly shed. This is most often caused by an imbalance of hormones. Decidual bleeding is not considered harmful or dangerous to you or to your developing baby. Women have also become pregnant while NOT having periods, for whatever reason (usually hormonal, but could be caused by stress, poor nutrition, dieting, etc). Women can also become pregnant from having intercourse during menstruation, although they would think this is the safest time. Humans are funny animals. They are designed to procreate. Conception, gestation, and birth can happen within any set of circumstances. Considering all the things the human body CAN do, I would not be at all surprised about the failure of a home test to detect pregnancy. It all depends upon the level of hormones in the woman's urine, whether that test will work at all.
anything is possible.
I know someone who carried for seven mos without knowing she was pregnant. LMAO!
I mean SEVEN MOS??
anyway, she was in denial about it so I don't know if she was testing herself or not...
It is true but very very rare. So rare that Dr.s don't even consider it a possibility until they have seen it for themselves but it has happened. There are instances where people have a period while pregnant also. That is how you hear of these women that have no idea that they were pregnant until they went into labor. As I said it is extremely rare. Spotting while pregnant is also a possibility. It is also a rare occurrence but happens much more often than people realize and much more often than the other 2.
never heard of that before so i would say no, it's not true. just like you can't have your period while pregnant.
True or False: Your relationship with someone ended on bad terms?
If true, share your experience please.
Could be a boss, friend, family or lover that you no longer talk too.True or False: Your relationship with someone ended on bad terms?
True A boyfriend ended the night he went to jail for man handling me ever since I've got back pain I really HATE him and my skin just crawls when the as-ho-- cames in the store I work atTrue or False: Your relationship with someone ended on bad terms?
False. Both of my long-term relationships ended on a happy note. All involved were adults.
I havent had a relationship yet ='[
i have had a few that were bad like my marrage but the last one i wantedto end a lot sooner i thought of him as afriend ....
False.
False
true, things are just akward now.
True. My ex cheated on me. I took her back afterwards, but we kept arguing all the time. When she moved away for College, we like bye. We're so-so friends now, but still there's no closeness like it was before we started to date.
my relationship with my ex best friend ended very badly, would you still talk to someone if they told you to do everyone a favour and go kill yourself.
True.
true; share it? do you really want to be that sad.
i'll spare you the mounds of sadness; it's your own good.
True. My ex won't speak to me, and pretty much ignored me before we broke up.best myspace
Could be a boss, friend, family or lover that you no longer talk too.True or False: Your relationship with someone ended on bad terms?
True A boyfriend ended the night he went to jail for man handling me ever since I've got back pain I really HATE him and my skin just crawls when the as-ho-- cames in the store I work atTrue or False: Your relationship with someone ended on bad terms?
False. Both of my long-term relationships ended on a happy note. All involved were adults.
I havent had a relationship yet ='[
i have had a few that were bad like my marrage but the last one i wantedto end a lot sooner i thought of him as afriend ....
False.
False
true, things are just akward now.
True. My ex cheated on me. I took her back afterwards, but we kept arguing all the time. When she moved away for College, we like bye. We're so-so friends now, but still there's no closeness like it was before we started to date.
my relationship with my ex best friend ended very badly, would you still talk to someone if they told you to do everyone a favour and go kill yourself.
True.
true; share it? do you really want to be that sad.
i'll spare you the mounds of sadness; it's your own good.
True. My ex won't speak to me, and pretty much ignored me before we broke up.
Is it true that a premature born babys life expectancy is shorter they a full term baby?
I was told a premature baby's life expectancy is about 58 to 65 years of age. Where as a full term baby's life expectancty is about 72.Is it true that a premature born babys life expectancy is shorter they a full term baby?
ive never heard of that! and ive read every preemie book there was and seen tons of drs when my toddlers were preemies, yes they have more issues in the beginning of life and have a higher mortality rate than a healthy newborn, but there is no way their life expectancy is shorter from it, no way to tell either since everyone lives different lifestylesIs it true that a premature born babys life expectancy is shorter they a full term baby?
The reason this is true is because it's based off an average. Unfortunately some of the babies born prematurely do not survive - so you are dealing with statistics in which a higher number of babies will not survive to their first birthday compared with the general population. For example, if you are doing an average with a hundred full term babies the average life expectancy is 72...if you do an average of a hundred premies and ten of those did not make it out of infancy, that will bring the overall average down, however the average of the ninety premies that survived infancy may well be 72 as well. (I just used some round numbers for an example.) So if your baby is born prematurely but is able to overcome the health obstacles of their first year of life, then your baby is not necessarily more likely to have a shorter life because of their prematurity. The statistics for both groups would probably be closer together if babies who died within their first year as a result of their prematurity were not grouped with those who made it to adulthood in life expectancy data. Make sense?
I doubt that's true, if for no other reason than there is no way to have reliable data for a study. There's no way a long-term evaluation could have been done, and here's why: 30 or 40 years ago, pre-term neonatal treatment was basically just watch and pray, and the smallest pre-term babies wouldn't survive. Neonatology has seen tremendous advances in the past two decades, and even micro-preemies are surviving at rates never before imagined. The study would have to have started in the 1980's at the earliest and those babies would only be in their 30's now.
No its not true. I read and researched as much as I could when my daughter tried to come 8 weeks early. What may be happening is that they're taking an average of premature babies...those that don't make it at birth and those that live full lives...if they do that then it would make the age significantly lower than a full term baby. Even then you'd have to take into account how premature the baby is. You'd also have to look into that report to see what they consider full term...37 weeks or 40.
it probably just depends on how premature the baby was born...
2 weeks or less it probably doesn't make a difference. :/
ive never heard of that! and ive read every preemie book there was and seen tons of drs when my toddlers were preemies, yes they have more issues in the beginning of life and have a higher mortality rate than a healthy newborn, but there is no way their life expectancy is shorter from it, no way to tell either since everyone lives different lifestylesIs it true that a premature born babys life expectancy is shorter they a full term baby?
The reason this is true is because it's based off an average. Unfortunately some of the babies born prematurely do not survive - so you are dealing with statistics in which a higher number of babies will not survive to their first birthday compared with the general population. For example, if you are doing an average with a hundred full term babies the average life expectancy is 72...if you do an average of a hundred premies and ten of those did not make it out of infancy, that will bring the overall average down, however the average of the ninety premies that survived infancy may well be 72 as well. (I just used some round numbers for an example.) So if your baby is born prematurely but is able to overcome the health obstacles of their first year of life, then your baby is not necessarily more likely to have a shorter life because of their prematurity. The statistics for both groups would probably be closer together if babies who died within their first year as a result of their prematurity were not grouped with those who made it to adulthood in life expectancy data. Make sense?
I doubt that's true, if for no other reason than there is no way to have reliable data for a study. There's no way a long-term evaluation could have been done, and here's why: 30 or 40 years ago, pre-term neonatal treatment was basically just watch and pray, and the smallest pre-term babies wouldn't survive. Neonatology has seen tremendous advances in the past two decades, and even micro-preemies are surviving at rates never before imagined. The study would have to have started in the 1980's at the earliest and those babies would only be in their 30's now.
No its not true. I read and researched as much as I could when my daughter tried to come 8 weeks early. What may be happening is that they're taking an average of premature babies...those that don't make it at birth and those that live full lives...if they do that then it would make the age significantly lower than a full term baby. Even then you'd have to take into account how premature the baby is. You'd also have to look into that report to see what they consider full term...37 weeks or 40.
it probably just depends on how premature the baby was born...
2 weeks or less it probably doesn't make a difference. :/
Is it true that girl babies have a better chance of survival than boys when born pre-term?
I saw an answer to another question earlier which seemed to imply that girl babies have a better chance of survival than boys if born prematurely. Is there any truth to this, and if so, why is that? What about girls makes it more likely for them to survive outside the womb?Is it true that girl babies have a better chance of survival than boys when born pre-term?
I read this somewhere. I don't remember where but it makes sense. Girls mature faster in general, why wouldn't it start in the womb?Is it true that girl babies have a better chance of survival than boys when born pre-term?
Im really not sure if thats ture of not but listen to this... My sister was pregnant with triplets two boys and one girl... They came at 26 weeks heres there weights, 1 pound 15 ounces. 2 pounds 5 ounces and 2 pounds 10 ounces..... The smallest one is a boy and he had to undergo surgery where they had to take out most of his intestines. these babys are now 9 months old and almost walking the biggest one now weighs 20lbs tell me they arent special but they survived.......
Girls definitely have a higher survival rate if born prematurely. It has to do with the development of the lungs. It takes a little longer for boys' lungs to develop than girls.
i have heard that girls are more sturdy than boys - i read it in a maternity book i think
a girl born in winter will be more sturdy than a boy born in winter - as in she wont be so affected by the cold weather!
Yes,I was told this by the doctor when my son was born 6wks early.He had to spend 10 days in nicu,but he is ok.He is now 7yrs and doing good.He gets sick often but nothing real bad,although he had to have his tonsils removed.
its because girls mature faster even in the womb
I read this somewhere. I don't remember where but it makes sense. Girls mature faster in general, why wouldn't it start in the womb?Is it true that girl babies have a better chance of survival than boys when born pre-term?
Im really not sure if thats ture of not but listen to this... My sister was pregnant with triplets two boys and one girl... They came at 26 weeks heres there weights, 1 pound 15 ounces. 2 pounds 5 ounces and 2 pounds 10 ounces..... The smallest one is a boy and he had to undergo surgery where they had to take out most of his intestines. these babys are now 9 months old and almost walking the biggest one now weighs 20lbs tell me they arent special but they survived.......
Girls definitely have a higher survival rate if born prematurely. It has to do with the development of the lungs. It takes a little longer for boys' lungs to develop than girls.
i have heard that girls are more sturdy than boys - i read it in a maternity book i think
a girl born in winter will be more sturdy than a boy born in winter - as in she wont be so affected by the cold weather!
Yes,I was told this by the doctor when my son was born 6wks early.He had to spend 10 days in nicu,but he is ok.He is now 7yrs and doing good.He gets sick often but nothing real bad,although he had to have his tonsils removed.
its because girls mature faster even in the womb
Is it true that drinking too much water can kill you? If so, why? In lamends terms please?
Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain function that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by a very rapid intake of water.[1] Normal, healthy (both physically and nutritionally) individuals have little to worry about accidentally overconsuming water. Nearly all deaths related to water intoxication in normal individuals have resulted either from water drinking contests, in which individuals attempt to consume several gallons over the course of just a few minutes, or long bouts of intensive exercise during which time electrolytes are not properly replenished, yet massive amounts of fluid are still consumed.Is it true that drinking too much water can kill you? If so, why? In lamends terms please?
yes. it can over power your blood cells and you die. Just like alcohol. its water intoxication.Is it true that drinking too much water can kill you? If so, why? In lamends terms please?
Drinking too much of anything can kill you. But, you have too like drink so much water to kill you. Trust me the only way to kill your self is if you force it and force it..its just like drowning.Trust me, if you think your drinking too much water, your not. The max you should drink each day is like.....um maybe......10 gallons
yes, anythink in a large enough dose could kill you, but i dont think you could fit enough water into your body for it to kill you.
Hyponatremia, a word cobbled together from Latin and Greek roots, translates as ';insufficient salt in the blood.'; Quantitatively speaking, it means having a blood sodium concentration below 135 millimoles per liter, or approximately 0.4 ounces per gallon, the normal concentration lying somewhere between 135 and 145 millimoles per liter. Severe cases of hyponatremia can lead to water intoxication, an illness whose symptoms include headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, frequent urination and mental disorientation.
In humans the kidneys control the amount of water, salts and other solutes leaving the body by sieving blood through their millions of twisted tubules. When a person drinks too much water in a short period of time, the kidneys cannot flush it out fast enough and the blood becomes waterlogged. Drawn to regions where the concentration of salt and other dissolved substances is higher, excess water leaves the blood and ultimately enters the cells, which swell like balloons to accommodate it.
Most cells have room to stretch because they are embedded in flexible tissues such as fat and muscle, but this is not the case for neurons. Brain cells are tightly packaged inside a rigid boney cage, the skull, and they have to share this space with blood and cerebrospinal fluid, explains Wolfgang Liedtke, a clinical neuroscientist at Duke University Medical Center. ';Inside the skull there is almost zero room to expand and swell,'; he says.
Thus, brain edema, or swelling, can be disastrous. ';Rapid and severe hyponatremia causes entry of water into brain cells leading to brain swelling, which manifests as seizures, coma, respiratory arrest, brain stem herniation and death,'; explains M. Amin Arnaout, chief of nephrology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
so long as your peeing it out you are find..if you hold your pee and keep drinking it has no where to go but to your brain and swell up and kill you so yes its true
ok, you're aware that Gatorade replaces electrolytes in your body.
Well, you NEED the electrolytes to keep your heart going.
If you drink a bunch of water, you deplete your body of electrolytes, which causes the heart to stop beating.
yes, it's called water intoxication. Although, you would have to drink a **** load of water to die....
you probably could die from drinking/eating too much anything.
If you drink large quantities of water, after about a week, you will begin to flush vital nutrients and protiens out of your body through the urine.
And the other writer is correct also. Drinking a lot of water all at once can essentially drown your organs. A fraternaty pledge in Chico, California did this just a few years ago while pledging for a fraternaty at Chico state.
yes it is. a girl died in a water drinking contest. she had drank like 2-3 gallons of water!
Too much water can seriously kill ya :O
yes it is, your body can only absorb so much water, you pretty much drawn to death you dont have enough electrolytes left
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwate鈥?/a>
Yes, it can, but it takes HUGE amounts. It's basically dilutional. It dilutes your body chemistry. You need a certain level of sodium and potassium, etc. for the heart and nervous system to function. If it's diluted out, it can be fatal.
yes. your skin gets all wrinkly and tears easily. It's really gross. That is if you do it over long term too much.
All at once can kill you too. Overload for your body
I take it ';lamends'; is supposed to be ';layman's';
from your spelling, it seems you've heard someone else use a word but didn't really know what they were saying.
yes it is true...but youd have to drink a TON of water...and it would kill you cuz it bursts your stomach
It is true. There was a radio contest and a woman died from it. I'm not sure why, but just remember- moderation!
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/1鈥?/a>
to much water for cells, cells feel pain, you get hurt other effects happen. Its bad for you
don't drink to much.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148%26amp;sid=111253
this is a news link that I could find
Unfortunately, it can kill you but only if you drink, like, 8 or 9 gallons of it, if you are an adult. Water is good for you so don't get dehydrated. Your body is made up of mostly water. but when it gets too much then it can cause problems. Never drink more than you are used to unless you feel thirsty. Water is the source of all life. Too much of something can kill you.
yup your capilaries burst or something. I think you would have to drink like a gallon in a short time period (like within a few hours) or somethin
Haven't you heard about the lady trying to win the WII and died because she drank too much water? It saturates the electrolytes in your body. That was actually a theory as to what happened to Terry Schiavo too, but they said it was from drinking too much iced trea.
I can almost guarantee its bullcrap. I think the only way drinking water can kill you is one of two ways:
- if your drowning and consume too much water and
- if you drink too much alcohol and then try to 'so called' flush it out with water, this can actually flood your body and kill or harm you as it has happened to a young girl but very rare
So no this is bull cos think about it, you are going to the toilet more so what you take in is going straight back out!
There was something recently about a woman that drank to much water and she died. Her death was ruled as water intoxication. As soon as I find a link I will post it for you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/
Basic physiology and osmosis. The kidneys can only process so much water over a given time. If you drink more water than the kidneys can process, your blood dilutes. The diluted blood creates an imbalance (more salt in the surrounding cells than in the blood). To relieve that imbalance, water from the blood starts entering the salty cells. This causes the cells to swell.
Think---- sinking in the ocean. You drown.
I've heard this too, especially if your working out or playing sports. I thought water was the best thing for your body!
God no.
Maybe if your drinking out of like... a lake or something.
Water is the best thing for you and it also builds dendrites.
Drink up!
yes. it can over power your blood cells and you die. Just like alcohol. its water intoxication.Is it true that drinking too much water can kill you? If so, why? In lamends terms please?
Drinking too much of anything can kill you. But, you have too like drink so much water to kill you. Trust me the only way to kill your self is if you force it and force it..its just like drowning.Trust me, if you think your drinking too much water, your not. The max you should drink each day is like.....um maybe......10 gallons
yes, anythink in a large enough dose could kill you, but i dont think you could fit enough water into your body for it to kill you.
Hyponatremia, a word cobbled together from Latin and Greek roots, translates as ';insufficient salt in the blood.'; Quantitatively speaking, it means having a blood sodium concentration below 135 millimoles per liter, or approximately 0.4 ounces per gallon, the normal concentration lying somewhere between 135 and 145 millimoles per liter. Severe cases of hyponatremia can lead to water intoxication, an illness whose symptoms include headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, frequent urination and mental disorientation.
In humans the kidneys control the amount of water, salts and other solutes leaving the body by sieving blood through their millions of twisted tubules. When a person drinks too much water in a short period of time, the kidneys cannot flush it out fast enough and the blood becomes waterlogged. Drawn to regions where the concentration of salt and other dissolved substances is higher, excess water leaves the blood and ultimately enters the cells, which swell like balloons to accommodate it.
Most cells have room to stretch because they are embedded in flexible tissues such as fat and muscle, but this is not the case for neurons. Brain cells are tightly packaged inside a rigid boney cage, the skull, and they have to share this space with blood and cerebrospinal fluid, explains Wolfgang Liedtke, a clinical neuroscientist at Duke University Medical Center. ';Inside the skull there is almost zero room to expand and swell,'; he says.
Thus, brain edema, or swelling, can be disastrous. ';Rapid and severe hyponatremia causes entry of water into brain cells leading to brain swelling, which manifests as seizures, coma, respiratory arrest, brain stem herniation and death,'; explains M. Amin Arnaout, chief of nephrology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
so long as your peeing it out you are find..if you hold your pee and keep drinking it has no where to go but to your brain and swell up and kill you so yes its true
ok, you're aware that Gatorade replaces electrolytes in your body.
Well, you NEED the electrolytes to keep your heart going.
If you drink a bunch of water, you deplete your body of electrolytes, which causes the heart to stop beating.
yes, it's called water intoxication. Although, you would have to drink a **** load of water to die....
you probably could die from drinking/eating too much anything.
If you drink large quantities of water, after about a week, you will begin to flush vital nutrients and protiens out of your body through the urine.
And the other writer is correct also. Drinking a lot of water all at once can essentially drown your organs. A fraternaty pledge in Chico, California did this just a few years ago while pledging for a fraternaty at Chico state.
yes it is. a girl died in a water drinking contest. she had drank like 2-3 gallons of water!
Too much water can seriously kill ya :O
yes it is, your body can only absorb so much water, you pretty much drawn to death you dont have enough electrolytes left
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwate鈥?/a>
Yes, it can, but it takes HUGE amounts. It's basically dilutional. It dilutes your body chemistry. You need a certain level of sodium and potassium, etc. for the heart and nervous system to function. If it's diluted out, it can be fatal.
yes. your skin gets all wrinkly and tears easily. It's really gross. That is if you do it over long term too much.
All at once can kill you too. Overload for your body
I take it ';lamends'; is supposed to be ';layman's';
from your spelling, it seems you've heard someone else use a word but didn't really know what they were saying.
yes it is true...but youd have to drink a TON of water...and it would kill you cuz it bursts your stomach
It is true. There was a radio contest and a woman died from it. I'm not sure why, but just remember- moderation!
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/1鈥?/a>
to much water for cells, cells feel pain, you get hurt other effects happen. Its bad for you
don't drink to much.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148%26amp;sid=111253
this is a news link that I could find
Unfortunately, it can kill you but only if you drink, like, 8 or 9 gallons of it, if you are an adult. Water is good for you so don't get dehydrated. Your body is made up of mostly water. but when it gets too much then it can cause problems. Never drink more than you are used to unless you feel thirsty. Water is the source of all life. Too much of something can kill you.
yup your capilaries burst or something. I think you would have to drink like a gallon in a short time period (like within a few hours) or somethin
Haven't you heard about the lady trying to win the WII and died because she drank too much water? It saturates the electrolytes in your body. That was actually a theory as to what happened to Terry Schiavo too, but they said it was from drinking too much iced trea.
I can almost guarantee its bullcrap. I think the only way drinking water can kill you is one of two ways:
- if your drowning and consume too much water and
- if you drink too much alcohol and then try to 'so called' flush it out with water, this can actually flood your body and kill or harm you as it has happened to a young girl but very rare
So no this is bull cos think about it, you are going to the toilet more so what you take in is going straight back out!
There was something recently about a woman that drank to much water and she died. Her death was ruled as water intoxication. As soon as I find a link I will post it for you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/
Basic physiology and osmosis. The kidneys can only process so much water over a given time. If you drink more water than the kidneys can process, your blood dilutes. The diluted blood creates an imbalance (more salt in the surrounding cells than in the blood). To relieve that imbalance, water from the blood starts entering the salty cells. This causes the cells to swell.
Think---- sinking in the ocean. You drown.
I've heard this too, especially if your working out or playing sports. I thought water was the best thing for your body!
God no.
Maybe if your drinking out of like... a lake or something.
Water is the best thing for you and it also builds dendrites.
Drink up!
In terms of sexuality, what does the saying ';either use it or lose it'; mean, and is it true??
I have heard it several times and I would like to learn the meaning of that ';saying';. I guess when people use it loosely they incline towards masturbation or sex regularly, but is that what it really implies, or is there a biological explanation?In terms of sexuality, what does the saying ';either use it or lose it'; mean, and is it true??
';either use it or lose it'; was started as saying to encourage people to use brain power. If you do not use your brain for thinking and other things then you slowly lose those abilities. It originally had nothing to do with sex. With men if they *** on a regular basis it can cause them to have less chance to get a girl pregnant becuase there sperm count is normally lower. The sperm has not had enough time to reproduce before the man ejaculates again is the problem but on the other hand if the do ejaculate often in most cases they can hold their ejaculation for longer there fore giving more time for the woman to be pleasured. I think the only difference with women is if they don't have intercourse for a couple of weeks the sometimes become tighter and harder to penetrate which can be a good thing in some circumstances.In terms of sexuality, what does the saying ';either use it or lose it'; mean, and is it true??
not true at all. believe me, u're not gonna lose anything.
everything still works. but perhapds if you dont use it for a long time, you lose confidence in yourself, and arent able to get the chance to use it again from self doubt.
I can think of no applicability of the phrase to sex. Anyone who uses it in that context is a dolt (not you, of course - you were merely asking).
u must not have used it yet
It means nothing except for giving some lame loser and excuse to have random sex and not feel bad about it.
I'd use it!!!
';either use it or lose it'; was started as saying to encourage people to use brain power. If you do not use your brain for thinking and other things then you slowly lose those abilities. It originally had nothing to do with sex. With men if they *** on a regular basis it can cause them to have less chance to get a girl pregnant becuase there sperm count is normally lower. The sperm has not had enough time to reproduce before the man ejaculates again is the problem but on the other hand if the do ejaculate often in most cases they can hold their ejaculation for longer there fore giving more time for the woman to be pleasured. I think the only difference with women is if they don't have intercourse for a couple of weeks the sometimes become tighter and harder to penetrate which can be a good thing in some circumstances.In terms of sexuality, what does the saying ';either use it or lose it'; mean, and is it true??
not true at all. believe me, u're not gonna lose anything.
everything still works. but perhapds if you dont use it for a long time, you lose confidence in yourself, and arent able to get the chance to use it again from self doubt.
I can think of no applicability of the phrase to sex. Anyone who uses it in that context is a dolt (not you, of course - you were merely asking).
u must not have used it yet
It means nothing except for giving some lame loser and excuse to have random sex and not feel bad about it.
I'd use it!!!
Is it true that the word Republican comes from the Latin terms...?
Re-meaning ';again';; pu-meaning ';excrement';; b-and early form of ';be';; and lican-meaning ';to eat';... and translates to ';be eating poo again';?Is it true that the word Republican comes from the Latin terms...?
';the literal translation of republican is a person that belongs to all affairs of the people.';
http://www.babeled.com/2008/10/09/word-p…Is it true that the word Republican comes from the Latin terms...?
Is it true that in Latin your name means ';lover of little boys';?
Go ahead and report this one, it's been a few days since I had an answer deleted from one of you moonbats.
...so what would that mean when all the Roman senators, protesting the autocracy of Caesar, used to cry for ';Republic! Republic!';?
I see another child was left behind. No is the answer you seek ignoramous. That translates to you having your head up your own @ss!
Wow that public school education is showing
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's NOT true at all. Matter of fact that is about the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
Nice try. No.
';W';aste Product is what I think ';W'; is, so certainly!
LOL
Sticks and stones...next!!!
yes
yes!
';the literal translation of republican is a person that belongs to all affairs of the people.';
http://www.babeled.com/2008/10/09/word-p…Is it true that the word Republican comes from the Latin terms...?
Is it true that in Latin your name means ';lover of little boys';?
Go ahead and report this one, it's been a few days since I had an answer deleted from one of you moonbats.
...so what would that mean when all the Roman senators, protesting the autocracy of Caesar, used to cry for ';Republic! Republic!';?
I see another child was left behind. No is the answer you seek ignoramous. That translates to you having your head up your own @ss!
Wow that public school education is showing
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's NOT true at all. Matter of fact that is about the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
Nice try. No.
';W';aste Product is what I think ';W'; is, so certainly!
LOL
Sticks and stones...next!!!
yes
yes!
In terms of relatioinships, is it true that like attracts like. You attract who u are?
if ur dating a jerk chances are deep down inside u are a jerk too...cause birds of a feather flock together?In terms of relatioinships, is it true that like attracts like. You attract who u are?
I think it is true to a point. I think that my boyfriend is the man version of me in almost everyway.In terms of relatioinships, is it true that like attracts like. You attract who u are?
i dont know how could you ever prove that theory but for some reason when i was younger i thought that men that i get attracted too are in most ways like me, but when i start to realize i stop at the point when i know that deep down we are too different, i do sometimes get attracted to those who are not like me just for variety
No, to me opposites attract, my husband and I are nothing alike. Total opposite in character, interests, etc. I think the birds of a feather thing applies to friends but not in love.
Not in my case...I am always attracted to my opposite.
I think it is more likely that we are attracted to traits similar to our parents...or the opposite of our parents if we despise them.
Extroverts often like introverts.
Actually i think I am attracted to and attract guys that are different. Its great, I don't think I could get along with someone too similar to myself.
Not neccicarilly(spelled wrong) it doesnt Allways work that way
like, my friend likes this chick that is ....basically a loser,...
and my friend is a Great student never late ..ocassional cuts but never alot..
%26lt;(0.0)%26gt;
I don't believe that you are who you date for a few reasons. I dated a guy for a year and 7 months and found out he cheated on me 4 times... and I've never even thought about cheating on a boyfriend. Also, my current boyfriend is my exact opposite in every way-- I'm outgoing, bossy, and opinionated, whereas he is quiet, easy going, and reserved. Another example... My friend dated a guy who was a complete jerk towards her and her friends, and she is really sweet and just got caught up in the relationship and was almost afraid to dump him. So yeah, I don't think who you date determines your character. (Although if you hang out with a ';bad seed'; for a long time, their behavoid COULD rub off on you...)
:)
a lot of the time, people appear to be who they're not. you can be with someone and convince yourself that you still like them because of your initial reaction. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in relationships.
yes, of course over a certain amount of time, they'll come to terms with who the other person really is. and if they stay together, the couple is either in a serious case of denial, or they're both just genuinely bad people...
the good news is, if it is a genuine relationship, good will attract good. if you're a good person, you have nothing to worry about. good love will find its way- straight to you!best myspace
I think it is true to a point. I think that my boyfriend is the man version of me in almost everyway.In terms of relatioinships, is it true that like attracts like. You attract who u are?
i dont know how could you ever prove that theory but for some reason when i was younger i thought that men that i get attracted too are in most ways like me, but when i start to realize i stop at the point when i know that deep down we are too different, i do sometimes get attracted to those who are not like me just for variety
No, to me opposites attract, my husband and I are nothing alike. Total opposite in character, interests, etc. I think the birds of a feather thing applies to friends but not in love.
Not in my case...I am always attracted to my opposite.
I think it is more likely that we are attracted to traits similar to our parents...or the opposite of our parents if we despise them.
Extroverts often like introverts.
Actually i think I am attracted to and attract guys that are different. Its great, I don't think I could get along with someone too similar to myself.
Not neccicarilly(spelled wrong) it doesnt Allways work that way
like, my friend likes this chick that is ....basically a loser,...
and my friend is a Great student never late ..ocassional cuts but never alot..
%26lt;(0.0)%26gt;
I don't believe that you are who you date for a few reasons. I dated a guy for a year and 7 months and found out he cheated on me 4 times... and I've never even thought about cheating on a boyfriend. Also, my current boyfriend is my exact opposite in every way-- I'm outgoing, bossy, and opinionated, whereas he is quiet, easy going, and reserved. Another example... My friend dated a guy who was a complete jerk towards her and her friends, and she is really sweet and just got caught up in the relationship and was almost afraid to dump him. So yeah, I don't think who you date determines your character. (Although if you hang out with a ';bad seed'; for a long time, their behavoid COULD rub off on you...)
:)
a lot of the time, people appear to be who they're not. you can be with someone and convince yourself that you still like them because of your initial reaction. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in relationships.
yes, of course over a certain amount of time, they'll come to terms with who the other person really is. and if they stay together, the couple is either in a serious case of denial, or they're both just genuinely bad people...
the good news is, if it is a genuine relationship, good will attract good. if you're a good person, you have nothing to worry about. good love will find its way- straight to you!
Is it true that gays were not really happy in terms of love life? They lost in the end.?
I am into relationship with a straight guy. It was a trip at first, as time passed by i found my self falling for him. Is it true that gays will never be happy in this kind of relationship
?Is it true that gays were not really happy in terms of love life? They lost in the end.?
It depends on what your goals are for happiness.
If you can find happiness with the kind of separation entailed in such a relationship, then you'll be filled with joy.
If, however, you want someone to be entirely intimate with, then you're going to be disappointed.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^Is it true that gays were not really happy in terms of love life? They lost in the end.?
I know guys in a committed loving relationship. I'm a gay sl#t but that doesn't mean we all are. Relationships mean loss of freedom and I'm all about freedom.
yeah. if you fall in love with a straight friend your just going to get hurt. been there, felt that.
No, that is not true, I was happy when I had girlfriends. You have to make your own happiness, sometimes. =)
If you are a gay man in love with a straight guy. No long term will work. If you are a lesbian and in love with a straight guy, that might work if you don't mind sharing another women with him. I feel it works best when you don't pretend to be something you are not. It is not fair to children, you might have and in 15 years tell them, hey, I'm gay and can't be here anymore. Pick your team and stay on it or be up front with it so no one will be surprised in the years ahead. Just my opinion.
when you date straight people they are not in it for love they are ';just checkin';, stay away from those who dont 100% know what they want
If you're a gay man in love with a straight man, then I'm afraid the odds of this relationship working out in the long run are not good -- assuming your boyfriend is truly straight. If he's really straight, he won't stay with you for very long; sooner or later he'll want to be with a woman and he'll leave you.
OTOH, if he's bisexual, or previously closeted and only pretending to be straight, then it could work out happily for both of you.
?Is it true that gays were not really happy in terms of love life? They lost in the end.?
It depends on what your goals are for happiness.
If you can find happiness with the kind of separation entailed in such a relationship, then you'll be filled with joy.
If, however, you want someone to be entirely intimate with, then you're going to be disappointed.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^Is it true that gays were not really happy in terms of love life? They lost in the end.?
I know guys in a committed loving relationship. I'm a gay sl#t but that doesn't mean we all are. Relationships mean loss of freedom and I'm all about freedom.
yeah. if you fall in love with a straight friend your just going to get hurt. been there, felt that.
No, that is not true, I was happy when I had girlfriends. You have to make your own happiness, sometimes. =)
If you are a gay man in love with a straight guy. No long term will work. If you are a lesbian and in love with a straight guy, that might work if you don't mind sharing another women with him. I feel it works best when you don't pretend to be something you are not. It is not fair to children, you might have and in 15 years tell them, hey, I'm gay and can't be here anymore. Pick your team and stay on it or be up front with it so no one will be surprised in the years ahead. Just my opinion.
when you date straight people they are not in it for love they are ';just checkin';, stay away from those who dont 100% know what they want
If you're a gay man in love with a straight man, then I'm afraid the odds of this relationship working out in the long run are not good -- assuming your boyfriend is truly straight. If he's really straight, he won't stay with you for very long; sooner or later he'll want to be with a woman and he'll leave you.
OTOH, if he's bisexual, or previously closeted and only pretending to be straight, then it could work out happily for both of you.
Is it true that a woman's hands and feet get slightly bigger (in terms of surface area) when she is pregnant?
When a woman is pregnant, her hands and feet increases slightly in size due to increased production of hormones (i.e. estrogen) and / or swolleness????Is it true that a woman's hands and feet get slightly bigger (in terms of surface area) when she is pregnant?
Yes, especially the feet. But, for me, at least, my feet did not stay that way. I didn't notice any change in my hands.
During pregnancy, you have a higher water content and actually a higher blood volume. You also produce hormones called relaxin which loosen your ligaments to prepare you for giving birth. Sometimes that can make your feet stretch out and get larger.Is it true that a woman's hands and feet get slightly bigger (in terms of surface area) when she is pregnant?
Absolutley. I keep saying that my feet look like SHREK!! ha. Mostly its swelling/water retention. For some they permanently go up a 1/2 size or so in shoes! bummer!!
I also had to take off my watch and wedding ring this week becuase they were hurting. Not everyone has problems with water retention or swelling, but I've definitely had it. Hands %26amp; feet are most common.
[ 39 weeks ]
Yes and the increase in size isn't necessarily temporary. Not only did I get swollen with my pregnancy, I went up an entire shoe size PERMANENTLY!!! The same thing also happened to my Mom.
My hands got swollen too but I don't know if they grew permanently like my feet.
yup its true im 36 weeks pregnant :)
Yes, my hands and feet were a little swollen towards the end of my pregnancy. It was temporary due to the water I was retaining.
Its true. Your feet will generally grow half a size with a pregnancy. They won't go back to normal either. The hands I haven't heard about but it stands to reason that if your feet grow your hands would too. Just think of it as an excuse to get more shoes.
Only your feet get big but that's only because they get swollen when you and your body are putting to much pressure on them!
Yes, it's true. The swelling doesn't usually start until late 2nd trimester or 3rd trimester. It's not a hormone issue, though, it's caused by all the extra blood and fluid in the pregnant woman's body.
i think ever person is different
Mine did not change at all, I think it depends on the individual.
Relaxin the hormone that allows the ligament in the pelvis to relax so the pelvis can enlarge, also relaxes all ligaments, and the blood vessels as well (to help accomidate more blood).
This relaxing of the ligaments also causes the ribcage to expand and the feet. Not sure about the hands but probably.
slightly?! I havent been able to put my rings on, and my shoes are way too tight, for over a month now!
Yes, especially the feet. But, for me, at least, my feet did not stay that way. I didn't notice any change in my hands.
During pregnancy, you have a higher water content and actually a higher blood volume. You also produce hormones called relaxin which loosen your ligaments to prepare you for giving birth. Sometimes that can make your feet stretch out and get larger.Is it true that a woman's hands and feet get slightly bigger (in terms of surface area) when she is pregnant?
Absolutley. I keep saying that my feet look like SHREK!! ha. Mostly its swelling/water retention. For some they permanently go up a 1/2 size or so in shoes! bummer!!
I also had to take off my watch and wedding ring this week becuase they were hurting. Not everyone has problems with water retention or swelling, but I've definitely had it. Hands %26amp; feet are most common.
[ 39 weeks ]
Yes and the increase in size isn't necessarily temporary. Not only did I get swollen with my pregnancy, I went up an entire shoe size PERMANENTLY!!! The same thing also happened to my Mom.
My hands got swollen too but I don't know if they grew permanently like my feet.
yup its true im 36 weeks pregnant :)
Yes, my hands and feet were a little swollen towards the end of my pregnancy. It was temporary due to the water I was retaining.
Its true. Your feet will generally grow half a size with a pregnancy. They won't go back to normal either. The hands I haven't heard about but it stands to reason that if your feet grow your hands would too. Just think of it as an excuse to get more shoes.
Only your feet get big but that's only because they get swollen when you and your body are putting to much pressure on them!
Yes, it's true. The swelling doesn't usually start until late 2nd trimester or 3rd trimester. It's not a hormone issue, though, it's caused by all the extra blood and fluid in the pregnant woman's body.
i think ever person is different
Mine did not change at all, I think it depends on the individual.
Relaxin the hormone that allows the ligament in the pelvis to relax so the pelvis can enlarge, also relaxes all ligaments, and the blood vessels as well (to help accomidate more blood).
This relaxing of the ligaments also causes the ribcage to expand and the feet. Not sure about the hands but probably.
slightly?! I havent been able to put my rings on, and my shoes are way too tight, for over a month now!
Is it true that you can leave the army before your term ends because of a high pay job offer?
My husband is thinking leaving the US army because he got a job offer that pays way more. He still have 2 years before the end of his enlissment, but he heard that he can leave if he get a better pay offer than the army. Does anyone know if it is true?
Where can I find some info on this? Thanks you all!Is it true that you can leave the army before your term ends because of a high pay job offer?
It's not really possible right in the middle of one of his enlistments... the best thing I could offer up as advice would be if he's a sharp troop for him to fill out a palace chase application to a guard or reserve unit near where the new job is. That would let him work the new job (his length of his contract will go up though) and he'd be a ';weekend warrior.'; there's still a chance he could activated and deployed in that time. If that seems like it's the option, his first shirt would know how to begin the processIs it true that you can leave the army before your term ends because of a high pay job offer?
I believe he has to prove that not taking the higher paying job would be a major hardship to him and his family. If you guys aren't negatively affected by his military pay(like you're having a hard time making ends meet, and feeding and clothing you and your family, keeping a roof over your head, paying your necessary bills like heat, water and electricity, have more debt than he can pay off with his military salary, etc...), I don't think it will be an easy thing for him to try and do.
There is a provision for this and it has been used when service people have won the lottery or in the case of professional athletes who came out of the military academies and got a pro contract. As someone has said it is all done through the JAG and is a lengthy and burdensome process that is done at the level of the Secretary of the perspective military the person is in.
To my knowledge, I have only heard of that being done with people within a six month window of seperating from the military who are offerec a job that will not wait. Even then, it is at the discretion of the command to approve it. With two years left on his enlistment and the current ops tempo, I can't see where they would agree to let him go. Of course, the only way to get a definite answer is for him to talk to a supervisor, but I would plan on being military for another couple of years.
PS.. Also, when looking at the pay in a civilian job, you need to take into consideration all that you will loose if he gets out. His health care costs are covered 100% and so are your's if you use military providers. If he gets out, you will be paying for insurance, as well as co-pays, perscription planse and the rest. You also get either base housing or a housing allowance..you will need to see if his increased salary makes up for having to cover that as well. You will also loose BX and commisary privelages. The new salary would need to be at least 50% higher and, depending on where you live, possibly even almost double what he actually takes home now.
I left early using ';early outs'; combined with terminal leave and for college so I'm sure certain things can be done BUT I doubt 2 years early would fly. I left 3 months early.
It is possible but he needs to go to retention control and find out for sure.
Absolutely not, without intervention at the congressional level.
No, once you inlist you are property of the U.S. Military. You have to finish your term unless you are dischargerd.
nope. early outs can happen at SIX MONTHS..not two years. and then usually only because you have been accepted into College.
they own you for EIGHT total years. if he has not served eight years, they do NOT have to let him go if they feel they need him.
N O, This is F A L S E!!!!!!! Suggest your husband see his First Sergeant ASAP!
While it's not impossible, it's very improbable given he has 2 years left on his contract. The only time I've ever seen it used was when the contract was almost complete, and always officers and senior NCO's. One thing he would have to prove and document is that his military pay has created a financial hardship that cannot be overcome while still enlisted, not just that the other job is substantially more lucrative.
The only way out might be to make a pass at your CO and get kicked out for being gay. Otherwise, he's in for 2 more years.
Sorry, but there is no such thing. Someone is blowing smoke into his ear.
yes this is true im from british army .if he has served more than 3 years he can apply for discharge
Not true. There are no early-outs for more money.
I can recall nothing that covers that sort of situation in the DoD / BuPers Instruction Manuals. As another pointed out, he MIGHT be able to pull off a hardship discharge or transfer to a reserve unit... but the Military is NOT a fan of ';renegotiating'; enlistment contracts.
The CLOSEST I ever came to anything like this was when one of the kids in my Division actually won $12 million in the California Lottery 3 years into a 5 year enlistment... he was given a general discharge ';at the convenience of the service';. But THAT was because he HAD the money, not the promise of money.
Two years later, he wrote me and I helped him get his discharge upgraded to ';Honorable';.
GOOD LUCK
Yes, and it snows in hell too!
He will have to finish his enlistment before he can be released from the military!
or admit to the military that he is homosexual, however, He will get an other than honorable discharge.
I don't think that that type of discharge will be favorable in the eyes of his future employer!
There is a provision in the Army about buying out the remainder of your contract. I am not sure exactly how it works, but if he contacts his JAG or unit Chaplin they should be able to help him.
Where can I find some info on this? Thanks you all!Is it true that you can leave the army before your term ends because of a high pay job offer?
It's not really possible right in the middle of one of his enlistments... the best thing I could offer up as advice would be if he's a sharp troop for him to fill out a palace chase application to a guard or reserve unit near where the new job is. That would let him work the new job (his length of his contract will go up though) and he'd be a ';weekend warrior.'; there's still a chance he could activated and deployed in that time. If that seems like it's the option, his first shirt would know how to begin the processIs it true that you can leave the army before your term ends because of a high pay job offer?
I believe he has to prove that not taking the higher paying job would be a major hardship to him and his family. If you guys aren't negatively affected by his military pay(like you're having a hard time making ends meet, and feeding and clothing you and your family, keeping a roof over your head, paying your necessary bills like heat, water and electricity, have more debt than he can pay off with his military salary, etc...), I don't think it will be an easy thing for him to try and do.
There is a provision for this and it has been used when service people have won the lottery or in the case of professional athletes who came out of the military academies and got a pro contract. As someone has said it is all done through the JAG and is a lengthy and burdensome process that is done at the level of the Secretary of the perspective military the person is in.
To my knowledge, I have only heard of that being done with people within a six month window of seperating from the military who are offerec a job that will not wait. Even then, it is at the discretion of the command to approve it. With two years left on his enlistment and the current ops tempo, I can't see where they would agree to let him go. Of course, the only way to get a definite answer is for him to talk to a supervisor, but I would plan on being military for another couple of years.
PS.. Also, when looking at the pay in a civilian job, you need to take into consideration all that you will loose if he gets out. His health care costs are covered 100% and so are your's if you use military providers. If he gets out, you will be paying for insurance, as well as co-pays, perscription planse and the rest. You also get either base housing or a housing allowance..you will need to see if his increased salary makes up for having to cover that as well. You will also loose BX and commisary privelages. The new salary would need to be at least 50% higher and, depending on where you live, possibly even almost double what he actually takes home now.
I left early using ';early outs'; combined with terminal leave and for college so I'm sure certain things can be done BUT I doubt 2 years early would fly. I left 3 months early.
It is possible but he needs to go to retention control and find out for sure.
Absolutely not, without intervention at the congressional level.
No, once you inlist you are property of the U.S. Military. You have to finish your term unless you are dischargerd.
nope. early outs can happen at SIX MONTHS..not two years. and then usually only because you have been accepted into College.
they own you for EIGHT total years. if he has not served eight years, they do NOT have to let him go if they feel they need him.
N O, This is F A L S E!!!!!!! Suggest your husband see his First Sergeant ASAP!
While it's not impossible, it's very improbable given he has 2 years left on his contract. The only time I've ever seen it used was when the contract was almost complete, and always officers and senior NCO's. One thing he would have to prove and document is that his military pay has created a financial hardship that cannot be overcome while still enlisted, not just that the other job is substantially more lucrative.
The only way out might be to make a pass at your CO and get kicked out for being gay. Otherwise, he's in for 2 more years.
Sorry, but there is no such thing. Someone is blowing smoke into his ear.
yes this is true im from british army .if he has served more than 3 years he can apply for discharge
Not true. There are no early-outs for more money.
I can recall nothing that covers that sort of situation in the DoD / BuPers Instruction Manuals. As another pointed out, he MIGHT be able to pull off a hardship discharge or transfer to a reserve unit... but the Military is NOT a fan of ';renegotiating'; enlistment contracts.
The CLOSEST I ever came to anything like this was when one of the kids in my Division actually won $12 million in the California Lottery 3 years into a 5 year enlistment... he was given a general discharge ';at the convenience of the service';. But THAT was because he HAD the money, not the promise of money.
Two years later, he wrote me and I helped him get his discharge upgraded to ';Honorable';.
GOOD LUCK
Yes, and it snows in hell too!
He will have to finish his enlistment before he can be released from the military!
or admit to the military that he is homosexual, however, He will get an other than honorable discharge.
I don't think that that type of discharge will be favorable in the eyes of his future employer!
There is a provision in the Army about buying out the remainder of your contract. I am not sure exactly how it works, but if he contacts his JAG or unit Chaplin they should be able to help him.
I am starting to learn the German language. Is it true that the term ';Fr盲ulein'; is no longer used?
In modern German, every woman may demand to be addressed as Frau XY, married or not. There are extremely few elderly unmarried women who insist on being addressed as Fr盲ulein. Most unmarried women addressed as Fr盲ulein will feel insulted.I am starting to learn the German language. Is it true that the term ';Fr盲ulein'; is no longer used?
you can use it, but it is a little dated and it seems to be more popular with english speaking people than with germans. it is certainly not used in formal letters, but more jokingly sometimes when a man tries to be polite. i would, however, not automatically replace ';fraeulein'; with ';maedchen';. it is more a term for young girls (typically children and teens) rather than unmarried women.I am starting to learn the German language. Is it true that the term ';Fr盲ulein'; is no longer used?
Older women who have never been married may still be addressed as ';Fr盲ulein (Name)'; if they wish. Other than this it's always ';Frau'; nowadays in official matters and colloquially as well. Speaking indirectly of a young woman you use ';das M盲dchen';. Here ';das Fr盲ulein'; is definitely obsolete.
Fr盲ulein isn't used very often. You can use words like M盲dchen (used when talking about a girl that isn't married. Meine Frau heisst Susan = My wife's name is Susan. You wouldn't ever call your wife a girl, or a girl a wife.
Nowadays it's not common at all to call an unmarried woman Fr盲ulein. It's nothing to anybody if a woman is married or not. So it would be kinda demeaning to carry around your marital status always with you.
you can use it, but it is a little dated and it seems to be more popular with english speaking people than with germans. it is certainly not used in formal letters, but more jokingly sometimes when a man tries to be polite. i would, however, not automatically replace ';fraeulein'; with ';maedchen';. it is more a term for young girls (typically children and teens) rather than unmarried women.I am starting to learn the German language. Is it true that the term ';Fr盲ulein'; is no longer used?
Older women who have never been married may still be addressed as ';Fr盲ulein (Name)'; if they wish. Other than this it's always ';Frau'; nowadays in official matters and colloquially as well. Speaking indirectly of a young woman you use ';das M盲dchen';. Here ';das Fr盲ulein'; is definitely obsolete.
Fr盲ulein isn't used very often. You can use words like M盲dchen (used when talking about a girl that isn't married. Meine Frau heisst Susan = My wife's name is Susan. You wouldn't ever call your wife a girl, or a girl a wife.
Nowadays it's not common at all to call an unmarried woman Fr盲ulein. It's nothing to anybody if a woman is married or not. So it would be kinda demeaning to carry around your marital status always with you.
Whats true love ai about(in terms of relationships and how to wine back yo true love when lost if both stil in
if yo stil in love with yo gal and she stil loves you to but so much pride in her,yet she goes around tellin pple how she stil loves u back cant get, how do u go about itWhats true love ai about(in terms of relationships and how to wine back yo true love when lost if both stil in
Let go let God. If its true love it will happen.Whats true love ai about(in terms of relationships and how to wine back yo true love when lost if both stil in
Wait and let her make the first move!
insist and try until you cant try any more... If she still loves you she'll bend her arm and get back with you. You mustve done something to make her not want to be with you now...
learn to read
buy her a good bottle of whine
get hold of her , look her in the eye and talk .
she needs a heathcliff and darcy mix yea.. u have to look her in the eye and tell her u love her. and that u know she loves u. and that u have to be together..
then yea. kiss her. she'll come around.
If u r in love with her %26amp; she is in love with you then I suggest u perservere - don't give up. 1 of u needs to let go of pride. Sometimes people behave like that (pride) but it's not wot they actually want. If u want her back then tell her - is pride worth more or ur true love?
It seem to me she just needs alot of assurance fr u
first of all what the heck are you saying speak proper english please.best myspace
Let go let God. If its true love it will happen.Whats true love ai about(in terms of relationships and how to wine back yo true love when lost if both stil in
Wait and let her make the first move!
insist and try until you cant try any more... If she still loves you she'll bend her arm and get back with you. You mustve done something to make her not want to be with you now...
learn to read
buy her a good bottle of whine
get hold of her , look her in the eye and talk .
she needs a heathcliff and darcy mix yea.. u have to look her in the eye and tell her u love her. and that u know she loves u. and that u have to be together..
then yea. kiss her. she'll come around.
If u r in love with her %26amp; she is in love with you then I suggest u perservere - don't give up. 1 of u needs to let go of pride. Sometimes people behave like that (pride) but it's not wot they actually want. If u want her back then tell her - is pride worth more or ur true love?
It seem to me she just needs alot of assurance fr u
first of all what the heck are you saying speak proper english please.
How true is it that women are different in terms of how pleasurable they are in bed?
Yep but it mostly depends on how comfortable she is with herself and her sexuality. Those who are not comfortable with their sexuality (feelings of guilt, insecurity about their body, etc) or not comfortable with their partner may not allow themselves as much enjoyment as someone who is.How true is it that women are different in terms of how pleasurable they are in bed?
ur right.. women r different fr one another.
speaking 4 myself, im not very gud %26amp; hot in bed.. i sometyms do it 4 d sake of giving my babe pleasure...
i rarely have d desire %26amp; my bf thinks im weird bcoz of that..
men wud never understandHow true is it that women are different in terms of how pleasurable they are in bed?
Oh yeah. I know myself that I was never considered a passionate lover.I did it more as a chore, so you can imagine it wasn't great.
Att 36, I met my husband, and DAMN!!! that all changed. I have more passion than the room can hold for this man for almost 4 years now, and no sign of dying out.
So alot has to do with the woman, but perhaps the man often doesn't match the right chemistry for us. That changes everything.
from men - probably yes.
as between women - probably yes.
Everyone's different.
I don,t think so
Uhhhhhhh well...I'm a girl and i think that rating girls through pleasuability in a bed is wrong.
yes it is some women are just better than others
pleasure for both man and women is determined by their own personal fantasies and desires
The vaginal walls have pleasure spots at different parts in women so the difference with different women %26amp;/or in positions.
Very true you need to take control as well as give comtrol
ur right.. women r different fr one another.
speaking 4 myself, im not very gud %26amp; hot in bed.. i sometyms do it 4 d sake of giving my babe pleasure...
i rarely have d desire %26amp; my bf thinks im weird bcoz of that..
men wud never understandHow true is it that women are different in terms of how pleasurable they are in bed?
Oh yeah. I know myself that I was never considered a passionate lover.I did it more as a chore, so you can imagine it wasn't great.
Att 36, I met my husband, and DAMN!!! that all changed. I have more passion than the room can hold for this man for almost 4 years now, and no sign of dying out.
So alot has to do with the woman, but perhaps the man often doesn't match the right chemistry for us. That changes everything.
from men - probably yes.
as between women - probably yes.
Everyone's different.
I don,t think so
Uhhhhhhh well...I'm a girl and i think that rating girls through pleasuability in a bed is wrong.
yes it is some women are just better than others
pleasure for both man and women is determined by their own personal fantasies and desires
The vaginal walls have pleasure spots at different parts in women so the difference with different women %26amp;/or in positions.
Very true you need to take control as well as give comtrol
Some says that sony ericsson w910i is not a typical sony in terms of sound quality.is it true.?
no, its sound quality is good.
Is it true Cindy McCain suffers from short term memory loss?
I am not mocking the old gal for having had a stroke. It just seems to me it would be awkward having a First Lady who keeps forgetting everything.Is it true Cindy McCain suffers from short term memory loss?
Hey, at least she'll make new friends everyday.Is it true Cindy McCain suffers from short term memory loss?
Her husband does too.
But I am not sure if her memory loss is related to her stroke or damage from her previous substance abuse. How can the GOP have a First Lady who did those things? Her drug use is in the past but still does not look good for the GOP.
Seems to me someone else has a short term memory loss where it pertains to aging. Some will have total recall only when they reach her age ... but then again, they will forget about compassion to forward whatever political agenda he or she has ... even if they don't remember the particulars.
Dory in Nemo had STML and everyone loved her! However, it seems Michelle long term memory is strong and seething!
No, you're just suffering from immaturity...but maturity will come..and soon, hopefully.
Yeah you are mocking her and no she doesn't suffer from that... ';old gal';???/
If all it is is short term, as in forgetting what you ate for lunch, I don't care...
I would rather have one that is forgetful than one who is a racist.
Does that mean she every time she sees old McCain she thinks he's the new man in her life?
I haven't heard that she does.. but if she does, then it just means she's getting old, and the same goes for McCain..
Dunno, but she remembers that she has ALWAYS been proud of her country.
Hey, at least she'll make new friends everyday.Is it true Cindy McCain suffers from short term memory loss?
Her husband does too.
But I am not sure if her memory loss is related to her stroke or damage from her previous substance abuse. How can the GOP have a First Lady who did those things? Her drug use is in the past but still does not look good for the GOP.
Seems to me someone else has a short term memory loss where it pertains to aging. Some will have total recall only when they reach her age ... but then again, they will forget about compassion to forward whatever political agenda he or she has ... even if they don't remember the particulars.
Dory in Nemo had STML and everyone loved her! However, it seems Michelle long term memory is strong and seething!
No, you're just suffering from immaturity...but maturity will come..and soon, hopefully.
Yeah you are mocking her and no she doesn't suffer from that... ';old gal';???/
If all it is is short term, as in forgetting what you ate for lunch, I don't care...
I would rather have one that is forgetful than one who is a racist.
Does that mean she every time she sees old McCain she thinks he's the new man in her life?
I haven't heard that she does.. but if she does, then it just means she's getting old, and the same goes for McCain..
Dunno, but she remembers that she has ALWAYS been proud of her country.
The terms ophthalmic and orbital both refer to the eye area. True False?
False! Orbital is about the bone structure.
Ophthalmic is about the eye, a sensory organ
Ophthalmic is about the eye, a sensory organ
Does being a true Christian automatically make you a ';liberal';, at least in terms of economic issues?
Granted, Christians can have positions on many social issues that are viewed as being traditional or conservative. But isn't it hard to imagine the fiscal politics of a Christian being anything but left leaning?
Shouldn't Christians be for helping people? Especially helping those members of society who have a harder time helping themselves?
And shouldn't Christians be against greed and the pursuit of wealth?
And wasn't Jesus a liberal, at least in the context of the time he lived?Does being a true Christian automatically make you a ';liberal';, at least in terms of economic issues?
A good Christian would not want the government to be solely responsible for taking care of the poor and needy. A good Christian would give from their hearts and wallets to their neighbor as often as possible...directly to that person so the money wouldn't be wasted. A good Christian would help others learn how to help themselves. These are not things we can count on Washington to do. Politicians have proved time and again that they do not handle money very well.
You do not really want a socialist country, do you? There goes innovation, motivation, determination. Less government involvement is the only answer. Let's give our money to God's Church, and I don't mean a building or the federal government. Separation of Church and State should apply here also, just as Jesus told us to do.
God Bless.Does being a true Christian automatically make you a ';liberal';, at least in terms of economic issues?
I don't think Many Christians have a Liberal stance on many MORAL issues... Is that not what our beliefs influence? Our Moral Core...
I think I am very conservative and traditional.. but not to a fault... I believe there are LEANING issues on all sides
Many so called liberals have plenty of Morality check with typical Liberal Stances on issues like Abortion etc...
I think this Door Swings Both ways...
I believe in equality for all, but I do believe in the old saying... Give a man a fish feed him for a day.. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for life.
Jesus was a liberal and a rebel in his time. I don't beleive he would find much to value in the right-wing conservative movement today.
The question is not whether Christians should be helping people, but whether or not the government should be helping people. Believing in helping people does not make a person a liberal, believing that the government should be giving handouts does make a person a liberal.
I am politically moderate. I personally believe that it is the church's job to help the needy and unfortunate members of society, not the government's job.
There is a distinction between personal beliefs and beliefs about government. That is why there are Christians on both sides of the aisle in the United States.
It's totally possible to be Christian and a fiscal conservative. Liberals lean more towards state-run welfare while conservatives are more for promoting business, which produces jobs which puts money into the hands of normal working people. Generosity isn't real generosity when it's government enforced, it should be up to individuals to work, make their money and hopefully use what they make to benefit others. The bible is all in favor of doing well in business to take care of your family and be generous with others (see Proverbs 31) so I would think this applies to managing a country as well as to managing personal finance.
A good Christian couldn't be a liberal.
he very much was.....and yes, a true follower would care far more fo the 'least of these' than giving huge tax breaks to the rich.
Yes, Christians should and do help people. Christians are against greed and the wrong pursuits of wealth. And no, Jesus was not a liberal. He forgave sins, something very different. He told the woman caught in adultery, ';go and sin no more.';
John 3:16 ';For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish but have eternal life.';
Yes he was! current administration has been sad on this issue(I voted for him twice) environment ,world affairs has been lacking as well. One thing I know I don't have the big picture! what is God doing in this?
When you explain it that way.I guess I'd have to say yes.
What is a true liberal and a true conservative? Many people are middle of the road, leaning to one side or another. So many variations.
In a world of limited resources and time the question always is, whom to help and how.. With 89% of the world below the poverty line (earning less than $6000 a year annually) the global need is greater than what can be supplied even with the best intentions.
How to keep the economic engines going without stifling innovation and hard work with layers and layers of taxes..
You might research if high taxation years correlate to years of a growing economy.
Peruse the news on the topic of pork barrell projects funded with tax money..
You ask a very good and very challenging question. This question is very important within the context of the challenges that Christ presented to His followers.
A Roman Catholic
http://www.vatican.va
Shouldn't Christians be for helping people? Especially helping those members of society who have a harder time helping themselves?
And shouldn't Christians be against greed and the pursuit of wealth?
And wasn't Jesus a liberal, at least in the context of the time he lived?Does being a true Christian automatically make you a ';liberal';, at least in terms of economic issues?
A good Christian would not want the government to be solely responsible for taking care of the poor and needy. A good Christian would give from their hearts and wallets to their neighbor as often as possible...directly to that person so the money wouldn't be wasted. A good Christian would help others learn how to help themselves. These are not things we can count on Washington to do. Politicians have proved time and again that they do not handle money very well.
You do not really want a socialist country, do you? There goes innovation, motivation, determination. Less government involvement is the only answer. Let's give our money to God's Church, and I don't mean a building or the federal government. Separation of Church and State should apply here also, just as Jesus told us to do.
God Bless.Does being a true Christian automatically make you a ';liberal';, at least in terms of economic issues?
I don't think Many Christians have a Liberal stance on many MORAL issues... Is that not what our beliefs influence? Our Moral Core...
I think I am very conservative and traditional.. but not to a fault... I believe there are LEANING issues on all sides
Many so called liberals have plenty of Morality check with typical Liberal Stances on issues like Abortion etc...
I think this Door Swings Both ways...
I believe in equality for all, but I do believe in the old saying... Give a man a fish feed him for a day.. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for life.
Jesus was a liberal and a rebel in his time. I don't beleive he would find much to value in the right-wing conservative movement today.
The question is not whether Christians should be helping people, but whether or not the government should be helping people. Believing in helping people does not make a person a liberal, believing that the government should be giving handouts does make a person a liberal.
I am politically moderate. I personally believe that it is the church's job to help the needy and unfortunate members of society, not the government's job.
There is a distinction between personal beliefs and beliefs about government. That is why there are Christians on both sides of the aisle in the United States.
It's totally possible to be Christian and a fiscal conservative. Liberals lean more towards state-run welfare while conservatives are more for promoting business, which produces jobs which puts money into the hands of normal working people. Generosity isn't real generosity when it's government enforced, it should be up to individuals to work, make their money and hopefully use what they make to benefit others. The bible is all in favor of doing well in business to take care of your family and be generous with others (see Proverbs 31) so I would think this applies to managing a country as well as to managing personal finance.
A good Christian couldn't be a liberal.
he very much was.....and yes, a true follower would care far more fo the 'least of these' than giving huge tax breaks to the rich.
Yes, Christians should and do help people. Christians are against greed and the wrong pursuits of wealth. And no, Jesus was not a liberal. He forgave sins, something very different. He told the woman caught in adultery, ';go and sin no more.';
John 3:16 ';For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish but have eternal life.';
Yes he was! current administration has been sad on this issue(I voted for him twice) environment ,world affairs has been lacking as well. One thing I know I don't have the big picture! what is God doing in this?
When you explain it that way.I guess I'd have to say yes.
What is a true liberal and a true conservative? Many people are middle of the road, leaning to one side or another. So many variations.
In a world of limited resources and time the question always is, whom to help and how.. With 89% of the world below the poverty line (earning less than $6000 a year annually) the global need is greater than what can be supplied even with the best intentions.
How to keep the economic engines going without stifling innovation and hard work with layers and layers of taxes..
You might research if high taxation years correlate to years of a growing economy.
Peruse the news on the topic of pork barrell projects funded with tax money..
You ask a very good and very challenging question. This question is very important within the context of the challenges that Christ presented to His followers.
A Roman Catholic
http://www.vatican.va
Is it true that if you walk a distance you gain the same benefit in fitness terms as if you had run it?
No.
Walking is a great way to stay healthy but does not build the cardio-vascular the same way running does. walking, in general, will not raise your heart rate nor require the processing of oxygen the way running will.
If you are looking for a faster turn-around on health benefits, running will provide it. if you are looking for easing into a heath regime, walk, then fast walk, then run.
As always, make certain you are healthy enough to start an exercise program.Is it true that if you walk a distance you gain the same benefit in fitness terms as if you had run it?
This is true. It's the same as it would if you would run than walk. But if you run then you keep your heart rate up, which is better for your body. But overall, if you walked it you still get the same results. Just running is easier, and burns fat better and faster.Is it true that if you walk a distance you gain the same benefit in fitness terms as if you had run it?
this is a very common misconception,but it is not true. by running the distance, you keep your heart rate up a lot more. when your heart rate is up, you are in a fat burnng zone, so the benefits on your body are better.best myspace
Walking is a great way to stay healthy but does not build the cardio-vascular the same way running does. walking, in general, will not raise your heart rate nor require the processing of oxygen the way running will.
If you are looking for a faster turn-around on health benefits, running will provide it. if you are looking for easing into a heath regime, walk, then fast walk, then run.
As always, make certain you are healthy enough to start an exercise program.Is it true that if you walk a distance you gain the same benefit in fitness terms as if you had run it?
This is true. It's the same as it would if you would run than walk. But if you run then you keep your heart rate up, which is better for your body. But overall, if you walked it you still get the same results. Just running is easier, and burns fat better and faster.Is it true that if you walk a distance you gain the same benefit in fitness terms as if you had run it?
this is a very common misconception,but it is not true. by running the distance, you keep your heart rate up a lot more. when your heart rate is up, you are in a fat burnng zone, so the benefits on your body are better.
The Federal Reserve establishes the interest rate charged to major corporations on long-term loans,True/False?
Strictly speaking, False, the Federal Reserve does not *directly* set the loan interest rates charged by banks.
However the Federal Reserve has a very strong *indirect* influence on those rates.
The Federal Reserve sets the ';Federal Funds'; rate which is the interest charged for loans between banks. This is usually the cheapest money a bank can borrow.
Banks will use the Federal Funds rate as a benchmark for other loans, and a change in the rate as a signal to raise or lower other loan rates.
So if your question was reworded slightly
';The Federal Reserve *strongly influences* the interest rate charged to major corporations on long-term loans,True/False? ';
that answer would be True.The Federal Reserve establishes the interest rate charged to major corporations on long-term loans,True/False?
False.The Federal Reserve establishes the interest rate charged to major corporations on long-term loans,True/False?
false. they set the prime rate. most banks base their rates off of this.
False.
However the Federal Reserve has a very strong *indirect* influence on those rates.
The Federal Reserve sets the ';Federal Funds'; rate which is the interest charged for loans between banks. This is usually the cheapest money a bank can borrow.
Banks will use the Federal Funds rate as a benchmark for other loans, and a change in the rate as a signal to raise or lower other loan rates.
So if your question was reworded slightly
';The Federal Reserve *strongly influences* the interest rate charged to major corporations on long-term loans,True/False? ';
that answer would be True.The Federal Reserve establishes the interest rate charged to major corporations on long-term loans,True/False?
False.The Federal Reserve establishes the interest rate charged to major corporations on long-term loans,True/False?
false. they set the prime rate. most banks base their rates off of this.
False.
True/False The largest drug problem in the U.S., in terms of number of people affected, is marijuana?
When You Answer the True/False Question tell me why you chose your answer %26amp; list your choices.
Thank You.True/False The largest drug problem in the U.S., in terms of number of people affected, is marijuana?
false...many more people are addicted to tobaccoTrue/False The largest drug problem in the U.S., in terms of number of people affected, is marijuana?
False the largest drug problem is the U.S. is Meth...
marijuana is NOT physically addictive. you can walk away from it when you smoked it all.
Alchohol and tobbaco IS physically addictive.
and contrary to the Gov't belief: Marijuana is NOT the gateway drug. BEER is the gateway drug.
95% of all children drink beer before going on to more drugs. Source? the American Medical Society (AMA)
False, I believe it is a drug that is legal and is dispened by our physcians at the drop of a hat, good old VALIUM
Thank You.True/False The largest drug problem in the U.S., in terms of number of people affected, is marijuana?
false...many more people are addicted to tobaccoTrue/False The largest drug problem in the U.S., in terms of number of people affected, is marijuana?
False the largest drug problem is the U.S. is Meth...
marijuana is NOT physically addictive. you can walk away from it when you smoked it all.
Alchohol and tobbaco IS physically addictive.
and contrary to the Gov't belief: Marijuana is NOT the gateway drug. BEER is the gateway drug.
95% of all children drink beer before going on to more drugs. Source? the American Medical Society (AMA)
False, I believe it is a drug that is legal and is dispened by our physcians at the drop of a hat, good old VALIUM
Terms such as Absolute, 100% true, infallible, divinely guided , fades away when the truth emerges?
let me explain. If such people existed whatever was written about their actions and words were written hundreds of years after that person lived ok
abraham 600 years
moses 500
mohomed 500
buddha 700
jesus 150
noah 600
and if you tell me that oral traditions can constitute the absolute truth i consider you to be a very ignorent person
when the gap is so wide between the persons life and the actual writing of his story then i ask,
how can you sit there and make absolute claims?
xmuslim / free thinkerTerms such as Absolute, 100% true, infallible, divinely guided , fades away when the truth emerges?
how can you sit there and make absolute claims?
This applies to you,
Whats your proof, you really know nothing about history,Terms such as Absolute, 100% true, infallible, divinely guided , fades away when the truth emerges?
If they are divinely inpsired, they can be oral traditions of 10,000 years and still be accurate.
It is true men fail, but God doesnt.
It is very difficult trying to build a belief system around oral tradition. Especially when one depends on the eternity of their soul in getting the text right.
Seems crazy to me, but they have to believe that the text was divinely inspired, in order to feel safe about eternity.
Senita everyday u have only these two or three questions.
Prophets were true and when next prophet told about previous prophet after taking information from God, it means same time. And Mohammad SAW being the last prophet have testified all previous prophets and his informations were recorded at the same time. It means avaialable information about all prophets are Absolute, 100% true, infallible, divinely guided from then and for ever.
Mis-guided people cry and go out of this world crying to hell but prophets were prophets, are prophets and will remain even on the day of Judgement they will be the same.
Bye sanata praying for ur guidance.
Your physical senses have you chained to beliefs that are not eternal, nor do they serve you well. Yours is not ready for the next step, as evidenced by your post.
Most of those terms are meaningless in any real context.
Any claim of something being absolute requires that we know absolutely everything. The most we can say is that, to the extent that we know anything and given the evidence we have, we know something to be true.
As far as ';infallible'; goes, that depends on a subjective judgement of what's considered a failure. And ';divinely guided'; is just plain undefined in any real sense because the word ';god'; is not really well-defined.
Wow, that's a well put argument right there! I didn't know that (at least the one's that aren't Jesus). Good to know...
:D exactly
ever heard of Chinese whispers, the more the whisper is passed around the circle, the more it changes, until you end up with something completely different. so it is highly unlikely that these stories are accurate.
Thats why i DONT believe.
I will only answer for Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus Christ because I am not too sure about the writings of the other two.
Moses is the author of Genesis which includes the acounts of Noah and Abraham. Moses also wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Moses wrote about himself so there is no time gap between the writings and his life. Secondly, God, through the Holy Spirit and sometimes face to face, dictated the book of Genesis to Moses which contains the lives of Noah and Abraham. No oral tradition. Thirdly, we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the books of Mathew, John, James, Peter and Paul's Epistles. These books were written by the names mentioned themselves in their lifetimes. All of these books were written no later than 60 years after the death of Jesus. This is how I can make absolute claims. If you would like to find out more you should read about the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in the 1950's and contain writings from the 1st century B.C.
I'd like to know too!
abraham 600 years
moses 500
mohomed 500
buddha 700
jesus 150
noah 600
and if you tell me that oral traditions can constitute the absolute truth i consider you to be a very ignorent person
when the gap is so wide between the persons life and the actual writing of his story then i ask,
how can you sit there and make absolute claims?
xmuslim / free thinkerTerms such as Absolute, 100% true, infallible, divinely guided , fades away when the truth emerges?
how can you sit there and make absolute claims?
This applies to you,
Whats your proof, you really know nothing about history,Terms such as Absolute, 100% true, infallible, divinely guided , fades away when the truth emerges?
If they are divinely inpsired, they can be oral traditions of 10,000 years and still be accurate.
It is true men fail, but God doesnt.
It is very difficult trying to build a belief system around oral tradition. Especially when one depends on the eternity of their soul in getting the text right.
Seems crazy to me, but they have to believe that the text was divinely inspired, in order to feel safe about eternity.
Senita everyday u have only these two or three questions.
Prophets were true and when next prophet told about previous prophet after taking information from God, it means same time. And Mohammad SAW being the last prophet have testified all previous prophets and his informations were recorded at the same time. It means avaialable information about all prophets are Absolute, 100% true, infallible, divinely guided from then and for ever.
Mis-guided people cry and go out of this world crying to hell but prophets were prophets, are prophets and will remain even on the day of Judgement they will be the same.
Bye sanata praying for ur guidance.
Your physical senses have you chained to beliefs that are not eternal, nor do they serve you well. Yours is not ready for the next step, as evidenced by your post.
Most of those terms are meaningless in any real context.
Any claim of something being absolute requires that we know absolutely everything. The most we can say is that, to the extent that we know anything and given the evidence we have, we know something to be true.
As far as ';infallible'; goes, that depends on a subjective judgement of what's considered a failure. And ';divinely guided'; is just plain undefined in any real sense because the word ';god'; is not really well-defined.
Wow, that's a well put argument right there! I didn't know that (at least the one's that aren't Jesus). Good to know...
:D exactly
ever heard of Chinese whispers, the more the whisper is passed around the circle, the more it changes, until you end up with something completely different. so it is highly unlikely that these stories are accurate.
Thats why i DONT believe.
I will only answer for Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus Christ because I am not too sure about the writings of the other two.
Moses is the author of Genesis which includes the acounts of Noah and Abraham. Moses also wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Moses wrote about himself so there is no time gap between the writings and his life. Secondly, God, through the Holy Spirit and sometimes face to face, dictated the book of Genesis to Moses which contains the lives of Noah and Abraham. No oral tradition. Thirdly, we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the books of Mathew, John, James, Peter and Paul's Epistles. These books were written by the names mentioned themselves in their lifetimes. All of these books were written no later than 60 years after the death of Jesus. This is how I can make absolute claims. If you would like to find out more you should read about the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in the 1950's and contain writings from the 1st century B.C.
I'd like to know too!
True or false:The length of your finger nails would be best describe in terms of micrometers.?
False. The length would be best described using millimeters or centimeters.
Is it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
if so,is there any way to find out my fertility?Is it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
All chemical abuses disturb the basic chemical composition of the body. Prolonged drug abuse (speed) can cause premature menopause, can reduce fertility rate by 50% - i.e if one really did survive this prolonged use. A psychiatric test is recommended with the fertility test.
Mensuration is only the indication of the ovulation. For knowing the quality of egg, you'll have to consult a gynaecologistIs it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
Your doctor can do a test on it. Just tell him the truth about your recreational drug history and he can advise you.
Restricts blood vessels.
All chemical abuses disturb the basic chemical composition of the body. Prolonged drug abuse (speed) can cause premature menopause, can reduce fertility rate by 50% - i.e if one really did survive this prolonged use. A psychiatric test is recommended with the fertility test.
Mensuration is only the indication of the ovulation. For knowing the quality of egg, you'll have to consult a gynaecologistIs it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
Your doctor can do a test on it. Just tell him the truth about your recreational drug history and he can advise you.
Restricts blood vessels.
Is it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
if so,is there any way to find out my fertility?Is it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
All chemical abuses disturb the basic chemical composition of the body. Prolonged drug abuse (speed) can cause premature menopause, can reduce fertility rate by 50% - i.e if one really did survive this prolonged use. A psychiatric test is recommended with the fertility test.
Mensuration is only the indication of the ovulation. For knowing the quality of egg, you'll have to consult a gynaecologistIs it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
Your doctor can do a test on it. Just tell him the truth about your recreational drug history and he can advise you.
Restricts blood vessels.best myspace
All chemical abuses disturb the basic chemical composition of the body. Prolonged drug abuse (speed) can cause premature menopause, can reduce fertility rate by 50% - i.e if one really did survive this prolonged use. A psychiatric test is recommended with the fertility test.
Mensuration is only the indication of the ovulation. For knowing the quality of egg, you'll have to consult a gynaecologistIs it true long term use of speed will damage your egg cells also, cause you to be infertile?
Your doctor can do a test on it. Just tell him the truth about your recreational drug history and he can advise you.
Restricts blood vessels.
Can we stop using the terms ';Real Christians'; or ';True Christians';?
Anyone else think this is really annoying? It's just a divisive term used mostly by other Christians for those who don't agree with their exact beliefs or someone they think is not mistaken in their actions. People can be a Christian (believe Jesus is the son of God and try to live their life for Him) and have all kinds of differing beliefs and they sometimes don't act in a ';Christian'; way.
Not to say all those beliefs or actions are correct or should be accepted, but just because someone believes something that doesn't line up with your doctrine or just because they say or do some things that are not Christian-like does not invalidate their Christianity.
Christians should do their best to present Christ to the world, but people make mistakes and misunderstand things, so who are we to tell someone they are not a ';real'; Christian?
I will acknowledge someone has a Christian, but I will inform them in a loving manner if I believe they are not presenting Christ well.Can we stop using the terms ';Real Christians'; or ';True Christians';?
Starbrite, as difficult as it may be to accept. There are genuine Christians and pseudo Christians the same as there are real diamonds and fake ones, genuine pearls and simulated pearls, real currency and counterfeit currency, real
doctors and bogus doctors, etc., etc. To be identified as real,
genuine, or true there are strict standards to be met, requirements to be lived up to. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ tells us that not all who bear the name of ';Christian'; are really disciples of his at Matthew 7:21 - 23: ';Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one DOING THE WILL of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name and expel demons in your name and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.';
The identifying marks of ';true'; Christians are set forth in the Holy Scriptures. One of the most outstanding being love for
one another that would be evident. John 13:35 says, ';By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.'; ( this leaves no allowance for going to war and killing our neighbors/brothers) Their religion is a way of life not simply a set of teachings or performance of rituals as attested to in Acts !9:9 %26amp; 23; 1 Corinthians 11:1. Followers of Christ (Christians) would put aside the works of the flesh, %26amp; manifest the fruits of the spirit spoken of at Ephesians chap 4 verses 17 %26amp; 19 - 24. They would have no divisions among themselves, they would be a worldwide brotherhood with no sects, First Corinthians 1:10, John 10:16. They would be faithful witnesses as ';imitators'; of Jesus Christ their Savior; Revelation chap1 verse 5. and they would glorify the father according to Romans :15:5,6 and make his name known John 17:6, John 12:28 and Isaiah 12:4,5Can we stop using the terms ';Real Christians'; or ';True Christians';?
so many ppl are portraying to be Christians, but yet some sinners act more Christ like then they do. just cause you believe in Jesus doesn't make you a christian, just cause you a good person doesn't make you a christian. yes we all fall short, but we ask for forgiveness and move forward. we dont stay in the sin. we were warned bout ppl coming and teaching bout another doctrine from what we were taught, to not believe it. not everyone can come and say ';I'm a christian'; and i believe it, (I'm not that gullible). we have to show the fruits of the spirit, to be as Christ like as human possible. remember the scripture ';not everyone that comes to me and says Lord will make it? there are plenty of wolves in sheep clothing, and alot hang out in this r %26amp; s section.
I look at it like this: I was baptized in the name of Christ, because I believed that it was my affirmation attesting to the truth of His teachings. This makes me a Christian. Real or true does not matter. I follow the Love.
And if that does not make me a ';real'; or ';true'; Christian, who cares? What matters is not what anyone else thinks and feels; what matters is what I think and feel.
Peace.
I agree,how about ';genuine'; Christians?
Seriously,there is only one kind of Christian...you either are or are not,however... The Apostle Paul warned the Galations,that there was another Jesus and another Gospel. We are also warned about wolves in sheep's clothing...';They went out from us,in testament that they were not all of us';(paraphrase),By their fruits,you will know them.
christians need to get real!
go girl go!!!
YES!!!
Sure, as soon as you can deny that the bible teaches to be on guard against the false gospel, and those who propogate it.
Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I will continue to point out those who are decieved by the false Christ, and the false gospel, as long as God gives me breath to do so.
Luke 21:8
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
I don't mind that people define what a Christian is; as many have pointed out here, it's pretty clearly laid out in the Bible.
What I do mind is the assumption by some that they know exactly what another's relationship to Christ is, based only upon their denomination. Unfortunately, that's how the term ';true/real Christian'; is most often employed -- to accuse someone of being the opposite.
Exactly. When was the last time you heard an atheist refer to themselves as a ';real atheist';? When was the last time you heard a pagan refer to themselves as a ';true pagan';? Truly ridiculous stuff christians and you wonder why we don't take you seriously.
Well, here's where I would use one of those terms - for someone who claims the name Christian but who preaches or teaches false doctrine. I'm not talking about disputable matters like whether or not you eat pork or whether your Sabbath is one day of the week over another or if your women wear dresses vs. pants. I am talking about things like that Fred Phelps guy who claims to be a follower and preacher of Christ who spreads lies and slander about who Jesus Christ is and what His feelings are towards sinners. If someone is taking Christ's name in vain or profaning His name by false teaching, yes, I will name it the false doctrine that it is.
I do agree with your general premise, though, that we should reserve the use of these terms for very specific behaviors and inform people in a loving manner when we believe they are not presenting Christ well.
I do see what you mean but when you look at the bible there are clearly times when you have to make a distinction. Just one example is from Jesus himself. Math 7: 21 He said ' Many will say to me on that day ,'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name and drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ' I never knew you. Away from me you evil doers!'
Jesus was not talking to unbelievers here. Unfortunately to take Jesus at his words is to be called a fundamentalist these days. If that is what people want to call me then fine. I have to answer to Jesus - not to people.
Now on the other hand to be fair. The people that Jesus rejected in the above scripture were more than likely fundamentalist (driving out demons, miracles etc) who had gone bad - as liberal Christians tend to shy away from anything they deem 'extreme.'
On a last note - if Jesus walked our streets today would you call Him a fundamentalist. More than likely many of you would? The religious people of His day did and crucified Him.
God bless
There are real and true christians.
There are also those that think God has to tolerate and accept anything they want to believe and do.
Some say the bible isn't true (how do they gauge their christianity without believing the bible which teaches us about Jesus,salvation,and how to believe).
God never was PC and hasn't changed His mind.
A ';real'; or ';true'; Christian is someone who has the Spirit of God dwelling in them according to the Bible.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
You want to use sheep and goats like in Matt 25?
God gave us His inspired word for a blueprint to live our lives by if a person is not doing that but still believes he could be a Christian yet not in Gods will but living in the world not in the flesh,nevertheless a Christian at heart/ but will come to repentance
I don't think you posing this question will actually stop the tide. Although I haven't seen the term used a whole heck of a lot. It must REALLY be bugging you. Don't let yourself be bothered by such trifles. Only God can truly read the hearts of men. This alone satisfies me.
no because a'; true'; or ';real ';Christian walks in the spirit for the most part and is displaying the Fruit of the Spirit. I use to call myself Christian because I believed in god and Christ but I was doing my own will, I was an alcoholic, a drug user and had an abortion all the while believing in Christ. a true or real Christian has RECEIVE him they do more than believe they put their faith in action...Faith without works is dead. Besides people of all kinds of groups like the KKK for one call themselves Christians, but they are not walking in Love as Jesus said you will be able to tell if a person is TRULY HIS DISCIPLE.. last word, Jesus said '; not everyone who calls Lord Lord will see t he kingdom, but only those who do the will of the Father'; Not at all saying that once a person gives their life to Christ that they become perfect, but there will be evidence by their behavior. Peace.
The problem in America is we have become a nation of ';nominal'; Christians. That is Christians in name only.
I was talking the other day to a Lutheran Seminary professor the other day on the phone who mentioned that the head of another Lutheran Synod did not believe Jesus rose from the dead.
Can we call someone a Christian if they deny the resurrection of Jesus?
Jesus said we must be born again in John chapter 3.
Can we call someone a Christian if they have not been born again?
Jesus said we must be converted in Matthew 18:3.
Can we call someone a Christian if they have not been converted?
What about someone living in deliberate sin?
Paul told the church in Corinth to kick a guy out of the church because he was living in sexual sin.
Now once the guy repented, Paul had to encourage them to forgive him and re-admit him to Christian fellowship.
Some go so far as to claim that Adolph Hilter was a Christian.
Where do we draw the line?
I believe we need to let the Bible tell us where to draw that line.
Pastor Art
Wow! I can't believe some people actually try to justify their judgementalism by misquoting scripture and trying to say Jesus said anything about what it means to be a Christian! First of all, Jesus was a Jew! All that is to say, Amen to not judging the validity or sincerity of anyone's faith. Jesus made it pretty clear we are not to judge, as in place judgement on the state of another person's faith.
i hear this term all the time.
even in church (mom drags me to chruch)
i agree with Jhon M.
however the most of the time that i see this terminology used it is people defending their previous crimes.
Crusades...not real Christians.
witch burning....not real Christians..
etc...
it is a simple cop out for what the organized church has done in the past. i would rather someone say...
Yeah we did that, everyone makes mistakes. but now we are trying to move past that.
for example. I am a Celtic Pagan that prizes peace. the Celts were known to hunt the heads of their enemies. i do not say that they were not true celts. i say that what i do is preserve the things that they had that was of spiritual or social value. and explain to people what customs led to headhunting, and the use of the death penalty in celtic society. in many cases it can be equated to any modern war.
as can the Christian crimes against humanity. what bothers me is that they will not take responsibility for them. that they actually seem to be in a state of denial that these things never happened, or that their church and religion did not do them.
Heh heh. I was thinking about this earlier today.
Why is it- That whenever an atheist commits a crime, you don't hear other atheists saying, ';Oh, but he wasn't a TRUE atheist!';?
A pastor from a Church I used to attend came back from a conference and told me about a conversation he had with his peers. The theme of the conversation dealt with how the secular world has its own definitions of what it means to be a Christian. Many times these secular definitions are not backed up and conflict with scripture.
Some of these pastors agreed that it might be more clear to the secular world for a Christian to say they are a follower of Jesus.
From my perspective, false teaching is something everyone needs to be watchful. Reading the Bible and following the scripture will not lead you astray.
Even when attending church and listening to a sermon, Christians (followers of Jesus) need to have their Bible in hand and need to use the Bible to confirm the message.
It is obvious to me that the questioner is not looking for ';truth'; in the answers but has her own mangled agenda.
The answers I see of what make a ';true Christian'; verses that of a false one are very simple.
There are many who come in wolves clothing professing to be something that they are not. BEWARE OF THESE ONES FOR THEY ARE NOT ';TRUE CHRISTIANS'; but demons in disguise.
Nothing too hard about that. To you intelligent ones, the questioner is only seeking to REVILE and hoard argumentation instead of realizing ';truthful'; responses.
Don't worry intelligent ones, YOUR DEDICATION IS TO JEHOVAH GOD';, not a reviler who obviously lacks accurate knowledge herself. Talk about ';false Christian';.
Blah....I cannot wait until Armageddon. Just think we won't have to see this kind ever again. AMEN
Christian literally means ';Christ-Follower.'; so you either are that, or you are not. you can't be a ';real'; or ';true'; Christian.
I just want to say that i agree with you.
I agree with you, but I don't if you get my meaning? I don't believe that people with different beliefs are wrong or aren't ';real'; Christians, but there are people who aren't ';real'; Christians. Scripture said they would ';put on a form of godliness.'; But as Christians we should love them anyway and should try not to judge.
Very well said;-} there is so much divisiveness shown here.
It was our Lord's own prayer, that: ';They may all be one.';
We need to join forces against evil %26amp; injustice in the world.
Not wasting so much time %26amp; energy tearing down each other.
Well its like this - there are many people who call themselves Christians and think themselves to be Christians, but that clearly are not Christians! Jesus says that in order to be a Christian, one MUST be born again. And He says that Christians will produce fruit to show everyon that they are truly Christian.
I have friends who are alcoholics, gamblers, and porn and drug addicts that call themselves Christian!
So see what I mean?????????
If your ';Saved'; your a ';Child of GOD';.
If you can Command the Weather as a ';Child of GOD';, then you have Learned ALOT from Walking with GOD Almighty (Jesus) and you have Earned the RIGHT to be Called a
';Christian'; which means ';Christ-Like';.
Period.
Dit==========to!
No, we cannot stop using ';true Christians'; because there are so many false religions promoting what is untrue and blasphemous to God and truthful Bible principles.
There are many false Christians, but fewer true ones. As long as there are false religions of which there will be until Armageddon destroys all of Christendom (the whole of false Christianity) and destroys all of false religion period, there will be false Christians and then 'true' ones.
That is not hard to comprehend for any intelligent person.
End..
Not to say all those beliefs or actions are correct or should be accepted, but just because someone believes something that doesn't line up with your doctrine or just because they say or do some things that are not Christian-like does not invalidate their Christianity.
Christians should do their best to present Christ to the world, but people make mistakes and misunderstand things, so who are we to tell someone they are not a ';real'; Christian?
I will acknowledge someone has a Christian, but I will inform them in a loving manner if I believe they are not presenting Christ well.Can we stop using the terms ';Real Christians'; or ';True Christians';?
Starbrite, as difficult as it may be to accept. There are genuine Christians and pseudo Christians the same as there are real diamonds and fake ones, genuine pearls and simulated pearls, real currency and counterfeit currency, real
doctors and bogus doctors, etc., etc. To be identified as real,
genuine, or true there are strict standards to be met, requirements to be lived up to. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ tells us that not all who bear the name of ';Christian'; are really disciples of his at Matthew 7:21 - 23: ';Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one DOING THE WILL of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name and expel demons in your name and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.';
The identifying marks of ';true'; Christians are set forth in the Holy Scriptures. One of the most outstanding being love for
one another that would be evident. John 13:35 says, ';By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.'; ( this leaves no allowance for going to war and killing our neighbors/brothers) Their religion is a way of life not simply a set of teachings or performance of rituals as attested to in Acts !9:9 %26amp; 23; 1 Corinthians 11:1. Followers of Christ (Christians) would put aside the works of the flesh, %26amp; manifest the fruits of the spirit spoken of at Ephesians chap 4 verses 17 %26amp; 19 - 24. They would have no divisions among themselves, they would be a worldwide brotherhood with no sects, First Corinthians 1:10, John 10:16. They would be faithful witnesses as ';imitators'; of Jesus Christ their Savior; Revelation chap1 verse 5. and they would glorify the father according to Romans :15:5,6 and make his name known John 17:6, John 12:28 and Isaiah 12:4,5Can we stop using the terms ';Real Christians'; or ';True Christians';?
so many ppl are portraying to be Christians, but yet some sinners act more Christ like then they do. just cause you believe in Jesus doesn't make you a christian, just cause you a good person doesn't make you a christian. yes we all fall short, but we ask for forgiveness and move forward. we dont stay in the sin. we were warned bout ppl coming and teaching bout another doctrine from what we were taught, to not believe it. not everyone can come and say ';I'm a christian'; and i believe it, (I'm not that gullible). we have to show the fruits of the spirit, to be as Christ like as human possible. remember the scripture ';not everyone that comes to me and says Lord will make it? there are plenty of wolves in sheep clothing, and alot hang out in this r %26amp; s section.
I look at it like this: I was baptized in the name of Christ, because I believed that it was my affirmation attesting to the truth of His teachings. This makes me a Christian. Real or true does not matter. I follow the Love.
And if that does not make me a ';real'; or ';true'; Christian, who cares? What matters is not what anyone else thinks and feels; what matters is what I think and feel.
Peace.
I agree,how about ';genuine'; Christians?
Seriously,there is only one kind of Christian...you either are or are not,however... The Apostle Paul warned the Galations,that there was another Jesus and another Gospel. We are also warned about wolves in sheep's clothing...';They went out from us,in testament that they were not all of us';(paraphrase),By their fruits,you will know them.
christians need to get real!
go girl go!!!
YES!!!
Sure, as soon as you can deny that the bible teaches to be on guard against the false gospel, and those who propogate it.
Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I will continue to point out those who are decieved by the false Christ, and the false gospel, as long as God gives me breath to do so.
Luke 21:8
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
I don't mind that people define what a Christian is; as many have pointed out here, it's pretty clearly laid out in the Bible.
What I do mind is the assumption by some that they know exactly what another's relationship to Christ is, based only upon their denomination. Unfortunately, that's how the term ';true/real Christian'; is most often employed -- to accuse someone of being the opposite.
Exactly. When was the last time you heard an atheist refer to themselves as a ';real atheist';? When was the last time you heard a pagan refer to themselves as a ';true pagan';? Truly ridiculous stuff christians and you wonder why we don't take you seriously.
Well, here's where I would use one of those terms - for someone who claims the name Christian but who preaches or teaches false doctrine. I'm not talking about disputable matters like whether or not you eat pork or whether your Sabbath is one day of the week over another or if your women wear dresses vs. pants. I am talking about things like that Fred Phelps guy who claims to be a follower and preacher of Christ who spreads lies and slander about who Jesus Christ is and what His feelings are towards sinners. If someone is taking Christ's name in vain or profaning His name by false teaching, yes, I will name it the false doctrine that it is.
I do agree with your general premise, though, that we should reserve the use of these terms for very specific behaviors and inform people in a loving manner when we believe they are not presenting Christ well.
I do see what you mean but when you look at the bible there are clearly times when you have to make a distinction. Just one example is from Jesus himself. Math 7: 21 He said ' Many will say to me on that day ,'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name and drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ' I never knew you. Away from me you evil doers!'
Jesus was not talking to unbelievers here. Unfortunately to take Jesus at his words is to be called a fundamentalist these days. If that is what people want to call me then fine. I have to answer to Jesus - not to people.
Now on the other hand to be fair. The people that Jesus rejected in the above scripture were more than likely fundamentalist (driving out demons, miracles etc) who had gone bad - as liberal Christians tend to shy away from anything they deem 'extreme.'
On a last note - if Jesus walked our streets today would you call Him a fundamentalist. More than likely many of you would? The religious people of His day did and crucified Him.
God bless
There are real and true christians.
There are also those that think God has to tolerate and accept anything they want to believe and do.
Some say the bible isn't true (how do they gauge their christianity without believing the bible which teaches us about Jesus,salvation,and how to believe).
God never was PC and hasn't changed His mind.
A ';real'; or ';true'; Christian is someone who has the Spirit of God dwelling in them according to the Bible.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
You want to use sheep and goats like in Matt 25?
God gave us His inspired word for a blueprint to live our lives by if a person is not doing that but still believes he could be a Christian yet not in Gods will but living in the world not in the flesh,nevertheless a Christian at heart/ but will come to repentance
I don't think you posing this question will actually stop the tide. Although I haven't seen the term used a whole heck of a lot. It must REALLY be bugging you. Don't let yourself be bothered by such trifles. Only God can truly read the hearts of men. This alone satisfies me.
no because a'; true'; or ';real ';Christian walks in the spirit for the most part and is displaying the Fruit of the Spirit. I use to call myself Christian because I believed in god and Christ but I was doing my own will, I was an alcoholic, a drug user and had an abortion all the while believing in Christ. a true or real Christian has RECEIVE him they do more than believe they put their faith in action...Faith without works is dead. Besides people of all kinds of groups like the KKK for one call themselves Christians, but they are not walking in Love as Jesus said you will be able to tell if a person is TRULY HIS DISCIPLE.. last word, Jesus said '; not everyone who calls Lord Lord will see t he kingdom, but only those who do the will of the Father'; Not at all saying that once a person gives their life to Christ that they become perfect, but there will be evidence by their behavior. Peace.
The problem in America is we have become a nation of ';nominal'; Christians. That is Christians in name only.
I was talking the other day to a Lutheran Seminary professor the other day on the phone who mentioned that the head of another Lutheran Synod did not believe Jesus rose from the dead.
Can we call someone a Christian if they deny the resurrection of Jesus?
Jesus said we must be born again in John chapter 3.
Can we call someone a Christian if they have not been born again?
Jesus said we must be converted in Matthew 18:3.
Can we call someone a Christian if they have not been converted?
What about someone living in deliberate sin?
Paul told the church in Corinth to kick a guy out of the church because he was living in sexual sin.
Now once the guy repented, Paul had to encourage them to forgive him and re-admit him to Christian fellowship.
Some go so far as to claim that Adolph Hilter was a Christian.
Where do we draw the line?
I believe we need to let the Bible tell us where to draw that line.
Pastor Art
Wow! I can't believe some people actually try to justify their judgementalism by misquoting scripture and trying to say Jesus said anything about what it means to be a Christian! First of all, Jesus was a Jew! All that is to say, Amen to not judging the validity or sincerity of anyone's faith. Jesus made it pretty clear we are not to judge, as in place judgement on the state of another person's faith.
i hear this term all the time.
even in church (mom drags me to chruch)
i agree with Jhon M.
however the most of the time that i see this terminology used it is people defending their previous crimes.
Crusades...not real Christians.
witch burning....not real Christians..
etc...
it is a simple cop out for what the organized church has done in the past. i would rather someone say...
Yeah we did that, everyone makes mistakes. but now we are trying to move past that.
for example. I am a Celtic Pagan that prizes peace. the Celts were known to hunt the heads of their enemies. i do not say that they were not true celts. i say that what i do is preserve the things that they had that was of spiritual or social value. and explain to people what customs led to headhunting, and the use of the death penalty in celtic society. in many cases it can be equated to any modern war.
as can the Christian crimes against humanity. what bothers me is that they will not take responsibility for them. that they actually seem to be in a state of denial that these things never happened, or that their church and religion did not do them.
Heh heh. I was thinking about this earlier today.
Why is it- That whenever an atheist commits a crime, you don't hear other atheists saying, ';Oh, but he wasn't a TRUE atheist!';?
A pastor from a Church I used to attend came back from a conference and told me about a conversation he had with his peers. The theme of the conversation dealt with how the secular world has its own definitions of what it means to be a Christian. Many times these secular definitions are not backed up and conflict with scripture.
Some of these pastors agreed that it might be more clear to the secular world for a Christian to say they are a follower of Jesus.
From my perspective, false teaching is something everyone needs to be watchful. Reading the Bible and following the scripture will not lead you astray.
Even when attending church and listening to a sermon, Christians (followers of Jesus) need to have their Bible in hand and need to use the Bible to confirm the message.
It is obvious to me that the questioner is not looking for ';truth'; in the answers but has her own mangled agenda.
The answers I see of what make a ';true Christian'; verses that of a false one are very simple.
There are many who come in wolves clothing professing to be something that they are not. BEWARE OF THESE ONES FOR THEY ARE NOT ';TRUE CHRISTIANS'; but demons in disguise.
Nothing too hard about that. To you intelligent ones, the questioner is only seeking to REVILE and hoard argumentation instead of realizing ';truthful'; responses.
Don't worry intelligent ones, YOUR DEDICATION IS TO JEHOVAH GOD';, not a reviler who obviously lacks accurate knowledge herself. Talk about ';false Christian';.
Blah....I cannot wait until Armageddon. Just think we won't have to see this kind ever again. AMEN
Christian literally means ';Christ-Follower.'; so you either are that, or you are not. you can't be a ';real'; or ';true'; Christian.
I just want to say that i agree with you.
I agree with you, but I don't if you get my meaning? I don't believe that people with different beliefs are wrong or aren't ';real'; Christians, but there are people who aren't ';real'; Christians. Scripture said they would ';put on a form of godliness.'; But as Christians we should love them anyway and should try not to judge.
Very well said;-} there is so much divisiveness shown here.
It was our Lord's own prayer, that: ';They may all be one.';
We need to join forces against evil %26amp; injustice in the world.
Not wasting so much time %26amp; energy tearing down each other.
Well its like this - there are many people who call themselves Christians and think themselves to be Christians, but that clearly are not Christians! Jesus says that in order to be a Christian, one MUST be born again. And He says that Christians will produce fruit to show everyon that they are truly Christian.
I have friends who are alcoholics, gamblers, and porn and drug addicts that call themselves Christian!
So see what I mean?????????
If your ';Saved'; your a ';Child of GOD';.
If you can Command the Weather as a ';Child of GOD';, then you have Learned ALOT from Walking with GOD Almighty (Jesus) and you have Earned the RIGHT to be Called a
';Christian'; which means ';Christ-Like';.
Period.
Dit==========to!
No, we cannot stop using ';true Christians'; because there are so many false religions promoting what is untrue and blasphemous to God and truthful Bible principles.
There are many false Christians, but fewer true ones. As long as there are false religions of which there will be until Armageddon destroys all of Christendom (the whole of false Christianity) and destroys all of false religion period, there will be false Christians and then 'true' ones.
That is not hard to comprehend for any intelligent person.
End..
Help, find a polynomial formula for d(n) in terms of n,give a geometric argument for formula to be true for n.
Let d(n) stand for the number of diagonals of a polygon of n sides. Here is a table of values of d(n).
n 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
d(n) 0 2 5 9 14 20 27 35 44Help, find a polynomial formula for d(n) in terms of n,give a geometric argument for formula to be true for n.
d(n) is a quadratic function, taking the form:
d(n) = (n^2 - 3n) / 2Help, find a polynomial formula for d(n) in terms of n,give a geometric argument for formula to be true for n.
d(n) = an虏 + bn + c
9a + 3b + c = 0
16a + 4b + c = 2
25a + 5b + c = 5
=%26gt; a = 0.5 ; b=-1.5; c=0
So we have
d(n) = (n虏 - 3n)/2, because the other values
give the right result
Geometric argument ? n(n-3), because a diagonal
can not end in the same corner and the two adjacent
corners and then divide by 2 because the diagonals
are counted double : from c1-%26gt;c2 =c2-%26gt;c1
n 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
d(n) 0 2 5 9 14 20 27 35 44Help, find a polynomial formula for d(n) in terms of n,give a geometric argument for formula to be true for n.
d(n) is a quadratic function, taking the form:
d(n) = (n^2 - 3n) / 2Help, find a polynomial formula for d(n) in terms of n,give a geometric argument for formula to be true for n.
d(n) = an虏 + bn + c
9a + 3b + c = 0
16a + 4b + c = 2
25a + 5b + c = 5
=%26gt; a = 0.5 ; b=-1.5; c=0
So we have
d(n) = (n虏 - 3n)/2, because the other values
give the right result
Geometric argument ? n(n-3), because a diagonal
can not end in the same corner and the two adjacent
corners and then divide by 2 because the diagonals
are counted double : from c1-%26gt;c2 =c2-%26gt;c1
Is it true that asian people and european people are the same in terms of race?
and is it true that indians(also pakistani,bangla etc) were more civilised than britons etc thousnads of years ago if so why arent they now its such a shameIs it true that asian people and european people are the same in terms of race?
That depends what you mean by the words ';race'; and ';asian';. In the broadest sense of the word, there is only one human race. We are all biologically parts of one species and physical differences that do exist are very ephemeral and minor.
In the more specific sense, different races do exist and Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc. are part of the Caucasoid race, like Europeans. Likewise, they speak Indo-European languages, which are related to English, Latin, etc. India, in ancient times, was part of a great civilization and its literature is the oldest recorded in any Indo-European language. However, the ancient Britons were a noble Celtic people. They may not have had a written literature, but does that mean that they were not civilized? Again, your definition of ';civilization'; is important to answering that question.Is it true that asian people and european people are the same in terms of race?
No, it is not true.
no, although people who have the same last name as me did immigrate to the U.S from Europe. I'm asian.
Human cultures rise and wane. Some like to blame it on lack of religion when they wane, but it's usually because of environment catastrophes, wars or an inability to maintain the infrastructures which the culture depended upon.
There are three main racial types; Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Aboriginal based on the shape of the skull. Europeans and Indians are Caucasian. (Amerindians are Mongol as are Chinese) African types are Aboringinal.
Nope.
No
well europeans (e.g me) are not the same race as asians, however in asia especially at the begining of the first civilisations, the tigeres and eurthraties (rivers) in turkey and iran and western iraq are considered by historiens to be the starting place of the first major civilisations. therefore they must of been slightly more civilised than the ';barbarian tribes'; which where in europe at the time. however this must be around 7000 or more years ago.
Actually we are all of the same race. The race of MAn. Hence the term Human race. We are of different cultures though.
Yeah its such a shame! then they wouldnt have to flood into our country
Wha? Nobody is more or less civil than anyone else. We're all barbarians and saints...
That depends what you mean by the words ';race'; and ';asian';. In the broadest sense of the word, there is only one human race. We are all biologically parts of one species and physical differences that do exist are very ephemeral and minor.
In the more specific sense, different races do exist and Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc. are part of the Caucasoid race, like Europeans. Likewise, they speak Indo-European languages, which are related to English, Latin, etc. India, in ancient times, was part of a great civilization and its literature is the oldest recorded in any Indo-European language. However, the ancient Britons were a noble Celtic people. They may not have had a written literature, but does that mean that they were not civilized? Again, your definition of ';civilization'; is important to answering that question.Is it true that asian people and european people are the same in terms of race?
No, it is not true.
no, although people who have the same last name as me did immigrate to the U.S from Europe. I'm asian.
Human cultures rise and wane. Some like to blame it on lack of religion when they wane, but it's usually because of environment catastrophes, wars or an inability to maintain the infrastructures which the culture depended upon.
There are three main racial types; Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Aboriginal based on the shape of the skull. Europeans and Indians are Caucasian. (Amerindians are Mongol as are Chinese) African types are Aboringinal.
Nope.
No
well europeans (e.g me) are not the same race as asians, however in asia especially at the begining of the first civilisations, the tigeres and eurthraties (rivers) in turkey and iran and western iraq are considered by historiens to be the starting place of the first major civilisations. therefore they must of been slightly more civilised than the ';barbarian tribes'; which where in europe at the time. however this must be around 7000 or more years ago.
Actually we are all of the same race. The race of MAn. Hence the term Human race. We are of different cultures though.
Yeah its such a shame! then they wouldnt have to flood into our country
Wha? Nobody is more or less civil than anyone else. We're all barbarians and saints...
Is it true that meat eaters see faster result in term of muscle toning?
If this theory is true, I would be in heaven.
Meat contains more protein, and protein is very important for toning muscle. So I am wondering if I eat only meats and vegetable, and fruits, should I see faster result in term of losing fat and toning muscles? (I also work out 1 hour at least 5 days / week)
I plan on eliminate breads and pasta (carbs) from my diet completely.
Do you think I will see result faster that way?Is it true that meat eaters see faster result in term of muscle toning?
Its not meat. its protein. High amounts of protein before and after a workout(such as a powder) allows for faster recovery of muscles and builds faster. So before you work out take 30-50g of protein, in a power (GNC wheyabolic works) and then 30-50 afterworlds with a 20oz gator aid and watch you grow. You still need some carbs, but limit them to around less than 60g a day. Another great fat loss idea, eat 6 - 8 meals a day, take the food you would normally eat in 3 meal, split them in half and eat every 3 hours, it will keep your metabolism running and help with weight loss. Also if hunger its in between meals, drink 20oz of water, it will fill you up and hold over the hunger pangs until next meal time.
Hope this helpsIs it true that meat eaters see faster result in term of muscle toning?
It is true, but you still need to be careful about the types of meats you eat. Go lean. Lean beef is ok. Chicken and turkey are better. Tuna also has alot of protein in it. You can also supplement the meat with soy-based products, which are high in protein as well.
As far as carbs, you should keep some carbs since they provide you with energy. Just don't go overboard. Potatoes and whole grain bread are good sources of carbohydrates.
you probably shouldnt COMPLETELY eliminate carbs. although too much of them can increase weight, as long as you eat them in moderation, youll actually be healthier.
on the other hand... just eating meat fruits and vegetables isnt good either. you need to have dairy in there too.
however, you are right that meat can help build muscles. they contain a lot of protein, which really aids in that process. nuts [peanuts, almonds, peanut butter, ect] are also full of protein, sotry including those too!
If you live in the U.S. than that will be the theory (money in cattle and fishing). U.S. people will say that because they think of it like feed muscle with muscle. In other countries were people eat more rice and breads they have less overweight people. Breads and carbs shouldn't be eliminated thats ridiculus. You get energy from carbs. You could eat one slice of bread before a run and do so good because it would give you an energy spike. And you would burn that slice of bread while you ran because it would break down fast. Meat gives you amino acids like ARGININE. Eat your carbs in the morning have a small carb boost before a workout and feed your muscles aminos after you have worked out.
Meat contains more protein, and protein is very important for toning muscle. So I am wondering if I eat only meats and vegetable, and fruits, should I see faster result in term of losing fat and toning muscles? (I also work out 1 hour at least 5 days / week)
I plan on eliminate breads and pasta (carbs) from my diet completely.
Do you think I will see result faster that way?Is it true that meat eaters see faster result in term of muscle toning?
Its not meat. its protein. High amounts of protein before and after a workout(such as a powder) allows for faster recovery of muscles and builds faster. So before you work out take 30-50g of protein, in a power (GNC wheyabolic works) and then 30-50 afterworlds with a 20oz gator aid and watch you grow. You still need some carbs, but limit them to around less than 60g a day. Another great fat loss idea, eat 6 - 8 meals a day, take the food you would normally eat in 3 meal, split them in half and eat every 3 hours, it will keep your metabolism running and help with weight loss. Also if hunger its in between meals, drink 20oz of water, it will fill you up and hold over the hunger pangs until next meal time.
Hope this helpsIs it true that meat eaters see faster result in term of muscle toning?
It is true, but you still need to be careful about the types of meats you eat. Go lean. Lean beef is ok. Chicken and turkey are better. Tuna also has alot of protein in it. You can also supplement the meat with soy-based products, which are high in protein as well.
As far as carbs, you should keep some carbs since they provide you with energy. Just don't go overboard. Potatoes and whole grain bread are good sources of carbohydrates.
you probably shouldnt COMPLETELY eliminate carbs. although too much of them can increase weight, as long as you eat them in moderation, youll actually be healthier.
on the other hand... just eating meat fruits and vegetables isnt good either. you need to have dairy in there too.
however, you are right that meat can help build muscles. they contain a lot of protein, which really aids in that process. nuts [peanuts, almonds, peanut butter, ect] are also full of protein, sotry including those too!
If you live in the U.S. than that will be the theory (money in cattle and fishing). U.S. people will say that because they think of it like feed muscle with muscle. In other countries were people eat more rice and breads they have less overweight people. Breads and carbs shouldn't be eliminated thats ridiculus. You get energy from carbs. You could eat one slice of bread before a run and do so good because it would give you an energy spike. And you would burn that slice of bread while you ran because it would break down fast. Meat gives you amino acids like ARGININE. Eat your carbs in the morning have a small carb boost before a workout and feed your muscles aminos after you have worked out.
Is it true that wikipedia equals the prestigious encyclopedia britannica? (in terms of quality)?
I think Wikipedia is the most recent encyclopedia there can ever be, and that is good for current-events quality. However, Wikipedia is increasingly prone to pranksters who manipulate entries for fun. For example, imagine what Bill Clinton-haters would do to change his biography in Wikipedia. Though quality overall is great for Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica is much more secure than a site everybody can edit.Is it true that wikipedia equals the prestigious encyclopedia britannica? (in terms of quality)?
Also keep in mind that Wikipedia has far more articles and Britannica has less which means Wikipedia has a far less error ratios than the famed Britannica.
http://science.slashdot.org/ar鈥?/a>
Is it true that wikipedia equals the prestigious encyclopedia britannica? (in terms of quality)?
Yes, try to use it. Also, it is continuously updated by a lot of people.
In terms of quality, it's almost as good. In terms of scope, it's way better.
All of the stuff I have ever looked up on it both for Yahoo! Answers and other projects the data has been accurate and easy to find.
i think so
i believe it's better
Of course it does! If it dident I wouldent research my but off there now would I?
Also keep in mind that Wikipedia has far more articles and Britannica has less which means Wikipedia has a far less error ratios than the famed Britannica.
http://science.slashdot.org/ar鈥?/a>
Report Abuse
Is it true that wikipedia equals the prestigious encyclopedia britannica? (in terms of quality)?
Yes, try to use it. Also, it is continuously updated by a lot of people.
In terms of quality, it's almost as good. In terms of scope, it's way better.
All of the stuff I have ever looked up on it both for Yahoo! Answers and other projects the data has been accurate and easy to find.
i think so
i believe it's better
Of course it does! If it dident I wouldent research my but off there now would I?
In a just society, all people would share equally in terms of wealth. is this statement true or false?
base the answer on platos republicIn a just society, all people would share equally in terms of wealth. is this statement true or false?
i would say false, in a just society, all people would have an equal opportunity to achieve wealth, it would then be their choice if they wished to work for it,In a just society, all people would share equally in terms of wealth. is this statement true or false?
False. That is the premise of socialism. In a just society, people would have equal opportunity to create wealth. If I work hard all my life and create wealth, I don't wqnt someone taking it from me to give to someone who did not work and just wants it. Again socialism. It has never worked and never will in a free society.
You should read Animal Farm by George Orwell.
Depends on what assumptions you make about wealth that's earned by work, wealth that's inherited, and so on. Do those who do no work, who aren't even willing to work, deserve as much as those who work to produce the wealth? In order to get an equal share of the wealth, does the just society require all to do an equal share of the work? What about children, the old, the injured?
Bottom line, any claim the statement is true or false is a terrible oversimplification.
False. In a just society, all people would share in proportion to their contribution. Plato麓s republic is reminscient of the Hindi caste system, each person contributes according to his or her natural talents (rulers, defense and manual labour), then distribute the wealth equally. However, in this utopian society, each most put forth an equal effort, regardless of one麓s position. As we know, no two people will set forth an equal effort.
Why do you want to limit the response to plato's replublic? You may get more answers that way.best myspace
i would say false, in a just society, all people would have an equal opportunity to achieve wealth, it would then be their choice if they wished to work for it,In a just society, all people would share equally in terms of wealth. is this statement true or false?
False. That is the premise of socialism. In a just society, people would have equal opportunity to create wealth. If I work hard all my life and create wealth, I don't wqnt someone taking it from me to give to someone who did not work and just wants it. Again socialism. It has never worked and never will in a free society.
You should read Animal Farm by George Orwell.
Depends on what assumptions you make about wealth that's earned by work, wealth that's inherited, and so on. Do those who do no work, who aren't even willing to work, deserve as much as those who work to produce the wealth? In order to get an equal share of the wealth, does the just society require all to do an equal share of the work? What about children, the old, the injured?
Bottom line, any claim the statement is true or false is a terrible oversimplification.
False. In a just society, all people would share in proportion to their contribution. Plato麓s republic is reminscient of the Hindi caste system, each person contributes according to his or her natural talents (rulers, defense and manual labour), then distribute the wealth equally. However, in this utopian society, each most put forth an equal effort, regardless of one麓s position. As we know, no two people will set forth an equal effort.
Why do you want to limit the response to plato's replublic? You may get more answers that way.
What exactly is art? what is the true meaning and definition of this broad term?
What is art? Why is art? What is considered art? what is not? is it one thing to one person and completely different to someone else? what's your definition?What exactly is art? what is the true meaning and definition of this broad term?
Art is whatever you call art. Seriously. There are displays in museums which are literally piles of junk. I guess you could say Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature.
Art is whatever you call art. Seriously. There are displays in museums which are literally piles of junk. I guess you could say Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature.
Is it true that his highness the Emperor Georgeus W. Bushius will offer peace terms and move his armies...?
to another exciting front?Is it true that his highness the Emperor Georgeus W. Bushius will offer peace terms and move his armies...?
Halliburton has already moved to Dubai鈥ush鈥檚 work is done there. The wounded coming out f Iraq are still worth plenty though.Is it true that his highness the Emperor Georgeus W. Bushius will offer peace terms and move his armies...?
pathetic!
Since we have no Emperor in this country I would say that you need to go back to school and get yourself an education in social studies or history even I think that would be better for you :)
And in response to Conned_Cerned_Citizen. You need to watch what you say about the wounded. Are you now or were you ever wounded? I think not. Take into consideration that not all of the people who read this appreciate your point of view! Regardless of what you think, we DISABLED vets Know what the price of freedom is. AND its not fighting for your right to slander the wounded in any way. So check your Tone !
pick up a weapon and do some good in this life. protect your country and do more than talk.
We live in a democracy with a President. If you like royalty so much why don't you go live in England and be the queen you really are............
Go back to Starbucks for another Latte knucklehead...Thanks for the 2 points Clown
True Bush has put himself above the laws of our country, that makes him a Dictator not a king! When a Country is run by businesses that control the money ,,That is Called'; Fascism'; I would hate to think that our troops are fighting fill the pockets of Big oil 7 Big Biz, . on Any level!
The only thing you have done with this post is display your own ignorance and prejudice.
The GWB experience - apparently, a person who lives in a fantasy world tends to make bad decisions.
If you are in the US, please pack your bags and leave... your pissy attitude is no longer wanted...If you are elsewhere, please feel free to stay there, even when the enemy comes across your border, you probably deserve whats coming to you!
And thanks for the 2 points as well!! The only thing worthwhile from your post!
Get a job, troll.
To whom is he going to offer peace to?
Please read more.
You know you have me stumped on how to answer this question, so I will not even try.
USAF Retired
Halliburton has already moved to Dubai鈥ush鈥檚 work is done there. The wounded coming out f Iraq are still worth plenty though.Is it true that his highness the Emperor Georgeus W. Bushius will offer peace terms and move his armies...?
pathetic!
Report Abuse
Since we have no Emperor in this country I would say that you need to go back to school and get yourself an education in social studies or history even I think that would be better for you :)
And in response to Conned_Cerned_Citizen. You need to watch what you say about the wounded. Are you now or were you ever wounded? I think not. Take into consideration that not all of the people who read this appreciate your point of view! Regardless of what you think, we DISABLED vets Know what the price of freedom is. AND its not fighting for your right to slander the wounded in any way. So check your Tone !
pick up a weapon and do some good in this life. protect your country and do more than talk.
We live in a democracy with a President. If you like royalty so much why don't you go live in England and be the queen you really are............
Go back to Starbucks for another Latte knucklehead...Thanks for the 2 points Clown
True Bush has put himself above the laws of our country, that makes him a Dictator not a king! When a Country is run by businesses that control the money ,,That is Called'; Fascism'; I would hate to think that our troops are fighting fill the pockets of Big oil 7 Big Biz, . on Any level!
The only thing you have done with this post is display your own ignorance and prejudice.
The GWB experience - apparently, a person who lives in a fantasy world tends to make bad decisions.
If you are in the US, please pack your bags and leave... your pissy attitude is no longer wanted...If you are elsewhere, please feel free to stay there, even when the enemy comes across your border, you probably deserve whats coming to you!
And thanks for the 2 points as well!! The only thing worthwhile from your post!
Get a job, troll.
To whom is he going to offer peace to?
Please read more.
You know you have me stumped on how to answer this question, so I will not even try.
USAF Retired
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)