navybrandt

That's a good idea. If someone's post gets blocked, they should receive a message explaining why they were blocked and told to reword their post. This way at least if there is a false positive, they can make an informed repost. If there is a simple and automated method of more efficiently blocking the spambots, I'm all for it. This issue is like all security related issues. You want to provide access to people with minimal inconvenience while at the same time blocking unauthorized access. For example, one extreme would be to require a rolling passcode that must be entered along with the users regular password for every post, or requiring every post to be verified by an administrator. That would likely stop all spambots, but that would be such a burden to users that hardly anyone would bother posting to the forums. The other extreme is allowing anybody to just post anonymously at any time, allowing spam galore. Considering the damage done by unauthorized access (which in this case is simply inconvenience/annoyance) the security requirements are adjusted accordingly. While it's somewhat of a judgement call, the way things are right now are reasonable. Our admins delete spam fairly quickly and I doubt anybody actually buys in to what the spamers are selling. This works.

As someone who works in the nuclear ship building industry. I can confirm that DHMO is, in fact, used in nuclear reactors. Our ships have to be specially designed to operate in a DHMO environment. If the DHMO levels get too high though, the ship actually sinks!

Joke: I know what killed off the dinosaurs then. The huge tidal wave that destroyed all life on earth every high tide from the moon being so close.

I'd be glad to discuss my time in the Navy. PM away. I was on the enlisted side of things from junior to senior levels. My point of view will be very slanted though. I was a nuke, and the nuclear Navy is very different than the "topside" Navy. We followed different rules and were treated very differently than a "regular" Navy sailor. For example, we had a very different type of watch rotation and duty day cycle (much more demanding). We worked longer hours and had much more training than anyone else in the Navy (or any other branch of the military too). Our work didn't stop in port either (like it did for some topsiders) as that was the only time we could do most of our maintenance. On a positive note, some of the rules such as physical fitness were overlooked when it came to nukes. We also got a bunch of extra pay allowances and bonuses. This sounds condescending, but we had much higher mental requirements and were, on average, much smarter than other sailors. We knew it too and weren't shy about it and as such many sailors hate nukes. I also have to be very careful what I discuss as everything about my job was classified. Ask whatever you want and I'll let you know what is specific to the nuclear Navy and what I'll have to keep to myself. If your fantasy is based on an Aircraft Carrier engine room "snipe" I can provide some good insight. A good article about why we're called snipes and why the nuclear navy is separate from the topside navy is this: http://navyformoms.com/group/snipemomsenginers/forum/topics/1971797:Topic:255527 You also need to watch the Rickover documentary to get a good understanding of the attitude of all nukes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BE6ybK4Io4 Not sure if the youtube video works as I can't play it at work. It's worth the money if you buy it, which you can do here: http://www.pbs.org/program/rickover-birth-nuclear-power/

The problem with old-earth creationism is that it makes the Bible untrue. If you believe in evolution, that's fine. If you believe in creation, that's fine. But it can't be any kind of blending of the two. It has to be one or the other. There are several reasons why they can't coexist. Reason 1: Reason 2: Reason 3: Reason 4: Reason 5: Again, if you don't believe the Bible or creation, that's fine. Evolution is your thing. If you do believe the Bible though, then an evolution-based version of creation is full of paradoxes and inconsistencies. It has to be one or the other. Edit: Or some third unknown option... For sake of argument, I was limiting it to just evolution and creation.

9 17th Shard Discussion 7 The Coppermind Wiki 12 General Brandon Discussion 10 Events and Signings 4 Interview Database 12 Cosmere Theories 15 Stormlight Archive 13 Mistborn 8 Elantris and Emperor's Soul 10 Warbreaker 5 Cosmere Short Stories 10 The Reckoners 12 The Rithmatist 8 Alcatraz 5 The Wheel of Time 9 Writing Excuses 11 Reading Excuses 11 General Discussion 10 Entertainment Discussion 10 Creator's Corner 10 Role Playing 7 Social Groups, Clans, and Guilds 20 Mistborn: The Inquisition 20 Sanderson Elimination

So I did it again and answered the exact opposite of what I thought and picked the worst answers for me. I got Willshaper and Bondsmith was at 0%. So I guess Willshaper is the most unlikely Order for me and Bondsmith is looking promising.

The first part is "Navy" I was a Nuclear Engineering Technician in the US Navy for 14 years and that became part of my user name and e-mail address. Even though I'm not in the Navy any more I still build Aircraft Carriers and am testing a propulsion control system for the new Ford-class CVN. By the way, CVN stand for Nuclear Carrier Vessel. The second part is "Brandt" It is my actual given first name. This sounds just like Brant as the 'd' is silent. It's like Rembrandt (without the "Rem" part). It's a bit unusual but my parents were nontraditional. It was either going to be Brandt or Egor. I'm a bit bitter that Brandt never shows up on the "Share a Coke" cans.

I guess I'll start one of these too. I go through periods of inactivity though, so if I don't answer right away, I'm not ignoring you.

I respect your views even if I disagree with them. One of the great things about these forums is a chance to discuss things with people that are culturally different. Sure, some people take the low road - I've done it sometimes to my shame - but for the most part I find others views interesting. Sometimes I've even changed my mind on core issues.

Sounds reasonable to me. I guess a few overzealous Christians give us all a bad name. Personally, I think shoving it down someone's throat defeats the purpose as becoming a Christian is about submitting to God not submitting to the person trying to "convert" you.

Well, I believe in the Abrahamic God. I guess I understand the agnostic view as at least being open-minded. I have trouble understanding the pure atheist view. How do you prove a negative? I'm not asking to be contrary or offensive as most atheists I know are actually agnostic or deists. I just want to understand the viewpoint that there is no possibility of some higher or ultimate power. And why is my belief offensive to some atheists (maybe not to you but to some)? I don't like basketball, but I'm not offended that people want to spend their time and money on it. I'm not even bothered that my tax dollars might go to public basketball programs. It's good for society. With the exception of a few fringe religions, Christianity is good for society too. So, why the hostility from some atheists? (not on this site but from other sites and people I've met in person).

So, some gender stereotypes have a bit of truth to them. Girls tend to be smarter; guys tend to be stronger physically. Women are much better at multitasking; men can usually better see the big picture. Women share their feelings while men are more logical. I'm speaking in general terms of course. It's the average and there are always exceptions to the rule. I don't think it's because society makes us that way - at least not completely. Chaos, as far as having girls in your side of the wedding party, it'll take a really special wife to not be jealous about that. I know I'd be jealous if my wife had some special guy friend other than me.

Sorry I gave offense. I think you're in group one, meaning that you have legitimately come to a conclusion that there is no God - not that you hate anything to do with God. I was saying that atheists, agnostics, or whatever term is appropriate can be placed into either group. Some people are willing to talk about it and discuss it while other are hostile. If I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm sorry.

I hate tailgaters... if you've been a driver for very long you know what I mean. Enough said.

I did it twice and changed answers I wasn't sure about and got Bondsmith both times. Skybreaker was a close second both times too.

Perhaps require a captcha for anyone with a 0 or negative reputation. I don't remember the process I went through to join, but perhaps no posts until they verify their e-mail or until they have been verified by an established member. Maybe give everyone with a reputation over 500 the ability to verify new members as real people. Not sure how hard any of this would be with the available forum software.

My favorite page on that website is the one where they talk about DHMO in the dairy industry. The letters from "Hoard's Dairyman" are hilarious.

I like to group things, so just like I can group Christians into categories, I also group atheists/agnostics into two groups. The first group genuinely have searched for truth and have come to a conclusion that there is no God (or aren't sure, etc - I know there's subtle differences). I have a friend that says he wishes he believed in a god but just can't. They disagree agreeably. I respect these people and their opinions however misguided, in my view, they are. I share my faith regularly with these types of people until they tell me to stop or until I find out they are really in the second group. The second group are the God haters or religion haters. Someone earlier called them Hate-theists. These are the people that want every nativity scene removed at Christmas. That just call Christians stupid and ignorant. That want to ban Bibles and genuine discussion. I can't talk to these people, because they are irrationally spiteful and hateful. No one on this discussion board has been like that.

Leaving the inevitable choices for the next poster. 9 17th Shard Discussion 7 The Coppermind Wiki 12 General Brandon Discussion 10 Events and Signings 7 Interview Database 12 Cosmere Theories 12 Stormlight Archive 12 Mistborn 8 Elantris and Emperor's Soul 10 Warbreaker 7 Cosmere Short Stories 10 The Reckoners 12 The Rithmatist 8 Alcatraz 2 Other Stories 7 The Wheel of Time 9 Writing Excuses 11 Reading Excuses 11 General Discussion 10 Entertainment Discussion 10 Creator's Corner 10 Role Playing 19 Sanderson Elimination 8 Social Groups, Clans, and Guilds 20 Mistborn: The Inquisition

You can be as uncivil as you want in a PM to me. I don't have all the answers either, but I promise I'll let you know if you offend me (I've got pretty thick skin). I'm going offline until tomorrow though.

You are not alone. One way of looking at it is that we're not worthy and can never live up to the standard set by God (He has the right to set the standard and choose what is or isn't sin because He's...God after-all). Another (maybe better) way of looking at it is that we're all equal. No one is too poor or classless or sinful to be accepted by a loving God.

I will try to address your questions. These are my personal beliefs and no offense is meant to any group. To quote from the same chapter you used, James 2:19 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." So, just believing that God exists and going about your life isn't salvation. Salvation is not just a prayer that you say like some magic get-into-heaven spell. So, yes, when a person gets saved, they decide to become a follower of Christ. The point is that no amount of works or being a good-enough-follower is enough. I still sin every day even though I try to live a good life. Where there is a problem is when you say that a certain amount sin (or a certain specific sin) will make you lose your salvation or a certain lack of action will keep you out of heaven. Salvation is in Jesus; It's not in Jesus + works. For example, some Christians say you're not really saved unless you go to church. Well, I have a big problem with that as the Bible never says to go to church for your salvation (no offense if that's what you believe). Another example is baptism. We're supposed to get baptized after we get saved, but not everyone can do that or is even willing. Salvation, however, is not Jesus + baptism. It's Jesus alone, so if you never get baptized, you're still saved. Another example is with homosexuality. Some Christians say that homosexuals won't go to heaven. Well, I have a big problem with that too as Jesus died for all people and for all sins. Jesus loves homosexuals and straights equally, and I'm supposed to show that love too. Who am I to say who is good enough? I'm certainly no paragon of perfection. In God's eyes, we all fall short. So, yes Gandhi and Hitler both fall short of perfection. I might say one falls more short than the other, but we're all sinners. I fall short and you fall short too. Could Hitler have gotten saved at the last minute? Technically, yes - even though I doubt that it happened. But Jesus can save someone like Gandhi and someone like Hitler too. Sin is sin - from the smallest lie to murder or rape or genocide. We all fall short. As far as people that have never heard the Gospel, I don't have a good answer for that. There are plenty of internet sites that attempt to explain it, and even as a Christian, I find them unfulfilling. I know God is perfect and holy and just, so I just have faith that He'll do the right thing. The church is commanded to spread the Gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19), so the failing is on us - not God. Edit: spelling and grammar Edit #2: The good news is that you don't need all the answers to be a Christian.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Glad that the umbrella-term Christian was added. There are a LOT of comments that I'm biting my tongue and ignoring in the interest of keeping it civil. I also know that simply sharing my beliefs or pointing out disagreements is unlikely to change anyone's mind. There are a lot of different doctrines but it all boils down to one essential truth - salvation. I have found that when it comes to different "Christian" denominations, people can be grouped into two categories. The first (which I fall into) says that salvation (or the eventual condition of our soul) hinges 100% on a faith in Jesus Christ. We can't earn it in any way; it is a free gift to be either accepted or rejected. Anything added to or taken away from that is not salvation. If you hold to this basic view, I'm not going to split hairs on any other doctrine (slightly more detail in the spoiler tag). The second group says that salvation must be earned or worked for in some way however small. This could be taking some sacrament like communion or baptism (both good things but that aren't necessary for salvation according to my group), or it could be a need to live a good life and hope you make it. There are many other works that people believe are necessary for salvation that take away from the complete work of Jesus Christ. It is with great dread that I say this, but I believe that those that add to or take away from faith in Jesus are, in fact, not saved. I know I'm greatly simplifying matters, but it really is a simple thing that any child who's old enough to know right from wrong should be able to understand. I'm also sharing what I believe and recognize your right to believe differently (at least in this life). Is it narrow-minded? Yeah! It's what I believe though. I'd be glad to debate/share/discuss in private PM's if you really feel the need to talk/vent/insult/agree or whatever.