I care, motherfuckers, so if the people writing Game of Thrones for HBO ever want me to give a shit about Jaime again, they're going to have to work a lot harder than they did with Khal Drogo — because, seriously, that was some despicable shit.

When I first converted to a standing desk, my experience was similar. Going to my local Walking Co. and investing in a better pair of shoes and arch-support inserts has helped tremendously.

This strikes me as a syntax problem. There's a difference between a lack of belief in god(s) and a belief in a lack of god(s).

Although as a counter, if one of them uses "HOME" in that context, you can always reply with, "You mean your house, right? Because this world isn't your home, right? I Peter 2:11 and all that?"

I agree that the questions it raises aren't influenced by evidence - that's my point, in fact - but they <i>can</i> be influenced by examination of (a) internal consistency, and more importantly (b) what they say about the nature or character of the supernatural force at question. That's the big one right there.

Right, but my point is that it <i>isn't</i> a GOOJFC. It just raises a different set of questions.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for Last Thursdayism - I'm not saying everything in the past is an illusion. I'm saying that if a person believes that God created the universe out of nothing 6000 years ago, and that at least some things (like adult people) were created with the appearance of age, then any evidence of…

Absolutely correct, he/she/it/they could have.

It's consistent with both Gawker's chosen tone and its need to fill space.

<i>Maybe being Christian will preclude him from raping or beating women or stealing or pimping or killing.</i>

And maybe being Christian will make his farts smell like lilac. In lieu of evidence for either claim, what's your point?

Proves nothing. If a God/gods/pasta-creature exists that's capable of creating the universe, then it's capable of creating a photon that's partway between Rho Cassiopeiae and Earth, traveling towards us at c.

(Question is: why would He/She/They/It do so?)

It's not wrong; it just raises a different set of questions. Assuming (for sake of argument) that we're willing to allow for the existence of a being/set of beings/sentient force that created urrrrvrithin, then that who-or-whatever-it-is could have as much capability to start the universe with the appearance of age…

You have won. So much.

You'd be surprised. A lot of people still think that reality TV producers merely highlight whatever drama occurs naturally. And that's exactly what the entertainment industry wants - otherwise they wouldn't insist on calling it "reality TV."

Math is fun and all, but it's not that indicative of real life. During high traffic hours or in heavily populated areas, the hypothetical time savings go out the window. For starters, you can't maintain any constant speed, much less one that exceeds what everyone else is traveling at. Every time you stop at a traffic…

As a friend pointed out to me - and I don't know if he thought of this himself or not - if a leaf's on the wind, it's dead. So, you know, foreshadowing. Or Wash kinda did it to himself.

Thanks.

In Thomas & Johnston's book The Illusion of Life about their time as two of Disney's "Nine Old Men," they talk about how hard it was for the animators to learn to portray a girl or woman who didn't come off as creepy and doll-like. They finally started to succeed with the "King Midas" Silly Symphony short, IIRC, but…

Okay, just to be clear: are you saying that desire, will, and a plan are necessary conditions to success, or sufficient conditions?