Search results

Religious institutions were the government as recently as post #27?

Should have seen that one coming. Si'Nat shooting at something that isn't or might not be an enemy--again.

And when was this?

Hm. I think I'm biased on that one. I don't believe that there is a good purpose behind state-sanctioned marriage, although there are certain good things about it people should be able to take advantage of. But the religious purpose? Well, doesn't it depend on your religion?

I thought from the title that this was about that spammer who posted the same thing in multiple boards on this site...

"I fail to see how stealth might help one traversing an open area such as this, but I will offer to investigate the bodies."

Happy birthday.

Conviction for YOUR religion, you mean. Would a Hindu who has great religious conviction acknowledge "that God had a reason for creating Man and woman"? Well, we've had problems with the whole "separate but equal" thing in the past. But to me, at least, the name seems kind of trivial. I think...

Let us know how it turns out!

Well, it depends on what counts as "liberal." Is there a particular sort of case that serves as a good benchmark for this?

Yeah, but corn in the United States is, if I'm not mistaken, the most subsidized crop in the world. And it's quite the cash crop.

I'll admit it's nitpicking. But I don't think of it as my own choice of words. I don't know. It seems fairly standard. As far as a "bill of responsibilities" I do think it's a great idea. But responsibilities vary from person to person. A list of universal human responsibilities would be pretty...

Oh. Of course. That makes sense. I wasn't thinking of sets for some reason...

So someone who has never committed a crime and has no intention of doing so is a danger to society?

Um, well, I know what "FAQ" stand for. But not "TS" or "MT."

"Shall we investigate the room?"

I think Istanbul was lurking semi-recently.

Ah. I found it. After my time, so I was completely unaware of it... # 420.5n - If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it. [CompRules 2006/10/01]...

It would mean that the government pays for part it in order to lower the price. So if it were going to be $3.00, the government throws in enough money to keep the price down to $0.45 instead. I don't know that the Saudi government subsidizes it at all though. I would have thought they didn't...

Correct.