wow, this just made my day. best laugh i've had in years. steelers and colts are both in the AFC, Eagles are NFC so it is possibly. and that would make me happy. i'm seeing Colts vs. Saints wow, this just made my day. best laugh i’ve had in years. steelers and colts are both in the AFC, Eagles are NFC so it is possibly. and that would make me happy. i’m seeing Colts vs. Saints

2009-10-24T18:59:39-07:00

true

1402567

62088

2009-10-24T18:59:39-07:00

800027

it's stopped doing it. i was also getting an error message when i would train from profiles too, but that has also stopped. it’s stopped doing it. i was also getting an error message when i would train from profiles too, but that has also stopped.

2009-10-23T10:20:04-07:00

true

1397969

61864

2009-10-23T10:20:04-07:00

800027

whenever i try to save someone from chat, chat goes gray and i lose connection. also, it happens randomly now too. ever since i chose to start doing this survivors/zombies thing. help?!?!?!! whenever i try to save someone from chat, chat goes gray and i lose connection. also, it happens randomly now too. ever since i chose to start doing this survivors/zombies thing. help?!?!?!!

2009-10-23T08:08:21-07:00

true

1397767

61864

2009-10-23T08:08:21-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/1/topics/60625?page=2#posts-1367764'>racefan12</a>:</cite> There are plenty of games I hate, but I still agree that they deserve badges. EDIT: This is in response to moses’ post.</blockquote> yes but they were atleast game type games. this is more an exercise in who can guess what sort of logic the dev. decided to put in the game <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/1/topics/60625?page=2#posts-1367764">racefan12</a>:</cite> There are plenty of games I hate, but I still agree that they deserve badges. EDIT: This is in response to moses’ post.</blockquote> yes but they were atleast game type games. this is more an exercise in who can guess what sort of logic the dev. decided to put in the game

2009-10-13T14:31:35-07:00

true

1367780

60625

2009-10-13T14:31:35-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/1/topics/60625?page=2#posts-1367694'>greg</a>:</cite> So I’ll go on record as saying that this is probably the worst idea for a badge I’ve ever had. While I respect what the game does, it really does not fit in with our achievement philosophy of trying to be accessible. I apologize to those who already put forth the effort into completing all 25 puzzles, but in the interest of trying to make this badge more accommodating, it has been changed to a medium badge that only requires any 10 puzzles. If you already earned it as a hard badge, you’ll still have it, plus some extra points. Now let us never speak of this again.</blockquote> thank you, i hate this game it's not worth badges period. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/1/topics/60625?page=2#posts-1367694">greg</a>:</cite> So I’ll go on record as saying that this is probably the worst idea for a badge I’ve ever had. While I respect what the game does, it really does not fit in with our achievement philosophy of trying to be accessible. I apologize to those who already put forth the effort into completing all 25 puzzles, but in the interest of trying to make this badge more accommodating, it has been changed to a medium badge that only requires any 10 puzzles. If you already earned it as a hard badge, you’ll still have it, plus some extra points. Now let us never speak of this again.</blockquote> thank you, i hate this game it’s not worth badges period.

2009-10-13T14:19:53-07:00

true

1367757

60625

2009-10-13T14:19:53-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59981?page=1#posts-1356132'>notallama</a>:</cite> why is affirmative action a good thing? i understand that minorities often have shitty conditions growing up that can mess up oportunities. but why not make the shitty conditions the prerequisite for the benefits, rather than [insert race or whatever]? i mean, if you grow up in a trailer park, chances are you’re at a disadvantage too.</blockquote> it's good because it makes it very hard to get away with racial discrimination against minorities, now against the majority..... <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59981?page=1#posts-1356132">notallama</a>:</cite> why is affirmative action a good thing? i understand that minorities often have shitty conditions growing up that can mess up oportunities. but why not make the shitty conditions the prerequisite for the benefits, rather than [insert race or whatever]? i mean, if you grow up in a trailer park, chances are you’re at a disadvantage too.</blockquote> it’s good because it makes it very hard to get away with racial discrimination against minorities, now against the majority…..

2009-10-09T16:58:28-07:00

true

1356198

59981

2009-10-09T16:58:28-07:00

800027

most of the money we make is due to our parents being well known and us benefiting from that, so that is sort of what we see. really with Affirmative Action and other anti-racist laws out there, the playing field is getting more and more even with each generation. but would whites be entitled to said benefits because they are no longer the majority? most of the money we make is due to our parents being well known and us benefiting from that, so that is sort of what we see. really with Affirmative Action and other anti-racist laws out there, the playing field is getting more and more even with each generation. but would whites be entitled to said benefits because they are no longer the majority?

2009-10-09T15:26:44-07:00

true

1356003

59981

2009-10-09T15:26:44-07:00

800027

Plurality is when one group in voting, or in racial make up of a country is the largest, but not over 50%. It is something that the white community is closing in on in the US. That got me thinking after seeing the forum about the CNN special on "Black in America" and "Latino in America" and if there would be a "White in America" special. This is basically inevitable, barring anything extreme happening, so what will happen to the White Community, will they gain the "bonuses" gained by being a minority or no? Then to take it a step farther, what happens when the Latinos over take Whites as the plurality? are we gonna take away the privileges they gain from being constituted a minority? I'm not too knowledgeable on what all benefits minorities get, but i'm pretty sure they get tax incentives for owning companies and such, and they also have minority specific scholarships and groups that whites can't have because it would be considered "racist," does anyone have more knowledge they would like to impart to make this a more knowledgeable discussion. Plurality is when one group in voting, or in racial make up of a country is the largest, but not over 50%. It is something that the white community is closing in on in the US. That got me thinking after seeing the forum about the CNN special on “Black in America” and “Latino in America” and if there would be a “White in America” special. This is basically inevitable, barring anything extreme happening, so what will happen to the White Community, will they gain the “bonuses” gained by being a minority or no? Then to take it a step farther, what happens when the Latinos over take Whites as the plurality? are we gonna take away the privileges they gain from being constituted a minority? I’m not too knowledgeable on what all benefits minorities get, but i’m pretty sure they get tax incentives for owning companies and such, and they also have minority specific scholarships and groups that whites can’t have because it would be considered “racist,” does anyone have more knowledge they would like to impart to make this a more knowledgeable discussion.

2009-10-09T15:11:16-07:00

true

1355949

59981

2009-10-09T15:11:16-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352931'>FuzzyBacon</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352918">Jabor</a>:</cite> Please do. I can’t find it.</blockquote> He changed it to a double negative, but didn’t actually make it valid. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1351821">moses78</a>:</cite> <blockquote>1)Secular Legislative purpose: has none</blockquote> let me rephrase, i missed a few words here, it has no non-secular purpose. it isn’t saying you have to believe in God. hence, it’s constitutional. </blockquote> I’m not saying that homosexuality is wrong, but the government isn’t letting them marry so maybe there’s some validity to the position. Same principle.</blockquote> i fail at engllish, hence my choice of Political Science as my major. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352931">FuzzyBacon</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352918">Jabor</a>:</cite> Please do. I can’t find it.</blockquote> He changed it to a double negative, but didn’t actually make it valid. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1351821">moses78</a>:</cite> <blockquote>1)Secular Legislative purpose: has none</blockquote> let me rephrase, i missed a few words here, it has no non-secular purpose. it isn’t saying you have to believe in God. hence, it’s constitutional. </blockquote> I’m not saying that homosexuality is wrong, but the government isn’t letting them marry so maybe there’s some validity to the position. Same principle.</blockquote> i fail at engllish, hence my choice of Political Science as my major.

2009-10-07T19:48:23-07:00

true

1352933

126

59671

2009-10-07T19:48:23-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/43259?page=17#posts-1352921'>onlineidiot1994</a>:</cite> <blockquote>Most species have homosexual behavior, it is just hard to document it.</blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm" />Yup</a>, he’s speaking the truth.</blockquote> http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx more agreements. actually bonobo's and chimpanzees are very prone to homosexual behaviors <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/43259?page=17#posts-1352921">onlineidiot1994</a>:</cite> <blockquote>Most species have homosexual behavior, it is just hard to document it.</blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm" />Yup</a>, he’s speaking the truth.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx">http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx</a> more agreements. actually bonobo’s and chimpanzees are very prone to homosexual behaviors

2009-10-07T19:46:24-07:00

true

1352930

408

43259

2009-10-07T19:46:24-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352901'>FuzzyBacon</a>:</cite> <blockquote> should i link back to where i quote the first amendment and prove that having God on a coin is not illegal </blockquote> I don’t know, should I link you back to the part where you admitted that it fails the lemon test?</blockquote> i can just link back to where i fixed that. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352901">FuzzyBacon</a>:</cite> <blockquote> should i link back to where i quote the first amendment and prove that having God on a coin is not illegal </blockquote> I don’t know, should I link you back to the part where you admitted that it fails the lemon test?</blockquote> i can just link back to where i fixed that.

2009-10-07T19:37:44-07:00

true

1352910

123

59671

2009-10-07T19:37:44-07:00

800027

"life, liberty, and property" "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" idk, those are considered to be inherent rights, if you have them, i'd consider you free. “life, liberty, and property” “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” idk, those are considered to be inherent rights, if you have them, i’d consider you free.

2009-10-07T19:17:39-07:00

true

1352866

59795

2009-10-07T19:17:39-07:00

800027

should i link back to where i quote the first amendment and prove that having God on a coin is not illegal. it's not promoting an establishment of Religion, what was meant by that is a specific church or idea, God is an ambiguous term, since we can't tell if it is capitalized or not since they are all capitalized. the constitution isn't against religious references in government, just against religion dictating government. and i looked this up, people already tried to get it taken off, they got turned down by the courts. should i link back to where i quote the first amendment and prove that having God on a coin is not illegal. it’s not promoting an establishment of Religion, what was meant by that is a specific church or idea, God is an ambiguous term, since we can’t tell if it is capitalized or not since they are all capitalized. the constitution isn’t against religious references in government, just against religion dictating government. and i looked this up, people already tried to get it taken off, they got turned down by the courts.

2009-10-07T19:14:23-07:00

true

1352857

116

59671

2009-10-07T19:14:23-07:00

800027

would people be opposed to it being taken off 25% of the denominations so as to accurately represent the percentages of people that do believe it and those that don't? since 75% believe in a singe deity, and roughly 25% don't believe in any deity or are polytheistic. it would best represent the population that way, just do a random drawing to see which bills get it knocked off of and replaced with the old motto of E Pluribus Unum would people be opposed to it being taken off 25% of the denominations so as to accurately represent the percentages of people that do believe it and those that don’t? since 75% believe in a singe deity, and roughly 25% don’t believe in any deity or are polytheistic. it would best represent the population that way, just do a random drawing to see which bills get it knocked off of and replaced with the old motto of E Pluribus Unum

2009-10-07T18:48:47-07:00

true

1352792

114

59671

2009-10-07T18:48:47-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1352253'>notallama</a>:</cite> if the majority is a bunch of asshats, then yeah. i mean, what purpose does the phrase serve, other than to troll non-christian americans and make the country look like a bunch of wingnuts?</blockquote> it's not trolling, it is not saying "bahaha n00bz0rs don't believe in God, you are idiots, bahahaha" no, it does not, it is hardly noticeable on most coins and such. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1352253">notallama</a>:</cite> if the majority is a bunch of asshats, then yeah. i mean, what purpose does the phrase serve, other than to troll non-christian americans and make the country look like a bunch of wingnuts?</blockquote> it’s not trolling, it is not saying “bahaha n00bz0rs don’t believe in God, you are idiots, bahahaha” no, it does not, it is hardly noticeable on most coins and such.

2009-10-07T16:28:23-07:00

true

1352268

59671

2009-10-07T16:28:39-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1352010'>SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> I think feminism has driven a wider divide between the sexes than would otherwise exist. </blockquote> What? Before feminism women were treated like property, I don’t think you know what you are talking about.</blockquote> he is likely referring to the bra-burners that went crazy. the extremists like that. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1352010">SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> I think feminism has driven a wider divide between the sexes than would otherwise exist. </blockquote> What? Before feminism women were treated like property, I don’t think you know what you are talking about.</blockquote> he is likely referring to the bra-burners that went crazy. the extremists like that.

2009-10-07T14:37:08-07:00

true

1352019

58836

2009-10-07T14:37:08-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1351916'>moses78</a>:</cite> have you not read any of the discussion from a page back?</blockquote> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1351916">moses78</a>:</cite> have you not read any of the discussion from a page back?</blockquote>

2009-10-07T14:24:43-07:00

true

1351993

59671

2009-10-07T14:25:27-07:00

800027

</blockquote> Separation of church and state is a law, separation of plants and state is not.</blockquote> have you not read any of the discussion from a page back? </blockquote> Separation of church and state is a law, separation of plants and state is not.</blockquote> have you not read any of the discussion from a page back?

2009-10-07T13:48:36-07:00

true

1351916

59671

2009-10-07T13:48:36-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1351858'>SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> the Lemon case was in reference to one specific religion, Catholicism, it doesn’t apply to any time you hear the word God. </blockquote> Actually, no it isn’t and yes it does. <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html">LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602</a> (<a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/530/290/case.html">2</a>) Read it.</blockquote> <blockquote>and that to date about 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools are the sole beneficiaries under the Act</blockquote> hence why i said it was in direct reference to 1 religion, and have i not already proved that the 1st amendment does nothing but keep the Government from making laws regarding an Establishment of Religion or from prohibiting or promoting one religion over another? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=3#posts-1351858">SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> the Lemon case was in reference to one specific religion, Catholicism, it doesn’t apply to any time you hear the word God. </blockquote> Actually, no it isn’t and yes it does. <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html">LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602</a> (<a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/530/290/case.html">2</a>) Read it.</blockquote> <blockquote>and that to date about 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools are the sole beneficiaries under the Act</blockquote> hence why i said it was in direct reference to 1 religion, and have i not already proved that the 1st amendment does nothing but keep the Government from making laws regarding an Establishment of Religion or from prohibiting or promoting one religion over another?

2009-10-07T13:16:07-07:00

true

1351867

59671

2009-10-07T13:16:07-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59319?page=3#posts-1351836'>SaintAjora</a>:</cite> You know what you can do to get the benefit of a spell checker without losing your ability to spell? Whenever you see a line under a word, respell it manually. It’s not a perfect solution, but this way you are not relying entirely on the computer and you learn what errors you are making and how to fix them.</blockquote> i do do that but, but i mentally ignore mistakes on paper at times because i don't see the line under it, i know how to properly spell, but miss it because it's not underlined. sort of sad, but atleast i know how to spell the words, a lot of kids younger than me don't know how to spell because of spell checker. and am i the only one that uses txt now instead of text from all that laziness when having to use number pads to text message before the invention of phones with full keyboards? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59319?page=3#posts-1351836">SaintAjora</a>:</cite> You know what you can do to get the benefit of a spell checker without losing your ability to spell? Whenever you see a line under a word, respell it manually. It’s not a perfect solution, but this way you are not relying entirely on the computer and you learn what errors you are making and how to fix them.</blockquote> i do do that but, but i mentally ignore mistakes on paper at times because i don’t see the line under it, i know how to properly spell, but miss it because it’s not underlined. sort of sad, but atleast i know how to spell the words, a lot of kids younger than me don’t know how to spell because of spell checker. and am i the only one that uses txt now instead of text from all that laziness when having to use number pads to text message before the invention of phones with full keyboards?

2009-10-07T12:59:21-07:00

true

1351846

59319

2009-10-07T12:59:21-07:00

800027

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/58905?page=6#posts-1351770'>AaronB</a>:</cite> Public school is “free.” The price is that the government takes money from everyone by force to make them pay for something they may or not want or use, provides schools that are often mediocre or worse, and then takes the occasion to demand loyalty oaths and indoctrinate the students into how great government is. “Brainwashing” may be too harsh a word, but endless repetitions of the pledge of allegiance combined with slanted portrayals in history and other textbooks tend to install patriotism, submission, and other qualities the state desires in its citizenry.</blockquote> lol, public school is provided by the local governments, they are taking the oath to the national government not an oath to the school board, that would just be weird. saying the pledge is purely optional, a lot of people wouldn't say it just because they didn't want to. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/58905?page=6#posts-1351770">AaronB</a>:</cite> Public school is “free.” The price is that the government takes money from everyone by force to make them pay for something they may or not want or use, provides schools that are often mediocre or worse, and then takes the occasion to demand loyalty oaths and indoctrinate the students into how great government is. “Brainwashing” may be too harsh a word, but endless repetitions of the pledge of allegiance combined with slanted portrayals in history and other textbooks tend to install patriotism, submission, and other qualities the state desires in its citizenry.</blockquote> lol, public school is provided by the local governments, they are taking the oath to the national government not an oath to the school board, that would just be weird. saying the pledge is purely optional, a lot of people wouldn’t say it just because they didn’t want to.

2009-10-07T12:56:55-07:00

true

1351838

139

58905

2009-10-07T12:56:55-07:00

800027

you could use DNA testing to see if he was part of a certain tribe, we know what tribe he was from and where they settled and where they lived, and we can compare DNA from known descendants of said tribe and compare DNA to these. you could use DNA testing to see if he was part of a certain tribe, we know what tribe he was from and where they settled and where they lived, and we can compare DNA from known descendants of said tribe and compare DNA to these.

2009-10-07T12:51:56-07:00

true

1351825

59669

2009-10-07T12:51:56-07:00

800027

<blockquote> But religion isn’t constitutional.</blockquote> again, religion is not unconstitutional. there is no other way to put this. 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law regarding an *ESTABLISHMENT* of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." shall i break this down. the Lemon case was in reference to one specific religion, Catholicism, it doesn't apply to any time you hear the word God. Let me quote James Madison, one of the primary Authors of the Bill of Rights as to his interpretation of what was meant by the first amendment: <blockquote>Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law</blockquote> that is all that was meant by the first amendment. you can have whatever religion you would like to hold, and the government will not care. it has also been postulated that it also meant that no Establishment of Religion should have undo control over the government <blockquote>1)Secular Legislative purpose: has none</blockquote> let me rephrase, i missed a few words here, it has no non-secular purpose. it isn't saying you have to believe in God. hence, it's constitutional. <blockquote>but I really want to get the “legal tender” phrase off it.</blockquote> it's legal tender because the government says so, it's only illegal to counterfeit because you are copying the governments money, if you were to make any private dollar, you could do so, so long as you don't say that it is legal US tender, you can pass it off as money if you want to. it was done before the removal of the gold standard and the introduction of the fed. and a levying of a 10% tax on all non-governmental tender. <blockquote> But religion isn’t constitutional.</blockquote> again, religion is not unconstitutional. there is no other way to put this. 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law regarding an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” shall i break this down. the Lemon case was in reference to one specific religion, Catholicism, it doesn’t apply to any time you hear the word God. Let me quote James Madison, one of the primary Authors of the Bill of Rights as to his interpretation of what was meant by the first amendment: <blockquote>Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law</blockquote> that is all that was meant by the first amendment. you can have whatever religion you would like to hold, and the government will not care. it has also been postulated that it also meant that no Establishment of Religion should have undo control over the government <blockquote>1)Secular Legislative purpose: has none</blockquote> let me rephrase, i missed a few words here, it has no non-secular purpose. it isn’t saying you have to believe in God. hence, it’s constitutional. <blockquote>but I really want to get the “legal tender” phrase off it.</blockquote> it’s legal tender because the government says so, it’s only illegal to counterfeit because you are copying the governments money, if you were to make any private dollar, you could do so, so long as you don’t say that it is legal US tender, you can pass it off as money if you want to. it was done before the removal of the gold standard and the introduction of the fed. and a levying of a 10% tax on all non-governmental tender.

2009-10-07T12:48:46-07:00

true

1351821

59671

2009-10-07T12:48:46-07:00

800027

<blockquote> Unlike Jefferson’s letters, Lemon vs. Kurtzman IS law. And I put the points of the lemon test up, which was established as legal precedent by Lemon v. Kurtzman, </blockquote> unfortunately it is only legal precedent, not law. whereas having "In God We Trust" as the national motto is law. now you could use Lemon vs. Kurtzman as precedent to overturn the law making "In God We Trust" our motto. now to show how it does *NOT* fail the lemon test 1)Secular Legislative purpose: has none. it is not saying that anyone must believe in God, it does not force anyone to do anything. doesn't even specify a single religion 2)it neither promotes one religion or diminishes a religion. again going back to the lack of reference to any one single deity 3)Government Entanglement? entanglement would be laws regulating religion, or a Church having power over the government. it isn't giving money to a religion to promote it. <blockquote> Unlike Jefferson’s letters, Lemon vs. Kurtzman IS law. And I put the points of the lemon test up, which was established as legal precedent by Lemon v. Kurtzman, </blockquote> unfortunately it is only legal precedent, not law. whereas having “In God We Trust” as the national motto is law. now you could use Lemon vs. Kurtzman as precedent to overturn the law making “In God We Trust” our motto. now to show how it does NOT fail the lemon test 1)Secular Legislative purpose: has none. it is not saying that anyone must believe in God, it does not force anyone to do anything. doesn’t even specify a single religion 2)it neither promotes one religion or diminishes a religion. again going back to the lack of reference to any one single deity 3)Government Entanglement? entanglement would be laws regulating religion, or a Church having power over the government. it isn’t giving money to a religion to promote it.

2009-10-07T11:00:43-07:00

true

1351614

59671

2009-10-07T11:00:43-07:00

800027

i know the frequent use of computers has hurt my ability to spell check my own papers. i was writing out a test yesterday, it was all essays. I would write a word and instinctively check under it for a line, i did this quite a few times before realizing i was spelling words wrong but since paper doesn't have a spell checker, i was SOL. i know the frequent use of computers has hurt my ability to spell check my own papers. i was writing out a test yesterday, it was all essays. I would write a word and instinctively check under it for a line, i did this quite a few times before realizing i was spelling words wrong but since paper doesn’t have a spell checker, i was SOL.

2009-10-07T10:41:55-07:00

true

1351590

59319

2009-10-07T10:41:55-07:00

800027