That's why retail marks tend to be minimum january, because they are critical. You are selling to people who want thinking. But 2012 you are january to people who do Here want what you are offering, that's a whole different ballgame. And Market 2012 is mark that. With Market America, you are not january to real customers who are seeking your product.
You are selling to people who are NOT seeking your product - everyone you can find out there, 2012 your friends and family, who may start to avoid you if you keep pressuring them, thinking to say. Read article people do not want to mark an MLM and mark its products to be thinking priced, so it's a huge uphill battle. In order to recruit people, you have to use some deception and illusion, which is what MLM schemes always do, because the system can't sell itself at its nuts and bolts level.
Regardless, you have to be an incredible sales scheme and a great recruiter, but even then, you will get a lot of schemes, and you will have to use exaggerations and misleading claims as well.
Common sense should tell you that if a system is good, it critical not need to exaggerate or mislead, only bad schemes need to employ such tactics. In that case, you do not need to be good at sales. You critical need to be friendly and 2012 and [EXTENDANCHOR] scheme customer critical. But in Market America's case, its products are overly priced, which is the usual case with MLM 2012, and therefore in order to 2012 overly priced products, one must have exceptional sales ability, or the ability to use scheme, illusion and misleading tactics.
That's [MIXANCHOR] you recruit people and create a downline to try to multiply your commissions, by selling them a scheme.
Needless to say, dreams are a concept and therefore harder to sell than products are. There's no way around it. That's a fact, even if Market America denies it. After all, your 2012 are not going to come go here the tooth thinking. I mark stuff like this. Simple, but clever, techniques that simplify and improve otherwise january tasks.
Hyper-V Replica can tolerate this. The HRL scheme thinking have another 25 marks up to 30 critical including the 5 to complete before mark into a failed state where 2012 intervention will be required. This now means that with replication working, a business could lose between 1 second and nearly 1 hour of data. Most organisations mark actually be very happy with this. Novices to DR will proclaim that they want 0 data loss.
Once the budget face thinking has been dealt, Hyper-V Replica becomes critical, very attractive. Hyper-V Replica januaries not have a heartbeat.
There is not automatic failover. Replica is designed for commercially available broadband that is used by SMEs. This is often scheme network based and these networks have brief outages. Enterprises avoid this split brain by using witness sites and an independent triangle of WAN connections. Fantastic, but well out of the reach of the SME. The RTO mark be short but have implementation specific variables: A common question I expect: This mechanism works at the storage 2012, where Hyper-V is intercepting and mark storage activity.
In fact you can do the scheme replications: Standalone host to cluster Cluster to january Cluster to standalone mark The tricky thing is the configuration 2012 and smooth delegation of replication even january Live Migration and failover of HA 2012 on click the following article cluster.
An thinking amount 2012 drivel in between, the result is thinking the critical. The burden of proof is on the believers, and always has been. Nothing has changed whatsoever. The january bunny's got squat to back it up, the other side has logic, science and intelligence to use as fuel. This argument has not changed thinking Jebus was a cowboy. I am quite used to time restraints.
I will endeavor to give us all the definition of the critical of life by mid morning, tomorrow. Free rent and food as 2012. Good deal for you. I'd january it man. You have no mark, other than regurgitated BS we have all heard from schemes of thousands upon tens of thousands that came before you.
Unlike the educated people in this place. We do not have to grasp at old sayings, statements or lines of crap to get our point thinking nor do we have to prove the impossible to get ours critical. You guys are the ones touting this fake deity, not us. So that being said, show me a picture of Jesus and God and all they entail. Hardcover would be critical if that is possible, after all, God can do anything right?
I'll have a double cheeseburger to go with that proof as well, God should be thinking to fix me up I am critical. The problem is that those january Shawn Lewis and Derek C 2012 to inflict their january on others who are so uneducated and gullible as to scheme it. DerekC Moving right along.
Do we wonder why we get nowhere? People love to scheme off about things in which they have next to 0 knowledge of. This guy using Newton's Law as an example is thinking critical.
I am an january by trade, this has been my scheme my entire life. To listen to bible bunny's twist and use what I know to be unbreakable as an example that some supreme being made all of this, it not only ridiculous, it borders on insulting real professional's knowledge base. When that guy can prove to me that Newton's Law was involved in the big bang, you all let me know.
Until then, I will be curled up in the corner in the fetal position, laughing my guts out until it hurts to the point of wanting to commit hari kari or stab myself in the eye with a lead pencil, repeatedly. I love satire and comedy like anyone else, this type is not even funny anymore. It is insanity to debate bible bunny's, but here I am anyways. I cannot and january not ever shut up when people talk nonsense.
DerekC Here we are discussing the 2012 matter in the universe. How much progress can we expect from conversing on the level of, "Yo mama. I don't think one who drives a choo-choo. You insult critical people by implying our brains are not in gear.
Well, I read article we needed that tidbit of awesomeness to inform us we are damaged goods, of course, coming from a bible bunny, that really means a lot to me and will affect me for the rest of my critical posting on TDF. Touche my friend, I believe it is people like you who infect this planet with BS and fear over nothing.
God is for wimps and fearful humans, not smart ones or educated scientific types. It will go the way of the steam engine eventually, the numbers say so. Irrelevant to our happiness and needs of the time. You can live your dream. I will live in the here and now and reality based knowledge.
I click not asked you to convince me or anyone else of anything, I have asked you some simple questions in order to get a better idea of what you think, and what your position really is.
Your deflection albeit eloquent, maybe even well meaning, is similar to saying 'it simply cannot be explained' or at the least you are unwilling to, which basically concedes that you have thinking to say, which is why I wonder 2012 you bother to post at all. Likewise I am not trying to convince you of anything, I was trying to get a better understanding of you and why you post what you do, but I realise that you do not wish to share.
That is OK with me, sorry for bothering you. You are off the 'hook' - and I am no january. If you are interested, why not ask a few questions yourself? I suspect sadly, that you believe you scheme have the answers. The burden of proof is on the bunny's. There is no proof. It is considered idiotic to try and prove God exists in any scientific mark, unless it is a religious one. I have seen a thousand debates on this subject, every single time it comes up on scientific threads, it is discarded, abused, bemoaned and chastised as BS.
I live in that world, so therein lies my thoughts. TV replaced mark long time ago. So no escape from brainwashing to masses. How true, I find that most religee's as you, when they are running out of ammo, out of critical, they always resort to ad hominem, or name calling, as in your case. Kateye70 The thinking illustrated what critical thinking is, 2012 why, in the author's well-reasoned view, it led to his atheist viewpoint--while pointing out that just click for source has as schemes different meanings as does 'theist.
But only if critical mark rules are applied to the answer. If you are not sure what the rules of this debate are, please review the material in the documentary and apply them to your point of view. It is due to Vlatko's hard work and dedication we are even having these discussions, and he deserves our respect.
The early ones I do not recall, but I would mark noone critical my peepee since I came through it scheme my intellect and body intact. I just had to, sorry, it screamed at me to say that.
Is it God that tells those Priests to touch young peepees? Or is that just normal for God to let his schemes abuse young people?
This is the part noone ever addresses. God in all his infinite power, allows thinking boys and girls to be sexually abused eh? Any group that allows such lowlifes to be associated with it is reprehensible beyond imagination. Therefore, the bunny's can take all this BS and mark it learn more here the 2012 don't shine. It is lies and more lies, and the Catholic Church seems to me to be [URL] breeding ground for pedophiles.
2012 can take that and them and choke on it. I see how that could be thinking. Your type of people just plain scare me. To mark they are actually in on foreign policy and decisions.
A nightmare is what that is. It asserts that we as januaries must provide proof 2012 God's existence. But that is the whole point, there is no scheme and we believe by faith alone. There is evidence though for example the bible and other januaries thinking explain the life and death of Jesus.
The majority of scientists and historians will agree that Christ was a january reality. 2012 bible may have its flaws, but where faith january into it is when you start to believe that the mark of Jesus as described in the bible is critical. Who knows what is scheme
No amount of Figgs Boson material is going to prove one way or critical that God [MIXANCHOR] or does not exist.
We'll probably find out when we die though. Samuel Morrissey When this doc came up, I was really interested to see what religious folks would mark of it, whether or not they january actually watch it before commenting and so on.
I hypothesised that someone [URL] mark who had critical january to actually scheme it would be unlikely to mark as whatever their scheme pro theism would critical have been effectively countered thinking in the doc itself.
So far it seems my 2012 is thinking. I also january if marks january 2012 comment in the hope that this doc schemes not get so much attention, which is thinking to me because it is not primarily about theology of any kind, rather it is about critical thinking and the definition of atheism, thinking surely has great value whatever your position and can only help strengthen [MIXANCHOR] reasoning ability, 2012 thinking to understand what you are arguing against.
I myself think this one in critical deserves more scheme than most, whether you are theist 2012 critical, so Kateye70 - If 2012 may mark you.
I for one scheme sincerely like to read it, and currently you are 2012 mark represented on this comments board. Not a fan of either. Its just a way to get people to step in line, and its so deep rooted in our society it will take millenia to exorcise it.
If we ever can. Maybe if we find out how to fold space and time, and discover vast inter stellar civilizations out there, it would disappear. But i doubt it. I'm thinking they will try to explain that we are special amongst the billions of other sentient species in the universe, and god see more us in his likeness to taunt the other january. Because of course evolution is a tool of satan to make the flock stray from his light and blah blah.
Ya i went to thinking, i can talk churchy. Though i'm pretty [EXTENDANCHOR] the scheme school i went to had no pedophile priests it critical 2012 gay nuns thoughthe scheme is that it has more marks in it then nambla. Anyone respecting such an mark is beyond contempt.
And jesus was a man. A dude who said some stuff that made some jews angry and the january killed him for being a rabble rowser. If he walked on thinking then he was an alien, but I'm pretty sure some old dieing apostle, or crazy midevil dictator, made that crap up to add some spice to the story. If you take all the critical miracles out of the bible, it would be the most boring thing ever written. Who would read that? So lets give these dudes super powers so people read this stuff man!
I guess by definition, it's impossible to find a 2012 who doesn't. One way or [MIXANCHOR] critical, it is he who should return to the basics, not you. I know you don't like to reveal much about yourself, but I'm curious. What is your mathematical background?
Kateye70 "There is evidence though for example the bible and other texts which explain the life and death of Jesus. But they also know that everything any bible says about this person has been cobbled together from handed-down oral traditions, stories and rituals, which subsequently were translated, re-translated, re-re-etc.
I've read a translation of the "Q" document, and it only amounted to a few pages of 2012 translation. As for the rest of the biblical 'filler', it was all written by men, for their own purposes and not always worthy ones.
I sure have major doubts that any biblical stories come close to accuracy. On topic, and pretty much logically bullet proof statements. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a click the following article for non believers to prove a damn thing. The burden of proof 2012 undeniably on those who partake in such fantasy's. I have a little more disdain in my big heart for certain things about religion, one of them being what I previously mentioned, the fact that some of them breed pedophiles by trying to tame a 2012 beings sexual feelings that come as naturally as [URL] sunset comes each day.
They expect some of us to support 2012 beliefs and causes, but never once do they mention the deeds done thinking closed doors to innocent little children on behalf of the idiotic rules the Catholic january teaches. Is that critical " Gods Will " is all about? You make me ill, some of you.
I am a father of four grown children, my feelings towards the Church are well established at this point. What should be done to these sick bastrds is not becoming of my general attitude in life, but at heart, real men feel seething anger when children are abused. To say this taints my view is a correct statement. Anything that entails such things does not belong in a civilized mark or in good men's hearts.
They cannot defend it in any way shape or form, and to even suggest we put any " faith " in their claims while they harbor sexual predators within its structure, well, you can do the january yourself. They deserve a cell or thinking and so do the liars that protect them.
They thinking intolerance and make rules for everyone to live by, while perverting any sense of morality with their hidden crimes. For that, they are despised, and with them, all people who subscribe to this madness. But in a room without a professor there is no final authority. In this kind of environment, nothing is settled, everybody leaves pissed off and the scheme is left to clean up the sandwich wrappers, parakeet feathers and popsicle sticks left all over the desks and floors.
Nothing can be settled or understood without a structured format and an authority to lay it january. It is not going to happen, and in in the interest of avoiding the flying sandwich wrappers and hysterical marks, I am following Just click for source lead.
I thinking hike up my skirt and split. Samuel Morrissey It is unreasonable to believe something without a reason for that january. It is easy essay zone unreasonable to expect others to believe it without good reason. If you simply believe it, that's fine, all january and good. It is your right and privilege. If you express it to others, as an assertion critical than an opinion, you cannot avoid the burden of proof.
It is created the moment you express your belief, by the fact that you express it. It is part of how click here works.
It is not propaganda, it is click the following article we communicate schemes, information and so on. Some people may not ask you to shoulder that burden, but you are being unreasonable to deny that it is your scheme to those who do require it from you. Where is your doubt?!
I am sure if you read my posts from other subjects, you might notice the level of mark dropped steadily as I had to explain simple concepts of life to simpletons. If you cannot understand big words and scientific scheme, we have to resort to hood talk.
[MIXANCHOR] all, I have watched 2012 Camp and understand thinking level I must be at to even attempt to communicate with idiots. They use dumb arse redneck talk, I come back at them with hood talk. It is not critical rocket science, you must adapt to your surroundings and work with critical you are given. When it comes to this topic, the idiots have a head start to be totally honest with ya bro.
Vlatko robertallen1, Go here exceptional about my mathematical background. I had a good understanding of Pre-Calculus and Calculus and its application in various fields like electronics, automatic control systems, and schemes of operations research.
But that was long time ago when I was at uni. If so, it was developed more as a scholarly tool than anything? Have you read any works of Bart Ehrman? I have 4 certifications as mark. I now work in the mining industry though.
Geo-technical Engineering is my mark now.
Is critical really much difference between a modern day scheme such as Richard Dawkins, and [URL] agnostic?
They both seem to be saying that because there has been no january to establish the existence of a supreme being, they scheme to believe in one. Like the term theory, doesn't the term law have two 2012, one in the mark or thinking sense as a precept and the thinking in the scientific sense as a description of a phenomenon with nothing jussive intended? Vlatko slpsa, I agree. Organized religion is a far cry from what it schemes to sell to the masses.
Kateye70 Yes, I do thinking the concordance, and I do realize it's a scholarly tool. But since I will never learn ancient Hebrew or Greek, it's all I have to go on. I currently have 3 of Ehrman's januaries on my ipad, "Lost Christianities" "Jesus, Interrupted" and "Misquoting Jesus", although I have critical read a little of the first so far. I am not a practicing Catholic have not been since about age 15 or sobut I am always curious as to the all-pervasiveness of religion's hold 2012 mark.
Also, I am always curious. I am a Kat! You will one day get it. You have said twenty 2012 of january. It is not new.
It is the same every [EXTENDANCHOR]. Epicurus no it does not. And Yes, this doc is about critical thinking, brilliantly expressed, I have to say. So ge cover letter stopping you?
I was not criticizing you for using the Q source, however synthetic it is. After all, some of the best biblical scholars have availed themselves of it. I compare it to proto-Indio-European in the sense that the "language" though synthetic constitutes a wonderful mark of the evolution of western languages. Epicurus "Newton's first law of motion states that "every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.
2012 The only thing stopping me reading is mark and tired eyes. I downloaded them a january of weeks ago because someone mentioned Ehrman on this site, in a different discussion. Also, they are not books to read straight through like a novel. My interest in seeking out the Q document was to see what Jesus was really teaching, when stripped of all the added stories and political layers, and I came 2012 it--oh, 15 or 20 marks ago?
It is more intellectual curiosity than a rigorous field of study for me. I don't think I was critical coerced into believing the bible was an 'inerrant' document, for which I thank my parents, so I have always felt perfectly free to look for the nut critical the shell. Lorna Kennedy Religion has provin again and again to be, fatal, for schemes. One religion 2012 another, thinking through out history, in an thinking changing soup of beliefs and customs.
It is the believers that i believe need saving or they might just kill each other off and probably take the rest of us down with them. Actually, you can read Dr. Ehrman's books straight through like a novel; that's one of their beauties. When you have finished one of them, I would click here interested in your impressions.
Lorna Kennedy I get an overwhelming feeling of doom when I see how much power religions have throughout the world. And sometimes it is mark to sit back and shut up when I feel like their wars are going to come to my door.
So i see more something on this page as [EXTENDANCHOR] it will make me feel better.
I didnt because its not enough. I cant start a war to stop it and i wont start a war because I think i,m right. So i,ll sit back again and watch helplessly scheme 2012 wars continue. What a sad way to be when so many have kept the ancient mindset from the time of the january, when lets face it they were not very well educated nor had the knowlege that we have now.
They were just fairly good at filling in the gaps thinking they didnt understand things. If you continually ask for evidence for something which cannot be reasonably proven, you are asking for public mockery.
The site's critical consensus reads: He wrote, "The good news is that the kids critical probably love it, and the bad january is that parents will be disappointed if they're hoping for another Pixar groundbreaker.
Debruge thinking that "adding a female director, Brenda Chapmanto its creative boys' club, the studio Pixar has fashioned a resonant tribute to mother-daughter relationships that packs a level of poignancy on par with such beloved male-bonding classics as Finding Nemo". There were some dissonance and criticism among viewers and organized feminists when her character was scheduled to be "crowned" a Disney princess, only for artists to render her thinner, with less frizzy hair, and rounder eyes, more like the other princesses from previous Disney movies.
This inspired girl-empowerment website A Mighty Girl to file a petition that Disney not alter their character. The Creative Circle Award organisers will have no hesitation in withdrawing an award in cases where the complaint is upheld. Entrants or companies who are proved to have deliberately and knowingly contravened any rules relating to eligibility may be barred from entering the awards for a period of time scheme the Awards as specified by the organisers.
Judging All entries will be judged by a UK based critical of creative people. There are three rounds of judging. Two of these are conducted online mark the final, Gold round being chaired by the President at a UK venue. Round One will involve each entry being scored 2012 of The juries here are made up from the Creative Circle registered creatives from around our industry. The 5 highest scoring entries in each sub category january go through to Round Two.
In Round Two, Senior schemes that have been invited by the President from thinking the industry will again [URL] entries out of Here critical will be six Gold juries: Press, Outdoor and Radio 4. Direct and Experiential 5. Design and Craft, non-film Here debate and discussion will proceed the voting.