Vort

While growing up, I remember learning that when mathematicians wanted to say that A is true if and only if B is true, they would write something like "A iff B". Maybe "Iff either the Finch or the Sparrow prefers Apple..." Yeah, I'm sure that would make a lot of editors very happy. (Note that "a lot of editors" is singular.)

Ah, the irony.

My interpretation would be that if neither the finch nor the sparrow prefers apple, either of them might still prefer white millet.

Great puzzle! Very creative and enjoyable. I have to add a bunch of content here so as to hide my answers from casual viewing in the Activity tab. (Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.) My answers: Species: Chickadee, Finch, Goldfinch, Sparrow Station: S, W, N, E Seed: Nyjer, Sunflower, Safflower, White Millet Treat: Grape Jelly, Apple, Blueberry, Peanuts

I'm sure they have plenty of food, and I'm also sure the oxygen is regenerated (and the CO2 removed), just like the water, so those issues shouldn't be problematic. Seems to me that the biggest problem is psychologically preparing for an eight-day stay and ending up remaining in what amounts to a large cardboard box fort in your living room for eight months.

And it's not even close.

Yes, I do a lot of that sort of "backward elimination". As I was showering, I realized that my OP is really just a fancy way of saying that the answer is indeterminate. If you can come up with any solution that fits the clues, then that solution by definition is valid and cannot be meaningfully distinguished from the "correct" solution. I'm clearly playing fast and loose with what the "solution" means, to some extent at least. I need to think about this some more.

@zil2 introduced us to logic puzzles in, what was it, 2019 or so. Since then, I have solved thousands of puzzles off of the Puzzle Baron site. I came upon a puzzle from that site recently that, while it is indeed solvable, is solvable only by accepting that there exists exactly one unique solution. Well, duh. How is this a big deal? Only because in every other case I can think of, the puzzle becomes obviously determinate simply by working through the clues. This is the first puzzle example I remember that requires you to simply guess at the right answer and see if the puzzle solves all the way through. If it does not, that's not the right answer, so try another guess. Obviously, the puzzle is partially solvable purely by using the logic clues, but only to a point. And that point leaves quite a few answers open. At the end, you find exactly one path (from many) that leads you to a unique solution. All other paths lead to indeterminate answers. You know you've got the right solution when you find something that solves, while every other possibility leaves you hanging. Maybe I'm wrong. I welcome correction if this puzzle really is solvable by means other than blind brute force. But I think it is not. 240730x7-T906ML.pdf

Not as far as I'm concerned. God blesses us, like when the ward comes and helps us move in or move out. You know, God helping us, but through others. Jesus opened the gates of Hell, as it were, and preached to the spirits in prison. This is what Section 76 teaches, and it's a thoroughly biblical doctrine. Section 138 clarifies that Jesus Himself did not go preach to the spirits in prison, but that he opened the gates (so to speak) and made such preaching possible. The actual preaching is and has always been done by His servants. My youngest just flew to the Provo MTC yesterday. He will spend the next two years preaching the gospel of Christ to the Japanese people. (At least, that's the plan.) When and if he sees success in having convert baptisms, those he baptize will surely testify that God blessed them with the gospel. But it will have been done through the agency of another. Whether God's hand is "literally" involved depends entirely on what you mean by "God's hand" and "literally". But the blessings come from God, for there is no other way for blessings to come. That's my view of the matter, fwiw.

Yes to both. Section 138 clarifies what Section 76 was teaching.

Please note: "Real, documented accusations" now count as legitimately making the target of these accusations "weird".

What a jerk.

I wonder how the Nelson School of Medicine (or whatever it will be called) will deal with abortion. I assume understanding the procedure is a necessary part of a physician's training, and I assume would be included during the candidate's time in obstetrics. The large majority of abortions are elective, and thus something akin to murder.

What's wrong with you people?! It's all so obvious, hiding in plain sight. Take all the consonants in Kamala Harris' name and assign them the value corresponding to their position in the English alphabet: K = 11 M = 13 L = 12 H = 8 Rx2 = 36 Sum those, and then multiply by a false Holy Trinity, one that purports to be double in importance (3x2): 11 + 13 + 12 + 8 + 36 + 19 = 99 99 x 6 = 594 Now for those wicked vowels, each of which is assigned the value of the imaginary (evil) trinity, 3i, for kAmAlA hArrIs: AAAA I Just square that false "I" at the end and do the arithmetic: (3i)(3i)(3i)(3i) + (3i)2 =(-9)(-9) + (-9) = 81 - 9 = 72 So what do we have? 594 + 72 = ... uh, oh ... It's simple math.

Biden himself said that picking Kamala Harris as his vice president was the best decision he ever made. I'm tempted to take his word for it. That statement should be engraven on his headstone so that all future generations will know what kind of a president, and a man, Joe Biden was.

Not from a purely military viewpoint. Good bang for the buck (pun intended). But it's fundamentally dishonest to pretend to be an ally just (or primarily) so that you can get some live field testing data. Plus, it's unwise from a geopolitical viewpoint. We should not want to be the world's policemen. We should be careful with whom we ally. I'm less concerned about allying against a proven bad actor than I am about allying with, well, a proven bad actor. I realize it's not all black-and-white, either good or evil. But that's just another way of saying it's evil.

Only when those powerful women furthered their career on what Hollywood euphemistically calls the casting couch. If men were to do such a thing, I would hold them in equal contempt. A shameless mischaracterization of the issue. Harris did not merely "date a politician". She slept with a married man specifically in order to take advantage of his political favors so as to further her introduction into politics. Even Harris herself does not deny this. No. Rather, it is a crass and scummy thing to do, sleeping with a married man in order to receive political favors from him. It is nothing less than prostitution. I hold her male love in equal or greater contempt, but then, he is not the Vice President of the United States of America, with better than even odds of soon becoming the presidential nominee of the major party that currently controls the Presidency. Oh, yes. Are you seriously suggesting that, without sleeping with her political benefactor, Harris would have accomplished what she did in politics anyway and would currently be the vice president of the US? If so, why did she bother having an ongoing sexual relationship with a married man to whom she was not even particularly attracted? Given the same situation? Absolutely. Kamala Harris is a sack of scum, not because she is female, but because she acts the way that human sacks of scum act. Specifically, she engaged in outrageous and probably illegal actions to further her political position, the very accusation that Democrats make (probably mostly falsely) against Donald Trump. (Yes, receiving political advantage as payment for sexual favors is very probably illegal.)

I really do not identify with the Republican Party, though I usually vote for GOP candidates. I remember the 1990's Contract with America, which sounded all wonderful but, as I saw it, ended up being nothing more than profit-taking by Republicans. If the Democrats are far more viciously and virulently evil than the Republicans, that is primarily because the Republicans do not have a chokehold on national politics. If they did, I bet they would be as corrupt and horrible as the Democrats. I vote Republican because I believe their candidates to be far less corrupt than the alternative, certainly not because I believe the party to be virtuous.

How do you figure? Oh, please. You cannot be serious. This is even more absurd than your previous statement. Nancy Reagan was not a politician running for President of the United States, and gained no political advantage to that end by sleeping her way to power.

Bull crap. All due respect to Brother Hardy's efforts, but this is bull crap. It's an acute, perhaps terminal, case of presentism. If the Book of Mormon offends you, the problem does not lie with the Book of Mormon.

I agree. I was trying to point out that in our application of principles (e.g. things on earth are an echo of things in heaven) we take care not to err by taking things too far. "Too far" can be defined only by the Spirit. Maybe there really is a tight relationship between our modern 21st-century penal system and God's spiritual segregation of the covenant from the unwashed.

The things of God and of the kingdom of God in our earthly experience are patterned after heavenly things. I do not believe that the modern prison system is patterned after divine things of eternity.

I pretty much agree with what you wrote. Jesus the Christ is a fine book with some really good information, but frankly he could have used a strong editor.

👍👍 I had not noticed that Preach My Gospel particularly dumbed down anything. It has seemed to offer clear and accurate, if not always complete, explanations. I'm curious to know what you find those good reasons to be.

"Hell" is an overloaded word with false connotations, e.g. forever burning and never consumed. "Outer darkness" is normally used in LDS circles to describe the "kingdom of no glory" inherited by those who are forever condemned, those who love and serve Satan. "Spirit prison" is an accurate and concise description that, IMO, works very well for us today.