Carborendum

No, the problem was that the judge precluded any exculpatory testimony. Many experts were submitted to testify on Trump's behalf. They were to indicate that every one of the transfers he did were common practice methods that have historically been considered legal under the laws in question. The judge forbade such testimony and decided that they were illegal actions, period. Forget the fact that we have 40 years of legal history backing up the legality of such actions. The judge simply gave the jury instructions that basically said, "I don't care about the law. We all have to just get together and find him guilty of something, anything, so we can see him in an orange jumpsuit." The jurors were happy to oblige. Hunter, OTOH, was given a mirror image treatment. He has a whole laundry list of really horrible offenses which was buried by the Biden admin. But they threw conservatives a bone and said, "See!?? We're convicting him of some crimes." The magician is waving his right hand so you can't see what he's doing with his left.

It just occurred to me that Biden would win a LOT of votes if he simply pardoned Trump of all these charges. Conservatives would have a fit because there's nothing bad we could say about it. ... of course, that's never going to happen. I don't know why he wouldn't. He is already going to win the election. Mail-in ballots will ensure that. 100% guarantee.

If you really want them... OK. I was only able to find one of these quotes on the internet. I cannot find the source of the other two quotes. However, I know I've read at least the quote from JFS. It may be from Answers to Gospel Questions. I'll look it up when I get home to my library.

It depends on the punishment. To be fair, if Hunter gets a sentence that is normally given for such offenses, then, yes. I'd agree that he deserves some credit. If he is given a light sentence (compared to others convicted of the same crimes) then why would he bother pardoning him? "House arrest for 6 months"? Yeah 6 months to be away from public eyes and shooting up cocaine without having to go the the Old Man for a hit... Sounds like praiseworthy leadership to me. *Edit: for accuracy, he'd be guilty of aggravated perjury (two counts). But Delaware doesn't seem to have that category. The third charge is one that I don't believe in, personally. So, I'm fine with him getting that one removed or served concurrently... blah blah. If this is Federal, then there is no minimum sentence. And the penalty could simply be monetary. So, he's got plenty of that. Basically a slap on the wrist for something that the average person would be imprisoned for.

So, Hunter Biden has been found guilty. Duh. Just watch, he'll get a lighter sentence for three gun charges than Trump got for a non-crime.

Not necessarily. It is easy for a lay person to know the difference on sight. We are so used to steel in the modern age that we don't recognize the difference between brass or bronze -- they are very similar alloys. And some bronze alloys look a lot like copper to the untrained eye. But to a people where most of the metals they saw were copper-based, it was easy to tell the difference. As for iron vs steel, there is a very easy way to tell. Iron simply cannot maintain integrity under a certain thickness. It is just too brittle. And a sword made of iron would necessarily have to have dull edges. If you've ever compared the difference in thickness of a cast-iron frying pan vs a carbon steel frying pan, there really isn't a comparison. Higher grades of steel tend to be somewhat corrosion resistant. But not entirely so. They would have to have some oil applied to them regularly to prevent rust. But cast iron needs to be blackened to preserve it -- otherwise, the iron would rust straight through with only mildly humid conditions. And higher carbon steels tend to be more corrosion resistant stiill. It is possible that bronze or copper was added to the mix to become a somewhat-stainless steel. But that would be very difficult because they have such different melting temperatures. Probably. But there is some dispute about that. The phrase "the most precious steel" could mean one of two things: Of all the steel types, this sword was of the most precious of all steel alloys and craftsmanship. Of all metals, steel is the most precious (because it was so labor-intensive that only the most skilled smiths could forge it properly). And this sword was made of steel. So, if the former is the intended meaning, then this was probably made of wootz steel (precursor to Damascus steel) which was available around Nephi's era. It is no wonder Lehi was so wealthy if they knew how to forge steel and utilize Wootz ingots properly. Talk of all these alloys is making me think of Minecraft. Curse my wife for getting me addicted to that stupid game!!!

The event in question was when I went to pick up a girl for a date. Her roommate (who was going on a date as well) asked me (in the spirit of "Hey, you're a guy. I need a guy's opinion") if she looked good in that dress. I said that I'm not the best person to ask about that. She did not look good in that dress or any dress. That was my opinion.

Here are the interesting parts of steel's metallurgy. The base metal, iron, is nothing remarkable. It is largely corroded when it is mined. The very fact that people realized that it had potential says something about human ingenuity. During the refining process, additional chemicals are added to extract the oxygen from the rust allowing a greater amount of iron to be smelted. They had already had some practice in this regard from the copper age. Then they had to figure out how to introduce higher levels of carbon to the alloy. Iron as a metal is very hard and strong compared to earlier metals. But it is prone to brittle behavior. It was through careful observation that the accidental introduction of carbon to the iron rendered a bit more durable steel. Notice I said "durable", not "flexible." Flexibility is a layman's term that can mean a few different things that do not lineup with a specific metallurgical property. Because of that, iron can be considered to be more flexible than steel (and vice-versa). Iron requires less force/stress to cause it to deflect a specified distance. Steel can withstand a greater deflection before reaching fracture. Steel has a higher spring constant than iron. Increasing carbon content was a difficult process. Early attempts rendered Damascus Steel, which was a marvel for the time. But it is fairly common to have better properties of steel today. A note about quenching. When the steel has been worked, the act of bending, pounding, etc. causes the steel to go beyond the "elastic limit." It also helps to evenly distribute the carbon into the gaps in the steel. And, if it s done at the right temperature, it will make the steel stronger through a process known as "work hardening" (aka "strain hardening"). Much of metallurgy is discovered by trial and error. And humans have found that small amounts of carbon will fill in gaps in what would be iron alone. As the metal cools, there is a tendency for carbon atoms to seek each other out. They will begin to move out of the gaps and form clumps. Big enough clumps will actually make it more brittle. At the same time iron micro-integrity is weakened if cooled with a high enough temperature differential. If they quench too early, the cooling will cause the iron links to break. If they quench too late, the carbon will form clumps causing the steel to be brittle. If they quench at just the right time, it will allow the iron to maintain integrity while trapping the carbon in solution. This is one of those things in nature that I believe balances too perfectly (the Goldilocks point) to have been completely random.

Biden Admin Secretly Tells Border Patrol To Release Migrants Into U.S. Despite Biden’s Executive Order

This reminds me of C.S. Lewis' words about the grass field never producing wheat.

I've had it happen to me.

So, Americans knew that the era of slavery was going away. So, they wanted a way to maintain "defacto slavery" (for lack of a better term) without making people feel like they were slavers.

ChatGPT is wrong. Augustine of Hippo (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) He believed in it. But he was not certain enough about it to declare it as fact. He tended to believe it because it solved some epistemological hurdles. The fact that he could admit that there were problems with the theology of ex nihilo creation, and that the preexistence did solve those problems should say something about those who don't see a problem with ex nihlo and reject the preexistence as way out in left field. One point of confusion is that he rejected transmigration of souls. For some reason, many sectarians conflate the two. That shows a lack of understanding of the doctrines and would be incorrect.

Page 26 does not have any mention of Ludlow or Joseph. So, please verify your sources. In A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, Ludlow does say the following: I wonder about the word "evidently". I tend to think that he had heard about it, but he didn't actually have a source (no source was cited for that claim). This leads me to believe it was just a rumor. Other sources say that Oliver was the scribe. But they had no idea if Joseph translated, or if Oliver tried to translate and was partially/totally successful. But even that much was also a rumor. Elder Tanner commented that we should be careful making that claim because we have nothing to back it up.

It was not translated (formally) by Joseph Smith. He looked at it enough to recognize that it was about Joseph the Patriarch. But he said little else about it. Apparently, it was not a work that the Lord wanted to be translated. As such, I don't see why we would put too much effort into learning what was on those papyri.

Why Haggis is banned in the US.

I wonder how many examples we have of this on the left? Cancel culture, anyone?

Well, that's 1. Thanks. But, noticed that it required deception and misdirection? Is that really the only option? Can we do something along these lines while involving no deception at all? I'm beginning to believe, no.

It is definitely innate. But that doesn't mean it can't be learned. It just needs to be taught in the right way. I'm not exactly autistic. But I've always been socially awkward until the year before I met my wife. I came across a particular series of videos which went over social interactions from a very scientific/analytic perspective. It was the first time I realized why all the common behaviors from others actually made sense. Once I actually understood why, I began recognizing how. I believe the big thing was that I absolutely did not get the why. So, how on earth could my brain even begin to process the how? Perhaps the mental block I'm having is that I absolutely get the why behind telling the truth. I still don't get the why of lying to spare someone's feelings. I simply don't put sparing someone's feelings as a higher priority than honesty. I accept it enough to remain silent or change the subject. And I can also tell the truth with a less critical tone. But at the end of the day it still hurts people's feelings. And my motivation is far from trying to hurt them. But they get hurt anyway.

Due to this trial, I'm beginning to wonder about when otherwise evil traits can be considered good. The stripling warriors were the most stalwart and humble souls. Yet they "fought like dragons" against their enemies in war. Since lawfare has been waged, I wonder how many people would be able to withstand the pressure of the entire justice system being turned against one man. If we had someone of the caliber of George Washington, it may have been possible for a "good man" to withstand it and still be able to fight back. Today, we don't have anyone like that. Someone who is a saint, a statesman, and a warrior at the same time. That is a symptom of the times we live in. They don't exist. Society has change the meaning of "Christ-like" to demand that a man be weak. Society has changed the rules of statesmen to easily make them corrupt. And warriors are almost always supposed to be contrasted with saint. We live in a time when the opposition is willing to stoop so low as to twist laws in ways they have never been twisted before in order to justify a trial for a non-crime. Then a judge issues jury instructions that basically forbid them from considering exculpatory evidence, testimony, conditions or even valid legal arguments, that must make us ask an important question. Who (today) would not buckle under these circumstances? Answer: only a narcisistic glory-seeking bully. I certainly don't think Ron Paul would have been able to take it. I doubt Ronald Reagan would have handled it. I still haven't changed my mind about voting for Trump. I don't think I will. But considering this, that door is now open. I believe someone on this forum invoked the sentiment best: He may be a glory-seeking bully. But he's OUR glory-seeking bully. Or as the movie said: No, I can't stand the guy. I think he's an <expletive>. But maybe an <expletive> is exactly what we need right now. We don't win wars by sitting tight and just taking all the abuse hoping someone else will save us.

These facts should tell you that he was a poor example of Conservative thought. Can you say the same about the masses of liberals that are calling for the extermination of Jews? Members of Congress are not just "talking to them" or "shaking hands with them." They are themselves calling for the extermination. And the mainstream media is supporting them. As such, you can't deny that antisemitism is mainstream liberalism today.

This is very interesting. I'm considering the idea that I may not be able to think of a "nice & honest" thing to say because I don't really love them. So, the key to "find a nice thing to say regardless of the question" (within reason) is based on my ability to love them as a child of God. And my inability to say such nice things, is because I don't have enough Charity to be able to see the good in them. I could easily be offended by this. But I'm choosing not to be. I'm considering it.

Something like this happened to me recently. This is a question of "framing." "It was better than I expected" can be taken either way. You meant it one way. They took it another way. Luckily your wife was able to translate. I was not so fortunate. My wife was the one who got upset, believing I had offended someone. But luckily, the person that was supposed to be offended took it the way I intended. He didn't have a problem with it.

Nope, quite the opposite. I'm pointing to the fact that (so far) I'm finding that the truth hurts most people. Yet everyone swears that all they want to hear is the truth. Then they cry and scream when they hear it. I certainly don't WANT to make people cry. But when they are asking for something that I can't give them, this somehow becomes my fault.