Wyrd

Yes, the plant wouldn't be able to grow without light, because it needs this for photosynthese. And that's not all that makes this story seem like a hoax.

omg Lory once again I am completely lost in trying to grab what you are trying to say here. Are you asking why she talks about church? Maybe, because she means church :confused: She was just saying that she is part of Elevation Church. And what is that second question about? Are you asking if she thinks that the church is more important than religion or God? You haven't read the bible but are asking where it mentiones 'church'?:inquisitive: The idea of a church is that people with the same believe/religion can gather. A church is not the same as a religion. Why would you want to see 'church' being mentioned in the bible? A quote coming close to referring church might be: Hebrews 10:25 "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching." According to the Bible Jesus went to church as well (synagoge in this case :uhoh:) Yeah, so as I thought. They probably meant assertive. Having the heart in the right place and stand for what you believe in :smug: I like it that they do services in not dull places in not dull ways. Their approach seems to work, they are one of the fastest growing churches and they got a lot of young people in there.

[DISCLAIMER: I am a huge Mew fan so I will probably be biased as fuck] I listened to other songs of her as well and boy does she know how to change indie songs into everyday standard commercial crap. Sorry for sounding so harch here, sure she has a great voice and it's cool that you can sing like that, let alone when you're so young, but just ... those songs I love by the original artists but when she/her crew handles them the originality is knocked out and it sounds so familiar ... it has all been done before! Maybe that's what makes her a hipster ... knowing your indie and then turning it into commercial stuff, sure not many artists do that. View on Comf sounds cover: Especially in the beginning she seems to focus more on her singing techniques than on putting the right emotions in the singing. Where Jonas sounds like a fragile boy confused by the world and puberty/adolescence, she just tries to hit the perfect note and be great with singing that note a tiny bit later because it flows better. It's okay when Jonas screwes up the singing live, because he still manages to put his emotions in it. That's what I miss most in the song. Maybe it's too much to ask of a 15 year old ... to know what the song is about and sing it accordingly. Also the whole song with the strings etc, sounds too produced. Any rawness is missing in it. And what about the frustrations that are in the Mew song screamed out in the end? There is a big building up in the song, but not as strong as in the original. Where those minutes of building up never bores me in the original song, here it does. :blank:

I’m sorry for having suggested sad songs before that are not so stripped down, Baw8cc. I guess that for me really sad songs also work when they have a nice built-up in it, like in I LIKE TRAINS or The Twilight Sad. Videotape by Radiohead would be in my list as well, but that one was already mentioned by you :D The Envoy mentioned several The Antler songs after me, hm, I was thinking of referring to the whole Hospice album, hahaha! Like Keddie says! (I will see The Antlers live within two weeks :}) I think Sigur Rós also has many more incredible sad songs. It’s funny how some songs can sound incredible sad to some yet others don’t feel any near sad when hearing the song. I think Crystal Ball must be one of those songs! Hahaha, I don’t find it sad in any way :S btw, people, I want MOAR! :'}

HLH: Yes, I do hear the first It's, but I mean the rest of the line; the second so cold doesn't even have a hint of it's before it. He sings all the time T's so cold, so cold to me. :confused: You seem right about the burned part. I already heard the water like that but missed the burned one. Now I do hear it as burned in stead of burning.

Well, not bad at all! I would say. Well done! :D

Yes, I think you're right. I also hear only so cold/so cold and in PoC I also here we were burning bright. No stupid question asked by you! Wondering if we can get all the lyrics correct :D

The Antlers - Kettering [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgLm2gInV4A]The Antlers - Kettering (music video) - YouTube[/ame] The Twilight Sad - 3 Seconds of Dead Air [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTLh0UbB7Vw]The Twilight Sad 3 Seconds of Dead Air - YouTube[/ame] I LIKE TRAINS - Sea of regrets [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34o2dO2N6CI]iLiKETRAiNS - Sea Of Regrets - YouTube[/ame] Sigur Rós - Svefn-g-englar [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ5Grncdjlc&feature=related]sigur ros - Svefn-g-englar - YouTube[/ame] Gary Jules - Mad World [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4]Mad World - Gary Jules - YouTube[/ame] Keane - On a Day Like Today [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SVzapqfNU&feature=related]Keane - On a Day Like Today (lyrics) - YouTube[/ame] Bloc Party - Compliments (it's especially the lyrics) [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZmCTIUS66Q&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL7ACD1ED81647AB79]Bloc Party - Compliments - YouTube[/ame] Just some songs I thought of, wow this was easier than I thought. Can come up with more if I take some time.

I'd say no. I just got the diagnose narcolepsy a month ago and this was just a try out, to see if the medication would work. They just rely on me to contact them if anything goes wrong or if it doesn't work.

Some mistakes I heard: MM: and be careful if you're walking into view if must be when, for sure. In the next line as well. PoC: Rihanna sings Now why d’you have to go instead of Now why d’you have to throw DLIBYH: Missing the line when she sang all together :confused: Charliebrown14, I also didn't see these corrections in your 'fixed' lyrics. No so fixed yet perhaps? Oh man, don't even get me started on U.F.O. ... What's up with the one putting those lyrics up as the official? :lol:

This is what I've been looking for, do you have any situations where a doctor has over-prescribed medication? I know a case as well! I got Modafinil prescribed and I could pick up meds for months and moths of usage. Overdosis of this med can be disastrous (causing eg. Toxic epidermal necrolysis, DRESS syndrome, EM and/or SJS, which can all be lethal) and is known to be as addictive as cocaine/speed etc, due to the drug's effect on dopamine in the brain's reward center. Yet, the doctors don't really seem to worry about subscribing massive amounts. :thinking: but then again, I am not taking more of this stuff than advised.

Hahaha, Reilly is right. Chuck, you won't be the one evolving when mutations occur or by crossing-overs or other alterations in your genetic make-up. Your offspring might, or most of your genome (if you like to think about offspring in such a way), but you yourself? Not according to the theory of evolution :P I know that Dawkins probably meant a similar ancestor of the fish (which might have been fish as well), but that’s why I tried to distinguish between nowadays species and ancestors. Dawkins knows the difference when he mentions fish, but many people who listen to him don’t. And yes, you’re right that some species seems to have mutated/changed a lot during millions of years and some species haven’t. Mutations are most likely to change species when there’s enough selective pressure. Offspring of the same make-up will keep on surviving if environmental conditions are good for them and coexisting species. But when the beetle keeps on eating most of a plant’s seeds, then offspring that evolves toxicity will live on and reproduce more and more offspring than the offspring without this defense towards the beetle. In time there will be only toxic plants left when the beetles have eaten all the susceptible plants or the susceptible offspring will end up somewhere where no such beetles exist but where deer like to eat it. Now the offspring that will evolve traits to defend itself against the deer will have a bigger chance to survive, right? Extrapolating these defended plants to a human and a fish might seem far-fetched, but that’s what a lot of evolutionists do. Maybe the Amphioxus is the offspring of the non-defended plant in this story that lived somewhere where there was not much selective pressure while the human is the defended plant. So, I think there is the possibility that we evolved from the ancestors of the Amphioxus, but do I know for sure? Nope.

I think I start feeling like an adult at age 18, hahaha, because that's when I flew from my parents wings. I moved out, started to live on myself, which meant paying all the bills myself too. I already was a responsible person back at my parents place, but now I felt more responsible and self-sufficient as well. I might come back to this if I would ever get a child. Friends tell me that getting a child changes you even more. You are then not only responsible for yourself, but also for others. For some that's really being an adult. I guess some people consider themselves an adult where others would totally not. - Sidenote: I know this one case where silly girl thought she was so grown-up she should have a child. She was 16/17, living at her parents place, still in school, not paying any bills, not working either, she just met a badboy (more or less 2 months ago) and decided she wanted to have a baby with him (I know this sounds like MTV's 16 and pregnant, but I know this girl personally). She got pregnant, mum didn't only freak out but was on the verge again of a depression and when the baby was there she still lived in her parents place. But hey, that was convenient, because now her mum could take of the baby while she and badboy would go out and partyyy. Also the parents would now support the baby. I really wonder if she thought about her parents and the burden she would put on them when deciding she would have a baby. She couldn't even support herself, let alone the baby. That's not mature imo at all.

Singles being allowed to adopt is the current law. This year people tried to change the homosexual partnership one, but haven't succeed so far. You are right about the poor people, you are only allowed to adopt a child when you can support the child.

:uhoh: I agree with Mad Hatter, there's no arguing going on here. People just say what their religion is, they don't try to oppose their opinion/believe onto the others. This thread is not about discussing the use or evilness of religion. No one has to defend him/herself for following a certain religion or disgarding religion. :stunned: I'd say indeed that this sounds anything but traditional. Aggressively, seriously? Do they mean the word in its true form or is this a misunderstanding of what aggression means? Don't they mean assertively? (aggression = behaviour that is intended to cause humiliation, pain, or harm to others/the practice of making attacks or encroachments - especially unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another/hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration/a forceful action to dominate or master others)

Don't worry, together we are FOREVER ALONE :D (Paradise just started playing on the radio while I am typing :D)

I think it would be nice to also know the age of the people answering this question. It really makes a difference if something is said by a 14 year old or a 28 year old. A good friend of mine always said she never wanted to have children but her attitude changed the last few years and now she's expecting :nice: I just looked it up and single people can adopt children in Swiss. Awful though (imo) is that by Swiss law homosexual couples are not allowed to adopt a child.

I love multiquote posts. Otherwise the person would likely have made separate posts for every quote and that's what bothers me when it happens (and yes this does happen on the board). But okay, just to show it can be done another way (and more elaborate way for me), I will do it as follow: I feel a bit an outsider regarding the fuss going on in this thread as I mostly just read it and hardly ever post in it, but I am such a b*tch to utter my opinion anyway :D For one I have trouble with someone’s need to defend herself in cases where there’s no attack directed at her anyway. For example when Twisted mind said: “I feel uncomfortable reading this thread... seems like there are total creeps out there. Why is every acting like "OHMAGOD THERE ARE GWYNNIE AND CHRIS AND OMG" when they see them” coldplaymom replied with: “Yet Jonny and Chris showing affection to each other doesn't creep you? I enjoy either equally. The "Post The Pictures of Georgeous Chris Martin" thread use to make me uncomfortable, and the Buckin thread use to creep me.” which seems like she felt referred to by Twisted Mind’s post. Might be that I am wrong though, but I think not because later on she says “ Sorry if I misunderstood your post. Given my situation and background, the coupledom (Gwynnie & Chris) comes first. But I've come to understand those who focus on Chris alone (as a piece of meat) and those who enjoy the bromance between Chris and Jonny.” which also shows she still doesn’t understand Twisted Mind’s post. Why would it matter that the coupledom comes first and first in what? This thread? But the post wasn’t directly directed to posts in this thread. Twisted mind just said “ I'm talking about people seeing Coldplay in public, approaching them and act like total freaks.” Why the need then to come up with the bromance (unrelated though: I love coldplaymom for using this word! :lol:) and personal background to justify putting the coupledom first? Or is this unrelated to the first sentence? Btw, I still don’t understand people who focus on Chris alone as a piece of meat. :S Also, why would Jonny and Chris showing affection to each other creep Twisted Mind, if Twisted Mind feels uncomfortable about people frenzying over Chris and Gwyneth? Or what would it matter if Twisted Mind doesn’t? No matter how it started out, this series of posts lead to the discussion of what this thread should be about and what people can/should post or not. Funny thing happens here when coldplaymom says “I see those who started this board and those who contributed from day one being very relaxed and kind. Yet those who joined a couple of years ago are hell bent on telling newbies how they should post.” after having said just 4 hours ago to Lory “There's really no need to post links like these here. ” Now, I do agree with coldplaymom that I rather do not see links like that in this thread. :uhoh: I guess I just made myself into one of these people mentioned by her who need to tell others how they should post? Anyway, Tash says “Nobody is telling you how you should post.” and I agree: I don’t see any recent posts doing that. Feel free to correct me if any of such posts slipped my attention. Now on to the discussion of what this thread is/should be about. This has been discussed already many times in this thread, it just keeps on coming up again. Everyone can just say what they want, true and this is what makes it so hard to say what this thread should be about. Maybe instead of trying to find a correct use of this thread and trying to justify this, we should just accept that it has become the monster it is? Coldplaymom’s “ Chris is the reason why there's a Gwynnie thread here. I absolutely don't care about the gossip though ” seems an argument to defend why this thread should also be about Chris, or at least about Chris in relation to Gwyneth. Is it? Coldplaymom, like others I question if you really don’t care about the gossip. But this might be a misunderstanding caused by different views of what gossip is. Like MartinFan and Tash say, you come up with articles that to me seem gossip. Might have to do with my better judgement, which seems to work differently. :S Uhm, I fail to see how exposing her turned out to work out great. I also think that it’s okay to wish a PM remains out of the public even though the PM might have been insulting and threatening (leaving it in the middle whether it actually was). There’s moderators for that stuff and ignore buttons. Austengirl is partially right you know? Most people lose sympathy for people who think it’s okay to just post PM’s in public like that. Instead of it working out great, I think it might have had the opposite effect. :escaping3:

or move to Danmark ... they are playing Coldplay right now as I type! I don't really get your comments CharlieBrown14. You do realize that Megalomania wrote 'ever' in such a way just to emphasize on it, instead of making a mistake? No? And why would people move to Mars instead of NL. Just because it's funny to say because Coldplay has a song called Moving To Mars or to ridicule Blue Nails' post? Anyhow, I agree with Blue Nails, Martian radio sucks. I have never heard them play Coldplay, so no reason to move there.

Jaaaaa, he has to come back. For one I am still interested in his motivation of why he posted that thing here. I also looked for the second post but couldn't find it. Why doesn't it show up in post search? :confused:

Hm, my first reaction was in the line of Kiame. I don't like the biased tone you utter in the thread title and in your posts. But then again, maybe that’s just your way of stirring up the discussion and expressing your opinion. I also agree with Kiame that Darwin shouldn't be called a coward just like that. For reasons already given by Kiame and because I think that he left enough options open for people such as Graig Lane to debate with him. Like Chuck says, there's always the option of debating in written form. Darwin writes and so Chuck can reply to that. Darwin just didn’t want to take on this debate with Graig Lane, but he’s free of choice to debate with whoever. Just saying no to something doesn’t make you immediately a coward. I think this whole thing wasn’t mentioned before on coldplaying because it is really not such a big deal. I have however, some problems with how Darwin expresses himself in written form. I have no concrete example, but I can remember reading things that were not respectful towards believing religious people and he can sound so harsh which doesn’t make his work accessible for believers I think. (I have a thing nowadays against the word believers. Not because I have a thing against believers, but because in my head it’s always pronounced as beLIEBers and it makes me think of silly Justin Bieber fans :bigcry:) omg, hahaha! People that argue about what a bullsh*it it is that we evolve from apes and fish ... have my sympathy, even though I am a die-hard evolutionist. Because let's face it, it IS nonsense from an evolutionary perspective as well. We didn't evolve from the apes and fish that are around. According to the theory of evolution we just have the same ancestors. This is a huge difference that people never seem to realize. (disclaimer: I call myself a die-hard evolutionist not because I am such a believer, but because I made my job out of it - I write reviews/articles about it and do experiments with keeping the theory in mind - I am a professional evolutionary ecologist :smug:)

People, it is really not that bad. He is not bashing Coldplay or giving contradicting reasonings for hating Coldplay. He is not trying to make us hate Coldplay. Samuel, you're right :D I meant roll, of course. I understand your roll-eyes now. Don't agree though. Why would people not liking Coldplay have nothing to say about what they think of the band on a forum about the band? When done properly - like in this case - I think it's enriching. Hell, it might even for some people be an eye-opener. There's nothing wrong with reading other opinions that stroke yours. You might adjust your viewing point ;) Now to the linked article by hating person: The study done by Colombia University was not to investigate what makes music popular. Link to article in Science. They merely found an effect (social influence) that adds to popularity once music (or whatever) is popular. Mind that in reality bands usually don’t get their popularity by means of a fake website assuming that they are already popular. Besides, the social effect worked best with mediocre songs. Songs that were generally (and independant) rated as very good or very bad, didn’t get differently rated by the socially influenced group. Seeing as how incredible popular Coldplay is, would this then mean that perhaps their music might be good after all? :P Also, popular music has to become popular at one point. How does that fit in above story? I agree that popular music ‘suffers’ from the self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only do people tend to like music faster when it’s popular, but more people also have access to the songs and can then form an opinion about the music. There’s then always some that love it, some that hate it and some that don’t care. But because it involves so many people, the amount of people loving the music is big, even if there’s also many haters because the music sucks (imo). Now my problem with this whole love or hate music because it’s popular is that people tend to forget that music is still subjectively perceived. You just can’t say that music is good or bad. You can only say that you think the music is good or bad. Everyone looks for other things in music. As a songwriter you might hate songs that only handle similar chord sequences, lack of dynamics and lyrics that a angsty teenager would write in her diary, but others might love it for the exact same reasons. A teenager can relate to the lyrics and the accessibility/simplicity of the song might make it easier to get hooked to the song, it gets in your head you know. Some people find pleasant surprises in music, some people find recognition, some people feel touched by the music, some people love to unravel a song structure and find the many layers it is composed of. Coming back to you, Audiblethoughts, you might find the songs of Coldplay mediocre, but others such as me think they are great. Does that mean that because Coldplay is popular, I necessarily love Coldplay due to their popularity? I also love eg. Paavorharju/Sigur Rós while I never heard my friends talk about them or heard them on radio/tv. I wish to believe that I like music for the music and that popularity of said music has no influence on that. Maybe you are just missing out on something that for the masses makes Coldplay so good. Not the music being popular, but the music itself. What I get from your essay is mostly that you seem to hate Coldplay for being popular despite their mediocrity. If they were to be any other band making bland music that never reached the masses but reached your ears, then you just wouldn’t have cared about it. Innit? Maybe keeping in mind that somewhere there in the music of Coldplay there must be beauty/brilliantness that you're missing out on, would make it more bearable for you to hear anything from Coldplay?

Beware then for a chick nearly twice your age doing a friend request. Urgh, to find facebook links I had to enable signatures and I don't like those huge ones filling up the screen, destracting me etc, just blah. I unable them again. :lol:

^ why the role eyes? Anyway, Audiblethoughts why do you want Coldplay fans to read that article?

Then it is b) otherwise there would also be an option of ...or be part of a theistic religion, but that's part of a). Non? Or do you mean Scientology? ;)