« first day (481 days earlier)      last day (2531 days later) » 

3:18 AM
Hey guys, something high and abstract for you guys to think about: God is a Trinity, and He is also uncreated and eternal, which seems to imply that God couldn't be anything else.
 
 
15 hours later…
6:12 PM
@JonEricson good proposal
 
6:31 PM
@waxeagle Thanks. Not sure why, but our tags are a real issue for me lately.
 
@JonEricson it's something that is worth the effort to get right
 
6:52 PM
0
Q: Is "biblical-basis" a de-facto denomination designation?

Jon EricsonWe've had an appeal to tag your questions with the denomination you're asking about and I have complained several times about the biblical-basis tag. But it occurred to me that this tag might be an attempt to define a coherent doctrinal framework. Instead of asking what a modern denomination te...

 
@StackExchange Late as always. ;-)
I have a few other ideas for renaming: , , , , etc. I don't know how those might go down, however.
 
@JonEricson restorationism might be the one most people wouldn't mind being associated with. apostolic doesn't have any bad conotations I'm aware of, Fundamentalism does, new testament church might be a bit too vague (and may step on an actual denom's toes?)
 
@waxeagle The trouble with apostolic is that almost everyone might want that title and it will be ambiguous.
 
@JonEricson yes
it has other more appropriate uses here
 
@AffableGeek. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" trilemma is (a) full of rather nasty abelism, (b) ignores a bunch of other possibilities (most obviously, that he was misreported), and (c) doesn't actually help to answer this question, even if you accept its premises. (No matter how much of a liar or "lunatic" Jesus may have been, you may still find his philosophy useful in and of itself.) — TRiG Oct 13 at 0:06
@TRiG: (a) To read abelism into Lewis's argument is to entirely mistake what he was trying to say. (b) The accuracy in reporting issue is dealt with separately and is already a premise going into this argument. Even if you discount the Bible, there is enough secular history to affirm the man named Jesus made the claim to be God, which is all the argument rests on. (c) We weren't trying to answer this question, which is why I closed it. What three different people found relevant to comment on was how this is not a tenable question to even ask inside of a Christian frame of reference. — Caleb Oct 13 at 7:27
On point (a). You're wrong. Just sayin'. @Caleb.
 
7:02 PM
@TRiG I'm kind of amused when you bring up stuff from months ago, do you dig back through the transcript or is it stewing in your mind the whole time?
 
With a pithy response, timing is everything. Gotta wait until it's fully baked.
 
a wild @Shog9 appears
@Shog9 when is Jin's schedule going to clear enough that we get to graduate?
 
@waxeagle I ... I tend not to care much about dates. Probably because my very first Internet community was h2g2, which has different norms about reviving old conversations to most Internet communities.
Old threads don't die. They merely sleep.
 
@waxeagle Hey, I've been here for like a week. Granted, I thought it was the SFF chatroom at the time, but...
 
@TRiG we do too, so it's all good :)
@Shog9 lol, I've noticed, but you hadn't said anything :P
 
7:04 PM
In this case, I was wandering back through my activity tab when I noticed my comment, and clicked on it to remind myself of the context.
 
I'm nothing if not a lurker
 
@TRiG Perfect example of a useless . I can't decide if is right or what an appropriate substitution might be. Thankfully, the question is closed.
 
@Shog9 Was that when we were discussing Thorongil.
 
@waxeagle Probably soon after Christmas. Depends on how much more bold he can find on SO.
 
@JonEricson Can I quote "a useless god" out of context? Please? Pretty please?
;)
 
7:06 PM
@TRiG Probably. I remember thinking, "this is gonna tie back to CS Lewis sooner or later, I just gotta be patient..."
 
@TRiG Please do. That's why I keep talking about that tag. ;-)
 
@TRiG Can't beat
Nov 27 at 22:16, by Jon Ericson
@StackExchange @waxeagle: I've been thinking we should kill .
 
@Shog9 Yup. It has six stars in the sidebar there, and the first star was mine.
 
Well, I do have this big red button.
 
@Shog9 I'd be unopposed to a kill/blacklist
 
7:09 PM
@waxeagle Got a meta post?
 
I can do a more formal one for if it's needed. I'm considering rolling into
 
Any of these you want to retag first?
 
@Shog9 it's not a singleton anywhere, and I retagged one that was going to be left with an odd tag. I'm good with it. It's not adding anything.
 
7:16 PM
 
@Shog9 I fixed two questions, but I'm not too worried about the rest.
 
@Shog9 on it
 
@Shog9 Yikes. That's quite a warning.
 
There's no undo.
It is as if the tag never existed
 
@Shog9 Is this the point where you change your name to Nietzsche?
 
7:20 PM
I've removed the god tag, and carefully avoided any blasphemous jokes in announcing this. If it returns, it can be blacklisted. jesus I think needs further consideration; I'm not convinced christology is an effective replacement, though it may work as a synonym. — Shog9 26 secs ago
4
;-P
 
@Shog9 Yeah. It's about three levels of strange more than my post here.
 
@JonEricson Hmm, weren't you a mod on C.SE as well as BH? I recall you being a double mod... Where'd the diamond go?
 
@Manishearth Nope. You might be thinking of @Caleb.
 
Ah.
makes sense
 
...or possibly Richard
There's always been some very intentional overlap in the teams
 
7:28 PM
@Shog9 Richard?
 
@Manishearth he was part of our original mod team, and also BH's original team. He stepped away a while ago
 
Ah. That's why there are only 4 on both sites. I recall CSE having 5.
 
@waxeagle He commented on something here over the weekend, however. (I really would like to see him back, if possible.)
 
7:56 PM
@JonEricson Richard made comments here and here.
 
@El'endiaStarman and/or @waxeagle, can we rename to ?
Also, I think we might need to split into and or some such.
 
@JonEricson hmmm we should meta the specifics of that
 
@waxeagle I agree. I'm not sure how to pitch the idea.
 
@JonEricson I'll meta something up, right after I finish writing this report.
(which might be this evening, if you don't see anything by tomorrow, bug me about it)
 
@waxeagle Awesome and thanks in advance.
 
8:04 PM
while I'm at it, I'm going to complain about the fact that I can't build an HTML table by column and have to by row.
just figured out a clever solution though :), a stringbuilder for each row. (I only have 3 in my table)
 
@waxeagle That seems... like a change of topic...
Do you mean your report?
 
@JonEricson awkward segue :) yeah the report I'm writing has a stored procedure that spits out each column of the report in a row
so my options are multidimensional array and iterate twice, or a stringbuilder for each row and iterate once.
 
I've got tolerate-hate relationship with HTML tables. Trouble is, I can't think of a better way to encode them.
TeX tables are, if anything, more cumbersome.
 
@JonEricson me neither. I hear CSS is good for tables, but I'm not familiar enough, and html tables are simple, just constrained
 
@JonEricson ...oh dear, you've got me thinking about that. I already have other projects! I don't need to devote time to coming up with a better way to encode tables!
 
8:15 PM
@El'endiaStarman Perhaps my favorite tool for formatting tables in a document is the Perl format command. But that is almost universally hated.
 
! Woah! Users leaving the chat leave in a sleigh! :P
Anyway, about tables...it seems to me that table cells could have two extra attributes for width and height that does the job of combining cells...
 
@El'endiaStarman combining isn't my problem. My issue is that HTML tables are always built in rows. I want to build in columns today
 
@waxeagle Ah, gotcha. And no one ever implemented a <tc> tag?
 
@El'endiaStarman I don't think it's implemented anywhere. Lemmie look
 
@waxeagle Seems to me like that would be a fundamental and easy thing to do after all...
 
8:30 PM
@El'endiaStarman it should be, but let's not forget that HTML tables are supposed to be on their way out
 
@waxeagle Oh? They're being replaced by CSS?
 
@El'endiaStarman in theory (at least for layouts, they are probably fine for data display still)
 
(Aside: TRiG is the only non-mod that has commented in here for the past few days... :P)
 
but when you find me a webdesigner willing to part with his tables, I'll find you a liar.
 
@waxeagle Ahhh...yeah, I was thinking that HTML tables are awfully convenient for displaying data...
 
8:33 PM
@El'endiaStarman yeah, I don't think they are going anywhere for that, but layouts are supposed to be divs....
 
@waxeagle Makes sense.
By the way, are/can you using/use CSS or are you restricted solely to HTML? If you can use CSS, then would you be able to construct the HTML table by rows and then transpose it with CSS?
Well, really, a scripting language would be better for that. JavaScript or PHP, methinks.
 
@El'endiaStarman probably, I can definitely use CSS and HTML if I wanted to, but tbh this is a simple report, and the easiest thing to do is put each row in it's own stringbuilder and put them all together at the end of the account.
 
@waxeagle Gotcha. So it's basically more work than it's worth?
 
although I just realized a potential hiccup...going to have to deal with that :)
@El'endiaStarman yep
 
Oop. Time for class! Seeya!
 

« first day (481 days earlier)      last day (2531 days later) »