Flimzy

lol... I don't know. I'll have to pay attention next time I drink a Guinness.

@Oddthinking Looks like you already found your answer, but Guinness uses nitrogen, to give fine bubbles, and a more "creamy" texture. A number of other brews do the same, but Guinness is by far the most famous.

As a layperson, I'd assume the physics of carbonation and nitrogenation are similar in this context, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn I'm wrong about that.

Guinness is a special beast in this discussion anyway, since it's not carbonated.

ha, it's not just marketing? :)

This also makes me wonder about the affect of different qualities of glass. (I'm no glass expert, but I'm sure there are more and less porous bar glasses, and probably other characteristics that may matter, too).

@Mazura Is this about the water/alcohol cohering to the glass, or to dirt on the glass? Or are both at play?

It is... but I've also asked the moderators to make it community wiki, same as the question I copied from EL&U. (The fact that they haven't yet probably means they have some reason not to want to... shrug). I asked that question in part to test the waters here... if you think it's inappropriate, you ought to VtC :)

Hauser: I don't think the comments are the appropriate place for a long discussion on the purpose of SE sites. It has been hashed out thuroughly many times, but if you think it needs additional discussion for this new site, I'd encourage a meta post.

Only a single answer can be "accepted" as correct. And you are right, there are many "list answers" on SE, but most of the ones that are still open are left for historical reasons.

There are two problems with a list-question of this type, and neither is that the list would be infinitely long. 1) It solicits multiple corret/partial answers, making it impossible to choose the "correct" one. 2) As a reference material for future visitors, it makes finding the specific info they need harder, because they'll have to dig through the entire question. Having said that, your recent edit narrows the scope significantly, and thus makes it a better questions.

@TheMaskedRebel Why hast thou summoned the Flimzy?

Yeah, Quill didn't so much step down as go AWOL. I hope he's okay :/

Sorry for the delayed message, but welcome @ChristopheStrobbe, to the diamond team! I was quite pleased to hear you had accepted the role! :D

:D

@ChristopheStrobbe should be good now

testing

@Hatchet, @Quill, @TomAu: Care to take a look, and consider approving? languagelearning.stackexchange.com/admin/flags/…

@fi12 Ah, that! Thanks :)

@fi12 Sorry, I missed the reference. What is a great intro?

@4castle Also keep in mind that many Christians don't view Satan as a being at all. :) (Just to muddy the waters further)

@4castle I believe you're speaking with an overly broad brush. Perhaps JWs believe they have a straight-forward answer to this, but many self-professing Christians would say it's anything but straight-forward.

@Nathaniel: After researching my answer, I believe I overstated the facts of the matter in my comments. I don't think it's fair to say that "1 Th 4:17 has nothing to do with rapture", but more accurately "it doesn't say anything specific about it."

Perhaps I should make my argument a bit more concrete: I am prepared to provide an answer to the question "What did the early church believe about 1 Th 4:17?" but my answer, which I think has some solid historical backing, has nothing to do with "rapture" in the sense of being "caught up in the air" or "final resurrection." Now I can provide this answer, but under current site guidelines, it wouldn't be an answer, because I would be answering your question with a different answer. Thus, if you want to know about 1 Th 4:17, you ought to ask specifically about that.

@Mathematician: It is this "older" sense of the word which I believe most (if not all) of the early church used (until sometime in the 1500s, apparently). And this sense of rapture has nothing, specifically, to do with 1 Th 4:17. And even today many Christians don't believe 1 Th 4:17 has anything at all to do with "rapture". So, I believe a clarification is greatly needed. Are you asking what the early church believed about "final resurrection", or are you asking what they believed about 1 Th 4:17?

@Mathematician: The "rapture" has only been used to describe the event in 1 Th 4:17. Not true. See here, specifically the last 2 sentences of the 2nd paragraph. "The…older use of the term "Rapture" is…a synonym for the final resurrection generally, without a belief that a group of people is left behind on earth for an extended Tribulation period after the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. This distinction is important as some…never refer to "the Rapture"…but might use [this] sense of…"rapture" in referring to what happens during the final resurrection."

Then I suggest asking specifically how the early church interpreted 1 Th 4:17, because many Christians, and I propose including the early church, did not believe it referred to rapture in either Dispensationalist terms, nor in the sense of "raising from the dead." That's not to say that the early church didn't have an opinion on the "raising from the dead" sense of "Rapture" (which seems to be Nathaniel's point). But that just shows further that clarification is necessary. Are you curious how the early church viewed rapture, or how they viewed 1 Th 4:17, or how they viewed the intersection?

@Nathaniel: Fair enough. I would take issue with saying simply "church fathers"--I strongly doubt that is a unanimous view. Certainly those who consider Paul a church father, for instance, and disagree with that interpretation of 1 Th, would say that it's not unanimous :)

@Nathaniel: Do you have a source for that claim?

What did the early church actually believe about what we call the "rapture"? -- Nothing, because what we call "rapture" wasn't conceived until recently. Also worth noting is that not all Christians, even today, believe in what we call "rapture".

Where was the control group??

@thedarkwanderer: Joining the army is not usually considered murder.

I can't imagine the church teaching that if your priest advises you to commit murder, that it's not a sin.

@MarkMayo: Maybe I don't understand the question, but isn't it asking for (up to) one answer per country in the world (minus the UK)?

imgur.com/4C1q3Nc

No, I'm in the Netherlands the last year or so.

oh

@PaulVargas SP?

@PaulVargas Not bad. You?

@LeakyNun You seem to use a strange definition of "reply" then.

@LeakyNun The icon indicating that you were referencing his post sure makes it look like you were.

If you want to draw a distinction between the actions, and the hidden beliefs that cause the actions, that's fine... but then you're missing Lee's point.

The point is.. the professed belief isn't the belief acted upon.

@LeakyNun Perhaps. Or it's case of cognitive dissonance.

This is the distinction I believe Lee to be making, and it's a valid distinction, even outside of discussions of the Bible.

But in the modern day, if someone says "I believe I'm invincible!" but then continues to live as though they might die, it's also common to talk about two levels of belief--their professed belief, and their "true" belief.

@LeakyNun That's one useful definition, yes.

so I guess I'll hold onto the article a bit longer :)

I'm not in the market for a wind electric system now... but I hope to be some day

I must have thought so in 2008, since I emailed it to myself :)