TylerS

So, to elaborate, I want to have a series of phrases I can fire off on places like Omegle and Chatroulette, because as anybody who goes on there knows, you're nexted before you can say "hey." But the regular clipboard only lets you use one phrase at a time...so is there any utility out there or program that I can use, like in a phone, that lets you have pre-set phrases?

I can disprove it with two graphs? First, a little bit of background info for those not fluent in the subjet matter. Volcanoes, in short, produce thick clouds of gas when they erupt (as well as ash, and rock, and things of that nature). While this gas is poisonous to those who directly breate it, a lot of it consists of atmospheric elements, such as CO2 and CH4 (Carbon Dioxide and Methane). So, volcanoes produce atmosphere. More (thicker) atmosphere means more greenhouse gases being trapped within our atmosphere. More greenhouse gases? Higher temps. Graphs 1 and 2: http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/pola...

http://www.preparingforthegreatshift.org/Volcanic%...

As you can see, the number and activity of volcanoes has been increasing at a steady clip from at least the bare minimum of 1950. But that's not all. Solar activity has been on the rise as well. Graphs 3 and 4: http://solar-flux.narod.ru/Flux.png

http://blog.yssd.org/whiteles/files/2010/11/url-1....

But, you say, sunspots don't directly tie in to solar output. I would acquiesce that point to you, however I would counter with the fact that sunspots -are- an indicator of several solar processes, which, taken together, can be a good measure of solar output. And, as you can see from the solar graphs, we are due for another spike about now, which means the temperature should be heating up--oh wait! It is! My question to supporters of global warming is this--if I can show correlation to my theory in publicly available data, that would more easily account for the variation in temperature on a -much- more massive scale than anything man can do, why is there this mass histeriya about how we're melting our own future? Does it have to do with--the almighty dollar?

So I'm looking to buy a new computer, right? I want to go somewhere, not where they have a selection of semi-premade computers and you choose a few options from that, but where you can say everything you want in a computer and then it finds one for you, kinda like cars.com...is there any place like that?

When asked just about -any- question (be it on gun control, "global warming", urban poverty, healthcare, the job market, you name it) if you say "Well, look at how bad it is, even AFTER your policies were enacted," or something to that effect, they will reply with, and you can quote this verbatim, "Well, think of how much WORSE it would be without US to save them!" Are they afraid to actually look at their policies and acknowledge the potential holes or what?

Literally, the other day, I was talking to one of my professors, a devoted Leftist to the end, and we were discussing how ethanol was worse for the environment than regular gasoline and I asked his opinion, and he responded with "However, think of all the jobs that were created with the construction of all those ethanol plants and facilities." I replied "But it's destroying the environment," And he said... "But think of how much worse it -could- be" I really don't get why libs are so blind?

Hey yA crew...you see the question, you know the drill.

I want to get a pretty ring for my girl...and I've seen some really nice designs on custom sites and such. But...they cost like 5 grand, 10 grand, 100 grand (?!) And so I was wondering if I could find some place that does decent (and pretty) rings at a fraction of that cost...I love my girl with all my heart...but I'm a broke collegiate...I don't have ANY grands to shell out on a ring. I'm kinda lookin' for something with rubies and emeralds, if that's possible... (I know, I have expensive tastes... :-P)

Okay...here's what I think about this (old) newfound shroud and the new information about it--that scientists are saying that it's the actual face of Jesus Christ. What do you think? Heh, my opinion is that even if it's not the actual face of Jesus, even if it's from the 14th century, it's not a painting; it looks more like a photonegative. In which case, if it is some sort of photonegative, then it had to be produced either by A) means we did not know renaissance people posessed, or by B) means that we consider to be supernatural. Which could mean, if not Jesus, it could be the face of a saint. Or an alien in human form, LOL if you believe such things. Any thoughts?

Why? And why all the hate for guys with feet fetishes? Because, those samn girls that're like "Eew no feet are gross" are the same girls that will spend hundreds a year on pedicures and nail polish and lotions and the like. See, what I don't get is, girls don't mind, and some even like, guys that check them out--their boobs, their butt, their legs, arms, hair, whatever, but it's like the feet aren't even supposed to exist. If you look at them, you're suddenly automatically a gross creeper and you can kiss that relationship goodbye. I mean, nerves in the feet can be a parallel to other nerves in your body, hence the science of reflexology. Massaging the feet has gotten some pretty interesting reactions for me in some girls. But I'm rambling, so anyway, please answer my question! ^_^ I'll check back, so if you want to ask me a question about it, go ahead, and then feel free to shoot me an e-mail, too...that's in my profile.

Serious semi-hypothetical question here. I've dated girls both young and older, and to me, it's what's in her head that counts, not the size of her chest or whether she'll sex me or not. So, I don't understand, say, the problem with an 18 year old and a 16 year old, or 17 and 15, or even 18 and 15, or whatever. What I DO see as a problem would be like 50 and 20, or something like that. But somehow, the law says "that's okay", while the 18 year olds get thrown away for stat-rape. What is it about 18 that's the magic number for suddenly being able to date EVERYBODY, from people your own age to someone that's old enough to be your grandfather?

Okay, so I'm currently dating a girl, have known her off and on since high school. To me, at least out of the gate, she seemed like a good girl, cute, friendly, funny, all that. My parents, on the other hand, say the opposite. They think she's shady, and she's hiding something. To make a long story short, when I hyper-analyze what she's doing, then yeah, it does kinda seem to me that she might be a little, off-color, I guess. The problem is, I thought my ex was a good girl to start with, but she turned out to be the nuttiest one of all. So we know that I don't have the best discerning eye with women. But, I don't want to be over-paranoid and end up losing a potential great friend here. Any help?

PS: I WILL check back on this Q for answers and comments...ask me if you need more info or anything. Thanks.

How can I tell her I just want to use my hands and not go the whole nine yards, if ya follow me? I mean, I would love to show her that ultimate action of physical love for each other...problem is, I already have one nine month gift. I love my daughter very much...I just am not ready for another child yet. And I know that NO method of birth control has 100% efficiency, so I just don't want to take that risk? And further, I'm pretty sure I'm better with my hands than with my hips...more flexible, for one thing. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Ugh...I hate how yA moves things down to the bottom so fast...anybody got any more opinons on this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201003... ?

Yes, no? If so, why? If not, why not? "Feet are gross," is the most common negative answer I've heard. Can anybody elaborate on that? Heh, if you can't tell, I've got a foot-fetish. I dunno why...but I love girls' feet...massages, tickling, the whole nine yards. But I haven't found a girl that shares my interest--even remotely. *shrugs* So I'm asking questions on here as to why girls don't like it, and because I'm bored, lol

I do want to help people--there's nothing more I love than being able to be the "knight in shining armor" to some girl--but I would like, once in a while, to have a girl that's relatively "normal" be attracted to me. They're all just stuck up. LOL the only nice girls I meet, seemingly, anyway, are online. Is there something wrong with me, or am I just in a rut of looking at the wrong people?

CO2 levels HAD to have been higher than they are now. It's just common sense. Think about the era of the king lizards--the dinosaurs. During that era, the temperature was generally warmer, but guess what happened? Instead of mass extinctions and deserts planetwide, there was a flourishing of creatures not seen before or since. And then, at the end of the Cretaceous, CO2 levels had to have skyrocketed with the asteroid impact, which would have triggered volcanic eruptions--which would pour the gas into the atmosphere. It was during this period that mammals--pre-pre-humans, came into the fore. So, heh, I gues you would say that to say GW is bad would be to put a blot on our own birth, so to speak. This isn't scientific, it's speculation, but to me at least, it makes sense.

Mine, and other "denier" questions like it, haven't bit the bullet of the "consensus" of global warming yet, but one on the front page of the GW section here did. I didn't get to view it, only the title--which had something to do with the politicizing of global warming in favor of profit--and when I went to view it, it had been deleted. Now, I'm pretty sure the person whoever they were didn't delete their question because they were suddenly cowed into seeing the light--so explain to me, yA, how a supposedly "fair" internet can get by with such a leftist swing?

Question one: What are the real effects of global warming? Seems the greenies can't get their stories straight. If the planet is heating, it's global warming because of CO2. If it's cooling, it's because of the lack of the North Atlantic current, and that's caused by global warming. I dunno about you, but to me, two OPPOSITE effects can NOT be caused by the same thing. Call me crazy. Call me wacko. Call me Stalin!

Question two: Why is it that we so-called "crazy deniers" on the right aren't afraid of talking to you and having debate--but if someone questions the "believers", we're flat-earthers and excommunicated from things like the Royal Society?

Since everyone seems to have jumped on the global warming bandwagon again--I wanted to ask this question of the so called "believers" themselves. You look at any (reliable) graph of (accurate) temperature fluctuations for, say, the last 2 centuries. Then compare that to our CO2 production for the same time period. That has been increasing steadily after a logarithmic fashion, while the temperature has spiked all over the place. Not too much correlation there, is there. However, compare that same graph with, say, a graph of the sun's energy output over that same point in time, and there is a MUCH stronger correlation. Need I say more?

Seriously? I can't believe how STUPID some of the GW deniers are. Global warming isn't happening--but NOT for the reasons that these nuts claim. Good god--no human in their right mind could be that delusional, can they? "Oh, it's snowing so Global Warming must be a fallacy!"

No...Global warming is a fallacy because, if you take a look at the "Average Temperature" that the liberals hold up in such high regard (yet fake at every opportunity to further their agenda) the only part of the world that really is warming is the Northern Hemisphere, according to their data. And that may not even be correct--you know why? Because, at about the same time this "catastrophic warming trend" started, the Soviet Union went under--along with, you guessed it, their climate monitoring stations! Most of which were in Siberia. Guess what happens to the average planetary temp when you remove a lot of the "cold factor", to coin a phrase? It goes--up! Whoohoo! An alarmists' theory debunked by simple science.

Everytime I want to do something productive--work out, work on my book, write music, clean, anything...I'm always like, "Oh, I'll do it later, and end up spending 2-3 hours melting my brain in front of my computer, playing video games. I know the first step in anything is self-motivation, but I need an oomph or a push or something to get me over than first hump. Any ideas, at all?

All right, Yahoo Answerers, help me out here. I live in a fairly small house out in the middle of nowhere--the nearest gym is like 20 miles into the nearest town, so that's not really an option unless we're already going into town for "an errand" or something. The problem is, I don't want to go outside to practice because I don't want to look like an idiot with my complete lack of skills right now. What do you suggest I do to get back to my previous skill level of Taekwondo without space, or being able to afford going to a studio?