McBell
Unbound
I doubt it.Any chance you're been bitten by a lone star tick?
Especially since the doctors say it is cancer.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I doubt it.Any chance you're been bitten by a lone star tick?
Sure. And enuf chemistry, a field I did notWell, technically and depending the kind of salt, you could also change the temperature or the pressure or add chemicals but all those require energy.
There is a limited supply of fresh water in areas. For example the Colorado river for all practical purposes no longer drains into the Gulf of California. So some people start looking at those crops that consume more water than others.I always assumed water was constant (ish) within our atmosphere and has been for billions of years. What's the problem with using it?
Well?
What are they?
I assume there is more than one rule seeing as "rules" is plural....
"Rules" is a verb.Well?
What are they?
I assume there is more than one rule seeing as "rules" is plural....
Did someone say bacon?? I love me some baconOne bacon to rule them all
I doubt it.
Especially since the doctors say it is cancer.
There are bad kinds.I doubt it.
Especially since the doctors say it is cancer.
I doubt it.
Especially since the doctors say it is cancer.
Hoping it's one of the cancers that can be treated. My husband is a survivor, he was diagnosed in 2017.
Remember cancer is a word, not a sentence
I'm sorry to hear that.
@McBell, I apologize for not back reading, I have been battling cancer for eight years. The type and location of cancer, notwithstanding, today there are medical methods for survival for many years.
Thanks guys (and gals)There are bad kinds.
And there are kinds that merely annoy because of treatment indignities.
Choose the latter kind.
Good Luck, when I was a young boy, Roy Rogers would sign off with, "Happy Trails to You". May it be so....Thanks guys (and gals)
I have accepted it.
It isn't the kill ya quick like a rabbit kind, so I still got a few years.
Assuming the Docs are right.
No worries though, I have made my piece with the world (or at least wi the parts I feel the need to make piece with..)
Is that because they didn't run it by you before they published it?It is a bogus chart. It uses unfounded bases.
What bases are used that are unfounded?It is a bogus chart. It uses unfounded bases.
No, it's because it is a bogus chart.Is that because they didn't run it by you before they published it?
Or did they just fail to take into consideration the impact of all the "natural causes" meat that one can eat?
For one the measurement for cow emissions uses a basis that all of cow emissions should be factored into the beef and/or dairy emissions per kg. That is incorrect. Cows exist, and have existed, in their own right independent of whether they are used for food production or not. Also their emissions are a natural part of the ecosystem. Their emissions are not "new" or additional just because the cow is used for food instead of dying in the wild. So counting those emissions as integral to beef production is wrong.What bases are used that are unfounded?
But their numbers are much greater.For one the measurement for cow emissions uses a basis that all of cow emissions should be factored into the beef and/or dairy emissions per kg. That is incorrect. Cows exist, and have existed, in their own right independent of whether they are used for food production or not. Also their emissions are a natural part of the ecosystem. Their emissions are not "new" or additional just because the cow is used for food instead of dying in the wild. So counting those emissions as integral to beef production is wrong.