Posts by mistyseal8

Fixed it! Turns out it was the PSU all along, not the CPU. Thanks so much for the help. 🙂

wearymason4 said:To even see the post screen and get into the BIOS, you need a functional motherboard, CPU, RAM, PSU, and GPU.
Check the manual to see if your board has debug LEDs or a beeper (if you don't have one, just plug a small speaker into the 1 and 4 pin SPKR connector). You can also try running it with just a single stick of RAM if you think that might be the culprit.

Thanks for explaining what that tiny little thing on the edge of the board is. So, that's the beeper. It doesn't actually beep.

If I try to enter the BIOS, the computer should at least start booting up, but I'm getting absolutely nothing. In my opinion, even if the RAM or the hard drive were failing, it should still kick into gear long enough to hit the BIOS. My main suspects right now are the motherboard and the power supply.

Makinja was running perfectly fine until it just decided to quit on me; now, it won't even POST. When I hit the power button, a few indicator lights flicker on the motherboard, but that’s about it. I started suspecting the CPU might be the culprit, so I popped it into a different motherboard to test it out. The machine actually started its boot sequence—fans were spinning, the GPU lit up, everything seemed to be moving. I didn't let it run through the full boot process for a few reasons, but it definitely showed signs of life. My main question is: can I be 100% sure the CPU isn't the problem? I remember reading somewhere that if a processor is totally fried, there's zero chance the system will even attempt to start up.

I wasn't exactly sold on the movie at first, but somehow, it really hit home for me.

Eric Hernandez said:You’re basically arguing that if a rainbow cross is okay, then a rainbow swastika should be too. But even you admitted the issue lies with the rainbow colors themselves, not the cross, which is perfectly fine—unlike the Nazi swastika.

I have to hand it to you guys, you really go out of your way to avoid making the point. 👍

A rainbow cross can feel offensive to Christians. By that logic, a rainbow swastika would be offensive to the gay community. What about Judaism?

boldwalker12 said:It's not about opponents; it's about people who just plain hate.

Not really. By your logic, I’d be labeled a homophobe simply because we disagree on ideology. But I'm not "guilty" of anything, right? After all, you don't argue with someone you consider sick, do you? ☕

Carol Bishop27 said:So, let me get this straight: you don't have an issue with hatred or intolerance toward anyone different, but you take offense at someone else promoting an image of love? That's some interesting logic.

Are you actually being serious right now? I mean it, are you?

boldwalker12 said:Man, that is just too good. 🙏🤣

Can agoraphobia be more subtle than people realize? 🍿

Everything is crystal clear now. To you guys, anyone on the other side is just mentally unwell. Case closed.

Richard Nelson84 said:I have absolutely no intention of debating my avatar. I’m not planning to change it, and I’ll leave it up to the Admin to decide what happens with it. However, I do want to make one point very clear. There is this tendency to present the entire LGBT community as enemies of Christianity. By doing that, you aren't just insulting gay Christians and other homosexual individuals—you're insulting me too. Honestly, it feels like you're projecting personal homophobic views (yes, homophobic!). I don't hate Christians, nor do I intend to offend anyone. My reasons for choosing this avatar are private, and they’ll stay that way.

I don't have an issue with gay people; at the end of the day, we're all just people. My issue is with those who claim to speak for everyone, using the rainbow flag as a catch-all symbol for their specific movements and organizations.

Putting a rainbow on a cross is an aggressive insult. It doesn't surprise me at all that the higher-ups here choose to "look the other way." They see it, but they pretend they don't. Kudos to the rare few who call it out, but generally speaking, it seems like moderators and staff are hand-picked from the radical left wings of these forums. That explains why, during debates, any believer gets labeled a "fanatic." Once someone is branded a "fanatic," their arguments are dismissed and their concerns are ignored because they aren't seen as legitimate participants in the conversation—they're just tolerated as little as possible, right? ☕

To wrap things up, I'll address you directly, Eugene. Not only are you using that avatar, but you're also throwing around the term "homophobic," which I find just as aggressive, insulting, and sneaky.

It’s going to be really interesting to see how this unfolds after 🙂Silver Linings Playbook.

Jason Sullivan87 said:The hypocrisy here is unreal. It’s totally biased. You're just insulting believers and Catholics at this point—it feels like nothing more than a cheap provocation.

I'm right there with him. Honestly, I shouldn't be surprised, though. Given how everyone here was selected to be exactly who they are, this version of "tolerance," "progressivism," and "liberalism" is a joke. Give me a break. 😁

It’s not even about philosophy at this point; some people here are just straight-up justifying crimes and extrajudicial killings. Take the events at Waterloo, for instance. You had all sorts of groups involved—different factions, militias, and innocent civilians. Sure, some individuals were definitely guilty and deserved justice, but only through a legitimate legal process. Most of them certainly didn't. Some folks on this forum seem to ignore those nuances entirely, basically giving a thumbs up to collective executions. That’s what really gets to me.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Is someone actually out here glorifying crimes? Look, standing up against fascism isn't a crime.

If you're going to brag about criminal acts, report it. We'll handle the sanctions.

But wiping out political rivals and dumping them into mass graves or tank trenches? That isn't liberation.

As a society—and this forum being a microcosm of that society—we really should have reached at least a baseline level of consensus regarding totalitarian regimes, state terror, secret police tactics, and mass atrocities.

Clearly, we haven't.

There are still people out there glorifying totalitarianism and making excuses for mass crimes, which is pretty obvious if you look at this thread:

So, what is the official stance of this forum? Does it condemn these crimes outright, or does it pick and choose which ones to condemn and which to justify?

And more importantly, what happens to those who actively support and defend such atrocities?

Nicole Fox35 said:I was just doing a quick Google search—is the director actually Scorpion? ☕
When you think about revenge, it really feels like a scorpion's sting—sudden, sharp, and impossible to ignore.

It seems like revenge is the underlying theme in just about every story we discuss—except for that one tale involving the wealthy guy.

Lisa Wilson26 said:I could have easily just assumed that myself.🤣

So, what’s the other option?

Going back to my car—it feels like the parking enforcement officer only gave me one chance before coming for it. 🤣 :2up:

Then again, a wedding sounds pretty great; it really fits my destructive Scorpio energy. 😈 😁

Driver. 🕺

wiredraven82 said:Man, you’ve completely missed the mark here—no offense intended, brother, but this is a massive blunder on your part:

First off, during the era of the Western Roman Empire, people spoke CLASSICAL LATIN/used Classical pronunciation. Period.

That’s the version with: Kaiser (not Caesar), Lunae (not Lunae with a soft sound), Cicero (not Kicker-oh), etc.

This other way—this "Caesar," "Lunae" thing, with the diphthongs like ae, oe, io, and the "C" being soft instead of a "K"... that is: TRADITIONAL (ECCLESIASTICAL) LATIN/pronunciation. This is the version that developed once Latin was practically a dead language—not totally gone, but certainly on its last legs—evolving into ECCLESIASTICAL LATIN during the Middle Ages, long after the Western Roman Empire had fallen (leaving only the Byzantine Empire, which is a whole different story).

I have no idea where you got the idea that different social classes used different pronunciations during the Western Roman Empire (or the Republic). You’ve confused social status symbols—the distinction between Patricians and Plebeians within the Latin ethnicity—with linguistic variation. Those distinctions weren't about how they spoke Latin; everyone used the CLASSICAL dialect. It was about something else entirely. 🙂

Actually, no.

There was high-society Latin and then there was the slang used by the lower classes. For instance, the upper crust would look down on the "populares"—their own people who dressed and talked like the commoners. A good example is how a certain Claudia might have changed her name to Clodia to sound more like she belonged to the lower tiers. Her brother did the same. This is actually one of the main reasons why they hated Julius Caesar; he sided with the plebeians and spoke just like them.

Kyle Campbell4 said:You are writing falsehoods.😉
The Legendary 9th Legion was destroyed precisely in Judea. Therefore, it is untrue to suggest that only soldiers from Crete were present in the region of Judea. A Roman legionary wrote and spoke in the Latin language. What would the world look like if every single person spoke only their own local tongue? You are overlooking the process of assimilation, wherein people adopted a Roman identity and conducted themselves as Romans. The longer a territory remained under the control of the Empire, the greater the degree of assimilation became, until the local population was entirely Romanized.
Even today in Syria, there exists a community of Christians in a remote mountainous region who speak Old Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. That language is not such an enigma that it cannot be reconstructed.
The clothing, weaponry, and other details are also accurate, though you aren't complaining about those.

Everyone seems to be getting quite a bit wrong regarding the Latin language and the actual nationality of Roman soldiers.

Back then, almost all Roman soldiers came from the Apennines and were of Italian descent; they didn't start recruiting from all over the Empire until much later.

As for Latin, there wasn't just one version, but two: high-class Latin and the vulgar Latin spoken by the lower classes. The former eventually evolved into what we call Classical Latin with a few tweaks, while the latter naturally developed into today's Romance languages.

Classical Latin differs from high Latin mainly in the pronunciation of certain sounds. In high Latin, "C" is pronounced as "K," diphthongs like "oe" or "ae" sound like "oy" or "ai," and "s" sounds like "s," and so on.

"Caesar" is pronounced as "Cezar" in Classical Latin.

In high Latin, "Caesar" is pronounced as "Kaiser." Now you see where the Germans got their "Kaiser," which is pronounced "Kaiser."

Gibson made a mistake here; we are listening to Classical Latin, which didn't actually exist in that form until the 9th century. I really wish we had the chance to hear high Latin, vulgar Latin, or even some of the Italian dialects.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned "Jesus of Nazareth"? 🙂

mistyseal8 said:I watched about halfway through—what a wild ride! 🤣

I actually finished the whole thing. To be honest, those last two segments didn't hit quite as hard for me as the first half did. Overall though, I really enjoyed it. There's a certain freshness to this movie; it has a vibe that feels totally different from your typical Hollywood production. 👍