Oops.

What's to escalate? When the schedule flat out doesn't work, and your calls to customer service get handed over to a customer svc agent's voice mail, unless they want to talk to you, and they don't... that was what happened with us, I have no idea what happened with them... escalate doesn't help.

I own a couple of Prius vehicles and I've never noticed the delay. That sounds kinda scary if it ever did happen. I wonder if yours was defective.

Going 110 probably had a lot to do with not saving money. I drive at a relaxing 60 - 65 mph and I get great gas mileage.

Sounds like someone's a bit jealous. :) Here in KC, you typically have to pay an install fee for Internet and then pay a monthly fee for the service. With Google Fiber, you buy the equipment and get the service free.

Actually, it isn't quite that. Tenure at universities is part of academic freedom, which in turn is there to protect the deans from white elephants, such as a ten-million dollar donation with strings that the teachers must teach whoositztheory, or that they must not teach whassis to undergrads.

Thing is, donaters love strings. That's why they donate; and if the donation is turned down, then the bigwig works hard to destroy the one who turned it down.

Universities evolved the fiction of academic freedom (and the attendant tenure) to combat that. Typically speaking, at primary and secondary schools that isn't a problem at that level: bigwigs take it to the state government.

It is not the same in EVERY Virginia city, but in Norfolk whenI was a taxi driver, the city licensed a cetin number of cabs to operate. Like the commercial fisherman's license, if you had a license, you had every incentive NOT to operate a vehicle, but to rent it out to a licensed cabdriver for a rental fee of more than $100 per day. That's 1992 dollars.

Moreover, your incentive to maintain a working vehicle was almost minimal. So they were real pieces of trash, that harvested money from poor cabbies and poorer clientele, and redirected it into the pockets of the owner of each cab company.

That's the Virginia way of doing things. YMMV.

Aw... you're just jealous because we have Google Fiber! :D

I take it you were one of those kids who would say, "Tomatoes are really fruits," right? :) When I communicate, I try to communicate to be understood, not to be "right". In Kansas City, we call Kansas City International KCI. Nobody is confused, especially in context of talking about Kansas City. Nobody would wonder how I was going to get to Indonesia if I said, "Hey I'm driving down to KCI to fly out to New York." Sometimes it's just better to be a little less pedantic. ;)

Nope. I meant to say KCI. Here in Kansas City, we call "Kansas City International" KCI airport. Nobody in Kansas City calls it MCI. Yes, I'm well aware that the official formal designation is MCI as I have flown out of KCI many times.

As far as I remember KCI has always had free Internet wifi. Combined with the fact that we have Google Fiber, it feels like the rest of America is some third world country.

So which one of my secondary sources that I listed didn't count? Here, I'll recopy and paste it for you:

I simply wrote that I weigh the evidence of those who came before me and decided for myself based on reasoning such evidence. If that is arrogant to humbly admit that I'm not a historian and thus I must lean on the evidence of others then so be it. The real problem you have is that I didn't come to your conclusion. Thus I seem arrogant to stick to what I have already researched. So you assume that the only way someone could believe in that the Gospels are true or primary sources is if they blindly follow something that they were told as a child since they didn't come to your conclusion. Is your definition of humility really that everyone thinks just like you? Could there ever be the possibility that someone could research something and come to a different answer than you?

Since you have trouble with wordplay and analogies, I'll just break what I said down into a list.

Me: Research based on others, understands limitations, admits topics are controversial
You: Knows all the answers, knows topics are settled

So what you're telling me is that I can only believe that the Gospels are valid if I time travel and validate them myself? That I can't simply look at the research of those who believe Christianity is true (Kenneth Samples, Bill Craig, Hugh Ross, Clive Lewis, etc...) and those who do not believe Christianity is true (Lawrence Krauss, Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, etc...) and decide which way I think the evidence points? Don't you think your criteria is a bit much?

If that is your criteria on believing something is true, I'm not sure how you can sleep at night wondering whether atoms will stick together since you have not validated the four fundamental forces of nature yourself. How do you get on with your day with the thoughts of whether or not you existed five minutes prior plaguing your mind. The answer is that you believe those things because you've researched the evidence of others and/or you hold on to some properly basic beliefs.

Now you've asked, "Who would Jesus smear?" Great question. He would refer to the proud and arrogant as dogs or vipers. He said things like, "I didn't come to save the 'righteous'". He called it like it is.

And just to clarify, I understood you were attempting to trap me by changing the question from "Who validated that Jesus exists" to "Why do you believe in the Gospels". But I answered you anyway. So let's not pretend the two questions are the same. Obviously my personal belief has no impact on whether or not Jesus existed just as my personal belief on how far I can throw a baseball has nothing to do with the physics of throwing a baseball.

Asking me why I believe something to be true is very different from asking why I believe Jesus is a validated to have existed by mainstream historians. And the answers are very different. If you want names of non-Christian historians, how about starting with someone like "Bart Ehrman"? While I obviously disagree with Bart's conclusions, I would point out that he is one of many examples of non-Christian historians who affirm the existence of Jesus.

In regards to being a student of religion, I'm guessing it means that you've taken or are taking some "religious studies" class at a college or university. I've gone through school as well. So I've experienced how these professors talk: "We know..." "But it was later discovered..." and so on... It is a clear bias where they disingenuously teach their students controversial things as if the issue has been settled. And then students get puffed up thinking that they now have knowledge that these silly uneducated Christians don't.

As far as me being "nebulous" by using words like "mainstream historians", that's fine since this isn't a scholarly paper. I would encourage you to research these topics yourself. I already understand that I cannot convince you since I'm just words from a random guy online. It does me no good to present a case where you've already rejected the premises.

Now to answer your question regarding certainty of faith in the Gospels (which again is very different from the original question being debated), it's for the same reason I have faith in physics. People much smarter than me have already hashed out the issues of physics and I've experienced the effects of physics on my life. Similarly people have already hashed out the issues of Christianity and I've experienced the effects of Christ in my life. So I choose to believe the scholars that corroborate with my experience. I could give you examples, but you'll counter with "affirmation bias", right? The idea that I have to prove something for myself rather than being okay with the research of experts who came before me is silly. I don't have to know how the strong force works for me to believe that protons and neutrons hang out together in a nucleus of an atom. I don't have to prove that for myself. Someone else already researched it and the fact that chemistry happens corroborates their research. So I admit that I accept the research of experts.

In philosophy they call these properly basic beliefs. Did you exist 5 minutes ago? Sure. Can you prove it? No. It's a properly basic belief.

I assume English isn't your native language. So I'll try to clarify some concepts you have missed. What I was trying to say is that there is research out there that discuss the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. All I'm saying is that I accept the research of mainstream historians. And when you counter with "This doesn't count" or "That doesn't count". Then I admit only that I do not have a source that would satisfy you. Which makes sense since you feel that nothing counts and the question has been settled. "What we know about the Gospels"? Really? Where'd you get that from? Wikipedia?

I cannot present to you something that does not already researched since I do not claim to have secret knowledge or documents that academia does not already have. And even if I did, "it wouldn't count". I could literally youtube the crucifixion and you would say, "If only you knew what we know. That was some other guy."

You are free to research the arguments for the historicity of Jesus just as you have already gone out of your way to "prove" to yourself that Jesus never existed. I can read wikipedia and counter-apologetic blogs to. I am quite aware of the gyrations people go through to deny the existence of Jesus. I simply choose to go with the research that mainstream historians have presented instead.

To put it another way, if we were talking about "climate change" your position is analogous to the position of the "climate change denier". Many scientist claim that the climate was changing, yet there are those out there who have an excuse for every bit of data presented.

Simply put what you're asking for in a /. post is me to copy and paste volumes of literature to counter what you've read on the Internet just so you can say, "It doesn't count."