"When you get a little older, you'll see how easy it is to become lured by the female of the species." - 1960's Batman TV show
Question #25520 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In Board Question #25282, The Last Line told Rutabaga that the deadline to drop a class without a W had passed, but he or she could still withdraw from the class and get a W. However, the withdraw deadline was May 18th, so Rutabaga will have to finish the class.

If he or she wants to discontinue (withdraw from all classes this semester), that can be done until June 6th.

With Love,
Your favorite Registrar's Office employee

Question #25489 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear Mojoschmoe,

In reference to Board Question #25331, I agree that sour milk has not necessarily bad, but as a milkman, I have often come into contact with truly bad milk when people forget, and leave their milk sitting on their porch all week. Said milk, especially in the summer, seperates into a rancid smelling clear layer, and a semi-solid floating mass of nasty cream-like substance. (I have heard this refered to as curdling, but am not sure whether the term is accurate). Anyway, I hope no one would try pouring *that* on their cereal.
Also, as far as the taste of sour milk goes, it is argued by raw milk proponents that raw milk goes sour, while pasteurized/homogenized milk turns rancid. I don't have personal experience with this, as I have never had the urge to drink raw milk, but it might be something to consider if you plan on having milk around for a while.
And as far as I am aware, most "expiration dates" are actually sell by dates, telling when stores are required to stop selling the product, and the milk should be good for a week or two after the date listed on the container.

- the milkman, who also loves milk

A: Dear Milkman:

Points well taken. Thanks for clearing some things up! I've always stuck to the thought that if your dairy products look like cheese and really aren't, it's probably best to throw them out.


Question #25465 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

When you put old-ish batteries into say an electronic device and the gauge says how much battery life is left, how does it know?

- Soprano

A: Dear Soprano,

Electronic devices that report a battery status get this information from the voltage of the battery. The battery, when it is at full charge, is at it's optimum voltage (e.g. 1.5 volts for a AA battery). The device also knows the minimum voltage at which it can operate. Thus, as the battery drains, and the voltage drops, the device displays that the battery is approaching the "zero" point at which it will no longer be able to operate (although the battery will still have some voltage to output).

-cubic nerd
Question #25464 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have a couple of questions about aliases. As I understand it, writers can see the aliases of all those who are signed in at any particular time, and editors can see real names. So for a person with multiple aliases, do the writers only see the default, or do they see all of them as being signed in? Also, I usually opt to use the "Don't ask for my password for 2 weeks" option. Does that mean that I'm listed as signed in for the whole 2 weeks, or only when I have the Board open on my computer? And why do the writers need to know who is signed in anyway? Are they tracking us or something?

- Baked Alaska

A: Dear sweet, delicious, baked alaska,

Let's break these questions down a bit, shall we?

Q. So for a person with multiple aliases, do the writers only see the default, or do they see all of them as being signed in?

A. Writers only see your default alias. Granted, this really isn't an issue for most registered readers, as they generally only have one alias, but still, it helps to simplifiy things. The same applies for writers. We only see one another's default alias. Otherwise, we might see dozens of writers signed on at the same time. Imagine the confusion.

Q. Does [choosing the "Don't ask for my password for 2 weeks" option] mean that I'm listed as signed in for the whole 2 weeks, or only when I have the Board open on my computer?

A. We can only see you as signed in to the Board when you actually have the Board open on your computer. Again, the same applies for fellow writers on that as well.

Q. And why do the writers need to know who is signed in anyway?

A. Well, curiosity, I suppose. Nothing more than that, really. Sometimes it's just fun to see how many readers we have online.

Q. Are they tracking us or something?

A. In this case, anything you can imagine is going to be way cooler than the truth (being that no, we're not).

- Optimistic.
A: Dear Baked Alaska,

Just a couple of things to add to Optimistic's answer:

And why do the writers need to know who is signed in anyway?

I think there was an early idea to allow readers to see the writers, as well, but that was nixed when we ran into problems with writers who use multiple aliases. But it's fun to see who's logged in, especially when it's someone we know.

Oh, and we can only see you if you've been active on the Board within the last few minutes. If you logged on and kept the page open on your desktop all day, but didn't navigate around the site, we wouldn't be able to see you (or any of the other writers doing the same thing).

- Katya
Question #25461 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I need to find 3.5 more credits to take in Fall to graduate. I heard there was a really good MFHD class that taught family and relationship skills. something that "everyone should take before they leave BYU." Do you know what I'm talking about? Or do you have any suggestions of good/easy classes I can take during fall.

-almost outta here

A: Dear I'll Be Out in Winter,

I have no idea what the MFHD class is that you are talking about, but I definitely would recommend three classes (for fun.) Two are religion, one is "hands-on" practical. The first is floral design, and you get to take home fresh flowers every week. The second is Judaism and the Gospel, where I learned more about my religion by learning about the Hebrews than I ever thought possible, and the third is Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Dr. Marsh is a riot, and doing his study questions has actually taught me immense amounts about Joseph Smith, the Prophet by teaching me who he was as a man. I like JS a lot better because of this class than previously. He was a prophet, but he was "just a man" and a really funny, cool one to boot. Much cooler than any religion movie could easily portray in two hours.

Snippets of wisdom from P. Gallery
A: Dear almost,

The class you're talking about might be MFHD 160, Intro to Family Processes. We talked a lot about family and relationship skills in that class. I haven't heard it called a class that "everyone should take before they leave BYU," but maybe some people do think so about this class. Another good family and relationship skills class, although it's not under MFHD, is FAMLF 100, Strengthening Marriage and Family. It really focuses on the Proclamation on the Family. It was highly recommended to me, and I highly recommend it to others. I think everyone should take this class if they can.

-Mrs. X
Question #25460 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

what is the most level state in the union?

-the pope

A: Your Holiness,

That would be, without question, Kansas. Researchers used topographical data for Kansas and compared it to a pancake purchased from the International House of Pancakes to see which was flatter. The pancake had a flatness of 0.957 (with 1.000 being perfectly flat), while Kansas had a flatness of 0.997. That's pretty flat.

You can read the article I got all of that from at this website.

- Optimistic.
Question #25459 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Do ya'll prefer to take showers or baths? And do you usually take them in the morning or at night?

- The Cheeky Chickie

A: Dear Cheeky,

Showers are for getting clean, baths are for relaxing. And I usually shower in the evening.

-Mr. X
A: Dear Cheeky Chickie,

I always take showers. I can't even remember the last time I took a bath. I know I used to like baths when I was little, but they just seem really gross to me now. I'd feel like I still had to take a shower afterward.
And I always try to shower in the evening, because I don't like having wet hair all morning.

A: Dear Chickie:

Definately showers. . .they're faster. I shower in the morning to wake myself up!

A: Dear CC,

When I was a child, I definitely preferred baths, as they were a form of play. The older I got, the less "play" was involved and the more critical my time became. Probably TMI, but since I almost drowned when I was seven, I can't stand having water in my face for extended periods of time (more than three seconds without mental prep). I shower backwards (face away from water streams).
Also usually shower in the mornings because otherwise my hair gets Medusa-funky and air dry. Or else I shower after working out which is in the afternoons normally. So, sometimes I shower twice a day. Here's to cleanliness!

Peanut Gallery H20

A: Dear Cheek,

I always take morning showers. It's part of my morning routine (which, as we know, is the most important routine of the day). On days that I wake up too late to take a shower, I take far longer to be alert and functional. It's not a good thing.

Baths really don't appeal to me anymore. I view a shower as a functional exercise. I need to get clean, and taking a shower will allow me to do so. I suppose a bath will do the same thing, but I really only need seven minutes or so to finish the job. After that, I'll end up sitting in the bath wondering, "Well, now what?" With a shower, there's no such problem. Once I'm finished cleaning myself, I can just turn off the water and hop out. I suppose I could do the same with a bath, but baths just seem like you're supposed to sit around for ages in them. I'm just not a fan of the whole idea.

- Optimistic.
Question #25451 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

On 400 South in Orem, there is a road west of the freeway named "Mountian Way Drive". Shouldn't it be "Mountain Way Drive"?

- Spell Check

A: Dear Speller,

Yes, yes it should.

A: Dear Spell Check,

We decided to drive over and check out Mountain Way Drive. It turns out it isn't a very long road, probably less than a half mile total. The funny thing is, in that half mile, we found four different styles of street signs. Here they are...

We check a local map, and the road is really supposed to be Mountain Way Drive.

-Mr. & Mrs. X
A: Dear Spell-Check:

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll have the City of Orem switch it pronto.

It's always fun to see that everyone can make mistakes.

Question #25448 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Have there been any documented cases of writers, editors, or other board staff members trying to deliberately sabotage, harm, or otherwise damage the board or its reputation?

- El Genio

A: Dear El Genio,

Yes, and said writer was summarily dealt with (i.e., werf doesn't write for us anymore).

I won't really go into details on this, but this was one of the big reasons why we got into so much trouble with BYUSA. It wasn't pretty.

- Optimistic.
A: Dear All,

To come to said writer's defense, he wasn't purposefully trying to harm The Board. He was just really, really mad at BYUSA, and didn't bother to consider the ramifications of his actions.

Question #25445 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If, or rather, SINCE I've already registered with the National Do Not Call Registry, why do I keep getting UNKNOWN/PRIVATE Solicitor calls?

Thank you!


A: Dear Claire16,
Your number has to be registered for at least 31 days for it to be effective. If you have been registered for fewer than 31 days, there's your answer. You might also want to check the FAQ at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt.htm#Exceptions because not all calls are illegal. Do you know what organization(s) the calls represent? If so, you could file a complaint if you feel like they are harassing you. Best wishes!
Question #25424 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Why did Shane Evans (the drummer of Collective Soul) leave the band?

- Chud

A: Dear Chud,
There are a few rumors circulating around. One: he is making a movie. Two: he is taking personal time, but for what nobody knows. Three: he is sick. So, I guess we really don't know. It's all speculation. Sorry about that.
-ABC 123
A: Dear Chud,

One item that may offer a hint of what might have drawn him away can be found here: http://www.guidelive.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/movies/stories/DN-localcolumn_1007gl.ART.State.Edition1.1df0867d.html. No guarantees that that is why he left though.

Question #25409 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

There is a beautiful picture that was in National Geographic some time ago. (I don't know when, but likely within the last 6 years.) It's a picture of a woman (I don't know the ethnicity, but she had heavy clothes on) leaning forward, walking on what looks like a dock but it's over grass. It's overcast, and the picture has a gray/purple hue to it. What is that picture and how can I find it?


A: Dear Agatha,

I believe that you're thinking of the picture that's on pgs. 98-99 of the September 2000 issue. The article is about the women of Nepal, and it's a picture of a Nepalese woman walking across a log bridge. Assuming you're at BYU, that issue can be found in your very own HBLL. (If you're not at BYU, your local library is likely to have it also.)

-Tangerine, who loves National Geographic, but wishes the pages didn't smell so bad
Question #25278 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

After comparing my own priesthood lineage with the ones of several friends, and a very lengthy explanation given by my mission president on preisthood lineage and all the particulars about the three witness and such(his explanation took the bulk of a rather large missionary conference) I still am curious about some things. It seems that everyones priesthood lineage comes through the three witnesses who were given the assignment and authority to find and ordain the members of the first latter-day Quorm of the Twelve. Does this mean that Joseph Smith never ordained anyone to an office in the Melchizedek priesthood after the quorm of the twelve was organized, and as such all priesthood authority today travels through the first latter-day Quorm of the Twelve with no exceptions? In summation, did the prophet Joseph ever ordain anyone to an office of the priesthood after this time? If not, is there a reason?
- StuckinLimbo

A: Dear StuckinLimbo,

Well, I have an email out to a religion professor asking about this but didn't hear back. So I took matters into my own hands and started digging.

The great thing about your question all I had to find was one instance of the Prophet ordaining someone after the organization of the twelve to prove he did ordain other people. And I found it.

While he ordained the majority of the first First Quorum of the Seventy, I didn't really want to count that. So I kept looking and on Monday, August 24, 1835, six months and ten days after the organization of the twelve, Joseph Smith, Jr. ordained Jonathan Stevens an Elder in the church.

It would only make sense that the prophet would continue to ordain people as the twelve were often out on missions.

-Pa Grape
Question #25268 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear Pa Grape,

I'm pretty sure there isn't any doctrinal answer for this, but do you know of (or have) any theories that coincide with church beleifs to reconcile the revelation that the Garden of Eden is in Jackson County Missouri, and the nearly irrefutalbe archeological evidence of human genesis in either Africa or Mesopotamia?

- the pope

A: Dear the pope,

I have multiple emails out to people much more knowledgeable than I am about this subject. Unfortunately, with the long weekend, I haven't heard back from many of them at all.

I did hear back from Dr. Dana Pike in the Religion department. His response is as follows:
Unfortunately, I do not have anything of substance to help with this issue. There is the LDS doctrine and there is the anthropological / archaeological evidence (always incomplete, and subject to revision). I accept the doctrine even though there is no archaeological evidence, at least that I am aware of, to support "origins" of life in North America. It is worth noting that to accept the LDS doctrine of Adam and Eve, no matter where Eden was located, is to be out of harmony with the view of the academic world on the origins of life and the development of civilization. If one accepts the LDS view of Adam and Eve as the parents of humans, then there are multiple questions that are worth considering but that can't currently be answered in relation to the evidences available to people through non-revelatory means. My approach has been to know the issues, accept the doctrine, and, to paraphrase SWK, put the questions on the shelf, pull them down periodically to reexamine them, but not to get too anxious about them. In the end, all will be revealed.
He also suggested that I contact people in the Anthropology department. Again, no one has written be back yet.

To second Dr. Pike, anthropological/archeological science is rarely irrefutable. It is educated guesswork that is constantly being corrected. While I wasn't aware that Spencer W. Kimball (SWK) had expressed it in such a concise manner, his advice to not let the questions bother you too much and have faith that all will be revealed is the best policy.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep up on or even do research in the current academic trends. But to pull from Elder Neal Maxwell, where is your passport? Do you carry a passport from your spirituality into the professional/academic world or is it the other way around?

Put your faith where it needs to be and know that He is the source of true knowledge, not man.

-Pa Grape
Question #25108 posted on 06/01/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What, in your opinions, constitutes light-mindedness? Also, too much or loud laughter? Men are that they might have joy, shouldn't we laugh? I'm assuming there is a more metaphorical meaning, but I've worried lately that any day-dreaming or overly-raucous laughter is going to count against me.

- A daydreamer and a laugher

A: Dear daydreamer,

Interesting question. On the one hand, we read that "men are that they might have joy" (2 Ne 2:25) and "In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) On the other hand, we read "cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings." (D&C 88:121)

In my mind, it's important to pay attention to the context of laughter. Laughing scornfully or mockingly is wrong. (See Gen. 17:17, 18:12-13, and Luke 8:53.) We're also advised to be "sober" (1 Pet. 5:8), which can mean both "serious" and "not drunk." (If you've ever been around drunk people, it's not hard to see why inebriation and silly laughter are associated.) These both make sense in a larger context: It's wrong to be scornful or mocking, whether or not you laugh, and drunkenness, which robs us of our ability to make good judgments, is also to be avoided.

We might draw from all of this that it's better to be serious than sorry, or that more serious = more righteous. I know some people who certainly seem to believe this is true, but I can't accept it in my own life. I am someone who definitely likes to laugh. I think the world is a funny place, and I find great amusement in everyday life. So it's a little distressing to be told that I can't laugh loudly (or at all). More importantly, I feel that my ability to laugh about my problems gives me a sense of peace and hope that I couldn't find by other means.

Even President Hinckley has been known to make the congregation laugh in General Conference (and I probably laughed loudly, for such is my laugh). Better yet, Job contains a reference to God making us laugh: "Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man, neither will he help the evil doers: Till he fill thy mouth with laughing, and thy lips with rejoicing." (Job 8:20-21)

I think the Preacher put it best: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: . . . A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance." (Eccl. 3:1,4)

The LDS Guide to the Scriptures explains that being light-minded means "treat[ing] lightly sacred things." That seems qualitatively different from daydreaming, to me. Being disrespectful of sacred things is wrong, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a "time to daydream, and a time to focus." (Of course, you could spend the rest of your life trying to figure out exactly when you should laugh or weep or daydream . . . but I don't agree that every second spent wishing or laughing is going to "count against you.")

Worrying is rarely productive; just do your best and live a joyful life.

- Katya