agriculture area

may be that know Amen! that ,  , on this land , majority area , do not be the forest , be doing agriculture area , the area is that city is just the minority that is compared as the heart and the brain who wait for to control the body , and agriculture area which , basically at that majority is the blood that circulates to pump the body for , the heart has and the brain work fullly the efficiency , and the brain , wait for control give the blood circulates systematically , thus bilateral type then have the relation each other

living of a human in that now , might have the something has that to have an affect on build [ wasp ] medicine ecology , and karma agriculture very with much advanced technologies lead s come in to reform the agriculture , the trespass of a city reaches agriculture area and different industry roast to pass closely reach destroy the environment of agricultural area make some(somewhere) area lose the state and the suitability have in doing agriculture ,

in country some will have begun to is aware and realize already that ,  , the arrangement culls agriculture area and a grandmother spill to smoke that , be supposed to layying plan and type system for , bilateral staily with the accordance each other , and not have invading that have an affect on until very more than is necessary , but , there is the development in agricultural part next lag behind and step to go to and the world in world age ,

invading of a city reaches agricultural that area , make agricultural part must retreat oneself goes out and is born the trespass deforest for pay back agriculture area that ( lose/go dead ) to go to , and doing agricultural in the area that inappropriates to suit this by oneself is the bringing which , a problem of surround condition at changes to quickly and is severe worldly in now , although , agricultural area that is born from forest trespass will give a result agriculture good way , but , area forest reduction for , get arrive ( in/at ) agriculture that area will receive the effect that is damaged follow to come to certainly

the arrangement culls agriculture that area , should stare arrive at the effect is first , the suitability and the environment and the advantage that receive should wander to are next rank come to , planning that systemically , unless , make use way agricultural area has full the efficiency already , the produce that receive , will have enough quantity and is effective ( lose/go dead ) to build [ wasp ] surround condition least , and agricultural that area remains Manu pair goes to long again

a picture like this should not happen , and don't happen if , there is something the arrangement culls the area appropriately and should can realize from the beginning that ,  , ? then born the condition such , when ,  , city , forest , and , area , agriculture , get allocated systematically

teapot

 that our arts can transfer to weave miss the feeling can change things very much s are endless , that everybody overflows to think that is free can lack of the limitation well , the view point just differently a little , might bring about great work ,

in different that similarity , might bring about the format that build to cull , that though , be the thing that unknow to is finished , the imagination is the thing at doesn't die , might can deliver a speech that , million hundred build come to but , no be finished in day one ,

 A teapot is a vessel used for steeping tea leaves or a herbal mix in near-boiling water. Tea may be either in a tea bag or loose, in which case a tea strainer will be needed, either to hold the leaves as they steep or to catch the leaves inside the teapot when the tea is poured. Teapots usually have an opening with a lid at their top, where the tea and water are added, a handle for holding by hand and a spout through which the tea is served. Some teapots have a strainer built-in on the inner edge of spout. A small hole in the lid is necessary for air access inside to stop the spout from dripping and splashing when tea is poured. In modern times, a tea cosy may be used to enhance the steepingor to prevent the contents of the teapot from cooling too rapidly.

The teapot probably derived from the ceramic kettles and wine pots which were also made in bronze and other metals and were a feature of Chinese cultural life for thousands of years. The earliest example of a teapot that has survived to this day seems to be the one in the Flagstaff House Museum of Teaware; it has been dated to 1513 and attributed to Gongchun

From the end of the 17th century tea was shipped from China to Europe as part of the export of exotic spices and luxury goods. The ships that brought the tea also carried porcelain teapots. The majority of these teapots were painted in blue and white underglaze. Porcelain being completely vitrified will withstand sea water without damage, so the teapots were packed below deck whilst the tea stayed on top in the dry

Tea drinking in Europe was initially the preserve of the upper classes since it was very expensive. Porcelain teapots were particularly desirable because porcelain could not be made in Europe at that time. It wasn't until 1765 that William Cookworthy devised a way of making porcelain and founded a works at Plymouth UK for the production of a porcelain similar to the Chinese. When European potteries began to make their own tea wares they were naturally inspired by the Chinese designs.

To keep tea pots hot after tea is first brewed, early English households employed the tea cosy, a padded fabric covering, much like a hat, that slips over the tea pot. Often decorated with lace or log cabin motifs in the early 1900s, the modern tea cosy has come back into fashion with the resurgence of loose leaf tea ateliers

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, Cosmic Teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is ananalogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that thephilosophic burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God. The analogy has also been used bysociologists to denote correlations with religion and social conformity.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

Peter Atkins said that the core point of Russell's teapot is that a scientist cannot prove a negative.^[2]He notes that this argument is not good enough to convince the religious, because religious evidence is experienced through personal revelation or received teachings, and cannot be presented in the same manner as scientific evidence. The scientific view is to treat such claims of personal revelation with suspicion.

In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Richard Dawkins employed the teapot in a similar fashion, in both, as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.^[3] Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being.

Literary critic and novelist James Wood, without believing in a god, says that belief in God is more reasonable than belief in a teapot because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur"

Another counter-argument, advanced by Eric Reitan, is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not