The poll was sponsored by an organization that sells a book and other products to people who view pornography, so the numbers have to be taken in that light. They have a built-in incentive to make the problem seem as bad as possible. I'm not saying the problem isn't bad enough as it is, but they do have every reason to make it seem worse.
I agree with the use of "flat-opening sewn binding" since perfect bound (glue on the spine) Bibles generally fall apart as soon as you start using them. I had one that had already fallen apart in the box when I ordered it. Bible quality is all or nothing these days. Bibles are either super high end and expensive, or low quality. The middle has almost disappeared. I wish more publishers would publish sewn-spine Bibles without expensive high-end leather bindings. (Cambridge is one of the last holdouts that has moderately-priced, sewn-binding Bibles in their product line. The Emerald Text edition is one of them.)
Don't buy a leather (or leather substitute) perfect-bound Bible. It will just fall apart. Usually in a few months. Get a hardback, which at least has a thicker spine to support the pages. They last much longer.
Kenneth Copeland discussed this meeting at the recent Southwest Believer's Convention, in his evening session on the first day. The content was just now put online and I haven't had time to listen to it yet.
This article is the kind of breathtaking drivel you get on one of the slowest news weekends of the year.
Since this crackpot is promoting his books, and one of his books is about how to time travel (really!), why doesn't he use his knowledge and travel to the future to give us an exact date? That would improve his credibility and help both his books sell better.
No surprise. They have less stuff in their stores to buy. Of course their profit is down. People are buying low-margin groceries, but the days of Wal-Mart selling anything else are over. Just for example, I had to replace a radio that Wal-Mart carried for many years, but they don't any longer and I had to order it from the manufacturer. Repeat this thousands of times and you get today's Wal-Mart, which has less stuff to buy.
Common Core is as much a money grab from taxpayers by Pearson as the ACA is a money grab by insurance companies who got the government to require everyone to buy worthless high-deductible policies. This is a trend, where big corporations get the government involved in mandating things that funnel money to the corporations.
Sounds shocking, until you realize he got his number by counting all Americans who are not working. That includes the 30% of the population who are retired and under age 18. When you subtract that from his 40%, you get about the same 10% which includes discouraged workers.
I have read this book, and it's excellent. I recommend it. The author does a good job of sifting through the scanty evidence and explaining the complexity of this informal truce that sprung up at different places along the front for different reasons. He does a good job of explaining who participated, too, since the Germany army was an amalgam of regular Prussian troops, Bavarian reservists, and a lot of others.
On October 20, 2011, Camping's ministry put this statement on their web site: "Sadly, as we have earnestly studied the Bible over these five months we have found verse after verse that supports and strengthens the conclusion that the Lord is no longer saving sinners. He has finished that glorious work."
This statement was silently removed from the web site later. The ministry was never held accountable for this statement in any way by anyone in Christianity, and were allowed to rewrite history. The ministry has never explained or even acknowledged this statement.
While Camping's false predictions are bad, I think this statement is infinitely worse, and anyone who donates to this ministry should be aware of it - Family Radio should not be allowed to rewrite history and scrub the record of this statement. They should come clean, admit to it, and explain it.
Unfortunately, I can't find the original study on eMarketer's web site. The methodology is of interest, since this article says "log in to social networking sites" and it isn't clear if the 1.6 counts unique people, or unique accounts, since the same person could have multiple accounts on different social networks. I'd also like to know what counts as "social media" since the boundary of what's called "social media" has a lot of gray areas like photo sharing sites. The article raises more questions than it answers.
This link is to an AFP wire article I have seen reprinted all over the web, but I can't find any other articles that talk about the study. (Or give links to it.)