Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 12 topics

talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did Darwin say this?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/af410bf5f08f3ef1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:49 pm
From: Mark Isaak

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:24:52 -0700, Kermit wrote:

> On Apr 24, 2:38 am, Pooua <p...@aol.com> wrote:
>> However, they must realize that the
>> material base of a message is completely independent of the
>> information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have
>> nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple
>> illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was
>> designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether
>> ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in
>> binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the
>> same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship
>> between the information and the material base used to transmit it.
>
> Please establish why RNA/DNA should be considered information.

Or why flecks of mica, feldspar, etc. arranged in a chunk of
naturally-formed granite should not be.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Commentary: No faith in ID
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a575ce10dc9bbe18?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:49 am
From: snex

On Apr 24, 6:37 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
>
> news:f0ki8e$v1u$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> [...]
>
> > You
> > cannot test for supernatural things in the material sense. Therefore, you
> > cannot prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the complexity
> > of
> > the universe and call it God. This is why there is faith, no? Why does
> > Strobel even need to prove that there is an intelligent designer and that
> > designer is God?
>
> That is a fundamental (no pun intended) fault line in ID and/or Creation
> Science. Faith is belief in what cannot be proved; as soon as you start
> looking for proofs of that faith you have de facto eliminated faith.

ID advocates have realized that faith is worthless. now if only they
removed those presuppositions that it once gave them.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/c3775588a6ca8568?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:51 am
From: snex

On Apr 24, 2:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2007 14:08:01 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 22, 3:59 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On 22 Apr 2007 12:34:25 -0700, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >On Apr 22, 12:09 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 22, 1:58 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:42:09 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> >> >> > > whoever "amal.follo...@gmail.com" is, he deserves nothing more than a
> >> >> > > "cheap shot." hes a hit and run troll.
>
> >> >> > Of course he is. But taking cheap shots is always wrong. You could choose
> >> >> > to ignore him as well.
>
> >> >> > While "amal.followme" may not deserve anything more (I'm not sure), you
> >> >> > choose to misrepresent an entire religious community only because of what
> >> >> > *he* does. It's very counter-productive. For instance we have in this
> >> >> > newsgroup Stile4aly, who is a Muslim who also accepts evolution
> >> >> > completely and who has proven himself to be very tolerant and friendly
> >> >> > towards other people's convictions and you tell him that the wise prophet
> >> >> > he believes in with his heart is a pedophile. Pedophile - which in
> >> >> > today's society can only mean something utterly despicable. Is that fair?
>
> >> >> perhaps stile4aly should consider the fact that his prophet *may in
> >> >> fact have been* a pedophile. his deepest convictions are really
> >> >> irrelevant on the matter. you (hypothetically) may believe with all of
> >> >> your heart that your priest that was convicted of molesting children
> >> >> didnt really do it, but that doesnt make it so.
>
> >> >You're right, my deepest convictions on the matter are irrelevant, yet
> >> >you seem to assume that I have done no actual study on the matter and
> >> >conclude that Muhammad was not a pedophile "just because." That's the
> >> >whole reason I pointed to the wiki page in the first place. Yes, the
> >> >verbiage of the hadith themselves suggest that she was quite young,
> >> >but the entire point is that we can't necessarily accept the hadith at
> >> >face value (as many Muslims do), we must do an actual historical
> >> >analysis and a comparative analysis against other hadith. Those
> >> >analyses show that Aisha must have been older than 6 at betrothal,
> >> >more likely 12 - 15, which would make her 15 - 19 at consummation.
>
> >> >Many Muslims don't critically analyze the Quran or Hadith, and I find
> >> >it ironic that you throw around the worldnetdaily claim of Muhammad
> >> >being a pedophile when you clearly haven't done such a study
> >> >yourself. You often berate most if not all theists for failing to
> >> >critically analyze their beliefs, but this is a Trojan Horse. It's
> >> >your belief that any critical analysis of religion must lead to that
> >> >religion being rejected, plain and simple. Theism is irrational, and
> >> >no irrational belief is valid in your view.
>
> >> >Cheers for the kind words from NMP.
>
> >> You can add mine. I have nothing but contempt for those
> >> religious leaders (currently mostly Islamic, but
> >> historically represented in nearly all major religions) who
> >> encourage barbaric actions against the innocent, which IIRC
> >> is *specifically* forbidden in the Koran. But most "normal"
> >> followers of Islam don't seem to be anything of the sort,
> >> yourself specifically included. Keep it up; you're somewhat
> >> of an exemplar of rational Islam, and we need as many as we
> >> can get. The same applies to rational Christians, to
> >> counteract the irrationality of the fundies.
>
> >just why do we need "rational muslims" or "rational christians?" whats
> >wrong with applying rationality to all aspects of one's life,
> >including religion?
>
> We know your opinion, as well as your intolerance for any
> hint of faith. Buzz off.

i couldnt help but notice you failed to answer the question.

> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:54 am
From: snex

On Apr 22, 5:15 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:48:09 -0700, schreef snex:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 4:43 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:24:30 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> >> > On Apr 22, 4:18 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> Try to look at it from that perspective.
>
> >> > you should suggest that stile4aly look at it from that perspective.
> >> > he is the one that thinks that those ancient conclusions should still
> >> > be held as valid today.
>
> >> I have not seen him say that.
>
> > he believes that god exists and that mohammad was his prophet. neither
> > of these conclusions are supported by anything other than the erroneous
> > ancient thinking you identified earlier.
>
> I would rather let him speak for himself, if he feels interested.
>
> Anyway, he can believe what he wants, there is no law against it. And he
> accepts evolution so it can't be said that he is not also a realist.

acceptance of evolution is no more a guarantee of one being a
"realist" than acceptance of heliocentrism is.

>
> He may even be a nice fellow and I think the chance of that is very high.
>
> Are *you* a nice person?

my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. if you are convinced
that im wrong merely because im one of those uppity new atheists, then
perhaps you should reconsider why exactly you believe anything else,
including evolution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's "Special Needs Day" everyday in talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/853d373e79363233?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:53 am
From: "chris.linthompson@gmail.com"

On Apr 22, 11:23 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Do you have any idea what you're defending, or what you're
> > > attacking?
>
> > > Of course not.
>
> > Of course I do.
>
> That's cute. It's wrong, but it's cute.

Simultaneous projection and avoidance! My hat's off to the master.

Carry on, by all means.

Chris

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:56 am
From: Augray

On 23 Apr 2007 17:25:50 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
<1177374350.370093.92990@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :

> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Apr 2007 12:22:32 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1177356152.072211.8610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>> Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The subject, for that particular posting, which
>>>> proved you yet again to be a liar, was your claim
>>>> that Augray was operating unopposed in talk.origins.
>>>
>>>Wow. If it weren't for the fact that you so commonly
>>>misrepresent things, I'd be surprised to see you
>>>misrepresent what I said....
>>>
>>>On numerous occasions -- in direct response to
>>>particular articles and/or insane arguments -- I did
>>>accurately state that nobody would call him on his
>>>insanity. And, yeah, that was accurate.
>>
>> Well, no one was calling me on what I posted.
>
>Exactly. Not anything you posted...
>
>> Calling what I posted "insane arguments"
>
> ....is the understatement of the century.
>
>I mean, even when you pulled a boner the likes of
>which a Harshman could notice -- when you stopped
>arguing that the dating was not under dispute, and
>started arguing that you never argued the dating was
>under dispute -- nobody called you on it.

Nobody called me on it because I never took the position that you
claim. I never argued that there was no dispute, and I challenge you,
or anyone else, to post a link to a post where I did.

>Then there's your monumental failure to separate
>relevant points from your wishful thinking. Like
>arguing that the archaeopteryx fossils misidentified
>as Compsognathus had feathers... what the hell
>was that all about?

It's simple. You claimed that "There were archaeopteryx fossils
discovered, sans feathers...", a claim that is false. All
Archaeopteryx fossils have feathers. There was no mention of
Compsognathus in that post.

>Were you pretending that they weren't misidentified
>as Compsognathus, a dinosaur that nobody associated
>with feathers, let alone an arboreal lifestyle? Nope.

At that point you hadn't even mentioned Compsognathus. That came five
days later.

>Did
>it refute me in the least? Nope.

Sure it did. Up to that point, it was the only "fact" you'd posted to
support the claim you were trying to make, that Archaeopteryx "has the
body of a distinctly ground-dwelling dinosaur". Since you posted a
"fact" that was wrong, it seems pretty obvious that you were refuted,
at least at that point in time. But if you have other "facts", feel
free to post them. Just make sure that they're not pull from your
behind.

>What it did was augment
>my point. I said "The didn't see any feathers, and they
>didn't see anything that looked like a bird or a tree
>climber." You say "No, wait! There were feathers [but
>they still didn't see a bird or a tree climber].

And there *were* feathers. As for your claim that they didn't see "a
bird or a tree climber", you've yet to actually support that.

>> is pretty much limited to you.
>>
>>
>>>Not only did
>>>nobody call the psycho on his drool soaked, illness
>>>provoked (what we'll call) "arguments," but several
>>>people defended him... though they had no idea
>>>what they were defending in "augrey" or attacking
>>>in my position.
>>
>>Probably because I could back up my arguments with references.
>>
>>
>>>Then again, if you had a grasp on reality you never
>>>would have said anything in the first place...

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:57 am
From: Augray

On 23 Apr 2007 17:27:16 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
<1177374436.698735.100930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :

>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Apr 2007 22:15:47 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1177305347.711429.61640@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 21 Apr 2007 15:08:56 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>><1177193336.027761.84580@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>
>>>>>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 21 Apr 2007 02:28:01 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>><1177147681.842807.16300@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I mention the specimen that was initially misidentified as a
>>>>>>>> pterodactyl, he just snips that out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here on my planet -- the Earth. Please come visit some time -- I
>>>>>>>posted a cite in which that very specimen figured quite
>>>>>>>prominently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you said that it wasn't the point of your posting of the URL.
>>>>>
>>>>>So? Go on. I posted the URL to establish a different point,
>>>>>correct, but how is that ignoring it?
>>>>
>>>> Because when I brought it up, you weren't interested in it.
>>>
>>>It. Didn't. Have. Any. Impact. On. My. Point.
>>>
>>>It's existence neither supported nor detracted from my position
>>>in the least.
>>>
>>>Why is it you refuse to grasp this reality?
>>
>> Let's just say that this is a surprising development,
>
>you said the same thing about indoor plumbing...

Nope. Indoor plumbing is a sensible development.

>>>>>It doesn't change the fact that the very fossil in question did
>>>>>figure prominently within the cite... that it didn't contradict me
>>>>>in the least.... did not detract from my position one iota.
>>>>
>>>>It didn't actually support it either.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/83a7ea3085fa6ee1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:52 pm
From: Mark Isaak

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:29:00 +0000, Bill Morse wrote:

> Josh Hayes wrote:
>
>> Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote in
>> news:proto-63F9CC.02245622042007@ 032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net:
>>
>>> In article <1hwxko1.1otrr8z1t3nn4pN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>,
>>> j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In *my* day, it was "dots! dashes!"
>>>
>>> That could make a fellow morose.
>>
>> Boy, Walter, you sure telegraphed that one. You been hitting the SOS?
>>
> I don't understand. You guys must be talking in code.

To appreciate it, you need some of whatever Ed is on.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:00 am
From: someone2

On 24 Apr, 13:57, Ken Denny <k...@kendenny.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2:47 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 9:21 pm, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Scooter has presented the case in the most clear language possible.
> That you are pretending to still not get it. And I know for a fact
> that you are pretending. Nobody is as stupid as you're pretending to
> be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Here's the part that you don't get- If nodes 1-1,000,000,000 firing in
> > > any of a number of known and understood ways is what conscious is,
> > > then if that happened we would know if the robot was or wasn't
> > > conscious, and consciousness would (or at least could) affect the
> > > behavior of the robot.
>
> > > In short, you're assuming your conclusions. If consciousness is just
> > > node activity, then looking at node activity is looking at
> > > consciousness, so if you knew what the node activity was then you'd
> > > know if the robot were conscious. What you're saying is equivelent to
> > > saying that if you knew what all the parts of a CD player were doing
> > > you wouldn't have to know whether or not it was playing Beethoven's
> > > 5th symphony to explain it's behavior. Except that what the parts of
> > > the CD player are doing is playing Beethoven's 5th symphony, so if you
> > > know exactly what it's parts are doing you know that it IS playing
> > > that particular piece of music.
>
> > You know what conscious experiences are so you know what it means
> > whether they are exist or not. The point is about whether the
> > existance of conscious experiences affects behaviour.
>
> > Your example is just one of a behaviour. What I am saying is that as
> > long as the CD player followed the known laws of physics, whether the
> > CD player experienced playing Beethoven's 5th symphony would not
> > affect the way it was played.
>
> No you are saying you can explain how it plays Beethoven's 5th
> symphony without knowledge of what CD is in it. Even assuming that
> there is no CD.
>
>
>
> > When you said
> > ---
> > Here's the part that you don't get- If nodes 1-1,000,000,000 firing in
> > any of a number of known and understood ways is what conscious is,
> > then if that happened we would know if the robot was or wasn't
> > conscious, and consciousness would (or at least could) affect the
> > behavior of the robot.
> > ---
>
> > The bit you have to get is that if the nodes still behaved the way
> > they would be expected to in a lab or a small system, then they would
> > be behaving as they would be expected to if no consciousness were
> > affecting their behaviour.
>
> I get what you're saying. It's simply wrong. Behaving the way they're
> expected to is what consciousness *is*.
>
>
>
> > > Your argument only works IF you assume that there is more to
> > > consciousness than just basic "node activity." If there isn't, then
> > > you see consciousness clearly written in the node activity when you go
> > > to look.
>
> > You are just showing you have missed the point. We have subjective
> > experiences. Even if these were thought to be a "point of view of what
> > the neural activity of a section of the overall neural state
> > represented", we could still consider whether the existence of the
> > perspective influenced behaviour.
>
> Thye only person missing points is you. Or rather I should say
> pretending to miss points.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > [It could be argued at this point that even if unaccounted messages
> > > > did start appearing or the nodes started giving different from
> > > > expected results, that only the configurations or complexity levels
> > > > would be required to explain the swap over of rules, and that they are
> > > > not in themselves knowledge of whether the system is having conscious
> > > > experiences or not. Though you might wonder what reason they had to
> > > > think that once certain configuration or complexity levels were
> > > > reached, new rules would appear]
>
> > > It's your unevidenced assumption that consciousness must include
> > > unaccounted for messages appearing from nowhere. This is not the
> > > materialistic point of view. The node activities are each a little
> > > part of consciousness.
>
> > The only messages that couldn't be accounted for would be messages to
> > the brain required to implement your will. These could be at the
> > quantum level as as simple as the behaviour not being random, but
> > showing a distinct pattern representing the implementation of your
> > will.
>
> They absolutely *would* be accounted for. Why do you think they
> wouldn't be accounted for. Oh, that's right. The whole point of your
> argument rests on assuming that they aren't accounted for. Well you're
> wrong. They absolutely are accounted for.
>

You seem to miss the point, that if all messages were accounted for in
the robot, and all the nodes continued to follow the known laws of
physics, the same as it would if it weren't experiencing, then even if
it was experiencing, it couldn't be said to be influencing the
behaviour. If we were a mechanism that could be explained in the same
sense as the robot, then us being conscious couldn't affect behaviour.
It would have to be only coincidental that we express the subjective
experiences we experience.

(As no point did I suggest there were no CD by the way, you just
didn't understand what I was saying).

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:07 am
From: Vend

On 23 Apr, 23:55, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> If you are then it is not about the behaviour which determines whether
> you call it a CD player or a microwave oven. It is whether it
> experienced being a CD player or a microwave oven would affect its
> behaviour.

Who is talking about experiencing being a CD player?

The examples all follow this schema:
-System S has property P.
-System S is made by the set of parts X = {xi}
-Each individual part xi doesn't have property P.
-Behavior of system S can be explained at "high-level" without
referencing the individual parts and referencing property P or at "low-
level" referencing individual parts and not referencing P.
-Both descriptions are correct and mutually consistent.

Example 1: S = earth atmosphere, P = air pressure, xi = air molecule.
The behavior of the earth atmosphere (that is, the weather) can be
explained at high level, referencing to air pressure, or at low level,
in terms of interactions between air molecules. The fact that a low
level description exists doesn't mean that air pressure doesn't
influence the weather.

Example 2: S = human, P = conscious experiences, xi = neuron.
The behavior of an human can be explained at high level, referencing
to conscious experiences, or at low level, in terms of interaction
between the neurons of his brain. The fact that a low level
description exists doesn't mean that conscious experiences influence
don't influence the behavior.

Is that so difficult to understand?

<snip>

> So would a conscious circuit follow the laws of physics the same as a
> non-conscious circuit would be expected to?

Yes.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: a challenge to evolution punks
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cf1ee2f7a2c72bef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:55 am
From: Will in New Haven

On Apr 23, 10:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

Provide proof that you are a sapient life form or shut up, goddidit
punk.

Will in New Haven

>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/833cb8101482318?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:56 am
From: WuzYoungOnceToo

On Apr 23, 7:06 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Got an A, actually.
>
> > You must have been blowing the professor.
>
> Now we know just how your mind works (or doesn't).

Just trying to find some justification for the claim of an "A" in
statistics from someone who managed to infer meaningful correlation
from a single data point. Actualy knowledge and/or intellect
certainly doesn't explain it.

> > > > And, in any event, if you think
> > > > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
> > > > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>
> > > Yes I do, and I think they are.
>
> > Then you don't, because they aren't.
>
> They are the dumbest administration I'm aware of.

Nice demonstration of the utter inability to follow along.

> > > I did say so. You just don't know how to read for comprehension.>From my post: "This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in that category."
>
> > Apparently your sarchasm detector doesn't function any better than
> > your liber/conservative-o-meter.
>
> Back-peddling is so wimpy.

So is your stupidity.

> > Your own anecdotal experience meaning precisely dick in the grand
> > scheme of things.
>
> And yours the same.

That might mean something...if my arguments were based on personal
anecdotes. Since they're not your response here is just a playground
exercise in "I'm rubber and you're glue."

> > I'd like to see any and all "good-guys" (who weren't complete morons)
> > armed in a situation like the VA Tech one....even if they weren't a
> > bunch of "Dirty Harry"s.
>
> I had a class with 550 people in it. You think it would be a good
> thing if one guy started shooting and 550 people opened fire in that
> room? You're talking about over a thousand rounds per second in a
> concrete room.

Are you capable of anything but strawmen that you pull out of your own
ass? If you seriously believe that all 550 would be able to access
their weapons and begin firing at the same time, and before the
situation was ended by the one or two who managed to do it first, then
you're even more simple-minded than I thought.

> > So your assertion is simply that one must "grow up around guns" in
> > order to learn to handle them properly and effectively in an emergency
> > situtation?
>
> No, but I wouldn't trust an academic that has been in academia all
> their life to go down and get a concealed carry permit and
> automatically be well prepared to handle the situation. They need
> training, practice, and refreshers all the time. That's what the
> police get.

A response to this later, where you make the same ill-informed
assertion.

> > The academics you've known must all have been complete
> > idiots. Of course, that would also explain your "A" in Statistics.
>
> I guess all my teachers and profs were idiots then, right? So you'd
> trust an 89 year old economist with no gun training to open fire on a
> hostile in a closed room with little or no training?

No (regarding the lack of training), nor have I said that I would.

> If I were you, I'd look around and see if my brain fell out of my ear. In your case,
> it probably fits.

If you were me you'd actually be speaking from a position of at least
some knowledge on the subject, as opposed to the complete ignorance
you're basing your arguments on.

> > Your understanding of what is required for firearm proficiency (Hint:
> > It has nothing to do with the propensity for being a do-it-yourself
> > Home Depot denizen) is even weaker than your understanding of what a
> > political conservative is.
>
> All you have to have to be proficient in firearms is desire, training
> and practice. A concealed carry permit requires none of the above.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your knowledge to the class by telling us
what you think the requirements are for CCW permits in the various
states, or at least what the preponderance of them require. I'm
betting that your answers will be wrong.

> All you have to be a political conservative is a long flexible neck so
> that you can stick your head up your butt or in the sand, which ever
> is more convenient.

The level of intellect conveyed via your arguments is truly impressive.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:16 am
From: WuzYoungOnceToo

On Apr 24, 5:33 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Op Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:04:54 -0700, schreef WuzYoungOnceToo:
>
> > I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with the
> > clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his weapon and
> > firing first never occured to you.
>
> Have you been practising that move in front of your mirror?

I see you've finally realized that you have nothing intelligent to
offer.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:15 am
From: WuzYoungOnceToo

On Apr 24, 12:25 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht+n...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> WuzYoungOnceToo wrote, On 2007/04/23 19:04:
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> No. I'm saying that society as a whole is safer (less people killed) when
> >> that society does not entertain a gun culture.
> > Define "gun culture".
>
> Have you ever compared Canada and the USA?

I have interacted with Canadians on a fairly regular basis, and I've
learned that it is *impossible* to do so and not be conttinually
bombarded with such comparisons. It seems to be something of a
national obsession in Canada.

> Crime rates (per capita) not
> involving guns are pretty much the same between Canada and the USA. Once
> you add guns, however, and things change drastically.
> Murders
> with Total
> Murders firearms Difference Crimes
> Canada 1.49 0.5 1.09 7549.21
> USA 4.28 2.79 1.49 8006.45
> [1] [2] [3]
>
> (per 100 000 people)
>
> [1]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca...
> [2]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murder...
> [3]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crim...
>
> Just barely over one third (33.6%) of all murders in Canada are done
> with guns, where as in the USA it's not quite two thirds (65.2%). Take
> away the gun-murder rate from the total rates and you have results that
> are a lot closer.

Take away the gun-murder rate and you would have an increase in
murders using other weapons. I'm not claiming a 1:1 exchange, but if
you're suggesting that these extra murders would simply cease to exist
in the absence of firearms then you're being quite naive regarding the
nature of murder.

> Another interesting page ishttp://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.htmland the
> tables about half way down which compare homicides and gun ownership
> rates, from 1998 data, between Canada and the USA.
>
> So the question is "Given the obvious similarities between Canada and
> the USA including basic crime rates, why is the murder rate in the USA
> so much higher, especially the rate with firearms?"

The difference in the basic murder rate is attributable to a number of
factors. One of them is the ill-conceived "war on drugs". Another is
the profound differences between our two countries' immigration
policies, and geographical locations. There are numerous other
contributing causes as well.

> I think it comes down to gun culture.

I keep asking people who insist on using this term what it means, but
I never get a meaningful response. Why is that? Could it be that
it's just another one of those vacuous bumper-sticker concepts that
people just casually toss about because they sound good?

> Look at how the Wild West is venerated in American culture...

The wild west is not nearly as "venerated" in American culture as you
seem to think. Yes, we like our cowboy movies...as
*entertainment*....but we don't take steps to recreate the lawless
West. We also like Mafia movies/shows, because they're fun. But in
the real world we've expended a great deal of time, money and law
enforcement effort in combatting the mob. You need to learn the
difference between entertainment and real attitudes.

> - a time when "justice" came from the
> barrel of a gun. Americans complain that "the media" and especially
> "Hollywood" are "liberal" (a rather base insult in the USA), but as a
> Canadian awash in American media and the efflux of Hollywood I'd almost
> say that the gun is the Golden Calf Idol of American society. And that
> is based upon watching the supposedly liberal American media.

Well, that's what happens when you rely on pop culture entertainment
as the basis for your world view. If you want to deal in reality you
might want to try considering why the majority of adult Americans
don't even own a gun, and why such a large proportion of those who do
only own them for hunting or other shooting sports. There are five
firearms in my own home, but each and every one of them is a hunting
weapon. I have a bolt-action .30-06 and a 12 gauge shotgun. My son
has a bolt-action .243, a 20 gauge shotgun and a semi-auto .22 rifle.
We use them exclusively for hunting, as do a great many other U.S. gun
owners with their firearms. Do you think that make us worshippers of
the Golden Calf Idol?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2218488a3cc44ea7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:57 am
From: Dick

On 23 Apr 2007 09:45:27 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:

>On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>>
>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> >> > successfully.
>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>
>> > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>> > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>
>> Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>
>Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
>scientific models and theories
>are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
>reality itself.
>
>> That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
>> when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen
>> mightymartia...@gmail.com
>

I think we all overlook many special facets of man when we don't
personally develop a special talent. Not everyone can think in
formulas or create music or art. Not everyone can dig a ditch day in
and day out.

All music, art or mathematical equation or theory is beautiful to
someone else. I recently read the history of the ideation leading to
discovering "Black Holes." One scientist in Russia wrote about his
hypothesis supported by his calculations. An American scientist was
taken by the notion, but did not try to disprove the Russian's proof,
he took the idea then prepared his own proof. The conclusions were
the same thus persuading the American scientist that the Russian might
have arrived at a useful conclusion.

Men lived quite well thinking the sun circled the earth. That didn't
mean it was true.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:02 am
From: Dick

On 23 Apr 2007 19:38:47 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:

>On Apr 23, 3:26 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 12:45 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>>
>> > > Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> > > > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> Ian Chua wrote:
>> > > >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > > >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > > >> > successfully.
>> > > >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> > > >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>> > > >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> > > >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>
>> > > > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>> > > > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>
>> > > Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>>
>> > Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
>> > scientific models and theories
>> > are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
>> > reality itself.
>>
>> But you are advocating epistemological nihilism, even in your denial.
>> Insisting that knowledge is unattainable is nihilism.
>>
>> Either way, your knowledge of a god is imaginary, but with nihilism,
>> it is imaginary at two levels.
>>
>Not sure where you're heading with this. We're talking about
>scientific models and theories.
>

Ideas are ideas. Nothing special about the category. Have you
noticed how many scientist are musicians? If you insist on a narrow
discussion you will miss the true nature of man's consciousness.
>>
>>
>> > > That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
>> > > when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
>>
>> > > --
Sounds like a 'wild card' response. Why drag in religion
specifically? Religions are just another category of models and
theories, right?

>> > > Aaron Clausen
>> > > mightymartia...@gmail.com
>>
>> --
>> Greg G.
>>
>> Here, Pavlov, come here, boy!
>

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:10 am
From: Dick

On 23 Apr 2007 21:56:04 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 23 Apr 2007 09:45:27 -0700,
>Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>>>
>>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>> > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>>> >> > successfully.
>>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>>
>>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>>
>>> > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>>> > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>>
>>> Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>>
>> Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
>> scientific models and theories
>> are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
>> reality itself.
>
>All any of us can do is produce models of reality. What you see
>through your eyes is not, in fact, what you see through the physical
>optical hardware in your eyes, but rather a model produced by the
>brain.
>
>That is precisely why the scientific method was developed, to produce
>a means by which theories can independently tested and observations
>independently confirmed.

Science has restricted itself to a small part of man's experience. I
have no problem with the restrictions, but when it becomes an excuse
to ignore other models about existence, I cringe. Science cannot
determine who will be the "best" next President, it may be able to
predict who the next President will be.
>

>Now, unless you're an advocate that the entire human race is somehow
>under a singular delusion whereby multiple and independent confirmations
>are in fact merely the product of mass hallucination, that suggests
>that reality *is* modellable, that one *can* create theories to
>explain and predict physical reality, and that those theories *can*
>be tested to determine whether or not they accurately explain some
>aspect of physical reality.
>
>Your post above suggests very heavily that, when cornered on this,
>you are going to advance a nihilistic explanation. This is hinted at
>pretty strongly by other threads you have created where you attempt
>to put forward a claim that because there are multiple explanations
>for a given phenomona, that that undermines any (or perhaps all)
>theories as being reasonable and useful means of explaining nature.
>
>It's my opinion that you are trying to put your own religious
>beliefs (and no doubt the pseudo-science informed by those beliefs)
>on an equal footing with certain scientific theories that don't
>jive with your specific beliefs. You seem quite keen to avoid
>openly declaring this, rather trying to work from a strategy of
>creating some framework in which you can insert your as-yet-unrevealed
>beliefs, with the idea that you have seriously called into question
>the ability of scientists to produce reasonably accurate and useful
>explanations.
>
>I'm just trying to cut this whole silly strategy off at the pass because
>I personally find it tiring to have to wait for weeks, wading through
>dozens of posts, each one apparently designed as one cut in a
>death of a thousand cuts strategy, only to find out that what we have
>has is a stock Creationist claim.
>
>This seems to be a new strategy. Someone2, who is putting forth a
>dualistic claim about human consciousness (well, if he ever gets around
>to it) is using a similar set of tactics. Perhaps your ministry has
>suggested this to you as a means to show all those evil atheistic
>evolutionists up. I dunno. Maybe it's just coincidence, but in either
>case I find it a rather dull and silly way to debate.
>
>If you don't believe that we can produce theories that explain the
>physical universe, or you believe certain aspects of the universe
>are exempt from scientific probing, then just come out and say it.
>It's not like we don't know what you're trying to do, so this whole
>tactic seems pointless.

You may well be seeing truth I don't see. Are you sure it is not your
agenda being pasted onto the original statement?

The psychiatrist finished displaying the deck of ambiguous pictures.
He observed to his client, "you seem to think about sex a lot." The
patient responded, "you're the one showing me dirty pictures!"

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:18 am
From: Dick

On 23 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:

>On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-
>mailable) wrote:
>> In article <1177322063.659386.17...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> >> > successfully.
>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>
>> >Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>> >They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>
>> How do you know, based on REALITY, not mere perception, that
>> people are conversing with you over the internet?
>>
>It appears there are now 2806 subscribers on this Usenet.
>Do we know whether there are some subscribers using multiple
>pseudonyms here?
>
>> --
>> David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
>

Does it even mater? Ideas are ideas and can stand on their own
merits, so says me. Repetition of the same ideas is not worth much,
but variety of ideas can be tested against my world experience.

I like the story of the 3 blind me that visited a petting zoo. They
shared their experiences on the way home focusing (blind men focus?)
on the elephant. The first man said "It was flat and broad," a second
said, "no, it was round and skinny, the third said, "I agree, it was
round but very big around."

It seems to me finding ways to merge opinions is what we should
endeavor to do. Finding falsity can throw the baby out with the bath
water.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:20 am
From: Dick

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:25:18 +0000 (UTC), dmcanzi@remulak.uwaterloo.ca
(David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:

>In article <1177354005.764939.303310@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-
>>mailable) wrote:
>>> In article <1177322063.659386.17...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>>> >> > successfully.
>>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>>
>>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>>
>>> >Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>>> >They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>>
>>> How do you know, based on REALITY, not mere perception, that
>>> people are conversing with you over the internet?
>>>
>>It appears there are now 2806 subscribers on this Usenet.
>>Do we know whether there are some subscribers using multiple
>>pseudonyms here?
>
>You are trying to evade my question.
>Canzi - 1
>Chua - 0

Truth is not determined by votes. Most scientific progress starts
with one lonely scientist with a new perspective.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:21 am
From: Dick

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:42:08 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <86cq23doeh6g77d9gbq65ip60n1h0hhedn@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
><usenet@mcsuk.net> writes
>>On 23 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> enriched
>>this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-
>>>mailable) wrote:
>>>> In article <1177322063.659386.17...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>>>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>>>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>>>> >> > successfully.
>>>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>>>
>>>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>>>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>>>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>>>
>>>> >Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>>>> >They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know, based on REALITY, not mere perception, that
>>>> people are conversing with you over the internet?
>>>>
>>>It appears there are now 2806 subscribers on this Usenet.
>>>Do we know whether there are some subscribers using multiple
>>>pseudonyms here?
>>
>>Subscribers? "this usenet"?
>>
>>WTF are you talking about?
>>
>He means that there are 2806 "subscribers" to talk.origins via Google
>Groups.

Good show, light instead of smoke.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is science and what is NOT science
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6d81c27907da89cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:59 pm
From: AC

On 24 Apr 2007 07:05:39 -0700,
Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2:13 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 12:45 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 21 Apr 2007 11:25:16 -0700,
>>
>> >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Apr 21, 1:34 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Apr 2007 07:01:18 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 19, 10:03 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On 19 Apr 2007 11:02:48 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >> >> > > talk.origins, posted by Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> > > <snip>
>> >> >> > > >Wait! The scientists were frustrated, as they couldn't put what they
>> >> >> > > >observed into an evolutionary context (meaning the atheistic
>> >> >> > > >philosophy of darwin's cult of pseudoscience).
>> >> >> > > I think I've detected your basic problem. You think all
>> >> >> > > scientists are atheists, which is incorrect, but that's not
>> >> >> > > your basic problem.
>> >> >> > Strawman. I never said that.
>>
>> >> >> What you wrote (above) certainly means the same thing.
>>
>> >> > Look, claiming something is an atheistic philosophy is
>> >> > not the same as saying "all scientists are atheists".
>> >> > It is totally and completely retarded to assert otherwise.
>>
>> >> What's more retarded is claiming that evolution is an atheistic
>> >> philosophy.
>>
>> > If the outlook or philosophy of darwinism is not
>> > atheistic, please tell me what the god of darwinism is?
>>
>> There is no god of Darwinism. Neither is there a god of meteorology, nor
>> of paleontology, nor cosmology, nor...chemistry
>>
>> Mark
>
> But chemistry doesn't venture into philosophy.

Neither does evolution.

>
> Evolution is simply the branch of science that attempts
> to explain philosophy scientifically.

Really? How? Where? How does the statement "the genetic makeup of a
population changes over time" explain philosophy.

One gets the feeling that you a) don't know what philosophy is, b) don't
know what evolution is and c) are just being pseudo-skeptical in some vain
attempt to gloss over your obvious shortcomings.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@gmail.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God is real
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/207c2fc0fcba7b57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:59 pm
From: Ferrous Patella

news:5uar23thggfbju35ibttk494s9cdm66t3v@4ax.com by Bob Casanova:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:33:22 GMT, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Ferrous Patella
> <mail125797@pop.net>:
>
>>news:462BF945.3030506@deadspam.com by Noelie S. Alito:
>>
>>> Noelie
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. I'm baa-ack!
>>
>>Dude! I noticed the 8997 score in my Xnews and was going like, "Who the
>>heck is that?"
>>
>>Good to see you again.
>
> "Dude"? Dudette, maybe? ;-)
>
> Welcome back, Noelie!

I though "Dude" as a interjection was genderless. Kinda like the last
couple of generations version of my generations "Wow" (best delivered by
the hippy girl on the Smothers Brothers Show.)

--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:09 pm
From: Ferrous Patella

news:c6udnUpf-tFdobDb4p2dnA@giganews.com by Noelie S. Alito:

> Ferrous Patella wrote:
>> news:462BF945.3030506@deadspam.com by Noelie S. Alito:
>>
>>> Noelie
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. I'm baa-ack!
>>
>> Dude! I noticed the 8997 score in my Xnews and was going like, "Who the
>> heck is that?"
>>
>> Good to see you again.
>
> Xnews score 8997!? I blush....
>
>

Well, I had to make you less then 9000 so you would be a different color
than Chez Watt (gotta have priorities, ya know). I forget who 8998 and
8999 are. They seem to have fallen off the radar.

I must admit to being crestfallen to let the ownership of
rhymeswithgoaliefanclub.com lapse when I heard you were no longer pursuing
your science writer career.

--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Darwin married 2 opium addicted 10 year old transvestite prostitutes
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:03 am
From: Tom McDonald

Throwback wrote:
> And ejaculated in a donkey's ear.
>
> Just testing the moderation policy.
>

Sorry, your post has been rejected because it is icky. And
because you are lame. And stink. And you momma so fat, when she
sat around the house, she sat *around* the house. And you're glue
and the ng is rubber.

Thank you for your interest in posting to talk.origins. Never
post here again.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hi
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/26a2ad9b5e4cad5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:04 pm
From: Mark Isaak

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:10:49 -0700, For Life wrote:

> On Apr 22, 3:42 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 22 Apr 2007 04:31:12 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Apr 22, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi
>>
>> >> I think it's time you posted something to this group more than two
>> >> characters long.
>>
>> >Hello
>>
>> Hello. Have anything both meaningful and rational to post?
>
> yes.

Since you admit you don't have anything both meaningful and rational to
post, perhaps you should not post.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "talk.origins"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to talk.origins-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive