Discussion:
religion plays a role in scientific process
(too old to reply)
Dale
2015-04-26 23:25:41 UTC
Permalink
for this discussion let's say religion is blind faith abstraction

isn't abstraction at least valuable in tooling hypotheses?

in the light of blind faith, aren't religious hypotheses at least
valuable in the philosophical psycho-social sciences?

for instance, to choose a leader, wouldn't you abstract all the unknowns
you could to decide if such a leader would be alpha enough? wouldn't the
question of what the alpha of all alphas , God(s), would do if such
would come into the play at some point?

where can you say science is more than a process? how founded does a
theory have to be before it is fact? statistically? six-sigma
production? ISO-900(0,1,2) production?

where did such an absolute break between science and religion begin?

how can you say that the simple elegance of empiricism started with
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc ... aren't the
forementioned posthumously granted alpha status in their words above
what is obviously written and created in stone millennia before them?

ever watch Ancient Aliens on History and History 2 channels? ...
megalithic constructions in stone all over earth that would be hard to
do today, let alone be funded ...

science and religion have been around for a long time ...
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
b***@m.nu
2015-04-27 00:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
for this discussion let's say religion is blind faith abstraction
isn't abstraction at least valuable in tooling hypotheses?
when you find some sense let me know....
Post by Dale
in the light of blind faith, aren't religious hypotheses at least
valuable in the philosophical psycho-social sciences?
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education. Sure you can "learn" or know what
is in the bible but that is about equal as to say knowing all of the
greek gods and thier special powers. There is just nothing there that
can help in any way in modern society
Post by Dale
for instance, to choose a leader, wouldn't you abstract all the unknowns
you could to decide if such a leader would be alpha enough? wouldn't the
question of what the alpha of all alphas , God(s), would do if such
would come into the play at some point?
that is the exact same as saying lets choose a leader that is exactly
the same as zues.....

If we were to choose a leader that was like the christian god, then we
would have to bring hitler back to life......
Post by Dale
where can you say science is more than a process? how founded does a
theory have to be before it is fact? statistically? six-sigma
production? ISO-900(0,1,2) production?
That just makes no sense at all. You dont understand science, you are
just guessing.
Post by Dale
where did such an absolute break between science and religion begin?
They were never unbroken. They have always clashed, there is nothing
about science that agrees with religon. Also you have to specify a
religon for people to know what you are even trying to compare since
they are so different
Post by Dale
how can you say that the simple elegance of empiricism started with
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc ... aren't the
forementioned posthumously granted alpha status in their words above
what is obviously written and created in stone millennia before them?
this is you trying to sound like you are educated and have something
to say, when you have no idea what you are talking about, which leads
me to believe you plagerized it, actually this entire post
Post by Dale
ever watch Ancient Aliens on History and History 2 channels? ...
You are an idiot.
Post by Dale
megalithic constructions in stone all over earth that would be hard to
do today, let alone be funded ...
LOL, you just refuse to use your brain dont you?
Post by Dale
science and religion have been around for a long time ...
So what?
Dale
2015-04-27 01:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
b***@m.nu
2015-04-27 03:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....

In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...

You are a moron..
Mike M
2015-04-27 06:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.

The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
--
So much universe, and so little time. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Checkmate
2015-04-27 06:56:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
--
Checkmate
The most widely-read author in AUK
"Usenet, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
Mike M
2015-04-27 07:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
--
So much universe, and so little time. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Checkmate
2015-04-27 09:31:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Checkmate
The most widely-read author in AUK
"Usenet, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
Mike M
2015-04-27 10:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
No, it wouldn't explain anything in itself, although it would be
aesthetically pleasing. The big question is still right there and forever
outside the boundaries of science, by definition.

What came before the universe? We don't know. Since science can only
investigate or even rationally speculate as far as the beginning, the
"before" has no resolvable meaning. Doubly so, since time itself - and
space - seem both to have come into being very shortly "after" the
beginning. So even the WORD "before" is misleading in this context.

And that stays the same whether there are cycles or just the one universe.
--
So much universe, and so little time. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Checkmate
2015-04-27 11:35:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <1608098322451822648.918901mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
No, it wouldn't explain anything in itself, although it would be
aesthetically pleasing. The big question is still right there and forever
outside the boundaries of science, by definition.
What came before the universe? We don't know. Since science can only
investigate or even rationally speculate as far as the beginning, the
"before" has no resolvable meaning. Doubly so, since time itself - and
space - seem both to have come into being very shortly "after" the
beginning. So even the WORD "before" is misleading in this context.
And that stays the same whether there are cycles or just the one universe.
Oh, okay.
--
Checkmate
The most widely-read author in AUK
"Usenet, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2015-04-27 15:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.

In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seems to
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratching
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start hawking
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem that
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove to
be very real, indeed.

By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that center,
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic soup,
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the process
again.

Mmmmmm... donuts.

<snicker>
--
FNVWe:
"The Man Who Spanked Chimpy Checkmate The Cowardly CockSmoker Out Of
AUK, Then Out Of The Flonk, Then Into Insanity, Then Made Him Run Away
Like A Little Spankard Bitch. Again."

In which Checkmate admits to being a faggot and fantasizing about men:
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate says he wants to spank guys all night long:
MID: <k3m5ls$3pr$***@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate confesses his desire to fuck who he claims is a guy:
MID: <k3oolf$cpe$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k9nj0v$u4a$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <l8ogd6$1cd$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lclrtd$eei$***@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate admits he'd definitely fuck a male dog:
MID: <k2h0j1$6ll$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k4dsc7$l32$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k5m8o5$vmq$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>

In which Checkmate admits to having a golden showers fetish:
MID: <k79p80$9ps$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9l0$nf0$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9kv$nev$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k994eg$77l$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k9i8is$sna$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <lf3noh$sqv$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate asks a guy for a blowjob (again):
MID: <ka4m1r$8rs$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <knd50p$7ni$***@news.albasani.net>
MID: <knnmme$3a4$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kp77db$rqk$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8t$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8u$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l069qt$g3j$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l1b6g1$qqv$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l65hh2$jpd$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9b7ha$ret$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfe72e$q0s$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lffimp$k2f$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

Checkmate's got a thing about tickling guy's asses with random objects:
MID: <l8rapt$rfm$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfm4f8$3jb$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <li2ao1$3rf$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

Checkmate's so gay he repeatedly insists that a picture of a vagina is
actually an asshole and balls... he went on and on about assholes and
balls... couldn't shut up about them... come to find out, he was just
trying to tell us that his lost love was actually a man:
MID: <l84jo7$cnd$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l84oip$icu$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l85ste$ao$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l87aud$saf$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l88ptv$nlj$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8dvdt$tj2$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8kl20$91i$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8psgt$m7d$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8rapv$rfm$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l98brg$6hp$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <ldg914$pel$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

Chimpy the neurotic overwrought hysterical hissy-fit ninny escalates his
prescription drug abuse to "calm the fuck down" (Chimpy's words):
MID: <***@dizum.com> - Oxy, Neurontin
MID: <kjucol$ckr$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org> - Oxy, Vicodin
MID: <kmqoip$cg3$***@news.albasani.net> - Norco
MID: <knc9l2$e66$***@news.albasani.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Oxycodone, Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Xanax
MID: <krt925$u63$***@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Marijuana
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <kuqmlq$mi7$***@news.mixmin.net> - Amphetamine (!)
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Ecstasy
MID: <l1b6g2$qr0$***@news.mixmin.net> - Vicodin
MID: <l5kd53$8kd$***@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <lanvc8$f06$***@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <larrim$lft$***@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <lcckii$mue$***@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <***@dizum.com> - Hydrocodone,
Alprazolam
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Percocet

Chimpy Checkmate's Famous Faggotisms:
=====================================
Chimpy discussing the relative merits of 4 inches versus 10 inches:
MID: <***@dizum.com>
"Plus, I suppose it doesn't hurt as much when they stuff it up your
butt."

MID: <***@news.alt.net>
"Best you keester a kielbasa."

Message-ID: <kvvjjb$a8t$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Brag about it to my dick."
"My dick can't quite hear you, could you come a little closer?"

MID: <knnmmb$3a4$***@news.mixmin.net>
"If you see a dick, suck it."

MID: <***@news.alt.net>
"The Winchester 1892 would make a damned-good dildo."

MID: <l61jjg$tth$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Pump a rump."

MID: <l9d76m$k1v$***@news.mixmin.net>
"You gerbils are always in the dark."

MID: <lal84d$g2u$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
"I gotta gay named Guido from Jersey"

MID: <lamgt8$b2d$***@news.mixmin.net>
"If they're soft, yer probably blowin' it all wrong."

MID: <lchub0$q96$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Hitler would have made a damned good Queen."

MID: <lcsgjb$obk$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Don't get slapped by the cocks you crave."

MID: <***@dizum.com>
To a nearly toothless man:
"I wouldn't pay you to suck my dick if your last tooth fell out."
So Chimpy prefers paying *nearly* toothless men for blowjobs, but not
*fully* toothless men. LOL

MID: <***@dizum.com>
"If I send you some money, will you suck Greg's dick?"
Chimpy likes to watch. LOL

MID: <***@dizum.com>
"Suck my clit."
Chimpy's proposition to a tranny sucking faggot who gets around being
gay by claiming tranny cocks are 'huge dangling clits'. LOL

Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
Checkmate wrote of his "unhappy childhood experiences" (Chimpy's words)
of receiving "belly-rubbing faggoty bum-stuffing" (Chimpy's words) from
his "belly-rubbing, bum-stuffing drunkard daddy" (Chimpy's words), and
what his "belly-rubbing horndog homodaddy" (Chimpy's words) "did to his
asshole... like turn it inside-out" (Chimpy's words), an experience that
was like "trying to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube" (Chimpy's
words) which caused him to become the "poor pathetic bum-stuffed son of
a drunken faggot" (Chimpy's words) who propositions guys with lines like
"I'd like to tickle his ass" (Chimpy's words), "My penis will spit in
your face." (Chimpy's words) and "He could do us both at the same time."
(Chimpy's words).

One must wonder if his father realizes "the monster he created when he
was butt-fucking his own son?" (Chimpy's words) because "this isn't
something a normal person dreams up" (Chimpy's words), "this is
something that obviously happened" (Chimpy's words), because "nobody
plucks those kind of details out of thin air" (Chimpy's words), so it
had to be his "own personal experience" (Chimpy's words).

You'll note that every time Chimpy's been challenged to refute or deny
his self-described "unhappy childhood taking his belly-rubbing
homodaddy's dick up his ass" (Chimpy's words), Chimpy's declined,
because he knows he was, is and forever shall be the "poor pathetic
bum-stuffed son of a drunken faggot" (Chimpy's words).
=====================================

What a FAG!

Melt, Chimpy, melt.
Froth, Chimpy, froth.
Dance, Chimpy, dance!

<snicker>

/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.

databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.

Message-ID: <l7m8ig$1ld$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8jh$1le$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8lh$1le$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8ne$1ld$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8pc$1le$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8rb$1ld$***@news.mixmin.net>
Mike M
2015-04-27 15:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.
In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seems to
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratching
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start hawking
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem that
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove to
be very real, indeed.
By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that center,
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic soup,
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the process
again.
Mmmmmm... donuts.
<snicker>
Ah. Froot Loop cosmogony. There is no spoon.

Edge of a toroid?
--
So much universe, and so little time. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.
2015-04-27 16:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
ad
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing =
=
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention =
to =
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions =
of
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they =
extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements =
of
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped cre=
ate
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology=
...
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (no=
t =
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to dispara=
ge =
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and =
always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time=
=
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts in=
to
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was =
a =
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of =
scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to th=
e =
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark =
energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitel=
y =
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locke=
d =
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright =C2=A9 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.
In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seems=
to
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratchi=
ng
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start hawk=
ing
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem that=
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove =
to
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
be very real, indeed.
By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that cente=
r,
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic sou=
p,
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the proces=
s
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
again.
Mmmmmm... donuts.
<snicker>
Ah. Froot Loop cosmogony. There is no spoon.
Edge of a toroid?
yep right on the "edge", like the looney FNVWe who likes to pretend that=
=

he is a cosmologist.

no doubt that he equates spacetime models to 3-d space like a typical =

credulous noob.

-- =

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

https://dizum.com/faq.html
[16] Q: One of your users is harassing me. What should I do?

A: You should probably ask them to stop or try to ignore them. If that =

does not work, you might want to consider contacting an appropriate law =
=

enforcement agency. We are unable to control what users say on Usenet, n=
or =

are we able to determine whether harassment is taking place.

http://squte.com/user/2083/full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's =

political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[10] but =

popularized it.[11] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times =

article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:=


From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 =
=

percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but =

Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the =

Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the =

South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and beco=
me =

Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the =
=

blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement=
=

with the local Democrats.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
"Some southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while=
=

remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout th=
e =

1970s and 1980s. Of the known Dixiecrats, only three switched parties =

becoming Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, =
=

Jr." - FNVWe doesn't understand history, thinks that 3 racists going who=
le =

hog GOP, while most remained democrats in their state elections and vote=
d =

republican at the national level, which after around 1950 meant that the=
y =

supported the typical GOP racism and sexism that we see today.


furthermore:

"The Democrats have their beginnings in the South, going back to the =

founding of the Democratic-Republican Party in 1793 by Thomas Jefferson =
=

and James Madison. It held to small government principles and distrusted=
=

the national government." - FNVWe, being an idiot thinks that this more =
=

represents the views of modern democrats, not the GOP. i think that we =
=

can all see what he's pathetically trying to do - deny that the modern =

republican party is a party of white butthurt racists.
Bob Casanova
2015-04-27 17:34:00 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.
In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seems to
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratching
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start hawking
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem that
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove to
be very real, indeed.
By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that center,
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic soup,
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the process
again.
Mmmmmm... donuts.
<snicker>
Ah. Froot Loop cosmogony. There is no spoon.
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Smiler
2015-04-28 01:24:09 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
b***@m.nu
2015-04-28 02:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
Smiler
2015-04-30 00:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
b***@m.nu
2015-04-30 02:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A

where as h= height
s= sphere circumference
d= distance from object
a = area of view
.
Bob Casanova
2015-04-30 16:44:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height
s= sphere circumference
d= distance from object
a = area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an
excellent demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Smiler
2015-04-30 22:07:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Bob Casanova
2015-05-01 17:07:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
Of course. And inocean. And everywhere else.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Smiler
2015-05-02 00:03:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by Bob Casanova
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
Of course. And inocean. And everywhere else.
I once worked with an Indian girl who thought, when a woman wrote that she
was incontinent, that she was not in the UK. Someone had to take her aside
and explain the meaning. I'm glad it wasn't me. I wouldn't have been able
to keep a straight face.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Bob Casanova
2015-05-02 16:36:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 May 2015 00:03:41 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by Bob Casanova
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
Of course. And inocean. And everywhere else.
I once worked with an Indian girl who thought, when a woman wrote that she
was incontinent, that she was not in the UK. Someone had to take her aside
and explain the meaning. I'm glad it wasn't me. I wouldn't have been able
to keep a straight face.
At least she had the excuse of English not(?) being her
native language, although, leaving aside the actual meaning,
thinking of the UK as a continent is a bit of a stretch.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-02 16:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 2 May 2015 00:03:41 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
Of course. And inocean. And everywhere else.
I once worked with an Indian girl who thought, when a woman wrote that she
was incontinent, that she was not in the UK. Someone had to take her aside
and explain the meaning. I'm glad it wasn't me. I wouldn't have been able
to keep a straight face.
At least she had the excuse of English not(?) being her
native language, although, leaving aside the actual meaning,
thinking of the UK as a continent is a bit of a stretch.
Most educated Indians speak better English than the average Brit,
because they learned it as a second language, including strict
grammar.

They might get some words wrong, though - I knew someone who never
said "pounds" , instead it was "ell bees".
Bob Casanova
2015-05-03 17:01:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 02 May 2015 11:45:56 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 2 May 2015 00:03:41 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
Of course. And inocean. And everywhere else.
I once worked with an Indian girl who thought, when a woman wrote that she
was incontinent, that she was not in the UK. Someone had to take her aside
and explain the meaning. I'm glad it wasn't me. I wouldn't have been able
to keep a straight face.
At least she had the excuse of English not(?) being her
native language, although, leaving aside the actual meaning,
thinking of the UK as a continent is a bit of a stretch.
Most educated Indians speak better English than the average Brit,
because they learned it as a second language, including strict
grammar.
No doubt, but not knowing the meaning of a particular word
isn't a matter of accuracy of speech or grammar, and
interpreting "incontinent" as the logical equivalent of
"in-house" or "in country" wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They might get some words wrong, though - I knew someone who never
said "pounds" , instead it was "ell bees".
Exactly. Cute example... ;-)
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Smiler
2015-05-02 23:19:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 May 2015 00:03:41 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
Of course. And inocean. And everywhere else.
I once worked with an Indian girl who thought, when a woman wrote that
she was incontinent, that she was not in the UK. Someone had to take her
aside and explain the meaning. I'm glad it wasn't me. I wouldn't have
been able to keep a straight face.
At least she had the excuse of English not(?) being her native language,
although, leaving aside the actual meaning,
thinking of the UK as a continent is a bit of a stretch.
No. Here in the UK, anywhere in mainland Europe is referred to as 'on the
continent'. She thought the person was 'in the continent', I.E, abroad.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Bob Casanova
2015-05-03 17:01:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 May 2015 23:19:32 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
On Sat, 2 May 2015 00:03:41 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:10:06 -0500, the following appeared in
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles. Electron microscopy has proven it.
only when viewed on a rigid surface
What happens if I'm standing on a trampoline?
well that would depend if you were bouncing.
the best way to tell if you were bouncing woud be
1/2h^2+c=S(sub1)-D*s^3-A
where as h= height s= sphere circumference d= distance from object a =
area of view
Plus, whether you're bouncing or not,you're giving an excellent
demonstration of the "rubber-sheet" analogy of GR.
Space/time is incontinent?
Of course. And inocean. And everywhere else.
I once worked with an Indian girl who thought, when a woman wrote that
she was incontinent, that she was not in the UK. Someone had to take her
aside and explain the meaning. I'm glad it wasn't me. I wouldn't have
been able to keep a straight face.
At least she had the excuse of English not(?) being her native language,
although, leaving aside the actual meaning,
thinking of the UK as a continent is a bit of a stretch.
No. Here in the UK, anywhere in mainland Europe is referred to as 'on the
continent'. She thought the person was 'in the continent', I.E, abroad.
Aha! OK, I misinterpreted; sorry.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
2015-04-28 17:25:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 01:24:09 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
On 27 Apr 2015 15:56:50 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic,
<snip>
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
See "corner of a sphere" for reference.
Not quite. A sphere has an infinite number if very minute corners,
although none are right angles.
Actually, that would be an infinite number of corners, all
of whose angles approach zero, becoming arbitrarily close to
zero as resolution improves.
Post by Smiler
Electron microscopy has proven it.
Ummm...I don't think so; electron microscopy is a poor tool
for analyzing ideal-but-never-realized objects; electrons
are *way* too coarse to provide the detail required. Just
sayin'... ;-)
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2015-04-28 03:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Mike M, in
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.
In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seems to
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratching
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start hawking
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem that
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove to
be very real, indeed.
By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that center,
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic soup,
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the process
again.
Mmmmmm... donuts.
<snicker>
Ah. Froot Loop cosmogony.
Well, I *was* going to later provide this link:

<http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080523/full/news.2008.854.html>
"Cosmologists have suggested various 'wrap-around' shapes for the
Universe: it might be shaped like a football or even a weird 'doughnut'.
In each case, the Universe would appear to be infinite, because you
would never physically reach its edge - if you travelled far enough in
any direction you would end up back where you started, just as if you
were circumnavigating the globe.

But the notion soon suffered a setback. Cosmologists predicted that a
wrap-around Universe would act like a hall of mirrors, with images from
distant objects being repeated multiple times across the sky. Glenn
Starkman at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his
colleagues searched for the predicted patterns, but found nothing.

Undeterred, Steiner and his colleagues have re-analysed the 2003 data
from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, looking for different
shapes, including the so-called '3-torus', also dubbed the 'doughnut
universe'.

Despite its catchy nickname, this shape is tough to visualize, says
Steiner. The 3-torus is an extension of the familiar doughnut shape and
can be formed from a rectangular piece of paper. You can imagine gluing
together first one set of opposite edges to make a cylinder, and then
the second set of opposing edges to make a doughnut shape, explains
Steiner.

The 3-torus is formed in a similar way, but you begin with a cube and
glue together each of the opposite faces. So if you were to attempt to
exit one of the cube's faces, you would immediately find yourself
entering again through the opposite one.

Steiner’s team used three separate techniques to compare predictions of
how the temperature fluctuations in different areas of the sky should
match up in both an infinite Universe and a doughnut one. In each case,
the doughnut gave the best match to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe data. The team has even been able to pin point the probable size
of the Universe, which would take around 56 billion light years to
cross."

Then this:
<http://www.scilogs.com/a_mad_hemorrhage/the-doughnut-universe/>
"In 2003, Tegmark et al. published their analysis of the background
radiation left over from the big bang. We don’t have the time or ability
to traverse the universe, but this radiation has. Something became clear
from their mapping of the radiation, it wasn’t symmetrical. The levels
of radiation that are visible now, and the fact that they are stronger
along one axis, together indicate that our universe is not infinite in
all directions. Not only is it finite, it is shaped like a
four-dimensional torus...

We all live in a giant doughnut."

Then this:
<http://www.livescience.com/33522-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html>
"Now, a new theory suggests that the accelerating expansion of the
universe is merely an illusion, akin to a mirage in the desert. The
false impression results from the way our particular region of the
cosmos is drifting through the rest of space, said Christos Tsagas, a
cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. Our
relative motion makes it look like the universe as a whole is expanding
faster and faster, while in actuality, its expansion is slowing down
just as would be expected from what we know about gravity.

Tsagas' theory is supported, in part, by other recent observations that
have puzzled cosmologists. Some data collected from space, such as the
cosmic microwave background [CMB] radiation and light from supernovas ,
seems to show that the universe has a "preferred axis": In its outward
expansion, it appears to be stretching more one way than another."

....as a means of solidifying my troll... but you ruined it. Thanks, pal.

<snicker>
Post by Mike M
There is no spoon.
Heh. Yeah, but the kooks eat that shit up. Especially wild-eyed raving
conspiracy-theory doomsday nutjobs like Chimpy... he wants to "go out in
a blaze of glory".

Chimpy Checkmate the drugged-out doomsday conspiracy theorist goes all
wild-eyed, hair pulling CRAAAaaaaaZZZzzY:
=========================
MID: <kpbjfq$klr$***@news.mixmin.net>
aka "CAN'T TRUST NO ONE!!"
"It's coming, and nowhere in the world will be safe for long when it
does."

MID: <kpce3h$lqv$***@news.mixmin.net>
aka "KILL THEM ALL!!"
"If I have to go out in a blaze of glory, so be it, because I'm going
to take a whole bunch of motherfuckers with me."

MID: <***@dizum.com>
aka "THEY'RE COMING FOR MEEEEEEE!"
"Bush is out of office now, but the damage done to our rights has
already been done under the guise of a war on terrorism. The biggest
terrorist organization in the world is the American Government, and
particularly the CIA. Now that PRISM has my comments in their
database, I'm sure Homeland Security will be out to round me up when
the coming purge is implemented."

MID: <***@dizum.com>
aka "DUCK! HERE IT COMES!!!!"
"BTW, I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan real soon now.
My best guess is within two years, all hell is going to break loose."
=========================
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
Yeah, the outermost surface. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point, and
thanks for providing me the opportunity to clear that up... the kooks
need their pabulum very finely sieved and spoon fed to them. They're
easily confused.

They get any dumber, and we're going to have to put a tube down their
throats just to feed them because they'll have forgotten how to swallow.

Not Chimpy, though... Chimpy's a swallowing champion. See my .sig for
proof, in his own words.

<snicker>
--
FNVWe:
"The Man Who Spanked Chimpy Checkmate The Cowardly CockSmoker Out Of
AUK, Then Out Of The Flonk, Then Into Insanity, Then Made Him Run Away
Like A Little Spankard Bitch. Again."

In which Checkmate admits to being a faggot and fantasizing about men:
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate says he wants to spank guys all night long:
MID: <k3m5ls$3pr$***@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate confesses his desire to fuck who he claims is a guy:
MID: <k3oolf$cpe$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k9nj0v$u4a$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <l8ogd6$1cd$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lclrtd$eei$***@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate admits he'd definitely fuck a male dog:
MID: <k2h0j1$6ll$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k4dsc7$l32$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k5m8o5$vmq$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>

In which Checkmate admits to having a golden showers fetish:
MID: <k79p80$9ps$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9l0$nf0$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9kv$nev$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k994eg$77l$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k9i8is$sna$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <lf3noh$sqv$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate asks a guy for a blowjob (again):
MID: <ka4m1r$8rs$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <knd50p$7ni$***@news.albasani.net>
MID: <knnmme$3a4$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kp77db$rqk$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8t$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8u$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l069qt$g3j$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l1b6g1$qqv$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l65hh2$jpd$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9b7ha$ret$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfe72e$q0s$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lffimp$k2f$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

Checkmate's got a thing about tickling guy's asses with random objects:
MID: <l8rapt$rfm$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfm4f8$3jb$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <li2ao1$3rf$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

Checkmate's so gay he repeatedly insists that a picture of a vagina is
actually an asshole and balls... he went on and on about assholes and
balls... couldn't shut up about them... come to find out, he was just
trying to tell us that his lost love was actually a man:
MID: <l84jo7$cnd$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l84oip$icu$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l85ste$ao$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l87aud$saf$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l88ptv$nlj$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8dvdt$tj2$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8kl20$91i$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8psgt$m7d$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8rapv$rfm$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l98brg$6hp$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <ldg914$pel$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>

Chimpy the neurotic overwrought hysterical hissy-fit ninny escalates his
prescription drug abuse to "calm the fuck down" (Chimpy's words):
MID: <***@dizum.com> - Oxy, Neurontin
MID: <kjucol$ckr$***@newsfeed.x-privat.org> - Oxy, Vicodin
MID: <kmqoip$cg3$***@news.albasani.net> - Norco
MID: <knc9l2$e66$***@news.albasani.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Oxycodone, Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Xanax
MID: <krt925$u63$***@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Marijuana
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <kuqmlq$mi7$***@news.mixmin.net> - Amphetamine (!)
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Ecstasy
MID: <l1b6g2$qr0$***@news.mixmin.net> - Vicodin
MID: <l5kd53$8kd$***@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <lanvc8$f06$***@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <larrim$lft$***@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <lcckii$mue$***@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <***@dizum.com> - Hydrocodone,
Alprazolam
MID: <***@news.alt.net> - Percocet

Chimpy Checkmate's Famous Faggotisms:
=====================================
Chimpy discussing the relative merits of 4 inches versus 10 inches:
MID: <***@dizum.com>
"Plus, I suppose it doesn't hurt as much when they stuff it up your
butt."

MID: <***@news.alt.net>
"Best you keester a kielbasa."

Message-ID: <kvvjjb$a8t$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Brag about it to my dick."
"My dick can't quite hear you, could you come a little closer?"

MID: <knnmmb$3a4$***@news.mixmin.net>
"If you see a dick, suck it."

MID: <***@news.alt.net>
"The Winchester 1892 would make a damned-good dildo."

MID: <l61jjg$tth$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Pump a rump."

MID: <l9d76m$k1v$***@news.mixmin.net>
"You gerbils are always in the dark."

MID: <lal84d$g2u$***@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <***@dizum.com>
"I gotta gay named Guido from Jersey"

MID: <lamgt8$b2d$***@news.mixmin.net>
"If they're soft, yer probably blowin' it all wrong."

MID: <lchub0$q96$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Hitler would have made a damned good Queen."

MID: <lcsgjb$obk$***@news.mixmin.net>
"Don't get slapped by the cocks you crave."

MID: <***@dizum.com>
To a nearly toothless man:
"I wouldn't pay you to suck my dick if your last tooth fell out."
So Chimpy prefers paying *nearly* toothless men for blowjobs, but not
*fully* toothless men. LOL

MID: <***@dizum.com>
"If I send you some money, will you suck Greg's dick?"
Chimpy likes to watch. LOL

MID: <***@dizum.com>
"Suck my clit."
Chimpy's proposition to a tranny sucking faggot who gets around being
gay by claiming tranny cocks are 'huge dangling clits'. LOL

Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
Checkmate wrote of his "unhappy childhood experiences" (Chimpy's words)
of receiving "belly-rubbing faggoty bum-stuffing" (Chimpy's words) from
his "belly-rubbing, bum-stuffing drunkard daddy" (Chimpy's words), and
what his "belly-rubbing horndog homodaddy" (Chimpy's words) "did to his
asshole... like turn it inside-out" (Chimpy's words), an experience that
was like "trying to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube" (Chimpy's
words) which caused him to become the "poor pathetic bum-stuffed son of
a drunken faggot" (Chimpy's words) who propositions guys with lines like
"I'd like to tickle his ass" (Chimpy's words), "My penis will spit in
your face." (Chimpy's words) and "He could do us both at the same time."
(Chimpy's words).

One must wonder if his father realizes "the monster he created when he
was butt-fucking his own son?" (Chimpy's words) because "this isn't
something a normal person dreams up" (Chimpy's words), "this is
something that obviously happened" (Chimpy's words), because "nobody
plucks those kind of details out of thin air" (Chimpy's words), so it
had to be his "own personal experience" (Chimpy's words).

You'll note that every time Chimpy's been challenged to refute or deny
his self-described "unhappy childhood taking his belly-rubbing
homodaddy's dick up his ass" (Chimpy's words), Chimpy's declined,
because he knows he was, is and forever shall be the "poor pathetic
bum-stuffed son of a drunken faggot" (Chimpy's words).
=====================================

What a FAG!

Melt, Chimpy, melt.
Froth, Chimpy, froth.
Dance, Chimpy, dance!

<snicker>

/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.

databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.

Message-ID: <l7m8ig$1ld$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8jh$1le$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8lh$1le$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8ne$1ld$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8pc$1le$***@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8rb$1ld$***@news.mixmin.net>
b***@m.nu
2015-04-28 03:45:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:13:53 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Mike M, in
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.
In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seems to
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratching
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start hawking
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem that
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove to
be very real, indeed.
By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that center,
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic soup,
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the process
again.
Mmmmmm... donuts.
<snicker>
Ah. Froot Loop cosmogony.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080523/full/news.2008.854.html>
"Cosmologists have suggested various 'wrap-around' shapes for the
Universe: it might be shaped like a football or even a weird 'doughnut'.
In each case, the Universe would appear to be infinite, because you
would never physically reach its edge - if you travelled far enough in
any direction you would end up back where you started, just as if you
were circumnavigating the globe.
only in a curved universe... the universe has been shown to be flat.
read lawrence krauss
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
But the notion soon suffered a setback. Cosmologists predicted that a
wrap-around Universe would act like a hall of mirrors, with images from
distant objects being repeated multiple times across the sky. Glenn
Starkman at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his
colleagues searched for the predicted patterns, but found nothing.
Undeterred, Steiner and his colleagues have re-analysed the 2003 data
from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, looking for different
shapes, including the so-called '3-torus', also dubbed the 'doughnut
universe'.
Despite its catchy nickname, this shape is tough to visualize, says
Steiner. The 3-torus is an extension of the familiar doughnut shape and
can be formed from a rectangular piece of paper. You can imagine gluing
together first one set of opposite edges to make a cylinder, and then
the second set of opposing edges to make a doughnut shape, explains
Steiner.
The 3-torus is formed in a similar way, but you begin with a cube and
glue together each of the opposite faces. So if you were to attempt to
exit one of the cube's faces, you would immediately find yourself
entering again through the opposite one.
Steiner’s team used three separate techniques to compare predictions of
how the temperature fluctuations in different areas of the sky should
match up in both an infinite Universe and a doughnut one. In each case,
the doughnut gave the best match to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe data. The team has even been able to pin point the probable size
of the Universe, which would take around 56 billion light years to
cross."
<http://www.scilogs.com/a_mad_hemorrhage/the-doughnut-universe/>
"In 2003, Tegmark et al. published their analysis of the background
radiation left over from the big bang. We don’t have the time or ability
to traverse the universe, but this radiation has. Something became clear
from their mapping of the radiation, it wasn’t symmetrical. The levels
of radiation that are visible now, and the fact that they are stronger
along one axis, together indicate that our universe is not infinite in
all directions. Not only is it finite, it is shaped like a
four-dimensional torus...
We all live in a giant doughnut."
<http://www.livescience.com/33522-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html>
"Now, a new theory suggests that the accelerating expansion of the
universe is merely an illusion, akin to a mirage in the desert. The
false impression results from the way our particular region of the
cosmos is drifting through the rest of space, said Christos Tsagas, a
cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. Our
relative motion makes it look like the universe as a whole is expanding
faster and faster, while in actuality, its expansion is slowing down
just as would be expected from what we know about gravity.
Tsagas' theory is supported, in part, by other recent observations that
have puzzled cosmologists. Some data collected from space, such as the
cosmic microwave background [CMB] radiation and light from supernovas ,
seems to show that the universe has a "preferred axis": In its outward
expansion, it appears to be stretching more one way than another."
....as a means of solidifying my troll... but you ruined it. Thanks, pal.
<snicker>
Post by Mike M
There is no spoon.
Heh. Yeah, but the kooks eat that shit up. Especially wild-eyed raving
conspiracy-theory doomsday nutjobs like Chimpy... he wants to "go out in
a blaze of glory".
Chimpy Checkmate the drugged-out doomsday conspiracy theorist goes all
=========================
aka "CAN'T TRUST NO ONE!!"
"It's coming, and nowhere in the world will be safe for long when it
does."
aka "KILL THEM ALL!!"
"If I have to go out in a blaze of glory, so be it, because I'm going
to take a whole bunch of motherfuckers with me."
aka "THEY'RE COMING FOR MEEEEEEE!"
"Bush is out of office now, but the damage done to our rights has
already been done under the guise of a war on terrorism. The biggest
terrorist organization in the world is the American Government, and
particularly the CIA. Now that PRISM has my comments in their
database, I'm sure Homeland Security will be out to round me up when
the coming purge is implemented."
aka "DUCK! HERE IT COMES!!!!"
"BTW, I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan real soon now.
My best guess is within two years, all hell is going to break loose."
=========================
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
Yeah, the outermost surface. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point, and
thanks for providing me the opportunity to clear that up... the kooks
need their pabulum very finely sieved and spoon fed to them. They're
easily confused.
They get any dumber, and we're going to have to put a tube down their
throats just to feed them because they'll have forgotten how to swallow.
Not Chimpy, though... Chimpy's a swallowing champion. See my .sig for
proof, in his own words.
<snicker>
Checkmate
2015-04-28 05:06:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@m.nu
says...
Post by b***@m.nu
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:13:53 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Mike M, in
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinitely and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was locked in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright �© 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.
In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seems to
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratching
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start hawking
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem that
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove to
be very real, indeed.
By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that center,
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic soup,
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the process
again.
Mmmmmm... donuts.
<snicker>
Ah. Froot Loop cosmogony.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080523/full/news.2008.854.html>
"Cosmologists have suggested various 'wrap-around' shapes for the
Universe: it might be shaped like a football or even a weird 'doughnut'.
In each case, the Universe would appear to be infinite, because you
would never physically reach its edge - if you travelled far enough in
any direction you would end up back where you started, just as if you
were circumnavigating the globe.
only in a curved universe... the universe has been shown to be flat.
read lawrence krauss
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
But the notion soon suffered a setback. Cosmologists predicted that a
wrap-around Universe would act like a hall of mirrors, with images from
distant objects being repeated multiple times across the sky. Glenn
Starkman at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his
colleagues searched for the predicted patterns, but found nothing.
Undeterred, Steiner and his colleagues have re-analysed the 2003 data
from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, looking for different
shapes, including the so-called '3-torus', also dubbed the 'doughnut
universe'.
Despite its catchy nickname, this shape is tough to visualize, says
Steiner. The 3-torus is an extension of the familiar doughnut shape and
can be formed from a rectangular piece of paper. You can imagine gluing
together first one set of opposite edges to make a cylinder, and then
the second set of opposing edges to make a doughnut shape, explains
Steiner.
The 3-torus is formed in a similar way, but you begin with a cube and
glue together each of the opposite faces. So if you were to attempt to
exit one of the cube's faces, you would immediately find yourself
entering again through the opposite one.
Steiner�s team used three separate techniques to compare predictions of
how the temperature fluctuations in different areas of the sky should
match up in both an infinite Universe and a doughnut one. In each case,
the doughnut gave the best match to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe data. The team has even been able to pin point the probable size
of the Universe, which would take around 56 billion light years to
cross."
<http://www.scilogs.com/a_mad_hemorrhage/the-doughnut-universe/>
"In 2003, Tegmark et al. published their analysis of the background
radiation left over from the big bang. We don�t have the time or ability
to traverse the universe, but this radiation has. Something became clear
from their mapping of the radiation, it wasn�t symmetrical. The levels
of radiation that are visible now, and the fact that they are stronger
along one axis, together indicate that our universe is not infinite in
all directions. Not only is it finite, it is shaped like a
four-dimensional torus...
We all live in a giant doughnut."
<http://www.livescience.com/33522-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html>
"Now, a new theory suggests that the accelerating expansion of the
universe is merely an illusion, akin to a mirage in the desert. The
false impression results from the way our particular region of the
cosmos is drifting through the rest of space, said Christos Tsagas, a
cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. Our
relative motion makes it look like the universe as a whole is expanding
faster and faster, while in actuality, its expansion is slowing down
just as would be expected from what we know about gravity.
Tsagas' theory is supported, in part, by other recent observations that
have puzzled cosmologists. Some data collected from space, such as the
cosmic microwave background [CMB] radiation and light from supernovas ,
seems to show that the universe has a "preferred axis": In its outward
expansion, it appears to be stretching more one way than another."
....as a means of solidifying my troll... but you ruined it. Thanks, pal.
<snicker>
Post by Mike M
There is no spoon.
Heh. Yeah, but the kooks eat that shit up. Especially wild-eyed raving
conspiracy-theory doomsday nutjobs like Chimpy... he wants to "go out in
a blaze of glory".
Chimpy Checkmate the drugged-out doomsday conspiracy theorist goes all
=========================
aka "CAN'T TRUST NO ONE!!"
"It's coming, and nowhere in the world will be safe for long when it
does."
aka "KILL THEM ALL!!"
"If I have to go out in a blaze of glory, so be it, because I'm going
to take a whole bunch of motherfuckers with me."
aka "THEY'RE COMING FOR MEEEEEEE!"
"Bush is out of office now, but the damage done to our rights has
already been done under the guise of a war on terrorism. The biggest
terrorist organization in the world is the American Government, and
particularly the CIA. Now that PRISM has my comments in their
database, I'm sure Homeland Security will be out to round me up when
the coming purge is implemented."
aka "DUCK! HERE IT COMES!!!!"
"BTW, I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan real soon now.
My best guess is within two years, all hell is going to break loose."
=========================
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
Yeah, the outermost surface. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point, and
thanks for providing me the opportunity to clear that up... the kooks
need their pabulum very finely sieved and spoon fed to them. They're
easily confused.
They get any dumber, and we're going to have to put a tube down their
throats just to feed them because they'll have forgotten how to swallow.
Not Chimpy, though... Chimpy's a swallowing champion. See my .sig for
proof, in his own words.
<snicker>
--
Checkmate
The most widely-read author in AUK
"Usenet, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
Ms. Kitty
2015-04-28 06:19:34 UTC
Permalink
"Checkmate" <***@The.Edge> wrote:

I didn't see anything
The Toroid's Edge
2015-04-28 14:54:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:13:53 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler =
=
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Mike M, in
x>
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate), in
ead
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
In article <1671735444451811246.763345mike-
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Checkmate)
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing=
=
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen=
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention=
=
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions=
of
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they =
extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements=
of
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by b***@m.nu
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped =
create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to =
theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (n=
ot =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to =
disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and =
=
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the tim=
e =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts i=
nto
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was=
a =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of =
scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to t=
he =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
No one knows, since we still have very little information on dark =
=
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
energy.
Currently indications are that the universe will expand indefinite=
ly =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
and
get locally cooler as the energy density gets lower.
That seems to be the current consensus. Since so much of nature is=
cyclical, I think it would be a lot tidier if the universe was lock=
ed =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Checkmate
in
an endless cycle of bangs and crunches. That would explain a lot,
except how it all started in the first place.
--
Chimpy
The most widely-spread author in AUK
"My ass, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hummer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright =C3=83=E2=80=9A=C3=82=C2=A9 2015
all rights reserved
The universe is a torus. We're at the outer, expanding edge of that
toroidal shape.
In the future, scientists will be puzzled over why the universe seem=
s =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
to
be slowing its rate of expansion. Then they'll be absolutely scratch=
ing
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
their heads over the fact that the universe seems to have stopped
expanding altogether. Then the alarmists amongst them will start =
hawking
"solutions" to the shrinking universe much as the "global warming"
alarmists are hawking "solutions" (that don't work) to a problem tha=
t
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
doesn't exist. Except the problem of a shrinking universe will prove=
to
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
be very real, indeed.
By that time, we'll be at the inwardly curving portion of the torus,=
accelerating toward the center of the torus. When we reach that cent=
er,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
it will be known as a "Big Crunch"... of course, we likely won't be
around to witness it by that time, having been pureed into cosmic so=
up,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
to be later spit out the other side of that torus to start the proce=
ss
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
again.
Mmmmmm... donuts.
<snicker>
Ah. Froot Loop cosmogony.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080523/full/news.2008.854.html>
"Cosmologists have suggested various 'wrap-around' shapes for the
Universe: it might be shaped like a football or even a weird 'doughnut=
'.
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
In each case, the Universe would appear to be infinite, because you
would never physically reach its edge - if you travelled far enough in=
any direction you would end up back where you started, just as if you
were circumnavigating the globe.
But the notion soon suffered a setback. Cosmologists predicted that a
wrap-around Universe would act like a hall of mirrors, with images fro=
m
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
distant objects being repeated multiple times across the sky. Glenn
Starkman at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and hi=
s
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
colleagues searched for the predicted patterns, but found nothing.
Undeterred, Steiner and his colleagues have re-analysed the 2003 data
from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, looking for differen=
t
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
shapes, including the so-called '3-torus', also dubbed the 'doughnut
universe'.
Despite its catchy nickname, this shape is tough to visualize, says
Steiner. The 3-torus is an extension of the familiar doughnut shape an=
d
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
can be formed from a rectangular piece of paper. You can imagine gluin=
g
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
together first one set of opposite edges to make a cylinder, and then
the second set of opposing edges to make a doughnut shape, explains
Steiner.
The 3-torus is formed in a similar way, but you begin with a cube and
glue together each of the opposite faces. So if you were to attempt to=
exit one of the cube's faces, you would immediately find yourself
entering again through the opposite one.
Steiner=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2s team used three separate techniques t=
o compare predictions of
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
how the temperature fluctuations in different areas of the sky should
match up in both an infinite Universe and a doughnut one. In each case=
,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
the doughnut gave the best match to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy=
Probe data. The team has even been able to pin point the probable size=
of the Universe, which would take around 56 billion light years to
cross."
<http://www.scilogs.com/a_mad_hemorrhage/the-doughnut-universe/>
"In 2003, Tegmark et al. published their analysis of the background
radiation left over from the big bang. We don=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2t=
have the time or =
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
ability
to traverse the universe, but this radiation has. Something became cle=
ar
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
from their mapping of the radiation, it wasn=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2t =
symmetrical. The levels
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
of radiation that are visible now, and the fact that they are stronger=
along one axis, together indicate that our universe is not infinite in=
all directions. Not only is it finite, it is shaped like a
four-dimensional torus...
We all live in a giant doughnut."
<http://www.livescience.com/33522-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-il=
lusion.html>
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
"Now, a new theory suggests that the accelerating expansion of the
universe is merely an illusion, akin to a mirage in the desert. The
false impression results from the way our particular region of the
cosmos is drifting through the rest of space, said Christos Tsagas, a
cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. Our
relative motion makes it look like the universe as a whole is expandin=
g
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
faster and faster, while in actuality, its expansion is slowing down
just as would be expected from what we know about gravity.
Tsagas' theory is supported, in part, by other recent observations tha=
t
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
have puzzled cosmologists. Some data collected from space, such as the=
cosmic microwave background [CMB] radiation and light from supernovas =
,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
seems to show that the universe has a "preferred axis": In its outward=
expansion, it appears to be stretching more one way than another."
....as a means of solidifying my troll... but you ruined it. Thanks, p=
al.
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
<snicker>
Post by Mike M
There is no spoon.
Heh. Yeah, but the kooks eat that shit up. Especially wild-eyed raving=
conspiracy-theory doomsday nutjobs like Chimpy... he wants to "go out =
in
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
a blaze of glory".
Chimpy Checkmate the drugged-out doomsday conspiracy theorist goes all=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
aka "CAN'T TRUST NO ONE!!"
"It's coming, and nowhere in the world will be safe for long when it
does."
aka "KILL THEM ALL!!"
"If I have to go out in a blaze of glory, so be it, because I'm going
to take a whole bunch of motherfuckers with me."
aka "THEY'RE COMING FOR MEEEEEEE!"
"Bush is out of office now, but the damage done to our rights has
already been done under the guise of a war on terrorism. The biggest
terrorist organization in the world is the American Government, and
particularly the CIA. Now that PRISM has my comments in their
database, I'm sure Homeland Security will be out to round me up when
the coming purge is implemented."
aka "DUCK! HERE IT COMES!!!!"
"BTW, I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan real soon now.=
My best guess is within two years, all hell is going to break loose."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
Yeah, the outermost surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold#Lorentzian_manif=
old

"manifold" is the "big word" that you're looking for, cap'n =

pseudo-intellectual.
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point, and
thanks for providing me the opportunity to clear that up... the kooks
need their pabulum very finely sieved and spoon fed to them. They're
easily confused.
the backpedaling moron who spews the work of others while not =

understanding it's history or place in modern science fields has spoken.=
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
They get any dumber, and we're going to have to put a tube down their
throats just to feed them because they'll have forgotten how to swallo=
w.

the voice of experience talking.
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Not Chimpy, though... Chimpy's a swallowing champion. See my .sig for
proof, in his own words.
<snicker>
snickerpuss thinks that people actually read his .sig.

--
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.

https://dizum.com/faq.html
[16] Q: One of your users is harassing me. What should I do?

A: You should probably ask them to stop or try to ignore them. If that =

does not work, you might want to consider contacting an appropriate law =
=

enforcement agency. We are unable to control what users say on Usenet, n=
or =

are we able to determine whether harassment is taking place.

http://squte.com/user/2083/full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's =

political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[10] but =

popularized it.[11] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times =

article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:=


From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 =
=

percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but =

Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the =

Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the =

South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and beco=
me =

Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the =
=

blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement=
=

with the local Democrats.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
"Some southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while=
=

remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout th=
e =

1970s and 1980s. Of the known Dixiecrats, only three switched parties =

becoming Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, =
=

Jr." - FNVWe doesn't understand history, thinks that 3 racists going who=
le =

hog GOP, while most remained democrats in their state elections and vote=
d =

republican at the national level, which after around 1950 meant that the=
y =

supported the typical GOP racism and sexism that we see today.


furthermore:

"The Democrats have their beginnings in the South, going back to the =

founding of the Democratic-Republican Party in 1793 by Thomas Jefferson =
=

and James Madison. It held to small government principles and distrusted=
=

the national government." - FNVWe, being an idiot thinks that this more =
=

represents the views of modern democrats, not the GOP. i think that we =
=

can all see what he's pathetically trying to do - deny that the modern =

republican party is a party of white butthurt racists.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2015-04-28 18:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert M. Wolfe the tranny-wannabe of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA
(aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up asThe Toroid's Edge, in
Post by The Toroid's Edge
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:13:53 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Mike M, in
Post by Mike M
Edge of a toroid?
Yeah, the outermost surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold#Lorentzian_manifold
"manifold" is the "big word" that you're looking for, cap'n
pseudo-intellectual.
Says the pseudo-sub-moron (the highest he can aspire to) kook who had to
rape Google all night to find that word.

Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces. And given that a
manifold may not be realized in three dimensions without
self-intersection, the words you're desperately raping Google for are
"real projective plane". And given that for this troll, I was assuming
the universe to be a spindle torus, self-intersection of the manifold
was a given. LOL

But never mind, I've got a new troll now. I'm making some faggoty emo
retard in Pennsylvania follow me around and prove repeatedly how
inferior he is. LOL
Post by The Toroid's Edge
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point, and
thanks for providing me the opportunity to clear that up... the kooks
need their pabulum very finely sieved and spoon fed to them. They're
easily confused.
the backpedaling moron who spews the work of others while not
understanding it's history or place in modern science fields has spoken.
The backpedaling moron who thinks liberalism wasn't the party of racism,
xenophobia, homophobia, eugenics, hatefulness and intolerance from its
very inception despite their supporting slavery from their inception up
to its being made illegal (and after), and supporting reduced rights for
minorities for long after that, has dribbled. LOL

Why do you hate minorities, Racist Pasty-Faced Emo? LOL
Post by The Toroid's Edge
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
They get any dumber, and we're going to have to put a tube down their
throats just to feed them because they'll have forgotten how to swallow.
the voice of experience talking.
Open wide, RobbieRetard. LOL
Post by The Toroid's Edge
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Not Chimpy, though... Chimpy's a swallowing champion. See my .sig for
proof, in his own words.
<snicker>
snickerpuss thinks that people actually read his .sig.
Says the kook with the ever-expanding .sig displaying his obsession. LOL

Loving your meltdown, RobbieRetard. Keep at it.

<snicker>
--
Cipher (aka Dave A. Howard the Coward) is an ancient mainframe Usenet
bot that never got shut off. He walkered his way back into AUK after an
eternity spent in an infinite loop, started clacking his dentures and
bragging about what a big man he *used* to be and how we kids should get
the hell off his lawn, promptly outed himself, slipped in the urine
dribbling down his leg from his over-full Depends, his walker went
flying, his dentures clattered to the floor, and he lay there, hearing
aid squealing, stabbing an arthritic finger at his Life-Alert pendant
and crying "Help, I've soiled myself and I can't get up!" as we
youngsters laughed raucously at him. Don't ask him about the
Port-A-Potty that drove him so bonkers that he ended up in a tight-white
jacket in a rubber room in a mental institution... that wasn't Dave,
man. He's blocked all that out.
b***@m.nu
2015-04-27 18:31:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:56:13 -0700, Checkmate
Post by Checkmate
In article <630992462451809028.670219mike-
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
So do we get a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang or not?
some think it will not happen in a big crunch. It is said that over
time the dark energy that is speeding the expansion should have gotten
weaker over time, but noone has found any evidence to that and that it
has remained the same even through the rapid expansion.
However I feel that as the entire universe expands more and more and
more stars die out and galaxies fade to black the dark energy would
pretty much do the same. so I believe a big crunch could possibly
happen. Research on all of those subjects are still in thier infancy
so there is no telling what we will discover in the next 20 years.
b***@m.nu
2015-04-27 18:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike M
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
well lets think about that.....
In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen
Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the
Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of
time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of
time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
are you saying that stephen hawking <a known atheist> helped create
this theroy and thought of it as relating in any way to theology...
You are a moron..
I hate to admit it but he is sort of right here. The Big Bang (not called
that then, the term was invented in 1949 by Fred Hoyle to disparage it) was
largely hypothesised by Lemaitre in about 1931. While it is and always has
been a scientific theory, most respected cosmologists of the time disliked
That is because they lacked data on the universe and such but that
does not mean that big bang was anyway related to anyy theological
beliefs. The big bang is and always has been a scientific theory<sic>.
If it has always been scientific then it has nothing at all to do with
religon
Post by Mike M
the very idea of a "beginning " as bringing religious concepts into
science. The fact that the scientist promoting this new idea was a Catholic
priest really didn't help.
The work of Hawking et al simply moved the preponderance of scientific
thought over to accepting Big Bang theory over Steady State to the point
that Steady State is now a fringe crackpot notion.
just because at that time they did not fully understand what the big
bang meant does not mean it was looked upon as a theological
concept....

Chris are you reading this... what do you think?
Jeanne Douglas
2015-04-27 04:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
What the fuck are you talking about?
--
JD

Je suis Charlie.
Checkmate
2015-04-27 04:54:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <hlwdjsd2-***@news.giganews.com>, hlwdjsd2
@NOSPAMgmail.com says...
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
What the fuck are you talking about?
He wants to demonstrate the Big Bang theory with you.
--
Checkmate
The most widely-read author in AUK
"Usenet, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
b***@m.nu
2015-04-27 18:37:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 21:54:35 -0700, Checkmate
Post by Checkmate
@NOSPAMgmail.com says...
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
What the fuck are you talking about?
He wants to demonstrate the Big Bang theory with you.
he can demonstrate the big bang theroy all he wants...
but I GET PENNY <kaley cuoco>
Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.
2015-04-27 14:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
well there are not any religious hypotheses. There is nothing about
religon that qualifies as education.
the big bang was theology at some point
LOL

...and religion has always been and always will be theology, unfortunately
for your camp, eh?
--
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

https://dizum.com/faq.html
[16] Q: One of your users is harassing me. What should I do?

A: You should probably ask them to stop or try to ignore them. If that
does not work, you might want to consider contacting an appropriate law
enforcement agency. We are unable to control what users say on Usenet, nor
are we able to determine whether harassment is taking place.

http://squte.com/user/2083/full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's
political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[10] but
popularized it.[11] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times
article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20
percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but
Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the
South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become
Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the
blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement
with the local Democrats.[1]
WangoTango
2015-04-27 23:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
for this discussion let's say religion is blind faith abstraction
Well, it *is* blind faith.
Loading...