New Comet Discovered = Kook Fodder
Carl Wilson
IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
object
So now the question is: What kook (or group of kooks) will take this
dirty snowball and turn it into something kooky?
Michael Davis
Maybe Nutty Nancy and her cult followers will take it as a sign that it
is time to break out the "special" Koolaid?
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously
attributed to P. T. Barnum)
Carl Wilson
<mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Carl Wilson wrote:
>> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
>> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
>> object
>>
>> So now the question is: What kook (or group of kooks) will take this
>> dirty snowball and turn it into something kooky?
>>
>>
>
>Maybe Nutty Nancy and her cult followers will take it as a sign that it
>is time to break out the "special" Koolaid?
>
>http://kook-watch.net/nancy/
If you plan on buying any Nike shoes in the near future, you might
want to get them now while they're still plentiful! ;-)
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of
their wisdom with:
Nancy and her Zetafools when it looks like their planet X isn't going to
show up. She did, after all, try to claim that Hale-Bopp was PX.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"Your name is "Bruce," and my first name is also "Bruce.""
-Idiot The Bruce
Sir Gilligan Horry
wrote:
We could get Mop Jockeys to make more ?
Sir Gilligan Horry
And robots.
_______________________
Disclaimer:
I've done some Mopping and Cleaning and Cooking in my time.
It is peaceful and rewarding.
So all you Mop Jockeys OUT THERE
have a great day !
:)
=====================================
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UFOs_Aliens_Free_Videos/
=====================================
Carl Wilson
Well, I only Mop Jockey that I'm familiar with doesn't seem to be
intelligent enough to work in a shoe factory...
Carl Wilson
wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 17:57:01 -0600, Carl Wilson <ca...@kook-watch.net> in
>accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of
>their wisdom with:
>
>>
>>IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>>observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
>>it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
>>object
>>
>>So now the question is: What kook (or group of kooks) will take this
>>dirty snowball and turn it into something kooky?
>>
>
>
>Nancy and her Zetafools when it looks like their planet X isn't going to
>show up. She did, after all, try to claim that Hale-Bopp was PX.
You'd think they'd at least take the time to get rid of their old
Hale-Bopp BS wouldn't you?
"Hale-Bopp is nothing more than a distant star, and will draw no
closer." http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p46.htm
But, I guess there really isn't any need to considering the mentality
of their followers....
Hugh and the free world against Artie
I get both the MPEC and IAUC reports. Sometimes a dozen a day!
You guys want them posted?
Hugh and the free world against Artie
This is found on their site? Wow really up to date :)
!-!erc
> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
> object
My child will be intelligent?
Herc
John Jones
"Hugh and the free world against Artie" <Hu...@frontiernet.net>
wrote in message news:3DFD370B...@frontiernet.net...
You gotta understand cults: Since everything they know is from
divine revelation, none of it can be subject to 'human' error or
revision. It bees that way sometimes.
>
O'Brother
"John Jones" <enuf...@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:LzaL9.129448$VQ2.33...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
'sticking points' and also to maintain here "100% accuracy" scam. Could it
because the "Messiah has editorial rights" clause in the Cult articles of
incorporation?
O'
>
> >
>
>
Sir Gilligan Horry
wrote:
Was Venus rising behind Jupiter's moons in June?
=======================
Disclaimer:
Anyway, I hope your child will be very intelligent.
A good diet, a good university, and the American dream.... and your
child can be very intelligent.
Better than the evidence and proof I've seen of Iran.
=============================
=============================
I watched 60 Minutes the other night about Iran.
And INTV. (Iranian Network Television... broadcasting from outside of
Iran)
Wow, that was really interesting !!
And you see those leaders in Iran. LOL !! :)
But seriously I feel sorry for INTV.
They are very clever.
I hope they get some anonymous funding.
Carl Wilson
"Why has Hale-Bopp, at this time, decided to fragment and explode,
growing in brightness? This is decidedly not the pattern that comets
present, but it is the pattern of exploding stars, super novas, which
become for a brief time visible, and then wink out. "
(From the same web page!)
They never seem to worry about deleting Nutty Nancy's old failed
prophecies. It would probably take too much time in the first place
(since all her prophecies have failed, and she's made so many of them)
and the fact that she caters to other Saucer Heads, and we all know
how "smart" they are. ;-)
Carl Wilson
Sure! Why not?
Sir Gilligan Horry
______________________
Please don't let their TV station go broke.
(unless it is natural or necessary)
The comedy and the facts and the realization was astounding.
That '60 minutes' documentary was better than anything on UFOs and
Space.
Almost
;-)
_____________________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_UFO_videos/
===================
Disclaimer:
Me talking to who ?
Or what ?
Hugh and the free world against Artie
Okay I will start with the next few I receive
Carl Wilson
Artie <Hu...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
The kooks probably won't like it though.... You know how they are
about things that have to do with real science.... ;-)
!-!erc
Herc
Carl Wilson
>Dunno. Last Kook group who did that won the Bobo Award for
>making spamming Usenet their final public act.
Yeah, but on the bright side it did clean up the gene pool a bit. ;-)
tho...@antispam.ham
> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
> object
On what basis do you make that claim? There was no orbit published on
IAUC 8032. Observations from two nights were published on MPEC 2002-X84,
yet the orbit is still somewhat indeterminate. The perihelion distance
could be arbitrarily small, or as large as about 0.22 AU.
Fred Garvin
I vote for Nancy of sci.astro fame. Yup, the ZETAS! She's already saying
that planet X will hit us in May. We can't wait to hear her spin that one.
Got to love the kooks! Bless their retarded minds!
Fred Garvin
Yup, preliminary comet orbits are not to be trusted until more
observations are made. We learned that years ago.
Fred Garvin
wrote:
> Carl Wilson wrote:
>>>I get both the MPEC and IAUC reports. Sometimes a dozen a day! You guys
>>>want them posted?
>>>
>>>
>> Sure! Why not?
>>
> Okay I will start with the next few I receive
Not that many on the UFO/alien groups will understand them though!
Hugh and the free world against Artie
I wouldnt think so
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of
their wisdom with:
>You'd think they'd at least take the time to get rid of their old
>Hale-Bopp BS wouldn't you?
>
>"Hale-Bopp is nothing more than a distant star, and will draw no
>closer." http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p46.htm
>
>But, I guess there really isn't any need to considering the mentality
>of their followers....
They are too busy chasing their tails to worry about being consistent.
Carl Wilson
That's why I said it has the *potential* to become a bright comet.
tho...@antispam.ham
You said it's orbit *will* take it very close to the Sun. How can you
know that from IAUC 8032, when IAUC 8032 didn't contain any orbit?
Mr. XXXX
>
> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
> object
>
> So now the question is: What kook (or group of kooks) will take this
> dirty snowball and turn it into something kooky?
maybe the H/C bible thumpers?
Carl Wilson
Perhaps I should have broken the paragraph into two paragraphs to
avoid any confusion as to who said what. The only thing I was meaning
to attribute to IAUC 8032 was the fact that a new comet was
discovered by Tetuo Kudo.
The orbital information was provided by my copy of "The Sky" astronomy
software and other sources.
tho...@antispam.ham
But as I pointed out, the orbit is still indeterminate. Did "The Sky"
also publish error bars on the orbital elements?
Carl Wilson
No, they don't publish error bars, but unless the errors are really
huge the comet is going to pass fairly close to the sun as I
originally stated.
tho...@antispam.ham
How do you know? You just said they didn't publish any error bars.
Hugh and the free world against Artie
If it crosses within 2 au of the sun thats plenty close enough
My bet is it will be much closer Read the orbital data I posted
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Carl Wilson wrote:
That won't necessarily make it a "very bright object".
> My bet is it will be much closer Read the orbital data I posted
The orbital data you posted is irrelevant. What is relevant is the
orbital data available at the time that Carl stated that it will get
very close to the Sun. That statement was made at a time when there
was at most two nights of observations available. Indeed, the item
referenced, namely IAU Circular 8032, contained only one night of
observations.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Carl Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>>>>>>>>> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
>>>>>>>>> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? There was no orbit published on
>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032. Observations from two nights were published on MPEC 2002-X84,
>>>>>>>> yet the orbit is still somewhat indeterminate. The perihelion distance
>>>>>>>> could be arbitrarily small, or as large as about 0.22 AU.
> ..22 AU is large? Mercury's orbit is .38 AU
Yes, it is large compared to an arbitrarily small value, when the
heliocentric brightness dependence can go as r^-3 or possibly even
r^-4. That is, a factor 2 change in distance can translate into a
factor 8 or even factor 16 change in brightness. Yes, the difference
between 0.22 AU and 0.11 AU is quite significant.
Hugh and the free world against Artie
So what does this have to do with what I said? Explain
John
"O'Brother" <nob...@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:s4bL9.117240$%p6.12...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "John Jones" <enuf...@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
> news:LzaL9.129448$VQ2.33...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> >
snip
> >
> > You gotta understand cults: Since everything they know is from
> > divine revelation, none of it can be subject to 'human' error or
> > revision. It bees that way sometimes.
> >
> Dunno, The ZetaNan re-edits her stuff quietly in the background to remove
> 'sticking points' and also to maintain here "100% accuracy" scam. Could
it
> because the "Messiah has editorial rights" clause in the Cult articles of
> incorporation?
>
> O'
She must hate the wayback machine then.
Carl Wilson
You *did* read what I posted didn't you?
" but unless the errors are really huge the comet is going to pass
fairly close to the sun"
In other words, if the error is large, it may not pass close to the
sun, but if the errors are small, it will pass close to the sun.
Carl Wilson
wrote:
>On or about Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:25:16 GMT, it was decided that
>tho...@AntiSpam.ham typed:
>
>>Carl Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>>>>>>>>> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
>>>>>>>>> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
>>>>>>>>> object
>>
>>>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? There was no orbit published on
>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032. Observations from two nights were published on MPEC 2002-X84,
>>>>>>>> yet the orbit is still somewhat indeterminate. The perihelion distance
>>>>>>>> could be arbitrarily small, or as large as about 0.22 AU.
>
>.22 AU is large? Mercury's orbit is .38 AU
He's just out for a little troll...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2CF24EC2
>>>>>>> That's why I said it has the *potential* to become a bright comet.
>>
>>>>>> You said it's orbit *will* take it very close to the Sun. How can you
>>>>>> know that from IAUC 8032, when IAUC 8032 didn't contain any orbit?
>>
>>>>> Perhaps I should have broken the paragraph into two paragraphs to
>>>>> avoid any confusion as to who said what. The only thing I was meaning
>>>>> to attribute to IAUC 8032 was the fact that a new comet was
>>>>> discovered by Tetuo Kudo.
>>>>>
>>>>> The orbital information was provided by my copy of "The Sky" astronomy
>>>>> software and other sources.
>>
>>>> But as I pointed out, the orbit is still indeterminate. Did "The Sky"
>>>> also publish error bars on the orbital elements?
>>
>>> No, they don't publish error bars, but unless the errors are really
>>> huge the comet is going to pass fairly close to the sun as I
>>> originally stated.
>>
>>How do you know? You just said they didn't publish any error bars.
>
>
>"Rick Boston got a kooky quote archive
>and all I got was this lousy gender issue." R. Wolfe?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> Carl Wilson wrote:
As much as what you wrote had to do with what I said.
tho...@antispam.ham
Indeed, which is why I repeated the question.
> " but unless the errors are really huge the comet is going to pass
> fairly close to the sun"
The key word here is "unless". You don't know what the errors are.
Indeed, after one night of observation, the errors are usually quite
large.
> In other words, if the error is large, it may not pass close to the
> sun, but if the errors are small, it will pass close to the sun.
But what you originally wrote is that the comet's orbit "will" take
it very close to the Sun. No qualfications.
tho...@antispam.ham
> jof3r <jo...@kook-watch.net> wrote:
>> On or about Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:25:16 GMT, it was decided that
>> tho...@AntiSpam.ham typed:
>>> Carl Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>>>>>>>>>> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
>>>>>>>>>> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
>>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? There was no orbit published on
>>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032. Observations from two nights were published on MPEC 2002-X84,
>>>>>>>>> yet the orbit is still somewhat indeterminate. The perihelion distance
>>>>>>>>> could be arbitrarily small, or as large as about 0.22 AU.
>>.22 AU is large? Mercury's orbit is .38 AU
> He's just out for a little troll...
I'm not the one posting premature orbital information. That would be
you.
Michael Davis
Knock it off, Tholen. Save your bile for the clueless Zetakooks. Carl is
right. Here is an email Astro Alert I just got on the new comet. Its
orbit will take it well inside the orbit of Mercury:
NEW COMET IN HERCULES
Using giant 20 x 120 binoculars, Japanese amateur Tetuo Kudo
has discovered a comet of 9th (or perhaps) 8th magnitude,
moving east-southeast through Hercules. He made the find
early on the morning of December 14th (local time).
According to the announcement on IAU Circular 8032,
confirming CCD images by Ken-ichi Kadota (Saitama, Japan)
revealed a short tail about 1/3 degree in length, pointing
away from the Sun.
A preliminary orbit calculated by Brian G. Marsden of the
Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, indicates
that this comet is headed for perihelion in late January,
when it will pass well inside the orbit of Mercury and may
brighten considerably. Unfortunately, it will then be
almost directly *behind* the Sun as seen from Earth, hence
virtually impossible to observe. Before that time, Northern
Hemisphere observers should be able to follow the comet
with binoculars in the morning sky through mid-January.
Skywatchers in the Southern Hemisphere are in a position
to see it emerging from the Sun's glare in late February,
in the evening sky.
Congratulations, Tetuo Kudo!
C/2002 X5 (Kudo-Fujikawa)
Orbital Elements
The following orbital elements are taken from MPEC 2002-Y14:
C/2002 X5 (Kudo-Fujikawa)
T 2003 Jan. 28.776 TT MPCM
q 0.18485 (2000.0) P Q
Peri. 188.205 +0.476103 -0.136660
Node 119.389 -0.739589 +0.472196
e 1.0 Incl. 94.431 -0.475745 -0.870836
>From 48 observations 2002 Dec. 14-16.
An explanation of the orbital elements is available.
These orbital elements are also available in forms suitable for loading
into a number of popular planetarium-type software programs.
Ephemeris
The following ephemeris is at intervals of five days. A daily ephemeris
covering the same time interval is also available.
Date TT R. A. (2000) Decl. Delta r Elong. Phase m1
m2
2002 12 12 15 29.53 +46 17.2 1.161 1.289 73.4 47.0 7.9
2002 12 17 16 10.96 +43 35.3 1.088 1.189 69.8 51.0 7.4
2002 12 22 16 52.53 +39 42.3 1.031 1.084 65.1 55.4 6.9
2002 12 27 17 32.43 +34 36.8 0.994 0.976 59.1 59.9 6.4
2003 01 01 18 09.28 +28 27.3 0.977 0.862 52.2 64.3 5.8
2003 01 06 18 42.37 +21 29.3 0.982 0.743 44.4 67.9 5.2
2003 01 11 19 11.64 +13 58.2 1.007 0.617 36.1 69.8 4.4
2003 01 16 19 37.50 +06 00.2 1.052 0.484 27.2 68.5 3.5
2003 01 21 20 00.83 -02 39.8 1.111 0.343 17.6 59.8 2.1
2003 01 26 20 23.75 -12 59.6 1.166 0.215 6.2 29.6 0.2
2003 01 31 20 52.61 -25 04.2 1.136 0.205 7.5 38.9 -0.1
2003 02 05 21 32.93 -34 07.9 1.028 0.328 18.6 73.5 1.7
2003 02 10 22 26.42 -40 02.5 0.932 0.468 28.1 82.4 3.0
2003 02 15 23 33.18 -43 05.2 0.869 0.603 37.2 82.1 4.0
2003 02 20 00 46.34 -42 48.2 0.843 0.729 46.1 77.6 4.8
2003 02 25 01 54.08 -39 26.9 0.854 0.849 54.2 71.0 5.4
2003 03 02 02 49.05 -34 16.5 0.900 0.963 61.0 64.2 6.1
2003 03 07 03 31.11 -28 37.6 0.975 1.072 66.1 57.8 6.7
2003 03 12 04 03.19 -23 19.2 1.071 1.177 69.4 52.2 7.4
2003 03 17 04 28.20 -18 40.5 1.183 1.278 71.3 47.5 7.9
2003 03 22 04 48.33 -14 43.8 1.306 1.376 72.0 43.5 8.5
2003 03 27 05 05.03 -11 25.2 1.438 1.471 71.8 40.1 9.0
2003 04 01 05 19.30 -08 38.8 1.574 1.564 70.9 37.1 9.4
2003 04 06 05 31.80 -06 19.0 1.714 1.654 69.4 34.5 9.9
2003 04 11 05 42.96 -04 21.2 1.857 1.742 67.6 32.1 10.3
2003 04 16 05 53.10 -02 41.4 2.000 1.828 65.5 30.0 10.6
2003 04 21 06 02.45 -01 16.5 2.143 1.913 63.2 28.0 11.0
2003 04 26 06 11.16 -00 04.2 2.285 1.995 60.7 26.1 11.3
2003 05 01 06 19.36 +00 57.7 2.426 2.077 58.0 24.3 11.6
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously
attributed to P. T. Barnum)
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Carl Wilson wrote:
> Knock it off, Tholen.
Knock what off, Michael?
> Save your bile for the clueless Zetakooks.
You're erroneously presupposing that I have some "bile" to save,
Michael.
> Carl is right.
On what basis do you make that claim? The information available at
the time he made his claim was insufficient to justify the claim
that he made about the orbit, Michael.
> Here is an email Astro Alert I just got on the new comet.
The key words here are "just got". Carl did not make his claim about
the orbit on the basis of the information you "just got". Furthermore,
the information you "just got" doesn't say what the uncertainty is on
the perihelion distance.
> Its orbit will take it well inside the orbit of Mercury:
Where is the error bar on the perihelion distance that allows you to
make such a claim?
> >From 48 observations 2002 Dec. 14-16.
As I said, that's more information than Carl had to work with. I can
fit the same observations with orbits that have perihelion distances
spanning 0.07 to 0.27 AU.
> The Evil Michael Davis™
Uh-huh.
Michael Davis
--- Snip ---
>
>>Knock it off, Tholen.
>
>
> Knock what off, Michael?
The arguing for the sake of arguing. If you want to argue with
somebody, then take it out on a kook making wild-ass claims. There are
plenty of those around.
>
>
>>Save your bile for the clueless Zetakooks.
>
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I have some "bile" to save,
> Michael.
Your posting history shows that I am not presupposing anything. This
sort of arguing for the sake of arguing is your MO. Since you normally
confine yourself to just arguing with kooks, nobody pays much
attention to you. Don't go branching out into pestering the good guys too.
>
>
>>Carl is right.
>
>
> On what basis do you make that claim? The information available at
> the time he made his claim was insufficient to justify the claim
> that he made about the orbit, Michael.
No, not really. Besides, Carl is not an astronomer. He doesn't worry
about such details as error bars. The projected orbit took it close to
the sun and he simply said it could *possibly* be a bright comet. How
many decimal places of accuracy does one have to have before saying it
is merely possible? There was no need to jump on him like he was a
zetakook claiming the end of the world is coming.
>
>
>>Here is an email Astro Alert I just got on the new comet.
>
>
> The key words here are "just got". Carl did not make his claim about
> the orbit on the basis of the information you "just got".
Actually, it may be the same data. This email didn't come to me
directly. It was forwarded from a colleague who got it a while ago.
> Furthermore,
> the information you "just got" doesn't say what the uncertainty is on
> the perihelion distance.
BFD.
>
>
>>Its orbit will take it well inside the orbit of Mercury:
>
>
> Where is the error bar on the perihelion distance that allows you to
> make such a claim?
Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him. Since he seems to be the
acknowledged expert in the field, I personally see no reason to doubt
him. Get back to me if you find a fault in his calculations.
>
>
>>>From 48 observations 2002 Dec. 14-16.
>
>
> As I said, that's more information than Carl had to work with. I can
> fit the same observations with orbits that have perihelion distances
> spanning 0.07 to 0.27 AU.
Sheesh! Both those distances are well within the orbit of Mercury. Do
you even remember what you are arguing about, Tholen? Or are you just
arguing out of habit? Like I said, save it for the kooks. They deserve
all the abuse they get. Don't heap it on the people who are actually
posting something real here. We don't get nearly enough of that in
these NGs.
>
>
>>The Evil Michael Davis™
>
>
> Uh-huh.
Uh-huh!
tho...@antispam.ham
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>>> Knock it off, Tholen.
>> Knock what off, Michael?
> The arguing for the sake of arguing.
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm arguing for the sake of
arguing.
> If you want to argue with somebody, then take it out on a kook
> making wild-ass claims. There are plenty of those around.
Why should I make a distinction between a "kook" making a
"wild-ass claim" and somebody else making a "wild-ass claim"?
>>> Save your bile for the clueless Zetakooks.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have some "bile" to save,
>> Michael.
> Your posting history shows that I am not presupposing anything.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> This sort of arguing for the sake of arguing is your MO.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Since you normally confine yourself to just arguing with kooks,
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> nobody pays much attention to you.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Don't go branching out into pestering the good guys too.
On what basis do you call somebody making a "wild-ass claim" a
"good guy"?
>>> Carl is right.
>> On what basis do you make that claim? The information available at
>> the time he made his claim was insufficient to justify the claim
>> that he made about the orbit, Michael.
> No, not really.
On what basis do you make that claim? Can you present an orbit
solution, with error bars, based on the information available at
the time that shows a small uncertainty on the perihelion distance?
> Besides, Carl is not an astronomer.
Irrelevant, Michael; he did make a claim about the orbit, referencing
a source that didn't even provide an orbit.
> He doesn't worry about such details as error bars.
He should before making a "wild-ass claim", Michael.
> The projected orbit took it close to
> the sun and he simply said it could *possibly* be a bright comet.
He also said that the orbit "will" take it close to the Sun, while
referencing a source that did not even mention the orbit.
> How many decimal places of accuracy does one have to have before
> saying it is merely possible?
He said more than just that it was merely possible for the orbit
to take it close to the Sun. He said the orbit "will" take it
close to the Sun.
> There was no need to jump on him like he was a
> zetakook claiming the end of the world is coming.
There was a need to point out that the orbit was rather indeterminate.
>>> Here is an email Astro Alert I just got on the new comet.
>> The key words here are "just got". Carl did not make his claim about
>> the orbit on the basis of the information you "just got".
> Actually, it may be the same data.
Incorrect, given that Carl made his posting on or before December 15,
therefore he could not have been using the same data, which extended
to December 16.
> This email didn't come to me directly.
Irrelevant; the fact that it specifically indicates the use of data
from December 16 proves that it came after Carl made his "wild-ass
claim".
> It was forwarded from a colleague who got it a while ago.
Obviously after December 16, which makes it irrelevant to the issue,
which involves a statement made about the orbit on or before December 15.
>> Furthermore,
>> the information you "just got" doesn't say what the uncertainty is on
>> the perihelion distance.
> BFD.
On the contrary, it's quite significant, given that you reiterated the
same claim, but without a basis, even though you had more information
to work with than Carl did.
>>> Its orbit will take it well inside the orbit of Mercury:
>> Where is the error bar on the perihelion distance that allows you to
>> make such a claim?
> Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him.
Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
> Since he seems to be the acknowledged expert in the field, I
> personally see no reason to doubt him.
Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
> Get back to me if you find a fault in his calculations.
Irrelevant, given that the issue is not fault in calculations, but
rather the size of the error bar on the results. Furthermore, his
calculation is irrelevant, given that Carl made his "wild-ass claim"
prior to the availability of that calculation.
>>>> From 48 observations 2002 Dec. 14-16.
>> As I said, that's more information than Carl had to work with. I can
>> fit the same observations with orbits that have perihelion distances
>> spanning 0.07 to 0.27 AU.
> Sheesh! Both those distances are well within the orbit of Mercury.
They differ by about a factor of 4, which could lead to a difference in
brightness of 64 if the heliocentric dependence exponent is -3 or as
much as a factor of 256 if the exponent is -4.
Furthermore, if the uncertainty on perihelion distance is about a
factor of 4 with three nights of data, it had to be larger after
just two nights of data, and larger still after just one night of
data, which is all that IAU Circular 8032 reported.
> Do you even remember what you are arguing about, Tholen?
Yes, namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the
Sun. Nobody has yet demonstrated that such a claim can be justified on
the basis of the information available at the time.
> Or are you just arguing out of habit?
How ironic.
> Like I said, save it for the kooks.
As I said, why should I make a distinction between a "kook" making a
"wild-ass claim" and somebody else making a "wild-ass claim"?
> They deserve all the abuse they get.
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm providing any abuse.
> Don't heap it on the people who are actually posting something
> real here.
You're still erroneously presupposing that I'm providing any abuse.
But I am still waiting for someone to prove that Carl's statement
about the orbit represents "something real" based on the information
available to him.
> We don't get nearly enough of that in these NGs.
Interestingly, I'm providing something real here, and you're
jumping all over me. How ironic. Why don't you save it for
the "kooks" and follow your own advice in the process?
>>> The Evil Michael Davis™
>> Uh-huh.
> Uh-huh!
Glad you agree.
Michael Davis
> Michael Davis writes:
>
>
>>--- Snip ---
>
>
> Figures.
>
>
>>>>Knock it off, Tholen.
>>>
>
>>>Knock what off, Michael?
>>
>
>>The arguing for the sake of arguing.
>
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm arguing for the sake of
> arguing.
Am I? Observe:
--- Snip ---
>
> Why should I make a distinction between a "kook" making a
> "wild-ass claim" and somebody else making a "wild-ass claim"?
--- Snip ---
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
--- Snip ---
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
--- Snip ---
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
--- Snip ---
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
--- Snip ---
> On what basis do you call somebody making a "wild-ass claim" a
> "good guy"?
--- Snip ---
>>>On what basis do you make that claim? The information available at
>>>the time he made his claim was insufficient to justify the claim
>>>that he made about the orbit, Michael.
--- Snip ---
> On what basis do you make that claim? Can you present an orbit
> solution, with error bars, based on the information available at
> the time that shows a small uncertainty on the perihelion distance?
--- Snip ---
> Irrelevant, Michael; he did make a claim about the orbit, referencing
> a source that didn't even provide an orbit.
--- Snip ---
> He should before making a "wild-ass claim", Michael.
--- Snip ---
> He also said that the orbit "will" take it close to the Sun, while
> referencing a source that did not even mention the orbit.
--- Snip ---
> He said more than just that it was merely possible for the orbit
> to take it close to the Sun. He said the orbit "will" take it
> close to the Sun.
--- Snip ---
Whew! And that's just from the first third of your response to my
relatively short post. You don't discuss, you argue. You argue about
*everything*. I rest my case.
--- Drivel Snip ---
>>>>Its orbit will take it well inside the orbit of Mercury:
>>>
>
>>>Where is the error bar on the perihelion distance that allows you to
>>>make such a claim?
>>
>
>>Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him.
>
>
> Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
What part of "Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him." didn't you
understand? The quote was in my original post. Feel free to harangue him
for having the gall to not include error bars in the information that
went into the Astro Alert.
>
>
>>Since he seems to be the acknowledged expert in the field, I
>>personally see no reason to doubt him.
>
>
> Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
Is there an echo in here?
>
>
>>Get back to me if you find a fault in his calculations.
>
>
> Irrelevant, given that the issue is not fault in calculations, but
> rather the size of the error bar on the results. Furthermore, his
> calculation is irrelevant, given that Carl made his "wild-ass claim"
> prior to the availability of that calculation.
He said it would pass close to the Sun. He didn't say how close. "Close"
is an opinion, not a measurement. You can argue about how close is close
if you insist on being an asshole about it, but the fact is that most
people would consider passing inside the orbit of Mercury to be "close."
And your opinion of what constitutes "close" is no more valid than
anyone else's. So you have no real grounds to fault Carl's statement.
BTW, you know what they say about opinions, right?
>
>
>>>>>From 48 observations 2002 Dec. 14-16.
>>>>
>
>>>As I said, that's more information than Carl had to work with. I can
>>>fit the same observations with orbits that have perihelion distances
>>>spanning 0.07 to 0.27 AU.
>>
>
>>Sheesh! Both those distances are well within the orbit of Mercury.
>
>
> They differ by about a factor of 4, which could lead to a difference in
> brightness of 64 if the heliocentric dependence exponent is -3 or as
> much as a factor of 256 if the exponent is -4.
Yawn. Carl said "close" and "bright." He didn't say how close or how
bright. What is the point of you arguing about it? Oh that's right,
arguing is the point.
>
> Furthermore, if the uncertainty on perihelion distance is about a
> factor of 4 with three nights of data, it had to be larger after
> just two nights of data, and larger still after just one night of
> data, which is all that IAU Circular 8032 reported.
>
>
>>Do you even remember what you are arguing about, Tholen?
>
>
> Yes,
Snarf!
> namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the
> Sun.
So you are arguing about the meaning of the word "close" then?
> Nobody has yet demonstrated that such a claim can be justified on
> the basis of the information available at the time.
Silly boy. "Close" is not an exact measurement. "Close" is an opinion.
Opinions aren't wrong or right, they just are. Arguing with someone over
their opinion of what constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
--- Remaining drivel flushed ---
Tholen, you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but you waste your time
arguing doggedly and ad nauseam over irrelevant minutia and come across
as a total jerk in the process. This makes people tune you out, and so
nobody notices when you actually contribute something useful to the NG
like debunking the claims of Nutty Nancy and her brainwashed followers.
Not every claim needs to beaten down with a sledgehammer. If you felt
compelled to comment on Carl's post then simply pointing out that all
the data wasn't in yet would have sufficed. Going off on Carl over what
constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
Robert Wolfe
ROTFLMAO!
John Griffin
Wait until he gets hold of this prediction: At aphelion, the
comet will be far from the sun and close to the other focus of
its orbit.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>--- Snip ---
>> Figures.
Note: no response.
>>>>> Knock it off, Tholen.
>>>> Knock what off, Michael?
>>> The arguing for the sake of arguing.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm arguing for the sake of
>> arguing.
> Am I? Observe:
>
> --- Snip ---
And exactly what should the observation of your snippage reveal,
Michael? Your evasion? Your dishonesty?
>> Why should I make a distinction between a "kook" making a
>> "wild-ass claim" and somebody else making a "wild-ass claim"?
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> On what basis do you call somebody making a "wild-ass claim" a
>> "good guy"?
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? The information available at
>>>> the time he made his claim was insufficient to justify the claim
>>>> that he made about the orbit, Michael.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> On what basis do you make that claim? Can you present an orbit
>> solution, with error bars, based on the information available at
>> the time that shows a small uncertainty on the perihelion distance?
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> Irrelevant, Michael; he did make a claim about the orbit, referencing
>> a source that didn't even provide an orbit.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> He should before making a "wild-ass claim", Michael.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> He also said that the orbit "will" take it close to the Sun, while
>> referencing a source that did not even mention the orbit.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
>> He said more than just that it was merely possible for the orbit
>> to take it close to the Sun. He said the orbit "will" take it
>> close to the Sun.
> --- Snip ---
Figures.
> Whew! And that's just from the first third of your response to my
> relatively short post.
So what? And why did you remove the context for my remarks, Michael?
Embarrassed by what you wrote, Michael?
> You don't discuss, you argue.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Indeed, you went out of
your way to remove the evidence from your follow-up.
> You argue about *everything*.
Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> I rest my case.
On what? Pontification? Where's the evidence for the claims you
just made, Michael?
> --- Drivel Snip ---
What alleged drivel, Michael?
>>>>> Its orbit will take it well inside the orbit of Mercury:
>>>> Where is the error bar on the perihelion distance that allows you to
>>>> make such a claim?
>>> Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him.
>> Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
> What part of "Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him." didn't you
> understand?
You're the one who has the quotation, Michael. If you don't have the
error bars, why not just admit it?
> The quote was in my original post.
Without any error bars, therefore the quotation did nothing to
substantiate the claim about how close to the Sun the comet will
get.
> Feel free to harangue him for having the gall to not include
> error bars in the information that went into the Astro Alert.
Why should I? He isn't the one who made the claim about how close
to the Sun the comet "will" get. Rather, Carl did, and by defending
Carl, you have also done so indirectly. I already know how to
properly interpret the information that Brian Marsden put out.
You apparently do not.
>>> Since he seems to be the acknowledged expert in the field, I
>>> personally see no reason to doubt him.
>> Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
> Is there an echo in here?
I see that you didn't answer the question, Michael. No surprise
there, really.
>>> Get back to me if you find a fault in his calculations.
>> Irrelevant, given that the issue is not fault in calculations, but
>> rather the size of the error bar on the results. Furthermore, his
>> calculation is irrelevant, given that Carl made his "wild-ass claim"
>> prior to the availability of that calculation.
> He said it would pass close to the Sun.
Who is "he", Michael? Are you still talking about Brian Marsden, or
are you back to talking about Carl Wilson?
> He didn't say how close.
Close enough for the potential to make it very bright, Michael.
> "Close" is an opinion, not a measurement.
Gad. You could use that argument to say that Pluto will get close to
the Sun. Context is important, Michael, and in this context, the
degree of closeness is coupled to the brightness, which in turn can
be gauged on the basis of comet brightnesses that didn't generate as
much interest as this one.
> You can argue about how close is close
> if you insist on being an asshole about it,
That's exactly what you're doing, Michael. Hope you can accept your
own description of such a person.
> but the fact is that most people would consider passing inside the
> orbit of Mercury to be "close."
Once again, your statement is based on observations from three nights.
Carl did not have observations from three nights on which to base a
claim, Michael. At most he had two nights of observations to work
with, and indeed, the referenced item, namely IAU Circular 8032, had
but one night of observations on it. The uncertainty in the perihelion
distance must be based on the information available to Carl at the time
he made his claim, not what is available to you now.
> And your opinion of what constitutes "close" is no more valid than
> anyone else's.
I have the ability to put an error bar on the perihelion distance,
Michael. Do you or Carl?
> So you have no real grounds to fault Carl's statement.
This is truly amazing, Michael. On what basis do you claim that I
found fault with Carl's statement? I merely asked him for the basis
for his claim. I did not say that his claim was faulty. I wanted
to know how he managed to arrive at such a definite conclusion on
the basis of at most two nights of observations, when some of us
were still waiting for more observations to come in to pin down the
orbit. Somehow, you turned that simple request into "bile". Well,
it doesn't surprise me. One thing that I've learned from years of
reading USENET is that when people are backed into a corner, they
start to rely on name calling, insults, exaggerations, lies, libel,
threats, vituperation, and son on, and you're simply repeating
history, Michael.
> BTW, you know what they say about opinions, right?
I know what you can do with yours, Michael.
>>>>>> From 48 observations 2002 Dec. 14-16.
>>>> As I said, that's more information than Carl had to work with. I can
>>>> fit the same observations with orbits that have perihelion distances
>>>> spanning 0.07 to 0.27 AU.
>>> Sheesh! Both those distances are well within the orbit of Mercury.
>> They differ by about a factor of 4, which could lead to a difference in
>> brightness of 64 if the heliocentric dependence exponent is -3 or as
>> much as a factor of 256 if the exponent is -4.
> Yawn. Carl said "close" and "bright." He didn't say how close or how
> bright.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't ask him about how close or how bright,
Michael. Rather, I asked him for the basis for his claim. You know,
more information, so as to remove some of the ambiguity associated with
words like "close" and "very bright".
> What is the point of you arguing about it?
You're erroneously presupposing that asking for the basis for a claim
is arguing, Michael.
> Oh that's right, arguing is the point.
You've certainly demonstrated that as your motive in spades, Michael.
>> Furthermore, if the uncertainty on perihelion distance is about a
>> factor of 4 with three nights of data, it had to be larger after
>> just two nights of data, and larger still after just one night of
>> data, which is all that IAU Circular 8032 reported.
Note: no response.
>>> Do you even remember what you are arguing about, Tholen?
>> Yes,
> Snarf!
Ambiguous response.
>> namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the
>> Sun.
> So you are arguing about the meaning of the word "close" then?
Not at all, Micahel. Suffering from reading comprehension problems?
>> Nobody has yet demonstrated that such a claim can be justified on
>> the basis of the information available at the time.
> Silly boy.
Making such pronouncements about the orbit based on at most two nights
of data is fairly silly, Michael.
> "Close" is not an exact measurement. "Close" is an opinion.
Irrelevant, given that I never stated otherwise, Michael.
> Opinions aren't wrong or right, they just are.
Most people usually have a basis for an opinion, Michael. I asked
for the basis. None was provided.
> Arguing with someone over
> their opinion of what constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
You're erroneously presupposing that asking for the basis for a claim
is arguing, Michael.
> --- Remaining drivel flushed ---
What alleged "drivel", Micahel? Are you referring to your remarks?
> Tholen, you are intelligent and knowledgeable,
Meanwhile, you are "evil", as your signature indicates, Michael.
> but you waste your time arguing doggedly and ad nauseam over
> irrelevant minutia and come across as a total jerk in the
> process.
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm wasting my time, Michael.
You're also erroneously presupposing that I'm arguing over irrelevant
minutia, Michael. I asked for the basis for his claim. That is not
an argument; it is a request for additional information. Therefore
the basis for your "total jerk" remark doesn't exist. You are,
ironically, demonstrating all the traits that you're attributing to
me, Michael, which doesn't paint a very pretty picture of yourself.
> This makes people tune you out,
Obviously not you, Michael, which is too bad, because I can do without
your insults and your evasion of the facts.
> and so nobody notices when you actually contribute something useful
> to the NG like debunking the claims of Nutty Nancy and her brainwashed
> followers.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Plenty of people notice,
Michael.
> Not every claim needs to beaten down with a sledgehammer.
Irrelevant, given that I haven't attempt to beat down every claim with
a sledgehammer, Michael.
> If you felt compelled to comment on Carl's post then simply pointing
> out that all the data wasn't in yet would have sufficed.
Gosh, that's what I did. Where have you been, Michael?
> Going off on Carl over what constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
But I didn't, Michael. Suffering from reading comprehension problems?
> The Evil Michael Davis™
Uh huh.
Michael Davis
> Michael Davis writes:
>
>
>>>>--- Snip ---
>>>
>
>>>Figures.
>>
>
> Note: no response.
You're erroneously presupposing that you said something worthy of a
response. HTH.
--- Major snip of irrelevant nonsense ---
>>
>
>>What part of "Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him." didn't you
>>understand?
>
>
> You're the one who has the quotation, Michael. If you don't have the
> error bars, why not just admit it?
I never claimed to have your precious error bars. Why must I now admit
to not having them?
>
>
>>The quote was in my original post.
>
>
> Without any error bars, therefore the quotation did nothing to
> substantiate the claim about how close to the Sun the comet will
> get.
Still arguing about how close is close? Some people just don't get it.
You must be a real joy to deal with in person, Tholen.
>
>
>>Feel free to harangue him for having the gall to not include
>>error bars in the information that went into the Astro Alert.
>
>
> Why should I?
Um, because that would be the sensible thing to do if you want to
argue about Marsden's orbital prediction.
> He isn't the one who made the claim about how close
> to the Sun the comet "will" get.
You don't read too good, Tholen. Here's what I posted:
"A preliminary orbit calculated by Brian G. Marsden of the
Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, indicates
that this comet is headed for perihelion in late January,
when it will pass well inside the orbit of Mercury and may
brighten considerably."
> Rather, Carl did, and by defending
> Carl, you have also done so indirectly. I already know how to
> properly interpret the information that Brian Marsden put out.
Then why all the whining?
> You apparently do not.
I can see that it pulls the rug out from under your arguments.
>>>>Since he seems to be the acknowledged expert in the field, I
>>>>personally see no reason to doubt him.
>>>
>
>>>Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
>>
>
>>Is there an echo in here?
>
>
> I see that you didn't answer the question, Michael. No surprise
> there, really.
You know, Tholen, one of the definitions of insanity is repeating the
same irrational behavior over and over again. I'm beginning to wonder
about you.
>
>
>>>>Get back to me if you find a fault in his calculations.
>>>
>
>>>Irrelevant, given that the issue is not fault in calculations, but
>>>rather the size of the error bar on the results. Furthermore, his
>>>calculation is irrelevant, given that Carl made his "wild-ass claim"
>>>prior to the availability of that calculation.
>>
>
>>He said it would pass close to the Sun.
>
>
> Who is "he", Michael?
Hello? Hello? Looks like the porch light is on but nobody is home.
> Are you still talking about Brian Marsden, or
> are you back to talking about Carl Wilson?
Carl. Duh! If you can't even follow the conversation but are going to
argue over the meaning of every other word and phrase anyway, then I
guess I am wasting my time here.
>
>
>>He didn't say how close.
>
>
> Close enough for the potential to make it very bright, Michael.
There you go arguing over an opinion again. "Very bright" is not a
measurement that you can take issue with.
>
>
>>"Close" is an opinion, not a measurement.
>
>
> Gad. You could use that argument to say that Pluto will get close to
> the Sun.
Compared to the outer edges of the Oort cloud or a distant star, Pluto
is close to the Sun.
> Context is important, Michael,
No kidding?
--- Snip of more material not worthy of a response ---
>>So you have no real grounds to fault Carl's statement.
>
>
> This is truly amazing, Michael.
Yes, I'm sure this comes as a major revelation to you.
> On what basis do you claim that I
> found fault with Carl's statement? I merely asked him for the basis
> for his claim. I did not say that his claim was faulty.
Sniff, sniff. I smell backpedaling.
> I wanted
> to know how he managed to arrive at such a definite conclusion on
> the basis of at most two nights of observations, when some of us
> were still waiting for more observations to come in to pin down the
> orbit. Somehow, you turned that simple request into "bile". Well,
> it doesn't surprise me. One thing that I've learned from years of
> reading USENET is that when people are backed into a corner, they
> start to rely on name calling, insults, exaggerations, lies, libel,
> threats, vituperation, and son on, and you're simply repeating
> history, Michael.
Nice rant, Tholen. If you aren't careful you are going to get yourself
classified as a net kook along with the likes of Nutty Nancy, Jan,
JosX, Ed Conrad, Archamedies Plutonium, Flagship1, etc.
It's a sad thing when a skeptic goes bad.
>>>namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the
>>>Sun.
>>
>
>>So you are arguing about the meaning of the word "close" then?
>
>
> Not at all, Micahel. Suffering from reading comprehension problems?
Well let's see about my reading comprehension. The comet's orbit
"will" have a perihelion or closest approach to the Sun, right? So I
guess you really aren't arguing about the word "will" in spite of the
fact that you put it in quotes above in a lame attempt at
misdirection. The only other word in that sentence you could possibly
be taking issue with is the adverb usage of the word "close."
But "close" still isn't an absolute measurement that you can take
issue with. So sorry. But hey, thanks for playing.
--- Snip remainder of drivel ---
Feel free to rant away about what you think I am "erroneously
presupposing" by doing that. It should be good for a laugh.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.astrology - My reply does not relate to astrology.
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
>
> This is truly amazing, Michael. On what basis do you claim that I
> found fault with Carl's statement? I merely asked him for the basis
> for his claim. I did not say that his claim was faulty. I wanted
> to know how he managed to arrive at such a definite conclusion on
> the basis of at most two nights of observations, when some of us
> were still waiting for more observations to come in to pin down the
> orbit. Somehow, you turned that simple request into "bile". Well,
> it doesn't surprise me. One thing that I've learned from years of
> reading USENET is that when people are backed into a corner, they
> start to rely on name calling, insults, exaggerations, lies, libel,
> threats, vituperation, and son on, and you're simply repeating
> history, Michael.
You had hit it right on the nose. Recently they found that they
were not getting through against Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers
A.S.A. so what do they do? They attempt ad homonym attacks over
the fact that he has unfortunately chosen "Dr." as part of his
nick and they continue to assert that he was *impersonating* a doctor.
This has happened in 1998. Thats four years ago and it has not
happened again since that time. Regardless of that, the personal
attacks and claims against Wholeflaffer continue. Why do they
choose something that happened four years ago? Its because its
practically the only dirt they have on this guy and they will stop
at nothing to try to defame people. With Edmond Wollmann its
over the fact that he had a trespassing violation! Com'on! Its
not like Wholeflaffer opened up a medical clinic and started to
take patients. Give me a break. What does any of this have to
do with alien visitation? The crap that these people post about
people, has no effect over my opinions. When you have no history,
they resort to trying to find mistakes or typos in your posts
and repeating them years on end. They also try to take your
writings out of context repeatedly which is what they do with me.
The facts are the facts. This thread was just about a
comet. Yet, they post it as if its to be some kind of
"Kook Fodder." These people really need to lighten up,
however I know thats not going to happen anytime soon.
> > Yawn. Carl said "close" and "bright." He didn't say how close or how
> > bright.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't ask him about how close or how bright,
> Michael. Rather, I asked him for the basis for his claim. You know,
> more information, so as to remove some of the ambiguity associated with
> words like "close" and "very bright".
Yes, the only thing you have asked for is the basis of Carl's claim.
You have told Michael several times now that you never asserted that
his claim was false and that you are only interested in how he came
to his conclusion. This seems fair enough. I await this information
as well.
> > but you waste your time arguing doggedly and ad nauseam over
> > irrelevant minutia and come across as a total jerk in the
> > process.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm wasting my time, Michael.
> You're also erroneously presupposing that I'm arguing over irrelevant
> minutia, Michael. I asked for the basis for his claim. That is not
> an argument; it is a request for additional information. Therefore
> the basis for your "total jerk" remark doesn't exist. You are,
> ironically, demonstrating all the traits that you're attributing to
> me, Michael, which doesn't paint a very pretty picture of yourself.
Again, you ask for the basis for his claim. Nothing more, nothing
less. Thats all that is wanted as it clearly states in this post.
After following this thread for the past few nights, I am interested.
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal - Posting to Usenet since July-15-1997.
"Sometimes trolls take writings out of context or write pure lies
about people just to get them baited into flame-wars. You do not
have to address each and every lie that they make. Don't feed them!"
Official Website -----> http://www.flagship1.com
Public E-Mail --------> paran...@flagship1.com
Michael Davis
> Re: New Comet Discovered = Kook Fodder
>
> [Groups Removed]
> alt.astrology - My reply does not relate to astrology.
[Groups Added]
alt.usenet.kooks - You are always on topic there.
alt.idiot.flagship1 - Ditto.
>
> tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
>
>>This is truly amazing, Michael. On what basis do you claim that I
>>found fault with Carl's statement? I merely asked him for the basis
>>for his claim. I did not say that his claim was faulty. I wanted
>>to know how he managed to arrive at such a definite conclusion on
>>the basis of at most two nights of observations, when some of us
>>were still waiting for more observations to come in to pin down the
>>orbit. Somehow, you turned that simple request into "bile". Well,
>>it doesn't surprise me. One thing that I've learned from years of
>>reading USENET is that when people are backed into a corner, they
>>start to rely on name calling, insults, exaggerations, lies, libel,
>>threats, vituperation, and son on, and you're simply repeating
>>history, Michael.
>
>
> You had hit it right on the nose. Recently they found that they
> were not getting through against Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers
> A.S.A.
His name is Jerry Kolnick.
> so what do they do? They attempt ad homonym attacks over
> the fact that he has unfortunately chosen "Dr." as part of his
> nick and they continue to assert that he was *impersonating* a doctor.
He was spanked by the Oregon authorities for posing as a doctor in
several psychology NGs and dispensing bogus medical advice without a
license. That's not an ad homonym attack, that's the truth. HTH.
> This has happened in 1998. Thats four years ago and it has not
> happened again since that time.
People should be reminded what a kook he is, lest they forget. He's
dangerous.
> Regardless of that, the personal
> attacks and claims against Wholeflaffer continue. Why do they
> choose something that happened four years ago?
Because it's a lu lu.
> Its because its
> practically the only dirt they have on this guy
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's just the tip of the iceberg.
> and they will stop
> at nothing to try to defame people.
Since when is the truth defamatory?
> With Edmond Wollmann its
> over the fact that he had a trespassing violation! Com'on!
Actually with Wollmann it is his lying about it that people point out.
He claims it was a traffic ticket. Court records showed he was fined
and put on probation for criminal trespass. The cover up is always
worse than the crime. Nixon's attempted cover up of a two-bit burglary
cost him the presidency. Clinton's cover up of his affair with an
intern got him impeached.
Then there are all of Wollmann's other problems. He is also illegally
practicing as a counselor without the proper credentials. He too will
no doubt feel the full force of of the State of California coming down
on top of him soon. Hey, Flaggy, why is it you like to cozy up to
frauds like bDAN, Wollmann and Kolnick?
> Its
> not like Wholeflaffer opened up a medical clinic and started to
> take patients.
Irrelevant. The law doesn't care.
> Give me a break.
Request denied.
> What does any of this have to
> do with alien visitation?
I dunno, what do Jerry "Wholeflaffer" Kolnick's made up stories have
to do with alien visitation?
> The crap that these people post about
> people, has no effect over my opinions. When you have no history,
> they resort to trying to find mistakes or typos in your posts
> and repeating them years on end. They also try to take your
> writings out of context repeatedly which is what they do with me.
No, we take your writings in their proper kooky context. They are
funnier that way. Besides, you'd look less insane if people only saw
*part* of what you post.
>
> The facts are the facts. This thread was just about a
> comet. Yet, they post it as if its to be some kind of
> "Kook Fodder." These people really need to lighten up,
> however I know thats not going to happen anytime soon.
>
>
>>>Yawn. Carl said "close" and "bright." He didn't say how close or how
>>>bright.
>>
>>Irrelevant, given that I didn't ask him about how close or how bright,
>>Michael. Rather, I asked him for the basis for his claim. You know,
>>more information, so as to remove some of the ambiguity associated with
>>words like "close" and "very bright".
>
>
> Yes, the only thing you have asked for is the basis of Carl's claim.
> You have told Michael several times now that you never asserted that
> his claim was false and that you are only interested in how he came
> to his conclusion. This seems fair enough. I await this information
> as well.
You await it as well? I thought you got all your science information
from your kooky butt buddy bDAN? You know, the guy who thinks comets
are super hot balls of fire and who helped spread the "spaceship
behind Hale-Bopp" hoax that caused all those Heaven's Gate nuts to off
themselves. What's bDAN going to think of you pulling away from his
teat and cozying up to somebody else? Did you and bDAN have a falling
out or something, Flaggy? Was it because he never got you laid like he
promised?
>
>
>>>but you waste your time arguing doggedly and ad nauseam over
>>>irrelevant minutia and come across as a total jerk in the
>>>process.
>>
>>You're erroneously presupposing that I'm wasting my time, Michael.
>>You're also erroneously presupposing that I'm arguing over irrelevant
>>minutia, Michael. I asked for the basis for his claim. That is not
>>an argument; it is a request for additional information. Therefore
>>the basis for your "total jerk" remark doesn't exist. You are,
>>ironically, demonstrating all the traits that you're attributing to
>>me, Michael, which doesn't paint a very pretty picture of yourself.
>
>
> Again, you ask for the basis for his claim. Nothing more, nothing
> less. Thats all that is wanted as it clearly states in this post.
> After following this thread for the past few nights,
Does the "spirit" in your hand have a headache?
> I am interested.
You misspelled "trolling." HTH.
Damn, my powers of prediction are nearly paranormal in their accuracy.
No sooner do I point out that Tholen is in danger of becoming a kook,
then along comes one of the biggest kooks on Usenet to try to buddy up
to him.
Sometimes I even amaze myself.
tho...@antispam.ham
> What does any of this have to do with alien visitation?
Non sequitur.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.idiot.flagship1 - No such newsgroup.
alt.usenet.kooks - Troll Group.
Michael Davis wrote:
>
> > With Edmond Wollmann its
> > over the fact that he had a trespassing violation! Com'on!
>
> Actually with Wollmann it is his lying about it that people point out.
> He claims it was a traffic ticket. Court records showed he was fined
> and put on probation for criminal trespass. The cover up is always
> worse than the crime. Nixon's attempted cover up of a two-bit burglary
> cost him the presidency. Clinton's cover up of his affair with an
> intern got him impeached.
The presidency is a whole different ball game. Edmond Wollmann is not
running for president here. Ad homonym attacks do not at all bring
to question his astrological theories, works, and findings. Its the
same with Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. There is no need
to repeat claims that he has impersonated a Dr. simply because he
has happened to use that as part of his nick. Yes, I am giving you
the benefit of the doubt that he got in trouble for it. However,
this has happened four years ago and has not happened again since.
It was a mistake, and yet you are attempting to pass it off as though
it was intentional. Its the same with Wollmann.
> Then there are all of Wollmann's other problems. He is also illegally
> practicing as a counselor without the proper credentials. He too will
> no doubt feel the full force of of the State of California coming down
> on top of him soon. Hey, Flaggy, why is it you like to cozy up to
> frauds like bDAN, Wollmann and Kolnick?
If that happens, we will discuss it then. Without legal support of
the claim, I cannot and will not make any conclusions. He's to be
considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We frist
have to see if the claim holds any water.
> > The crap that these people post about
> > people, has no effect over my opinions. When you have no history,
> > they resort to trying to find mistakes or typos in your posts
> > and repeating them years on end. They also try to take your
> > writings out of context repeatedly which is what they do with me.
>
> No, we take your writings in their proper kooky context. They are
> funnier that way. Besides, you'd look less insane if people only saw
> *part* of what you post.
Here we go with calling people kooks again! Its the same with kook awards.
I have gotten some of them two years ago. They mean absolutely nothing!
You can call us "kooks" all you want. It has no effect on how we
perceive each other. So we believe in a few things that you are skeptical
of, and that makes us all kooks? Have you ever stopped to realize that
you are the one whose the real kook here? Skep-Ti-Cult?!? The Cabal?!?
alt.usenet.kooks?!? How much kookier can you people get? Were not the
kooks.
> > Yes, the only thing you have asked for is the basis of Carl's claim.
> > You have told Michael several times now that you never asserted that
> > his claim was false and that you are only interested in how he came
> > to his conclusion. This seems fair enough. I await this information
> > as well.
>
> You await it as well? I thought you got all your science information
> from your kooky butt buddy bDAN? You know, the guy who thinks comets
> are super hot balls of fire and who helped spread the "spaceship
> behind Hale-Bopp" hoax that caused all those Heaven's Gate nuts to off
> themselves.
Heaven's gate was a form of religious cult. They gave their lives
for what they believe in. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of us,
including myself disagree with their beliefs. However, it was still
their beliefs. I for one would never take my life under the assumption
that I would end up on board an alien spacecraft. I would simply use
my mind energy and ask to be abducted. We all have different beliefs,
and we RESPECT eachother's beliefs. We don't go around calling everybody
kooks like you tend to do. Unfortunately this is something that you
may never understand about us.
> What's bDAN going to think of you pulling away from his
> teat and cozying up to somebody else? Did you and bDAN have a falling
> out or something, Flaggy? Was it because he never got you laid like he
> promised?
We are friends, nothing more nothing less. We share many of the
same views and opinions in relation to psychic phenomena. We also
have our differences and disagreements. Regardless of that, you
still don't see us calling eachother kooks.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> --- Snip ---
>>>> Figures.
>> Note: no response.
> You're erroneously presupposing that you said something worthy of a
> response.
No, I'm not, Michael. It's quite significant that you're the one
removing major portions of the discussion so that you don't have
to address the issues raised.
> HTH.
Ambiguous.
> --- Major snip of irrelevant nonsense ---
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You're simply engaging
in more evasion, Michael.
>>> What part of "Ask Brian Marsden. I was quoting him." didn't you
>>> understand?
>> You're the one who has the quotation, Michael. If you don't have the
>> error bars, why not just admit it?
> I never claimed to have your precious error bars.
Then why don't you simply admit that Carl's claim was premature?
> Why must I now admit to not having them?
You're the one who has taken up the gauntlet of defending Carl's
premature claim, Michael.
>>> The quote was in my original post.
>> Without any error bars, therefore the quotation did nothing to
>> substantiate the claim about how close to the Sun the comet will
>> get.
> Still arguing about how close is close?
No, Michael. Never have been. If you had better reading
comprehension skills, you'd know that by now. I asked for
the basis for a claim. What in that simple question did
you not understand, Michael?
> Some people just don't get it.
And you're a prime example, Michael.
> You must be a real joy to deal with in person, Tholen.
Far more joyful than you, I'm quite sure, Michael.
>>> Feel free to harangue him for having the gall to not include
>>> error bars in the information that went into the Astro Alert.
>> Why should I?
> Um, because that would be the sensible thing to do if you want to
> argue about Marsden's orbital prediction.
The key word here is "if", Michael. I have never wanted to argue
about Marsden's orbital prediction. Nobody made any orbital
prediction on IAU Circular 8032, which is Carl's reference
material.
>> He isn't the one who made the claim about how close
>> to the Sun the comet "will" get.
> You don't read too good, Tholen.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic,
coming from the person who still hasn't read good enough to
understand the chronology of this discussion.
> Here's what I posted:
>
> "A preliminary orbit calculated by Brian G. Marsden of the
> Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, indicates
> that this comet is headed for perihelion in late January,
> when it will pass well inside the orbit of Mercury and may
> brighten considerably."
What you posted is irrelevant, Michael. What is relevant is what
Carl posted, and Carl posted a claim along with a reference to an
IAU Circular that contained no orbit computation. Furthermore,
that is not the quotation of Brian Marsden; rather, it is the
quotation of someone else referencing Marsden's orbit computation.
>> Rather, Carl did, and by defending
>> Carl, you have also done so indirectly. I already know how to
>> properly interpret the information that Brian Marsden put out.
> Then why all the whining?
Ask yourself that question, Michael, because I'm not the one
whining. I merely asked for the basis for a claim. You're the
one getting all worked up over how close is "close".
>> You apparently do not.
> I can see that it pulls the rug out from under your arguments.
It's called a hallucination, Michael. After all, I'm the one who
can compute an orbit that both satisfies the observations and will
not take it "well inside the orbit of Mercury".
>>>>> Since he seems to be the acknowledged expert in the field, I
>>>>> personally see no reason to doubt him.
>>>> Where is the alleged quotation that includes error bars?
>>> Is there an echo in here?
>> I see that you didn't answer the question, Michael. No surprise
>> there, really.
> You know, Tholen, one of the definitions of insanity is repeating the
> same irrational behavior over and over again. I'm beginning to wonder
> about you.
Meanwhile, I already know about you, Michael. You've repeated the same
irrational "how close is close" statement when that's never been the
issue.
>>>>> Get back to me if you find a fault in his calculations.
>>>> Irrelevant, given that the issue is not fault in calculations, but
>>>> rather the size of the error bar on the results. Furthermore, his
>>>> calculation is irrelevant, given that Carl made his "wild-ass claim"
>>>> prior to the availability of that calculation.
>>> He said it would pass close to the Sun.
>> Who is "he", Michael?
> Hello? Hello? Looks like the porch light is on but nobody is home.
Another prime example of classic USENET behavior from someone backed
into a corner.
>> Are you still talking about Brian Marsden, or
>> are you back to talking about Carl Wilson?
> Carl. Duh! If you can't even follow the conversation but are going to
> argue over the meaning of every other word and phrase anyway, then I
> guess I am wasting my time here.
You are indeed wasting your time here, Michael, because neither you
nor Carl have done any orbit calculations. Meanwhile, Carl has made
a claim about how close it would get to the Sun, but when asked for
the basis for that claim, the onus was shifted from Carl to Brian.
Just quoting somebody else. And now when I ask who your "he" is
supposed to refer to, you claim that I can't follow the conversation,
when I obviously have followed the conversation quite well, which is
why your "he" was noted as ambiguous.
>>> He didn't say how close.
>> Close enough for the potential to make it very bright, Michael.
> There you go arguing over an opinion again. "Very bright" is not a
> measurement that you can take issue with.
I didn't call it a measurement, Michael. But I did note the context
in which the remark appeared. Do you know what X5 means, Michael?
It's the fifth comet discovered in the first half of December. Carl
didn't post any articles about the other four. The point can be
easily extended to include the dozens of other comets discovered this
year that didn't draw the interest of Carl. That's the context in
which "very bright" appeared, Michael.
>>> "Close" is an opinion, not a measurement.
>> Gad. You could use that argument to say that Pluto will get close to
>> the Sun.
> Compared to the outer edges of the Oort cloud or a distant star, Pluto
> is close to the Sun.
None of those objects can become "very bright", Michael. How
convenient for you to ignore context. Again.
>> Context is important, Michael,
> No kidding?
So why ignore it the way you are, Michael?
> --- Snip of more material not worthy of a response ---
Translation: you're backed into a corner, so you take the easy way
out and simply hide the evidence.
>>> So you have no real grounds to fault Carl's statement.
>> This is truly amazing, Michael.
> Yes, I'm sure this comes as a major revelation to you.
What you're sure about is irrelevant, Michael.
>> On what basis do you claim that I
>> found fault with Carl's statement? I merely asked him for the basis
>> for his claim. I did not say that his claim was faulty.
> Sniff, sniff. I smell backpedaling.
The odor is emanating from you, Michael.
>> I wanted
>> to know how he managed to arrive at such a definite conclusion on
>> the basis of at most two nights of observations, when some of us
>> were still waiting for more observations to come in to pin down the
>> orbit. Somehow, you turned that simple request into "bile". Well,
>> it doesn't surprise me. One thing that I've learned from years of
>> reading USENET is that when people are backed into a corner, they
>> start to rely on name calling, insults, exaggerations, lies, libel,
>> threats, vituperation, and so on, and you're simply repeating
>> history, Michael.
> Nice rant, Tholen.
Classic USENET behavior: call the facts a "rant".
> If you aren't careful you are going to get yourself
> classified as a net kook along with the likes of Nutty Nancy, Jan,
> JosX, Ed Conrad, Archamedies Plutonium, Flagship1, etc.
What people like you do doesn't concern me in the slightest, Michael.
Name calling won't change the facts. Never has, never will.
> It's a sad thing when a skeptic goes bad.
Irrelevant to the present discussion, Michael.
>>>> namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the
>>>> Sun.
>>> So you are arguing about the meaning of the word "close" then?
>> Not at all, Micahel. Suffering from reading comprehension problems?
> Well let's see about my reading comprehension. The comet's orbit
> "will" have a perihelion or closest approach to the Sun, right?
Irrelevant to the present discussion, Michael.
> So I guess you really aren't arguing about the word "will" in spite
> of the fact that you put it in quotes above in a lame attempt at
> misdirection.
What you guess is irrelevant, Michael.
> The only other word in that sentence you could possibly
> be taking issue with is the adverb usage of the word "close."
What part of "claim" do you not understand, Michael? Or do you
not realize that a claim can involve more than a single word?
> But "close" still isn't an absolute measurement that you can take
> issue with.
Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Michael.
> So sorry. But hey, thanks for playing.
You're erroneously presupposing that I was playing, Michael.
> --- Snip remainder of drivel ---
What alleged "drivel", Michael? Referring to your own material
perhaps?
> Feel free to rant away about what you think I am "erroneously
> presupposing" by doing that. It should be good for a laugh.
Yes, it's become quite clear that you're not interested in the
fact, Michael, but rather in getting a good laugh out of it.
Go laugh at yourself.
Dr.Matt
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a trip to the bathroom."
tho...@antispam.ham
> Damn, my powers of prediction are nearly paranormal in their accuracy.
> No sooner do I point out that Tholen is in danger of becoming a kook,
Thereby demonstrating that you're not interested in the facts,
Michael.
DrPostman
Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their wisdom with:
>Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> writes:
>
>> What does any of this have to do with alien visitation?
>
>Non sequitur.
Flaggy thinks you might be a new friend for him. Flaggy also
thinks like Nancy, just to give you a bit of a heads up.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"Your name is "Bruce," and my first name is also "Bruce.""
-Idiot The Bruce
tho...@antispam.ham
> Did you say that Dave Tholen is posting in astrology newsgroups?
No, he didn't, Fields.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> writes:
>>> What does any of this have to do with alien visitation?
>> Non sequitur.
> Flaggy thinks you might be a new friend for him.
I'm not here to make new friends.
> Flaggy also thinks like Nancy,
Has he/she moved to Wisconsin?
> just to give you a bit of a heads up.
As if I needed one!
DrPostman
<paran...@flagship1.com> in accordance with The Prophecy and "For
Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their wisdom with:
>Heaven's gate was a form of religious cult. They gave their lives
>for what they believe in. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of us,
>including myself disagree with their beliefs. However, it was still
>their beliefs. I for one would never take my life under the assumption
>that I would end up on board an alien spacecraft. I would simply use
>my mind energy and ask to be abducted. We all have different beliefs,
>and we RESPECT eachother's beliefs. We don't go around calling everybody
>kooks like you tend to do. Unfortunately this is something that you
>may never understand about us.
I find it amazing that you would advocate respecting the beliefs of a suicide
cult. Do you respect the Taliban as well?
Dr.Matt
Indeed, it's far too late to be concerned with Tholen becoming a kook.
Dr.Matt
Ah, I see, you're just tholing in paranormal and alien-visitor newsgroups.
Good going!
Dr.Matt
with what he's writing there, you may find it interesting (at first).
DrPostman
<paran...@flagship1.com> in accordance with The Prophecy and "For
Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their wisdom with:
>The presidency is a whole different ball game. Edmond Wollmann is not
>running for president here. Ad homonym attacks do not at all bring
>to question his astrological theories, works, and findings. Its the
>same with Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. There is no need
>to repeat claims that he has impersonated a Dr. simply because he
>has happened to use that as part of his nick. Yes, I am giving you
>the benefit of the doubt that he got in trouble for it. However,
>this has happened four years ago and has not happened again since.
>It was a mistake, and yet you are attempting to pass it off as though
>it was intentional. Its the same with Wollmann.
Neither one of them has EVER admitted that they were wrong. I have
done so on the net on several occasions. Why is it that the people
you defend have never done so?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Have a look at what Tholen writes in rec.music.classical.
Have a look at what the antagonists are writing in rec.music.classical.
> If you're unfamiliar with what he's writing there, you may find
> it interesting (at first).
If you're unfamiliar with what the antagonists are writing there,
you may find it comparable to what antagonists write in other
newsgroups.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Did you say that Dave Tholen is posting in astrology newsgroups?
>> No, he didn't, Fields.
> Ah, I see, you're just tholing in paranormal and alien-visitor newsgroups.
That's called a hallucination, Fields. Yours.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Michael Davis writes:
>>> Damn, my powers of prediction are nearly paranormal in their accuracy.
>>> No sooner do I point out that Tholen is in danger of becoming a kook,
>> Thereby demonstrating that you're not interested in the facts,
>> Michael.
> Indeed, it's far too late to be concerned with Tholen becoming a kook.
What does that have to do with comet Kudo-Fujikawa, Fields?
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
DrPostman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:42:46 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> in accordance with The Prophecy and "For
> Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their wisdom with:
>
> >Heaven's gate was a form of religious cult. They gave their lives
> >for what they believe in. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of us,
> >including myself disagree with their beliefs. However, it was still
> >their beliefs. I for one would never take my life under the assumption
> >that I would end up on board an alien spacecraft. I would simply use
> >my mind energy and ask to be abducted. We all have different beliefs,
> >and we RESPECT eachother's beliefs. We don't go around calling everybody
> >kooks like you tend to do. Unfortunately this is something that you
> >may never understand about us.
>
> I find it amazing that you would advocate respecting the beliefs of a suicide
> cult. Do you respect the Taliban as well?
Actually the Taliban is much more like Skep-Ti-Cult in my opinion.
They are both of the same breed. They are hostile against the beliefs
of others. Unlike atheist extremists against any and all religion,
and they are islamic extremists, against Christianity and Judaism.
I have no respect for _anyone_ that does not respect the beliefs
of other people. I have no respect for the Taliban, and no respect
for Skep-Ti-Cult.
I do have respect for Atheists as well Islamics. When it comes
to attacking people because of their beliefs, I have no respect
for that.
DrPostman
<paran...@flagship1.com> in accordance with The Prophecy and "For
Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their wisdom with:
>Actually the Taliban is much more like Skep-Ti-Cult in my opinion.
Your opinions are very screwy.
>They are both of the same breed. They are hostile against the beliefs
>of others.
You mean like being hostile to skeptics? I have never been hostile
to any belief, other than those who believe it is wrong to question
paranormal claims.
>Unlike atheist extremists against any and all religion,
>and they are islamic extremists, against Christianity and Judaism.
>I have no respect for _anyone_ that does not respect the beliefs
>of other people. I have no respect for the Taliban, and no respect
>for Skep-Ti-Cult.
When have any of us ever filed a lawsuit in an attempt to silence someone?
>I do have respect for Atheists as well Islamics. When it comes
>to attacking people because of their beliefs, I have no respect
>for that.
Like attacking those who question paranormal claims, right? I have
seen how the respect of you kooks works in court. Thank God for that.
Michael Davis
Whew! I had no idea. What you said in another message is 100% correct.
It *is* far too late to worry about Tholen *becoming* a kook. He's
already a full-blown kook of the first order.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Matthew H. Fields writes:
>>> Have a look at what Tholen writes in rec.music.classical.
>> Have a look at what the antagonists are writing in rec.music.classical.
>>> If you're unfamiliar with what he's writing there, you may find
>>> it interesting (at first).
>> If you're unfamiliar with what the antagonists are writing there,
>> you may find it comparable to what antagonists write in other
>> newsgroups.
> Whew! I had no idea. What you said in another message is 100% correct.
> It *is* far too late to worry about Tholen *becoming* a kook.
I didn't say that in another message, Michael. Still suffering from
reading comprehension problems?
> He's already a full-blown kook of the first order.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Carl Wilson wrote:
>> jof3r <jo...@kook-watch.net> wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>> Carl Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>>>>>>>>>>> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
>>>>>>>>>>> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
>>>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? There was no orbit published on
>>>>>>>>>> IAUC 8032. Observations from two nights were published on MPEC 2002-X84,
>>>>>>>>>> yet the orbit is still somewhat indeterminate. The perihelion distance
>>>>>>>>>> could be arbitrarily small, or as large as about 0.22 AU.
>>> .22 AU is large? Mercury's orbit is .38 AU
>> He's just out for a little troll...
> an unimaginative troll, according to the posts in the link. :)
On what basis do you make that claim?
>>>>>>>>> That's why I said it has the *potential* to become a bright comet.
>>>>>>>> You said it's orbit *will* take it very close to the Sun. How can you
>>>>>>>> know that from IAUC 8032, when IAUC 8032 didn't contain any orbit?
>>>>>>> Perhaps I should have broken the paragraph into two paragraphs to
>>>>>>> avoid any confusion as to who said what. The only thing I was meaning
>>>>>>> to attribute to IAUC 8032 was the fact that a new comet was
>>>>>>> discovered by Tetuo Kudo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The orbital information was provided by my copy of "The Sky" astronomy
>>>>>>> software and other sources.
>>>>>> But as I pointed out, the orbit is still indeterminate. Did "The Sky"
>>>>>> also publish error bars on the orbital elements?
>>>>> No, they don't publish error bars, but unless the errors are really
>>>>> huge the comet is going to pass fairly close to the sun as I
>>>>> originally stated.
>>>> How do you know? You just said they didn't publish any error bars.
Fin Fahey
news:3E025686...@flagship1.com...
Hey, Flagship1, you wacky dude. Yo. Weird to see you on sci.astro. So -
since you respect the beliefs of The Heaven's Gate ex-humans, insofar as you
think they might not just have topped themselves with poisoned pudding but
ascended to a higher plane of reality and like that, what is your view on
the ZetaCult (www.zetatalk.com) people who, together with some affiliates,
believe that most of the world will be destroyed by Planet Nibiru (also
known as Planet Havas by those in the know) in May 2003. Do you have any
comments? Have you made any preparations for the Pole Shift?
--
Fin
---------------------------------------
fin@albédo.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------
(please Tippex out the acute accent to reply)
Fred Garvin
wrote:
> tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
>> Carl Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>>>>>>>>>observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will
>>>>>>>>>take it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a
>>>>>>>>>very bright object
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On what basis do you make that claim? There was no orbit published
>>>>>>>>on IAUC 8032. Observations from two nights were published on MPEC
>>>>>>>>2002-X84, yet the orbit is still somewhat indeterminate. The
>>>>>>>>perihelion distance could be arbitrarily small, or as large as
>>>>>>>>about 0.22 AU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's why I said it has the *potential* to become a bright comet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You said it's orbit *will* take it very close to the Sun. How can
>>>>>>you know that from IAUC 8032, when IAUC 8032 didn't contain any
>>>>>>orbit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps I should have broken the paragraph into two paragraphs to
>>>>>avoid any confusion as to who said what. The only thing I was meaning
>>>>>to attribute to IAUC 8032 was the fact that a new comet was
>>>>>discovered by Tetuo Kudo.
>>>>>
>>>>>The orbital information was provided by my copy of "The Sky" astronomy
>>>>>software and other sources.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>But as I pointed out, the orbit is still indeterminate. Did "The Sky"
>>>>also publish error bars on the orbital elements?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No, they don't publish error bars, but unless the errors are really huge
>>>the comet is going to pass fairly close to the sun as I originally
>>>stated.
>>>
>>>
>> How do you know? You just said they didn't publish any error bars.
>>
>>
>>
> If it crosses within 2 au of the sun thats plenty close enough My bet is
> it will be much closer Read the orbital data I posted
That doesn't mean much really. Remember Comet Austin? I do.
Fred Garvin
> tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
>> namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the Sun.
>
> So you are arguing about the meaning of the word "close" then?
>
>> Nobody has yet demonstrated that such a claim can be justified on
>> the basis of the information available at the time.
>
> Silly boy. "Close" is not an exact measurement. "Close" is an opinion.
> Opinions aren't wrong or right, they just are. Arguing with someone over
> their opinion of what constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
>
> --- Remaining drivel flushed ---
>
> Tholen, you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but you waste your time
> arguing doggedly and ad nauseam over irrelevant minutia and come across
> as a total jerk in the process. This makes people tune you out, and so
> nobody notices when you actually contribute something useful to the NG
> like debunking the claims of Nutty Nancy and her brainwashed followers.
> Not every claim needs to beaten down with a sledgehammer. If you felt
> compelled to comment on Carl's post then simply pointing out that all the
> data wasn't in yet would have sufficed. Going off on Carl over what
> constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
>
> --
> The Evil Michael Davis™
I agree with Michael, you know your stuff but you ARE very argumentive with
people. Your posting history does show that. I've read enough of your
stuff over the years. Responding to Nancy's nonsense is also a total waste
of time. Your excellent information in refuteing her is wasted on her and
the 12 morons who MAY buy into her crap. Lighten up already. Happy
holidays though to you.
Carl Wilson
wrote:
I do too. But remember what started all this. I said it had the
*potential* to be a bright comet. I never said that it was absolutely
going to be a bright comet.
Carl Wilson
wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:33:09 -0500, Michael Davis wrote:
There's distance between arguing over points of fact and arguing over
minutia as Tholen was doing.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Michael Davis wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the Sun.
>> So you are arguing about the meaning of the word "close" then?
>>> Nobody has yet demonstrated that such a claim can be justified on
>>> the basis of the information available at the time.
>> Silly boy. "Close" is not an exact measurement. "Close" is an opinion.
>> Opinions aren't wrong or right, they just are. Arguing with someone over
>> their opinion of what constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
>>
>> --- Remaining drivel flushed ---
>>
>> Tholen, you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but you waste your time
>> arguing doggedly and ad nauseam over irrelevant minutia and come across
>> as a total jerk in the process. This makes people tune you out, and so
>> nobody notices when you actually contribute something useful to the NG
>> like debunking the claims of Nutty Nancy and her brainwashed followers.
>> Not every claim needs to beaten down with a sledgehammer. If you felt
>> compelled to comment on Carl's post then simply pointing out that all the
>> data wasn't in yet would have sufficed. Going off on Carl over what
>> constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
> I agree with Michael,
Why?
> you know your stuff but you ARE very argumentive with people.
On the contrary, other people are very argumentative with me. For
example, Michael accused me of arguing about how close is "close",
when in fact I had done no such thing. I had asked for the basis
for a claim, and then I stated some facts about an IAUC and an MPEC.
> Your posting history does show that.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> I've read enough of your stuff over the years.
Obviously not carefully enough.
> Responding to Nancy's nonsense is also a total waste of time.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Your excellent information in refuteing her is wasted on her and
> the 12 morons who MAY buy into her crap.
You're erroneously presupposing that my excellent information is
intended only for Nancy and the "12 morons", Fred. Of course, I've
explained that already, which you would know by now if you had
truly read enough of my "stuff" over the years as you claimed above.
> Lighten up already.
You're presupposing that I need to lighten up, Fred. Perhaps you
should practice what you preach.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Fred Garvin wrote:
>> Michael Davis wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>> namely the claim that the orbit "will" take the comet close to the Sun.
>>> So you are arguing about the meaning of the word "close" then?
>>>> Nobody has yet demonstrated that such a claim can be justified on
>>>> the basis of the information available at the time.
>>> Silly boy. "Close" is not an exact measurement. "Close" is an opinion.
>>> Opinions aren't wrong or right, they just are. Arguing with someone over
>>> their opinion of what constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
>>>
>>> --- Remaining drivel flushed ---
>>>
>>> Tholen, you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but you waste your time
>>> arguing doggedly and ad nauseam over irrelevant minutia and come across
>>> as a total jerk in the process. This makes people tune you out, and so
>>> nobody notices when you actually contribute something useful to the NG
>>> like debunking the claims of Nutty Nancy and her brainwashed followers.
>>> Not every claim needs to beaten down with a sledgehammer. If you felt
>>> compelled to comment on Carl's post then simply pointing out that all the
>>> data wasn't in yet would have sufficed. Going off on Carl over what
>>> constitutes "close" is just plain stupid.
>> I agree with Michael, you know your stuff but you ARE very argumentive with
>> people. Your posting history does show that. I've read enough of your
>> stuff over the years. Responding to Nancy's nonsense is also a total waste
>> of time. Your excellent information in refuteing her is wasted on her and
>> the 12 morons who MAY buy into her crap. Lighten up already. Happy
>> holidays though to you.
> There's distance between arguing over points of fact and arguing over
> minutia as Tholen was doing.
Classic unsbstantiated and erroneous claim. I was the one who noted a
point of fact, namely that IAU Circular 8032 did not contain any orbit
solution. Michael is the one who invented the "how close is close"
minutia, Carl.
Harlow Campbell
> You're erroneously presupposing that my excellent information is
> intended only for Nancy and the "12 morons", Fred. Of course, I've
> explained that already, which you would know by now if you had
> truly read enough of my "stuff" over the years as you claimed above.
>
> > Lighten up already.
>
> You're presupposing that I need to lighten up, Fred. Perhaps you
> should practice what you preach.
"Tholen" is a gay name....Do you suck dick?
Are you a peter puffer?
Are you from Texas?
PS- How do you like me now?
Carl Wilson
[AUK added]
If you really want to pick nits Dave, I never said that it did.
I said:
"IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
object"
What I did *not* say:
"IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese observer
Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. IAUC 8032 went on to state that this comet's
orbit will take it very close to the sun, it has the potential to
become a very bright object"
-- or words to that effect
The connection between IAUC and the comet's orbit wasn't stated by me,
but assumed by you.
I even went on to say in another post that:
"Perhaps I should have broken the paragraph into two paragraphs to
avoid any confusion as to who said what."
But hey, that still wasn't good enough for you, was it Dave?
Perhaps the real reason you decided to latch onto this thread has
nothing to do with the content so much as the subject of "New Comet
Discovered = Kook Fodder". I mean, after all you *did* win the Kook
of the Month award for March 1998, so maybe you're a just a little
sensitive to posts that mention "kooks", or domains like
"kook-watch.net"?
I that it Dave?
Carl Wilson
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:48:26 -0600, Carl Wilson <ca...@kook-watch.net>
wrote:
Should be: "Is that it Dave?"
Wouldn't want you to have something else to whine about....
tho...@antispam.ham
> [AUK added]
And removed.
>> Carl Wilson writes:
>>> Fred Garvin wrote:
>>>> Michael Davis wrote:
>>>>> I wrote:
How ironic, coming from the person who claimed that I was arguing over
some minutia, and here you are picking nits.
> I said:
>
> "IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
> object"
And I asked for the basis for your claim, Carl. Logically, if I had
thought that you had referenced IAU Circular 8032 for the orbit, then
I would not have asked you for the basis for the claim, Carl.
> What I did *not* say:
>
> "IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese observer
> Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. IAUC 8032 went on to state that this comet's
> orbit will take it very close to the sun, it has the potential to
> become a very bright object"
>
> -- or words to that effect
And logically I would not have needed to ask for the basis for your
claim if I had assumed such a statement, or words to that effect, Carl.
> The connection between IAUC and the comet's orbit wasn't stated by me,
> but assumed by you.
Incorrect, given that I asked for the basis for the claim, Carl.
Logically, I wouldn't have done that if I had made the assumption
that you erroneously attribute to me.
> I even went on to say in another post that:
>
> "Perhaps I should have broken the paragraph into two paragraphs to
> avoid any confusion as to who said what."
Irrelevant, given that there was no confusion over who said what,
Carl.
> But hey, that still wasn't good enough for you, was it Dave?
Given that you never stated the basis for your claim, Carl.
> Perhaps the real reason you decided to latch onto this thread has
> nothing to do with the content so much as the subject of "New Comet
> Discovered = Kook Fodder".
Perhaps not, Carl. If you had better reading comprehension skills,
you would have noticed that I removed any reference to that aspect
of your posting from my follow-up. I do find it interesting that
you have such an attraction to that subject and associated newsgroup.
> I mean, after all you *did* win the Kook
> of the Month award for March 1998,
Liar.
> so maybe you're a just a little sensitive to posts that mention
> "kooks", or domains like "kook-watch.net"?
Maybe not, Carl.
> I that it Dave?
That's not even grammatical, Carl.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Carl Wilson wrote:
> [typo correction message]
>> I that it Dave?
> Should be: "Is that it Dave?"
No, it isn't, Carl.
> Wouldn't want you to have something else to whine about....
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm whining, Carl.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Fred Garvin writes:
>>> Michael Davis wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>> I agree with Michael,
>> Why?
>> Obviously not carefully enough.
>>> Lighten up already.
> Idiot...he wasn't talking to you.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> Fred Garvin writes:
>>>>> Michael Davis wrote:
>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> I agree with Michael,
>>>> Why?
>>>> Obviously not carefully enough.
>>>>> Lighten up already.
> Classic failure to follow a thread noted.
How ironic, coming from the person who failed to follow a thread.
Michael Davis
Snarf!
___________________
|0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9|
| /|\ |
| | |
|-------------------|
| Irony Meter™ |
|___________________|
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Michael Davis
--- Snip dingbattery ---
>
>>I mean, after all you *did* win the Kook
>>of the Month award for March 1998,
>
>
> Liar.
Well somebody sure is lying, or at the very least deep, deep in denial
about it. The official kook awards page at
http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html lists you as being the winner
(whiner) for March, 1998. Simply denying it doesn't make it untrue, nor
does it make Carl a liar.
Now apologize to Carl, kook.
--- Snip lame spelling flame ---
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
msmith
wrote:
[...]
>"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously
>attributed to P. T. Barnum)
George Bush said that didn't he?
Ugly Bob
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:K2sN9.10396$B31.1...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Carl Wilson writes:
<snip>
> > I mean, after all you *did* win the Kook
> > of the Month award for March 1998,
>
> Liar.
Just look under Kook of the Month award for March of
1998, right after the legendary Edmond Heinz Wollmann.
Nice company you keep.
http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html
Carl Wilson
No Dave, that's pretty obvious. Even a two time Kook of the Month
winner like yourself should be able to see that.
Carl Wilson
>Carl Wilson writes:
>
>> [AUK added]
>
>And removed.
And replaced.
Well Dave, sometimes you have to lower yourself to the level of the
person your talking to in order to get the point across.
>> I said:
>>
>> "IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese
>> observer Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. Since this comet's orbit will take
>> it very close to the sun, it has the potential to become a very bright
>> object"
>
>And I asked for the basis for your claim, Carl. Logically, if I had
>thought that you had referenced IAU Circular 8032 for the orbit, then
>I would not have asked you for the basis for the claim, Carl.
Then the all of your endless nitpicking was pointless, wasn't it then?
>> What I did *not* say:
>>
>> "IAUC 8032 reports a new bright comet discovery by a Japanese observer
>> Tetuo Kudo in Hercules. IAUC 8032 went on to state that this comet's
>> orbit will take it very close to the sun, it has the potential to
>> become a very bright object"
>>
>> -- or words to that effect
>
>And logically I would not have needed to ask for the basis for your
>claim if I had assumed such a statement, or words to that effect, Carl.
>
>> The connection between IAUC and the comet's orbit wasn't stated by me,
>> but assumed by you.
>
>Incorrect, given that I asked for the basis for the claim, Carl.
>Logically, I wouldn't have done that if I had made the assumption
>that you erroneously attribute to me.
And even when I told you what the basis of my claim was, you still
continued to argue. It's little wonder you won Kook of the Month
Dave.
>> I even went on to say in another post that:
>>
>> "Perhaps I should have broken the paragraph into two paragraphs to
>> avoid any confusion as to who said what."
>
>Irrelevant, given that there was no confusion over who said what,
>Carl.
"You said it's orbit *will* take it very close to the Sun. How can
you know that from IAUC 8032, when IAUC 8032 didn't contain any
orbit?" ~ tho...@AntiSpam.ham
Sounds like you thought I was erroneously claiming that the orbital
data was in fact provided by IAUC 8032 Dave, or where you just arguing
for the sake of arguing?
>> But hey, that still wasn't good enough for you, was it Dave?
>
>Given that you never stated the basis for your claim, Carl.
Perhaps you should read more and whine less Dave.
"The orbital information was provided by my copy of "The Sky"
astronomy software and other sources."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F55725CD2
That was posted 6 days ago Dave. Funny how you missed it...
>> Perhaps the real reason you decided to latch onto this thread has
>> nothing to do with the content so much as the subject of "New Comet
>> Discovered = Kook Fodder".
>
>Perhaps not, Carl.
Perhaps, but if I were a betting man...
> If you had better reading comprehension skills,
>you would have noticed that I removed any reference to that aspect
>of your posting from my follow-up.
So you were just whining to hear yourself whine again? Seems you have
quite the reputation for that. Better be careful Dave, or folks might
begin to think that your 're a kook. Oops! Too late!
> I do find it interesting that
>you have such an attraction to that subject and associated newsgroup.
So it was the subject that got your attention. Thought so...
>> I mean, after all you *did* win the Kook
>> of the Month award for March 1998,
>
>Liar.
Actually Dave, it looks like you've racked up more than one kook
award. See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?T57725CD2
You not only won the usenet Kook of the Month Award for March 1998,
but also the comp.sys.mac.advocacy Kook of the Month Award for May
1999! Way to go Dave!
>> so maybe you're a just a little sensitive to posts that mention
>> "kooks", or domains like "kook-watch.net"?
>
>Maybe not, Carl.
>
>> I that it Dave?
>
>That's not even grammatical, Carl.
I knew you'd pick nits with that typo Dave, that's why I posted a
correction message. But
Carl Wilson
<mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Kook of the month award winner tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
>
>--- Snip dingbattery ---
>
>>
>>>I mean, after all you *did* win the Kook
>>>of the Month award for March 1998,
>>
>>
>> Liar.
>
>Well somebody sure is lying, or at the very least deep, deep in denial
>about it. The official kook awards page at
>http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html lists you as being the winner
>(whiner) for March, 1998. Simply denying it doesn't make it untrue, nor
>does it make Carl a liar.
>
>Now apologize to Carl, kook.
>
>--- Snip lame spelling flame ---
Actually, he's the winner of *two* Kook Awards. He's quite the
overachiever it seems.
Carl Wilson
wrote:
>On or about Mon, 23 Dec 2002 01:57:36 GMT, it was decided that
>tho...@AntiSpam.ham typed:
>Yawn.
Maybe he's trying to go for his third kook award?
>"Rick Boston got a kooky quote archive
>and all I got was this lousy gender issue." R. Wolfe?
Carl Wilson
wrote:
>On or about Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:20:24 -0600, it was decided that Carl
>Wilson <ca...@kook-watch.net> typed:
>I have faith in him!
So do I. I really think he has what it takes to be a three time Kook
of the Month!
msmith
>On or about Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:20:24 -0600, it was decided that Carl
>Wilson <ca...@kook-watch.net> typed:
>
>I have faith in him!
Hey, what's going to happen when if a comet impacts with earth, eh?
Have our illustrious military-defense complex decided how they're going to
save their asses, or are they still planning the aliens will help them out
by diverting an earth collision?
Well, that's the story I get from the State Deaprtment anyway.
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH