I know God is real because:
Jamfer
1. Like any good parent, He lets His children run out in the road and get
killed, without stopping them.
2. He allows His Children to be destroyed by disasters that He has the
power to control.
3. He is too busy to speak to people directly, only through a select few,
with an agenda.
4. When He speaks, He is likely to use a convenient burning bush or some
other means that leave no evidence behind.
5. When people are close to understanding His message, He creates larger
and more complicated Holy words to confuse the masses.
Justification, sanctification, propitiation, ecclesiarchy,
ecclesiastical, ecclesiastry, ecclesiolatry, ecclesiology, eccoprotic, just
to name a very small handful.
If you think of more reasons, add them.
Jamfer
Frankie Lee
> I know God is real because:
>
> 1. Like any good parent, He lets His children run out in the road and get
> killed, without stopping them.
Reply: This is slander.God never let His children run out and be
killed.Every fellow who live in Heaven never run out and get killed.It
was a perfect home and place.
>
> 2. He allows His Children to be destroyed by disasters that He has the
> power to control.
>
Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use it.So you are
infering that God has no power of control over sinners,and sinners are
not His children.
> 3. He is too busy to speak to people directly, only through a select few,
> with an agenda.
Reply: You can be busy and why can't He?
>
> 4. When He speaks, He is likely to use a convenient burning bush or some
> other means that leave no evidence behind.
Reply: You see,He left the burning bush intact as evidence,but evil
people shielded it for public view and after evil people slandered God
and hide His truths and then proclaimed God leave no evidence.
The Bible is a very serious and important evidence and documents,and
how come you don't know?Whether or not you believe it or not,it is a
piece of evidence.
Inside the Bible it contained God's thoughts and ides and history of
God's dealing with human beings spread across few thousand
years.Hello,a few thousand years is enough for you to see the vastness
and magnitude.
>
> 5. When people are close to understanding His message, He creates larger
> and more complicated Holy words to confuse the masses.
> Justification, sanctification, propitiation, ecclesiarchy,
> ecclesiastical, ecclesiastry, ecclesiolatry, ecclesiology, eccoprotic, just
> to name a very small handful.
>
> If you think of more reasons, add them.
Reply: When the Demons confused you,suddenly you attribute it to
God.How can?Why do you want be so unfair and unjust in your analysis?
Are you trying to show how foolish your points were?
>
> Jamfer
Jamfer
"Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0ab44c0-2a70-41ab...@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
That was a satire to show how moronic religion and religion selling fantasy
God pretenders really are.
Jamfer
Wusong
> "Frankie Lee" <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> That was a satire to show how moronic religion and religion selling fantasy
> God pretenders really are.
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
Gimme a break! You expect Frankie Lee, the uneducated false preacher,
to understand nuances of any language?
Proof that you are a LIAR and a FRAUD, Frankie Lee:
On the 16th of March, 2011, when asked why God had allowed such
catastrophes to befall upon the people of Japan, you claimed that God
is not almighty, because "the Bible says that the devils is in control
now because our ancestors sold it to him":
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/5a1bccae898f893a?hl=en
On the 17th of March, 2011, when asked to show where the passage "the
Bible says that the devils is in control now because our ancestors
sold it to him" is found in the Bible, you wrote:
"Reply: 2 corinthian 4;4.
How did Satan became the god of this world,if our ancestor not sold it
to him?Adam was to reign over this world,and earth since the creation
morning. What has been a common knowledge in Christendom and yet I
have to show it to you.This is terrible for someone so ignorant like
you,and even dare to ask for quotation of the verses".
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/84d4a4377c597706?hl=en
4 minutes later on the same day, the 17th of March, 2011, you added:
"It was Jesus who said,"I go to prepare a mansion for you",and I cling
on that and believe in Him.How can that be naive,where I can produce
billions of witnesses since time memorial?
Why do you deem that as naive?Or rather are you not gullible to the
core to have made that silly statements?
Honestly,I feel you are too gullible,not knowing your destiny,and not
understanding issues about eternity,and life after death.You don't
occur to me as someone intelligent".
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/4bf3e4678ef435cd?hl=en
Frankly, Frankie Lee, I don't give a damn about how I "occur" to you.
2 corinthian 4;4 did not say ""The Bible says that the devils is in
control now because our ancestors sold it to him", the way you
claimed. It says, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the
minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel
of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them".
So, you think you are very Intelligent do you, Frankie Lee? Have you
ever given any thought as to who compiled the Bible and why, instead
of cowering in a corner and shout "Jesus said", or "God said"?
Did you know that it was Emperor Constantine in 325 AD who ordered his
hand-picked bishops to decide which books to include to subjugate the
people and to put fear into their hearts so he can keep his power and
wealth and strengthen the Roman Empire? The books were written by
Middle Eastern men who vaguely remembered what they went through, NOT
by God, and they were carefully re-written and manipulated in Latin so
the uneducated people (like yourself) can only understand what those
people in power wanted them to believe.
Your infantile comprehension of the Bible and your bad English,
coupled with your personal ignorance, stupidity, and superstition,
have made you into a down-right idiot. You are lying! You are lying
about God and about the Bible. You have sinned against God's Ten
Commandments and you will be punished in Hell, Frankie Lee! Any time
now.
Wusong
> Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use it.So you are
> infering that God has no power of control over sinners,and sinners are
> not His children.
Frankie Lee, in:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/61caa4554636c017
,
you wrote: "Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use
it.So you are infering that God has no power of control over
sinners,and sinners are not His children". Yet, in:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/5a1bccae898f893a?hl=en
you wrote, "Who told you that God is in full control of nature now?The
Bible says that the devils is in control now because our ancestors
sold it to him".
Frankie Lee, you have such a minimal grasp of the English language,
and your ignorance, together with your hard-headed superstitious mind-
set, have made you into a village idiot and false preacher. You think
that just be saying "Jesus said" or "the Bible says" you can say
anything you like and get people to agree with you in your ignorant
views. You can't.
You think that your old age gives you the right to impose upon others
what you want them to do and what you want them to believe - it
doesn't. The ignorant people in your congregation may perhaps be
intimidated by the fear of death which you have been preaching them,
and listen to you, but no one else would. You have stated that you are
old, so the time has come for you to make amends, before you digress
further into senility. You have to look back at your life and repent
for all the lies you have said in Jesus' name. God works in mysterious
ways - He may actually be saying all this to you through me.
I accuse you of being a liar and a fraud. Now, what is it in these
facts that you can't understand?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/5a1bccae898f893a?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/84d4a4377c597706?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/4bf3e4678ef435cd?hl=en
To the statement, "He is too busy to speak to people directly, only
through a select few, with an agenda", you replied, "Reply: You can be
busy and why can't He?"
Please tell us why you think that God can be "too busy to speak to
people directly, only through a select few, with an agenda". What was
He doing when you said He was busy? Was he playing golf? Do tell us,
since you think you are the only one who knows everything about God.
Frankie Lee
> On 3月26日, 下午6时33分, Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use it.So you are
> > infering that God has no power of control over sinners,and sinners are
> > not His children.
> > Reply: You can be busy and why can't He?
>
> Frankie Lee, in:
>
> ,
>
> you wrote: "Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use
>
> it.So you are infering that God has no power of control over
> sinners,and sinners are not His children". Yet, in:
>
>
> you wrote, "Who told you that God is in full control of nature now?The
> Bible says that the devils is in control now because our ancestors
> sold it to him".
>
> Frankie Lee, you have such a minimal grasp of the English language,
> and your ignorance, together with your hard-headed superstitious mind-
> set, have made you into a village idiot and false preacher. You think
> that just be saying "Jesus said" or "the Bible says" you can say
> anything you like and get people to agree with you in your ignorant
> views. You can't.
>
> You think that your old age gives you the right to impose upon others
> what you want them to do and what you want them to believe - it
> doesn't. The ignorant people in your congregation may perhaps be
> intimidated by the fear of death which you have been preaching them,
> and listen to you, but no one else would. You have stated that you are
> old, so the time has come for you to make amends, before you digress
> further into senility. You have to look back at your life and repent
> for all the lies you have said in Jesus' name. God works in mysterious
> ways - He may actually be saying all this to you through me.
>
> I accuse you of being a liar and a fraud. Now, what is it in these
> facts that you can't understand?
>
> On the 16th of March, 2011, when asked why God had allowed such
> catastrophes to befall upon the people of Japan, you claimed that God
> is not almighty, because "the Bible says that the devils is in control
> now because our ancestors sold it to him":
>
>
> On the 17th of March, 2011, when asked to show where the passage "the
> Bible says that the devils is in control now because our ancestors
> sold it to him" is found in the Bible, you wrote:
> "Reply: 2 corinthian 4;4.
> How did Satan became the god of this world,if our ancestor not sold it
> to him?Adam was to reign over this world,and earth since the creation
> morning. What has been a common knowledge in Christendom and yet I
> have to show it to you.This is terrible for someone so ignorant like
> you,and even dare to ask for quotation of the verses".
>
>
> 4 minutes later on the same day, the 17th of March, 2011, you added:
> "It was Jesus who said,"I go to prepare a mansion for you",and I cling
> on that and believe in Him.How can that be naive,where I can produce
> billions of witnesses since time memorial?
> Why do you deem that as naive?Or rather are you not gullible to the
> core to have made that silly statements?
> Honestly,I feel you are too gullible,not knowing your destiny,and not
> understanding issues about eternity,and life after death.You don't
> occur to me as someone intelligent".
>
Frankie's reply: Sarcasm aside,I really think you have become a fool
by not knowing what was affirmed and what was not.People like you any-
o-how hamtam,normally should be left cold,nor warrant a reply.Since
this is a place where others may learn,you are bless to further learn
from me.
I was musing on one occasion after having seen the wondrous works of
God,many notabe miracles and wonders among His people.Why such
spectacular demonstrations and powers of God not shown and seen by our
world at large?
There was one great masterpiece of film made and produced by an
inteligent Director,and whose works were really futuristics.We have
our local people,those in the censored film board,unlearned and
ignorant,so theycensored the film and eventually the great masterpiece
of film was denied for our general public.
Since you harbour certain animosities against me,so what do you think
would happen,if I relate to you,"I have seen Angels,heard them
singing,bind demons,healed the sick,heard God audible voices and
instructions"
Let's say you are a wealthy man.You have two sons.You have many
thousands of employees.Would you give your keys of wealth,allow them
to access to your accounts and secrets,and recipies just any- o- how?
Would you not observe them for a period of time,to see their
trustworthiness,and see whether have they have pass the test?
If you 've common sense,you will not be asking why God speak to a
selected few.However,God always speak to the entire masses of
people,by his book,through the preachers, angels,events and various
ways,& not everything by direct appearings,direct voice.
If God send an Angel and appear before you,are you sure you will not
die of heart attack immediately?Can you withstand God's holiness?Do
you think it is fair that you want God to take care of your body,and
asked Him to prepare your body,and everything God must do for you to
receive His appearance?
God is no servant of man.You want God to be responsible for
everything ...and you?take God for a ride?Since you are a fool,why
must everyone be a fool like you?
Frankie Lee
> "Frankie Lee" <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
***There were also tons of satire to show moronic unbelievers were.Not
knowing the mysterious occurence after death,whether or not is there a
human soul,unbelievers live a life of gross ignorance.And they are
proud of it.
Frankie Lee
>
> > Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use it.So you are
> > infering that God has no power of control over sinners,and sinners are
> > not His children.
> > Reply: You can be busy and why can't He?
>
> Frankie Lee, in:
>
> ,
>
> you wrote: "Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use
>
> it.So you are infering that God has no power of control over
> sinners,and sinners are not His children". Yet, in:
>
>
> you wrote, "Who told you that God is in full control of nature now?The
> Bible says that the devils is in control now because our ancestors
> sold it to him".
>
> Frankie Lee, you have such a minimal grasp of the English language,
> and your ignorance, together with your hard-headed superstitious mind-
> set, have made you into a village idiot and false preacher. You think
> that just be saying "Jesus said" or "the Bible says" you can say
> anything you like and get people to agree with you in your ignorant
> views. You can't.
>
> You think that your old age gives you the right to impose upon others
> what you want them to do and what you want them to believe - it
> doesn't. The ignorant people in your congregation may perhaps be
> intimidated by the fear of death which you have been preaching them,
> and listen to you, but no one else would. You have stated that you are
> old, so the time has come for you to make amends, before you digress
> further into senility. You have to look back at your life and repent
> for all the lies you have said in Jesus' name. God works in mysterious
> ways - He may actually be saying all this to you through me.
>
> I accuse you of being a liar and a fraud. Now, what is it in these
> facts that you can't understand?
>
> On the 16th of March, 2011, when asked why God had allowed such
> catastrophes to befall upon the people of Japan, you claimed that God
> is not almighty, because "the Bible says that the devils is in control
> now because our ancestors sold it to him":
>
>
> On the 17th of March, 2011, when asked to show where the passage "the
> Bible says that the devils is in control now because our ancestors
> sold it to him" is found in the Bible, you wrote:
> "Reply: 2 corinthian 4;4.
> How did Satan became the god of this world,if our ancestor not sold it
> to him?Adam was to reign over this world,and earth since the creation
> morning. What has been a common knowledge in Christendom and yet I
> have to show it to you.This is terrible for someone so ignorant like
> you,and even dare to ask for quotation of the verses".
>
>
> 4 minutes later on the same day, the 17th of March, 2011, you added:
> "It was Jesus who said,"I go to prepare a mansion for you",and I cling
> on that and believe in Him.How can that be naive,where I can produce
> billions of witnesses since time memorial?
> Why do you deem that as naive?Or rather are you not gullible to the
> core to have made that silly statements?
> Honestly,I feel you are too gullible,not knowing your destiny,and not
> understanding issues about eternity,and life after death.You don't
> occur to me as someone intelligent".
>
Frankie's reply:
U:I accuse you of being a liar and a fraud. Now, what is it in these
facts that you can't understand?
Me:You have not state any facts at all,and on which point I lied?Since
you profess to have a good commnad of English,where was my lying
points?
U: You think that your old age gives you the right to impose upon
others...
Me: I thought you are proficiency in English.Did I impose my right on
others?In what ways have I done so?Have I the authority to censor your
message,and prevent you from replies?
The ST censor others view,and they impose their rights and views on
others through sheer monopoly,because we have only one News media.
U: Did you know that it was Emperor Constantine in 325 AD who ordered
his
hand-picked bishops to decide which books to include to subjugate the
people and to put fear into their hearts so he can keep his power and
wealth and strengthen the Roman Empire? The books were written by
Middle Eastern men who vaguely remembered what they went through, NOT
by God, and they were carefully re-written and manipulated in Latin
so
the uneducated people (like yourself) can only understand what those
people in power wanted them to believe.
Me: Are you sure you got that piece of history right?
Now,the Emperor handpick bishops to decide which books to include were
no cause to subjucate people to fear.How stupid for you to infer on
that?
On the otherhand,can it not also be true that those hand-pick bishops
were reliable people who have outstanding qualities needed to do the
task?Since they were bishops,they can be trusted,is it not?Now,if the
Emperor hand pick criminals from his jailed prisoners,then that would
be questionable,is it not?
How do you know that those middle eastern people vaguely remember
things?How do you know they manipulated the books?You see,you made
accusations out of the thin air against me,Fraud and Lies,with no
logics and coherent rationale,so what is strange you also could have
made those false accusations incoherently about those early writers of
the Bible.
To make matter worst for your lack of integrity,you condemned me based
on the Bible Ten Commandments,of which you discount.
Why do you want to tell me how hypocritical a fellow Wuson is today?
Wusong
> ... what do you think would happen,if I relate to you,"I have seen Angels,heard them singing,bind demons,healed the sick,heard God audible voices and instructions"
You have just confessed openly that you are a liar, a fraud, and a
lunatic.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Sidney Lambe
> I know God is real because:
I have seen no evidence that anything resembling 'chance' or
'accident' or 'randomness' exists in the universe. Therefore
it has to be a conscious creation.
When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power plant creates
itself 'accidentally', I will believe that something as phenomenally
complex as the human body can happen 'accidentally'.
But don't get me wrong: I am not endorsing the Christian worldview.
God doesn't resemble in any way the false god of the Christians,
which has no existence outside of their demented imaginations.
It is not renotely human and cares as much for the birds as It
does the humans.
The Bible is mostly garbage.
[delete]
--
Sidney Lambe - Evergreen
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com - http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh
Wusong
> ***There were also tons of satire to show moronic unbelievers were.Not
> knowing the mysterious occurence after death,whether or not is there a
> human soul,unbelievers live a life of gross ignorance.And they are
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/ea029b9acee2a375?hl=en
ilbe...@gmail.com
150+ extremely narrowly scientifically defined life enabling Physics
Constants to our Cosmos/solar system/earth all working in
unison.....over 60 different anatomical systems plus scores of other
subsystems to our Human Body all working in high precision so we can
stay alive on a daily basis...... a huge amouint of specific
informational instructions in ONE sub-atomic DNA molecule enough to
fill books ranging from earth to the moon 500 times over... and you
dont want to believe in the Christian personal theistic Creator ???
No one has that much faith to the contrary. Not even the most ardent
of 'atheists' .
Father Haskell
> sub-atomic DNA molecule
WTF?
Frankie Lee
***Are you telling me that you are ignorant that the Bible speak of
Angels?You cannot even articulate what constitute a lie or fraud,but
anyohow make accusations.Are you trying to make yourself irrelevent?
Brian E. Clark
@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, father...@yahoo.com
says...
> > sub-atomic DNA molecule
>
> WTF?
He often gets his rants confused these days. This is easier
for him than for most, as he never had the slightest idea
what he was talking about in the first place.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
SkyEyes
> On alt.religion.christian, Jamfer <Jam...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > I know God is real because:
>
> I have seen no evidence that anything resembling 'chance' or
> 'accident' or 'randomness' exists in the universe.
So you win every time you play poker or roulette, then?
> Therefore
> it has to be a conscious creation.
Oy. Sidney, you're getting dumber, Lambechop.
>
> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power plant creates
> itself 'accidentally', I will believe that something as phenomenally
> complex as the human body can happen 'accidentally'.
Listen up, doofus: nuclear power plants aren't *alive*. They're
*way* more complex than the first life was thought to be; it might
even not have had cell walls.
> But don't get me wrong: I am not endorsing the Christian worldview.
>
> God doesn't resemble in any way the false god of the Christians,
> which has no existence outside of their demented imaginations.
>
> It is not renotely human and cares as much for the birds as It
> does the humans.
And you know so much about this god of yours...how, exactly?
>
> The Bible is mostly garbage.
Well, finally! Something we agree on.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
panam...@hotmail.com
<brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <9407e61f-a042-46e9-a0c8-56534defa348
> says...
>
> > > sub-atomic DNA molecule
>
> > WTF?
>
> He often gets his rants confused these days. This is easier
> for him than for most, as he never had the slightest idea
> what he was talking about in the first place.
Brian, if I had the keys to the Wayback Machine, you'd get a QOTM Nom
for that one..<g>
-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Father Haskell
> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power plant creates
> itself 'accidentally', I will believe that something as phenomenally
> complex as the human body can happen 'accidentally'.
Would the Sun or any of the other possibly 300 sextillion
stars in the universe do for you?
Richo
> On alt.religion.christian, Jamfer <Jam...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > I know God is real because:
>
> I have seen no evidence that anything resembling 'chance' or
> 'accident' or 'randomness' exists in the universe. Therefore
> it has to be a conscious creation.
>
So earthquakes lightning strikes - are all deliberate and directed?
So what has the Creator of the universe got against Aceh and Japan?
10s of thousand of people died and it was no accident!
Some invisible intelligent power in the universe wanted those people
dead.
Nothing "just happens" - so when that 8 year old dies of brain tumor -
that wasn't just a case of "shit happens" - that was deliberate and
planned and destined to happen.
That 8 year old boy *had* to die of brain cancer.
What a terrible, repulsive and insane vision of existence.
Mark.
Yap
> On alt.religion.christian, Jamfer <Jam...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > I know God is real because:
>
> I have seen no evidence that anything resembling 'chance' or
> 'accident' or 'randomness' exists in the universe. Therefore
> it has to be a conscious creation.
So, you do not know anything?
All the accidents daily in the US roads are the result of "conscious
creation"?
Wow, tell this to all the victims' family.
>
> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power plant creates
> itself 'accidentally', I will believe that something as phenomenally
> complex as the human body can happen 'accidentally'.
You are telling us here your creator wanted the Japanese quake to
happen so that it could damage the atomic reactor?
Or you wish to inform us that your creator is just a impotent idiot
not capable to prevent disasters, yet can do evil things to this
world?
>
> But don't get me wrong: I am not endorsing the Christian worldview.
You don't? Look at your own message.
>
> God doesn't resemble in any way the false god of the Christians,
> which has no existence outside of their demented imaginations.
Where and what is this sky pixie of yours?
>
> It is not renotely human and cares as much for the birds as It
> does the humans.
>
> The Bible is mostly garbage.
This much is true.
Wusong
You have openly confessed that you are a liar, a fraud, a lunatic, and
that you have the mind of a ten-year-old child.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Proof that you are a LIAR and a FRAUD:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/8fdc53c778da7b40?hl=en
Wusong
Frankie Lee, in:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/61caa4554636c017
,
you wrote: "Reply: If God has the power to control,then He would use
it.So you are infering that God has no power of control over
sinners,and sinners are not His children", yet in:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/5a1bccae898f893a?hl=en
you wrote, "Who told you that God is in full control of nature now?The
Bible says that the devils is in control now because our ancestors
sold it to him".
To the statement, "He is too busy to speak to people directly, only
Harry F. Leopold
(in article
<3ce8bfa6-9fe4-49f6...@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
There is also this:
http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
A real, natural nuclear reactor. Not made by humans (nor even aliens.)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³The price of freedom is the defense of idiots.² - Jimmy Dick Sheaver
thomas p.
news:slrniov7t6.3...@3f8s2dcr5.net...
> On alt.religion.christian, Jamfer <Jam...@live.com> wrote:
>> I know God is real because:
>
> I have seen no evidence that anything resembling 'chance' or
> 'accident' or 'randomness' exists in the universe. Therefore
> it has to be a conscious creation.
>
> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power plant creates
> itself 'accidentally', I will believe that something as phenomenally
> complex as the human body can happen 'accidentally'.
>
> But don't get me wrong: I am not endorsing the Christian worldview.
>
> God doesn't resemble in any way the false god of the Christians,
> which has no existence outside of their demented imaginations.
>
> It is not renotely human and cares as much for the birds as It
> does the humans.
>
>
Plonk
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:50:20 -0500,
>Father Haskell wrote (in article
><3ce8bfa6-9fe4-49f6...@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
>m>):
>
>> On Mar 27, 5:37 pm, Sidney Lambe
>> <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>>
>>> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power
>>> plant creates itself 'accidentally', I will believe that
>>> something as phenomenally complex as the human body can
>>> happen 'accidentally'.
>>
>> Would the Sun or any of the other possibly 300 sextillion
>> stars in the universe do for you?
>
> There is also this:
>
> http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
>
> A real, natural nuclear reactor. Not made by humans (nor even
> aliens.)
So these Darwinists can't tell a sun from a human-made nuclear
reactor.
This doesn't suprise me a bit. You have to be pretty stupid
to accept the Theory of Evolotion as fact.
Atheists are just militant Darwinists out to eliminate the
religious competition. Like all true religious fanatics,
they believe that their beliefs are facts.
Colanth
<hleo...@coxyx.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:50:20 -0500, Father Haskell wrote
>(in article
><3ce8bfa6-9fe4-49f6...@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Mar 27, 5:37 pm, Sidney Lambe <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>>> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power plant creates
>>> itself 'accidentally', I will believe that something as phenomenally
>>> complex as the human body can happen 'accidentally'.
>>
>> Would the Sun or any of the other possibly 300 sextillion
>> stars in the universe do for you?
>
>There is also this:
>
>http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
>
>A real, natural nuclear reactor. Not made by humans (nor even aliens.)
So I guess we can expect to see Sidney's post, stating that he
believes "that something as phenomenally complex as the human body can
happen 'accidentally'" any moment now.
Colanth
<ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>On alt.religion.christian, Harry F Leopold <hleo...@coxyx.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:50:20 -0500,
>>Father Haskell wrote (in article
>><3ce8bfa6-9fe4-49f6...@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
>>m>):
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 5:37 pm, Sidney Lambe
>>> <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power
>>>> plant creates itself 'accidentally', I will believe that
>>>> something as phenomenally complex as the human body can
>>>> happen 'accidentally'.
>>>
>>> Would the Sun or any of the other possibly 300 sextillion
>>> stars in the universe do for you?
>>
>> There is also this:
>>
>> http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
>>
>> A real, natural nuclear reactor. Not made by humans (nor even
>> aliens.)
>
>So these Darwinists can't tell a sun from a human-made nuclear
>reactor.
The Oklo reactor has nothing to do with the sun, it was a
naturally-occurring fission reactor that occurred about 1.7 billion
years ago.
Stop hiding from reality, Sidney. You really ARE dumber than a
lambchop.
John Baker
<ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>On alt.religion.christian, Harry F Leopold <hleo...@coxyx.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:50:20 -0500,
>>Father Haskell wrote (in article
>><3ce8bfa6-9fe4-49f6...@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
>>m>):
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 5:37 pm, Sidney Lambe
>>> <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power
>>>> plant creates itself 'accidentally', I will believe that
>>>> something as phenomenally complex as the human body can
>>>> happen 'accidentally'.
>>>
>>> Would the Sun or any of the other possibly 300 sextillion
>>> stars in the universe do for you?
>>
>> There is also this:
>>
>> http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
>>
>> A real, natural nuclear reactor. Not made by humans (nor even
>> aliens.)
>
>So these Darwinists can't tell a sun from a human-made nuclear
>reactor.
Sure we can, Skippy. You, on the other hand, seem to be unaware that
stars, including our sun, are naturally occurring fusion reactors.
They convert matter into energy, just like a man-made reactor.
So there's your self-created nuclear power plant, Sunshine. You may
now run and hide.
>
>This doesn't suprise me a bit. You have to be pretty stupid
>to accept the Theory of Evolotion as fact.
Yeah, just look at all the geniuses in the creationist camp. <chuckle>
>
>Atheists are just militant Darwinists out to eliminate the
>religious competition. Like all true religious fanatics,
>they believe that their beliefs are facts.
Syd/Alan, old son, if I didn't know you were already as stupid as it's
possible to be, I'd swear you get dumber with every post.
I'm about half tempted to call Loki on the grounds that nobody could
actually be this stupid and still be able to use a computer.
Sidney Lambe
This ignorant and obnoxious child thinks I am going to read his
bitchy and substanceless articles from how to eternity.
<PLONK>
Not the first time I've killfiled this fool, for sure.
(Why do so many Darwinists [atheists] hide behind fake names?)
[delete]
There is far more real evidence supporting life after death
than there is supporting the stupid theory of darwinian evolution.
It's just that the Darwinists ('Scientists') refuse to even
examine this evidence because it doesn't fit in with their
religious beliefs. This is called 'bigotry'.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On 28 Mar 2011 16:05:03 +0100, Sidney Lambe
><ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>
>>On alt.religion.christian, Harry F Leopold <hleo...@coxyx.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:50:20 -0500,
>>>Father Haskell wrote (in article
>>><3ce8bfa6-9fe4-49f6...@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
>>>m>):
>>>
>>>> On Mar 27, 5:37 pm, Sidney Lambe
>>>> <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power
>>>>> plant creates itself 'accidentally', I will believe that
>>>>> something as phenomenally complex as the human body can
>>>>> happen 'accidentally'.
>>>>
>>>> Would the Sun or any of the other possibly 300 sextillion
>>>> stars in the universe do for you?
>>>
>>> There is also this:
>>>
>>> http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
>>>
>>> A real, natural nuclear reactor. Not made by humans (nor even
>>> aliens.)
>>
>>So these Darwinists can't tell a sun from a human-made nuclear
>>reactor.
What are these "Darwinists" he is lying about?
>The Oklo reactor has nothing to do with the sun, it was a
>naturally-occurring fission reactor that occurred about 1.7 billion
>years ago.
>
>Stop hiding from reality, Sidney. You really ARE dumber than a
>lambchop.
And his stupid bullshit is nothingto do with atheismor vice versa.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Fundamentalists really are this stupid.
They have to lie to themselves about both reality and people who don't
believe their stupidity.
They do it so often they come to believe their lies.
Religion has turned them into pathological narcissists.
SkyEyes
wrote:
> On alt.religion.christian, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> This ignorant and obnoxious child thinks I am going to read his
> bitchy and substanceless articles from how to eternity.
>
> <PLONK>
>
> Not the first time I've killfiled this fool, for sure.
>
> (Why do so many Darwinists [atheists] hide behind fake names?)
I post under my own name, lambechop.
>
> [delete]
>
> There is far more real evidence supporting life after death
> than there is supporting the stupid theory of darwinian evolution.
Really??? List it here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>
> It's just that the Darwinists ('Scientists') refuse to even
> examine this evidence because it doesn't fit in with their
> religious beliefs. This is called 'bigotry'.
No, it's because what you consider "evidence" usually turns out to be
someone's subjective mental state, not objective evidence that can be
quantified.
Colanth
<ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>On alt.religion.christian, Colanth <col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>This ignorant and obnoxious child thinks I am going to read his
>bitchy and substanceless articles from how to eternity.
>
><PLONK>
Oh, I'm wounded to the quick. (I'm okay now - that was quick.)
>
>Not the first time I've killfiled this fool, for sure.
>
>(Why do so many Darwinists [atheists] hide behind fake names?)
Heh. Most of the intelligent people here probably have already
figured out my name.
>There is far more real evidence supporting life after death
Not that lamchop-brain will see this, but I guess I missed the
evidence he posted.
>It's just that the Darwinists ('Scientists') refuse to even
>examine this evidence
Which evidence was that again?
--
"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Drooling Idiot
> get killed, without stopping them.
>
> 2. He allows His Children to be destroyed by disasters that He has the
> power to control.
>
> 3. He is too busy to speak to people directly, only through a select
> few, with an agenda.
>
> 4. When He speaks, He is likely to use a convenient burning bush or some
> other means that leave no evidence behind.
>
> 5. When people are close to understanding His message, He creates larger
> and more complicated Holy words to confuse the masses.
> Justification, sanctification, propitiation, ecclesiarchy,
> ecclesiastical, ecclesiastry, ecclesiolatry, ecclesiology, eccoprotic,
> just to name a very small handful.
>
> If you think of more reasons, add them.
>
> Jamfer
6. You invible friend told you God was real
Drooling Idiot
> On alt.religion.christian, Jamfer <Jam...@live.com> wrote:
> > I know God is real because:
>
> I have seen no evidence that anything resembling 'chance' or
> 'accident' or 'randomness' exists in the universe. Therefore
> it has to be a conscious creation.
Try flipping a coin, retard.
Harry F. Leopold
(in article <7jg1p61s3di3t8899...@4ax.com>):
Damn, I knew Sidney was stupid but this really outdoes his usual crap. He
wanted an "accidental nuclear reactor" and I gave him one, one that has been
extensively studied at close hand. One that he could even go to and walk
through (if he got permission from the owners of the property. Sheesh, what
more could I have done for him? Kick him in the head to kick-start his brain?
Not in my job description.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"Jesus loves you, but Cthulu thinks you're part of a nutritious
breakfast."-Dr. Smartass
Colanth
<hleo...@coxyx.net> wrote:
>Damn, I knew Sidney was stupid but this really outdoes his usual crap. He
>wanted an "accidental nuclear reactor" and I gave him one, one that has been
>extensively studied at close hand. One that he could even go to and walk
>through (if he got permission from the owners of the property. Sheesh, what
>more could I have done for him? Kick him in the head to kick-start his brain?
>Not in my job description.
Not in the realm of possibility. That would be like "starting" the
square root of -1.
--
The posting above is just this .sig's way of propagating itself
Harry F. Leopold
(in article <o6i4p6tidjv4ftg0s...@4ax.com>):
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:13:12 -0500, Harry F. Leopold
> <hleo...@coxyx.net> wrote:
>
>> Damn, I knew Sidney was stupid but this really outdoes his usual crap. He
>> wanted an "accidental nuclear reactor" and I gave him one, one that has
>> been
>> extensively studied at close hand. One that he could even go to and walk
>> through (if he got permission from the owners of the property. Sheesh, what
>> more could I have done for him? Kick him in the head to kick-start his
>> brain?
>> Not in my job description.
>
> Not in the realm of possibility. That would be like "starting" the
> square root of -1.
I take your point.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³I proclaim ignorance.³ - J McCoy
Ferd Farkel
wrote:
> On alt.religion.christian, Harry F Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:50:20 -0500,
> >Father Haskell wrote (in article
> >m>):
>
> >> On Mar 27, 5:37 pm, Sidney Lambe
> >> <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>
> >>> When something as relatively simple as a nuclear power
> >>> plant creates itself 'accidentally', I will believe that
> >>> something as phenomenally complex as the human body can
> >>> happen 'accidentally'.
>
> >> Would the Sun or any of the other possibly 300sextillion
> >> stars in the universe do for you?
>
> > There is also this:
>
> >http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
>
> > A real, natural nuclear reactor. Not made by humans (nor even
> > aliens.)
>
> So these Darwinists can't tell a sun from a human-made nuclear
> reactor.
I answered your question. You merely asked for a nuclear
plant. I gave you 300 sextillion of them. Harry gave you
one more.
John Baker
And may Steve Jobs and Bill Gates never know a moment's peace for
making computers so easy to use that even an idiot like Sidney can do
it. <G>
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
>
> And may Steve Jobs and Bill Gates never know a moment's peace for
> making computers so easy to use that even an idiot like Sidney can do
> it. <G>
the real meaning of boot strap before they can use the machine.
John Baker
That might get rid of at least a few of them. <G>
>
Colanth
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:31:30 -0700, "Mike Painter"
9 switches? So we have to multiplex the address in 4 (or more) banks?
A lot of work, but what the hay. But we have to be allowed to toggle
in a boot loader - no manually loading in a whole disk OS by toggle
switch. I don't have that much time left to live any more. Switches
to read the paper tape to read the cassette to read the ... oh, hell,
you've probably been there. (Do I have to relearn octal too? Or can
we do it in hex this time around?)
--
“Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's
troublesome.” - Isaac Asimov
John Baker
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:14:21 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:31:30 -0700, "Mike Painter"
>><md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>John Baker wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And may Steve Jobs and Bill Gates never know a moment's peace for
>>>> making computers so easy to use that even an idiot like Sidney can do
>>>> it. <G>
>>>Lets put 9 toggle switches on the front of all machines and have them learn
>>>the real meaning of boot strap before they can use the machine.
>>
>>
>>That might get rid of at least a few of them. <G>
>
>9 switches? So we have to multiplex the address in 4 (or more) banks?
>A lot of work, but what the hay. But we have to be allowed to toggle
>in a boot loader - no manually loading in a whole disk OS by toggle
>switch. I don't have that much time left to live any more. Switches
>to read the paper tape to read the cassette to read the ... oh, hell,
>you've probably been there.
No, I don't go back quite that far. <G>
I do remember when hard drives were roughly the size of the NYC
telephone directory, weighed about ten pounds and held a whopping 5 or
10 megs of data, though. <G>
Budikka666
Kadaitcha Man
> http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> Bukkake
--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:08:29 -0400, Colanth <col...@pern.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:14:21 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:31:30 -0700, "Mike Painter"
>>><md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Baker wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And may Steve Jobs and Bill Gates never know a moment's peace for
>>>>> making computers so easy to use that even an idiot like Sidney can do
>>>>> it. <G>
>>>>Lets put 9 toggle switches on the front of all machines and have them learn
>>>>the real meaning of boot strap before they can use the machine.
>>>
>>>
>>>That might get rid of at least a few of them. <G>
>>
>>9 switches? So we have to multiplex the address in 4 (or more) banks?
>>A lot of work, but what the hay. But we have to be allowed to toggle
>>in a boot loader - no manually loading in a whole disk OS by toggle
>>switch. I don't have that much time left to live any more. Switches
>>to read the paper tape to read the cassette to read the ... oh, hell,
>>you've probably been there.
>
>No, I don't go back quite that far. <G>
I don't remember one with nine - but the PDP-8 had twelve. 12-bit
words and addressing giving a whopping 4k of memory.
Memory was ferrite core whicso you could power it down and it would
remember what was there next time it was powered up, so you rarely had
to key in the low level boot.
The machine I used prior to that had a proper boot function.
Tom McDonald
> Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>
> >http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>
> Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
In what way(s)?
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Glad you're in a good mood.
John Baker
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 2, 9:03 pm, Kadaitcha Man <n...@none.none> wrote:
>> Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>>
>> >http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>>
>> Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
>
>In what way(s)?
Don't expect an answer, or at least not one that makes sense. K-Man is
nowhere near the towering intellect he believes he is, and on top of
that, he's pretty much scientifically clueless.
Kadaitcha Man
polecat, ye ronyon. Ye squealed:
> On Apr 2, 9:03 pm, Kadaitcha Man <n...@none.none> wrote:
>> Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>>
>> >http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>>
>> Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
>
> In what way(s)?
I assume you read the article so I should bitchslap you for not knowing
enough about the subject to know where it is wrong.
It's Bukkake's problem. If he comes out to fight then you'll find out soon
enough.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
> Glad you're in a good mood.
>
>
--
Tom McDonald
> Tom McDonald, out of my door, ye witch, ye hag, ye baggage, ye
> polecat, ye ronyon. Ye squealed:
>
> > On Apr 2, 9:03 pm, Kadaitcha Man <n...@none.none> wrote:
> >> Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>
> >> >http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>
> >> Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
>
> > In what way(s)?
>
> I assume you read the article so I should bitchslap you for not knowing
> enough about the subject to know where it is wrong.
You're the one making the claim. I figured you'd be honest enough to
be able to support that claim.
> It's Bukkake's problem. If he comes out to fight then you'll find out soon
> enough.
So you're impotent without input.
Kadaitcha Man
most degenerate traitor. Ye twaddled:
> On Apr 2, 10:24 pm, Kadaitcha Man <n...@none.none> wrote:
>> Tom McDonald, out of my door, ye witch, ye hag, ye baggage, ye
>> polecat, ye ronyon. Ye squealed:
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 9:03 pm, Kadaitcha Man <n...@none.none> wrote:
>> >> Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>>
>> >> >http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>>
>> >> Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
>>
>> > In what way(s)?
>>
>> I assume you read the article so I should bitchslap you for not knowing
>> enough about the subject to know where it is wrong.
>
> You're the one making the claim.
Correction. I am making a counter claim. I'm not the one who posted the
article in support of some other claim. So, if the lack of supporting
argument bothers you, take it up with Bukkake because all he did was post a
link.
> I figured you'd be honest enough to
> be able to support that claim.
I can support the claim that the article is wrong, but I also told you,
you'll find out why or where it is wrong when Bukkake comes out to defend
it.
>> It's Bukkake's problem. If he comes out to fight then you'll find out
>> soon
>> enough.
>
> So you're impotent without input.
You can say whatever the fuck you like, you jumped up little snot tosser.
This usenet. You are a faceless nobody of no worth. I will wait for the
Bukkake netl0oN to come out frothing, and you can go fuck yourself up the
arse with a hot-running chainsaw at full throttle.
Tom McDonald
Hit a little close to home, eh, K-man? <snicker>
Kadaitcha Man
Gee. A declaration of VICTOLLY!!!1!!
> <snicker>
How juvenile.
Tom McDonald
Yup, you are.
Kadaitcha Man
If you get any lamer you'll have to be sent to a knacker's yard to be
rendered down into glue and put on the back of postage stamps.
Tom McDonald
At least I'm useful. :-)
Kadaitcha Man
> At least I'm useful. :-)
*plonk*
Colanth
wrote:
>No, I don't go back quite that far. <G>
>
>I do remember when hard drives were roughly the size of the NYC
>telephone directory, weighed about ten pounds and held a whopping 5 or
>10 megs of data, though. <G>
Then you don't remember the Shugart 801. That was a floppy drive that
was about the same size and took an 8" floppy. I still have 2 working
ones. And, although I still have a 10 meg HD in my Panasonic Senior
Partner (and it would probably boot up if I powered it), the earliest
drives I remember for the hobby market were 5 megs. There were
earlier drives - the "disks" came in cartridges about the size of a
wall oven.
--
Buddhist to hot dog vendor, Make me One with Everything
Colanth
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I don't remember one with nine
All the early micros - Byte-8, Altair, etc. 8 data switches and a
momentary Load sqwitch. (And 16 address switches.)
> - but the PDP-8 had twelve. 12-bit
>words and addressing giving a whopping 4k of memory.
And we shoehorned code into those little toys that was better, and a
LOT more efficient, than anything written today. We actually wrote
code, we didn't click on pictures.
--
"If I am right, then [religious fundamentalists] will not go to
Heaven, because there is no Heaven. If THEY are right, then they will
not go to Heaven, because they are hypocrites." - Isaac Asimov
bob
wrote:
>Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>
>> http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>
>Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
really
go ahead. tell us how
bob
wrote:
>Tom McDonald, ye issued from the rancour of a villain, a recreant and
>most degenerate traitor. Ye twaddled:
>
>>>
>>> I assume you read the article so I should bitchslap you for not knowing
>>> enough about the subject to know where it is wrong.
>>
>> You're the one making the claim.
>
>Correction. I am making a counter claim. I'm not the one who posted the
>article in support of some other claim. So, if the lack of supporting
>argument bothers you, take it up with Bukkake because all he did was post a
>link.
i actually posted it last week.
so go ahead. tell us how it's wrong.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:03:46 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't remember one with nine
>
>All the early micros - Byte-8, Altair, etc. 8 data switches and a
>momentary Load sqwitch. (And 16 address switches.)
>
>> - but the PDP-8 had twelve. 12-bit
>>words and addressing giving a whopping 4k of memory.
>
>And we shoehorned code into those little toys that was better, and a
>LOT more efficient, than anything written today. We actually wrote
>code, we didn't click on pictures.
The PDP-8 stuff was more than a decade earlier than the first micros,
in the second half of the 1960s.
I did a year or so on 6502-based machines. First hand-coding in hex
and then using a rather crude assembler.
The team was developing small commercial applications on the Commadore
PET and process control systems onthe Rockwell AIM - networked.
My end of it was a keyboard/screen handler with built in validation, a
direct access database and a few service routines.
Kadaitcha Man
Gee. Brownie points to you.
> so go ahead. tell us how it's wrong.
See your other post saying the same the thing.
Kadaitcha Man
fretted:
I doubt Bukkake will face up to it, so, sure... I stopped reading at the
first obError:
"Vacuum energy pulls objects away from each other..."
He's talking about the Casimir-Polder force. Vacuum energy exerts a push
force.
You might wish to say it's trivial and therefore of no consequence. Go
ahead, I would relish you putting more fucked up ideas into the
netl0on's head, but first you should read up on quantum electrodynamics
and the Lamb shift.
bob
wrote:
>bob, how now, false one. Ye squeaked:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:43:12 +0800, Kadaitcha Man<no...@none.none>
>> wrote:
>Gee. Brownie points to you.
>
>> so go ahead. tell us how it's wrong.
>
>See your other post saying the same the thing.
oh. so you have no answer
yep i knew that
bob
wrote:
>bob, go, thou jealous rascally knave, I'll hear no more of ye. Ye
>fretted:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:03:33 +0800, Kadaitcha Man<no...@none.none>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>>>
>>>> http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>>>
>>> Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
>>
>> really
>>
>> go ahead. tell us how
>
>I doubt Bukkake will face up to it, so, sure... I stopped reading at the
>first obError:
>
>"Vacuum energy pulls objects away from each other..."
>
>He's talking about the Casimir-Polder force. Vacuum energy exerts a push
>force.
gee. tell us more about this
especially where it applies and how.
go ahead.
>
>You might wish to say it's trivial and therefore of no consequence. Go
>ahead, I would relish you putting more fucked up ideas into the
>netl0on's head, but first you should read up on quantum electrodynamics
>and the Lamb shift.
when you come back with a discussion of the above, let me know.
read up indeed!
Stan McCann
news:oeehp6h64qhnhu601...@4ax.com:
You've seen us come a long way then. My first year of college (start of
2nd carreer), I went to work as work-study in the computer lab. They had
a IBM System 34 IIRC with an 8" floppy drive. The beast had a whopping
256K RAM. That was the first semester that it was never used. The only
time it was turned on was when I was shown how.
--
Stan McCann st...@surecann.com
John Baker
wrote:
Would you have believed back then that in the not too distant future,
there'd be machines small enough to fit in a backpack, with 3.6 gig
multi core processors, 8 gigs of RAM and a terabyte or more of data
storage - or that they'd be cheap enough that most people could afford
one?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
The downside of that is when you pay a thousand dollars for a computer
you're not going to employ a large and skilled team to write the
applications for it.
Father Haskell
>
> If you get any lamer you'll have to be sent to a knacker's yard to be
> rendered down into glue and put on the back of postage stamps.
They're peel-and-stick now. Have been for the
past 20 years.
Stan McCann
news:bt2ip6hju65s4lldn...@4ax.com:
Or that telephones, cameras, television, and computers would all merge
into a single device that fits in your pocket? Not to mention time
piece, map, tour guide and all the other functions.
--
Stan McCann st...@surecann.com
Colanth
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Yeah, that's the kind of things we did back then. I did a little
cardiac monitor in 6502. First time I got involved in indirect
indexing (or was it indexing indirect? Or both?) I had been strictly
Intel up to then, and quickly learned that reality is multilingual.
Now I can barely remember how to convert a hex string into a value in
assembly.
--
2 x 4 x 666 -- The Lumber of the Beast.
Colanth
wrote:
I carry about 100GB in my pocket most days (a few SD cards) and need
it. Once I would have killed more than one person for one of those
new Fujutsu 500MB drives.
I once said that computers would be real if Radio Shack ever started
carrying them. That was a LONG time ago.
--
“Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's
troublesome.” - Isaac Asimov
John Baker
Indeed. There were car phones when I was a kid (although most people
couldn't afford one), but the modern "smart phone" was undreamed of.
I'd wager that even the most far-seeing futurists would have bet such
a thing was impossible. In fact, I recall sci-fi author Larry Niven
stating in an interview that the portable computers carried by the
starship crew in 'The Mote In God's Eye' were impossible - yet today's
tablet PCs are almost exactly what the book described.
Funny how we tend to take for granted all this amazing technology that
didn't even exist when we were young.
Colanth
I don't know about you, but I am. Of course, *I'M* the "large and
skilled team" now (and I wish I weren't so large). But I still whip
out an app I want in a day or two. (Those taglines are being pulled
randomly from a text file of tags - I started writing the app about
Thursday, in my spare moments. The kid still has a tiny bit of talent
left.)
--
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him
for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer,
they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair
dryer makes it any more absurd." - Unknown
Stan McCann
I'm constantly amazed by the new gizmos and new discoveries. Who would
have thought that we'd be able to detect planets around other stars or
that there are so many galaxies in the universe? I think this is a
fantastic time to be alive but often wonder what will be going on in 100
or more years. Providing we don't go the way of the dinosaurs.
--
Stan McCann st...@surecann.com
Kadaitcha Man
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 05:07:04 +0800, Kadaitcha Man<no...@none.none>
> wrote:
>
>> bob, go, thou jealous rascally knave, I'll hear no more of ye. Ye
>> fretted:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:03:33 +0800, Kadaitcha Man<no...@none.none>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Budikka666, thou common pagan rascal. Ye asseverated:
>>>>
>>>>> http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
>>>>
>>>> Except that the article is scientifically wrong.
>>>
>>> really
>>>
>>> go ahead. tell us how
>>
>> I doubt Bukkake will face up to it, so, sure... I stopped reading at the
>> first obError:
>>
>> "Vacuum energy pulls objects away from each other..."
>>
>> He's talking about the Casimir-Polder force. Vacuum energy exerts a push
>> force.
>
> gee. tell us more about this
>
> especially where it applies and how.
I don't need to. The article was put forward as is. The article is wrong.
> go ahead.
>
>>
>> You might wish to say it's trivial and therefore of no consequence. Go
>> ahead, I would relish you putting more fucked up ideas into the
>> netl0on's head, but first you should read up on quantum electrodynamics
>> and the Lamb shift.
>
> when you come back with a discussion of the above, let me know.
Keep waiting. You asked why it is wrong. I told you. There is no burden
on me to establish anything else. If you believe otherwise then you'd
better establish it.
> read up indeed!
bob
wrote:
>bob, base lying frosty woman, I'll have thy head. Ye disapproved:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 05:07:04 +0800, Kadaitcha Man<no...@none.none>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Vacuum energy pulls objects away from each other..."
>>>
>>> He's talking about the Casimir-Polder force. Vacuum energy exerts a push
>>> force.
>>
>> gee. tell us more about this
>>
>> especially where it applies and how.
>
>I don't need to. The article was put forward as is. The article is wrong.ou
sure you do. you mentioned the effect
you neglected to state how that relates tot he article
so you havent established your case
>>>
>>> You might wish to say it's trivial and therefore of no consequence. Go
>>> ahead, I would relish you putting more fucked up ideas into the
>>> netl0on's head, but first you should read up on quantum electrodynamics
>>> and the Lamb shift.
>>
>> when you come back with a discussion of the above, let me know.
>
>Keep waiting. You asked why it is wrong. I told you.
uh no, you didnt.
There is no burden
>on me to establish anything else. If you believe otherwise then you'd
>better establish it.
gee. how is the CP effect measured and what is its scale?
oh. you dont know. you read about those words somewhere and that's all
you need
NEXT!!
>
>> read up indeed!
>>
>>
Kadaitcha Man
Ye bleated:
> NEXT!!
<FLUSH>