LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
George Hammond
Copyright George Hammond 2010
Note: "LAD" = "Life After Death"
Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies
It occurs to me that there must be certain structural
rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death
(LAD). If we assume that LAD is basically a revisitation of
Earthly life, then the first thing we deduce is that it
cannot be possible for you to return to Earth at a date
later your date of death. The reason for this is simple; it
would be possible for you to meet someone who had attended
your funeral or read your obituary and knew that you were
already dead. This would present an illogical paradox which
cannot be allowed in our scientific view of LAD.
So the first structural rule must be that you can never
observe a calendar day which postdates the date of your
death. Likewise, you apparently cannot meet people who are
already dead in Heaven at a date later than the date of
their death either, because other people still alive would
likewise notice them also!
This it would appear is not a great problem. In the first
place we expect that LAD will largely be a biographical life
review, in other words most of it will take place in the
past. Visions from your childhood your adolescence,
middle-age etc. etc. etc. All of this occurred long before
your death.
So I assume in the first place that it is not true that
the only people you see in Heaven are people who are already
dead- in fact just the opposite is true... you only see
dead people by returning to an earlier date when both you
and they, were both alive! Most of the people you see in
Heaven will probably still be alive on Earth, however, you
will not see them after the date of your death.
Now arises the question of Beatification. One assumes
that the first principle or essential-reason for life after
death is the Beatification of the body and obtaining the
Beatific Vision. So the question is; will you be walking
around in the world with a Beatified body and looking like
God himself? Obviously this would present a problem, indeed
you would obviously start a riot if you ever appeared in
public in such a form. Okay then, I presume then that the
Beatification must be mental rather than physical at least
during the period of life review. In other words you will
revisit old situations and old scenes but you will see them
with "new eyes" and perhaps with a new body sensorially
speaking but not a new body appearance wise. In other words
you will be transformed or beatified psychologically and
spiritually but your appearance will not change.
This of course is getting complicated and it appears to
be the beginning of complications for the theory. For
instance if you revisit an old scene and with your newfound
powers act differently, this would alter the entire history
of your life.... so what would become of the rest of the
life review? We simply can't believe that you live life all
over again in a completely altered form and totally new
course of events. That is simply too complicated. No, if
there is LAD, I think you must simply revisit the old scenes
but see them with new eyes... and this ever-increasing
Beatific perception of your past life builds finally to a
level of complete Beatific Vision at the end of your life
history. In other words you revisit your entire past life
with an "invisible" transformed spirit but wearing your old
body appearancewise in the various scenarios. Apparently,
you don't do anything differently that would alter the
recorded biography of your life.
On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that
are not part of a conventional biographical life review in
which you may take different actions and do or accomplish
additional things without logically upsetting your world
history.
Naturally if you have a Beatified body you would
certainly want to run and jump and water-ski and drive a
sports car at 150 miles an hour and experience all the
pleasures of a perfect body. There is certainly no reason
why you couldn't do this without altering the course of
world history or your own recorded biography. Consider for
a moment how complex an ordinary nocturnal dream is, and yet
while you're experiencing the dream nothing seems logically
impossible. We must assume that the same power is at work
in LAD if it exists.
Meanwhile I am still trying to develop an overall opinion
as to the probability of the existence of LAD. In the first
place, I now believe if it exists that it is, or must be, a
revisit with full bodily senses of our everyday worldly
environment.... but of course this environment is actually
what we call a "virtual reality".... even though it looks
exactly like the Earth we just left! If this is true, what
it means is that we must have a DOUBLE BODY! The neuronal
system of the brain is the first body and the microtubule
system of the brain constitutes a SECOND BODY! Hence if we
have two bodies we experience two lives before we finally
expire permanently. In the Microtubule-Body we achieve the
Beatific vision which by definition is a condition of
"eternal life" because it has ZERO TIME DILATION .
So the previous paragraph brings us around to the
question of the scientific explanation of the SOUL . The
microtubule system in the brain must in fact be the physical
embodiment of the SOUL !
So it turns out the Greeks were correct, the Soul is
IMMORTAL, and now we know WHY!
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Reference: The Scientific Proof of God:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
raven1
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies
For a start, you're assuming your conclusion that there's life after
death in the first place.
madge
wrote:
May I mention Conan O'Brien at this point!
--
http://www.madgetwits.tk Madges Links
madge
George Hammond
[Hammond]
That is not a logical inconsistency.
I never said LAD is proven, I'm just saying it's possible
and even scientifically plausible.
IOW there is noknown logical inconsistency in my scientific
theory of LAD.
QED
Darrell Stec
> LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
> Copyright George Hammond 2010
>
>
> Note: "LAD" = "Life After Death"
>
> Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies
>
>
> It occurs to me that there must be certain structural
> rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death
> (LAD). I
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
>
You are right. There are rules. The first of which is "there is no life
after death."
--
Later,
Darrell
Olrik
Androcles
"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:846aot...@mid.individual.net...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Matthew L Martin
> I like cookies!
No! You don't.
Matthew
raven1
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:31:01 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:14:23 -0400, George Hammond
>><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies
>>
>>For a start, you're assuming your conclusion that there's life after
>>death in the first place.
>>
>[Hammond]
>That is not a logical inconsistency.
>
>I never said LAD is proven, I'm just saying it's possible
>and even scientifically plausible.
How do you figure?
Mark Edwards
>You are right. There are rules. The first of which is "there is no life
>
>after death."
Oh f**k! Please tell me there's life after sex!
Mark-preying-mantis-Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
Mark Edwards
>I like cookies!
I made you a cookie but I eated it.
Mark Edwards
George Hammond
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:45:24 -0400, George Hammond
><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:31:01 -0400, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:14:23 -0400, George Hammond
>>><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies
>>>
>>>For a start, you're assuming your conclusion that there's life after
>>>death in the first place.
>>>
>>[Hammond]
>>That is not a logical inconsistency.
>>
>>I never said LAD is proven, I'm just saying it's possible
>>and even scientifically plausible.
>
>How do you figure?
>
?
Hammond]
Read this for openers.
More info on request.
http://independent.academia.edu/GeorgeHammond/Blog/1351/Microtubules-and-Life-After-Death
Notice that Prof. Stuart Hameroff a celebrated collaborator
with Sir Roger Penrose on microtubules, and a world famous
scientist in his own right, doesn't think I'm crazy!
Darius
Doh! I was gonna say that.
---
Mark
Darius
> How do you figure?
I invert the numerator/denominator and
then...ok, ready for this?
I multiply. Yeah! Multiply!
---
Mark
Darrell Stec
> "Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:846aot...@mid.individual.net...
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>
>
> *plonk*
It is an honor to be plonked by your sort. Thanks.
--
Later,
Darrell
Darius
wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 22:14:23 +0100, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Huh. I thought I already established that
perception isn't reality.
<thinking>
Yeah, pretty sure.
<sigh>
You bust your fanny and send 'em to school and
what do they do? Chew the covers off the books.
Alsoplustoo...
I didn't have to type all this. I could've just had my
robot do it.
---
Mark
George Hammond
[Hammond]
I use Dragon-10 Voice Recognition... never touch the
keyboard.... goes 130 words a minute with no typos.
I can yak all day without lifting a finger.
Darius
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Huh. I thought I already established that
> >perception isn't reality.
>
> ><thinking>
>
> >Yeah, pretty sure.
>
> ><sigh>
>
> >You bust your fanny and send 'em to school and
> >what do they do? Chew the covers off the books.
>
> >Alsoplustoo...
>
> >I didn't have to type all this. I could've just had my
> >robot do it.
>
> >---
>
> >Mark
>
> [Hammond]
> I use Dragon-10 Voice Recognition... never touch the
> keyboard.... goes 130 words a minute with no typos.
> I can yak all day without lifting a finger.
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>
> - Show quoted text -
You go George! That's the only way to compose.
What do you think about the shroud of Turin?
---
Mark
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Could be real, could be fake.... w.t.f. difference does
it make?
The most important death in the history of the world was
Julius Caesar's, not Jesus of Nazareth's. What happened to
Caesar's gilt edged red toga with the 23 stab holes in
it?.... last seen Anthony pulled it off Caesar's corpse and
was waiving it around while pointing out the 23 wounds and
naming each senator that made them just before the mob
pulled all of the furniture out of the State house building
and cremated Caesar's nude body right in the middle of the
Forum. Caesar's toga would be worth more than Jesus� shroud
today.. and probably more meaningful!
Olrik
> No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote:
>> I like cookies!
>
> I made you a cookie but I eated it.
I hope you liked it!
> Mark Edwards
George Hammond
"bigfl...@gmail.com" <bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 5:01�am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
>
>Consider the following:
>
>Your biological structure is constantly dying and reforming.
>
>There is not one single cell in your body that is more than ten years
>old, the oldest being your skeletal cells.
>
>The structural rules to which you refer apply, funnily enough, to the
>"structure".
>
>Life creates structure, but is 'of itself' structureless. It is also
>timeless and space less, so what you are doing, is trying to define
>life from a structural and spacial perspective. Absolutely impossible
>to explain, but inevitable to understand (to become conscious of).
>
>
[Hammond]
Come down to earth BOfL. I realize you have a PhD in
theoretical physics. Frankly, that means you are
OVERQUALIFIED to undertake a scientific investigation of
God. You have simply got to allow a second rank scientist
with only a master's degree in theoretical physics undertake
the problem. Your expertise is sorely needed elsewhere for
more challenging scientific problems.
In the first place there is absolutely NO NEED to
scientifically explain what "life" is in order to
scientifically explain what God is. Let me give an example:
classical Relativity does not need to scientifically explain
what space and time actually are in order to prove that
classical gravity is explained as a Curvature of (OBJECTIVE)
space-time.
LIKEWISE science does not need to explain what "life" is in
order to prove that the classical God of history is a
curvature of (SUBJECTIVE) space-time.
THEREFORE your entire introductory argument is ABSOLUTELY
IRRELEVANT !
>What is the difference between Hammond now and Hammond ten years ago?
>The body is new, (although it is still 'following orders' from the
>genetic code). The only difference is the level of consciousness,
>which is the timeless reality you are inadvertently making reference
>to. Some people appear to remain static in such states. You dont
>normally find them in such arenas as this.
>
>Apply the ref. you make regarding meeting people 'in heaven', to
>meeting yourself many years ago. You would recognise your past self,
>but not the reverse. This is the basics to all interaction
>'supposidely' with others (and why there is an ever growing
>disenchantment with the 'romantic' world. It is NEVER about the other
>person, we are simply mirrors to others)
>
>
[Hammond]
I don't know where you're going here but you are
certainly off on a tangent. Childhood memories can last for
75 to 100 years. The cells of your body may change, but the
memory remains unchanged! Therefore the changing of the
cells in your body is again, an irrelevant non sequitur to
the scientific proof and explanation of the phenomenon of
"God".
>It gets confusing, particularly when some research departments in
>places like Harvard are starting to recognise genes which do effect
>the psyche.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
You have simply failed to recognize that all of these
microbiology details are absolutely IRRELEVANT to the
scientific explanation and proof of the existence of the
classical God of history (e.g. the God of the Bible).
The God of the Bible is caused by the secular trend
growth deficit of the human body particularly the brain.
This brain growth deficit slows down our mental speed and
makes the world bigger and faster than it actually is.
Analysis shows that this is a classic space time Curvature.
We only see a "curved" version of reality compared to what a
theoretically full-grown person would see. That nonexistent
legendary and mythical "full-grown" person being called
"God".
Obviously such a gross classical relativistic phenomenon
has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the cells of
our body are replaced every 10 years..... nothing
whatsoever!
Two first-order, the Hammond of 10 years ago is the same
as the Hammond of today. All other effects such as aging,
hair loss, and having read another 200 books are only the
second order effects by comparison and have absolutely
nothing to do with the scientific explanation and proof of
the God of the Bible.
Finally, your reaction is absolutely typical of a
first-class scientific mind which is overqualified to deal
with what is essentially nothing but a psychological
problem.... even though it turns out to be described
mathematically by the theory of General Relativity.
>This is because, although psychosomatic connection is well established
>(they are actually discovering the biological link.... one of the
>first conjectures was 'the criminal gene') that link is rather like
>the modem linking your comp. to the internet.
>
>We each have the capacity to develop a state of consciousness which
>transcends the psychosomatic. One of the reasons that the term
>'forgiveness' shows up in many mystical schools (distorted by
>religious states of consciousness), is to complete the psychosomatic
>balance within. (Nothing whatever to do with another), to allow the
>'timeless' state of consciousness to unfold, so when you do 'see' you
>past states, you can see your earlier state with love and
>understanding.
>If not, you take on that past state once more.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Whoa professor! The reason we are able to experience
"mystical" or "altered states of consciousness" is simply
that due to the brain growth deficit and the phenomenon of
"repression" which is an artificial brain growth deficit,
the "apparent curvature" of our own personal subjective
space time is in fact VARIABLE. As this "curvature of
reality" fluctuates say plus or minus 5% due to stress,
meditation, drugs, unusual experience, shock, love, ecstasy,
depression etc. etc. what happens is that your "reality" is
"transcendentally modulated" and we call these "altered
states of consciousness". This is nothing but a CLASSICAL
RELATIVISTIC CURVATURE modulation of reality, and this
effect is commonly known as GOD.
God is not as complicated as particle physics and quantum
field theory by a long shot..... actually it's no more
complicated than plain vanilla General Relativity! So put
away the cannons, physics only needs a peashooter to solve
this one..... thanks to Einstein who has already done the
heavy lifting. GOD IS SIMPLY AN APPLIED GENERAL RELATIVITY
PROBLEM!
>I get the strong impression you are 'knocking on the door'.
>
>
[Hammond]
Look again BOfL... I've already kicked in the door !
In my recent post I am discussing a possible phenomenon
of life after death. Again theory is a simple classical
physics theory. Hameroff and Penrose have shown that the
microtubule system of the brain routinely handles the same
kind of high-level information that the neuronal system
handles. Furthermore it is now generally believed that the
microtubule system is the long sought for "Engram" of the
human memory system.
The point is that it is KNOWN that the microtubule system
of the brain survives human death by at least 30 minutes.
And it is known that information flows in the microtubule
system and microwave frequencies ( Froehlich's frequency
10^11 Hz) this is 100 million times higher frequency than
the neuronal firing frequency in the brain. This means that
a pre-recorded "death dream" stored in the microtubule
memory could be read out in a fraction of a second after
death but would be subjectively experienced in real proper
time. Hence the bedside observer would see a person die in
a fraction of a second but according to the dearly departed
he would live on for say a year in a cyber paradise (aka
Heaven).
Now we already know that God is a classic relativistic
time dilation, therefore it should come as no surprise that
life after death so-called is actually nothing but a time
dilated afterlife "microtubule virtual-reality". And since
the microtubule system exists in every single cell of the
body and is completely interconnected, it is actually the
"real body" it is going to experience this life after death!
Now I submit, but that is a very simple theory, that does
not require vast philosophical analysis, nor does it require
the higher reaches of theoretical physics to understand.
The upshot is, that I am firmly of the opinion that a
plausible scientific theory of the possibility of life after
death has been found.
Whether or not it's true of course is something that only
the future can tell.
>It may surprise you to know, but I actually admire you more than most
>on these groups. You have the courage of your own convictions, and are
>sincere and genuine in your efforts.
>
>BOfL
>
>
[Hammond]
Yeah, that's what they said at Caesar's funeral too!
Dr. HotSalt
A few things come to mind.
AIUI you defined BGD as the adult *neuronal brain's* fraction of
developent short of its full genetic potential.
Does the Microtubule-Body, supported by the incompletely developed
neuronal brain, consequently have its own BGD? Seems to me it must,
hence there's a limit on how "Beatified" one can be. (Do they
correlate directly?)
You said:
> On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that
> are not part of a conventional biographical life review in
> which you may take different actions and do or accomplish
> additional things without logically upsetting your world
> history.
I translate that as to make permutations of experienced events or
fragments thereof, but there will be things you *cannot* do *because*
they would "logically upset your world history". They'd be events the
neuronal brain had *not* processed as sensory inputs before its
chemical death, which you said it can't do, and with which I agree.
That's a huge blind spot, a kind of "event horizon". That means
perception-space curvature, which inevitably means *perceived* time
dilation.
It isn't necessarily strongly correlated, but it's definitely
nonzero.
It will indisputably be able to remember/relive/reshuffle everything
the neuronal brain *did* process though, and as perfectly as its BGD
allows.
But not infinitely fast; yes, we're talking infinitesimal shifts in
the probability waves sloshing this way and that in the network of all
the microtubules in every neuron but by definition, it takes nonzero
time for any nonzero-energy quantum state change.
> So the previous paragraph brings us around to the
> question of the scientific explanation of the SOUL . The
> microtubule system in the brain must in fact be the physical
> embodiment of the SOUL !
Yup.
> So it turns out the Greeks were correct, the Soul is
> IMMORTAL, and now we know WHY!
Subjectively immortal, possibly, but not objectively. The
wavefunctions supported by the microtubules must decay as the
cytoskeleta of the brain decay and connectivity erodes.
The "Soul" may not notice; it's horizon could just shrink and
eventually collapse with the destruction of the last tubules, but
it'll be able to *perfectly* remember etc. what it can, while it can.
Unless you have in mind another possible mode of support for what is
basically not a structure, but a pattern?
Mark L. Fergerson
Nagdash the wicked derelict-patter
reasons, you are so empty of them, ye beseeched:
> LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
> Copyright George Hammond 2010
>
>
> Note: "LAD" = "Life After Death"
>
> Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies
>
>
> It occurs to me that there must be certain structural
> rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death
> (LAD). If we assume that LAD is basically a revisitation of
> Earthly life, then the first thing we deduce is that it
> cannot be possible for you to return to Earth at a date
> later your date of death. The reason for this is simple; it
> would be possible for you to meet someone who had attended
> your funeral or read your obituary and knew that you were
> already dead.
Logical fallacy of audiatur et altera pars. You assume that "a revisitation
of Earthly life" is both physical and time-bound. The rest of your
illogical shite falls down like a house of cards on that point alone.
--
Test signature
Mark
> The most important death in the history of the world was
> Julius Caesar's, not Jesus of Nazareth's. What happened to
> Caesar's gilt edged red toga with the 23 stab holes in
> it?.... last seen Anthony pulled it off Caesar's corpse and
> was waiving it around while pointing out the 23 wounds and
> naming each senator that made them just before the mob
> pulled all of the furniture out of the State house building
> and cremated Caesar's nude body right in the middle of the
> Forum. Caesar's toga would be worth more than Jesus� shroud
> today.. and probably more meaningful!
Yer a fuxcking liar, Dragon slayer my ass.
--
Mark's webstuff - www.geodon.com/images/homeBipolarAvatarHead.gif
http://static.open.salon.com/files/bipolar1255029439.jpg
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/ www.myspace.com/gayincarolina
www.gotitans.com/goForum/image.php?u=1948&dateline=1248991084
Matthew L Martin
No! He didn't.
Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
Mark Edwards
>Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
No! You didn't! Did you?
Olrik
Please tell! I like muffins! Moose not so much!
Matthew L Martin
Copyright laws dispermit me from providing what you seek. Take a look,
yonder:
<http://www.amazon.com/You-Give-Moose-Muffin-Give/dp/0060244054>
Matthew
Darius
> On 5/2/2010 11:47 PM, Olrik wrote:
>
> >> No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote:
> >>> I like cookies!
>
> >> I made you a cookie but I eated it.
>
> > I hope you liked it!
>
> No! He didn't.
>
> Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
A constipated moose is no laughing matter.
---
Mark
Matthew L Martin
> On May 3, 7:07 pm, Matthew L Martin<mlmar...@teranews.com> wrote:
>> On 5/2/2010 11:47 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>
>>>> No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote:
>>>>> I like cookies!
>>
>>>> I made you a cookie but I eated it.
>>
>>> I hope you liked it!
>>
>> No! He didn't.
>>
>> Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
>
> A constipated moose is no laughing matter.
What if it was a bran muffin? They come out looking like they did when
they went in.
Matthew
SkyEyes
> On 5/3/2010 7:37 PM, Darius wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 7:07 pm, Matthew L Martin<mlmar...@teranews.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2010 11:47 PM, Olrik wrote:
>
> >>>> No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote:
> >>>>> I like cookies!
>
> >>>> I made you a cookie but I eated it.
>
> >>> I hope you liked it!
>
> >> No! He didn't.
>
> >> Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
>
> > A constipated moose is no laughing matter.
>
> What if it was a bran muffin? They come out looking like they did when
> they went in.
Which makes me think of beer. Know why beer goes through you so fast?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
It doesn't have to stop to change color.
;->
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Xan Du
> On May 3, 4:45 pm, Matthew L Martin<mlmar...@teranews.com> wrote:
>> On 5/3/2010 7:37 PM, Darius wrote:
>>> On May 3, 7:07 pm, Matthew L Martin<mlmar...@teranews.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2010 11:47 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>
>>>>>> No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote:
>>>>>>> I like cookies!
>>
>>>>>> I made you a cookie but I eated it.
>>
>>>>> I hope you liked it!
>>
>>>> No! He didn't.
>>
>>>> Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
>>
>>> A constipated moose is no laughing matter.
>>
>> What if it was a bran muffin? They come out looking like they did when
>> they went in.
>
> Which makes me think of beer. Know why beer goes through you so fast?
>
>
> ;->
One of my favorite lines in _Monkey Wrench Gang_ is when Heyduke wakes
up and empties the "purified Schlitz" out of his bladder. Had me in
stitches.
-Xan
Bryce Utting
> Which makes me think of beer. Know why beer goes through you so fast?
MY GUINNESS MY GOODNESS!
(should I see a doctor?)
butting
--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting
If this is UI for anyone - even TimC - I shall be extremely alarmed.
-- Dan Birchall
Otto Bahn
>>>>> No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote:
>>>>>> I like cookies!
>>>
>>>>> I made you a cookie but I eated it.
>>>
>>>> I hope you liked it!
>>>
>>> No! He didn't.
>>>
>>> Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
>>
>> A constipated moose is no laughing matter.
>
> What if it was a bran muffin? They come out looking like they did when
> they went in.
o gross! He looks at his toilet paper.
--oTTo--
Mark
> "Matthew L Martin" <mlmar...@teranews.com> wrote
Where would a moose get toilet paper?
---
Mark
Mark
> Where would a moose get toilet paper?
Which reminds me of the time I killed a moose with my bear hands.
After I killed a bear with the mousse in my purse.
Which was right after convincing the chairman of the bank and head of
the Georgia Republican party to fly to Washington, D.C. and within 3
days bring me a Small Business Admin. check for 350 thousand dollars.
Others may think they are my equal but you can call yourself a
creative genius when you've done what I've done. My walls are covered
with the first run editions of /intricate valuable artwork/. I have
the originals safely stored away too. All these pieces were
commissioned before they were started, and they represent hundreds of
thousands of dollars in revenue.
They were all done by the same artist.
*Me.*
David DeLaney
>raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>> Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies
>>
>> death in the first place.
>
Not to mention Cher!
Dave "in this line 10/6" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Bill Marcum
On 2010-05-04, Mark <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 10:38 am, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...@GroinToHell.com> wrote:
>> "Matthew L Martin" <mlmar...@teranews.com> wrote
>>
>> >>>>> No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote:
>> >>>>>> I like cookies!
>>
>> >>>>> I made you a cookie but I eated it.
>>
>> >>>> I hope you liked it!
>>
>> >>> No! He didn't.
>>
>> >>> Matthew (what happens when you give a moose a muffin?)
>>
>> >> A constipated moose is no laughing matter.
>>
sure to be changing your ways.
>> > What if it was a bran muffin? They come out looking like they did when
>> > they went in.
>>
>> o gross! He looks at his toilet paper.
>>
>> --oTTo--
>
> Where would a moose get toilet paper?
>
From those bears.