Re: Mini Swampy!

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 1, 7:41 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> Graham Cooper wrote:
> >> <Squints> Nope. Still nothing.
>
> >> --
> >> Shill #2
>
> > still lying!
>
> Your delusions are not our lies.


hang on my artist is colorising your lies..

might get him to do this Buddha picture next, GIANT RAT pouncing on
SLEEPING BUDDHA

CANT MISS IT!

http://graysshed.com/buddhaII.jpg
http://graysshed.com/buddhaI.jpg

Saying an apparition of Buddha is NOT Buddha is BLASPHEMY!

ADAM
--
KINGS BEACH
QUEENS LAND

[BDK]

In article <0937a960-8ac7-45f9-8e9f-2a8144145ed6
@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com says...

What the hell are you babbling about? There's nothing in those pics that
looks like a Buddha or a rat. I think the needle squad needs to visit
you and take you for a nice vacation.

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 2, 4:12 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> In article <0937a960-8ac7-45f9-8e9f-2a8144145ed6

> @qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, grahamcoop...@gmail.com says...

>
> > > >> <Squints> Nope. Still nothing.
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Shill #2
>
> > > > still lying!
>
> > > Your delusions are not our lies.
>
> > hang on my artist is colorising your lies..
>
> > might get him to do this Buddha picture next, GIANT RAT pouncing on
> > SLEEPING BUDDHA
>
> > CANT MISS IT!
>
> >http://graysshed.com/buddhaII.jpg
> >http://graysshed.com/buddhaI.jpg
>
> > Saying an apparition of Buddha is NOT Buddha is BLASPHEMY!
>
> > ADAM
>
> What the hell are you babbling about? There's nothing in those pics that
> looks like a Buddha or a rat. I think the needle squad needs to visit
> you and take you for a nice vacation.

BLASPHEMER!


OK try the FULL BODY SHOT of the face in the roof!

http://graysshed.com/The-Face-In-The-Roof.gif

The face, features, arms, hands, fingers, gestures,...

all photo realistic from a *Random* image!


Herc
--
http://graysshed.com/The-Face-In-The-Roof.gif

[Graham Cooper]

Here is the Buddha pic again too!


http://graysshed.com/buddhaII.jpg
http://graysshed.com/buddhaI.jpg

http://graysshed.com/The-Face-In-The-Roof.gif



Herc

[BDK]

In article <f8e53bac-1cfc-422b-8932-61eec00942b5
@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Nov 2, 4:12 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> > In article <0937a960-8ac7-45f9-8e9f-2a8144145ed6
> > @qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, grahamcoop...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > > >> <Squints> Nope. Still nothing.
> >
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Shill #2
> >
> > > > > still lying!
> >
> > > > Your delusions are not our lies.
> >
> > > hang on my artist is colorising your lies..
> >
> > > might get him to do this Buddha picture next, GIANT RAT pouncing on
> > > SLEEPING BUDDHA
> >
> > > CANT MISS IT!
> >
> > >http://graysshed.com/buddhaII.jpg
> > >http://graysshed.com/buddhaI.jpg
> >
> > > Saying an apparition of Buddha is NOT Buddha is BLASPHEMY!
> >
> > > ADAM
> >
> > What the hell are you babbling about? There's nothing in those pics that
> > looks like a Buddha or a rat. I think the needle squad needs to visit
> > you and take you for a nice vacation.
>
>
> BLASPHEMER!

BWHAHAHAHAHA! LOONATIC!!! It's hard to even conceive of someone less
godlike than you are.

>
>
> OK try the FULL BODY SHOT of the face in the roof!
>
> http://graysshed.com/The-Face-In-The-Roof.gif
>
> The face, features, arms, hands, fingers, gestures,...

The things that aren't there? Hmmmm...I don't see anything, of course,
since there's nothing there.

>
> all photo realistic from a *Random* image!

Dude, get some help, there must be someone you can call. Don't you have
a social worker or something?

>
>
> Herc

[Graham Cooper]

> It's not an apparition of Buddha so I'm not blaspheming when I say you are
> just seeing things.

Have you seen the new version?

http://graysshed.com/buddhaII.jpg

Very Strong likeness to the photo of Buddha statue I found!

Herc

[Government Shill #2]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:01:40 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes of course. If, by "Strong likeness" you mean "Vague likeness", sure, I see a
String likeness.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

[BruceS]

Hey, not *that* is pretty good! I couldn't tell where the "face" was
supposed to be in the original, but now that Graham has colored in
bits, it's easy to see not only in the colored version but in the
original as well. For anyone who just dismissed it as a waste of time
and didn't actually check the link, go ahead. Look at the modified
version, then back at the original.

Note that I'm not saying there's anything magical or mystical about
it, just a good job of selecting lines and making an image of them.

Oh, and once again, color.

[Graham Cooper]

It's JACK THE RIPPER! Plain and simple!

He pulled off her scarf to get a clear shot at her neck,
put it under his armpit,
then missed and stabbed her cheek!

Check the archives... I bet one of his victims had a slash mark to the
left cheek!

The ORIGINAL the artist worked off.
http://graysshed.com/man3.jpg

Herc

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 2, 6:56 pm, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 03:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 1, 7:41 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> >> Graham Cooper wrote:
> >> >> <Squints> Nope. Still nothing.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Shill #2
>
> >> > still lying!
>
> >> Your delusions are not our lies.
>
> >hang on my artist is colorising your lies..
>
> >might get him to do this Buddha picture next, GIANT RAT pouncing on
> >SLEEPING BUDDHA
>
> >CANT MISS IT!
>
> >http://graysshed.com/buddhaII.jpg
> >http://graysshed.com/buddhaI.jpg
>

>      Could you point out where you see a rat and Buddha in the
> pictures?  I can't see them.

>
> >Saying an apparition of Buddha is NOT Buddha is BLASPHEMY!
>

>      The Buddha would disagree with you.
>
> >ADAM
>


Check the Indian Diamond on the forehead!

It has the mark of authenticity!

http://graysshed.com/buddhaII.jpg



Herc

[BruceS]

It's finding patterns in random data, plain and simple.

> He pulled off her scarf to get a clear shot at her neck,
> put it under his armpit,
> then missed and stabbed her cheek!
>
> Check the archives... I bet one of his victims had a slash mark to the
> left cheek!
>
> The ORIGINAL the artist worked off.http://graysshed.com/man3.jpg

As I've said, this is better than most of the images you've come up
with, but it's still the same basic concept as the face of Jesus in a
grilled cheese sandwich, or the "face" on Mars.

[BDK]

In article <00a1a991-ff39-45de-aa78-3a11141f2f51
@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, bruc...@hotmail.com says...

But it's not even as "good" as the grilled cheese sandwich, at least the
sandwich has an "image" on it. Herc's roof is just wrinkled. I bet he's
stunned when he looks at crumpled foil and sees Hitleror somthing.

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 6, 2:48 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> In article <00a1a991-ff39-45de-aa78-3a11141f2f51
> @h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, bruce...@hotmail.com says...

5 YANKS and YANK SYMPATHISERS with Tall Aussie Syndrome.


Herc

[Bill Graham]

Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid and looked
at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks like a dog.... And
that one looks like a guy raking his lawn, and...." Seeing Jesus on a
grilled cheese sandwich is the same thing.

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid and looked
> at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks like a dog.... And
> that one looks like a guy raking his lawn, and...." Seeing Jesus on a
> grilled cheese sandwich is the same thing.
>

You mean like this?

http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif

[BDK]

In article <886c6803-15d7-4df5-8aef-156d5720ca93
@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com says...

You're gonna need to translate that one from kOOk to English.

[BDK]

In article <VISdnU1Ry_1kWwXN...@giganews.com>, weg9
@comcast.net says...

Of course, but we didn't think it meant anything at all.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:26:09 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
are vague or nonexistent. Nothing supernatural there.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 7, 3:23 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:26:09 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper

> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

>
> >On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid and looked
> >> at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks like a dog.... And
> >> that one looks like a guy raking his lawn, and...." Seeing Jesus on a
> >> grilled cheese sandwich is the same thing.
>
> >You mean like this?
>

http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif

>
> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
> are vague or nonexistent. Nothing supernatural there.
> --
>
> Bob C.

Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.

RICHARD DAWKINS - "I don't like religion because it teaches us
to be satisfied with answers that are not really answers at all".

Herc

[george152]

On 07/11/12 11:23, Graham Cooper wrote:

>
> Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
That's the sort of answer we expect from kooks

[Bill Graham]

Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid and
>> looked at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks like a
>> dog.... And that one looks like a guy raking his lawn, and...."
>> Seeing Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich is the same thing.
>>
>
>
> You mean like this?
>

Yes. Very much like that. (Is that, by any chance from an illustrated,
"Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam")?
> http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif

[Bill Graham]

But about 80% of the American public is satisfied with answers that are not
really answers at all.....

[Graham Cooper]

Americans and Women
Exactly the same!
winge and complain
winge and complain..

Herc
--

http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif

GENUINE PHOTO FROM TABLETOP MOUNTAIN QUEENSLAND

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:23:53 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper

<graham...@gmail.com>:

>On Nov 7, 3:23 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:26:09 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid and looked
>> >> at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks like a dog.... And
>> >> that one looks like a guy raking his lawn, and...." Seeing Jesus on a
>> >> grilled cheese sandwich is the same thing.
>>
>> >You mean like this?
>>
>
>http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif
>
>>
>> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
>> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
>> are vague or nonexistent. Nothing supernatural there.

>Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.

You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
avoidance of subjectivity, which includes seeing figures in
clouds (or fires, or toasted cheese sandwiches). And try
looking up "Occam's Razor" and research on patterns people
"see" which exist only in the mind of the viewer, both of
which are especially relevant.

>RICHARD DAWKINS - "I don't like religion because it teaches us
>to be satisfied with answers that are not really answers at all".

Yes. So? You think "Yeah, man, I see it too" would be an
answer?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:42:37 -0800, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>:

You could leave out the national restriction and still be
correct.

[Bill Graham]

K Wills wrote:

> Clouds are similar to a Rorschach test. People will see what they
> want to see in them. And like a Rorschach, what is seen can be
> influenced by comments from another.
> For example: In the top cloud, where you show some flaming
> person, I see the face of The Silence from Doctor Who. The one on the
> right looks like a large dog to me.
> I see nothing but random shapes were you see a snake and a
> Buddha. I can almost see a face of some sort, but it's a stretch for
> me.

I wonder if the people who see the most are also the ones that like modern
art? Its just like the modern popular music.... I listen, (and I am a
musician) But all I hear is dumb, repetative noise. What am I missing?

[Graham Cooper]

> >http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif
>
> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
> >> are vague or nonexistent.
> >>
> >> Nothing supernatural there.
> >
> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
>
> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
> avoidance of subjectivity
>

I think there's a bit more process to it than that! ;o)

Herc

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:31:31 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
process.

But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
that's all moot.

It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
it?

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 10, 3:13 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:31:31 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper

> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

>
> >> >http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif
>
> >> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
> >> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
> >> >> are vague or nonexistent.
>
> >> >> Nothing supernatural there.
>
> >> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
>
> >> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
> >> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
> >> avoidance of subjectivity
> >I think there's a bit more process to it than that!  ;o)
>
> Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
> disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
> since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
> to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
> process.
>
> But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
> that's all moot.
>
> It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
> one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
> it?
> --
>
> Bob C.

Yeh when I stop laughing at the Skeptics' Abridged Notes on Scientific
Method here!

Herc
--
"Nothing supernatural there!" ~ Bob C
www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 10, 3:13 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:31:31 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper

> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

>
> >> >http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif
>
> >> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
> >> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
> >> >> are vague or nonexistent.
>
> >> >> Nothing supernatural there.
>
> >> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
>
> >> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
> >> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
> >> avoidance of subjectivity
> >I think there's a bit more process to it than that!  ;o)
>
> Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
> disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
> since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
> to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
> process.
>
> But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
> that's all moot.
>
> It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
> one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
> it?
> --
>
> Bob C.

[Bill Graham]

K Wills wrote:

> Not much. I prefer Gershwin to Bieber.

I like Ray Henderson and Donaldson stuff, like: Carolina in the Morning

Little White Lies

Love Me or Leave Me

Makin' Whoopee

My Baby Just Cares for Me

My Blue Heaven

Yes Sir, That's My Baby

You, You're Driving me Crazy



and:

Alabamy Bound

Best Things in Life are Free

Birth of the Blues (The)

Button up Your Overcoat

Bye Bye Blackbird

Five Foot Two

I'm Sitting On Top of the

Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries

Old Gang of Mine (Those

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:29:56 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper

<graham...@gmail.com>:

>On Nov 10, 3:13�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:31:31 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >http://www.chatzombie.com/BUDDHA-CLOUD.gif
>>
>> >> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
>> >> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
>> >> >> are vague or nonexistent.
>>
>> >> >> Nothing supernatural there.
>>
>> >> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
>>
>> >> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
>> >> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
>> >> avoidance of subjectivity
>> >I think there's a bit more process to it than that! �;o)
>>
>> Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
>> disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
>> since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
>> to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
>> process.
>>
>> But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
>> that's all moot.
>>
>> It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
>> one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
>> it?

>Yeh when I stop laughing at the Skeptics' Abridged Notes on Scientific
>Method here!

More like "giggling moronically in denial", given that it
was an accurate summary.