MEMO COPY in re Chez Watt Ballot November 5, 2009
Kent Paul Dolan
> Yesterday there was a much less important
> election. Today there is a much more important
> election
Between this and school bond issues, Chez Watt votes
are _far_ more meaningful.
[What kinds of morons choose to run school
systems on a crippling load of debt basis
instead of a "pay as you go out of current
revenues" system, increasing the price of
education at least 50%? There's nothing the
least bit unexpected about building new schools
to cope with expanding student populations,
that they couldn't be saved for in advance.]
> You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
"Best" he says. After months of minimal nominations
of not-all-that-interesting Chez Watts, we suddenly
have a plethora of excellent candidates.
> (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a
> Crack Watt ballot and a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
One vote each, please, for the following EIGHT (omg)
Chez Watts.
> Jason
xanthian.
> ======
>>>>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html
>>>>>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal
>>>>>>>> openings are still situated at the rostra
>>>>>>>> tip like those of land mammals; they are
>>>>>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the
>>>>>>>> vertex of the head at the older stages. At
>>>>>>>> the same time, a long rostrum with narrow
>>>>>>>> jaws develops. Until recently, practically
>>>>>>>> nothing was known about the morphogenetic
>>>>>>>> processes concealed in this metamorphosis,
>>>>>>>> about what cranial structures take part in
>>>>>>>> it, and about the exact way in which the
>>>>>>>> cetacean skull becomes transformed during
>>>>>>>> embryogeny. " "Whales breathed with more
>>>>>>>> ease when they no longer had to lift a
>>>>>>>> snout above water. "
>>>>>>>> So what is the reason for this change?
>>>>>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was
>>>>>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull.
>>>>>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils
>>>>>> farther up on the skull?
>>>>> Because the air is *above* the water.
>>>> Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs?
>>>> Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top
>>>> of the skull.
>>> It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air.
>> Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
> At first I thought he was joking, then I realised
> he was totally serious.
> ======
> In the category "The usual suspects"
>>> What exactly happens in a 'community ravaged by
>>> Darwinism'? I'm just glad I wasn't drinking
>>> anything when I read that.
>> It isn't a pretty sight. Teenagers drop out of
>> med school in excellent universities to study
>> theology in second rate institutions further
>> south. Adults give up their day jobs to observe
>> barnacles very closely, many of them disappear on
>> long journeys doing "bird spotting". When they
>> come back, they bring hundreds of stuffed
>> specimen, and nobody knows where to put them.The
>> mantelpieces are packed full with them already.
>> They then become ill for a long time, nobody
>> knows why.
>> Nobody has a cure, though the infection
>> correlates closely with "curiosity", "high IQ"
>> and "education" which is why a strong dose of
>> religious fundamentalism is recommended as cure,
>> as it attacks immediately all three of them,
>> dealing with the root causes.
> ======
> Category: Irony is dead
>> Do you think people such as General Alexander
>> Haig, Donald Rumsfeld and Henery Kissinger would
>> lie?
>> WHY?
> ======
>> There were a lot of messianic prophets around at
>> the time (presumably because all the events
>> occurred around a millenium boundary).
> I presume that you were being facetious, but still
> ...
> ======
> File under "iterative, recursive, closed-curve,
> N-space, N-spherical, totally clue-reflective, sugar
> frosted fool":
>>>> An amazing revelation:
>>>>> What I described IS IN THE TORA, which is AKA
>>>>> as "the bible" in western world.
> Well, no.
>>> oh my you ARE an Idiot...the Torah is one of the
>>> books in the christian bible.
> Well, no.
>> EXACTLY
>> And ALL OF THE BOOKS TOGETHER ARE KNOWN AS:
>> "THE BIBLE"
> Well, no, not usually, and it is also unclear,
> as depending on prior errors, just which "all of
> the books" you mean.
> "All of the books in the bible are known as 'The
> Bible'" is a tautological claim only an
> acephalic individual on total life support would
> make.
> "All of the books in the Torah are known as "The
> Bible" is flatly false, they are instead (also)
> known as "The Pentateuch".
> Given that the offender was replying to, and thus
> cheering on, his own previous also erroneous
> posting, which in turn was cheering on his nested
> prior also erroneous posting.
> Given that, multiply challenged on his facts, the
> offender was _still_ too lazy / stubborn / stupid /
> arrogant to do something simple like, say:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Atorah
> Given that this posting now makes this "even a
> brickbat to the head isn't enough" idiocy by the
> offender two Chez Watts deep, and three instances of
> an insistent error by the offender, morphed for each
> posting into a different error, deep, and probably,
> that no possible response from any source would be
> enough of a clue to the clue-proof offender.
> I suggest the above for the "'Short Bus Special
> Achievement' Chez Watt Award of the Month".
> But what do I know?
> ======
> File in the category: What's your name
>> On ted, someone have invented a chip that can
>> identify, any known virus, and any *unknown*
>> virus, simply by placing a specimen on the chip.
> ======
>>> Then you need to work on your mocking skills.
>>> How do you really think Darwin's finches got to
>>> the Galapagos? Isn't it an interesting
>>> coincidence that every Galapagos bird species
>>> has a close relative either in the South
>>> American mainland or, for the finches, in the
>>> Caribbean?
>> There you go, you see. It's more than a
>> coincidence: it's the smoking gun.
>> Darwin never even _went_ to the Galapagos: nobody
>> could even have found tiny islands like that with
>> sailing-ship navigation instruments, so he and
>> Captain Fitzroy, who, it is well known, was
>> bitterly and publicly opposed to the notion of
>> evolution by natural selection, cooked up this
>> cock-and-bull story for the ship's log, while
>> simply cruising gently up and down the coast of
>> the mainland.
>> Darwin took the opportunity of trips ashore to
>> collect the birds you refer to, in addition to
>> the ones he had already secured in the Caribbean.
>> These specimens he used to form the basis of his
>> planned attack on Christianity, by carefully
>> choosing atypical examples whose features fitted
>> his hoax.
>> His motivation was partly hostility to God, and
>> partly a craving for limelight in compensation
>> for his never having been able to stick at
>> anything for long. This underachiever had taken
>> two tries at education in separate universities,
>> at the first of which he frittered away his time
>> in hunting; and while at the second he spent long
>> periods in the low company of taxidermists and
>> the like.
>> The nervous strain imposed by living this
>> continuous lie had obvious effects on his
>> behaviour and health. Darwin is well known to
>> have suffered from hysterical psychosomatic
>> digestive disorders, married his first cousin,
>> went prematurely bald and tried neurotically to
>> compensate by growing an enormous beard, and
>> spent much of the rest of his days studying
>> earthworms and hunting wild dogs. Fortunately for
>> the peace of his soul, he recanted on his
>> deathbed and was therefore buried in St Paul's
>> Cathedral, or Westminster Abbey, as it is better
>> known.
> I want to be the first to nominate this. I wish I
> had said "the low company of texidermists", that's
> an elegant phrase.
> ======
> In the "severe perturbations in the fabric of spacetime" category,
>> If Arthur C. Clarke was predicting the
>> moonlandings before they actually happened, then
>> he would be unaware of the moonlandings at the time,
>> since they had not yet taken place.
> ======