'Super-Earth'

[The Starmaker]

'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life

More than 50 new alien planets — including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life — have
been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,
http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-160802014.html

Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
word' from the 'scientific community'.

It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!

But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)

(i'm too busy living on 'Clark Kent Earth"....)

It's not Jupiter, it's Super Earth!!!!

Make that 17 super-earths...

The Starmaker

...and two dwarf planets, Earth and Pluto.

[Yoshitake Takamaru]

On Sep 12, 7:23 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life
>
> More than 50 new alien planets including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life have
> been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).

> The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-1...

>
> Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
> word' from the 'scientific community'.
>
> It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
> gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!
>
> But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)
>
> (i'm too busy living on 'Clark Kent Earth"....)
>
> It's not Jupiter, it's Super Earth!!!!
>
> Make that 17 super-earths...
>
> The Starmaker
>
> ...and two dwarf planets, Earth and Pluto.

not super-earth,

the con word here is 'potential'

you know what this means

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 12, 10:23 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life
>
> More than 50 new alien planets — including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life — have
> been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).

> The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-1...

>
> Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
> word' from the 'scientific community'.

It means "rocky planet as opposed to big ball of gas" which you
would have known had you actually read the article rather than
perpetuating your paranoid "science is a con job" meme.

> It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
> gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!

It's not just about sheer size.

In case you hadn't noticed, our observation of our solar system
shows us two kinds of planet; large ones that are mostly hydrogen and
helium (Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter) and small ones that are
mostly rock (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). When we find planets in
other systems that don't quite fit into those categories (like rocky
worlds far larger than Earth) we either tend to force them into one
category or the other (commonly seen in popularizations for people
like you who refuse to actually study any science) or come up with
other categories (too complicated for people like you).

> But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)

A planet that doesn't orbit Sol. Try actually opening your mind to
concepts new to it instead of filtering everything through your
prejudices.


Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 10:23 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > 'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life
> >
> > More than 50 new alien planets — including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life — have
> > been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
> > The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-1...
> >
> > Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
> > word' from the 'scientific community'.
>
> It means "rocky planet as opposed to big ball of gas" which you
> would have known had you actually read the article rather than
> perpetuating your paranoid "science is a con job" meme.

Calling it a "potentially rocky worlds" does not mean 'rocky worlds'.
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/

It's a con. A confidence scam.

>
> > It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
> > gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!
>
> It's not just about sheer size.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, our observation of our solar system
> shows us two kinds of planet; large ones that are mostly hydrogen and
> helium (Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter) and small ones that are
> mostly rock (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). When we find planets in
> other systems that don't quite fit into those categories (like rocky
> worlds far larger than Earth) we either tend to force them into one
> category or the other (commonly seen in popularizations for people
> like you who refuse to actually study any science) or come up with
> other categories (too complicated for people like you).

There are no "rocky worlds far larger than Earth", only

"potentially rocky worlds"

meaning 'could be, maybe, should be, con be.'

You guys never stop with these con jobs, why is that?

>
> > But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)
>
> A planet that doesn't orbit Sol. Try actually opening your mind to
> concepts new to it instead of filtering everything through your
> prejudices.

Did you just make that up? I hope they don't teach this stuff in skool...

An Alien Planet is a Planet that contains...Aliens.

Point to a link that defines it differently.
http://www.google.com/#pq=define+alien+planet&hl=en&sugexp=crnk_spiketing&cp=8&gs_id=15&xhr=t&q=define+%22alien+planet%22&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=define+%22alien+planet%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e82efc6cc141df0&biw=1024&bih=629

The Starmaker






>
> Mark L. Fergerson


Go ahead, there is enough 'used editied websites' to create your own meanings...

[alie...@gmail.com]

On 9/12/2011 9:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 12, 10:23 am, The Starmaker<starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> 'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life
>>>
>>> More than 50 new alien planets — including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life — have
>>> been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
>>> The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-1...
>>>
>>> Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
>>> word' from the 'scientific community'.
>>
>> It means "rocky planet as opposed to big ball of gas" which you
>> would have known had you actually read the article rather than
>> perpetuating your paranoid "science is a con job" meme.
>
>
> Calling it a "potentially rocky worlds" does not mean 'rocky worlds'.
> http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/

Sigh.

> It's a con. A confidence scam.

A confidence scam is designed to cheat somebody out of something. Who
do you think is being cheated, and out of what?

>>> It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
>>> gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!
>>
>> It's not just about sheer size.
>>
>> In case you hadn't noticed, our observation of our solar system
>> shows us two kinds of planet; large ones that are mostly hydrogen and
>> helium (Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter) and small ones that are
>> mostly rock (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). When we find planets in
>> other systems that don't quite fit into those categories (like rocky
>> worlds far larger than Earth) we either tend to force them into one
>> category or the other (commonly seen in popularizations for people
>> like you who refuse to actually study any science) or come up with
>> other categories (too complicated for people like you).
>
> There are no "rocky worlds far larger than Earth", only

Not in our solar system. There are others, you know.

> "potentially rocky worlds"
>
> meaning 'could be, maybe, should be, con be.'
>
> You guys never stop with these con jobs, why is that?

You are paranoid.

>>> But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)
>>
>> A planet that doesn't orbit Sol. Try actually opening your mind to
>> concepts new to it instead of filtering everything through your
>> prejudices.
>
> Did you just make that up? I hope they don't teach this stuff in skool...

Wow, you think ours is the only system of planets orbiting a star in
the entire universe?

> An Alien Planet is a Planet that contains...Aliens.

So you believe. So what?

> Point to a link that defines it differently.
> http://www.google.com/#pq=define+alien+planet&hl=en&sugexp=crnk_spiketing&cp=8&gs_id=15&xhr=t&q=define+%22alien+planet%22&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=define+%22alien+planet%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e82efc6cc141df0&biw=1024&bih=629

Who cares about how Google parses search terms?

Last link on the page:

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/

By your own reasoning, you are most likely a science-fiction novel by
Olaf Stapledon:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=559&source=hp&q=define+starmaker&pbx=1&oq=define+starmaker&aq=f&aqi=g-l4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=24811l26558l0l27544l9l6l0l0l0l0l352l1057l0.3.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e82efc6cc141df0

> Go ahead, there is enough 'used editied websites' to create your own meanings...

Obviously you're driven by your restricted little belief system.

Enjoy your paranoid little world; the rest of us will be happy to
discover new things that challenge our beliefs.


Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

> Who cares about how Google parses search terms?
>
> Last link on the page:
>
> http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/
>
> By your own reasoning, you are most likely a science-fiction novel by
> Olaf Stapledon:
>
> http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=559&source=hp&q=define+starmaker&pbx=1&oq=define+starmaker&aq=f&aqi=g-l4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=24811l26558l0l27544l9l6l0l0l0l0l352l1057l0.3.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2
>

> > Go ahead, there is enough 'used editied websites' to create your own meanings...
>
> Obviously you're driven by your restricted little belief system.
>
> Enjoy your paranoid little world; the rest of us will be happy to
> discover new things that challenge our beliefs.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

According to 'you peoples' definition of

"potentially rocky worlds"
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/

The planet Jupiter is a 'Super-Earth'! Am I wrong here?


The Starmaker

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 13, 10:00 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On 9/12/2011 9:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> >  http://www.google.com/#pq=define+alien+planet&hl=en&sugexp=crnk_spike...

>
> >    Who cares about how Google parses search terms?
>
> >    Last link on the page:
>
> >http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/
>
> >    By your own reasoning, you are most likely a science-fiction novel by
> > Olaf Stapledon:
>

> >http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=559&source=h...

>
> > > Go ahead, there is enough 'used editied websites' to create your own meanings...
>
> >    Obviously you're driven by your restricted little belief system.
>
> >    Enjoy your paranoid little world; the rest of us will be happy to
> > discover new things that challenge our beliefs.
>
> >    Mark L. Fergerson
>
> According to 'you peoples' definition of
>
> "potentially rocky worlds"http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/
>
> The planet Jupiter is a 'Super-Earth'! Am I wrong here?

I refuse to judge you "right or wrong"- you have to decide that. By
convention, "super-Earth" means "a planet bigger than Earth that's
composed more of solid, rocky minerals than volatile gases and ices".
It doesn't *necessarily* mean "a planet just like Earth with oceans,
continents, air, plants, animals, etc. only bigger".

I don't know what *your* definition of "super-Earth" is.

Here's a paper that considers the possibility of life on such
planets (and the challenges involved in verifying any), but it takes
pains to define what kind of planet it's about first:

http://exoplanet.eu/papers/Arena2-Schneider2.pdf

Section 2.1:

"By definition, a Super-Earth is a planet not dominated by an
atmosphere. This
category lies between giant gaseous planets and planets without
atmosphere. The
boundary between Super-Earths and planets with no atmospheres (Mercury-
like)
is around 0.3 - 1 M⊕. The boundary between Super-Earths and giant
planets is
much less clear. It depends on several factors: the planet
temperature, erosion
of the atmosphere by stellar winds, outgassing, accretion rate of gas.
The latter
has been indirectly suggested by Zuckerman et al.?. If a giant planet
solid core
of 20 M⊕ forms around a star with a strong stellar wind, giant
(gaseous) planet
formation is inhibited by depletion due to the wind. In fact, this
boundary is loose
and there is an overlap between the two categories in the regime ≈ 10
− 50M⊕."

Now, consider that what little solid data we have limits the mass of
a rocky core Jupiter might possess to between 12 and 45 times that of
Earth.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9707210

That depends on its composition, too; there could be little to no
rocky stuff at all if there's sufficient helium which is just dense
enough to hit 12 Earth masses at those pressures. But we can't refine
that just now because it ain't cheap to 1) design and build probes
that can determine the core's composition 2) send probes to Jupiter in
the first place.

Anyway, let's suppose that's correct. We're fairly sure the sun will
eventually go Red Giant and bake/consume the inner planets, and in the
process boil off Jupiter's volatile ices and gases into space. The
remaining core will then qualify as an independent a rocky planet 12
to 45 times the Earth's mass, a "super-Earth". You might think there
should be a more superlative form than mere super- for something that
gigantic but AFAIK nobody's suggested anything like "mega-Earth". Yet.

IIRC Neptune and Uranus are mostly ices with rocky cores in the 2 to
3 Earth mass range. Maybe you'd consider those, stripped of the ices,
to be more proper candidates for the moniker "super-Earth".

Using "super-Earth" as shorthand for "more-rock-than-gas planet
larger than Earth" might be a bit parochial (and slightly misleading),
but if you thought your audience understood that's what it meant and
had to type it more than once, which would you choose?


Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

nu...@bid.nes wrote:

>
> On Sep 13, 10:00Â am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > n...@bid.nes wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/12/2011 9:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > n...@bid.nes wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Sep 12, 10:23 am, The Starmaker<starma...@ix.netcom.com> Â wrote:
> > > >>> 'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life
> >
> > > >>> More than 50 new alien planets including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life have
> > > >>> been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
> > > >>> The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-1...
> >
> > > >>> Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
> > > >>> word' from the 'scientific community'.
> >

> > > >> Â Â It means "rocky planet as opposed to big ball of gas" which you

> > > >> would have known had you actually read the article rather than
> > > >> perpetuating your paranoid "science is a con job" meme.
> >
> > > > Calling it a "potentially rocky worlds" does not mean 'rocky worlds'.
> > > >http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/
> >

> > > Â Â Sigh.

> >
> > > > It's a con. A confidence scam.
> >

> > > Â Â A confidence scam is designed to cheat somebody out of something. Who

> > > do you think is being cheated, and out of what?
> >
> > > >>> It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
> > > >>> gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!
> >

> > > >> Â Â It's not just about sheer size.
> >
> > > >> Â Â In case you hadn't noticed, our observation of our solar system

> > > >> shows us two kinds of planet; large ones that are mostly hydrogen and
> > > >> helium (Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter) and small ones that are
> > > >> mostly rock (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). When we find planets in
> > > >> other systems that don't quite fit into those categories (like rocky
> > > >> worlds far larger than Earth) we either tend to force them into one
> > > >> category or the other (commonly seen in popularizations for people
> > > >> like you who refuse to actually study any science) or come up with
> > > >> other categories (too complicated for people like you).
> >
> > > > There are no "rocky worlds far larger than Earth", only
> >

> > > Â Â Not in our solar system. There are others, you know.
> >
> > > > Â Â Â "potentially rocky worlds"

> >
> > > > meaning 'could be, maybe, should be, con be.'
> >
> > > > You guys never stop with these con jobs, why is that?
> >

> > > Â Â You are paranoid.

> >
> > > >>> But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)
> >

> > > >> Â Â A planet that doesn't orbit Sol. Try actually opening your mind to

> > > >> concepts new to it instead of filtering everything through your
> > > >> prejudices.
> >
> > > > Did you just make that up? I hope they don't teach this stuff in skool...
> >

> > > Â Â Wow, you think ours is the only system of planets orbiting a star in

> > > the entire universe?
> >
> > > > An Alien Planet is a Planet that contains...Aliens.
> >

> > > Â Â So you believe. So what?

> >
> > > > Point to a link that defines it differently.

> > > Â http://www.google.com/#pq=define+alien+planet&hl=en&sugexp=crnk_spike...
> >
> > > Â Â Who cares about how Google parses search terms?
> >
> > > Â Â Last link on the page:
> >
> > >http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/
> >
> > > Â Â By your own reasoning, you are most likely a science-fiction novel by

> > > Olaf Stapledon:
> >
> > >http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=559&source=h...
> >
> > > > Go ahead, there is enough 'used editied websites' to create your own meanings...
> >

> > > Â Â Obviously you're driven by your restricted little belief system.
> >
> > > Â Â Enjoy your paranoid little world; the rest of us will be happy to

> > > discover new things that challenge our beliefs.
> >

> > > Â Â Mark L. Fergerson

> >
> > According to 'you peoples' definition of
> >
> > "potentially rocky worlds"http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/super-earth-definition-2012/
> >
> > The planet Jupiter is a 'Super-Earth'! Am I wrong here?
>
> I refuse to judge you "right or wrong"- you have to decide that. By
> convention, "super-Earth" means "a planet bigger than Earth that's
> composed more of solid, rocky minerals than volatile gases and ices".
> It doesn't *necessarily* mean "a planet just like Earth with oceans,
> continents, air, plants, animals, etc. only bigger".
>
> I don't know what *your* definition of "super-Earth" is.
>
> Here's a paper that considers the possibility of life on such
> planets (and the challenges involved in verifying any), but it takes
> pains to define what kind of planet it's about first:
>
> http://exoplanet.eu/papers/Arena2-Schneider2.pdf
>
> Section 2.1:
>

> "By deï¬ nition, a Super-Earth is a planet not dominated by an

> atmosphere. This
> category lies between giant gaseous planets and planets without
> atmosphere. The
> boundary between Super-Earths and planets with no atmospheres (Mercury-
> like)

> is around 0.3 - 1 M⊕. The boundary between Super-Earths and giant

> planets is
> much less clear. It depends on several factors: the planet
> temperature, erosion
> of the atmosphere by stellar winds, outgassing, accretion rate of gas.
> The latter
> has been indirectly suggested by Zuckerman et al.?. If a giant planet
> solid core

> of 20 M⊕ forms around a star with a strong stellar wind, giant

> (gaseous) planet
> formation is inhibited by depletion due to the wind. In fact, this
> boundary is loose

> and there is an overlap between the two categories in the regime ≈ 10
> − 50M⊕."

"(and slightly misleading)"??

misleading - designed to deceive or mislead, give false or misleading information.


Consider Steve Job is dead.
HP is selling their computer business..
you guys are out...the party is over.

It's Starmaker time!

[The Starmaker]

Is "slightly misleading" the samething as "slightly pregnant"?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: The planet Jupiter is a 'Super-Earth'! Am I wrong here?

Yes, you are wrong. Jupiter is many times the upper mass of a "super-earth".
Plus, for planets less than ten earth masses, it's likely they didn't retain
nearly as much hydrogen and helium, and their atmispheres aren't much
like gas giants we know up close, like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

[The Starmaker]

You just don't get it...

There is only one Earth.

The entire definition of Earth as a "habitable planet" is incorrect.

Not only "we are alone", the "earth is alone".


Being at a certain distance from a sun doesn't make it a habitable planet.

The Sun has nothing to do with life on earth!

The Sun is just a match in the sky...
the stove is on, that's all.


The Starmaker


Where does radium come from? Not the sun..

[Wayne Throop]

::: The planet Jupiter is a 'Super-Earth'! Am I wrong here?

:: Yes, you are wrong.

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: You just don't get it...

: There is only one Earth.

Gee, you say that as if it means you aren't wrong.
But, you're still wrong; Jupiter is not a super-earth.

: The entire definition of Earth as a "habitable planet" is incorrect.

Good thing that's not how anybody defines it, then.

: The Sun has nothing to do with life on earth!

Riiiiiiight.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On 9/13/2011 3:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> nu...@bid.nes wrote:

(brevity snip)

>>> Using "super-Earth" as shorthand for "more-rock-than-gas planet
>>> larger than Earth" might be a bit parochial (and slightly misleading),
>>> but if you thought your audience understood that's what it meant and
>>> had to type it more than once, which would you choose?
>>>
>>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>> "(and slightly misleading)"??

Not if readers DON'T assume it is intended to mean "just like Earth
only bigger".

It isn't.

Do you get it yet?

You've misunderstood the intended meaning of the word.

Get over it already.


Mark L. Fergerson

[alie...@gmail.com]

On 9/13/2011 2:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> nu...@bid.nes wrote:

(snip to the crash again)

>> Using "super-Earth" as shorthand for "more-rock-than-gas planet
>> larger than Earth" might be a bit parochial (and slightly misleading),
>> but if you thought your audience understood that's what it meant and
>> had to type it more than once, which would you choose?
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>
> "(and slightly misleading)"??
>
> misleading - designed to deceive or mislead, give false or misleading information.

There is also being misled by one's own mistaken inferences.

You have inferred that "super-Earth" means "just like Earth, only
bigger".

It doesn't. Your apparent conspiracy theory has no foundation. Get
over it.

> Consider Steve Job is dead.
> HP is selling their computer business..

What the hell does any of that have to do with your attaching the
wrong meaning to a word?

> you guys are out...the party is over.

Who is "you guys"? What party?


Mark L. Fergerson

[alie...@gmail.com]

On 9/14/2011 10:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>> : The Starmaker<star...@ix.netcom.com>
>> : The planet Jupiter is a 'Super-Earth'! Am I wrong here?
>>
>> Yes, you are wrong. Jupiter is many times the upper mass of a "super-earth".
>> Plus, for planets less than ten earth masses, it's likely they didn't retain
>> nearly as much hydrogen and helium, and their atmispheres aren't much
>> like gas giants we know up close, like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
>
> You just don't get it...
>
> There is only one Earth.

Of course.

> The entire definition of Earth as a "habitable planet" is incorrect.

It's a planet, and it is capable of supporting life. How is that
incorrect?

> Not only "we are alone", the "earth is alone".

And how do you know these things?

> Being at a certain distance from a sun doesn't make it a habitable planet.

Okay, what does?

> The Sun has nothing to do with life on earth!

Okay, what does?

> Where does radium come from? Not the sun..

It's observed to be a decay product of Uranium, which comes from
supernovas.

Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

You people have more questions than answers...

Earthlings do not get their Uranium from...supernovas.

It's right here on Earth, in the water, in the soil...in the rocks.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Earthlings do not get their Uranium from...supernovas.

: It's right here on Earth, in the water, in the soil...in the rocks.

All of which came from supernovas (other than the hydrogen in the water).

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:24:32 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

And a tiny little bit in ArchiePu's brain, before he got irradiated.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Wayne Throop]

: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: And a tiny little bit in ArchiePu's brain, before he got irradiated.

Is "irradiated" something like "enlightened",
only with a somewhat shorter wavelength?

[The Starmaker]

You fell for that 'con', I didn't.


There is no evidence that the Earth
was formed from supernovas, suns or stars, or anything else you can drum
up.

You people
got this big hangup
that Science is ALL!

Let me give you a fact..
it is possible to
send a man,
to the moon
in a rocket,
without the
creators of the rocket
having any knowledge of
Science and Math.

No Science or Math is required to land a man on the moon.

Anyone says different, is lying or simply brainwashed.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

"intended meaning"? Translation; i got my own private dictionary. Con
dictionary.

slightly
intended

con werds.

The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

::: Earthlings do not get their Uranium from...supernovas. It's right

::: here on Earth, in the water, in the soil...in the rocks.

:: All of which came from supernovas (other than the hydrogen in the
:: water).

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: You fell for that 'con', I didn't.

Calling something "a con" doesn't make it one.
Making assertions about what you "know" and "didn't fall for"
without any evidence... now *that*'s a con.

: There is no evidence that the Earth was formed from supernovas

Of course there is. Nucleosynthesis is fairly well understood at
this point, as is the fact that primordial nuclei are hydrogen and
helium is quite solidly established. There's that pesky stuff you
don't deal in, *evidence*, of these things.

: No Science or Math is required to land a man on the moon.

For certain values of "required". It does make it far far far far far
easier. So claiming it isn't "required" is a con. And not because
I say it's a con, but because of the misleading nature of ignoring how
much easier it is, and using "required" as a weasel-word.

[alie...@gmail.com]

> You people have more questions than answers...

Science is all about finding answers to questions.

You make claims but don't back them up. How do you know the things
you claim to know?

> Earthlings do not get their Uranium from...supernovas.

Yes, we do.

> It's right here on Earth, in the water, in the soil...in the rocks.

Yes, it is, and it came to be here from supernovas.

How do YOU think it came to be here?

Quit waffling and just say it straight out.


Mark L. Fergerson

[alie...@gmail.com]

On 9/14/2011 3:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>>
>> On 9/13/2011 3:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>>
>> (brevity snip)
>>
>>>>> Using "super-Earth" as shorthand for "more-rock-than-gas planet
>>>>> larger than Earth" might be a bit parochial (and slightly misleading),
>>>>> but if you thought your audience understood that's what it meant and
>>>>> had to type it more than once, which would you choose?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>>>
>>>> "(and slightly misleading)"??
>>
>> Not if readers DON'T assume it is intended to mean "just like Earth
>> only bigger".
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>> Do you get it yet?
>>
>> You've misunderstood the intended meaning of the word.
>>
>> Get over it already.
>>
>

> "intended meaning"? Translation; i got my own private dictionary. Con
> dictionary.

Translation; you assume somebody is perpetrating a con.

> slightly
> intended
>
> con werds.

Confidence game = cheat.

I asked you before; who do you believe is being cheated, and what do
you believe they're being cheated out of?


Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

That's "just a theory'.


Why do you make it sound as if it is True? Cosmic Religion...that's all it is.

I'm not knocking your ...religion.

You wanna believe in that stuff, go ahead.

I'll ask you question...What's your favorite television show, Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits?

[The Starmaker]

Are you working on a cure for cancer?

[The Starmaker]

Somebody tells you
maybe in school
or
on the corner of 42nd street
that
"The Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernovae over 6 billion years ago."

and you automatically believe it?

Did you bother to check if it was true or not?

[The Starmaker]

> "The Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernova over 6 billion years ago."

>
> and you automatically believe it?
>
> Did you bother to check if it was true or not?

a supernova...oh come on.. not from our sun...some other sun..how do you
people stop yourself
from falling into the...science fiction world?

What? No Super-Mars??? Oh I forgot, you just make this stuff up on the
way...

if you're gonna name super-mars, my password is copyprotected already.
sMars3g2

[alie...@gmail.com]

('Starmaker's' waffling snipped)

I asked you a simple question.

How do you think it came to be here?

I told you how I think it came to be here, now pony up.


Mark L. Fergerson

[alie...@gmail.com]

Nice asymmetrical quotes there.

> Why do you make it sound as if it is True? Cosmic Religion...that's all it is.

It is true to the best of human knowledge. You capitalize the word as
if it never changed. That's a characteristic of religion, not science.

Science is about challenging authorities.

What's your theory? How do you know it's true?


Mark L. Fergerson

[alie...@gmail.com]

Stop ducking straight questions. Who do you believe is being cheated,
and out of what?


Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

Where are the
'Super-Mars'?
'Super-Venus'?
'Super-Saturns'?
'Super-Jupitors'?
'Super-Uranus'?
'Super-Plutos'

There are only 'Super-Cons'.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Next you're going to tell me...
the supernova put Uranium it on the moon, venus and mars and pluto...and everywhere else..

and don't come to me with that con some Japaneese guy found some Uranium on the moon.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

No matter what kind of "quotes' I use, it's still...just a theory.

It's means somebody made-it-up.

You make up questions, they make up answers.

That's how...Science works.

[The Starmaker]

If I answer that question, you'll jump on a horse and run away with my
Nobel Prize.

[The Starmaker]

You didn't tell me how you think, ...you told me how they tell you to
think.
And you think like everyone else are told to think....

[Greg Goss]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Where are the
> 'Super-Mars'?
> 'Super-Venus'?
> 'Super-Saturns'?
> 'Super-Jupitors'?
> 'Super-Uranus'?
> 'Super-Plutos'
>
>There are only 'Super-Cons'.

There are tons of super-Jupiters being described all the time. If you
spell it right, Google claims that there are 23 million such
references.

Super-Pluto? If you upscale Pluto, then you just end up with a
routine rocky planet, say a Mars.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)

[Greg Goss]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Next you're going to tell me...
>the supernova put Uranium it on the moon, venus and mars and pluto...and everywhere else..

The supernova put uranium, iron etc; pretty much everything besides
hyrodgen and helium, into the cloud that eventually condensed into the
sun and its family.

>
>and don't come to me with that con some Japaneese guy found some Uranium on the moon.

The Japanese haven't even been to the moon. That we know of. Not
even the conspiracy websites are claiming Japanese to the moon.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: No matter what kind of "quotes' I use, it's still...just a theory.

:
: It's means somebody made-it-up.

Rather like your theory that scientists and mathematicians
are malign, dishonest, and conniving, is made up. Or your
theory that "we are alone" is made up.

Only with considerably more evidence than any you provide.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 20, 9:51 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On 9/16/2011 2:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
>

> > >> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>> On 9/14/2011 12:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> > >>>> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On 9/14/2011 10:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > >>>>>>> : The Starmaker<starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> Next you're going to tell me...
> the supernova put Uranium it on the moon, venus and mars and pluto...and everywhere else..

Yep.

> and don't come to me with that con some Japaneese guy found some Uranium on the moon.

This still isn't about your conspiracy theories.


Mark L. Fergerson

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 20, 10:37 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On 9/16/2011 2:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
>

> > >> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>> On 9/14/2011 12:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> > >>>> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On 9/14/2011 10:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > >>>>>>> : The Starmaker<starma...@ix.netcom.com>

Bullshit. Post it and the whole world knows it's yours.

Quit waffling and declare yourself or be exposed as Just Another
Troll


Mark L. Fergerson-

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Sep 20, 5:00 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/drug-deaths-exceed-traffic-deaths/story?id=14554903

True or false?

[Bill Snyder]

Nobody's interested in your attempt to change the subject, trolltard.
FOAD.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 20, 9:57 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On 9/16/2011 11:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> > > n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >> On 9/14/2011 12:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> > >>> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>>> On 9/14/2011 10:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > >>>>>> : The Starmaker<starma...@ix.netcom.com>

Bullshit.

Science works by comparing theories against reality. Theorists
suggest tests to falsify their theories, and experimentalists run
those tests to see what happens. People keep pointing you to the
results of tests that support the theories you keep claiming are cons.

Since you provide nothing to support your "theories" *or suggest
ways to falsify them*, you're apparently the one making stuff up.

In other words, you're running a con.

Who are you trying to cheat, and what are you trying to cheat them

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 20, 11:55 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On 9/16/2011 2:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
>

> > >> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>> On 9/14/2011 12:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> > >>>> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On 9/14/2011 10:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > >>>>>>> : The Starmaker<starma...@ix.netcom.com>

Translation- I don't think the way you're trying to con me into
thinking.

That's because you are incompetent at providing support for your con
job.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Wayne Throop]

:: Rather like your theory that scientists and mathematicians are

:: malign, dishonest, and conniving, is made up.

: thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com>
: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/drug-deaths-exceed-traffic-deaths/story?id=14554903
:
: True or false?

It's not clear how your reply is relevant to the issue of honesty of
scientists in the first place, but even if it is, possibly you
are confused about which scientists Starmaker is routinely accusing
of dishonesty. Unless you meant your reply to be a non-sequitur.

"Non-sequitur. Your facts are un-co-ordinated." --- Nomad

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Sep 20, 6:27 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: Rather like your theory that scientists and mathematicians are
> :: malign, dishonest, and conniving, is made up.
>

> : thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>
> :http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/drug-deaths-exceed-traffic-deaths/...
> :

> : True or false?
>
> It's not clear how your reply is relevant to the issue of honesty of
> scientists in the first place,

It is relevant to the honesty and reasoning skills of the group.
Without them, your responses are irrelevant to the facts.

> but even if it is, possibly you
> are confused about which scientists Starmaker is routinely accusing
> of dishonesty.  

Who cares? And if you're not a scientist, why do you?

>Unless you meant your reply to be a non-sequitur.
>
>     "Non-sequitur.  Your facts are un-co-ordinated."   --- Nomad

Yes, thank you. My reply was meant as a test of your ability to grasp
facts. The inability to grasp facts renders your answers meaningless.

[Wayne Throop]

: thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com>
: Yes, thank you. My reply was meant as a test of your ability to grasp

: facts. The inability to grasp facts renders your answers meaningless.

The facts are easily grasped. As is the fact that it's a non-seuitur,
and has nothing at all to do with the topit it was appended to.

: Who cares? And if you're not a scientist, why do you?

I'm melanin-deficient, but I'm nevertheless not fond of the KKK.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Sep 20, 11:26 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>

> : Yes, thank you.  My reply was meant as a test of your ability to grasp
> : facts.  The inability to grasp facts renders your answers meaningless.
>
> The facts are easily grasped.  

Facts are presented here and attempts to debunk those facts with wild
speculation and unbridled anger ensues, which would be fine, if you at
least realized it.

As is the fact that it's a non-seuitur,
> and has nothing at all to do with the topit it was appended to.

More like an interuption, Wayne. An "excuse me, hold up a sec," kind
of thing. An attempt to define 'fact' before you attempt to debate it,
i.e, these are the facts, albeit this is my theory......

>
> : Who cares?  And if you're not a scientist, why do you?
>
> I'm melanin-deficient, but I'm nevertheless not fond of the KKK.

Well, that is a comforting confession. Good night.

[Wayne Throop]

: thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com>
: Well, that is a comforting confession. Good night.

So you're oblivious to the relevance?
Don't see how it answers your question?
Not surprising, I suppose.

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:53:17 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

A troll can move a goal post faster than you can chase after it.
Abandoning the metaphor, you have to marshal facts and construct
logical arguments; the troll just has to spew some more random BS.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Sep 21, 2:53 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>

> : Well, that is a comforting confession.  Good night.
>
> So you're oblivious to the relevance?  
> Don't see how it answers your question?
> Not surprising, I suppose.

I can see that humor and wit is completely lost on you. Not surprising
I suppose.

[The Starmaker]

Greg Goss wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Next you're going to tell me...
> >the supernova put Uranium it on the moon, venus and mars and pluto...and everywhere else..
>
> The supernova put uranium, iron etc; pretty much everything besides
> hyrodgen and helium, into the cloud that eventually condensed into the
> sun and its family.
> >
> >and don't come to me with that con some Japaneese guy found some Uranium on the moon.
>
> The Japanese haven't even been to the moon. That we know of. Not
> even the conspiracy websites are claiming Japanese to the moon.

Then, point to a link that sez someone sees uranium on the moon.

[The Starmaker]

who sez there is Uranium on the moon? "Yep" is not satifactory here..

[Bill Snyder]

Look, everybody. The trolltard thinks we'll believe that it knows
what humor and wit are. Further support for my theory that
Australopithecus is still extant, and posting to Usenet.

[The Starmaker]

you people have a history of stealing 'others' nobel prizes...and taking other peoples credit.

The only way to protect my discoveries and ideas is not to write it down or tell anyone.


The Starmaker

Life on Earth does not come from the ocean..it comes from the core of the earth...where there is, uranium.

[The Starmaker]

you need to get out of your monopoly controlled textbooks...
Is there anything in the world that you know without somebody telling
you it first?

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Sep 21, 9:18 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:53:17 GMT, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
> >: thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>

> >: Well, that is a comforting confession.  Good night.
>
> >So you're oblivious to the relevance?  
> >Don't see how it answers your question?
> >Not surprising, I suppose.
>
> A troll can move a goal post faster than you can chase after it.
> Abandoning the metaphor, you have to marshal facts and construct
> logical arguments; the troll just has to spew some more random BS.
>
> --
> Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

I bet you are ugly and fat with erectile dysfunction.

[thepinkpantsuit]

> I bet you are ugly and fat with erectile dysfunction.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I bet you are ugly and fat and bald and single with erectile
dysfunction.

You want a troll, ya gots one.

[thepinkpantsuit]

> You want a troll, ya gots one.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I bet you reek with a body odor so pungent that flies procreate by
humping on you. Anything else?

[thepinkpantsuit]

> humping on you. Anything else?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I bet your obsession with objects planetary centers around the fact it
is your only hope for social acceptance. The moon.

[thepinkpantsuit]

> is your only hope for social acceptance. The moon.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Just in case you needed examples of 'trolling', which apparently you
do!

[thepinkpantsuit]

> do!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, smuggo uggo, speechless? Conjure up not the troll.

[Bill Snyder]

Hmm. Replied to itself 5 times so far, and name-calling every time to
boot. OK, so maybe Australopithecus is a bit too far up the
evolutionary tree.

[jim]

On Sep 12, 1:23 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life
>
> More than 50 new alien planets — including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life — have
> been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
> The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-1...
>
> Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
> word' from the 'scientific community'.

Well, the only thing engineers can tell to the cranks in science,
is that in the 21st Century there's going to many more engineers
working
on modern Holograms, than modern Video.

Many more working on laser robots, than Newton Robots.

Many more working on nanotechnology, artificial diamonds, optical
networks,
and self-replicating machines, than gold shipments.

And many more working on Modern Kevlar, Software Supercomputers
Controlled Nuclear Fusion, Electric Cars, Modern Batteries,
and Microwave Cooling, than modern Vacuum Tubes




>
> It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
> gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!
>
> But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)
>
> (i'm too busy living on 'Clark Kent Earth"....)
>
> It's not Jupiter, it's Super Earth!!!!
>
> Make that 17 super-earths...
>
> The Starmaker
>
> ...and two dwarf planets, Earth and Pluto.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Sep 21, 2:56 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:52:19 -0700 (PDT), thepinkpantsuit
>
>
>
>
>

Actually, I'm replying to you, evidenced by your reply in return to my
post. Apparently the ability to discern a troll post from actual
conversation eludes you, hence the demonstration.

OK, so maybe Australopithecus is a bit too far up the
> evolutionary tree.

For a caveman such as yourself, yes, I quite agree.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Sep 21, 12:29 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:24:00 -0700 (PDT), thepinkpantsuit
>

I bet you're ugly and fat.

[alie...@gmail.com]

> you need to get out of your monopoly controlled textbooks...

The thing about the stuff in those textbooks is that all of it can be
checked independently. Yes, it requires one to get one's hands dirty
with stuff like machine tools and soldering, but it can be checked.

You need to get out of your fantasy world and into the real world.

> Is there anything in the world that you know without somebody telling
> you it first?

I can independently check anything in textbooks (and no, it doesn't
take millions of dollars) that's claimed to support scientific theories.
I can't check anything you've claimed as evidence supporting your
theories because you haven't actually provided anything but complaints.

Is science just too hard for you?

Oh, wait; you believe life came from the center of the Earth. You got
any supporting evidence for that which I or others can independently check?

No, of course you don't.

You have no concept of how science works; you think it's all magical
bullshit, so you assume *your* magical bullshit should be equally
acceptable.

It's not.

Provide some evidence or get killfiled.

Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

What supporting evidence did you have for the 'speed of light'?

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 23, 11:06 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On 9/21/2011 9:40 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> What supporting evidence did you have for the 'speed of light'?

Radar. Look it up. I've built and used radar equipment; it isn't
hard to do. It works as advertised if and only if c is what science
says it is, if and only if all the components work as materials
science says they do, and so on. Science isn't just theory, it's a
huge interlocking body of technology that *can* *not* work if science
is just "a con". I'm a technogeek. I can build stuff that works, and
it always works the way science says it should. If you can't, that's
*your* problem.

Now, where's the evidence for your magical bullshit?


Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

"technogeek"? I heard about yous..technogeeks. You want to take over the world with 'technology', so
that people will be slaves to your...technodevices and the makers of them..

sorry, we're on to you.

The Starmaker

[alie...@gmail.com]

> "technogeek"? I heard about yous..technogeeks. You want to take over the world with 'technology', so
> that people will be slaves to your...technodevices and the makers of them..

Radar is real, it's not a con.

Technology isn't going away. If you don't learn to master it, you'll
be a slave. It's up to you. If you're too lazy, stupid, afraid, or too
attached to your superstitious nonsense to master it, then it's your
fault. No con, just fact.

> sorry, we're on to you.

Yeah, and I'm on to you, troll. I've been nothing but up front with
you while you've done nothing but spew bullshit and evade.

Bye bye.


Mark L. Fergerson

[The Starmaker]

bats invented radar not people.

>
> Technology isn't going away. If you don't learn to master it, you'll
> be a slave. It's up to you. If you're too lazy, stupid, afraid, or too
> attached to your superstitious nonsense to master it, then it's your
> fault. No con, just fact.

We're not interested anymore in feeding your machines with our food and extenion cords..
http://images1.cableorganizer.com/power-distribution-collage/power-extension.jpg

We got babies to feed, why do we need to feed your machines with the babies food?

(i keep forgetting, Humanity is not a concern to you people)

Your god is Machines.

What is the name of your technogod?

The Starmaker

[Batman]

On Sep 12, 10:23 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 'Super-Earth,' 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life
>
> More than 50 new alien planets — including one so-called super-Earth that could potentially support life — have
> been discovered by an exoplanet-hunting telescope from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
> The newfound haul of alien planets includes 16 super-Earths,http://news.yahoo.com/super-earth-1-50-newfound-alien-planets-could-1...
>
> Do you know what 'Super-Earth' really means? It's the new 'con
> word' from the 'scientific community'.
>

> It means, instead of calling it Saturn size or Jupiter size, they
> gonna call it 'Super-Earth'. In otherwords, everything is now an Earth!
>
> But what is an "Alien Planet?" (i haven't the time to figure that one one out yet)
>
> (i'm too busy living on 'Clark Kent Earth"....)
>
> It's not Jupiter, it's Super Earth!!!!
>
> Make that 17 super-earths...
>
> The Starmaker
>
> ...and two dwarf planets, Earth and Pluto.

Yes, but do they wear capes?

-- Mike
http://my168project.co

[thepinkpantsuit]

> We're not interested anymore in feeding your machines with our food and extenion cords..http://images1.cableorganizer.com/power-distribution-collage/power-ex...

>
> We got babies to feed, why do we need to feed your machines with the babies food?
>
> (i keep forgetting, Humanity is not a concern to you people)
>
> Your god is Machines.
>
> What is the name of your technogod?
>

> The Starmaker- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BWRua5l70j4/SM6AFQl3FgI/AAAAAAAACZQ/wDWbafws3qo/s1600-h/KingCornLogo.jpg

[The Starmaker]

> > We got babies to feed, why do we need to feed your machines with the babies food?
> >
> > (i keep forgetting, Humanity is not a concern to you people)
> >
> > Your god is Machines.
> >
> > What is the name of your technogod?
> >
> > The Starmaker- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BWRua5l70j4/SM6AFQl3FgI/AAAAAAAACZQ/wDWbafws3qo/s1600-h/KingCornLogo.jpg

Have you ever seen the reaction of a girl when her cell phone runs out of...fuel? Who gets fed first, the baby or the cell?

[thepinkpantsuit]

> >http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BWRua5l70j4/SM6AFQl3FgI/AAAAAAAACZQ/wDWbafw...
>
> Have you ever seen the reaction of a girl when her cell phone runs out of...fuel? Who gets fed first, the baby or the cell?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm too traumatized to answer that right now.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wardrobe-malfunction-nancy-grace-lets-a-nipple-slip-during-dwts-performance/