> On Mar 15, 5:40 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> > In article <163ec7f7-6987-4db2-a71b-9e6ca750b...@v7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > >On Mar 15, 10:26 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:42:26 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > >> >>>I am not sure what you mean when you say go commando, you mean like
> > >> >>>undress into another state then solid?
> > >> >>Last time I noticed, "going commando" meant "wearing no
> > >> >>underwear." Heaven only knows why.
> > >> >Going "with no support".
> > >> OK. But do we wear underpants for support?
> > >> --
> > >> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> > >> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> > >> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> > >> - James Madison
> > >For guys there is a need to prevent chafing and in some cases,
> > >tripping.
> > >as for women, they do seem to think they need some, it was certainly
> > >a concern for Elastigirl of The Incredibles. but most underpants
> > >design seem to be for esthetics and not to defy gravity
> > >not sure about kilt wearers
> > Kilt wearers do NOT wear underpants. Not if they're Scottish and
> > born to the tradition, anyway.
> Which is a major plot point in the old British Movie "Carry On... Up
> the Khyber".
> : Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond looks after the British outpost near the
> Khybar pass.
> : Protected by the kilted Third Foot and Mouth regiment, you would
> think they
> : were safe. But the Khazi of Kalabar has other ideas. He wants all
> the British
> : dead! But his troops fear the "skirted-devils"; they are rumoured
> not to wear
> : anything underneath. Then one is caught with his pants on
> In the final battle, the British soldier are ordered to raise their
> kilts to prove that they have no underwear. The locals flee in panic:
> The Khasi of Kalabar: What are you running from? There's nothing to be
> afraid of [turns to look at the exposed regiment] Ooh, I dunno though!
> Cheers,
> Nigel.
Is it a kilt wearer with rubberboots up for a pleasant or unpleasant
surprise?
> On Mar 15, 5:40 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> > In article <163ec7f7-6987-4db2-a71b-9e6ca750b...@v7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > >On Mar 15, 10:26 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:42:26 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > >> >>>I am not sure what you mean when you say go commando, you mean like
> > >> >>>undress into another state then solid?
> > >> >>Last time I noticed, "going commando" meant "wearing no
> > >> >>underwear." Heaven only knows why.
> > >> >Going "with no support".
> > >> OK. But do we wear underpants for support?
> > >> --
> > >> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> > >> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> > >> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> > >> - James Madison
> > >For guys there is a need to prevent chafing and in some cases,
> > >tripping.
> > >as for women, they do seem to think they need some, it was certainly
> > >a concern for Elastigirl of The Incredibles. but most underpants
> > >design seem to be for esthetics and not to defy gravity
> > >not sure about kilt wearers
> > Kilt wearers do NOT wear underpants. Not if they're Scottish and
> > born to the tradition, anyway.
> Which is a major plot point in the old British Movie "Carry On... Up
> the Khyber".
> : Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond looks after the British outpost near the
> Khybar pass.
> : Protected by the kilted Third Foot and Mouth regiment, you would
> think they
> : were safe. But the Khazi of Kalabar has other ideas. He wants all
> the British
> : dead! But his troops fear the "skirted-devils"; they are rumoured
> not to wear
> : anything underneath. Then one is caught with his pants on
> In the final battle, the British soldier are ordered to raise their
> kilts to prove that they have no underwear. The locals flee in panic:
> The Khasi of Kalabar: What are you running from? There's nothing to be
> afraid of [turns to look at the exposed regiment] Ooh, I dunno though!
> Cheers,
> Nigel.
Sigourney certainly had her share of charges in this exciting sexy
scene :D, what to expect she is waiting for gozer realy hovering for
him ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc4g1glBT8U
> On 16 mar, 12:09, Nigel <ncwa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 5:40 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> > > In article <163ec7f7-6987-4db2-a71b-9e6ca750b...@v7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > > >On Mar 15, 10:26 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:42:26 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > > >> >>>I am not sure what you mean when you say go commando, you mean like
> > > >> >>>undress into another state then solid?
> > > >> >>Last time I noticed, "going commando" meant "wearing no
> > > >> >>underwear." Heaven only knows why.
> > > >> >Going "with no support".
> > > >> OK. But do we wear underpants for support?
> > > >> --
> > > >> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> > > >> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> > > >> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> > > >> - James Madison
> > > >For guys there is a need to prevent chafing and in some cases,
> > > >tripping.
> > > >as for women, they do seem to think they need some, it was certainly
> > > >a concern for Elastigirl of The Incredibles. but most underpants
> > > >design seem to be for esthetics and not to defy gravity
> > > >not sure about kilt wearers
> > > Kilt wearers do NOT wear underpants. Not if they're Scottish and
> > > born to the tradition, anyway.
> > Which is a major plot point in the old British Movie "Carry On... Up
> > the Khyber".
> > : Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond looks after the British outpost near the
> > Khybar pass.
> > : Protected by the kilted Third Foot and Mouth regiment, you would
> > think they
> > : were safe. But the Khazi of Kalabar has other ideas. He wants all
> > the British
> > : dead! But his troops fear the "skirted-devils"; they are rumoured
> > not to wear
> > : anything underneath. Then one is caught with his pants on
> > In the final battle, the British soldier are ordered to raise their
> > kilts to prove that they have no underwear. The locals flee in panic:
> > The Khasi of Kalabar: What are you running from? There's nothing to be
> > afraid of [turns to look at the exposed regiment] Ooh, I dunno though!
> > Cheers,
> > Nigel.
> Sigourney certainly had her share of charges in this exciting sexy
> scene :D, what to expect she is waiting for gozer realy hovering for
> him ;Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc4g1glBT8U
I think the idea behind naming a god gozer must be from the word
gossan it is ground heavily eroded by oxidation proper for mining.
Tower of bable story probably have something todo with the Khyber
gossan ground, it is pure speculation as always.
:: 2) Not all variable stars are due to dark companions.
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Mar.2012>
: Algol doesn't have a "dark companion" other than a planet.
I didn't say it did. The term "dark companion" includes planets,
rather obviously. The point is, an object that has mass, but does not emit light on its own.
: You are repeating Einstein's bullshit.
Einstein said planets have mass and sisn't emit light on their own?
I hadn't heard he mentioned it specifically. And you disagree with that?
How clever of you.
Nevertheless,
1) Algolis not in another galaxy
2) Orbital dynamics involving a planet is not the only way
to get a variable star
: You want stars that blow themselves to smithereens twice
Oh, now you're just halucinating.
I've said no such thing, and wish no such thing.
Get back on your meds.
: JT <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com>
: Wayne, you can beleive what ever you want even that a comet actually
: did go down in the Gulf of Mexico, it never did but it passed close
: enough to leave a trail of matter and charged particles.
Ah. Pseudovelikovskianism. Well, good luck with that.
But it's irrelevant to your implied claim that circular craters from impacts can only occur with perpendicular trajectories. That's been
experimentally shown to be incorrect, so insisting it's true can't
be sustained on the usual BS of "establishment science is being mean
and unfair and overlooking the obvious" at the root of velikovskianism
and pseudovelikovslianism.
> :: 2) Not all variable stars are due to dark companions.
> : "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Mar.2012>
> : Algol doesn't have a "dark companion" other than a planet.
> I didn't say it did. The term "dark companion" includes planets,
> rather obviously. The point is, an object that has mass, but does
> not emit light on its own.
What does that have to do with the light companion that does
emit light on its own?
> : You are repeating Einstein's bullshit.
> Einstein said planets have mass and sisn't emit light on their own?
> I hadn't heard he mentioned it specifically. And you disagree with that?
Einstein said
"At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour."
So yes, I do disagree with that. Of course, planets don't usually eclipse stars, do they?
> How clever of you.
Thank you, although being able to read isn't especially clever.
> Nevertheless,
> 1) Algolis not in another galaxy
I never said it was, I said variables are found in other galaxies.
> 2) Orbital dynamics involving a planet is not the only way
> to get a variable star
Yes it is.
> : You want stars that blow themselves to smithereens twice
> Oh, now you're just halucinating.
> I've said no such thing, and wish no such thing.
> Get back on your meds.
Carry on putting your head up your arse and snipping, never doing
any research, dumbfuck.
::: I never said it was, I said variables are found in other galaxies.
:: And pointed to Algol as an illustration. Which it isn't.
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Mar.2012>
: Proof by emphatic assertion.
No, the proof is by the fact that it's only 29 parsecs distant.
Do you have any proof that no mechanism besides orbital mechanics exists?
Or that orbital mechanics can produce a proportionality between brightness
and period? If so, you haven't mentioned it. Whereas I did mention
Algol's distance.
I objected to Algol as an example, and to the rather obviously bogus
(for reasons just above) assertion that any variable implies a planet.
And that's because Algol isn't an example, and orbital mechanics can't
explain all variables, cepheids in particular. Are cepheids eclipsing
binaries? No. Are there doppler shifts involved? No. There's no
evidence that their variability is due to orbital mechanics, and
strong evidence (the proportionality to luminosity) that it isn't.
In any event, current methods for detecting planets all have to do with
brightness curves, or doppler shifts, or both. Which can be applied at
unlimited distances, providing only that you can resolve the star so
you're getting data from just the one source. So it seems clear that
it's at least possible to detect planets at intergalactic distances.
Difficult, but possible.
> ::: I never said it was, I said variables are found in other galaxies.
> :: And pointed to Algol as an illustration. Which it isn't.
> : "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Mar.2012>
> : Proof by emphatic assertion.
> No, the proof is by the fact that it's only 29 parsecs distant.
> Do you have any proof that no mechanism besides orbital mechanics exists?
> Or that orbital mechanics can produce a proportionality between brightness
> and period? If so, you haven't mentioned it. Whereas I did mention
> Algol's distance.
> I objected to Algol as an example, and to the rather obviously bogus
> (for reasons just above) assertion that any variable implies a planet.
> And that's because Algol isn't an example, and orbital mechanics can't
> explain all variables, cepheids in particular. Are cepheids eclipsing
> binaries? No. Are there doppler shifts involved? No. There's no
> evidence that their variability is due to orbital mechanics, and
> strong evidence (the proportionality to luminosity) that it isn't.
> In any event, current methods for detecting planets all have to do with
> brightness curves, or doppler shifts, or both. Which can be applied at
> unlimited distances, providing only that you can resolve the star so
> you're getting data from just the one source. So it seems clear that
> it's at least possible to detect planets at intergalactic distances.
> Difficult, but possible.
> > Algol is not in another galaxy. It's only about 29 parsecs distant.
> > : If you find a variable, you've found a planet.
> > Not all variables are due to the mechanism hypothesized for Algol.
> > Cephid variables, for example, aren't due to any compansion bodies.
> > Not even all variables which are due to two stars occluding each other
> > have planets; it's the details of the brightness curve that's the
> > key point in the reference.
> > So, oh for two.
> The sum of the square roots of any two
> sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to
> the square root of the remaining side.
I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain
>: JT <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com>
>: Wayne, you can beleive what ever you want even that a comet actually
>: did go down in the Gulf of Mexico, it never did but it passed close
>: enough to leave a trail of matter and charged particles.
> Ah. Pseudovelikovskianism. Well, good luck with that.
Not even Velikovsky ever claimed that long jump records were broken by
his planetary billiards. This is madder even than that.
(I note his ignorance of electromagnetics as well: charged particles
will not hang around for long periods of time in the Earth's atmosphere,
sorry. Perhaps he got his physics from Star Trek, where charged trails
of thisandthat seem to hang around for weeks on end?)
> >: JT <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com>
> >: Wayne, you can beleive what ever you want even that a comet actually
> >: did go down in the Gulf of Mexico, it never did but it passed close
> >: enough to leave a trail of matter and charged particles.
> > Ah. Pseudovelikovskianism. Well, good luck with that.
> Not even Velikovsky ever claimed that long jump records were broken by
> his planetary billiards. This is madder even than that.
> (I note his ignorance of electromagnetics as well: charged particles
> will not hang around for long periods of time in the Earth's atmosphere,
> sorry. Perhaps he got his physics from Star Trek, where charged trails
> of thisandthat seem to hang around for weeks on end?)
> --
> NULL && (void)
Oh they are filling the air during full moon, basicly the negative
moon act like a katod attracting the positive charges from suns anod
that stream proton all over us when we are between problem is when
electrons from earths inner leak up due to alkalic ground and we get
tornados. I do not care that much about lenghtjumpers allthough the
raising electron is the reason for the air getting a drag upwards.
: The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
: if a woman were to talk like Wayne Throop,
: they would say she is suffering from
: some sort of rare brain disease.
A pituitary tumor, perhaps.
Something to embiggen the vocal chords
and lower the voice register.
> > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:34:16 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:
> > > Ah. Pseudovelikovskianism....
> > [chortle]
> > I gotta save this one up for one of those days when it's raining anvils.
> > --
> > RLW
> The truth is...
> I mean, the real real truth is..
> if a woman were to talk like Wayne Throop,
> they would say she is suffering from
> some sort of rare brain disease.
> But if a man talks that way...?
> With the thoughts I'd be thinkin' I could be another Lincoln If I only had a brainnnnn.
> The Starmaker
I know this is going to be ...difficult
for some of yous to hear..
(because the truth usually is)
so, I'll give it to you slowly...
If a guy is 8 feet tall
they don't say he's..
"Highly tall", they say things
like, he's got some "rare hormonal disorder".
He's needs to be cured of it..
World's tallest man finally stops growing at 8' 3' in height
Sultan Kosen of Turkey has finally stopped growing after nearly
two years following a neurosurgery at the University of Virginia for his
rare hormonal disorder that caused him to keep growing well into adulthood.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321318
You get what I mean? You understand where I'm coming from?
> > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:34:16 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:
> > > > Ah. Pseudovelikovskianism....
> > > [chortle]
> > > I gotta save this one up for one of those days when it's raining anvils.
> > > --
> > > RLW
> > The truth is...
> > I mean, the real real truth is..
> > if a woman were to talk like Wayne Throop,
> > they would say she is suffering from
> > some sort of rare brain disease.
> > But if a man talks that way...?
> > With the thoughts I'd be thinkin' I could be another Lincoln If I only had a brainnnnn.
> > The Starmaker
> I know this is going to be ...difficult
> for some of yous to hear..
> (because the truth usually is)
> so, I'll give it to you slowly...
> If a guy is 8 feet tall
> they don't say he's..
> "Highly tall", they say things
> like, he's got some
> "rare hormonal disorder".
> He's needs to be cured of it..
> World's tallest man finally stops growing at 8' 3' in height
> Sultan Kosen of Turkey has finally stopped growing after nearly
> two years following a neurosurgery at the University of Virginia for his
> rare hormonal disorder that caused him to keep growing well into adulthood.
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321318
> You get what I mean? You understand where I'm coming from?
<tphi...@cableone.net> wrote:
>On Mar 17, 6:35 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> > RLW wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:34:16 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> > > > Ah. Pseudovelikovskianism....
>> > > [chortle]
>> > > I gotta save this one up for one of those days when it's raining anvils.
>> > > --
>> > > RLW
>> > The truth is...
>> > I mean, the real real truth is..
>> > if a woman were to talk like Wayne Throop,
>> > they would say she is suffering from
>> > some sort of rare brain disease.
>> > But if a man talks that way...?
>> > With the thoughts I'd be thinkin' I could be another Lincoln If I only had a brainnnnn.
>> > The Starmaker
>> I know this is going to be ...difficult
>> for some of yous to hear..
>> (because the truth usually is)
>> so, I'll give it to you slowly...
>> If a guy is 8 feet tall
>> they don't say he's..
>> "Highly tall", they say things
>> like, he's got some
>> "rare hormonal disorder".
>> He's needs to be cured of it..
>> World's tallest man finally stops growing at 8' 3' in height
>> Sultan Kosen of Turkey has finally stopped growing after nearly
>> two years following a neurosurgery at the University of Virginia for his
>> rare hormonal disorder that caused him to keep growing well into adulthood.
>> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321318
>> You get what I mean? You understand where I'm coming from?
>> The Starmaker
>Yes, you'll never be hired as a basketball scout
You could have left off the last 4 words there.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
> On 16 mar, 22:22, Nix <nix-razor-...@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 16 Mar 2012, Wayne Throop said:
> > >: JT <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com>
> > >: Wayne, you can beleive what ever you want even that a comet actually
> > >: did go down in the Gulf of Mexico, it never did but it passed close
> > >: enough to leave a trail of matter and charged particles.
> > > Ah. Pseudovelikovskianism. Well, good luck with that.
> > Not even Velikovsky ever claimed that long jump records were broken by
> > his planetary billiards. This is madder even than that.
> > (I note his ignorance of electromagnetics as well: charged particles
> > will not hang around for long periods of time in the Earth's atmosphere,
> > sorry. Perhaps he got his physics from Star Trek, where charged trails
> > of thisandthat seem to hang around for weeks on end?)
> > --
> > NULL && (void)
> Oh they are filling the air during full moon, basicly the negative
> moon act like a katod attracting the positive charges from suns anod
> that stream proton all over us when we are between problem is when
> electrons from earths inner leak up due to alkalic ground and we get
> tornados. I do not care that much about lenghtjumpers allthough the
> raising electron is the reason for the air getting a drag upwards.
> And you my ignorant friend is basicly and idiot.
To be more exact positive charges bombard our magnetosphere looking
for a weak spot, and when they find it they do attract electrons in
the ground, that is why it so important to have underwear. You
clueless imbecile missed all the important thing in the thread.
Because you are simply not intelligent enough to understand the
metaphors dealing with this HUGE PROBLEM.
So there is a problem with acid rain and alkalic ground but it is not
global heating.........
But you and your theoretical physicist friends is just to fucking
stupid to understand it.
I built this do you understand how it work, because mechanical work is
what it does?
Do you understand the principles behind it working?
No you don't because you are an idiot, only learning to master
idiocies without understanding forces like gravity and centrifugal
force at a university, the guys at military intelligence and the space
agencies all jknow you have the head up your asses for the at least
the last 8 decades. And they let you stay there, because they really
do not want this to be common knowledge.
They laugh at Stephen Hawking and Einstein because they have so
fucking ridiculous ideas of how things work.
: JT <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com>
: To be more exact positive charges bombard our magnetosphere looking
: for a weak spot, and when they find it they do attract electrons in
: the ground, that is why it so important to have underwear.
Ah. *Faux* paeudovelikovskianism. As a joke and all.
Ha ha. Very funny. But it does makes a bit more sense.
