Chez Watt Ballot, September 10th, 2007
Harvest Dancer
wireless network stinks.
It seems that some of our newer contributors are competing to see who
can outproduce the rest. This ballot is very interesting.
Vote early, vote often.
Jason
======
Nominated in the category "Why use one word when thirty will do."
Let me just confirm this by _re_nominating it, in the
category "a thing of beauty is a joy forever":
>This is where you VOTE on Chez Watts, not where you MAKE Chez Watts,
>you elephant-blower duck-fucker donkey-shit-packer sniffing-the-seats-
>of-children's-bicycles-for-a-cheap-thrill baboon-jizz-gargler rhino-
>butthole-licker moron dumbhead stupidhead stupidass dumbass idiot
>pyrohomobestialpedonecrophile!
======
In the category 'My word!'
>> So you would say that an American Robin is a bird,
> Right.
>> but a Turdus migratorius is not,
> Right
>> even if they are the same individual?
> Right.
> You don't refer to them that way, but as Aves.
======
In the "Nothing Has Meaning" Catagory:
>No one has ever seen a 'car'. 'Car' is a generic term used to refer to
>a class of objects, each of which is a particular make and model.
======
In the "Everything I Needed To Know About Alan Turing I Learned From
the
Back of a Cereal Box" category:
> The Turing Test is biased towards mechanisms that are set up to behave in
> such a way as to pass the Turing Test.
======
In the Turing Test for Intelligent Argument category:
> "Nullius in Verba"
> translates nicely to "show me the code".
======
In the category "Flaw routine":
> > Then you seem to be saying, the robot, whose behaviour can be
> > explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics,
> > couldn't have its behaviour explained by people who don't believe it
> > isn't consciously experiencing.
> You really can't see where torturing grammar like this could be an
> obstacle to communication? This is not fucking gymnastics. There's no
> French judge who's going to score you higher because he likes how your
> bottom moves when you perform a triple negative.
======
In the "Everybody must get stoned" category:
> > So how do you determine if a human is conscious?
> If she walks
> Just like a robot
> And she talks
> Just like a robot
> And she grasps
> Just like a robot
> And she thinks just like an ANN
======
In the "_now_ I understand!" category:
> >> Just one Lego, but it needs to be red.
> > You're positive a fluctuating green one won't work?
> Look, it's obvious that if you were to break the lego up into its
> component atoms, no atom would be "red". Yet redness obviously affects
> the lego, so it must be spiritual. I'm obviously right, because while I
> don't understand light, spectral absorption, or how to make that Lego
> Mindstorms tower talk to my Linux box, I do have the ability to repeat
> myself until your ears bleed. Thus dualism.
QED.
======
In the category, Proportions for Half-wits:
> We were talking about the PROPORTION of animals that are fossilized,
> you moron. PROPORTIONALLY, hundreds of billions more snails were
> fossilized than T Rex's. That is what is under discussion, you
> baboon.
======
Nominated in the category "It's easier once you get tenure"
> > Isn't a "current model" of planetary formation kind of pointless since
> > the word, "current", implies a kind of moving target and "model"
> > suggests a conjecture? This seems to mean that one must know of the
> > entire history of "current models" to understand the current "current
> > model". By the time one finishes the study there will be new "current
> > model" rendering all that effort obsolete.
> Welcome to grad school!
======
>From the "Baked Alaska to Curly Fries" Dept.
> >> ....the Greeks had no problems at all with guys boinking guys,
> >> but they sure did look down on non manly men...
> > Would this be a good time to stand around not wearing much at all and
> > shouting "This is Sparta!"?
> > I'll get me cloak...
> TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL! Tomorrow, I'm thinking Arby's.
======
> Since we know that there was no global flood, the storyteller could not
> have been offering a historical claim.
Chez Wat?
======
>>> I worship a Man who walked the Earth at one time; I suggest that you
>>> admit the obvious and face yourself.
>> All evidence - and common sense tells us that that man never walked
>> the Earth, it is just the latest version of an ancient myth.
> Sorry, Rolf, but I've seen the videos. I'm afraid Gene Scott really did
> walk the Earth.
Here by nominated for a chez watt.
======
I know the original poster was joking. But this made me laugh. :)
> > the human eye and evolution.... a contradiction in terms.
> > Think...
> (snip)
> This would appear to be where you departed from your own script.
======
In the Drug, kicking and screaming dept:
> >I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
> >some argument or theory.
> Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
> Notice anything?
Looks like a case of refer madness.
======
> Could it be that the reason we don't find them before 13,000 BC is
> because they weren't used as extensively due to their inneffectiveness
> vs megafauna and because before that date man had not yet learned to
> fit arrow heads on them?
> Or is there some other smoking gun that proves they were not in use
> before 13000?
How do you find a smoking gun that proves it was not fired?
Chez Watt?
======
>>> The Earth is the only known planet in our Solar System which can
>>> support life. It contains water, reasonable levels of oxygen, and a
>>> stable temperature range. Geometrically speaking, Earth is the
>>> largest of the terrestrial (rocky) planets in the solar system.
>> He's not referring to the study of rocks. He's making it clear
>> that the Earth is the largest rocky planet *geometrically* -
>> as opposed to being the largest in some way that doesn't
>> involve geometry.
>> Conservapedia is all about clarity.
> It's still kind of funny in the clunky conservapedia sort of way.
> They're like those people who audition for American Idol and don't
> know they can't sing.
Good one.
Suggested category: Andrew, meet Sanjaya. Sanjaya, Andrew.
======
In the category "If it has no Wiki entry it doesn't exist":
>You do know that "Descent with Modification" is not defined. There is
>no Wikipedia entry for it.
======
> > I probably brought that up several times allready, but my discussion
> > with a young Christan who tells everybody at every opportunity how
> > she read the NT from cover to cover where she looked at me blankly
> > and asked "What's the Sermon of the Mound?" was a real eye-opener to
> > me. Obviously there are quite different meanings to the word "study".
> I don't know what the Sermon of the Mound is, either. Is that
> something that ought to be discussed in the Barry Bonds/AiG thread?
In the category "Bezboll been berry, berry good to me"
======
> Confucius was not a scientist but only in a way of paradoxy. He
> said that he is expert professor in office but in his daily 8-hour
> work he only presses button of copy-maschine.
Aw, what the hell, this /whole post/ is a Chez Watt.
======
In the "I thought this only happened in Amsterdam coffee shops"
category:
> But paractically when usual man in
> Finland has drunk to cups of coffee he at once speaks about Jesus if
> he meets educated man.
======
This whole exchange is Chez Watt nominated, under
the "no, no, it's entropy all the way down"
category:
>>>>> I went away for five days and when I came back
>>>>> there were over 3,000 new articles in
>>>>> talk.origins
>>>>> What the bloody hell is there left to say?!
>>>> I guess there is nothing left for you to do but
>>>> go and crawl back under the rock you came from.
>>> Don't you know that Darwinists don't come from
>>> under rocks?
>>> (Is this another form of Intelligent Delivery,
>>> along with Scientific Storkism,
>>> Cabbage-Patch-ism, and so on?)
>>> Darwinists come from *monkeys*!
>> ...unlike Creationists, who come from dirt.
> And at that are an example of devolution.
======
Nominated for the "Orange Covered Physics" award.
> Conditions vary. You cannot merely calculate entropy unless you know
> all the conditions. Some conditions are more conducive to entropy
> than others.
======
In the "If At First You Don't Succeed" Department:
>> Reminds me--I've got a book around here somewhere by another NASA
>> engineer, entitled "89 Reasons Why The Rapture of the Church Will
>> Happen in 1989."
>> Ok, it's a bit out of date.
> ITYM "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
> Of course, you may have the second edition.
======
>From the Creationist Chemistry Dept.:
> For example, if you suddenly
> found in chem class, that hydrogen will not combine with 2 oxygens to
> form water, under any cicumstance, and you kept REPLICATING this over
> and over again, you would falsify a good bit of chemistry.
======
In the Beginning, there was Coffee
> >>> so...yeah, you're wrong, unless you can prove the universe is infinitely
> >>> big.
> >> What would be beyond its boundaries?
> > What lies north of the north pole?
> Starbucks, probably.
======
In the category "But I've never Kippled before..."
> >>>>>5. Give One evidence for the
> >>>>>Tower of Babel origin of language.
> >>>THE BIBLE!
> >>I'm not sure that counts as evidence. Even if it's in all caps. Give one
> >>evidence that elephants got their long trunks with the help of a
> >>friendly crocodile. (Hint: see Kipling.)
> > Sorry, but you're wrong.
> > The crocodile was *not* friendly. It just pretended to be, and shed
> > crocodile tears to deceive the elephant child and exploit his
> > 'satiable curtisosity.
> > It's important to get the technical details correct.
> Technical details, you say? Were you there? The crocodile was quite
> friendly, though the bicoloured python rock snake was not. He shed
> crocodile tears to demonstrate that he was indeed a crocodile, not for
> any deceptive purposes. Now it may happen that the answer to the
> question "What does the crocodile have for dinner?" was not a welcome
> one, but it was given in a helpful manner. This is exactly the sort of
> problem we expect from a person operating at the fringes of science.
======
In the category, "Tolerance Incarnate":
> I don't usually notice a person's mitochondria, but perhaps I'm just
> open minded.
======
Isolated population:
> >Did language evolve?
> For some of us.
======
In the category of "telling it like it is" -
> You have no idea, apparently, what "ad hominem" means. It takes the form
> "X is a bad person, therefore his claims are invalid". I have done
> nothing of the sort. I've said you're a nut, but never that your claims
> are wrong because you're a nut. It's the other way around, in fact: we
> know you're a nut because of your claims and the manner in which you
> present them.
======
Nominated portion, in the category of "far too true for anyone's
good":
>There's any amount of Quixotes round here, tilting at windmills. And not
>one of them has a Sancho Panza to keep them sane ...
======
In the "Just because they're different, doesn't make them different"
department:
> Differential reproductive success gets you: differential reproductive
> success, not change.
======
In the category 'Revolt of the Machines':
>> Therefore, I argue, that if it takes intelligence to make
>> a computer program, it would also take intelligence to make life,
>> and/ or improvments to life?
> I'm sorry, but that just doesn't follow. It takes a computer to
> make a computer program. Does that then mean that it takes a
> computer to make life? Is god using a Cray?, an IBM PC? Maybe he
> was tempted by an Apple?
======
>From the "Why You Should Brush Five Times a Day and Face Toward Mecca"
Dept.
> "Would you stop for a moment?!
> Haven't you thought-one day- about tooth decay ?
> Who has made it?
> Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
> Have you seen a wonderful,delicate erosion without a erosioner ?!
> It's your rotten teeth and the whole universe!..
> Who has made them all ?!!
> You know who ?.. It's "THE TOOTH FAIRY",prised be your teeth.
> Just think for a moment.
> How are your teeth going to be after death ?!
> Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of
> these great decay will end in nothing...just after death!
> Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from THE TOOTH
> FAIRY's
> punishment?!
> Haven't you thought about what is the right level of toothache?!
> Here you will get the answerhttp://www.gnashed.net/flash/badb_reath.swfhttp://www.todayiambored.c..."
> Ithangyou.
======
In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
> Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
> hydrogen started fusing.
======
In the category "Some lists are worse to be on than others"...
> I've made a little list - I've made a little list...
> Of inconvenient posters who might well be stellar-bound,
> And never would be missed, no never to be missed!
> There's pestilential nuisances who write for paragraphs -
> All people claiming silly things and trolling just for laughs -
> All Loonies posting lists of dates, and floor you with them flat -
> All persons who in posting quotes, post quotes all 'missing that' -
> And all third persons who in spoiling relevant threads persist -
> They'd none of them be missed - they'd none of them be missed!
> There's the woodpeck-tongue-left-nose-inserter, and others of his race,
> And the Make-Money-Faster - I've got him on the list!
> And people who find mangled cites and post them "in-your-face",
> They never would be missed - they never would be missed!
> Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
> All centuries but this, and no religion but his own;
> And the poster from Atlantic provinces, who likes to rant and lie,
> And who "doesn't like rude words in use", but sure gives it a try;
> And that singular anomaly; the Willykins-when-not-pissed
> I don't think HE'D be missed - I'm *sure* he'd not be missed!
> (...)
======
In the "there's no place like home" category:
> >> About 2000 years is my opinion for the maximum length of hell.
> > How long is Satan spending in Hell?
> Only 31 days a year. He claims it as his permanent residence for tax
> reasons, but the rest of the year he lives in Los Angeles.
======
This is so wrong it can't even be used to make an elephant float:
> So lets suppose the moon which had cooled, and had a great deal of
> salt water in its interior, lost that water to space, and it rained
> down on the earth, cooling the earth, causing the ice ages.
======
I nominate this gem for a Chez Watt in mathematics, for succinctly
demonstrating the mathematical property of exponential distribution
over
addition, which very few mathematicians know about:
> You forgot to add the speed of the Solar System circling the Milky Way
> 12 x 10^12 tonnes
> Plus the amount from circling the Sun
> 2.3 x 10^12
> Total 14.3 x 10^24 tonnes
======
In the "Ceci n'est pas expansion" category
> If you mean than
> material would gain volume by expanding, then that's all wrong.
======
Chez Watt, "written on the wind, written on the
waters, written _where_?" division:
> You claim the pattern on the ocean floor is
> explained by subduction and that I just ignore to
> put them in, but I am saying before you can
> subduct anything you need to be able to move it to
> them and that will leave tracks. So roll it
> backwards.
Yeesh.
======
> And this from the most idiotic, ignored and illiterate poster in this ng.
> How ironic.
Indeed.
======
Cataloged under "Quick! Call my proctologist! It's an emergency!"
> Oh yeah?
> I shit bigger apes than you.
======
> "law" is entirely made up, attempting to sound scientific, there is no
> such thing in the universe. The same was crafted to replace God.
Shouldn't this be a Chez Watt?
> I am a OEC - idiot.
Yes, you are an "OEC idiot". What took you so long to realize it?
======
In the category "I learned it from a book with orange covers"
<snip>
>> Here. Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
>> It has nothing to do with dark energy.
> Wikipedia is wrong.
> I know what dark energy is, trust me on that one.
======
> Our gravitational field is greater, the moon is less dense, we have a
> stronger gravitational field so they fall into the earth's gravity
> well. And our magnetic field probably attracts them as well.
> We have a lot of water, we are sending out dark energy waves through
> space, with a water frequency.
> So like waves cancel out and that creates a potential attraction.
> That is how like matter attracts in space.
I'm afraid that a simple "Chez Watt" is insufficient for this. Can
someone come up with a new award for this? Perhaps the "railroad
spike through temples" award or something.
======
>> Even so, as mentioned above, many of
>> the extinctions were not
>> synchronous with the last deglaciation.
> Mostly because the deglaciation happened at
> different times in different parts of the
> world, or so they are speculating at present.
Umm, you do realized that the world's oceans
are connected, and that water seeks its own
level [modulo a bunch of details that don't matter
here], right?
So that sea level increases all around the world
would be synchronized, even if the deglaciations
were not (separately nonsense for the size of ice
melt change you are pretending)?
So that coastal flooding would _not_ happen at
different times even if the local glaciers melted at
different times?
So different glacier melting times would have
exactly zero explanatory power for why the megafauna
deaths were not synchronized?
[As opposed, say, to human settlement
scheduling, and population levels,
surprisingly well in synchrony with
megafauna extinctions?]
Just wondering whether you are astonishingly
gullible about what you believe from your "well
demonstrated to be rankly inaccurate" sources.
======
O, my, chaos! This imbecile is a Chez Watt gold
mine!
File this one under the "early invention of
underwater writing instruments posited" division.
> There was once a place called Sundaland, little
> boy. It is now under water. To the people who
> lived on it, Sundaland was THE WORLD. Therefore,
> if a story written in Sundaland said that the
> whole world flooded, IT WAS UTTERLY TRUE!
Unless it was written by a clairvoyant, before the
fact, there are some tiny but crucial holes in your
logic there, what with "Sundaland" being bereft of
population, submerged at the time (making writing
there somewhat difficult), and all.
======
File this one under the "thick as a brick, but can
tap dance and wave hands asynchronously" division:
> Nope. The intent of the story is to tell why God
> had to clean up the world, and to tell from where
> the Israelites came. For all you know, the
> rainbow bit was added to explain rainbows to
> children by a fable-loving shaman.
This is different in forwarding the work of
debunking the bible from "the whole thing is the
work of fable loving shamans", exactly how?
You let the camel's nose slide right into the tent.
You've just murdered your own team, wholesale, in an
event of mass extinction via abject stupidity rarely
seen even in talk.origins.
======
In the "Who you gonna believe, Don or your lying eyes" category:
> Just because you have a mechanism doesn't validate the observations
======
Nominated in the category "Non-subductive plate arithmetics"
>>Nobody is ignoring the data, they are just questioning your
>>interpretation of it - especially the fact that you are not taking the
>>subduction zones into account when you construct your model.
> It has been shown to account for all the ocean crust with out them.
> The need add subduction is unnecessary.
======
Perplexed in Peoria
"Harvest Dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1189532050....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Vote early, vote often.
--------------
I like this one. After all, I nominated it.
> Nominated in the category "It's easier once you get tenure"
>
> > > Isn't a "current model" of planetary formation kind of pointless since
> > > the word, "current", implies a kind of moving target and "model"
> > > suggests a conjecture? This seems to mean that one must know of the
> > > entire history of "current models" to understand the current "current
> > > model". By the time one finishes the study there will be new "current
> > > model" rendering all that effort obsolete.
>
> > Welcome to grad school!
--------------
Also deserving, since you ask us to vote often:
>
> Nominated for the "Orange Covered Physics" award.
>
> > Conditions vary. You cannot merely calculate entropy unless you know
> > all the conditions. Some conditions are more conducive to entropy
> > than others.
-------------
And a third place vote for this one:
> In the "If At First You Don't Succeed" Department:
>
> >> Reminds me--I've got a book around here somewhere by another NASA
> >> engineer, entitled "89 Reasons Why The Rapture of the Church Will
> >> Happen in 1989."
>
> >> Ok, it's a bit out of date.
>
> > ITYM "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988".
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
>
> > Of course, you may have the second edition.
------------
Not getting a vote, because it is simply a true statement about the
meaning of words, but I wish more people around here realized it.
> In the category of "telling it like it is" -
>
> > You have no idea, apparently, what "ad hominem" means. It takes the form
> > "X is a bad person, therefore his claims are invalid". I have done
> > nothing of the sort. I've said you're a nut, but never that your claims
> > are wrong because you're a nut. It's the other way around, in fact: we
> > know you're a nut because of your claims and the manner in which you
> > present them.
And the one about Gene Scott walking the Earth might have gotten a vote,
but I don't want anything to distract Ray from completing his paper.
Walter Bushell
Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ======
>
> >>> I worship a Man who walked the Earth at one time; I suggest that you
> >>> admit the obvious and face yourself.
>
> >> All evidence - and common sense tells us that that man never walked
> >> the Earth, it is just the latest version of an ancient myth.
>
> > Sorry, Rolf, but I've seen the videos. I'm afraid Gene Scott really did
> > walk the Earth.
>
> Here by nominated for a chez watt.
>
> ======
No votes for this, it's just the sad and simpleton truth.
POTM perhaps.
Walter Bushell
Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ======
>
> In the Drug, kicking and screaming dept:
>
> > >I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
> > >some argument or theory.
>
> > Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
> > Notice anything?
>
> Looks like a case of refer madness.
>
> ======
My votes for this one.
Garamond Lethe
Several good ones, but if I have to pick....
AC
This gets my vote
>
> In the "If At First You Don't Succeed" Department:
>
>>> Reminds me--I've got a book around here somewhere by another NASA
>>> engineer, entitled "89 Reasons Why The Rapture of the Church Will
>>> Happen in 1989."
>
>>> Ok, it's a bit out of date.
>
>> ITYM "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988".
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
>
>> Of course, you may have the second edition.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Faux_Pseudo
>
>> The Turing Test is biased towards mechanisms that are set up to behave in
>> such a way as to pass the Turing Test.
Number one!
>> >I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
>> >some argument or theory.
>
>> Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
>> Notice anything?
>
> Looks like a case of refer madness.
Number Three!
> In the Beginning, there was Coffee
>
>> >>> so...yeah, you're wrong, unless you can prove the universe is infinitely
>> >>> big.
>
>> >> What would be beyond its boundaries?
>
>> > What lies north of the north pole?
>
>> Starbucks, probably.
Number Two!
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- Get your ASCII Art T-Shirt:
http://www.keystroketshirts.com/ascii/dream-in-ascii-fullView.php
Noelie S. Alito
> Sorry about the tardiness, but I'm on business travel and the hotel's
> wireless network stinks.
Oh, complain, complain. In my day, when we were on the road
we had to phone in our Chez Watt ballots to a chain-smoking
lackey who used an old typewriter with a broken 'J' key.
> It seems that some of our newer contributors are competing to see who
> can outproduce the rest. This ballot is very interesting.
>
> Vote early, vote often.
>
> Jason
#1, timelessly appropriate for t.o:
> In the category of "telling it like it is" -
>
>> You have no idea, apparently, what "ad hominem" means. It takes the form
>> "X is a bad person, therefore his claims are invalid". I have done
>> nothing of the sort. I've said you're a nut, but never that your claims
>> are wrong because you're a nut. It's the other way around, in fact: we
>> know you're a nut because of your claims and the manner in which you
>> present them.
#2, which I will probably overuse, myself:
> In the "Be careful what you wish for" category
>
>>> www.helpmebecomeastar.com
>
>> Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
>> hydrogen started fusing.
There were so many more keepers, but I exercised rare discipline
and cut it off at two.
Noelie
--
<my_name>@<capital_of_Texas>.rr.com
Lee Jay
Votes for these two:
> ======
>
> In the "Everything I Needed To Know About Alan Turing I Learned From
> the
> Back of a Cereal Box" category:
>
> > The Turing Test is biased towards mechanisms that are set up to behave in
> > such a way as to pass the Turing Test.
>
> ======
> ======
Richard Clayton
> Sorry about the tardiness, but I'm on business travel and the hotel's
> wireless network stinks.
The first time I read this I missed the t in your last word-- and,
assuming you were traveling by boat, I stopped to admire your
dedication to the Chez Watt cause.
In a break with my own tradition, this month I'm nominating only one.
I do this not from some perverse desire to make your job easier, but
because my first and second runner-up would have been my own...
VoiceOfReason
> ======
>
> In the "_now_ I understand!" category:
>
> > >> Just one Lego, but it needs to be red.
>
> > > You're positive a fluctuating green one won't work?
>
> > Look, it's obvious that if you were to break the lego up into its
> > component atoms, no atom would be "red". Yet redness obviously affects
> > the lego, so it must be spiritual. I'm obviously right, because while I
> > don't understand light, spectral absorption, or how to make that Lego
> > Mindstorms tower talk to my Linux box, I do have the ability to repeat
> > myself until your ears bleed. Thus dualism.
>
> QED.
>
> ======
SECOND CHOICE:
> ======
>
> Nominated for the "Orange Covered Physics" award.
>
> > Conditions vary. You cannot merely calculate entropy unless you know
> > all the conditions. Some conditions are more conducive to entropy
> > than others.
>
> ======
THIRD CHOICE:
johnetho...@yahoo.com
This was my absolute favorite story at one point, so it gets my vote.
And I thought at that time that shedding crocodile tears was clear
evidence that the crocodile was what he claimed to be.
Robert Carnegie
> >From the Creationist Chemistry Dept.:
>
> > For example, if you suddenly
> > found in chem class, that hydrogen will not combine with 2 oxygens to
> > form water, under any cicumstance, and you kept REPLICATING this over
> > and over again, you would falsify a good bit of chemistry.
Oh yes, well done... it's /deuterium/ that combines with two oxygen,
right? :-)
Geoff
> ======
>
> In the Drug, kicking and screaming dept:
>
>>> I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
>>> some argument or theory.
>
>> Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
>> Notice anything?
>
> Looks like a case of refer madness.
>
> ======
>> Or is there some other smoking gun that proves they were not in use
>> before 13000?
>
> How do you find a smoking gun that proves it was not fired?
>
> ======
>>> Conservapedia is all about clarity.
>
>> It's still kind of funny in the clunky conservapedia sort of way.
>> They're like those people who audition for American Idol and don't
>> know they can't sing.
>
> Good one.
>
> Suggested category: Andrew, meet Sanjaya. Sanjaya, Andrew.
>
> ======
>
> In the "If At First You Don't Succeed" Department:
>
>>> Reminds me--I've got a book around here somewhere by another NASA
>>> engineer, entitled "89 Reasons Why The Rapture of the Church Will
>>> Happen in 1989."
>
>>> Ok, it's a bit out of date.
>
>> ITYM "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988".
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
>
>> Of course, you may have the second edition.
>
> ======
>
>> From the Creationist Chemistry Dept.:
>
>> For example, if you suddenly
>> found in chem class, that hydrogen will not combine with 2 oxygens to
>> form water, under any cicumstance, and you kept REPLICATING this over
>> and over again, you would falsify a good bit of chemistry.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
>
>>> www.helpmebecomeastar.com
>
>> Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
>> hydrogen started fusing.
>
> ======
>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Harvest Dancer
<harves...@hotmail.com>:
>Sorry about the tardiness, but I'm on business travel and the hotel's
>wireless network stinks.
My sympathy; I've run into the "motel wireless from hell",
and it ain't pretty...
Lots of goodies this month...
These two in the "Linguistics" competition, 3rd and 2nd
Place respectively:
>In the "Nothing Has Meaning" Catagory:
>
>>No one has ever seen a 'car'. 'Car' is a generic term used to refer to
>>a class of objects, each of which is a particular make and model.
>In the category, Proportions for Half-wits:
>
>
>> We were talking about the PROPORTION of animals that are fossilized,
>> you moron. PROPORTIONALLY, hundreds of billions more snails were
>> fossilized than T Rex's. That is what is under discussion, you
>> baboon.
This one for Honorable Mention:
>>From the "Baked Alaska to Curly Fries" Dept.
>
>> >> ....the Greeks had no problems at all with guys boinking guys,
>> >> but they sure did look down on non manly men...
>
>> > Would this be a good time to stand around not wearing much at all and
>> > shouting "This is Sparta!"?
>
>> > I'll get me cloak...
>
>> TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL! Tomorrow, I'm thinking Arby's.
...and back in "Linguistics", for 1st Place:
>In the Drug, kicking and screaming dept:
>
>> >I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
>> >some argument or theory.
>
>> Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
>> Notice anything?
>
>Looks like a case of refer madness.
...and the remainder for Honorable Mention:
>In the category "If it has no Wiki entry it doesn't exist":
>
>>You do know that "Descent with Modification" is not defined. There is
>>no Wikipedia entry for it.
>
>======
>
>In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
>
>>> www.helpmebecomeastar.com
>
>> Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
>> hydrogen started fusing.
>
>======
>
>In the "Ceci n'est pas expansion" category
>
>> If you mean than
>> material would gain volume by expanding, then that's all wrong.
>
>======
>
>In the "Who you gonna believe, Don or your lying eyes" category:
>
>> Just because you have a mechanism doesn't validate the observations
>
>======
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Noelie S. Alito"
<noe...@deadspam.com>:
>Harvest Dancer wrote:
>> Sorry about the tardiness, but I'm on business travel and the hotel's
>> wireless network stinks.
>
>Oh, complain, complain. In my day, when we were on the road
>we had to phone in our Chez Watt ballots to a chain-smoking
>lackey who used an old typewriter with a broken 'J' key.
"Phones"? And "typewriters"?!? We had to scratch them on
papyrus and send them in by chariot drawn by tortoises,
where they were then transcribed onto stone tablets with
bone chisels and sent to DIG. And don't get me started about
the old guy on the mountain who found two of them, thought
he was getting something else and made a really big deal
about it.
<snip>
Perplexed in Peoria
Walter Bushell
Faux_Pseudo <Faux....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Number one!
>
> >> >I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
> >> >some argument or theory.
> >
> >> Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
> >> Notice anything?
> >
> > Looks like a case of refer madness.
>
> Number Three!
I know what number 1 is and what number 2 is and even number 1 1/2 but
number 3???
Sonofagunzel
This is my pick:
> In the "_now_ I understand!" category:
>
> > >> Just one Lego, but it needs to be red.
> > > You're positive a fluctuating green one won't work?
> > Look, it's obvious that if you were to break the lego up into its
> > component atoms, no atom would be "red". Yet redness obviously affects
> > the lego, so it must be spiritual. I'm obviously right, because while I
> > don't understand light, spectral absorption, or how to make that Lego
> > Mindstorms tower talk to my Linux box, I do have the ability to repeat
> > myself until your ears bleed. Thus dualism.
>
> QED.
>
> ======
Honourable mentions to these two:
> In the category of "telling it like it is" -
>
> > You have no idea, apparently, what "ad hominem" means. It takes the form
> > "X is a bad person, therefore his claims are invalid". I have done
> > nothing of the sort. I've said you're a nut, but never that your claims
> > are wrong because you're a nut. It's the other way around, in fact: we
> > know you're a nut because of your claims and the manner in which you
> > present them.
>
> ======
This one:
AC
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:11:50 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Noelie S. Alito"
><noe...@deadspam.com>:
>
>>Harvest Dancer wrote:
>>> Sorry about the tardiness, but I'm on business travel and the hotel's
>>> wireless network stinks.
>>
>>Oh, complain, complain. In my day, when we were on the road
>>we had to phone in our Chez Watt ballots to a chain-smoking
>>lackey who used an old typewriter with a broken 'J' key.
>
> "Phones"? And "typewriters"?!? We had to scratch them on
> papyrus and send them in by chariot drawn by tortoises,
> where they were then transcribed onto stone tablets with
> bone chisels and sent to DIG. And don't get me started about
> the old guy on the mountain who found two of them, thought
> he was getting something else and made a really big deal
> about it.
Papyrus! Oh you were lucky to have papyrus. We had to use sharp sticks and
carve the messages on our limbs, and then have them lopped off to be sent to
DIG.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Ferrous Patella
In the category, Proportions for Half-wits:
> We were talking about the PROPORTION of animals that are fossilized,
> you moron. PROPORTIONALLY, hundreds of billions more snails were
> fossilized than T Rex's. That is what is under discussion, you
> baboon.
In the category 'Revolt of the Machines':
>> Therefore, I argue, that if it takes intelligence to make
>> a computer program, it would also take intelligence to make life,
>> and/ or improvments to life?
> I'm sorry, but that just doesn't follow. It takes a computer to
> make a computer program. Does that then mean that it takes a
> computer to make life? Is god using a Cray?, an IBM PC? Maybe he
> was tempted by an Apple?
In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
Ymir
AC <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't even get me started on what we had to do waaaaay back when before
we had evolved limbs.
André
--
use rot thirteen to email
ntv...@tznvy.pbz
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1189532050....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
> Sorry about the tardiness, but I'm on business travel and the hotel's
> wireless network stinks.
That would be most of 'em.
>
> It seems that some of our newer contributors are competing to see who
> can outproduce the rest. This ballot is very interesting.
>
> Vote early, vote often.
>
> Jason
>
> ======
>
> Nominated in the category "Why use one word when thirty will do."
>
> Let me just confirm this by _re_nominating it, in the
> category "a thing of beauty is a joy forever":
>
>> This is where you VOTE on Chez Watts, not where you MAKE Chez Watts,
>> you elephant-blower duck-fucker donkey-shit-packer sniffing-the-seats-
>> of-children's-bicycles-for-a-cheap-thrill baboon-jizz-gargler rhino-
>> butthole-licker moron dumbhead stupidhead stupidass dumbass idiot
>> pyrohomobestialpedonecrophile!
>
Number One.
>
> In the category 'My word!'
>
>>> So you would say that an American Robin is a bird,
>
>> Right.
>
>>> but a Turdus migratorius is not,
>
>> Right
>
>>> even if they are the same individual?
>
>> Right.
>
>> You don't refer to them that way, but as Aves.
>
Number Two.
>
>> From the "Baked Alaska to Curly Fries" Dept.
>
>>>> ....the Greeks had no problems at all with guys boinking guys,
>>>> but they sure did look down on non manly men...
>
>>> Would this be a good time to stand around not wearing much at all and
>>> shouting "This is Sparta!"?
>
>>> I'll get me cloak...
>
>> TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL! Tomorrow, I'm thinking Arby's.
I'd vote for this one, but part of it is mine. It's still a thing of beauty,
though.
> In the category "If it has no Wiki entry it doesn't exist":
>
>> You do know that "Descent with Modification" is not defined. There is
>> no Wikipedia entry for it.
Number Three
>
> In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
>
>>> www.helpmebecomeastar.com
>
>> Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
>> hydrogen started fusing.
Nominated for Main Sequence Award.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
DuhIdiot
I wot not if I get a Watt vote, but:
First place, just too on-target:
> ======
>
> In the "_now_ I understand!" category:
>
> > >> Just one Lego, but it needs to be red.
>
> > > You're positive a fluctuating green one won't work?
>
> > Look, it's obvious that if you were to break the lego up into its
> > component atoms, no atom would be "red". Yet redness obviously affects
> > the lego, so it must be spiritual. I'm obviously right, because while I
> > don't understand light, spectral absorption, or how to make that Lego
> > Mindstorms tower talk to my Linux box, I do have the ability to repeat
> > myself until your ears bleed. Thus dualism.
>
> QED.
>
Second place, just too smart:
> ======
>
> In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
>
> >> www.helpmebecomeastar.com
>
> > Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
> > hydrogen started fusing.
>
Third place, just too clever:
> ======
>
> In the Drug, kicking and screaming dept:
>
> > >I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
> > >some argument or theory.
>
> > Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
> > Notice anything?
>
> Looks like a case of refer madness.
>
> ======
Honorable mentions to "I'm thinking Arby's", "Gene Scott", "Rapture in
'88", and "baboon-jizz-gargler". 'Twas a fine month.
Matthew
>I'm afraid that a simple "Chez Watt" is insufficient for this. Can
someone come up with a new award for this? Perhaps the "railroad
spike through temples" award or something.<
Dammit, you should have posted a warning at the beginning of your post
indicating that the readers should not attempt to drink a beverage while
reading it. I'll *never* get all that coffee out my keyboard!
Mark Isaak
Gold:
> In the "If At First You Don't Succeed" Department:
>
>>> Reminds me--I've got a book around here somewhere by another NASA
>>> engineer, entitled "89 Reasons Why The Rapture of the Church Will
>>> Happen in 1989."
>
>>> Ok, it's a bit out of date.
>
>> ITYM "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988".
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
>
>> Of course, you may have the second edition.
> ======
Silver:
> In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
>
>>> www.helpmebecomeastar.com
>
>> Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
>> hydrogen started fusing.
> ======
Bronze:
> In the category "Some lists are worse to be on than others"...
>
>> I've made a little list - I've made a little list...
>> Of inconvenient posters who might well be stellar-bound,
>> And never would be missed, no never to be missed!
>> There's pestilential nuisances who write for paragraphs -
>> All people claiming silly things and trolling just for laughs -
>> All Loonies posting lists of dates, and floor you with them flat -
>> All persons who in posting quotes, post quotes all 'missing that' -
>> And all third persons who in spoiling relevant threads persist -
>> They'd none of them be missed - they'd none of them be missed!
>
>> There's the woodpeck-tongue-left-nose-inserter, and others of his race,
>> And the Make-Money-Faster - I've got him on the list!
>> And people who find mangled cites and post them "in-your-face",
>> They never would be missed - they never would be missed!
>> Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
>> All centuries but this, and no religion but his own;
>> And the poster from Atlantic provinces, who likes to rant and lie,
>> And who "doesn't like rude words in use", but sure gives it a try;
>> And that singular anomaly; the Willykins-when-not-pissed
>> I don't think HE'D be missed - I'm *sure* he'd not be missed!
>
>> (...)
Tin:
> In the "_now_ I understand!" category:
>
>> >> Just one Lego, but it needs to be red.
>
>> > You're positive a fluctuating green one won't work?
>
>> Look, it's obvious that if you were to break the lego up into its
>> component atoms, no atom would be "red". Yet redness obviously affects
>> the lego, so it must be spiritual. I'm obviously right, because while I
>> don't understand light, spectral absorption, or how to make that Lego
>> Mindstorms tower talk to my Linux box, I do have the ability to repeat
>> myself until your ears bleed. Thus dualism.
>
> QED.
> ======
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net>:
>Nominated. In the category of "Cascades that need not continue":
...but invariably do. In point of fact, this one already
has.
Thanks! ;-)
Kent Paul Dolan
> This is so wrong it can't even be used to make an
> elephant float:
I may be misunderstanding, but it seems to me that,
to start, you are going to need some way to puree
that elephant. I don't think a blender will do,
you're going to need a *B*L*E*N*D*E*R*.
Following which, a really, really tall glass and one
gonzo ice cream scoop, would be necessities.
xanthian.
Then, we're going to have to be considering the
"straw situation" with great care.
"Give me a straw long enough, and a place on which
to stand, and I could DRINK AN ELEPHANT" -- some
famous Greek dude more recently remembered as a
"strawman".
Kent Paul Dolan
> ======
> In the "_now_ I understand!" category:
>>>> Just one Lego, but it needs to be red.
>>> You're positive a fluctuating green one won't
>>> work?
>> Look, it's obvious that if you were to break the
>> lego up into its component atoms, no atom would
>> be "red". Yet redness obviously affects the
>> lego, so it must be spiritual. I'm obviously
>> right, because while I don't understand light,
>> spectral absorption, or how to make that Lego
>> Mindstorms tower talk to my Linux box, I do have
>> the ability to repeat myself until your ears
>> bleed. Thus dualism.
> QED.
> ======
Maybe just because I'm in a grouchy mood from
overwork on a hobby, but of the whole lot, only that
one made me laugh aloud, so split all my votes and
those of my pet vest-pocket mouse colony among it.
xanthian.
Snore inducing labors indeed:
http://www.well.com/user/xanthian/ComicLinkmarks/ComicMixedmarks.html
Noelie S. Alito
Ask a female of childbearing age.
<bleah>
DuhIdiot
> Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> qoted:
>
> > This is so wrong it can't even be used to make an
> > elephant float:
>
> I may be misunderstanding, but it seems to me that,
> to start, you are going to need some way to puree
> that elephant. I don't think a blender will do,
> you're going to need a *B*L*E*N*D*E*R*.
>
> Following which, a really, really tall glass and one
> gonzo ice cream scoop, would be necessities.
Oh, man. I'm grinnin', but I'm groanin'. :-)
> xanthian.
Piers Anthony fan?
Raving
talk.origin and will continue to search and cancel for the next few
days.
Susan S
<harves...@hotmail.com>:
When I laugh loud enough to scare the cats, it wins.
>In the "If At First You Don't Succeed" Department:
>
>>> Reminds me--I've got a book around here somewhere by another NASA
>>> engineer, entitled "89 Reasons Why The Rapture of the Church Will
>>> Happen in 1989."
>
>>> Ok, it's a bit out of date.
>
>> ITYM "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988".
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
>
>> Of course, you may have the second edition.
Second place.
>In the Beginning, there was Coffee
>
>> >>> so...yeah, you're wrong, unless you can prove the universe is infinitely
>> >>> big.
>
>> >> What would be beyond its boundaries?
>
>> > What lies north of the north pole?
>
>> Starbucks, probably.
>
No. three
>This is so wrong it can't even be used to make an elephant float:
>
>> So lets suppose the moon which had cooled, and had a great deal of
>> salt water in its interior, lost that water to space, and it rained
>> down on the earth, cooling the earth, causing the ice ages.
Susan Silberstein
Walter Bushell
Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >This is so wrong it can't even be used to make an elephant float:
How much root beer is necessary to make an elephant float?
rthe...@hotmail.com
1 vote each for these:
> ======
>
> In the category 'My word!'
>
> >> So you would say that an American Robin is a bird,
> > Right.
> >> but a Turdus migratorius is not,
> > Right
> >> even if they are the same individual?
> > Right.
> > You don't refer to them that way, but as Aves.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Nothing Has Meaning" Catagory:
>
> >No one has ever seen a 'car'. 'Car' is a generic term used to refer to
> >a class of objects, each of which is a particular make and model.
>
> ======
> ======
>
> In the "I thought this only happened in Amsterdam coffee shops"
> category:
>
> > But paractically when usual man in
> > Finland has drunk to cups of coffee he at once speaks about Jesus if
> > he meets educated man.
>
> ======
> ======
>
> > Our gravitational field is greater, the moon is less dense, we have a
> > stronger gravitational field so they fall into the earth's gravity
> > well. And our magnetic field probably attracts them as well.
> > We have a lot of water, we are sending out dark energy waves through
> > space, with a water frequency.
> > So like waves cancel out and that creates a potential attraction.
> > That is how like matter attracts in space.
>
> I'm afraid that a simple "Chez Watt" is insufficient for this. Can
> someone come up with a new award for this? Perhaps the "railroad
> spike through temples" award or something.
>
> ======
Harvest Dancer
nominators are invited to come forward and take their bows.
First Place
> In the "If At First You Don't Succeed" Department:
>
> >> Reminds me--I've got a book around here somewhere by another NASA
> >> engineer, entitled "89 Reasons Why The Rapture of the Church Will
> >> Happen in 1989."
> >> Ok, it's a bit out of date.
> > ITYM "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988".
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
> > Of course, you may have the second edition.
Second Place
> In the Drug, kicking and screaming dept:
>
> > >I said 'REFERENCE', dumbass. I didn't say I did not need to refer to
> > >some argument or theory.
> > Look at the word "refer". Now look at the word "reference".
> > Notice anything?
>
> Looks like a case of refer madness.
Honorable Mentions
> In the "Be careful what you wish for" caregory
>
> >>www.helpmebecomeastar.com
> > Trust me, if it was in my power I _would_ compress you until your
> > hydrogen started fusing.
> In the "_now_ I understand!" category:
>
> > >> Just one Lego, but it needs to be red.
> > > You're positive a fluctuating green one won't work?
> > Look, it's obvious that if you were to break the lego up into its
> > component atoms, no atom would be "red". Yet redness obviously affects
> > the lego, so it must be spiritual. I'm obviously right, because while I
> > don't understand light, spectral absorption, or how to make that Lego
> > Mindstorms tower talk to my Linux box, I do have the ability to repeat
> > myself until your ears bleed. Thus dualism.
>
> QED.
On Sep 11, 12:34 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry about the tardiness, but I'm on business travel and the hotel's
> wireless network stinks.
>
> It seems that some of our newer contributors are competing to see who
> can outproduce the rest. This ballot is very interesting.
>
> Vote early, vote often.
>
> Jason
>
> ======
>
> Nominated in the category "Why use one word when thirty will do."
>
> Let me just confirm this by _re_nominating it, in the
> category "a thing of beauty is a joy forever":
>
> >This is where you VOTE on Chez Watts, not where you MAKE Chez Watts,
> >you elephant-blower duck-fucker donkey-shit-packer sniffing-the-seats-
> >of-children's-bicycles-for-a-cheap-thrill baboon-jizz-gargler rhino-
> >butthole-licker moron dumbhead stupidhead stupidass dumbass idiot
> >pyrohomobestialpedonecrophile!
>
> ======
>
> In the category 'My word!'
>
> >> So you would say that an American Robin is a bird,
> > Right.
> >> but a Turdus migratorius is not,
> > Right
> >> even if they are the same individual?
> > Right.
> > You don't refer to them that way, but as Aves.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Nothing Has Meaning" Catagory:
>
> >No one has ever seen a 'car'. 'Car' is a generic term used to refer to
> >a class of objects, each of which is a particular make and model.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Everything I Needed To Know About Alan Turing I Learned From
> the
> Back of a Cereal Box" category:
>
> > The Turing Test is biased towards mechanisms that are set up to behave in
> > such a way as to pass the Turing Test.
>
> ======
>
> In the Turing Test for Intelligent Argument category:
>
> > "Nullius in Verba"
> > translates nicely to "show me the code".
>
> ======
>
> In the category "Flaw routine":
>
> > > Then you seem to be saying, the robot, whose behaviour can be
> > > explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics,
> > > couldn't have its behaviour explained by people who don't believe it
> > > isn't consciously experiencing.
> > You really can't see where torturing grammar like this could be an
> > obstacle to communication? This is not fucking gymnastics. There's no
> > French judge who's going to score you higher because he likes how your
> > bottom moves when you perform a triple negative.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Everybody must get stoned" category:
>
> > > So how do you determine if a human is conscious?
> > If she walks
> > Just like a robot
> > And she talks
> > Just like a robot
> > And she grasps
> > Just like a robot
> > And she thinks just like an ANN
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> In the category, Proportions for Half-wits:
>
> > We were talking about the PROPORTION of animals that are fossilized,
> > you moron. PROPORTIONALLY, hundreds of billions more snails were
> > fossilized than T Rex's. That is what is under discussion, you
> > baboon.
>
> ======
>
> Nominated in the category "It's easier once you get tenure"
>
> > > Isn't a "current model" of planetary formation kind of pointless since
> > > the word, "current", implies a kind of moving target and "model"
> > > suggests a conjecture? This seems to mean that one must know of the
> > > entire history of "current models" to understand the current "current
> > > model". By the time one finishes the study there will be new "current
> > > model" rendering all that effort obsolete.
> > Welcome to grad school!
>
> ======
>
> >From the "Baked Alaska to Curly Fries" Dept.
> > >> ....the Greeks had no problems at all with guys boinking guys,
> > >> but they sure did look down on non manly men...
> > > Would this be a good time to stand around not wearing much at all and
> > > shouting "This is Sparta!"?
> > > I'll get me cloak...
> > TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL! Tomorrow, I'm thinking Arby's.
>
> ======
>
> > Since we know that there was no global flood, the storyteller could not
> > have been offering a historical claim.
>
> Chez Wat?
>
> ======
>
> >>> I worship a Man who walked the Earth at one time; I suggest that you
> >>> admit the obvious and face yourself.
> >> All evidence - and common sense tells us that that man never walked
> >> the Earth, it is just the latest version of an ancient myth.
> > Sorry, Rolf, but I've seen the videos. I'm afraid Gene Scott really did
> > walk the Earth.
>
> Here by nominated for a chez watt.
>
> ======
>
> I know the original poster was joking. But this made me laugh. :)
>
> > > the human eye and evolution.... a contradiction in terms.
> > > Think...
> > (snip)
> > This would appear to be where you departed from your own script.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> > Could it be that the reason we don't find them before 13,000 BC is
> > because they weren't used as extensively due to their inneffectiveness
> > vs megafauna and because before that date man had not yet learned to
> > fit arrow heads on them?
> > Or is there some other smoking gun that proves they were not in use
> > before 13000?
>
> How do you find a smoking gun that proves it was not fired?
>
> Chez Watt?
>
> ======
>
> >>> The Earth is the only known planet in our Solar System which can
> >>> support life. It contains water, reasonable levels of oxygen, and a
> >>> stable temperature range. Geometrically speaking, Earth is the
> >>> largest of the terrestrial (rocky) planets in the solar system.
> >> He's not referring to the study of rocks. He's making it clear
> >> that the Earth is the largest rocky planet *geometrically* -
> >> as opposed to being the largest in some way that doesn't
> >> involve geometry.
> >> Conservapedia is all about clarity.
> > It's still kind of funny in the clunky conservapedia sort of way.
> > They're like those people who audition for American Idol and don't
> > know they can't sing.
>
> Good one.
>
> Suggested category: Andrew, meet Sanjaya. Sanjaya, Andrew.
>
> ======
>
> In the category "If it has no Wiki entry it doesn't exist":
>
> >You do know that "Descent with Modification" is not defined. There is
> >no Wikipedia entry for it.
>
> ======
>
> > > I probably brought that up several times allready, but my discussion
> > > with a young Christan who tells everybody at every opportunity how
> > > she read the NT from cover to cover where she looked at me blankly
> > > and asked "What's the Sermon of the Mound?" was a real eye-opener to
> > > me. Obviously there are quite different meanings to the word "study".
> > I don't know what the Sermon of the Mound is, either. Is that
> > something that ought to be discussed in the Barry Bonds/AiG thread?
>
> In the category "Bezboll been berry, berry good to me"
>
> ======
>
> > Confucius was not a scientist but only in a way of paradoxy. He
> > said that he is expert professor in office but in his daily 8-hour
> > work he only presses button of copy-maschine.
>
> Aw, what the hell, this /whole post/ is a Chez Watt.
>
> ======
>
> In the "I thought this only happened in Amsterdam coffee shops"
> category:
>
> > But paractically when usual man in
> > Finland has drunk to cups of coffee he at once speaks about Jesus if
> > he meets educated man.
>
> ======
>
> This whole exchange is Chez Watt nominated, under
> the "no, no, it's entropy all the way down"
> category:
>
> >>>>> I went away for five days and when I came back
> >>>>> there were over 3,000 new articles in
> >>>>> talk.origins
> >>>>> What the bloody hell is there left to say?!
> >>>> I guess there is nothing left for you to do but
> >>>> go and crawl back under the rock you came from.
> >>> Don't you know that Darwinists don't come from
> >>> under rocks?
> >>> (Is this another form of Intelligent Delivery,
> >>> along with Scientific Storkism,
> >>> Cabbage-Patch-ism, and so on?)
> >>> Darwinists come from *monkeys*!
> >> ...unlike Creationists, who come from dirt.
> > And at that are an example of devolution.
>
> ======
>
> Nominated for the "Orange Covered Physics" award.
>
> > Conditions vary. You cannot merely calculate entropy unless you know
> > all the conditions. Some conditions are more conducive to entropy
> > than others.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> >From the Creationist Chemistry Dept.:
> > For example, if you suddenly
> > found in chem class, that hydrogen will not combine with 2 oxygens to
> > form water, under any cicumstance, and you kept REPLICATING this over
> > and over again, you would falsify a good bit of chemistry.
>
> ======
>
> In the Beginning, there was Coffee
>
> > >>> so...yeah, you're wrong, unless you can prove the universe is infinitely
> > >>> big.
> > >> What would be beyond its boundaries?
> > > What lies north of the north pole?
> > Starbucks, probably.
>
> ======
>
> In the category "But I've never Kippled before..."
>
> > >>>>>5. Give One evidence for the
> > >>>>>Tower of Babel origin of language.
> > >>>THE BIBLE!
> > >>I'm not sure that counts as evidence. Even if it's in all caps. Give one
> > >>evidence that elephants got their long trunks with the help of a
> > >>friendly crocodile. (Hint: see Kipling.)
> > > Sorry, but you're wrong.
> > > The crocodile was *not* friendly. It just pretended to be, and shed
> > > crocodile tears to deceive the elephant child and exploit his
> > > 'satiable curtisosity.
> > > It's important to get the technical details correct.
> > Technical details, you say? Were you there? The crocodile was quite
> > friendly, though the bicoloured python rock snake was not. He shed
> > crocodile tears to demonstrate that he was indeed a crocodile, not for
> > any deceptive purposes. Now it may happen that the answer to the
> > question "What does the crocodile have for dinner?" was not a welcome
> > one, but it was given in a helpful manner. This is exactly the sort of
> > problem we expect from a person operating at the fringes of science.
>
> ======
>
> In the category, "Tolerance Incarnate":
>
> > I don't usually notice a person's mitochondria, but perhaps I'm just
> > open minded.
>
> ======
>
> Isolated population:
>
> > >Did language evolve?
> > For some of us.
>
> ======
>
> In the category of "telling it like it is" -
>
> > You have no idea, apparently, what "ad hominem" means. It takes the form
> > "X is a bad person, therefore his claims are invalid". I have done
> > nothing of the sort. I've said you're a nut, but never that your claims
> > are wrong because you're a nut. It's the other way around, in fact: we
> > know you're a nut because of your claims and the manner in which you
> > present them.
>
> ======
>
> Nominated portion, in the category of "far too true for anyone's
> good":
>
> >There's any amount of Quixotes round here, tilting at windmills. And not
> >one of them has a Sancho Panza to keep them sane ...
>
> ======
>
> In the "Just because they're different, doesn't make them different"
> department:
>
> > Differential reproductive success gets you: differential reproductive
> > success, not change.
>
> ======
>
> In the category 'Revolt of the Machines':
>
> >> Therefore, I argue, that if it takes intelligence to make
> >> a computer program, it would also take intelligence to make life,
> >> and/ or improvments to life?
> > I'm sorry, but that just doesn't follow. It takes a computer to
> > make a computer program. Does that then mean that it takes a
> > computer to make life? Is god using a Cray?, an IBM PC? Maybe he
> > was tempted by an Apple?
>
> ======
>
> >From the "Why You Should Brush Five Times a Day and Face Toward Mecca"
>
> Dept.
>
> > "Would you stop for a moment?!
> > Haven't you thought-one day- about tooth decay ?
> > Who has made it?
> > Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
> > Have you seen a wonderful,delicate erosion without a erosioner ?!
> > It's your rotten teeth and the whole universe!..
> > Who has made them all ?!!
> > You know who ?.. It's "THE TOOTH FAIRY",prised be your teeth.
> > Just think for a moment.
> > How are your teeth going to be after death ?!
> > Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of
> > these great decay will end in nothing...just after death!
> > Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from THE TOOTH
> > FAIRY's
> > punishment?!
> > Haven't you thought about what is the right level of toothache?!
> > Here you will get the answerhttp://www.gnashed.net/flash/badb_reath.swfhttp://www.todayiambored.c..."
> > Ithangyou.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> In the category "Some lists are worse to be on than others"...
>
> > I've made a little list - I've made a little list...
> > Of inconvenient posters who might well be stellar-bound,
> > And never would be missed, no never to be missed!
> > There's pestilential nuisances who write for paragraphs -
> > All people claiming silly things and trolling just for laughs -
> > All Loonies posting lists of dates, and floor you with them flat -
> > All persons who in posting quotes, post quotes all 'missing that' -
> > And all third persons who in spoiling relevant threads persist -
> > They'd none of them be missed - they'd none of them be missed!
> > There's the woodpeck-tongue-left-nose-inserter, and others of his race,
> > And the Make-Money-Faster - I've got him on the list!
> > And people who find mangled cites and post them "in-your-face",
> > They never would be missed - they never would be missed!
> > Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
> > All centuries but this, and no religion but his own;
> > And the poster from Atlantic provinces, who likes to rant and lie,
> > And who "doesn't like rude words in use", but sure gives it a try;
> > And that singular anomaly; the Willykins-when-not-pissed
> > I don't think HE'D be missed - I'm *sure* he'd not be missed!
> > (...)
>
> ======
>
> In the "there's no place like home" category:
>
> > >> About 2000 years is my opinion for the maximum length of hell.
> > > How long is Satan spending in Hell?
> > Only 31 days a year. He claims it as his permanent residence for tax
> > reasons, but the rest of the year he lives in Los Angeles.
>
> ======
>
> This is so wrong it can't even be used to make an elephant float:
>
> > So lets suppose the moon which had cooled, and had a great deal of
> > salt water in its interior, lost that water to space, and it rained
> > down on the earth, cooling the earth, causing the ice ages.
>
> ======
>
> I nominate this gem for a Chez Watt in mathematics, for succinctly
> demonstrating the mathematical property of exponential distribution
> over
> addition, which very few mathematicians know about:
>
> > You forgot to add the speed of the Solar System circling the Milky Way
> > 12 x 10^12 tonnes
> > Plus the amount from circling the Sun
> > 2.3 x 10^12
> > Total 14.3 x 10^24 tonnes
>
> ======
>
> In the "Ceci n'est pas expansion" category
>
> > If you mean than
> > material would gain volume by expanding, then that's all wrong.
>
> ======
>
> Chez Watt, "written on the wind, written on the
> waters, written _where_?" division:
>
> > You claim the pattern on the ocean floor is
> > explained by subduction and that I just ignore to
> > put them in, but I am saying before you can
> > subduct anything you need to be able to move it to
> > them and that will leave tracks. So roll it
> > backwards.
>
> Yeesh.
>
> ======
>
> > And this from the most idiotic, ignored and illiterate poster in this ng.
> > How ironic.
>
> Indeed.
>
> ======
>
> Cataloged under "Quick! Call my proctologist! It's an emergency!"
>
> > Oh yeah?
> > I shit bigger apes than you.
>
> ======
>
> > "law" is entirely made up, attempting to sound scientific, there is no
> > such thing in the universe. The same was crafted to replace God.
>
> Shouldn't this be a Chez Watt?
>
> > I am a OEC - idiot.
>
> Yes, you are an "OEC idiot". What took you so long to realize it?
>
> ======
>
> In the category "I learned it from a book with orange covers"
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Here. Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
> >> It has nothing to do with dark energy.
> > Wikipedia is wrong.
> > I know what dark energy is, trust me on that one.
>
> ======
>
> > Our gravitational field is greater, the moon is less dense, we have a
> > stronger gravitational field so they fall into the earth's gravity
> > well. And our magnetic field probably attracts them as well.
> > We have a lot of water, we are sending out dark energy waves through
> > space, with a water frequency.
> > So like waves cancel out and that creates a potential attraction.
> > That is how like matter attracts in space.
>
> I'm afraid that a simple "Chez Watt" is insufficient for this. Can
> someone come up with a new award for this? Perhaps the "railroad
> spike through temples" award or something.
>
> ======
>
> >> Even so, as mentioned above, many of
> >> the extinctions were not
> >> synchronous with the last deglaciation.
> > Mostly because the deglaciation happened at
> > different times in different parts of the
> > world, or so they are speculating at present.
>
> Umm, you do realized that the world's oceans
> are connected, and that water seeks its own
> level [modulo a bunch of details that don't matter
> here], right?
>
> So that sea level increases all around the world
> would be synchronized, even if the deglaciations
> were not (separately nonsense for the size of ice
> melt change you are pretending)?
>
> So that coastal flooding would _not_ happen at
> different times even if the local glaciers melted at
> different times?
>
> So different glacier melting times would have
> exactly zero explanatory power for why the megafauna
> deaths were not synchronized?
>
> [As opposed, say, to human settlement
> scheduling, and population levels,
> surprisingly well in synchrony with
> megafauna extinctions?]
>
> Just wondering whether you are astonishingly
> gullible about what you believe from your "well
> demonstrated to be rankly inaccurate" sources.
>
> ======
>
> O, my, chaos! This imbecile is a Chez Watt gold
> mine!
>
> File this one under the "early invention of
> underwater writing instruments posited" division.
>
> > There was once a place called Sundaland, little
> > boy. It is now under water. To the people who
> > lived on it, Sundaland was THE WORLD. Therefore,
> > if a story written in Sundaland said that the
> > whole world flooded, IT WAS UTTERLY TRUE!
>
> Unless it was written by a clairvoyant, before the
> fact, there are some tiny but crucial holes in your
> logic there, what with "Sundaland" being bereft of
> population, submerged at the time (making writing
> there somewhat difficult), and all.
>
> ======
>
> File this one under the "thick as a brick, but can
> tap dance and wave hands asynchronously" division:
>
> > Nope. The intent of the story is to tell why God
> > had to clean up the world, and to tell from where
> > the Israelites came. For all you know, the
> > rainbow bit was added to explain rainbows to
> > children by a fable-loving shaman.
>
> This is different in forwarding the work of
> debunking the bible from "the whole thing is the
> work of fable loving shamans", exactly how?
>
> You let the camel's nose slide right into the tent.
>
> You've just murdered your own team, wholesale, in an
> event of mass extinction via abject stupidity rarely
> seen even in talk.origins.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Who you gonna believe, Don or your lying eyes" category:
>
> > Just because you have a mechanism doesn't validate the observations
>
> ======
>
> Nominated in the category "Non-subductive plate arithmetics"
>
> >>Nobody is ignoring the data, they are just questioning your
> >>interpretation of it - especially the fact that you are not taking the
> >>subduction zones into account when you construct your model.
> > It has been shown to account for all the ocean crust with out them.
> > The need add subduction is unnecessary.
>
> ======