These fragments I have shored against my ruins. And somebody get these
eels out of here.
--
Tiny
wind NNW, backing Southerly
Where can I get some of that?
Oh, no, not *that*, I meant whatever it is he's smoking.
Well, that's it then. Absolutely no reason to keep reading
talk.origins...
[...]
You have succeeded in reconciling nearly all of the apparently
disparate geniuses who see past the sham which is evolutionism. (Damn
liberal spellchecker can't recognize "evolutionism")
But... where's the 20 billion year-old ax handle? Preferably in coal.
Kermit
8P
Oh, I know. Only AiG would sell you a recreational drug *guaranteed* to
give you a really bad trip. But then, I guess only creationists would
want to fork over money for it.
Chris
<snip>
> > These fragments I have shored against my ruins. And somebody get these
> > eels out of here.
> >
> > --
> > Tiny
> > wind NNW, backing Southerly
>
> [...]
>
> You have succeeded in reconciling nearly all of the apparently
> disparate geniuses who see past the sham which is evolutionism. (Damn
> liberal spellchecker can't recognize "evolutionism")
>
> But... where's the 20 billion year-old ax handle? Preferably in coal.
Buggrit. I knew I'd forgotten somebody.
--
Tiny
Cheeky bastard. I was going for this:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm
--
Tiny
cheeky bastard...
Maybe he could add that to his list!
You forgot Flying Feral Chickens, too.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
>On 7 Dec 2006 11:39:48 -0800, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD...@aol.com>:
>
>>
>>Kermit wrote:
>>> Tiny Bulcher wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> > These fragments I have shored against my ruins. And somebody get these
>>> > eels out of here.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Tiny
>>> > wind NNW, backing Southerly
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> You have succeeded in reconciling nearly all of the apparently
>>> disparate geniuses who see past the sham which is evolutionism. (Damn
>>> liberal spellchecker can't recognize "evolutionism")
>>>
>>> But... where's the 20 billion year-old ax handle? Preferably in coal.
>>
>>Buggrit. I knew I'd forgotten somebody.
>
>You forgot Flying Feral Chickens, too.
And "falling decisions" or "decision points".
--
Bob.
> Absolutely, definitively, and without question. My proof is
> irrefutable. But I'm not going to tell you what it is until I have
> written it all up in a paper, which could take, oooh, years.
Years!? I have an irrefutable proof of evolution which I will post
in just one week.
It only remains to be determined *which* one week.
--
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
<snip, regretfully>
Marvelous!
Clever, Tiny.
--
“What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you
reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then
your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You’re no good
anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come
behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a
really cool problem. I want to solve it.’
No, he didn't. "It's all about decisions, you see"
Klaus
I thought it was a nice parody that covered everything except for stone
penis-snakes in coal mines.
Klaus
*googles* .... ah, the legendary Ted Holden. Before my time, I'm
afraid.
--
Tiny
> Oh, no, not *that*, I meant whatever it is he's smoking.
"No no, that's too strong, Man." - Champion Jack Dupree
--
H. Brent Howatt | The deluded are always filled with absolutes
hey...@die.spammers.rootshell.be| The rest of us have to live with ambiguity
PGP keys by email or keyserver | _Aristoi_ Walter Jon Williams
I've been gone for a while, changing jobs, houses, counties, etc., and I
retuirn to find this. Clearly with the passing of time, the creationists
minds have moved to a far more disordered state.
And lurkers supporting him in email.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Pity. Here's another: "Woodpecker Karl".
Enjoy! ;-)
Wizard. Is this Chez Wattable or is it too long?
>Tiny Bulcher <RSGD...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Absolutely, definitively, and without question. My proof is
>[mass snippage]
>> These fragments I have shored against my ruins. And somebody get these
>> eels out of here.
>
>I've been gone for a while, changing jobs, houses, counties, etc., and I
>retuirn to find this. Clearly with the passing of time, the creationists
>minds have moved to a far more disordered state.
Yep. And Tiny does a *beautiful* job of parodying (is that a
word?) them.
Are you implying that there are rules to Chez Watt?
I wonder what the longest winning chez watt has been. At least 100 lines,
I expect, and possibly more like 300. Some of the song lyrics and
epic poem renditions really get up there.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
> Absolutely, definitively, and without question. My proof is
> irrefutable. But I'm not going to tell you what it is until I have
> written it all up in a paper, which could take, oooh, years. I have a
> video, too, that proves it all conclusively, but you can't see it, oh
> no, because you're not worthy. Cites? You want cites? I've got lots of
> cites, to literally millions of textbooks, ... and they're mine, I tell
> you, all mine. But if you like, I will post a post full of links to all
> my old posts, and I'm sure that will convince you. By the way, did you
> know Dembski is a heterosexual-adherent? Oh, yes. It's all about
> decisions, you see, and if any of you decide to indulge in free
> behaviour and argue with me I will be forced to be extremely merciful,
> and ignore you completely. Or I might swear at you a lot, and call you
> fascist cheerleaders. Science, you say? I know all the science I need
> to know, because I was in a hospital once, and that makes me an expert
> on Everything. Next thing you know you'll be trying to tell me
> contraception can prevent pregnancy. I know what you are all up to ...
> it's a conspiracy, but that's all right. It makes me extremely happy to
> know that you all think I'm wrong, because if you agreed me that would
> prove me wrong, but you don't, so that proves I'm right.
After thinking over what you've said, I agree with you.
> That's
> invulnerable logic, that is. I've told you, don't argue, or I'll get
> merciful again. You wouldn't like me when I'm merciful. Why? Because I
> said so. Isn't that good enough for you? WOULD YOU BELIEVE ME IF I
> SHOUTED? I'm going to have my own stalker, you know, who follows me
> round accusing me of being nice to Greeks. Yeah, but you can't get me.
> I know what God equals, guv. (George ... don't do that). And Hitler
> liked dogs, you know. Significant, eh? I told 'em, I did, millennium
> hand and shrimp. Stalin's wife committed suicide, what do you think of
> that, then? Do you think I can't tell what you're all up to, running
> about telling hawks from handsaws?
>
> These fragments I have shored against my ruins. And somebody get these
> eels out of here.
>