Ancient Aliens ...

[Dale]

the show is really good at graphics and photography, along
with their interviews

one might argue the TECHNOLOGY of monoliths/megaliths, etc.

there is little argument about the existence of PRODUCTION

are these things MONUMENTS?

why such an in-balance of MONUMENTS to INFRASTRUCTURE?

it is almost the opposite of INFRASTRUCTURE to MONUMENT today

can you really say life was so much more PHILOSOPHICAL as
opposed to PRAGMATIC back then?

maybe it is all a message "set in stone" that PHILOSOPHY has
its place as PROGRESSION opposed to serving the ESTABLISHMENT
with INFRASTRUCTURE

if this message is a prophecy, perhaps at least the STRAWMEN
of future TECHNOLOGY existed, and the competition for control
took place as described in the TOWER OF BABEL story, men
reaching for the place of the heavens/God(s), control

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[Roger Shrubber]

Dale wrote:
> the show is really good at graphics and photography, along
> with their interviews

No it isn't Dale. It's really bad. It's bad because it
tried to make up for worthless, and worse than worthless
speculation and disinformation with good photography
and fancy graphics.

They routinely ignore evidence that we had technology
to build such things, and evidence that human labor
was involved.

Face it, if some beings were capable of flying here from
some distant star, and they wanted pyramids built, they
could have provided tools for cutting stone that would
have been extremely different from the way stones were
cut in the various quarries we've discovered. They would
have given the Incas wheels. We would not find skeletal
evidence of the huge labor involved in building the
monuments.

They were fun ideas back when I was 13. But they ultimately
don't make any sense and are contraindicated by almost all
of the available data.

These shows are good for pot smoking teenagers to way "Wow
man, like, what if, like ..." and pass the Doritos. And
then they sober up some and realize it's all BS.

[Dale]

Roger Shrubber wrote:

> It's bad because it
> tried to make up for worthless, and worse than worthless
> speculation and disinformation

some things they say can't be done today

I say maybe when Venus when is a further orbit sustaining
life, the last frontier was to sow there philosophical and
technological seed on the next available planet, Earth

kind of like we look to Mars,etc.

they might have had somewhat of a "prime directive" that they
had on Star Trek, not interveining with evolution

maybe they choose to live alone in EL Dorado with their
technological/philosophical "gold"

perhaps they were conservative but not complete with the
"prime directive" leavng signs in monoliths/megaliths,etc.
that communal life could follow in a life of challenges of
nature and aggression

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[Roger Shrubber]

Dale wrote:
> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>> It's bad because it
>> tried to make up for worthless, and worse than worthless
>> speculation and disinformation
>
> some things they say can't be done today

They say so, and it's all BS. Their lies get exposed and
then they repeat them, because who is going to stop them?
They avoid their strong critics. They will occasionally
present a very weak bit of criticism to pretend that they
are being "scientific", but they cherry pick what they use
in that way and then have a last word to promote their
pseudo-scientific crap.

It's very poorly done as a matter of science. It's
just entertainment for people who don't bother to look
any further and enjoy the woo.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 5:23:03 PM UTC-3, Dale wrote:

<snip>

> some things they say can't be done today

So the fact that they lie through their teeth
is supposed to make us think well of them?

-William Hughes

[Dale]

Roger Shrubber wrote:

> It's

> just entertainment for people who don't bother to look
> any further and enjoy the woo.

and would that apply to

1) M(em)brane theory
2) string theory
3) lack of gravity explanation in the standard particle model
4) no resolution of general relativity with the standard
particle model
5) no agreed on interpretation of quantum mechanics

science has turned to pseudo-science every since 1916?
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

its all been a "hack" since then

sometimes "hacks" work

if Ancient Aliens is a "hack" then it might have some "hack"
value, perhaps in parable/metaphor rings ...

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

might have "story" value, like a lot of things including a lot
of the focus of modern science

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:48:05 PM UTC-3, Dale wrote:
> wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 5:23:03 PM UTC-3, Dale wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> some things they say can't be done today
> >
> > So the fact that they lie through their teeth
> > is supposed to make us think well of them?
> >
> > -William Hughes
>
> might have "story" value,

So what? Barefaced lies are barefaced lies.
People who espouse a viewpoint they
know to be untrue are scum.

-William Hughes

[Mike Painter]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 15:43:21 -0400, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>They were fun ideas back when I was 13. But they ultimately
>don't make any sense and are contraindicated by almost all
>of the available data.

I remember a book I read on the subject when about that age. It
talked of a gift given by Mayans(?) that consisted of a large circular
metal object that was used in the construction of their temples.
Striking it caused some interaction with the stones and they lost most
of their mass making them easy to move.

Naturally the ship sank on the way back to Spain...

[Mike Painter]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:18:07 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>> It's bad because it
>> tried to make up for worthless, and worse than worthless
>> speculation and disinformation
>
>some things they say can't be done today

Not sure who "they" are but if you have specific examples of Them and
what can't be done I'd sure like to hear it.

[Dale]

watch the show, it is really well done

it is on the History Channel, Fridays
and sometimes on History 2

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[*Hemidactylus*]

Should be called History(NOT!!!).

There's so much crap passing for scholarship on TV anymore I prefer
sitcoms and zombie soap operas.

I did watch something a while back about the Solutrean hypothesis on
some cable channel that I found interesting (due mainly to boredom and
the novelty), but not convincing enough to counter the Bering only
consensus. Other than that I'd rather watch Cesar Millan train wayward
dogs as at least he's somewhat fact based. And that guy who used to
travel the US and eat hot peppery foods or belly busters as a challenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

[*Hemidactylus*]

If you want so see decent science programming find and watch "Your Inner
Fish" by Shubin. It was life changing for me. Still have it DVR'ed! I
would assert it was better than Tyson's rendition of "Cosmos", not to
discount the latter.

http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/

As they say in Beantown..."Wicked Awesome".

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/31/2015 09:50 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:48:05 PM UTC-3, Dale wrote:
>> wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 5:23:03 PM UTC-3, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> some things they say can't be done today
>>>
>>> So the fact that they lie through their teeth
>>> is supposed to make us think well of them?
>>>
>>> -William Hughes
>>
>> might have "story" value,
>
> So what? Barefaced lies are barefaced lies.
> People who espouse a viewpoint they
> know to be untrue are scum.

I used to religiously watch "Stormchasers". That was a fact-based,
though very sensational docudrama, before it got canceled. They got some
serious footage up close of intense twisters, but it definitely wasn't
all fun and games and the danger of that career path reared its ugly
head when the safer bunch of the various crews (TWISTEX) on that show
lost their lives after the show was canceled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Samaras

I would put what that guy was doing up against any bullshit ancient
alien show anyday! RIP!

[*Hemidactylus*]

OK, docudrama as defined may not accurately capture what "Stormchasers"
was about. It was more a soap opera on wheels as though these guys were
filming IMAX or collecting scientific meteorological data, many of them
were whining and bitching at each other constantly (especially Reed
Timmer's crew), which added a dramatic element. A documentary with more
interpersonal drama than your typical science based show, which is
understandable given the level of danger involved.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 9:33:00 PM UTC-3, Dale wrote:

> watch the show, it is really well done
>

Lying with good production values is worse not better.

-William Hughes

[Mike Painter]

"What Darwin Knew Knew" is on PBS.
It is what science programming should be like.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:30:11 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>Mike Painter wrote:

>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:18:07 -0400, Dale
><da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>>>Roger Shrubber wrote:

>>>> It's bad because it
>>>> tried to make up for worthless, and worse than worthless
>>>> speculation and disinformation

>>>some things they say can't be done today

>> Not sure who "they" are but if you have specific examples of
>Them and
>> what can't be done I'd sure like to hear it.

>watch the show, it is really well done

So you have no examples to offer, and thus nothing to
actually discuss? OK.

And BTW, "well done" does not equate to "accurate", as
anyone who reads or watches science fiction and/or fantasy
knows.

>it is on the History Channel, Fridays
>and sometimes on History 2

Yeah, the History Channel has certainly gone downhill if
such fantasy as "Ancient Aliens" is presented as historical.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mike Painter]

If you offer the contents of those shows as examples of people who say
it can't be done today then you need to read a little.

[Dale]

I watch keeping up with the kardishians every once in awhile

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in
news:179157420....@dalekelly.org:

'Ancient Aliens' has been comprehensively thrashed and trashed by Jason
Colavito, who actually knows something about mythology and archaeology,
at his blog, http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog

In one of his posts, he quotes Annelise Baer, an associate producer of
'Ancient Aliens', who says that

Even though the final product may not look like it, we actually do
quite a lot of research for each episode so that names, dates and
historical information is correct. Of course, the fun really starts
when we have to jump off the deep end and make all of the nice
historically accurate people, places and things fit the ‘Ancient
Aliens’ mold. Imagine the most ridiculous combination of historical
terms/figures and actions and there’s a very high probability we’ve
had that as a story point on the show. We know our job is really and
truly ridiculous but it always surprises me just how excited people
get when they find out I work on this series. It makes me feel a bit
better about the absurdity we put on TV. Just a bit.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/ancient-aliens-associate-producer-the-show-is-absurd-and-we-purposely-push-facts-off-the-deep-end

http://tinyurl.com/pjuoexe

Even the people who *make the show* know how ridiculous it is.
--
S.O.P.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I have "What Darwin Didn't Know" hosted by Armand Leroi still DVRed.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I've watched Shahs of Sunset, which is more intellectually fulfilling.

[Mike Painter]

Oops.

I have it on good, if second hand information,that Art Bell believed
none of the crap he had on his shows. He found a niche and made money
off it.


I suspect that Limbaugh started out this way but then started to
believe what he gushed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:13:23 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>I watch keeping up with the kardishians every once in awhile

Not allowed to close your eyes or turn your head away, and
no way to chew through the straps? You have my heartfelt
sympathy.

[Mr. B1ack]

"Knew Knew" ???

I used to watch the 'Discovery Channel' and the 'Science
Channel' ... no more. It's like the early 70s all over again
with latter-day von Danikens and Bigfoot and poltergeists
out the wazoo. I suppose the nutters realized they had a
whole new, naive, audience by now. This crap is all new
to the young'uns.

PBS and BBC are the best places for passable science
TV nowadays ... though even they seem to have dumbed
it down a bit for the modern, semi-literate, generation.
More pretty pictures, less actual substance.

[Ymir]

In article <2tavmahtuovp7tjuf...@4ax.com>,

"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote:

> PBS and BBC are the best places for passable science
> TV nowadays ... though even they seem to have dumbed
> it down a bit for the modern, semi-literate, generation.
> More pretty pictures, less actual substance.

Not just for science -- The history channel produces such gems as
"Ancients Behaving Badly" while PBS is wasting its time on Ken Burns.

Andre

[Ymir]

In article <179157420....@dalekelly.org>,

Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

> Mike Painter wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:18:07 -0400, Dale
> <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Roger Shrubber wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's bad because it
> >>> tried to make up for worthless, and worse than worthless
> >>> speculation and disinformation
> >>
> >>some things they say can't be done today
> >
> > Not sure who "they" are but if you have specific examples of
> Them and
> > what can't be done I'd sure like to hear it.
>
> watch the show, it is really well done

For very special values of "really well done".

I've only seen one compelling piece of evidence for ancient aliens and I
guarantee you it wasn't on that show.

Andre

[Mr. B1ack]

It's all business now ... cater to the "Largest Paying
Demographic". Alas that tends to be a bunch of rather
shallow folks who slept through all their science classes
(and the rest too).

Sad thing though ... dig back into the late 40s and early 50s
and you'll see SUCH high hopes for those newfangled
"Televisions" ... finally a way to bring the pinnacle of art
and science and culture to the masses ! You saw a lot
of high-paid film actors doing TV drama back then, saw
serious science and the Bard too.

But then .... apparently somebody discovered there was
*money* in it .............

Hmmm ... wasn't the internet billed the same way ? :-)

[jillery]

Now I'm curious to know what piece of evidence for ancient aliens you
found compelling.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 03:48:04 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:

>In article <179157420....@dalekelly.org>,
> Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:18:07 -0400, Dale
>> <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It's bad because it
>> >>> tried to make up for worthless, and worse than worthless
>> >>> speculation and disinformation
>> >>
>> >>some things they say can't be done today
>> >
>> > Not sure who "they" are but if you have specific examples of
>> Them and
>> > what can't be done I'd sure like to hear it.
>>
>> watch the show, it is really well done
>
>For very special values of "really well done".

Not really; "well done" need have nothing to do with the
content, only with the technical quality of the
presentation.

>I've only seen one compelling piece of evidence for ancient aliens and I
>guarantee you it wasn't on that show.

Like jillery, I'd like to know what that was, since I've
seen nothing compelling in that area.

[Ymir]

In article <0051nal7fghaujqh7...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 03:48:04 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:

> >I've only seen one compelling piece of evidence for ancient aliens and I
> >guarantee you it wasn't on that show.
>
> Like jillery, I'd like to know what that was, since I've
> seen nothing compelling in that area.

Sadly I can no longer locate the excellent website on which this
argument was produced, so I cannot give proper credit where credit is
due.

However, they noted two salient facts regarding the pyramids:

First, they observed that the ratio of usable floorspace to surface area
in the pyramids is extremely small compared to most human-created
edifices.

In and of itself that shows nothing. However, they further noted that
despite having such a surplus of surface area, absolutely *none* of that
space is devoted to advertising.

That rather conclusively shows that the pyramids could not be the
product of human intelligence.

Andre

[Dale]

this is a very "supply side" argument

the advanced civilization of the stone age would have been socially
advanced and have a "demand side" component too, monuments are typically
social and demand side

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[Paul J Gans]

Best pro-alien argument for the pyramids that I've ever seen!

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

So it was a reality show.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:45:10 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 06/04/2015 03:28 PM, Ymir wrote:
>> In article <0051nal7fghaujqh7...@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 03:48:04 -0600, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>> I've only seen one compelling piece of evidence for ancient aliens and I
>>>> guarantee you it wasn't on that show.
>>>
>>> Like jillery, I'd like to know what that was, since I've
>>> seen nothing compelling in that area.
>>
>> Sadly I can no longer locate the excellent website on which this
>> argument was produced, so I cannot give proper credit where credit is
>> due.
>>
>> However, they noted two salient facts regarding the pyramids:
>>
>> First, they observed that the ratio of usable floorspace to surface area
>> in the pyramids is extremely small compared to most human-created
>> edifices.
>>
>> In and of itself that shows nothing. However, they further noted that
>> despite having such a surplus of surface area, absolutely *none* of that
>> space is devoted to advertising.
>>
>> That rather conclusively shows that the pyramids could not be the
>> product of human intelligence.

>this is a very "supply side" argument
>
>the advanced civilization of the stone age would have been socially
>advanced and have a "demand side" component too, monuments are typically
>social and demand side

WHOOOSH!

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:28:52 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:

>In article <0051nal7fghaujqh7...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 03:48:04 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:
>
>> >I've only seen one compelling piece of evidence for ancient aliens and I
>> >guarantee you it wasn't on that show.
>>
>> Like jillery, I'd like to know what that was, since I've
>> seen nothing compelling in that area.
>
>Sadly I can no longer locate the excellent website on which this
>argument was produced, so I cannot give proper credit where credit is
>due.
>
>However, they noted two salient facts regarding the pyramids:
>
>First, they observed that the ratio of usable floorspace to surface area
>in the pyramids is extremely small compared to most human-created
>edifices.

OK, although it should be pointed out that tombs don't
usually follow the floorplans of, for instance, homes.

>In and of itself that shows nothing. However, they further noted that
>despite having such a surplus of surface area, absolutely *none* of that
>space is devoted to advertising.

Aha! OK, I suggest you check back issues of The Onion; this
sounds like something they'd publish.

>That rather conclusively shows that the pyramids could not be the
>product of human intelligence.

Obviously... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 23:14:56 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>So it was a reality show.

My money's on a Onion exclusive.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

I always liked Calvin's argument that the best evidence for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that is hasn't tried to contact us.

John Thompson

[Ymir]

In article <ssq3napsif20f6o8p...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Aha! OK, I suggest you check back issues of The Onion; this
> sounds like something they'd publish.

No, not the Onion. That I would have remembered. All I remember is that
it was a site that definitely *didn't* employ a professional web-page
designer.

Andre

[*Hemidactylus*]

Did Burns do a bad job on the Roosevelts?

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts

River of doubt?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/03/2015 02:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:13:23 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> I watch keeping up with the kardishians every once in awhile
>
> Not allowed to close your eyes or turn your head away, and
> no way to chew through the straps? You have my heartfelt
> sympathy.

I still don't quite understand what a kardashian is? Is that some sort
of sweater that protects orange juice from heat?

Caitlyn is a sun with many satellites.

I probably know more about Kardashians than I should. Shahs of Sunset
beats them hands down. Hopefully I'm not igniting some ancient Farsi vs.
Armenian thing here. That could get ugly, but they could market it.
Shahs vs. Kardashians Showdown 2016. Hey the heartfelt dog funeral won
me over for Shahs! And the pending gay marriage.

[Burkhard]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 02:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:13:23 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> I watch keeping up with the kardishians every once in awhile
>>
>> Not allowed to close your eyes or turn your head away, and
>> no way to chew through the straps? You have my heartfelt
>> sympathy.
>
> I still don't quite understand what a kardashian is?

A humanoid race with light grey skin, inhabiting the Alpha Quadrant.
Often called "spoonheads" by other races.

I could "expand" on this

[Ymir]

In article <q42dnUu7UOx75e_I...@giganews.com>,

Haven't seen it, so I can't say.

But I suspect you missed the invisible smiley. I enjoy Ken Burns (and
Ric Burns as well).

Andre

[jillery]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:01:49 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>*Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 06/03/2015 02:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:13:23 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>>
>>>> I watch keeping up with the kardishians every once in awhile
>>>
>>> Not allowed to close your eyes or turn your head away, and
>>> no way to chew through the straps? You have my heartfelt
>>> sympathy.
>>
>> I still don't quite understand what a kardashian is?
>
>
> A humanoid race with light grey skin, inhabiting the Alpha Quadrant.
>Often called "spoonheads" by other races.
>
>I could "expand" on this

I'm hoping for a pregnant pause.

>Is that some sort
>> of sweater that protects orange juice from heat?
>>
>> Caitlyn is a sun with many satellites.
>>
>> I probably know more about Kardashians than I should. Shahs of Sunset
>> beats them hands down. Hopefully I'm not igniting some ancient Farsi vs.
>> Armenian thing here. That could get ugly, but they could market it.
>> Shahs vs. Kardashians Showdown 2016. Hey the heartfelt dog funeral won
>> me over for Shahs! And the pending gay marriage.
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 21:07:41 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:

OK, that indeed leaves out The Onion and most other parody
sites I've visited. So it was either a minor parody site, or
(God forbid) meant seriously.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:33:33 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>On 06/03/2015 02:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:13:23 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> I watch keeping up with the kardishians every once in awhile
>>
>> Not allowed to close your eyes or turn your head away, and
>> no way to chew through the straps? You have my heartfelt
>> sympathy.
>
>I still don't quite understand what a kardashian is? Is that some sort
>of sweater that protects orange juice from heat?

I'm sure they sweat, but the only things they seem to
protect against are good taste and rational thought.

>Caitlyn is a sun with many satellites.
>
>I probably know more about Kardashians than I should. Shahs of Sunset
>beats them hands down. Hopefully I'm not igniting some ancient Farsi vs.
>Armenian thing here. That could get ugly, but they could market it.
>Shahs vs. Kardashians Showdown 2016. Hey the heartfelt dog funeral won
>me over for Shahs! And the pending gay marriage.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 07:53:35 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:

I was a fan of George Burns...

....and of Major Assburns, cavalry officer and author of "40
Years in the Saddle".