Georgann's Picture Explained!
Elroy Willis
See it here, folks!
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
John Hattan
>See it here, folks!
>
>http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
georgann
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> See it here, folks!
>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
John Hattan:
> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
georgann:
You're both plagiarists.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท. Job 1:22 ""Through all this .ทดจ `ป
Job did not sin nor did he blame God.""
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> See it here, folks!
>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
SPONG SPONG!
Elroy Willis
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> See it here, folks!
>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> John Hattan:
>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
> georgann:
> You're both plagiarists.
How come you don't wanna put labels on your own diagram?
Can't you explain it?
John Hattan
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> See it here, folks!
>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>John Hattan:
>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
>georgann:
>You're both plagiarists.
Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
John Hattan
>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>> See it here, folks!
>
>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>
>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>
>SPONG SPONG!
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท. SPONG!! .ทดจ `ป
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
---
georgann
>> You're both plagiarists.
Elroy Willis:
> How come you don't wanna put labels on your own diagram?
> Can't you explain it?
georgann:
Its taken me 15 years to get the drawings to this point. I think I can take
a few months to do the text part don't you? Plus I want to be sure I don't
"editorialize".
georgann
>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>> John Hattan:
>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>> georgann:
>> You're both plagiarists.
John Hattan:
> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
georgann:
I didn't ask you to put labels on it. I said you should try it. The drawings
took me 15 years on and off. You couldn't come up with this diagram on your
own in a million years.
Bob Moss
georgann wrote:
>
> georgann:
> I didn't ask you to put labels on it. I said you should try it. The drawings
> took me 15 years on and off. You couldn't come up with this diagram on your
> own in a million years.
>
I wouldn't WANT to. If I was going to make a diagram (which I do as part
of
my work), I would want something that makes SENSE!!!
raven1
wrote:
>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>>> John Hattan:
>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
>>> georgann:
>>> You're both plagiarists.
>
>John Hattan:
>> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
>> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
>
>georgann:
>I didn't ask you to put labels on it. I said you should try it. The drawings
>took me 15 years on and off. You couldn't come up with this diagram on your
>own in a million years.
I could do it in 15 *minutes* if I took LSD.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>> SPONG SPONG!
> (`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
>ซดจ`ท. SPONG!! .ทดจ `ป
> (ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
</me wipes tears from eyes>
Elroy Willis
>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>>> John Hattan:
>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>>> georgann:
>>> You're both plagiarists.
> John Hattan:
>> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
>> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
> georgann:
> I didn't ask you to put labels on it. I said you should try it.
What's the difference?
> The drawings took me 15 years on and off.
I hope you don't mind if I tell you I think you wasted a bunch of
time. Do you often waste time thinking about how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin as well as constructing meaningless
diagrams?
> You couldn't come up with this diagram on your own in a million years.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to?
You've apparently created a diagram that explains everything, yet you
can't even explain it to anyone else. You know what that means, don't
you?
georgann
> You've apparently created a diagram that explains everything, yet you
> can't even explain it to anyone else. You know what that means, don't
> you?
georgann:
I do know what it means. And I can explain it. I just haven't finished yet.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis:
>> You've apparently created a diagram that explains everything, yet you
>> can't even explain it to anyone else. You know what that means, don't
>> you?
> georgann:
> I do know what it means. And I can explain it. I just haven't finished yet.
Uh huh.
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> You're both plagiarists.
> Elroy Willis:
>> How come you don't wanna put labels on your own diagram?
>> Can't you explain it?
> georgann:
> Its taken me 15 years to get the drawings to this point. I think I can take
> a few months to do the text part don't you? Plus I want to be sure I don't
> "editorialize".
Is that possible?
georgann
>>>> You're both plagiarists.
>> Elroy Willis:
>>> How come you don't wanna put labels on your own diagram?
>>> Can't you explain it?
>> georgann:
>> Its taken me 15 years to get the drawings to this point. I think I can take
>> a few months to do the text part don't you? Plus I want to be sure I don't
>> "editorialize".
Elroy Willis:
> Is that possible?
georgann:
Is it possible not to editorialize? I'm gonna give it my best shot. Since it
all came from Genesis Exodus I intend to show how it came from Genesis
Exodus. Then tidy up with other scriptural references.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·. "This is when matter finally .·´¨ `»
got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/8/01
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
>«´¨`·. "This is when matter finally .·´¨ `»
> got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
> Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
> of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/8/01
8/8/01 ? It's a miracle!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>. 45.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
georgann
>> got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
>> Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
>> of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/8/01
Therion Ware:
> 8/8/01 ? It's a miracle!
georgann:
Sorry. I think it was 8/4. I'll correct.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท. "This is when matter finally .ทดจ `ป
got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/4/01
Jeff Graham
bellowed
>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>See it here, folks!
>>
>>http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>
>http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
Where's Guinubis?
--
Jeffrey L. Graham - a.a.# 1946
High Priest of Guinubis
Worship the One True God
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/templeofguinubis/
For a few good laughs, go to
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/religioushumour/
Personal replies may be posted to alt.fan.jeffrey-graham (if your server doesn't carry it, ask for it).
John Hattan
>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>>> John Hattan:
>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
>>> georgann:
>>> You're both plagiarists.
>
>John Hattan:
>> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
>> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
>
>georgann:
>I didn't ask you to put labels on it. I said you should try it.
And we did try it, so don't have a hissy-fit about it.
>The drawings took me 15 years on and off.
Was the chimp with the crayon on strike?
>You couldn't come up with this diagram on your
>own in a million years.
You're right about that. I also couldn't come up with a diagram proving
that dogshit is tunafish. That's cause it ain't so.
John Hattan
>Elroy Willis:
>> You've apparently created a diagram that explains everything, yet you
>> can't even explain it to anyone else. You know what that means, don't
>> you?
>
>georgann:
>I do know what it means. And I can explain it. I just haven't finished yet.
You don't need to explain it. We did it for you.
John Hattan
>On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 12:53:54 -0500, John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com>
>bellowed
>
>>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>See it here, folks!
>>>
>>>http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>>
>>Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>
>>http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>>
>Where's Guinubis?
It's actually a 3-dimensional page, ala "Contact". If you project the
drawing on a regular morphile transobdorigiate, you will see that
Guinubis is just left of center behind the Noncomposmentis Zone.
Fury
news:B79305CA.2FD2F%chen...@mindspring.com...
>
> > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> See it here, folks!
> >> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
> John Hattan:
> > Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> > http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
> georgann:
> You're both plagiarists.
Nonsense. They satirized it.
Fury
news:nu3rmtceafftd4hmv...@4ax.com...
> georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>> See it here, folks!
> >>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> >
> >John Hattan:
> >> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> >> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
> >
> >georgann:
> >You're both plagiarists.
>
> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
>
> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
Besides that, neither of you claimed it was yours or used it without
attribution...hell, her name's all over one of them!
Earle D Jones
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>> georgann:
> >>>> You're both plagiarists.
>
> >> Elroy Willis:
> >>> How come you don't wanna put labels on your own diagram?
> >>> Can't you explain it?
>
> >> georgann:
> >> Its taken me 15 years to get the drawings to this point. I think I can take
> >> a few months to do the text part don't you? Plus I want to be sure I don't
> >> "editorialize".
>
> Elroy Willis:
> > Is that possible?
>
> georgann:
> Is it possible not to editorialize? I'm gonna give it my best shot. Since it
> all came from Genesis Exodus I intend to show how it came from Genesis
> Exodus. Then tidy up with other scriptural references.
*
Go ahead Georgie love, you sweet thang.
Tidy up those scriptural references.
Why not? Tidying up scriptural references has been going on for about
two thousand years. If you don't like 'em, tidy 'em up.
Your bible, which was produced by illiterate bronze-age nomads, has been
translated, re-written, edited, and re-re-written, and then
re-translated so many times that anything left is automatically suspect.
It is full of parables and outright lies. Sadly, among the claptrap are
some good morals: Don't kill each other, don't steal you neighbor's
property, etc.
Unfortunately, this good advice is lost among the "Do not suffer a witch
to live" bullshit. And a little virgin birth, life after death and such
other impossibilities, renders the whole as one big wastebasket.
You're betting a lot on the "Rapture" of 2026, aren't you? But
actually, you are not risking anything, as a matter of fact. Because
when it comes and goes, when you are 77, I think you said, you will come
up with some other date, let's say 2048 -- that would be a good one,
right? When Israel is 100 years old. And you too will be 100! Also
2048 is two raised to the eleventh power. Eleven is a prime number.
And that is only 22 years later. And 22 is a very important number. It
is equal to twice eleven.
It all adds up.
In 2048, I will be 107 years old, so I don't expect to be around
celebrating the big event.
But then, it is likely not to happen. So, how about another date? How
about 4196? That date has some most interesting characteristics.
Do you have some other suggestions? Contingency planning is always a
good idea. What about the contingency that 2026 does not produce a
"Rapture"? What will you do?
In god's name and phone number,
earle
*
Jeff Graham
>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>news:nu3rmtceafftd4hmv...@4ax.com...
>> georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >>> See it here, folks!
>> >>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>> >
>> >John Hattan:
>> >> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>> >> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>> >
>> >georgann:
>> >You're both plagiarists.
>>
>> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
>>
>> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
>
>Besides that, neither of you claimed it was yours or used it without
>attribution...hell, her name's all over one of them!
Her tit's on it, too.
georgann
>>>> Its taken me 15 years to get the drawings to this point. I think I can take
>>>> a few months to do the text part don't you? Plus I want to be sure I don't
>>>> "editorialize".
>> Elroy Willis:
>>> Is that possible?
>> georgann:
>> Is it possible not to editorialize? I'm gonna give it my best shot. Since it
>> all came from Genesis Exodus I intend to show how it came from Genesis
>> Exodus. Then tidy up with other scriptural references.
Earle D Jones:
> Go ahead Georgie love, you sweet thang.
> Tidy up those scriptural references.
> Why not? Tidying up scriptural references has been going on for about
> two thousand years. If you don't like 'em, tidy 'em up.
georgann:
I said tidy up WITH scriptural references. Drink much??
> It all adds up.
georgann:
Booooring....
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·. "This is when matter finally .·´¨ `»
got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/4/01
georgann
>>>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>>>> John Hattan:
>>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>>>> georgann:
>>>> You're both plagiarists.
>>> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
>>> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
>> Besides that, neither of you claimed it was yours or used it without
>> attribution...hell, her name's all over one of them!
Jeff Graham:
> Her tit's on it, too.
georgann:
Dogs have tits. Women have breasts.
Are you trying to tell us you're a misogynist?
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท. "This is when matter finally .ทดจ `ป
got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/4/01
John Hattan
>>>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>>>>> John Hattan:
>>>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
>>>>> georgann:
>>>>> You're both plagiarists.
>
>>>> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
>>>> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
>
>>> Besides that, neither of you claimed it was yours or used it without
>>> attribution...hell, her name's all over one of them!
>
>Jeff Graham:
>> Her tit's on it, too.
>
>georgann:
>Dogs have tits. Women have breasts.
>Are you trying to tell us you're a misogynist?
Aww, c'mon Georgann. Don't get your tits in a tizzy.
Bob Moss
georgann wrote:
me's all over one of them!
>
> Jeff Graham:
> > Her tit's on it, too.
>
> georgann:
> Dogs have tits. Women have breasts.
> Are you trying to tell us you're a misogynist?
>
Technically, all mammal females have teats. Breasts
is the term if you wish to politically correct.
You are doing a wonderful job in keeping your temper...
Considering you are posting to two atheistic groups
(one of which is Satire, by gosh), about the RAPTURE
even, you are getting exactly what should be expected.
Dear, you are fun to tease, but you know us atheists at
the very best consider you totally off the wall.
Tell me dearie.. since the concept of the Rapture was
created by John Nelson Darby in the mid 19th century,
and the New Testament was decided upon in the 4th Century,
why did it take 1500 years for these scriptures to be interpreted
this way?
Therion Ware
alt.atheism:
Christians are a bit slow on the uptake?
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> See it here, folks!
>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>John Hattan:
>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
>georgann:
>You're both plagiarists.
Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
---
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
Elroy Willis
>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>> John Hattan:
>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>> georgann:
>> You're both plagiarists.
> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
It is?
Frank Wustner
> Bored With The Boring Again wrote in alt.atheism
> >georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>>> See it here, folks!
> >>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> >> John Hattan:
> >>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> >>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
> >> georgann:
> >> You're both plagiarists.
> > Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
> > PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
> It is?
Yes it is. That's why Mad Magazine doesn't get sued (anymore) for all
the movie and tv satire it does. You can take any copyrighted thing you
want and mess it up. And as long as you are satirizing it rather than
plagerizing it for your own production, you are not violating copyright
law. So says numerous court cases in the U.S.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Bored With The Boring Again wrote in alt.atheism
>>> georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>>>> John Hattan:
>>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>>>> georgann:
>>>> You're both plagiarists.
>>> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
>>> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
>> It is?
> Yes it is. That's why Mad Magazine doesn't get sued (anymore) for all
> the movie and tv satire it does. You can take any copyrighted thing you
> want and mess it up. And as long as you are satirizing it rather than
> plagerizing it for your own production, you are not violating copyright
> law. So says numerous court cases in the U.S.
Does that mean I can take a Jack Chick comic and put my own words
in the captions to mock and satire it as long as I don't sell it or
try to make a profit from the satire?
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>>> «´¨`·. "This is when matter finally .·´¨ `»
>>> got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
>>> Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
>>> of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/8/01
>Therion Ware:
>> 8/8/01 ? It's a miracle!
>georgann:
>Sorry. I think it was 8/4. I'll correct.
Instead of making up, why don't you copy/paste?
Or would that be too honest?
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>I said tidy up WITH scriptural references. Drink much??
There are no years, AD or BC, in the scriptural references, so that's
just your editorializing.
>> You're betting a lot on the "Rapture" of 2026, aren't you? But
>> actually, you are not risking anything, as a matter of fact. Because
>> when it comes and goes, when you are 77, I think you said, you will come
>> up with some other date, let's say 2048 -- that would be a good one,
>> right? When Israel is 100 years old. And you too will be 100! Also
>> 2048 is two raised to the eleventh power. Eleven is a prime number.
>> And that is only 22 years later. And 22 is a very important number. It
>> is equal to twice eleven.
>> It all adds up.
>> In 2048, I will be 107 years old, so I don't expect to be around
>> celebrating the big event.
>> But then, it is likely not to happen. So, how about another date? How
>> about 4196? That date has some most interesting characteristics.
>> Do you have some other suggestions? Contingency planning is always a
>> good idea. What about the contingency that 2026 does not produce a
>> "Rapture"? What will you do?
>> In god's name and phone number,
>> earle
>georgann:
>Booooring....
Your claim of rapture in 2026? It sure is.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Jeff Graham:
>> Her tit's on it, too.
>georgann:
>Dogs have tits. Women have breasts.
Opinion's still out on what you are. "Hypocrite" and "dishonest" are
shoe-ins, though.
>Are you trying to tell us you're a misogynist?
That would only be possible if you're a woman and Jeff hates you.
Frank Wustner
> > Yes it is. That's why Mad Magazine doesn't get sued (anymore) for all
> > the movie and tv satire it does. You can take any copyrighted thing you
> > want and mess it up. And as long as you are satirizing it rather than
> > plagerizing it for your own production, you are not violating copyright
> > law. So says numerous court cases in the U.S.
> Does that mean I can take a Jack Chick comic and put my own words
> in the captions to mock and satire it as long as I don't sell it or
> try to make a profit from the satire?
I don't know all the quirks and provisions of this matter. I *think*
that you can do that. But don't take my word for it. I'm not a legal
expert.
Fury
> georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> See it here, folks!
> >>>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> >
> >>>>> John Hattan:
> >>>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> >>>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
> >
> >>>>> georgann:
> >>>>> You're both plagiarists.
> >
> >>>> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
> >>>> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
> >
> >>> Besides that, neither of you claimed it was yours or used it without
> >>> attribution...hell, her name's all over one of them!
> >
> >Jeff Graham:
> >> Her tit's on it, too.
> >
> >georgann:
> >Dogs have tits. Women have breasts.
> >Are you trying to tell us you're a misogynist?
>
> Aww, c'mon Georgann. Don't get your tits in a tizzy.
Could be worse...she could get her nips in a twist.
georgann
>>> John Hattan:
>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>>> georgann:
>>> You're both plagiarists.
>> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
>> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
Elroy Willis:
> It is?
georgann:
No. The legal point of copyright and trademark laws is not to play gotcha,
but to permit the true owner due compensation and protection from theft or
alterations such as the ones you perps have jollied about with.
Since I have the only originals on the planet and you guys only have the
"copy" that I originally published (which by law has already established
copyright to me) the answer is no. Were it to become necessary to cause a
cease and desist of any further fiddling around, I've not doubt I'd win in
any court in the land.
But since I'm not a prick, I have no intention of involving the law.
Pointing out your abysmal lack of originality and insight is fun enough for
me and the reason why I aptly pointed our your plagiarism swelled hearts.
Satire it may be, but if you tried to make a dime off of it I'd own your
take home pay for your entire lives.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·. "This is when matter finally .·´¨ `»
got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
georgann
>>>> got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
>>>> Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
>>>> of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/8/01
>> Therion Ware:
>>> 8/8/01 ? It's a miracle!
>> georgann:
>> Sorry. I think it was 8/4. I'll correct.
Al Klein:
> Instead of making up, why don't you copy/paste?
> Or would that be too honest?
georgann:
I did copy paste. The one section I wanted. It was simpler to type in the
name and date of the publication. Its a stupid typo. So sue me.
You guys aren't prone to spell flames are you?
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท. "This is when matter finally .ทดจ `ป
got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
georgann
Al Klein:
> There are no years, AD or BC, in the scriptural references, so that's
> just your editorializing.
georgann:
Wrong. The numbers are all from the Bible. They are the years "added up"
from Adam. I have no indications of BC or AD on the chart anywhere.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท. "This is when matter finally .ทดจ `ป
got organized enough to create stars and galaxies."
Dr. Robert H. Becker, astrophysicist, University
of California, Davis / New York Times, 8/4/01
Ken Smith
> >>>>> See it here, folks!
> >>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
> >>> John Hattan:
> >>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> >>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
> >>> georgann:
> >>> You're both plagiarists.
>
> >> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
> >> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
>
> Elroy Willis:
> > It is?
>
> georgann:
> No. The legal point of copyright and trademark laws is not to play gotcha,
> but to permit the true owner due compensation and protection from theft or
> alterations such as the ones you perps have jollied about with.
But satire allows much greater latitude, as it is intended to conjure
visions of the original.
> Since I have the only originals on the planet and you guys only have the
> "copy" that I originally published (which by law has already established
> copyright to me) the answer is no. Were it to become necessary to cause a
> cease and desist of any further fiddling around, I've not doubt I'd win in
> any court in the land.
I doubt it. The most important factor in an infringement case is
the effect upon the market for a work ... and it's no Lassen.
> But since I'm not a prick, I have no intention of involving the law.
Translated, the court would laugh at her work, and she knows it.
> Pointing out your abysmal lack of originality and insight is fun enough for
> me and the reason why I aptly pointed our your plagiarism swelled hearts.
> Satire it may be, but if you tried to make a dime off of it I'd own your
> take home pay for your entire lives.
I doubt it.
John Hattan
>>>>>> See it here, folks!
>>>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
>>>> John Hattan:
>>>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
>>>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
>>>> georgann:
>>>> You're both plagiarists.
>
>>> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
>>> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
>
>Elroy Willis:
>> It is?
>
>georgann:
>No. The legal point of copyright and trademark laws is not to play gotcha,
>but to permit the true owner due compensation and protection from theft or
>alterations such as the ones you perps have jollied about with.
Wrong. It's called parody. My drawing is a parody of yours. It's legal.
Furthermore, you invited us to label your drawing, so don't have a
hissy-fit because we did.
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท. Sucks for you, Georganne .ทดจ `ป
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
---
arjay
> georgann wrote in alt.atheism
> >>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> >>>>> See it here, folks!
> >>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
> >>> John Hattan:
> >>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> >>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
> >>> georgann:
> >>> You're both plagiarists.
>
> >> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we did.
> >> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
>
> > I didn't ask you to put labels on it. I said you should try it.
>
> What's the difference?
>
> > The drawings took me 15 years on and off.
>
> I hope you don't mind if I tell you I think you wasted a bunch of
> time. Do you often waste time thinking about how many angels can
> dance on the head of a pin as well as constructing meaningless
> diagrams?
>
> > You couldn't come up with this diagram on your own in a million years.
>
> Why would anyone in their right mind want to?
>
> You've apparently created a diagram that explains everything, yet you
> can't even explain it to anyone else. You know what that means, don't
> you?
George Hammond isn't alone in his affliction?
arjay
Jim Fay
georgann wrote:
>
> >>>>> See it here, folks!
> >>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
> >>> John Hattan:
> >>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> >>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
> >>> georgann:
> >>> You're both plagiarists.
>
> >> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
> >> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
>
> Elroy Willis:
> > It is?
>
> georgann:
> No. The legal point of copyright and trademark laws is not to play gotcha,
> but to permit the true owner due compensation and protection from theft or
> alterations such as the ones you perps have jollied about with.
Nope. the point is to keep people from profiting from plagiarism. And
that's it. And it only protects material for which you actually have a
copyright.
> Since I have the only originals on the planet and you guys only have the
> "copy" that I originally published (which by law has already established
> copyright to me) the answer is no. Were it to become necessary to cause a
> cease and desist of any further fiddling around, I've not doubt I'd win in
> any court in the land.
I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
> But since I'm not a prick, I have no intention of involving the law.
That and the fact that you couldn't possibly involve the law.
August Pamplona
news:3B702853...@gmi.net...
>
>
> georgann wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> See it here, folks!
> > >>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> >
> > >>> John Hattan:
> > >>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> > >>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
> >
> > >>> georgann:
> > >>> You're both plagiarists.
> >
> > >> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
> > >> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
> >
> > Elroy Willis:
> > > It is?
> >
> > georgann:
> > No. The legal point of copyright and trademark laws is not to play
gotcha,
> > but to permit the true owner due compensation and protection from theft
or
> > alterations such as the ones you perps have jollied about with.
As Frank Wustner explained, you are incorrect. Parody is a special case.
>
> Nope. the point is to keep people from profiting from plagiarism. And
> that's it. And it only protects material for which you actually have a
> copyright.
>
> > Since I have the only originals on the planet and you guys only have the
> > "copy" that I originally published (which by law has already established
> > copyright to me) the answer is no. Were it to become necessary to cause
a
> > cease and desist of any further fiddling around, I've not doubt I'd win
in
> > any court in the land.
>
> I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
> history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
> for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
> out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
I believe you are incorrect about copyright here. If Georgann made it,
she has the copyright (that's all there's to it). There's a copyright FAQ
somewhere on the internet that should go into some detail about that but I'm
too lazy to look for it now. Georgann would lose because the "copied" work
is protected as a parody, not because she doesn't own the copyright.
>
> > But since I'm not a prick, I have no intention of involving the law.
>
> That and the fact that you couldn't possibly involve the law.
August Pamplona
--
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot."
--some article at The Guardian (20, Jan., 2001 )
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'
August Pamplona
news:cRTb7.24404$5c.14...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Elroy Willis" wrote ...
> > georgann wrote in alt.atheism
> > >>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> See it here, folks!
> > >>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> >
> > >>> John Hattan:
> > >>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> > >>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
> >
> > >>> georgann:
> > >>> You're both plagiarists.
> >
> > > John Hattan:
> > >> Piss off. You challenged us to put labels on your diagram, and we
did.
> > >> Here's a hint, Georgann. It ain't plagiarism if YOU ASK US TO DO IT!
> >
> > > georgann:
> > > I didn't ask you to put labels on it. I said you should try it.
> >
> > What's the difference?
> >
> > > The drawings took me 15 years on and off.
> >
[piggybacking]
Holy shit! 15 years? I just figured you must have spent a handful of
nights drawing pretty lines, but 15 years? You may not have been officially
"born again while you were making this, but you sure must have been one hell
of an obsessed dedicated Christer. I think I'll second someone's suggestion
made on a thread quite a while ago that you seek professional help.
August Pamplona
--
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot."
--some article at The Guardian (20, Jan., 2001 )
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'
[snip]
georgann
> I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
> history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
> for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
> out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
georgann:
You need to bone up on the law. Publication itself is considered an act of
copyright in this day and age.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ Corinthians 13:11-13 For now we see .ธธ.ทดจ `ป
in a mirror dimly, but then face to face;
now I know in part, but then I will know fully
just as I also have been fully known.
georgann
> Holy shit! 15 years? I just figured you must have spent a handful of
> nights drawing pretty lines, but 15 years? You may not have been officially
> "born again while you were making this, but you sure must have been one hell
> of an obsessed dedicated Christer. I think I'll second someone's suggestion
> made on a thread quite a while ago that you seek professional help.
georgann:
It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us up to
today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
Bob Moss
georgann wrote:
>
on a thread quite a while ago that you seek professional help.
>
> georgann:
> It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us up to
> today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
> anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
> --
>
Because it makes no sense??
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote ...
>> georgann wrote in alt.atheism
>>> You couldn't come up with this diagram on your own in a million years.
>> Why would anyone in their right mind want to?
>> You've apparently created a diagram that explains everything, yet you
>> can't even explain it to anyone else. You know what that means, don't
>> you?
> George Hammond isn't alone in his affliction?
Yep. It's funny to watch people like georgann come up with all kinds
of weird stuff in their futile attempts to defend the Bible.
Elroy Willis
> August Pamplona:
>> Holy shit! 15 years? I just figured you must have spent a handful of
>> nights drawing pretty lines, but 15 years? You may not have been officially
>> "born again while you were making this, but you sure must have been one hell
>> of an obsessed dedicated Christer. I think I'll second someone's suggestion
>> made on a thread quite a while ago that you seek professional help.
> georgann:
> It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us up to
> today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
> anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
searching but couldn't find it. It was better than yours though,
since it actually had some labels on it. The least you could do is
label a few of the parts, maybe some of the little white dots or
something. As it stands, my parody makes more sense than
your original drawing.
georgann
>> It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us up to
>> today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
>> anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
Elroy Willis:
> I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
> searching but couldn't find it.
georgann:
This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus? Was it
animated? Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>>> I said tidy up WITH scriptural references. Drink much??
>Al Klein:
>> There are no years, AD or BC, in the scriptural references, so that's
>> just your editorializing.
>georgann:
>Wrong. The numbers are all from the Bible. They are the years "added up"
>from Adam.
Assuming that there were no people in between that the bible left out.
Your figures are only the minimums.
> I have no indications of BC or AD on the chart anywhere.
Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
georgann
> Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
> sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
> have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
georgann:
If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ Corinthians 13:11-13 For now we see .ธธ.ทดจ `ป
in a mirror dimly, but then face to face;
now I know in part, but then I will know fully
just as I also have been fully known.
John Hattan
>>> georgann:
>>> It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us up to
>>> today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
>>> anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
>
>Elroy Willis:
>> I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
>> searching but couldn't find it.
>
>georgann:
>This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus? Was it
>animated? Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
My my. Somebody's really got their panties in a bunch today. Forget your
daily prayer-soaking or something, Georgann?
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>August Pamplona:
>> Holy shit! 15 years? I just figured you must have spent a handful of
>> nights drawing pretty lines, but 15 years? You may not have been officially
>> "born again while you were making this, but you sure must have been one hell
>> of an obsessed dedicated Christer. I think I'll second someone's suggestion
>> made on a thread quite a while ago that you seek professional help.
>
>georgann:
>It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us up to
>today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
>anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
Check it out. I think you and the site's author have a lot in common.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
---
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us up to
>>> today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
>>> anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
> Elroy Willis:
>> I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
>> searching but couldn't find it.
> georgann:
> This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus?
Can't say for sure. I don't remember a whole lot about the site. I
wish I would've bookmarked it, but at the time I guess I thought it
was so ridiculous that it wasn't worth it.
> Was it animated?
No, it wasn't animated.
> Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
It was something astronomical/astrological I think. Something to do
with Venus/Satan/Lucifer/Jesus and the Star of David perhaps. It was
one of those sites that you end up on and can't remember all the links
you followed to get there.
I do remember it was graphical, with lines all over the place, and
different "levels" of something or another. Just more weird stuff
if you ask me.
Elroy Willis
> Al Klein:
>> Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
>> sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
>> have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
> georgann:
> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
Which chart?
August Pamplona
news:B796065C.3092B%chen...@mindspring.com...
> >> georgann:
> >> It was about 1.5 years, a 12 year sabbatical and 1.5 years bringing us
up to
> >> today. And if its so easy how come I can't find anyone, and I do mean
> >> anyone, anywhere on the web that has anything similar to it?
>
> Elroy Willis:
> > I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
> > searching but couldn't find it.
>
> georgann:
> This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus? Was
it
> animated? Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
>
Does this mean you're thinking about making yours animated too? Oh
goodie, I can't wait to see the next revision! :^)
August Pamplona
--
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot."
--some article at The Guardian (20, Jan., 2001 )
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'
> --
Elroy Willis
>> Elroy Willis:
>>> I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
>>> searching but couldn't find it.
>> georgann:
>> This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus?
>> Was it animated?
> Does this mean you're thinking about making yours animated too? Oh
> goodie, I can't wait to see the next revision! :^)
She can't even manage to put labels on her drawing, so I can't imagine
that she could figure out how to animate it, or why she'd animate it
instead of just putting some simple labels on it. Gawd only knows
I suppose. Heh.
Fury
message news:TIYb7.1315$K17.4...@ratbert.tds.net...
According to current copyright law, IIRC, you are protected by copyright law
worldwide as soon as the ink hits the page, or the text hits your disk. This
would include drawings, photos, graphics, text, etc.--and it covers both
meatspace and cyber.
Fury
> Jim Fay:
> > I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
> > history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
> > for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
> > out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
>
> georgann:
> You need to bone up on the law. Publication itself is considered an act of
> copyright in this day and age.
This would also include non-published works, like the technical drawings I've
been working on, or artwork I did in Photoshop, etc.--basically as soon as the
ink hits the page, it's protected.
georgann
>> georgann:
>> This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus?
Elroy Willis:
> Can't say for sure. I don't remember a whole lot about the site. I
> wish I would've bookmarked it, but at the time I guess I thought it
> was so ridiculous that it wasn't worth it.
>> Was it animated?
Elroy Willis:
> No, it wasn't animated.
>> Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
Elroy Willis:
> It was something astronomical/astrological I think. Something to do
> with Venus/Satan/Lucifer/Jesus and the Star of David perhaps. It was
> one of those sites that you end up on and can't remember all the links
> you followed to get there.
> I do remember it was graphical, with lines all over the place, and
> different "levels" of something or another. Just more weird stuff
> if you ask me.
georgann:
I thought I knew some site you might be referring to but now I can't find
it. I have URL Manager Pro which lets me collect and organize saved URLs in
a permanent file, but alas, I can't find the one I thought you might mean.
If you "Happen" to run into it again please let me know. I'd be much
obliged.
georgann
>>> Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
>>> sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
>>> have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
>> georgann:
>> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
>> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
Elroy Willis:
> Which chart?
georgann:
I meant diagram.
georgann
>>> I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
>>> searching but couldn't find it.
>> georgann:
>> This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus? Was it
>> animated? Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
August Pamplona:
> Does this mean you're thinking about making yours animated too? Oh goodie, I
> can't wait to see the next revision! :^)
georgann:
The animation _may_ not be the next revision. ONLY I can't figure out how to
make static labels or captions work very well. They would have to move too
and the text of any captions or labels would also change "over time". That
would be really confusing I fear.
It may have to go directly to animation to explain/show how one section
generates from another. Fade ins or morphs and actual movement seems
essential. I'm figuring Flash segments linked to text pages or pages with
still thumbnails to click on for the individual Flash pieces to keep it from
getting too huge.
The total play time could run up to an hour. So I'm also figuring a CD
version with only "teasers" on the web to help sell the CD and underwrite
this monster endeavor. I do have to make a living. :p
georgann
>>> I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
>>> history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
>>> for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
>>> out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
>> georgann:
>> You need to bone up on the law. Publication itself is considered an act of
>> copyright in this day and age.
Fury:
> This would also include non-published works, like the technical drawings I've
> been working on, or artwork I did in Photoshop, etc.--basically as soon as the
> ink hits the page, it's protected.
georgann:
That's my understanding of it too. I can't believe we actually agreed on
something...
John Hattan
>>> Jim Fay:
>>>> I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
>>>> history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
>>>> for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
>>>> out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
>
>>> georgann:
>>> You need to bone up on the law. Publication itself is considered an act of
>>> copyright in this day and age.
>
>Fury:
>> This would also include non-published works, like the technical drawings I've
>> been working on, or artwork I did in Photoshop, etc.--basically as soon as the
>> ink hits the page, it's protected.
>
>georgann:
>That's my understanding of it too. I can't believe we actually agreed on
>something...
So then you also agree that Elroy and my diagrams are works of parody
and are, therefore, given much more latitude.
SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF!
Elroy Willis
>>> Al Klein:
>>>> Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
>>>> sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
>>>> have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
>>> georgann:
>>> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
>>> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
> Elroy Willis:
>> Which chart?
> georgann:
> I meant diagram.
I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
Earle D Jones
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> georgann:
> I meant diagram.
> --
> (`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
> ซดจ`ท.ธธ Corinthians 13:11-13 For now we see .ธธ.ทดจ `ป
> in a mirror dimly, but then face to face;
> now I know in part, but then I will know fully
> just as I also have been fully known.
> (ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
>
Georgann: Just curious, but your biblical quotes do not seem to be from
the KJV. Which version do you use? Why not KJV?
earle
*
Earle D Jones
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>>> See it here, folks!
> >>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
>
> >>> John Hattan:
> >>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> >>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
>
> >>> georgann:
> >>> You're both plagiarists.
>
> >> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
> >> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
>
> Elroy Willis:
> > It is?
>
> georgann:
> No. The legal point of copyright and trademark laws is not to play gotcha,
> but to permit the true owner due compensation and protection from theft or
> alterations such as the ones you perps have jollied about with.
>
> Since I have the only originals on the planet and you guys only have the
> "copy" that I originally published (which by law has already established
> copyright to me) the answer is no. Were it to become necessary to cause a
> cease and desist of any further fiddling around, I've not doubt I'd win in
> any court in the land.
>
> But since I'm not a prick, I have no intention of involving the law.
>
> Pointing out your abysmal lack of originality and insight is fun enough for
> me and the reason why I aptly pointed our your plagiarism swelled hearts.
> Satire it may be, but if you tried to make a dime off of it I'd own your
> take home pay for your entire lives.
*
Georgann: If your copyright is violated, you could sue the violator for
damages. It would be up to you to show that you have been damaged. I
you persuaded a judge or jury, you could collect the amount of those
damages.
If you could prove that the violator used malice aforethought, you might
collect for punitive damages, which would be over and above ordinary
damages.
Have you been damaged? Have you suffered a financial loss as a result
to the violation of your copyright?
earle
*
Earle D Jones
> georgann wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> See it here, folks!
> > >>>>> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/gpic1.jpg
> >
> > >>> John Hattan:
> > >>>> Your diagram is heresy. Bow down to the One True Diagram!
> > >>>> http://www.metroplexatheists.org/diagram.jpg
> >
> > >>> georgann:
> > >>> You're both plagiarists.
> >
> > >> Poor widdle girl. Cannot handle satire, can we?
> > >> PS - That's considered "fair use" under current copyright law.
> >
> > Elroy Willis:
> > > It is?
> >
> > georgann:
> > No. The legal point of copyright and trademark laws is not to play gotcha,
> > but to permit the true owner due compensation and protection from theft or
> > alterations such as the ones you perps have jollied about with.
>
> Nope. the point is to keep people from profiting from plagiarism. And
> that's it. And it only protects material for which you actually have a
> copyright.
>
> > Since I have the only originals on the planet and you guys only have the
> > "copy" that I originally published (which by law has already established
> > copyright to me) the answer is no. Were it to become necessary to cause a
> > cease and desist of any further fiddling around, I've not doubt I'd win in
> > any court in the land.
>
> I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
> history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
> for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
> out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
*
In my opinion, Georgann *does* have a copyright. In the US, a copyright
exists automatically for any "work of authorship". This has been held
to cover written material, illustrations, paintings, and sculpture.
What Georgann has not done (I would guess) is register her copyright.
What that does is establish formally the ownership of the copyright.
Registration would make her case easier to prove in case of violation of
the copyright.
earle
*
John Hattan
She invited us to label her drawing. If she wanted to protect her
copyright, she should not have invited us to modify it.
Elroy Willis
>>> Elroy Willis:
>>>> I saw something just about as weird a few months ago. I just did some
>>>> searching but couldn't find it.
>>> georgann:
>>> This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus? Was it
>>> animated? Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
> August Pamplona:
>> Does this mean you're thinking about making yours animated too? Oh goodie, I
>> can't wait to see the next revision! :^)
> georgann:
> The animation _may_ not be the next revision. ONLY I can't figure out how to
> make static labels or captions work very well. They would have to move too
> and the text of any captions or labels would also change "over time". That
> would be really confusing I fear.
> It may have to go directly to animation to explain/show how one section
> generates from another. Fade ins or morphs and actual movement seems
> essential. I'm figuring Flash segments linked to text pages or pages with
> still thumbnails to click on for the individual Flash pieces to keep it from
> getting too huge.
> The total play time could run up to an hour. So I'm also figuring a CD
> version with only "teasers" on the web to help sell the CD and underwrite
> this monster endeavor. I do have to make a living. :p
<boggle>
You're gonna SELL your diagram? May I suggest that you have some
weird music playing in the background to make it even more awesome.
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> This thing you saw ... was it claiming to be from Genesis and Exodus?
> Elroy Willis:
>> Can't say for sure. I don't remember a whole lot about the site. I
>> wish I would've bookmarked it, but at the time I guess I thought it
>> was so ridiculous that it wasn't worth it.
>>> Was it animated?
> Elroy Willis:
>> No, it wasn't animated.
>>> Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
Which keywords would somebody use to find your diagram if it were
indexed?
> Elroy Willis:
>> It was something astronomical/astrological I think. Something to do
>> with Venus/Satan/Lucifer/Jesus and the Star of David perhaps. It was
>> one of those sites that you end up on and can't remember all the links
>> you followed to get there.
>> I do remember it was graphical, with lines all over the place, and
>> different "levels" of something or another. Just more weird stuff
>> if you ask me.
> georgann:
> I thought I knew some site you might be referring to but now I can't find
> it. I have URL Manager Pro which lets me collect and organize saved URLs in
> a permanent file, but alas, I can't find the one I thought you might mean.
I need me one of them there URL managers. Mine are a mess.
> If you "Happen" to run into it again please let me know. I'd be much
> obliged.
How come you wanna see it?
I did find this one, but it wasn't the one I was thinking of:
http://www.thunderministries.com/image/star.JPG
georgann
>>>> You need to bone up on the law. Publication itself is considered an act of
>>>> copyright in this day and age.
>> Fury:
>>> This would also include non-published works, like the technical drawings
>>> I've been working on, or artwork I did in Photoshop, etc.--basically as soon
>>> as the ink hits the page, it's protected.
>> georgann:
>> That's my understanding of it too. I can't believe we actually agreed on
>> something...
John Hattan:
> So then you also agree that Elroy and my diagrams are works of parody
> and are, therefore, given much more latitude.
>
> SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF!
georgann:
Oui, oui, oui.
georgann
>>>>> Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
>>>>> sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
>>>>> have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
>>>> georgann:
>>>> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
>>>> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
>> Elroy Willis:
>>> Which chart?
>> georgann:
>> I meant diagram.
Elroy Willis:
> I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
georgann:
Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the total
years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges) that needs to
be removed.
georgann
>> I meant diagram.
>> --
>> (`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
>> ซดจ`ท.ธธ Corinthians 13:11-13 For now we see .ธธ.ทดจ `ป
>> in a mirror dimly, but then face to face;
>> now I know in part, but then I will know fully
>> just as I also have been fully known.
>> (ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
Earle D Jones:
> Georgann: Just curious, but your biblical quotes do not seem to be from
> the KJV. Which version do you use? Why not KJV?
georgann:
I prefer New American Standard to almost all others. Don't like KJV cause
its so flowery and grandiose you can't get a handle on anything. JMO.
John Hattan
>>>>> georgann:
>>>>> You need to bone up on the law. Publication itself is considered an act of
>>>>> copyright in this day and age.
>
>>> Fury:
>>>> This would also include non-published works, like the technical drawings
>>>> I've been working on, or artwork I did in Photoshop, etc.--basically as soon
>>>> as the ink hits the page, it's protected.
>
>>> georgann:
>>> That's my understanding of it too. I can't believe we actually agreed on
>>> something...
>
>John Hattan:
>> So then you also agree that Elroy and my diagrams are works of parody
>> and are, therefore, given much more latitude.
>>
>> SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF!
>
>georgann:
>Oui, oui, oui.
So quit carpin' about plagiarism, you annoying diagram-drawing nutbar.
georgann
>>> No, it wasn't animated.
>>>> Do you remember ANYTHING about the search words you used then?
Elroy Willis:
> Which keywords would somebody use to find your diagram if it were
> indexed?
georgann:
Keywords for mine would be Genesis, Exodus, creation, ages, time, plan,
geometry, Giza, Orion, ... plus a number of others I'll shove into the page
titles to get good traffic.
>> Elroy Willis:
>>> It was something astronomical/astrological I think. Something to do
>>> with Venus/Satan/Lucifer/Jesus and the Star of David perhaps. It was
>>> one of those sites that you end up on and can't remember all the links
>>> you followed to get there.
>>> I do remember it was graphical, with lines all over the place, and
>>> different "levels" of something or another. Just more weird stuff
>>> if you ask me.
>> georgann:
>> I thought I knew some site you might be referring to but now I can't find
>> it. I have URL Manager Pro which lets me collect and organize saved URLs in
>> a permanent file, but alas, I can't find the one I thought you might mean.
Elroy Willis:
> I need me one of them there URL managers. Mine are a mess.
georgann:
I'd send you to the one I've got but its only made for Mac. Also records
history. Allows you to organize them more simply than any other I've seen.
Plus if you like to use more than one browser for different reasons, you're
bookmarks are always available.
>> If you "Happen" to run into it again please let me know. I'd be much
>> obliged.
Elroy Willis:
> How come you wanna see it?
georgann:
I'm trying to determine if anyone else if working on a similar thing. I.e.
if anyone else has figured out that the whole of creation (Genesis Days) is
a time map for all of time and that the dates from Adam to the Promised land
are a type of legend to it. That sort of thing.
georgann
> Have you been damaged? Have you suffered a financial loss as a result
> to the violation of your copyright?
georgann:
Earle, I wasn't planning to sue anyone. This stuff isn't serious. Besides
you'll notice I didn't publish my Freehand file but rather a PDF that would
be impossible to convert back into a Freehand file.
I ain't stupid.
Elroy Willis
Bob Moss
georgann wrote:
>
> on do you use? Why not KJV?
>
> georgann:
> I prefer New American Standard to almost all others. Don't like KJV cause
> its so flowery and grandiose you can't get a handle on anything. JMO.
> --
>
Well, not a total loss, the KJV is the worst translation out there.
THe main problem I have with most translations of the Old Testament is
that
they have been translated to be 'pre-cursors' to the new testament, and
many things have been mis-translated because of that.
Brian Kunst
> I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
> history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish it,
> for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
> out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
Not to defend Georgann, but she is correct in this regard. Everything
anyway produces, including this message I am typing right now, is
protected under current copyright laws. The reason that any publisher
can publish Shakespeare, or any other older work, is that those works
have fallen into public domain.
Brian Kunst
Dethstryk
chen...@mindspring.com>:
>Elroy Willis:
>> I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
>
>georgann:
>Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the total
>years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges) that needs to
>be removed.
Just a hint, but that part is pretty hard to read. You might want to fix
that.
x-----------------------------x
| Dethstryk aa #1884 |
| jema...@tcainternet.com |
| http://thoughtcoma.dhs.org/ |
x-----------------------------x
Damno te et deum tuum.
Egeo non precibus tuis.
Elroy Willis
>>>>> georgann:
>>>>> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
>>>>> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
>>> Elroy Willis:
>>>> Which chart?
>>> georgann:
>>> I meant diagram.
> Elroy Willis:
>> I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
> georgann:
> Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the total
> years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges) that needs to
> be removed.
I zoomed in but it's all fuzzy. Can't make out any numbers.
georgann
>>> I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
>> georgann:
>> Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the total
>> years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges) that needs to
>> be removed.
Dethstryk:
> Just a hint, but that part is pretty hard to read. You might want to fix
> that.
georgann:
Not on the PDF file its not! If you're looking at the jpegs modified by
these heathens, you can't see anything up close. The PDF file is very
detailed, numbers are very clear:
http://www.lexington-on-line.com/creation/EventsofGenerations.pdf
(347k)
georgann
>>>>>> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
>>>>>> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
>>>> Elroy Willis:
>>>>> Which chart?
>>>> georgann:
>>>> I meant diagram.
>> Elroy Willis:
>>> I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
>> georgann:
>> Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the total
>> years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges) that needs to
>> be removed.
Elroy Willis:
> I zoomed in but it's all fuzzy. Can't make out any numbers.
georgann:
The PDF file isn't fuzzy.
Your ATP (attempt to parody) is fuzzy.
You can't go through illustration software with what you get off of a PDF
and get any better than 72 dpi or pixels per inch. That's cause they (most
software) are converting to jpeg or other bitmap color.
Go back to the original PDF file. Its plenty clear and will enlarge up to
1600% size. You have to look at it with Acrobat Reader to get the full
resolution. I could make the resolution higher still but that would just
make it heavier.
http://www.lexington-on-line.com/creation/EventsofGenerations.pdf
(347k)
August Pamplona
news:B796A97C.30B51%chen...@mindspring.com...
> >> Jim Fay:
> >>> I do. You don't have a copyright. If you have the greatest novel in
> >>> history, and put it out without a copyright, then anyone can publish
it,
> >>> for jollies or profit. That's why all the cheap publishers tend to put
> >>> out compilations of Shakespeare and the like. No royalties.
>
> >> georgann:
> >> You need to bone up on the law. Publication itself is considered an act
of
> >> copyright in this day and age.
>
> Fury:
> > This would also include non-published works, like the technical drawings
I've
> > been working on, or artwork I did in Photoshop, etc.--basically as soon
as the
> > ink hits the page, it's protected.
>
> georgann:
> That's my understanding of it too. I can't believe we actually agreed on
> something...
>
It's O.K. for this time, just don't let it happen again.
August Pamplona
--
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot."
--some article at The Guardian (20, Jan., 2001 )
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'
August Pamplona
I was kidding about the animation. You're a wild and crazy gal! Oh well,
as long as it doesn't take you another 15 years to add in the animation (you
might miss the rapture, you know? :-) ).
August Pamplona
--
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot."
--some article at The Guardian (20, Jan., 2001 )
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'
> --
Elroy Willis
>>> Elroy Willis:
>>>> I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
>>> georgann:
>>> Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the total
>>> years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges) that needs to
>>> be removed.
> Dethstryk:
>> Just a hint, but that part is pretty hard to read. You might want to fix
>> that.
> georgann:
> Not on the PDF file its not! If you're looking at the jpegs modified by
> these heathens, you can't see anything up close. The PDF file is very
> detailed, numbers are very clear:
> http://www.lexington-on-line.com/creation/EventsofGenerations.pdf
> (347k)
Wow, I zoomed in on the PDF and there's all kinds of numbers and names
and words there. I thought they were just ants. Amazing! It all
makes perfect sense now!
Your date of 2668 for Exodus needs revision. You might fix that up
when you have time.
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the total
>>> years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges) that needs to
>>> be removed.
> Elroy Willis:
>> I zoomed in but it's all fuzzy. Can't make out any numbers.
> georgann:
> The PDF file isn't fuzzy.
> Your ATP (attempt to parody) is fuzzy.
> You can't go through illustration software with what you get off of a PDF
> and get any better than 72 dpi or pixels per inch. That's cause they (most
> software) are converting to jpeg or other bitmap color.
> Go back to the original PDF file. Its plenty clear and will enlarge up to
> 1600% size. You have to look at it with Acrobat Reader to get the full
> resolution. I could make the resolution higher still but that would just
> make it heavier.
> http://www.lexington-on-line.com/creation/EventsofGenerations.pdf
> (347k)
Why didn't you tell people to zoom in when you first posted the
diagram? I never saw you say anything about there being words
and numbers on the diagram. Here we were asking you to put labels
on the diagram, and you never even told anybody they were there if you
just zoomed in. WTF?
You still need some labels on the upper part of it, if those dots and
circles and intersections actually mean anything.
georgann
>> The PDF file isn't fuzzy.
>> Your ATP (attempt to parody) is fuzzy.
>> You can't go through illustration software with what you get off of a PDF
>> and get any better than 72 dpi or pixels per inch. That's cause they (most
>> software) are converting to jpeg or other bitmap color.
>> Go back to the original PDF file. Its plenty clear and will enlarge up to
>> 1600% size. You have to look at it with Acrobat Reader to get the full
>> resolution. I could make the resolution higher still but that would just
>> make it heavier.
>> http://www.lexington-on-line.com/creation/EventsofGenerations.pdf
>> (347k)
Elroy Willis:
> Why didn't you tell people to zoom in when you first posted the
> diagram? I never saw you say anything about there being words
> and numbers on the diagram. Here we were asking you to put labels
> on the diagram, and you never even told anybody they were there if you
> just zoomed in. WTF?
georgann:
I just assumed (gosh) people would look up close to see what the detail was.
OTOH even with the names and dates showing up it doesn't make much sense in
the overall without more general annotations. I really am working on that
part of it now that I know where the generations of people go on it. That
didn't happen until this late spring.
For a long time I struggled with how to place the Adam to Land of Promise
segment on one of the horizontal lines. My thinking was too, shall we say,
rigid and linear. I was allowing myself to think of the people and dates as
time as if it "should be" a horizontal line. Wrong. But God shoved some
ideas into my head that got me back on track. Now I know the generations was
supposed to go on the 45º angle to the center from the lower corner.
> You still need some labels on the upper part of it, if those dots and
> circles and intersections actually mean anything.
georgann:
Everything means something in this monster! And I'm working on the labels "I
really mean it".
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ Corinthians 13:11-13 For now we see .¸¸.·´¨ `»
in a mirror dimly, but then face to face;
now I know in part, but then I will know fully
just as I also have been fully known.
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
Dethstryk
<B7974124.30D52%chen...@mindspring.com>:
>>> Elroy Willis:
>>>> I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
>
>>> georgann:
>>> Zoom in close to the people lines. Lower left quadrant. It has the
>>> total years count up from Adam. Plus some other stuff (odd ranges)
>>> that needs to be removed.
>
>Dethstryk:
>> Just a hint, but that part is pretty hard to read. You might want to
>> fix that.
>
>georgann:
>Not on the PDF file its not! If you're looking at the jpegs modified by
>these heathens, you can't see anything up close. The PDF file is very
>detailed, numbers are very clear:
>http://www.lexington-on-line.com/creation/EventsofGenerations.pdf
>(347k)
Thanks. I downloaded it, but I'll have to install the reader and check it
out later.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>>> Al Klein:
>>>>> Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
>>>>> sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
>>>>> have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
>
>>>> georgann:
>>>> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
>>>> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
>
>> Elroy Willis:
>>> Which chart?
>
>> georgann:
>> I meant diagram.
>
>I don't see any numbers on your diagram.
Try enlarging it - a LOT.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> Al Klein:
>>> Well, the years you claim are the ones in which the events happened
>>> sure can't be AD, so which calendar ARE you using? The Romans didn't
>>> have a continuing one, neither did the Greeks.
>> georgann:
>> If you'll notice on the chart all the numbers count UP from Adam. No BC
>> indications. Unnecessary for what it signifies.
>Which chart?
Her "Ussher-in-graphics" page. You didn't miss anything.
August Pamplona
Damn heathens! They miss the trees for the forest!
>
> OTOH even with the names and dates showing up it doesn't make much sense
in
> the overall without more general annotations. I really am working on that
You can say that again!
> part of it now that I know where the generations of people go on it. That
> didn't happen until this late spring.
>
> For a long time I struggled with how to place the Adam to Land of Promise
> segment on one of the horizontal lines. My thinking was too, shall we say,
> rigid and linear. I was allowing myself to think of the people and dates
as
> time as if it "should be" a horizontal line. Wrong. But God shoved some
> ideas into my head that got me back on track. Now I know the generations
was
> supposed to go on the 45º angle to the center from the lower corner.
Ah, the old diagonalization trick! How did you ever miss that?
>
> > You still need some labels on the upper part of it, if those dots and
> > circles and intersections actually mean anything.
Maybe they don't, but the labels would make it look prettier. Maybe you
could put stars and ribbons as well. It would make it look really cool
(specially when you add the animation and you make all the stars twinkle)
>
> georgann:
> Everything means something in this monster! And I'm working on the labels
"I
> really mean it".
We know you do. That's why we're a little bit worried about you.