A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.

[The Starmaker]

A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.

http://www.livescience.com/24495-nasa-worker-not-fired-over-intelligent-design.html



No matter what anyone else tells you...
A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.


In otherwords, the minute you bring up any edvidence of 'design', the scientific community will *shoot* you down. That's their law!


The law of the 'scientific community' is; "Anybody mentions the word GOD, fuckin kill him!!!"


Mafia Science at it's best.


The Starmaker



(you can tell i'm gettin over my cold)

[G=EMC^2]

On Nov 2, 1:37 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.
>

> http://www.livescience.com/24495-nasa-worker-not-fired-over-intellige...

>
> No matter what anyone else tells you...
> A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.
>
> In otherwords, the minute you bring up any edvidence of 'design', the scientific community will *shoot* you down. That's their law!
>
> The law of the 'scientific community' is; "Anybody mentions the word GOD, fuckin kill him!!!"
>
> Mafia Science at it's best.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> (you can tell i'm gettin over my cold)

21 NASA people were killed after they could prove shuttles were not
safe to fly. It was Mafia GOP NASA best cover up. $25,000,000
toilets was GOP Mafia NASA second biggest coverup. Depends worked 100%
better at a dime each. Get the picture TreBert

[Helmut Wabnig]

I fully agree.

Kill everybody who howls ALLAH and GAWD.

w.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

It's Evolution. We term it "natural selection".

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message news:817898hlv6hrvjt9s...@4ax.com...

==========================================

I fully agree. Trouble is if you fire someone because he’s totally

useless at his job he’ll bitch and moan that it was because he

has religious beliefs. I have never hired anyone that said “yes”

to the interview question “Are there any days of the week or

holidays that you won’t work if asked?”

Deport everyone that howls Allah or Gawd and let them kill each

other.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

 

 

[The Starmaker]

you mean "artificial selection', don't you?

[The Starmaker]

I don't understand why they fired him..
couldn't they simply do what the others do...
attach magnetic bombs to his car?

The message the 'scientific community' wants to convey is,
'don't dare mention anything that points to a designer.'

Or as they say in the Wizard of OZ...

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.




The Starmaker

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

No, it's "natural selection" when the animals kill each other.

[G=EMC^2]

Try finding out how they died? Try getting a hearing on their deaths?
Push it to hard and your dead meat. GOP Mafia NASA does not cotton to
trouble makers. TeBet

[cloud dreamer]

And we're supposed to listen to someone who doesn't know the difference
between "your" and "you're??"

..

[bjacoby]

Trebert forgets it's always been Dimocrats in charge of murders. How
many died to cover up Mena? Or even the fact that Slick couldn't keep it
in his pants. And now they've given Obama the power of a king to kill
any American citizen he deems a "security" problem. Say, TreeBert, if
you keep talking about Tang and NASA, you are going to be a "security"
problem.

[Science Guy]

On Nov 2, 1:37 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ANASAworker was fired for hisintelligentdesignbeliefs.
>
> http://www.livescience.com/24495-nasa-worker-not-fired-over-intellige...
>

> No matter what anyone else tells you...
> ANASAworker was fired for hisintelligentdesignbeliefs.
>
> In otherwords, the minute you bring up any edvidence of 'design', the scientific community will *shoot* you down. That's their law!
>
> The law of the 'scientific community' is; "Anybody mentions the word GOD, fuckin kill him!!!"
>
> Mafia Science at it's best.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> (you can tell i'm gettin over my cold)

Judge: NASA firing of JPL employee wasn't due to intelligent design
advocacy

http://is.gd/X3dFMr

Earlier today, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory's staff were busy
recounting their latest successes on the surface of Mars. At the same
time, news broke that JPL's lawyers were succeeding in the courtroom.
In 2010, JPL was sued by an employee for religious discrimination
after it asked him to (among other things) stop aggressively promoting
intelligent design at work. A wrongful termination charge was added
less than a year later after the employee, David Coppedge, was let go.
But the judge overseeing that case has accepted the JPL's arguments
that Coppedge was let go for performance reasons as part of a larger
cutback of staff.

Coppedge had worked on the Cassini mission to Saturn, starting as a
contractor in 1996, and later becoming a full-time employee. But one
of the projects he pursued on his own time was the promotion of
intelligent design, the notion that the Universe and, most
prominently, life itself, is too orderly to have come about without a
designer. (Like many others in that movement, Coppedge is a self-
identified evangelical Christian.)

In 2009, he apparently got a bit aggressive about promoting these
ideas at work, leading one employee to complain. The resulting
investigation found that he had also aggressively promoted his opinion
on California's gay marriage ban, and had attempted to get JPL's
holiday party renamed to "Christmas party." (There's detailed
background on the case here.) Coppedge was warned about his behavior
at work, but he felt it was an infringement of his religious freedom,
so he sued. Shortly after, as part of a set of cutbacks on the Cassini
staff, he was fired.

In court, Coppedge and his lawyer portrayed him as being targeted for
promoting an idea that is, to put it mildly, not popular with
scientists. But JPL's legal team introduced evidence that his
aggressive promotion of it at work was part of a pattern of bad
interactions with his fellow employees that dated back at least five
years earlier. In this view, pushing intelligent design on his co-
workers was just one facet of a set of behaviors that made the working
environment awkward and less productive. The judge hearing the case
has decided that JPL's version of the matter is accurate, and he's
asked lawyers to submit potential rulings based on that decision. A
final verdict based on those should be released next month.

[cloud dreamer]

Truth. It does the brain good.

..

[The Starmaker]

but this isn't...random.

[The Starmaker]

The 'scientific community' always claim there is no evidence of a God, or designer...well sure,
the minute anyone from 'their community' begins a search for one, they shoot him!

It's what gangsters do...
if you have evidence against them...they kill you.

"Judge, where's the evidence?"
"We are waiting for the evidence."
"It's swimming with fishes."

Johnny Friendly from the waterfront will make sure
He'll Never Work In This Town Again.

The Starmaker


(it's okay to have guys at NASA with moharks, two pierced ears, and pireced nose earings, but not christians.....noooooo, we cannot have that.)

[G=EMC^2]

Nixon had his hit list Paul Newman was on it. Bush and Chaney killed
the most. I bad mouth Mafia GOPers,and have posted Osceola sheriff
"Bob' Hansell's attempts to kill me. All this is documented.GOP Mafia
is never taken to court for killings or child raping. Rigby killer ,
Crist rapper of children So Sad TeBet

[William December Starr]

In article <%7als.57266$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad>,

bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> said:

> On 11/3/2012 7:58 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 3:00 pm, "G=EMC^2"<herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 21 NASA people were killed after they could prove shuttles were
>>> not safe to fly. It was Mafia GOP NASA best cover up.
>>> $25,000,000 toilets was GOP Mafia NASA second biggest
>>> coverup. Depends worked 100% better at a dime each. Get the
>>> picture TreBert
>>
>> Try finding out how they died? Try getting a hearing on their
>> deaths? Push it to hard and your dead meat. GOP Mafia NASA does
>> not cotton to trouble makers. TeBet
>
> Trebert forgets it's always been Dimocrats in charge of
> murders. How many died to cover up Mena? Or even the fact that
> Slick couldn't keep it in his pants.

What is this? Have I accidentally tuned into a special broadcast
of "Crazy/Counter-Crazy"?

-- wds

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

[Klaus Meinhard]

> Try finding out how they died? Try getting a hearing on their
> deaths?
> Push it to hard and your dead meat. GOP Mafia NASA does not cotton
> to
> trouble makers.

I adore you! Such foolhardy bravery in the face of an overpowering
enemy!

LOL.


--
herzliche Grüße,

Klaus Meinhard

[Martin Phipps]

On Nov 3, 1:37 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.

Thank you for coming and admitting that "intelligent design" is a
matter of religious belief and not science.

Martin

[G=EMC^2]

> herzliche Gr e,
>
> Klaus Meinhard

Yes I am brave. I was just the power of one. I fought for 42 years
and lost. Occupy fought with 1,000s and lost,and many died from
gas,beatings,and in jail. There is no free speech,No Statue of
Liberty In Fl. for democratic voters it is hazadous to your health.
Voting now gets jebed. That jebed comes from "Jeb" Bush who made his
brother president Get the picture TreBert

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
side pretend that they are discussing science.

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:55:41 -0500, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>
>When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
>becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
>clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
>design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
>side pretend that they are discussing science.

So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief". At
least where it disagrees with what you believe.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Matthew Lybanon]

In article <509412...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

. . .

>
>
> Mafia Science at it's best.
>
>

. . .

RULES FOR BETTER WRITING

26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
needed.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Matthew Lybanon" <lyb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:lybanon-44F9F7...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

================================

Your point being wot, eggsackly?

[David DeLaney]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>"bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
>>becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
>>clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
>>design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
>>side pretend that they are discussing science.
>
>So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief". At
>least where it disagrees with what you believe.

Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:k74nn5$cup$1
@panix2.panix.com:

misc.writing.screenplays

Somebody is apaprently writing for a Saturday Morning Cartoon. Or an
episode of South Park.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[The Starmaker]

If you bothered to read the first paragragh of the news article:

"A California judge has tentatively ruled that a worker fired from NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory did not lose his job over his intelligent design beliefs."
http://www.livescience.com/24495-nasa-worker-not-fired-over-intelligent-design.html


It was the presiding 'judge' that use the word..."belief".



I'm only telling you wats in the news. I'm using their words and language.


The Starmaker

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>
>Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
>facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
>or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
>actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
>and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
>training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
>people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)

Maybe he's waiting to find a single fossil that is evolving in front
of his eyes.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>"bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
>>>becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
>>>clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
>>>design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
>>>side pretend that they are discussing science.
>>
>>So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief". At
>>least where it disagrees with what you believe.
>
>Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
>facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
>or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
>actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
>and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
>training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
>people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)

Nah, this is a clown who says the Apollo landings were faked,
"remote viewing" and spoon-bending are real, lead was banned in
paint not because it was unhealthy but because it interfered with
the sekrit spy-rays the gummint uses to look through our walls,
all sorts of "free energy" devices are real, etc., etc. It
doesn't matter at all what the evidence shows, nor how much of it
there is, because he just doesn't give a shit about evidence in
the first place.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[William December Starr]

In article <lybanon-44F9F7...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Matthew Lybanon <lyb...@earthlink.net> said:

> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Mafia Science at it's best.
>

> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
>
> 26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its
> not needed.

I assume that Rules 1 through 25 are "If you're Starmaker, chop off
your hands and bury your keyboard."

-- wds

[The Starmaker]

NASA might as well put this poster on their wall...
http://www.buenasnuevas.mx/thumbnail.php?file=hear_no_evil_speak_no_evil_see_no_evil_734866_517545420.jpg&size=article_news

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

TREE (and invisible friend Bert, too), you are a genius. You are a Nobel
level scientist, you are clever, you are intelligent, but most important
you are an American Hero as well. One can only hope you are buried in
Arlington with full military honors with your many postumous Nobel
medals prominently on display. Is there ANYTHING you don't know or can't
do?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 11/5/2012 10:13 AM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:55:41 -0500, "bja...@teranews.com"
> <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
>> becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
>> clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
>> design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
>> side pretend that they are discussing science.
>
> So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief". At
> least where it disagrees with what you believe.

I don't "believe" science is not "belief", I KNOW science is NOT belief.
That is a fact. However that "overwhelming evidence" that you speak of
IS belief and not fact. It is YOUR religious belief. The existence of
"evidence" in NO way depends on anyone's belief for or against it.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 11/5/2012 12:27 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> "bja...@teranews.com"<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>> When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
>>> becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
>>> clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
>>> design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
>>> side pretend that they are discussing science.
>>
>> So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief". At
>> least where it disagrees with what you believe.
>
> Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
> facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
> or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
> actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
> and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
> training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
> people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)
>
> Dave

Now I'm a Jesuit! <snort>! Last I heard Hanson was calling me a yenta
Jew! You cultists need to make up your mind! I suggest that your
leftist religious beliefs have blinded you to just how much evidence
there is both for and against evolution. Your strong faith only lets you
see one side. All you can manage is to spout dogma, calling it science.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Now that sure settles it. All the schoolyard bullies have ganged up to
begin yelling "fagot" or maybe "nigger" at anyone who questions their
authority. No facts or evidence or science, mind you (Snider, is FAR too
uneducated to understand even primary school science), but just
propaganda. I'm sure you've made LOTS of converts among the lurkers here.

[cloud dreamer]

On 05/11/2012 10:40 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:

>
> Now I'm a Jesuit! <snort>! Last I heard Hanson was calling me a yenta
> Jew! You cultists need to make up your mind! I suggest that your
> leftist religious beliefs have blinded you to just how much evidence
> there is both for and against evolution. Your strong faith only lets you
> see one side. All you can manage is to spout dogma, calling it science.

Science is not dogma. It has proven evolution. Just because your 2000
year old book written by a people who couldn't even understand epilepsy
or coma or earthquakes made up stories to explain it all to themselves
doesn't make it valid in a time when we have the technology to prove
pretty well all of it.

Evolution is real. You can see the facts with your eyes. You can test
them, draw conclusions, repeat them and get the same result. That is
science.

I spent half my life wasting my time believing in a god then I did the
one thing you don't want us to do. I questioned with an open, educated
mind and the answer was obvious. There is no god. I base that on
observation. I can see the results of evolution. I see nothing to
support an existence of any gods except the delusions of people who
created them to make themselves feel better. We know better.

And yes, I can see the results of evolution. I have seen the process
within my lifespan. Just look at anti-biotic resistant bacteria. How do
you think they've gotten to that point?

They adapted.

Evolution. Plain and simple. Observable. Tangible. Provable.

For those that WANT to listen.

If you really are a Jesuit then you're like all the ones I know.

Brainwashed.

Observable. Tangible. I know. I experienced it and broke the
brainwashing. I used critical thinking and opened my mind to accept what
made sense.

There is no god. No heaven. No hell. No devil. No afterlife. You're
wasting your life following a fairy tale.

Of that, I am 100% certain.

<plonk>

..

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Nov 5, 9:20 pm, cloud dreamer <red...@reuse.andrecycle.com> wrote:

A+

[Wayne Throop]

Re: evolution, science or religion ?

: "bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net>
: I don't "believe" science is not "belief", I KNOW science is NOT

: belief. That is a fact. However that "overwhelming evidence" that
: you speak of IS belief and not fact.

Very much like the fact that the "overwhelming evidence" that
things fall down when you drop them is religious belief.

Fact of the matter is, there really is overwhelming evidence that

1) species didn't occur all at once
2) species are related by descent
3) species characteristics are all single-origin
(eg, only mammals have fur, only birds have feathers,
there are no half-feathered half-furred critters)

The obvious theory to explain these facts is descent with modification,
rather than ab-nihilio creation and/or design. In fact, it so strongly
contradicts the way design is done that it's about as conclusive as
anything in the biosciences is.

[Wayne Throop]

: cloud dreamer <red...@reuse.andrecycle.com>
: There is no god. No heaven. No hell. No devil. No afterlife.

As a devout apatheist, I don't care if there is or not.
It's not worth whasting cognition on.

[Martin Phipps]

That's only true if you choose to ignore all the geological, genetic,
anatomical and experimental evidence supporting evolution. The fact
is that mutations do occur and new species do appear over time and
they replace other species that have become extinct. There is
absolutely no evidence for a supernatural being creating all life at
once.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

On Nov 6, 1:17 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 1:37 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.
>
> > Thank you for coming and admitting that "intelligent design" is a
> > matter of religious belief and not science.
>
> > Martin
>
> If you bothered to read the first paragragh of the news article:
>
> "A California judge has tentatively ruled that a worker fired from NASA's Jet Propulsion

> Laboratory did not lose his job over his intelligent design beliefs."http://www.livescience.com/24495-nasa-worker-not-fired-over-intellige...

>
> It was the presiding 'judge' that use the word..."belief".

Because it is a religious belief and not a matter of science.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

On Nov 6, 1:36 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
>
> DeLaney) wrote:
>
> >Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
> >facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
> >or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
> >actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
> >and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
> >training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
> >people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)
>
> Maybe he's waiting to find a single fossil that is evolving in front
> of his eyes.

Evolution has occurred and continues to occur. What happens much more
quickly is artificial selection: humans choose breeds of dogs to keep
and pets and varieties of plants to grow for food. The natural process
usually happens slowly but there have been massive extinctions
throughout natural history that have wiped out entire species and
allowed other species to fill their niche.

Martin

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 03:12:11 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

Well, I certainly don't want someone else determining that I have to
live forever.

[Don Kuenz]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:55:41 -0500, "bja...@teranews.com"
> <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
>>becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
>>clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
>>design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
>>side pretend that they are discussing science.
>
> So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief". At
> least where it disagrees with what you believe.

What is Science?
Richard Feynman
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html

.. I can also define science another way: Science is the *belief* in
the ignorance of experts.

When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the
word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches
it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might
ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How?
What? Where?"

It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect,
has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing
about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--
to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is
not yet able to get anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of
old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite straightforwardness. I am
trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope and some
self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. The experts
who are leading you may be wrong. ...

###

ObSF: Galileo Feynman hosts a list of "Great Short Science Fiction,"
with links, at http://tinyurl.com/cdxl28l .

--
Don Kuenz

[Martin Phipps]

On Nov 6, 12:25 pm, Don Kuenz <garb...@crcomp.net> wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:55:41 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
> > <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> >>When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
> >>becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is
> >>clearly as true for "evolution theory" as it is for "intelligent
> >>design". It's obviously a religious discussion on both sides. Yet both
> >>side pretend that they are discussing science.
>
> > So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief".  At
> > least where it disagrees with what you believe.
>
> What is Science?

> Richard Feynmanhttp://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html

>
> .. I can also define science another way: Science is the *belief* in
> the ignorance of experts.
>
> When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the
> word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches
> it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might
> ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How?
> What? Where?"
>
> It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect,
> has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing
> about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--
> to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.
>
> In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is
> not yet able to get anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of
> old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite straightforwardness. I am
> trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope and some
> self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. The experts
> who are leading you may be wrong. ...

Yes, this is the exactly the sort of reasoning that brought about
notions such as the Copernican model of the solar system as well as
evolution, notions that the so-called experts -the church- had and now
continue to fight against _despite_ the evidence supporting them.

Martin

[The Starmaker]

It was a NASA scientist who came up with the word "intelligent design",
...it comes from 'Science magazine'.

It came from the 'scientific community', not from the ministry.




The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

everyone lives forever.

[The Starmaker]

Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> On Nov 6, 1:36 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
> >
> > DeLaney) wrote:
> >
> > >Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
> > >facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
> > >or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
> > >actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
> > >and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
> > >training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
> > >people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)
> >
> > Maybe he's waiting to find a single fossil that is evolving in front
> > of his eyes.
>
> Evolution has occurred and continues to occur.

Do you see Evolution occuring?



I don't see people coming out of the ocean...





Darwin is a fraud, and he knows it himself.
Another British nut who's's daughter died
and he got mad at God, so he
wrote a book to get back at him.


I can prove he's a fraud. I got...evidence!



The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I don't see people coming out of the ocean...

So... you've never been to the beach?
Of course, the juxtaposition of "people coming out of the ocean"
and evolution is a complete non-sequitur. But then, that's par for
the starweenie.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <gj_ls.11635$h94....@newsfe02.iad>, "bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes:
>On 11/5/2012 12:27 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> "bja...@teranews.com"<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>>>> When any theory is carried far beyond the observed facts, it clearly
>>>> becomes a matter of religious belief rather than science, which is

>>> So you believe science and overwhelming evidence is "belief". At
>>> least where it disagrees with what you believe.

>> (He also has little or no actual religious
>> training, especially of a Jesuitical bent...

>Now I'm a Jesuit! <snort>!

You need to learn to read. His statement was that you did not have the
kind of training it would take to become one. (My guess, from your displayed
inability to put together any rational arguments, is that you wouldn't
survive your first mid-terms if you tried to get this training.)

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.

[William December Starr]

In article <gj_ls.11635$h94....@newsfe02.iad>,

"bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> said:

> Now I'm a Jesuit! <snort>! Last I heard Hanson was calling me a
> yenta Jew! You cultists need to make up your mind! I suggest that
> your leftist religious beliefs have blinded you to just how much
> evidence there is both for and against evolution. Your strong
> faith only lets you see one side. All you can manage is to spout
> dogma, calling it science.

Suggest all you like. Reality remains unperturbed by your ravings.

-- wds

[The Starmaker]

Okay, I don't see monkeys in trees climbing down and walking to New York City
to Wall Street looking for a job.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 11/6/2012 8:22 AM, Michael Stemper wrote:

>>> (He also has little or no actual religious
>>> training, especially of a Jesuitical bent...
>
>> Now I'm a Jesuit!<snort>!
>
> You need to learn to read. His statement was that you did not have the
> kind of training it would take to become one. (My guess, from your displayed
> inability to put together any rational arguments, is that you wouldn't
> survive your first mid-terms if you tried to get this training.)

If you had any comprehension, you'd see the implication is I'm a FAILED
Jesuit (Just as you said aloud!)

It seems anyone on the internet can "win" arguments simply by making up
slander and spreading it around. I guess that really "proves" you guys
are "smart" and I'm dumb. The truth is that I've not only had scientific
training from a Jesuit but also have studied with several Nobel prize
winners. I survived midterms AND finals repeatedly. Just WHO have you
big mouth idiots studied under? I'm guessing most of your science
"study" was under a Chevrolet.

Here on the INTERNET, anyone can be smarter than Einstein. Multiple
Nobel Prize winners, or even a billionaire with so much money you can't
even count it. Your imagination is the limit! However, I'm sure there
is no doubt that if you claim any training at all you can't back it up.

Being loud, and aggressive is not the same thing as being intelligent.
But it is the same thing as being annoying. Are you journalists?

[William December Starr]

In article <8edms.16515$mC....@newsfe16.iad>,

"bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> said:

>>>> (He also has little or no actual religious
>>>> training, especially of a Jesuitical bent...
>>>
>>> Now I'm a Jesuit!<snort>!
>>
>> You need to learn to read. His statement was that you did not
>> have the kind of training it would take to become one. (My guess,
>> from your displayed inability to put together any rational
>> arguments, is that you wouldn't survive your first mid-terms if
>> you tried to get this training.)
>
> If you had any comprehension, you'd see the implication is I'm a
> FAILED Jesuit (Just as you said aloud!)

The fact that you think that "He also has little or no actual
religious training, especially of a Jesuitical bent" implies that
are a Jesuit surprises me not at all.

-- wds (on the plus side, it does amuse a bit)

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.
>

> http://www.livescience.com/24495-nasa-worker-not-fired-over-intelligent-design.html
>
> No matter what anyone else tells you...

> A NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs.
>

> In otherwords, the minute you bring up any edvidence of 'design', the scientific community will *shoot* you down. That's their law!
>
> The law of the 'scientific community' is; "Anybody mentions the word GOD, fuckin kill him!!!"
>
> Mafia Science at it's best.
>
> The Starmaker

It's 'ironic' that here you have a NASA worker was fired for his intelligent design beliefs, when it
was a NASA worker that invented the words "intelligent design".


The Starmaker

[Martin Phipps]

On Nov 6, 2:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 1:36 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
>
> > > DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > > >Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
> > > >facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
> > > >or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
> > > >actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
> > > >and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
> > > >training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
> > > >people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)
>
> > > Maybe he's waiting to find a single fossil that is evolving in front
> > > of his eyes.
>
> > Evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
>
> Do you see Evolution occuring?

Yes. For instance when new strains of viruses emerge. It happens
very quickly. It can happen in a matter of days. We know this
because the American Center for Disease Control tracks the spread of
deadly viruses and they need to know that the medicine that they are
giving out is going to be effective against new strains.

Evolution occurs more amongst strains of bacteria but it happens and
is well known: the fact is that most strains of bacteria are now
resistant to penicillin. This is because penicillin has killed the
strains that were not resistant to penicillin leaving the strains that
survived resistant to penicillin. This is natural selection at work.
Medical researchers have to continuously create new antibiotics
because bacteria will eventually become resistant to all the
antibiotics we currently have.

More obvious is artificial selection: humans choose what plants they
want to grow and what pets we want to raise and we can see new
varieties and breeds emerging. Sexual selection also occurs: if men
like girls with light skin and big asses then the people of the future
will have lighter skin and bigger asses. It is inevitable because men
are more likely to breed with women they find attractive.

Human characteristics correlate very well with their environment:
people in the north have light skin so that they can absorb more light
through their skin whereas people in tropical countries have dark
skins to protect them from the sun's harsh rays. East Asian people
have what they call a "single eyelid" that can be traced back to the
mountains of Tibet where the glaring rays of the sun would reflect off
of the snow. The Incans developed bigger hearts because they were
living in the Andes mountains; people living in Africa have developed
resistance to anemia.

And so on. Evolution is occurring everyday everywhere right before
our eyes. One of these days you need to get up out of your parent's
basement and take a look fort yourself.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

On Nov 7, 1:28 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> > : I don't see people coming out of the ocean...
>
> > So... you've never been to the beach?
> > Of course, the juxtaposition of "people coming out of the ocean"
> > and evolution is a complete non-sequitur.  But then, that's par for
> > the starweenie.
>
> Okay, I don't see monkeys in trees climbing down and walking to New York City
> to Wall Street looking for a job.

In all fairness, the vast majority of the people protesting in Occupy
Wall Street did not seem all that different from monkeys. Neither do
you: give a monkey a keyboard and he'll pound on it and create
nonsense.

Martin

[The Starmaker]

Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> On Nov 6, 2:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Martin Phipps wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 6, 1:36 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
> >
> > > > DeLaney) wrote:
> >
> > > > >Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
> > > > >facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
> > > > >or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
> > > > >actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
> > > > >and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
> > > > >training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
> > > > >people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)
> >
> > > > Maybe he's waiting to find a single fossil that is evolving in front
> > > > of his eyes.
> >
> > > Evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
> >
> > Do you see Evolution occuring?
>
> Yes. For instance when new strains of viruses emerge.

"strains" and "evolution" are two different things. One is a variety of, and the other is something that changes to something else.


We're not talking about Strainolution...



The Starmaker

[Martin Phipps]

On Nov 7, 12:21 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 2:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 6, 1:36 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
>
> > > > > DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > > > > >Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
> > > > > >facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
> > > > > >or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
> > > > > >actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
> > > > > >and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
> > > > > >training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
> > > > > >people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)
>
> > > > > Maybe he's waiting to find a single fossil that is evolving in front
> > > > > of his eyes.
>
> > > > Evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
>
> > > Do you see Evolution occuring?
>
> > Yes.  For instance when new strains of viruses emerge.
>
> "strains" and "evolution" are two different things.

No, it isn't. It's only a difference in terms of how quickly it
occurs. Viruses are constantly reproducing. For human beings there
is 20-30 years between generations.

Anyway, you snipped the rest of what I said. It happens

[The Starmaker]

Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 12:21 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Martin Phipps wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 6, 2:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Martin Phipps wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 6, 1:36 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:27:51 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
> >
> > > > > > DeLaney) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >Nah, he just has little or no clue just how MUCH of a shitload of observed
> > > > > > >facts there are for evolution, and how much would have to be explained somehow
> > > > > > >or other by any other theory that tried to replace evolution AND tried to
> > > > > > >actually, you know, explain things, rather than saying "A wizard god did it"
> > > > > > >and refusing to explain further. (He also has little or no actual religious
> > > > > > >training, especially of a Jesuitical bent... he's just listened to various
> > > > > > >people talking loudly about it, some inside a place of worship and some not.)
> >
> > > > > > Maybe he's waiting to find a single fossil that is evolving in front
> > > > > > of his eyes.
> >
> > > > > Evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
> >
> > > > Do you see Evolution occuring?
> >
> > > Yes. For instance when new strains of viruses emerge.
> >
> > "strains" and "evolution" are two different things.
>
> No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

[The Starmaker]

If you don't know the difference between "strains" and "evolution", you don't have the
right to discuss, Evolution. You don't even know what it is, or means. You don't know what
you're talking about.

I'll make it simple..

Evolution, is Just A Theory. Just-a-theory.

Relativity, is just a theory.

That's all it is, Just a theory.


Repeat after me everyone

It's
Just
A
Theory

It's
Just
A
Theory

It's
Just
A
Theory


The Starmaker


In otherwords, it's just a theory.







The Starmaker

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.7{2.28.AM.Seattle.2012}]
Wow ! nice post, Martin.  I'm 52 years old and, thanks to you,
I've finally come to know how/why Chinese eyes look so different.

They've natural eye⋅cover, for glare protection, like sun glasses.
Their eyelids are thicker and less drawn⋅in by muscles/tendons.
Even their bones help cover the eyes, making them seem less round.

By the way, according to ⦿ my stats,
you're the best poster in "Sci.Physics".

Regular Posters of Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:19:52 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Evolution, is Just A Theory. Just-a-theory.
>
>Relativity, is just a theory.
>
>That's all it is, Just a theory.

Gravity, is just a theory.

[Science Guy]

That is precisely we are talking about. If you look at the entire
tree of life, you'll see that the concept of small variations
propagates all the way up the tree to the root. Mammals and lizards
have much more in common than do mammals and worms. Mammals and worms
have much more in common than mammals and bacteria.

From this, it is a very small leap of logic to see that there was once
a time when creatures with one body plan vs creatures with a different
body plan were merely different "strains" of adjacent species.

[Mahipal]

On Nov 6, 2:33 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <8edms.16515$mC.6...@newsfe16.iad>,

Amused you might be, but your one-liner implies what exactly? What
does it mean? At least hit the target somewhere when you fling your
arrows.

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Evolution, is Just A Theory. Just-a-theory.

So? You actually think that's a bad thing? That's science; theories that
account for facts. Theory of gravity. Theory of statistical mechanics.
Theory of thermodynamics. And the theory of evolution.

Of course, the facts upon which the theory is based are not theories.
If you have an alternate theory, fine, but it has to explain things
single-origin features and genetic relatedness (specifically the pattersn
of genetic relatedness). No other theory has come close, nor been as
predictive (such as, for one usual example, the naked mole rat's
eusociality; and also the prediction of lack of multiple origin features).

[The Starmaker]

I've got a theory.
But remember, it's just a theory.
If it's a theory, it means it is not to believed.
My theory is...

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Evolution, is Just A Theory. Just-a-theory.
>
> So? You actually think that's a bad thing?

It means, it is not to be believed.

It's just a theory.

[James Silverton]

Come on, learn the nomenclature in order of acceptance: hypothesis,
theory and law. Evolution, gravity and relativity approach laws.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Wayne Throop]

::: Evolution, is Just A Theory. Just-a-theory.

:: So? You actually think that's a bad thing?

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: It means, it is not to be believed.

"Believe". Pfft. Belief got nothing to do with it.

: It's just a theory.

It very accurately describes
the real world.

(You having problems reading words with only one space between or something?)


"What bananas?!"
"Bananas little yellow fruit. Why we talk like Tarzan?"
--- Monica Villareal and Acacia Budur

[The Starmaker]

Do you believe that nothing travels faster than the speed of light?

[Michael Stemper]

In article <6dsk98loc384cv262...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:19:52 -0800, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>Evolution, is Just A Theory. Just-a-theory.
>>
>>Relativity, is just a theory.
>>
>>That's all it is, Just a theory.
>
>Gravity, is just a theory.

<http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm>

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at:
http://www.leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written
Please read it before posting.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Do you believe that nothing travels faster than the speed of light?

Again with this "belief" crap. Belief got nothing to do with it.
I know of no convincing evidence that anything has.

And, I expect, neither do you.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message news:13523...@sheol.org...

====================================

“Convincing” has got everything to do with belief.

Muons travel faster than light, upper atmosphere to

sea level in 64 us. Your unconvincing cockamamie

story about time dilation is your belief crap, whatever

you expect, hypocrite.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[The Starmaker]

Do you believe your mother is really your birth mother?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Do you believe your mother is really your birth mother?

What is it with you and this "belief" crap?
Belief is for the weak-minded. Why don't you ask something
useful, such as what *evidence* I have.

Belief. Pfft. Starmaker's obsession with "belief" shows he's a con-man.

[The Starmaker]

I just want to know did you ask your mother for convincing evidence,
like a dna test, or do you
just simply believe she's your biological mother?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I just want to know did you ask your mother for convincing evidence,

: like a dna test, or do you just simply believe she's your biological
: mother?

Neither, of course.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 18:04:36 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com
(Michael Stemper) wrote:

>>>Evolution, is Just A Theory. Just-a-theory.
>>>
>>>Relativity, is just a theory.
>>>
>>>That's all it is, Just a theory.
>>
>>Gravity, is just a theory.
>
><http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm>

Wonderful!

[The Starmaker]

You don't have any evidence she's your mother..
you don't even *believe* she's your mother!

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Thanks for mentioning the naked mole rat's eusociality, Wayne⋅Throop.
Wow, a "queen bee" mammal with snake⋅like temperature regulation.
Evolution is fascinating ! The bible is boring.

In this thread, Martin⋅Phipps also demonstrated knowledge of evolution.

Speaking of Martin... yesterday, I falsely told him that
my newsgroup stats ranked him top⋅most ( in Sci.Physics )... oops !
I recently introduced a BUG into my stats program (X.EXE), now fixed.

He's high, #9, but you're currently the highest, #1. I'm #2.
My list of "Regular Posters":

Sci.Physics, 100 Regulars( 31 Adults, 1 Kids, 68 Avoids ).
http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Phy_Regs.TXT

[Ubiquitous]

In article <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.7{10.25.PM.Seattle.2012}>, @. wrote:

>

>Thanks for mentioning the naked mole rat's eusociality, Wayne⋅Throop.
>Wow, a "queen bee" mammal with snake⋅like temperature regulation.
>Evolution is fascinating ! The bible is boring.
>
>In this thread, Martin⋅Phipps also demonstrated knowledge of
evolution.
>
>Speaking of Martin... yesterday, I falsely told him that
>my newsgroup stats ranked him top⋅most ( in Sci.Physics )... oops !
>I recently introduced a BUG into my stats program (X.EXE), now fixed.

And you posted this off-topic article here because?

--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."

[Wayne Throop]

::: I just want to know did you ask your mother for convincing evidence,

::: like a dna test, or do you just simply believe she's your biological
::: mother?

:: Neither, of course.

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: You don't have any evidence she's your mother..

: you don't even *believe* she's your mother!

You seem to have lost track of the verb in your own sentence. The verb
was "ask". I didn't ask for a DNA test. Not asking for a DNA test,
of course, doesn't mean I have no evidence.

The other verb is modified by "simply". I don't "simply" believe, partly
because the evidence isn't simple, but mostly because this "belief"
stuff is hogwash you are using to con people. This is apparent because
of the fake incredulity in the "you don't even *believe* she is your mother!".
100% malicious con.

Really, have you always had this much problem reading simple english?

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> ::: I just want to know did you ask your mother for convincing evidence,
> ::: like a dna test, or do you just simply believe she's your biological
> ::: mother?
>
> :: Neither, of course.
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : You don't have any evidence she's your mother..
> : you don't even *believe* she's your mother!
>
> You seem to have lost track of the verb in your own sentence. The verb
> was "ask". I didn't ask for a DNA test. Not asking for a DNA test,
> of course, doesn't mean I have no evidence.

If a guy 'didn't ask' for a dna test, it's because he *believes* it to
be true.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

We're (news)GROUPS of people, not topics.
On Usenet, nothing is off⋅topic.

I said, "Evolution is fascinating ! The bible is boring.".

In reply, someone calling himself "Ubiquitous" asked me:
« And you posted this off-topic article here because? »

Oddly, he didn't say where "here" might be. I'm in "Sci.Physics".
He says "Followup-To: Alt.Test", har har.

His newsreader, WinVN, hasn't been updated in 15 years.
Like himself, it can't handle Unicode or HTML, today's standard.
[ Mozilla Thunderbird is a good newreader, by the way ]

Naturally, censorious "Eternal-September.ORG" is his Usenet server.
E-S gives free access to Usenet in exchange for extreme censorship.

Glorb, my news⋅server, is much better.

To sign up, fill out their form ( http://glorb.com/contact.php ).
The admin, Geoff Brozny ( SysOp@@@Glorb.COM ) processes it.
To read/post HTML, ask for "unfiltered access".

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: If a guy 'didn't ask' for a dna test, it's because he *believes* it to
: be true.

Well now you're just making things up without *any* recourse to reality.
And still using your "believe" hogwash to con folks, too.

[The Starmaker]

I bet 10 million dollars you cannot tell me what DNA stands for without looking it up!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Mahipal]

On Nov 8, 8:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> > : If a guy 'didn't ask' for a dna test, it's because he *believes* it to
> > : be true.
>
> > Well now you're just making things up without *any* recourse to reality.
> > And still using your "believe" hogwash to con folks, too.
>
> I bet 10 million dollars you cannot tell me what DNA stands for without looking it up!
>

> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---

You Win!

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>We're (news)GROUPS of people, not topics.

>On Usenet, nothing is offtopic

Shame on you, Jeff. Instead of being man enough to admit you got a little
off-topic in all the groups in the header, you go and try to reinvent
Usenet in your own image to justify your off-topic posts.
If Usenet really was intended to be used as you state, there's be just
one newsgroup, with everyone in it, yelling all at once.

As to "On Usenet, nothing is off-topic" that's true, there's a newsgroup
for essentially *anything*.

<snip autistic obsession with what newsreader and NSP "Ubiquitous" uses>

[The Starmaker]

how's my newsreader?

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Nov 9, 12:48 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

Nothing is off-topic hence the ability to cross-post to various groups
regardless of whether or not the topic is relevant. That's Usenet's
intended use!

pink
"The history of the group has proven that we can't handle a real
discussion of politics here."

[thepinkpantsuit]

I mean if you REALLY want to be a stickler about it, physics is off-
topic here.

[thepinkpantsuit]

For instance: take this statement, "Hillary would be an excellent
president, and who cares if she's the most
hated woman in America?"

Doesn't seem to be accurate.

http://www.politicususa.com/hillary-clinton-dominates-iowa-poll-2016.html

"Hillary Clinton was the overwhelming favorite of Democrats in Iowa.
She leads Vice President Joe Biden by 41 points. In terms of
popularity, both Clinton and Biden have identical 85% favorable
ratings in the state, but Biden’s unfavorable rating is four points
higher (15%) than Clinton’s (11%). No other candidate broke double
digits in the poll, but Andrew Cuomo did get 6% and Elizabeth Warren
3%."

[thepinkpantsuit]

> http://www.politicususa.com/hillary-clinton-dominates-iowa-poll-2016....

>
> "Hillary Clinton was the overwhelming favorite of Democrats in Iowa.
> She leads Vice President Joe Biden by 41 points. In terms of
> popularity, both Clinton and Biden have identical 85% favorable
> ratings in the state, but Biden’s unfavorable rating is four points
> higher (15%) than Clinton’s (11%). No other candidate broke double
> digits in the poll, but Andrew Cuomo did get 6% and Elizabeth Warren
> 3%."
>
> pink
>   "The history of the group has proven that we can't handle a real
> discussion of politics here."

"If Hillary Clinton remains this popular and Democrats are demanding
that she run, she may find it impossible to say no."

Well, that just about explains it all. Carry on!

[thepinkpantsuit]

But that is why "the history of the group has proven that we can't

handle a real discussion of politics here."

Case closed.

[The Starmaker]

politics is for politians.

[The Starmaker]

They make money off of politics.

What's Einstein doing building and selling atomic bombs to the Umited States? Physics with their
hands in the pockets of politians. And you know where the politians have their hands at...

I like to get my hands inside your pinkpantsuit!



The Starmaker

“I'd Like To Get You On A Slow Boat To China”

[The Starmaker]

It's not working to well for Argentina...
http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-11-09T025339Z_1734055391_GM1E8B90U3G01_RTRMADP_3_ARGENTINA-PROTEST.JPG
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/argentinas-president-rocked-by-biggest-protest-for-a-decade-8300738.html

Nobody wants a bitch in the White House..

Behind the stove is where she belongs, barefoot and pregnant.


The Starmaker


and a couple of slaps on the face will do Hillary some good...

it will do *any* woman good.

[thepinkpantsuit]

That isn't the point. The point is the facts are, as they stand this
moment in time, that Clinton/Biden is a dream ticket!

>
> What's Einstein doing building and selling atomic bombs to the Umited States? Physics with their
> hands in the pockets of politians. And you know where the politians have their hands at...
>
> I like to get my hands inside your pinkpantsuit!
>
> The Starmaker
>
> I'd Like To Get You On A Slow Boat To China

Is that all inclusive?