John Baez Is Stupid as Fuck! ahahahaha... Re: This Week's Irrelevant Crap...
Traveler
ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
>Though Newton to have believed in some form of "absolute space",
>the idea that motion is relative predates Einstein by a long time.
It's a stupid idea and here is the simple reason why:
More Nasty Little Truths About Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
[begin quote]
The Crackpottery
We have all been taught that there is no such thing as absolute motion
or position or that every motion and position in the universe is
relative. This unsubstantiated belief, which I have named exclusive
relativity, has been around for centuries, even before the advent of
Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity. It was not until early
in the twentieth century, however, that exclusive relativity became in
vogue. Nowadays most physicists consider the concept of absolute
motion to be no more credible than the flat earth.
Simple Proof #1 That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
ultimately relative to itself. Of course, it does not matter whether
there are only two bodies or a billion. Since every position is
relative to every other position, the system is self-referential.
Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
Simple Proof #2 That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
Suppose there is a force acting on a particle so as to accelerate it.
The particle has as many relative velocities as there are possible
frames of reference, an infinite number in fact. Which of the myriads
of relative velocities does the force change? How does the
accelerating agent know about them so as to change them all? Answer,
it does not. Only one velocity is changed by the force because it has
no access to the others. The others are abstract, i.e., non-physical.
Simple Proof #3 That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
Let's consider the motion of a particle. How does a particle "know"
about its motion or rest relative to extrinsic frames of references so
as to move or be at rest relative to them? Are particles psychic? I
think not. No particle in the universe can make use of the relative
because it has no access to it. It follows that the universe does not
use the relative. The only properties that it can use are absolute
ones.
The Nasty Little Truth
The nasty little truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what we
have been taught to believe. The only type of motion or position in
the universe is absolute. The relative is abstract and dependent on
the absolute. Exclusive relativity is part of what I have been calling
chicken feather voodoo physics, because if we subscribe to it, we have
to believe that things happen as if by magic.
The Relativist's Objection
Exclusive relativists will immediately retort that if it cannot be
measured or observed, it does not exist. Never mind for now that
physics is bloated with concepts and models (time dimension,
spacetime, curled up dimensions, etc...) that are impossible to test
empirically.
First of all, it is a misconception that we measure the relative
directly. We perceive only absolute sensations (such as photons
impinging on the light detectors in the retina) and we interpret them
as meaning that object A is moving relative to body B. Sure, it's a
logical and sensible interpretation but it is an indirect one
nonetheless. It must be inferred.
Second, a truth that can be deduced logically is just as valid as a
truth that can be experienced first hand. Is it not more beneficial to
know the fundamental truth of absolute motion than it is to bury one's
head in the sand and act as if it does not exist? Which is better,
ignorance or knowledge? And who knows what new insight may come out of
it?
Absolute Space?
Does this mean that one should believe in an absolute space à la
Newton? Absolutely not. In the physical universe there exist only
particles, their properties and their interactions. Since all
properties are intrinsic to particles, they are therefore absolute
(independent) by virtue of being intrinsic. I'll have more to say
about this when I discuss the next nasty little truth about physics.
Besides, the absolute does not need a reference frame to be relative
to. That is the definition of the relative. Absolute means
independent.
[end quote]
ahahaha... Now it does not surprise me that John Baez, a puzzle freak,
would believe in exclusive relativity. He also believes in other
equally stupid crap:
Quoted From:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/physicists.htm#Baez
[beging quote]
John Baez
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-07/msg0016990.html
[Dr. Baez knows that nothing moves in spacetime (how could he not
know?) but, if cornered, he'll beat around the bush and mumble
something about the definition of motion. Rather than discard the time
axis, Dr. Baez believes that there are an infinite number of nows. Of
course, he fails to explain how one moves from one "now" to the next
one so as to perceive motion. He'd be hard pressed to do so since
nothing can move in spacetime. But Baez is full of contradictions.
While he claims that spacetime is a changeless collection of nows, he
nevertheless continues to talk about motion in spacetime, witness this
excerpt from his own site:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/background.html]
"So when you combine electrodynamics with general relativity, the
geometry of spacetime doesn't just affect the motion of light through
spacetime - it's also affected by the motion of light through
spacetime! More generally, the curvature of spacetime affects the
motion of matter, while matter curves spacetime."
[This begs a couple of questions. 1) How can something that is
changeless affect anything and 2) How can something that is changeless
be affected by anything? I've always found it hard to understand how
someone can live with such blatant contradictions and still fool
others into believing he has a clue. Note that Dr. Baez dreams of
unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. We should all wish
him a lot of luck because he's going to need it.]
[end quote]
Conclusion: John Baez is stupid as fuck. But we all knew that.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
Louis Savain
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Bill Hobba
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:k1g233djegqp3963v...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:46:15 +0000 (UTC),
> ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
>
>>Though Newton to have believed in some form of "absolute space",
>>the idea that motion is relative predates Einstein by a long time.
>
> It's a stupid idea and here is the simple reason why:
>
> More Nasty Little Truths About Physics:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
>
> [begin quote]
> The Crackpottery
>
> We have all been taught that there is no such thing as absolute motion
> or position or that every motion and position in the universe is
> relative. This unsubstantiated belief, which I have named exclusive
> relativity, has been around for centuries, even before the advent of
> Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity. It was not until early
> in the twentieth century, however, that exclusive relativity became in
> vogue. Nowadays most physicists consider the concept of absolute
> motion to be no more credible than the flat earth.
>
> Simple Proof #1
That Louis Savain is in desperate need of therapy.
And here we have that wonderful engaging laugh of yours, while demonstrating
your rampant jealously of your betters.
Bill
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Yes, being a heckler is so much more rewarding than being an actual
contributor.
Traveler
What does Baez's ass smell like today, Gisse? ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
wrote:
>And here we have that wonderful engaging laugh of yours, while demonstrating
>your rampant jealously of your betters.
Better be jealous than be an ass kisser, eh Bobba? ahahaha...
Uncle Al
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:46:15 +0000 (UTC),
> ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
>
> >Though Newton to have believed in some form of "absolute space",
> >the idea that motion is relative predates Einstein by a long time.
>
> It's a stupid idea and here is the simple reason why:
>
> More Nasty Little Truths About Physics:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
> Conclusion: John Baez is stupid as fuck. But we all knew that.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
Savain, Savain the miracle fruit.
Savain, Savain the jackass toot.
Savain, Savain who farts in church.
Savain, Savain who is an idiot troll.
That is Dr. John Baez to you, you swollen-assed fuck-faced baboon.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eric Gisse
> On 26 Apr 2007 17:57:57 -0700, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 26, 4:15 pm, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> >Yes, being a heckler is so much more rewarding than being an actual
> >contributor.
>
> What does Baez's ass smell like today,Gisse? ahahaha...
like a field of flowers
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:46315CF8...@hate.spam.net...
[snip wet fart]
> That is Dr. John Baez to you, you swollen-assed fuck-faced baboon.
I'm Dr. Androcles to you, you shrunken-arsed fuck-minded Neanderthal.
harry
> ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
>
>>Though Newton to have believed in some form of "absolute space",
>>the idea that motion is relative predates Einstein by a long time.
At least that is correct ;-)
> It's a stupid idea and here is the simple reason why:
>
> More Nasty Little Truths About Physics:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
>
> [begin quote]
> The Crackpottery
>
> We have all been taught that there is no such thing as absolute motion
> or position or that every motion and position in the universe is
> relative.
Often it depends on what one means with such a statement - it's in fact
highly ambiguous...
> This unsubstantiated belief, which I have named exclusive
> relativity, has been around for centuries, even before the advent of
> Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity. It was not until early
> in the twentieth century, however, that exclusive relativity became in
> vogue. Nowadays most physicists consider the concept of absolute
> motion to be no more credible than the flat earth.
>
> Simple Proof #1 That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
>
> If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
> in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
> suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
> body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
> the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
> ultimately relative to itself.
I'm afraid that you lost me here ...
> Of course, it does not matter whether
> there are only two bodies or a billion. Since every position is
> relative to every other position, the system is self-referential.
>
> Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
> as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
> by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
> of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
>
> Simple Proof #2 That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
>
> Suppose there is a force acting on a particle so as to accelerate it.
> The particle has as many relative velocities as there are possible
> frames of reference, an infinite number in fact. Which of the myriads
> of relative velocities does the force change? How does the
> accelerating agent know about them so as to change them all? Answer,
> it does not. Only one velocity is changed by the force because it has
> no access to the others. The others are abstract, i.e., non-physical.
I managed to follow that, and I think you have a point there, but it's not
well explained - little chance that you'll convince anyone to change his
mind with that.
> Simple Proof #3 That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
>
> Let's consider the motion of a particle. How does a particle "know"
> about its motion or rest relative to extrinsic frames of references so
> as to move or be at rest relative to them?
That is really unconvincing I'm afraid - people will just rebut that the
particle doesn't care.
> Are particles psychic? I
> think not. No particle in the universe can make use of the relative
> because it has no access to it. It follows that the universe does not
> use the relative. The only properties that it can use are absolute
> ones.
>
> The Nasty Little Truth
>
> The nasty little truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what we
> have been taught to believe. The only type of motion or position in
> the universe is absolute. The relative is abstract and dependent on
> the absolute. Exclusive relativity is part of what I have been calling
> chicken feather voodoo physics, because if we subscribe to it, we have
> to believe that things happen as if by magic.
Funny enough: when such relativity is pushed to the extreme, even some who
commonly subscribe to it *do* agree with calling it "magic". ;-)
-
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9b323dae37425ed2?hl=en&
> The Relativist's Objection
>
> Exclusive relativists will immediately retort that if it cannot be
> measured or observed, it does not exist. Never mind for now that
> physics is bloated with concepts and models (time dimension,
> spacetime, curled up dimensions, etc...) that are impossible to test
> empirically.
Yup.
> First of all, it is a misconception that we measure the relative
> directly. We perceive only absolute sensations (such as photons
> impinging on the light detectors in the retina) and we interpret them
> as meaning that object A is moving relative to body B. Sure, it's a
> logical and sensible interpretation but it is an indirect one
> nonetheless. It must be inferred.
>
> Second, a truth that can be deduced logically is just as valid as a
> truth that can be experienced first hand. Is it not more beneficial to
> know the fundamental truth of absolute motion than it is to bury one's
> head in the sand and act as if it does not exist? Which is better,
> ignorance or knowledge? And who knows what new insight may come out of
> it?
That's a bit problematic: for the last century, little new insight came out
of it. But then, it sometimes argued that that also little effort went into
it.
> Absolute Space?
>
> Does this mean that one should believe in an absolute space à la
> Newton? Absolutely not.
Indeed, Lorentz and Einstein modified that concept for the macro world, and
quantum mechanics delivered additional new clues.
> In the physical universe there exist only
> particles, their properties and their interactions.
Is that your postulate? What do you mean with "particles"?
> Since all
> properties are intrinsic to particles, they are therefore absolute
> (independent) by virtue of being intrinsic. I'll have more to say
> about this when I discuss the next nasty little truth about physics.
> Besides, the absolute does not need a reference frame to be relative
> to. That is the definition of the relative. Absolute means
> independent.
> [end quote]
>
> ahahaha... Now it does not surprise me that John Baez, a puzzle freak,
> would believe in exclusive relativity. He also believes in other
> equally stupid crap:
Hmm... personal attacks are the downfall of discussion groups.
[SNIP]
Harald
Traveler
wrote:
[snip ass kissing exercise]
What does John Baez's ass smell like today, Uncle Shfartz? ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Traveler
>On Apr 26, 5:06 pm, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2007 17:57:57 -0700, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 26, 4:15 pm, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >[...]
>>
>> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>>
>> >Yes, being a heckler is so much more rewarding than being an actual
>> >contributor.
>>
>> What does Baez's ass smell like today,Gisse? ahahaha...
>
>like a field of flowers
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... It figures. ahahaha...
Eric Gisse
> On 26 Apr 2007 23:15:34 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 26, 5:06 pm, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> On 26 Apr 2007 17:57:57 -0700, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 26, 4:15 pm, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >[...]
>
> >> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> >> >Yes, being a heckler is so much more rewarding than being an actual
> >> >contributor.
>
> >> What does Baez's ass smell like today,Gisse? ahahaha...
>
> >like a field of flowers
>
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... It figures. ahahaha...
while we are on the subject, how's the view from within?
Traveler
[crap]
ass... ass... kiss... kiss... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Eric Gisse
> On 27 Apr 2007 04:10:39 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> ass... ass... kiss... kiss... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
If I give you a link to a porn site, would you look at anything but
the ass category?
Traveler
>On Apr 27, 5:52 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2007 04:10:39 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [crap]
>>
>> ass... ass... kiss... kiss... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
>If I give you a link to a porn site, would you look at anything but
>the ass category?
ahahaha... If I give you a choice between John Baez's ass and Uncle
Shfartz's ass, which one would you kiss first? ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
Gordon
wrote:
(snip)
>>
>> Conclusion: John Baez is stupid as fuck. But we all knew that.
>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>
>And here we have that wonderful engaging laugh of yours, while demonstrating
>your rampant jealously of your betters.
>
>Bill
>
Is he/she/it laughing? Maybe this is an allergy response and
he/she/it is stifling a sneeze so he/she/it won't blow snot all
over his/her/its keyboard.
Traveler
wrote:
[cut lame crap]
Whosw ass are you kissing here, Gordon? Baez's ass or Bobba's?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Physics From the Bible!
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm
PD
It's my experience that hecklers fall into one of a few categories:
- drunk and angry about being drunk
- alone and angry about being alone
- broke and angry about being broke
- drunk and alone and broke and don't want to go home to face a spouse
who is angry at living with a lonely, broke drunk.
Just an observation....
PD
PD
It's my experience that hecklers fall into one of a few categories:
PD
It's my experience that hecklers fall into one of a few categories:
Traveler
>Just an observation....
Your opinion matters to me because of what again? ahahaha... You just
could not leave well enough alone, could you, PD?. You just had to
chime in so as to be part of this venerable ass kissing society, eh?
Don't want to be left out, is that it, PD?
PD = pederast || pedophile
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahahaha...
Hayek
Sounds as stupid as saying in politics that the
opposition is unnecessary.
Opposition keeps the majority in check.
And I largely agree with Louis Savain.
Baez is a typical product of educational
indoctrination. Just as Davies is.
I therefore claim to show, not how men think in
myths, but how myths operate in men’s minds without
their being aware of the fact.-- Claude Lévi-Strauss
Uwe Hayek.
Eric Gisse
> EricGissewrote:
> > On Apr 26, 4:15 pm, Traveler
> > <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking
> >> phun! ahahaha...
>
> > Yes, being a heckler is so much more rewarding
> > than being an actual contributor.
>
> Sounds as stupid as saying in politics that the
> opposition is unnecessary.
>
> Opposition keeps the majority in check.
>
> And I largely agree with Louis Savain.
>
> Baez is a typical product of educational
> indoctrination. Just as Davies is.
I assume you have cleverly avoided 'educational indoctrination' by
having no education yourself, correct?
Traveler
>On May 1, 10:49 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> EricGissewrote:
>> > On Apr 26, 4:15 pm, Traveler
>> > <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking
>> >> phun! ahahaha...
>>
>> > Yes, being a heckler is so much more rewarding
>> > than being an actual contributor.
>>
>> Sounds as stupid as saying in politics that the
>> opposition is unnecessary.
>>
>> Opposition keeps the majority in check.
>>
>> And I largely agree with Louis Savain.
>>
>> Baez is a typical product of educational
>> indoctrination. Just as Davies is.
>
>I assume you have cleverly avoided 'educational indoctrination' by
>having no education yourself, correct?
ahahaha... Hayek obviously has not been educated into the finer art of
ass kissing, as you have, Gisse. When you kiss the asses of your
masters, it's something to behold. Your friend van de merde should
take notice. He's been slacking lately. ahahaha... As far as I can
tell, your main competion is Uncle Shfartz. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Phineas T Puddleduck
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >I assume you have cleverly avoided 'educational indoctrination' by
> >having no education yourself, correct?
>
> ahahaha... Hayek obviously has not been educated into the finer art of
> ass kissing, as you have, Gisse. When you kiss the asses of your
> masters, it's something to behold. Your friend van de merde should
> take notice. He's been slacking lately. ahahaha... As far as I can
> tell, your main competion is Uncle Shfartz. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
And you prove Gisse right.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
Eric Gisse
> On 1 May 2007 12:17:18 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 1, 10:49 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> EricGissewrote:
> >> > On Apr 26, 4:15 pm, Traveler
> >> > <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking
> >> >> phun! ahahaha...
>
> >> > Yes, being a heckler is so much more rewarding
> >> > than being an actual contributor.
>
> >> Sounds as stupid as saying in politics that the
> >> opposition is unnecessary.
>
> >> Opposition keeps the majority in check.
>
> >> And I largely agree with Louis Savain.
>
> >> Baez is a typical product of educational
> >> indoctrination. Just as Davies is.
>
> >I assume you have cleverly avoided 'educational indoctrination' by
> >having no education yourself, correct?
>
> ahahaha... Hayek obviously has not been educated into the finer art of
> ass kissing, as you have, Gisse. When you kiss the asses of your
> masters, it's something to behold. Your friend van de merde should
> take notice. He's been slacking lately. ahahaha... As far as I can
> tell, your main competion is Uncle Shfartz. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
Do you actually talk like this?
Rock Brentwood
> Making phun of [anyone] is so much phucking phun!
It's also illegal, particularly when it crosses the border like this,
and could land you in court on charges of defamation.
hanson
a very civilized man, worried and admonished in message
news:1178231653....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Lousi Savain aka Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> who wrote:
>> Making phun of [anyone] is so much phucking phun!
>
> It's also illegal, particularly when it crosses the border like this,
> and could land you in court on charges of defamation.
>
ahahahaha.. You complain about that? Fun!?... yet you don't bitch
when some dudes advocate genocide on a vast scale in here.
Did Louis crank you or are you new to this crazy 24/7 cyber party?
These sci.p&m NGs are civilized, dude. You have seen nothing
until you partake in sci.environment. The weather strips any and
all traces of civilization off those green shits in there. Go there.
Therein you'll have plenty and daily opportunities to complain.
Do they put folks in jail for making fun of people where you live?
Fun like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... or do you have
a different experience that you prefer political correctness over
free speech"?... or do you have a special FUCKING agenda?
>
There are folks from all walks of life here. Watch now, Rocky,
some feeble paranoid souls may come forth and claim again
that I "hanson is Savain" because both names have a,s & n in
common. NGs are a great and wonderful cyber world. Get out of
the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. Don't risk a heat stroke.
Thanks for the laughs, Rocky... ahaha... ahaha... ahahanson
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On 27 Apr 2007 15:47:25 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Just an observation....
[...]
> PD = pederast || pedophile
There may be more truth to that than you probably suspected. It turns
out that these "science-religion" types, especially those in Academia,
exhibit behavior and are into stuff that even I find hard to believe.
Look at the bizzare occultic and outright homosexual perversion
exhibited by "Fraternaties" like Skull & Bones, etc. Listen to whistle-
blower Kay Griggs curious remarks about Einstein and his bizzare
conduct at princeton.
Perhaps "ass-kisser" is not an insult but a compliment. Judging by the
response of "Eric Gisse", it may indeed be the case.
[...]
Traveler
ahahaha... Thanks for the laugh, Hanson. Maybe Rocky here has
something to hide and is feeling a little paranoid. ahahaha...
ahahaha... Or maybe Rocky is just another ass kisser chiming in. Let's
find out who Rocky is and make phun of him/her too. ahahaha...
The_Man
wrote:
> "Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in messagenews:46315CF8...@hate.spam.net...
>
> [snip wet fart]
>
> > That is Dr. John Baez to you, you swollen-assed fuck-faced baboon.
>
> I'm Dr. Androcles to you, you shrunken-arsed fuck-minded Neanderthal.
"Dr." is a term of accomplishment which you don't deserve. You don't
have a Ph.D. or M.D., D.O., or Pharm.D. or D.D.S. or V.M.D. You don't
even have a master's degree. From your inability to do simple math, it
is hard to believe you have any degree at all. So, you would more
properly be called "Asshole Androcles", or "Androcles, who gives all
Brits a bad name", or "Dufus Androcles", or maybe "A levels
Androcles."