How To Deny Everything -- was re James P. Hogan
Louann Miller
of the James P. Hogan thread that has also been seen here. The context
is that the thread had gone from "Is James P. Hogan a nut?" to "Is
James P. Hogan friendly with Holocaust deniers?" to denial in general.
Since similar tactics are used daily by YEC's and such, I think it's
on topic. Besides funny.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:16:58 +0200 (CEST), Leo Breebaart
<l...@lspace.org> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>> * I wish I'd saved the 'Did America Really Atom Bomb Japan'
>> post someone made as an example of the rhetorical tricks** used
>> by the higher end deniers.
>
>Not sure if the following article by Alan Lustiger is the one you
>mean, but it's brilliant, so I never need much of an excuse to
>repost it...:
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE "ATOMIC BOMB"
>
>1. Is there any evidence that a thermonuclear device exploded over
>Hiroshima in 1945?
>
>No, absolutely none. According to leading historians and physicists,
>the thermonuclear bomb was not invented until years after the supposed
>detonation over Japanese territory.
>
>2. Is there any evidence that a uranium-based "atom bomb" was ever dropped
>onto Nagasaki, Japan?
>
>Absolutely not. While many historians and journalists made this claim
>in the late 40's and early 50's, everyone now agrees that no such
>bomb ever exploded over Nagasaki. Yet there are some who still stubbornly
>cling to this supposed "fact."
>
>3. What are the materials needed to make an "atom bomb?"
>
>Uranium-238 and plutonium-239.
>
>4. Aren't these materials radioactive?
>
>Highly so. Anybody who attempts to use these materials is endangering
>his/her life.
>
>5. Is it likely that nuclear scientists in the 40's would be
>handling uranium and plutonium?
>
>This would be highly unlikely. Very few people felt so threatened
>by the Japanese to be willing to risk their lives on a theoretical
>chance of a superbomb that could end a far-away war a little sooner.
>
>6. Aren't there witnesses to the atomic bomb in Hiroshima?
>
>The only "witnesses" that could possibly survived this supposed
>explosion would have been blinded by the intense flash of light,
>so their testimony is quite unreliable and contradictory.
>
>7. According to conventional historians, was the uranium bomb tested
>before supposedly being dropped over Hiroshima?
>
>No. There was no testing whatsoever of a uranium bomb in Alamogordo
>or anywhere else before Hiroshima.
>
>8. Isn't that strange?
>
>Yes. Typical weapons are tested for months and years before deployment;
>there is no other weapon that according to the accepted "facts" deployed
>before any testing whatsoever.
>
>9. How many witnesses are there for all of the atomic tests allegedly
>occuring during the fifties and sixties?
>
>Very few, perhaps a few hundred, who claimed to have seen them.
>
>10. What did the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy
>Commission say in their report of October 30, 1949?
>
>They recommended strongly against the development of what they
>called the "Super Bomb," which is simply a thermonuclear
>bomb. They said that "A super bomb might become a weapon of
>genocide."
>
>11. Isn't this four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
>
>Yes. Obviously development of nuclear weapons occurred well
>after their supposed implementation in 1945.
>
>12. Is radioactivity dangerous?
>
>Everything is radioactive to some extent.
>
>13. What was the triggering method of the bomb that supposedly
>was dropped on Hiroshima?
>
>According to the standard historical accounts, it used a gun-
>assembly trigger.
>
>14. Wasn't the gun-assembly method of triggering abandoned
>in the design stage?
>
>Yes; according to these same sources the gun method would not
>work with uranium-derived plutonium-239 because some of the
>plutonium-239 absorbs a neutron to become plutonium-240, which
>undergoes spontaneous fission, all before supercriticality,
>causing a premature and very small explosion that is unusable
>for the very purpose that it was supposedly designed for!
>
>15. How do conventional historians rectify these two "facts?"
>
>They don't even attempt to.
>
>16. How many books have been written about the atomic bomb?
>
>Many hundreds, as well as thousands of articles in magazines
>and newspapers.
>
>17. Why was Hiroshima "targeted," and not Tokyo?
>
>Perhaps because no one had heard of Hiroshima, and no one knew anyone
>from there. It would be far more difficult to claim that Tokyo was bombed
>than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, most world maps from before "World
>War Two" do not even mention these cities at all.
>
>18. How does Japan benefit from the "atom bomb" story?
>
>As a direct result of the "war," Japan has received billions of dollars
>worth of US aid for its defense. Japan has essentially no defense
>budget, so it can pour resources through MITI into defeating the US
>economically, all while playing on the emotions of anti-"nuke" activists
>about the "horrors" of nuclear weapons.
>
>19. Wow, I never thought of that. How else do the Japanese
>benefit from this story?
>
>The Japanese now own major Hollywood studios, from which many war
>movies are produced. Also, they play upon our sympathy for the
>supposed "atom bomb" to blind us to the fact that this foreign
>nation had taken over our semiconductor industry, many California
>banks and practically the entire state of Hawaii.
>
>This is all a part of the Japanese plot to take over the world.
>According to the "Protocols of the Elders of the Orient," this
>is a Japanese conspiracy all foretold by their ancient texts
>that very few Anglo-Saxons have the ability to read.
>
>19. How many people are supposed to have died in the explosions?
>
>It is hard to say. Some sources say 60,000 in Hiroshima, others say
>140,000. No attempt has been made to rectify the various numbers.
>
>20. How many people die annually from car accidents in the US?
>
>Over 50,000.
>
>21. So, what makes Hiroshima so special?
>
>Nothing, especially given the contradictory evidence about it.
>
>22. Boy, I'm mad. What should I do about this?
>
>Glad you asked. First, send me lots of money so we can spread this
>message far and wide. Maybe we'll take out ads in college newspapers
>or something.
>
>Second, direct your anger at the Japanese. We are the victims, and
>they are the aggressors. Make yourself feel important again by bashing
>Japan at every opportunity. Japanese people are inherently evil, and
>basically subhuman. They were never bombed, and if they would have been
>they would have deserved it. Who do they think they are, anyway?
>
>Yes, we Revisionists have all the answers. Life is a lot simpler than
>you thought it was. Join us, and you won't have to be bothered anymore
>by any feelings of guilt for your inherent hatred. We can justify it!
>Oh, it's not the Japanese you hate, but the crippled? Hey - so do we!
>It's easy: we don't like feeling uncomfortable around people in wheelchairs,
>either! Who do they think they are, taking all the good parking spaces
>when they were stupid enough to slip on a banana peel? IT'S A
>CONSPIRACY! --See how easy it is to start? Now, just mix in a few
>real facts, and start converting all of the otherwise messed-up
>people to OUR CAUSE!
>
>23. Wow! You mean that I could write stuff like this, too?
>
>Sure! It's embarrasingly easy to write what we wrote above. In fact,
>it's even superior to the usual anti-Semitic revisionist garbage,
>because it has a higher percentage of REAL FACTS! Most of the
>apparent "contradictions" above come from the facts that Nagasaki
>was bombed by a plutonium bomb, not uranium; and that hydrogen
>bombs are thermonuclear, not atomic bombs. Just juggle information
>about the different types of bombs and mix them up so they seem to
>be contradicting each other. It doesn't take ANY INTELLIGENCE
>WHATSOEVER, and you can get lots of free air time on "48 Hours"!
>
>Oh, I forgot to mention: I have a Japanese girlfriend who agrees
>with EVERY WORD I've written above. Here she is:
>
>"Yes, I am his Japanese girlfriend. I love him very much, and I've
>always been troubled by my Japanese friends claiming to know people
>who died in Hiroshima."
>
>There you have it! Just throw some unverifiable opinions on top
>of ridiculous proofs to STRENGTHEN YOUR CASE!
>
>24. Couldn't I be arrested for this?
>
>No! This country is founded on FREE SPEECH! But, just make sure
>that you mention how much you are being persecuted for saying
>your version of history. (More than three email messages a day
>qualify for being called harrassment. Five may merit a lawsuit.)
>
>25. Where can I get more information?
>
>Go to a library. Take a book at random. Skim it. Then, decide how
>that book is either for you or against you. If it is for you, quote
>liberally and out of context. If against you, do the same.
>
>DON"T LET YOURSELF GET CONFUSED BY THE FACTS! We certainly don't!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> Alan Lustiger
> |_ | | AT&T Bell Laboratories ERC, Princeton, NJ
> / |( attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu or lust...@att.com
>----
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas H. Faller
That was priceless. Thank you for putting it in its own category.
I think that by using it as a style guide, you could deny your
own existance.. in fact, I may try doing that - after all, nobody
here has ever seen me and a keyboard together..
Tom Faller
AC
I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
Australians.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Richard S. Crawford
Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
the existence of Canada.
--
Richard Crawford (http://www.mossroot.com)
AIM: Buffalo2K / Y!: rscrawford
Ask me about my opposable thumb!
"When you lose the power to laugh at yourself, you lose the power to
think straight." --Clarence Darrow
Steven Carr
<rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>AC wrote:
>> I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
>> Australians.
>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
>the existence of Canada.
As the very name implies, there is 'Keine da', so how can Canadians
exist?
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
<loua...@yahoo.net>:
>The following post came up today in the rec.arts.sf.written iteration
>of the James P. Hogan thread that has also been seen here. The context
>is that the thread had gone from "Is James P. Hogan a nut?" to "Is
>James P. Hogan friendly with Holocaust deniers?" to denial in general.
>Since similar tactics are used daily by YEC's and such, I think it's
>on topic. Besides funny.
Excellent; thanks for posting it!
<snip>
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
alexander.hudson
"Steven Carr" <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40f5997a...@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:13:35 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>
> >AC wrote:
>
> >> I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
> >> Australians.
>
> >Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
> >the existence of Canada.
>
> As the very name implies, there is 'Keine da', so how can Canadians
> exist?
Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I always
had my suspicions mind you
Richard S. Crawford
> "Steven Carr" <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:40f5997a...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:13:35 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
>><rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AC wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
>>>>Australians.
>>
>>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
>>>the existence of Canada.
>>
>>As the very name implies, there is 'Keine da', so how can Canadians
>>exist?
>
>
> Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I always
> had my suspicions mind you
Can she prove that she exists? Huh? Can she?!!?
alexander.hudson
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in
message news:cd4b3j$6ih$5...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> alexander.hudson wrote:
>
> > "Steven Carr" <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:40f5997a...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:13:35 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
> >><rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>AC wrote:
> >>
> >>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
> >>>>Australians.
> >>
> >>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that
denies
> >>>the existence of Canada.
> >>
> >>As the very name implies, there is 'Keine da', so how can Canadians
> >>exist?
> >
> >
> > Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I
always
> > had my suspicions mind you
>
> Can she prove that she exists? Huh? Can she?!!?
I'll ask her the next time I ... er ... no wait, do I have to prove she
exists before I ask her to justify her existence ... or .... uh
my head hurts
Richard S. Crawford
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in
> message news:cd4b3j$6ih$5...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>
>>alexander.hudson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Steven Carr" <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:40f5997a...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:13:35 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
>>>><rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>AC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
>>>>>>Australians.
>>>>
>>>>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that
>
> denies
>
>>>>>the existence of Canada.
>>>>
>>>>As the very name implies, there is 'Keine da', so how can Canadians
>>>>exist?
>>>
>>>
>>>Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I
>
> always
>
>>>had my suspicions mind you
>>
>>Can she prove that she exists? Huh? Can she?!!?
>
>
> I'll ask her the next time I ... er ... no wait, do I have to prove she
> exists before I ask her to justify her existence ... or .... uh
>
> my head hurts
Welcome to Matt Giwer's world.
Zamboni
"alexander.hudson" <alexande...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:HbjJc.197$E93...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote
in
> message news:cd4b3j$6ih$5...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> > alexander.hudson wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven Carr" <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:40f5997a...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > >>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:13:35 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
> > >><rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>AC wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
> > >>>>Australians.
> > >>
> > >>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that
> denies
> > >>>the existence of Canada.
> > >>
> > >>As the very name implies, there is 'Keine da', so how can Canadians
> > >>exist?
> > >
> > >
> > > Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I
> always
> > > had my suspicions mind you
> >
> > Can she prove that she exists? Huh? Can she?!!?
>
> I'll ask her the next time I ... er ... no wait, do I have to prove she
> exists before I ask her to justify her existence ... or .... uh
>
> my head hurts
>
--
Zamboni
John Wilkins
We already deny our own existence...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Greg G
> The following post came up today in the rec.arts.sf.written iteration
> of the James P. Hogan thread that has also been seen here. The context
> is that the thread had gone from "Is James P. Hogan a nut?" to "Is
> James P. Hogan friendly with Holocaust deniers?" to denial in general.
> Since similar tactics are used daily by YEC's and such, I think it's
> on topic. Besides funny.
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:16:58 +0200 (CEST), Leo Breebaart
> <l...@lspace.org> wrote:
>
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >
> >> * I wish I'd saved the 'Did America Really Atom Bomb Japan'
> >> post someone made as an example of the rhetorical tricks** used
> >> by the higher end deniers.
> >
> >Not sure if the following article by Alan Lustiger is the one you
> >mean, but it's brilliant, so I never need much of an excuse to
> >repost it...:
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE "ATOMIC BOMB"
> >
...
> >19. Wow, I never thought of that. How else do the Japanese
> >benefit from this story?
> >
> >The Japanese now own major Hollywood studios, from which many war
> >movies are produced. Also, they play upon our sympathy for the
> >supposed "atom bomb" to blind us to the fact that this foreign
> >nation had taken over our semiconductor industry, many California
> >banks and practically the entire state of Hawaii.
> >
> >This is all a part of the Japanese plot to take over the world.
> >According to the "Protocols of the Elders of the Orient," this
> >is a Japanese conspiracy all foretold by their ancient texts
> >that very few Anglo-Saxons have the ability to read.
> >
> >19. How many people are supposed to have died in the explosions?
> >
> >It is hard to say. Some sources say 60,000 in Hiroshima, others say
> >140,000. No attempt has been made to rectify the various numbers.
> >
...
Because there are two question 19's, there are actually 26 questions.
This proves that none of the conclusions in the article are reliable,
therefore Bluto was correct that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
--
Greg G.
Everything you goes in one ear and out the other. That's why I've got
two ears.
Dave Empey
> AC wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
>> Australians.
>
> Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
> the existence of Canada.
>
>
Perhaps
http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
can give you some pointers.
--
Dave Empey
John Wilkins
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>
> > AC wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
> >> Australians.
> >
> > Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
> > the existence of Canada.
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps
>
> http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
>
> can give you some pointers.
I think they are living in their own, private, Idaho...
Richard S. Crawford
> Dave Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
>>>>Australians.
>>>
>>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
>>>the existence of Canada.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps
>>
>>http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
>>
>>can give you some pointers.
>
>
> I think they are living in their own, private, Idaho...
Pfah! I refuse to read the words of a person who lives on a so-called
"continent" that doesn't even exist.
My new theory is that John Wilkins is really Keanu Reeves in disguise.
Think about it: have you ever seen the two of them together in the same
room at the same time?
Ferrous Patella
<rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>:
> alexander.hudson wrote:
>> Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I
>> always had my suspicions mind you
>
> Can she prove that she exists? Huh? Can she?!!?
Ask her if she was there?
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Dave Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>AC wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
> >>>>Australians.
> >>>
> >>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that denies
> >>>the existence of Canada.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Perhaps
> >>
> >>http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
> >>
> >>can give you some pointers.
> >
> >
> > I think they are living in their own, private, Idaho...
>
> Pfah! I refuse to read the words of a person who lives on a so-called
> "continent" that doesn't even exist.
>
> My new theory is that John Wilkins is really Keanu Reeves in disguise.
> Think about it: have you ever seen the two of them together in the same
> room at the same time?
I'm sorry, but I look much better (in my mind's eye) than he does, and I
have *never* said "Woah!".
John Wilkins
> news:cd4b3j$6ih$5...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu by "Richard S. Crawford"
> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>:
>
> > alexander.hudson wrote:
>
>
> >> Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I
> >> always had my suspicions mind you
> >
> > Can she prove that she exists? Huh? Can she?!!?
>
> Ask her if she was there?
Good strategy. If she punches you in the arm, you will have prima facie
phenomenological evidence she is there. Of course, if you take a
positivist view, that is the only sense in which she *is* there, but if
you are a scientific realist, then you may infer that arm-punchers exist
independently of your qualia.
Klaus Hellnick
"John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gh08x9.1i41ismq06ecgN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> Richard S. Crawford <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > > Dave Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>AC wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
> > >>>>Australians.
> > >>>
> > >>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that
denies
> > >>>the existence of Canada.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Perhaps
> > >>
> > >>http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
> > >>
> > >>can give you some pointers.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think they are living in their own, private, Idaho...
> >
> > Pfah! I refuse to read the words of a person who lives on a so-called
> > "continent" that doesn't even exist.
> >
> > My new theory is that John Wilkins is really Keanu Reeves in disguise.
> > Think about it: have you ever seen the two of them together in the same
> > room at the same time?
>
> I'm sorry, but I look much better (in my mind's eye) than he does, and I
> have *never* said "Woah!".
> --
Dude!
Klaus
John Wilkins
Jim Lovejoy
news:Xns9526B6A08CBE...@129.250.170.83:
It's said that some people are so confused.
Everyone knows that it's South Dakota that doesn't exist.
(Or is that North Dakota?)
Greg G
> > "John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> > news:1gh08x9.1i41ismq06ecgN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> > > Richard S. Crawford <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dave Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>AC wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
> > > > >>>>Australians.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that
> > denies
> > > > >>>the existence of Canada.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Perhaps
> > > > >>
> > > > >>http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
> > > > >>
> > > > >>can give you some pointers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think they are living in their own, private, Idaho...
> > > >
> > > > Pfah! I refuse to read the words of a person who lives on a so-called
> > > > "continent" that doesn't even exist.
> > > >
> > > > My new theory is that John Wilkins is really Keanu Reeves in disguise.
> > > > Think about it: have you ever seen the two of them together in the same
> > > > room at the same time?
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but I look much better (in my mind's eye) than he does, and I
> > > have *never* said "Woah!".
> > > --
> >
> > Dude!
> Sweet!
> [On the TV last night...]
The story of their message, "Be excellent to each other", affecting
the lives of people many years in the future seems familiar. Then the
sequel dealt with resurrection. Did Mel Gibson direct those movies?
--
Greg G.
When you read a horoscope, add "in bed" to each sentence.
Richard Forrest
> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>
> > news:cd4b3j$6ih$5...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu by "Richard S. Crawford"
> > <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>:
> >
> > > alexander.hudson wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I
> > >> always had my suspicions mind you
> > >
> > > Can she prove that she exists? Huh? Can she?!!?
> >
> > Ask her if she was there?
>
> Good strategy. If she punches you in the arm, you will have prima facie
> phenomenological evidence she is there. Of course, if you take a
> positivist view, that is the only sense in which she *is* there, but if
> you are a scientific realist, then you may infer that arm-punchers exist
> independently of your qualia.
Aaargh! Now I know why I study old bones. They don't argue about their
own existence.
RF
John Wilkins
I was referring to _Dude, where's my car?_ not the _Bill and Ted_ films.
But no - Mel Gibson cannot direct comedies. He has, as they said in
_MiBI_, no sense of humour we are aware of.
Klaus Hellnick
Keanu was not in "Dude, Where's my car".
Bill and Ted did say "Dude" a lot, though.
Richard S. Crawford
One of the funniest things I've ever seen was Keanu Reeves as Don Juan
in Kenneth Branagh's film version of _Much Ado About Nothing_. He
delivered the line, "Come. Let us away!" in exactly the same manner he
said "Dude!" and "Whoa!"
Richard S. Crawford
I've always thought that "Be excellent to each other" was a really great
rewording of the Golden Rule. With "Party on!" as a good supplement.
Mark Isaak
North Dakota. "Fargo" was filmed on a sound stage in New Mexico.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Steven Carr
<alexande...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Dammit, I seem to be going out with a non-existent Canadian woman. I always
>had my suspicions mind you
Actually, it is Europeans who do not exist.
After all, if Americans and Canadians are descended from Europeans,
then why do euproeans still exist? Clearly, they can't.
Daniel Harper
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:13:20 +0000 (UTC), Jim Lovejoy
> <nos...@devnull.spam> wrote:
>
>>Dave Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote in
>>news:Xns9526B6A08CBE...@129.250.170.83:
>>
>>> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
>>> wrote in news:cd3tea$1t8$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu:
>>>> AC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just trying to formulate a version that denies the existence of
>>>>> Australians.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know what you come up with, so I can dome up with one that
>>>> denies the existence of Canada.
>>>
>>> Perhaps
>>>
>>> http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
>>>
>>It's said that some people are so confused.
>>
>>Everyone knows that it's South Dakota that doesn't exist.
>>
>>(Or is that North Dakota?)
>
> North Dakota. "Fargo" was filmed on a sound stage in New Mexico.
According to an old "Garfield and Friends" I saw when I was a kid, it's
Wyoming that doesn't exist. Wyoming is an old Indian word meaning "no
state here".
--
So it goes....
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Daniel Harper
Wyld Stallyns couldn't keep me away from those flicks.
Andrew Arensburger
> I've always thought that "Be excellent to each other" was a really great
> rewording of the Golden Rule. With "Party on!" as a good supplement.
But that's seven words to say what "Share and enjoy!" says in
three.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Pssst. The root password is 'kumquat'.
Earle Jones
turkana...@yahoo.com (Greg G) wrote:
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:<57naf01vlc8ctckn8...@4ax.com>...
> > The following post came up today in the rec.arts.sf.written iteration
> > of the James P. Hogan thread that has also been seen here. The context
> > is that the thread had gone from "Is James P. Hogan a nut?" to "Is
> > James P. Hogan friendly with Holocaust deniers?"
*
Only the questions change.
The answer is still yes in both cases.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
James Nicoll
olden days:
From: a...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (Alan Lustiger)
Subject: THE "STATE" OF IDAHO: THE CASE FOR OPEN DEBATE
Date: 20 May 92 15:15:40 GMT
THE "STATE" OF IDAHO: THE CASE FOR OPEN DEBATE
If you would ask any schoolchild how many states there are in the
United States, you will get the same answer: 50. Fifty states
in the Union. It is simply an accepted "fact." If you would
disagree with this supposed "fact," you would be branded insane
or worse.
However, mounting evidence shows that there are in fact only 49
states in the US, and the "state" of Idaho is a baseless myth.
We have been trying to distribute and publish this information
for over *two years*, but our scholarship has not been given
any respect. We have been censored, vilified, ridiculed and
spat upon by the "traditional" geographers and historians, but
WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!
All we ask is that the existence of the state of Idaho be debated,
as every other historical and geographic "fact" can be debated.
Time after time, our opponents have refused to debate us on the
FACTS. This alone should tell you something about the people who
support the "existence" of this "43rd state."
Please read the following evidence VERY CAREFULLY, and you will be
astonished at the veracity of our cause.
THE POPULATION MYTH
Do you know anybody from Idaho? Do you know anybody *who knows
anybody* from Idaho? According to the 1990 "census," there are
over one million (1,000,000, or 1 x 10^6) people living in
Idaho. But if there are so many Idahoers, where are they?
Some people have come forward and claimed that they were born
and raised in "Idaho." But *every single person* who made this
claim have been shown to be frauds and charlatans. These "Idahoan
wannabes" are invariably inconsistent with each other about the
size (in square miles or square kilometers) of "Idaho," about
various town and village names, and even about the names
of "Idaho's mighty rivers."
THE SIZE FARCE
According to traditional geographic sources (created entirely
by people who believe in the existence of Idaho, and probably
the Tooth Fairy, also) the "State" of Idaho is more than twice
the size of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Connecticut and Massachusetts *combined.* Isn't it strange that
a state with such vast land resources has so few people? And
even of you look at a map (created by the Idaho-centric
cartographers) the "State" of "Idaho" is dwarfed by its much
larger neighbor, Montana.
SATELLITE EVIDENCE
Recently declassified weather satellite information, showing
the entire continental United States, shows absolutely *no
evidence* that there is any state where "Idaho" is supposedly
located. Noted experts in the field of interpreting these
pictures unanimously agree that, from outer space, it is
impossible to determine the borders of this elusive "state."
Yet meteorologists and cartographers routinely overlay
these satellite pictures with the outline of states that
would seem to indicate Idaho's existence.
PHOTOGRAPHIC "EVIDENCE"
Many people, skeptical of the clear evidence that Idaho
does not and never did exist, point to photographs that they've
seen in encyclopedias and postcards seeming to show parts of the
state of Idaho.
It is important to note that a photograph without a caption
is often meaningless. A picture of people in boats surrounded
by mountains could have been taken in Colorado or Nevada,
but when the holy *caption* says that this is a picture of
the "Salmon River" in "Idaho," gullible readers tend to
swallow this information whole *without any further examination.*
We have examined literally hundreds of these "photographs," and
the ones that are not outright fakes are all clearly taken in
other parts of the nation.
ASK THE JAPANESE
It is well known that Americans are woefully ignorant about
geography, which is one reason why it is so easy to fake an
entire state here. Not surprisingly, most of the effort to
create the illusion of Idaho has been expended in the USA.
But if you would ask a typical Japanese or French schoolchild
about what he/she knows about Idaho, you will usually get a
blank stare. People who are much better at geography than
Americans have never heard to this "great state."
THE POTATO MYTH
Any given supermarket in the United States has sacks of potatoes
clearly marked "Idaho Potatoes." People make the assumption, that
when they are buying these potatoes, that they were *grown* in
the "state" of "Idaho."
Actually, "Idaho" is a type of potato, just like "McIntosh" is
a type of apple. The FACT is that *many* states have potato crops,
as well as foreign countries, and potatoes that say "Idaho" on
them are no more from Idaho than Baltimore Orioles all come
from Maryland.
SO, WHAT'S THERE?
Nothing. THERE IS NOTHING THERE. We have been so brainwashed
by the traditional mapmaking community to think that if Idaho
doesn't exist, then there must be some sort of vacuum there
instead. This is nonsense.
The very shapes and positions of the states, and indeed of
every nation on the planet, is only known through "information"
provided by cartographers. It is akin to asking "if Santa's
house isn't at the North Pole, then what's there instead?"
THE CARTOGRAPHER CONSPIRACY
The *only evidence* that there is a state called Idaho comes from
maps. Everybody has maps, in almanacs, in encyclopedias, and
on the walls of every elementary school classroom in America.
Astonishingly, *over 99%* of all maps are created by *cartographers!*
If any clearly defined set of people would control any other
important industry to that degree, everybody would be up in arms
about the undue influence given to a meager few. However, for
some reason, Cartographers are immune to such criticism. Any
mention about the Cartographer influence over the mapmaking
industry (and, as a natural extension, OUR VERY THOUGHTS!) is
dismissed as "lunacy."
As an indication of how insidious is this influence, just think:
have you ever questioned a map? Maps, being graphical objects,
require much less effort to assimilate into our very psyches.
Behavioral studies show that people can much more readily understand
maps than printed descriptions of geographical areas; in fact,
the images on maps tend to go directly into the subconsciousness
of Man (Homo Sapiens) without the critical thinking that accompanies
reading. In a very real way, Cartographers are the *real* Thought
Police.
But they do not work in a vacuum. There are much too few of them
to do their real damage unaided. Mapmakers have conspired with the
editors of almanacs and encyclopedias to create a fantastic illusion
of space where there is none, people where there aren't any, and
ski resorts where none exist.
ONLY THE BEGINNING
This is only the tip of the iceberg. We have much more material
on this conspiracy, and we have yet to uncover one iota of evidence
that Idaho has ever existed. All of the so-called "evidence" is
a mixture of falsifications, coersions, lies and exaggerations.
The Cartographers would like nothing better than to silence us.
If you do not see any more postings on this subject, then you
have clear evidence that their Conspiracy of Silence on Idaho
has succeeded, and that Freedom of Speech has been curtailed by
the Cartographical Thought Police.
What can you do? All we ask is that you be open minded. Of course,
you cannot trust any of the second-hand evidence that you would
find in libraries, maps (!), airline schedules or street signs.
All you can trust is what we have written here. We are confident
that once you evaluate all of the valid evidence, you will be
angered by this conspiracy, and motivated to do something about
the scum who perpetated this hoax.
--
"Place that idiot scientist under arrest!"
"I prefer to be called 'evil genius'."