RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 255 256 257 258 259 [260] 261 262 263 264 265 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,03:01   

Quote

Don’t get lost in PZ’s rhetorical house of mirrors...


Hey I  think I've been to a rhetorical house of mirrors..back in the '70's.

You went in through a window, lay around on big cushions and imbibed the most sublime Black Afghani hash and saw yourself rhetorically asking the stupidest questions..like ...."man did you just see that mirror on the wall, I can see right through it ...man" er that's a window "yeah man ....I wuz just testing"

The only way for kids today to get there ....is join the Army.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,04:35   

Well, I'm still not banned! They're only doing it to get a dig in, I guess; or (as is more likely), they're so f*ing stupid that they haven't figured out who I am yet. Or else it's because all the little christers know they'll have to come to Pharyngula to chit-chat with the bad BD girl (a real live BD, what gutter-crawling! ) if I'm banned.

It's a multiple choice question for Salome today.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,05:25   

Remember that interview of that fine upstanding Rev. 'I Only Bought Meth... And A Massage' Haggard by Dawkins?

Just a reminder for those who haven't seen it

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
stevestory



Posts: 10209
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,05:35   

Quote
4. kharley471 // Nov 4th 2006 at 9:53 am

What is up with you, Sal?

You’re just digging yourself in deeper, and it’s embarrassing. Wells distorted that article and PZ called him on it. McGrew was hasty and got egg on his face. Anybody can see that.

Is this the “research” we’ve been promised over and over? “Evolution dead in 10 years,” huh, Bill D.?

I’ve seen women on the bus having fights over earrings that were more persuasive. You guys need to show me something good. You’re better than Dawkins at making atheists.

Comment by kharley471 — November 4, 2006 @ 9:53 am


http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1762#comment-73747

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,05:43   

LOL looks the the flying spaghetti monsters  
are coming home to roost

Quote
(WAD)You’re better than Dawkins at making atheists.


--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
stevestory



Posts: 10209
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,05:48   

Quote

JGuy

Concur

Mario,
A couple years ago, I made a similar argument about symmetry. It is a very tought matter for any materistic explanation. I argued that for symmetry to exist, then the mechanism whcih codes for one side of an organism would have to have either it's equal but oppostie code for the mirror image features of an organism, or it would have to code for a converter that would convert one side to the other. I was suggesting that if it could be determiend that say the left arm was coded using similar but opposite instructions (if that makes sense) than that which codes for the right arm.. then you have the conundrum of requiring equal mutations for each smallest fraction/segment of symmetry.So, wWhatever portion of the DNA that might code for the righ t elbow, could not directly code for the left elbow..so, an exact inverse function would have to mutate. But evolution is suppose to only happen once, and pleading to convergent evolution for each segment of symmetry is asking to invoke the tooth fairy wayyy too many times - and for every symmetrical organism.

I think if we can find that microtubules and centromeres play critical roles in symmetry, then we will another ground for a shut case agaisnt evolution. Becasue those features are physical constructs of cells that are heritable...and would liekly be empiracally symmetrical at the cellular level !!!

Here's one for you.. what came first.. the hole in your skull or the eye and nerve system that thread through it to the outside? ;) I suppose evolutionist will argue the skull evolved around the optic nerve, but what are the odss that the way it evolved would be in a circle rather than a wedge shape or some other obscure shape tha tmight be just good enough.. why so fine tuned? And if evolution can be argued to fine tune the eye socket so beautifully, and convergent evolution is alwasy happening.. then evolution would be super efficient..but to be super efficient, would mean the universe is suepr fine tuned. I think evolutionists are in a catch 22. Too efficient and it screams mroe-so of ID, not enough efficiency to claim fine tuning and it requires ID to even occur. :)

Fri, 2006-11-03 09:25
login or register to post comments | 0 points


http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....ent-411

Who is JGuy? Is he just putting on a show? Or does he believe the sentences which he is typing?

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,06:30   

Quote
Here's one for you.. what came first.. the hole in your skull or the eye and nerve system that thread through it to the outside?


Quote
Who is JGuy? Is he just putting on a show? Or does he believe the sentences which he is typing?


I think this goes to the hole in his skull. Well, maybe his nerve system too.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,08:44   

Still not banned! (They posted my riposte to parade the harlot before the world, everyone. Yeah, that'll show me, I so hate attention. Not poisoning the well or anything, huh, Patrick?)

At least I got my "show it or blow it" dig in.

Gawd they're stupid. :angry: And so is this panty-puller:

   
Quote
I argued that for symmetry to exist, then the mechanism whcih codes for one side of an organism would have to have either it's [sic] equal but oppostie code for the mirror image features of an organism, or it would have to code for a converter that would convert one side to the other.


My word, what good isn't half an eyeball? Well, don't forget two-faced people JGuy. Obviously "materialists" can't get their arms around gossip.

And Billy went ahead with that "overwhelming evidence" site despite its cessation being a condition of our bet. Billy, I don't love you anymore. Get off my flying carpet and walk home.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,08:59   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 04 2006,14:44)
Still not banned!


I wonder if Patrick doesn't have permission to ban anyone.

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 04 2006,14:44)
Get off my flying carpet and walk home.


If I had a flying carpet I wouldn't need a car either.  Plus I'm not sure how much CO flying carpets contribute to the environment.  It also takes an entire acre of Brazillian rain forest just to make ONE flying carpet.

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,14:42   

Quote
It also takes an entire acre of Brazillian rain forest just to make ONE flying carpet.


Not if your flying carpet is actually a square of green shag cut out of your parent's 1970s living room rug. Stuff lasts forever.

Re UD: OH MY ACHING BACK!

I never thought I'd see myself type this but those guys at UD fight like girls.

It's just a bitch-catfight session, all emotional blackmail and little niggling redefinitions and petty asides to try and trip you up on some minor point. I read that Ballard article, and I walked on the sidewalk today, and 2+2=4. Nothing that Jehu (is that Sal posting under a moniker, no, too coherent) says can change that.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,15:41   

HEY, UD DULLARDS.

You're back on google.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1759

http://www.google.com/search?....spell=1

Don't make me pull the plug again! :D

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,20:42   

JGuy wrote:
Quote
A couple years ago, I made a similar argument about symmetry. It is a very tought matter for any materistic explanation. I argued that for symmetry to exist, then the mechanism whcih codes for one side of an organism would have to have either it's equal but oppostie code for the mirror image features of an organism, or it would have to code for a converter that would convert one side to the other.

Not to mention the mechanism which makes kids grow vertically when they're standing up, yet horizontally when they're lying down.

Don't you chance-worshipping heathens know it takes God to make tall, strapping kids out of Cocoa Puffs?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,06:08   

"JGuy":  
Quote
Here's one for you.. what came first.. the hole in your skull or the eye and nerve system that thread through it to the outside?
sstory:  
Quote
Who is JGuy? Is he just putting on a show? Or does he believe the sentences which he is typing?
I don't know, of course. But - whether he's serious or not - he's basically just reformulated the most hilarious mock case for ID I've heard: 

"The fact that those holes in a cat's fur so conveniently line up with its eyes is all the evidence for intelligent design I need!"

*************************

On a separate note: those of you who regularly monitor UD and UD4Kidz ("overwhelming nonsense") - has there been a petering out of enthusiasm that reflects what appears to be the collective decision of the public to consign ID to the trash-heap of trends that one-time adherents will be embarrassed to be associated with?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,07:16   

Quote
...has there been a petering out of enthusiasm that reflects what appears to be the collective decision of the public to consign ID to the trash-heap of trends that one-time adherents will be embarrassed to be associated with?


I believe that that the public is still quite enthusiastic about ID, or at least "balancing" evolution with some form of creationism. However (this is only my impression), enthusiasm at the UD site itself seems to have fallen off with the fanfare of bringing Denyse O'Leary aboard the Mother Ship. And Sal doesn't seem to be helping (especially since he tends to take two helpings).

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,09:38   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 05 2006,20:16)
I believe that that the public is still quite enthusiastic about ID, or at least "balancing" evolution with some form of creationism. However (this is only my impression), enthusiasm at the UD site itself seems to have fallen off with the fanfare of bringing Denyse O'Leary aboard the Mother Ship. And Sal doesn't seem to be helping (especially since he tends to take two helpings).

It seems to me that there is still plenty of "play" left in ID - in that there seems to be no shortage of dimwitted Republicans to support it vocally or even get it into their state party's platform.  After Dover, though, it's mostly just empty rhetoric, to fluff the flagging base.

Quite separate from that is UD, which, as you say, is busy committing prolonged (and unbearably fascinating) suicide.  I doubt whether even one of the Republican supporters of ID has ever looked at it.  Nor do I remember any mention of it even in the Dover decision.

It would be a good idea, I think, to compile a "greatest hits" of UD over the last year or so: all the idiocy and cluelessness, all the venom and, above all else, all the naked religiosity.  Before it gets disappeared.  A pamphlet which presented the true face of ID would be a great weapon against "let's just teach the controversy," "There is nothing religious about ID; it is a scientific theory, supported by the scientific arguments of, er, scientists doing science" crap.

--------------

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,09:47   

Quote
It would be a good idea, I think, to compile a "greatest hits" of UD over the last year or so: all the idiocy and cluelessness, all the venom and, above all else, all the naked religiosity.  Before it gets disappeared.  A pamphlet which presented the true face of ID would be a great weapon against "let's just teach the controversy," "There is nothing religious about ID; it is a scientific theory, supported by the scientific arguments of, er, scientists doing science" crap.


I think that's an excellent idea.

Wes is archiving the site, I believe (probably why we're hearing all this "Google delisted us" nonsense from the UDers). Maybe Barb Forrest could write a book on this, too. I'd do it if someone would finance me. ;)

Or maybe we should just lobby to have the "history of UD" taught in schools! :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,10:55   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 05 2006,15:47)

Wes is archiving the site, I believe (probably why we're hearing all this "Google delisted us" nonsense from the UDers). Maybe Barb Forrest could write a book on this, too. I'd do it if someone would finance me. ;)

I'll chip in five bucks.  Who's with me? :D

--------------
Evolander in training

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,14:25   

Quote
Maybe Barb Forrest could write a book on this, too. I'd do it if someone would finance me.

I'll kick in a bottle of Bushmill's. A person needs sustenance while writing.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10209
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,14:56   

About turning this into a book, it touches on something I've been thinking lately. The arts really haven't started using the internet much. They say a revolutionary medium doesn't assist and deepen the previous medium, they create fundamentally new events. For example, radio did not become a newspaper read aloud, it became something new and different. TV did not become radio plus pictures, it became its own thing. Taking something from the internet and turning it into a book is like a downgrade. A projection of a 3-D object onto a 2-D surface. Our artistic events are still mostly pre-internet things. Paintings. Concerts. Novels. What are the new internet arts? When will the internet creations start to muscle their way into the limelight?

All that media theory babble aside, you could actually turn the highlights of UD into a book, because it has a linear timeline structure.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,16:18   

So many strawmen it's like a scarecrow convention...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1763#comments

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,16:36   

Steve, you raise a good point. Some things are moving in the direction that you suggest. The museum at which I work is digitizing its collection and objects are available online: (ArtsConnectEd) though I realize this is on only curriculum tool rather than a new art form in itself. However, one of our employees, an artist himself, had an incredible show of computer-generated art (Al Silberstein).

Tonight I met with my team regarding our presentation of the Google Book Search Project, which is unfortunately stalled due to a lawsuit. And the authors of a new biography on Houdini credited their online database for the creation of their book (food for thought about a UDiography).

There are definitely artists out there interested in the internet and in the creative potential of software, but they tend to be video artists.

Where I work I'm a little unusual, being a chick, a writer, a dancer, computer literate and interested in science all at once. I'm afraid that there are still a lot of women in the liberal arts who bat their eyes at technology without recognizing the self-sexism.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,20:19   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2006,05:18)
So many strawmen it's like a scarecrow convention...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1763#comments

I especially like the way they're subtly rewriting the history of science.  For a long time, the IDers were advertising themselves as the next great paradigm change (and O'Tardly still is, in her recent channelling of Thomas Kuhn).  Now, however, we're in a post-revolutionary period, it seems, when (apart from a few holdouts) science has already gone through its paradigm change, and has embraced "Design Theory" (or "Disembodied Telic Entityism," or whatever it's called) as its working heuristic.  
Witness Gil Dodgen (in comment 18):
Quote

Since Copernicus, science seemed to be on a steady and irrevocable path that would ultimately demystify everything — that is, explain everything in purely materialistic terms.

Then came the latter half of the 20th century and everything took a strange 180-degree turn. Science was discovering intrinsic design everywhere it looked (should one be honest), and it took a huge amount of effort to explain it all away in purely materialistic terms.

Now that's good tard!

My favorite comment from the whole thread, though, is this little gem from the profoundly challenged Mats:
Quote

What this article seems to sugest is that, as “science” advances, religionists should make a run for it.
Quote

   Can religion stand up to the progress of science?

It depens on the religion, and depends on the definition of science. The religion of Darwinism surelly can’t stand up the light of science, whereas Christianity can stand up the light of science easily.

Excuse me, I have to go and sacrifice a goat to Dobzhansky.

--------------

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,20:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2006,05:18)

Excuse me, I have to go and sacrifice a goat to Dobzhansky.

Oh shit, is it Dobzhansky this Month?  I've been praying to Mayr!  Oh well, I guess I better hold a seance to summon the spirit of Alfred Russel Wallace and beg forgiveness for my insults to the Darwinistic Pantheon

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,00:30   

Before you read this, remind yourself just one more time that ID theory is itself supposed to be a scientific field:
 
Quote

I think science is against religion in the sense that it inflates the pride of man, resulting in an impression of self-sufficiency. It is written:

“Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.” - 1 Corinthians 8:1

I think it can be statistically shown that smarter people (smarter in terms of academic qualifications I mean) are more likely to be atheists or at least less religious.

Amen to that, brother :D .

--------------

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,00:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2006,20:56)
About turning this into a book, it touches on something I've been thinking lately. The arts really haven't started using the internet much. They say a revolutionary medium doesn't assist and deepen the previous medium, they create fundamentally new events. For example, radio did not become a newspaper read aloud, it became something new and different. TV did not become radio plus pictures, it became its own thing. Taking something from the internet and turning it into a book is like a downgrade. A projection of a 3-D object onto a 2-D surface. Our artistic events are still mostly pre-internet things. Paintings. Concerts. Novels. What are the new internet arts? When will the internet creations start to muscle their way into the limelight?

All that media theory babble aside, you could actually turn the highlights of UD into a book, because it has a linear timeline structure.

Are you not heading towards the idea that Dembski is doing street theatres?  
The internet offers great potential for experiential art (I dont know, I'm just calling it that because I dont know any different, ok) by interaction.  The aim would be to broaden and entertain the participants whilst calling into doubt their world model.
Or something like that.
Think of UDoJ as an example.  

Then consider also the more recent books by Ken Macleod and Charles Stross.  They feature post-singularity societies in which art and culture and experience etc are more important, because of their post human cornucopian technologies meaning that you dont have to work for 8 hours a day filling in bits of paper or supervising a steelworkds.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,01:46   

Quote
25. Ekstasis
You know, there are actually people who believe that what they watch and hear are created from invisible waves that fly through the air, and find their way into the television. Those superstitious idiots, can you believe it? But fortunately, through my progress, we have found the physical seat, its all in the box itself. Ah, materialist heaven!! I will contact TIME magazine promptly, they need to run an article.

Apparently Ekstasis believes that his mind is broadcast into his body from a distant location.  

I'd suggest he reach up and adjust them rabbit ears a smidge.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,04:23   

Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 05 2006,15:38)
It would be a good idea, I think, to compile a "greatest hits" of UD over the last year or so: all the idiocy and cluelessness, all the venom and, above all else, all the naked religiosity.  Before it gets disappeared.  A pamphlet which presented the true face of ID would be a great weapon against "let's just teach the controversy," "There is nothing religious about ID; it is a scientific theory, supported by the scientific arguments of, er, scientists doing science" crap.

I nominate the following:

DaveTard falling for the marines praying hoax.  Also, when he told us all that gravity is the strongest fundamental force.

Dembski accusing others of quote mining him, only to be shown that he did indeed write that which was attributed to him.  Also, when he called DHS on someone.

GilDodgen and Sal for anytime they've said anything about any GA.

And Doug Moron when he told us that Xtians can be intellectually honest because science can't point to or away from god, but atheists must be intellectually dishonest because they must ignore all the science that points to god.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,04:41   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Nov. 03 2006,01:20)
there's only one logical explanation for why UD is delisted, they just don't want to admit it.

they (most likely Dave "I'm such an uber engineer with a genius IQ" Tard) did a no-no that violated google search engine rules, and did it more than once (as you ALWAYS get a warning the first time).

if they want a witchhunt, they should start closer to home.

In fact, it was probably intentional action on the Springerbot's part after being jilted by Dembski in favor of Densye.  I guess he never figured WD40 would welcome him back into a menage-a-trois.

oops.

That would make sense -  he was banned from PT for, among other things (trying to impersonate me, for one), trying to hack the site.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,05:15   

Quote (GCT @ Nov. 06 2006,10:23)
I nominate the following:

Don't forget the whole incident where Dave forgot to turn off the dissemvoweler on his way out the door and Denyse's befuddlement at what was going on.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,07:15   

DaveScot came to my blog to say Hi. (Actually, he called me a "potty mouth freak.") :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 255 256 257 258 259 [260] 261 262 263 264 265 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]