RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (18) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: Cornelius Hunter Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
REC



Posts: 552
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2010,13:57   

Eh.  Ill conceived snark, but it followed the actual defense of that scenario (which, of course was cut out in the quotemine).  That Hunter frames it as a 'defense' of an entirely new topic shows what a goon he really is.

At any rate, its a high standard to be always right at a blog that offers no alternative hypothesis, no advocacy of any position, and is generally factually wrong.

For god's sake (literally) one of Hunter's defenders is using the Dorchester Pot to critique the fossil record.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorchester_Pot

mynn or whatever

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2010,14:47   

So, what do you think of my God Hypothesis?

Edit - added link

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,12:06   

Excuse me, while I post this here in case it "accidently" disappears.

Dr. Hunter, may I suggest this for a blog entry (or we can continue it here if you like).

A God Hypothesis.

Premise – There is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being who created the universe and man. Furthermore, mankind is the primary focus of this being’s benevolence.

For ease of reference, this being is called “God” which may or may not correspond to he who the Jews called ????.

God, by definition, would control the fabric and deflections of space-time which is our universe. By necessity, such a being would be timeless.

Since Quantum Mechanics informs us there is nothing material which exists outside of space-time wavefunctions, God is in direct control of all things we think of as material.

God’s benevolence towards mankind would likely include concern for mankind’s continued existence. Another probable act of benevolence would be the allowance of mankind to have Free Will.

There very well could have been a Garden of Eden approximately 6,014 years ago and Eve chose, for all mankind, to obtain the knowledge of good and evil. For all practical purposes, it doesn’t matter because God could have either instantly created a whole new reality complete with millions of year-old fossils and billions of year-old stars, or he could have known what Eve’s choice was going to be and honored it by taking billions of years to create Eve’s requested reality. Time doesn’t matter to a timeless being.

However, the premise presumes it does matter to God whether or not mankind survives. In the movie Matrix it was noted mankind would reject a utopian reality. If mankind does not struggle against adversity, its spirit dies. Man is also intelligent enough to see through a faux simulation of adversity. The adversity has to be real. This would include an inherent doubt of God’s existence. For man’s own good, God made it so his existence could never be known as a certainty which included providing scientists a difficult but consistent set of clues suggesting his existence was unnecessary.

Early on, God provided hints. The parting of the Red Sea was a piece of cake; “Brownian Motion, shift left and right”. The great flood wasn’t that much more difficult. God showed off a little with the Sun standing still trick, but give the guy a break, being a timeless being has got to be somewhat boring.

Currently, God’s plan is working perfectly (as if there was any doubt). Over 3.5 Billion people believe he exists but can’t be certain. Science is moving along at a good clip. We even managed to keep from blowing ourselves up (probably with God’s unseen help).

BTW, a scientific falsification of this hypothesis would be if mankind ceased to exists. I’m sure it would be enough to convince any E.T. scientists “nope, they weren’t God’s chosen”.

In conclusion, I suggest scientists, including Evolutionary Biologists, are just as likely doing God’s work as televangelists, maybe even more so.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2010,10:40   

Ok, which one of you is Harpy666?

It looks like Dr. Cornelius Hunter has stepped in it big time.link

Lately, Hunter has been ignoring my comments and continuing as if nothing happened.

He may do it again if too many negative comments are made.  I should probably have restrained myself but I couldn't help it.

So, yes, I am being hypocritical to suggest you guys/gals look, but don't touch, but that is what I am doing.

Let's see if this gets interesting.

Edit - modified for readability and gender neutrality

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,19:31   

Peter Olofsson makes an appearance. The subject is Bayesian analysis.

Quote
peter olofsson: Dear Mr Hunter,

I do not think your calculations make any sense.


--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,20:44   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength:

       
Quote
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm


Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. Or don't.

The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2010,23:25   

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 25 2010,21:44)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength:

       
Quote
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm


Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. Or don't.

The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.

Agree. Its just the force developed by the muscles, the leverage multiplier, and the size of the bite area (which is very small).


And fear.
Fear and surprise.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,01:35   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 27 2010,23:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 25 2010,21:44)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength:

         
Quote
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm


Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. Or don't.

The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.

Agree. Its just the force developed by the muscles, the leverage multiplier, and the size of the bite area (which is very small).


And fear.
Fear and surprise.

...But not a ruthless, or is it fanatical, devotion to the pope?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,09:26   

Hunter's latest attempt at mountain/molehill ID alchemy: get excited about an op-ed in the Lancet by a Frenchman interested in metaphors.  

I can't comment on UD, but I did note the idiocy at Hunter's blog.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,09:34   

There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
didymos



Posts: 1802
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,09:55   

Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,07:34)
There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?

To laugh at him and his creationist commenters.  That or to rake him and his crap arguments over the coals in the comments so that others may laugh.  I.e., the same reasons for visiting any IDC blog.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,10:06   

Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,09:34)
There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?

The same could be said for UD and every Disco institute site.  And yet we came, we saw, we mocked.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,10:07   

Quote (Hermagoras @ May 30 2010,07:26)
Hunter's latest attempt at mountain/molehill ID alchemy: get excited about an op-ed in the Lancet by a Frenchman interested in metaphors.  

I can't comment on UD, but I did note the idiocy at Hunter's blog.

Herm's comment deserves to be quoted here:
Quote
Dr. Hunter,

What a bizarre post. You have Didier Raoult, an MD/PhD enamored of the philosophical theories of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (not surprising, given that he's French and that he works in infectious diseases like Rickettsia), proposing a change in the *metaphor* for evolution (not a new one, since Deleuze and Guattari proposed something similar decades ago -- see *A Thousand Plateaus*). How this event "is a good example of evolution’s folly" is obvious only to you.

You are starting to rival Denyse O'Leary for your focus on the trivial. Of course Darwin was constrained by the conceptual trends of his day. So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.


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

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,10:19   

Quote (Hermagoras @ May 30 2010,08:06)
Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,09:34)
There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?

The same could be said for UD and every Disco institute site.  And yet we came, we saw, we mocked.

Veni, vidi, risi.

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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,20:23   

Hunter has responded to me, after a fashion, but I can't make head or tail of it.  Is he always this incoherent?

NB: ======== is used instead of quote marked or block quote paragraphs, so the bits between those ======== are from me.  A Cornelius Hunter idiosyncracy.

 
Quote
Hermagoras:

========
What a bizarre post. You have Didier Raoult, an MD/PhD enamored of the philosophical theories of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (not surprising, given that he's French and that he works in infectious diseases like Rickettsia), proposing a change in the *metaphor* for evolution (not a new one, since Deleuze and Guattari proposed something similar decades ago -- see *A Thousand Plateaus*). How this event "is a good example of evolution’s folly" is obvious only to you.
========

And anyone else familiar with the evidence. The fact that Raoult takes a position outside the mainstream does not mean the evidence he grapples with doesn't matter. This is a good example of your folly because it is a manifestation of the evidential problems that have been there all along.



=====
So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.
=====

Ah, yes, it always goes back to those rascals. What would you do without them?


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
didymos



Posts: 1802
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,22:07   

Quote (Hermagoras @ May 30 2010,18:23)
Hunter has responded to me, after a fashion, but I can't make head or tail of it.  Is he always this incoherent?

Quite often, yes.  He tries to make everything about his single "The evidence for evolution isn't that good.  It's all just religion" talking point.  Problem is, his point is a bunch of shit and none of the stories he blogs on or comments he responds to actually conform to his little delusion, so a very common result is vague nonsense and failed attempts at sarcastic barbs.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2010,22:57   

Quote


=====
So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.
=====

Ah, yes, it always goes back to those rascals. What would you do without them?


Split the atom, discover antibiotics and anesthesia, make it possible to feed the world, you know, the usual -- for science.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Texas Teach



Posts: 990
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2010,11:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 30 2010,22:57)
Quote


=====
So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.
=====

Ah, yes, it always goes back to those rascals. What would you do without them?


Split the atom, discover antibiotics and anesthesia, make it possible to feed the world, you know, the usual -- for science.

Yes, but apart from splitting the atom, discovering antibiotics and anesthesia, and making it possible to feed the world, what have scientists done for us?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2010,16:58   

American scientists say they have developed a vaccine which has prevented breast cancer from developing in mice. The researchers - whose findings are published in the journal, Nature Medicine - are now planning to conduct trials of the drug in humans.

But that was this morning. What have they done this afternoon????

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2010,20:11   

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 31 2010,15:58)
But that was this morning. What have they done this afternoon????

Had lunch?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2010,22:36   

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 31 2010,14:58)
American scientists say they have developed a vaccine which has prevented breast cancer from developing in mice. The researchers - whose findings are published in the journal, Nature Medicine - are now planning to conduct trials of the drug in humans.

But that was this morning. What have they done this afternoon????

Then there's the report in this month's SciAm about the product that apparently attacks the lipo coating of some very lethal viruses... I gotta ask ERV about this one...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2010,13:16   

That could give a new meaning to the term "liposuction".

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 879
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2010,18:47   

Hunter's blog is currently outrunning UD in the inane comments races. I particularly like this one from natschuster:
 
Quote
I only know of three cases of the Israelites commiting genocide. There's the Canaanites, because they where really bad people. There's the Midianites because they attacked the Israelites first. And only the women who weren't virgins were killed because they seduced the Isralites into sinning. And there's the Amalekites, who started it.

And what exactly is your basis for saying the Bible is immoral beyod your own moral sense?

Tardalicious.

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
didymos



Posts: 1802
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2010,08:30   

Yeah, it's becoming quite the tardlode over there.  Some threads are approaching 100 comments. And Cornelius doesn't seem to mind much when people demolish him in comments.  I'm guessing he doesn't realize quite how badly and how often he gets utterly owned.  Good times.

ETA: Also, he's stopped spewing that wretched catchphrase at the end of every single post. I really hated that line.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1466
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2010,09:27   

I don't have a history with Corny long enough to know, but is really as clueless about science as he seems?  Or is he just pulling a Rush Limbaugh, being purposely arrogant and idiotic just to snag more responses and drive up his blog numbers?

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2010,09:38   

Quote
Please specify whether you mean

evolution - the ample evidence for common ancestry and descent with modification


Meanwhile, back at UD, there has been heated  controversy regarding the difference between common ancestry and common descent.

Teach it.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2010,22:17   

Quote
Meanwhile, back at UD, there has been heated controversy regarding the difference between common ancestry and common descent.

Is there a semantic difference between those two phrases? "Common ancestry" strikes me as more to the point, but if there is a subtle difference in meaning it might not be.

Henry

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2010,22:42   

Common ancestry popped up some months back. I'm not clever enough even to figure out what a creationist means by it.

Usually I can jigger my brain a bit and understand what they are saying, even if I think it's nuts.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2010,06:18   

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 04 2010,04:42)
Common ancestry popped up some months back. I'm not clever enough even to figure out what a creationist means by it.

Usually I can jigger my brain a bit and understand what they are saying, even if I think it's nuts.

I could try to guess on that one.

"Ancestry" is probably a more potent (read "revolting", "insulting") word to the creomass than "descent". "Ancestry" speaks directly to the heart of the biblically brainwashed, since a lot of the old testament is about lineage, ancestors and shit (well, it's not about shit*, this was just a figure of speech...or was it?).

When the average educated man talks about his ancestors, furry animals will eventually come up. But when a creotard talks about it, he will limit his "tree" to good ol' Jebedhia back in the ol' days of right after the flood.

"Ancestry" is definitely more potent when it comes to the mentally disfonctional mass.  

In other words, no religion so far...




*Anyone bringing up that stuff about lighting fires with human dung will be rewarded a one-night-stand (please; let it be kristine or ERV or Monica**...) :)

**Louis is out, as a matter of fact.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2010,15:22   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 04 2010,06:18)

Quote


*Anyone bringing up that stuff about lighting fires with human dung will be rewarded a one-night-stand (please; let it be kristine or ERV or Monica**...) :)



Feh...amateur...

I'd give 'em at least a one-month-stand...probably several years of stands (and sits and even lie downs.)

:p

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
  510 replies since Jan. 26 2007,15:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (18) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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