RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (117) < ... 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 >   
  Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2011,08:56   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2011,03:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,03:36)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2011,05:29)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 17 2011,11:22)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,05:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.

I like the knot analogy. It would also suit the UD arguments about information existing outside of a medium and having zero weight etc.

Isn't that a typo. Don't you mean "not-analogy" like analogy with notpology?

Sorry, I had a late night...

I'll get me coat!

No - read Bill's (Excellent) post on Buckminster Fuller's knot analogy.

I did. Excellent, yes! But not aimed at me. Knot being a dualist I don't knot need no steenking knot-analogy.

I'll go quietly now!

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 232
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2011,14:50   

Guts gets battered by the true scientists in the room.

First, ID Git leads with a couple quick jabs:
 
Quote
Are these lineage specific insertions design differences, evolutionary differences or blind watchmaker diffferences?

Would baraminology, in which chimps and humans don't share a common ancestor but do share a common design, also "actually explain those differences"?

Then Bung lands the haymaker:
 
Quote
Would tiny green monkeys jumping around in human dna proove the hypothesis?

Ouch!  There is no answering the ID Git, but tiny green monkeys?  Zing!  At first, I thought it was setting up for a good tard fight - but it was just a bloodbath.  Guts showed up alone to a tard team match and I doubt he'll have the stomach to get back in the ring.  Expect instead for some bowing to design or some hasty new topics to push it off the first page.

(Hey Guts, they're just a little testy and defending YEC is low hanging fruit.  You could get back in their good graces, or at least get them to ease up on you, if you would pop over to UD and show them how to calculate CSI.)

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2011,05:51   

chunkdz
Quote
The point is that using teleology as a working assumption appears to be a very fruitful approach.

In other words:

ID is producing results in the lab.


Is TT now a pantomime? "Oh no it's not".

http://telicthoughts.com/systems....-266640

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2011,12:29   

Oleg,

I know it is unusual to do anything other than complain but I have to compliment you on this TT post.

You sound like a for-real scientist who cares about his work. ;)

Well done

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,06:53   

Quote
chunkdz: Lynn Margulis keeps pissing off Darwinists

Margulis is a self-described Darwinist. Her argument is with Neodarwinism, which she believes proposes an oversimplified model of mutation and selection.

“I am definitely a Darwinist" — Lynn Margulis
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html

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

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1236
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,11:09   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 05 2011,12:29)
Oleg,

I know it is unusual to do anything other than complain but I have to compliment you on this TT post.

You sound like a for-real scientist who cares about his work. ;)

Well done

Wow, I learned two great things in just a few minutes!  Thanks for pointing this out and thanks especially to OlegT for trying to teach a pig to sing, because while the pig doesn't learn anything, the macaw on the fencepost is learning plenty.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,11:45   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 13 2011,11:09)
Thanks for pointing this out and thanks especially to OlegT for trying to teach a pig to sing, because while the pig doesn't learn anything, the macaw on the fencepost is learning plenty.

Here's olegt humming another nice tune; on squaring neo-Lorentzianism with Relativity.

http://telicthoughts.com/harris-vs-craig/#comment-267025

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,12:21   

Thanks for the compliments, guys. Physics is fascinating stuff.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2011,10:48   

Quote (Zachriel @ April 13 2011,09:45)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 13 2011,11:09)
Thanks for pointing this out and thanks especially to OlegT for trying to teach a pig to sing, because while the pig doesn't learn anything, the macaw on the fencepost is learning plenty.

Here's olegt humming another nice tune; on squaring neo-Lorentzianism with Relativity.

http://telicthoughts.com/harris-vs-craig/#comment-267025

OlegT on TT:  
Quote
Although neo-Lorentzians like to claim equivalence between their interpretation and standard special relativity, it's a stretch.
:D

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2011,09:08   

Quote
aiguy: The references I produced are sufficient to back up my point: simple agents following fixed rules give rise to complex designs and problem-solving behaviors. If you have other references that contradict that point, it behooves you to produce the citation.

Quote
Guts: Where stigermy comes in the little big bang is the Daubing reflex, but the little big bang is more than just the Daubing reflex. "Stigermy alone is not sufficient for the little big bang, though." The extended organism: the physiology of animal-built structures By J. Scott Turner p. 189

That doesn't support Guts' position. If you read the text, there is a 2nd simple interaction. The termites send out a chemical alert of a breach to the mound. (Soldiers may use vibratory alerts.) Though slower than the local action of stigmergy, each termite amplifies the chemical alert until large numbers of termites are involved — a swarm. In other words, "simple agents following fixed rules give rise to complex designs and problem-solving behaviors."

As aiguy certainly knows, this sort of emergent complexity is easy to simulate. Of course, that isn't necessary to his point. It's enough to show that mound-building itself, certainly a complex structure, is due to following simple fixed rules by the individual agents.

Aiguy has done a good job of making his point. The discussion of dogs is pretty interesting. (The following comments are snipped out of context, but give the general idea.)

Quote
aiguy: As for dogs, they obviously abstract (e.g. they form an abstraction of "doggy door", and they can identify instances of this abstraction despite significant differences in shape, size, construction, materials, placement etc.)

Quote
fifth monarchy man: It's almost as if you determine an animal to be intellegent by what it does.

Heh.

Quote
fifth monarchy man: The issue is that you claim that you only want a clear definition of intelligence yet demonstrate that what you really want is to put it to the fundies.

Fifth monarchy man is becoming somewhat frustrated, but his comment demonstrates he understands people as little as he understands dogs. Aiguy is obviously interested in the nature of intelligence, and has thought about it in some detail, and is aware of many of the pitfalls that fifth monarchy man is falling into.

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

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2011,10:29   

I was just reading through some of the comments on the TT discussion. Nice explanation Olegt! I do have a question though, which was actually asked by one of the participants in the thread:

Quote
# Techne Says:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am

Hello olegt,

What do you think is the relationship between time and change (change as in stuff changing position or from one thing to another etc.)?

A) Time exist as a result of change. Time is an intellectual abstraction and a mathematical expression to quantify change. Without change there is no time sort of like without mass there is no gravity.
Or…
B) Time exists as some distinct entity or dimension that is different or distinct from the process of change. Time exist as a dimension irrespective of whether there are things that are changing or not.

Comment by Techne — April 13, 2011 @ 11:12 am


I freely admit that I have difficulty visualizing the concept of relativity. I get the gist, but have difficulty when it gets down to the nitty-gritty as it were.

As such, while I know that time becomes a "real" dimension in relativity, I don't fully understand why and still wonder, as Techne does in question a, why time can't be an illusionary product of change. Can one of you folks elaborate on that?

Keep in mind that my science background is really ecology and some biology. While I took some physics and get it to some extent, it isn't my strong suit. So if you can "dummify" the explanation, that would be most appreciated.  :D

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2011,22:18   

Quote
why time can't be an illusionary product of change.

My take on that is that time and change are interdependent on each other. Change just means that relative positions along spatial dimensions can be different for different positions on the time dimension, so the two concepts can't be meaningfully separated.

As for special relativity, I figure that if forces are carried by something that travels along a wavefront, then if an object is moving, those waves have to spend part of their time just keeping up with the object, so it takes longer for forces internal to the object to do whatever it is they're doing. From there, length contraction and time dilation follow from the math.

Henry

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1236
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2011,07:54   

Quote (Robin @ April 22 2011,10:29)
I was just reading through some of the comments on the TT discussion. Nice explanation Olegt! I do have a question though, which was actually asked by one of the participants in the thread:

 
Quote
# Techne Says:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am

Hello olegt,

What do you think is the relationship between time and change (change as in stuff changing position or from one thing to another etc.)?

A) Time exist as a result of change. Time is an intellectual abstraction and a mathematical expression to quantify change. Without change there is no time sort of like without mass there is no gravity.
Or…
B) Time exists as some distinct entity or dimension that is different or distinct from the process of change. Time exist as a dimension irrespective of whether there are things that are changing or not.

Comment by Techne — April 13, 2011 @ 11:12 am


I freely admit that I have difficulty visualizing the concept of relativity. I get the gist, but have difficulty when it gets down to the nitty-gritty as it were.

As such, while I know that time becomes a "real" dimension in relativity, I don't fully understand why and still wonder, as Techne does in question a, why time can't be an illusionary product of change. Can one of you folks elaborate on that?

Keep in mind that my science background is really ecology and some biology. While I took some physics and get it to some extent, it isn't my strong suit. So if you can "dummify" the explanation, that would be most appreciated.  :D

I can't help much, but perception of time is done by observing change of a phenomenon that is time dependent.  A human's own self is  not unchanging (brain is going all the time, changing thoughts etc), so we would perceive time even without an apparent change in the external environment or stimuli (sort of like sensory deprivation).  However, at the quantum level, even the vacuum has fluctuations (change).

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2011,09:55   

Quote (Robin @ April 22 2011,10:29)
     
Quote
# Techne Says:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am

Hello olegt,

What do you think is the relationship between time and change (change as in stuff changing position or from one thing to another etc.)?

A) Time exist as a result of change. Time is an intellectual abstraction and a mathematical expression to quantify change. Without change there is no time sort of like without mass there is no gravity.
Or…
B) Time exists as some distinct entity or dimension that is different or distinct from the process of change. Time exist as a dimension irrespective of whether there are things that are changing or not.

Comment by Techne — April 13, 2011 @ 11:12 am


I freely admit that I have difficulty visualizing the concept of relativity. I get the gist, but have difficulty when it gets down to the nitty-gritty as it were.

As such, while I know that time becomes a "real" dimension in relativity, I don't fully understand why and still wonder, as Techne does in question a, why time can't be an illusionary product of change. Can one of you folks elaborate on that?

Hi Robin,

You're getting into an area that overlaps more with philosophy and psychology than physics. Human perception of time makes things too complicated, so physicists prefer to stay away from that and instead concentrate on the behavior of simpler objects such as clocks under various experimental circumstances. In essence, we use an operational definition of time: it is whatever a precise clock measures. We take it from there leaving it to philosophers to debate what exactly time is.

For centuries, it was taken for granted that time is absolute. In practical terms, it was thought that all clocks should agree. This worked fine until physicists discovered that light is electromagnetic waves. Waves need a medium to travel in, so this medium was called the luminiferous aether. Our experience with other waves taught us that waves travel with a fixed speed relative to the medium, so by measuring the time of propagation one could determine how fast and in which direction we are moving relative to the aether.

Unfortunately, all experimental attempts at detecting our motion relative to the aether (such as the Michelson-Morley experiment) failed: the measured speed of light did not seem to depend on the speed of the observer. Lorentz and others came up with a theory that explained the null result of Michelson and Morley by suggesting that the physical forces work so that all objects moving relative to the aether contract and all characteristic times dilate by the such amounts that the measured ratios of spatial displacements to time periods give the same speed of light c.

This was a working explanation but it was a bit unsatisfactory. It painted the constancy of the speed of light in different inertial frames as an elaborate illusion: the speed wasn't really the same, but the meter sticks and clocks in moving frame were out of whack. On top of this, the theory relied on the existence of a very special reference frame, in which things were hunky-dory: the meter sticks really were 1 meter long and the clocks ticked exactly once every second. In other frames, things appeared to work in the same way.

Worst of all, this state of affairs made a travesty out of the principle of relativity (all inertial frames are equivalent). The reliance on the aether suggested, on the one hand, that the principle of relativity was wrong in theory: the aether frame is "more equivalent" than the other inertial frames. On the other hand, you couldn't detect the lack of equivalence, so the principle of relativity was right in practice! These things drove physicists nuts.

So Einstein's proposed a radical solution:
(1) the principle of relativity works, all inertial frames are equivalent,
(2) light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames,
(3) but time flows differently in two frames moving relative to each other.
Point 1 is near and dear to a physicist's heart. It is a cornerstone of physics. Point 2 has been confirmed experimentally over and over again. Point 3 sounds extremely radical to a non-physicist, particularly to a philosopher. But to a physicist who uses an operational definition of time (whatever is measured by clocks) this is more or less a restatement of Lorentz's idea. So 1+2 was enough of a sugar coat to let #3 go down.

Incidentally, in Einstein's original theory of special relativity time was not combined with the spatial coordinates to make a four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime was invented by Einstein's math teacher Minkowski. That was quite useful in practical terms because a point moving through space could be visualized as a line in spacetime. Kinematics (dependence of coordinates on time) was reduced to geometry of worldlines and Lorentz transformations became mere rotations in spacetime. In ordinary space, rotations conserve the length of a line. In spacetime, the analog of length is called the interval. Its conservation is related to the constancy of the speed of light.

Spacetime might look like a fancy mathematical concept, but it turned out to be extremely useful in physics. It linked special relativity (physics in inertial reference frames) to the geometry of a flat four-dimensional space.* Einstein realized that he could reduce the kinematics in a non-inertial reference frame to the geometry of a curved spacetime. This realization constitutes one half of the general theory of relativity.**

OK, this comment is about 800 words long, or 100 millitorley according to the latest calibration. I'd better stop before everyone's eyes glaze over.

*To be sure, the space is a bit weird: the square of the distance in it is not the sum of squares of all coordinates. You add the squares of the spatial coordinates and subtract the square of the time coordinate.

**The other half is the principle of equivalence: gravity can be simulated by accelerated motion. Remember feeling heavier in an elevator starting up? It's not an illusion, that's how gravity works.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Seversky



Posts: 412
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2011,11:20   

And does block time make more sense than alternative concepts?  Not good for free will, though.*

And inertia.  Inertia is weird.

And what was it like inside the primordial singularity?  Like nothing we see here now is the obvious answer, I suppose.

And why did it go "Bang!" at all?

And if we were able to poke around in the "quark soup" that followed the Bang - without being instantly vaporized, of course - would we be able to observe the roots of everything we see around us now?  Was it all somehow 'folded in' there or was something added to the mix after and, if so, where did that all come from?

Being a physicist can't be easy.

Small wonder some people just say it was designed and let it go at that.  Saves you from an awful lot of thinking.

*Any answer should be less than the threshold value of 500 millitorleys as anything longer will take longer than the current age of the Universe to read and comprehend. (Mainly because you keep falling asleep about a quarter of the way in)

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2011,11:57   

[quote=olegt,April 23 2011,07:55][/quote]
Quote
(snip) *To be sure, the space is a bit weird: the square of the distance in it is not the sum of squares of all coordinates. You add the squares of the spatial coordinates and subtract the square of the time coordinate.


Yeah, I always thought that was kinda weird.

Quote
**The other half is the principle of equivalence: gravity can be simulated by accelerated motion. Remember feeling heavier in an elevator starting up? It's not an illusion, that's how gravity works.


Meaning gravity is what, acceleration through space time? Inertia against change in 4-d co-ordinates?  Your feet moving more slowly through time than your head? Weird stuff, indeed.

--------------
"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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2011,07:00   

Guts seems pretty intelligence, so it's rather odd he can't grasp some very basic points about emergence and termite behavior. He says he has computer experience, but for some reason, he has no understanding of the basic theory. A savant, perhaps.

Quote
aiguy: My argument to you is essentially that social insects provide a good example of how natural, intelligent behavior can be reduced to simple rules, which leads to the conclusion that other simple rules (natural laws in fact) can in principle lead to the production of complex form and function.

Quote
Guts: If they are based on simple rules, how is it that they can adapt to local conditions?

The funny thing about emergence is that it can be difficult to describe in detail. Like the Mandelbrot set, zn+1 = zn2 + c, the rule is very simple, and you just can't see the inherent complexity of the graph. It has to be shown, not explained. If Guts has never seen a simple simulation of swarm intelligence, that might explain his ignorance.

Quote
Guts: What is your evidence that they are simple rule based individuals?

Quote
aiguy: citation, citation, citation

The other area of confusion has to do with the concept of reduction, and is rather funny. Aiguy says that complex programs can be reduced to a few simple UTM instructions. Guts takes this to mean that there are only a few lines of code rather than a lot of lines comprised of a few types of instructions (in parallel to lots of termites, each following a simple rule set). Nothing seems to get through to him on this.

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

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2011,08:46   

Thanks much for the replies folks! The 800 or so words is a big help to me Olegt. I'll have to digest a bit, but on the first read I kind of understand the point. Interesting stuff.

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

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 232
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2011,08:55   

Quote (Seversky @ April 23 2011,12:20)
"quark soup"

My favorite appetizer at the Big Bang Burger Bar.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1236
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2011,11:15   

Quote (Gunthernacus @ April 25 2011,08:55)
Quote (Seversky @ April 23 2011,12:20)
"quark soup"

My favorite appetizer at the Big Bang Burger Bar.

Well, quark soup is definitely hotter than primordial soup.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2011,11:48   

You have to admire aiguy's persistence in teaching a pig to sing. I almost feel sorry for Nelson/guts and his remaining associates. But then they've created their echo chamber and they've chosen to wallow in it.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2011,00:34   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 25 2011,11:15)
Quote (Gunthernacus @ April 25 2011,08:55)
Quote (Seversky @ April 23 2011,12:20)
"quark soup"

My favorite appetizer at the Big Bang Burger Bar.

Well, quark soup is definitely hotter than primordial soup.

Quark soup is made of People!

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2011,04:45   

I eat my hat!

  
NonKarl



Posts: 1
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2011,20:52   

If you know the person who is outing that well-known Telic Thoughts member on that other blog (not TT), please ask him to stop. If you are that person, then please stop.

Seriously, IDists already have a persecution complex. What is the point of strengthening it?

I came here because a poster from the thread in question is also a poster here. I assume there is some overlap in readership.

If you don't know what I'm talking about then please ignore.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2011,07:02   

meh

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2011,15:13   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 05 2011,13:02)
meh

Whatever happened to your first answer, which was basicaly what I would have answered too?

You got a PM, didn't you? Well, didn't you?

--------------
"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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2011,16:55   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 05 2011,15:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 05 2011,13:02)
meh

Whatever happened to your first answer, which was basicaly what I would have answered too?

You got a PM, didn't you? Well, didn't you?

No PM, but I thought better of telling somebody whose first post it was to fuck off. Not that's what I did onlookers!

I just never got around to updating with the more nuanced version of saying the same thing.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Blork McGork



Posts: 2
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2011,20:41   

I saw the outing before it was deleted by a moderator. But Mike Gene was outed at Panda's Thumb long ago, so I wonder why nonKarl thinks this is some kind of noteworthy development. And it's not like Mike Gene is noteworthy.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2011,03:07   

Quote (Blork McGork @ June 05 2011,20:41)
I saw the outing before it was deleted by a moderator. But Mike Gene was outed at Panda's Thumb long ago, so I wonder why nonKarl thinks this is some kind of noteworthy development. And it's not like Mike Gene is noteworthy.

Oh, is that all. How unexciting.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2011,10:01   

I would like to out Chunkdz as Richard Simmons.

--------------
"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

  
  3492 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (117) < ... 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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