RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 608 609 610 611 612 [613] 614 615 616 617 618 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JohnW



Posts: 2200
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2012,17:38   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 16 2012,15:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 16 2012,16:50)
http://theelliottargument.wordpress.com/....ess....ess.com

this is some of the most hilarious shit i have ever seen

WTF???!!! †Does GEM of ICKY have a brother???

Are we looking at a re-make of Dumb & Dumber!!!

I think Gordon and batshit have had a baby.  He's been cheating on you, Joe.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
The whole truth



Posts: 972
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2012,17:52   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 16 2012,15:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 16 2012,16:50)
http://theelliottargument.wordpress.com/....ess....ess.com

this is some of the most hilarious shit i have ever seen

WTF???!!! †Does GEM of ICKY have a brother???

Are we looking at a re-make of Dumb & Dumber!!!

gordo's middle name is elliott. Hmm, coincidence or by design?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2087
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2012,19:31   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 16 2012,15:52)
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 16 2012,15:14)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 16 2012,16:50)
http://theelliottargument.wordpress.com/....ess....ess.com

this is some of the most hilarious shit i have ever seen

WTF???!!! †Does GEM of ICKY have a brother???

Are we looking at a re-make of Dumb & Dumber!!!

gordo's middle name is elliott. Hmm, coincidence or by design?

Well, if nothing can be eternal, and nothing can come from nothing... he's just proved the non-existence of gods.

Way to go, Oolon.

--------------
"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: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2012,10:39   

Quote
Well, if nothing can be eternal, and nothing can come from nothing

But that doesn't rule out cycles where something comes from something else, then the something else comes again from the something.

Or something like that.

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2012,15:17   

A quick question:

Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Edit typo.

Edited by Quack on Oct. 17 2012,15:18

--------------
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.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2200
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2012,15:31   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2012,13:17)
A quick question:

Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Edit typo.

The National Science Foundation FY2012 budget for all the biological sciences is $712.38 million (link).  What percentage of that does the IDiot think is OOL research?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Mindrover



Posts: 63
Joined: April 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2012,20:56   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 17 2012,15:31)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2012,13:17)
A quick question:

Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Edit typo.

The National Science Foundation FY2012 budget for all the biological sciences is $712.38 million (link). †What percentage of that does the IDiot think is OOL research?

Math says 140%.

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2012,13:46   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2012,15:17)
Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Billions of dollars, over what span of time? If the IDiot is saying that the total amount of money ever spent on OOL research is billions of dollars, that might be true; if the IDiot is saying that it's billions of dollars per year, that's something else again. Likewise, are they talking about research funds in the US alone, or research funds all over the world?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2200
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2012,14:05   

Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 18 2012,11:46)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2012,15:17)
Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Billions of dollars, over what span of time? If the IDiot is saying that the total amount of money ever spent on OOL research is billions of dollars, that might be true; if the IDiot is saying that it's billions of dollars per year, that's something else again. Likewise, are they talking about research funds in the US alone, or research funds all over the world?

Even if it's "all over the world, ever", I'd be surprised if it came out to billions. †The experimental work is, as far as I know, all fairly small-scale chem-lab stuff - time-consuming, but hardly Big Science. †You don't need a particle accelerator or a radio telescope.

Edit: I suppose you've asked IDiot to supply evidence?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2012,12:08   

Sigh. The IDiot makes all sorts of tired old arguments (Species appear abruptly in the fossil record,  remain constant over millions of years before disappearing, No fossil evidence for changes over time. Don't think even Behe would second that.

But the main problem is he stays away from debate, won't reply to debunking. When I get more time I'll launch a barrage. Am busy studying genetics at Coursera, wish I had some paper textbooks at hand, will try the local library tomorrow but don't have much hope.

--------------
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.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2012,12:39   

Quote
Species appear abruptly in the fossil record

Well of course they do - especially the ones for which we have only a small number of fossils, which is presumably most of them.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2012,13:53   

what

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2012,14:56

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2012,15:23   

Grabbity is teh strongest force... :p

Gotta be rough, researching booty--er, beauty and it's effect on um, erh, success... (Boiiiinnngggg!;)

I don't claim to be pure, and we've certainly ragged on poor O'Leary, but geez. Where all the sciency supermodels be at?

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2012,17:03   

Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 19 2012,15:23)
Grabbity is teh strongest force... :p

Gotta be rough, researching booty--er, beauty and it's effect on um, erh, success... (Boiiiinnngggg!;)

I don't claim to be pure, and we've certainly ragged on poor O'Leary, but geez. Where all the sciency supermodels be at?

Reminds me of this! :p

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2012,22:26   

Quote
Grabbity is teh strongest force

Maybe if one is talking about net strength over large distances, for typical astronomical objects.

Which come to think of it might be how lots of non-physicists are apt to think about such things.

Henry

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2087
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,02:53   

Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 19 2012,13:23)
Grabbity is teh strongest force... :p

Gotta be rough, researching booty--er, beauty and it's effect on um, erh, success... (Boiiiinnngggg!)

I don't claim to be pure, and we've certainly ragged on poor O'Leary, but geez. Where all the sciency supermodels be at?

Any social gathering has its share of sexual energy, but grabbity is just juvenile and rude. You gotta wonder what if anything is going through these guys' minds. What do they think is gonna happen?

I often feel guilty about reacting -- even only silently, internally -- to a woman's looks/wit/vitality. I'm still listening to what she's saying but all I can think is holy crap what beautiful eyes/hair/voice w.h.y.

I have a couple of very attractive blonde friends who've dyed their hair and cut it off or tied it back because they've felt they weren't being taken seriously.

:-(

"Is a puzzlement."

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

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,03:59   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 20 2012,02:53)
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 19 2012,13:23)
Grabbity is teh strongest force... :p

Gotta be rough, researching booty--er, beauty and it's effect on um, erh, success... (Boiiiinnngggg!)

I don't claim to be pure, and we've certainly ragged on poor O'Leary, but geez. Where all the sciency supermodels be at?

Any social gathering has its share of sexual energy, but grabbity is just juvenile and rude. You gotta wonder what if anything is going through these guys' minds. What do they think is gonna happen?

I often feel guilty about reacting -- even only silently, internally -- to a woman's looks/wit/vitality. I'm still listening to what she's saying but all I can think is holy crap what beautiful eyes/hair/voice w.h.y.

I have a couple of very attractive blonde friends who've dyed their hair and cut it off or tied it back because they've felt they weren't being taken seriously.

:-(

"Is a puzzlement."

But always remember that people who get bothered about so-called "sexual harrassment" and alleged "misogynistic behavior" are, at absolute best, making mountains out of molehills, because there aren't hardly any women who genuinely are on the short end of that kind of stuff. Isn't that right, S-dog?

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,10:59   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 19 2012,12:39)
Quote
Species appear abruptly in the fossil record

Well of course they do - especially the ones for which we have only a small number of fossils, which is presumably most of them.

I think that to most reasonably informed people a sparsity in the fossil record is not much of a problem for trusting the validity of the theory.

--------------
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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,16:50   

ENSHRINE THIS SHIT

Quote
Dave Luckett | October 19, 2012 8:18 PM | Reply
Itís as I have remarked before about YECs in general. Byers isnít exactly handwaving evidence away. Rather, he canít comprehend it or perceive it. To him, it doesnít actually exist, as such.

To an pre-modern mindset - and Byers has one - evidence simply doesnít matter. What matters is strength of personal conviction, authority and repeated assertion. There is also argument, but of specific kinds - argument from (possible) consequence, argument ad populi. Weíve seen Byers and his cohort use both, but the most important thing is personal conviction. Byers believes what he believes because he believes it. Evidence, on the other hand, doesnít register.

The cornerstone of Byers ideas on the history of the Earth is that the Bible canít be wrong (authority), because itís the word of God. He simply assumes this, and repeatedly asserts it. A second foundational idea is that the only way the past can be known is by eyewitness statement - which in the case of Genesis, is God Himself. (Byers knows this, despite the fact that it is never actually claimed.) The evidence from fossils simply doesnít exist. These are nothing more than the remains of creatures that once existed. Thereís nothing to say that they are related to modern life.

The similarities in morphology and the biochemical evidence of precisely similar insertions, deletions, broken genes, etcetera, is also irrelevant. But not only irrelevant. Itís also meaningless. Byers ensures that it will forever remain meaningless to him by never attempting to inform himself about it. He simply ignores it. Its very meaninglessness is then an argument against it.

Which comes back to the same thing. Byers believes what he believes because he believes it. The values he has had deeply instilled into him is that this set of beliefs cannot be compromised. He will therefore do nothing whatsoever that might compromise them.

So itís useless putting evidence before him. He doesnít recognise it, and canít comprehend its very existence. Itís useless asking him to consider evidence. He wonít. He canít. That would be to imply that evidence is sovereign, when he knows that internal certainty, authority and repeated assertion is sovereign. He simply ignores evidence, because evidence does not and cannot matter.

Youíd think that the cognitive dissonance would eventually become unbearable, for Byers does use evidence in places where his belief system doesnít dictate otherwise. If he heard a breaking window in the next room, came in and saw shards of glass and a baseball on the floor, looked out of the broken window and saw a bunch of kids with a bat looking towards the house, heíd come to the obvious conclusion, and hence reconstruct a past event from evidence with no trouble at all. But his rigid mental compartmentalisation and cognitive dissassociation allows him to eschew this process where his convictions require.

Itís a sad case.


Quote
harold | October 20, 2012 10:04 AM | Reply
Dave Luckett -

I agree with every word you said, very strongly, since I also constantly point out that the commonality shared by creationists (and most other science deniers) is authoritarian thinking.

I will offer one modification -

The cornerstone of Byers ideas on the history of the Earth is that the Bible canít be wrong (authority), because itís the word of God.
Since a number of great humanitarian resisters of injustice over the years have given faith in religious principle as a motivation, stating creationist fundamentals this way runs the risk of creating confusion between self-sacrificing figures like Martin Luther King or Gandhi, and creationists.

This would be a mistake, as creationists tend to be authority-worshipers who seek privilege. Indeed, they often complain that societyís refusal to allow them to persecute others as much as they wish is ďpersecutionĒ directed toward them.

Therefore I would state it a bit differently -

ďThe cornerstone of Byersí (or any other typical creationistís) ideas on anything is that they must submit to certain ritual declarations to be accepted as members of the group they wish to identify with.Ē

Granted, they arenít all flexible opportunists (many of the elite probably are, and would probably ďconvertĒ to science tomorrow if creationism didnít pay the bills, but the rank and file arenít). Many of them would plausibly suffer a dissociative breakdown if someone managed to break through their denial, and doing that would probably require unethical techniques that would bring the movie ďA Clockwork OrangeĒ to mind.

Having said that, we shouldnít confuse them with people who hold strong abstract principles. Theyíre concrete authoritarians. The ďliteralĒ interpretation of the Bible is preferred because, while not coherent, such an interpretation is concrete. Attempting to interpret the Bible at any other level leads to the uncomfortable sensation that, no matter how inhumane parts of the Bible may be, some other parts condemn typical exploitive authoritarian behavior.

Their ďbeliefsĒ are self-serving and conformist, and should not be confused with the type of beliefs that less authoritarian figures have struggled with over the years.

Iím not suggesting that they consciously adopt self-serving beliefs. Itís an unconscious process.

But creationism is virtually always self-serving.

You simply donít see creationists deciding that they need to humble themselves, intentionally self-sacrifice, abandon material comforts, show love to their enemies, etc. Itís a self-serving authoritarian movement that seeks dominance over others.


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2012,14:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 19 2012,22:26)
Quote
Grabbity is teh strongest force

Maybe if one is talking about net strength over large distances, for typical astronomical objects.

Which come to think of it might be how lots of non-physicists are apt to think about such things.

Henry

I just miss the good old days sometimes. :D

Gotta love teh classics.

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2012,20:02   

Got a statistics problem for anyone feeling bored:

(1+mi)*(1+mi+1)*(1+mi+2)*...(1+mn)=(1+X)^n

Suppose each value of M has a standard deviation associated with it. What is the standard deviation of X? Is it a simpler calculation if the standard deviation of each M is the same?

This is from my wife's friend. It's been over 25 years since I've done statistics so I'm rusty and trying to brush up. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh...and the notation is the way it is because I've not figured out how to get series fonts to work.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,07:05   

Pornography star speaks at a Hudsonville church:
Quote
"I want people to know that you can still be an adult film actor and believe in God. We don't just play 'hide the bacon' and then go home and believe in atheism," said Jeremy.


--------------
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 donít belong there and thoughts into my mind that donít belong there. -- KF

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,07:37   

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,02:02)
Got a statistics problem for anyone feeling bored:

(1+mi)*(1+mi+1)*(1+mi+2)*...(1+mn)=(1+X)^n

Suppose each value of M has a standard deviation associated with it. What is the standard deviation of X? Is it a simpler calculation if the standard deviation of each M is the same?

This is from my wife's friend. It's been over 25 years since I've done statistics so I'm rusty and trying to brush up. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh...and the notation is the way it is because I've not figured out how to get series fonts to work.

Let me clarify:

1) You have †a number of random variables M_1 .... M_n and you form the product R= (1+M_1)(1+M_2)...(1+M_n). Those M_i are real valued, independent, and are following an identical distribution.

2) Are asking whether there is a random variable X such that the product R equals (1+X)^n ?

Obviously if n is even and those M are following the Gaussian law then such an X doesn't exist - the right hand side is always positive, while the probability for the left hand to be negative is positive :-)

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,11:17   

Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 22 2012,07:37)
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,02:02)
Got a statistics problem for anyone feeling bored:

(1+mi)*(1+mi+1)*(1+mi+2)*...(1+mn)=(1+X)^n

Suppose each value of M has a standard deviation associated with it. What is the standard deviation of X? Is it a simpler calculation if the standard deviation of each M is the same?

This is from my wife's friend. It's been over 25 years since I've done statistics so I'm rusty and trying to brush up. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh...and the notation is the way it is because I've not figured out how to get series fonts to work.

Let me clarify:

1) You have †a number of random variables M_1 .... M_n and you form the product R= (1+M_1)(1+M_2)...(1+M_n). Those M_i are real valued, independent, and are following an identical distribution.

2) Are asking whether there is a random variable X such that the product R equals (1+X)^n ?

Obviously if n is even and those M are following the Gaussian law then such an X doesn't exist - the right hand side is always positive, while the probability for the left hand to be negative is positive :-)

Dieb -

1) I confess I'm confused on this point as well, but your summary is my take as well.

2) No, I don't think so. I think the friend is asking what the standard deviation of X would be given a standard deviation of Mi. On top of that, she wants to know whether the calculation is easier if the standard deviation of Mi is the same throughout the series. Seems to me that the calculation has the exact same difficulty either way as "calculation difficulty" seems somewhat subjective once you are dealing with standard deviations, but perhaps she's asking whether the notation of the calculation requires more variables if the standard deviation of Mi is not the same.

Your note on the Gaussian law gave me a chuckle. I don't think that my wife's friend was thinking in terms of physics when she posted the problem (but then, I don't actually know that) and I doubt it applies to any inverse square type calculation, but then that's a bit out of my area of knowledge anyway. I'm tempted to note the X likely can't exist for that reason though just to see her response. :-)

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,11:40   

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 22 2012,13:05)
Pornography star speaks at a Hudsonville church: †
Quote
"I want people to know that you can still be an adult film actor and believe in God. We don't just play 'hide the bacon' and then go home and believe in atheism," said Jeremy.

How, ah . . . †touching!

On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky, I shall be lobbying the Vatican to have her declared the Patron Saint of RSI.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,12:50   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,11:40)
On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,14:45   

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,13:50)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,11:40)
On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

Aw, crap. I hadn't seen that either. That just sucks.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,16:16   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 22 2012,14:45)
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,13:50)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,11:40)
On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

Aw, crap. I hadn't seen that either. That just sucks.

That's what she said...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,16:29   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 22 2012,22:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 22 2012,14:45)
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,13:50)
† †
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,11:40)
On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

Aw, crap. I hadn't seen that either. That just sucks.

That's what she said...

A linguistic question: how do people point out double entendres?

"That's what she said" seems to be a US coinage. The equivalent one in These Parts is often ". . . as the bishop said to the actress", which has more than a whiff of the music halls and Donald McGill postcards. A friend from Tipperary used to say ". . . she said as she fainted", which I suspect was his own invention, but is still a goodie.

Any local varieties, anyone?

Edited by Amadan on Oct. 22 2012,22:30

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Freddie



Posts: 365
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2012,03:09   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,16:29)
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 22 2012,22:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 22 2012,14:45)
†  
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,13:50)
† †
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,11:40)
On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

Aw, crap. I hadn't seen that either. That just sucks.

That's what she said...

A linguistic question: how do people point out double entendres?

"That's what she said" seems to be a US coinage. The equivalent one in These Parts is often ". . . as the bishop said to the actress", which has more than a whiff of the music halls and Donald McGill postcards. A friend from Tipperary used to say ". . . she said as she fainted", which I suspect was his own invention, but is still a goodie.

Any local varieties, anyone?

Here, the bishop/actress combination is the one I grew up with.  

On a related note, an often-heard exclamation around these parts when someone farts or burps loudly in company: "More tea, vicar?"

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
  19122 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 608 609 610 611 612 [613] 614 615 616 617 618 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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