RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 >   
  Topic: RFJE's Personal Thread, Because our toilet is already cluttered< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:07   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,21:16)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:44)
Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

Here's a better question: Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C). So there will never be life to create O2.

SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans? We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming. How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.

And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation. Where did O3 come from? Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.

And Louis said that no ozone would be "positively helpful," during abiogenesis. Would that be because radiation promotes chemical reactions? What kind of chemical reactions would happen in a nasty atmosphere like the one presented by your theory, along with radiation coming in?


You guys don't even acknowledge the problems of your own theory. The truth is that is was created at the same time.

Since you a) are remarkably ignorant of exactly what those theories (oh yes, there are more than one) are, and b) what "problems" may or may not exist, who are you to lecture anyone on any topic of science?

RFJE, you couldn't even get the difference between a bond and macromolecule sorted out, or the difference between solvation and hydrolysis right, on what basis do you claim to know science better than people who can distinguish these very basic (sub highschool) things?

Answer my questions, start at a different point in the process and you may find a miraculous change in your reception. Carry on the way you are and you will reap what you sow.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:08   

To be sure RFJE, lying by omission is still lying, correct?

So why don't you answer the question put to you?  Answer them honestly as "I don't know" is perfectly valid and honest (if you really don't know that is).

Answer the questions Louis gave you, then mine, Nerull's and the rest.  A little soul searching will do you good.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:09   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)
You are not guilty of the same thing? Has your big bang model or geologic time scale changed much? Everything that doesn't fit into it is rejected as insanity.

This is just flat wrong. Not only are you shockingly ignorant of basic chemistry, you appear to be completely ignorant of the history of science as well.

Wikipedia has a decent synopsis on the age of the earth. The consensus has changed repeatedly based on new evidence. The fact that the ~4 billion years estimate has stood the last 70 years or so is based on a confluence of good evidence, not dogmatism.

Both a billion+ year old earth and the big bang* were greeted with skepticism and even ridicule until enough evidence was gathered to make the conclusions inescapable. This is something you could get from a basic popular history of science, a childrens encyclopedia, or even teh intertoobs!

* recall that the term itself was originally coined to ridicule the idea.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:13   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:27)
You are not guilty of the same thing? Has your big bang model or geologic time scale changed much? Everything that doesn't fit into it is rejected as insanity.

If you knew anything about the history of science, you would understand how ridiculous those sentences are. But since you are clearly as ignorant about that as you are about everything else, here's a clue-by-four about the history of the geologic time scale, and here's another about this history of Big Bang theory. There is no reason to believe that science has stopped exploring and modifying those areas of research.

 
Quote
And you have completely taken it out of context, as you probably only skimmed it. I was offered books by I believe Dr. G.H. by Christians who are trying to mesh evolution with the scriptural doctrine. You can't have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways. I prefer reality, you prefer superstition. When an implication of reality perturbs you ("Waaah! Your reality means that my superstitous goat-herder stories can't be true!!!one!! eleventyone!!!"), you reject reality. That's fine for you, I suppose, but it's fairly pathetic for most sentient humans.
 
Quote
If your scriptural understanding says Adam and original sin are not important then you can do it, but you have just removed a doctrinal foundation stone from scripture which will cause the whole building to fall.

Yep, but I'm fine with that, 'cuz I'm a scientist. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if someone had the evidence that called evolution into question, because it would mean that lots of structures would fall, and those would be exciting times for science! You, on the other hand, can't handle it at all when your evidence-free conclusions are shown to be wrong. That's the difference between you and any decent scientist; we live for the moment when evidence overturns our conclusions! You couldn't handle it.

Come back when you can.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

   
Quack



Posts: 1784
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:22   

RFJE, seems you are on my turf now.

It would take years to teach you so I'll just let you in on something you also seem to be unaware of: The Bible is full of myths; Adam and Eve is but one of them; Jesus Christ is another.

But, and this is what so many people resist: The myths have a meaning (Well, Adam and Eve was just the only explanation they wrer able to come up with) but many other myths like paradise, the tree of knowledge, the fall and many others have a hidden meaning; that's why they are myths.

Only with the aid of a proper interpreter may the real meaning of the myths be realized. OK, when one has learned what to look for and knows what lies behind one may decipher the mytsh by oneself.

But literalism have closed the door to understanding of scripture form people. That started about 2000 years ago.

As for Jesus Christ, it is one of the most powerful symbols that mankind have in its possession. The first expression of that myth that we know about was made by the Egyptians - the Osiris myth.

As you should know, Osiris was a dying and resurrecting god-man, in the same way as Bacchus-Dionysus, Attis and a host of others. They all share the same fate - to die and to rise again, and when they all happen to perform that trick at or around the time of winter solstice, do you think that's just a coincidence?

Precession of the Equinoxes have shifted the time of celebration from 6th January to 24th December. That shows the myth is of very ancient origins.

I've got to stop, I only have to point out that religion is not about a physical, or even spiritual life after death, but about life here and now, in this lifetime. It is not possible to cover the subject of 'eternal life', what that actually means here.

WRT God, God is a name given to a reality, but the reality of God has nothing with the creation of the universe, planets or life to do.

That is quite another 'god' that we need not bother with.

What matters is God as the highest power in our soul. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within."

That's about all true theology I can offer this late in the evening, my bed is waiting.

I suggest you begin yuor studies with "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and 'Timothy Freke, tehn you may continue with Jesus and the Lost Goddess by the same authors, and even one of their latest, "The Laughing Jesus", I haven't read that one yet.

You might also find Albert Schweitzer interesting. And much more.

Also Carl Gustav Jung - he said he didn't have to believe in God, he knew God existed. I don't know what Jung thought about evolution but I suppose he didn't bother one way or the other.

Jung got the idea about archetypes from the Gnostics; I am a gnostic. The Gnostics seems to have been enemy #1for the early Christian literalists...

Good night.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:34   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 21 2009,16:22)
RFJE, seems you are on my turf now.

(snip)

Good night.

Hey, do you think we can get into fundie churches and "teach the controversy"?

We can have "Religious Freedom Acts" where all religions are taught including and especially the problems with fundieism.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
jeffox



Posts: 546
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,22:06   

RFJE is very confusing at times, and wrote:

Quote
The popular hypothesis about the atmosphere is that it was formed by volcanoes spewing out CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrogen among other things ---no O2.  

Therefore the IMPLICATION is that were alot of O atoms and they were underground, as in UNDER volcanoes.  The O atoms were in such quantity that they bonded with H, were spewed out by volcanoes as water vapor, eventually condensed, and formed OCEANS, not ponds.  That's alot of O atoms.  (i did not have to have a degree in chemistry to figure this out).


Your first paragraph appears correct.  Your second, however, is kind of silly.  Why would the sole implication be that which you state?  From what I understand, the currently-accepted "best guess" for where earth's oceans came from is from bombardment by asteroids and comets early in it's history.

As for there being a lot of oxygen "under volcanoes", well, duh!  Oxygen is one of the most abundant elements in earth's crust, almost invariably bound up with silicon, which is the most abundant element in the crust.  Being bound up like that means that it's not in a gaseous form, like it is in our current atmosphere.  There's an abundant amount of evidence from all over the earth that, early on, the atmosphere contained no (or very little) free (gaseous) oxygen; and then, at some point in the distant past, that changed and oxygen became a major player in the earth's atmosphere, like it is today.  BIF's are just one piece of that evidence.

In that same post, he wrote:

Quote
This oxygen crisis that I keep "yapping about" is in YOUR theory's geologic timescale.  God forbid that I should say ANYTHING that is associated with creationism, so I use mainstream sources.   The O2 catastrophe is there for all to read.


I don't see why atmospheric oxygenation is a "crisis" or "catastrophe".  It was a big change, but not big enough to wipe out the bacteria that created it.  Why do you think so?  And what "mainstream" source do you mean?

And later:

Quote
Here's a better question:  Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C).  So there will never be life to create O2.  


Ummm, I think the average temperature on Mars is far colder than on earth.  To quote a popular song, it ain't the kind of place to raise yer kids.  It may have even HAD primitive life, just like on earth!  Neat-O, eh?  And not so hard, either.  And just think, we now know of at least 100 other planets orbiting other stars!  Life's probably common, ya know.  But I'll hedge that bet until better evidence comes in, eh!

Further on:

Quote
SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans?  We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming.  How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.


The CO2 levels may have been at about the level they are now.  Or the sun may have been cooler.  There are a myriad of other possibilities that you haven't considered, evidently.  By the way, the atmosphere's predominantly nitrogen; but you know that, right?

More:

Quote
And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation.  Where did O3 come from?  Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.


Currently O3 is produced by O2 interacting with the sun's radiation at high altitudes.  Why wouldn't that be the case as soon as O2 became common?  Many anerobic bacteria species are resistant to radiation.  Radiation levels could have been different in the past, as I've aluded to earlier.  I don't understand why this is a problem for "evolutionists".

And:

Quote
Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Well, I have to agree with you there.  Still, since radiometric dating disproval would take an awful lot of doing (handwaving won't work) you better get cracking and show me some objective, scientific evidence that the specific type of dating technique used in any particular dating environment is incorrect.  Don't be shy, but do keep in mind that I (and some of the others here) have direct experience in working with the same theory that says that radiometric dating works the way it works.  In my case, it's what drove a submarine around.  

Get hot!!

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,23:28   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,11:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.




Um..... am I really the only one who found this sig-worthy?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4098
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,01:32   

Quote

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Not really. Radiometric methods given ages with considerably more precision than simply measuring the thickness of layers of rock. But rock layer thicknesses would still give the general idea, even if the margin of error might be fairly large.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,04:03   

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 22 2009,05:28)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,11:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.




Um..... am I really the only one who found this sig-worthy?

Yes.

If someone is going to patronisingly play at civility by pissing about with titles then I demand to be called by my proper title: The Right Honourable Third Earl of Wessexshire and Piddletrenthide, His Holiness the Freelance Pope Louis KCVO OG OM PPP ROFLMAO.

Anyway, who uses titles with someone's first name? The man's a twat.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,04:24   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 22 2009,07:32)
Quote

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Not really. Radiometric methods given ages with considerably more precision than simply measuring the thickness of layers of rock. But rock layer thicknesses would still give the general idea, even if the margin of error might be fairly large.

Henry

Every time I read IDCists longingly wish for a day when radiometric dating has been discredited, I cannot help but to associate that with newly beaten villains from comic books of old.

You win today science, but just you wait, REVENGE WILL BE MINE!


ETA: Cat pic.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,20:55   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,13:00)
Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

i thought that definition had already been defined as "daniel".

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,04:09   

In further reference to RFJE getting all uppity when told to fuck off, I offer the following, not as defence, but as elaboration. From now on I feel these should be standard replies to persistent loons:



Professor Sir William Connolly explaining the use of the term.

In contempt.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2995
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,05:58   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 22 2009,09:32)
Quote

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Not really. Radiometric methods given ages with considerably more precision than simply measuring the thickness of layers of rock. But rock layer thicknesses would still give the general idea, even if the margin of error might be fairly large.

Henry

Be careful how you use the words seem and LARGE.

The margin of error should be only ever expressed as a proportion of the quantity you are measuring.

If you are expressing an error in seconds as an error of units of time consequential only in fortnights the error will "seem" LARGE.

Another way of looking at it is to compare one Religious Myth's unit of sacred scripture to another Religious Myth's unit of sacred scripture measured in bushels and or, and / or volumes and / or the time it would take to read them all (centuries for one person in the case of the Vedas).

The entire Toy Story of Genesis (I've only seen the cartoon version) compared to say the Hindu Upanishads with it's much more compelling Creation Myth have thousands more volumes thus indicating a HUGE conduit to the Intelligent Designer.

It's almost as though Hindus had a broadband connection to the almighty creator himself!

Whoever this latest version of the inadequate in search of the improbable is only goes to prove God of the Bible fucked up on the (lack of) information front.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,11:39   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2009,04:03)
Anyway, who uses titles with someone's first name? The man's a twat.


  • King George
  • Queen Elizabeth
  • Prince Charles

    etc.

    I believe that's your people's doing old bean.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,12:24   

Quote (Bing @ Feb. 23 2009,17:39)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2009,04:03)
Anyway, who uses titles with someone's first name? The man's a twat.


  • King George
  • Queen Elizabeth
  • Prince Charles

    etc.

    I believe that's your people's doing old bean.

Twats the lot of them, your point?

Louis

ETA None of them are their full titles anyway. It's Queen Liz of something. I have no knowledge of George, Liz his ok, but I maintain that despite is nice sausages and delicious biscuits Chuck is a twat.

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2293
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,12:57   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:19)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:05)
Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excuse me, I never said that--you say that. If I have taken science in high school, lived 47 years and watched many science programs, read science mags and books, read ICR materials, then I do know "something" about science.

Don't stall off questions that I ask about the O2 catastrophe by attacking my knowledge of science. Obviously I have a fundamental knowledge or I would not be able to even ask the question!

I just fell off my chair and my bum hurts.

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,13:17   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:56)
This is my last post. I am going to study. This has been a good experience for me. The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride, perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society. [emphasis mine]

You can't even see the signs of the times. Spiritually speaking, elementary. You need to wake up.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said this to me. Yeah, slather it on, brother.

The ungratitude, the incomprehensible ungratitude and hubris of those who because of this shrieking void within themselves, that they call "faith," and this goody-two-shoes projection of themselves, that they call "Christ," will not pursue knowledge worth knowing and thereby refuse to be a model of the informed Christian. I cannot be a model for believers; only other believers can, if they only would. You have a model in Wes, but since you disdain and judge him too, what can I do but welcome your association of him with us atheists. What a compliment.

Bye-bye.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,14:02   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 23 2009,13:17)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:56)
This is my last post. I am going to study. This has been a good experience for me. The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride, perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society. [emphasis mine]

You can't even see the signs of the times. Spiritually speaking, elementary. You need to wake up.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said this to me. Yeah, slather it on, brother.

The ungratitude, the incomprehensible ungratitude and hubris of those who because of this shrieking void within themselves, that they call "faith," and this goody-two-shoes projection of themselves, that they call "Christ," will not pursue knowledge worth knowing and thereby refuse to be a model of the informed Christian. I cannot be a model for believers; only other believers can, if they only would. You have a model in Wes, but since you disdain and judge him too, what can I do but welcome your association of him with us atheists. What a compliment.

Bye-bye.

Don't be too hard on the boy Kristine.

After all it must be such a burden to carry such a cross, knowing that while you may not be perfect (but much closer than others you profess not to judge) that you are forgiven no matter how much of a self-important, judgmental hypocrite you are.

Not all of us can have such blinders on and still function, and neither can he.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,16:51   

Mayberry RFD wrote:


Quote
As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  [emphasis mine]


Let's see.

Stupidity.  Check!

Hypocracy.  Check!

Pride.  Check!

Perversity.  Not check, but we're willing to go there.

Ignorance.  Check

As for "spiritual blindness" I'm in the dark and don't have a ghost of an idea what you're talking about.

As for morel decay, it's best to cook them in butter and flame them in brandy no more than 24 hours after picking.  Otherwise, you're right, they'll decay.  But, I know about morel decay, so, what's your point?

Does this mean that Mayberry RFD is canceled?  Does Opie know?

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,09:53   

Quote
As for morel decay, it's best to cook them in butter and flame them in brandy no more than 24 hours after picking. Otherwise, you're right, they'll decay. But, I know about morel decay, so, what's your point?

Um, not being a botanist nor a natural Anglophone but presuming you refer to the fungus, Doc Bill, I feel a warning is called for here.

Those mushrooms, which look a bit like someone's rotting brain, contain a toxic and carcinogenous substance. Therefore it used to be recommended to either dry them (in a place where people would not be exposed to the fumes) or thoroughly and repeatedly soak them in plenty of water for hours, or preferably both, before cooking and consuming them, and not too often. Modern official wisdom seems to be to avoid any consumption at all.

They do taste good, though! And they come out in Spring, unlike most other edible fungi where I live.

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,13:28   

Traditional apologies for auto-response.
Deeper (slightly; wikipedia:)) study highlights two possible mistakes of mine.

1. Doc Bill may have been referring to some kind of solanum, a family containing not only tomato and potato but also a number of other more or less edible plants, often replete in "alkaloids" such as solanine and atropine, which are pretty poisonous. Don't know how that is influenced by burning buttered brandy, though. Forgive me if I abstain from experiments.

2. My cursory examination of a hand dictionary turned up the same phrase for not only Toppmurkla, Morchella conica but also Stenmurkla, Gyromitra esculenta or False morel, which has indeed been recently found* to be more poisonous than previously thought. Christer Andersson: Stenmurklan - olmplig att ta. Toxikologiska enheten, Livsmedelsverket. (In Swedish, sorry.)

3. Finally I must make it absolutely clear that my reference to rotting brains had nothing whatsoever to do with any participant in this particular discussion, and it was certainly not intended to be taken as an insinuation about any person's spongiform encephalopathy.
:O
*by hydrolysis with hydrocloric acid :-) to release all of the hydrazine compounds

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,15:40   

i reckon he was gabbin bout molly moochers.  they are fixin to stump up round these parts.

i don't eat no gyromitra and I don't care what david arora says.

you can git allergified to morchella but it might take you about 40 years.  i do know some minnesotan types around here that claim they don't eat them any more.  i don't trust folks that go ice fishing for fun however no matter how well they know their bug dicks.  

can't wait to get some morals!  and some morels too!

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:27   

OK, I was jacking with Mayberry RFD about his "morals" comments and simply trying to pun it up.

I ain't eatin' no toadstools!

However, I had a friend who was an expert, experienced morel hunter and he had a "spot" in some oak woods where these things grow well that he visited each year.  A sack of those things could be sold for $1000.

Apparently, they weren't poisonous.

When it comes to mushrooms I stick to one species I know well:

kroger buttonus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:30   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,16:27)
OK, I was jacking with Mayberry RFD about his "morals" comments and simply trying to pun it up.

I ain't eatin' no toadstools!

However, I had a friend who was an expert, experienced morel hunter and he had a "spot" in some oak woods where these things grow well that he visited each year.  A sack of those things could be sold for $1000.

Apparently, they weren't poisonous.

When it comes to mushrooms I stick to one species I know well:

kroger buttonus

where can a man sell a sack of morals for $1000?

i found 172 last year but most of them were the little grey ones.  a few blacks and about 40 big fat yaller ones.

i'm counting off the days until it's time to load up little man and head over to the local game lands.  whodathunk you could find ginseng and morels in this industrial moonscape?

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 546
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:33   

'Ras wrote:

Quote
i don't eat no gyromitra and I don't care what david arora says.

you can git allergified to morchella but it might take you about 40 years.  i do know some minnesotan types around here that claim they don't eat them any more.  i don't trust folks that go ice fishing for fun however no matter how well they know their bug dicks.  

can't wait to get some morals!  and some morels too!


Dem dere Minnesota types is prolly fibben to ya down dere cuzza up here we kinda hogs 'em an dey only grow 'bout a month inna year.  Cuzza da snow.  I useta like ta go ice fishin' too but I don' like da tastea ice.  

:)       :)      :)       :)

Oh, by da way, da only mushrooms dat I hearda sellin' fer $1000 was dem kinda dat turn blue and make ya laugh a lot.  Not dat I know anyting 'bout da brown an smelly of it all, eh.  Just ta keep myself outta da hoosegow, ya know, eh.   :)     :)    :)

  
tsig



Posts: 322
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:49   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,14:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post. I am going to study. This has been a good experience for me. The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride, perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.

You can't even see the signs of the times. Spiritually speaking, elementary. You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.

Louis

I'm trying to understand why you would get so flustered Louis. Are you a believer? If so, why would you curse me? It's called the Adamic nature, or the flesh. I have it too.

And if I were not being dissected like a lab rat I could for a minute give into that nature and do the same, but I choose not too.

You insulted me in one of your posts by inferring that I "play" with myself. I have a wife Louis. And I did ignore that as I have many insults. Y'all have a great life.

He didn't curse you so I'll do you the favor:

Oh mighty dark lord may you seek RFJE's soul and take it for your own. Blind him and bind him in your almighty self and let him dwell in hell forever.

  
khan



Posts: 1484
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:55   

Quote (jeffox @ Feb. 24 2009,21:33)
'Ras wrote:

Quote
i don't eat no gyromitra and I don't care what david arora says.

you can git allergified to morchella but it might take you about 40 years. i do know some minnesotan types around here that claim they don't eat them any more. i don't trust folks that go ice fishing for fun however no matter how well they know their bug dicks.

can't wait to get some morals! and some morels too!


Dem dere Minnesota types is prolly fibben to ya down dere cuzza up here we kinda hogs 'em an dey only grow 'bout a month inna year. Cuzza da snow. I useta like ta go ice fishin' too but I don' like da tastea ice.

:) :) :) :)

Oh, by da way, da only mushrooms dat I hearda sellin' fer $1000 was dem kinda dat turn blue and make ya laugh a lot. Not dat I know anyting 'bout da brown an smelly of it all, eh. Just ta keep myself outta da hoosegow, ya know, eh. :) :) :)

You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
jeffox



Posts: 546
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:07   

Khan wrote:

Quote
You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.


No!!   No!!    Anyt'ing but dat!  Dem dere raccoons is da sunzabitches a da whole Koddampt woods, eh!  Any fox knowzat, ya know.  I'd radder haf a squirrel bite offa my. . . . . er,

How'd we get into dis, anywayz?

:)    :)     :)

  
khan



Posts: 1484
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:19   

Quote (jeffox @ Feb. 24 2009,22:07)
Khan wrote:

Quote
You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.


No!! No!! Anyt'ing but dat! Dem dere raccoons is da sunzabitches a da whole Koddampt woods, eh! Any fox knowzat, ya know. I'd radder haf a squirrel bite offa my. . . . . er,

How'd we get into dis, anywayz?

:) :) :)

That was meant for the RFJT.

I would not give your bones to the raccoons.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
  452 replies since Feb. 09 2009,10:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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