A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 09:26 In article <MPG.26bff64e39b56e0198a19f(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-585A0F.21243801082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.26bf877e7e67eee698a185(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <wclark2-B74F08.12584701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is a theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to > > > > > > proven > > > > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > > > > > > > > > > According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty. > > > > > > > > > > The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts and > > > > > bolts. > > > > > > > > There is only one "F" word for nutters like you. Tell you what, why > > > > don't you let us all in on the evidence for the faith-based origins of > > > > human life? > > > > > > Where did the Big Bang originate? > > > > From a singularity in the general theory of relativity, which led to an > > infinitely dense and hot Universe that then expanded. > > > > Not with and old man with a long white beard. > > "Not with and old man?" It appears that you have pissed on yourself > again by throwing stones at glass houses. OK, feeble deflection attempt aside, have you mastered the concept of the Penrose-Hawking singularity yet? No? I won't hold my breath waiting.
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 09:28 In article <MPG.26bff4cb80e78efd98a19c(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <533c56hocl4cgg1vsqb71evj5rtum43sfi(a)4ax.com>, > howard(a)brazee.net says... > > > > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:21:57 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > >I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never > > >will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation of > > >what caused the Big Bang. > > > > Why? > > > > Does someone have to come up with an explanation on what caused God? > > What caused God? Did the Big Bang cause God or did God cause the Big > Bang? What existed prior to the Big Bang? Human beings caused God. He did not stand around with a long staff and create the Big Bang. > > > >Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA > > >oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of he > > >Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some re-Sciencing > > >going on. > > > > That's the nature of science - when the theory don't fit observations, > > the observations win. > > The observations can't win. They just did. Again.
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 09:30 In article <MPG.26bff53db9c184c998a19d(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4c561a13$0$5007$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:23:56 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4c55f2b5$0$15837$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:49:14 -0400, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <d3bcc339-516d-4092-8f49-b0c5e64bda99 > > >>> @l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > >>> > > >>>> Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth during a visit to > > >>>> London, because she considered herself the Queen's equal. > > >>> > > >>> I wouldn't bow to any King either. I am subservient to no man or > > >>> woman. > > >> > > >> You are subservient to the government/corporate interests that rule > > >> the country. Whether you see that or not is irrelevant. > > > > > > You can't read can you? > > > > Ok Bert. Here's your chance to demonstrate that you're not an idiot. > > Explain how being beholden to a variety of corporate/government > > interests is better than being beholden to specific people. > > We need to go back to the question I posed earlier. What is the > difference in reading the spots on the innards of animals versus reading > the positions of the bodies in heaven? That is the question on the table > for you to answer. Either answer it or go away. Oops - he just demonstrated yet again that he is.
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 09:32 In article <MPG.26bff87a864624b898a1a1(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-A7FD30.21361101082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <4c55f2b5$0$15837$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:49:14 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > > In article <d3bcc339-516d-4092-8f49-b0c5e64bda99 > > > > @l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > >> Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth during a visit to > > > >> London, because she considered herself the Queen's equal. > > > > > > > > I wouldn't bow to any King either. I am subservient to no man or > > > > woman. > > > > > > You are subservient to the government/corporate interests that rule the > > > country. Whether you see that or not is irrelevant. > > > > Never mind, it's just that he has no manners, that's all. > > You will be happy to know that two of my nices, British subjects, will > be attending an English type of school while they are living in Hong > Kong. Of course the school is run by the ChiComs to encourage western > businesses executives to come to Hong Kong. My sister, the American, is > the western business executive, not her British husband who doesn't have > a job at this time. Good, then your "nices" will get a proper and rigorous education.
From: MNMikeW on 2 Aug 2010 10:33
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-502865.13452630072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <8bgrh0FvcoU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-C06CE9.13143130072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> > In article <8bgpttFmcfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >> news:alangbaker-EDCC5B.13025030072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> >> > In article <8bgp49Fhh5U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:dra656dounn78rv7lt2qppvaa6sbkal8tl(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:42:27 -0700, Alan Baker >> >> >> > <alangbaker(a)telus.net> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>In article <8bgo0iFaphU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> >> >> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > You mean "She made the statements that Breitbart deliberately >> >> >> >>> > distorted", don't you? >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Breitbart didn't distort anything. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Yes. He did. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Editing a video so that you leave out information that totally >> >> >> >>changes >> >> >> >>its meaning is distortion. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > There's no way to get the far right to view anything without an >> >> >> > un >> >> >> > jaundiced eye. "None so blind...." you know. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > BK >> >> >> > >> >> >> Perhaps you two should see it for yourselves. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awa >> >> >> rds >> >> >> -ra >> >> >> cism2010/ >> >> > >> >> > Perhaps you should realize that that is not a video of her entire >> >> > speech >> >> > and even Breitbart now admits it was a distortion of her actions: >> >> > >> >> > "Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the >> >> > first >> >> > video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed >> >> > position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she >> >> > held >> >> > that federal position." >> >> >> >> This correction has nothing to do with what is on the tape. Just when >> >> it >> >> was >> >> recorded. >> > >> > No. The correction has nothing to do with when the video recorded, but >> > when the events that were described on the tape took place. >> > >> >> > >> >> > The full video is 43 minutes long. >> >> > >> >> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk> >> >> > >> >> > Don't you think a real journalist would have reviewed that before >> >> > putting up cherry-picked sections of it and passing judgement? >> >> > >> >> What makes you think he didn't have the whole video? >> > >> > If he did, that makes his actions even worse, because it has been >> > pretty >> > much universally agreed that anyone who has seen the whole video could >> > never have made the claims of racism that Breitbart made. >> > >> > You're really digging yourself a hole here, Mike, and for what? >> > >> I not digging anything. Breitbart is attempting to show racism at the >> NAACP, >> not specifically to Sherrod. Whether you think he does or does not >> accomplish this is debatable. > > LOL > > So he's trying to show racism by release a cherry-picked portion of a > speech that doesn't actually show racism if you actually watch the whole > thing? > Seeing the crowd laugh during her "white farmer" tale was telling. |