Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a much more important election
You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
(If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and a Cheezy Watt balllot)
Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
Jason
======
In the category "We don' *need* no steenkin' capitalization, sweetie!"
>>It was actually in the thread titled something like, "The toe is >>dying..."
>A discussion of diabetes?
======
n the "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" Category:
>> Which makes me wonder -- when did hominids make the leap from using >> tools for cracking nuts, cutting meat, etc., to using them as >> defensive (or offensive) weapons?
>Give a bunch of toddlers a plastic hammer each and ask me that question >again.
======
In the category, can you detail every intermediate step from Lucario to Arcanine?
> I see your ideas of evolution are approximately at the pokemon stage.
======
In the "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" Category:
> I find the best course is to stay away from people who want you in their > presences.
> > >>>>>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html > > >>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still > > >>>>> situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are > > >>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at > > >>>>> the > > >>>>> older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws > > >>>>> develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the > > >>>>> morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what > > >>>>> cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which > > >>>>> the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny. " > > >>>>> "Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a > > >>>>> snout above water. " > > >>>>> So what is the reason for this change?
> > >>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was > > >>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull.
> > >>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils > > >>> farther up on the skull?
> > >> Because the air is *above* the water.
> > > Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? > > > Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top > > > of the skull.
> > It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air.
> Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
At first I thought he was joking, then I realised he was totally serious.
> > What exactly happens in a 'community ravaged by Darwinism'? I'm just > > glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.
> It isn't a pretty sight. Teenagers drop out of med school in excellent > universities to study theology in second rate institutions further > south. Adults give up their day jobs to observe barnacles very > closely, many of them disappear on long journeys doing "bird > spotting". When they come back, they bring hundreds of stuffed > specimen, and nobody knows where to put them.The mantelpieces are > packed full with them already. They then become ill for a long time, > nobody knows why.
> Nobody has a cure, though the infection correlates closely with > "curiosity", "high IQ" and "education" which is why a strong dose of > religious fundamentalism is recommended as cure, as it attacks > immediately all three of them, dealing with the root causes.
> > > > "My client sees spiritual treatment as the proper medicine and I > > > > suspect the people who want harsher punishment see Western medicine as > > > > the proper medicine, I guess therein lies the difference," "My > > > > clients just happen to have a belief that is very outside of our > > > > social norm."
> > > > Just ignore the whole concept of evidence, one "belief" guaranteed her > > > > a painful death; the other "belief" would have saved her and allowed > > > > her to live a long and normal life.
> > > > Pitiful.
> > > I am always confused by this sort of thing. I doubt that these people > > > wanted their daughter to die, and toward that end probably do most of > > > the things the rest of us do to protect our children. They give them > > > food and water rather than pray that the Lord nourish them. If the > > > child falls into a pool I'm sure they pull the child out rather than > > > pray for the child to float. They keep their children away from fire > > > and busy streets rather than praying for them to be flameproof and > > > truck-proof. And I'll bet they bandage a bleeding wound much the same > > > way as anyone else would.
> > > The only difference I can see is the time factor. Things that kill > > > quickly are treated with common-sense remedies. Things that kill > > > slowly are treated with prayer.
> > How does that joke go?
> > A Christian hears a knock on the door. It is his neighbor, warning > > him that a flood is coming and urging him to evacuate.
> > "Never mind," said the Christian, "I will pray to God and he will > > spare me."
> > Later, the flood comes and the Christian has to climb onto his roof to > > avoid being swept away. A man comes in a rowboat to save him.
> > "Don't bother," said the Christian, "I will pray to God and he will > > spare me."
> > Later, the waters continue to rise and the man has to stand on his > > chimney. A heliocopter comes by to rescue him. The Christian waves > > him away.
> > "God is just testing my faith. I will pray to Him and he will spare > > me."
> > The heliocopter leaves and the Christian drowns.
> > Later, in heaven, the Chrisitan says to God "Why didn't you answer my > > prayers?"
> > God said "I sent your neighbor and a rowboat and a helicopter, what > > more do you want?"
> Does God let people who are that stupid into Heaven?
>>I will show you its Haversian canals in due time.
> There are no canals on Mars; Schiaparelli, Havers and Lowell all > recanted on their deathbeds.
Nice interdisciplinary gag.
======
In the "what the hell did he say?" category:
>The only one narrow minded and ignorant are those that cannot see the >potiential for widespread misuse on an apocalyptic scale with this >technology.
======
Category: Irony is dead
> Do you think people such as General Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld > and Henery Kissinger would lie?
> WHY?
======
In the "questionable faith" category:
>> >What do you have faith in?
>> That evidence means something.
>Yes, if only we knew what,
======
In the, 'astonishingly obvious garrulity' category:
>since you obviously did not get the obvious drift (obvious >because it is quite obvious that I did not mean it to be literally >true; it is more a way that we humans say to get their point through).
======
In the category of "King of Swing does the Carpenters":
>> It has been claimed that the source was the Big Bang.
> And the Big Band can never be nailed down. For one thing, what > would you > nail it to?
======
In the 'So THAT'S what it is' department:
> My girlfriend has been going through heliopause, and her disposition > is anything but sunny!
======
>There were a lot of messianic prophets around at the time (presumably >because all the events occurred around a millenium boundary).
I presume that you were being facetious, but still ...
======
In the stunning lack of imagination category
>I never heard of a person write two books at one time...
======
In the category of The Wild Hunt:
> >I never heard of a person write two books at one time...
> Your ignorance does not control reality; many prolific > authors write multiple books simultaneously.
> >somebody is giving me the run around...
> I think that's your tail. Stop chasing it.
======
In the catagory of: Making yourself understandable with language:
> I know that language is not your native language but > do try to make your self understandable.
======
>> 1) A true theist believes the bible
======
An amazing revelation:
>What I described IS IN THE TORA, which is AKA as "the bible" in >western world.
======
In the Russell's Paradox & Ignorance of One's Own Proof Text Categories:
> > An amazing revelation:
> > >What I described IS IN THE TORA, which is AKA as "the bible" in > > >western world.- Hide quoted text -
> oh my you ARE an Idiot...the Torah is one of the books in the > christian bible
>> You could make an >> argument for a Creator who was working on a deadline with a tight >> budget, but then why not just go the evolutionary route and spend >> the rest of the budget on really nice office furniture?
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:47:52 -0800 (PST), Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
This one please.
>In the "severe perturbations in the fabric of spacetime" category,
>> If Arthur C. Clarke was predicting the >>moonlandings before they actually happened, then >>he would be unaware of the moonlandings at the time, >>since they had not yet taken place.
n the "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" Category:
>> Which makes me wonder -- when did hominids make the leap from using >> tools for cracking nuts, cutting meat, etc., to using them as >> defensive (or offensive) weapons? >Give a bunch of toddlers a plastic hammer each and ask me that question >again.
======
Under "Better perception through chemistry"
- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
> >> > > > > So... what supernatural thing / process / entity > >> > > > > are you thinking about which others can see? > >> > > > Angels. > >> > > Ah. So... where can I go to see angels? > >> > > Do I need special imaginary film to take pictures? > >> > Sharpen your perception skills > >> In what way are angels detectable, specifically? > > I think he means you need to 'open the doors of your > > perception', a la Huxley. I believe AdMan has broken the > > hinges off his. > Praise the Lord and pass the mescaline.
> > Category: Irony is dead > >> Do you think people such as General Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld >> and Henery Kissinger would lie? >> >> WHY? > > ======
No 2
> > In the category of The Wild Hunt: > >>> I never heard of a person write two books at one time... >> Your ignorance does not control reality; many prolific >> authors write multiple books simultaneously. >> >>> somebody is giving me the run around... >> I think that's your tail. Stop chasing it. > > ======
No 3
> n the "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" Category:
>>> Which makes me wonder -- when did hominids make the leap from using >>> tools for cracking nuts, cutting meat, etc., to using them as >>> defensive (or offensive) weapons? >> Give a bunch of toddlers a plastic hammer each and ask me that question >> again.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:47:52 -0800 (PST), Harvest Dancer
<harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > In the 'So THAT'S what it is' department:
>> My girlfriend has been going through heliopause, and her disposition >> is anything but sunny!
This is cool.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> n the "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" Category:
>>> Which makes me wonder -- when did hominids make the leap from using >>> tools for cracking nuts, cutting meat, etc., to using them as >>> defensive (or offensive) weapons?
>> Give a bunch of toddlers a plastic hammer each and ask me that >> question again.
>>>>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html >>>>>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still >>>>>>>> situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are >>>>>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head >>>>>>>> at the >>>>>>>> older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow >>>>>>>> jaws develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known >>>>>>>> about the morphogenetic processes concealed in this >>>>>>>> metamorphosis, about what cranial structures take part in it, >>>>>>>> and about the exact way in which the cetacean skull becomes >>>>>>>> transformed during embryogeny. " "Whales breathed with more >>>>>>>> ease when they no longer had to lift a snout above water. " >>>>>>>> So what is the reason for this change?
>>>>>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it >>>>>>> was advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull.
>>>>>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils >>>>>> farther up on the skull?
>>>>> Because the air is *above* the water.
>>>> Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? >>>> Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the >>>> top of the skull.
>>> It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air.
>> Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
> At first I thought he was joking, then I realised he was totally > serious.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:47:52 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote in <52a3faa0-64b5-4a69-9856-371a76fca...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>:
>Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a >much more important election
>You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
>(If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and >a Cheezy Watt balllot)
>Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
>Jason
>======
This one, because we need to save Latin for these very valuable insights:
>In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
>> Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> That is what I truly want to be. >> Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> Timor mortis non conturbat me.
>======
This one because it does such a good job helping taxidermists and taxonomists see their true value:
>>> Then you need to work on your mocking skills. How do you really think >>> Darwin's finches got to the Galapagos? Isn't it an interesting >>> coincidence that every Galapagos bird species has a close relative >>> either in the South American mainland or, for the finches, in the >>> Caribbean?
>> There you go, you see. It's more than a coincidence: it's the smoking >> gun.
>> Darwin never even _went_ to the Galapagos: nobody could even have found >> tiny islands like that with sailing-ship navigation instruments, so he >> and Captain Fitzroy, who, it is well known, was bitterly and publicly >> opposed to the notion of evolution by natural selection, cooked up this >> cock-and-bull story for the ship's log, while simply cruising gently up >> and down the coast of the mainland.
>> Darwin took the opportunity of trips ashore to collect the birds you >> refer to, in addition to the ones he had already secured in the >> Caribbean. These specimens he used to form the basis of his planned >> attack on Christianity, by carefully choosing atypical examples whose >> features fitted his hoax.
>> His motivation was partly hostility to God, and partly a craving for >> limelight in compensation for his never having been able to stick at >> anything for long. This underachiever had taken two tries at education >> in separate universities, at the first of which he frittered away his >> time in hunting; and while at the second he spent long periods in the >> low company of taxidermists and the like.
>> The nervous strain imposed by living this continuous lie had obvious >> effects on his behaviour and health. Darwin is well known to have >> suffered from hysterical psychosomatic digestive disorders, married his >> first cousin, went prematurely bald and tried neurotically to compensate >> by growing an enormous beard, and spent much of the rest of his days >> studying earthworms and hunting wild dogs. Fortunately for the peace of >> his soul, he recanted on his deathbed and was therefore buried in St >> Paul's Cathedral, or Westminster Abbey, as it is better known.
>I want to be the first to nominate this. I wish I had said "the low >company of texidermists", that's an elegant phrase.
> Yesterday there was a much less important > election. Today there is a much more important > election
Between this and school bond issues, Chez Watt votes are _far_ more meaningful.
[What kinds of morons choose to run school systems on a crippling load of debt basis instead of a "pay as you go out of current revenues" system, increasing the price of education at least 50%? There's nothing the least bit unexpected about building new schools to cope with expanding student populations, that they couldn't be saved for in advance.]
> You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
"Best" he says. After months of minimal nominations of not-all-that-interesting Chez Watts, we suddenly have a plethora of excellent candidates.
> (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a > Crack Watt ballot and a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
One vote each, please, for the following EIGHT (omg) Chez Watts.
>>>>>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal >>>>>>>> openings are still situated at the rostra >>>>>>>> tip like those of land mammals; they are >>>>>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the >>>>>>>> vertex of the head at the older stages. At >>>>>>>> the same time, a long rostrum with narrow >>>>>>>> jaws develops. Until recently, practically >>>>>>>> nothing was known about the morphogenetic >>>>>>>> processes concealed in this metamorphosis, >>>>>>>> about what cranial structures take part in >>>>>>>> it, and about the exact way in which the >>>>>>>> cetacean skull becomes transformed during >>>>>>>> embryogeny. " "Whales breathed with more >>>>>>>> ease when they no longer had to lift a >>>>>>>> snout above water. "
>>>>>>>> So what is the reason for this change?
>>>>>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was >>>>>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull.
>>>>>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils >>>>>> farther up on the skull?
>>>>> Because the air is *above* the water.
>>>> Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? >>>> Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top >>>> of the skull.
>>> It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air.
>> Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
> At first I thought he was joking, then I realised > he was totally serious.
> ======
> In the category "The usual suspects"
>>> What exactly happens in a 'community ravaged by >>> Darwinism'? I'm just glad I wasn't drinking >>> anything when I read that.
>> It isn't a pretty sight. Teenagers drop out of >> med school in excellent universities to study >> theology in second rate institutions further >> south. Adults give up their day jobs to observe >> barnacles very closely, many of them disappear on >> long journeys doing "bird spotting". When they >> come back, they bring hundreds of stuffed >> specimen, and nobody knows where to put them.The >> mantelpieces are packed full with them already. >> They then become ill for a long time, nobody >> knows why.
>> Nobody has a cure, though the infection >> correlates closely with "curiosity", "high IQ" >> and "education" which is why a strong dose of >> religious fundamentalism is recommended as cure, >> as it attacks immediately all three of them, >> dealing with the root causes.
> ======
> Category: Irony is dead
>> Do you think people such as General Alexander >> Haig, Donald Rumsfeld and Henery Kissinger would >> lie?
>> WHY?
> ======
>> There were a lot of messianic prophets around at >> the time (presumably because all the events >> occurred around a millenium boundary).
> I presume that you were being facetious, but still > ...
>>>>> What I described IS IN THE TORA, which is AKA >>>>> as "the bible" in western world.
> Well, no.
>>> oh my you ARE an Idiot...the Torah is one of the >>> books in the christian bible.
> Well, no.
>> EXACTLY >> And ALL OF THE BOOKS TOGETHER ARE KNOWN AS: >> "THE BIBLE"
> Well, no, not usually, and it is also unclear, > as depending on prior errors, just which "all of > the books" you mean.
> "All of the books in the bible are known as 'The > Bible'" is a tautological claim only an > acephalic individual on total life support would > make.
> "All of the books in the Torah are known as "The > Bible" is flatly false, they are instead (also) > known as "The Pentateuch".
> Given that the offender was replying to, and thus > cheering on, his own previous also erroneous > posting, which in turn was cheering on his nested > prior also erroneous posting.
> Given that, multiply challenged on his facts, the > offender was _still_ too lazy / stubborn / stupid / > arrogant to do something simple like, say:
> Given that this posting now makes this "even a > brickbat to the head isn't enough" idiocy by the > offender two Chez Watts deep, and three instances of > an insistent error by the offender, morphed for each > posting into a different error, deep, and probably, > that no possible response from any source would be > enough of a clue to the clue-proof offender.
> I suggest the above for the "'Short Bus Special > Achievement' Chez Watt Award of the Month".
> But what do I know?
> ======
> File in the category: What's your name
>> On ted, someone have invented a chip that can >> identify, any known virus, and any *unknown* >> virus, simply by placing a specimen on the chip.
> ======
>>> Then you need to work on your mocking skills. >>> How do you really think Darwin's finches got to >>> the Galapagos? Isn't it an interesting >>> coincidence that every Galapagos bird species >>> has a close relative either in the South >>> American mainland or, for the finches, in the >>> Caribbean?
>> There you go, you see. It's more than a >> coincidence: it's the smoking gun.
>> Darwin never even _went_ to the Galapagos: nobody >> could even have found tiny islands like that with >> sailing-ship navigation instruments, so he and >> Captain Fitzroy, who, it is well known, was >> bitterly and publicly opposed to the notion of >> evolution by natural selection, cooked up this >> cock-and-bull story for the ship's log, while >> simply cruising gently up and down the coast of >> the mainland.
>> Darwin took the opportunity of trips ashore to >> collect the birds you refer to, in addition to >> the ones he had already secured in the Caribbean. >> These specimens he used to form the basis of his >> planned attack on Christianity, by carefully >> choosing atypical examples whose features fitted >> his hoax.
>> His motivation was partly hostility to God, and >> partly a craving for limelight in compensation >> for his never having been able to stick at >> anything for long. This underachiever had taken >> two tries at education in separate universities, >> at the first of which he frittered away his time >> in hunting; and while at the second he spent long >> periods in the low company of taxidermists and >> the like.
>> The nervous strain imposed by living this >> continuous lie had obvious effects on his >> behaviour and health. Darwin is well known to >> have suffered from hysterical psychosomatic >> digestive disorders, married his first cousin, >> went prematurely bald and tried neurotically to >> compensate by growing an enormous beard, and >> spent much of the rest of his days studying >> earthworms and hunting wild dogs. Fortunately for >> the peace of his soul, he recanted on his >> deathbed and was therefore buried in St Paul's >> Cathedral, or Westminster Abbey, as it is better >> known.
> I want to be the first to nominate this. I wish I > had said "the low company of texidermists", that's > an elegant phrase.
> ======
> In the "severe perturbations in the fabric of spacetime" category,
>> If Arthur C. Clarke was predicting the >> moonlandings before they actually happened, then >> he would be unaware of the moonlandings at the time, >> since they had not yet taken place.
>>> An amazing revelation: >>>> What I described IS IN THE TORA, which is AKA >>>> as "the bible" in western world.
Well, no.
>> oh my you ARE an Idiot...the Torah is one of the >> books in the christian bible.
Well, no.
> EXACTLY > And ALL OF THE BOOKS TOGETHER ARE KNOWN AS: > "THE BIBLE"
Well, no, not usually, and it is also unclear, as depending on prior errors, just which "all of the books" you mean.
"All of the books in the bible are known as 'The Bible'" is a tautological claim only an acephalic individual on total life support would make.
"All of the books in the Torah are known as "The Bible" is flatly false, they are instead (also) known as "The Pentateuch".
Given that the offender was replying to, and thus cheering on, his own previous also erroneous posting, which in turn was cheering on his nested prior also erroneous posting.
Given that, multiply challenged on his facts, the offender was _still_ too lazy / stubborn / stupid / arrogant to do something simple like, say:
Given that this posting now makes this "even a brickbat to the head isn't enough" idiocy by the offender two Chez Watts deep, and three instances of an insistent error by the offender, morphed for each posting into a different error, deep, and probably, that no possible response from any source would be enough of a clue to the clue-proof offender.
I suggest the above for the "'Short Bus Special Achievement' Chez Watt Award of the Month".
> > They're stupid and they're loony, > > They're ignorant and fumey, > > They're all together screwy, > > The god-smacked idiots. > > Their brain are out to lunchen > > and people never see 'em > > They really are a scream > > The god-smacked idiots. > > (Fools!) > > (Jerks!) > > (Twits!) > > So get a chalkboard you can draw on > > A notebook you can scrawl on > > We're gonna pay a call on > > The god-smacked idiots.
>>The only one narrow minded and ignorant are those that cannot >>see the >>potiential for widespread misuse on an apocalyptic scale with >>this >>technology.
> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, > > That is what I truly want to be. > > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, > > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
Harvest Dancer wrote: > Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > much more important election
> You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and > a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
> Jason
> ======
>>>>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html >>>>>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still >>>>>>>> situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are >>>>>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws >>>>>>>> develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the >>>>>>>> morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what >>>>>>>> cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which >>>>>>>> the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny. " >>>>>>>> "Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a >>>>>>>> snout above water. " >>>>>>>> So what is the reason for this change? >>>>>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was >>>>>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull. >>>>>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils >>>>>> farther up on the skull? >>>>> Because the air is *above* the water. >>>> Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? >>>> Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top >>>> of the skull. >>> It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air. >> Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
> At first I thought he was joking, then I realised he was totally > serious.
It was stupid month, I had to go all the way down to a fifth prize.
Fifth Prize:
>I n the "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" Category:
> >> Which makes me wonder -- when did hominids make the leap from using > >> tools for cracking nuts, cutting meat, etc., to using them as > >> defensive (or offensive) weapons?
> >Give a bunch of toddlers a plastic hammer each and ask me that question > >again.
> > > >>>>>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html > > > >>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still > > > >>>>> situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are > > > >>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws > > > >>>>> develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the > > > >>>>> morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what > > > >>>>> cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which > > > >>>>> the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny. " > > > >>>>> "Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a > > > >>>>> snout above water. " > > > >>>>> So what is the reason for this change?
> > > >>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was > > > >>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull.
> > > >>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils > > > >>> farther up on the skull?
> > > >> Because the air is *above* the water.
> > > > Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? > > > > Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top > > > > of the skull.
> > > It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air.
> > Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
> At first I thought he was joking, then I realised he was totally > serious.
Forth Prize:
> Category: Irony is dead
> > Do you think people such as General Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld > > and Henery Kissinger would lie?
> > WHY?
Third Prize: (Note: These Torah nominations should be considered as a block:
> >>>> What I described IS IN THE TORA, which is AKA > >>>> as "the bible" in western world.
> Well, no.
> >> oh my you ARE an Idiot...the Torah is one of the > >> books in the christian bible.
> Well, no.
> > EXACTLY > > And ALL OF THE BOOKS TOGETHER ARE KNOWN AS: > > "THE BIBLE"
> Well, no, not usually, and it is also unclear, > as depending on prior errors, just which "all of > the books" you mean.
> "All of the books in the bible are known as 'The > Bible'" is a tautological claim only an > acephalic individual on total life support would > make.
> "All of the books in the Torah are known as "The > Bible" is flatly false, they are instead (also) > known as "The Pentateuch".
> Given that the offender was replying to, and thus > cheering on, his own previous also erroneous > posting, which in turn was cheering on his nested > prior also erroneous posting.
> Given that, multiply challenged on his facts, the > offender was _still_ too lazy / stubborn / stupid / > arrogant to do something simple like, say:
> Given that this posting now makes this "even a > brickbat to the head isn't enough" idiocy by the > offender two Chez Watts deep, and three instances of > an insistent error by the offender, morphed for each > posting into a different error, deep, and probably, > that no possible response from any source would be > enough of a clue to the clue-proof offender.
> I suggest the above for the "'Short Bus Special > Achievement' Chez Watt Award of the Month".
> But what do I know?
First Prize: (N.B.: This is one for the ages. I mean, it's based on the the Oscar Myer Weiner Song, with the last verse in *Latin*! I propose it for the First Occational Richard Harter Memorial Excellence in Obscure Humor Celestial Achievement Award.)
> In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, > > That is what I truly want to be. > > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, > > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
> [...] > Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
Finally another pun worthy of recognition. One first-place vote for it.
> ====== > In the 'So THAT'S what it is' department:
>> My girlfriend has been going through heliopause, and her disposition is >> anything but sunny! > ======
Cases of jaw-dropping stupidity. Another first-place vote to be divided in half and applied equally to these two (and grouped with the others on the same subjects).
> ====== > In the Russell's Paradox & Ignorance of One's Own Proof Text Categories:
>> > An amazing revelation:
>> > >What I described IS IN THE TORA, which is AKA as "the bible" in >> > >western world.- Hide quoted text -
>> oh my you ARE an Idiot...the Torah is one of the books in the christian >> bible > ======
> There's what I believe and what I don't.
>> Its not that complicated since there are only two religions on earth. > ======
And my final first-place vote goes to this high literature:
> ====== > In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
>> Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, That is what I truly want to be. >> Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> Timor mortis non conturbat me. > ======
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> On Nov 4, 5:10 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 2:47 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > > > much more important election
> > > You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> > > (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and > > > a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> > Well, If you are going to take them serious I would be happy to keep > > up with then in da future.
> The problem is, even you don't seem to take them seriously. But if > you do a little bit of work, put some time and effort into it, you may > surprise us.
> Jason
well. Let's see how it goes. There has never been a second motion on a Chezy Watt or a Crack Watt. Which is why I never took them that serious.
Perhaps no one sees the value in the "Chezy Watt". and a "Crack-Pot Watt".
I do see the value. Maybe you and a few others do.
Now, I really do not want to upset the tradition of the Chez Watt at TO though. That was never my intention Jason. The Chez Watt is what makes TO a unique place to discuss a varity of topics that need to be discussed today. However, if someone makes a second motion on a Chezy Watt or a Crack Watt, then I'll be happy to submit it for yours and the groups consideration.
> On Nov 5, 1:14 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:10 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 2:47 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > > > > much more important election
> > > > You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> > > > (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and > > > > a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> > > Well, If you are going to take them serious I would be happy to keep > > > up with then in da future.
> > The problem is, even you don't seem to take them seriously. But if > > you do a little bit of work, put some time and effort into it, you may > > surprise us.
> > Jason
> well. Let's see how it goes. There has never been a second motion on a > Chezy Watt or a Crack Watt. Which is why I never took them that > serious.
> Perhaps no one sees the value in the "Chezy Watt". and a "Crack-Pot > Watt".
> I do see the value. Maybe you and a few others do.
> Now, I really do not want to upset the tradition of the Chez Watt at > TO though. That was never my intention Jason. The Chez Watt is what > makes TO a unique place to discuss a varity of topics that need to be > discussed today. However, if someone makes a second motion on a Chezy > Watt or a Crack Watt, then I'll be happy to submit it for yours and > the groups consideration.
> How is that?
Well, since you came up with them, you should make the rules- if you there to be any rules, of course. I would point out that Chez Watts, though, do not require a second, although some people chime in with such when they read a good one.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:47:52 -0800, Harvest Dancer wrote: > Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > much more important election
> You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and a > Cheezy Watt balllot)
> Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
> Jason
Third favorite:
> ======
> n the "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" Category:
>>> Which makes me wonder -- when did hominids make the leap from using >>> tools for cracking nuts, cutting meat, etc., to using them as >>> defensive (or offensive) weapons?
>>Give a bunch of toddlers a plastic hammer each and ask me that question >>again.
>>> Then you need to work on your mocking skills. How do you really think >>> Darwin's finches got to the Galapagos? Isn't it an interesting >>> coincidence that every Galapagos bird species has a close relative >>> either in the South American mainland or, for the finches, in the >>> Caribbean?
>> There you go, you see. It's more than a coincidence: it's the smoking >> gun.
>> Darwin never even _went_ to the Galapagos: nobody could even have found >> tiny islands like that with sailing-ship navigation instruments, so he >> and Captain Fitzroy, who, it is well known, was bitterly and publicly >> opposed to the notion of evolution by natural selection, cooked up this >> cock-and-bull story for the ship's log, while simply cruising gently up >> and down the coast of the mainland.
>> Darwin took the opportunity of trips ashore to collect the birds you >> refer to, in addition to the ones he had already secured in the >> Caribbean. These specimens he used to form the basis of his planned >> attack on Christianity, by carefully choosing atypical examples whose >> features fitted his hoax.
>> His motivation was partly hostility to God, and partly a craving for >> limelight in compensation for his never having been able to stick at >> anything for long. This underachiever had taken two tries at education >> in separate universities, at the first of which he frittered away his >> time in hunting; and while at the second he spent long periods in the >> low company of taxidermists and the like.
>> The nervous strain imposed by living this continuous lie had obvious >> effects on his behaviour and health. Darwin is well known to have >> suffered from hysterical psychosomatic digestive disorders, married his >> first cousin, went prematurely bald and tried neurotically to >> compensate by growing an enormous beard, and spent much of the rest of >> his days studying earthworms and hunting wild dogs. Fortunately for the >> peace of his soul, he recanted on his deathbed and was therefore buried >> in St Paul's Cathedral, or Westminster Abbey, as it is better known.
> I want to be the first to nominate this. I wish I had said "the low > company of texidermists", that's an elegant phrase.
> > >>>>>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html > > >>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still > > >>>>> situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are > > >>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at > > >>>>> the > > >>>>> older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws > > >>>>> develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the > > >>>>> morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what > > >>>>> cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which > > >>>>> the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny. " > > >>>>> "Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a > > >>>>> snout above water. " > > >>>>> So what is the reason for this change? > > >>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was > > >>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull. > > >>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils > > >>> farther up on the skull? > > >> Because the air is *above* the water. > > > Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? > > > Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top > > > of the skull. > > It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air. > Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
> On Nov 5, 7:21 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 1:14 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 5:10 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 2:47 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > > > > > much more important election
> > > > > You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> > > > > (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and > > > > > a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> > > > Well, If you are going to take them serious I would be happy to keep > > > > up with then in da future.
> > > The problem is, even you don't seem to take them seriously. But if > > > you do a little bit of work, put some time and effort into it, you may > > > surprise us.
> > > Jason
> > well. Let's see how it goes. There has never been a second motion on a > > Chezy Watt or a Crack Watt. Which is why I never took them that > > serious.
> > Perhaps no one sees the value in the "Chezy Watt". and a "Crack-Pot > > Watt".
> > I do see the value. Maybe you and a few others do.
> > Now, I really do not want to upset the tradition of the Chez Watt at > > TO though. That was never my intention Jason. The Chez Watt is what > > makes TO a unique place to discuss a varity of topics that need to be > > discussed today. However, if someone makes a second motion on a Chezy > > Watt or a Crack Watt, then I'll be happy to submit it for yours and > > the groups consideration.
> > How is that?
> Well, since you came up with them, you should make the rules- if you > there to be any rules, of course. I would point out that Chez Watts, > though, do not require a second, although some people chime in with > such when they read a good one.
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps it should be less formal. If someone sees a "Chez Watt" that is lame and not in the spirit of what the original Chez Watt was meant to be, then they can chime in with a Crack Pot Watt or a Chezzy Watt.
If someone gives a "second" then it can be submitted.
I truly do not want to spoil the tradition of the original "Chez Watt"
I sincerly think the "Chez Watt" is what makes TO unique.
|
