|
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Your ability to comprehend "Best Seller Ever" is as limited as your
sailing ability. I hate to break it to you, but there are older Chinese texts that have "sold" more copies than the Bible and Dune combined. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
ears must be ringing from all the echoing.
Ringing with laughter? Yup! I'm going sailing, Josie! Enjoy the rest of your day. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
|
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
|
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: You "imagined" an unfortunate 12y/o girl in your attempt to prove that God sidn't exist. There is no onus on him to prove that god doesn't exist. In fact, he's already declared that he's agnostic - why would he seek to substantiate a proposition that he hasn't asserted? The claim that stands to be proven is that goes does exist, and the onus is on the believers to prove their claim. Rubbish! Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt? Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers? I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to support my views. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: "not likely"?? What's that in terms of percentage chance? Please cite learned references to support your response. You should reconsider your question! Mutations are *mutations*. Think about it! You said... 1. Nuclear radiation is fatal. 2. Solar radiation is probably fatal because it's some kind of radiation as well. ...and I asked... How much is 'not likely'? You've had a "logic" breakdown. Perhaps you would like to re-phrase your question? 'Not likely' isn't very precise - how similar are solar and nuclear radiation in terms of their effects on organisms like humans? Well, as the sun is powered by a nuclear reaction ...... duh! You're arguing by analogy, and I'm trying to determine how valid that analogy is by asking you to cite a study which compares solar and nuclear radiation. We are talking about genetic mutations. Think about it! By definition, they are random. Why do you think that a "study" would have any bearing on the subject? And you tell me that "mutations are *mutations*". Yes, they are! Regards Donal -- |
Bible stories
On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:57:58 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap: "Donal" wrote What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created! Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. We (Adam and Lillith) may well have been created by the process we call evolution. According to the Bible Eve was cloned. I don't know what bible you are reading. In the King James Version, there's no person named, "Lilith." And it's pretty obvious that Adam and Eve were created by God. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
All e gory...
katysails wrote: Is that like blood everywhere? huh? |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Donal" wrote in message
... .... I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to support my views. You haven't given even the tiniest bit of evidence that God exists. You simply claim that you don't think there has been enough time for evolution to have worked, therefore God must have created the thumb. Given that 99% of all biologists (give or take a few) have embraced Evolution, your claim hardly counts as "evidence." http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/ The only evidence that I have ever seen for the existence of God is the fact that in almost group of humans, from any culture in the world, some number of the people feel the need to believe in a deity. Of course, this is hardly a proof, since you could also say the in almost every group there will be those that never believe, as well as those that waffle. The one thing it tells me is that for some reason, some percentage humans will be "believers" and some will be "non-believers." |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt? What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back it up. If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, is the onus on you to run around trying to disprove it, or would it be valid for you to respond with something like, "Yeah, sure it is, Wally - prove it!"? If I claim that Captain Crunch sails a ship made of cornflakes on an ocean of milk, is the onus on you to painstakingly search the entire universe, draw a blank, and thereby disprove my assertion?? You say god made made the universe? Prove it! Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers? Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth. I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to support my views. You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed. I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how the universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus... From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a very local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate a life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years, from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries? What mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second, and trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year. Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. And here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that we haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there actually is! In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we are damn-near absolutely clueless! To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with regard to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next to bugger all! -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Well said, Wally. That was particularly articulate, given our usually
standards. But don't you think you could have strung him along for a little longer? "Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt? What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back it up. If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, is the onus on you to run around trying to disprove it, or would it be valid for you to respond with something like, "Yeah, sure it is, Wally - prove it!"? If I claim that Captain Crunch sails a ship made of cornflakes on an ocean of milk, is the onus on you to painstakingly search the entire universe, draw a blank, and thereby disprove my assertion?? You say god made made the universe? Prove it! Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers? Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth. I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to support my views. You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed. I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how the universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus... From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a very local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate a life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years, from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries? What mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second, and trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year. Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. And here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that we haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there actually is! In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we are damn-near absolutely clueless! To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with regard to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next to bugger all! -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Jeff Morris wrote:
Well said, Wally. That was particularly articulate, given our usually standards. Thank you. But don't you think you could have strung him along for a little longer? Gotta keep these things fresh! He had gone into parrot mode, so it was time to gaff him and land him - I want to see if he fillets himself or dries in the sun. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Bible stories
It's also pretty obvious that you have tits.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:57:58 -0400, "Vito" wrote this crap: "Donal" wrote What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created! Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. We (Adam and Lillith) may well have been created by the process we call evolution. According to the Bible Eve was cloned. I don't know what bible you are reading. In the King James Version, there's no person named, "Lilith." And it's pretty obvious that Adam and Eve were created by God. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Joe" wrote: (Bobsprit) wrote: Tell me of anything that begin to exist without a cause boobsie. And do not be unreasonable. Just as I figured! You cant can you?. Nope, he can't! Great job, Joe! LP Your the big mouth no-it-all but can not come up with one simple single example. You call what your little mind can not intake magic. Your the one with the very limited mind and a very un-limited mouth. Joe Josie, you simply don't get it. Perhaps, like many folks, your mind refuses what it can't comprehend. You seek "cause" for existence. You seek action and reaction. And you have, along with many other ignorant people, created a magical force behind it all, because you don't have the true answer. That's fine, if somewhat limiting. We each inhabit our own small worlds, but I see that yours is unusually small indeed. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Jeff Morris wrote:
"Donal" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith. Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite different. How? Most religions are based around a particular view of "God". I am suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain the Universe or mankind. Arguing for the existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the possibility that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist. True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be able to provide a stronger argument. In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an absolute act of faith. That isn't true. We hold many opinions that we believe to be certainties. How often do you see two people arguing about facts - when they are both convinced that they are absolutely correct? Are they both acting on an absolute act of faith? Have you ever lost a bet? Were you acting on an absolute act of faith? The funny thing is that your position is very much like a zealot's. You constantly tell me that I am wrong, and yet you offer no evidence to back up your position. For example - you are trying to tell me that I am demonstrating an absolute act of faith. The reality is that unless you offer evidence to support your view, then you are behaving as if you were saddled with absolute faith. I have explained why I think that there must be a God. I've offered a justification for my belief. People with absolute faith find it difficult to offer a logical explaination for their views. If you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is justified. I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God? You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong. You're simply asserting your faith. Perhaps you should look at your own posts???? I've tried to offer evidence! I've even tried to introduce the accepted alternatives into the discussion. You are simply asserting that I am wrong. I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put forward that suggests that God must exist. I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence as a way to bolster your faith? Why do yo keep trying to turn this into a religious discussion? Why don't you offer some evidence to back up your position? Stop acting in the manner that you (falsely) accuse me of. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
I am
suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain the Universe or mankind. So, failing to comprehend eternity, you buy into mythology. Oh. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Navigator wrote:
Donal wrote: "Navigator" wrote in message ... Donal check these out: http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the concept of my third option. Did you like the ideas -do they make sense? They look like incomplete theories that are designed to plug holes in other theories. Some of the argument is *very* weak. Take the following :- "If the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it must have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to push the piston out. " That is just plain nonsense! The piston is being *pushed* into the clyinder. 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". Do you think that there is a fourth option? Yes, dark matter too. Maybe even anti-dark matter but I don't know if that is in any way required by a coherent cosmology. I don't have a problem with the concept of dark matter. It still fits in with my third option. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Wally wrote:
Donal wrote: Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers? Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth. Does that mean that I shouldn't have an opinion - or that I shouldn't express it? You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed. Why then, have you made so many contributions to this thread? I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how the universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus... From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a very local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate a life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years, from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries? What mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second, and trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year. Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. And here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that we haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there actually is! In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we are damn-near absolutely clueless! To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with regard to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next to bugger all! Excellent dissertation, Wally! I'm almost proud that my stupefying pointlessness has prompted such eloquence - and such a large percentage of your activity here over the past week!!! Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that we know sod-all about the Universe, and therefore we shouldn't try to understand it? That strikes me as being a bit defeatist! Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Donal" wrote in message
... Jeff Morris wrote: "Donal" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith. Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite different. How? Most religions are based around a particular view of "God". I am suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain the Universe or mankind. I still don't see the difference. I contend that it is impossible to prove the existence of God, it must simply be an act of faith. That some religions require additional acts of faith is beside the point. Arguing for the existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the possibility that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist. True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be able to provide a stronger argument. In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an absolute act of faith. That isn't true. We hold many opinions that we believe to be certainties. How often do you see two people arguing about facts - when they are both convinced that they are absolutely correct? Are they both acting on an absolute act of faith? Nonsense. While its true that ill-informed people argue over "facts," that is not the same as a scientific proof. Have you ever lost a bet? Were you acting on an absolute act of faith? I don't see your point. You're claiming that presuming a conclusion as an act of faith is proper scientific method. I claim this makes you not credible. The funny thing is that your position is very much like a zealot's. You constantly tell me that I am wrong, and yet you offer no evidence to back up your position. When did I tell you that you were wrong? I've only said that your opinion is not evidence for something. For example - you are trying to tell me that I am demonstrating an absolute act of faith. The reality is that unless you offer evidence to support your view, then you are behaving as if you were saddled with absolute faith. No. You seemed to tell me that you have faith that no one can change your mind. Why should I even begin a serious discussion under those terms? It is not my intent to destroy your faith; I'm only saying that faith and science are two different domains. A cornerstone of science is having no preconceived notions as to where the evidence leads. Faith is exactly the opposite - it is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. I have explained why I think that there must be a God. I've offered a justification for my belief. People with absolute faith find it difficult to offer a logical explaination for their views. You offered your personal justification, but not scientific evidence. Your absolutly correct that people of faith cannot provide a logical explanation. I would not expect one. There is nothing wrong with this. Quite the opposite, I think it is wrong to try. If you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is justified. I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God? You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong. You're simply asserting your faith. Perhaps you should look at your own posts???? I did look. Several times you've said that you didn't think there was enough time for evolution to have created a thumb. I've asked you to provide evidence. You then get all huffy and claim I'm a zealot. The bottom line here is that your opinion, completely unsubstantiated, isn't "evidence." The opinion of thousands of biologists and tens of thousands of other scientists who have embraced evolution, has a bit more credibility than your opinion. By choosing the "thumb" as your focal point you have essentially said that the mechanism of evolution is not sufficient to have created any life at all. While the thumb is a rather interesting organ, it is not particularly complex or unique. You're attempting to invalidate one of the greatest scientific achievements of our age simply by saying, "I've considered this, and I don't think it works." Sorry, Donal. You're just wasting our time here. I've tried to offer evidence! I've even tried to introduce the accepted alternatives into the discussion. You are simply asserting that I am wrong. Evidence? did I miss something? did you reference any scholarly work? I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put forward that suggests that God must exist. I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence as a way to bolster your faith? Why do yo keep trying to turn this into a religious discussion? Why don't you offer some evidence to back up your position? I did. I offered the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. Frankly, I'm not the one discounting an entire field of science; I don't have to "prove" evolution, thousands of others have already done that. Stop acting in the manner that you (falsely) accuse me of. Now that's a real low blow! |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers? Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth. Does that mean that I shouldn't have an opinion - or that I shouldn't express it? What part of "get a clue" precludes the possession or expression of an opinion? Why then, have you made so many contributions to this thread? I enjoy epistemological discourse. Why are you spending so much time slavering in this thread? Excellent dissertation, Wally! I'm surprised you can recognise it as such. I'm almost proud that my stupefying pointlessness has prompted such eloquence - and such a large percentage of your activity here over the past week!!! If you're trying to imply that you've been trolling me with your drivel, you'll have to do better than that - as I said, I enjoy discussing this particular subject matter. Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that we know sod-all about the Universe, and therefore we shouldn't try to understand it? That strikes me as being a bit defeatist! You're still lacking the clue, Donal. At no point have I said that we shouldn't try to understand it - just that statements like "the universe is cyclical", "the universe started with a big bang all by itself", "god created the universe" are without adequate foundation. The notion that any one of these can be classified as even approaching an "inescapable conclusion" is a joke. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers? Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth. Does that mean that I shouldn't have an opinion - or that I shouldn't express it? What part of "get a clue" precludes the possession or expression of an opinion? Am I allowed to express my opinion without incurring your disapproval? Yes .... or.... No? You seem to take a very strong exception to my opinion. Why then, have you made so many contributions to this thread? I enjoy epistemological discourse. Why are you spending so much time slavering in this thread? Excellent dissertation, Wally! I'm surprised you can recognise it as such. Why? I'm aware that we are ignorant! I'm almost proud that my stupefying pointlessness has prompted such eloquence - and such a large percentage of your activity here over the past week!!! If you're trying to imply that you've been trolling me with your drivel, you'll have to do better than that - as I said, I enjoy discussing this particular subject matter. So why do you feel the need to resort to personal insults? Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that we know sod-all about the Universe, and therefore we shouldn't try to understand it? That strikes me as being a bit defeatist! You're still lacking the clue, Donal. Thanks for the personal insult! Ad Hominem attacks are not usually required by people who are capable of reasoned debate. This isn't the first post where you have had to resort to a personal insult to buttress your point of view. At no point have I said that we shouldn't try to understand it - just that statements like "the universe is cyclical", "the universe started with a big bang all by itself", "god created the universe" are without adequate foundation. The notion that any one of these can be classified as even approaching an "inescapable conclusion" is a joke. Why are you still trying to engage me in a logical discussion? I was under the impression that you and Jeff were sooooo pleased with your intellectual superiority that you had consigned me to the "lunatic" bin!!! Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: Well said, Wally. That was particularly articulate, given our usually standards. Thank you. But don't you think you could have strung him along for a little longer? Gotta keep these things fresh! He had gone into parrot mode, so it was time to gaff him and land him - I want to see if he fillets himself or dries in the sun. Your celebration is premature! Your self-confidence is truly admirable! Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Lady Pilot" wrote in message | Nope, he can't! Great job, Joe! Oh Good Grief.... I can't be bothered reading the entire debate...... so I'll just side with the Lady Pilot on this one! ;-D Damn this bunk is darned chilly........ not meaning to change the subject, but I understand one can at times.... get something soft, silken and feminine to help warm the berth. Man would that be choice! Oh well.... CM |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:22:57 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote this crap: Damn this bunk is darned chilly........ not meaning to change the subject, but I understand one can at times.... get something soft, silken and feminine to help warm the berth. Man would that be choice! I don't think wearing the underwear you bought at Victoria's Secret will keep you warm. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
I came here thinking this was about s-a-i-l-i-n-g....
....and I find this... AND Jax, too. :-) Sorry...My mistake...bye..... Navigator wrote in message ... Bobsprit wrote: Whale vomit floats, used for years in the production of perfume. Whale **** sinks. Whale **** floats and Ambergis is not vomit. Do you mean ambergris? Cheers |
NightSail
Great pics! You are so lucky! I am so envious.
Scotty What a great night!!!! After the sun dropped we had 12-14 knots in steady air in a somewhat hazy night. The moon was visible, Julie London was on the stereo and the caviar was excellent! We sail again today, then an overnighter tomorrow. http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/images/nightsail.jpg RB |
FS: MacGregor 26 M (blue hull)
So Sue Me!
Scotty "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Would you take $34,500? (Incidentally, there are criminal penalties for stealing someone else's identity without permission. Also, it's asinine and childish.) Jim JimCate wrote: For Sale: 2004 MacGregor 26M. Bought 2 weeks ago. Used only once. New redesiegned blue double hull. 75HP Merc Big Foot outboard, will move this baby at 28 MPH. All the bells and whistles. I paid $38,999. Will sacrifice at $21,500, OBO. Jim |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Horass knows all about this. You should listen to him.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:22:57 -0300, "Capt. Mooron" wrote this crap: Damn this bunk is darned chilly........ not meaning to change the subject, but I understand one can at times.... get something soft, silken and feminine to help warm the berth. Man would that be choice! I don't think wearing the underwear you bought at Victoria's Secret will keep you warm. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Don't let the hatch hit you on the way out.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Fred Allen" wrote in message om... I came here thinking this was about s-a-i-l-i-n-g.... ...and I find this... AND Jax, too. :-) Sorry...My mistake...bye..... Navigator wrote in message ... Bobsprit wrote: Whale vomit floats, used for years in the production of perfume. Whale **** sinks. Whale **** floats and Ambergis is not vomit. Do you mean ambergris? Cheers |
NightSail
I had a wonderful nightsail last summer until..
I felt the boat slowing down.. and then coming to a full stop on the Aylmer Island Shoal.. in the Ottawa River. To that moment everything was just perfect.. a warm summer breeze.. tilting the hull about 15 degrees.. light waves slapping the hull.. the green light on the island lighthouse on the port bow.. just enough for me to pass safely.. according to my reckoning.. BUT.. the darkness played havoc with my night vision.. and there I was .. stuck fast in the mud and rock of the shoal. -- Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea! Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_ Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___ q |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... | 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. | | That's not a law, dopey. Since the universe has no known limits and white & | black holes are feed points, there's every reason to suspect that energy is NOT | constant. I don't think Joe claimed energy was constant... it's not.... only the total amount that can be held as a constant... if we ever figure out what that is. Energy is variable only in it's expenditure. The balance remains constant in it's availability..... much like my bank account! ;-) CM |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Bob... you failed to address the question.... as usual!
What for instance would cause you to claim existence of a vessel you proclaimed to be purchasing.... knowing full well you were being deceptive in your statement? Existence = fallacy Cause = antagonism / attention Now..... what would cause you to claim ability to navigate and yet state to be uncertain of your whereabouts on a well lit channel on a clear night with a plethora of navigational instruments at your disposal? Existence = Bait Cause = Troll Result..... taken to task :-) ....as usual! CM "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... | Tell me of anything that begin to exist without a cause boobsie. | | And do not be unreasonable. | | | Josie, you simply don't get it. Perhaps, like many folks, your mind refuses | what it can't comprehend. | You seek "cause" for existence. You seek action and reaction. And you have, | along with many other ignorant people, created a magical force behind it all, | because you don't have the true answer. | That's fine, if somewhat limiting. We each inhabit our own small worlds, but I | see that yours is unusually small indeed. | | RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Oh Bob...... you know better than that.... you'd know it at the scent of
the sea, you understand it at the sensation of sail...... you know very well there is a greater force.... it's attempting to guide you despite your bone headed reluctance to accept the obvious. 'IT' can be a Toad or a Light or a God or a Butterfly........ it's all of the latter and reflected in the miracle of the birth of your offspring...... relax dude! With luck and good fortune..... you'll soon you'll see it all reflected in the eyes of your own creation. Spirituality Man!..... exceed the sum of your parts. CM "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... | And do not be unreasonable. | | | | Just as I figured! | | You cant can you?. | | | Just about ANYTHING is more reasonable than a supreme superbeing. I just posted | a pic of the Marine Toad to prove it. | Face it, Josie. You need a god, plain and simple. Perhaps your god can help you | spell? | Hmmmmm, maybe not. | | RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Yes Jon...... but my desire for the touch of silk has nothing to do with
suggestions from overweight, unemployed, dock urchins with over active estrogen contents submitting barely legible content to a newsgroup that shuns them for their lack of creative or intelligent discourse..... neither do I sail in polluted grey water slums..... I blame it all on a young lady who wrapped my quivering muscular frame in her silk jacket on a chilly day.... after I rescued her sister from a certain drowning situation at Cameron River Falls. I was spearfishing the rapids when the young lady fell in....... the rest is history. Six plaques adorn the rocks at that site...... all a testament to those taken by the water. I revel in those conditions..... I swam there and dove to hunt my supper. Class 4 rapids and 2 treacherous waterfalls..... I'm a machine!!! I know every wake, eddy, backwash and tumbler...... I've been swept over both the falls twice and emerged cut and bleeding.... reveling in the sheer lust of adrenaline and the gift of life! I know Silk Jon...... I Earned Silk! Silk feels wonderful! CM "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... | Horass knows all about this. You should listen to him. | | -- | "j" ganz @@ | www.sailnow.com | | "Horvath" wrote in message | ... | On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:22:57 -0300, "Capt. Mooron" | wrote this crap: | | Damn this bunk is darned chilly........ not meaning to change the | subject, but I understand one can at times.... get something soft, | silken | and feminine to help warm the berth. Man would that be choice! | | I don't think wearing the underwear you bought at Victoria's Secret | will keep you warm. | | | | | | | Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! | | |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
wrote in message ... | On 27 May 2004 06:49:15 -0700, (Joe) wrote: | | (Bobsprit) wrote in message ... | It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a | cause. | | No, not unreasonable...just very difficult. | | RB | | Tell me of anything that begin to exist without a cause boobsie. | | And do not be unreasonable. | | Joe | | The war in Iraq WRONG...... the cause is evident! CM |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... | The universe therefore requires a cause. | | Correct? | | Then so does your "god." Saying he exists outside of time is just something you | made up. Pretty silly, Josie! Time is an illusion Bob...... decay is a fact! CM |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Joe" wrote in message | | We know time travel is possiable if we can go faster than light. No Joe... we definitely don't "Know" that....... | | Physics 101 boobsie, did you skip class? Bob probably didn't finish high school.... neither did I! Don't base your assumptions of intellect on the schooling offered in your country.... it's been proven to be very unreliable. I'm more than willing to discuss any topic with you Joe.... I have a grade 9 education. Do you think I'm stupid? I just passed an interview described by my peers who failed it as a grueling 45 minute interrogation.... I was accepted and awarded the position in 15 minutes. They have diplomas inn Engineering..... I have only field experience and am self taught. I believe intelligence is measured by ones willingness to assimilate data and process that information in a logical manner..... not by degrees issued by institutions. BTW - I had to go to summer school to pass grade 9.... ;-) Barely made the grade... it bored the heck out of me. CM |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... | Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole | universe, he is the creator of time. | | I read that he created the heaven and earth, but not time. Then again, I | remember Dune much better than the Bible. Better book. Bob.... admit it.... you've never read the bible. I have.... it's drudge and the plot line varies throughout. CM |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Bob.... please refrain from making statements that appear for all intents
and purposes as dubious as the statements you wish to condemn. It's a "discussion"...... teat it as such! Joe is at least backing his statements with some data.... you on the other hand are acting like a bible thumping preacher calling down fire and brimstone to defend a position you can't be bothered to research...... that's truly pathetic Bob! Buck Up! CM "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... | Boobsie we have flown atomic clocks on supersonic aircraft and they | run slower. Its a fact. Not some obscure article printed in an old | copy of Omni magazine, BTW one of my favorate mags. | | This does not prove that time travel is possible for cripes sake. The idea of | propelling a human back or forward through time is nothing but an idea and | lightspeed does in allow "travel" through time, but only slows it. NASA makes | no such statement about time travel of course! | Josie's head is in a vise of bad facts. I think you must have been reading | Starlog magazine! Or was it Famous Monsters of Filmland? | | RB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com