| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Richard Catto" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2006 03:49:21 AM |
| Object: |
NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
When I moved here from Canukistan I marvelled.
You're Canadian. ha ha.
You're incorrectly assuming that ALL people who have lived in
Canukistan are Canukistani's. Keep probing....maybe someday you'll
figger it out.
You're South African.
That would explain so many things.
I can't remember how
many times I said to myself....<Astonished>These people put somebody
on the moon???????????</Astonished>
nobody has landed on the Moon.
I know....and the holocaust never happened either.
it didn't, but that is besides the point and a whole nother issue.
people have tried to convince me that the technology of the late 60s
was actually up to the task of getting people onto the Moon and back.
not a hope in hell.
today, NASA has a plan to get people onto the Moon in 2020. 14 years
time. and only on a cursory visit. 2024 is targeted as the date to
establish a permanent Moon base. NASA is also appealing for help from
other nations to achieve this feat.
In 1962 JFK made a famous speech which contained this quote:
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this
decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because
they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the
best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we
are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which
we intend to win, and the others, too."
http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/ricetalk.htm
and apparently this objective was achieved in 1969, a mere 7 year gap.
So ask yourself, how was it possible that NASA was able to land men on
the Moon within 7 years back in the 60s, without any outside help using
very primitive (computer and other) technology, but today, with so much
more experience of space, vastly superior technology and even with
outside help, feels they need 14 years to achieve it?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if the United States did
indeed land men on the Moon in 1969, then you have exactly 12 months to
get yourselves back on that orbiting rock, or please admit that it
never happened ever - that it was, in fact, the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on mankind.
You have 12 months, not 14 years.
Btw, you don't need to design new spacecraft from scratch. Just
reproduce the Apollo mission spacecraft and build another Saturn V
rocket. If you can build them anew with some improvements, by all means
do it, but if not, just rebuild them exactly as they were built in
1969.
You, I assume, won't have any problems with that, because, of course,
those were the vehicles that carried your people to the Moon and back
in the period 1969 - 1972, so we shouldn't anticipate any problems, now
should we?
But, look, we all know that that is not going to happen even if Hell
were to freeze over.
So, the Moon landings never took place. They are a myth.
One day when people do finally make it onto the Moon, they will look
for the wreckage of those Apollo Moon missions and not find them. NASA
will no doubt have an explanation for that. Probably buried under space
dust or perhaps you didn't look in the right place?
The Moon, btw, in preparation for the future 2020 landings has to be
remapped in detail to secure safe and suitable landing sites. That
mapping was not done in sufficient detail for the Apollo missions.
The mapping satellites in orbit around the Moon have not picked up a
shred of the Apollo mission vehicles apparently left behind on the
Moon.
today, NASA, struggles to put astronauts into space. Russia does so
routinely.
It's not a question of money - NASA has more available funds than the
Russian Federation Space program, which is so hard up for cash, it has
to sell tickets into space for $20 million a pop to rich assholes.
The bottom line is that Russian space technology is superior to
American space technology. The ISS (International Space Station) is
modelled on Russian technology (The Mir space station which Russia
de-orbitted in 2001 due to lack of funds). America's space station,
Skylab, crashed into Australia in the late 70s.
The Russian Soyuz capsule is vastly, and I mean vastly vastly vastly,
superior to the Space Shuttle. It works. And it works at a fraction of
the cost. And it's re-useable too, but they only reuse it 5 times
before discarding.
The Chinese Space Program uses the Soyuz as the model for their
Shenzhou capsule:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/534960.stm
Lastly, one must consider why the Soviet Union did not continue its
program to land cosmonauts on the Moon after the Americans had done so.
Where is the shame in coming second?
The Russians realised that they could not do it, at all. And they had
been ahead of you in the space race, all along. They had a spacecraft
go round the Moon before America did.
Lastly we must consider the integrity, or rather, the lack thereof of
Americans. Americans are deceptive, tricky, conniving little liars who
will do anything it takes to win (or appear to win).
Americans cannot be trusted. They lie routinely.
.
|
|
| User: "Keith E." |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 12:39:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:23:26 GMT, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
Ain't equality a *****?
--
Keith E.
Excrementum casus
.
|
|
|
| User: "peachy ashie passion" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 03:25:58 PM |
|
|
Keith E. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:23:26 GMT, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
Ain't equality a *****?
Dunno about equality, but I am.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 05:05:22 PM |
|
|
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:25:58 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com>muttered:
Keith E. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:23:26 GMT, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
Ain't equality a *****?
Dunno about equality, but I am.
I beliive that's an acquired trait, not inherited.
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 02:36:10 AM |
|
|
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:23:26 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
peachy....have you considered that maybe I'm just contemptuous?
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
| User: "peachy ashie passion" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 03:28:49 PM |
|
|
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:23:26 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
peachy....have you considered that maybe I'm just contemptuous?
I confess, that's not one of the word options I was considering.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 05:04:01 PM |
|
|
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:28:49 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:23:26 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
peachy....have you considered that maybe I'm just contemptuous?
I confess, that's not one of the word options I was considering.
Feel free to enlighten me with your other choices. I got pretty thick
skin.
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
| User: "peachy ashie passion" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
19 Dec 2006 08:48:16 AM |
|
|
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:28:49 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:23:26 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
peachy....have you considered that maybe I'm just contemptuous?
I confess, that's not one of the word options I was considering.
Feel free to enlighten me with your other choices. I got pretty thick
skin.
Your skin wasn't on my mind either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Catto" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 06:01:31 AM |
|
|
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
peachy....have you considered that maybe I'm just contemptuous?
thanks. you can give your bitter little interview to the camera afterwards.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Catto" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 05:29:22 AM |
|
|
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
rump, the tribe has spoken. bring me your fucking torch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 09:39:17 PM |
|
|
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:22 +0200, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, Richard Catto <rrcatto@gmail.com>muttered:
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
rump, the tribe has spoken. bring me your fuckingtorch.
No! Last time you fellated me you left a ring.
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ur_droll" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
19 Dec 2006 01:10:09 AM |
|
|
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:22 +0200, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, Richard Catto <rrcatto@gmail.com>muttered:
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
rump, the tribe has spoken. bring me your fuckingtorch.
No! Last time you fellated me you left a ring.
Sorry Rumple, that was my fault, though I did tell him to wipe his face
after giving me a rim job.... ***** never listens
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
19 Dec 2006 04:51:03 AM |
|
|
[Default] On 18 Dec 2006 23:10:09 -0800, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, "ur_droll" <Chex@xtra.co.nz>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:22 +0200, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, Richard Catto <rrcatto@gmail.com>muttered:
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
Nah! Not really Ms. DuhStefano. I just treat them as equals. Funny,
all through time that's what the bitches wanted, and now they finally
got it, they don't fuckin' like it. Go figger.
Maybe that's because you treat everyone like *****?
rump, the tribe has spoken. bring me your fuckingtorch.
No! Last time you fellated me you left a ring.
Sorry Rumple, that was my fault, though I did tell him to wipe his face
after giving me a rim job.... ***** never listens
Typical of South African's who've been pulled from the litter before
they've learned to clean themselves.
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
17 Dec 2006 06:45:54 PM |
|
|
[Default] On 18 Dec 2006 00:43:13 GMT, in the throes of an autoerotic
fantasy, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net>muttered:
Rumplestiltskin <noway@forgetit.com> wrote in
news:0smbo29rsc8ggso7n6fi8ef4nn36nufmja@4ax.com:
[Default] On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:25:38 -0500, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com>muttered:
On 17 Dec 2006 13:28:04 -0800, "Father Haskell"
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
Keith E. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:35:14 GMT, "Deborah DeStefano"
<d.stefano@ca.rr.com> wrote:
"Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166311234.900116.156180@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
[...]
I will eat a cat if it's barbecued.
You WILL NOT, I repeat WILL NOT, under any conditions, eat a cat,
unless when you found it it was already dead. TYVM and Happy
Chanukah day 2 Whew
There are feral cats all around here, and the fuckin' things are
wreaking havoc with the wild turkey population.
Kill 'em all!
There ya go, make them more appealing by mixing ground cat
with turkey, about a 3:1 cat:turkey ratio.
Nothing wrong with barbecued cat. It tastes like chicken.
At least it doesn't smell like fish.
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
Your sig and your comment seem somehow contradictory.
How so? I won't eat cat. I doubt it smells like fish, and I like to
*****. Where's the contradiction?
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Krzewinski" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 01:15:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:21:50 -0500, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote:
There are feral cats all around here, and the fuckin' things are
wreaking havoc with the wild turkey population.
Kill 'em all!
About 15 years ago one of our neighbors moved and left their cat
behind. It was a female, she turned feral and then she became
pregnant. My wife spotted her and took pity on her and fed her. When
I asked my wife why in the word she would feed that cat my wife
explained that the cat was going to be a mother judging by the size of
her big belly and so my wife had taken pity on the cat and fed it. My
exact words to my wife were "We'll never get rid of it now".
After I ended up renting a humane cat trap twice from the county and
then buying one of my own we ended up trapping 29 cats in our backyard
over a three year period. The local songbird population had been
decimated by the feral mother and all her kittens during that time and
the feral cats actually beat up one of our dogs. My sons were still
young at the time and my wife was afraid to allow them to play in the
backyard. The feral mother actually escaped from the county's animal
control officers twice during that three years and it was only the
third time we'd trapped it that it was finally taken away. We trapped
the last of her kittens and that was the end of it.
Every time that cat got pregnant she showed up in our backyard looking
for a handout. My wife no longer feeds stray animals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Catto" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
18 Dec 2006 05:40:58 AM |
|
|
Larry Krzewinski wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:21:50 -0500, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote:
There are feral cats all around here, and the fuckin' things are
wreaking havoc with the wild turkey population.
Kill 'em all!
About 15 years ago one of our neighbors moved and left their cat
behind. It was a female, she turned feral and then she became
pregnant. My wife spotted her and took pity on her and fed her. When
I asked my wife why in the word she would feed that cat my wife
explained that the cat was going to be a mother judging by the size of
her big belly and so my wife had taken pity on the cat and fed it. My
exact words to my wife were "We'll never get rid of it now".
After I ended up renting a humane cat trap twice from the county and
then buying one of my own we ended up trapping 29 cats in our backyard
over a three year period. The local songbird population had been
decimated by the feral mother and all her kittens during that time and
the feral cats actually beat up one of our dogs. My sons were still
young at the time and my wife was afraid to allow them to play in the
backyard. The feral mother actually escaped from the county's animal
control officers twice during that three years and it was only the
third time we'd trapped it that it was finally taken away. We trapped
the last of her kittens and that was the end of it.
Every time that cat got pregnant she showed up in our backyard looking
for a handout. My wife no longer feeds stray animals.
see my post "Cats! the enemy of mankind!" - Oct 22 2006
copied here:
Yes, it's true, cats are our enemy!
It's 17h07 SAST here in sunny Cape Town, South Africa and through my
window overlooking the communal lawn of the townhouse complex I stay in,
I observed a domestic cat stalking around.
It reminded me afresh that this is indeed a predator, an opportunist, a
creature that does whatever it wants with no loyalty to anything else.
A cat is just a miniature version of a jaguar, a tiger, a leopard, a
puma, a cheetah, a lion and all the other big cats, which are all
predators which indiscriminately kill men and women and feast upon us,
given the opportunity.
Think for a second what would happen if by some magick, your domestic
cat increased in size (and strength) by a mere 5 times. your tame *****
would no longer be the adorable sweet thing that it is. it would be a
tigress on the prowl for meat - your meat.
And what is more direct evidence of the true heinous nature of domestic
cats are the news reports that tell us what happens when a cat owner
dies, without being discovered - their pets devour parts of their body.
People awake! It is Cats that are the Enemy of Mankind!
Do your part today! Strike back before they have a chance to eat us!
In our next edition: recipes for domestic cats
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
16 Dec 2006 05:43:04 PM |
|
|
[Default] On 16 Dec 2006 15:20:34 -0800, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, "Father Haskell"
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com>muttered:
Douglas D. Anderson wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
Ever eaten at McDonalds? You've eaten worse.
Seriously. Monkeys and dogs would be fine dining by
comparison.
My MD was almost ready to put me on medication to lower
cholesterol, (one of the popular stantin drugs no doubt)
when on a hunch I cut out all shrimp and shellfish, and
all eggs except those in other foods, such as mayonnaise,
potato salad, etc.. In 11 months my LDL went from 171 to
120, total cholesterol from 248 to 191. I wouldn't eat at
McDonald's unless I was starving and it was the last place
on earth. That propaganda about eggs not being bad for you
and your liver converting fat into cholesterol is a crock
of *****, because during the same time interval I continued
eating barbecued ribs, cheese, barbecued chicken and rib
steaks, etc., all with a nice tasty and substantial content
of saturated fat...it was the shrimp and eggs that did it,
and the high cholesterol shellfish. And the propaganda about
barbecue and colon polyps is a crock of ***** too, I eat
a lot of barbecue and had no polyps as of a few months ago,
(I'll post the video if I can get it from the doctor),
but I do use charcoal and never propane, it's got to be
the propane gas if there's a connection.
I will eat a cat if it's barbecued. Take barbecue from me,
and I'll plunge a red hot knife into my gut.
Depending where you are, I suppose. Locally they take a perfectly good
cut of meat, cook it 'til it's grey, mash it into porridge, then mix
it 50/50 with barbecue sauce. They call that barbecue. It's much like
eating pureed Spam. However, they also think John Boy and Billy are
funny, so that should say it all.
And speaking of cat. On one of my projects in the frozen north I was
invited to dinner by the waitress at the local bar. She and her
husband trapped besides their regular jobs. Aside from the big game
that were shot, bear, caribou, elk and moose, fish that were caught,
bass, pike and walleye, we had otter, muskrat, weasel, and....lynx. I
sampled everything on the menu except lynx. I'll eat *****, but just
couldn't bring myself to eat cat.
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deborah DeStefano" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
16 Dec 2006 06:37:39 PM |
|
|
"Rumplestiltskin" <noway@forgetit.com> wrote in message
news:u109o251pklb1k85pmnfmq53jrfafrnrrt@4ax.com...
[Default] On 16 Dec 2006 15:20:34 -0800, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, "Father Haskell"
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com>muttered:
Douglas D. Anderson wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
Ever eaten at McDonalds? You've eaten worse.
Seriously. Monkeys and dogs would be fine dining by
comparison.
My MD was almost ready to put me on medication to lower
cholesterol, (one of the popular stantin drugs no doubt)
when on a hunch I cut out all shrimp and shellfish, and
all eggs except those in other foods, such as mayonnaise,
potato salad, etc.. In 11 months my LDL went from 171 to
120, total cholesterol from 248 to 191. I wouldn't eat at
McDonald's unless I was starving and it was the last place
on earth. That propaganda about eggs not being bad for you
and your liver converting fat into cholesterol is a crock
of *****, because during the same time interval I continued
eating barbecued ribs, cheese, barbecued chicken and rib
steaks, etc., all with a nice tasty and substantial content
of saturated fat...it was the shrimp and eggs that did it,
and the high cholesterol shellfish. And the propaganda about
barbecue and colon polyps is a crock of ***** too, I eat
a lot of barbecue and had no polyps as of a few months ago,
(I'll post the video if I can get it from the doctor),
but I do use charcoal and never propane, it's got to be
the propane gas if there's a connection.
I will eat a cat if it's barbecued. Take barbecue from me,
and I'll plunge a red hot knife into my gut.
Depending where you are, I suppose. Locally they take a perfectly good
cut of meat, cook it 'til it's grey, mash it into porridge, then mix
it 50/50 with barbecue sauce. They call that barbecue. It's much like
eating pureed Spam. However, they also think John Boy and Billy are
funny, so that should say it all.
And speaking of cat. On one of my projects in the frozen north I was
invited to dinner by the waitress at the local bar. She and her
husband trapped besides their regular jobs. Aside from the big game
that were shot, bear, caribou, elk and moose, fish that were caught,
bass, pike and walleye, we had otter, muskrat, weasel, and....lynx. I
sampled everything on the menu except lynx. I'll eat *****, but just
couldn't bring myself to eat cat.
It's good to know you have one redeeming characteristic after all >^oo^<
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rumplestiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
16 Dec 2006 07:01:21 PM |
|
|
[Default] On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:37:39 GMT, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, "Deborah DeStefano" <d.stefano@ca.rr.com>muttered:
"Rumplestiltskin" <noway@forgetit.com> wrote in message
news:u109o251pklb1k85pmnfmq53jrfafrnrrt@4ax.com...
[Default] On 16 Dec 2006 15:20:34 -0800, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, "Father Haskell"
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com>muttered:
Douglas D. Anderson wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
Ever eaten at McDonalds? You've eaten worse.
Seriously. Monkeys and dogs would be fine dining by
comparison.
My MD was almost ready to put me on medication to lower
cholesterol, (one of the popular stantin drugs no doubt)
when on a hunch I cut out all shrimp and shellfish, and
all eggs except those in other foods, such as mayonnaise,
potato salad, etc.. In 11 months my LDL went from 171 to
120, total cholesterol from 248 to 191. I wouldn't eat at
McDonald's unless I was starving and it was the last place
on earth. That propaganda about eggs not being bad for you
and your liver converting fat into cholesterol is a crock
of *****, because during the same time interval I continued
eating barbecued ribs, cheese, barbecued chicken and rib
steaks, etc., all with a nice tasty and substantial content
of saturated fat...it was the shrimp and eggs that did it,
and the high cholesterol shellfish. And the propaganda about
barbecue and colon polyps is a crock of ***** too, I eat
a lot of barbecue and had no polyps as of a few months ago,
(I'll post the video if I can get it from the doctor),
but I do use charcoal and never propane, it's got to be
the propane gas if there's a connection.
I will eat a cat if it's barbecued. Take barbecue from me,
and I'll plunge a red hot knife into my gut.
Depending where you are, I suppose. Locally they take a perfectly good
cut of meat, cook it 'til it's grey, mash it into porridge, then mix
it 50/50 with barbecue sauce. They call that barbecue. It's much like
eating pureed Spam. However, they also think John Boy and Billy are
funny, so that should say it all.
And speaking of cat. On one of my projects in the frozen north I was
invited to dinner by the waitress at the local bar. She and her
husband trapped besides their regular jobs. Aside from the big game
that were shot, bear, caribou, elk and moose, fish that were caught,
bass, pike and walleye, we had otter, muskrat, weasel, and....lynx. I
sampled everything on the menu except lynx. I'll eat *****, but just
couldn't bring myself to eat cat.
It's good to know you have one redeeming characteristic after all >^oo^<
And which is that? I eat *****?
--
Rumplestiltskin is my name, and humpin' wimmen is my game.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
17 Dec 2006 12:19:17 AM |
|
|
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
[Default] On 16 Dec 2006 15:20:34 -0800, in the throes of an
autoerotic fantasy, "Father Haskell"
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com>muttered:
Douglas D. Anderson wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
Ever eaten at McDonalds? You've eaten worse.
Seriously. Monkeys and dogs would be fine dining by
comparison.
My MD was almost ready to put me on medication to lower
cholesterol, (one of the popular stantin drugs no doubt)
when on a hunch I cut out all shrimp and shellfish, and
all eggs except those in other foods, such as mayonnaise,
potato salad, etc.. In 11 months my LDL went from 171 to
120, total cholesterol from 248 to 191. I wouldn't eat at
McDonald's unless I was starving and it was the last place
on earth. That propaganda about eggs not being bad for you
and your liver converting fat into cholesterol is a crock
of *****, because during the same time interval I continued
eating barbecued ribs, cheese, barbecued chicken and rib
steaks, etc., all with a nice tasty and substantial content
of saturated fat...it was the shrimp and eggs that did it,
and the high cholesterol shellfish. And the propaganda about
barbecue and colon polyps is a crock of ***** too, I eat
a lot of barbecue and had no polyps as of a few months ago,
(I'll post the video if I can get it from the doctor),
but I do use charcoal and never propane, it's got to be
the propane gas if there's a connection.
I will eat a cat if it's barbecued. Take barbecue from me,
and I'll plunge a red hot knife into my gut.
Depending where you are, I suppose. Locally they take a perfectly good
cut of meat, cook it 'til it's grey, mash it into porridge, then mix
it 50/50 with barbecue sauce. They call that barbecue.
For folks without teeth, maybe. Real barbecue is chunks of
meat, primal, something that awakens your Cro-magnon DNA.
It's much like
eating pureed Spam. However, they also think John Boy and Billy are
funny, so that should say it all.
Do us all a favor. If cyanide survives grilling temperatures, please
pour in a vial.
And speaking of cat. On one of my projects in the frozen north I was
invited to dinner by the waitress at the local bar. She and her
husband trapped besides their regular jobs. Aside from the big game
that were shot, bear, caribou, elk and moose, fish that were caught,
bass, pike and walleye, we had otter, muskrat, weasel, and....lynx. I
sampled everything on the menu except lynx. I'll eat *****, but just
couldn't bring myself to eat cat.
Black pepper is your primary spice. Use it liberally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Catto" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
17 Dec 2006 11:05:40 AM |
|
|
Father Haskell wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
It's much like
eating pureed Spam. However, they also think John Boy and Billy are
funny, so that should say it all.
Do us all a favor. If cyanide survives grilling temperatures, please
pour in a vial.
see, rump?
it's not just me. others don't like you either.
try not to be such an arsehole.
nobody likes an arsehole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deborah DeStefano" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
17 Dec 2006 10:08:50 PM |
|
|
"Richard Catto" <rrcatto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:em3td3$p76$2@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Father Haskell wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
It's much like
eating pureed Spam. However, they also think John Boy and Billy are
funny, so that should say it all.
Do us all a favor. If cyanide survives grilling temperatures, please
pour in a vial.
see, rump?
it's not just me. others don't like you either.
try not to be such an arsehole.
nobody likes an arsehole.
Butt he's fixated on arseholes!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
23 Dec 2006 08:38:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:08:50 GMT, "Deborah DeStefano"
<d.stefano@ca.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Richard Catto" <rrcatto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:em3td3$p76$2@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Father Haskell wrote:
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
It's much like
eating pureed Spam. However, they also think John Boy and Billy are
funny, so that should say it all.
Do us all a favor. If cyanide survives grilling temperatures, please
pour in a vial.
see, rump?
it's not just me. others don't like you either.
try not to be such an arsehole.
nobody likes an arsehole.
Butt he's fixated on arseholes!
Sphincter Sphinctoria!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
23 Dec 2006 08:36:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:06:12 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
<dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Father Haskell wrote:
Ever eaten at McDonalds? You've eaten worse.
Seriously. Monkeys and dogs would be fine dining by
comparison.
My MD was almost ready to put me on medication to lower
cholesterol, (one of the popular stantin drugs no doubt)
when on a hunch I cut out all shrimp and shellfish, and
all eggs except those in other foods, such as mayonnaise,
potato salad, etc.. In 11 months my LDL went from 171 to
120, total cholesterol from 248 to 191. I wouldn't eat at
McDonald's unless I was starving and it was the last place
on earth. That propaganda about eggs not being bad for you
and your liver converting fat into cholesterol is a crock
of *****, because during the same time interval I continued
eating barbecued ribs, cheese, barbecued chicken and rib
steaks, etc., all with a nice tasty and substantial content
of saturated fat...it was the shrimp and eggs that did it,
and the high cholesterol shellfish. And the propaganda about
barbecue and colon polyps is a crock of ***** too, I eat
a lot of barbecue and had no polyps as of a few months ago,
(I'll post the video if I can get it from the doctor),
but I do use charcoal and never propane, it's got to be
the propane gas if there's a connection.
/cue 'Propane'
She don't mind she don't mind she don't mind....propane....
{apologies to Mr. Clapton}
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
23 Dec 2006 09:22:04 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
but I do use charcoal and never propane, it's got to be
the propane gas if there's a connection.
/cue 'Propane'
She don't mind she don't mind she don't mind....propane....
{apologies to Mr. Clapton}
Are you trying to start a *flame* war?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
24 Dec 2006 10:35:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:22:04 -0500, "Greg Evans"
<gregevansREMOVE@charterBLATHER.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
but I do use charcoal and never propane, it's got to be
the propane gas if there's a connection.
/cue 'Propane'
She don't mind she don't mind she don't mind....propane....
{apologies to Mr. Clapton}
Are you trying to start a *flame* war?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo Bic® vs. Ronson®
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
16 Dec 2006 10:51:30 AM |
|
|
Father Haskell wrote:
Douglas D. Anderson wrote:
If those "suffering people" would desist from such practices
as butt fucking each other,
No, butt fucking should be _encouraged_, since it keeps
the population down and saves us lots of money for
alcohol and drugs.
trying to live on alcohol and drugs,
Those should be given away free, from great, vast government
warehouses. The Czechs can make excellent quality lager
for 5 cents U.S. per gallon. I'm sure we could, as easily.
and eating monkeys and dogs, their medical care might be more
affordable... to them.
Ever eaten at McDonalds? You've eaten worse.
Seriously. Monkeys and dogs would be fine dining by
comparison.
The fact is that healthy people don't
need medical care, and the bulwark of health is healthy living,
which doesn't include eating live monkey brains and coming
down with Ebola as a consequence, which generally results not
merely in the death of the fools who insist on that but also
the health care professionals who try to help them.
180 degrees F or until the juices run clear.
Or the
Ethiopians and other primitives who were shown again and again
modern and productive farming techniques by Peace Corps volunteers,
missionaries, and many others, and yet they insist on using
primitive techniques their ancestors used. You can't help those
who are fucking up their own lives. God helps those who help
themselves.
You're saying they should be eating Peace Corps volunteers and
missionaries?
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
15 Dec 2006 02:50:12 PM |
|
|
Father Haskell wrote:
NASA should send up dwarves instead of 5'10" regular folks, anyway.
You can cut the human payload weight and use the weight savings for
more cargo. Life support requirements, such as food, oxygen, and
waste removal are lessened. Spacecraft themselves could be reduced
in size. If nothing else, you could send up bigger crews with the
same craft.
But then all those Little People would no longer be available for a
"Wizard of Oz" remake!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deborah DeStefano" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
15 Dec 2006 03:46:47 PM |
|
|
"Greg Evans" <misterx@larkbooks.com> wrote in message
news:4ugg44F17llv9U1@mid.individual.net...
Father Haskell wrote:
NASA should send up dwarves instead of 5'10" regular folks, anyway.
You can cut the human payload weight and use the weight savings for
more cargo. Life support requirements, such as food, oxygen, and
waste removal are lessened. Spacecraft themselves could be reduced
in size. If nothing else, you could send up bigger crews with the
same craft.
But then all those Little People would no longer be available for a
"Wizard of Oz" remake!
Who would get all the lollipops?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
15 Dec 2006 06:51:58 PM |
|
|
Deborah DeStefano wrote:
"Greg Evans" <misterx@larkbooks.com> wrote in message
news:4ugg44F17llv9U1@mid.individual.net...
Father Haskell wrote:
NASA should send up dwarves instead of 5'10" regular folks, anyway.
You can cut the human payload weight and use the weight savings for
more cargo. Life support requirements, such as food, oxygen, and
waste removal are lessened. Spacecraft themselves could be reduced
in size. If nothing else, you could send up bigger crews with the
same craft.
But then all those Little People would no longer be available for a
"Wizard of Oz" remake!
Who would get all the lollipops?
The manufacturer- they were recalled when several hundred people
got sick with E Coli... the damn dwarfs were sticking them up
their butts to hide them so they wouldn't have to share.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA (back) on the Moon? Yeah right! |
15 Dec 2006 07:03:40 PM |
|
|
Greg Evans wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
NASA should send up dwarves instead of 5'10" regular folks, anyway.
You can cut the human payload weight and use the weight savings for
more cargo. Life support requirements, such as food, oxygen, and
waste removal are lessened. Spacecraft themselves could be reduced
in size. If nothing else, you could send up bigger crews with the
same craft.
But then all those Little People would no longer be available for a
"Wizard of Oz" remake!
Is that a bad thing?
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|