| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jeff Relf" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2003 01:09:39 PM |
| Object: |
Googling My Web Site . |
When doing a vanity search for my web page ,
I noticed that Google uses the first few words of the
<Body> as the title . It doesn't use the <Title> tag .
Also , Google picks up changes about once a month .
....
I've made a few small changes to my tiny web site
http://www.NCPlus.NET/~jeff-relf/ a copy of it follows :
Yesterday's spookiness often becomes today's science .
That's why theoretical physicists typically trust that :
Genuine randomness is never intrinsic to pure nature .
I trust that :
The future is as immutably fixed as the past .
There is no genuine free will .
Only Pseudo free will . A flawed perception .
This is called " Fatalism " ( Fate ) in metaphysics .
Fatalism may be thought of as " A Scientific Religion . "
( No , I'm not a science fiction fanatic . )
Before Newton , The toss of a coin seemed probabilistic .
Before Einstein , Gravity seemed non-local ... Spooky .
It's obvious to me that
when something Seems non-local or probabilistic
then our precision and our theories are lacking .
Entropy is wasted heat . _ Perceived _ disorder .
( Heat is a measure of a kinetic energy per volume . )
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that :
The entropy of the total system always goes up .
Or as David Byrne sang in 1986 :
" Things fall apart , it's scientific . Whoa Yoey . "
Like Randomness , entropy is always perceptual ...
Never " Real " ... Never intrinsic to pure nature .
Pseudo entropy means that time is Pseudo directional .
Genuine time is spatial :
Genuine time is yet another dimension of space .
So genuine nature is most likely to be a
static five-dimensional block of spacetime and energy .
Einstein's colleague Hermann Weyl said :
" The world doesn't happen , it simply is . "
Einstein said :
" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
Hawking said : [ Three quotes ]
" In relativity , there is no real distinction between
the space and time coordinates , just as there is
no difference between two space coordinates .
...
Imaginary time is
indistinguishable from directions in space .
...
One could say :
' The boundary condition of the universe is that
it has no boundary . '
The universe would be completely self-contained
and not affected by anything outside itself .
It would neither be created nor destroyed .
It would just Be .
What place , then , for a creator ? "
See " Block Time " : at " Wiki Pedia. ORG "
http://www.WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time
Some interesting physical " Facts " :
- Gravity is negative energy , and is exactly equal to
relativistic mass which is positive .
- Massive objects can't go anywhere
near the speed of light . ( Not counting spin . )
- Only " Massless " objects
can reach the speed of light .
- Because quantum " orbits "
are Perceived to be probabilistic ,
Quantum velocity is meaningless to us .
[ Thus imaginary time , imaginary mass , etc. .
Thus the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle .
Thus the EPR experiment and the perceived
" Spooky action at a distance " . ]
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: The word " Measurement " . |
31 Aug 2003 02:03:08 PM |
|
|
Hi 1Z , Speaking of Bohr , you say : " In Thee Reality ,
he as one of the architects of the Copenhagen interpretation
which * does * say that randomness is intrinsic :
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation "
The Copenhagen interpretation says no such thing .
You merely don't understand it .
( By the way , " Wiki Pedia. ORG " is a great reference . )
I went to your link . Here is a quote from it :
" What causes the particle to _ Appear _ to
switch between statistical and non-statistical behaviors ?
When the particle is moving through the slits ,
its behavior _ Appears _ to be described by
a non-localized wave function
which is traveling through both slits at the same time .
Yet when the particle is _ Observed _ it's never
a diffuse non-localized wave packet ,
but _ Appears _ to be a single point particle.
Notice the words " Appears " and " Observed " .
This is very consistent with what I've been saying :
There's difference between _ Perceived _ randomness
and the likelihood of actual randomness .
Further quoting from the same page :
" In classical physics , probabilities were used
to describe the outcome of rolling a die ,
even though the process was thought to be deterministic .
Probabilities were used
to substitute for complete knowledge .
By contrast , the Copenhagen interpretation holds that
in quantum mechanics , _ Measurement _ outcomes
are fundamentally indeterministic . "
Notice the word " Measurement " .
A measurement is always a perception ,
it's never the actual thing .
Neither Bohr nor Heisenberg nor the Copenhagen interpretation
would ever dare to say that the randomness was anything
but perceptual ... i.e. a _ Measurement _ .
J.S. Bell ( of " Bell's inequalities " fame )
wrote an entire book about how the word " Measurement "
should be banished from the vocabulary of QM .
J.S. Bell wrote :
<< When one forgets the role of the apparatus ,
as the word ' Measurement ' makes all too likely ,
one despairs of ordinary logic ... hence
[ one is relegated to the ' Quantum Logic ' slum ] .
When one remembers the role of the apparatus ,
ordinary logic is just fine.
In other contexts ,
physicists have been able to
take words from ordinary language
and use them as technical terms
with no great harm done .
Take for example the " strangeness " , " charm " ,
and " beauty " of elementary particle physics .
No one is taken in by this " baby talk " . ...
Would that it were so with " measurement " .
But in fact the word has had such a damaging effect
on the discussion , that I think
it should now be banned altogether
in quantum mechanics . >>
John S. Bell , " Against ' Measurement ' "
http://samvak.tripod.com/string02.html :
" It would seem that the theory [ quantum mechanics ]
is exclusively concerned about " results of measurement "
,
and has nothing to say about anything else .
What exactly qualifies some physical systems
to play the role of " measurer " ?
Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump
for thousands of millions of years until
a single-celled living creature appeared ?
Or did it have to wait a little longer ,
for some better qualified system ... with a Ph.D. ?
If the theory is to apply to anything but
highly idealized laboratory operations ,
are we not obliged to admit that
more or less " measurement-like " processes
are going on more or less all the time ,
more or less everywhere .
Do we not have jumping then all the time ?
The first charge against " measurement " ,
in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics ,
is that it anchors the shifty split of the world
into " system " and " apparatus " .
A second charge is that the word comes
loaded with meaning from everyday life , meaning which
is entirely inappropriate in the quantum context .
When it is said that something is " measured "
it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to
some preexisting property of the object in question .
This is to disregard Bohr's insistence that
in quantum phenomena the apparatus
as well as the system is essentially involved .
If it were not so , how could we understand , for example
,
that " measurement " of
a component of " angular momentum " ...
in an arbitrarily chosen direction ...
yields one of a discrete set of values ? "
John S. Bell ,
" Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics "
http://samvak.tripod.com/string02.html :
" ... conventional formulations of quantum theory ,
and of quantum field theory in particular ,
are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous .
Professional theoretical physicists
ought to be able to do better .
Bohm has shown us a way . "
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Yet Another Infinite Spatial Dimension . |
01 Sep 2003 12:32:31 PM |
|
|
Hi anonymous , You say :
" You are making unjustified assumptions .
Nature can be as spooky as it wants to be ;
it doesn't care about your prejudices . "
Spookiness is intrinsic to the mind ... Not to nature .
The less we know about nature the more spooky is seems .
I wrote :
" So genuine nature is most likely to be a
static five-dimensional block of spacetime and energy . "
You ask :
" Why would energy be an extra dimension ? "
If you think of gravity as negative energy
Then everything else is an equivalent amount
of positive energy .
But we can only directly perceive this
at cosmological scales .
At other scales it may be assumed .
Scales greatly effect our perceptions .
So these energy deficits and surpluses would be
yet another infinite spatial dimension
along with regular spacetime .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Five is Plenty . |
01 Sep 2003 07:08:42 PM |
|
|
Hi Wordsmith , You say :
" Why bother with 10 dimensions ?
Isn't 3 -- uh , I mean 4 -- enough ? "
I agree . Five is plenty for me right now .
Spacetime and energy .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Perceptions of the Energyscape . |
02 Sep 2003 02:20:44 PM |
|
|
Hi Double-A , You ask :
" How does an object's energy
help define an object's location in any way ,
such as a true dimension would ? "
An excellent question Double-A .
First , Regarding the fourth spatial dimension :
( i.e. the " Timescape " )
Despite absolute material determinism ,
Despite a sentient being's immutable fate ,
he still holds artificial notions of order
and randomness .
This creates in him an artificial sense of time ,
making it seem directional and finite
when it is actually neither .
But pure nature never conforms to our foolish notions .
....
Now , As for the fifth spatial dimension :
( i.e. The " Energyscape " )
Is it possible to think of a location
in both space and time that does not
also contain either negative or positive energy ?
( I'm calling gravity " Negative Energy " . )
No , That'd be absurd . Wouldn't it ?
You can never separate the Energyscape from the Timescape .
But just like we incorrectly perceive the Timescape ,
we incorrectly perceive the Energyscape too .
And the quality of our perceptions
is greatly deteriorated by time , distance and scale .
( Scale is obviously artificial , perceptual . )
So just like the pseudo directionality of the timescape
is purely artificial ,
so too is the pseudo order
and pseudo randomness of the energyscape .
In fact the energyscape should be the zeroth dimension .
Followed by the timescape as the first dimension .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Surreal Perceptions . |
03 Sep 2003 02:59:14 AM |
|
|
Hi Double-A , You say :
" The only thing that makes us think it is either big or small
is just how we perceive it ! "
Excellent point . You're obviously a good cosmologist .
The big bang and the universe's future big death
are all about such surreal perceptions .
.
|
|
|
| User: "manfrommars_43" |
|
| Title: Gel or Mousse ? |
03 Sep 2003 03:40:09 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf:
Excellent point . You're obviously a good cosmologist .
The big bang and the universe's future big death
are all about such surreal perceptions .
Would a good cosmologist give
a perm to someone with naturally
wavy hair?
I think not!
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo
finders storyTeller
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Five is Plenty . |
01 Sep 2003 11:47:11 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<jabe4teitdvj$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Wordsmith , You say :
" Why bother with 10 dimensions ?
Isn't 3 -- uh , I mean 4 -- enough ? "
I agree . Five is plenty for me right now .
Spacetime and energy .
Yeah, but soon you'll be greedy for more! When will Occam's Razor
kick in? Around the 37th?
Wordsmith ;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "manfrommars_43" |
|
| Title: The Jeff Relf Five |
02 Sep 2003 04:34:12 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf:
Hi Wordsmith , You say :
" Why bother with 10 dimensions ?
Isn't 3 -- uh , I mean 4 -- enough ? "
I agree . Five is plenty for me right now .
Spacetime and energy .
The 5th Dimension is very much enough.
Especially their version of 'Age of Aquarius'
When the mooon is in the 7th house...
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo
finders storyTeller
.
|
|
|
| User: "=^.^=" |
|
| Title: Re: Rochester Balloons . |
02 Sep 2003 07:16:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:45:31 -0700, Jeff Relf
<__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote:
Hi John John , You say :
" The 5th Dimension is very much enough .
Especially their version of ' Age of Aquarius '
When the mooon is in the 7th house ... "
well, it iz down to two Aquarianz, but I might run away
Ah yes but my favorite of theirs was :
" Up , up ... and away ... =20
in my Beautiful balloon ... "
Heart - Pilot
....in a modern turboprop Lockheed Electra (type E)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Five is too much! |
02 Sep 2003 11:30:11 AM |
|
|
double-a
For 100 years physics has been trying to equate time with the spatial
dimensions, but the concept does not always feel comfortable.
How about this:
We have four dimensions:
Length, Width, Height, and Mass
With only 3 dimensions, we would be left with an empty skeleton of a
world. However, if we add mass to it, give it some substance to make
it "real", then the forces of nature can act on our 4 dimensions
creating time as a by-product.
Mike Helland
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Five is too much! |
02 Sep 2003 05:11:33 PM |
|
|
Keynes
With only 3 dimensions, we would be left with an empty skeleton of a
world. However, if we add mass to it, give it some substance to make
it "real", then the forces of nature can act on our 4 dimensions
creating time as a by-product.
Action is time. Any other dimensions depend on action-time.
I agree; which is why I presented my theory of multiple natures to
show that another version of time exists where the forces interact to
create our time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=^.^=" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another Infinite Spatial Dimension . |
01 Sep 2003 05:22:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:32:31 -0700, Jeff Relf
<__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote:
I wrote :
" So genuine nature is most likely to be a
static five-dimensional block of spacetime and energy . "
there may be from 12 to 20 discreet dimensions
You ask :
" Why would energy be an extra dimension ? "
pfff...energy and mass are interchangable elements
of the stuff that dreams use to make other stuff...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Physics . |
01 Sep 2003 06:37:31 PM |
|
|
Hi =^.^= , You say :
" There may be from 12 to 20 discreet dimensions . "
Maybe , But I'm still trying to understand the fifth one .
You :
" Pfff ... energy and mass are interchangeable elements
of the stuff that dreams use to make other stuff ... "
In physics :
" Rest Mass " is a type of positive energy .
And positive energy is also called " Relativistic Mass " .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Vajk" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics . |
01 Sep 2003 07:38:19 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf wrote:
Hi =^.^= , You say :
" There may be from 12 to 20 discreet dimensions . "
Maybe , But I'm still trying to understand the fifth one .
You :
" Pfff ... energy and mass are interchangeable elements
of the stuff that dreams use to make other stuff ... "
In physics :
" Rest Mass " is a type of positive energy .
And positive energy is also called " Relativistic Mass " .
The better to ask, "where does convertability end?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: The Borders of Spookiness . |
01 Sep 2003 08:11:04 PM |
|
|
Hi Bill Vajk , You say :
" The better to ask , ' where does convertibility end ? ' "
Do you mean :
" When do we start perceiving probabilistic quanta ? "
( i.e. Spookiness . )
That fuzzy Border , wherever it currently is ,
would obviously vary depending on the quality of our tools .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "manfrommars_43" |
|
| Title: FizzyLiftSticks |
02 Sep 2003 04:37:07 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf:
In physics :
" Rest Mass " is a type of positive energy .
And positive energy is also called " Relativistic Mass " .
When people say they are
'generating a whole lot of love'
is that kinetic or potential?
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo
finders storyTeller
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Potential Energy . |
02 Sep 2003 12:28:36 PM |
|
|
Hi Be Low , You say :
" When people say they are
' Generating a whole lot of love '
is that kinetic or potential ? "
I'm glad you asked this question
as it's been weighing on my mind lately .
It's definitely kinetic ,
But when it's done correctly ,
there's also some potential too .
.
|
|
|
| User: "=^.^=" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential Energy . |
02 Sep 2003 07:13:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:28:36 -0700, Jeff Relf
<__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question=20
as it's been weighing on my mind lately .
ooh. heavy
It's definitely kinetic ,
But when it's done correctly ,
there's also some potential too .
tripletz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J." |
|
| Title: Re: Googling My Web Site . |
30 Aug 2003 02:00:13 PM |
|
|
I could be wrong, but I thought the tilda (~) stopped search engines. It
will find your meta tags on the main page but I believe those with the ~ are
hidden.
J.
===============
"Jeff Relf" <___Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:3y2450upgiuw.dlg@_Jeff.Relf...
When doing a vanity search for my web page ,
I noticed that Google uses the first few words of the
<Body> as the title . It doesn't use the <Title> tag .
Also , Google picks up changes about once a month .
....
I've made a few small changes to my tiny web site
http://www.NCPlus.NET/~jeff-relf/ a copy of it follows :
Yesterday's spookiness often becomes today's science .
That's why theoretical physicists typically trust that :
Genuine randomness is never intrinsic to pure nature .
I trust that :
The future is as immutably fixed as the past .
There is no genuine free will .
Only Pseudo free will . A flawed perception .
This is called " Fatalism " ( Fate ) in metaphysics .
Fatalism may be thought of as " A Scientific Religion . "
( No , I'm not a science fiction fanatic . )
Before Newton , The toss of a coin seemed probabilistic .
Before Einstein , Gravity seemed non-local ... Spooky .
It's obvious to me that
when something Seems non-local or probabilistic
then our precision and our theories are lacking .
Entropy is wasted heat . _ Perceived _ disorder .
( Heat is a measure of a kinetic energy per volume . )
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that :
The entropy of the total system always goes up .
Or as David Byrne sang in 1986 :
" Things fall apart , it's scientific . Whoa Yoey . "
Like Randomness , entropy is always perceptual ...
Never " Real " ... Never intrinsic to pure nature .
Pseudo entropy means that time is Pseudo directional .
Genuine time is spatial :
Genuine time is yet another dimension of space .
So genuine nature is most likely to be a
static five-dimensional block of spacetime and energy .
Einstein's colleague Hermann Weyl said :
" The world doesn't happen , it simply is . "
Einstein said :
" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
Hawking said : [ Three quotes ]
" In relativity , there is no real distinction between
the space and time coordinates , just as there is
no difference between two space coordinates .
...
Imaginary time is
indistinguishable from directions in space .
...
One could say :
' The boundary condition of the universe is that
it has no boundary . '
The universe would be completely self-contained
and not affected by anything outside itself .
It would neither be created nor destroyed .
It would just Be .
What place , then , for a creator ? "
See " Block Time " : at " Wiki Pedia. ORG "
http://www.WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time
Some interesting physical " Facts " :
- Gravity is negative energy , and is exactly equal to
relativistic mass which is positive .
- Massive objects can't go anywhere
near the speed of light . ( Not counting spin . )
- Only " Massless " objects
can reach the speed of light .
- Because quantum " orbits "
are Perceived to be probabilistic ,
Quantum velocity is meaningless to us .
[ Thus imaginary time , imaginary mass , etc. .
Thus the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle .
Thus the EPR experiment and the perceived
" Spooky action at a distance " . ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Tildes in Meta tags . |
30 Aug 2003 06:27:50 PM |
|
|
Hi J. , Speaking of Google you say :
" It will find your meta tags on the main page
but I believe those with the ~ are hidden . "
But none of my tags have tildes .
One tag is intentionally commented out .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cable Speed Test" |
|
| Title: Re: Tildes in Meta tags . |
30 Aug 2003 07:48:38 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Relf" <___Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:11jd4fefsgjec$.dlg@_Jeff.Relf...
Hi J. , Speaking of Google you say :
" It will find your meta tags on the main page
but I believe those with the ~ are hidden . "
But none of my tags have tildes .
One tag is intentionally commented out .
Google doesn't display (and hardly uses) meta tags.... it uses content.
This is why its so good...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Tildes in Meta tags . |
31 Aug 2003 12:42:55 AM |
|
|
"Cable Speed Test" <dont_reply@here.com> wrote in message news:<zUmdnUo8csuE2MyiRTvUqg@yvn.com>...
"Jeff Relf" <___Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:11jd4fefsgjec$.dlg@_Jeff.Relf...
Hi J. , Speaking of Google you say :
" It will find your meta tags on the main page
but I believe those with the ~ are hidden . "
But none of my tags have tildes .
One tag is intentionally commented out .
Google doesn't display (and hardly uses) meta tags.... it uses content.
This is why its so good...
Is that why some posts look absolutely blank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: How the Page is Ranked . |
30 Aug 2003 08:13:30 PM |
|
|
Hi Cable Speed Test , You say :
" Google doesn't display ( and hardly uses ) meta tags ...
it uses content . "
Before I added a <Title> tag my page was " Untitled " .
But after I added the tag Google didn't use it ,
instead it used the first line of the <Body> .
I wonder if the title has anything to do with
how the page is ranked .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cable Speed Test" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Page is Ranked . |
30 Aug 2003 11:35:21 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Relf" <___Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1ofph2o6r3pbz$.dlg@_Jeff.Relf...
..
I wonder if the title has anything to do with
how the page is ranked .
Title, content, image names, and image "alt" text, but most of all, other
web sites that refer back to a particular site increase rankings...
BTW, most BOTs read and rank on commented code, so your strangely commented
style tag [ <!--style> body { font-size: .95em;}</style--> ] could be
affecting your results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Recently Changed Pages . |
31 Aug 2003 12:10:39 AM |
|
|
Hi Cable Speed Test , You say :
" but most of all ,
other web sites that refer back to a particular site
increase rankings ... "
Such links obviously outweigh everything else .
I was amazed to see that Google changed my listing today ,
apparently in response to a change that I made today .
Now no quote or cache is shown .
Google must react somehow to recently changed pages .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J." |
|
| Title: Re: Tildes in Meta tags . |
31 Aug 2003 10:18:29 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Relf" <___Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:11jd4fefsgjec$.dlg@_Jeff.Relf...
Hi J. , Speaking of Google you say :
" It will find your meta tags on the main page
but I believe those with the ~ are hidden . "
But none of my tags have tildes .
One tag is intentionally commented out .
=============
I actually meant the folder in which the tilde occurred -- you said the
folder was "/~jeff-relf. I think this folder is hidden from most search
engines.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=^.^=" |
|
| Title: Re: Tildes in Meta tags . |
01 Sep 2003 01:49:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:27:50 -0700, Jeff Relf
<___Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote:
Hi J. , Speaking of Google you say :
" It will find your meta tags on the main page=20
but I believe those with the ~ are hidden . "
But none of my tags have tildes .
One tag is intentionally commented out .
eh, I started doing that during delerium, in 1996
that sorted the memory of real reality from delusion and
allocated for the introduction of concepts of the alternate
realities, supported by asstd. ether/quantum mechanix
oh boy...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "manfrommars_43" |
|
| Title: Re: Name one . Bohr ? J.S. Bell ? |
02 Sep 2003 04:52:28 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf:
Even Niels Bohr would Never claim that
the randomness was anything but perceptual .
do you think Niels Bohr would enjoy
watching a chic stick a ***** up her
bung hole while fingering her *****?
I do - because that's real physics!!!
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo
finders storyTeller
.
|
|
|
| User: "42" |
|
| Title: Re: jabailo@earthlink.net |
02 Sep 2003 09:22:18 AM |
|
|
"manfrommars_43" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.02.09.49.30.161588@earthlink.net...
Jeff Relf:
Even Niels Bohr would Never claim that
the randomness was anything but perceptual .
do you think Niels Bohr would enjoy
watching a chic stick a ***** up her
bung hole while fingering her *****?
I do - because that's real physics!!!
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo
finders storyTeller
Take your meds John Bailo, quit surfing so much porn and the voices will
stop.
How is the indictment coming along?
jabailo@earthlink.net
jabailo@earthlink.net
jabailo@earthlink.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Howard Dean Dildos . |
02 Sep 2003 12:11:32 PM |
|
|
Hi John , You earnestly inquire :
" Do you think Niels Bohr would enjoy
watching a chic stick a ***** up her
bung hole while fingering her ***** ?
I do - because that's real physics !!! "
I don't know . But if I had to guess , I'd say yes .
By the way ,
You can get your Howard Dean dildos at :
Common Sense Mom. COM
http://www.CommonSenseMom.COM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
