The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)

Science > Physics > The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Brad Guth"
Date:	15 Oct 2006 11:35:04 PM
Object:	The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)

Apparently my original topic of "Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC" is
currently locked out. It must have been something that I'd said with
regards to this related sub-topic, whereas I kept getting the Mailgate
status: "Your message has been refused."
Anyway, this was the ongoing reply that I'd been attempting to convey my
reply back to "The Ghost In The Machine" / Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006
22:00:06 GMT
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/33792360348636450d6a42a6aaf236f9.49644%40mygate.mailgate.org?order=smart&p=1/449
In sci.physics, Brad Guth
<bradguth@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:52:25 +0000 (UTC)
<baf6978065a378c7095a0a1b46d91700.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:6oaa04-32t.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net

Did you have an alternate source in mind? If so, please indicate.
Wikipedia is somewhat reliable, though there are probably better for
peer-reviewed scientific types.

I agree that Wikipedia shares more information than most, but it is
highly moderated and it dose believe in and promote absolutely anything
that's authored and/or approved by NASA.

There's a few other bits of information that's worth deductively going
through, such as what the likes of FW Taylor, John Ackerman and a few
others are havinga to say.

If Mister Ackerman's website I've already viewed is any
indication, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
FW Taylor appears to be more interested in various issues
of psychology, specifically manufacturing/plant efficiency,
and doesn't appear to relate to managing Venus or Venusian
terraforming. Velikovsky is a known kook.

We are all stuck in a box. Or did you think you could flap your arms
and fly to Venus?

Almost. At least a whole lot easier, tonnes safer and much cheaper
(like 1% that of doing Mars).

The main problem is getting into orbit.

Certainly. So where's the water? There's not enough water to convert
all of the CO2 to glucose.

Why do you insist upon converting all the CO2 into glucose? (are you a
diabetic?)

I could convert it to soot, if you prefer. Those are the two chemically
viable alternatives that come to mind. Soot might be preferable, in
fact (no hydrogen/water needed), but would require some sort of shielding.

As a not so intelligent species, we're rather good at making more than
our fair share of soot. (bet we've dropped a good point off the albedo
of Earth in just the last decade)

Well, OK, then. Soot or CO2 blanket. Either way, one gains heat.

Actually co2-->co/o2 should become real sooty, or simply electrify the
CO2 into being one hell of a laser cannon.

And a Laser Cannon would be beneficial to Mankind precisely why?
Assuming such is even possible.

Bone dry CO2 as well as whatever's of a dry acidic crystal is relatively
harmless, or didn't you know that?

Bone dry CO2 has the problem of holding in the heat. If the ultimate
objective is surface dwelling by humans that heat will have to be dealt
with somehow.

Not really, as with R-1024/meter of structural composite abodes can
manage quite nicely as is. Just don't bother to open any of those doors
or windows.

I for one wasn't planning to. But even with R1024 one still has to
remove heat -- about 1/1024th of the heat one would have to deal
with were one in an airtight tin shack, perhaps. That is the
definition of R-factor.

OK, and you've mentioned comets for the water source. An interesting
idea, that. The main question is how much energy one will require to
drag the comets into the Venusian atmosphere.

Hardly any if you're good enough a playing pool.

Why not simply boost Earth's oceans? Plenty of salty water there.

In fact we seem to have more than our global warming fair share, thus
getting rid of a few spare gigatonnes or perhaps even so much as a few
teratonnes is actually a good idea. Perhaps the ESE fiasco could become
a CNT straw that'll suck that necessary tonnage of spare dead ocean into
LEO, along with all of those jellyfish.

Suck? Obviously your knowledge of fluid dynamics needs some updating.
One cannot suck out the oceans, even were one as large as the Moon and
very very thirsty. It would have to be pumped out, and there are
issues similar to those of the Space Elevator, since something has
to support the pipe, straw, tube, hose, whatever it is holding the
water.

OOPS! it seems that we haven't any actual science as to raw water or ice
coexisting in space. Now what?

Eh? I don't think there will be a major problem there. The piping
would hopefully hold in enough heat to allow liquid water to flow until
it reaches the endpoint, which is higher up than geosynch orbit. (It
would have to be, in order to counterbalance.) This is admittedly
dependent on the piping's thickness, insulation, and water flow.

-
Brad Guth

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	15 Oct 2006 11:35:50 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:j0ma04-a2u.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net

Velikovsky is also a somewhat dead kook, but I still like him and his
outside of the box nerve as to suggest what's possible. John Ackerman
has since accomplished some of the same, but he's not quite dead.

The main problem is getting into orbit.

Not really. It's about having a viable atmosphere to aerodynamically
work with and to protect yourself from the solar and cosmic radiation,
such as in order to safely and efficiently reenter and/or
waverider/spaceplane enter-exit and otherwise cruise about for months on
end without your DNA getting terminated, and it's most certainly all
about having unlimited local energy to burn, sort of speak.

Actually co2-->co/o2 should become real sooty, or simply electrify
the CO2 into being one hell of a laser cannon.

And a Laser Cannon would be beneficial to Mankind precisely why?
Assuming such is even possible.

We could defend ourselves from all of these hot under the collar
Venusian exoskeletal Cathars, or perhaps from those much nastier Muslims
that are running amuck, or we could rather efficiently interplanetary
communicate (such as calling home for another delivery of ice cold beer
and fresh smut).
: Not really a problem, as with R-1024/meter of structural composite
: abodes can manage quite nicely as is. Just don't bother to open any
: of those doors or windows.

I for one wasn't planning to. But even with R1024 one still has to
remove heat -- about 1/1024th of the heat one would have to deal
with were one in an airtight tin shack, perhaps.

But there's unlimited and fully renewable energy to burn, and of that
bone dry CO2 itself makes for an ideal gas-->fluid-->gas element of
accomplishing thermal transfer (don't need any stinking freons).
Exactly how many megawatts or possibly gigajoules per Venusian day do
you think each soul is ever going to require?
There's so freaking much spare energy, I could operate multiple ice
skating rinks on Venus (possibly as slabs of frozen h2o2 instead of
wussy h2o).

It would have to be pumped out, and there are issues similar to
those of the Space Elevator, since something has to support the
pipe, straw, tube, hose, whatever it is holding the water.

Then whatever push, suck or blast away, but that's entirely your ocean
relocation problem. My idea of icing down Venus was to use that icy orb
of Sedna, or perhaps tossing in some of that supposed salty ice from
within our moon, as it's already up there and certainly could be headed
in the right general direction to start with.

OOPS! it seems that we haven't any actual science as to raw water or
ice coexisting in space. Now what?

Clue No.1
There's no such piping or any other viable containment that'll ever
exist between Earth and Venus, and I really don't think any good squirt
of ocean is ever going the distance no matters how sub-frozen nor how
much energy gets applied. Perhaps incorporating a few thound of
Bigelow�s POOFs might do the trick, although the failing environment of
Earth would likely have to bite that last bullet from having to ESE or
conventional launch all of that horrific mass.
BTW; why do you insist upon killing off all of the existing life that
has been managing to coexist on Venus? (are you being a touch 911 or
something worse, like born-again GW Bush?)
Just because a given planet is a wee bit hot and dry doesn't exclude it
from having accommodated intelligent and other life that's fully
adjusted to the existing environment, as is. The same could be said of
a cold and methane wet Titan. Perhaps it would be much simpler and a
bit less War Of The Worlds worthy if we simply used our existing talents
and applied technology as to adapt ourselves to the situation at hand.
After all, the last time we'd tired to take control over an occupied
Muslim terratory it didn't exactly work out according to plan, and there
were more than a few times before that I believe turned out rather
badly, and to think each of those were all terrestrial fiascos.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	16 Oct 2006 01:00:08 AM

In sci.physics, Brad Guth
<bradguth@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:35:50 +0000 (UTC)
<7bc77a9f6c02c06dce57ae440e0bd9f1.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:j0ma04-a2u.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net

But he still looks pretty kooky to me.

The main problem is getting into orbit.

Not really. It's about having a viable atmosphere to aerodynamically
work with and to protect yourself from the solar and cosmic radiation,

Which is another minor problem; Venus' magnetic field is much weaker
than Earth's.

such as in order to safely and efficiently reenter and/or
waverider/spaceplane enter-exit and otherwise cruise about for months on
end without your DNA getting terminated, and it's most certainly all
about having unlimited local energy to burn, sort of speak.

And this energy comes from ... where?

Actually co2-->co/o2 should become real sooty, or simply electrify
the CO2 into being one hell of a laser cannon.

And a Laser Cannon would be beneficial to Mankind precisely why?
Assuming such is even possible.

A cannon is overkill for the latter (we already have the capability of
picking up much weaker signals from Venusian orbiters), and it's far
from clear that there's much of an issue with the former -- unless
you've been receiving Cytherian death threats or something. :-)

: Not really a problem, as with R-1024/meter of structural composite
: abodes can manage quite nicely as is. Just don't bother to open any
: of those doors or windows.

I for one wasn't planning to. But even with R1024 one still has to
remove heat -- about 1/1024th of the heat one would have to deal
with were one in an airtight tin shack, perhaps.

But there's unlimited and fully renewable energy to burn,

Really? Where?

and of that
bone dry CO2 itself makes for an ideal gas-->fluid-->gas element of
accomplishing thermal transfer (don't need any stinking freons).
Exactly how many megawatts or possibly gigajoules per Venusian day do
you think each soul is ever going to require?

And exactly where are these megawatts coming from? Oh yeah, your
air column. Somebody's going to have to build those columns, you know.

There's so freaking much spare energy, I could operate multiple ice
skating rinks on Venus (possibly as slabs of frozen h2o2 instead of
wussy h2o).

Not sure why anyone would want to skate on hydrogen peroxide. It'll
probably rust out one's skates real quick. Nor is it clear that H2O2
has the same pressure/temperature freezing curves as water; I doubt
anyone's done much research thereon.

It would have to be pumped out, and there are issues similar to
those of the Space Elevator, since something has to support the
pipe, straw, tube, hose, whatever it is holding the water.

OOPS! it seems that we haven't any actual science as to raw water or
ice coexisting in space. Now what?

Clue No.1
There's no such piping or any other viable containment that'll ever
exist between Earth and Venus,

Doesn't have to go to Venus; just into synchronous orbit. After that,
the ice chunks will freeze and can be lifted via conventional rockets.
If you really want, one can lengthen the straw a bit so that they will
be flung with escape velocity. Done correctly, they'll go into Venusian
orbit.

and I really don't think any good squirt
of ocean is ever going the distance no matters how sub-frozen nor how
much energy gets applied. Perhaps incorporating a few thound of
Bigelow�s POOFs might do the trick, although the failing environment of
Earth would likely have to bite that last bullet from having to ESE or
conventional launch all of that horrific mass.

BTW; why do you insist upon killing off all of the existing life that
has been managing to coexist on Venus? (are you being a touch 911 or
something worse, like born-again GW Bush?)

Erm...what life on Venus? Are you suggesting airborne microorganisms?
That's the only candidate that even makes any sense, and they'd have
to have very unusual metabolism pathways.

Just because a given planet is a wee bit hot and dry doesn't exclude it
from having accommodated intelligent and other life that's fully
adjusted to the existing environment, as is. The same could be said of
a cold and methane wet Titan. Perhaps it would be much simpler and a
bit less War Of The Worlds worthy if we simply used our existing talents
and applied technology as to adapt ourselves to the situation at hand.
After all, the last time we'd tired to take control over an occupied
Muslim terratory it didn't exactly work out according to plan, and there
were more than a few times before that I believe turned out rather
badly, and to think each of those were all terrestrial fiascos.

So now you're against colonizing Venus? Make up your mind!

-
Brad Guth

--
#191,

Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	16 Oct 2006 01:16:25 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:ephb04-kk.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net

The main problem is getting into orbit.

Not really. It's about having a viable atmosphere to aerodynamically
work with and to protect yourself from the solar and cosmic radiation,

Which is another minor problem; Venus' magnetic field is much weaker
than Earth's.

Minor problem, my *****. With that much atmospheric density, you and that
of your frail DNA of naysayism simply don't need any stinking
magnetosphere. It's otherwise called physics duh-101. My God, you're
such a pagan born-again idiot in denial, arnt you. There's far less
solar/cosmic radiation on the Venusian deck than here on Earth.

And this energy comes from ... where?

Extensively from the 4+bar/km and 10+K/km(nighttime) differentials, plus
a good amount of easily established and otherwise unavoidable vertical
velocity that can be established. Do the math.

I'm not exactly talking ABL. I'm talking about accomplishing
interplanetary as to/from below them thick clouds. For that you're
going to need a small laser cannon of considerable energy that'll
produce a suitable amount of illumination through such a thick deck of
clouds (there's nothing but an illuminated zone of those Venusian
clouds, perhaps as little as a 50 km diameter spot as viewed from
Earth). I'm thinking 425~450 nm and perhaps demanding a few KW if not
at most a MW class of laser cannon. The duty cycle doesn't have to be
more than 1%, whereas a 10 ms pulse per second could pack a great deal
of quantum-binary data/packet information, and it would still be
entirely visible to the naked eye, thus unavoidably interpreted as
intelligent communications.
Obviously we'd have our various orbiting platforms established, plus
that rather nifty VL2/TRACE-II parked within the Venus L2 halo, in which
case hardly any laser/radio energy is required.

But there's unlimited and fully renewable energy to burn,

Really? Where?

You've got to be naysay and Christ back on a stick kidding. As I've
frequently informed you and many other naysayers before (6 years and
counting), it's absolutely available everywhere, as within each an every
m3 of that nifty atmosphere, boosted by way of whatever means of natural
or artificial column of vertical offset you can manage. Village idiots
and their moron friends don't get any share of this energy because,
they're already so dumbfounded that it really doesn't matter if they
roast to death.

bone dry CO2 itself makes for an ideal gas-->fluid-->gas element of
accomplishing thermal transfer (don't need any stinking freons).
Exactly how many megawatts or possibly gigajoules per Venusian day do
you think each soul is ever going to require?

And exactly where are these megawatts coming from? Oh yeah, your
air column. Somebody's going to have to build those columns, you know.

We'll simply hire those local exoskeletal Cathars or Muslims, paying
them off in ice cold beer.
Don't be such an old fart of a silly naysay stick in the mud. How hard
is a 100 meter offset? Even I can accomplish that much engineering
while standing on my head. A conservative induced vertical flow of 5
m/s gets downright impressive if that's involved with moving hundreds of
those cubic meters per second worth of that rather dense CO2 that has
the 0.4+ bar and 1 K differential per 100 meters to work with. That's
not even including taking advantage of any local geothermal energy or
gas vent velocity of other elements such as S8, not to mention the
physical dynamics of utilizing mud flows that's simply affords the sorts
of energy that's off the charts. Take that vertical offset to a full km
and you're talking about having created a rather terrific energy density
footprint/m2.

There's so freaking much spare energy, I could operate multiple ice
skating rinks on Venus (possibly as slabs of frozen h2o2 instead of
wussy h2o).

Not sure why anyone would want to skate on hydrogen peroxide. It'll
probably rust out one's skates real quick.

Much of anything can't hardly rust without having a basis of free O2.
Venus hasn't exactly all that much surface O2 to spare. Them ice skates
could be of titanium, ceramic coated or something else entirely of a
basalt or some other nifty composite. It's just worth noting that it's
rather terrific about the boiling/vapor point of h2o2 at such pressure
is really quite high. The fundamental point of this argument is,
artificially most anything can be frozen solid while on Venus, and
rather easily kept frozen because there's all of that spare renewable
energy to burn (sort of speak), plus having that R-1024/m worth of an
insulation factor that also doesn't have to be imported.

Nor is it clear that H2O2 has the same pressure/temperature freezing
curves as water; I doubt anyone's done much research thereon.

It's actually perfectly clear as a chapel bell. However, most such
things about h2o2 are taboo/nondisclosure. That's another example of
why so many Americans are such dumb and dumber village idiots, and
getting more and more dumbfounded by the day is because of all the
naysay folks exactly like yourself, that'll knowingly remain in denial
regardless of the consequences.

Clue No.1
There's no such piping or any other viable containment that'll ever
exist between Earth and Venus,

Doesn't have to go to Venus; just into synchronous orbit. After that,
the ice chunks will freeze and can be lifted via conventional rockets.

Not for very long after coming out of the shade of Earth. Water simply
doesn't freeze while in the sun, much less while at such a near vacuum.
It needs to be contained within something very reflective and perhaps at
least stored at a few millibar worth of pressure, or else it needs a
great deal of combined mass that'll hold onto a surrounding atmosphere
(such as a sufficiently massive moon).
As I'd said before, we've got no such actual hard-science as to water or
that of raw ice coexisting for any length of time in space, especially
where the sun is always shining and there's such a near perfect vacuum
that's worth at least a good 1e20:1 of wet or icy h2o atoms/cm3 becoming
the vacuum of space whereas there's damn few atoms/cm3.
What's the thermal dynamic vapor point of h2o as it's going away rather
quickly as something less than vapor within such a solar heated vacuum?
(I'd have to say it's pretty damn low)

If you really want, one can lengthen the straw a bit so that they will
be flung with escape velocity. Done correctly, they'll go into Venusian
orbit.

OK, now you're getting a bit more weird and considerably more spendy
than myself. That's not fair.

Erm...what life on Venus? Are you suggesting airborne microorganisms?
That's the only candidate that even makes any sense, and they'd have
to have very unusual metabolism pathways.

Not at all airborne unless it's involved with utilizing those rigid
airships. I'm talking really big and perhaps nasty Venusian exoskeletal
Cathars that'll kick serious butt. The Venusian community of complex
structures as situated just north of that 'fluid arch', which incluudes
a rather nifty nearby bridge and that complex tarmac, weren't created by
or on behalf of those wussy little atmospheric microbes.

So now you're against colonizing Venus? Make up your mind!

I'm not the least bit against anything that's not involving the willful
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, or that of our having to
snooker honest folks into paying for yet another hocus-pocus ruse.
Obviously you and many others of your kind don't seem to give a tinker's
damn either way. Besides, why spend those hard earned trillions upon
trillions and taking decades if not centuries plus having to consume
most every viable energy resource in order to accomplish whatever, when
applied technology and perhaps some relatively minor physiological
modifications will due perfectly fine and dandy as is?
It's obvious that you folks either can't or wouldn't dare think for
yourselves. Besides taken from within your 'all or nothing' Third Reich
of polishing upon most everything that's Jewish, where the freaking hell
on Earth are you folks and of your perverted mindset from hell coming
from?
Besides your entire lack of honest humor, have you no remorse for
humanity or that of our badly failing environment?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "TimK"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	16 Oct 2006 03:58:07 PM

"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ede40928195b885ec66c70118057be64.49644@mygate.mailgate.org...
Hey wack-job, please don't nym shift and stay put.
<plonk>
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 09:05:52 AM

"TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:znSYg.24556$Tq3.20185@tornado.tampabay.rr.com

Hey wack-job, please don't nym shift and stay put.
<plonk>

What's your problem? I'm not the one that's causing the topic
moderation/banishment.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	16 Oct 2006 07:35:00 PM

I keep getting the Mailgate status: "Your message has been refused."
I just tried to reply once again, into that original topic of "Where's
our Moon as of 10,000 BC".
Have you locked me out?
This was my reply that didn't cut through the Usenet mustard that's
associated with your code name.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology,sci.archaeology
From: The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>
Subject: Re: Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:00:08 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

I know, but I've not quite figured him out yet.

Perhaps there's nothing much to figure out. He's just seriously cranky?

Well, for starters, question none of his conclusions. Questioning his
conclusions gets him all riled up. Can't be too careful, nowadays,
with modern physics, after all.

That sounds almost exactly like you're talking about myself.

What does 'Sorcerer' and others of his all-knowing kind have against our
environment obtaining that nifty moon as of the last ice age?

You'd have to ask him.

I've tried that, and besides his going postal, it seems the status quo
flak starts to fly pretty thick.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC / The Ghost In The Machine	17 Oct 2006 12:02:31 PM

Did that pesky little sub-topic of Venus manage to kill off "The Ghost
In The Machine"? (apparently so)
I don't quite understand as to why this recent moon topic become so gosh
darn taboo/nondisclosure (selectively moderated from within so that
certain contributions can't even be replied to)? Is the moon or rather
that of any sub-topic forbidden archeology, forbidden science and/or
forbidden physics to boot. Are all such forms of ancient history also
representing the forbidden fruit of this GOOGLE/Usenet from hell?
Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/33792360348636450d6a42a6aaf236f9.49644%40mygate.mailgate.org?order=smart&p=1/449
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_frm/thread/51e8d2abc701ddac/b220ae7eabdaa3b2?hl=en#b220ae7eabdaa3b2
The ancient Crystal Skulls and Jadeite Skeleton of the China/Mongolia
region that have been dated as of the somewhat recent 3500 ~ 2200 BC,
and of many other complex items dating to 10,500 BC, along with terrific
depictions going back to something pre 15,000 BC, shows a terrific
artistic range and intellectual scope of their having understood and
depicted such items of importance, along with clearly an understanding
as to their meaning seems rather obvious, proving that such early
heathens had this degree of perfectly relevant artistic expertises, and
were otherwise extremely survival intelligent folks.
http://www.greatdreams.com/himalayan/desisto-skulls-2.html
Yet there's still no similar or previous depictions of a much simpler
object that had bold features and phase by phase looked a little
hocus-pocus different each night, such as that of our nearby moon which
had to have been extremely important to their survival and that of
keeping track of time, seasons and navigation while offering terrific
nighttime illumination (especially way back then when Earth's albedo was
half again if not at times worth twice of what it is today).
So, where the heck was our nearby and therefore unavoidably impressive
mascon of a moon, as of during, prior to or even shortly thereafter the
ongoing thaw from the last ice age?
Intelligent humans with terrific artistic skills had obviously existed
prior and during the last ice age, and obviously thereafter as having
demonstrated their survival and reasonably complex creative skills over
and over, yet one of the simplest of an unavoidably interesting and
highly important object to depict being that of our moon is nowhere to
be found until long after the last ice age. Moon gods weren't even
invented until more recent than 2500 BC, while many other gods of much
less importance had existed long before.
How can such an intelligent species of our survival savvy early humanity
(as taken from examples all over this world) have lost track of and/or
having entirely disregarded our moon?
Or rather, where's the irrefutable objective worth of hard-scientific
replicated matter of facts proving that we even had that pesky moon as
of during or prior to our last ice age, and not just having a solar
tidal influence to deal with.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Mr. V"
Title: Re: Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC / The Ghost In The Machine	18 Oct 2006 12:28:31 AM

This guy is w-a-y o-u-t there...
Far beyond the moon.
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC / The Ghost In The Machine	18 Oct 2006 12:21:11 PM

"Mr. V" <zencraps@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1161149310.977010.139040@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

This guy is w-a-y o-u-t there...

Far beyond the moon.

You could be right, whereas Venus is typically never closer than 100
fold as far as our moon, and that's certainly "w-a-y o-u-t there" in my
book.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 09:51:21 AM

Did the sub-topic of Venus kill off "The Ghost In The Machine"?
(apparently so)
Wy has this moon topic recently become taboo (selectively moderated so
that certain contributions can't even be replied to)? Is the moon or
rather that of any sub-topic forbidden archeology, forbidden science?
Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/33792360348636450d6a42a6aaf236f9.49644%40mygate.mailgate.org?order=smart&p=1/449
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_frm/thread/51e8d2abc701ddac/b220ae7eabdaa3b2?hl=en#b220ae7eabdaa3b2
The ancient Crystal Skulls and Jadeite Skeleton of the China/Mongolia
region that date as of somewhat recent 3500 ~ 2200 BC, and of many other
complex items dating to 10,500 BC, shows a terrific artistic range and
intellectual scope of their having understood and depicted such items of
importance, along with clearly an understanding as to their meaning
seems rather obvious, proving that such early heathens had this degree
of perfectly relevant artistic expertises and were otherwise extremely
survival intelligent folks.
http://www.greatdreams.com/himalayan/desisto-skulls-2.html
Yet there's still no similar or previous depictions of a much simpler
object that had bold features and phase by phase looked a little
hocus-pocus different each night, such as that of our nearby moon which
had to have been extremely important to their survival and that of
keeping track of time, seasons and navigation while offering terrific
nighttime illumination (especially way back then when Earth's albedo was
half again if not at times worth twice of what it is today).
So, where the heck was our nearby and therefore unavoidably impressive
mascon of a moon as of during, prior to or even shortly thereafter the
last ice age?
Intelligent humans with terrific artistic skills had obviously existed
prior and during the last ice age, and obviously thereafter as having
demonstrated their survival and reasonably complex creative skills over
and over, yet the simplest of an interesting and highly important object
to depict being that of our moon is nowhere to be found until long after
the last ice age. Moon gods weren't even invented until more recent
than 2500 BC.
How can such an intelligent species of early humanity, as taken from all
over this world, have lost and/or having entirely disregarded our moon?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 01:20:18 PM

Brad Guth wrote:

You have yet to provide any evidence that people 10,000+ years ago
depicted the entire range of things they could see, or anything besides
animals and people. Without such evidence your argument gets nowhere.
I'm sure you'll continue to believe your moon theory, but give up the
idea that archeology is going to give you any support for it. And this
link is written by someone who believes in "Dropa disks", so you'll
understand why nobody here takes it seriously.
Ross Clark
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 09:28:34 PM

"benlizro" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161109218.707531.159160@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com

I'm working on it. However, since I'm not nearly as all-knowing and
wizard worthy like yourself, I could always use your expertise help.
There are a good number of such old depictions and even a few spare gods
as having been assigned to that of our sun, and otherwise many examples
of their illuminated environment that's somewhat suggesting they had a
sun to work with, though absolutely no mention nor depiction of having
to deal with massive tides or any sightings of that pesky moon until
quite late in the game.
BTW; Other than the typical arrogance and bigotry factors, I do not
understand why "nobody here takes it seriously". The Dropa and/or of
some other name of extremely little folks did exist, as well as did
those extremely tall individuals as having elongated skulls representing
yet another unexplained species of humans that materialized as though
out of nowhere.
How did China become so advanced, when the majority of the rest of us
were still hidding out in caves and even according to yourself, such
dumb and dumber heathens that we were entirely unable to depict our
moon.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 10:47:22 PM

Brad Guth wrote:

"benlizro" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161109218.707531.159160@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com

So give us some specific places where we can see these.
and otherwise many examples

of their illuminated environment that's somewhat suggesting they had a
sun to work with,

Duh, nobody doubts the sun was around.
though absolutely no mention nor depiction of having

to deal with massive tides

Duh, there's no "mention" of anything at the dates we're talking about.
Nobody was writing anything. Depiction? Exactly how would you depict
"having to deal with massive tides"? Is there a single depiction of the
sea _at all_ at this date?

or any sightings of that pesky moon until
quite late in the game.

I heard you the first time. But you don't seem to have heard me: This
fact means nothing at all unless you can show that they depicted all
aspects of the visible world _other_ than the moon. So far you haven't.

BTW; Other than the typical arrogance and bigotry factors, I do not
understand why "nobody here takes it seriously".

Other than the typical stupidity factor, I do not understand why you do
not pay attention to the discussion: The Dropa story is a crock.
Third-rate, fifth-hand science fiction, retailed by von Daniken. The
people and institutions mentioned in it do not exist. The disks are
nowhere to be seen. How much more do you want?
The Dropa and/or of

some other name of extremely little folks did exist, as well as did
those extremely tall individuals as having elongated skulls representing
yet another unexplained species of humans that materialized as though
out of nowhere.

You mean leprechauns, giants, pixies, mermaids...? I suppose you've
been reading this New Age/UFO garbage so long you have no idea what
credible evidence looks like.

How did China become so advanced, when the majority of the rest of us
were still hidding out in caves

I see you have the comic book edition of world history, too.
and even according to yourself, such

dumb and dumber heathens that we were entirely unable to depict our
moon.

Do try to stay awake. I said they did not depict the moon (and _lots_
of other things). Not that they were unable.
The idea that just having some artistic skill would compel them to
paint pictures of the moon, or that not painting the moon would mean
they were stupid, is a pure arbitrary supposition on your part.
Ross Clark
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 12:25:26 PM

"benlizro" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161143242.585615.211700@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com

Could you get yourself any more naysay, or is your denial being in
denial as good as it gets?
A clear set of depictions including those of our moon as of 5300 BP or
3300 BC seems entirely worthy of being as good of hard-science that's
also about as replicated as it needs to get. Now, how about a little
something on behalf of the other 7,000 years?
"odubhain" <odubhain@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1161110843.597303.131490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

The oldest mapping of the Moon I've ever seen was done about 5300BP in
Knowth, Ireland. It's located in an ancient ritual center devoted to
observing and celebrating the Sun, Moon and stars. It also happens to
be on property where my ancestors once lived:
http://publish.uwo.ca/~pjstooke/knowth.htm
http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/knowth/lunarknowth.html
There's also calendrical sticks and other devices indicating lunar
cycles that are much older (but many of these have already been
presented in this thread).

Searles O'Dubhain

That's good news, bringing us roughly a third of the way towards the
10,500 BC mark.
Interesting to note, that depicted wavy line could represent those new
and improved tides.
Also interesting to note are of those French cave heathens as having
been painting up such a storm as of 15,000 BC without their ever once
suggesting the likeness of any moon. No wonder them French are
supposedly as dumbfounded as they are, especially if there actually was
that big old moon to deal with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/
http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=362
"15000 BC The cave art of Paleolithic man of Lascaux, France dates to
this time. It contains some 600 paintings, 1500 engravings, and
innumerable ..." However, entirely w/o once offering any positive
suggestion of their environment having any moon.
Savvy humans have been around throughout many ice-ages, whereas
excluding Ed Conrad's 280 million year old human remains, at least we're
talking 300+ thousands of years, yet only those of the most recent times
long after the last ice age had become intelligent enough to having
bothered to take any notice of our moon, of the unavoidable influence
upon their environment and mostly positive impact upon their ultimate
survival, whereas moonshine would have given the rather significant
advantage to those smart enough to venture outside on such vibrantly
illuminated and somewhat crisp and clear nighttimes where hunting and
gathering would have been much safer, that is if you didn't want to get
spotted by the vast majority of wild things that were either asleep or
nearly blind by such limited illumination that we humans should have
seen perfectly fine and dandy by way of the frosty nighttime light of
such a nearby moon.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "benlizross"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 01:39:39 PM

Brad Guth wrote:

"benlizro" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161143242.585615.211700@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com

Could you get yourself any more naysay, or is your denial being in
denial as good as it gets?

Well, I tried to get you to reflect on your own thought processes and
the logic of your argument, but there's only so much other people can
do. Your refusal to face these things is your own kind of "naysay".
Ross Clark

A clear set of depictions including those of our moon as of 5300 BP or
3300 BC seems entirely worthy of being as good of hard-science that's
also about as replicated as it needs to get. Now, how about a little
something on behalf of the other 7,000 years?

"odubhain" <odubhain@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1161110843.597303.131490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

That's good news, bringing us roughly a third of the way towards the
10,500 BC mark.

Interesting to note, that depicted wavy line could represent those new
and improved tides.

Also interesting to note are of those French cave heathens as having
been painting up such a storm as of 15,000 BC without their ever once
suggesting the likeness of any moon. No wonder them French are
supposedly as dumbfounded as they are, especially if there actually was
that big old moon to deal with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/
http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=362
"15000 BC The cave art of Paleolithic man of Lascaux, France dates to
this time. It contains some 600 paintings, 1500 engravings, and
innumerable ..." However, entirely w/o once offering any positive
suggestion of their environment having any moon.

Savvy humans have been around throughout many ice-ages, whereas
excluding Ed Conrad's 280 million year old human remains, at least we're
talking 300+ thousands of years, yet only those of the most recent times
long after the last ice age had become intelligent enough to having
bothered to take any notice of our moon, of the unavoidable influence
upon their environment and mostly positive impact upon their ultimate
survival, whereas moonshine would have given the rather significant
advantage to those smart enough to venture outside on such vibrantly
illuminated and somewhat crisp and clear nighttimes where hunting and
gathering would have been much safer, that is if you didn't want to get
spotted by the vast majority of wild things that were either asleep or
nearly blind by such limited illumination that we humans should have
seen perfectly fine and dandy by way of the frosty nighttime light of
such a nearby moon.
-
Brad Guth

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 05:10:05 PM

"benlizross" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:453674EB.7F7C@ihug.co.nz

Replicated science as offering the best available truth will do just
fine and dandy, especially if it operates within the regular laws of
physics.
Show me a 10,500 BC moon of any kind and we'll then have to go for the
15,000 BC target. At some point in the somewhat recent
planetology/moontology times of human intelligence that was more than
merely survival sufficient, Earth obtained that horrifically icy mascon
moon of our's, and ever since we've been getting the benefits along with
the unavoidable tidal warmth of that sucker.
We know so damn little about our salty moon that even you can't share as
to the amount of IR/FIR energy it's unavoidably contributing into our
environment. Our moon is off limites to ACE, as well as having been
avoided by any science platform that can help put such things into hard
scientific matter of facts. You do realize that it is technically
impossible to have been orbiting and much less walking moonsuit butt
naked upon and having been taking all of those thousands of unfiltered
Kodak moments without their ever having managed to get a few of those
frames including Venus. Of course, that's not to mention the rather
nasty factors of the double IR thermal, gamma and hard-X-rays, and of
their little pesky matter of that supposed 60:1 deployment factor or
even of their fly-by-rocket lander that simply can't be R&D demonstrated
without blowing out yet another one of your rusemaster
infomercial-science gaskets.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 01:41:01 PM

On 17 Oct 2006 11:20:18 -0700, in sci.archaeology,

wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:

And a fictional Jadeite Skeleton.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 12:07:54 PM

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:21 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology, Brad Guth
wrote:

Wy has this moon topic recently become taboo (selectively moderated so
that certain contributions can't even be replied to)? Is the moon or
rather that of any sub-topic forbidden archeology, forbidden science?

I repeat, the newsgroups you are posting to are not moderated and it is
impossible to moderate them.
However, you are not using Usenet, you are using Mailgate, and your
quarrel is with them. A common reason for that message would be if you
were attaching anything at all to the message, or doing anything that
would make Mailgate see it as spam (which might include posting it to
numerous newsgroups).
I repeat, there are no mechanisms that allow these newsgroups to be
moderated as Usenet groups. Posting through any interface, the software of
that interface might block posts for various reasons. Direct posting via a
news client, you can't be blocked.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 09:04:58 PM

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j03aj29v19r8a17o3nkp342n8tkd0e2gt7@4ax.com

I repeat, there are no mechanisms that allow these newsgroups to be
moderated as Usenet groups. Posting through any interface, the software of
that interface might block posts for various reasons. Direct posting via a
news client, you can't be blocked.

Sorry, I don't believe you. It's that simple because, I've posted
similar complex replies to others within that topic and lo and behold,
it works just fine and dandy. Even a simple one of a kind as having a
two or three line reply to the "The Ghost In The Machine" gets
automatically rejected. Therefore, either I'm being internally
moderated or "The Ghost In The Machine" borg collective is getting the
Mailgate boot because of their having gone a wee bit off-topic.
BTW; I believe GOOGLE/Usenet as well as MI/NSA can accomplish anything
it wants without asking nor telling.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 11:06:08 AM

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:04:58 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology, Brad Guth
wrote:

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j03aj29v19r8a17o3nkp342n8tkd0e2gt7@4ax.com

Sorry, I don't believe you. It's that simple because, I've posted
similar complex replies to others within that topic and lo and behold,
it works just fine and dandy. Even a simple one of a kind as having a
two or three line reply to the "The Ghost In The Machine" gets
automatically rejected. Therefore, either I'm being internally
moderated or "The Ghost In The Machine" borg collective is getting the
Mailgate boot because of their having gone a wee bit off-topic.

BTW; I believe GOOGLE/Usenet as well as MI/NSA can accomplish anything
it wants without asking nor telling.
-

Google is not Usenet. Usenet is not an organisation, it is the name we
give to the hundreds of thousands of servers that carry, usually by nntp,
newsgroups such as these. Mailgate and Google are both non-Usenet
interfaces through which you can read and post to newsgroups.
Use Freeagent and link it to a news server and you won't have the problem.
Unless you are spamming, and I can tell you are getting close to it.
I repeat, Usenet is not an entity. There are moderated newsgroups, and
when you post to those all posts to those go to a moderator, but you are
not posting to moderated groups.
But you believe in conspiracies and must have an overinflated idea of your
own worth to think that Google or any other organisation is paying
attention to you.
And why mentnion Google? You aren't posting through Google, therefore
Google cannot affect your posts.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 12:32:03 PM

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mvjcj29h2kv0n3c6lgc07cltfu9krekop5@4ax.com

Use Freeagent and link it to a news server and you won't have the problem.
Unless you are spamming, and I can tell you are getting close to it.

I repeat, Usenet is not an entity. There are moderated newsgroups, and
when you post to those all posts to those go to a moderator, but you are
not posting to moderated groups.

But you believe in conspiracies and must have an overinflated idea of your
own worth to think that Google or any other organisation is paying
attention to you.

And why mentnion Google? You aren't posting through Google, therefore
Google cannot affect your posts.

I kid you not. The big gun servers as GOOGLE/Usenet and the likes of
MI/NSA spooks and their MIB borg collective is as close to eGod as
you're ever going to get.
Thanks much for all of the constructive feedback.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 01:35:41 PM

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:32:03 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology, Brad Guth
wrote:

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mvjcj29h2kv0n3c6lgc07cltfu9krekop5@4ax.com

I kid you not. The big gun servers as GOOGLE/Usenet and the likes of
MI/NSA spooks and their MIB borg collective is as close to eGod as
you're ever going to get.

Thanks much for all of the constructive feedback.
-

Usenet isn't a server. It is a lot of networked servers, individually
owned, with no government, no ownership, etc, of hundreds of thousands of
servers. There is an informal agreement, not always honored, as to how to
treat posts to moderated groups. Posts to non-moderated groups are just
passed through the network. It isn't at all like Google, which is a
mammoth organisation. You are still confusing them.
But if you post articles with substantially similar content to enough
groups, the spambots might get you (but not with 100% effectiveness due to
the more or less anarchic nature of Usenet).
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 04:46:33 PM

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aoscj2pivjgog5i1rfhoc4n4faq5q5tthi@4ax.com

But if you post articles with substantially similar content to enough
groups, the spambots might get you (but not with 100% effectiveness due to
the more or less anarchic nature of Usenet).

I'd informed your borg like butt-brain that I'd proven you're either a
liar or snookered into being dumbfounded past the point of no return.
What part of being in such a pagan status quo of denial are you still in
denial about?
I still kid you not. Those seriously big-gun servers as our lord and
all-knowing GOOGLE/Usenet and the likes of their MI/NSA spooks and of
their MIB borg collective of infomercial-science and damage-control is
getting such things as this Usenet as close to eGod as you're ever going
to get.
Interesting, in that you'd even consider the best available truth as
being conspiracy worthy, just like your best friend GW bush and of his
born-again collective of religious blood-sucking borgs that'll justify
upon whatever it takes in order to achieve their ultimate quest of
global energy domination, and thus taking power over and/or extracting
profits as obtained from as much of the lower 99.9% of humanity as they
can manage to get away with.
Thanks anyway for all of the constructive feedback, even though it's
mostly wrong.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	19 Oct 2006 11:02:53 AM

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:46:33 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology, Brad Guth
wrote:

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aoscj2pivjgog5i1rfhoc4n4faq5q5tthi@4ax.com

But if you post articles with substantially similar content to enough
groups, the spambots might get you (but not with 100% effectiveness due to
the more or less anarchic nature of Usenet).

I'd informed your borg like butt-brain that I'd proven you're either a
liar or snookered into being dumbfounded past the point of no return.

ROTFL.

What part of being in such a pagan status quo of denial are you still in
denial about?

Atheist, not pagan.

I still kid you not. Those seriously big-gun servers as our lord and
all-knowing GOOGLE/Usenet and the likes of their MI/NSA spooks and of
their MIB borg collective of infomercial-science and damage-control is
getting such things as this Usenet as close to eGod as you're ever going
to get.

Usenet is an anarchy, but you'll never believe it's different from Google

Interesting, in that you'd even consider the best available truth as
being conspiracy worthy, just like your best friend GW bush

And there we go, you live in a topsyturvy world where most things are
backwards and evidence is not required. Anyone who actually knows my
politics will know what I think about Bush.
and of his

born-again collective of religious blood-sucking borgs that'll justify
upon whatever it takes in order to achieve their ultimate quest of
global energy domination, and thus taking power over and/or extracting
profits as obtained from as much of the lower 99.9% of humanity as they
can manage to get away with.

Thanks anyway for all of the constructive feedback, even though it's
mostly wrong.
-
Brad Guth

Yawn.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	23 Oct 2006 06:50:57 AM

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g98fj2hmk895hm12tmf84r662lormllrfq@4ax.com

What part of being in such a pagan status quo of denial are you still in
denial about?

Atheist, not pagan.

So, what's the difference? Why are all born-again rusemasters claiming
"Atheist"?

Usenet is an anarchy, but you'll never believe it's different from Google

If I had 10% of the supercomputers and infomercial grip on the private
parts of this Internet and Usenet that's at the disposal of GOOGLE, I'd
become the next best thing to eGod.

Interesting, in that you'd even consider the best available truth as
being conspiracy worthy, just like your best friend GW bush

And there we go, you live in a topsyturvy world where most things are
backwards and evidence is not required. Anyone who actually knows my
politics will know what I think about Bush.

Thinking and doing are two different things. What are you doing about
Bush? Do you have a cash of IEDs with his name on them? Where the hell
are those Romans when you need to put one of your own kind on a stick?
The Third Reich obviously was doing either nothing or exacty the
opposite of whatever they were thinking. It's exactly what boot camp is
intended to do to your otherwise wussy do-nothing constructive mindset.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 02:35:03 PM

In sci.physics Doug Weller <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:32:03 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology, Brad Guth
wrote:

"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mvjcj29h2kv0n3c6lgc07cltfu9krekop5@4ax.com

I kid you not. The big gun servers as GOOGLE/Usenet and the likes of
MI/NSA spooks and their MIB borg collective is as close to eGod as
you're ever going to get.

Thanks much for all of the constructive feedback.
-

It is pointless to try to educate Brad Guth on how anything works in the
real world, which is why I kill filed the kook.
Brad knows what he knows and nothing will ever convince him otherwise.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	18 Oct 2006 04:36:21 PM

"jimp" <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:npbi04-5ua.ln1@mail.specsol.com

It is pointless to try to educate Brad Guth on how anything works in the
real world, which is why I kill filed the kook.

Brad knows what he knows and nothing will ever convince him otherwise.

Where on Earth did your borg mindset ever manage to get that silly idea?
(from the nearest hocus-pocus space toilet that's hiding all 700 boxes
of our NASA/Apollo ruse of the century?)
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	19 Oct 2006 11:03:48 AM

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:35:03 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

It is pointless to try to educate Brad Guth on how anything works in the
real world, which is why I kill filed the kook.

Brad knows what he knows and nothing will ever convince him otherwise.

I'm sure you are right and into my killfile he goes. I just wanted to
make sure no one else bought into his idiotic statements about being
moderated.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	17 Oct 2006 08:27:19 PM

Doug Weller wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:21 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology, Brad Guth
wrote:

I repeat, the newsgroups you are posting to are not moderated and it is
impossible to moderate them.

However, you are not using Usenet, you are using Mailgate, and your
quarrel is with them. A common reason for that message would be if you
were attaching anything at all to the message, or doing anything that
would make Mailgate see it as spam (which might include posting it to
numerous newsgroups).

I repeat, there are no mechanisms that allow these newsgroups to be
moderated as Usenet groups. Posting through any interface, the software of
that interface might block posts for various reasons. Direct posting via a
news client, you can't be blocked.

Maybe the Mailgate folks have gotten their 'crazy' filter perfected.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
definition: recursion; see recursion.
.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: The Ghost In The Machine (moderated?)	16 Oct 2006 03:33:01 PM

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:35:04 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology, Brad Guth
wrote:

Must be a software issue or something like that, you aren't posting to any
moderated groups. Ask Mailgate.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply