Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Skitter The Cat" <Skitter_the_Cat@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:05:04 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
Lines: 146
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <OY%Tb.131360$f97.54913@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com> <slrnc1843b.1j0.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem> <a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com> <bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401300712.35109640@posting.google.com> <bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401311452.4845f5f4@posting.google.com> <bvicq9$232$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402010651.5b31f70f@posting.google.com> <bvje91$lk8$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com> <cb5b2d4e.0402021542.4498bb00@posting.google.com> <bvnr46$qps$2@pita.alt.net>
Reply-To: Skitter_the_Cat@yahoo.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075874704 9710 128.100.83.246 (4 Feb 2004 06:05:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:05:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: News Rover 9.1.2 (http://www.NewsRover.com)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.133.15.142
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2158
On 3-Feb-2004, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> Path:
> be1.columbus.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!cyclone.rdc-nyc.rr.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
> Newsgroups:
> talk.origins,alt.fan.uncle-davey,free.christians.soc.support.fat-acceptance
> Subject: Re: wwww
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:53:41 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: www.usenetposts.com
> Lines: 49
> Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <bvnr46$qps$2@pita.alt.net>
> References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com>
> <slrnc1843b.1j0.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>
> <a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com>
> <bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl>
> <517d5df8.0401300712.35109640@posting.google.com>
> <bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl>
> <517d5df8.0401311452.4845f5f4@posting.google.com>
> <bvicq9$232$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
> <892cb437.0402010651.5b31f70f@posting.google.com>
> <bvje91$lk8$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
> <892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com>
> <cb5b2d4e.0402021542.4498bb00@posting.google.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075802021 87661 128.100.83.246 (3 Feb 2004
> 09:53:41 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:53:41 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
> Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1311395
> alt.fan.uncle-davey:1936
>
>
> news:cb5b2d4e.0402021542.4498bb00@posting.google.com...
> > richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message
> news:<892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > I think the problem is with some of the studies you have given is
> > > > that
> they
> > > > are biassed because obese people write them.
> > > >
> > > > Uncle Davey
> > >
> > > My word! Isn't it easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your view!
> > > Thanks for the laugh.
> > >
> > > RF
> > >
> > > PS You're not exactly persuading me by the force of your argument and
> > > evidence.
> >
> > Here is an interesting point. When the truly mass production of
> > images on paper became cheap and easy, from high speed rotary presses,
> > around the turn of the last century, it was possible for the first
> > time to provide chick-pictures to a mass market. You will look forever
> > to find any mass produced images of female beauty that are anywhere
> > near fat. Check out the vargas girls who were staple pinups in the 2nd
> > WW.
> > It is hard to know exactly why stone images of fat women were mass
> > produced 20,000 years ago. It is unlikely that they were love objects
> > because such women have low fertility and would be a lot of trouble to
> > carry around from place to place in stone-age Europe. Maybe the
> > statues were used as fear inducing objects in primitive warfare --
> > something to throw at an enemy to make them run away.
> > As for all those Raphaels, Who knows? He was being paid to portray
> > certain rich people. Who knows why they wanted what he produced?
> > But for images of female beauty for a mass market, there has been
> > virtually no fat-women-images, ever. Maryln Monroe, at the end of her
> > life, was at the upper limit of what has ever been considered
> > marketable.
> >
>
> I sometimes think those old stone figures where there to tease fat women
> and
> encourage them to slim down a little, and regain their value to the tribe.
> They probably stuck them in the fridge so as to scare off the fat women
> when
> they went there by night to get their sleeping calories.
>
> Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey!
I'm surprised at you! Why in the world would go to all the trouble of
inventing such an assertion, or coming up with such an obviously ad hoc
explanation that serves only to be insulting and dismissive-as a Christian,
why would you do such a thing! I am shocked! Shocked!
Surely and truly I am at least as shocked as Capt. Renault must have been
when he found gambling going on at Rick's Place!
Why not just follow the pattern that you usually do when confronting
archaeological or anthropological evidence: wave your hands and just wish it
away, or mumble a few ritual bibliophilic phrases, invoke some smoke (in
front of the mirror you are afraid to look in) and transform the conflicting
data into pillars of support for your ideology?!
This Curious Cat wants to know:
Since you don't think radiocarbon dating is valid, and you don't think varve
dating is valid, and you don't think dendrochronology is valid, and you
don't think thermoluminescence dating is valid, and you don't think
archaeomagnetic dating is valid, and you don't think fission track dating is
valid, and you don't think potassium argon dating is valid, and you don't
think obsidian hydration dating is valid, and you don't think seriation
dating is useful, or stratigraphy and superposition important, or
understanding formation processes effect on the archaeological record is
useful, or that the four separate branches of anthropology (archaeology,
cultural anthropology, linguistics, and physical anthropology) can inform
one another...in short, if you can dismiss all that you have to dismiss in
order to make your claims regarding the Tower of Babel and the spread of
humanity into the Americas appear anything other than the fancy of your
imagnation...
Then why not just claim that the Venus figurines were made in Taiwan last
Thursday by skinny little atheists out to spread the lie that there was a
prehistoric period to human existence and be done with it? And/or that
Reuben's (et al) art has changed shape and color over the course of time so
that the figures depicted merely appear to have been of sizes and shapes
that are obviously repulsive to any civilized, sexually active male.
Ah, but then you would be passing up an opportunity to denigrate some people
and generally make Christians look like asinine fools. As a Christian, and
simply as a part of the human community, I find your ethnocentric and
egocentric ramblings sad and pathetic.
I think I see the design behind your postings. I wish that design were
intelligent. I wish it blessed the world with love and compassion. I wish
it elevated the human spirit and glorified God. I wish it expanded
knowledge and wisdom. I wish it spread the Gospel.
Instead, it just wastes bandwidth.
And for that, I simply feel sorrow.
I wish you luck and hope that the Grace of God finds us both, as well as all
others reading this.
Skitter the Cat
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|