On 4-Feb-2004, "Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> 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: "Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net>
> Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.uncle-davey
> Subject: Re: wwww
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:51:45 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Lines: 170
> Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <pan.2004.02.04.07.01.16.512542@terralink.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$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
> <892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com>
> <cb5b2d4e.0402021542.4498bb00@posting.google.com>
> <bvnr46$qps$2@pita.alt.net> <OY%Tb.131360$f97.54913@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075877505 10807 128.100.83.246 (4 Feb 2004
> 06:51:45 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:51:45 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: Pan/0.13.4 (She had eyes like strange sins.)
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.189.200.204
> X-Spamscanner: mailbox3.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Dec 3 2003 15:07:19, 0.0/5.0
> 2.60)
> X-Spam-Level: Level
> X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 98099 i146qOC3099300 mailbox3.ucsd.edu)
> Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1311893
> alt.fan.uncle-davey:1997
>
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 06:05:04 +0000, Skitter The Cat wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
>
> Said it better than I did. In another post, I made the comment that, other
> than his considerable knowledge of different languages, Uncle Davey has
> had his ass handed to him on every issue he's attempted to put forth on
> this newsgroup. And while most of the creationist posters around here
> stick to a couple of claims and stick with 'em, Davey's been pretty
> prolific, at least insofar as number of _different_ claims to be wrong
> about is concerned.
Agreed-and thank you for the compliment.
>
> He does so much harm to his cause, I can't imagine why he continues in
> this vein.
Again, I agree.
I am beginning to wonder if he is simply a troll. I am not asserting that
he is by any means; certainly, there are some of my fellow Christians who
just make me want to pound my head into a spike in order to end the pain of
reading their nonsense (whether it is Creationism, something hate-filled, or
just really bad apologetics) and he might be just one of them. I do think
it is possible, given his known history of deceit, that not even he believes
any of his assertions or arguments. He may be just a prankster, or some
anti-religious type bent on making Theists look bad.
In the big, happy, dysfunctional family of Usenet-where the fringe meets the
kooky-it gets difficult to tell the "real"ly wacky from the "virtual"ly
wacky.
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 |
|