|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: mpmmpm Date: Feb 23, 2008 17:43
On Feb 23, 4:20Â pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:31 am, mpm aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 10:13�pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>
>>> If 50%% of your offspring are insane, your genes are less likely to be
>>> carried into future generations.
>
>> If I father 2 children, then maybe you have a point.
>> If I father 20 children, your argument starts to fall apart.
>
> My argument still works just fine for 20 children. If 17 of your 20
> children, on the average will, die before reproducing having 50%% of
> your children being insane still makes your DNA unlikely to be around
> in a couple of generations. Â Creatures with death rates for their
> offspring often compensate with having large numbers of offspring.
>
> When humans try to overwelm the odds by having many children, they
> have to spread the support among them. Â Human children take a lot of
> raising so it put each one at a disadvantage when this is dine. ...
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: mpmmpm Date: Feb 23, 2008 17:50
On Feb 23, 4:24Â pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:35 am, mpm aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 22, 10:23�pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 22, 5:27 pm, Jim Yanik abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>>> Andy Peters latke.net> wrote
>>> [....]
>>>>> Bill Clinton was impeached for a blow job, which of course was
>>>>> unrelated to his Presidential job.
>
>>>> It was on "company time",by the employer and management of the
>>>> intern,BESIDES the huge LIE to the American People,and the PERJURY for
>>>> which he was disbarred for a too-short a period.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: mpmmpm Date: Feb 23, 2008 18:01
On Feb 23, 8:13�pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 4:53 pm, James Arthur yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 1:23 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 23, 8:55 am, Jim Yanik abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> On Feb 22, 7:23 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 22, 5:27 pm, Jim Yanik abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Andy Peters latke.net> wrote
>>>>>> [....]
>>>>>>>> Bill Clinton was impeached for a blow job, which of course was ...
|
| Show full article (4.32Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: James ArthurJames Arthur Date: Feb 23, 2008 18:06
On Feb 23, 5:13 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 4:53 pm, James Arthur yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 1:23 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 23, 8:55 am, Jim Yanik abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> On Feb 22, 7:23 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 22, 5:27 pm, Jim Yanik abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Andy Peters latke.net> wrote
>>>>>> [....]
>>>>>>>> Bill Clinton was impeached for a blow job, which of course was
>>>>>>>> unrelated to his Presidential job.
> ...
|
| Show full article (4.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Jim ThompsonJim Thompson Date: Feb 23, 2008 18:22
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:06:57 -0800 (PST), James Arthur
yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 23, 5:13 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 4:53 pm, James Arthur yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>>> It--showing a pattern of Mr. Clinton foisting himself on and/or
>>> expecting favors from subordinates--was central to the plaintiff's
>>> case.
>>
>> Not in the judges opinion it didn't. Anybody reading the facts would
>> see a huge difference between someone having an affair with a willing
>> adult and someone who "expected favors" etc. The judge, like all
>> reasonable people, can see the huge difference.
>
> You misspeak; the trial re: perjury & obstruction was heard by the
>Senate, not a judge.
Not precisely...
|
| Show full article (1.54Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Jim ThompsonJim Thompson Date: Feb 23, 2008 18:25
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:01:18 -0800 (PST), mpm aol.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>
>I'm really curious now....
>
>Generally, what are your feelings about this Bill Clinton sex scandal
>with Monica Lewinsky?
This will surprise all lurkers... I could care less.
>Are you OK that it happened? Furious that it happened? Don't care
>either way? Upset that he mostly got away with it? Thought he should
>be removed from office? Or what???
But I do care that a President of the United States lied about it. He
should have declared that he enjoyed it and didn't think it was anyone
else's business; but Clinton has no REAL balls ;-)
[snip]
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Michael A. TerrellMichael A. Terrell Date: Feb 24, 2008 01:15
mpm wrote:
>
> Adult Stoplight Parrot Fish can switch sex from male to female and
> vice-versa.
> Ditto with Flounder, and several other fish (or so I am told).
>
> I think we just need to isloate that gene, and then inject into all
> the drag queens.
> That should fix everything.
Sure, if the goal is more ugly women no one wants to touch! :(
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Michael A. TerrellMichael A. Terrell Date: Feb 24, 2008 01:16
MooseFET wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 10:56 am, John Larkin
> highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:31:51 -0800 (PST), mpm aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 22, 10:13?pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> If 50%% of your offspring are insane, your genes are less likely to be
>>>> carried into future generations.
>>
>>>If I father 2 children, then maybe you have a point.
>>>If I father 20 children, your argument starts to fall apart.
>>
>> Having 20 kids would make you insane!
>
> Ah, but which is the cause and which the effect?
Would it really matter at that point? :(
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Michael A. TerrellMichael A. Terrell Date: Feb 24, 2008 01:24
mpm wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 10:49�am, "Michael A. Terrell" earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> � �Pick out your cardboard box now, while the choices are still good. :(
>
> Hey Mike.
>
> Don't know about you, but I'm planning to make mine out of leftover
> "butterfly" ballots. :)
I have enough heavy computer cases to make a nice little shelter, if
I don't run out of Acetylene, first. ;-)
> FWIW, my friend's Mom calls her "Hitlery", though she'll probably end
> up voting democratic this time anyway.
|
| Show full article (0.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: JosephKKJosephKK Date: Feb 24, 2008 01:33
John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:44:04 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:52:55 -0800, Andy Peters wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 4:45 pm, Jim Thompson
>>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>> I have it on good authority, from a source that prefers to stay
>>>> anonymous, that all the editors of the New York Times are queers of the
>>>> finest leftist weenie variety ;-)
>>> What, you're afraid of queers?
>>>
>>> Afraid they might turn you queer?
>>>
>>> Afraid you might already BE queer?
>>>
>>> Or, put another way, why does it seem like the Republicans who bray
>>> loudest against homosexuals are actually closeted, self-hating gays?
>>>
>> I think the homophobes are just jealous of guys who can get a free ...
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|