OT! OT! Not in Arizona

Jamie · Feb 10, 2004

and you can sit here all day quoting your education and
giving your opinions of others and their ideas.
Sorry, but after reading the trail of replies you
have left behind it appears that you are still in the clouds
and yet haven't found a place to land.

Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:

Everyone of intelligence recognizes that the only explanation for things
being the way they are is that this is all a simulation. For instance, when
the system crashes, the stack is saved and then restored, but sometimes
minor corruptions occur.
How else do you explain socks that vanish in the dryer or your car keys
showing up in the refrigerator? You KNOW that you left that light on but
now it is not only off, but unplugged! Last time I put these on, they fit-
now they don't! I remember seeing Back To The Future 4, where the Biff from
1955 gets into Doc's Institute of Future Technology and eventually has to
have his memory erased with that quantum scrambler... nobody seems to think
that the series went beyond part III, sigh...
And quantum mechanics proves that only the things you are observing are
really being fully simulated. The Bell Continuum is a set of variables and
registers!

Cheers!

Chip Shults

Clifford Heath · Feb 10, 2004

Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:

How else do you explain socks that vanish in the dryer or your car keys
showing up in the refrigerator?

Quite easily explained by the worm-hole theory of domestic appliances.
The best demonstration of this is the sock-wash wormhole theory, which
holds that socks can leap between machines even on opposite sides of the
planet, and explains why in almost every wash some socks go missing,
and other socks appear which are recognised by no-one in the household.

OhBrother · Feb 11, 2004

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:58:46 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote:

Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:
How else do you explain socks that vanish in the dryer or your car keys
showing up in the refrigerator?

Quite easily explained by the worm-hole theory of domestic appliances.
The best demonstration of this is the sock-wash wormhole theory, which
holds that socks can leap between machines even on opposite sides of the
planet, and explains why in almost every wash some socks go missing,
and other socks appear which are recognised by no-one in the household.

Socks evolve into hangars. empty hangars evolve into socks. I thought
everyone knew that?

O'

Mark J. · Feb 11, 2004

In news

an.2004.02.11.00.49.35.330570@noplace.com (OhBrother):

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:58:46 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote:

Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:
How else do you explain socks that vanish in the dryer or your
car keys showing up in the refrigerator?

Quite easily explained by the worm-hole theory of domestic appliances.
The best demonstration of this is the sock-wash wormhole theory, which
holds that socks can leap between machines even on opposite sides of
the planet, and explains why in almost every wash some socks go
missing, and other socks appear which are recognised by no-one in the
household.

Socks evolve into hangars. empty hangars evolve into socks. I thought
everyone knew that?

O'

It has something to do with the spin cycle and the liquid vortex... damn so
that's what that thing on Stargate SG-1 is...

Rex · Feb 11, 2004

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:54:27 GMT, "OhBrother" <nobody@noplace.com>
wrote:

Socks evolve into hangars. empty hangars evolve into socks. I thought
everyone knew that?

That's not the explanation that I was taught. My old friend (wish he was
still around) explained to me that the dust balls under your bed are the
larval form of coat hangers. I've never seen any reason to doubt this.

Rex · Feb 11, 2004

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:16:25 -0500, "Mark J." <127.0.0.1> wrote:

It has something to do with the spin cycle and the liquid vortex... damn so
that's what that thing on Stargate SG-1 is...

I have always believed that there is an alternate world that is trading
socks with us. I think it has something to do with warm, damp, and
spinning but the details still evade me.

Its part of an incomplete conservation of socks theory.

John Woodgate · Feb 11, 2004

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Rex
<notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote (in <3q0k205sfi5ctk3fdklu9sktk04isk6b8
t@4ax.com&gt

about 'OT! OT! Not in Arizona', on Wed, 11 Feb 2004:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:54:27 GMT, "OhBrother" <nobody@noplace.com
wrote:

Socks evolve into hangars. empty hangars evolve into socks. I thought
everyone knew that?

That's not the explanation that I was taught. My old friend (wish he was
still around) explained to me that the dust balls under your bed are the
larval form of coat hangers. I've never seen any reason to doubt this.

You have misunderstood. Socks evolve into hangArs. You will see adult
socks in breeding condition at every airfield, advertising for a mate by
climbing to the top of a mast. The hangars stay with their parent until
maturity.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Bill Garber · Feb 11, 2004

"Rex" <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:8v0k20pcnm551t4igsfh125ctfu4gdi6t7@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:16:25 -0500, "Mark J." <127.0.0.1>
wrote:
:
: > It has something to do with the spin cycle and the liquid
vortex...
: damn so that's what that thing on Stargate SG-1 is...
: >
:
: I have always believed that there is an alternate world that is
: trading socks with us. I think it has something to do with
warm,
: damp, and spinning but the details still evade me.

Close. Think of the Bermuda Triangle. A similar situation
to the dryer theory is at the Triangle, the centrifugal force
combined with the right amounts of moisture, added with the
speed of the earth's surface relative to the plane's speed.
The sock in the dryer meets the same requirements at a certain
stage of dampness combined with it's mass and speed and it's
centrifugal force going over the top of the barrel. This is
difficult for me to explain at best, so I hope you guys can
correlate the two in your own minds.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me

---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 2/1/04

Bill Sloman · Feb 12, 2004

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<D8FWb.395$wD5.83@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...

There are two major problems with the whole marriage situation.
They're both pretty major - so major, in fact, that people are
in deep denial. One is that it's a flagrantly unconstitutional
imposition of religion, and the other is that they're stealing
from single people to give handouts to breeders .

They shouldn't get paid to breed - there should be a penalty.

There is - kids are time-consuming and (despite the subsidies)
expensive.

And abortion should be mandatory for teenage sluts and whores
and just plain welfare parasites.

But who determines which teenage female is a slut or a whore, or a
welfare parasite? In general whores need full barrier condoms to avoid
sexually transmitted diseases, so they tend not to get pregnant ....

But I guess America decided
to go socialist some time ago, and there's not much I can do
about it but try to slip through the cracks.

You have a funny idea of what constitutes "socialism". If you showed
some capacity to understand what socialism is now and was when the
Wobblies frightened the wits out of your grandfather, you might look
rather less like a rightwing crackpot.

Are there any countries left that aren't all loaded with
freeloaders?

Try getting excited about the U.S. military-industrial complex and
their pork-barrelling habits - they make welfare mothers look like
very small beer. But electronic engineers don't make much money from
welfare mothers, do they ...

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Jim Thompson · Feb 12, 2004

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:35:15 GMT, "Rich Grise" <null@example.net>
wrote:

There are two major problems with the whole marriage situation.
They're both pretty major - so major, in fact, that people are
in deep denial. One is that it's a flagrantly unconstitutional
imposition of religion,

The are *civil* marriages, but some religions require a religious
ceremony as well.

and the other is that they're stealing
from single people to give handouts to breeders .

Last I noticed there is a marriage *penalty* in the tax system... only
partially removed this last congressional session.

They shouldn't get paid to breed - there should be a penalty.

Eh? Are they paid to breed? I think you're confusing welfare with
the tax system.

And abortion should be mandatory for teenage sluts and whores
and just plain welfare parasites. But I guess America decided
to go socialist some time ago, and there's not much I can do
about it but try to slip through the cracks.

Are there any countries left that aren't all loaded with
freeloaders?

Cheers!
Rich

[snip]

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Michael A. Terrell · Feb 13, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

Freeloading is the nature of the human beast. Why do you think we
have all this "tax the rich" rhetoric?

The poor have nothing left worth taking?

--
We now return you to our normally scheduled programming.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

R. Steve Walz · Feb 13, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

Poor legislators in Massachusetts whining over what their "Supreme"
Court did to them.

In Arizona we'd already have them served with articles of impeachment,
with trial to start on Monday ;-)

...Jim Thompson
---------------

In your dreams, you homophobic piece of shit.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

R. Steve Walz · Feb 13, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:03:23 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:r9782056d72okvl09biashp15bdrrmqcf6@4ax.com...
Poor legislators in Massachusetts whining over what their "Supreme"
Court did to them.

In Arizona we'd already have them served with articles of impeachment,
with trial to start on Monday ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
I've no idea what it's about Jim, but I'll bet it qualifies as "Only in
America"!

Ken

Yep. Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't adequate to
allow gays to have just a Civil Union, it had to be MARRIAGE.

Quite surprising coming out the predominate church/police state.

...Jim Thompson
-------------------

You bigoted peice of shit.

It's exactly the REVERSE of that, it has to do with everyone having
EQUAL rights under the law, and the State not being used to promote
ANY religion! The State has NO business regulating whom you contract
with. Marriage is a religious fiction the State should not even be
dabbling in, and if it does so for the sake of inheritance and for
the custody inheritance of kids, then any such thing it offers
should be available to all citizens, regardless as to whether some
fucking religion or other thinks that IT should have a monopoly or
make our laws for us!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

R. Steve Walz · Feb 13, 2004

Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article <lbe820lm1bf604kf75i7i5fs1bron92cl9@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:03:23 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message

Yep. Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't adequate to
allow gays to have just a Civil Union, it had to be MARRIAGE.

It's worse than that. The Mass Judicial Supreme court *ordered*
the legislature do pass a gay marriage bill. They should be run
out of Dodge on a rail, for violating separation of powers, if
nothing else. Of course our SC did the same thing (twice) a few
years ago and they're still living large.
Keith
-------------------

The SCotUS did that with "Separate but Equal", saying that it isn't!

There is no violation of separation of powers when the people and their
congenital idiots in the legislature make a collection of laws that
contradict each other and the State's own Constitution and that of
the USA. It's the job of the Judiciary to make coherent sense of
the laws in light of the Consitution, and they need to be the Law
of the Land because the people are generally ignorant morons who blow
back and forth like the wind depending on who blows them with their
faddish paid-for propaganda and phony bandwagon popularity.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

R. Steve Walz · Feb 13, 2004

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:05:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:03:23 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:r9782056d72okvl09biashp15bdrrmqcf6@4ax.com...
Poor legislators in Massachusetts whining over what their "Supreme"
Court did to them.

In Arizona we'd already have them served with articles of impeachment,
with trial to start on Monday ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
I've no idea what it's about Jim, but I'll bet it qualifies as "Only in
America"!

Ken

Yep. Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't adequate to
allow gays to have just a Civil Union, it had to be MARRIAGE.

Quite surprising coming out the predominate church/police state.

...Jim Thompson

Uh, excuse me, but why not? I can't see how allowing gays to marry
hurts anyone else, and if it leads to more monogomy, good; that may
keep the drug bills down. Civil union, domestic partners, marriage,
what's the difference? Might as well let them rent tuxes and limos and
wedding dresses, whatever sex they are.

Of course the legal issue is different: the Mass court has
miraculously discovered a constitutional right that 200+ years of
prior jurisprudence somehow casually overlooked.

John
-----------

They did the same with slaves and women.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

R. Steve Walz · Feb 13, 2004

Mark J. wrote:

In news:lbe820lm1bf604kf75i7i5fs1bron92cl9@4ax.com (Jim Thompson):
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:03:23 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:r9782056d72okvl09biashp15bdrrmqcf6@4ax.com...
Poor legislators in Massachusetts whining over what their "Supreme"
Court did to them.

In Arizona we'd already have them served with articles of impeachment,
with trial to start on Monday ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
I've no idea what it's about Jim, but I'll bet it qualifies as "Only in
America"!

Ken

Yep. Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't adequate to
allow gays to have just a Civil Union, it had to be MARRIAGE.

Quite surprising coming out the predominate church/police state.

...Jim Thompson

This is a prime example of where an engineer can help. Whereas some see the
cup as being half-full and others see it as being half-empty, the engineer
would see that making the glass smaller eliminates the riff-raff without
disturbing the original party.

---------------------

Kill all the Fundies and the glass won't even be important.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

R. Steve Walz · Feb 13, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

Freeloading is the nature of the human beast. Why do you think we
have all this "tax the rich" rhetoric?
...Jim Thompson
--------------------------------

The rich didn't earn what they have, no human can earn that much
more by actual labor, and any other way they don't deserve it.

The rich are the parasitic freeloaders, we're just recovering lost
or stolen property.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

OT! OT! Not in Arizona

Jamie

Guest

Clifford Heath

Guest

OhBrother

Guest

Mark J.

Guest

Rex

Guest

Rex

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Bill Garber

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

OT! OT! Not in Arizona

Jamie

Guest

Clifford Heath

Guest

OhBrother

Guest

Mark J.

Guest

Rex

Guest

Rex

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Bill Garber

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor