Official SEB Use This Entry To Proselytize To Us So It Won’t Be Off-Topic Elsewhere Thread

Seeing as it’s become quite regular for the True Believers to show up with the intent of trying to reveal “The Truth” to the rest of us around here, often at the expense of taking a thread completely off-topic, I thought it was time to start an entry specifically for those folks so they can get it out of their system. So, if you’re a True Believer that hopes to show us the error of our ways or you just want to angrily defend your belief system or what have you then please feel free to make use of this thread to post your views/rants/thoughts/comments/sermons/arguments from authority/appeals to emotion/or whatever it is you think you need to say.

386 comments

  1. Come on, Come all, to the most exciting, new, and vigorous religion to rear its oddly shped head since Homo sapiens neanderthalensis decided that the stars were groceries for some larger animal.
      I am here to invite you , yes YOU, to membership in the Anti-Hermetic Order of the Mystical Golden Platypus.  Even better, the cost of joining in this exclusive 1000’s of times offer is absolutely free.  No offerings, dues or what-have-you will be accepted (bribes on the other hand are a-ok).
      What, you must ask, must you do to join this fascinating new faith?  The answer, my friends, is simple.  All you have to do is think of the Platypus for the oracularly determined 2.3 seconds every day.  And so you say, why in the name of the Platypus should i do that?  The answer again is simple, and i shall tell you now.  No matter how screwed up life is, the
    Platypus is more screwed up.
        Will thinking of the Platypus gaurantee me a place in Heaven, Nirvana, Valhalla, Shangri La, Arcadia, Elysium, or Fairyland, you must ask yourself.  The answer is no, I have only so much money for cab fare and I’m not sharing.  However, thinking of the Platypus might make you laugh or feel a little better, and that’s more good than most religions can put claim to.

    Christian
    High Poobah of the Anti-Hermetic Order of the Mystical Golden Platypus

  2. No matter how screwed up life is, the
    Platypus is more screwed up.

    Here I was, ready to sign up for the best religion I’d heard about in a long time, and you had to go and spoil it with this little disquisition on a hapless monotreme.  Platypuses are far from screwed up (although the males do have forked penises)- not only are they (along with the spiny anteaters) the last remnants of an ancient mammalian lineage, but they can detect the electrical fields of their prey with their snouts.  Try that yourself sometime!  In addition, they are way cute.

  3. Wow, I’ve never had the chance to change a religion before!  Maybe I can put it on my resumé, and get a job editing the second editions of the Bible and the Koran.  I could put the “fun” back into “fundamentalism”…

    Sure, “bizarre” is fine.

  4. I think this blog is an

    obsessive-compulsive rituals that take up hours and days and weeks and months of our lives

      If you’d had any interaction with churches you would know that they serve a social function.  Yeah, we’d love to “free” ourselves from discussing philosophy, learning music, serving our community with both our time & money & enjoying nature through activities & sports to sit in front of a computer to criticize other people all day long, but … fear of the invisible …

    an omnimax bearded guy in a toga made humans, placed them in a garden, and told them not to eat apples

    not necessarily bearded, not necessarily guy, likely eat is metaphorical, & where the hell’d you get apples from, but other than that, your understanding seems “pristine!”

    As I understand it, “scientists” were telling us the world was flat & that stupid, silly, superstitious Bible was out of date for calling is a shere, etc.

    As for hard evidence, a WWII plane buried under 50 billion years (equalling the number of variations in carbon dating caused by water) of arctic ice was enough bullshit for me, although granted, science bores me enough that the few times I glanced through the Hovind threads were enough to convince me that most of the people posting were just as pretentious as he was the 2 times I met him.

    Overall, it entirely boils down to what do you do when you run into shit you don’t understand…trust or keep searching.  Everyone has to find their own mix of what direction to go with each.

    I don’t think it’s so much a question of going to hell, but an intensified continuation of your state here on earth…are you generally unhappy/disatisfied/bitter or content/satisfied?  Multiply that by a bunch, & there’s your eternity.  It’s just that I shake my head at how wrapped up so many (I)gnostics that I encounter in my life seem so wrapped up in being right & their world shatters while they insist on not admitting they learned something rather than already knew it & spend so much time talking rather than doing ANYTHING fun.  So no, the reward doesn’t seem to be a Darwin heaven, but a temporary “I’m the smarter, more informed” heaven.

    Which is why I think Shana NAILED it

    It’s less of a choice and more of me following what appears undeniably true to my mind.

    No matter the set of arguments, it’s what level of trust & ego you’re willing to live within yourself.  Most of the (I)gnostic stuff I read here confuses & bothers me as much as the egotistical, manipulatively dressed shit I hear at church, it’s another side of the same coin to me.  I’m honestly suprised every time Les takes the time to bother with them, I wouldn’t, & usually don’t, even enough to get beyond bothered to frustrated.

    We all have to live in some sort of ignorance & prioritize because we aren’t infinite beings or part of an infinite being yet…some just seems more appaling than others.

    PS, Les, does anyone beside you know who my evil twin from awhile ago was?  I must admit it was flattering that someone put so much time into that…I still laugh my ass off about it & show the post to people…

  5. Ellie,

    I don’t particularly think I’m right when it comes to religious issues.  I just think that I, despite my best efforts, have found anything, whether spiritual, logical or empirical, that leads to hold a particular position.  I don’t think that’s a particularly egotistical position.  I admit that there are mysteries, I admit that there are many questions that I don’t have ready answers for.  It is because I acknowledge that there are things that I don’t understand and can’t explain that I don’t make the pretense of having answers that I don’t. 

    That said, there are some things that I’m pretty sure of.  I have spent enough time in labs working with various organisms to be fairly convinced that Darwin did have it generally right when he wrote the Origin of Species.  It does seem that competition does lead to the shifting of traits over time (in species that have short generational periods you can witness evolution happening before your eyes).  However, that said I don’t think this discounts the notion that there might be divine powers, and those divine powers might shape things. 

    That said, I’m not sure how to identify whether that is the case or not.  Humans are quite limited creatures.  Our epistemic faculties don’t extend that far, we have very little access to the world, there are many things that we think exist that we, in principle, can never directly experience.  It just seems to me, that if we are being completely honest with ourselves, we just have to admit that we don’t know about a lot of things and that we’re making best guesses about them. 

    Oh, and about the bearded toga wearing guy thing, that was actually a quote of a person I talked to on an airplane one time.  He was quite a literalist and apparently was quite influenced by early renaissance church art.  He did believe, well at least he reported that he believed, that God was quite literally anthropomorphic, and male because of the biblical lines referring to the fact that we were made in his image, and the reference to Him as Him and not Her.  He also referred to the Cistine Chapel, which is where I got the bearded toga wearing part from.  As for the Eden story he was talking to me about Genesis and he did seem to take the entire book quite literally.  So there are people (well at least one person) who would hold that a bearded toga wearing guy made us out of dust and ribs put us in a garden and told us not to eat literal apples.

  6. Overall, it entirely boils down to what do you do when you run into shit you don’t understand…trust or keep searching.

    ellie, you’ve left out a third way of dealing with shit you don’t understand, and this is what sets apart the scientific from the religious attitude: you can try to understand it.

    Of course it’s easier to swallow a prepackaged worldview whole, but then you’re wrapped up in oversimplifications and outright misconceptions, and at the mercy of the package designers (human and memetic), who have their own agendas.  Not that science has all the answers, or is free of its own agendas, but science is testable and correctable- religion is not.

  7. zilch said: …but science is testable and correctable – religion is not.

    I partly disagree. It seems that religion is corrected constantly by persons with varying beliefs. No two person’s beliefs will ever match exactly and this is Christianity’s greater problem. If absolute truths were revealed in the Bible, you would expect everyone to agree concerning them. Instead, believers have general agreements and pointed counter beliefs that, rather than defining the meme, create convoluted and non-complimentary elements.

    Through the ages religions have gotten increasingly complicated, bloated with useless and senseless information, and this is exactly what you could expect from a fabrication.

  8. I agree with Brock.  That’s the main difference I see in the lives of (I)gnostics: they have huge problems if something turns out to be wrong/corrected/changed.  One of the few unwavering truths I hold to is forgiveness, mercy & grace.  They help me deal the numerous times I swerve wrong (as exemplified on this site more than a few times).  What SS & zilch describe sounds like my approach to evolution.  Adaptation is a no brainer.  But you have to have faith in the existence of “billions & billions of years” for it to work out.  Plus, the massive excellerating changes we’ve obsered in just the last 1,000 years doesn’t seem to match up to in infinite time period before that for me.

  9. Just for the fun of it, I ran ellie’s response through Alice and here’s what I got:

    I’m glad we agree. You and your Brock Brock Brock. Is the holding of hands a symbolic gesture for humans? One what? Who does “they” refer to? I would do a search for it. I think Adaptation is more than that. Umm. I don’t have to do whatever you say. I have my own free will. Is that a fact.

  10. Oh Noez, teh fax, teh facts!

    I love you dof.  I want to be Ahnold to your DeVito—I want to bear your bastard alien love-children.

    That’s the main difference I see in the lives of (I)gnostics: they have huge problems if something turns out to be wrong/corrected/changed

    Huge problems?  I’m trying to picture an agnostic or atheist suddenly freakin’ out because the theory of relativity gets modified, or dark matter turns out to be a crappy theory, or if it turns out that life was seeded on earth by an alien civilization.  If there’s evidence for it, and it’s true, it’s not something to be upset about.  How we, as people, choose to -use- what we’ve learned might be something to get all cranked up about, but information, in and of itself, is not offensive.

    Of course, ‘information’ that’s complete bullshit can be kind of irritating.  confused

  11. Shite.  My wife just pointed out to me that I’m combining my Ahnold movies.  Apparently Ahnold gets pregnant in one of them, but it wasn’t by Danny DeVito.

    I still think my version would’ve made a better movie.

  12. Maybe I missed the YEC memo DoF dabbled…what’s the (no doubt unflattering) acronym?  So if nothing can be carbon dated past 50,000 years, do you take them on faith?  & what about the carbon dating on documents with known dates?  I love that data.  So your litmus for writing teachers is if they trust science enough?

    The huge problems I refer to are personal, like my roomate whenever she finds out she wasn’t paying attention to a business error or in her personal life, finding out she unintentionally (or intentionally) fucked someone else over & got caught.

  13. Danny deVito was in that movie, but he wasn’t the father…oh oh oh, Les do that cool thing where you figure out where I’m posting from…!

  14. So if nothing can be carbon dated past 50,000 years, do you take them on faith?

    Yes.  It requires faith.  There are no other dating methods.  Follow the watch with your eyes.  repeat after me.  Evilution is only a theory.  only a theory. only a theory.

    Lets leave the man on man stuff to me, shall we nowiser?

    LOL.  Sorry Brock!  I wasn’t tryin’ to poach on yer turf, dude!  I swear!  I’ll just quietly step off.  tongue wink

  15. The huge problems I refer to are personal, like my roomate whenever she finds out she wasn’t paying attention to a business error or in her personal life, finding out she unintentionally (or intentionally) fucked someone else over & got caught.

    I have a hard time understanding why that has anything to do with being agnostic. 

    & what about the carbon dating on documents with known dates?  I love that data.

    And what about that data, Ellie?

    I partly disagree. It seems that religion is corrected constantly by persons with varying beliefs….

    However: What you’ve described is part of the mechanism by which culture and religion are both changed and preserved similtaneously, such that it becomes inaccurate to call them sets of beliefs and more appropriate to call them ranges of beliefs—but the truth remains that observation and testing of fact are usually only indirectly involved and that changes are largely driven by a sense of moral right or wrong.  That morality may be affected by science, but, as we are seeing lately with the fundies, it seems more often affected by self-righteousness and imagination.  For every Baptist minister that advocates abortion, there may be 5 who bomb abortion clinics, and for every change, there is, at some other point along the range, an act of preservation.

    Good scientists, on the other hand, willingly give up their long-held paradigms in favor of overwhelming evidence.  (Though I imagine there are many who mourn the loss of a life’s work…)
    While on the surface, it may appear that both are changing—but to what result?  Religion changes with trends (thus, it’s not really being corrected—is there really a state of correctness for religion?) while science (ideally) changes in favor of knowledge and understanding.

    I would imagine that religions have always been so confused and muddled—there seems no other way to have them.

  16. Ellie, YEC refers to Young Earth Creationist, and yes, it is unflattering from this keyboard.  You may take it as a compliment if you like. Insults often work that way.  Call me a “materialist” and I’ll just smile, because it probably means something different to me than it does to you.

    To repeat what many others have said, one does not “trust science” in the same way one trusts religion.  Science is the opposite of trust – it is about changing and refining your theories to fit the data.  A failure to understand the difference between science and religion is at the root of many such endless-loop discussions as this.

    Religion begins with a body of knowledge (and in certain flavors of Christianity, a “personal relationship with Jesus”) that must be accepted uncritically.  Many religionists appear to assume that this is how science works, too, resulting in a great deal of confusion.

    Often this approach sets in stone a picture that is far astray of how things actually are.  When religion strays into areas that are subject to being disproved, such as the age of the Earth, each millimeter of ground is yielded only after pitched battle.  Or not at all, as the religionists put their fingers in their ears and yell, “Nanananana… I can’t hear you!”

    Science is a method of inquiry, not a body of knowledge.  The scientist begins with an hypothesis and works through the data toward a theory.  This is called, “testing the hypothesis.” 

    I think a lot of kids in school just blow right past this crucial juncture waiting for the bell to ring or asking, “When do we get to mix chemicals and dissect frogs and stuff?”

    Does a writing teacher need to understand it?  I don’t know but maybe you should read Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal.

  17. LOL You guys are too much!
    Brock, I must partly disagree with your partial disagreement with me.  Yes, religion is correctable too, or at least is capable of changing to cope with the environment in various ways, the better to survive.

    What I meant is that science, at least ideally, has a less subjective template to compare and correct itself to: the physical universe.  Religion, especially that of fundy persuasion, is largely constrained to massage its worldview to fit a more or less invariant text. Science is descriptive, religion pre- and proscriptive (to oversimplify, of course)

  18. brock: “Lets leave the man on man stuff to me, shall we nowiser?”

    nowiser: “I still think my version would’ve made a better movie.”

    LOL  Hey Brock, we were makin’ a bit o’ progress here tongue wink and anyway, isn’t that how Kahli-forniia got its present governor?

  19. This CNN article is a good example of how scientists can get all happy and excited when their previous hypotheses are proven to be wrong:

    Scientists say the animal’s last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago. It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.

    In this case, the mammal was about the size of a large cat, and the victim was a 5-inch “parrot dinosaur.”

    Other scientists who did not work on the bones described the discoveries as “exhilarating.”

    “This size range really has surprised everybody,” said Zhexi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, who digs in the same area of northeast China. “It dispels the conventional wisdom.”

    When was the last time any hard evidence proving a religious belief wrong was WELCOMED with EXHILARATION?

    Hard evidence and religion don’t even sit in the same room together, much less share a nice cuppa tea.

  20. GM: Uh, ever seen a person change their worldview in an experience they call “salvation” or “conversion?”  They’re useually pretty jubilant!  Also, Millions were jubilant at Martin Luther’s correcting the corruption of Catholicism, & have remained so.

    DOF, your explaination holds well, much like many current discussions I’ve had of free will vs. predestination.  You are a good teacher, & probnably were a fairly good pastor.

    I’ve always understood the scientific process & science to be a part of God’s design in our brains to understand His world that is not the whole.  I think we need to use faith & theology where it leaves off.  Maybe OEE’s just think science explains more than I do or think the things it does explain are more relevant than I think they are.  I just don’t see any good reason to believe anything on this earth is more than 50,000 years old.  As far as the documents data, my chemistry teacher in high school explained that water throws off carbon dating.  Most carbon dating is judged by the standard of wood in graves of a documented age.  But when that same wood was soaked in water, the date became around 10,00 years older.

  21. You guys had me all confused, tossing around acronyms like that, until I figured it out:

    OEE= wooee!
    YEC= yuck!

  22. As far as the documents data, my chemistry teacher in high school explained that water throws off carbon dating.  Most carbon dating is judged by the standard of wood in graves of a documented age.  But when that same wood was soaked in water, the date became around 10,00 years older.

    Two problems with this statement: First, most carbon dating is not done on wood from graves. Carbon-14 dating, which you’re referring to, is used on anything that was once alive and is now dead to determine how long ago it died. It is limited to around 50,000 years and doesn’t take into consideration possible contamination. Thus it could be done on wood in a grave or on any other organic material found at the site in question.

    Secondly, Carbon-14 isn’t the only method of Radiometric dating that’s available. There are several different types including Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, and Argon/Argon which can be used on inorganic as well as organic material, is not limited to 50,000 years, and accounts for possible contamination.

  23. Ellie said: “I just don’t see any good reason to believe anything on this earth is more than 50,000 years old.”

    More interesting would be your reasons for not believing it. 

    Paleoclimatologically interlaced tree-ring data goes back 120,000 years.  We have annual Antarctic ice accumulation cores that go back 420,000 years (The Vostok core.)  The rate of continental drift can be compared to the current configuration of our globe.  Some elemental isotopes decay at a far slower rate than carbon-14, and so are used to date rock strata in billions of years. And the age of the universe can be roughly derived from the known velocity of light against observed astronomical data.  One might quibble about percentages, but suffice it to say, it’s a lot more than 50,000 years.

    But plainly, you don’t want to believe it.  For some reason, you’re comforted by the belief that the very consistent universe in which we find ourselves is all an illusion put together by a deceptive god which has some motive for making us think the Earth is older than it really is (and with terrible consequences if we fail to deny the evidence senses, our instruments, and of reason.) 

    That’s the power of the Christian meme.  It’s nearly bulletproof: 

    • It can’t be tested – in fact it’s a sin to try to disprove it
    • It maintains its own integrity around a source document
    • Both the reward and the punishment take place in the one place where they cannot be verified: death (spare me the “near-death experiences” of someone’s oxygen-starved brain)
    • It is exclusive
    • It must be passed on

    How very convenient that god can’t show himself or we’d just explode. 

    I was a lousy pastor, by the way.  I just wasn’t comfortable in the role – they were right to fire me.  Have you ever read a story to little children?  They don’t like any changes in the story; not even changes in emphasis.  “No! That’s not how it goes!!!  It goes like this:…”

  24. No, I suppose the days could be metaphorical for ages, plenty of my Christian friends believe that.  I don’t see any inconsistencies, the wood used in coffins, having once been alive & having a date they can measure, is the standard from which they start to test accuracy against the bones of the person, & since the two were so contradictory, they went with the wood.  The only real gain I could percieve from taking on faith that the earth is billions upon billions of years old is that I get to feel, in my head, that I’m smarter than everyone else who’s dumb enough to have a different faith than I do.  I don’t see terrible consequences, & feel the reward very much in this life. I don’t see “sin” for testing or questioning either.  It’s as exclusive as intelligence, & I have yet to see any benefit from taking on faith that the earth is billions upon billions of years old….so you’re right, I don’t want to.  I don’t believe anything I don’t want to that leaves me no benefit.  If I do, I change it.

  25. I guess in the sense that I am made up of molecules that have been around for long before they were funneled into this form, I’m billions of years old, so just because there’s a possibility that rocks on this earth are that old doesn’t mean they were in the form of this earth…

  26. Ellie said: “The only real gain I could percieve from taking on faith that the earth is billions upon billions of years old is that I get to feel, in my head, that I’m smarter than everyone else who’s dumb enough to have a different faith than I do.”

    I’d have to agree with you if it were necessary to take it on faith.  But it is not necessary to take it on faith.  There is hard physical evidence for it. 

    The whole notion of believing in something because of some perceived personal advantage or disadvantage is corrupt, Ellie.  Does it simply not matter to you to understand your universe as clearly as you can?  Are you really content with a fantasy if it meets some emotional need?

    I give up.

  27. Yeah, but to take truth outside of any wholeness of being (including emotions & spirit) seems currupt to me…

  28. Yeah, but to take truth outside of any wholeness of being (including emotions & spirit) seems currupt to me…

    So, if you don’t feel good about it, you don’t believe it, regardless of how much evidence there is to support it? What if you decide you don’t like the idea of Australia, will you stop believing in that?

  29. I, personally, like the idea of Australia.  I mean they’ve got way cool animals, and Dream Lines, and a bizarre opera house.  I’ve even met some funny-sounding people who claim to be from Australia.

    But alas, I’ve never been to Australia, so I cannot in good conscience believe in it.  Just like evilution: I can’t see it, so it doesn’t exist.  I’d rather believe in Disneyland anyway.  Haven’t been there either, but it’s so cute.

  30. I don’t believe anything I don’t want to that leaves me no benefit.

    Well, that’s noble and virtuous.  Glad you’re a teacher, because the first thing I want my kids to learn is that you should only believe in things you like.
    So, there goes WW2, Iraq, Bush, spiders, fundies, brussel sprouts, nutrasweet, mad cow, and all of Orson Scott Card’s Ender Series after Speaker for the dead.
    Hello, is it raining men again?  Dang, I thought that was snow outside!

    I was a lousy pastor, by the way.  I just wasn’t comfortable in the role – they were right to fire me…

    I think I would have enjoyed having you as a pastor, DOF.

  31. Zilch:

    But alas, I’ve never been to Australia, so I cannot in good conscience believe in it.

    *blinks* *looks round* *vanishes in a puff of logic along with the non-existant koalas and lamingtons*

  32. I don’t believe anything I don’t want to that leaves me no benefit.

    Wow, by that logic, Ellie doesn’t exist in my reality. So who the hell keeps posting under her name? I don’t want to believe people like Ellie could possibly exist and there’s not benefit for me in having her exist so where are all these silly comments from her coming from?

  33. “…Iraq (the war, I presume), Bush, spiders, fundies…” Poor li’l spiders; they are so misunderstood, and as a benefit to humankind, do not belong in that statement. You spiderist, you.  mad

  34. shana- gulp  and we were getting along so swimmingly.  What a cruel disenchantment.  Not only are you a spiderist, but a brusselsproutist.  And if you ask me, the Ender series started going downhill right after Ender’s Game (although Ender’s Shadow was pretty good).

    Tish- you can come back now.  I do believe in Oz, I do, I do, I do!

    Les- thx for correcting my typo.  I believe in you, too.

  35. My favorite funny spider story:  I was working at my desk when a spider the size of a quarter started walking across my papers.  Afraid I’d accidentally crush him I blew him off the papers with a puff of air.  He came back, and again, puff.  It came back again, and then again.  For some reason it just wanted to be where I was working.

    My graduate assistant, who was from Bangladesh, asked me, What is that?  I showed him the spider.

    He recoiled in horror: What kind is it?!  Is it dangerous?  Shouldn’t you kill it?

    I explained it was harmless (like almost all spiders in Illinois) and that I preferred its company to the bugs it would surely eat in its lifetime.  He went back to his desk with a close eye on the spider… or maybe on me!

    Later, I realized they may have spiders in Bangladesh that you really shouldn’t let crawl around on your workspace gulp

  36. That’s why I like believing Rom. 8:28 anything I don’t like in the tempermental is ultimately for God’s glory anyway.

  37. Oh, Justice…I do mean the Iraq war.  Yar, the typing.

    The spiders are not my fault!  Boys used to throw them at me in elementary school.

    The brussel sprouts are also not my fault!  I have the taster gene which means that I taste an odd iodine-blocking chemical in cabbages and their close relations, and it tastes AWFUL!

    I read Speaker for the Dead first, and it was for an anthropological theory class…I enjoyed it as much as Ender’s Game, though Ender’s Game was more exciting.  After that, I have been disappointed.  The whole Peter and Valentine thing?  OCD planet?  WTF?  And Ender’s Shadow is so blatantly pro-life.

    Now that I have given this thread the kick it needed to go completely off track, I sincerely apologize…

  38. *Throws Huntsman and redback spiders at zilch the Unbelieving Infidel*

    Oh, and Rom was great in ST:DS9

    There, now we’re further off-topic smile

  39. Wow, talk about a mega-thread! Fortunately it was worth the three hours of my life it took to read the damn thing. I saw some very intelligent (and some not so very intelligent) points made.

    To help spin this even further off topic, a high-school teacher of mine had a very interesting idea on spiders: he said that cobwebs actually contributed to good health. Don’t know how he backed that theory up, but there you go.

  40. It’s true, cobwebs allow spiders to catch food, the consumption of which keeps them healthy (unless they consume too much of course)

  41. Yes, this is a very long thread.
    Yes indeed.
    Yep.

    About those spiders- the consumption of the webs contributes to the good health of the spiders, too- they eat and recycle their old ones.

    We could learn a lot from spiders, but I draw the line at having to eat my old 1962 Rambler station wagon.

  42. And remember that Black Widow webs were used as cross-hairs in bombardier sights in WWII. That probably did not contribute to the health of the Nazis, but the Brits were grateful. I also confess that the prospect of my mate eating me after coitus does not bring up an appealing picture (uh, using the primary definition, not the slang)

  43. OK, hopefully twenty close tags for BOLD should work…that’s starting to hurt my eyebones. I know it’s a very old thread, but if there are any further posts, hopefully they won’t all be BOLDED.

Leave a Reply

Connect with:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>