|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
 |
|
On May 22, 1:51 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 20, 5:32 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 20, 7:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 20, 4:39 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 20, 5:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...the appearance of design seen in nature and its organisms - an
appearance atheist Dawkins admits to exist by illusion - corresponds
to invisible Designer, and not a mindless process...
Anyone without atheist needs can confirm what Behe and
Dembski say with their own two eyes; apparatus that tell us that you
and Ron are mother-fucking liars doing what all Darwinists have ever
done to anyone who disagrees with your atheist denial of design
reality (slander, Slander, SLANDER).
That's an interesting line of argument, since anyone with two eyes
(and even someone who is physically blind in one or both eyes) can
easily verify that the Christian God does not even care enough to show
up in the real world and tell us He loves us, let alone die for us.
It's kind of pointless to go back to the dawn of time looking for
ambiguous "evidence" that a loving God exists, when anyone, believer
or not, can readily verify the universal and continuous absence of God
from the real world. Why else would you have to rely on men like Scott
to tell you what to believe? God does not show up, so in His absence
you have to put your faith in what men tell you.
m
Ordinary atheism.
It's a description of the real world. What's atheistic about that?
m- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Then how do you explain the millions of persons who profess
forgiveness of their sins by Christ's sacrifice?
Are we to believe that just because you do not have a vision and
relationship with Christ that this means He does not exist?
If you answer in the affirmative then please tell me what is your
source for information about God or Christ because the Bible plainly
says that He chooses not to reveal Himself to everybody; therefore,
you are living proof of the claim.
Ray- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
A twisted logic in that there are many believers and therefore there
must be god.
So, if in the Crusading times, the non-believers killed justified that
they should be killed....?
What sort of logic your mind workd?
And by the way, the preachers of Christians use false hope such as
heaven and threats such as hell on un-educated naive peasants in the
ancient time to gain believers. You do n't find people of this century
fall for it, right?
Yap |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 17:03:33 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramidial@yahoo.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 24, 9:37 am, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 11:30 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 23, 3:12 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 22, 1:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 21, 3:53 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 20, 5:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 19, 12:13 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 19, 1:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 19, 9:55 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 19, 4:34 am, MatthewTan <elearningstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
One way to make oneself world-famous if academic excellence is
lacking : self-corruption.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/michael_fcking_behe_corrupts_a.html
Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is Shamefully Corrupting
American Science Education
Michael Egnor
Darwinists lack two traits desirable for scientists: decorum and a
developed sense of irony. University of Minnesota Associate Professor
of Biology and star Darwinist science blogger P.Z. Myers provides
evidence for this observation in a recent scatological tirade on
Pharyngula, the popular Darwinist science blog that is read daily by
thousands of young scientists and aspiring scientists.
[...]
I added the asterisks. Both Behe and Myers are college biology
professors who teach young biologists and biochemists the methods of
scientific inquiry and, by example, teach students the appropriate
standards of scientific discourse.
Which professor is shamefully corrupting American science education?
Behe of course. Here's why:
Myers' job is to provide technical arguments against ID/creationism to
other critics. He does that job well, becasue we can tune out his
irrelevant philosphical arguments, which don't misrepresent the
science anyway. But most noncientists cannot tease apart the
differences, so his arguments, and occasional 4-letter words, if made
to the general public, would probably help more than hinder the ID
scammers.
Frank: By calling the IDists scammers you are really saying that they
are liars; that is, that they know for a fact that ID is false and are
willfully perpetuating a lie. Can you please tell us what makes you
think that Dembski or Wells or Behe know that Darwinian materialism-
evolution is true, and why any one of them are campaigning against the
truth via ID science?
I have said many times before that I think that they know that they
are misleading the people.
You and an army of other fellow howlers are the only ones saying that,
Frank. It's too bad you have chosen to go the way of broken record Ron
"ID is a scam" Okimoto.
Unfortunatley most of the other "howlers" do *not* say that, but
rather shoot themselves in the foot trying to lump scammed and
scammers under the same "creationist" label, implying honenst belief.
BTW I determined that it is a scam long before I heard Ron's similar
claim. Interestingly you snipped the part where I do thoink the
scammers are motivated by an honest belief that the masses need to be
misled.
Since you and Ron are Darwinists and Behe and Dembski are IDists your
opinions and invective have no objective value whatsoever - entirely
predictable.
So if your paper is all you claim it is and I become your biggest
backer, my opinion still won't count?
I never said your opinion does not count. I said that since you are a
Darwinist your opinion of ID is entirely predictable just like my
opinion of Darwinism would be entirely predictable since I am a
Creationist.
We have a handful of Darwinists arguing that Judge Jones was "a
Creationist."
Nobody said that, liar. The claim is that Judge Jones was (and is) a
Christian and practicing Lutheran, with no vested interests for or
against the theory of evolution. If you have evidence that this was
not the case, please provide it.
If you want in on that bridge in Brooklyn there is still time - email
me.
|
You are a con artist - just like you mentor Gene 'Give Me The Money'
Scott.
| Quote: |
Your whole line of argument is based on a false dichotomy: That every
person is either a creationist (and would cheerfully lie, perjure
himself, or engage in other judicial misconduct to advance the goals
of creationism) or a Darwinist (who would do the same to advance the
goals of Darwinism). This is simply not true; there are numerous
people with no strong opinions either way (particularly those who
haven't studied the issue in depth and don't care overmuch) or those
who have strong feelings about the issue but would be willing to
reconsider in light of new evidence.
If Jones or any Judge would have ruled differently you would be making
my argument in reverse ("Creationist Judge ruled as expected").
|
In reality an honest JUDGE ruled according to the LAW. How strange is
that?
| Quote: |
The Darwinian Judge ruled as expected. The only real issue is how dumb
was the DI to even think that a Federal Judge, in the pocket of the
ACLU, would ever give them a victory?
|
You are a lying toe-rag Dishonest Ray, you know you are lying and your
lying is making you look very stupid.
[snip more of his usual brand of lies.]
--
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 20:00:59 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramidial@yahoo.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
Jones typed his ruling straight from the closing argument of the ACLU.
As for your belief that Judges who issue rulings that you agree with
to not have "prior ideological commitments" I wonder if Jones ruled
that ID was Science if you would say the same thing?
|
The plaintiffs made their case, the defendants did not. It has been
pointed out to you that the way the American (and for that matter many
other countries) legal system expects the Judge to use large amounts
of the wording from the plaint in his decision. So it is not something
to blame Judge Jones about.
--
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
Tom McDonald <kiltmac@gspammail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
J. J. Lodder wrote:
snip
'honoust' still draws 800 googles.
The piece you refer to is obviously not by a native speaker of English.
For example "And he hesitated not to start discussions with scientists"
should be: "He did not hesitate to start discussions with scientists."
Could have been a native speaker of English. Might be he wrote it
300 years ago. Like the Bible.
|
In that case a non-native who learned his English
directly from King James seems more likely,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
Milan wrote:
I too was shocked to see that Time had chosen Behe to write the
piece about Dawkins. It is the only case in which they chose a freak
to write the commentary. All the other ones are written by normal,
reasonable people. Why didnt they pick a believer in a flat earth to
write the piece on the physicist Lisa Randall, for example?
Because there aren't any. Sorry, that's my "hot button". There are
no flat earth believers except for the mentally ill, the
developmentally impaired, and a few benighted primitive jungle tribes
who haven't given it a lot of thought. Basically no one who would be
allowed out on their own.
What about Klaas Dijkstra?
(while he was still alive)
My argument includes the fact that he now isn't, although I wasn't
really aware of him.
That's too easy a way out.
You no doubt would have said the same,
had you been saying it in 1960.
Oh, no. I would be sceptical of the sanity of publicly declared flat-
earthers, but not dogmatic. Going by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
flat earth was latterly a religious belief, and I think that believing
something that isn't true because a religious authority, a person,
book, vision, or other religious experience told you to, can be
counted as not sane, depending somewhat on specific details of the
case.
|
Klaas Dijkstra seems to haven been a completely normal,
and socially funtioning person.
(apart from his promotion of the flat earth theory)
Anyway, the evidence for a spherical earth
was pretty compelling in 1960.
Anyone capable of ignoring it should also be capable
of ignoring what has been added in the meantime.
| Quote: |
I haven't got clear whether Dijkstra was alive in 1960.
|
He was definitely alive in 1961 and dead in 1965.
| Quote: |
I
can't find much about him online in English: there seem to be other
people with the same name. (There are several of "me", too.)
|
Both Klaas and Dijkstra are very common names.
There must be dozens op Klaas Dijkstra-s.
I don't think that page on Dijkstra is an authoritative source.
Unfortunately I don't own a copy of Dijkstra's book,
so I can't verify. (It is hard to find nowadays)
I did see it long ago. Most of the content consists of
attemps to cast doubt on the classical arguments
for the spherical earth. (ship on the horizon, etc)
| Quote: |
If Klaas Dijkstra was alive today and still believed the Earth is
flat, then I would only doubt his sincerity and sanity, and I'd be
open to persuasion on those.
|
Some people are very good at compartimentalizing their minds.
| Quote: |
Likewise if Charles Johnson of the Flat
Earth Society was alive today. If their mental competence was
demonstrated, methodically, then I would withdraw the claim, really a
hypothesis, that there were no living flat earth believers in
possession of normal mental faculties and a modern rational
education. But they are dead and I choose to believe that the world
has not produced more people with the same silly beliefs to replace
them. Do you?
I made inquiries at
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
and there seems to be no real belief there - only some people fooling
around and some actually mentally ill. It isn't unknown on the
Internet to be crazy. I've read some writings of genuine
schizophrenics.
And so really I think that flat-earth today is not a good comparison
for disbelief in evolution. Now for youngkearth-creationism - use it
sparingly.
But you can't say, "Look at the flat earth believers! they're sincere
and they're wrong!" Because there are no flat earth believers - that
is, none worth pointing at.
|
We agree on that, for the now.
However, Klaas Dijkstra certainly was sincere.
He was not deranged, and not joking or trolling.
| Quote: |
And the ones that you could point at fifty or a hundred years ago -
maybe they were just insane:
|
You can be right on that if you insist, but only by definition.
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 16:18:02 -0700, Ken Rode <karode@sympatico.ca> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 27, 6:06 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On 27 May 2007 14:33:42 -0700, Robert Carnegie
rja.carne...@excite.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:42:52 -0400, Ye Old One wrote
(in article <pl6e539ftur67rfpmrred89pdcus8fj...@4ax.com>):
On 25 May 2007 09:42:29 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[snip]
Now Dishonest Ray. I've thrown down the gauntlet. The next move is
yours. Put up or stand exposed as a lying fraud (again). Just so we
can be VERY clear Dishonest Ray. I make the following claims about
Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott - the man you worship and arse lick at
every opportunity.
I call him a liar.
I call him a fraud.
I call him a con artist.
I call him foul mouthed.
I call him a worshiper of evil.
I claim he stole money from people who could ill afford to loose it.
I accuse him of leading a luxury lifestyle at the expense of gullible
people.
I call him an evil man.
I call him a money grabbing bastard.
I call him dishonest.
My email address works, though you need to authorize yourself through
the spamarrest server. I'm more than happy to include these claims in
a direct email to you, together with full name and postal address for
service of any legal papers you would like to raise.
I look forward to hearing from you either directly or through this
group.
It's been about a day and a half since you posted this, and there doesn't
seem to have been any response. Anyone want to take a bet on whether or not
Ray-ray will reply, and if he does, what he'll say?
Where does the "stole money" part come? That sounds like something
too specific to pass off.
conning someone out of money is stealing money in my books -
especially when the people being parted from their money are some of
the poorest around. Yes, I know they were gullible, they almost conned
themselves some would say - but Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott DID
steal their money to line his own pockets. That makes him a thief in
my books.
It isn't clear to me that he's conned anyone.
|
He told lies in order to get people to give him money - that is
conning in my books.
| Quote: |
Instead, if the
allegations that I've read are true, the situation may actually be
rather worse than you've portrayed. From http://www.gonsalves.org/favorite/scott/scott.htm
"He stymied repeated attempts by the federal government to scrutinize
his church's financial operation by directing contributors to sign
pledge slips that specifically stated Scott could spend the money
however he pleased. This arrangement did not appear to affect the
church's flow of funds."
Doesn't sound like fraud to me...
|
Does to me.
Anyway, I like the bit from the link you posted that reads:-
Yet others feel strongly that Scott has no business preaching in a
church. The Christian Research Institute, an international religious
center based in Irvine that monitors controversial religious
movements, goes so far as to advise Christians not to attend Scott's
services.
"During the last few years, Scott has become more and more outrageous
and offensive," a CRI analysis concludes. "His language is crude,
abusive and profane, clearly violating God's standards for
Christians."
Sounds a lot like Dishonest Ray to me :)
--
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kent Paul Dolan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
Scholarship is overkill in this case, Ray.
|
Idiotic contentions are not a sufficient replacement
for scholarship (or rational thought), Ken.
| Quote: |
The definitions of the words "constitution" and
"contract"
|
If you want definitions that will hold up in a court
of law, I suggest you use Black's Law Dictionary,
rather than inferior sources which don't have
achieving the precision and authority of legal
definitions as a goal.
| Quote: |
are sufficient to establish that the Constitution
is not a contract under the law.
|
Where on earth would you come up with a weird idea
like that? Of course the Constitution is a contract.
It was signed by the elected representives of the
body politic.
By that election, those representatives had been
empowered to enter into legally binding contracts on
behalf of the body politic.
[That's exactly why we call them
"representatives", because we have delegated our
contracting authority to them, to represent us
in legal contract matters.]
Without that delegated power to enter into contracts,
governments would be unable to sign contracts on
behalf of the people for road construction, armaments
procurement, or _any_ other purpose.
The hobby horse you rode into this discussion is dead,
Ken. You can stop beating it now. Dead-animal-rights
activists everywhere will thank your for your future
restraint.
Quantum valeat.
xanthian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
But you can't say, "Look at the flat earth believers! they're sincere
and they're wrong!" Because there are no flat earth believers - that
is, none worth pointing at.
We agree on that, for the now.
However, Klaas Dijkstra certainly was sincere.
He was not deranged, and not joking or trolling.
Some kind of fraud also is possible. After all, he got a book out of
it, you're telling me.
Yes, printed at his own cost iirc.
Perhaps he hoped to make money on it.
|
Let me guess, you are an American?
| Quote: |
And it's not unknown to set up a curious company, or a charity with tax
reliefs, as a fraud.
Let me guess, you are an American?
They don't have a monopoly on that kind of thing.
|
It is an attitude, you know.
You reason from an inappropriate set of prejudices.
| Quote: |
The charity might merely pay more in its administrator's salary and
expenses than it spends on the claimed good cause. There were a
couple of cases in Scotland.
And the ones that you could point at fifty or a hundred years ago -
maybe they were just insane:
You can be right on that if you insist, but only by definition.
Let me repeat that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt,
but I want to count respectable flat-earthers alive in 2007, not
before I was born (1966) or in ancient Egypt or something. I think
the count is zero. And on the other hand, the more I read that flat
earth belief in the twentieth century arose from an attempt to read
the bible literally, the less respect I have for flat earthers, and
the more willing I am to consider them insane in a practical
definition (I honestly would have more respect for uncertainty than
for certainty), and, in fact, the more relevant it seems to compare
flat-earthers to creationists - and perhaps in particular to
intelligent-designists, since it seems to me now that both groups
tried to keep the religious basis of their views disguised - or rather
the view that they were promoting, which may not be a sincere belief.
I would like to get clear how much of /that/ might apply to Dijkstra,
i.e. religious grounds for belief, claimed scientific argument.
AFAIK Dijkstra never related his flat earth theory to the bible,
and never gave any biblical arguments.
He seems to have been an orthodox protestant though,
strictly in private.
He never spoke about his motives for defending the flat earth.
Besides "religious", "crazy", or "scam", I'm not sure what else there
is, sorry. But it seems that we have to say "don't know".
|
He seems to have been a good and honest man, normal in respect every,
excepting only his idée fixe that the earth might be flat.
A very good and welll made pot indeed,
except for that small crack in it.
| Quote: |
By "orthodox protestant", do you mean "an ordinary or common
Christian", or do you mean of the Orthodox church, which holds some
unusual dogmatic views?
|
I mean I don't know which of the innumerably many
protestant churches he may have been a member of.
('orthodox' refers to a division in Dutch protestantism
going back to about 1620. The opposite is called 'vrijzinnig')
| Quote: |
A religious motive that you don't talk about would indeed be the
pattern of the "Discovery Institute". But it seems I'd be obliged to
assert that without evidence for it in the case of Dijkstra, And of
course I should not do that, and should not be allowed to!
|
Dijkstra certainly lacked the agressve stupidity
that seems so characteristic of American fundamentalists.
He is described by those who have heard him speak
as a rather timid man.
He didn't preach the flat earth,
he restricted himeself to questioning
the classical arguments for a spherical earth.
He seems to have had the peculiar ideee
that the reason for belief in a spherical earth
is based on those arguments.
Best,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kent Paul Dolan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..." |
|
|
Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
To change the subject completely, I just wanted to
congratulate you on your recent nomination for
Usenet Kook of the Month from the good people over
at alt.usenet.kooks. Good luck with that.
|
I'm pretty sure that even reading a newsgroup named
alt.usenet.kooks makes one a prime candidate for
such elective office. I could care less what a
congregation of kooks decides in an election, about
me or about anything else.
People more expert than they have attempted to
insult me many times in the past, achieving no
permanent damage thereby.
Submarine sailors, who spend all their waking hours
hurling inventive and gratuitously obscene insults
at one another, tend later in life to be pretty
thoroughly immune to the lesser efforts of mere
civilians.
Two whole newsgroups were created simply as insults
to me, alt.birthright, and
alt.bonehead.kent.paul.dolan (or some such).
Ask me how much sleep I lost over either one.
Persons whose intellectual balances are widely
perceived to be out of kilter have historically
included me in their several huge published
lists of enemies.
That, of course, was simply a compliment to me.
I prefer to be known for my enemies, not for my
friends.
I'm a misanthrope, so I don't go out of my way at
all to make friends, for me, "friends" have always
been accidents of fate.
In many cases, though, I have gone to great lengths
to make enemies of some of Usenet's most incredibly
insistent dunces, simply for the sheer joy of
assuring that every time I bring a pin of idiocy
pricking near them, they flinch involuntarily.
Quantum valeat.
xanthian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kent Paul Dolan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Re: I have hair where I don't want it!!!! |
|
|
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com> wrote:
> I'd forget my balls if they didn't come in a bag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kent Paul Dolan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Re: i wanna do him anal! |
|
|
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On saturday night i was at this gay party, and i kissed this really
hot guy and we ended up down the bottom of the garden and a little bit
of touchy-feely was going on.. nothing too serious. BUT then some
other guy jumped around the corner and took a photo of us. I saw it
just in time to hide my face (i think) but even so, i was caught in a
very compromising position indeed. i am just really scared. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Fred Tehbot
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Re: Should I make her get tested? |
|
|
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com>, penned in
<1180778101.752271.244700@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
| Quote: |
Ah, yes, arouse hte attention of alt.usenet.
|
Are you positive?
| Quote: |
kooks, and immediately they confirm that only kooks read there, by
posting incredibly poorly crafted forgeries.
|
HAVE YOUR KOOK TO THE GROUND!
It's good when I break my diet.
| Quote: |
Childlike minds, moron-like behavior, Usenet kooks never change.
|
MAKING KOOKS MEET!
Either way.
| Quote: |
Where can I go to find out what to expect when I switch from Xanax to
Klonopin?
|
Pray for a miracle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
