Thought Police

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
nightbat If I sold the way I make the MSP chips I would be my own best
customer. I make a week supply,and don't like making (cooking) any thing
just for myself. Darla knows the secret of aging.better than me.
reality is going past 36 is natures turning off period. There was a
spacetime when this was the average age of man,and it could easily come
to that age again soon,as the Earth warms up and virus's mutate faster
and FASTER. bERT

How do you make the chips? Baking, frying, dehydrator?

C.H.J.

What girls on the beach, frootie? I thought you'd chased them all
away with tsunami warnings.

Saul Levy


On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:46:35 -0500, nightbat
wrote:

You're very welcome Captain and continue looking fit. Well if
your hair turns brown again eyes stay sharp and all the gray goes just
think of the hit you'll be with the girls on the beach again. If you can
get the pituitary gland reactivated you may just have found how the
Seans stay so young. Our Darla hinted about it maybe your chips just
might be the key. If nothing else you could push those MSP chips as
great moisturizers but you sure it isn't all the suds? Run some tests
and get back to us.

on alert,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
nightbat If I sold the way I make the MSP chips I would be my own best
customer. I make a week supply,and don't like making (cooking) any thing
just for myself. Darla knows the secret of aging.better than me.
reality is going past 36 is natures turning off period. There was a
spacetime when this was the average age of man,and it could easily come
to that age again soon,as the Earth warms up and virus's mutate faster
and FASTER. bERT


nightbat

Yes Captain apparently many are in denial especially Hollywood
stars and insist they are not aging, we know otherwise. Darla and crew
have reportedly licked the aging problem and hopefully will in-depth
share it with us once FOCD (First Official Contact Day) is realized.
Clueless Saul is also in denial about the major disasters now occurring
all over the World, his head is in the sand. That 8 to 16 inch Japan
Tsunami reported World Wide is not registering in his desert dried up
brain for he thinks it never happened.

Reaching the stars will require much more advanced Starships or beating
the aging problem because of the immense distances involved. Your
profound MSP advanced research into this forefront problem is well
acknowledged while our Saul worries about scissors cut paper, rock
breaks scissors, and paper covers rock.

on alert,
the nightbat

Hj My MSP chips are made exactly like Burger King makes their fries,only
I make mine a little thicker than a potato chip. Some salted. Some with
cinnamon Some plain,and some with my secret topping.. Even some that are
baked,and some with skins on. Trying out new methods daily. You can
experiment with food and come up with the right stuff and make a fortune
Its all a matter of taste The tongue gives the second greatest pleasure
to the brain Bert

You have to be kidding, frootie! An 8-16 INCH tsunami? That's known
as a WAVE FOOL! It is not destructive. Show me some proof of any
destruction.

Saul Levy


On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:40:53 -0500, nightbat
wrote:

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
nightbat If I sold the way I make the MSP chips I would be my own best
customer. I make a week supply,and don't like making (cooking) any thing
just for myself. Darla knows the secret of aging.better than me.
reality is going past 36 is natures turning off period. There was a
spacetime when this was the average age of man,and it could easily come
to that age again soon,as the Earth warms up and virus's mutate faster
and FASTER. bERT


nightbat

Yes Captain apparently many are in denial especially Hollywood
stars and insist they are not aging, we know otherwise. Darla and crew
have reportedly licked the aging problem and hopefully will in-depth
share it with us once FOCD (First Official Contact Day) is realized.
Clueless Saul is also in denial about the major disasters now occurring
all over the World, his head is in the sand. That 8 to 16 inch Japan
Tsunami reported World Wide is not registering in his desert dried up
brain for he thinks it never happened.

Reaching the stars will require much more advanced Starships or beating
the aging problem because of the immense distances involved. Your
profound MSP advanced research into this forefront problem is well
acknowledged while our Saul worries about scissors cut paper, rock
breaks scissors, and paper covers rock.

on alert,
the nightbat

In article , Saul Levy wrote:
You have to be kidding, frootie! An 8-16 INCH tsunami? That's known
as a WAVE FOOL! It is not destructive. Show me some proof of any
destruction.

You keep responding to the loons and it seems you're becoming one
yourself.

It's not a "WAVE FOOL", whatever that is. A tsunami doesn't have to be
destructive to be a tsunami. The recent EQ in the pacific generated a
tsunami. A small one I'll admit, but it was a tsunami.

If you feel it's necessary to respond to the nutcases on this newsgroup,
please make sure you have your own facts right first.

A tsunami can be a ****ing INCH. So what? frootie was warning about
a DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI, Tom. Big difference there. Pay more attention
to what's being said here, then maybe you'll make more sense! Your
reply is no more than a big pile of ****, and always remember: You
don't run Usenet!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:46:16 GMT, (Tom Kerr) wrote:

In article , Saul Levy wrote:
You have to be kidding, frootie! An 8-16 INCH tsunami? That's known
as a WAVE FOOL! It is not destructive. Show me some proof of any
destruction.

You keep responding to the loons and it seems you're becoming one
yourself.

It's not a "WAVE FOOL", whatever that is. A tsunami doesn't have to be
destructive to be a tsunami. The recent EQ in the pacific generated a
tsunami. A small one I'll admit, but it was a tsunami.

If you feel it's necessary to respond to the nutcases on this newsgroup,
please make sure you have your own facts right first.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:34:36 -0700, Saul Levy
wrote:

A tsunami can be a ****ing INCH. So what? frootie was warning about
a DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI, Tom. Big difference there. Pay more attention
to what's being said here, then maybe you'll make more sense! Your
reply is no more than a big pile of ****, and always remember: You
don't run Usenet!

Saul Levy

Boys! Play nice. Infighting wastes time and effort.
It's not worth it.




On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:46:16 GMT, (Tom Kerr) wrote:

In article , Saul Levy wrote:
You have to be kidding, frootie! An 8-16 INCH tsunami? That's known
as a WAVE FOOL! It is not destructive. Show me some proof of any
destruction.

You keep responding to the loons and it seems you're becoming one
yourself.

It's not a "WAVE FOOL", whatever that is. A tsunami doesn't have to be
destructive to be a tsunami. The recent EQ in the pacific generated a
tsunami. A small one I'll admit, but it was a tsunami.

If you feel it's necessary to respond to the nutcases on this newsgroup,
please make sure you have your own facts right first.

I have to admit it, Saying it's a "Wave, fool!" (would have been
better with the comma) made me smile, even if inaccurate.

I had some people down at the beach this week worried about whether or
not the tsunami would mean the surf would be too dangerous. I wish
I'd had a map of the Earth with me.


On the subject of chicken littles, I had 1 call yesterday about the
Leonids, and whether or not the caller should put his car under cover.
The other calls were more interested in having a look.

Sigh.....


Unfortunately for us downunder, no sign of any Leonids, and for 2
nights I was up at 3.30 am.

M42 is good at that hour, at least. Expect pictures soon. I was trying
out a new technique, and the guidance was spot on.



--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"Maths proves you know how to plug in some figures into a formula, that's
all"
"Even physics is based on wrong theories, so what's the use of maths"
Carole - demonstrating her mathematical abilities.

nightbat wrote

Mother to child observing coffeeboy funny thread

child: Mommy why are some of those silly boys always fighting and
playing with each other?

Mother: Never mind dear except for our brave, nice talking, and straight
bat hero the nightbat and his profound Science Officers those auk's and
friends are just well known dumb acting coffee boys they can't help it
and turn your ears away.

Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:34:36 -0700, Saul Levy
wrote:


A tsunami can be a ****ing INCH. So what? frootie was warning about
a DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI, Tom. Big difference there. Pay more attention
to what's being said here, then maybe you'll make more sense! Your
reply is no more than a big pile of ****, and always remember: You
don't run Usenet!

Saul Levy

Wally
Boys! Play nice. Infighting wastes time and effort.
It's not worth it.




On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:46:16 GMT, (Tom Kerr) wrote:


In article , Saul Levy wrote:

You have to be kidding, frootie! An 8-16 INCH tsunami? That's known
as a WAVE FOOL! It is not destructive. Show me some proof of any
destruction.

You keep responding to the loons and it seems you're becoming one
yourself.

It's not a "WAVE FOOL", whatever that is. A tsunami doesn't have to be
destructive to be a tsunami. The recent EQ in the pacific generated a
tsunami. A small one I'll admit, but it was a tsunami.

If you feel it's necessary to respond to the nutcases on this newsgroup,
please make sure you have your own facts right first.


I have to admit it, Saying it's a "Wave, fool!" (would have been
better with the comma) made me smile, even if inaccurate.

I had some people down at the beach this week worried about whether or
not the tsunami would mean the surf would be too dangerous. I wish
I'd had a map of the Earth with me.


On the subject of chicken littles, I had 1 call yesterday about the
Leonids, and whether or not the caller should put his car under cover.
The other calls were more interested in having a look.

Sigh.....


Unfortunately for us downunder, no sign of any Leonids, and for 2
nights I was up at 3.30 am.

M42 is good at that hour, at least. Expect pictures soon. I was trying
out a new technique, and the guidance was spot on.

At least I made you smile, Wally!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:18:34 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:34:36 -0700, Saul Levy
wrote:

A tsunami can be a ****ing INCH. So what? frootie was warning about
a DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI, Tom. Big difference there. Pay more attention
to what's being said here, then maybe you'll make more sense! Your
reply is no more than a big pile of ****, and always remember: You
don't run Usenet!

Saul Levy

Boys! Play nice. Infighting wastes time and effort.
It's not worth it.




On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:46:16 GMT, (Tom Kerr) wrote:

In article , Saul Levy wrote:
You have to be kidding, frootie! An 8-16 INCH tsunami? That's known
as a WAVE FOOL! It is not destructive. Show me some proof of any
destruction.

You keep responding to the loons and it seems you're becoming one
yourself.

It's not a "WAVE FOOL", whatever that is. A tsunami doesn't have to be
destructive to be a tsunami. The recent EQ in the pacific generated a
tsunami. A small one I'll admit, but it was a tsunami.

If you feel it's necessary to respond to the nutcases on this newsgroup,
please make sure you have your own facts right first.

I have to admit it, Saying it's a "Wave, fool!" (would have been
better with the comma) made me smile, even if inaccurate.

I had some people down at the beach this week worried about whether or
not the tsunami would mean the surf would be too dangerous. I wish
I'd had a map of the Earth with me.