Brad Guth's Credentials

Brad Guth wrote:
Robert Juliano,
In case you're wondering; Alan H. Guth is not Brad E. Guth, thus I'm
not nearly as responsible for upsetting your pagan
space-time-continuum.


Born again pagans??

That part can easily be over-played by the likes of GW Bush and Dick
Cheney.

Since mother nature is continually getting pillaged and gang-raped to
death in public; perhaps Condoleeza Rice can play that part.
-
Brad Guth


Cheney is a Pagan???
Raping Condoleeza Rice, in the role of Mother Earth???

Brad, Contact the mothership, I think that you are seriously peaking.
grab some Niacin, listen to soothing music, and avoid newscasts!
and NEVER lick those stamps again!

Bob

Robert Juliano wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:

Pat Flannery,
You obviously think the Pope is gay (not that there's anything wrong
with that), and that GW Bush is far better off than God.


Jeeze, one of these days I'm going to give into temptation and
dekillfile Brad; this stuff is so surreal that it almost demands to be read.



What else about humanity and that of caring for our environment are you
and of your incest cloned collective of such Third Reich collaborators
opposed to?
-
Brad Guth


Umm... Brad?

you _DO_ realize that your last message sounded really crazy, don't you?
(crazier than usual.)


On the other hand I _do_ have those forty-five models of the Nazi secret
aircraft projects sitting in the bookcase in the bedroom... including
not one, but two, Nazi flying saucers.
MEIN FUHRER! I CAN VALK! I CAN SPIN! I CAN _VLY_!!!! :-D

Pat

Robert Juliano; Umm... Brad?
you _DO_ realize that your last message sounded really crazy,
don't you?
(crazier than usual.)
Not really because, it's about par for my "crazier than usual"
lose-cannon method of pushing more of those do-not-push buttons.
BTW; if you're going to stalk and bash the likes of myself, in that
case please have yourself a go at others such as Geoffrey Landis.

In spite of the ongoing nasty Usenet and of NASA's gauntlets of
mainstream flak and naysayology, that which only goes towards further
proving that folks like myself are more than sufficiently right
(thereby doesn't mean that we're always right), whereas even "Geoffrey
A. Landis" holds out better than a gram worth of hope on behalf of
other life having existed and perhaps still coexisting as having
evolved on Venus. Whereas, at least technically and even biologically
speaking there's not an insurmountable problem, other than the ongoing
mainstream naysayism that's essentially running us amuck and smack into
a WW-III or bust situation.

Astrobiology: The Case for Venus by; Geoffrey A. Landis
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...003-212310.pdf

There most certainly are other qualified research teams and of their
scientist as having been accomplishing their thing, as to nailing down
another part of what's entirely possible. Meanwhile, the
observationology of what I've discovered as of more than 6 years ago is
still offering the same evidence as before, and to think that I haven't
10% the PhotoShop solutions nor hardly zero percent the resources as
per what our NIMA.MIL has to work with.

I can't but wonder what their true underlying problem actually is?
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Robert Juliano; Umm... Brad?
you _DO_ realize that your last message sounded really crazy,
don't you?
(crazier than usual.)

Not really because, it's about par for my "crazier than usual"
lose-cannon method of pushing more of those do-not-push buttons.
BTW; if you're going to stalk and bash the likes of myself, in that
case please have yourself a go at others such as Geoffrey Landis.

In spite of the ongoing nasty Usenet and of NASA's gauntlets of
mainstream flak and naysayology, that which only goes towards further
proving that folks like myself are more than sufficiently right
(thereby doesn't mean that we're always right), whereas even "Geoffrey
A. Landis" holds out better than a gram worth of hope on behalf of
other life having existed and perhaps still coexisting as having
evolved on Venus. Whereas, at least technically and even biologically
speaking there's not an insurmountable problem, other than the ongoing
mainstream naysayism that's essentially running us amuck and smack into
a WW-III or bust situation.

Astrobiology: The Case for Venus by; Geoffrey A. Landis
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...003-212310.pdf

There most certainly are other qualified research teams and of their
scientist as having been accomplishing their thing, as to nailing down
another part of what's entirely possible. Meanwhile, the
observationology of what I've discovered as of more than 6 years ago is
still offering the same evidence as before, and to think that I haven't
10% the PhotoShop solutions nor hardly zero percent the resources as
per what our NIMA.MIL has to work with.

I can't but wonder what their true underlying problem actually is?
-
Brad Guth



Brad,

1.) Naysayology isn't a word, and fails to impress anyone.
2.) I am not "stalking and bashing you," I'm attempting to keep the net
clear of kooks and loons.
3.) observationology isn't a word, and fails to impress anyone. If you
want to impress someone, make sure to use actual words. In correct
sequences, with correct punctuation.

4.) perhaps the reason that NASA hasn't found your supposed venusian
civilization, is because it doesn't exist.

Bob

Robert Juliano wrote:


Brad,

1.) Naysayology isn't a word, and fails to impress anyone.
2.) I am not "stalking and bashing you," I'm attempting to keep the
net clear of kooks and loons.
3.) observationology isn't a word, and fails to impress anyone. If you
want to impress someone, make sure to use actual words. In correct
sequences, with correct punctuation.

4.) perhaps the reason that NASA hasn't found your supposed venusian
civilization, is because it doesn't exist.



I want to see him push the button.
I want to see him push the do-not-push button.
The big _shiny red_ do-not-push button.

Commander Ren Hoek

Pat Flannery wrote:


Robert Juliano wrote:


Brad,

1.) Naysayology isn't a word, and fails to impress anyone.
2.) I am not "stalking and bashing you," I'm attempting to keep the
net clear of kooks and loons.
3.) observationology isn't a word, and fails to impress anyone. If you
want to impress someone, make sure to use actual words. In correct
sequences, with correct punctuation.

4.) perhaps the reason that NASA hasn't found your supposed venusian
civilization, is because it doesn't exist.



I want to see him push the button.
I want to see him push the do-not-push button.
The big _shiny red_ do-not-push button.

Commander Ren Hoek

thank god I was trying out a cheap remote keyboard...
nasally ejected hot cocoa seems to do bad things to keyboards...

Bob (on the standard keyboard)

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Peter Twydell wrote:


Yeah, but everybody but everybody saw the video of Bananarama's cover of
it.
And let's face it- Bananarama WERE Venusian Firewomen. :-D

Pat

Everybody but me! I've never seen the Bananarama version, and I'd find it
difficult to identify them anyway, having given up pop music some time
ago.
I was watching the original group and grooving to the music in Dutch
discos in the 70s...


Remember the Spice Girls? (cut to a scene in a trendy bar: "Hey! Aren't
you Posh Spice? I'll have another whiskey on the rocks.")
Bananarama was sort of the same idea- they were fun to look at and they
could sort of sing also.
Nah, Bananarama was a standard, albeit wildly successful, self-organizing
(as opposed to manufactured) girl band. Two of the original members had
known each other for ages, they used to live above Steve Jones and Paul
Cook's rehersal area, and one of their founding members was married for a
time to Dave Stewart. The closest US equivelent I can think of is the
Go-Go's. (Who, BTW, actually, once upon a time, prior to their first album,
were actually a punk band.)

The spice girls, on the other hand, were manufactured. Of course, so were
the Monkees, but there were several key differences:

1. The Monkees were cute and personality-filled, the spice girls were cute
and stereo-typical.
2. The Monkees antics were fun to watch.

(To my mind, the fun of the Monkees was the interaction of the different
personalities. Most of the recent attempts to recapture that sort of
"shtick" have tried to base the humor on the interaction of sterotypes,
essentially trying to produce a musical version of "The Young Ones" but
without anyone with any acting talent. You have the stoner/hippie, the punk,
the yuppie, the sleezeball etc. The Spice Girl's stage personas fall firmly
into that mode.)

And for space relevence? Dave Stewart has written an opera based on
Barberella.

Pat Flannery ) wrote:


: Peter Twydell wrote:

:
: Yeah, but everybody but everybody saw the video of Bananarama's cover
: of it.
: And let's face it- Bananarama WERE Venusian Firewomen. :-D
:
: Pat
:
: Everybody but me! I've never seen the Bananarama version, and I'd find
: it difficult to identify them anyway, having given up pop music some
: time ago.
: I was watching the original group and grooving to the music in Dutch
: discos in the 70s...


: Remember the Spice Girls? (cut to a scene in a trendy bar: "Hey! Aren't
: you Posh Spice? I'll have another whiskey on the rocks.")
: Bananarama was sort of the same idea- they were fun to look at and they
: could sort of sing also.

Spice Girls, who could forget?

: Until I read that "Venus" was a cover of the Shocking Blue song a few
: years ago, I'd never heard it. I'd also never heard of the band Shocking
: Blue, and only rumors that Holland existed at all...and those consisted
: of strange stories of lesbian perversions as little boys stuck their
: fingers into dykes.

Didn't the song, "Venus" come out in like 1970?. I mean 35+ years here...
Also, wasn't it basically a one hit wonder? Bananarama took advantage of
the video age by covering it and getting themselves exposed, for a lack of
a better term. Anyway, does anyone have an image or two the the band,
Shocking Blue, sa we can compare them to Bananarama and at least make this
thread somewhat entertaining.

I mean how many times with "naysaying", "Christ on a stick", "Third Reich"
and "brown-nose" can one take?!?

Eric

: Pat

Eric Chomko wrote:
Pat Flannery ) wrote:


: Peter Twydell wrote:

:
: Yeah, but everybody but everybody saw the video of Bananarama's cover
: of it.
: And let's face it- Bananarama WERE Venusian Firewomen. :-D
:
: Pat
:
: Everybody but me! I've never seen the Bananarama version, and I'd find
: it difficult to identify them anyway, having given up pop music some
: time ago.
: I was watching the original group and grooving to the music in Dutch
: discos in the 70s...


: Remember the Spice Girls? (cut to a scene in a trendy bar: "Hey! Aren't
: you Posh Spice? I'll have another whiskey on the rocks.")
: Bananarama was sort of the same idea- they were fun to look at and they
: could sort of sing also.

Spice Girls, who could forget?

: Until I read that "Venus" was a cover of the Shocking Blue song a few
: years ago, I'd never heard it. I'd also never heard of the band Shocking
: Blue, and only rumors that Holland existed at all...and those consisted
: of strange stories of lesbian perversions as little boys stuck their
: fingers into dykes.

Didn't the song, "Venus" come out in like 1970?. I mean 35+ years here...
Also, wasn't it basically a one hit wonder? Bananarama took advantage of
the video age by covering it and getting themselves exposed, for a lack of
a better term. Anyway, does anyone have an image or two the the band,
Shocking Blue, sa we can compare them to Bananarama and at least make this
thread somewhat entertaining.

I mean how many times with "naysaying", "Christ on a stick", "Third Reich"
and "brown-nose" can one take?!?

Eric

: Pat


I figure those terms would be great for a punk song. If we can re-work a
punk song for jazz, maybe we can hit more than one song market...

Bob

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
And for space relevence? Dave Stewart has written an opera based on
Barberella.
Next time throw in some relevance to rec.aviation.military or leave us out.

Fair enough?

Tex