Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt

Guth Venus is way more alive than Usenet

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/re...=smart&p=1/443

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...add59b61fb9f50
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

How unfortunate, that the ESA Venus EXPRESS truth and nothing but the
truth can't even be Usenet shared without blowing yet another mainstream
status quo fuse.

Must be because of what the likes of John Ackerman had to say as of
provided within his "Alternative View of Venus", and of what a few
others before and after having suggested that the planetology of Venus
isn't nearly as old as we'd been informed by our very own NASA.

I guess unlike our NASA's hocus-pocus moon, the regular laws of physics
and of planetology factors are working exactly as they should on behalf
of Venus.

Sorry to say that the digital radar obtained composite image of what's
easily interpreted as including what's looking so intelligently
artificial about Venus, that as such it still (after nearly 7 years)
stands the test of time and of surviving more peer review flak than you
or I could have imagined.
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

The moon is a little bit further from Earth with each passing year.

If the Chinesees expect to land a rice-muncher on it, they'd better hurry.
It will be out of reach soon.



"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:1980f8d381c348f62a64122ad50006f2.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
How unfortunate, that the ESA Venus EXPRESS truth and nothing but the
truth can't even be Usenet shared without blowing yet another mainstream
status quo fuse.

Must be because of what the likes of John Ackerman had to say as of
provided within his "Alternative View of Venus", and of what a few
others before and after having suggested that the planetology of Venus
isn't nearly as old as we'd been informed by our very own NASA.

I guess unlike our NASA's hocus-pocus moon, the regular laws of physics
and of planetology factors are working exactly as they should on behalf
of Venus.

Sorry to say that the digital radar obtained composite image of what's
easily interpreted as including what's looking so intelligently
artificial about Venus, that as such it still (after nearly 7 years)
stands the test of time and of surviving more peer review flak than you
or I could have imagined.
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"BluntForceTraumaT"
wrote in message

The moon is a little bit further from Earth with each passing year.

If the Chinesees expect to land a rice-muncher on it, they'd better hurry.
It will be out of reach soon.

And you actually think China is that dumb and dumber, and as otherwise
as dumbfounded as yourself?

Why go for the naked anticathode moon that's so freaking lethal in more
ways than you can shake a fist full of flaming sticks at, when instead
they'll simply grab the holy grail of high ground by way of taking over
LL-1
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"BluntForceTraumaT" wrote
in message ...
The moon is a little bit further from Earth with each passing year.


hmmm, i'm impressed that you knew that twink. good work!

"captain." wrote in message
news:0lvMg.787$bf5.127@edtnps90

hmmm, i'm impressed that you knew that twink. good work!

How absolutely silly of yourself, and proof-positive of what rusemasters
you folks actually are.

Before we blindly leap ourselves onto our moon (for the first time),
perhaps we should think again. You folks have got to be absolutely
kidding about utilizing the physically dark surface of our extremely
dusty and highly reactive moon, especially for much of anything that's
on behalf of optical astronomy.

At best, the LL-1 zone (60,000 km away from the moon) is relatively
clean of debris and perhaps far enough away from that nasty moon of
our's in order to humanly survive the combined solar/cosmic/moon TBI
dosage, but that's only if well enough shielded by a few meters of
water.

Our moon's surface is highly if not entirely exposed to solar wind
driven electrostatics and otherwise being that of a naked anticathode
environment that's rather solar/cosmic and locally DNA lethal (far worse
off than anything Van Allen belt related), plus continually and
unavoidably running itself into stuff at 30+ km/s, and otherwise gravity
attracting upon all that's nearby, is perhaps good for the sorts of
robust robotics of those tough little SAR image receiving modules, but
otherwise hardly suited for that of anything optical or otherwise
end-user-friendly unless it's going deep underground.

Do any of you folks even realize what absolutely terrific resolution a
given focal length of 384,000 km can do on behalf SAR imaging? (I didn't
think so)

Such pure robotics on behalf of accomplishing such extended SAR/VLA
imaging is actually based upon extremely efficient deployments of what
should not represent 10% of a given Apollo mission, and/or perhaps not
even involving 1% the mass per SAR image receiving module, and without
folks ever having to endure the trauma as to what that sort of nasty
lunar surface environment would otherwise be nailing countless strands
of human DNA per second.

Of course the regular laws of physics and I could be entirely wrong. In
which case, how much DNA trauma and/or physical impact trauma can a
human or that of anything optical withstand?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:ef1e6bcc620f386c664f803c5a55fcba.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:0lvMg.787$bf5.127@edtnps90

hmmm, i'm impressed that you knew that twink. good work!

How absolutely silly

does absolute silliness have a numerical value?

of yourself, and proof-positive of what rusemasters
you folks actually are.


well yes, the twinker and myself are behind the plot to convince the public
that the moon is migrating outwards with each passing year. we almost had
you all fooled.

Before we blindly leap ourselves onto our moon (for the first time),
perhaps we should think again. You folks have got to be absolutely
kidding about utilizing the physically dark surface of our extremely
dusty and highly reactive moon, especially for much of anything that's
on behalf of optical astronomy.


aren't you the guy who thinks there should be a colony on venus? now that's
crazy!

At best, the LL-1 zone (60,000 km away from the moon) is relatively
clean of debris and perhaps far enough away from that nasty moon of
our's in order to humanly survive the combined solar/cosmic/moon TBI
dosage, but that's only if well enough shielded by a few meters of
water.

Our moon's surface is highly if not entirely exposed to solar wind
driven electrostatics and otherwise being that of a naked anticathode
environment that's rather solar/cosmic and locally DNA lethal (far worse
off than anything Van Allen belt related), plus continually and
unavoidably running itself into stuff at 30+ km/s, and otherwise gravity
attracting upon all that's nearby, is perhaps good for the sorts of
robust robotics of those tough little SAR image receiving modules, but
otherwise hardly suited for that of anything optical or otherwise
end-user-friendly unless it's going deep underground.

Do any of you folks even realize what absolutely terrific resolution a
given focal length of 384,000 km can do on behalf SAR imaging? (I didn't
think so)


we'll look into it right away sir!@

Such pure robotics on behalf of accomplishing such extended SAR/VLA
imaging is actually based upon extremely efficient deployments of what
should not represent 10% of a given Apollo mission, and/or perhaps not
even involving 1% the mass per SAR image receiving module, and without
folks ever having to endure the trauma as to what that sort of nasty
lunar surface environment would otherwise be nailing countless strands
of human DNA per second.

Of course the regular laws of physics and I could be entirely wrong. In
which case, how much DNA trauma and/or physical impact trauma can a
human or that of anything optical withstand?
-
Brad Guth


it's not something that i consider on a daily basis.

Venus has certainly been a little different and perhaps a whole lot more
rare on behalf of having accommodated life than Earth (at least I've
never once insisted that it's entirely or much less extensively
populated with it's own kind), such as in many ways it's a whole lot
better off considering it has unlimited and 100% renewable energy to
burn (sort of speak), whereas it also hasn't a highly reactive
anticathode of a nasty moon to deal with, and there's certainly not much
chance of their having an ice-age because of not having that moon, and
it has also been next to forever since they've had their last nasty
storm, or much less having to survive horrific impacts or having any of
those pesky floods to deal with.

Earth is a very rare planet (I say, so what's the difference; being rare
is a darn good thing)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...63 05f2699d53

Panspermia via an icy proto-moon seems perfectly doable for having
biologically terraformed planets other than Earth (much like wandering
ETs or perhaps God having planted remote crops), as well as the random
happenstance via local chemical interactions and/or the goodwill of ET
intelligent designers adding to the soup of complex life as they trek
there way through town.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s327749.htm
"Sitting here, waiting for someone to 'phone' us up is a waste of time."

"The presence of land on our planet is a direct result of an extremely
rare kind of collision with asteroids during its formation, Dr Hoffman
says. This collision led to the formation of our unique type of moon,
which is made of materially formerly part of the primitive Earth's outer
crust."

I totally agree with "Dr Hoffman", whereas it seems as though a 4000 km
icy proto-moon should rather easily qualify as an effective terraforming
impactor, especially if it's offering somewhat of a salty ice along with
having loads of well protected DNA sequestered within.

Jordan;
1) Hoffman is quite right that many Terrestrial planets may be much
wetter than the Earth. (What he does not mention is that many may
also be much drier: note that Mars, the most Earthlike planet in _
our_ Solar System, is by Earth standards a barren desert).
However ...

2) Hoffman is reaching with his argument that a much wetter planet
could not support an advanced technological civilization. It is true
that _our_ path to advanced technology required extensive amounts of
dry land, but it does not logically follow that our path is the only
one possible.

It is quite possible that, on some aquatic world a hundred light-years
from here, an advanced alien civilization is noting that most planets
geologically like theirs have much less water, and hence would lack
the globe-spanning ocean that is required for _their_ path to advanced
technology

Jordan,
With regards to "Earth is a very rare planet", that's actually a very
good topic constrictive contribution that I have no arguments with. So
why exactly are you otherwise such a anti-Venusian bigot?

Good old Earth/moon http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html
"The Earth is not unique because if its oceans. Any planet in the right
part of the habitable zone will have those. What is unique about the
Earth is that it has LAND. If the moon had not carried away most of the
crust, there would be no ocean basins, no land, and no chance for life
to evolve on land."

Good points that do not happen to exclude upon our salty ice covered
proto-moon itself as simply having impacted Earth, perhaps more than
once, plus offering those unavoidable secondary shards of massive lunar
icebergs, thereby depositing it's teratonnes of salty ice and otherwise
having caused serious collateral damage to each of us, and otherwise
causing a serious platonic butt-load of global trauma for mother Earth,
such as having created the artic ocean basin.

Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...9a78fedc7b9031

Not so old Venus http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x2.html
Unfortunately, this old infomercial article is absolutely chuck full of
the usual mainstream status quo of infomercial-science, of the typical
conditional-physics worth of damage-control which seriously sucks and
blows at sharing just about anything but the truth. It's as though the
regular laws of physics and of planetology do not apply to Venus,
especially not to such a newish orb that's well into the process of
becoming a habitable world for the rest of us once we've finished with
having pillaged and raped mother Earth to death.

There's more honest to God and otherwise replicated as scientifically
positive reasons for Venus having sustained other intelligent life, as
having been existing/coexisting upon Venus than not. Of course, if
you're a collaborating Third Reich minion that's status quo or bust,
then none of this means anything to yourself or those of your kind
because, apparently there's none other than us humans in the entire
universe, much less would others be any smarter than us or having become
physiologically more advance, or perhaps at best mere heathens.

BTW; Venus has teratonnes worth of easily available water plus
unlimited renewable energy, thus Venusian ice cold beer is not all that
unlikely, nor all that likely without good demand.

Dry and even Venusian toasty land that's hosing more than it's fair
share of lave and mud flows does NOT represent a world without it's fair
and/or at least sufficient share of renewable water. Not all other
worlds are as overly populated with the likes of such dumbfounded
heathen humans that haven't an honest bone within their highly bigoted
bodies. Not all other worlds are populated by such greedy and arrogant
*******s that would knowingly perpetrate decades of cold-wars for their
next unearned buck. Not all other worlds are based upon incest
mutations of de-evolution and of having promoted religious faith-based
social/political cultisms that if need be would put those of their own
kind on a stick, and then blame others for having taken such actions.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Venus by MAGELLAN: Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles / Brad Guth / Guth
Venus

From my limited Usenet experience that hasn't thus far been exactly all
that resourceful, nor having been all that end-user friendly unless you
happen to own a full-body flak suit, you'd certainly be hard pressed to
learn all that much of anything by way of the usual anti-think-tank of
what this naysay Usenet of NASA's infomercial-science represents, and/or
by way of NASA's own wag-thy-dog standards of having excluded whatever
evidence suits their agenda. But in spite of their obvious ESA/(Venus
Express) and "Guth Venus" banishments, there's all sorts of new and
improved science that's arriving about Venus, all of which further
supports the geothermal nature of our extremely nearby and rather toasty
Venus as being one seriously geophysically active and unavoidably hot
place for the likes of us wussy and somewhat dumbfounded humans to live
in the buff. However, the facts of that thick and terribly buoyant soup
of an atmosphere as being so extra toasty by day, and otherwise cooling
itself off rather nicely by night (extracting roughly 15% more thermal
energy than solar contributed) does not significantly alter the
geothermally heated surface situation by day or night, as being from
where the vast bulk of that environmental CO2 and thermal energy has
been derived from.

For all that it's honestly worth, Venus is still within the newish
planetology phase of having been radiating it's core energy and
otherwise continually outgassing and thereby unavoidably contributing to
it's robust atmospheric mass, as well as towards the heating of that
Venusian atmosphere, as having been primarily roasting or rather
geothermally baking itself from the bottom up, along with those highly
reflective clouds receiving the solar influx of 2650 joules/m2 by day,
thereby adding further insult to injury.

ESA's thermal imaging and other planetology science results from their
Venus Express, with lots more to come.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=39432

For starters, and besides whatever's having been interpreted from
various high quality and otherwise very truth worthy radar obtained
images, we've also had some fairly old but good science as to
appreciating the surface geothermal anomaly differentials, of what's
clearly representing an active environment as having 225~240 K, as well
as contributing as to whatever a good amount of surface elevation could
factor without involving anything that's specifically active lava,
bringing that overall thermal differential to a rather nifty 320 K.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kief...oebe_fig2b.gif
By any known standards of physics, considering the nearly 10% density of
water that the surface atmosphere of mostly CO2 represents, whereas such
available thermal differentials as well as for the added 4+bar/km of
pressure differential is not exactly representing a wussy amount of
easily available energy.

Once the Venus EXPRESS PFS instrument is rebooted/activated and
contributing in depth of better thermal imaging resolution that should
penetrate down to the surface, whereas this is when we'll get another
good batch of updated science as pertaining towards the mapping of all
those multiple hot spots or active volcanic zones of geothermal lava
and/or of various surface mud flows, plus those high pressure gas vents
that are most likely contributing (according to John Ackerman's
"Alternative View of Venus") their fair share of S8(monoclinic sulfur),
and possibly the PFS will be of sufficient resolution as to re-identify
the active area associated with the 'Fluid Arch'.

All that I'm saying is that Venus is simply not offering the exact same
surface temperature upon each and every square meter of that newish
(much less old than Earth) planetary environment, and there's certainly
absolute loads of what's local and of essentially unlimited/renewable
energy that's available to work with. There's also absolutely nothing
technical that's entirely insurmountable on behalf of other intelligent
life having existed/coexisted, whereas there's only the ongoing mindset
of bigotry, greed and arrogance of Usenet naysayism that's continually
hard at work of their status quo wagging-thy-dogs to death, of otherwise
imposing as much collateral damage and carnage upon the innocent without
ever a stitch of remorse to boot is unfortunately pretty much what we
should expect.

The image of what easily interprets as a Venusian township or complex
community of those extremely large and I think impressive looking
structures, reservoirs and of what I interpret as having a rigid airship
and of that associated bridge as having created their perfectly rational
configuration of a worthy Venusian infrastructure, along with having
their nearby township's local tarmac that's also offering a fairly
complex item of good size, isn't a joke. But since most Usenet folks
and official damage-control rusemasters tend to refuse to believe my
image processing and otherwise impose banishment upon all subsequent
interpretations, or for that matter of tormenting whatever anyone else
happens to perceive as being potentially artificial about Venus gets
their official Usenet topic/author stalking, bashing and/or banishment
along with as much of their mainstream status quo flak as this pathetic
Usenet from naysay hell can muster (yet they'll believe each and every
NASA/Apollo image w/o question and/or without a stitch of physics or any
other hard-science in support thereof) is why I'm starting this topic
off by posting the raw NASA/Magellan image links, which so happens to
contain the bulk of those terrific items of interest, that which I've
spoken of and having requested honest contributions from all others,
that's hopefully going to become worthy of my having shared this
discovery for the past seven years.

Here's the original of the Magellan radar imaging composite, of
representing roughly 225 meter and 36 image confirming looks/pixel:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

If this radar digital image was simply too complex for your expertise,
or simply too much for your computer to manage, I'll gladly tell you how
to easily minimize the task of processing as little as 5% of the total
frame, or at most 10% should more include the entire area of interest
that can then be rather quickly processed into as large of an image file
as your computer can manage to cope with, although there's no good
reason to push this small portion of not more than 10% into a multi
megabyte format, that is unless it's your intentions of proving how
massive and/or distorted your version of an image can be accomplished.
MAGELLAN: Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles
low res:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...115s095_1.html

LIFE identified on Venus

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...78f97e66897298
At least "Duncan Young" was at the time being honestly constructive,
though without his supposed expertise ever once having contributed a
supportive radar image on behalf of his unsubstantiated argument that
all is perfectly natural. Although I'd been cut off from GOOGLE Usenet
at the time, so that further topic contributions were not being
accepted, and by the time I'd noticed it seemed too late. The others as
having contributed to this one and of so many other similar topics were
clearly of NASA's damage-control or MIB rusemasters, and thereby totally
pointless for accomplishing anything the least bit constructive.
Clearly these folks have a great many of their infomercial butts to
cover, and at public expense they're really good at it.

My argument has always been that taking 36 looks/pixel beats 4
looks/pixel whenever it comes down to being of the most truth worthy of
interpreting such radar pixels. Unfortunately, those 36 looks/pixel
brings the working image resolution down to 225 m/pixel instead of the
niftier 75 m/pixel, but that's only good news on behalf of honest
observationology if what we're looking for is of a reasonably large
configuration or stature to start off with, and since we still have the
surrounding terrain that is always there to behold as our basis of
reference, reinforcing as to what's otherwise looking perfectly natural
about Venus as opposed to what looking as most likely artificial.

If I'm still not asking too much (though obviously I have been), please
take another unbiased/(open mindset) 1:1 look-see, and tell me whatever
it is that you honestly think, and please do bother share as to the
observationology and/or planetology basis of whatever's encharge of your
best SWAG or investigative mindset. If you can't manage or otherwise
refuse to accomplish the digital PhotoShop enlargements, in which case
I'll provide my best efforts as to sharing the step by step of whatever
photographic digital enlargement/(zoom-in) process has to offer, and
then I'll share the enlargement results of what I've managed to
accomplish, which unfortunately isn't going to be 10% as good as what
our nondisclosure NIMA team of cloak and daggers has had to offer, and
my efforts shouldn't even be nearly as good as whatever yourself and of
your newer software of whatever PhotoShop can deliver.

Unfortunately, my proor old PC is continually under the utmost of
GOOGLE/Usenet attacks, of being on the receiving end their best
spermware/****ware, therefore I often get diverted and/or remote
shut-down in mid stream, and then I have to restart entirely from
scratch. It's really funny and quite pathetic at the same time, that
such silly MI/NSA~NASA MIB damage control efforts are continually wasted
on little old me. (no wonder they can't find Usama bin Laden)
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Topic update:
Venus has certainly been a little different and perhaps a whole lot more
planetology rare on behalf of having accommodated intelligent other life
than Earth (at least other than in jest, I've never once insisted that
it's either entirely or much less extensively populated with it's own
kind), such as in many ways it's actually a whole lot better off
considering it has such unlimited and 100% renewable energy to burn
(sort of speak), whereas it also hasn't a highly reactive anticathode of
a nasty moon to deal with, and there's certainly not much chance of
their having an ice-age because of not having that moon, and it has also
been next to forever since they've had their last nasty storm, or much
less having to survive horrific impacts or having any of those pesky
floods to deal with.

Earth is a very rare planet (I'd say, so what's the difference; being
rare is a darn good thing)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...63 05f2699d53
Panspermia via an icy proto-moon still seems perfectly doable for having
biologically terraformed planets other than Earth (much like wandering
ETs or perhaps God having planted remote crops), as well as the random
happenstance via local chemical interactions and/or the goodwill of ET
intelligent designers adding to the soup of complex life as they trek
there way through town.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s327749.htm
"Sitting here, waiting for someone to 'phone' us up is a waste of time."

"The presence of land on our planet is a direct result of an extremely
rare kind of collision with asteroids during its formation, Dr Hoffman
says. This collision led to the formation of our unique type of moon,
which is made of materially formerly part of the primitive Earth's outer
crust."

I'd have to totally agree with "Dr Hoffman", whereas it seems as though
a 4000 km icy proto-moon should rather easily qualify itself as an
effective Earthly terraforming impactor, especially if it's offering
somewhat of a salty ice along with having loads of well protected DNA
sequestered within.

Jordan;
1) Hoffman is quite right that many Terrestrial planets may be much
wetter than the Earth. (What he does not mention is that many may
also be much drier: note that Mars, the most Earthlike planet in _
our_ Solar System, is by Earth standards a barren desert).
However ...

2) Hoffman is reaching with his argument that a much wetter planet
could not support an advanced technological civilization. It is true
that _our_ path to advanced technology required extensive amounts of
dry land, but it does not logically follow that our path is the only
one possible.

It is quite possible that, on some aquatic world a hundred light-years
from here, an advanced alien civilization is noting that most planets
geologically like theirs have much less water, and hence would lack
the globe-spanning ocean that is required for _their_ path to advanced
technology

Jordan,
With regards to "Earth is a very rare planet", that's actually a very
good topic constructive contribution that I have no arguments with. So
why exactly are you and of so many others of your kind such
all-or-nothing as totally anti-Venusian bigots?

Good old Earth/moon http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html
"The Earth is not unique because if its oceans. Any planet in the right
part of the habitable zone will have those. What is unique about the
Earth is that it has LAND. If the moon had not carried away most of the
crust, there would be no ocean basins, no land, and no chance for life
to evolve on land."

Those are additionally good points that do not happen to exclude upon
our salty ice covered proto-moon itself as simply having impacted Earth,
perhaps more than once, plus having offered those unavoidable secondary
shards of massive lunar icebergs, thereby depositing it's teratonnes of
salty ice and otherwise having caused serious collateral damage to each
of us, and otherwise having caused a serious geophysical butt-load of
global trauma for mother Earth, such as having created the arctic ocean
basin and perhaps a few other significant impressions.

Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...9a78fedc7b9031

Our not so old Venus http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x2.html
Unfortunately, this old article is absolutely chuck full of the usual
mainstream status quo of infomercial-science, of the typical
conditional-physics worth of damage-control which seriously sucks and
blows at sharing just about anything but the truth. It's as though the
regular laws of physics and of planetology do not apply to Venus,
especially not to such a newish orb that's well into the process of
becoming a habitable world for the rest of us once we've finished with
having pillaged and raped mother Earth to death.

There's more honest to God and otherwise replicated as scientifically
positive reasons for Venus having sustained other intelligent life, as
for having been existing/coexisting upon Venus than not. Of course, if
you're a collaborating Third Reich minion that's all status quo or bust,
then none of this means anything to yourself or those of your kind
because, apparently there's none other than us humans in the entire
universe, much less would others be any smarter than us or having become
physiologically more advance, or perhaps at best mere heathens that we
might rather eat.

BTW; Venus has teratonnes worth of easily available water plus
unlimited renewable energy, thus Venusian ice cold beer is not all that
unlikely, nor all that likely without good product demand.

Dry and even Venusian style of extra toasty land that's hosting more
than it's fair share of lava and mud flows does NOT represent itself as
a world that's without it's fair and/or at least sufficient share of
renewable water. Not all other worlds are as overly populated with the
likes of such dumbfounded heathens as humans that haven't an honest bone
within their highly bigoted bodies. Not all other worlds are populated
by such born-again greedy and arrogant *******s that would knowingly
perpetrate decades of cold-wars for obtaining their next unearned buck.
Not all other worlds are based upon incest mutations of de-evolution and
of having promoted religious faith-based social/political cultisms, that
if need be would put those of their own kind on a stick, and then having
to blame others for supposedly having taken such actions.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG