What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)

On Sep 17, 5:11 pm, wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:07 pm, wrote:





On Sep 13, 7:49 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:

wrote in message

roups.com...

In Europe and elsewhere people don't like American mass mentalities in
2007.

That's collective European guilt.

America is actually taking on Europe's responsibilities around the world,
instead of simply talking about them.

Bosnia was in Europe's own back yard, and you did *nothing*. It took NATO-
that is, the United States, to actually do anything.

Europe actually *encouraged* the growth of violent Islamist groups by
tolerating their actions, some of which was generated as a direct result of
how Europeans divided the Middle East, and now the United States has to
clean up the mess.

I'd give a **** about Europe's opinion if Europe had clean hands. It was,
after all, *France, Germany and Russia* that were actively violating the
economic sanctions against Iraq, as documents found by the US shows.

Europe need to talk less and act a lot more.

AMERICA IS TAKING EUROPE'S RESPONSIBILITIES?

I thought Yugoslavians were talking guteskly.

g*r*ot, proverb

spitting lime seed from the corner of the mouth.

On Sep 17, 3:45 pm, John Griffin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:38 am, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology?
You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and buttology.
Maybe you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd this Yid stuff
come from, anyway? For all you know, I might be a Jap...or a
Guido...or a Pepperbelly...or a Kraut, a Frog...? Just
curious, as long as you don't accuse me of being one of The
Pervert Mohammed's mind****ed drones.

Thus far you haven't contributed squat on behalf of the
original topic.

For your dumbfounded information, Yids are either in charge of
most everything that counts, or having just enough insider
controls for making their one and only interpretation of any
external notions, that could impact their Old Testament in a
negative light, go away.

This honest topic of "What's wrong with there being ETs
(smarter than us none the less)" has nothing to do with
whatever honest Zions, Jews or Yids. However, was this topic
simply too complex for your naysayism upon all that's
off-world, especially if there's any remote chance of ETI?

Speaking of those usenet bigots as having a terrestrial
limited mindset; Have you ever contributed a
positive/constructive word on behalf of ETs?

I have. You haven't.

However, if you can define positive/constructive word as support
for the silly idea that some of those ETs have visited us,
neither of us has contributed any such thing. Your kind always
accept the goofy idea that if you can't explain a light in the
sky it had to come from "out there." The probability that it
came from the future is at least equal to the probability that it
came from a ****load of light years away. That probability gets
lost in 80-bit roundoff error.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, you're a certified ET naysayer, no matters what sorts
of round evidence that doesn't so happen to fit into your square
mindset. Everything to your way of thinking that's off-world is
simply 100% inert eye candy until it intelligently runs you over with
a fully ET loaded buss more than a dozen times, because the first
dozen times obviously didn't count.

If you think the regular laws of phyiscs and the best available
science of evidence are each "goofy", and yet you've accepted that
we've walked on that gamma and X-ray saturated moon of ours, that
which by way of your standards looks exactly like a xenon arc spectrum
illuminated guano island without any sign of Venus, then I must ask as
to what could anyone of us possibly provide that's half as good as
your hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo crapolla?
- Brad Guth -

BradGuth wrote:

On Sep 17, 3:45 pm, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:38 am, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology?
You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and buttology.
Maybe you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd this Yid
stuff come from, anyway? For all you know, I might be a
Jap...or a Guido...or a Pepperbelly...or a Kraut, a
Frog...? Just curious, as long as you don't accuse me of
being one of The Pervert Mohammed's mind****ed drones.

Thus far you haven't contributed squat on behalf of the
original topic.

For your dumbfounded information, Yids are either in charge
of most everything that counts, or having just enough
insider controls for making their one and only
interpretation of any external notions, that could impact
their Old Testament in a negative light, go away.

This honest topic of "What's wrong with there being ETs
(smarter than us none the less)" has nothing to do with
whatever honest Zions, Jews or Yids. However, was this
topic simply too complex for your naysayism upon all that's
off-world, especially if there's any remote chance of ETI?

Speaking of those usenet bigots as having a terrestrial
limited mindset; Have you ever contributed a
positive/constructive word on behalf of ETs?

I have. You haven't.

However, if you can define positive/constructive word as
support for the silly idea that some of those ETs have
visited us, neither of us has contributed any such thing.
Your kind always accept the goofy idea that if you can't
explain a light in the sky it had to come from "out there."
The probability that it came from the future is at least
equal to the probability that it came from a ****load of
light years away. That probability gets lost in 80-bit
roundoff error.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, you're a certified ET naysayer, no matters
what sorts of round evidence that doesn't so happen to fit
into your square mindset. Everything to your way of thinking
that's off-world is simply 100% inert eye candy until it
intelligently runs you over with a fully ET loaded buss more
than a dozen times, because the first dozen times obviously
didn't count.

Ha. You're beginning to sound like old flaggy's "mounds of
evidence." There is no reason to believe that anything from any
other world has visited us. The entire body of speculation is
nonsense. As I said, it all amounts to "I don't know what that
thing was, therefore it came from outer space." DUMB.

If you think the regular laws of phyiscs and the best
available science of evidence are each "goofy", and yet you've
accepted that we've walked on that gamma and X-ray saturated
moon of ours, that which by way of your standards looks
exactly like a xenon arc spectrum illuminated guano island
without any sign of Venus, then I must ask as to what could
anyone of us possibly provide that's half as good as your
hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo crapolla? - Brad Guth -

That gobble was dismissed early and often.

On Sep 17, 8:25 pm, John Griffin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 17, 3:45 pm, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:38 am, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology?
You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and buttology.
Maybe you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd this Yid
stuff come from, anyway? For all you know, I might be a
Jap...or a Guido...or a Pepperbelly...or a Kraut, a
Frog...? Just curious, as long as you don't accuse me of
being one of The Pervert Mohammed's mind****ed drones.

Thus far you haven't contributed squat on behalf of the
original topic.

For your dumbfounded information, Yids are either in charge
of most everything that counts, or having just enough
insider controls for making their one and only
interpretation of any external notions, that could impact
their Old Testament in a negative light, go away.

This honest topic of "What's wrong with there being ETs
(smarter than us none the less)" has nothing to do with
whatever honest Zions, Jews or Yids. However, was this
topic simply too complex for your naysayism upon all that's
off-world, especially if there's any remote chance of ETI?

Speaking of those usenet bigots as having a terrestrial
limited mindset; Have you ever contributed a
positive/constructive word on behalf of ETs?

I have. You haven't.

However, if you can define positive/constructive word as
support for the silly idea that some of those ETs have
visited us, neither of us has contributed any such thing.
Your kind always accept the goofy idea that if you can't
explain a light in the sky it had to come from "out there."
The probability that it came from the future is at least
equal to the probability that it came from a ****load of
light years away. That probability gets lost in 80-bit
roundoff error.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, you're a certified ET naysayer, no matters
what sorts of round evidence that doesn't so happen to fit
into your square mindset. Everything to your way of thinking
that's off-world is simply 100% inert eye candy until it
intelligently runs you over with a fully ET loaded buss more
than a dozen times, because the first dozen times obviously
didn't count.

Ha. You're beginning to sound like old flaggy's "mounds of
evidence." There is no reason to believe that anything from any
other world has visited us. The entire body of speculation is
nonsense. As I said, it all amounts to "I don't know what that
thing was, therefore it came from outer space." DUMB.

If you think the regular laws of phyiscs and the best
available science of evidence are each "goofy", and yet you've
accepted that we've walked on that gamma and X-ray saturated
moon of ours, that which by way of your standards looks
exactly like a xenon arc spectrum illuminated guano island
without any sign of Venus, then I must ask as to what could
anyone of us possibly provide that's half as good as your
hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo crapolla? - Brad Guth -

That gobble was dismissed early and often.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are such an incest cloned naysay loser, without so much as a speck
of remorse to boot. I bet you even lie as to which faith-basted cult
that you and others of your kind suck up to.

There is absolutely nothing insurmountable about ETs or much less that
of other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, other than the
faith-based and perverted mindset of the brown-nosed minion naysayers
like yourself.

Deductive reasoning is not purely speculation like what your resident
LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) speculated or rather flat out lied to us about
those Muslim WMD, as well as to why we'd gotten so terribly sucker
punched by his and your close oil friend Osama bin Laden.
- Brad Guth -

BradGuth wrote:

On Sep 17, 8:25 pm, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 17, 3:45 pm, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:38 am, John Griffin
wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet
****ology? You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and
buttology. Maybe you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd
this Yid stuff come from, anyway? For all you know, I
might be a Jap...or a Guido...or a Pepperbelly...or a
Kraut, a Frog...? Just curious, as long as you don't
accuse me of being one of The Pervert Mohammed's
mind****ed drones.

Thus far you haven't contributed squat on behalf of the
original topic.

For your dumbfounded information, Yids are either in
charge of most everything that counts, or having just
enough insider controls for making their one and only
interpretation of any external notions, that could
impact their Old Testament in a negative light, go away.

This honest topic of "What's wrong with there being ETs
(smarter than us none the less)" has nothing to do with
whatever honest Zions, Jews or Yids. However, was this
topic simply too complex for your naysayism upon all
that's off-world, especially if there's any remote
chance of ETI?

Speaking of those usenet bigots as having a terrestrial
limited mindset; Have you ever contributed a
positive/constructive word on behalf of ETs?

I have. You haven't.

However, if you can define positive/constructive word as
support for the silly idea that some of those ETs have
visited us, neither of us has contributed any such thing.
Your kind always accept the goofy idea that if you can't
explain a light in the sky it had to come from "out
there." The probability that it came from the future is at
least equal to the probability that it came from a
****load of light years away. That probability gets lost
in 80-bit roundoff error.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, you're a certified ET naysayer, no matters
what sorts of round evidence that doesn't so happen to fit
into your square mindset. Everything to your way of
thinking that's off-world is simply 100% inert eye candy
until it intelligently runs you over with a fully ET loaded
buss more than a dozen times, because the first dozen times
obviously didn't count.

Ha. You're beginning to sound like old flaggy's "mounds of
evidence." There is no reason to believe that anything from
any other world has visited us. The entire body of
speculation is nonsense. As I said, it all amounts to "I
don't know what that thing was, therefore it came from outer
space." DUMB.

If you think the regular laws of phyiscs and the best
available science of evidence are each "goofy", and yet
you've accepted that we've walked on that gamma and X-ray
saturated moon of ours, that which by way of your standards
looks exactly like a xenon arc spectrum illuminated guano
island without any sign of Venus, then I must ask as to
what could anyone of us possibly provide that's half as
good as your hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo crapolla? - Brad Guth
-

That gobble was dismissed early and often.- Hide quoted text
-

- Show quoted text -

Would you like me to try to show you how to edit that google ****
out of your posts or how to avoid copying it?

You are such an incest cloned naysay loser, without so much as
a speck of remorse to boot. I bet you even lie as to which
faith-basted cult that you and others of your kind suck up to.

No lie about that. None. Faith is for people who’re too ****ing
lazy to investigate something before accepting it.

I have nothing to be remorseful about. You want to have your
feelings hurt, so I can’t regret doing my part to expose the
humor in your babbling.

There is absolutely nothing insurmountable about ETs or much
less that of other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
Venus, other than the faith-based and perverted mindset of the
brown-nosed minion naysayers like yourself.

Deductive reasoning is not purely speculation like what your
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) speculated or rather flat out
lied to us about those Muslim WMD, as well as to why we'd
gotten so terribly sucker punched by his and your close oil
friend Osama bin Laden. - Brad Guth -

It's funny to see you talk about "deductive reasoning" after
making it clear that your view is “life on Venus isn’t
impossible, therefore there’s life on Venus.”

By the way, Bush never attributed the WMD **** to The Pervert
Mohammed’s primitive cult. Furthermore, it’s only about
99.999999% likely that Hussein didn’t have nukes. For absolute
certainty, we have to wait until the next presidential election,
to see if those nasty Republicans are withholding information so
as to shock the electorate with a dramatic announcement that
nukes were just discovered in a chamber under the billion dollar
mosque a couple of days before election day.

On Sep 18, 10:15 am, John Griffin wrote:
I have nothing to be remorseful about.

Duh, as in no freaking kidding folks. Just like you'd approve of
putting the likes of Christ on a stick, w/o a speck of remorse because
it was your borg like swarm mindset duty as a brown-nosed minion in
good standing.


Deductive reasoning is not purely speculation like what your
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) speculated or rather flat out
lied to us about those Muslim WMD, as well as to why we'd
gotten so terribly sucker punched by his and your close oil
friend Osama bin Laden. - Brad Guth -

It's funny to see you talk about "deductive reasoning" after
making it clear that your view is "life on Venus isn't
impossible, therefore there's life on Venus."

Out of context as per usual, and your expertise can further explain
away each of those highly rational looking and actually fairly complex
intelligent looking surface attributes of such darn good size, exactly
how????


By the way, Bush never attributed the WMD **** to The Pervert
Mohammed's primitive cult. Furthermore, it's only about
99.999999% likely that Hussein didn't have nukes. For absolute
certainty, we have to wait until the next presidential election,
to see if those nasty Republicans are withholding information so
as to shock the electorate with a dramatic announcement that
nukes were just discovered in a chamber under the billion dollar
mosque a couple of days before election day.

Your status quo denial of being in denial is accepted without
argument. BTW, not that Saddam wasn't a bad father of those two
spoiled serial brats of his, however nukes were never at the hard core
of those supposed Muslim WMD, whereas the likes of weapons grade VX
were the focus of what also never existed by any standard of what any
such WMD might represent.

BTW No.2, there are worse cults that we're still doing business with,
mostly because they have oil or something else we want to control, and/
or we're ignoring others to death because they have too little or
nothing of what we want to control. Obviously, you're good either
way.
- Brad Guth -

BradGuth wrote:

On Sep 18, 10:15 am, John Griffin
wrote:
I have nothing to be remorseful about.

Duh, as in no freaking kidding folks. Just like you'd approve
of putting the likes of Christ on a stick, w/o a speck of
remorse because it was your borg like swarm mindset duty as a
brown-nosed minion in good standing.

I have nothing to be remorseful about. Ask your Remedial
Whatever teacher to explain that to you.


Deductive reasoning is not purely speculation like what
your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) speculated or rather
flat out lied to us about those Muslim WMD, as well as to
why we'd gotten so terribly sucker punched by his and your
close oil friend Osama bin Laden. - Brad Guth -

It's funny to see you talk about "deductive reasoning" after
making it clear that your view is "life on Venus isn't
impossible, therefore there's life on Venus."

Out of context as per usual,

Hilarious, Brad. It was certainly in context before you snipped
the context. That, euphemistically speaking was a cowardly act.

and your expertise can further
explain away each of those highly rational looking and
actually fairly complex intelligent looking surface attributes
of such darn good size, exactly how????

I have no need or obligation to explain whatever mental
dysfunction makes you see those phantoms.

By the way, Bush never attributed the WMD **** to The Pervert
Mohammed's primitive cult. Furthermore, it's only about
99.999999% likely that Hussein didn't have nukes. For
absolute certainty, we have to wait until the next
presidential election, to see if those nasty Republicans are
withholding information so as to shock the electorate with a
dramatic announcement that nukes were just discovered in a
chamber under the billion dollar mosque a couple of days
before election day.

Your status quo denial of being in denial is accepted without
argument. BTW, not that Saddam wasn't a bad father of those
two spoiled serial brats of his, however nukes were never at
the hard core of those supposed Muslim WMD, whereas the likes
of weapons grade VX were the focus of what also never existed
by any standard of what any such WMD might represent.

I have a feeling that you were trying to refute what I said, but
gave up and posted that incoherent discursion instead.

BTW No.2, there are worse cults that we're still doing
business with, mostly because they have oil or something else
we want to control, and/ or we're ignoring others to death
because they have too little or nothing of what we want to
control. Obviously, you're good either way.

Rectallalia. (just take my word for it.)

- Brad Guth -

On Sep 18, 12:07 pm, John Griffin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
and your expertise can further
explain away each of those highly rational looking and
actually fairly complex intelligent looking surface attributes
of such darn good size, exactly how????

I have no need or obligation to explain whatever mental
dysfunction makes you see those phantoms.

Enough said by way of your know-nothing worth of such flapping butt
cheeks, as spoken like such a good little infomercial spewing Yid that
you are, as well as perfectly Third Reich certified and all (no wonder
your Hitler was so effective).


BTW No.2, there are worse cults that we're still doing
business with, mostly because they have oil or something else
we want to control, and/ or we're ignoring others to death
because they have too little or nothing of what we want to
control. Obviously, you're good either way.

Rectallalia. (just take my word for it.)

Are we supposed to take your Zion perpetrated cold-war plus WWIII for
it as well?
- Brad Guth -

On Sep 18, 2:30 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:07 pm, John Griffin wrote:

wrote:
and your expertise can further
explain away each of those highly rational looking and
actually fairly complex intelligent looking surface attributes
of such darn good size, exactly how????

I have no need or obligation to explain whatever mental
dysfunction makes you see those phantoms.

Enough said by way of your know-nothing worth of such flapping butt
cheeks, as spoken like such a good little infomercial spewing Yid that
you are, as well as perfectly Third Reich certified and all (no wonder
your Hitler was so effective).



BTW No.2, there are worse cults that we're still doing
business with, mostly because they have oil or something else
we want to control, and/ or we're ignoring others to death
because they have too little or nothing of what we want to
control. Obviously, you're good either way.
Rectallalia. (just take my word for it.)

Are we supposed to take your Zion perpetrated cold-war plus WWIII for
it as well?
- Brad Guth -

Not that hardly anyone in Usenet naysay land gives an honest hoot, but
they've gone and done it again.

Rabbi Deco and his brown-nosed Yid minion and fellow rusemaster
Griffin are each going around like crazy sniffing butts. It's simply
what such old dogs do best, and no matters what they can't seem to
ever get enough of what other Yid butts smell and taste like.

Believe it or not, with that much Yiddish buttology snarfing going on,
now they've managed to break GOOGLE's "Sort by date" function. Is
that good MIB damage control, or what?
- Brad Guth -

I guess discovering other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
Venus, the saving of mother Earth from humanity or anything on behalf
of establishing the likes of Willie Moo's SBLs for the greater good of
all life on Earth, simply isn't quite good enough use of this Usenet
unless others as Usenet insiders can keep proving how they can just as
easily via remote shut it all down or merely disable and/or modify
most any given usenet server feature.

Besides the usual topic/author stocking and bashings by those in
charge of putting their own kind on a stick, there's also their usual
topic renamings and/or diverting into the Yid's damage-control
cesspools of "alt.usenet.kooks" and "alt.fan.art-bell".

For example; Discussion subject changed to "What's wrong with Brad
Guth?" by Art Deco

Not that hardly anyone in this greater Usenet of naysay land gives an
honest hoot, but it looks as though they've gone and done it once
again. Rabbi Deco and his brown-nosed Yid minion and fellow
rusemaster Griffin are each going around like crazy sniffing butts.
It's simply what such old dogs do best, and no matters what they can't
seem to ever get enough of what other Yid butts smell and taste like.

Believe it or not, with that much Yiddish buttology snarfing going on,
now they've somehow managed to break GOOGLE's "Sort by date"
function. Is that good insider MIB damage control, or what?
- Brad Guth -