Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

That may be the most sincere, off-topic thing I've ever seen from Pat's
keyboard.

Bravo, man.


Drunk as a trooper when I wrote that...h-m-m-m; that Irish author
drinking up a pint glass of inspiration thing must have some truth in it.


Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Some of us are leg men; some of us are ass men; some of us are tit men;
Me- I'm an eye man



I'm a Mountain Dew-easy chair-Star Trek rerun man


I think about two- thirds of us in the newsgroup fall into that
approximate category :-) .

Pat

You can buy the Brooklyn Bridge too.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.






"Morris" wrote in message ...
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

This site claims that there are already over 1,125,000 lunar land owners
from 176 countries around the world. To date more than 300 million acres
have been issued to people from all walks of life here on planet Earth. The
sale of lunar property has been ongoing for 22 years by the Lunar Embassy!

Can this be trusted? It's a pretty good investment but I don't know if it
holds in court.


http://go.jitbot.com/buy-land-on-moon


Morris

Pat Flannery wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Some of us are leg men; some of us are ass men; some of us are tit men;
Me- I'm an eye man

I'm a Mountain Dew-easy chair-Star Trek rerun man

I think about two- thirds of us in the newsgroup fall into that
approximate category :-) .


Surely you realize that such categories are NOT exclusive? I am an
ass/legs/eyes/Diet Coke/easy chair/DS9 rerun man . . .

;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

In article , Derek Lyons wrote:

IIRC there's also evidence that sexual preference is a continuum, not
simply a two position switch.

I like the "breaking news" tone there, Derek ;-)

g Wasn't meant to be that way, even though it *is* such to many
folks used to as they are to slots and piegonholes.

It's just the exact same tone I'd use for something I'd read in a
summary of a journal article a little while ago. Couldn't help but
misread it...

[BTW, did you ever find a USian supplier for the republished Domesday?]

Haven't looked. Meant to email you and let you know I'm holding off
until after the holidays to make a decision.

Not a problem. Might want to ask one of your local booksellers if they
can order a copy in?

--
-Andrew Gray

Pat Flannery wrote:
dave schneider wrote:


On the other hand, fiction is real good for isolating one particular
aspect of the situation. To give an example that spills over into
your construction of the S-V and S-Ib, there are times when
instructions should use a *line drawing* instead of a *photograph*, so
that the relationship of the parts is clearer.


Ever see some of Charles P. Vick's line drawings of Soviet rockets from
years back; before the true details were known? They are extremely
detailed...but most of the detail is invented... that's the problem with
fiction (historical fiction in particular) how do you keep the
historical facts separate from what the author invented?

Now that's a definite tangent to my comments. It is also a valid
concern, but not a show stopper.


In the 1975
edition of Gatland's "Missiles and Rockets" you end up with a painting
of Vick's Proton with six strap-on boosters using what appear to be
modified six chamber SS-9 "Scarp" motors on it.
The drawing is described as "provisional", but which parts of it are
based on known data, and which on speculation? The whole thing gets
muddled, and one gets mislead by taking it at face value. Better no data
than wrong data.


Indeed, but much of the fiction under discussion isn't historical
fiction for another few centuries.


Also, people tend to be a little hostile to the idea that you are
using them as lab rats, but you are allowed to do experiments with
*fictional* characters.


Which are worthless, as they are all marionettes on the author's
strings; if he runs into a situation where the character has to do
something that seems out-of-character for them...then he simply changes
the character to someone who could do that; and the problem is
solved...but in real life, everybody does things that are
out-of-character; as they are very complex, and to some greater or
lesser extent, contradictory and irrational beings.
It's not to difficult to get mice to successfully run a maze when you
can not only change the maze the first time the mice run into a blind
alley.....but change the mice as well.


Indeed, indeed. But that you can have *that particular* maze at all
is a feature of fiction -- try going out on the street to find some
people to use to test the evolutionary genetic effects of living in a
1.5G environment. Or the psychological effects of being frozen, or
dumped in a pit with one of Lucas's monsters. Heck, even pushing them
into a pit of vipers is rather frowned upon these days.

/dps

From Scott Hedrick:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
. ..

"Stuf4" wrote in message
It falls
squarely into the realm of simple logic.

Please provide a verifiable reference for your source of logic.

Keeping a parent/child-type sequence in proper order doesn't strike me
as being all that complex. Not sure if I can reference a source here.
Maybe my understanding is all empirically based, seeing how I've
never met any kids who are older than their genetic parents.

If anyone wants to argue that a US-*anything* is older than July 4th,
1776, I'd say that the smartest way to do that is to include an
argument that the United States of America itself was born prior to
the officially accepted date of independence.

Now if anyone would like to present the case for how the US Marine
Corps (or US-whatever) can be older than the US, I'd be glad to
consider that argument for logical soundness.

Going back to Greg's rebuttal, it is clear to me that the entity who
is Mrs. Moore has only existed as Mrs. Moore for no moore than seven
years. And for a married couple (whatever variety you care to
consider) who have children prior to their marriage (Declaration of
Union, if you will), those children can trace their existence as a
member of that formal family no earlier than the existence of that
formal family.

On that note...

Happy 100th Birthday to the Wright creation of powered piloted
heavier-than-air flight.


~ CT

Herb Schaltegger wrote:


Surely you realize that such categories are NOT exclusive? I am an
ass/legs/eyes/Diet Coke/easy chair/DS9 rerun man . . .


You can't have her! Terry Farrell is MINE! I had to defend Milla
Jovovitch from the Ruthless and Twisted attentions of the "Beast Of
Budapest"- Tamas Feher; and I shall certainly defend every spot on
Jadzia Dax's body from the Sexual Shyster Shenanigans of the likes of
you, and your "One day when I was arguing a case before the Supreme
Court, Clarence Thomas asked me if I had ever heard the sound of a pussy
hair hitting the ground; and then spat- while Justice O'Conner
blushed...." type of Lustful Legal-Lothario Lechery....
J'accuse! J'ACCUSE! :-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

J'accuse! J'ACCUSE! :-)

Pat, you got me; I admit it. Jadzia Dax is the bee's knees', man, and if
there was ever an excuse for interspecies breeding experiments, it's her
(all you Vulco-philes notwithstanding . . .)

Actually, I was at the Tennessee Supreme Court all Wednesday morning but it
wasn't nearly as entertaining as your scenario; I've only been to the U.S.
Supreme Court once, a year ago, and it was only for a swearing-in ceremony,
not to watch one associate justice sexually harass another. Too bad, eh?
:-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:00:35 -0700, Hop David
wrote:

Don't think I've ever responded to him. Googled him as per your
suggestion and could find little that engages my interest.
He escapes my attention as do Guth and Min most of the time.

...You did respond to him when the two Scotts did. The key here is,
until I get those two to do killfile the little dog raper themselves,
anytime they respond to him, if you absolutely *have* to jump into the
thread make sure you ignore anything CT says and trim his quotes
completely.

In his case, it's out of sight, guaranteed he's in killfile hell.

OM

Oh dear. What a delicate intrigue ! Now, was it Ms Smith that did'nt
like Ms Jones and Ms Abercrombie did or did not like...I don't follow.

Neil Armstrong about walking on the moon:
"Pilots take no special joy in walking. Pilots like flying."