Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #680458 > unrolled thread

Re: AIN IT GREAT

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: AIN IT GREAT "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-09 12:44 -0400
    Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-09 10:41 -0700
      Re: Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? ! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:26 -0400
    Re: AIN IT GREAT Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:44 -0700
      Re: AIN IT GREAT % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:47 -0700
    Re: AIN IT GREAT "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <burkesbabes@bigass-babes.com> - 2018-04-09 19:38 -0700
      Re: AIN IT GREAT % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 19:40 -0700
    Re: AIN IT GREAT Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-12 05:14 +0000
      Re: AIN IT GREAT "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-14 18:24 -0400
        Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 20:28 -0400
          Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-14 18:39 -0600
            Re: AIN IT GREAT % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 17:57 -0700
              Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-14 19:59 -0600
        Re: AIN IT GREAT kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-15 12:26 -0400
          Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-15 10:31 -0600
            Re: AIN IT GREAT kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-15 13:10 -0400
              Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-15 11:15 -0600
              Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:22 -0400
              Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-15 23:07 -0500
            Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:17 -0400
          Re: AIN IT GREAT mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-04-15 13:17 -0400
            Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:26 -0400
              Re: AIN IT GREAT Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 22:58 -0700
          Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-15 23:24 -0500
            Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 02:21 -0400
              Re: AIN IT GREAT Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-16 08:19 -0400
                Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 08:28 -0500
                  Re: AIN IT GREAT Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-16 09:51 -0400
                    Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:50 -0500
          Re: AIN IT GREAT "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-16 10:12 -0400
            Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:51 -0500
              Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 12:57 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#680458 — Re: AIN IT GREAT

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:27:22 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <tbdkcdlih0hkpdh27ick3napcr7ioiknl6@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...
>
>> >Now about Miss Shitty... I realize most women can't stand you, but you 
>> >really should be a little more particular about standing them.
>> 
>> Miss Kitty is really pretty cool. As you can see,
>> she's smarter than you'd like to admit judging
>> from the way she's got turkey, you and a few
>> other Rubes all lathered up. Admit it, you pine
>> away for her when she's absent and when she
>> returns you go overboard expressing your hidden
>> admiration by hanging on her every post.  LOL!
>> 
>> Miss Kitty PWN3S you! 
>> 
>
>Miss Shitty is about as "sharp" as a wet rag.  Notice how, when 
>confronted by some of her previous vitriol, her response was she didn't 
>remember posting it, or she was getting frogged a lot?  That fat bitch 
>doesn't even remember the shit that spews from her own mouth, then tries 
>to deny it ever happened.  She's nothing but a vicious, toxic, nasty 
>cunt, and she got beat down pretty throughly... again.  She'll still 
>resurface in a couple of months and try to act like nothing ever 
>happened, and it'll end the same way it always does.  Misogynist that you 
>are, she should be at the top of your list.  She's going to get shit from 
>me and others anytime she waddles her fat ass in here, I can assure you.
>
>Her little "outing" adventure sure blew up in her fat pie-face, didn't 
>it?  "Ken," "Jim," and "Rick" were laughing their asses off... even 
>"Kensi" for fuck's sake.  You don't even have to offer her outing-bait... 
>she finds her own!

All girls are like that. They can't help it because 
their hormones cloud their logic. As a man, you 
should understand this simple fact and cut them 
some slack.  You don't have to agree with them, 
but you should not sink to their level of catty 
discourse in your rebuttals of their clouded thinking 
by being mean-spirited and catty yourself. Rise 
above it, man! Don't surrender to your inner fag!

Women are, in most ways, just bigger little girls. 
They never really grow up and become adults. They 
have a difficult time controlling their tempers. They 
view the world in unrealistic ways (them at the very
center).  Growing up requires logic and an even keel 
and their hormones deny them both of these adult 
attributes. Their brains remain childish. Women are
not so hard to get along with if you realize this and 
act accordingly.

What I try to do with women is ignore the bad and
embrace the good.  In this manner, very little time 
is wasted as the bad far outweighs the good. Their
bodies represent the good, sometimes astonishingly, 
spectacularly good so objectify them. That's a good 
thing, a wonderful thing, a fun thing for a man. 

Because of a man's reproductive desires, the female 
body evolved, to be spectacularly desirable to him. 
Irresistable even,  but at the expense of her mind
which can be said to be devolved, ergo it only needs 
to be tolerated. (As kensi and Nads sub par minds 
are tolerated in these groups.)

So, it's a given their minds that are clearly 
insufficient. Should they become sufficiently 
inebriated, it allows their bodies to take over 
for a time. Their minds welcome the release from 
a workload and a world they never really evolved 
to cope with - not in a fast-paced, modern 
industrial society, at any rate. 

What man really wants to fuck a very desirable 
body with an insufficient mind running interference
and mucking up the works?  Most men are pedophiles 
when it comes to fucking a woman, anyhow. Just 
ask the Colonel who is honest enough to admit it. 
 
So, foster that little girl who wants out to come 
out, dude.  So what if she throws a temper 
tantrum from time to time?  Kiss it and make 
it better. Or, if she's being real bratty, spank 
her comely bottom red and give her just what she
asked for. That's fun, too if you're man enough 
to understand, accept and handle it like a man.

HTH

-- 

Yours Truly,
Gregory Hall

"Tsk, tsk. No one appreciates his brilliance, poor fellow. 
(There might be a message in that for him.)"--Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

http://apprhondaleahkirkfries.blogspot.com/2014/05/rhonda-leah-kirk-fries-interview.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#680469 — Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? !

Speaking of Hillary and/or a donkey, Gregory Hall wrote:
> spank her comely bottom red and 
> give her just what she asked for.

Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? !

  U.S. tax records show that 50% of adults were married in 2015,
  down from 72% in 1960.  Today: - Men won't be cash machines.
  - Women won't humor InLaws. and - NoseyNancy MatchMakers are scorned.

  Marriage is a bad bet, here in the U.S.;
  still, there's no shortage of "gamblers"
  who'd destroy themselves and others because 
  they "enjoy the ride" -- math isn't their friend.

  "The house" ( the government ) always wins;
  so they promote it ( babies, gambling ).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680508 — Re: Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? !

On 4/9/2018 1:41 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Speaking of Hillary and/or a donkey, Gregory Hall wrote:
>> spank her comely bottom red and
>> give her just what she asked for.
> 
> Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? !
> 
>    U.S. tax records show that 50% of adults were married in 2015,
>    down from 72% in 1960.  Today: - Men won't be cash machines.
>    - Women won't humor InLaws. and - NoseyNancy MatchMakers are scorned.
> 
>    Marriage is a bad bet, here in the U.S.;
>    still, there's no shortage of "gamblers"
>    who'd destroy themselves and others because
>    they "enjoy the ride" -- math isn't their friend.
> 
>    "The house" ( the government ) always wins;
>    so they promote it ( babies, gambling ).
> 
No worries in your life, Rolf. Zero chance of you getting married unless 
you go same sex or interspecies marriage...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680486

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <9k4ncdp43efod7d0vu9q694m5c9atl5gqe@4ax.com>, 
greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...


> 
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:27:22 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <tbdkcdlih0hkpdh27ick3napcr7ioiknl6@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...
> >
> >> >Now about Miss Shitty... I realize most women can't stand you, but you 
> >> >really should be a little more particular about standing them.
> >> 
> >> Miss Kitty is really pretty cool. As you can see,
> >> she's smarter than you'd like to admit judging
> >> from the way she's got turkey, you and a few
> >> other Rubes all lathered up. Admit it, you pine
> >> away for her when she's absent and when she
> >> returns you go overboard expressing your hidden
> >> admiration by hanging on her every post.  LOL!
> >> 
> >> Miss Kitty PWN3S you! 
> >> 
> >
> >Miss Shitty is about as "sharp" as a wet rag.  Notice how, when 
> >confronted by some of her previous vitriol, her response was she didn't 
> >remember posting it, or she was getting frogged a lot?  That fat bitch 
> >doesn't even remember the shit that spews from her own mouth, then tries 
> >to deny it ever happened.  She's nothing but a vicious, toxic, nasty 
> >cunt, and she got beat down pretty throughly... again.  She'll still 
> >resurface in a couple of months and try to act like nothing ever 
> >happened, and it'll end the same way it always does.  Misogynist that you 
> >are, she should be at the top of your list.  She's going to get shit from 
> >me and others anytime she waddles her fat ass in here, I can assure you.
> >
> >Her little "outing" adventure sure blew up in her fat pie-face, didn't 
> >it?  "Ken," "Jim," and "Rick" were laughing their asses off... even 
> >"Kensi" for fuck's sake.  You don't even have to offer her outing-bait... 
> >she finds her own!
> 
> All girls are like that. They can't help it because 
> their hormones cloud their logic. As a man, you 
> should understand this simple fact and cut them 
> some slack.  You don't have to agree with them, 
> but you should not sink to their level of catty 
> discourse in your rebuttals of their clouded thinking 
> by being mean-spirited and catty yourself. Rise 
> above it, man! Don't surrender to your inner fag!
> 
> Women are, in most ways, just bigger little girls. 
> They never really grow up and become adults. They 
> have a difficult time controlling their tempers. They 
> view the world in unrealistic ways (them at the very
> center).  Growing up requires logic and an even keel 
> and their hormones deny them both of these adult 
> attributes. Their brains remain childish. Women are
> not so hard to get along with if you realize this and 
> act accordingly.
> 
> What I try to do with women is ignore the bad and
> embrace the good.  In this manner, very little time 
> is wasted as the bad far outweighs the good. Their
> bodies represent the good, sometimes astonishingly, 
> spectacularly good so objectify them. That's a good 
> thing, a wonderful thing, a fun thing for a man. 
> 
> Because of a man's reproductive desires, the female 
> body evolved, to be spectacularly desirable to him. 
> Irresistable even,  but at the expense of her mind
> which can be said to be devolved, ergo it only needs 
> to be tolerated. (As kensi and Nads sub par minds 
> are tolerated in these groups.)
> 
> So, it's a given their minds that are clearly 
> insufficient. Should they become sufficiently 
> inebriated, it allows their bodies to take over 
> for a time. Their minds welcome the release from 
> a workload and a world they never really evolved 
> to cope with - not in a fast-paced, modern 
> industrial society, at any rate. 
> 
> What man really wants to fuck a very desirable 
> body with an insufficient mind running interference
> and mucking up the works?  Most men are pedophiles 
> when it comes to fucking a woman, anyhow. Just 
> ask the Colonel who is honest enough to admit it. 
>  
> So, foster that little girl who wants out to come 
> out, dude.  So what if she throws a temper 
> tantrum from time to time?  Kiss it and make 
> it better. Or, if she's being real bratty, spank 
> her comely bottom red and give her just what she
> asked for. That's fun, too if you're man enough 
> to understand, accept and handle it like a man.
> 
> HTH

Yeah, but she's just not good enough for me.  She's certainly not the 
type you'd take home to mother, and she'd throw a scene in a crowd at the 
drop of a hat.  It wouldn't even matter if she was hot (which she's not).  
I have zero tolerance for that type of fee-male.

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars           
Copyright © 2018 
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us, 
who feel that life is but a joke."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680487

On 2018-04-09 11:44 AM, Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!  In article <9k4ncdp43efod7d0vu9q694m5c9atl5gqe@4ax.com>,
> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...
> 
> 
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:27:22 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <tbdkcdlih0hkpdh27ick3napcr7ioiknl6@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...
>>>
>>>>> Now about Miss Shitty... I realize most women can't stand you, but you
>>>>> really should be a little more particular about standing them.
>>>>
>>>> Miss Kitty is really pretty cool. As you can see,
>>>> she's smarter than you'd like to admit judging
>>>> from the way she's got turkey, you and a few
>>>> other Rubes all lathered up. Admit it, you pine
>>>> away for her when she's absent and when she
>>>> returns you go overboard expressing your hidden
>>>> admiration by hanging on her every post.  LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Miss Kitty PWN3S you!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Miss Shitty is about as "sharp" as a wet rag.  Notice how, when
>>> confronted by some of her previous vitriol, her response was she didn't
>>> remember posting it, or she was getting frogged a lot?  That fat bitch
>>> doesn't even remember the shit that spews from her own mouth, then tries
>>> to deny it ever happened.  She's nothing but a vicious, toxic, nasty
>>> cunt, and she got beat down pretty throughly... again.  She'll still
>>> resurface in a couple of months and try to act like nothing ever
>>> happened, and it'll end the same way it always does.  Misogynist that you
>>> are, she should be at the top of your list.  She's going to get shit from
>>> me and others anytime she waddles her fat ass in here, I can assure you.
>>>
>>> Her little "outing" adventure sure blew up in her fat pie-face, didn't
>>> it?  "Ken," "Jim," and "Rick" were laughing their asses off... even
>>> "Kensi" for fuck's sake.  You don't even have to offer her outing-bait...
>>> she finds her own!
>>
>> All girls are like that. They can't help it because
>> their hormones cloud their logic. As a man, you
>> should understand this simple fact and cut them
>> some slack.  You don't have to agree with them,
>> but you should not sink to their level of catty
>> discourse in your rebuttals of their clouded thinking
>> by being mean-spirited and catty yourself. Rise
>> above it, man! Don't surrender to your inner fag!
>>
>> Women are, in most ways, just bigger little girls.
>> They never really grow up and become adults. They
>> have a difficult time controlling their tempers. They
>> view the world in unrealistic ways (them at the very
>> center).  Growing up requires logic and an even keel
>> and their hormones deny them both of these adult
>> attributes. Their brains remain childish. Women are
>> not so hard to get along with if you realize this and
>> act accordingly.
>>
>> What I try to do with women is ignore the bad and
>> embrace the good.  In this manner, very little time
>> is wasted as the bad far outweighs the good. Their
>> bodies represent the good, sometimes astonishingly,
>> spectacularly good so objectify them. That's a good
>> thing, a wonderful thing, a fun thing for a man.
>>
>> Because of a man's reproductive desires, the female
>> body evolved, to be spectacularly desirable to him.
>> Irresistable even,  but at the expense of her mind
>> which can be said to be devolved, ergo it only needs
>> to be tolerated. (As kensi and Nads sub par minds
>> are tolerated in these groups.)
>>
>> So, it's a given their minds that are clearly
>> insufficient. Should they become sufficiently
>> inebriated, it allows their bodies to take over
>> for a time. Their minds welcome the release from
>> a workload and a world they never really evolved
>> to cope with - not in a fast-paced, modern
>> industrial society, at any rate.
>>
>> What man really wants to fuck a very desirable
>> body with an insufficient mind running interference
>> and mucking up the works?  Most men are pedophiles
>> when it comes to fucking a woman, anyhow. Just
>> ask the Colonel who is honest enough to admit it.
>>   
>> So, foster that little girl who wants out to come
>> out, dude.  So what if she throws a temper
>> tantrum from time to time?  Kiss it and make
>> it better. Or, if she's being real bratty, spank
>> her comely bottom red and give her just what she
>> asked for. That's fun, too if you're man enough
>> to understand, accept and handle it like a man.
>>
>> HTH
> 
> Yeah, but she's just not good enough for me.  She's certainly not the
> type you'd take home to mother, and she'd throw a scene in a crowd at the
> drop of a hat.  It wouldn't even matter if she was hot (which she's not).
> I have zero tolerance for that type of fee-male.
> 
most of us don't like people that are like us

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680556

On 4/9/2018 9:44 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:27:22 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <tbdkcdlih0hkpdh27ick3napcr7ioiknl6@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...
>>
>>>> Now about Miss Shitty... I realize most women can't stand you, but you
>>>> really should be a little more particular about standing them.
>>>
>>> Miss Kitty is really pretty cool. As you can see,
>>> she's smarter than you'd like to admit judging
>>> from the way she's got turkey, you and a few
>>> other Rubes all lathered up. Admit it, you pine
>>> away for her when she's absent and when she
>>> returns you go overboard expressing your hidden
>>> admiration by hanging on her every post.  LOL!
>>>
>>> Miss Kitty PWN3S you!
>>>
>>
>> Miss Shitty is about as "sharp" as a wet rag.  Notice how, when
>> confronted by some of her previous vitriol, her response was she didn't
>> remember posting it, or she was getting frogged a lot?  That fat bitch
>> doesn't even remember the shit that spews from her own mouth, then tries
>> to deny it ever happened.  She's nothing but a vicious, toxic, nasty
>> cunt, and she got beat down pretty throughly... again.  She'll still
>> resurface in a couple of months and try to act like nothing ever
>> happened, and it'll end the same way it always does.  Misogynist that you
>> are, she should be at the top of your list.  She's going to get shit from
>> me and others anytime she waddles her fat ass in here, I can assure you.
>>
>> Her little "outing" adventure sure blew up in her fat pie-face, didn't
>> it?  "Ken," "Jim," and "Rick" were laughing their asses off... even
>> "Kensi" for fuck's sake.  You don't even have to offer her outing-bait...
>> she finds her own!
> 
> All girls are like that. They can't help it because
> their hormones cloud their logic. As a man, you
> should understand this simple fact and cut them
> some slack.  You don't have to agree with them,
> but you should not sink to their level of catty
> discourse in your rebuttals of their clouded thinking
> by being mean-spirited and catty yourself. Rise
> above it, man! Don't surrender to your inner fag!
> 
> Women are, in most ways, just bigger little girls.
> They never really grow up and become adults. They
> have a difficult time controlling their tempers. They
> view the world in unrealistic ways (them at the very
> center).  Growing up requires logic and an even keel
> and their hormones deny them both of these adult
> attributes. Their brains remain childish. Women are
> not so hard to get along with if you realize this and
> act accordingly.
> 
> What I try to do with women is ignore the bad and
> embrace the good.  In this manner, very little time
> is wasted as the bad far outweighs the good. Their
> bodies represent the good, sometimes astonishingly,
> spectacularly good so objectify them. That's a good
> thing, a wonderful thing, a fun thing for a man.
> 
> Because of a man's reproductive desires, the female
> body evolved, to be spectacularly desirable to him.
> Irresistable even,  but at the expense of her mind
> which can be said to be devolved, ergo it only needs
> to be tolerated. (As kensi and Nads sub par minds
> are tolerated in these groups.)
> 
> So, it's a given their minds that are clearly
> insufficient. Should they become sufficiently
> inebriated, it allows their bodies to take over
> for a time. Their minds welcome the release from
> a workload and a world they never really evolved
> to cope with - not in a fast-paced, modern
> industrial society, at any rate.
> 
> What man really wants to fuck a very desirable
> body with an insufficient mind running interference
> and mucking up the works?  Most men are pedophiles
> when it comes to fucking a woman, anyhow. Just
> ask the Colonel who is honest enough to admit it.
>   
> So, foster that little girl who wants out to come
> out, dude.  So what if she throws a temper
> tantrum from time to time?  Kiss it and make
> it better. Or, if she's being real bratty, spank
> her comely bottom red and give her just what she
> asked for. That's fun, too if you're man enough
> to understand, accept and handle it like a man.
> 
> HTH
> Turkey?
You mean turd key.
LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680557

On 2018-04-09 7:38 PM, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:
> On 4/9/2018 9:44 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:27:22 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> In article <tbdkcdlih0hkpdh27ick3napcr7ioiknl6@4ax.com>, 
>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...
>>>
>>>>> Now about Miss Shitty... I realize most women can't stand you, but you
>>>>> really should be a little more particular about standing them.
>>>>
>>>> Miss Kitty is really pretty cool. As you can see,
>>>> she's smarter than you'd like to admit judging
>>>> from the way she's got turkey, you and a few
>>>> other Rubes all lathered up. Admit it, you pine
>>>> away for her when she's absent and when she
>>>> returns you go overboard expressing your hidden
>>>> admiration by hanging on her every post.  LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Miss Kitty PWN3S you!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Miss Shitty is about as "sharp" as a wet rag.  Notice how, when
>>> confronted by some of her previous vitriol, her response was she didn't
>>> remember posting it, or she was getting frogged a lot?  That fat bitch
>>> doesn't even remember the shit that spews from her own mouth, then tries
>>> to deny it ever happened.  She's nothing but a vicious, toxic, nasty
>>> cunt, and she got beat down pretty throughly... again.  She'll still
>>> resurface in a couple of months and try to act like nothing ever
>>> happened, and it'll end the same way it always does.  Misogynist that 
>>> you
>>> are, she should be at the top of your list.  She's going to get shit 
>>> from
>>> me and others anytime she waddles her fat ass in here, I can assure you.
>>>
>>> Her little "outing" adventure sure blew up in her fat pie-face, didn't
>>> it?  "Ken," "Jim," and "Rick" were laughing their asses off... even
>>> "Kensi" for fuck's sake.  You don't even have to offer her 
>>> outing-bait...
>>> she finds her own!
>>
>> All girls are like that. They can't help it because
>> their hormones cloud their logic. As a man, you
>> should understand this simple fact and cut them
>> some slack.  You don't have to agree with them,
>> but you should not sink to their level of catty
>> discourse in your rebuttals of their clouded thinking
>> by being mean-spirited and catty yourself. Rise
>> above it, man! Don't surrender to your inner fag!
>>
>> Women are, in most ways, just bigger little girls.
>> They never really grow up and become adults. They
>> have a difficult time controlling their tempers. They
>> view the world in unrealistic ways (them at the very
>> center).  Growing up requires logic and an even keel
>> and their hormones deny them both of these adult
>> attributes. Their brains remain childish. Women are
>> not so hard to get along with if you realize this and
>> act accordingly.
>>
>> What I try to do with women is ignore the bad and
>> embrace the good.  In this manner, very little time
>> is wasted as the bad far outweighs the good. Their
>> bodies represent the good, sometimes astonishingly,
>> spectacularly good so objectify them. That's a good
>> thing, a wonderful thing, a fun thing for a man.
>>
>> Because of a man's reproductive desires, the female
>> body evolved, to be spectacularly desirable to him.
>> Irresistable even,  but at the expense of her mind
>> which can be said to be devolved, ergo it only needs
>> to be tolerated. (As kensi and Nads sub par minds
>> are tolerated in these groups.)
>>
>> So, it's a given their minds that are clearly
>> insufficient. Should they become sufficiently
>> inebriated, it allows their bodies to take over
>> for a time. Their minds welcome the release from
>> a workload and a world they never really evolved
>> to cope with - not in a fast-paced, modern
>> industrial society, at any rate.
>>
>> What man really wants to fuck a very desirable
>> body with an insufficient mind running interference
>> and mucking up the works?  Most men are pedophiles
>> when it comes to fucking a woman, anyhow. Just
>> ask the Colonel who is honest enough to admit it.
>> So, foster that little girl who wants out to come
>> out, dude.  So what if she throws a temper
>> tantrum from time to time?  Kiss it and make
>> it better. Or, if she's being real bratty, spank
>> her comely bottom red and give her just what she
>> asked for. That's fun, too if you're man enough
>> to understand, accept and handle it like a man.
>>
>> HTH
>> Turkey?
> You mean turd key.
> LOL
> 
> 

checkmate's ball catcher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680835

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:44:53 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall,  Pedophile wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:27:22 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <tbdkcdlih0hkpdh27ick3napcr7ioiknl6@4ax.com>,
>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says...
>>
>>> >Now about Miss Shitty... I realize most women can't stand you, but
>>> >you really should be a little more particular about standing them.
>>> 
>>> Miss Kitty is really pretty cool. As you can see,
>>> she's smarter than you'd like to admit judging from the way she's got
>>> turkey, you and a few other Rubes all lathered up. Admit it, you pine
>>> away for her when she's absent and when she returns you go overboard
>>> expressing your hidden admiration by hanging on her every post.  LOL!
>>> 
>>> Miss Kitty PWN3S you!
>>> 
>>> 
>>Miss Shitty is about as "sharp" as a wet rag.  Notice how, when
>>confronted by some of her previous vitriol, her response was she didn't
>>remember posting it, or she was getting frogged a lot?  That fat bitch
>>doesn't even remember the shit that spews from her own mouth, then tries
>>to deny it ever happened.  She's nothing but a vicious, toxic, nasty
>>cunt, and she got beat down pretty throughly... again.  She'll still
>>resurface in a couple of months and try to act like nothing ever
>>happened, and it'll end the same way it always does.  Misogynist that
>>you are, she should be at the top of your list.  She's going to get shit
>>from me and others anytime she waddles her fat ass in here, I can assure
>>you.
>>
>>Her little "outing" adventure sure blew up in her fat pie-face, didn't
>>it?  "Ken," "Jim," and "Rick" were laughing their asses off... even
>>"Kensi" for fuck's sake.  You don't even have to offer her
>>outing-bait...
>>she finds her own!
> 
> All girls are like that. They can't help it because their hormones cloud
> their logic. As a man, you should understand this simple fact and cut
> them some slack.  You don't have to agree with them,
> but you should not sink to their level of catty discourse in your
> rebuttals of their clouded thinking by being mean-spirited and catty
> yourself. Rise above it, man! Don't surrender to your inner fag!
> 
> Women are, in most ways, just bigger little girls.
> They never really grow up and become adults. They have a difficult time
> controlling their tempers. They view the world in unrealistic ways (them
> at the very center).  Growing up requires logic and an even keel and
> their hormones deny them both of these adult attributes. Their brains
> remain childish. Women are not so hard to get along with if you realize
> this and act accordingly.
> 
> What I try to do with women is ignore the bad and embrace the good.  In
> this manner, very little time is wasted as the bad far outweighs the
> good. Their bodies represent the good, sometimes astonishingly,
> spectacularly good so objectify them. That's a good thing, a wonderful
> thing, a fun thing for a man.
> 
> Because of a man's reproductive desires, the female body evolved, to be
> spectacularly desirable to him.
> Irresistable even,  but at the expense of her mind which can be said to
> be devolved, ergo it only needs to be tolerated. (As kensi and Nads sub
> par minds are tolerated in these groups.)

That's right, kook, keep showing your kooky devotion to us.

<snicker>

> So, it's a given their minds that are clearly insufficient. Should they
> become sufficiently inebriated, it allows their bodies to take over for
> a time. Their minds welcome the release from a workload and a world they
> never really evolved to cope with - not in a fast-paced, modern
> industrial society, at any rate.
> 
> What man really wants to fuck a very desirable body with an insufficient
> mind running interference and mucking up the works?  Most men are
> pedophiles when it comes to fucking a woman, anyhow. Just ask the
> Colonel who is honest enough to admit it.

I suspect you're speaking only for yourself here, Pedophile.

> So, foster that little girl who wants out to come out, dude.  So what if
> she throws a temper tantrum from time to time?  Kiss it and make it
> better.

Why don't you kiss this instead? (points loaded bazooka at glurgzlz)

> Or, if she's being real bratty, spank her comely bottom red and
> give her just what she asked for. That's fun, too if you're man enough
> to understand, accept and handle it like a man.
> 
> HTH

Rape apologia noted, you nasty piece of work. It's a shame Irma didn't do 
the job right; that supposed Creator you're so enamored of, in the 
unlikely event that he actually exists, obviously decided he'd made a 
mistake and you belonged in Davy Jones's Locker, like an artist crumpling 
up an ugly, failed effort at a painting and chucking it out a fourth-floor 
Milan window while floridly cursing before digging out a fresh canvas to 
start again.

[FU2: dropped sci.physics]

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681075

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:21:35 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/14/2018 11:11 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> Seems to me they could duplicate the average
>> female brain's power using an old Pentium CPU.
>
>They could duplicate yours with a vacuum tube.
>
>One not connected to anything else.
>
>*snicker*

Hey, kensi, have you ever used an old crystal radio receiver?

If so, did you understand they work without needing a battery?

So, where does the energy come from to make the sound?  
Well, it apparently comes from the radio waves exciting the 
crystal lattice.

This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves 
suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio 
wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would 
*see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this 
seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on 
and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of 
thermodynamics?

<I fully expect crickets in response unless kensi can Google up
an answer.>

[sci.physics added]

-- 

Yours Truly,
Gregory Hall

"Tsk, tsk. No one appreciates his brilliance, poor fellow. 
(There might be a message in that for him.)"--Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

http://apprhondaleahkirkfries.blogspot.com/2014/05/rhonda-leah-kirk-fries-interview.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681085

On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:21:35 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/2018 11:11 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>> Seems to me they could duplicate the average
>>> female brain's power using an old Pentium CPU.
>>
>> They could duplicate yours with a vacuum tube.
>>
>> One not connected to anything else.
>>
>> *snicker*
> 
> Hey, kensi, have you ever used an old crystal radio receiver?
> 
> If so, did you understand they work without needing a battery?
> 
> So, where does the energy come from to make the sound?
> Well, it apparently comes from the radio waves exciting the
> crystal lattice.
> 
> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
> thermodynamics?
> 
> <I fully expect crickets in response unless kensi can Google up
> an answer.>
> 
> [sci.physics added]
> 
Sir Greg, nobody here is old enough to remember what a crystal set is 
(except you) and certainly nobody in physics (Kensi will tell me you are 
not in physics I'm sure).

They took a vote (the way all science is decided) and the vote was 97% 
that it is "settled" that since crystal sets are no longer used, the 
question is irrelevant. Everyone agreed, however that the radio red 
shift is not due to loss of energy but to the constant expansion of the 
universe due to the Big Bang just like the red shift in stars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681087

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 20:28:30 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:

>On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:21:35 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4/14/2018 11:11 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>>> Seems to me they could duplicate the average
>>>> female brain's power using an old Pentium CPU.
>>>
>>> They could duplicate yours with a vacuum tube.
>>>
>>> One not connected to anything else.
>>>
>>> *snicker*
>> 
>> Hey, kensi, have you ever used an old crystal radio receiver?
>> 
>> If so, did you understand they work without needing a battery?
>> 
>> So, where does the energy come from to make the sound?
>> Well, it apparently comes from the radio waves exciting the
>> crystal lattice.
>> 
>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>> thermodynamics?
>> 
>> <I fully expect crickets in response unless kensi can Google up
>> an answer.>
>> 
>> [sci.physics added]
>> 
>Sir Greg, nobody here is old enough to remember what a crystal set is 
>(except you) and certainly nobody in physics (Kensi will tell me you are 
>not in physics I'm sure).
>
>They took a vote (the way all science is decided) and the vote was 97% 
>that it is "settled" that since crystal sets are no longer used, the 
>question is irrelevant. Everyone agreed, however that the radio red 
>shift is not due to loss of energy but to the constant expansion of the 
>universe due to the Big Bang just like the red shift in stars.


You mean it aint Trumps fault?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681090

On 2018-04-14 5:39 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 20:28:30 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:21:35 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2018 11:11 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>>>> Seems to me they could duplicate the average
>>>>> female brain's power using an old Pentium CPU.
>>>>
>>>> They could duplicate yours with a vacuum tube.
>>>>
>>>> One not connected to anything else.
>>>>
>>>> *snicker*
>>>
>>> Hey, kensi, have you ever used an old crystal radio receiver?
>>>
>>> If so, did you understand they work without needing a battery?
>>>
>>> So, where does the energy come from to make the sound?
>>> Well, it apparently comes from the radio waves exciting the
>>> crystal lattice.
>>>
>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>> thermodynamics?
>>>
>>> <I fully expect crickets in response unless kensi can Google up
>>> an answer.>
>>>
>>> [sci.physics added]
>>>
>> Sir Greg, nobody here is old enough to remember what a crystal set is
>> (except you) and certainly nobody in physics (Kensi will tell me you are
>> not in physics I'm sure).
>>
>> They took a vote (the way all science is decided) and the vote was 97%
>> that it is "settled" that since crystal sets are no longer used, the
>> question is irrelevant. Everyone agreed, however that the radio red
>> shift is not due to loss of energy but to the constant expansion of the
>> universe due to the Big Bang just like the red shift in stars.
> 
> 
> You mean it aint Trumps fault?
> 

fake trump

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681092

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 17:57:50 -0700, % <persent@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2018-04-14 5:39 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 20:28:30 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:21:35 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/2018 11:11 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>>>>> Seems to me they could duplicate the average
>>>>>> female brain's power using an old Pentium CPU.
>>>>>
>>>>> They could duplicate yours with a vacuum tube.
>>>>>
>>>>> One not connected to anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> *snicker*
>>>>
>>>> Hey, kensi, have you ever used an old crystal radio receiver?
>>>>
>>>> If so, did you understand they work without needing a battery?
>>>>
>>>> So, where does the energy come from to make the sound?
>>>> Well, it apparently comes from the radio waves exciting the
>>>> crystal lattice.
>>>>
>>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>>> thermodynamics?
>>>>
>>>> <I fully expect crickets in response unless kensi can Google up
>>>> an answer.>
>>>>
>>>> [sci.physics added]
>>>>
>>> Sir Greg, nobody here is old enough to remember what a crystal set is
>>> (except you) and certainly nobody in physics (Kensi will tell me you are
>>> not in physics I'm sure).
>>>
>>> They took a vote (the way all science is decided) and the vote was 97%
>>> that it is "settled" that since crystal sets are no longer used, the
>>> question is irrelevant. Everyone agreed, however that the radio red
>>> shift is not due to loss of energy but to the constant expansion of the
>>> universe due to the Big Bang just like the red shift in stars.
>> 
>> 
>> You mean it aint Trumps fault?
>> 
>
>fake trump


that explains it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681128

On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
> thermodynamics?

The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the 
amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio 
like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb 
filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas 
would look dark, but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough 
of them in front of you might block out the view, while fewer will just 
dim it, like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.

Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or 
even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or 
transmit that wavelength.

You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance. 
AM ones would be flickering, while FM ones would look steady but 
shifting minutely in color. And every station in your area would be a 
filament of a different color.

(This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction, 
interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost 
unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves, 
because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects 
such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy 
you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence 
with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one 
with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When 
dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more 
infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come 
from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser 
beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct 
sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by 
exploiting the former's polarization.)

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681130

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:26:58 -0400, kensi
<kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>> thermodynamics?
>
>The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the 
>amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio 
>like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb 
>filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas 
>would look dark, but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough 
>of them in front of you might block out the view, while fewer will just 
>dim it, like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
>
>Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or 
>even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or 
>transmit that wavelength.
>
>You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance. 
>AM ones would be flickering, while FM ones would look steady but 
>shifting minutely in color. And every station in your area would be a 
>filament of a different color.
>
>(This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction, 
>interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost 
>unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves, 
>because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects 
>such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy 
>you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence 
>with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one 
>with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When 
>dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more 
>infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come 
>from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser 
>beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct 
>sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by 
>exploiting the former's polarization.)


Nice C/P Google boi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681136

On 4/15/2018 12:31 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> Nice C/P Google boi.

Proof, ko0ky?

If it's plagiarized it should be quite simple to find. Just put a big 
piece of it into google and then post the link to the original. Of 
course, if all you find is the google groups page for this thread -- and 
that's all you'll find -- you lose.

*snicker*

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681139

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:10:56 -0400, kensi
<kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/15/2018 12:31 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> Nice C/P Google boi.
>
>Proof, ko0ky?
>
>If it's plagiarized it should be quite simple to find. Just put a big 
>piece of it into google and then post the link to the original. Of 
>course, if all you find is the google groups page for this thread -- and 
>that's all you'll find -- you lose.
>
>*snicker*


Lose what foamboi?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681158

On 4/15/2018 1:10 PM, kensi wrote:
> On 4/15/2018 12:31 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> Nice C/P Google boi.
> 
> Proof, ko0ky?
> 
> If it's plagiarized it should be quite simple to find. Just put a big 
> piece of it into google and then post the link to the original. Of 
> course, if all you find is the google groups page for this thread -- and 
> that's all you'll find -- you lose.
> 
> *snicker*
> 
"kensi" rule: If you cant find where I stole it, then that proves I 
didn't. This is reaching pretty far even for a lying lib like you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681191

On 4/15/2018 12:10 PM, kensi wrote:
> On 4/15/2018 12:31 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> Nice C/P Google boi.
> 
> Proof, ko0ky?
> 
> If it's plagiarized it should be quite simple to find. Just put a big
> piece of it into google and then post the link to the original. Of
> course, if all you find is the google groups page for this thread -- and
> that's all you'll find -- you lose.
> 
> *snicker*
> 

oh,    like that is *really important*.....  duh.......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681156

On 4/15/2018 12:31 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:26:58 -0400, kensi
> <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>> thermodynamics?
>>
>> The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the
>> amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio
>> like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb
>> filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas
>> would look dark, but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough
>> of them in front of you might block out the view, while fewer will just
>> dim it, like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
>>
>> Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or
>> even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or
>> transmit that wavelength.
>>
>> You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance.
>> AM ones would be flickering, while FM ones would look steady but
>> shifting minutely in color. And every station in your area would be a
>> filament of a different color.
>>
>> (This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction,
>> interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost
>> unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves,
>> because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects
>> such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy
>> you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence
>> with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one
>> with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When
>> dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more
>> infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come
>>from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser 
>> beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct
>> sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by
>> exploiting the former's polarization.)
> 
> 
> Nice C/P Google boi.
> 
WOW! The kind of lib "science" you find on PBS! No real science just 
fantasy blather! Oh what would the world be like if you could see radio 
waves? Oh my! What drooling lib drivel. What would USENET be like if 
"kensi" actually knew some science?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web