🚀 go-pugleaf

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.



<caspar.milquetoast123@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:46391492-8c18-4aa1-a8ab-bfdf1da8b2d2@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> <
> (This is the second in a 17,432-part series that is
> re-posting the commentary of one Ed Conrad, now currently mentally
> incapacitated after selling his brain
> on eBay.)
> <
>    WHAT CHARLIE DARWIN REALLY SAID...
> <
> As you all know, there's currently a heated debate
> in the sci news groups about what Charles Darwin really
> said about the evolution of the eye.
> <
> It's time this matter is cleared up -- simply and concisely
> -- once and for all.
> <
> Actually, I thought I had ended all the confusion back on
> Saturday, May 11, 1996, when a pseudo named Michael
> Clark accused me of misquoting Darwin. He had the balls to say I used
> only a portion of Darwin's quote.
> <
> ======================================
> <
> Here's what I wrote:
> <
> ``To suppose that the eye (with so many parts all working
> together) . . . could have been formed by natural selection seems, I
> freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
> <
> ======================================
> <
> Here's what Charles Darwin actually said:
> <
> "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
> amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
> aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
> freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
> that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense
> of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
> populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
> science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple
> and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,
> <
>
>> (Wake me when it's over) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z . . .
> <
> each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly
> the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations
> be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such
> variations should be useful to any animal under changing
> conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that
> a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
> selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
> considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be
> sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself
> <
>> Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z . . .
> <
> originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest
> organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of
> perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive
> elements in their barcode should become aggregated and developed into
> nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
> <
> < -- Charles Darwin, 1859, "Origin of Species"
> <
> =============================
> <
> I thought I said what Darwin had said but David Ian Greig
> of talk.origins said what I said wasn't what Darwin really  said
> because he said Darwin had more to say than what I said he had said,
> then Steve Vickers of the UK butts in and says HE knows what Darwin
> really said, claiming what I said he had said wasn't what Darwin
> really had said, so I said, 'Okay, I'll say what they say about what
> Darwin really said, since I suppose that this is indeed what he had
> said, even though I really don't know for sure if he had said it, but
> this is what they say he had said."
> <
> ====================================
> <
> << Nice little song and dance, there, Zippy. Can you
> << balance  a ball on your nose?      -- Michael Clark
> <
> Up your's, Bumblebrain!
> <
> Folks, please excuse the rude interruption!
> <
> =====================================
> <
> Actually, it really doesn't matter what Darwin had said
> or what these fellas said he had said -- or what they say
> I said or didn't say about what he said or didn't say --
> since what I said, whether Darwin said it or not, isn't
> something that really needed to be said. Perhaps Darwin
> said what they say he had said because he felt he had to
> say it -- he certainly was entitled to say what he wanted
> to say. But by saying what they say he had said, he actually said more
> than he needed to say, so maybe he didn't have to say what he said.
> 'Course, IF Darwin did say what these fellas said he had said, critics
> could later say Charlie had nothing to say even though he had said
> it.
> <
> Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
> <
> ==============================
> <
> TRUTH VS. MONUMENTAL LIE OF MAN'S EVOLUTION
> (Fossils -- SOME HUMAN -- Found Between Coal Veins)
> <
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestHumanSkull.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z11calv.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/skullb.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z8femur.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/FOSSILS08/HumanFemur.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TestResults.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skullx.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skully,jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/SkullBoulderSide.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder1.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder2.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FirstDiscovery.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanBrain.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/newtibia.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/zedjaw.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanJaw3.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestTool.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/MoreFossils.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate3.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate2.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate11.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Fetus8.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Scorpion.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/pics/PetrifiedPP.jpg
> <
> ================================
> <
> HOW SCIENCE KAYOS PSUEDOSCIENCE
>   Three Cheers for Lin Liangtai of Taiwan
> <
> Liangtai's Web Site
> http://groups.google.com/group/idfossil?hl=en
> <
> CALVARIUM REPORT
> http://groups.google.com/group/idfossil/web/new-calvarium-article?hl=en
> <
> FEMUR REPORT
> http://groups.google.com/group/idfossil/web/femur-article?hl=en
> <
> V-SHAPED COAL VEINS
>     (Where mind-boggling, evolution-destroying fossils were
> discovered)
> <
> http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=22&f=1472383101&p=61
> <
> http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=22&f=1472392315&p=62
> <
> http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=22&f=1472383097&p=63
> <
> ================================
> <
> Article 1 of the 17,432-part series
> <
> ED CONRAD GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/beff4f55ac10acd5
> <
> ================================
> <
>> TOP 100 UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD
>   Rank     Name   Country
> 1 Harvard University USA
> 2 University of Oxford UK
> 3 University of Cambridge UK
> 4 Stanford University USA
> 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA
> 6 University of California, Berkeley USA
> 7 California Institute of Technology USA
> 8 Princeton University USA
> 9 Yale University USA
> 10 University of Chicago USA
> 11 Columbia University USA
> 12 University of California, San Diego USA
> 13 Cornell University USA
> 14 University of California, Los Angeles USA
> 15 University Pennsylvania USA
> 16 University of Wisconsin, Madison USA
> 17 University of Washington, Seattle USA
> 18 Tokyo University Japan
> 19 University of California, San Francisco USA
> 20 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor USA
> 21 Kyoto University Japan
> 22 Imperial College London UK
> 23 Johns Hopkins University USA
> 24 University of Toronto Canada
> 25 University College London UK
> 26 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign USA
> 27 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich Switzerland
> 28 Washington University, St. Louis USA
> 29 New York University USA
> 30 Duke University USA
> 31 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities USA
> 32 Northwestern University USA
> 33 Rockefeller University USA
> 34 University of Colorado, Boulder USA
> 35 University of California, Santa Barbara USA
> 36 University of British Columbia Canada
> 37 University of Maryland, College Park USA
> 38 Utrecht University Netherlands
> 39 University of Texas, Austin USA
> 40 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center USA
> 41 Pennsylvania State University, University Park USA
> 42 University of California, Davis USA
> 43 Vanderbilt University USA
> 44 University of California, Irvine USA
> 45 University of Paris 06 France
> 46 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh USA
> 47 University of Southern California USA
> 48 Rutgers State University, New Brunswick USA
> 49 University of Manchester UK
> 50 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm Sweden
> 51 University of Munich Germany
> 52 Technical University of Munich Germany
> 53 University of Florida USA
> 54 University of Edinburgh UK
> 55 Australian National University Australia
> 56 Carnegie Mellon University USA
> 57 University of Copenhagen Denmark
> 58 University of Zurich Switzerland
> 59 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Israel
> 60 Osaka University Japan
> 61 McGill University Canada
> 62 University of Bristol UK
> 63 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill USA
> 64 Uppsala University Sweden
> 65 Ohio State University, Columbus USA
> 66 University of Paris 11 France
> 67 University of Sheffield UK
> 68 University of Heidelberg Germany
> 69 University of Oslo Norway
> 70 Case Western Reserve University USA
> 71 Moscow State University Russia
> 72 University of Leiden Netherlands
> 73 Purdue University, West Lafayette USA
> 74 University of Helsinki Finland
> 75 University of Rochester USA
> 76 University of Melbourne Australia
> 77 Tohoku University Japan
> 78 University of Nottingham UK
> 79 University of Arizona USA
> 80 Michigan State University USA
> 81 King's College London UK
> 82 Boston University USA
> 83 University of Basel Switzerland
> 84 Stockholm University Sweden
> 85 Brown University USA
> 86 University of Goettingen Germany
> 87 Rice University USA
> 88 Texas A&M University, College Station USA
> 89 Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan
> 90 University of Birmingham UK
> 91 University of Utah USA
> 92 University of Freiburg Germany
> 93 McMaster University Canada
> 94 Nagoya University Japan
> 95 University of Iowa USA
> 96 University of Strasbourg France
> 97 Ecole Normale Super Paris France
> 98 Indiana University, Bloomington USA
> 99 Arizona State University, Tempe USA
> 100 University of Rome La Sapienza  Italy
>
>