 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008Can Insects Read our Minds???
I'm out on my back porch when using my webtv. Florida has lots of crawling bugs. Have some tiny black spiders,and I try to swat them,and they run like hell. Did they see me reach for my fly swatter? Do they feel my looking at them? They know where to run so I can't hit them. Why am I posting this? Answer is I looked at this tiny black spider and did not move but thought this. "I'm going to kill you",and it ran like hell under my printer. Go figure Bert >I'm out on my back porch when using my webtv. Florida has lots of >crawling bugs. Have some tiny black spiders,and I try to swat them,and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >did not move but thought this. "I'm going to kill you",and it ran like >hell under my printer. Go figure Bert YES, I do have a lot of experience with wasps and bees in that matter: once you are kind to one of them the rest of the swarm won't sting you. >> I'm out on my back porch when using my webtv. Florida has lots of >> crawling bugs. Have some tiny black spiders,and I try to swat them,and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > once you are kind to one of them the rest of the swarm won't sting > you. I, too, have had similar experiences with ants and other bugs. Did a little research (seems like hundreds of years ago) and found that some people explain this by saying that animals and bugs can see auras. When you show fear or feel anger (like you're going to kill it), the animal or bug sees your aura's color change and takes evasive action. I've believed for some time now that this might have more to do with sense of smell rather than an invisible aura that might be visible to animals. Most animals have a powerful sense for odors, and we exude many different aromatic chemicals for different emotions. And an act of kindness can bring pretty unbelievable results on occasion, to be sure! happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >I, too, have had similar experiences with ants and >other bugs. Did a little research (seems like hundreds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the animal or bug sees your aura's color change and >takes evasive action. I'd rather believe in some kind of telepathy instead of "auras" :-) But you always surprise me with your sensitivity... >I've believed for some time now that this might have >more to do with sense of smell rather than an invisible >aura that might be visible to animals. Most animals >have a powerful sense for odors, and we exude many >different aromatic chemicals for different emotions. This makes a good "scientific" explanation, nevertheless, there are more things between heaven and Earth... ;> >And an act of kindness can bring pretty unbelievable >results on occasion, to be sure! Yes, it does! I have a lot of experience with "rescuing" animals from my pool .. and it appears they show some sort of "thankfulness".. C. >> I, too, have had similar experiences with ants and >> other bugs. Did a little research (seems like hundreds [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > :-) > But you always surprise me with your sensitivity... Thank you, C! It feels good to know there is still some "mystery", that i still have some "surprises" left in me. >> I've believed for some time now that this might have >> more to do with sense of smell rather than an invisible [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This makes a good "scientific" explanation, nevertheless, > there are more things between heaven and Earth... ;> Not being a true "scientist", i rather look for the logic in any puzzle. One cannot deny your statement about "more things between heaven and Earth", because when logic escapes a situation, then the puzzle can take on metaphysical proportion. I try to be very careful when that happens. Metaphysics for me is a tool i use to keep my mind open to new paths of logic and understanding. However, metaphysics often leads to more darkness than light. <g> Just look at the state of "mainstream" cosmology today! >> And an act of kindness can bring pretty unbelievable >> results on occasion, to be sure! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my pool .. and it appears they show some sort of "thankfulness".. > C. Gratitude is primal. People would do well to remember that. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >Thank you, C! It feels good to know there is still some >"mystery", that i still have some "surprises" left in me. Well, I mean it! >> This makes a good "scientific" explanation, nevertheless, >> there are more things between heaven and Earth... ;> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >logic escapes a situation, then the puzzle can take on >metaphysical proportion. As long as science is just about measurement and quantities it lacks a deeper understanding for QUALITAS (properties, qualities, attributes). There is no mysticism in saying that science cannot explain my or your perceptual experience when we talk about colors, music, odors etc. love. How does BLUE look to you? >I try to be very careful when that happens. Metaphysics >for me is a tool i use to keep my mind open to new paths >of logic and understanding. However, metaphysics often >leads to more darkness than light. You have to include BOTH sides in your concept of reality. ><g> Just look at the state of "mainstream" cosmology >today! Yes, very fanciful ... ;-) >> ... show some sort of "thankfulness".. > >Gratitude is primal. People would do well to remember >that. Gratitude ;-) yes, thanks ... (Hagar will love to take the advantage of teaching me English ;-) >happy days and... > starry starry nights! likewise! C. > As long as science is just about measurement and quantities > it lacks a deeper understanding for QUALITAS (properties, > qualities, attributes). There is no mysticism in saying that > science cannot explain my or your perceptual experience > when we talk about colors, music, odors etc. love. > How does BLUE look to you? Excellent question. To me, "BLUE" means several different shades/hues that range from a light sky blue to dark "Navy" blue. It's a great question, though, because i've had some experience with a person who was blind from birth. Imagine trying to adequately describe BLUE, RED, etc. to anyone who has never experienced light, let alone color. It's an associative scheme that is far more akin to art than to science. Yet, still, a scientific approach, while it often leads to a bad taste in one's mouth (e.g., the "dissection" of poetry, music, etc.), it does sometimes result in a deeper understanding of reality. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >> How does BLUE look to you? >Excellent question. To me, "BLUE" means several >different shades/hues that range from a light sky [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to adequately describe BLUE, RED, etc. to anyone >who has never experienced light, let alone color. Nobody would know the difference if your BLUE would trigger in my brain the impression you reserve for GREEN (or any other shade of color) and not even if it'd appear to me like SOUR to you. What we compare are simply NAMES (monikers) for the same physical reality - not the "quality". >It's an associative scheme that is far more akin to >art than to science. Yet, still, a scientific approach, >while it often leads to a bad taste in one's mouth >(e.g., the "dissection" of poetry, music, etc.), it >does sometimes result in a deeper understanding >of reality. Complete understanding of science has to imply QUALITAS , too :-) C. >>> How does BLUE look to you? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > C. Stuff your "Qualitas", Chuckweasel ... the correct word is "properties". I understand that you want the world to know that you have a repertoire of Latin, a language long since defunct, but a scant knowledge of it still gives bragging rights to some elitist nutjobs in Yurp. >Stuff your "Qualitas", Chuckweasel ... the correct word is "properties". I >understand that you want the world to know that you have a repertoire of >Latin, a language long since defunct, but a scant knowledge of it still >gives bragging rights to some elitist nutjobs in Yurp. 104 cm, 80 kg, 200 mol/l are "properties", too. Slickness, "Heavyness" (not weight!), and scent are "Qualities". HTH. C. >>Stuff your "Qualitas", Chuckweasel ... the correct word is "properties". >>I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > HTH. > C. Only in your head, dufus. HiC Humankinds brain patterns are so very much the same. Good reASON FOR THAT IS photon vibrations can be made to make electron up down vibrations the same frequency. Our brains all with the same structure IT pick this up as just one big antenna. Our brains relate(all the same). We are indeed relative to each other. Nature made this reality so when humankind show her the universe that she created it is a unified sighting Bert >HiC Humankinds brain patterns are so very much the same. Hi Bert, there is no way to deduce what MY MIND "sees" from what YOURS see. C. HiC Yes there is. It even shows we relate to each other in just about every level. Not just our flat feet Bert >> HiC Humankinds brain patterns are so very much the same. > > Hi Bert, there is no way to deduce what MY MIND "sees" > from what YOURS see. > > C. To quote one of the more interesting people i know... ". . . nevertheless, there are more things between heaven and Earth... ;>" happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >To quote one of the more interesting people i know... So you knew William Shakespeare? C. >> To quote one of the more interesting people i know... > > So you knew William Shakespeare? > C. All of them! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >> So you knew William Shakespeare? >> C. > >All of them! I see, you are in the KNOW :-)) C. Painius Reality is humans see colors mostly alike. Flowers have colors not for humans but for bugs. Flowers give off a nice perfume(odor) not for us but for bugs. Feynman proved ants go with their nose. I proved that a cockroach could tell time,and never can we sneak up on them. They are always aware of us. Bert >Painius Reality is humans see colors mostly alike. Bert, how would anyone know "WHAT" I see, xcept me? X >> Painius Reality is humans see colors mostly alike. > > Bert, how would anyone know "WHAT" I see, xcept me? > X Through testing, surveys, polls, etc., C. A direct test might be like the one i took when i joined the military long ago. Since i was slated to go into the electronics field, a color-blindness test was administered. If you allow yourself to be tested, and you accurately describe what you see, feel, etc. the results can be added to the data of other tests, and generalizations can be deduced. So even if you're not actually tested, these generalizations can apply to you along with, oh, thousands or millions of other people. It's a principle relied upon by insurance companies, advertising and marketing agencies, etc. It works, and i would hazard a guess that it sometimes even works on you. If you've ever, say, been turned down for a loan, then it was because your "profile" did not fall within certain set limits deduced by testing a sample of past loan recipients and their behaviour. It's granted that, on an individual basis, such things as these generalizations sometimes break down and don't apply. But the error caused by this is so small on a large sample of the population that it can be dismissed. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >> Bert, how would anyone know "WHAT" I see, xcept me? >> X > >Through testing, surveys, polls, etc., C. What kind of "test" could look inside my head? C. >> Through testing, surveys, polls, etc., C. > > What kind of "test" could look inside my head? > C. The same kind of test you administered to me when you asked how i perceived the color BLUE. In a way, C, everytime you post, you let the world inside your head. We all must love this or we would not continue to post. Posters to UseNet all have one thing in common... We all have a penchant for the bizarre! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >> What kind of "test" could look inside my head? >> C. > >The same kind of test you administered to me when >you asked how i perceived the color BLUE. Ok, I'll give it another try (even though I think that YOU understood my point already) for clarity: Even when we SAY that we perceive a quality in a special way, answering to a normalized physical stimulus, there is NO WAY to make sure any other mind has/had the SAME perception. Your colors and all other sensations exist only in YOUR MIND. I am well aware that there have been experiments to "measure" e.g. "Hunger" in laboratory animals by the days they were not fed and the pull against some device that stopped them from eating ... but this won't give a clue how the individuals feeling of "hunger" was represented in their minds. Same goes for "Love" and "Hate" :-> C. >> "Charles D. Bohne" <me@PasoSchweiz.de> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Same goes for "Love" and "Hate" :-> > C. If you're talking about an *exact* representation, then you are correct. Neurons behave in much the same way as a few drips of warm water on Jello. Pretty soon a small trench is made, and this trench widens to a point that the memory of a sensation/behaviour becomes deeply embedded and "habitual". And yet there is no way one can predict or deduce precisely which neurons will be involved nor precisely how and which way the memory trench is engineered. Hunger is experienced differently by different people. It's long been established that a baby, when hungry, is in much more excruciating pain than an adult when feeling the pangs of hunger. However, i still say that generalizations can be made, and these can be fairly accurate among large samples of people. They can be accurate enough to affect insurance company decisions, buying choices, and so forth. We do it all the time, C! You have a good idea what's inside my head, so you respond to my posts differently than you respond to, say, Hagar's posts. No man is an island. But a brain with mind is a very sophisticated computer, and the programming of each of our natural mental computers is not all that much of a mystery to science. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > However, i still say that >generalizations can be made, and these can be fairly >accurate among large samples of people. "Qualities", [the way we apply the word], are not properties of a given object or issue. They are "attributes" that a mind connects with them, be it from experience, by definition, or built (= it's very nature ;-). There are NO COLORS in the world around us ..; in the physical word we find simply a mix of different frequencies of light waves. But in our MIND'S EYES we "SEE" red, green, yellow, orange, blue and indigo and a lot of shades and mixtures :-) Do you accept? C. >> However, i still say that >> generalizations can be made, and these can be fairly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Do you accept? > C. Partly, yes, however there *are* colors in the world, elsewise our "mind's eye" would not be able to "see" them. Chlorophyll, for example, reflects specific wavelengths of light that the vast majority of people see as "green" in various hues. Same for blood, only now the reflected color is "red". Even stars emit electromagnetic radiation at different wavelengths. Our Sun comes out "yellow", Betelguese is "red", not to mention the many wavelengths emitted that are in the spectrum outside our visual range of wavelengths. We must sense these, infrared, x rays, etc., with our instruments, which are nothing more than extensions of our eyes. Like hammers are extensions of our hands. So you see, C, whether we call them "colors" or we refer to them as "wavelengths" or "frequencies", they are still perceived by people in much the same way. To say they don't exist is tantamount to denying your perceptions. There are healthier ways to use your time! Back in "the day", i once had to replace an entire wiring harness in a piece of navigational equipment i maintained for Keesler AFB in Biloxi. I would have had a terrible time getting it correct if there was no such thing as "color". The wires were all different colors and each wire went to a different place. As much fun as it was, it would have been unthinkably fun if all the wires had looked the same. The problem isn't that there isn't color in the world. The problem is that people associate colors with their emotions: Red=anger, hate -- Green=envy -- Black=evil -- White=good -- Brown=disease -- Blue=spirit -- Gray=weakness, Violet/Purple=love, emotion, and so on. Some times i think there's *too* much color in the world, if such a thing is possible. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >Partly, yes, however there *are* colors in the world, >elsewise our "mind's eye" would not be able to "see" >them. I'd love to finish this argument as it won't get us anywhere :-) Just two annotations: 1. There are no colors outside of a "Mind". 2. Frequencies do not stand for colors in real life (paints and dye stuff), because the colors we see are a mix of many frequencies and obey to a lot of other factors like: texture oft the object, hue and contrast and even the mood we're in :-) C. >> Partly, yes, however there *are* colors in the world, >> elsewise our "mind's eye" would not be able to "see" >> them. > > I'd love to finish this argument as it won't get us anywhere :-) When this happens, it generally means that either we're both wrong, or we're both right. > Just two annotations: 1. There are no colors outside of a "Mind". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > C. Hence that old thought about seeing life through "rose- tinted" glasses. I have some beautiful Princess Di's that are blooming like crazy. Everybody thinks "rose" automatically means "red". Not an ounce of red in my Princess Di's. And yet, they're unbeLIEVably gorgeous! If there are no colors outside of mind, then how *do* you explain that almost everyone sees such a grand, sparkling Sirius when it hangs low in the sky? Or the long tresses worn by a stone-cold fox of a blond? Or the soft, spectacular blue/green/brown/etc. of a baby's eyes? I have blue eyes, C. Everyone i've ever met in my entire life of nearly 60 years has seen my eyes as the color blue. And i'd wager my left nut that you would see my eyes as blue, too. <holding scrotum> C? You're not color-blind, are you? </holding scrotum> <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >> I'd love to finish this argument as it won't get us anywhere :-) > >When this happens, it generally means that either we're >both wrong, or we're both right. I would say, you are right :-) >Hence that old thought about seeing life through "rose- >tinted" glasses. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"red". Not an ounce of red in my Princess Di's. And yet, >they're unbeLIEVably gorgeous! I do love roses, no matter what color they are :-) >If there are no colors outside of mind, then how *do* you >explain that almost everyone sees such a grand, sparkling >Sirius when it hangs low in the sky? .... ?, I DO HAVE A MIND ;-> >Or the long tresses worn by a stone-cold fox of a blond? > >Or the soft, spectacular blue/green/brown/etc. of a baby's >eyes? Interesting examples that came up with... :-> >I have blue eyes, C. Everyone i've ever met in my entire >life of nearly 60 years has seen my eyes as the color blue. >And i'd wager my left nut that you would see my eyes as >blue, too. If I would see that magic color as "octarin" we would not know any difference, because both of us would call it "BLUE". ><holding scrotum> >C? You're not color-blind, are you? ></holding scrotum> Oh yes I am, but I don't kick like a mule :-> ><g> > >bg> >happy days and... > starry starry nights! Starry days and happy nights! C. A brain excision? Saul Levy >>> Bert, how would anyone know "WHAT" I see, xcept me? >>> X [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >What kind of "test" could look inside my head? >C. Painius The true reality is and its tricky. We don't see with our eyes we see with our computer brains. Every thing comes to our brain is in a picture that is upside down. No pro0blem to your brain Painius i9t turns it level with the Earth's surface. Still Painius i would like to take you when I was a kid to the Revere Beach amusement park's fun house. It tilted reality so much it made every one dizzy. A boy next to his father appeared taller. etc We see alike We think alike Because our brains are alike. Like every rule Cactus Saul is the exception Go figure Bert > We see alike We think alike Because our brains >are alike. If you WERE right, telepathy would be our natural way of communication. C. >> We see alike We think alike Because our brains >> are alike. > > If you WERE right, telepathy would be our natural way of > communication. > C. Who's to say it isn't? A mother feels queezy at the precise instant her son is involved in a terrible accident. A twin, separated from her twin far away, can still sense when her twin is hurt. The human dilemma isn't that telepathy is unnatural. Our dilemma is that we have evolved into unnatural beings. We are too far from Nature to notice usually when telepathy happens. And "belief" is a major component of this, as well. This is why i always tell people to trust themselves, to trust their "instincts". You know more than you think you do. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > >> We see alike We think alike Because our brains > >> are alike. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to trust their "instincts". You know more than you > think you do. That sounds like nasty witch stuff, and otherwise worthy of book- burnings. I mean, allowing folks to deductively trust their own instincts could lead to world peace, and we can't have any of that without eliminating the warm and fuzzy likes of ENRON, ExxonMobil plus our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) and oil/blood-sucking company of brown-nosed minions. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Painius Best we not forget I have my positron twin Treb. Bert >> If you WERE right, telepathy would be our natural way of >> communication. >> C. > >Who's to say it isn't? Ok, I don't :-> C. Painius Using test paterns of shades. If you only see reflected stuff and can't make out the colors like the rest of us your eyes are not picking up wave frequency on the money Bert Maybe we'd rather NOT KNOW, Chu'k! lmao! Saul Levy >>Painius Reality is humans see colors mostly alike. > >Bert, how would anyone know "WHAT" I see, xcept me? >X I guess you don't read any psychology, Chu'k? lmao! Yeah, I know it's all BULLSHIT, but it would answer many of your questions. Saul Levy >>Thank you, C! It feels good to know there is still some >>"mystery", that i still have some "surprises" left in me. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >likewise! >C. Cactus saul We are taught to think the same way. Thinking the same we can say we are normal. Ask a person to name a flower its "rose" color its "red" furniture its "chair" etc Love and hate are emotions instilled in us as children After 8 its to late 20 20 vision and hearing show how alike we really are.All feel pain and yet some can take pain more than others I hate the taste of chinese mustard.(hot stuff) Humans can differ but 99% of their thinking is inside the box. Bert I can understand that you have such a SIMPLE MIND, Chu'k. I'm sure you're right about insects reading yours. lmao! Saul Levy >>I'm out on my back porch when using my webtv. Florida has lots of >>crawling bugs. Have some tiny black spiders,and I try to swat them,and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >once you are kind to one of them the rest of the swarm won't sting >you. >I can understand that you have such a SIMPLE MIND, Chu'k. I'm sure >you're right about insects reading yours. lmao! > >Saul Levy Why do so many, otherwise sensible, men act as complete a.sholes when set free to UseNet? Just me, wondering. C. >>I can understand that you have such a SIMPLE MIND, Chu'k. I'm sure >>you're right about insects reading yours. lmao! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just me, wondering. > C. You just answered your own question, Chuckie. Stop acting like an a.shole and people will respond in kind. >Stop acting like an a.shole and people will respond in kind. "PEOPLE" do respond "in kind" to me. I came to terms with many of those who hated me (for different reasons) "at first sight"; Carl Osterwald among them. So try your own recipe, and find out! C. >>Stop acting like an a.shole and people will respond in kind. > > "PEOPLE" do respond "in kind" to me. I came to terms with many of > those who hated me (for different reasons) "at first sight"; Carl > Osterwald among them. So try your own recipe, and find out! > C. Carl Osterwald, aka Art Deco merely ignores you. In all likelihood you are a permanent resident in his kill file. Aw, Chu'k, nice try, but an a.shole is always an a.shole! lmfjao! Saul Levy >>Stop acting like an a.shole and people will respond in kind. > > "PEOPLE" do respond "in kind" to me. I came to terms with many of >those who hated me (for different reasons) "at first sight"; Carl >Osterwald among them. So try your own recipe, and find out! >C. >Aw, Chu'k, nice try, but an a.shole is always an a.shole! lmfjao! > >Saul Levy *P*L*O*N*K Thanks for proving me right yet again, Chu'k! lmfjao! Saul Levy >>Aw, Chu'k, nice try, but an a.shole is always an a.shole! lmfjao! >> >>Saul Levy > > *P*L*O*N*K Saul Levy treats himself no better than he treats us, I'm sure. As for who is or isn't an “ idiot ” .. A. Most victories ( real or imagined ) can't be made pubic, not even to our “ friends ” here on UseNet. B. We're all innocent, no one knows enough to make good decisions. Our sole salvation is this: To blindly, randomly, pop out babies. C. Society “ evicts ” those who fall out of favor, placing them on the streets ( or worse ), with the words “ Bad Credit ” indelibly tattooed on their foreheads. On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >Saul Levy treats himself no better than he treats us, I'm sure. He and "Hagar" appear to be twins in the spirit ... C. f.ck OFF, GOATHUMPER Chu'k! lmfjao! Saul Levy >On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf ><Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >He and "Hagar" appear to be twins in the spirit ... >C. > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf > <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He and "Hagar" appear to be twins in the spirit ... > C. Yes Chuckiebutt, insect can read your mind ... would be the equivalent of a normal person reading a postage stamp .. f.ck OFF, WACKO Jeff! lmao! Just look at what you posted below and tell me you aren't an IDIOT! Saul Levy On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >Saul Levy treats himself no better than he treats us, I'm sure. >As for who is or isn't an idiot .. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > placing them on the streets ( or worse ), > with the words Bad Credit indelibly tattooed on their foreheads. Pay attention to those insects, Chu'k! lmao! Saul Levy >>I can understand that you have such a SIMPLE MIND, Chu'k. I'm sure >>you're right about insects reading yours. lmao! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Just me, wondering. >C. > I'm out on my back porch when using my webtv. Florida has lots of > crawling bugs. Have some tiny black spiders,and I try to swat them,and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > did not move but thought this. "I'm going to kill you",and it ran like > hell under my printer. Go figure Bert BTW, is there anyone else giving your silly topics "gold stars", except me? Perhaps bugs simply know when best to run like hell, especially when there's a beer brain within their public funded section-8 abode. Most bugs are countless millions of years if not a good billion years more evolved than us humans, and thus a whole lot better off at survival than us. Too bad we humans have become so survival deficient and manic bipolar to boot, not to mention afraid of our own shadow, as well as faith-based and/or politically racist as all get out. Obviously consuming mass quantities of beer does not fix this evolutionary deficiency or process of reverse evolutionary mutation of our becoming dumb and dumber by the hour. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Brad what is BTW ? Who needs 5 stars? In school I never got even one gold star. Go figure bert IMHO, “ BTW ” means: “ by the way ”. www.Google.COM/search?q=define:BTW BTW, “ IMHO ” means: “ in my humble opinion ”. > Brad what is BTW ? Who needs 5 stars? In school I never got even one > gold star. Go figure bert By The Way(BTW), one gold star is at least somewhat better than no gold star. You can give your local Mafia government and their Mafia federal puppeteers (many of them being Zionist/Nazis) all 5 gold stars, mostly because they have such beer saturated village idiots like Bert fully snookered and dumbfounded past the Section-8 point of no return, and obviously then some. That warm and fuzzy feeling between your butt-cheeks isn't coming from within, is it. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.