OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
I snuck into the backwoods of Montana and onto the Norfleet estate, decoying the free roaming attack dogs with pork chops swathed in peanut butter, and, after a long arduous stealthy approach, managed to snap a picture of Norfleet's T34:



Nice ride!!

LOL. This tank could surely fool me.

Soapyfrog, watch for the booby traps, minefields and sniper rifles, that Norf remotely controls from the secret lair in his nuclear shelter. Geting in is one thing. Geting out may prove to be even harder. You see, once the word gets out that norf don't really have tank, THEY , who are out there to get poor old norf, will grow bolder. He can't afford it to happen, so watch your back.

[ July 29, 2004, 19:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
You are realy dumb norf. No insult, just frank observation. How about puting your camera 20 feet away? Or 30 feet? That would be enough distance for the standard camera to show you, and several of your very own T34 tanks on top of each other.

Are you really that desperate for fantasy fodder? I mean, now you have an obsession with having a picture of Norfleet for some perverted reason.

After all - a photo does, and proves, nothing. Unless you already know what Norfleet looks like (hint - he probably doesn't look like his avatar), in which case you're more obsessed than even I thought, given that you've managed to hunt down photos of him.

Even with that - photographs are easily doctored. Any idiot (and probably even you) can find a photo of an old tank in a book, the library, or (gasp) the internet, and digitally alter it to put in a acne-covered teenager - oops, that'd be you, I mean, a bearded old coot.

Heck - no need to alter it unless you do have Norfleet's picture on the ceiling above your bed, because he could find a picture of _some_ oldish coot beside an old tank and provide it, and you'd never know the difference.

Flooding perverted idiot.

---

I wouldn't go so far as calling your pervented idiot Cain, but since you said so yourslef I have no choice to agree with you, since your letter prove it quite clearly. Man, please, your homosexual fantasties regarding Norfleet hold no interest to me, although they certanly explain why you are the only person in the entire forum defending him. Maybe you shold try personal love letters next time, huh? Forum is kindof tough medium for expressing your tender feeling my friend.

As for the pictures and tanks - c'mon, I expected you to be at least a little smarter than norf. Was I wrong? Sorry dude, I don't want to rain on your parade, but can't you think of very simple way to prove that these pictures are norfleet's, and not some random person from the internet?!? If you can't, I can give you a hint, but I knidof hope you will be able to figure it out yourslef, it's not hard, really.

And friendly advice - next time before hoping on your favorite horse and raiding to rescue the love of your life, try to think a little bit before you write, otherwise you will look very stupid, like you do now, when you couldn't even think of simple way to profe autenticity of the photo, when any 8 year old kid with average IQ could quickly come up with logical solution for this mindbogling problem.


Regards,
Stormbinder

[ July 29, 2004, 19:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Perhaps you can explain, since you say energy can't come from nowhere - where did Dog come from? Is God not energy, if he exists? If Dog can come from nowhere, so can energy. So can free beer and the tooth fairy.

And unlike God - I've seen evidence of free beer and the tooth fairy.

If you go back and read the proof I posted earlier, you might note that the only required property of God (as one possiblity of 4) I had listed was:

Some being which can ignore the laws of physics

- in which case, origins need not apply, and your question is rather moot.

---

If one being can ignore the laws of physics - they aren't laws. If one being can break the laws - other beings, entities, energies, and objects can.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And friendly advice - next time before hoping on your favorite horse and raiding to rescue the love of your life, try to think a little bit before you write, otherwise you will look very stupid, like you do now, when you couldn't even think of simple way to profe autenticity of the photo, when any 8 year old kid with average IQ could quickly come up with logical solution for this mindbogling problem.

Stormie, sweet girl - I'm guessing you're the 8 year old kid who thinks she has an average IQ? Just to remind you, it took _weeks_ to debunk some of the faked photos from 9/11. It took a team of historians to prove that Stalin had been rewriting history by redoing famous photographs - and that was long before the digital age.

"But we can have a current newspaper in the photo!" Yes, sweetling, and the newspaper image can be imposed in the photograph, just as modern cereals and soft drinks are being inserted into vintage television shows and images.

Not to mention that the current newspaper still wouldn't prove that the man in the photograph was Norfleet. But here's a lollipop for a nice try, kid.

And by the by, Stormie - defending one person isn't the same as attacking another. But as someone reminded me that it's "Be kind to the differently enabled week", I'm not going to attack you today.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Apparently you didn't read the logic closely - I did not jump to the conclusion that God exists; I went to "...one of the following must be true..." and you seem to have assumed a conclusion of a specific one of those four / all of those four. This one of your counter-arguments falls apart on the basis that you are not arguing against my specific arguments. Shucks, I'd even mentioned in the section you quote (i've just now added italics to that specific piece of where I quoted you quoting me - it wasn't italicized in the original) that only one of the four need be true, with no reference as to which one.

Since you like "At least / only one of these four need be true" games, here's one for you.

#1 : God is a sadist, given the way the world is.
#2 : God isn't a sadist, but isn't omnipotent either, or the world wouldn't be the way it is.
#3 : God isn't a sadist, he is omnipotent, but he forgot about us and thus the world went to ****.
#4 : God isn't a sadist, and he is omnipotent, but he's also incompetent and can't fix the mess he made.

One of the four must be true.

(Which is of course BS, but so are the four possibilities you mentioned.)

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And friendly advice - next time before hoping on your favorite horse and raiding to rescue the love of your life, try to think a little bit before you write, otherwise you will look very stupid, like you do now, when you couldn't even think of simple way to profe autenticity of the photo, when any 8 year old kid with average IQ could quickly come up with logical solution for this mindbogling problem.

Stormie, sweet girl - I'm guessing you're the 8 year old kid who thinks she has an average IQ? Just to remind you, it took _weeks_ to debunk some of the faked photos from 9/11. It took a team of historians to prove that Stalin had been rewriting history by redoing famous photographs - and that was long before the digital age.

"But we can have a current newspaper in the photo!" Yes, sweetling, and the newspaper image can be imposed in the photograph, just as modern cereals and soft drinks are being inserted into vintage television shows and images.

Not to mention that the current newspaper still wouldn't prove that the man in the photograph was Norfleet. But here's a lollipop for a nice try, kid.

---

Congratulations Cain, you have finally figured small part of this simple puzzle. So there is hope for you after all. Who knows, maybe you even will get to the average IQ in the future for your age group, if you will try really hard. After all, brain and intellectual capacities can be developed, to the certain degree, up to the certain age. Don't give up!


Unfortuantley you are still not geting it, obviously. Now put your anger over humiliations and your romantic feeling to the Norfleet aside, and try to think a bit harder my friend. How it can be proved, beyond all reasonable doubts, that the person on picture with T34 is indeed Norfleet, and not some fabrication made out of old or modern photos?


Here is a hint for you - Norfleet is NOT a Stalin, neither he is the World Trade Center, surprising as it may be. C'mon Cain, I am telling you the truth - it is not that hard. Just try to think a little bit about it, that strange unpleasant sensation in your head will fade away eventually, I promise.


With best regards,
Stormbinder

[ July 29, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Arryn]

I'm always amused by people blathering on about an omniscient and omnipotent deity. Any such fictional construct would have to, by definition, be able to know, and to alter, the quantum state of EVERY particle in the ENTIRE universe, and to be able to do so instantly. An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state. So, by deduction, such a omniwhatever deity would have to *be* the universe. If the deity embodies the universe (and is indistiguishable from it) it ceases to have an identity seperate from it. It's everywhere. Including in the humans that inhabit the universe. So (shocking as this may come), Norfleet is God. As am I. As are you. Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

Well, the universe does exist, and we're having a very silly discussion, so God cannot possibly be omnipotent/omniscient or this discussion wouldn't be taking place.