Starship Asterisk*

I think the 16 wives would be:
"4 better or worse, 4 richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health . . . "

harry wrote:Neufer said

I think the 16 wives would be:
"4 better or worse, 4 richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health . . . "

harry wrote:Read between the lines.

Chris Peterson wrote:

makc wrote:so, should we ban him, or give him yet another warning? I count chris vote +1, and mark vote -1, the rest of you please post (for some reason real polls are disabled in the forum).

I don't vote one way or the other. I was just questioning the process by which he re-emerged under a new identity.

When my dog or horse doesn't behave, I engage in some training. I don't shoot them. On this forum, aggressive moderation is perhaps the best option. When silly, non-scientific stuff gets posted, it should just get deleted, and promptly. After spending some time producing a post only to have it disappear into the bit bucket (or even a black hole <g>), the training might start sinking in.

neufer wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Perhaps we should ban someone else, like Neufer, for his Shakespeare stuff (no, that's a bad idea, too, Neufer is the life of the Party and light in the darkness, but we could perhaps at least persuade him to get involved with modern American writers like Mark Twain?)

Twain came in on a comet and went out on a comet.
That's too obvious an astronomical connection for my tastes.

I'm for banning Sputnik but keeping aristarchusinexile.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Smiling

Neufer said

I think the 16 wives would be:
"4 better or worse, 4 richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health . . . "

My wife is laughing her head off.

oops one more thing

Not Whitch but!!!!!! witch.

neufer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_ringing wrote:
<<Bird banding (also known as bird ringing) is an aid to studying wild birds, by attaching a small individually numbered metal or plastic ring to their legs or wings, so that various aspects of the bird's life can be studied by the ability to re-find the same individual later. This can include migration, longevity, mortality, population studies, territoriality feeding behaviour, etc. In North America John James Audubon and Ernest Thompson Seton were pioneers although their method of marking birds was different from modern ringing. Audubon used silver threads the legs of young Eastern Phoebes in 1803 while Seton marked Snow Buntings in Manitoba with ink in 1882.

The earliest attempt to mark a bird was by one Quintus Fabius Pictor. This Roman officer, during the Punic Wars around 218-201 BC, was sent a swallow by a besieged garrison. He used a thread on its leg to send a message back. A knight interested in chariot races during the time of Pliny (AD 1) would take swallows to Volterra, 135 miles (217 km) away and release them with information on the race winners.>>

astrolabe wrote:Hello All,

Every forum establishes parameters within which ideas or opinions are submitted and accepted. I have no doubt that with all the forums out there that thousands of individuals have been banned for one reason or another. Most of the forums state the same requirements for being a member in good standing and rarely veer from them.

That being said, there are other considerations such as using publicly accessible terminals and taking the selfish risk of being a poster responsible for getting public accessibility to an internet forum denied if the IP address triggers a big fat "ACCESS DENIED". And I'm sure there are forums that get caught in the middle because of being sensitive to this fact. I believe it to be unfair play to use public computers as a shield. Different name, different terminal-very difficult indeed.

Now, Hello aristarchusinexile,

I would not like you to be aristarchusinpermanentexile.

However, you say that you already are in the know about the workings of the Cosmos and have your set (and stated) beliefs on the matter. That being the case them I would think that very little would be gained here that would augment what you say is the truth of real workings of Cosmology, a waste of one's time in fact if it were me. If that is the case then only a fool would stay on and needlessly continue to hammer away and criticize mainstream science, which is what this Forum is based on.

If the guidelines for posting comments within the format are unagreeable to you then, after a year or so now of testing the waters of change without success, maybe it would be wiser and more prudent, especially for you and because of the public-use computers, to move on.

Ari, believe me when I say that I deeply regret these statements although I feel them to be sensible and correct. This Forum has a format for member discussion and no one person's opinion can or will change it. Your ideas are interesting and stimulating but with them come an undercurrent of cynicism and sometimes barbed comments about the status quo often enough to become distracting.

I mean, when humanity runs out of science spirituality begins. It's probably always been so.
Spirituality and spiritual comments are fine-nothing wrong with them whatsoever- But not here on this Forum, please. And since, like your particular viewpoints of what you believe to be the real truth behind the workings of the Universe, matters revolving around esoteric ideas keep appearing as if to convince the members of your valid certainty of what's really going on which in turn invalidates other more empirical endeavors. If you know for sure then BRAVO for you. But your disregard of this Forum's rules time and again leaves me no choice but to concur with a vote to ban you. I'm very, very, very sorry, aristarchus......................

aristarchusinexile wrote:

neufer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_ringing wrote:
<<Bird banding (also known as bird ringing) is an aid to studying wild birds, by attaching a small individually numbered metal or plastic ring to their legs or wings, so that various aspects of the bird's life can be studied by the ability to re-find the same individual later. This can include migration, longevity, mortality, population studies, territoriality feeding behaviour, etc. In North America John James Audubon and Ernest Thompson Seton were pioneers although their method of marking birds was different from modern ringing. Audubon used silver threads the legs of young Eastern Phoebes in 1803 while Seton marked Snow Buntings in Manitoba with ink in 1882.

The earliest attempt to mark a bird was by one Quintus Fabius Pictor. This Roman officer, during the Punic Wars around 218-201 BC, was sent a swallow by a besieged garrison. He used a thread on its leg to send a message back. A knight interested in chariot races during the time of Pliny (AD 1) would take swallows to Volterra, 135 miles (217 km) away and release them with information on the race winners.>>

First Sputnick is a dog or horse, then a ZBra, now a bird. Lovely. All the better to fly.

neufer wrote:

Pegasus with the foal Equuleus next to it, as depicted in Urania's Mirror,
a set of constellation cards published in London c.1825.
The horses appear upside-down in relation to the constellations around them.

apodman wrote:

makc wrote:should we ban him, or give him yet another warning?

Neither. It's not worth your time, and it's not a picnic without the ants.

BMAONE23 wrote:

bystander wrote:

harry wrote:Here down under we call it whitch hunt.

And what, pray tell, is a whitch, is that something like a snipe?

Which Witch is whitch?

astrolabe wrote: "... in none of the events was I ever an anonymous coward."

astrolog wrote:"... like aristarchusinexile, I don't honestly care what others in this or any other Forum think of me."

Astrobright wrote: "I wish I had a 170 IQ!"

Astropal wrote: "I also appreciated the tone of his reply."

AstroRaftafarian wrote: "So, in closing, (ari) while the BB is only a theory, it has passed more tests and predictions than any other so far. Good enough for me, eh? Can't honestly say that for things esoteric, or ethereal, or even philosophical. Do I entertain other ideas? Of course! But they don't avail me as much as mainstream.

apodman wrote: Beam him into deep space with maximum dispersion so his molecules can never reassemble.

Rocky Planet wrote: The fact that he suffers from CRI wins him no sympathy.

aristarchusinexile wrote:astrolabe wrote:
"... in none of the events was I ever an anonymous coward."

Please don't be so hard on yourself, Astro.

aristarchusinexile wrote:"... like aristarchusinexile, I don't honestly care what others in this or any other Forum think of me."

I do care what others think of me, Astro, I really do. I just can't help being offensive. Rest assured, though, we all think well of you.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Astrobright wrote:
"I wish I had a 170 IQ!"

Read more, retest, repeat the process until you achieve the desired result. It's remarkably easy, unless the newer tests include complex problem solving like how to tie shoelaces before first morning coffee.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Astropal wrote:
"I also appreciated the tone of his reply."

Thanks, Astro.

aristarchusinexile wrote:AstroRaftafarian wrote:
"So, in closing, (ari) while the BB is only a theory, it has passed more tests and predictions than any other so far. Good enough for me, eh? Can't honestly say that for things esoteric, or ethereal, or even philosophical. Do I entertain other ideas? Of course! But they don't avail me as much as mainstream.

Au Contraire, Monsieur Mon Ami (Being Canadian, I can't help pretending I know some French) .. BB fails the test of each new discovery, so new inventions have to be added to the theory to make it fit the discoveries (Inflation, DM, DE are good examples). But my purpose here is not to disprove BB as BB disproves itself.

Rocky Planet wrote:Having a blatantly incorrect view is often characterized as having one's head in a specific location that provides zero visibility. Such a position can only be achieved through difficult unnatural contortion. The medical term for the debilitating condition that produces the required contortion is cranial rectal inversion (CRI).

astrolabe wrote:Semper Paratus

Astrogentleman wrote:BTW, thank you for your responses, ari!

aristarchusinexile wrote:I seem to have become lost, though, as to what we are theoretically talking about, unless it's that a fact is not a theory

aristarchusinexile wrote:with an opinion that a theory must be disprovable, so can never be a fact,

aristarchusinexile wrote:an address change is delaying my CanoeTiki voyage, which accounts for my continued annoyance on APOD.

aristarchusinexile wrote:I seem to have become lost, though, as to what we are theoretically talking about, unless it's that a fact is not a theory, with an opinion that a theory must be disprovable, so can never be a fact, so of what value are theories?