Theos-Talk Archives (February 2010 Message tt00236)

obviously you are not a neo-mini ice ager. Hey those that didn't migrate, froze to death!
Cass


>
>From: "Drpsionic@aol.com" <Drpsionic@aol.com>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, 17 February, 2010 2:51:44 AM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text]
>
>Â 
>Yes, we actually have weather. I remember in college going to the loop 
>one frigid January morning when it was 20 below and a 20 mph wind coming off 
>the lake and when I got off the train I never felt more alive than when that 
>blast hit my face.
>
>And they think we will be impressed by a little snow!
>
>Fie upon them.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>_www.charlescosiman o.com 
>
>In a message dated 2/15/2010 5:47:57 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
>Augoeides-222@ comcast.net writes:
>
>Chuck, 
>Yep, 26 beow zero icy frozen everything, and that wonderful 50 mph breeze 
>blowing acroos thge 1/2 mile of ice on the shore of Lake Michigan begin 
>reaching any of us chicagoans lol!!! Sbow was higher than I was when I was kid 
>in Chicago. We used to grab a ride and shoe surf on the ice by holding 
>onto the back bumpers of the cars ! Wheee what fun!!! And the MONSTER summer 
>electrical storms amde my mom disappear because she was hiding in the closet. 
>And it was estatic to wake up drenched with wet sheets in the hot summer 
>time of Chicago. I also said "Whats the big deal?" we had snow like that 
>every year back on the 40-50's! 
>
>John 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: 
>
>_ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) _Drpsionic@aol. Drp_ 
>(mailto:Drpsionic@aol. com) _ 
>To: _ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) _theos-talk@ yahoogrotheos- t_ 
>(mailto:theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com) _ 
>Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:14:59 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text] 
>
>LOL! 
>
>I can remember a number of years where 95% of the US was under snow and 
>cold so bad it froze the oil in car engines. This year is nothing. Oh the 
>East Coast had a snow storm and the southerners got to make snowmen, but 
>I'm 
>from Chicago, I live in Wisconsin and you ain't gonna impress me with 
>snow. 
>
>As far as the planets being aligned with the Milky Way, the planets are 
>always aligned with something. The Mayans were simply nuts, or is it the 
>folks who are taking them seriously who are nuts? Sorry, I'm not 
>impressed. 
>
>Chuck the Heretic 
>
>www.charlescosimano www.c
>
>In a message dated 2/14/2010 7:35:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
>_ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) _silva_cass@ yahoo.sil_ 
>(mailto:silva_cass@yahoo. com) writes: 
>
>Hi Chuck 
>Seeing we have no recorded evidence of all the planets being in alignment 
>with the Milky Way (which is all the Mayans predicted) we have no way of 
>knowing what, or cannot predict, how or if this event will impact the 
>earth. 
>We have had pole shifts in the past and survived them, we have had ice and 
>
>mini ice ages, so what I am saying, is not that the earth will be 
>annihlated but what is causing these climatic changes such as 95 percent 
>of the USA 
>under snow? 
>
>We have evidence of islands sinking and evidence of mountains reemerging, 
>and if a chamber was found in the sphinx foot it would suggest that it was 
>constructed to hold something which could have been removed. As Cayce was 
>a christian perhaps the Jesus thing was more about the Christos thing.? 
>
>Are there no more clairvoyants left in the TS? 
>
>Cass 
>
>In AgnosticsRefuge@ yahoogroups. com, "HumanCarol" <humanist@> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Unable to correctly attribute material to the correct author, 
>mangummurdock <no_reply@> alleged: 
>> > 
>> > > Richard Dawkins argues in Chap 3 of his book "The Dawkins Delusion" 
>that>> 
>> > 
>> > It is already know that that is a lie. 
>> > 
>> > << "it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a `Big Bang 
>singularity' or some other physical concept as yet unknown" to account for 
>the 
>existence of the universe. The word parsimonious is meaningless in 
>context: 
>Whatever it might denote, how could it be measured? But conjure is the 
>right 
>verb, suggesting as it does both misdirection and inattention. 
>Misdirection: 
>The Big Bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because it 
>cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which 
>physical 
>theories give way. Inattention: The physical concept in which Dawkins has 
>placed his confidence is something that is either infinite and 
>inscrutable, 
>or otherwise unknown. Men have come to faith on the basis of far les_s. 
>This is, I suppose, not surprising. His atheism notwithstanding, Dawkins 
>believes that he i_s a "deeply religious man." He simply prefers an alien 
>cult.>> 
>> > 
>> > Why don't you correctly attribute that passage? 
>> > 
>> > Here is the context and a correct citation: 
>> > 
>> > ---begin excerpt--- 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> 
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>_ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) 
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


      __________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]