Bella Fortuna wrote:

Bella Fortuna wrote:
I know; I heard it as exactly that.Coito ergo sum wrote:Bella Fortuna wrote:I even wrote that last line with Dwight delivery.....
Coito ergo sum wrote:The Pluto debate was nothing new. In the 1800's we had Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Vesta, Juno, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and then Neptune in 1846. Pluto was just one of several objects that were briefly promoted to planet status and then demoted.LaMont Cranston wrote:I used to believe that there were 9 planets in our solar system. Then, one day, I heard that some scientists or whover got together and downgraded Pluto, so we now only have 8 planets. Of course, there are the same number of objects flying around out there in the cosmos. A planet by any other designation would still be the same piece of rock...
Fact! Pluto is no better than Vesta, Juno, Ceres and Pallas, so screw Pluto! Pluto needed to be fired!
Ahhhhhhh.....stop yer cryin' before I gives ya somethin' to cry about!Pluto2 wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:The Pluto debate was nothing new. In the 1800's we had Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Vesta, Juno, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and then Neptune in 1846. Pluto was just one of several objects that were briefly promoted to planet status and then demoted.LaMont Cranston wrote:I used to believe that there were 9 planets in our solar system. Then, one day, I heard that some scientists or whover got together and downgraded Pluto, so we now only have 8 planets. Of course, there are the same number of objects flying around out there in the cosmos. A planet by any other designation would still be the same piece of rock...
Fact! Pluto is no better than Vesta, Juno, Ceres and Pallas, so screw Pluto! Pluto needed to be fired!
Don't make me warn you!Coito ergo sum wrote:Ahhhhhhh.....stop yer cryin' before I gives ya somethin' to cry about!Pluto2 wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:The Pluto debate was nothing new. In the 1800's we had Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Vesta, Juno, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and then Neptune in 1846. Pluto was just one of several objects that were briefly promoted to planet status and then demoted.LaMont Cranston wrote:I used to believe that there were 9 planets in our solar system. Then, one day, I heard that some scientists or whover got together and downgraded Pluto, so we now only have 8 planets. Of course, there are the same number of objects flying around out there in the cosmos. A planet by any other designation would still be the same piece of rock...
Fact! Pluto is no better than Vesta, Juno, Ceres and Pallas, so screw Pluto! Pluto needed to be fired!
Hehehehehe hehe hehehehehehehehe hehe hehe hehe hehehehe...LaMont Cranston wrote:Coito ergo sum, Thank you for the information. I thought that Pluto was cancelled because tourism was down, and it's ratings were very low. Basically, Walt Disney did more with the name than the so-called planet ever did. It just never had the appeal of Saturn, Jupiter or let's not forget Uranus...
Maiforpeace, I am aware that people are capable of seriously entertaining and advocating thoroughly absurd propositions, but I had always thought that once a certain degree of absurdity has been exceeded, it would be impossible for anyone to take such a proposition seriously for even a second. My suggestion, that the clinical term for the asexual as well as self-sexual is "dead" was, at least to my mind, one of the latter. I am sorry to see that you did not see the patent and utter absurdity of it immediately, and laughed it off as being the flippant remark that it was intended to be. I also hope that any and all asexual as well as self-sexual people who read my comment will immediately notice that contrary to what I said, they are not in fact dead, and that I must therefore have been joking.maiforpeace wrote:That's a terrible and very insensitive thing of you to write Seraph. We have (or had) a member on this forum who is asexual. She has more life in her than a lot of people I know. I can't believe you would say something that cruel and ignorant.Seraph wrote:The clinical term for both is: Deadmaiforpeace wrote:Some people are asexual and some are not into being self-sexual. (I just made that term up, I know there must be a clinical term for it but I couldn't find it)
HTH
Religion - in particular christianty, specifically catholicism, then fundamentalist christianty, then catholicism again. I was 35 before I figured it out. Yes, you read that right, 35.Coito ergo sum wrote:Come clean everyone. What did you once believe was true, that you later found out was total crap.
I'll start: wheatgrass juice. I once believed that it was the best thing ever. I found out it holds almost no significant nutritional value at all. It doesn’t have much in the way of vitamins, minerals, or anything your body needs at all. I realized, after spending hundreds of dollars on the$3 and $4 a shot grass-tasting nonsense that I'd be far better off with a sprig of broccoli and an apple. Some people claim the chlorophyll in wheatgrass juice is salubrious, but that molecule breaks down in your stomach, so it really does nothing for you.
I fell for the bullshit hook, line and sinker because, for some reason, I did not do basic research into it before adopting it and even advocating it to others. I was embarrassed when I learned the lack of evidence for the efficacy of wheatgrass juice.
So, what have you folks fallen for? Yes, religion may be one of them. Therapeutic Touch? Reiki? Accupuncture? Homeopathy?
Let's hear the confessions!
Yeah, we don't need no stinkin' reason in here! And stay out!Charlou wrote:'Reason' tangent split to a new thread here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=12192
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest