Discussion:
Man gets 8 years in prison for killing a cat
(too old to reply)
edie humperdink
2006-10-14 20:06:24 UTC
Permalink
If there were no pain, animals would not try very hard to avoid being eaten.
But any sort of mild discomfort, such as embarrassment or shyness,
suffices to
motivate an animal to avoid being eaten. Thus, evolution only needs to
evolve
a mild discomfort to motivate the survival instinct. There is no
reason for evolution
to evolve excessive "pain" the way you or I feel pain. There is no
reason
for evolution to evolve excessive pain, which is wasteful and
unnecessary. I suggest the cat feels a sense of unpleasant
"embarrassment" when
he is captured, tortured and eaten alive; he does not feel human pain.
The only difference one can theorize is that without rational
abilities in the > experience of pain, an animal then has the disadvantage
of not knowing what it really is, making it more confusing,
Buddy, an animal is always confused because he lacks the ability to
reason in the first place.
So, when he is being eaten, he feels "embarrassed and confused" instead
of feeling
"proud and confused", which is his normal state. Thus, it is not
unreasonable to conclude that
being captured, tortured, and eaten alive is no much different than
being forced to prance around wearing a pink ribbon at a pet show from
a cat's perspective.
tension_on_the_wire
2006-10-14 21:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
There is no
reason for evolution
to evolve excessive "pain" the way you or I feel pain. There is no
reason
for evolution to evolve excessive pain, which is wasteful and
unnecessary.
First of all, evolution is not a character in a drama. Evolution
does not *do* anything. It is animals and other species which
do the evolving. You should not really attribute reasons or
motives to evolution.

Second of all, if there is no reason, as you call it, for evolution
to evolve excessively, or, in your opinion, wastefully, why did
such evolution take place (in the matter of humans)? What
advantage did it give to humans that it would not give to any
other mammal?

Third of all, what you refer to as excessive pain, is about the
only thing severe enough to immobilize a frightened and
injured animal. Without immobilization, the animal will
not recover, and will sicken and die. Immobilization is a
key, fundamental survival device in all animals for one
purpose or another, whether it is childbirth, broken bone,
hiding skills, or "shyness" if you can presume to give
anthropomorphic attributes to non-human animals.

--tension
edie humperdink
2006-10-15 23:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by tension_on_the_wire
First of all, evolution is not a character in a drama. Evolution
does not *do* anything. It is animals and other species which
do the evolving. You should not really attribute reasons or
motives to evolution.
Who said anything about motives. I'm just stating the way natural
selection
works, pal. Natural selection culls away any features that are
unnecessary, such as excessive pain. Why would natural selection
evolve an animal to suffer more pain than it has to when it's being
eaten?
That would be a USELESS trait, and so, why would the forces of natural
selection
prefer it?

Natural selection would evovle only the minimal amount of discomfort
that is necessary
for an animal to run away. Once it is capture and is being eaten, an
animal that feels
more pain ISN'T GOING TO LIVE AND HAVE MORE CHILDREN than an animal
that only
feels mild discomfort. Both are going to be eaten anyway.
Post by tension_on_the_wire
Second of all, if there is no reason, as you call it, for evolution
to evolve excessively, or, in your opinion, wastefully, why did
such evolution take place (in the matter of humans)?
Du-uh! Humans use tools, such as bandages and water to wash their
wounds and
reset bone fractures. The pain tells a human where the problem is, and
how severe it is,
so he can try to fix it. A cat cannot does not know how to re-set a
bone even if it's broken, so
it is not useful for a cat to feel pain in his bone, buster.
edie humperdink
2006-10-16 03:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Natural selection DOES NOT eliminate stuff like pain you flaming twit.
Natural selection advances traits to survive
pal, nobody said natural selection eliminates pain. The point is that
natural selection has no reason to CREATE pain in the first place for
cats.
How does feeling pain when she is eat help to advance a cat's survival
instinct?
It's already too late.
Natural selection creates traits like shyness and fear of discomfort to
advance a cats
survival chances, but once the cat is captured, it is too late to do
anything.
Phil Carmody
2006-10-16 07:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Natural selection creates traits...
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
edie humperdink
2006-10-16 08:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Carmody
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
the fact that your best argument is a weak ad hominem attack that does
not
offer a shred of evidence proving your point is strong evidence that
YOU
don't know what you're talking about, pal.
Phil Carmody
2006-10-16 08:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
Post by Phil Carmody
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
the fact that your best argument is a weak ad hominem
You don't have a clue what /ad hominem/ is either, do you?

/Ad hominem/ has the schema
[personal insult] therefore [your argument is false]

I indicated precisely where your argument was false, and then
concluded that you were an idiot. Completely different. I
wouldn't expect a doofus such as yourself to appreciate the
difference though.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
edie humperdink
2006-10-16 17:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Phil Carmody
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You don't have a clue what /ad hominem/ is either, do you?
An ad homimem occurs when you accuse somebody that "you don't have a
clue" when you
know absolutely nothing about him and his training, experience, and
accomplishments.
Phil Carmody
2006-10-16 20:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Phil Carmody
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You don't have a clue what /ad hominem/ is either, do you?
An ad homimem occurs when you accuse somebody that "you don't have a
clue" when you
know absolutely nothing about him and his training, experience, and
accomplishments.
My prior description of an /ad hominem/ was the correct one.
Your description is incorrect. However, it's also irrelevant,
as I know that you know bugger all about evolution, and bugger
all about rhetoric. I know this as you demonstrate it repeatedly,
apparently unashamedly. And as a result, I insult you for it.
Not an /ad hominem/ -- an insult. I will not explain this to you
a third time, so please do not make the same stupid mistake
again.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
edie humperdink
2006-10-17 03:22:54 UTC
Permalink
"bugger?" you must be british. enough said.
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by edie humperdink
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Phil Carmody
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You don't have a clue what /ad hominem/ is either, do you?
An ad homimem occurs when you accuse somebody that "you don't have a
clue" when you
know absolutely nothing about him and his training, experience, and
accomplishments.
My prior description of an /ad hominem/ was the correct one.
Your description is incorrect. However, it's also irrelevant,
as I know that you know bugger all about evolution, and bugger
all about rhetoric. I know this as you demonstrate it repeatedly,
apparently unashamedly. And as a result, I insult you for it.
Not an /ad hominem/ -- an insult. I will not explain this to you
a third time, so please do not make the same stupid mistake
again.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
C***@shaw.ca
2006-10-17 08:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
"bugger?" you must be british.
British: the people who brought you Newton, Maxwell, Darwin, Wiles ....


R.G. Vickson
Post by edie humperdink
enough said.
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by edie humperdink
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Phil Carmody
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You don't have a clue what /ad hominem/ is either, do you?
An ad homimem occurs when you accuse somebody that "you don't have a
clue" when you
know absolutely nothing about him and his training, experience, and
accomplishments.
My prior description of an /ad hominem/ was the correct one.
Your description is incorrect. However, it's also irrelevant,
as I know that you know bugger all about evolution, and bugger
all about rhetoric. I know this as you demonstrate it repeatedly,
apparently unashamedly. And as a result, I insult you for it.
Not an /ad hominem/ -- an insult. I will not explain this to you
a third time, so please do not make the same stupid mistake
again.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
Proginoskes
2006-10-18 06:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by edie humperdink
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Phil Carmody
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Ah, the perils of incomplete quoting.

edie humperdink had written: "Natural selection creates traits...",
which is false, because Natural Selection _weeds out_ traits. It is
mutation (literal or figurative) which creates traits.

And _that_ was what Phil Carmody was reacting to.

--- Christopher Heckman
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by edie humperdink
Post by Phil Carmody
You don't have a clue what /ad hominem/ is either, do you?
An ad homimem occurs when you accuse somebody that "you don't have a
clue" when you
know absolutely nothing about him and his training, experience, and
accomplishments.
My prior description of an /ad hominem/ was the correct one.
Your description is incorrect. However, it's also irrelevant,
as I know that you know bugger all about evolution, and bugger
all about rhetoric. I know this as you demonstrate it repeatedly,
apparently unashamedly. And as a result, I insult you for it.
Not an /ad hominem/ -- an insult. I will not explain this to you
a third time, so please do not make the same stupid mistake
again.
tension_on_the_wire
2006-10-16 05:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
Natural selection culls away any features that are
unnecessary, such as excessive pain.
It is only your opinion that excessive pain is an unnecessary feature.

I have already explained why it is an essential feature for survival,
and surely you don't think that pain only occurs when an animal
is being eaten? Can you not imagine any other situation in
which an animal might experience pain that would be life-saving?
Like the ones I already mentioned in my previous post?
Post by edie humperdink
Post by tension_on_the_wire
Second of all, if there is no reason, as you call it, for evolution
to evolve excessively, or, in your opinion, wastefully, why did
such evolution take place (in the matter of humans)?
Du-uh! Humans use tools, such as bandages and water to wash their
wounds and
reset bone fractures. The pain tells a human where the problem is, and
how severe it is,
so he can try to fix it. A cat cannot does not know how to re-set a
bone even if it's broken, so
it is not useful for a cat to feel pain in his bone, buster.
My name is not pal, nor is it buster. And I already told you
why pain which causes immobilization allows a cat or any
other injured animal to heal. They cannot get better
otherwise, with a broken bone.

What you seem to be saying in this post is that humans, long,
long, before they became humans, evolved pain in the
anticipation that one day they would be setting their broken
bones and will need to know where the problem is. And that
at that point in their development they will be so stupid that
they will need pain in order to figure it out. Don't you think
pain is totally unnecessary for humans now that we have
X-rays?

Either that, or you are saying that only after humans had
figured out how to set a broken leg did they then evolve
the feature of pain in order to tell them where the problem
is.

I think you don't really understand how long it takes
evolution and natural selection to work as a process.
The development of the human nervous system took
many millions of years of evolution, and if you were to
compare the nervous system of a human to that of a
cat, you would realize that the endorphin receptors
and neural synapses that extend from everywhere in
the body back to the brain are identical, and they
developed long before humans, great apes or any
other primates had even appeared on the scene.
For us to have the pain system we have now, it
had to have started long before mammals were
even mammals as we know them. It is not
possible for us to feel pain, and cats not. It
would imply that our entire human nervous system
evolved over the last 2 million years and anyone
who thinks that has not a single clue about the
evolution of species on earth.

I don't think there is much point wasting much
more time on this thread unless you feel like
doing a little reading on the subject.

--tension
Ben Newsam
2006-10-16 07:04:41 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Oct 2006 22:12:13 -0700, "tension_on_the_wire"
Post by tension_on_the_wire
For us to have the pain system we have now, it
had to have started long before mammals were
even mammals as we know them. It is not
possible for us to feel pain, and cats not. It
would imply that our entire human nervous system
evolved over the last 2 million years and anyone
who thinks that has not a single clue about the
evolution of species on earth.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. The nervous system certainly
carries the signals that produce both pain and pleasure, but the
interpretation of sensation is done in the brain, which presumably has
to decide a spectrum of acceptability of all sorts of sensations of
different sorts. That is, assuming that you do not categorise the
brain as part of the nervous system, which, although it undoubtedly
is, I treat as separate for the purposes of this discussion. For
instance, if I stand in front of a radiator, I experience a very
pleasant warming sensation in my backside. If I continue the
experience a bit too long, it becomes uncomfortably warm. At higher
temperatures, the heat becomes unbearable, and sooner or later it
produces what I call pain. Similarly, the point of a knife on the skin
will produce a slight, possibly even pleasant tickling sensation,
followed by a sharp pricking, followed later by intense pain. It's
merely a matter of degree and interpretation. That being said, I have
no reason to suppose that a cat has any less need for signals to be
interpreted as pain than we do.
tension_on_the_wire
2006-10-16 16:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Newsam
On 15 Oct 2006 22:12:13 -0700, "tension_on_the_wire"
Post by tension_on_the_wire
For us to have the pain system we have now, it
had to have started long before mammals were
even mammals as we know them. It is not
possible for us to feel pain, and cats not. It
would imply that our entire human nervous system
evolved over the last 2 million years and anyone
who thinks that has not a single clue about the
evolution of species on earth.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. The nervous system certainly
carries the signals that produce both pain and pleasure, but the
interpretation of sensation is done in the brain, which presumably has
to decide a spectrum of acceptability of all sorts of sensations of
different sorts. That is, assuming that you do not categorise the
brain as part of the nervous system, which, although it undoubtedly
is, I treat as separate for the purposes of this discussion. For
instance, if I stand in front of a radiator, I experience a very
pleasant warming sensation in my backside. If I continue the
experience a bit too long, it becomes uncomfortably warm. At higher
temperatures, the heat becomes unbearable, and sooner or later it
produces what I call pain. Similarly, the point of a knife on the skin
will produce a slight, possibly even pleasant tickling sensation,
followed by a sharp pricking, followed later by intense pain. It's
merely a matter of degree and interpretation. That being said, I have
no reason to suppose that a cat has any less need for signals to be
interpreted as pain than we do.
Well, I'm trying to see why that disproves anything I said about
the length of time evolution takes to produce the complex
mammalian nervous system. If anything, it bears me out.

The nervous system, including the brain, is extremely
sophisticated in the handling of sensory signals. There are
completely different sets of nerves and spinal tracts that go to
different parts of the brain for processing heat/cold vs.
pinprick/pain vs. light touch vs. proprioception (the knowing of
where exactly your hand or foot is in space).

And for what it's worth, it isn't just the brain arbitrarily deciding
what constitutes a comfortable versus uncomfortable sensation.
That is also partly indicated by the intensity or amplitude of the
signal coming from the peripheral nerves, as well as the
frequency of firing of those nerves. The pleasant warming
sensation in your backside will be perceived as such by the
brain partly because the brain has "learned" that when the
nerve fires with less intensity or frequency it represents
less heat...but when the nerve fires with higher intensity
or very high frequency it is a danger signal which is then
perceived as pain. It takes certain intensities and frequencies
to trigger the endorphin response which takes place strictly
in the brain. So it is all interconnected as one smoothly
functioning system and you cannot really separate the
brain from the peripheral nerves as if they function
separately because they don't. At least not well, as
is seen in cases where one or other part of the system
is disrupted.

In quadreplegics, the peripheral system has been
alienated from the brain....neither pain nor any other
sensation is discernible. In amputation patients,
the phenomenon of "ghost pain" can continue for
years even though there are no signals triggering
the peripheral nerves. In organic brain damage,
such as stroke, there can be either inability to
perceive pain or to make a motor response to
move away from pain. In diabetes, the longterm
damage to peripheral nerves makes the feet in
extreme danger because of the person's lack
of ability to feel small damage and attend to
small wounds heightening the risk of infection
and gangrene. The nervous system is highly
integrated throughout the functioning of the
body at all levels, which indicates even more
the millenia it must have taken to evolve such
a highly sophisticated system. Once one admits
that it must have taken many millions of years to
evolve, it becomes impossible to deny that it
must have happened long before mammals
had even properly separated out into the
species that they are today.

The only difference between a human and a
cat in the matter of pain perception, as I mentioned
in a previous post, is the "rationalization" of it,
or the thoughts that we superimpose upon the
experience that can then heighten or suppress
the fear or discomfort that goes along with it.
We can make pain much more fearful for
ourselves if we are psychologically conditioned
to do so, and we can equally make pain much
more manageable for ourselves if we have
the strength and presence of mind for that.
Cats cannot manipulate the experience in
that way, neither for the better nor for the
worse, and furthermore, they cannot have
the understanding that time limits most
pain in the end and so can have no way
to mitigate the terror that comes with
not knowing if the pain will ever stop.

--tension
edie humperdink
2006-10-16 17:48:10 UTC
Permalink
The only difference between a human and a cat in the matter of pain perception
This is an extremely strong assertion. Prove it.
edie humperdink
2006-10-16 17:48:39 UTC
Permalink
The only difference between a human and a cat in the matter of pain perception is rationalization.
This is an extremely strong assertion. Prove it.
tension_on_the_wire
2006-10-17 07:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
The only difference between a human and a cat in the matter of pain perception is rationalization.
This is an extremely strong assertion. Prove it.
Well, that is the typical post of someone who is needlessly trying to
prolong an argument just for the sake of argument. I have just spent
several lengthy posts explaining it, and if you do not understand
them, it will take roughly three years for you to take a degree in
comparative biology in order to read and process all the millions
of studies that have been done on this topic. Why on earth do you
think humans rely on animal research to discover processes that
apply to humans? You don't think it possible that there are entire
disciplines in the life sciences that spent decades and even
centuries demonstrating the relationship between the mammalian
physiology of cats as well as other mammals to the mammalian
physiology of humans in order to prove that animal research
would have validity with respect to human medicine?

--tension
Matthew
2006-10-17 11:30:56 UTC
Permalink
"tension_on_the_wire" <***@yahoo.com>


Why do you all for it when this poster and the other one do this
edie humperdink
2006-10-17 15:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew
Why do you all for it when this poster and the other one do this
kitty cat cannot help but pounce on a mouse.
tension_on_the_wire
2006-10-17 16:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew
Why do you all for it when this poster and the other one do this
Actually, Matthew, I do it for the interest and general intelligence
of the *other* posters and people who are reading this,
not for the troll. He clearly does not know how to have a
normal human discussion on a topic. He thinks he can
ignore every good point presented to him, state and re-iterate
his totally unfounded point of view as if it were undisputed
fact and then stand akimbo saying "prove it" when I make
a point that has already been well
established in the collective knowledge of the human
species. He thinks he is very clever in this, and of course
doesn't realize how transparent his "techniques" are
for prolonging useless argument. Every time I abandon
all hope of engaging him in a valuable discussion,
however, someone else posts in with something
that *is* worth responding to.

Probably better to just drop the thread at this point,
as you can see by the last obstreperous post.
Matthew
2006-10-17 18:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Exactly is why I say why do you all fall for it. Everyone gave him what
he wanted attention and continued even when you can tell the poster is full
of it.

I do enjoy the intellectual aspect of a good debate or subject.

I just can't understand why would anyone try to explain it to someone who is
lacking the crayon and the piece of paper on which to draw.

Between this one and the other one. I don't know which one could be Floyd
or Harry from dumb and dumber

Between politics and stupidity by a certain 4 posters it does keep the
newsgroup interesting sometimes other times you want to walk up to them and
their parents and make sure they never breed again.
Post by tension_on_the_wire
Post by Matthew
Why do you all for it when this poster and the other one do this
Actually, Matthew, I do it for the interest and general intelligence
of the *other* posters and people who are reading this,
not for the troll. He clearly does not know how to have a
normal human discussion on a topic. He thinks he can
ignore every good point presented to him, state and re-iterate
his totally unfounded point of view as if it were undisputed
fact and then stand akimbo saying "prove it" when I make
a point that has already been well
established in the collective knowledge of the human
species. He thinks he is very clever in this, and of course
doesn't realize how transparent his "techniques" are
for prolonging useless argument. Every time I abandon
all hope of engaging him in a valuable discussion,
however, someone else posts in with something
that *is* worth responding to.
Probably better to just drop the thread at this point,
as you can see by the last obstreperous post.
tension_on_the_wire
2006-10-17 19:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew
Exactly is why I say why do you all fall for it. Everyone gave him what
he wanted attention and continued even when you can tell the poster is full
of it.
I do enjoy the intellectual aspect of a good debate or subject.
I just can't understand why would anyone try to explain it to someone who is
lacking the crayon and the piece of paper on which to draw.
Between this one and the other one. I don't know which one could be Floyd
or Harry from dumb and dumber
Between politics and stupidity by a certain 4 posters it does keep the
newsgroup interesting sometimes other times you want to walk up to them and
their parents and make sure they never breed again.
Heheh, well, hopefully Darwin will take care of that and stupidity
will get them derailed from the gene pool before they can reproduce!!
8^P

--tension
Ben Newsam
2006-10-17 20:48:21 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Oct 2006 09:22:08 -0700, "tension_on_the_wire"
Post by tension_on_the_wire
He thinks he can
ignore every good point presented to him, state and re-iterate
his totally unfounded point of view as if it were undisputed
fact and then stand akimbo saying "prove it" when I make
a point that has already been well
established in the collective knowledge of the human
species. He thinks he is very clever in this, and of course
doesn't realize how transparent his "techniques" are
for prolonging useless argument.
Is Zick back?
edie humperdink
2006-10-17 15:23:17 UTC
Permalink
your arguments are full of holes. you talk in generalities with no
proof. yes, humans
use animals as guineau pigs to do many types of medical research.
EXCEPT that humans
do not use animals to do pain research because there is no evidence
that animals feel
pain the way humans do. Nadda.
Post by tension_on_the_wire
Post by edie humperdink
The only difference between a human and a cat in the matter of pain perception is rationalization.
This is an extremely strong assertion. Prove it.
Well, that is the typical post of someone who is needlessly trying to
prolong an argument just for the sake of argument. I have just spent
several lengthy posts explaining it, and if you do not understand
them, it will take roughly three years for you to take a degree in
comparative biology in order to read and process all the millions
of studies that have been done on this topic. Why on earth do you
think humans rely on animal research to discover processes that
apply to humans? You don't think it possible that there are entire
disciplines in the life sciences that spent decades and even
centuries demonstrating the relationship between the mammalian
physiology of cats as well as other mammals to the mammalian
physiology of humans in order to prove that animal research
would have validity with respect to human medicine?
--tension
RG
2006-10-18 05:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
your arguments are full of holes. you talk in generalities with no
proof. yes, humans use animals as guineau pigs to do many types of medical research.
EXCEPT that humans do not use animals to do pain research because there is no evidence
that animals feel pain the way humans do. Nadda.
You have never inadvertently stepped on a cats tail or paw, have
you? I guess cats make all that noise and get out of dodge
because it felt good.
edie humperdink
2006-10-17 19:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by tension_on_the_wire
Either that, or you are saying that only after humans had
figured out how to set a broken leg did they then evolve
the feature of pain in order to tell them where the problem is.
This is plausible although I don't have any evidence to prove or
disprove this possibility. But at least I do go around making random
assertions without any proof as you do. EVERY single one of your
assertions in your other posts are assertions based on BELIEFS and
theories. Where is your scientific PROOF, mister?

Humans have love and romance each other. Do animals love and romance
too?
tension_on_the_wire
2006-10-18 05:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
Where is your scientific PROOF, mister?
I told you where it was. Go read it yourself.
<plonk>

--tension
Dusty
2006-11-20 02:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by edie humperdink
being captured, tortured, and eaten alive is no much different than
being forced to prance around wearing a pink ribbon at a pet show from
a cat's perspective.
Dude you are one fucked up piece of work.
Dusty
edie humperdink
2006-11-24 04:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
Dude you are one fucked up piece of work.
Dusty
a guy name "dusty" is saying this??
The Ghost In The Machine
2006-11-24 05:10:23 UTC
Permalink
In sci.econ, edie humperdink
<***@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 23 Nov 2006 20:19:43 -0800
Post by edie humperdink
Post by Dusty
Dude you are one fucked up piece of work.
Dusty
a guy name "dusty" is saying this??
Recall Dusty Baker; he was a reasonably good baseball manager, was he
not? :-)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
edie humperdink
2006-11-24 22:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Recall Dusty Baker; he was a reasonably good baseball manager, was he
not? :-)
You think he's so good? Why is he presently UNEMPLOYED -- as in FIRED?
Yeah, he's "good" if you think managing high-priced teams for over 10
years without a single championship to show for it is being a "good
manager".

Loading...