 | | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) OK, good to know. Learn something every day, these groups are great for that. Nevertheless I myself try not to do things that may appear to be cruel, even if they're not, because I don't want to remember what sorts of animals are capable of (...) (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) merely (...) So...if we put YOU in this box and a cup of coffee, there is no way we can tell wether you drank the coffee or not? [11] B-) Follow-up set to .fun (I hope..never tried it before) [11] or can we assume you will drink it?[12] [12] (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) <stuff> (...) Ohwell. Why can't I try to keep a straight face? Jasper (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) we (...) for (...) Sigh..I should have taken it to .fun I am well aware of the various aspects of the Shroedinger theorum, I was merely attempting some humor. Mea Culpa, it won't happen again.(1) 1: if this sounds a bit snide, that's because (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) The box is sound, light & air proof. In fact, the material used is impervious to any Electromagnetic radiation. Otherwise, the first particle/photon that it emitted and that would happen to collide with either the observer, or cause something (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
