On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:

> kami wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>
>>> kami wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>>>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>>>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>>>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>>>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>>>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>>>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>>>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>>>>>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>>>>>> acceptance then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> there are lots of fat groups
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
>>>> long.
>>>>
>>> search where you subscribe to groups
>>>
>>> https://www.harley.com/cgi-bin/usenet/usenet.pl?what=fat&x=22&y=23&state=wholewordmatch&adult=0
>>
>>
>> they look kinda dead, except one, which has nothing to do with
>> fat people, let me see.
>>
> of course they're dead , usenet is dead ,
> i'm not going to search over 200,000 groups ,
> just for you to find ones you like ,
> you asked for some dealing with fat i gave you fat

yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
to be active.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 21:51:31 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/26/24 7:48 AM, kami wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 02:54:14 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/24 10:47 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:24:08 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:21:44 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i dont know, just thought it was cultural appropriation perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> Check this song, then:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DTFwNOEzIY
>>>>
>>>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>>>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>>>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>>>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>>>> Advertisements for special cream in every section
>>>> Give you a soft and pale complexion
>>>> Make your black skin lighter creamier and whiter
>>>> But when I look in the Star what do I find
>>>> But advertisements of a different kind
>>>> Because it seems that the white people have a notion
>>>> To make them selves black with the Sun Tan Lotion
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, tell me, tell me why I want to know the fact
>>>> Why all the black people want to go
>>>> white and the white people want to go black.
>>>
>>>
>>> In ten years they'll have mRNA pills at the
>>> cosmetics counter in WalMart and you can be
>>> any color you want :-)
>>>
>>> "Zebra" and "leopard" ... might have to wait
>>> a few more years.
>>
>>
>> not mRNA, but gRNA. i want someone who is proficient in genetics
>> to explain the nuances.
>
>
> Biochemically, either might do the trick - preferably
> short-term so people can keep up with the fashion trends.
>
> gRNA can facilitate access to existing genes, but
> mRNA can pretend to be from genes the host may not
> even possess. If you want 'leopard' that'd likely
> be important since our historic line only seems to
> have been shades from solid black to white.
>
> Editing methylation can surely also yield some very
> interesting effects - hey, that's basically the diff
> between a Great Dane and a Pomeranian.
>
> Still have my textbooks from the biochem/genetics
> classes ....
>
> In any case, consider the amazingly lucrative
> 'cosmetics'/vanity industry. If easy, people
> WOULD keep switching to the trendy colors and
> hair types and such over and over - with the $$$,
> big BIG $$$, rolling in for every little tweak.
> What ya want are SHORT-term over-writable tweaks
> and then you will be wealthy beyond all dreams
> of avarice. :-)

hmm like a haircut. have you heard about the recent experiment
with dogs about lengthening their telomeres?

On 8/28/24 12:47 PM, kami wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 21:51:31 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/24 7:48 AM, kami wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 02:54:14 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/24/24 10:47 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:24:08 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:21:44 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i dont know, just thought it was cultural appropriation perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check this song, then:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DTFwNOEzIY
>>>>>
>>>>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>>>>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>>>>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>>>>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>>>>> Advertisements for special cream in every section
>>>>> Give you a soft and pale complexion
>>>>> Make your black skin lighter creamier and whiter
>>>>> But when I look in the Star what do I find
>>>>> But advertisements of a different kind
>>>>> Because it seems that the white people have a notion
>>>>> To make them selves black with the Sun Tan Lotion
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me, tell me, tell me why I want to know the fact
>>>>> Why all the black people want to go
>>>>> white and the white people want to go black.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In ten years they'll have mRNA pills at the
>>>> cosmetics counter in WalMart and you can be
>>>> any color you want :-)
>>>>
>>>> "Zebra" and "leopard" ... might have to wait
>>>> a few more years.
>>>
>>>
>>> not mRNA, but gRNA. i want someone who is proficient in genetics
>>> to explain the nuances.
>>
>>
>> Biochemically, either might do the trick - preferably
>> short-term so people can keep up with the fashion trends.
>>
>> gRNA can facilitate access to existing genes, but
>> mRNA can pretend to be from genes the host may not
>> even possess. If you want 'leopard' that'd likely
>> be important since our historic line only seems to
>> have been shades from solid black to white.
>>
>> Editing methylation can surely also yield some very
>> interesting effects - hey, that's basically the diff
>> between a Great Dane and a Pomeranian.
>>
>> Still have my textbooks from the biochem/genetics
>> classes ....
>>
>> In any case, consider the amazingly lucrative
>> 'cosmetics'/vanity industry. If easy, people
>> WOULD keep switching to the trendy colors and
>> hair types and such over and over - with the $$$,
>> big BIG $$$, rolling in for every little tweak.
>> What ya want are SHORT-term over-writable tweaks
>> and then you will be wealthy beyond all dreams
>> of avarice. :-)
>
>
> hmm like a haircut. have you heard about the recent experiment
> with dogs about lengthening their telomeres?

Extending old telomeres MAY extend life. May also
predispose to cancers. Use caution.

There are a few drugs and enzyme-suppressors that
may also extend 'youth' or even recapture some
of it. As a non-genetic fix, these approaches
MAY be safer.

For males, bigger (or seemingly bigger) dicks
and muscles are the market target. They've
already discovered "exercise in a bottle" -
muscles are biochem, they only "know" about
and respond to exercise via chemistry. Fake
the chemistry and you get the same results
as uncivilized sweating at a gym five days
a week.

"The Stars" have unlimited funds ... but the REAL
money is in the Jane Doe market ... middle and
lower-middle women esp = MASS sales.

I do like the skin/hair color micro-genetics idea.
As fashion trends change SO often you'll see the
same customers over and over and over.

Hmmm ... how about "Tiger" ? That'd look GREAT ! :-)

Topically-applied trophics might be used to guide
the deposition of new dermal pigments ... 'salon'
treatment, pick yer pattern :-)

Why was alt.atheism in the headers ??? Nothing very
theistic about any of this - just LUCRATIVE cosmetics.
New tech = new opportunities.

Body-bagged Moslem hareems may NOT yield as much
profit ...

A "corruption of science" ? Hey, science needs FUNDING,
lots of funding :-)

On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>
>> kami wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>
>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>>>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>>>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>>>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>>>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>>>>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>>>>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>>>>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>>>>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>>>>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>>>>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>>>>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>>>>>>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>>>>>>> acceptance then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> there are lots of fat groups
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
>>>>> long.
>>>>>
>>>> search where you subscribe to groups
>>>>
>>>> https://www.harley.com/cgi-bin/usenet/usenet.pl?what=fat&x=22&y=23&state=wholewordmatch&adult=0
>>>
>>>
>>> they look kinda dead, except one, which has nothing to do with
>>> fat people, let me see.
>>>
>> of course they're dead , usenet is dead ,
>> i'm not going to search over 200,000 groups ,
>> just for you to find ones you like ,
>> you asked for some dealing with fat i gave you fat
>
>
> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
> to be active.

THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
a very long time :-)

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:41:56 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

>yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>to be active.

Now that most of the spammers have departed with GoogleGroups,
soc.history could be activated again.

alt.usage.english is still active, if you have usage questions.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:43:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>>
>>> kami wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>>>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>>>>>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>>>>>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>>>>>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>>>>>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>>>>>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>>>>>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>>>>>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>>>>>>>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>>>>>>>> acceptance then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there are lots of fat groups
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>
>>>>> search where you subscribe to groups
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.harley.com/cgi-bin/usenet/usenet.pl?what=fat&x=22&y=23&state=wholewordmatch&adult=0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> they look kinda dead, except one, which has nothing to do with
>>>> fat people, let me see.
>>>>
>>> of course they're dead , usenet is dead ,
>>> i'm not going to search over 200,000 groups ,
>>> just for you to find ones you like ,
>>> you asked for some dealing with fat i gave you fat
>>
>>
>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>> to be active.
>
>
> THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
> a very long time :-)

On 8/29/24 12:55 PM, kami wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:43:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>>>
>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>

>>>
>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>> to be active.
>>
>>
>> THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
>> a very long time :-)
>
>
> that's good, another one active one is alt.philosophy, i think i
> will start posting in both groups.

Not sure they'll appreciate that. Almost nothing here
is "Buddhist" and aside from myself very little even
lightly touches on 'philosophy'.

Some say 'politics' is a KIND of philosophy - but in
practice it's mostly thieves and loons scheming to grab
money and power. The idiot-ologies they invent are
part of the scheme.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:07:16 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:41:56 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>
>>yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>to be active.
>
> Now that most of the spammers have departed with GoogleGroups,
> soc.history could be activated again.
>
> alt.usage.english is still active, if you have usage questions.

yes so we have 4 groups to enrich our discourse:

1. alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
2. alt.philosophy
3. soc.history
4. alt.usage.english

everyone, i shall see you in these places with value to add.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 20:36:01 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/29/24 12:55 PM, kami wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:43:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>> to be active.
>>>
>>>
>>> THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
>>> a very long time :-)
>>
>>
>> that's good, another one active one is alt.philosophy, i think i
>> will start posting in both groups.
>
>
> Not sure they'll appreciate that. Almost nothing here
> is "Buddhist" and aside from myself very little even
> lightly touches on 'philosophy'.
>
> Some say 'politics' is a KIND of philosophy - but in
> practice it's mostly thieves and loons scheming to grab
> money and power. The idiot-ologies they invent are
> part of the scheme.

well obviously when in rome, i will dress like a roman.

On 8/31/24 6:57 AM, kami wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 20:36:01 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/24 12:55 PM, kami wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:43:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>>> to be active.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
>>>> a very long time :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> that's good, another one active one is alt.philosophy, i think i
>>> will start posting in both groups.
>>
>>
>> Not sure they'll appreciate that. Almost nothing here
>> is "Buddhist" and aside from myself very little even
>> lightly touches on 'philosophy'.
>>
>> Some say 'politics' is a KIND of philosophy - but in
>> practice it's mostly thieves and loons scheming to grab
>> money and power. The idiot-ologies they invent are
>> part of the scheme.
>
>
> well obviously when in rome, i will dress like a roman.

Heh ... wise :-)

NOT sure how to dress like a MAGA Buddhist though ...
orange robe and cowboy boots ? :-)

In article <ts7lfrj0b0yx$.dlg@tomato.potato>, f00@0f0.00f says...
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:07:16 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:41:56 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
> >
> >>yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
> >>an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
> >>to be active.
> >
> > Now that most of the spammers have departed with GoogleGroups,
> > soc.history could be activated again.
> >
> > alt.usage.english is still active, if you have usage questions.
>
>
> yes so we have 4 groups to enrich our discourse:
>
> 1. alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> 2. alt.philosophy
> 3. soc.history
> 4. alt.usage.english
>
> everyone, i shall see you in these places with value to add.
>
>
we all think what we do has major significants

On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 03:48:32 -0400, % wrote:

> In article <ts7lfrj0b0yx$.dlg@tomato.potato>, f00@0f0.00f says...
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:07:16 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:41:56 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>
>>>>yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>>an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>>to be active.
>>>
>>> Now that most of the spammers have departed with GoogleGroups,
>>> soc.history could be activated again.
>>>
>>> alt.usage.english is still active, if you have usage questions.
>>
>>
>> yes so we have 4 groups to enrich our discourse:
>>
>> 1. alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
>> 2. alt.philosophy
>> 3. soc.history
>> 4. alt.usage.english
>>
>> everyone, i shall see you in these places with value to add.
>>
>>
> we all think what we do has major significants

of course, have you seen futurama, the alien who poops candy? i
am like that, valuable candy everywhere i go.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:34:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/31/24 6:57 AM, kami wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 20:36:01 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/29/24 12:55 PM, kami wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:43:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>>>> to be active.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
>>>>> a very long time :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that's good, another one active one is alt.philosophy, i think i
>>>> will start posting in both groups.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure they'll appreciate that. Almost nothing here
>>> is "Buddhist" and aside from myself very little even
>>> lightly touches on 'philosophy'.
>>>
>>> Some say 'politics' is a KIND of philosophy - but in
>>> practice it's mostly thieves and loons scheming to grab
>>> money and power. The idiot-ologies they invent are
>>> part of the scheme.
>>
>>
>> well obviously when in rome, i will dress like a roman.
>
>
> Heh ... wise :-)
>
> NOT sure how to dress like a MAGA Buddhist though ...
> orange robe and cowboy boots ? :-)

yeah but its not a bad thing, diversity of thought is always a
conversation trigger. besides, even buddhism has its maga sects.

On 9/1/24 10:19 AM, kami wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 03:48:32 -0400, % wrote:
>
>> In article <ts7lfrj0b0yx$.dlg@tomato.potato>, f00@0f0.00f says...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:07:16 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:41:56 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>>> to be active.
>>>>
>>>> Now that most of the spammers have departed with GoogleGroups,
>>>> soc.history could be activated again.
>>>>
>>>> alt.usage.english is still active, if you have usage questions.
>>>
>>>
>>> yes so we have 4 groups to enrich our discourse:
>>>
>>> 1. alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
>>> 2. alt.philosophy
>>> 3. soc.history
>>> 4. alt.usage.english
>>>
>>> everyone, i shall see you in these places with value to add.
>>>
>>>
>> we all think what we do has major significants
>
>
> of course, have you seen futurama, the alien who poops candy? i
> am like that, valuable candy everywhere i go.

Class - can we spell "hubris" ? Use it in
a sentence ??? :-)

Not in a major city - then go outside tonight and
LOOK UP. See all that ? Think YOU are so fuckin'
important in that vast scheme ??? The Buddha DID
have a lot of it right ... human perceptions are
crap, filtered and more filtered, a cartoon vision
of What Is that only feeds our high estimation of
our own significance and grandeur.

So, cut us some slack ...

On 9/1/24 11:06 AM, kami wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:34:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/31/24 6:57 AM, kami wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 20:36:01 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/29/24 12:55 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:43:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>>>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>>>>> to be active.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
>>>>>> a very long time :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that's good, another one active one is alt.philosophy, i think i
>>>>> will start posting in both groups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure they'll appreciate that. Almost nothing here
>>>> is "Buddhist" and aside from myself very little even
>>>> lightly touches on 'philosophy'.
>>>>
>>>> Some say 'politics' is a KIND of philosophy - but in
>>>> practice it's mostly thieves and loons scheming to grab
>>>> money and power. The idiot-ologies they invent are
>>>> part of the scheme.
>>>
>>>
>>> well obviously when in rome, i will dress like a roman.
>>
>>
>> Heh ... wise :-)
>>
>> NOT sure how to dress like a MAGA Buddhist though ...
>> orange robe and cowboy boots ? :-)
>
>
> yeah but its not a bad thing, diversity of thought is always a
> conversation trigger. besides, even buddhism has its maga sects.

Buddhism is not monolithic, not by any means.

But I've never seen "MAGA Buddhists".

It'd be interesting however ...

And no, I do not count myself as a Buddhist, indeed I
think that whole 'selflessness/mindlessness/nothingness'
thing is a bit of an error. If alive - LIVE ! Nothing
anymore 'wrong' with OUR nature than anything elses.

But DO keep a little perspective.

On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 23:37:50 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 9/1/24 10:19 AM, kami wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 03:48:32 -0400, % wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ts7lfrj0b0yx$.dlg@tomato.potato>, f00@0f0.00f says...
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:07:16 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:41:56 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>>>> to be active.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that most of the spammers have departed with GoogleGroups,
>>>>> soc.history could be activated again.
>>>>>
>>>>> alt.usage.english is still active, if you have usage questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes so we have 4 groups to enrich our discourse:
>>>>
>>>> 1. alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
>>>> 2. alt.philosophy
>>>> 3. soc.history
>>>> 4. alt.usage.english
>>>>
>>>> everyone, i shall see you in these places with value to add.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> we all think what we do has major significants
>>
>>
>> of course, have you seen futurama, the alien who poops candy? i
>> am like that, valuable candy everywhere i go.
>
>
> Class - can we spell "hubris" ? Use it in
> a sentence ??? :-)
>
> Not in a major city - then go outside tonight and
> LOOK UP. See all that ? Think YOU are so fuckin'
> important in that vast scheme ??? The Buddha DID
> have a lot of it right ... human perceptions are
> crap, filtered and more filtered, a cartoon vision
> of What Is that only feeds our high estimation of
> our own significance and grandeur.
>
> So, cut us some slack ...

actually, when you go outside and look up, out there in space,
stuff is anything but special. its all more of the same
everywhere: stars, planets, galaxies, voids, clusters, black
holes, neutron stars etc

but here on earth, we have something more unique than anything
out there.

compare diamond versus wood. in the grand scheme of things, wood
is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x more valuable than diamond,
which is far more common in this universe.

but the weird thing is, both are carbon based.

On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 00:51:41 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 9/1/24 11:06 AM, kami wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:34:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/31/24 6:57 AM, kami wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 20:36:01 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/29/24 12:55 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:43:44 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/28/24 12:41 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:57:09 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yes thanks, i think if we find non-dead groups, we should share.
>>>>>>>> an oasis in a desert. i found alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, it seems
>>>>>>>> to be active.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT one, for some reason, HAS been active for
>>>>>>> a very long time :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's good, another one active one is alt.philosophy, i think i
>>>>>> will start posting in both groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure they'll appreciate that. Almost nothing here
>>>>> is "Buddhist" and aside from myself very little even
>>>>> lightly touches on 'philosophy'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some say 'politics' is a KIND of philosophy - but in
>>>>> practice it's mostly thieves and loons scheming to grab
>>>>> money and power. The idiot-ologies they invent are
>>>>> part of the scheme.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> well obviously when in rome, i will dress like a roman.
>>>
>>>
>>> Heh ... wise :-)
>>>
>>> NOT sure how to dress like a MAGA Buddhist though ...
>>> orange robe and cowboy boots ? :-)
>>
>>
>> yeah but its not a bad thing, diversity of thought is always a
>> conversation trigger. besides, even buddhism has its maga sects.
>
>
> Buddhism is not monolithic, not by any means.
>
> But I've never seen "MAGA Buddhists".
>
> It'd be interesting however ...
>
> And no, I do not count myself as a Buddhist, indeed I
> think that whole 'selflessness/mindlessness/nothingness'
> thing is a bit of an error. If alive - LIVE ! Nothing
> anymore 'wrong' with OUR nature than anything elses.
>
> But DO keep a little perspective.

maga buddhists exist in places like thailand and sri lanka. i
guess myanmmar as well.

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:22:05 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

>compare diamond versus wood. in the grand scheme of things, wood
>is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x more valuable than diamond,
>which is far more common in this universe.
>
>but the weird thing is, both are carbon based.

When people talk about "carbon footprint" I always think of Paul Simon
singing "She's got diamonds on the soles of her shoes."

--
Ignore the following - it's spammers for spambot fodder.

casestudysolutions@hotmail.com
adambag987@gmail.com
darylkabatoff@yahoo.ca
jessicawlyam89@gmail.com
Daryl Kabatoff <doukhoborarchivescanada@gmail.com>
lucymartin161994@gmail.com
lunapetersonmouton@gmail.com
lindaqwhite1@gmail.com
chjichu@gmail.com
olivia.o.miller@gmail.com
adultfriendclubs@gmail.com
kolomenskiy.leonard@mail.ru
edik.grizovskiy@mail.ru
finddatingmen@gmail.com
solutions.for.student@gmail.com
trustsolutionsteam@hotmail.com
searchdatingsingle@gmail.com
tomandrus4@gmail.com
adultsinglesdating@gmail.com
gburdine57@gmail.com
datingpersonalssites@gmail.com
girlsdating170@gmail.com
adultfriendclubs@gmail.com
casualxdating@gmail.com
jenniferjeen526@gmail.com
janicedhensley@gmail.com
meask669@gmail.com
adultsinglesdating@gmail.com
Jersey Marlin <jerseymarlin@gmail.com>
sk.invest.club@gmail.com