Good point GOW; I will blame XoFFoX for the tangent. To start things off, will someone give one good reason to think PX exists?

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

I love all this banter! It's brilliant! And it's not that hard to follow for a non-scientist like me. The only time I hear about theories and the like is from television, news items and like jumbo (was it?) typing words like 'Sumerian' into yahoo!Please keep this up - I'm learning loads and enjoying it!

XoFFox - I can't help noticing your similarity to a certain Mr Buckaroo Banzai... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
"I just like to say Quark a lot. Quark,quark,quark,quark."

<snip>

XoFFox - I can't help noticing your similarity to a certain Mr Buckaroo Banzai... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Hmm. A rock-and-roll secret-agent brain surgeon? Or a person who sees Red Lectroids *everywhere*? THen again, maybe Art Bell's "Water" engine is an Oscillation Overthruster ...

__________________
Garlic Bread?!?!

Thanks Conrad - at least I'm not the only sad ba*d around!

__________________
"I just like to say Quark a lot. Quark,quark,quark,quark."

Since that modle violates the laws of thermodynamics, might I suggest something a little more reasonable that has a chance of working. (BTW, your "corporate auto manufacturers will squelch this" analogy is refuted by this site. The auto manufacturers are really looking forward to this stuff.)

http://www.ballard.com/tD.asp?pgid=26&dbid=0

Some folks here might be a little tired of me bringing this company up, but I expect big things from them in the future based on good science, reasonable buisness plans, and partnerships with DaimlerChrysler and Ford Motor Company.

__________________
Valiant Dancer

Well, he did start the thread, but ... somebody wake him up, please?

Hello all!

This is my first time on a message board and I am very excited about the prospect of holding rational and enlightening discussions with courteous and intelligent participants. Other sites seem to be nothing but forums for rude and insensitive bores, that's why this is my first time doing this.

Anyway, I hope to be able to contribute a little to the topics as well as learn a great deal from the fellow readers.

As for Planet X, I am definitely one who does NOT believe that it exists. It sounds way too much like an old Sci-Fi movie I saw as a kid. The idea is not new and nothing I've heard about it so far adds to the already tired story.

To XoFFoX: Using unproven, multi-demensional, new-age arguments certainly do not help. The reason scientists reject unproven, unduplicable, and untestable data is because long ago it was realized that the human mind is capable of manufacturing incredibly complex psuedo-realities (subjectivity) that must be removed before the objective (unatainable in its pure form) truth can be approached. Notice that I said unatainable objective truth. The closest that humans have come to this is through pure mathematics. Next best is physics which is mostly mathematics. The further away we get from pure math, the more subjectivity is likely to creep in. And creep it does.

Highest up the ladder away from math we approach religion. Pure subjective thought, while not useless for us poor humans to keep sane while living life, is not useful when trying to observe the objective rules of how the universe works. If you can simply wave your hand, or think of change to change the outcome of any experiment, then what is the point of doing the experiment? Observable phenomena must be observable to anyone who can accurately reproduce the conditions for it to be accepted. If you think that what you dreamt last night has any relevance to me and the world I live in, you must produce some extaordinary evidence to back up the claim. I cannot and will not tell you that you are wrong about your notions of cosmology and physics, but I will tell you that they smack of religion.

Blaming the establishment for supression of revolutionary ideas is an old tactic of those who prey on the credulous. If you have produced a working anti-gravity machine and can make a car run efficiently on water, then you need to apply for the million dollar prize being offered by the James Randi Education Foundation. If you are a starving musician I'm sure it could come in handy. I think it's mainly reserved for anyone who can prove that they have phsychic or paranormal abilities, but maybe they have room for Earthshaking inventions too.

_________________
"And above all, don't put your tongue on it!"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DTdNav on 2002-08-31 02:01 ]</font>

Just for the fun of it, I'd toss out this idea: logic is the basis of mathematics, so I'd put it further up on your evidentiary food chain. (if you want, I can show you this--as long as you're willing to wade through a 170-line proof. Ugh.)

Anyhow, it seems like this discussion has wandered afield. Did someone suggest a perpetual motion machine using hydrolysis? And what, exactly, does that have to do with the oh-so-dangerous but utterly unobservable Planet X, aka Nibiru?

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

When will the science people get it through there thick heads that the Laws of Thermodynamics are NOT and I repeat NOT violated in an open system. CLosed systems YES ... Open NO. I never said that this system is over unity either !!! And as for Ballard, I used to work right next door to them here in Burnaby B.C. and they've been monkeying aroung for years with their fuel cells and we still are years away from them being used in a meaningful way.
It doesn't matter what your thing is these days science or non science spiritual or not spiritual, this planet is in a desparate situation and we are all on this planet. That means that this idea of hydrogen burning engines must must must be looked at very seriously if we are to survive here in th e long run. SO stick your negative it can't be done attitudes in the back seat and lets move forward and get this done together as a united planet before it's too late. Our window for turning things around is very narrow so buck up and lets get this thing moving. Call, email, write your elected reps and tell them how we are feeling about this and that we will not stand for it anymore. The Oil companies are still gonna monopolize the fuel business as they will undoubtedly take up hydrogen manufacturing and suck our pockets dry for another 100 years but at least our biosphere will love us for it.
Comon folks lets get with the program !!!
11:11
555
33
1

By the way, I'm sure most of you will be pleased to hear I'm goin on a Saskquatch hunt this weekend and so will not have to put up with my insanity for a few days. ( free energy pah leese, anti gravity ... nonsense !!!)
I will be on a Bigfoot hunt for the weekend so if I return I will have some stories hopefully of a mythical man beast that no one seems to be able to prove exists but they are there.
I sense there will be a lot of ostriching going on when I return with tales of UFO's and extra testicles.
he he
10:10
11:11
12:12
1

Running automobiles on fuel cells (hydrogen, that is) is not a new idea. Here in Chicago, as a matter of fact, the CTA is using a few buses to test the system. At the news conference announcing it, Mayor Daley drank a glass of water condensed out of the tailpipe.

Having said that, it's a pretty big leap to use electrolysis (did I say hydrolysis above? I think I did) to separate the H and O in water, then feed the gases into a car engine. First of all, hydrogen is going to burn at a different temperature than gasoline. Second of all, you'd have to severely modify the fuel delivery and mixture system.

And finally, even if you're not claiming it's a perpetual motion machine (which is impossible, by the way, no mater how you look at it--as Silas said, "it's the law"), the whole apparatus is going to lose a lot of efficiency because you're taking energy out of the system to break down (and, I presume, pump, filter, mix, etc.) the water and its resultant gases. Better off to just carry around hydrogen with you--after all, it's the most plentiful element in the universe.

Fuel cell systems are more efficient than internal combustion engines, but it's mostly because they have a lot fewer moving parts, thus less energy is lost through friction.

[edited to say:] Lest you think your idea and a fuel cell are identical, they are not. The fuel cell combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water. The electricity then powers an electric motor.
_________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-08-30 22:20 ]</font>

Hmm... Why not go for the Ogopogo? It can't be that far from you since you're here in BC. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

XoFFoX,

Whether you called the device "over unity" or not is moot*. What you have described is "over unity" in that it uses engine power from burning hydrogen and oxygen to break down water (from the exhaust) into hydrogen and oxygen plus drive the vehicle.

*According to a search of the thread, you used the term "over unity" five times including the post denying the use of the term.

_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-08-30 23:52 ]</font>

XoFFoX, check out the page below and take the walk as it will be very informative about the 'scientific basis' for Astrology.

http://www.noao.edu/education/peppercorn/pcmain.html

++++++++

To drag this back on topic, for any Planet X'ers, of the Zeta-talk type believing in a close pass-by of Earth by Planet-X, don't take the above planet walk by itself. The immense distances involved along with the small size of the planets can be decieving. Read Dr. Phil's discussion page on Planet-X and how bright it would be if it was out in the solar system now.

++++++++

BTW, I entered 'Daniel Whitmire' on yahoo and found the following article that is still active.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scien...net991007.html

++++++++

I visit randi.org periodically and the Randi Foundation has mentioned the Million Dollar Prize in discussions of perpeptual motion machines. I think if someone could prove one works on it's own power for a sutible length of time (good luck), they could win the prize. I won't hold my breath. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis

Now where are our manners. Welcome to the board DTdNav, and good post. I would not nessesarily agree that religion is on the opposite end of the spectrum of mathematics. Religion tells us a lot about how we work, how we opperate. Therefore, since we are a part of the universe (small part to be sure), you could say that religion does tell us a good deal about how the universe works. But I understand what you mean. I see it that math and physics --examples of the hard sciences -- are the foundation that we use to base all other knowledge. What is chemistry but applied physics? What is biology but applied chemistry? Anthropology? Pyschology? Etc. Everything is built on these two (math and physics). You could say that physics is applied math, but I see them more as equals. Without physics, you have no physical reality, and without mathematics you have no way of describing that reality.

To XoFFoX, you said In the real world there is no such thing as a truly "closed" system. Yet the laws of Thermodynamics still hold. Why? Perhaps because they are universal. I think you might be agreeing with me, but I can't really tell. I can say that saying "science people" have thick heads is a good way to get booted off this BB.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Thanks for the welcome LaserJock.

I put religion on the opposite end of the scale because of the apparent subjectiveness of its accepted realities. I've been all over the world and I can tell you that virtually no two views of self and god and how it all fits together in this universe are exactly the same. I'm sure you can argue the same about views of self and science, but I think you would agree that a mathematical proof is either correct, or it's not. Interpretation does not interfere with its pure message. Imagine trying to make a computer run based on the universally accepted truths (are there any?) in religions.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Am I anti-religeous? I don't try to be. I guess I can come off that way sometimes but I certainly don't begrudge the individual's right to worship, nor do I deny the benefits afforded to many people the world over. I think it has no place in the hard sciences, except maybe as a moral compass to those who would exploit others in its name. Other than the above long-winded qualification, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

On a different note I think you ascribed a quote to me that was actually from XoFFoX. I would paste it here but I am woefully undertrained in the ways of this medium and can't figure out how to go get it without losing what I've already wrote. Can someone help me here? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

Okay, what about Plannet X? Is there any more information from the claimers on it other than "It's coming, and no you can't see it yet?" How close would a brown dwarf have to get before its gravity well would noticeably (to amatuer astronomers) effect another object in the solar system? (Based on average mass). Why do I feel that after the planet X scare fades away, something else equally horrible, unstoppable, and wacky will take its place? Can't we all just get along? Where can I find a cheap AND good barber? Okay, that last one is probably unanswerable.

__________________
"All you need to know for life can be learned in kindergarten: Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations, and, above all, don't put your tongue on it! " - various cynics

Well, DtDNav, my barber works at Peppi's in Royton, Oldham, Lancashire, England. (Probably a bit far for you to commute).

Welcome to the BABB. As long as you stay polite and relevant you'll be able to post here ad infinitum.

As for what the gullible believe about Planet X, Roswell, Apollo fakery and other woo-woo (splendid Americanism, that!) - I refer you to another American who stated that "there's sucker born every minute". Some of those who peddle the claptrap are sincere but deluded, and others are insincere but better-off. Examine the "Lunar Conspiracy" pages to see more examples.

__________________
Garlic Bread?!?!

Welcome aboard from me too, DTdNav. Those were excellent first posts.

If you want help with formatting, the best thing to do first it to read the FAQ. It has a section on BBCode that can help you with most of it. You can also use regular HTML if you know how. The "Bad Bad Astronomy" section also has several threads on techniques you can use. Go back and read them if you have a chance.

If you want to include a quote, it's simple. Just surround whatever you want with the [quote]...[/quote] tags. The board software will automatically format it into those nice quote sections. To reply directly to another's post, just click the quote button at the bottom of it. That brings up a reply window with his post already formatted. If it's a long post, be sure to cut out anything unnecessary to your reply.

If you're in the middle of a reply and want to review the original post, click on "Topic Review at the bottom of the page. That brings up the original thread in a new window. From there you can cut-and-paste whatever you want. Put quote tags around it, and you're in business.

Now, on to Planet X. I think one problem getting clear information on it is that nobody agrees on exactly what it is. Some say it's a brown dwarf. Others say it's a giant planet. Some say it's due by next year. Others say that it's not anywhere close. They say it's supposed to be easily observable, yet nobody can give us a clear location or description. It seems like a pretty weak theory when nobody can even agree on the basic "facts".

On another note, I wonder just what happens to people psychologically who really believe in something (be it Nibiru or the second coming, etc.) that is supposed to arrive at a certain time, but when the time comes it doesn't happen. I know sometimes they just modify their beliefs, putting it off to another day perhaps. But what does it take to finally convince them they're wasting their time, and what happens to them when they finally realize they've been had? Just a thought.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(Got the tags backwards. D'oh!)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-09-01 06:19 ]</font>

Such is the problem with beliefs. It's much better to just have a good idea.

"I think God exists."

"I think God does not exist."

These can be debated, and if either statement is ever proven true, it is not such an assault on one's psyche to swap to the other, whereas:

"I believe God exists."

"I believe God does not exist."

Try setting up *that* debate. Even if a belief is proven to be wrong, human beings are, by nature, far too egocentric to accept facts over beliefs all at once. It has to be a slow process over time, and many failures of that belief.

At least, that is my belief. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You want a brain buster? What if life and death are one in the same? Think about it.

__________________
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think that all of you have been very patient and more than kind concerning the posts of XoFFoX. I, myself, cannot post further for fear that I might be ousted from Bad Astronomy as a result.

I think that Professor Phil Plait has shown great restraint.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

damn i hate replying so late to posts, but what can i say i like the sight of my own writting [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

first XeFFoX: dun sit on the fence man say what you think about yourself.

(incase you're wondering that's from his second or third post)

second i also consider my self to "know" a lot, how ever i also "know" i do not match many of the people in terms of intelligence or knowledge, but then i am 16 (well 17)and maybe thats the reason. i could state i have an IQ of 170 who would believe me? people who want to. its not true last test was 149 and thats one below genius, but i don't trust it, wanna know why?
if i start thinking i'm a genius, i'll start thinking i know more than i do, i hardly study for tests and external exams as it is if i study anyless i may as well not turn up to school, as the only study i do is in class, yet i'm still in the top two% of the class.

ofcourse i could be in the dumbest-arsed class ever, but i don't expect any one to believe me.

this post is my own rant and rave post, everyone needs one once in a while!!

i've been visiting bad astronomy bulletin board since 1999 i think, well before this new format was adopted. i've posted some of my own theories many seemed perfectly aceptable, but i was pointed in the correct direction by the very kind members on this board.i have learnt much from this site, and hopefully will for many years to come.

now i shall study each post and write my own reply to this entire post, and even with, what i believe, to be a very clever brain i'll get things wrong.
einstein did, pauli did everyone has. I'm no exception.

science is an amazing thing, however sadly many people do not find such beauty as i find in chemistry and physics, many of my friends do not understand how i can simply sit and read books about science, or discover magazine. if i find something i don't understand i look to find simpler explanations and then i go back and re read with my new knowledge and from a different perspective.

what i'm trying to say is, many people will stop posting on this board when they make a mistake, for fear of making more and looking less clever than they really are, but as the saying goes "we learn from our mistakes"

well theres my go, sorry BA, not much to do with astronomy. i humbly accept my lecture and won't do it again. sorry.

__________________
its amazing how in the space of a few months, the memory can be serverly damaged, and all that you once knew is now hearsay and you know.... notmuch.

[quote]
On 2002-08-30 21:26, overrated wrote:


to separate the H and O in water,
[quote]

to separate the O from the H requires a lot of energy, and is a bad way of making Hydrogen a more simple, cost effective way is to use methane.

i'm not sure of the principle of the engine you're describing and i would be grateful for an explanation.

thanks in advance,
chris

__________________
its amazing how in the space of a few months, the memory can be serverly damaged, and all that you once knew is now hearsay and you know.... notmuch.

Actually, we have....
Check out the "Against the Mainstream" section and look up titles dealing with Craetion, Intelligent Design, and/or Evolution.
(And I'm still feeling black and blue from the encounters.)

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

[quote]
On 2002-09-02 10:26, GENIUS'02 wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-08-30 21:26, overrated wrote:


to separate the H and O in water,
I was trying to make sure I understood what xoffox was suggesting; that was the engine I was describing. I certainly wouldn't suggest that it would work they way he said it would.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

What may seem like intuition, if correct, is just an ability to discern certain clues that may not be obvious to all observers. It's not some magical ability that one has. When one's intuition is repeatedly wrong, and that same person continues to believe in their intuitive skills, that person is fantasizing.

The success rate of your intuition, in so far as what you've written, is unconvincing. I'm not saying you need to convince me, I'm just saying you haven't.

Scientists come in all sizes, colors, and flavors. For the scientists that have debunked PX, I have read the supporting evidence and it's pretty irrefutable. For the "doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario", I haven't seen any credible evidence.

Just what makes you think the astronomers of the world are going to miss some fantastic evidence that only a few off the wall thinkers are aware of? There would be at least some main stream astronomers who would consider a rogue planet if there were some evidence.

Think about how far astronomy science has come. Think about the detection devices like the Hubble telescope. There are many more absolutely incredible ways the Universe is being observed and examined every day. Planets are being detected orbiting other stars.

Without a thorough knowledge of all these scientific instruments and knowledge of the science of astronomy, are you saying you have decided, on intuition, that these scientists might be missing a rogue planet? All because someone wrote a book and has a few followers?

I'd want to know more about astronomy before I'd conclude the scientists are, "spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set".

Again, you are assuming the idea of PX was never evaluated. How did you determine just which 'data set' people used to come to the conclusion there is no PX? Are you suggesting one add arbitrary data to the set? Shouldn't data to be considered have some validity?

Sitchen has apparently convinced persons unfamiliar with astronomy. The reason real astronomers aren't convinced isn't because they were all educated from the same mold. It's because they were educated to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

But you don't know that. You're assuming the BA never took the time to look at 'the facts' you speak of. I think if you took the time to read what he's written on the subject, you'd find he probably looked at everything you have and more.

I just don't equate education with acquisition of facts as you seem to do. I equate it with acquisition of the tools to find one's own facts. It's much easier to mislead the uneducated, wouldn't you think?

A lot of good science has been suppressed. Fortunately, it's hard to stop.

Too much TV again, sorry. Surf the net. Almost everything known to humankind is there for the taking, free of charge. I don't even pay for my internet connection. And if I didn't have a computer, it's free to go on the net at our local library.

Individual incidents have certainly happened. Firestone rubber bought out the trolly cars in LA for instance, then dismantled the system in favor of vehicles with tires. Corporations don't have humanity at heart.

Religious and other dogmatic persons and groups have interfered with the progress of science. Lots of incidents in that category.

But, "orchestrated very very carefully so that only certain people would benefit from this financially and only a very few are in the loop", that's hard to buy.

Dream research hasn't shown much credence in dreams as premonitions. There are some interesting examples like the girl who dreamed her school was all black the day before she died when a coal slag pile collapsed and covered the school in one of the Scandanavian countries in the 70's. But with the billions of dreams that occur every night, coincidences must be considered.

If I hear the TV or other noise when I'm dreaming, the sounds get incorporated into my dream.

What "forbidden science"? For these statements to be true, the impossible would have to be done.

What'd these conspirators do, kill all the researchers involved in the final stages of multiple research projects? Or did they have to go back and track down all the scientists who did work leading up to these discoveries? And how could these conspirators have found and understood this fantastic science in the beginning, before anyone else had heard about it?

Science just doesn't work that way. It's collective knowledge that leads to advances. Some person or group could certainly patent a single idea or technology. The gas companies might have bought a prototype high milage vehicle and prevented it's development. But these incidents are not going to add up to the big conspiracy you imagine.

No one is insulting you by saying show us your flying machine. Not if you really have one. But logic and current evidence says we shouldn't believe it unless we see it.

Well, maybe not in another dimension, but how is that relevant if we are in this one? I'd have to have a lot more spare time if I wanted to spend any of it worrying about a planet from another dimension.

If you want a good disaster to get excited about you might want to consider super volcanoes and mega tsunamis. There are geological records of those fantastic cataclysms. There are known mechanisms for how they occur, and a high liklihood of them occurring again.

Or, how about a great subduction quake the northwest coast of the US and Canada. We've had one every 300-500 years for the last 50,000 years. The last one was in the winter if 1700.

_________________
Evolution is just a theory. Better fasten your seatbelt, so is gravity.
Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-09-03 23:21 ]</font>

What is the basis for PlanetX coming in 2003? Who started that idea and why? It certainly wasn't Sitchin. It just seems that 2003 was an arbitrary date thrown out there by Leider, Hazlewood & Co. Far enough away (at the time) to be profitable, yet close enough to induce the necessary panic for those profits. I certainly do know Sitchin's Nibiru, and nowhere does his timeline coincide with 2003. If PlanetX is based on Sitchin's Nibiru, then it is not coming for another 1200-1400 years. If PlanetX isn't based on Sitchin's Nibiru, then who came up with the idea?

As many of you know, I'm a big proponent of Nibiru, mostly because of how it so neatly explains so many "mysteries" and ties up so many loose ends, while staying scientifically possible and giving religion some credit. I was sitting in my backyard having a cigar the other day, while the sun shined through a basketball hoop above me. It cast a shadow of me on the ground with a halo. I started thinking about our associations of angels with halo's. I'm probably not the first to come up with this, but could an angel with a halo be the artistic evolution of an extra-terrestrial with a spaceship hovering above? It certainly fits the Sitchin model, and stays true to religion, while explaining many "odd" works of art throughout human history.

XoffoX, what's it like in British Columbia, Canada? Talk about a mixed up place!

I'm glad to see some Princess Bride and Calvin & Hobbes fans out there! There is still hope for this world!

On a local note, everyone is gawking out the window right now looking at this "cloud" that has enveloped the Verrezano Bridge. I'm in downtown Manhattan so you can imagine everyone is on edge. It is an odd cloud though. It appears as if it's floating on the water. It almost looks like a huge iceberg floating in the water, from this distance.

Later, science dudes! Eventually science will explain everything, it just needs a little radical push once in a while. I just hope that new discoveries are shared in the name of science, and not withheld for strategic and/or economic reasons.

I find the whole notion of Planet X and its timed return quite interesting. I think the answer is in Nancy Leider's head.

She is a very mysterious lady, and its hard to tell if she is just crazy, or whether she is running a scam. I read the Troubled Time annual report, and they dont make a lot of money, so I tend to lean to the crazy point of view.

This date is probably something specific to her....she is a women with a lot of problems...a violent hatred of the Catholic Church....extreme left wing politics (Gore would have won the election if he had only admitted that the zetans helped heal his leg- so help me, she actually said this in one of the IRC sessions).....distrust of government, and especially the Bush administration....a suspicious view of Israel, the Pope and England (classic paranoid delusions from the 19th century)..etc. etc.

She has a son, here family has members with advanced degree...she worked in the computer industry....I'm sure that a shrink would have a field day with her....my guess is the 15th has some personal meaning in her life..

....can believe all the lanjiao way you guy know man...so chow chee buy manz

of course man, they gan nao bu everyday (study very hard). its no wonder man...