pseudo-science one-liners

[Nereid]

(not sure if this section of BAUT is the best place for this thread - suggestions for a better home welcome!)

The idea for this thread came from a recent thread started by parallaxicality (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46497), on how to answer a 'cocktail party' question about some aspect of some crackpot piece of pseudo-science.

Suppose you have only five seconds or so, to say something that is both accurate, direct, and leaves the listener with the feeling of either a) 'perhaps there isn't anything to that after all', or b) 'great answer!' I'll use that from now on, wrt {crackpot nonsense}!'

What are some of those one-liners?

My first, feeble, attempt at one which should have wide applicability is along the lines of 'for the same reason you wouldn't jump out the window of a 20 storey building, without a parachute, expecting to fly {crackpot pseudo-science claim is nonsense}'. This cuts to the heart of a great many such claims - they are inconsistent with General Relativity, so are equivalent, at some level, to a claim that you won't go splat on the footpath below.

[Peter Wilson]

Q. How do you know global warming is not due to natural variation?

A. Same way you know the guy who just ran the red light isn't going to stop for you, either. You observe what is happening, and draw a conclusion.



Ok, that was a two-liner, but it was my 1st try.

[lti]

r u suggesting global warming is a pseudo science?

[mickal555]

I think he's saying that it's man made actually, as opposed to a natural variation...

[Maksutov]

What goes up must come down.

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/3461/iconcool9io.gif

[Ronald Brak]

Yes, the Apollo moon missions were faked and so was the Vietnam war. My Uncle told me it was all filmed on an island near Hawaii. The government was looking for an excuse to raise taxes. Anyone who says differently is part of the plot. People who say they were injured in Vietnam were actually hurt in industrial accidents and brainwashed into believing they were in a war so big business wouldn't have to pay compensation to them.

[Tog_]

Well not a one liner, but still fast.

Have ever read or seen a whodunit style mystery?
Did you guess who did it before it ended?
Did you go back and rewrite the book/reshoot the movie to make your guess right?
The (insert pseudo science of choice here) do.

[Jens]

"Nature abhors a vacuum."

[farmerjumperdon]

Yes, the Apollo moon missions were faked and so was the Vietnam war. My Uncle told me it was all filmed on an island near Hawaii. The government was looking for an excuse to raise taxes. Anyone who says differently is part of the plot. People who say they were injured in Vietnam were actually hurt in industrial accidents and brainwashed into believing they were in a war so big business wouldn't have to pay compensation to them.

Oh, I like that one.

The ones that bug me most are the urban myths around skydiving. Seems an awful lot of people know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody that survuved impacting the ground without a parachurte. I know I should just walk away, but that level of ignorance just ticks me off.

A related one that bugs me is the water-is-just-like-concrete-at-that-speed statement. And it's not just that they, with all good intention, parrot out something they may have heard. Even after talking thru the forces involved and giving analogies and examples - they refuse to let it go out of some sort of misguided ignorant pride. The average woo-woo is far more concerned about looking good than having accurate knowledge.

My snappy one-liners:

If you think that because something is "just a theory" that it's validity is in question, I suggest you jump off that building over there to test the validity of the theory of gravity.

If you think concrete and water have the same properties when dealing with high velocities there are several tests you can perform. Let me know how it goes:

1 - Find a way to stand over some water that is about 5 or 6' deep. Maybe straddle a missing plank in a dock or something like that. With your feet a safe distance apart (2' is plenty), fire a pistol straight down into the water. Now go stand on a typical concrete slab and do the same thing.

2 - Go to a pool and do the high dive. Next, ask them to drain the pool and do the dive again.

3 - Not fast enough to be relevant? Try it from a 90' cliff. Still not enough speed? Try it from the Golden Gate Bridge. People have survived that leap. Just guessing here, but I'll bet none would survive that fall if they landed on concrete. And that is about as fast as a human is going to fall unless they are trained and experienced freefallers.

I'm lousy at keeping things short.

[Ilya]

Oh, I like that one.

The ones that bug me most are the urban myths around skydiving. Seems an awful lot of people know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody that survuved impacting the ground without a parachurte. I know I should just walk away, but that level of ignorance just ticks me off.

Excuse me? There are several well-documented cases of people surviving kilometers-long falls - usually into deep snow. A few paratroopers trained to minimize the impact managed to survive even less soft surfaces - with heavy injuries.

A related one that bugs me is the water-is-just-like-concrete-at-that-speed statement. And it's not just that they, with all good intention, parrot out something they may have heard. Even after talking thru the forces involved and giving analogies and examples - they refuse to let it go out of some sort of misguided ignorant pride. The average woo-woo is far more concerned about looking good than having accurate knowledge.
Not sure who you spoke to about that one, but I always understood "water-is-just-like-concrete" to be an analogy and not to be taken literally. Belly-flopping into water from 90 feet is as fatal as belly-flopping onto concrete. I never met anyone who thought that an object much tougher than a human body (say, car) would suffer same effects from both falls.

[jfribrg]

I always understood "water-is-just-like-concrete" to be an analogy and not to be taken literally. Belly-flopping into water from 90 feet is as fatal as belly-flopping onto concrete. I never met anyone who thought that an object much tougher than a human body (say, car) would suffer same effects from both falls.

The issue here is that an object hitting water at low velocity encounters a small resistance force, but the force increases geometrically as the velocity increases. You don't have to be going very fast before the resistance force from the water becomes comparable to the normal force you would encounter from a hard surface like concrete. Using the back of a virtual envelope, I calculate that a person falling at terminal velocity into water would encounter a resistance of about 12g. A perfect, streamlined, feet-first entry into the water would be significantly less than 12g. My guess is that falling into concrete would be no more than 15-20 g. Any more than that would pulverize the concrete (and reduce the g force in the process).

[mike alexander]

Difficult because the answer ideally addresses the particular question/statement. But:

"How much would you like to bet on that?"

"Coincidence doesn't imply causality."

"You can also breathe water; just not for very long."

[Kebsis]

Q. How do you know global warming is not due to natural variation?

A. Same way you know the guy who just ran the red light isn't going to stop for you, either. You observe what is happening, and draw a conclusion.



Ok, that was a two-liner, but it was my 1st try.

...I don't get the analogy...

[Fortis]

Why are Feng Shui products in stores never displayed according to the precepts of Feng Shui?

[cjl]

The issue here is that an object hitting water at low velocity encounters a small resistance force, but the force increases geometrically as the velocity increases. You don't have to be going very fast before the resistance force from the water becomes comparable to the normal force you would encounter from a hard surface like concrete. Using the back of a virtual envelope, I calculate that a person falling at terminal velocity into water would encounter a resistance of about 12g. A perfect, streamlined, feet-first entry into the water would be significantly less than 12g. My guess is that falling into concrete would be no more than 15-20 g. Any more than that would pulverize the concrete (and reduce the g force in the process).
12g?

You've got to be kidding...

In tests done by the mythbusters, a crash test dummy dropped into water from ~200' experienced around 150-300g of acceleration on impact, depending on the position of entry. On concrete, it would certainly be higher. from an average terminal velocity of 120mph, if an object took 4 feet to decelerate with constant deceleration, it would experience around 60g. In reality, the peak will be MUCH higher. 15-20g is much lower than the actual impact would create.

[Jeff Root]

A Western Digital desktop hard disk drive I have is rated to take
ten g's while operating and 70 g's while not operating. Other
models in the same line are rated for 150 g's while not operating.
For equipment like that, I vaguely recall that a fall of two feet to
a concrete floor is considered to give about a 90-g shock,
although jerk probably does more damage than the acceleration
in that kind of fall.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Fortis]

Why do "quality" newspapers that carry astrology columns, never contain an astrological analysis of current events?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

You Go and Do That, I'll Give you One Million Dollars IF you Survive it!

[hhEb09'1]

In tests done by the mythbusters, a crash test dummy dropped into water from ~200' experienced around 150-300g of acceleration on impact, depending on the position of entry. On concrete, it would certainly be higher. from an average terminal velocity of 120mph, if an object took 4 feet to decelerate with constant deceleration, it would experience around 60g.I get over 100g, back of the envelop (120mph is a bit more than 160fps; at constant deceleration, it would cover 4 feet at an average speed of 80fps, so it would take 1/20 of a second; so the deceleration is 20 times 160; divide that by g=32f/s/s and that's 100g). Looks like 121g. Which doesn't affect your main point. In reality, the peak will be MUCH higher. 15-20g is much lower than the actual impact would create.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I get over 100g, back of the envelop (120mph is a bit more than 160fps; at constant deceleration, it would cover 4 feet at an average speed of 80fps, so it would take 1/20 of a second; so the deceleration is 20 times 160; divide that by g=32f/s/s and that's 100g). Looks like 121g. Which doesn't affect your main point.
So In Other Words, While it Certainly Isn't as Damaging as Hitting Cement ...

Which Would Have a Deceleration Tiime Muuch Closer to 1/100 of a Second ...

Hitting Water at That Speed, Isn't Somethiing you're Liikely to Walk Away from Either!

:boohoo:

[farmerjumperdon]

Excuse me? There are several well-documented cases of people surviving kilometers-long falls - usually into deep snow. A few paratroopers trained to minimize the impact managed to survive even less soft surfaces - with heavy injuries.

Not sure who you spoke to about that one, but I always understood "water-is-just-like-concrete" to be an analogy and not to be taken literally. Belly-flopping into water from 90 feet is as fatal as belly-flopping onto concrete. I never met anyone who thought that an object much tougher than a human body (say, car) would suffer same effects from both falls.

Sure, but falling into deep snow is not hitting the ground. I'm sure falling into deep foam, deep marshmallow fluff, and other soft materials is survivable; but hitting the ground at terminal velocity (120 MPH) is certain death. All properly trained skydivers practice minimizing impact in the event of a high speed landing. It's called a PLF (Parachute Landing Fall), and is very helpful at lower speeds encountered in a partial malfunction - with vertical descent speeds more like 40 or 50 mph, and some forward motion so that it is not just a splat type of landing. There is no body position or manuever that will save a person hitting the ground at 120 mph.

There is no case of someone hitting the ground at terminal (no chute out at all) and surviving. That guy who bailed and lived during WWII fell thru trees, got very lucky in not hitting any big limbs, slowed down considerably, and landed in snow.

It's a relatively small community with all fatalities and most major incidents getting scrutinized to the nth degree. Most skydivers pay very close attention to these incidents thru formal publications, investigation by government agencies (FAA and NTSB), and extensive informal web communications. This is done mostly for the sake of learning from the mistakes of others.

The mainstream media descriptions of skydiving accidents are rarely accurate, totally unreliable, and never complete enough to give a clear picture of the incident. The USPA reports are a much better source. It is comparable to an air traffic incident and what the papers publish the day of the incident versus the findings of the full investigation of the NTSB.

If anyone has the name, date, and place of someone surviving a terminal velocity impact with the ground - it will be very easy to confirm or refute.

As far as the water-is-like-concrete thing; I acknowledge that it is some people's way of saying that hitting water will hurt at high speed. The proof that the statement is a bit over the top is the fact that Golden Gate jumpers do sometimes survive. I think it is a pretty safe assumption they would not survive that fall if they hit concrete.

I personally hit the water once from about 80' in a sitting position. My legs stung like all get out for quite a while, but no serious damage. I intended to go feet first, but was in danger of landing flat on my back and so adjusted to a sitting position. Ouch indeed.

[cjl]

I get over 100g, back of the envelop (120mph is a bit more than 160fps; at constant deceleration, it would cover 4 feet at an average speed of 80fps, so it would take 1/20 of a second; so the deceleration is 20 times 160; divide that by g=32f/s/s and that's 100g). Looks like 121g. Which doesn't affect your main point.

Ahh crud...

I see what I did...

I used the average speed (80fps) as the delta v, not 160

That would explain why you get double what I do...

Oh well - as you said, it doesn't affect the main point.

[jumbo]

Sure, but falling into deep snow is not hitting the ground. I'm sure falling into deep foam, deep marshmallow fluff, and other soft materials is survivable; but hitting the ground at terminal velocity (120 MPH) is certain death.
I think its pretty likely but not necessarily 100% certain.
As you say one of the WW2 airmen hit trees and then snow after an 18,000ft fall. Another (a Russian) landed in a snow covered ravine. However the 3rd known airman to survive such an event, Alan Macgee, fell 20000ft his fall only being broken by the St Nazaire train station skylight before hitting the floor of the station. Maybe that was the deciding factor but im unsure as to how much effect such a collision had before he reached the ground. He survived with many injuries though some were sustained prior to leaving the ball turret of his bomber. That was January 3rd 1943. Perhaps there are additional details which have been omitted which show how his fall was slowed but ive never heard any so far.

People have been known survive extreme g forces in decelerations of up to 180g though im not personally going to test out survivability in those kind of conditions!

[farmerjumperdon]

I think its pretty likely but not necessarily 100% certain.
As you say one of the WW2 airmen hit trees and then snow after an 18,000ft fall. Another (a Russian) landed in a snow covered ravine. However the 3rd known airman to survive such an event, Alan Macgee, fell 20000ft his fall only being broken by the St Nazaire train station skylight before hitting the floor of the station. Maybe that was the deciding factor but im unsure as to how much effect such a collision had before he reached the ground. He survived with many injuries though some were sustained prior to leaving the ball turret of his bomber. That was January 3rd 1943. Perhaps there are additional details which have been omitted which show how his fall was slowed but ive never heard any so far.

People have been known survive extreme g forces in decelerations of up to 180g though im not personally going to test out survivability in those kind of conditions!

I searched quite a while on that one a few times myself. Not that it qualifies as hitting the ground and surviving, but it's close and I am curious about it. I could find none of the level of detail necessary to definitively say, or even guess at his speed prior to impacting objects. (Details that are lacking in the mainstream coverage of current events, much less after the passage of so much time - such as, was the chute out but not open, was it out and malfunctioing then cutaway, was the chute out but still in the bag, was the pilot deployed (or did it even use one), and so on and so forth - are critical to understanding the incident). Most of the time, the media portrays all of those as simply no parachute.

Not to belabor the point, but a comparison to consider. A human in freefall collided with a human under canopy with the result being severed limbs. Not from hitting lines (although that has happened), but just from the impact. And that is hitting a 200 pound object suspended from a parachute. A fixed, immovable hard object (like a slab of concrete); forget about it.

[SeanF]

I searched quite a while on that one a few times myself. Not that it qualifies as hitting the ground and surviving, but it's close and I am curious about it. I could find none of the level of detail necessary to definitively say, or even guess at his speed prior to impacting objects. (Details that are lacking in the mainstream coverage of current events, much less after the passage of so much time - such as, was the chute out but not open, was it out and malfunctioing then cutaway, was the chute out but still in the bag, was the pilot deployed (or did it even use one), and so on and so forth - are critical to understanding the incident). Most of the time, the media portrays all of those as simply no parachute.

Not to belabor the point, but a comparison to consider. A human in freefall collided with a human under canopy with the result being severed limbs. Not from hitting lines (although that has happened), but just from the impact. And that is hitting a 200 pound object suspended from a parachute. A fixed, immovable hard object (like a slab of concrete); forget about it.
Here's one (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/13/D8EFD67G0.html) for you with some details - main 'chute failed and was cut away, reserve 'chute "didn't open all the way," 50mph face first into a parking lot. Yikes. When the doctors were working on her at the hospital, they discovered she was pregnant - the baby survived, too.

[peteshimmon]

Big conspiratorial grin..."Ah yes, I
understand you guys really coin it writing
such stuff for the big dumb public".

[kleindoofy]

Two one-line answers I like:

"Prove it."

"Are you willing to bet a year's income on that opinion? A month's? No? Hmmm. Well, I am on my opinion."

Those usually shut them up. :D

[RobA]

AL Gore's just been over here to talk about his "Inconvenient Truth" movie.

The interviewer asked him if he had any one-liners for those people who don't believe global warming is to blame. Gore replied "Well, I tell them there are people who don't believe we landed men on the moon, either". He then went on to mention a dinner party he went to recently where he had to use that line.

You guessed it: Someone piped up with "Well actually ......"

Gore's now trying to think of a new one-liner :D

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

AL Gore's just been over here to talk about his "Inconvenient Truth" movie.

The interviewer asked him if he had any one-liners for those people who don't believe global warming is to blame. Gore replied "Well, I tell them there are people who don't believe we landed men on the moon, either". He then went on to mention a dinner party he went to recently where he had to use that line.

You guessed it: Someone piped up with "Well actually ......"

Gore's now trying to think of a new one-liner :D
Ya' Know, Whoever Did That Has a Lot of Gall ...

To Actually Walk Up, to a Former VICE PRESIDENT, and Accuse him of Being a Part of a Massive Government Conspiracy ...

He Doesn't Know How Good he Has it, In Soome Countries That's a Capital Offense!

[farmerjumperdon]

Here's one (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/13/D8EFD67G0.html) for you with some details - main 'chute failed and was cut away, reserve 'chute "didn't open all the way," 50mph face first into a parking lot. Yikes. When the doctors were working on her at the hospital, they discovered she was pregnant - the baby survived, too.

A very interesting example. Not relevant to the landing-without-a-parachute topic, since she had out a partially inflated reserve. The statement about the speed is deceptive too, since her airspeed was about 50 MPH, and she was spinning, her vertical descent was about half that total speed. But it does go to show that it does not take a lot of vertical speed to cause major damage. Had she been traveling straight down at 50, her odds of survival would have only been about 1 in 50 at best.

This is however a great example of getting skydiving incident information from the mainstream media (and possibly even worse - from a 10 jump student). This one is complicated by the fact that the injured person has actively sought lots of media attention, (basically marketing herself and soliciting donations), conveniently leaves out much information about her skydive, and especially the events which led to the incident.

She was dating the instructor, who was on probation, and was denied access to aircraft without proper formal training (by someone not on probation and not being dated). So they went to another DZ, stuffed a high performance canopy into a too small container (she was looking for a little more thrill), and made the jump. While she did have the wherewithal to cut away her spinning main, it is too bad her informal training didn't supply her with the wherewithal to recognize it did not need to be cut away to begin with.

So bottom line is that this person made some stupid choices, circumvented proper training, induced the accident herself, and is now parading herself around as a victim of a horrible but unforeseeable accident, pitching her story to whatever news shows will listen, and willfully misleading the public by withholding information relevant to the incident.

She is lucky to be alive and should be preaching for others to learn from her mistakes instead of playing the hapless victim and selling her incomplete and inaccurate story to the highest bidder.

[weatherc]

A one-liner that I use for people that take various questionable herbal remedies simply because they're "all natural" is this:

"So if I go outside and pick some mushrooms at random, you'll be able to eat them without any problems since they're 'all natural,' right?"

I have yet to have anyone take me up on that offer.

[Gillianren]

I tend to point out that snake bites are "all natural," myself.

[jlhredshift]

A one-liner that I use for people that take various questionable herbal remedies simply because they're "all natural" is this:

"So if I go outside and pick some mushrooms at random, you'll be able to eat them without any problems since they're 'all natural,' right?"

I have yet to have anyone take me up on that offer.

What you have to understand is they think there is a big drug company conspiracy to keep stuff that works out of there mouths and that natural is an end run around the FDA and the only way to get the stuff that "really" works.

Tell them; Yeah, and that is why some drugs are illegal.

[weatherc]

I tend to point out that snake bites are "all natural," myself.Yes, I've used that one myself, too.

[Matherly]

Waaaay back on the Daily Show (I believe in John Stewart first year)...

John was doing a bit on a bunch of women at a batchlorette party who had to be rushed to the hospital after overdosing on something billed as "herbal Viagra".

One of the women said they thought it was safe because it was 'all natural', and Stewart suggested next time they wash it down with a hemloch smoothy. :D

[weatherc]

Waaaay back on the Daily Show (I believe in John Stewart first year)...

John was doing a bit on a bunch of women at a batchlorette party who had to be rushed to the hospital after overdosing on something billed as "herbal Viagra".

One of the women said they thought it was safe because it was 'all natural', and Stewart suggested next time they wash it down with a hemloch smoothy. :DNow that's funny. :D

[farmerjumperdon]

Waaaay back on the Daily Show (I believe in John Stewart first year)...

John was doing a bit on a bunch of women at a batchlorette party who had to be rushed to the hospital after overdosing on something billed as "herbal Viagra".

One of the women said they thought it was safe because it was 'all natural', and Stewart suggested next time they wash it down with a hemloch smoothy. :D

Why would women take Viagra? I thought it was ED medicine.

[Matherly]

Why would women take Viagra? I thought it was ED medicine.

Well, first of all I'm trying to dredge up a memory from 10 years ago, so I could have some details wrong...

Secondly, I think the idea was it was supposed boost their libido. And often times anything thet supposedly boosts your sexuality is called "viagra" even if it doesn't work the same way as the actual brand name medicine does (in fact, the makers of Viagra once got in trouble with the FDA for suggesting that Viagra boosted libido when it doesn't).

[Jim]

(she was looking for a little more thrill)

Well, in that case, I'd say her plan worked out quite well.

[Tog_]

Why would women take Viagra? I thought it was ED medicine.

I'm not sure how much detail would be allowed here, but Viagra and similar drugs perform a basic funcion on a male. That same funcion can happen on a female but on a much smaller scale. That is size, not effect. If you ant a PM about the specifics, let me know. I'm afraid I don't know the medical terms well enough to make it school friendly.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I'm not sure how much detail would be allowed here, but Viagra and similar drugs perform a basic funcion on a male. That same funcion can happen on a female but on a much smaller scale. That is size, not effect. If you ant a PM about the specifics, let me know. I'm afraid I don't know the medical terms well enough to make it school friendly.
LUCKILY, I Do ...

What Viagra Does, Is Somethiing That First Made it Useful as a Heart Medication Loong Before its Effects Upon The Endocrine System Became Known, it Siimply Causes an Increase In The Amount of Nitrous Oxide (NO) in The Bloodstream ...

This Then Serves to Temporarily Loosen Up Blood Vessels Throughout The Body, Including Those that Lead to The Engorgement Sacs, Which Resiide on Either Siide of The Penile Shaft; In Women The Same Phenomenon Happens Within Analogous Tissues, However it Is The Clitoris Rather than The Penis, Which Then Becomes Filled Wiith Blood Upon Arousal!

:think:

[ggremlin]

Here a line to get deer in the headlights look,
"Why do churches have lighting rods? Then sit back and listen to the sounds of a) silent and b) back and filling. Works almost everytime.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Well it Doesn't REALLY Matter If it's G-d's House or Not, Bovine Excrement Happens ...

If they Ever Ask for Proof That it Can In Fact Occur ...

Why Then, you Show them This (http://www.snopes.com/religion/bolt.asp)!

:wall:

[farmerjumperdon]

LUCKILY, I Do ...

What Viagra Does, Is Somethiing That First Made it Useful as a Heart Medication Loong Before its Effects Upon The Endocrine System Became Known, it Siimply Causes an Increase In The Amount of Nitrous Oxide (NO) in The Bloodstream ...

This Then Serves to Temporarily Loosen Up Blood Vessels Throughout The Body, Including Those that Lead to The Engorgement Sacs, Which Resiide on Either Siide of The Penile Shaft; In Women The Same Phenomenon Happens Within Analogous Tissues, However it Is The Clitoris Rather than The Penis, Which Then Becomes Filled Wiith Blood Upon Arousal!

:think:

That's what the Dr. was alluding to when he turned down my request for gas during vasectomy. I asked why they weren't using gas, that I was OK with it. He said they don't use it for vasectomies because of the effects it sometimes has "down there."

[JohnD]

FarmerDon,
I presume you are male. And human.
A fall such as you describe, from 80 feet into water in a sitting position is dangerous for human females. There are many reports of vaginal injury from waterskiing falls, and the impact speed there is much less than that after a fall of 80 feet (approx 50mph?).

John

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

That's what the Dr. was alluding to when he turned down my request for gas during vasectomy. I asked why they weren't using gas, that I was OK with it. He said they don't use it for vasectomies because of the effects it sometimes has "down there."
Yeah ...

Plus, If The Dreams I Have During Dental Work are Any Indication ...

Then I Should Stay Far, FAR Away from Viagra!

:wall:

[ToSeek]

I tend to point out that snake bites are "all natural," myself.

As are botulins.

[Fortis]

As are botulins.
And they do help you to look a lot younger, even though they are controlled under biological weapons regulations... ;)

[mike alexander]

An old high school friend, upon seeing one of those all-natural claims, would say 'What? Contains no transuranic elements?"

[Tog_]

Not really on topic, but less worthy of a new thread...

THere is an ad on TV here for a weight loss pill that is only available from the maker, not from any drug store, that makes the claim that a full 78% of the weigt lost in clnical trials was pure body fat.:dance:

Wait...what was the other 22%?:eh:

[hhEb09'1]

Wait...what was the other 22%?:eh:water of course :)

No, brains

[mickal555]

LUCKILY, I Do ...

What Viagra Does, Is Somethiing That First Made it Useful as a Heart Medication Loong Before its Effects Upon The Endocrine System Became Known, it Siimply Causes an Increase In The Amount of Nitrous Oxide (NO) in The Bloodstream ...

This Then Serves to Temporarily Loosen Up Blood Vessels Throughout The Body, Including Those that Lead to The Engorgement Sacs, Which Resiide on Either Siide of The Penile Shaft; In Women The Same Phenomenon Happens Within Analogous Tissues, However it Is The Clitoris Rather than The Penis, Which Then Becomes Filled Wiith Blood Upon Arousal!

:think:


er......

THANKS!....

For, that, information...!

[farmerjumperdon]

FarmerDon,
I presume you are male. And human.
A fall such as you describe, from 80 feet into water in a sitting position is dangerous for human females. There are many reports of vaginal injury from waterskiing falls, and the impact speed there is much less than that after a fall of 80 feet (approx 50mph?).

John

Yes, and yes. In hindsight, I'd say it was a fairly dangerous thing for a male too. I think I posted about this once before, but the guy who went before me did a basic head-first dive, from 10 feet farther up the cliff, and dislocated his shoulder. Based on what I know now, and on my best recollection of the event, I'd say the ground rush felt like about 50 to 60 MPH.

Yes, we were young and full of P&V. It was also after an all night Tequilla party.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

er......

THANKS!....

For, that, information...!
Eh ...

No Problem ...

I'm Juust, Here to HELP!

:dance: