MR

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/od ... oryoffbeat

Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.

RossValoryRocks wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/od_afp/britainpeoplehistoryoffbeat

Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.

Two words...

George Bush.

Touche?

LOL, no shit.

From The Times
June 6, 2007
Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

England has lots of problems, I feel for them.
After living over there a while in the 80's and then again a few years ago-its got huge issues!

SteveForever wrote:From The Times
June 6, 2007
Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

England has lots of problems, I feel for them.
After living over there a while in the 80's and then again a few years ago-its got huge issues!

They need a fucking DENTAL plan! Yellow chicletts are NOT cool. Smelly pits, brown gums, h\fdeous body odor. Jesus H Christ, enough already.

Rockindeano wrote:

SteveForever wrote:From The Times
June 6, 2007
Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

England has lots of problems, I feel for them.
After living over there a while in the 80's and then again a few years ago-its got huge issues!

They need a fucking DENTAL plan! Yellow chicletts are NOT cool. Smelly pits, brown gums, h\fdeous body odor. Jesus H Christ, enough already.

They have good beer though...

Rockindeano wrote:They need a frogging DENTAL plan! Yellow chicletts are NOT cool. Smelly pits, brown gums, h\fdeous body odor. Jesus H Christ, enough already.

Rockindeano wrote:

SteveForever wrote:From The Times
June 6, 2007
Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

England has lots of problems, I feel for them.
After living over there a while in the 80's and then again a few years ago-its got huge issues!

They need a fucking DENTAL plan! Yellow chicletts are NOT cool. Smelly pits, brown gums, h\fdeous body odor. Jesus H Christ, enough already.

They DO have a fucking dental plan! It's the same plan you're going to have once that socialist bitch takes office, and enforces universal health care!!! Why the hell do you think their teeth are fucked up? It's because since dental care is free (Although they pay out the ASS in taxes), every Tom, Dick and Harry goes to the dentist all the time! This means you may wait for months and months just to get a tooth pulled! I can't wait 'till Hillary fixes it for us. Thank God SOMEONE'S here to tell me how to spend my hard earned money!

G.I.Jim wrote:This means you may wait for months and months just to get a tooth pulled! I can't wait 'till Hillary fixes it for us. Thank God SOMEONE'S here to tell me how to spend my hard earned money!

Hey, that's actually not a bad idea... My wife says she needs to have a couple of crowns replaced, but I'm trying to get us ready for Vegas. A plan like that could take the heat off of me for trying to stall her.

Rip Rokken wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:This means you may wait for months and months just to get a tooth pulled! I can't wait 'till Hillary fixes it for us. Thank God SOMEONE'S here to tell me how to spend my hard earned money!

Hey, that's actually not a bad idea... My wife says she needs to have a couple of crowns replaced, but I'm trying to get us ready for Vegas. A plan like that could take the heat off of me for trying to stall her.

She'll have those glamorous yellow teeth in no time buddy! BTW, where's that picture I asked you about?

G.I.Jim wrote: She'll have those glamorous yellow teeth in no time buddy! BTW, where's that picture I asked you about?

Oops! Forgot you'd asked about that... This was me acting up at a Halloween convention last October. I'm the one standing up.

Rip Rokken wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote: She'll have those glamorous yellow teeth in no time buddy! BTW, where's that picture I asked you about?

Oops! Forgot you'd asked about that... This was me acting up at a Halloween convention last October. I'm the one standing up.

Okay...Now how about a REAL picture?

G.I.Jim wrote:Okay...Now how about a REAL picture?

What, of me without some chick clinging to me and partially obstructing the view? I'll have to dig...

Double post!

Rip Rokken wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote: She'll have those glamorous yellow teeth in no time buddy! BTW, where's that picture I asked you about?

Oops! Forgot you'd asked about that... This was me acting up at a Halloween convention last October. I'm the one standing to attention!

Fixed that for you Rip.

SteveForever wrote:From The Times
June 6, 2007
Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

England has lots of problems, I feel for them.
After living over there a while in the 80's and then again a few years ago-its got huge issues!

I'd take that Muhammed story with a pinch of salt Steveforever. And with respect...we have much the same problems as you do so what's with the pity pot?

RossValoryRocks wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/od_afp/britainpeoplehistoryoffbeat

Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.

It might be bad here but at least I don't have to live in THIS place....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ

G.I.Jim wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

SteveForever wrote:From The Times
June 6, 2007
Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

England has lots of problems, I feel for them.
After living over there a while in the 80's and then again a few years ago-its got huge issues!

They need a fucking DENTAL plan! Yellow chicletts are NOT cool. Smelly pits, brown gums, h\fdeous body odor. Jesus H Christ, enough already.

They DO have a fucking dental plan! It's the same plan you're going to have once that socialist bitch takes office, and enforces universal health care!!! Why the hell do you think their teeth are fucked up? It's because since dental care is free (Although they pay out the ASS in taxes), every Tom, Dick and Harry goes to the dentist all the time! This means you may wait for months and months just to get a tooth pulled! I can't wait 'till Hillary fixes it for us. Thank God SOMEONE'S here to tell me how to spend my hard earned money!

Er...Jim...I hate to put a dampner on that buzz you have going from all that righteous right-wing indignation...but for most people in the UK dental care isn't free at all and we can get appointments fairly promptly. But carry on....

finalfight wrote:

Rip Rokken wrote:Oops! Forgot you'd asked about that... This was me acting up at a Halloween convention last October. I'm the one standing to attention!

Fixed that for you Rip.

Oh, you thought maybe she had some extra support? There is a funny story about that pic, but I think I shared it a few months ago.

whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

youkeepmewaiting wrote:whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

Oh man, duck!
(I agree with you though, 100%).

Anyone familiar with the Clovis-first theory? Anyway, it basically the theory that Native Americans began to appear in the archaeological record about 13,000 years ago. It was generally regarded as the standard of truth by forensic anthropologists for almost 40 years.

Recently, new digs have unearthed evidence of cultures that pre-date the Clovis encampments by thousands of years. The Tlapacoya in Mexico was found to date back almost 22,000 years. So Time magazine featured a piece on the debate and the controversy surrounding it in the archaeological field.

Anyway, I was at a party, and my ex-wife's friend, who is a devout Baptist and (coincidentally...no sarcasm here) one of the most ignorant and uneducated people in the western world, saw the magazine sitting on our friend's kitchen table.

"Dang!" she exclaimed. "That's just so stupid. The earth ain't even that old. It's only 6,000 years old, not 22,000."

I will spare you details of the debate that followed, but suffice it to say she is a Biblical literalist who believes that projections of the first writings of the Old Testament "prove" "Adam and Eve" were "created" 6,129 years ago.

When I pressed her for details about radiocarbon dating of fossils and dinosaurs that date back 3.8 billion and 249,993,871 years BEFORE "Adam and Eve" she explained that EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL SPECIMEN EVER COLLECTED was part of a "conspiracy" by "them scientists what hate religion".

Anyway, the conversation ended there.

7 Wishes wrote:Anyone familiar with the Clovis-first theory? Anyway, it basically the theory that Native Americans began to appear in the archaeological record about 13,000 years ago. It was generally regarded as the standard of truth by forensic anthropologists for almost 40 years.

Recently, new digs have unearthed evidence of cultures that pre-date the Clovis encampments by thousands of years. The Tlapacoya in Mexico was found to date back almost 22,000 years. So Time magazine featured a piece on the debate and the controversy surrounding it in the archaeological field.

Anyway, I was at a party, and my ex-wife's friend, who is a devout Baptist and (coincidentally...no sarcasm here) one of the most ignorant and uneducated people in the western world, saw the magazine sitting on our friend's kitchen table.

"Dang!" she exclaimed. "That's just so stupid. The earth ain't even that old. It's only 6,000 years old, not 22,000."

I will spare you details of the debate that followed, but suffice it to say she is a Biblical literalist who believes that projections of the first writings of the Old Testament "prove" "Adam and Eve" were "created" 6,129 years ago.

When I pressed her for details about radiocarbon dating of fossils and dinosaurs that date back 3.8 billion and 249,993,871 years BEFORE "Adam and Eve" she explained that EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL SPECIMEN EVER COLLECTED was part of a "conspiracy" by "them scientists what hate religion".

Anyway, the conversation ended there.

This concludes our tour of the "Red States".

Fascinating that people in the 21st Century can be this friggin' ignorant. I feel your pain man.

youkeepmewaiting wrote:whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

What about the Bible to you think is not fact? Just curious.

youkeepmewaiting wrote:whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

There's no way to prove whether it is or not. Whether or not you believe in God, if you live your life as described in the bible, you'll live a good, productive, healthy life. Nothing wrong with that.

conversationpc wrote:

youkeepmewaiting wrote:whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

What about the Bible to you think is not fact? Just curious.

My personal belief that many stories in the Bible are metaphorical, eg. The Loafs and Fishes - "A Little bit of food goes along way" is my personal opinion on what story is supposed to mean.

However i do believe in God..just not the Bible, i just believe that there is something there. I dont personaly believe Jesus was the "son" of god, i just think he was a healer.

youkeepmewaiting wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

youkeepmewaiting wrote:whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

What about the Bible to you think is not fact? Just curious.

My personal belief that many stories in the Bible are metaphorical, eg. The Loafs and Fishes - "A Little bit of food goes along way" is my personal opinion on what story is supposed to mean.

However i do believe in God..just not the Bible, i just believe that there is something there. I dont personaly believe Jesus was the "son" of god, i just think he was a healer.

OK...Fair enough. For someone who was just a healer, though, he sure made some claims that made it sound like he was claiming to be God. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I've just never understood the whole "Jesus was just a good teacher, healer, person, etc." argument.

conversationpc wrote:

youkeepmewaiting wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

youkeepmewaiting wrote:whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

What about the Bible to you think is not fact? Just curious.

My personal belief that many stories in the Bible are metaphorical, eg. The Loafs and Fishes - "A Little bit of food goes along way" is my personal opinion on what story is supposed to mean.

However i do believe in God..just not the Bible, i just believe that there is something there. I dont personaly believe Jesus was the "son" of god, i just think he was a healer.

OK...Fair enough. For someone who was just a healer, though, he sure made some claims that made it sound like he was claiming to be God. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I've just never understood the whole "Jesus was just a good teacher, healer, person, etc." argument.

I honestly dont know enough to give a well informed opinion on the matter. ONe things for certain, it will be a long time before we find out what went on

youkeepmewaiting wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

youkeepmewaiting wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

youkeepmewaiting wrote:whooaaa ok, so that info about Whiston and Holmes is bad. BUT, its nothing compared to the ignorance of the American people and its society (obvisiouly not everyone).

75% of American think that the Bible is fact..they think it is ACTUAL FACT!

What about the Bible to you think is not fact? Just curious.

My personal belief that many stories in the Bible are metaphorical, eg. The Loafs and Fishes - "A Little bit of food goes along way" is my personal opinion on what story is supposed to mean.

However i do believe in God..just not the Bible, i just believe that there is something there. I dont personaly believe Jesus was the "son" of god, i just think he was a healer.

OK...Fair enough. For someone who was just a healer, though, he sure made some claims that made it sound like he was claiming to be God. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I've just never understood the whole "Jesus was just a good teacher, healer, person, etc." argument.

I honestly dont know enough to give a well informed opinion on the matter. ONe things for certain, it will be a long time before we find out what went on

Yeah, but if you wait to have it proven to you or see with your own eyes. It'll be too late.

7 Wishes wrote:Anyone familiar with the Clovis-first theory? Anyway, it basically the theory that Native Americans began to appear in the archaeological record about 13,000 years ago. It was generally regarded as the standard of truth by forensic anthropologists for almost 40 years.

Recently, new digs have unearthed evidence of cultures that pre-date the Clovis encampments by thousands of years. The Tlapacoya in Mexico was found to date back almost 22,000 years. So Time magazine featured a piece on the debate and the controversy surrounding it in the archaeological field.

Anyway, I was at a party, and my ex-wife's friend, who is a devout Baptist and (coincidentally...no sarcasm here) one of the most ignorant and uneducated people in the western world, saw the magazine sitting on our friend's kitchen table.

"Dang!" she exclaimed. "That's just so stupid. The earth ain't even that old. It's only 6,000 years old, not 22,000."

I will spare you details of the debate that followed, but suffice it to say she is a Biblical literalist who believes that projections of the first writings of the Old Testament "prove" "Adam and Eve" were "created" 6,129 years ago.

When I pressed her for details about radiocarbon dating of fossils and dinosaurs that date back 3.8 billion and 249,993,871 years BEFORE "Adam and Eve" she explained that EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL SPECIMEN EVER COLLECTED was part of a "conspiracy" by "them scientists what hate religion".

Anyway, the conversation ended there.

But did she have good teeth?