Discussion:
More BS About "Shroud Of Turin"
(too old to reply)
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-23 04:06:47 UTC
Permalink
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 ?
kami
2024-08-23 13:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-24 00:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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".
kami
2024-08-24 02:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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?
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-24 03:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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 :-)
kami
2024-08-24 10:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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?
%
2024-08-24 16:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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
Skeeter
2024-08-24 21:24:34 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@giganews.com>, pursent100
@gmail.com says...
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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
i killed that group years ago
kami
2024-08-25 10:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
%
2024-08-25 19:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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
kami
2024-08-26 11:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
%
2024-08-26 16:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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
kami
2024-08-26 17:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
%
2024-08-26 19:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-27 04:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by kami
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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
The "infinite references" trick is an old one. Keep
demanding proofs, then proofs to the proofs and so
on. When the other guy finally say "Haven't the
time dickweed !" you immediately declare total
victory. :-)

If Dude here wants "fat groups" he can find them
on usenet or likely 1000 web-sites/chat-groups
elsewhere. It's mostly up to HIM to put in the
followup time & energy.

Oh, and a LOT of people really ARE way too damned
fat ... so if he wants to poke 'em a bit, maybe
not the worst thing :-)

Sometime last fall I was watching news and there'd
been some kind of disaster in some smaller Heartland
town. The news said food supplies were being rushed
to the area as the residents complained about it all
in the town hall. Thing is, looked like at least 80%
of the people there were GIGANTIC - like literally
roll-down-the-hill gigantic - men women and kids.
Seems "starving" for them meant not getting at least
NINE THOUSAND calories a day (and don't forget the
damned beer !).
Leisure Suit Lamey
2024-08-27 06:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
you asked for some dealing with fat i gave you fat
https://postimg.cc/mcVcTpsQ
kami
2024-08-28 16:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-29 04:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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 :-)
kami
2024-08-29 16:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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 :-)
that's good, another one active one is alt.philosophy, i think i
will start posting in both groups.
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-30 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
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.
kami
2024-08-31 10:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
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.
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-09-01 02:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
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 ? :-)
kami
2024-09-01 15:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
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.
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-09-02 04:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
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.
kami
2024-09-04 17:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
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.
Steve Hayes
2024-08-29 06:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
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
kami
2024-08-31 11:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
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.
%
2024-09-01 07:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
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.
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
kami
2024-09-01 14:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
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.
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.
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-09-02 03:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
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.
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 ...
kami
2024-09-04 17:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by %
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
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.
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.
Steve Hayes
2024-09-05 02:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
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.

***@hotmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@yahoo.ca
***@gmail.com
Daryl Kabatoff <***@gmail.com>
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@mail.ru
***@mail.ru
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@hotmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
***@gmail.com
Jersey Marlin <***@gmail.com>
***@gmail.com
Steve Hayes
2024-08-24 03:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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?
--
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
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-24 06:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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 suspect he's a "white supremacist" alas ... probably
thinks the Jesus guy was a stealth "aryan" .....

But I gave him a FAIR response. We'll see ....
kami
2024-08-24 10:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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 suspect he's a "white supremacist" alas ... probably
thinks the Jesus guy was a stealth "aryan" .....
But I gave him a FAIR response. We'll see ....
btw do you know any white supremacist news groups? where do they
post?
kami
2024-08-24 10:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
Steve Hayes
2024-08-25 02:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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:



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.
--
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
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-26 06:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
http://youtu.be/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.
kami
2024-08-26 11:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
http://youtu.be/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.
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-27 01:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
http://youtu.be/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. :-)
kami
2024-08-28 16:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
http://youtu.be/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?
186282@ud0s4.net
2024-08-29 04:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by kami
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.
http://youtu.be/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 :-)
D. Ray
2024-08-26 00:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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."
Have you seen Jews from that part of the world? Mizrahi or Sephardic? Most
of them literally look like inbred monsters in too tight skinsuits. There
was probably literal freak show going on every day on the streets of
Jerusalem. Of course they would despise handsome, more European looking
guy, just like they were despising Greeks. Of course they would hide their
barely human faces from someone like that. Lol.

In all seriousness, Isaiah is talking of Jesus as of “man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief”, in other words, he was talking of the time when
Jesus was tortured and killed by Jews. Here’s what he’s saying next:

“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our
iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his
wounds we are healed.”

This is how Christ looks like, as far as I care:

<Loading Image...>

End of story.

Note that it was created in Egypt, and for some reason they didn’t think
Jesus was melanin-enriched.
Loading...