Maybe the Discovery Institute will Finally Find BigFoot...

So not only do we have HIV deniers represented over there (e.g., Philip Johson and Johnny Wells), we have a bonafide crypozoological woo-woo? With enemies like these, who needs friends?

I think it's because they are shifting their attack strategy away from the science to the sociology. On the Uncommon Descent discussion threads there are those who are pushing to get some research out but the Musgrave and Behe point-counter point has damaged Behe's reputation with some of the supporters.

And who wouldn't want to work with the man who co-wrote The Golden Turkey Awards.

Medved also used to work for PBS when he was one of the hosts of Sneak Previews.

Wow! What's next - taking on experts in spoon bending and divination????

woo-woo

Dave,

I already have several comments on other threads about that, but this is not an "I beat you to it." Rather it's a big thanks for providing the links and the detail.

Anyway, if I may repeat, this is a golden opportunity to get other DI fellows to expand on their views - or at least show how they evade the hard questions. I.e., do we (H. sapiens) share common ancestors with BF? If so, did we or BF evolve? Both? Neither? Any design actuation events in the process?

Plus this gives me another opportunity to continue my digs at fellow ID critics. When someone accuses "don't ask, don't tell" IDers of being "creationists" or YECs, I'll just add "so, do you think that they are cryptozoolgists too? Probably they're not, but it will be fun to see if Behe is consistent, by admitting (as he does for common descent) that are other scientists who disagree with mainstream science and "know the relevant science" better than he does.

If a man can believe in a reclusive hairy guy unknown to science and a mysteriously silent god who kills himself to appease himself so he doesn't have to burn people for being as imperfect as he made them, why is it so difficult for him to accept a theory backed with overwhelming empirical evidence?

Rob Ryan: If a man can believe in a reclusive hairy guy unknown to science and a mysteriously silent god who kills himself to appease himself so he doesn't have to burn people for being as imperfect as he made them, why is it so difficult for him to accept a theory backed with overwhelming empirical evidence?

Rob Ryan,

Michael Medved is Jewish and thus apparently does not believe that there's a "mysteriously silent god who kills himself to appease himself so he doesn’t have to burn people for being as imperfect as he made them." But it can't hurt to ask DI personnel to debate each other on whether ID "theory" predicts that.

"Michael Medved is Jewish..."

Thank you for pointing out my error, Frank J. I apologize to Mr. Medved for my assumption. I should have looked before I leapt. I forgot that ID, and hence DI, appeals to theists of all brands.

Am I safe in assuming that Medved believes in a being that sends out angry bears to devour insolent youths?

"But it can’t hurt to ask DI personnel to debate each other on whether ID “theory” predicts that."

But...that would be unscientific. They are only talking about an "intelligent agent". I'm sure, when pressed by sympathetic inquirers, they can recommend reading material for those interested in learning more about the nature of this "intelligent agent". Still, it wouldn't hurt to ask, as you say. Some of those guys might bite.

Sounds like the DI is bored with the DI. Intelligent Design predates Darwin and is about 200 years old. In that time it has just gone in circles. Good Cthulhu, 200 years of circles.

Really, it is time for them to branch out into more interesting subjects. They have to have alien abductions and UFOs. ESP is always in fashion. Angels and demons are popular with some theists. Then, the Loch Ness monster.

I suppose they will avoid astrology, lepruchuans, and witchcraft as being pagan.

Wow. Just... wow. This is so perfect.

As someone whose #1 leisure-time preoccupation is probably cinema, I've viewed Medved as a bit of an archnemesis since my high school years, when his bestseller Hollywood vs. America came out. This mendacious little book has since been a bit of an ur-text for right-wing demonizing of "Hollyweird," and that's been his biggest schtick ever since, although he's been expanding into more general conservative demagoguery for some years without ever quite achieving the critical mass (if you'll pardon the expression) of, say, a Rush Limbaugh.

To add even more icing to the cake, I was also a Bigfoot/Nessie/UFO buff in my schoolboy days.

To find out in the space of less than a minute that Medved's officially added ID and cryptozoology to his portfolio feels... I don't know, epiphanic in some way that's hard to explain or describe. It feels sort of similar to when you find out two old friends from separate periods of your life coincidentally know each other. Aw, Mikey, Mikey, c'mere and give me a hug, you big dumb lug!

What are the scientific credentials of Michael Medved? Does he have a Ph.D. (or any degree) in biology? Is he motivated by his scientific research or his religious faith? These are the only questions that really matter.

How do you recruit anyone with half a brain when your organization has been caught red handed running a dishonest creationist scam on the public. Not only that, but the Discovery Institute is currently running the bait and switch on any creationist rube that supported them about the teach intelligent design scam. One look at the replacement scam that they are handing out to the rubes instead of ID will tell any thinking human being that they were running a dishonest scam. If ID can't even be mentioned in the replacement scam and the same guys that ran the ID scam are running the replacement, what is there to conclude?

Who would sign up with such a group? Do these guys just accept dishonesty as a matter of doing business? Are they in denial? What is their explanation for what the Discovery Institute is currently doing?

You have long time fellows like Berlinski who claims to have never bought into the ID scam, but he never quit, and never came out against the dishonest scam. Berlinski never even blinked when they started running the bait and switch scam. None of the Discovery Institute fellows did. The exception may be Nelson who in an action of conscience admitted that there never had been a scientific theory of intelligent design when the bait and switch was run for the first time in Ohio in 2002. It didn't stop Nelson from playing along with the replacement scam or being a coauthor of the new scam book. What do these guys think that they are doing? What is so important that they have to prostitute whatever principles that they may have?

Why would someone consider joining a group like the Discovery Institute after Dover? Why would someone like Casey Luskin join after he knew that the bait and switch was being run? Luskin participated in the Colloquy discussion on teaching ID just before the Discovery Instititue ran the bait and switch on Ohio. He didn't let on then that the switch was in, so why accept it after the fact? What kind of person would support ID, and then join the scam outfit that obviously lied to him about ID?

It could be educational to look over what the ID supporters thought about ID before they knew that the switch was being run. This started at the end of the year and went into 2002.

http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/design/design.htm

One of the reasons for having the Colloquy discussion was the Ohio State School board action on trying to teach intelligent design. One thing was clear, none of the ID supporters knew what would be taught. They just believed that there was something to teach, and they were all wrong.

Others could probably put up quotes from Dembski et al on teaching intelligent design, but what is the scam today? What did the Ohio State board get to teach instead of intelligent design?

http://www.ohioscience.org/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis_March.pdf

Why can't the new scam mention that ID ever existed? Why isn't ID one of the controversies that can be taught? Why are the same perps that ran the ID scam running the replacement scam? Who would join them in the effort?

Who would sign up with such a group?

Do these guys just accept dishonesty as a matter of doing business?

Are they in denial? What is their explanation for what the Discovery Institute is currently doing?

Dave, I already have several comments on other threads about that, but this is not an “I beat you to it.” Rather it’s a big thanks for providing the links and the detail.

Hey we believed the scientists when they said Ceolocanths were extinct, I say we believe them now on bigfoot(s).

Man I hope their not wrong.... again....

When a scientists tells you something is extinct, you darn well better believe it. They go by hard evidence, not speculation, they test and test their theories. Their not just pulling it outta dere' ass like those ID'rs .

The thought to be extinct by scientists celocanthys were discovered after having been reported being dead for 80 Million years.
------------------------------------------------------
'Extinct' woodpecker found alive:The ivory-billed woodpecker, a spectacular bird long thought to be extinct by scientists has been found alive in North America, Science magazine reports.
---------------------------------------------------------
They Thought It Went Extinct 11 Million Years Ago - A mammal is "back from the dead"
By: Vlad Tarko, Senior Editor, Sci-Tech News

They found the animal for sale in market in Laos!

But now a group of scientists have realized that the new mammal in fact belongs to a species thought to have been extinct for 11 million years. This is an amazing discovery since most similar examples of "back from the dead" mammals only go back around 10,000 years.
"It's the first time in the study of mammals that scientists have found a living fossil of a group that's thought to be extinct for roughly 11 million years. That's quite a gap.
------------------------------------------------------------
Once Thought Extinct, Siamese Crocodile Is Photographed In Thailand
ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2001) — NEW YORK -- A team of conservationists led by the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) have re-discovered the Siamese crocodile in Thailand
-------------------------------------------------------------
BEIJING (AP): A tiger species thought by scientists to be extinct in the wild for more than two decades has been photographed by a farmer in northwest China.
---------------------------------------------------
BEIJING — A rare white dolphin native to China's Yangtze River that scientists declared extinct last year has been spotted swimming in the wild, state media said Wednesday.

-----------------------------------------------------------
A tree thought by scientists to be extinct since the dinosaurs has turned up in a remote Australian park.

___

And now, there’s even room for Sasquatch.

Hey we believed the scientists when they said Ceolocanths were extinct, I say we believe them now on bigfoot(s).

Um, scientists don't say Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) are extinct, they say there's no evidence for their ever having existed.

I hope this distinction isn't *too* difficult for you to understand?

To Mr Bill Swann from the GOD POOFING discussion.

So it looks like scientists are acting like Gods and POOFING species out of existense and then POOFING them back into existense, seemingly at will.

So it looks like scientists are acting like Gods and POOFING species out of existense and then POOFING them back into existense, seemingly at will.

Are you stupid enough to believe this, or do you think this is clever trolling?

Perhaps you haven to bothered to consider that aside from the gross mischaracterization of the scientific method in your post, but scientists have never claimed bigfoot was extinct. There is no evidence of it's existence.
You may want to consider learning about p-values and how they interact with understanding evidence as well.

Hey we believed the scientists when they said Ceolocanths were extinct, I say we believe them now on bigfoot(s).

At least scientists are willing to correct errors when they are discovered. That's why the science of today is more accurate and detailed that the science of 50 years ago. By contrast, the Creationists will change their arguments, but they very seldom correct their mistakes.

Poor Bach can't spell, writes with syntax and vocabulary mistakes that would embarrass a third grader, and he thinks that we're supposed to seriously consider the merits of his blathering? R i g h t . . . . .

Are IDiots like Bach the only ID supporters left?

Are there any competent ID supporters that want to try to defend the current Discovery Institute creationist ploys? Why do you think that the ID perps that lied to you about the science of ID are running a new scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Do you believe that they didn't lie to you about the science of ID and they are just holding back the real good stuff as a secret weapon? Does anyone really believe that the guys that ran the teach ID scam for over a decade really want to teach more about evolution?

Why do the scam artists at the Discovery Instute have to rely on weirdos like Bach to defend their actions?

Jake says:
"""Um, scientists don’t say Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) are extinct, they say there’s no evidence for their ever having existed.

I hope this distinction isn’t *too* difficult for you to understand?"""

No, its not, but since scientists haven't studied Bigfoot to see if it exists, are they just going on FAITH?
Are you aware of any comprehensive reputable scientific study of Bigfoot you can point me to?? Thanks.

""Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:
""bach said: Hey we believed the scientists when they said Ceolocanths were extinct, I say we believe them now on bigfoot(s).""

He, Bach believes Bigfoot exists (existed)."""""

You are a scientist aren't you? Because that is not at all what I said. I clearly stated we should believe scientists when they say something is extinct, and then next week we should believe them when they say its now not extinct and the week after, when they changed their minds again, we should believe them that time too.
Like Hillary believing Bill when he says he didn't have sex with that women...

No, its not, but since scientists haven’t studied Bigfoot to see if it exists, are they just going on FAITH? Are you aware of any comprehensive reputable scientific study of Bigfoot you can point me to?? Thanks.

Do you think Bigfoot was on Noah's ark?? Can you prove it or are you going on FAITH? Thanks.

Are you stupid enough to believe this, or do you think this is clever trolling?

— Jake Boyman

By contrast, the Creationists will change their arguments, but they very seldom correct their mistakes.

— Dale Husband

Contrary to prior scientific reporting in posts above, scientists do in fact believe Bigfoot is real:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello.

I think they consider him a real, actual scientist.

Now remember, he is real, until another scientists says he's not real, then we believe that one....

Bach: No, its not, but since scientists haven't studied Bigfoot to see if it exists, are they just going on FAITH? Are you aware of any comprehensive reputable scientific study of Bigfoot you can point me to?? Thanks.

Bach: Contrary to prior scientific reporting in posts above, scientists do in fact believe Bigfoot is real: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html "Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello. I think they consider him a real, actual scientist. Now remember, he is real, until another scientists says he's not real, then we believe that one....

""Jake: Do you think Bigfoot was on Noah’s ark?? ""

No, I also don't believe in fairy tales...I mean unless a scientists tells me to....

You know how old Bigfoot would have to be to be on the Ark, man..trolls....

maybe Great Great Great Great Bigfoot, but not Bigfoot.

I think Bach's idea is that it's up to scientists to prove the NON-EXISTENCE of anything anyone can think up, and that if they don't, that proves its existence. He thinks this is very clever trolling.

This is the best kind of mind ID has, remember.

Bach:

Can you prove the nonexistence of Santa Claus?

Dale writes: ""You can’t scientifically study something of which there is no evidence it even exists, so your question is moot."""

So all that scientific study looking for life on other planets, what evidence it even exists are they using??

Because we should probably have them shutdown.....

""Can you prove the nonexistence of Santa Claus?"""

Not to a three year old...

But a trip to North Pole City might do the trick...

...I’m convinced there’s a creature out there that is yet to be identified.

Sorry, little troll, that's not exactly a clear statement of belief in the existsnce of a particular creature known as "bigfoot." Just like belief that UFOs exist does not mean belief that they're ETs.

Bach: Dale writes: ""You can’t scientifically study something of which there is no evidence it even exists, so your question is moot.""" So all that scientific study looking for life on other planets, what evidence it even exists are they using?? Because we should probably have them shutdown.....

Do you think we should give Bach a spanking and make him sit in the corner for 30 minutes?

Do you think we should give Bach a spanking and make him sit in the corner for 30 minutes?

What are the scientific credentials of Michael Medved? Does he have a Ph.D. (or any degree) in biology? Is he motivated by his scientific research or his religious faith? These are the only questions that really matter.

The position cements a longstanding friendship and recognizes a commonality of values and projects across a spectrum of issues.

Medved co-founded Pacific Jewish Center, a synagogue in Venice, California, with his friend and teacher, Rabbi Daniel Lapin. For fifteen years, Medved served as president of PJC, which states that its mission is outreach to unaffiliated and disconnected Jews. In his book Right Turns: Unconventional Lessons from a Controversial Life, he states that his commitment to religion led to his conservative political outlook.

Gee,
Spankings, The Mask, Santa Claus...you guys are scientists aren't you??

"""Dale says: What confusion we have here! You only study scientifically the extraterrestrial life after you find it, but you can still look for it based on a hypothesis in the meantime...""

Ohhh , you mean like looking for Bigfoot based on a hypothesis in the meantime? Thanks.
Hey everyone, the hunts back on!!

Hey, I just noticed, Bach and bigfoot both begin with the same letter. Coincidnece? I don't think so.

It appears that the “Discovery” Institute is working on its multi-prong attack. They have a specialist to package material that appeals to the troll mind.

Then they have the “post-modernist” crap for the anti-science crowd.

Then there is the “legal” crap for the court arguments.

The “constitutional” crap for the courts and the legislatures.

The “educational” crap for State Boards of Education.

The “freedom of speech” crap for secondary schools and universities.

The “scientific” crap for the pseudo-educated.

The “sociology” crap for the disenfranchised.

The “religion” crap for the sectarians jealous of the “religion of science”.

They are busy little beavers up there at the DUI in Seattle. Doing everything but discovering anything about science.

Looks more like trying to discover who can be duped.

They are beginning to look more and more like the Institute for Creation Research. Gish’s influence still is evident. The more you lose, the more and faster you lie. There will always be some rubes who will buy it.

We know that there are no Sasquatches around--they all died in The Flood.

Poor Bach can’t spell, writes with syntax and vocabulary mistakes that would embarrass a third grader, and he thinks that we’re supposed to seriously consider the merits of his blathering? R i g h t …. .

Maybe the Discovery Institute will Finally Find BigFoot…

Whoa-- Robert O'Brien's here, too! And Ronald L. Cote showed up on another thread, along with Pole Greaser and a particularly odious new one called Heart of Gold! Shows how much I know about poker. I didn't know you could get a full house of knaves!

All the DI needs to do in order to find "Bigfoot" is to
open its mouth.

Speaking of Bigfoots, I see the Darwinian Evolutionist extremists (DEE) have found their latest Bigfoot transitional form...Tiktaalik.

But I thought they had already found that before.?

I guess this time their hoping it stays extinct and can't rat them out like the celocanths. Ohh, that reminds me, maybe it was God that POOFED the ceolocanths back into existence just to f-ck with the Darwinists.

Maybe the Tiktaalik should have hung out with that 405 Million year old jellyfish who found the water so darn appealing, he didn't have to change one little thing.

Last time, Bach, you said the jellyfish was 505 million years old. Please provide the name of the jellyfish, or please go away.

I didn’t know you could get a full house of knaves!

Stanton as you are well aware 500 million year old Jellyfish were so darn happy they didn't need to acquire the means to communicate with humans, therefore I didn't catch his name.

It was probably something Cambrian, like Carl or Zigfried.
Here's a link:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071030-oldest-jellyfish.html

As usual with science, I stand corrected, they are 500 Million years old (But whats 100 Million Years in evolution right? Apparently nothing to a jellyfish). Darn stubborn to, won't change no matter how many of their friends leave the water for greener pastures.

I have to give some credit to Bach. At least he has stayed on topic for the most part.
I should note that I’m doing this mostly for mental exercise, and doubt anything I say will have an impact on Bach’s delusions anyway.

“When a scientists tells you something is extinct, you darn well better believe it.”

Wrong. Scientists don’t demand people believe anything is extinct, as evidenced by the very examples you gave. It’s as if your own post refutes itself. If scientists tried to enforce beliefs that supposedly extinct animals don’t exist, then they would be identifying those creatures that were discovered as new species. If there is no evidence for an extinct creature living today, then we assume it doesn’t. That does not preclude the possibility of evidence turning up that shows otherwise.

“So it looks like scientists are acting like Gods and POOFING species out of existense and then POOFING them back into existense, seemingly at will”

Wrong. Like I said above, if there is no EVIDENCE for a creature living today, scientists assume it has gone extinct. Then when evidence shows up, they acknowledge it has survived (as you yourself pointed out in your second post).

“since scientists haven’t studied Bigfoot to see if it exists, are they just going on FAITH? Are you aware of any comprehensive reputable scientific study of Bigfoot you can point me to??”

Wrong. Again, like I said above, if there is no evidence for a creature living today, then etc etc. We cannot study Bigfoot because we do not have evidence of it (for example, a hair sample, footprints, excrement, or any carcasses or skeletons). There can be no reputable scientific study of Bigfoot without evidence. And by the way, there are people, including scientists, who look for Bigfoot. How much they want to believe whether it exists or doesn’t exist is up to them. But you couldn’t be more wrong in saying no one has ever studied to see if it exists.

“Contrary to prior scientific reporting in posts above, scientists do in fact believe Bigfoot is real”

This directly contradicts what you just said above. Well, good for them. Scientists can believe whatever they want. However, when asked straightforwardly whether Bigfoot exists, their response should be that they don’t know yet, because they simply do not have the concrete evidence. Being convinced of something’s existence does not equal knowing it exists. Note, however, that this in no way discourages searching for such evidence. It’s important that the people looking for Bigfoot think it exists; otherwise they wouldn’t try very hard.

“You know how old Bigfoot would have to be to be on the Ark, man..trolls…. maybe Great Great Great Great Bigfoot, but not Bigfoot.”

Lol. How do YOU know it wasn’t Bigfoot? Maybe Bigfeet live for thousands of years?

“So all that scientific study looking for life on other planets, what evidence it even exists are they using??”

I command you to learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life#Scientific_search_for_extraterrestrial_life
Like I said above about Bigfoot, just because we don’t have evidence for extraterrestrial life, does not mean we shouldn’t look for it. There may be no life out there, and there may be tons of planets filled with life. However likely either of those is, it is not a pretext to abandon searching for it. By the way, are you aware that this example, scientists looking for life on other planets, discredits your earlier argument that scientists demand we don’t believe in things they think don’t exist?

(concerning the non-existence of Santa):
“But a trip to North Pole City might do the trick…”

If you find no evidence of Santa at the North Pole, you have not proven his non-existence. You have only shown that there is no evidence that he exists. Note the difference between the two.

“(Bach’s post about Tiktaalik)”

You have no argument here. You are blatantly being an ass, and providing more reasons for us to not consider or even acknowledge what you say. By the way, you’re drifting away from the topic. Try to stay on Bigfoot or Michael Medved.

tinyfrog: You're forgetting Medved's true qualifications to be a Discovery Institute fellow. He saw the documentary March of the Penguins and concluded that it proved intelligent design.

Who said these guys don't do scientific research?

He also said it proved the value of monogamy, forgetting, perhaps, that the penguins are only monogamous 12 months at a time, before switching to another partner. But of course, that does seem to be what your typical GOP presidential candidate considers to be a devoutly long monogamous stretch.

Bach provided a link to an article on the oldest known jellyfish fossils at http://www.livescience.com/animals/071030-oldest-jellyfish.html

This article uses the term "Cambrian radiation" rather than "Cambrian explosion," which is the term preferred by cdesign proponentsists. Thanks for using an actual science article, Bach.

If you expect us to take you seriously, and treat you with respect, you should treat us with respect. You are nothing but a troll, and an especially stupid one, at that. A scientific name allows a person to identify a particular organism, and you can not hope to win any arguments by simply calling it "the jellyfish," especially since there are over 200 different genera of living jellyfish known.

Simply because that fossil jellyfish bears a strong resemblance to the modern jellyfish Periphylla does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is in crisis. If you knew anything about the Wheeler Shales formation, where the fossil came from, and if you knew anything about Periphylla, you would know that the two jellyfish can not be the same kind, as the Wheeler Shales formation was a shallow, tropical reef 500 million years ago, and Periphylla jellyfish are inhabitants of cold, deep water.

Global warming denial, HIV/AIDS denial, evolution denial - the Big tent just keeps on getting bigger and bigger. And now, there’s even room for Sasquatch.

Looks like Robert O'Brien is Bach's sockpuppet. No brains; lots of mouth.

If you see Bigfoot, here's the official form to fill out:
http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/report_a_sighting.php

I you see a UFO fill out this one:
http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/reportformsubmit.html

If you see Bigfoot in a UFO, contact the Discovery Institute.

Maybe Bach should go bach to composing classical music and give up on science. He can't talk about it coherently.

waldteufel: Looks like Robert O'Brien is Bach's sockpuppet. No brains; lots of mouth.

Les Lane: If you see Bigfoot, here's the official form to fill out: http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/report_a_sighting.php I you see a UFO fill out this one: http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/reportformsubmit.html If you see Bigfoot in a UFO, contact the Discovery Institute.

Bigfoot hunters have been looking in the wrong places. What they need to do is get apartments on the lower floor of the apartment building, then wait for the sounds of a migration of bigfoots on the upper floors. :)

Henry

Medved joining the DI, eh. You know what this means: Bigfoot is The Designer!

Looks like brother Robert O'Brien is continuing to support the idiocy of Bach.
No ideas, no concept of what science is, no ability to construct a meaningful thought. I suggest that Robert O'Brien sit at Bach's knee and absorb all of his scientific knowledge. That should take about 20 milliseconds.

By the way, Robert O'Brien, "wurm" is a river in Germany. "Wald" means forest or woods. Teufel is German for "devil". So, Wurmteufel just means "river Wurm Devil" instead of "Forest Devil", but then you knew that, didn't you . . . . . . .

waldteufel: Looks like brother Robert O'Brien is continuing to support the idiocy of Bach. No ideas, no concept of what science is, no ability to construct a meaningful thought. I suggest that Robert O'Brien sit at Bach's knee and absorb all of his scientific knowledge. That should take about 20 milliseconds.

waldteufel: By the way, Robert O'Brien, "wurm" is a river in Germany. "Wald" means forest or woods. Teufel is German for "devil". So, Wurmteufel just means "river Wurm Devil" instead of "Forest Devil", but then you knew that, didn't you . . . . . . .

Children, children, children.

Calling each other names is a little juvenile, don't you think?

I guess it's time to retire the thread.

For the record, besides being a clueless troll, Bach is too afraid to use his own e-mail address (which remains unpublished, BTW) when posting.

Next time, that'll get you a one-way ticket to the Bathroom Wall.

Thanks for playing, all.

Dave