| Subject: Re: The Wholeflaffer Continuum is BACK! |
| From: Bob Casanova |
| Date: 15/02/2012, 16:50 |
| Newsgroups: alt.paranet.abduct,alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic |
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:46:40 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com>:
On Feb 14, 8:29 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:48:08 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:
On Feb 13, 9:21 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:43:44 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:
On Feb 12, 1:22 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:19:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C. B. E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:
We thought you'd want to know!!!
That's essentially a step function, not a continuum:
No one present, including Artie = No nutbars.
Artie present = 100% nutbars.
HTH; HAND
<snip evidence of above claim>
Nothing left...
Take your meds, Artie. Or is that "Gary"? So many loons; so
few distinguishing features...
You will <ack! choke! puke!>
Take your meds, Artie/Gary.
The world <hack! choke! gasp!>
Take your meds, Artie/Gary.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless