Assume a spherical cow

That's why it's called masturbation -- it makes only you happy and no one wants to see it displayed in public. It's not useful, and you can't build with it.
 
rpenner said:
That's why it's called masturbation -- it makes only you happy and no one wants to see it displayed in public. It's not useful, and you can't build with it.
Click to expand...

More incorrect statements, as usual.

If it makes me happy, and I in turn spread a word of happiness, and someone else gets happy, then it's not only me that it makes happy.

So prove your statement that masturbation makes only me happy. Prove it!

Can you prove that not a single person in this world wants to see it in public? No? Then you've made more unsupported, incorrect statements.

Can you prove it isn't useful? I bet it relieves stress, burns calories, and provides excitement. Those are real world results, which makes your statement false. So again, you've talked out the side of your neck without thinking before you speak. I wouldn't expect anything more out of you, though.
 
Last edited:
tashja said:
From the May 2011 issue of Discover, page 33:

''About half the stars in the universe are gravitationally bound to a companion star. Coexisting with the heat and gravity of two suns is difficult for planets-specially for the pair discovered last year orbiting the binary star system NN Serpentis, also called NN Ser (ab). Astronomers believe that the exoplanets, called NN Ser (ab) c and d, may have survived a cataclysmic event several millions years ago, when one of their host stars swelled to 200 times the diameter of the sun, temporarily enveloping the planets. Or perhaps the planets actually formed from material cast off during that expansion, a theory that would overturn our conventional understanding that planets and stars form together at the same time.'' Andrew Grant

I'm beside myself with joy. I hope Motor Daddy is, too.:)
Click to expand...
In the spirit of the Spherical Cow, everything starts with the assumption of a spherical shape. What more proof do you need? Make that an axiom and you have a perfect crank theory like you wanted, :).
 
Last edited:
Truthfully, I am far more intrigued by tashja herself than by her crank theory.

I do think that the observations of novae strongly indicate that our sun lacks enough mass by at least a few orders of magnitude to go nova.

I want to see a picture of tashja. Lol.

:worship:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top