Comment: Dear SNOPES,
I wish to dispute the claims made (separately) by Marcel Jovine and Irving
Lubow, and that THEY were the inventors of the VISIBLE MAN toy
manufactured by RENWAL in the 1960's. My grandfather's U.S. Patent Office
No. 2,988,823, was filed on Aug. 12, 1959 and patented June 20 1961 under
the title TRANSPARENT ANATOMICAL MODEL. My grandfather was Irving
On page 14 of the book RENWAL, World's Finest Toys by Charles A. Donovan
(L-W Book Sales: Gas City, IN, 1999) the text reads "The success of the
Russian "Sputnik" in 1957 and the resultant public shock caused Mr. Lubow
to propose a line of models designed for educational purposes." [Lubow is
This is a SNOPE - a falsehood. Lubow didn't "propose" a line of models.
My father, Arthur Rosenbloom explains the genesis of the VISIBLE MAN toy
after which followed the other "visible" toys:
""In the 1950's Americans were thrown for a loop when the Russians put up
Sputnik. My dad, believing that the market was thus ready for a line of
educational hobby kits, particularly in science, began combing museums for
ideas and came upon a 10 foot tall replica of the human body with visible
internal organs (at least most of them) at the Museum of Natural History
in Manhattan. Upon returning to the factory, he asked Irving Lubow, head
of production, whether it was feasible to manufacture a "visible man".
After studying the idea and thinking through how the molds might be
designed, Lubow concluded that such a task might be do-able and
commissioned Marcel Jovine, a model maker, to produce a model of an 18 or
so inch version of the object to visualize what a fully assembled Visible
Man might look like."
On the Website of the Smithsonian Museum of American History the text says
of Jovine “He persuaded Renwal Products, Inc., to make the "Visible Man,"
a set of plastic pieces representing body parts.” The truth, however, is
rather different. One only has to see the patent to plainly see that
Jovine [also dead] took false credit for the originality of the invention.
The Closter Society Historical Website features a tribute to Marcel
Jovine http://www.closterhistoricpreservation.org/index.html. In the
paragraph praising Jovin’s accomplishments one section reads:
"His most widely known toy creations were the Visible Man and the Visible
Woman, anatomical models of men and women with removable plastic organs. A
pamphlet included with the kit instructed children how to assemble and
disassemble the model, facilitating learning. The Visible Engine, a model
of a V-8 engine, followed."
The use of the word “creation” is misleading to the degree of being
out-and-out false. My grandfather, Irving Rosenbloom, invented the Visible
Man and the Visible Woman. Marcel Jovine cannot be considered to be their
“creator.” Jovine deceived the members of The Closter Society Historical
with a statement that misrepresents the truth. Jovine took false credit
for the originality of the invention. I can attach a copy of the original
1961 U.S. Patent for the toy upon request.
To make matters worse, this statement was cited by Wikipedia , the free
encyclopedia, as a support of Jovine’s credibility on their Website.
In patent law, inventors are required to sign an oath or a declaration
stating that they believe that they truly are inventors. Anyone who
contributed to any part of the claims is considered an inventor. Just
because an engineer was assigned by management to work on the idea prior
to filing a patent on the invention does not mean that he or she is an
inventor even though some of his ideas are included in the description
portion of the patent application.
The Palm Beach Sun-Sentinal took their article down when I emailed them my
grandfather's 1961 patent for the VISIBLE MAN toy. They had claimed that a
man from Tamarac, Florida by the name of Joseph Hurwitz invented the
Visible Man. I thanked them for removing the article.
My grandfather who, passed in 1992, was a humble man, shunning the
limelight, preferring to be the “man behind the scenes.” But I think that
my grandfather would have been quite displeased with the notion that
someone, after his death, would try to claim his invention as his own. And
since my grandfather is not around to speak for himself, it falls to us,
his family, to see to it that fact and fiction do not "cozy up to one
another" as you at SNOPES so eloquently put it.
To be clear, our family is not asking for money or anything of that sort.
But as a matter of “intellectual integrity” I request on behalf of my
family that SNOPES set the record straight.
Comment: My first bad experience with First United Methodist's bullying
was years ago when I requested a new plate (because mine had been unusable
and I had to throw it away). They refused so I reported them to the
Health department and they were forced to give out new plates for
everyone. Tom harrassed me many times after that soone point, I finally
said to Tom not to ever talk to me because of his abusive speech to me.
Later, I was next kicked out from eating at their soup kitchen for one
year because (I was told) I spit in a trash can (which I have seen others
do) and I was told that they told me not to do that several times when in
truth, I was never told. (people who start fights were kicked out for
lesser time.) I stayed away 3 years because of their abuse. After
returning 3 years later, I was then kicked out (they told me) 6 mo.
because I returned a piece of untouched chicken into the pan (which I did
because I thought they wanted me to). They claimed that they would have
to throw out the whole pan...which they never did. Tom called me to him
and I ignored him because he had no idea what went on between me an the
chicken. As I walked out he told me that I was kicked out for 6 mo. I
was so angry at the abuse they had given me for years that I responded
with, "Fck you Tom and fck your Jesus." When I returned after 6 mo., they
kicked me out permanently. (Tom hates me and wanted to kick me out for
years and he finally got to.) The truth of the matter is, they want me
gone because I am not a xtian and they want to bully the poor. The food
bank told me that such people are not supposed to make people pray, force
them into hearing sermons or go through worship services; ie., force any
religion upon the public. Dispite my complaints to them, they do nothing
about the churches. "The Bridge" on MLK blvd. who are even worse abusers
of the poor this way, uses LISD school district buildings and utiliites to
promote thier religion. They verabally abuse us, make us eat with crosses
on our tables, and make us listen to sermons or worship sermons. So does
Shalom at 20th and T. And when we cannot eat certain things, they abuse
us when we ask them not to serve us the particular item. Every one of
these people get donations from private sectors, the public, and funds
from Federal, state and local governments. These come to them as money,
buildings, or utilities....as well as food. They use the names of the
poor who think they are getting groceries to take home, to get more food
to supply their "soup kitchens" which are then used to do worship, prayer,
and sermon sessions. STOP THE ABUSE! The hypocrites who run these refuse
to turn the other cheek when they run their kitchens. They abuse the poor
and when the poor speak out against the abuse, they kick them out. I will
never become a Chrisitan....they are evil people and never follow their
Comment: TOPIC: Small Group Discussion....and Censorship
For a while, I was a participant in some suburban-local-church Bible
studies, but am currently participating in such no longer.
Not that I do not like studying the Bible, and especially not that I do
not like talking about the Bible, particularly when reading referenced
passages within the Bible to others.
I still attend church services at that church, and tolerate the lecture
sermons from the one pastor in particular who in effect was the one who
had squelched my eagerness and even willingness to further pounce in with
Scriptural insights and rebuttals.
His "rationalization" (i.e. irrationalization?) or excuse was that I "was
not letting others get their say in" but instead both "hogging the limited
discussion time" and (by my frequent comments), "leading the discussion in
a needlessly-judmental way" which the non-judgmental-oriented pastor did
not want the discussion led.
[ Reminds me of the RNC wanting an adamantly-anti-Gingrich,
non-controversial(?), pro-homogays and anti-homogays,
piss-in-pop-and-poop-in-pudding, anti-Gingrich "big-tent" to get and
retain pro-Gingrich-and-no-one-else voters, presuming that die-hard RINOs
will leave the party if Newton Leroy Gingrich and not the windsniffing
Willard Mitt Romney moderate is not promoted . . . and that die-hard
Obominites will not be enticed into voting Republican in November of 2012
unless given a Gingrich-excluded, deceptively-waffling, Romney moderate as
their presumably-superior-to-Barack alternative. And fervert-activist
wild-about-Gingrich independents will supposedly jump on the compromising
pro-choice-about-abortion, homogays-inclusive, Romney-moderate bandwagon .
. instead of - in frustrated disgust - voting 3rd party and thus giving
neither Romney nor Obama their votes in impartial neutrality?
Along those lines, who is worst:
Non-hypocritical, constantly anti-prostitution/non-wife-swapping,
quasi-polygamous/harem-sheik-like, anti-homogay while religiously
pro-preborn-human-life, faithful-to-Callista, man-with-a-plan Newt
Gingrich . . .
or instead purportedly-"christian,"
sickening-homogays-inclusive Mitt Romney . . .
or pro-negroid-racism-propelled, homogay-"rites"-condoning,
Barack "Barry Soetoro" Hussein Obama? ]
The other pastor (in so many words) warned me to "not talk about
sexually-oriented passages in the Bible so much" - which is downright
hypocritical, being that he allows his indecently-hairstyled
loose-long-haired mopheaded wife to freely impose the sight of her
loose-long-haired indecently-hairstyled mopheadness wherever and whenever
in that church and in plain-view sight of congregants indigenous to the
One particular e-mailer recently got similar criticism from a certain
"Pete S." of Lavabit (an e-mail hoster) who has rather obviously targeted
him for discriminatory exclusion - "not" (in his words) "because of the
non-censorable content of the e-mailer's e-mailed comments to others, but
instead because of the complaining contacts" who he said were sending
objections instead to Lavabit (but not to the e-mailer personally)
pertaining to the e-mailer e-mailing them material they clearly objected
"Pete S."referred the e-mailer to an international outfit called Spamhaus
to justify his condemnatory warnings to e-mailers to henceforth:
(1) only respond back to those who first e-mail a message, and (more
importantly, to "Pete S.")
(2) only first-time e-mail those who the e-mailer magically detects will
not respond negatively so that criticism is never again sent (by cowards
unwilling to personally let the e-mailer know that they want no more
e-mails from him) instead to Lavabit, and "Pete S." in particular.
The in-effect virtual censorship of "Pete S." of Lavabit is a matter of
serious concern, but the questionably-diabolical
argumentatively-subversive Spamhaus explained the plight of non-restricted
and non-limited spam which "potentially" could not only overwhelm
individuals and businesses, but is sometimes adjudicated illegal.
Not all e-mail hosters are as nitpicky, but merely limit the daily number
of exactly-repeated bulk-emailed messages one can send. Case in point is -
thankfully - the e-mail service called: Fastmail.
Consequently, in response to "Pete S." in effect stifling what one
obviously considers (and perhaps even what Bill Maher would consider)
"free speech," all e-mailers should now preface all first-time e-mails to
first-timers using Lavabit the following disclaimer:
This communique is a beneficial general public service announcement sent
without any motivation of malicious intimidation, cyberstalking, nor
selective imposition against any at-large recipient receiving it.
If any recipient of this communique wants to receive no further messages
from this source coveyed by this particular e-mail address, they have the
option - but in no way the obligation nor responsibility - to indicate so
by clicking on the Reply button above and typing in a request concordant
with that intention. Upon receiving that opt-out request, the sender will
do whatever is possible to accommodate and comply.
No recipient is under any responsibility nor obligation to read what is
written below, but all are encouraged yet not required to click on the
Reply button above to type in their request to receive no more e-mail from
this specific e-mail address if that is their desire.
It should be noted that certain non-solicited but non-commercial,
legally-allowable, first-time messages of reasonable cultural, social,
and/or religious value and importance sent to and encountered by favored
recipients are considered neither spam nor unlawful, although repeated
communication transferred to anyone who has reasonably indicated desire
for there to be no reasonably continued communication from the specific
source objected to might understandably be considered harassment.
Now, if anyone else complains to "Pete S.," and "Pete S." then freezes any
e-mailer's Lavabit account so that the e-mailer cannot access it anymore
nor send any more e-mails via it, the e-mailer can simply try to find a
different e-mail hoster....with or without praying a curse of Christ upon
However, and if that freezing happened, such would plainly (in fair and
non-biased legal opinion) constitute unlawful discrimination against
e-mailers, for which e-mailers could (if e-mailers had enough time and
money) perhaps-unsuccessfully sue him and Lavabit in court (although most
e-mailers would rather not also sue Lavabit but only sue trouble-causer
"Pete S,") and appeal it to a higher court if the lower court did not see
it the e-mailer's way (which appeal would be even more expensive, for both
Even though both "Pete S." and his Lavabit are private-company entities
which can concoct whatever corporate internal regulations and restrictions
they want (in this land of free-enterprise liberty) and therefore cannot
be forced to alter or adjust such sovereign-entity preferences,
governmental civil-or-criminal-court-involved lawsuits against them would
be complicated by the probability that both "Pete S." and the Lavabit he
occupationally (and thus contractually) belongs to have previously
consigned themselves to, and now continue to legally be subject to and
operate under, various social-issues-affected parameters of the IRS and
the federal Civil Rights Act (pertaining to no allowable discrimination
because of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation concerning charges
of reasonably-inferred or flagrant unlawful "intimidation" or "harassment"
or "hate crimes"). And being that e-mailers using Lavabit have voluntarily
allied themselves with Lavabit e-mail-hosting, they have (by default)
likewise bound themselves in complicit agreement to their
aforementioned-related 'Terms of Service' which has indirectly-but-in-fact
put similar IRS and Civil-Right-Act constraint considerations on the
Government-registered religious institutions, such as churches and
synagogues and mosques, seem to be free from such governmental
social-issues-related "civil-rights" prohibitions with their 501(c)(3)
Bonafide Occupational Qualification exemption. However,
Social-Security-committed church/synagogue/mosque administrators, boards,
and wardens of religious-institution property, by acquiring and
maintaining their tax-exempt IRS registration and classification, also
have certain IRS-related constraints imposed on them, besides consigning
themselves to other and more governmental restrictions by contractually
affiliating with sewer, water, electric power, and other servicers
providing utilities and whatever to their religion-institution buildings -
which utility servicers are, of course, generally and likewise subject to
similar IRS and Civil Rights parameters themselves affecting the speech
and actions of both religious-institution personnel and
Social-Security-committed contractors they employ concerning
government-regulated social issues.
All this brings up the subject of how small group discussion should be
led, and what should be acceptable interpersonal dynamics of productive,
lively, and beneficial group discussions.
The first type of scenario that comes into mind is where the leader and
the led within a group know each other by name (as was the case in most of
the GOP Republican-candidates-for-president debates hosted by CNN & FOX),
and the group leader queries each (of the led participants) sequentially
by name to sequentially respond to a particular (and perferable, the same)
question, comment, Biblical passage, or hopefully-contextual
Scripturally-congruent elaboration or analysis or interpretations of the
It is not in anyone's best interest within a small-group discussion for
the moderator to ask: "Does anyone have anything to say?" because the
lamentable result is usually obnoxiously-uncomfortable-for-everyone "dead
air" necessitating the inept moderator or leader to beller on with his own
opinion and elaboration on that.
It also helps for everyone - both leader and followers in a small group
discussion - to like the subject matter being discussed. In a Bible study
group, the liked thing to discuss would be sequentially-read Bible verses,
perhaps on some topic or subject. If the subject matter is not liked by
everyone present, by most present, or even by one present, dissension and
resultant silence by all might sadly begin and dampen until everyone calls
What about "butting in?"
It is, of course, polite and courteous to let each participant (including
the group leader) speak and finish what he has to say before anyone else
But how does one know when someone has said all they have to say, so
someone else can take their turn and begin speaking?
How many seconds of silence have to elapse before someone else is expected
And how is that expectation for someone else to speak indicated? A head
nod? A name uttered?
What if someone, during their diatribe, audibly expels something heretic
and apostate . . . which remark should be countered by someone or anyone
as soon as possible while it is still in contextual reach before someone
else breaks in or off on a different tangent - leaving the heretical or
apostate comment to go unchallenged?
True, it wouldn't be the end of the world, and even good things said will
not make it into canonical Scripture.
That was the case in the Bible studies I was in. When the pastor himself,
or one or another of the men in the Bible study group, blattered out some
pro-compassion-and-love-for-homogays or pro-feminist remark, I felt
compelled to immediately correct that person with remedial Scriptural
references . . . which got me that aforementioned criticism not merely
from the pastor but also from complaining men whose feelings were hurt by
In any group discussion, the leader should have the discernment plus brave
and courageous savvy to favor the good and disfavor the evil within a
group. When the leader himself is somewhat or sufficiently corrupt, that
cannot occur. But if he genuinely has 'the mind of Christ,' such wise
leadership should be done subtly or overtly, insistently yet gently and
kindly, without insulting rudeness in most cases.
What ultimately happens is that future group meetings are only or merely
populated by those who basically concur with each other, while dissentors
(who not necessarily are violently or explicitly excluded) "get the
message" that their special lifeviews are not welcomed within that group,
necessitating the dissentor to find a group, or become leader of his own
group, having concordant ideology and perspectives.
homogay, n. - compound word, made up of latin homo, human, and english gay, happy. A happy human.
But this guy sure lives in hyphen-world, doesn't he?
I wanted to learn more about "indecently-hairstyled loose-long-haired mopheaded" styling tips, so searched for those terms and discovered multiple other tirades-to-not-finish, most likely by the same individual.
This one mentions:
Comment: I was wondering do you still believe in the lies of Clinton
Surplus's or do you tell the truth? When I say tell the truth, you know
about Intra-Gov't debt and the actually figures at Tresuary.com, right?
That we haven't had a REAL Fed Surplus since the Pres. Eisenhower Admin?
Also I wonder do you really believe everything the Fed Gov't tells you? I
just ask because although I am not a believer in conspiracies and
foolishness of the birthers I DO NOT believe a lot of what the Gov't tells
American's. This is a gov't that tested black men with syhphllis against
their knowledge and tested men with LSD. Fought secret wars and did
nothing while the South killed and discriminated against Black Americans
and minorites for years. You do realize that? Plus you don't believe
there is ACTUAL cash-money in the S.S. Trust Fund, YOU AREN'T THAT EASY,
RIGHT? (Besides you do know what the Intra-Gov't DEBT includes?) Those
T-Bonds are only REAL MONEY if the Fed Gov't raises taxes, sells debt or
cuts other gov't programs. You do know that, right? If you know ANYTHING
about bookkeeping, just the way the Gov't turns the S.S. surplus into
T-Bonds tells you what those T-Bonds really are. If you are foolish
enough to believe EVERYTHING the Fed Gov't says then you believe what I
told you about the S.S. Trust Fund because it is EXACTLY what the
President Clinton Admin and the CBO said in a report about the S.S. Trust
Fund in 2000. I was just wondering these things. Sometimes I find that
sites which say they are non-political have a tendency to be a little
leftwing non-political. Factcheck.org will tell you there really is money
in the S.S. Trust Fund and that there really were surplus's during the
Pres Clinton years. I just wondered if you told the truth or if you were
a REAL non-political site.
Comment: ISN'T IT A SHAME THAT PERSONS APPLYING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
BENIFITS HAVE TO HAVE A MENTAL CONDITION IN ORDER TO QUALIFY? EVEN IF YOU
DO HAVE A PROVING CONDITION ( PSYICALLY ) THAT PREVENTS YOU FROM DOING
YOUR NORMAL JOB DUTIES,YOU WILL NOT BE APPROVED. HOWEVER IF ALL OF THE
SUDDEN YOU FLEW OFF YOUR ROCKER NOTHING ELSE WRONG WITH YOU THEY WILL
APPROVE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY BENIFITS. WHERE IS THERE A TEST TO PROVE
ONE'S MENTAL STATE OF ALL OF THE SUDDEN? ALL OF WHICH CAN BE FACKED , AT
ANY GIVEN MOMENT IN TIME. EVEN IF YOU LOST A LIMB YOU WILL NOT BE
APPROVED. THERE ONCE WAS A TIME WHEN PERSONS WITH DRUG ADDICTION OR
ALCOHOLISM WERE ABLE TO GET SOCIAL SECURITY, HOWEVER THEY FOUND OUT THAT
THEY WERE JUST SUPPORTING THEIR HABITS , THEY QUICKLY PUT A STOP TO THAT.
BUT LETS JUST SAY FOR A MOMENT HERE THAT YOU HAVE WORKED ALL OF YOUR ADULT
LIFE, SUPPORTED YOUR FAMILY ETC... THEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN SOMEONE FROM
ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT IS NOT HERE ON A VISA OR A VACATION THAT ACTUALLY
LIVES HERE ILLEAGALLY, CAUSED A BIG ACCIDENT. AND THAT YOUR LIFE WAS TAKED
AWAY FROM YOU WITHIN A MATTER OF SECONDS. THAT YOU CAN NO LONGER WORK AT
YOUR PREVIOUS EMPLOY OR ANY OTHER FOR THAT MATTER. YOU HAVE LOST
EVERYTHING FROM THAT MOMENT ON. YOU HAVE BEEN LIVING LIFE FROM THE SHELL
WITHIN YOUR SELF. THIS WAS AND IS A DRAMATIC DRASTIC CHANGE.THIS HAS
BECOME A DETREMENT FOR YOU,YOUR FAMILY,YOU GET DEVORCED, LOSE YOUR
FRIENDS, YOU HAVE NO MORE INCOME, YOUR SAVINGS DEPLETED, YOU NO LONGER OWN
ANYTHING NOT EVEN A CAR. ALL BECAUSE OF THIS. YOU ARE GOING TO THE PAIN
DOCTOR EVERY MONTH TO NOW GET PAIN MEDICATION YOU HAVE NEVER NEEDED
BEFORE, HELL NEVER EVEN HEARD OF A NARCOTIC , WHAT IS THAT? THEN YOU TAKE
OVER A DOZEN MEDICATIONS DAILY, AND NOW ARE ADDICTED TO THE NARCOTIC'S
THEY GIVE YOU, SO NOW YOU'RE A DRUG ADDIC, AND WHEN THE MEDICATION STOPS
WORKING YOU TAKE MORE AND MORE UNTIL YOUR PRESCRIPTION RUNS OUT AND YOU
HAVE TO RESORT TO BUYING DRUGS OFF THE STREET. YOU NOW SEE A PSYO DOCTOR
BECAUSE YOU ARE BEYOND DEPRESSED BUT SANE ENOUGH TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF A
PSYCO WARD. YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT WILL ASSIST YOU WITH A FEW DOLLARS A
MONTH IN FOOD STAMPS AND A FEW PENNIES IN A CASH GRANT AND SOME MEDICAL
BENIFITS, BUT YOU CAN NOT AFFORD HOUSING , YOU EITHER LIVE WITH YOUR
FAMILY OR ON A PARK BENCH IF WEATHER PERMITTING. YOU CAN NOT GET PUBLIC
HOUSING BECAUSE YOU NO LONGER HAVE DEPENDANTS OR THERE IS A 5 YR WAITING
LIST, THEN AND ONLY IF YOU QUALIFY. SO YOU TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO APPLY
FOR YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY BENIFITS, BUT OH WAIT A MINUTE HERE YOU WERE
DENIED BECAUSE YOU CAN MANAGE WHAT LITTLE PENNIES YOU GET AND THE FOOD
STAMPS AND REMEMBER TO GO TO YOUR DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS. SO AFTER SEVERAL
YEARS OF TRYING ON YOUR OWN YOU HAVE TO THROW IN THE TOWEL AND HIRE A
LAWYER , BUT WAIT THEY DON'T GET PAID UNLESS YOU GET PAID. SO THERE GOES A
CHUNK OF YOUR HARD EARNED SS BENIFITS THAT ARE DUE TO YOU AT NORMAL
RETIREMENT STAGE. BUT WHAT THE HELL YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE, THEY ARE THE
PROFESSIONALS . BUT THEN WHAT IF THEY STILL DENY YOU ? YOU STILL CAN NOT
WORK , STILL DO NOT HAVE A HOME, YOU HAVE LOST EVERYTHING, WHAT DO YOU DO
NEXT? DID YOU FORGET ABOUT THAT ILLEAGAL IMMAGRENT THAT CAUSED ALL OF
THIS? WHERE IS HE? WHERE DID HE GO? DID HE LOSE ANY SLEEP OVER THIS? HELL
NO. HE'S STILL LIVING LIFE AT THE FULLIEST HERE IN THE GREAT OLDE U S A
AND FOR FREE AT THAT, BUT DO NOT FORGET THAT HE IS ALSO SENDING HIS HARD
EARNED DOLLARS BACK TO MEXICO TO HIS FAMILY SO THEY CAN CRAWL UNDER THAT
OLD FENCE LIKE HE DID MANY YEARS AGO. AND GUESS WHERE HE LIVES? OH THE
GOOD OLE GOVERNMENT PUTS A ROOF OVER HIS HEAD ALONG WITH 20 OF HIS FAMILY
MEMBERS IN A 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT WHERE THEY DO NOT PAY RENT NOR ANY
UTILITIES OR THEY GET ASSISTANCE TO PAY FOR THEM. GUESS WHERE HE WORKS?
FOR THE GOVERNMENT WOW. AND WHERE ARE YOU? DO YOU SEE WHATS WRONG WITH
THIS PICTURE? I AM A HOME GROWN AMERICAN AND BY GOD I JUST CAN NOT SEE
WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. I AN AMERICAN CAN NOT GET MY SOCIAL
SECURITY BENIFITS BECAUSE I STILL HAVE A FEW MARBELS LEFT AND SOME FENCE
CRAWLER CAN GET WHAT EVER THEY WANT OR NEED. IF THE SITUATION WERE THE
OTHER WAY AROUND I WOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS PERSON WITH EVERYTHING I OWN
AND WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY HIM MONTHLY PAYMENTS FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.I
WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN JAIL FOR CAUSING THE ACCIDENT, PLUS NOT WEARING MY
SEAT BELT, ALSO HAVING A 2 YR OLD NOT IN A SAFTY RESTRAINT, NO LICENSE, NO
INSURANCE , AND GET THIS NOT EVEN THE OWNER OF THE CAR. NO INSURANCE
COMPANY WOULD COVER ME UNLESS I PAID OUT THE KAZZOO FOR IT. HE TOTALLED
TWO VHECIALS IN THIS ACCIDENT AND HE DIDN'T EVEN GET AS MUCH OF A SLAP ON
THE BACK OF HIS HAND. NOT ONE PUNISHMENT OF ANY KIND.
JUST WHAT IN THE WORLD HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY WHILE I WAS WORKING SO HARD
I think I'd call that one a Tirade I Never Started Reading.
"Boss, I'm going to need 5 minutes more for lunch, I'm dead."
"You shiftless good-for-nothing leech. You'll be here on time or I'm docking your pay."
Comment: To Whom it does Concern,
As I am writing this, I see an ad to the right side of my screen. I don't
know anything about 'Steam Punks' but the name alone is fascinating.
It is just a still picture, but it works. And the ABC3 logo tells me what
channel to watch [I live in Australia]. I have effectively been marketed
to by a still picture. I might even watch that if I have the time. Oh
wait, it tells me that it's on at 5:25 on the 17th. I DO have the time,
So, why am I talking about that ad? Well, because it works. It's a still
picture, and it works, as an advertisement.
What does not work is the 'rollover' ads in most of your articles. Today,
half an hour or so ago, I opened up an article to read it [duh.], saw the
ad, couldn't tell what it was about and wasn't interested to learn, so I
left it be. That's fine.
What's NOT fine is that, whether I click on the ad or not, it plays a
little flash movie. It was a little distracting, but not overly so, and I
continued to read the article, ignoring it. But just as I got to the 'good
bit', two-thirds through, my computer turned off. Shut down. I waited half
an hour before I turned my computer back on, to give my CPU time to cool
down, then I logged on to continue reading the article.
Now, Before you go thinking I'm crazy, I know. It's my fault. My computer
is old, yes. I live in Australia and it's summer. This is not some attempt
at an urban legend: "Snopes Kills Computers!". No. My CPU overheats when
it is overused during summer. My problem is that when I use Flash, it
clocks my CPU's usage at around 50-70%.
For this reason, I avoid youtube and 'flash heavy' sites. That's why I
thought I could read Snopes.com - there are just words here. So I hope you
can understand my frustration that, just to read a few words my CPU is
clocking more than 50%.
When I tried to continue reading the article, I realized that the ad
wouldn't stop playing. When I open it up, click the pause, and close it.
It continued to play anyway. What is this bullshit? And only after
'rolling over' the ad, and attempting to close it did I learn the brand:
'The Cheesecake Shop'.
Well, maybe I'm one of the minority, but because of the sort of person I
am, I will now be avoiding 'The Cheesecake Shop', because I prefer
business that has less obnoxious ads. I'd use the word 'boycott' if this
was anything more than a lone, angry young man.
Tell that to your ad agency (or whoever does these ads) next time they
tell you 'All Publicity is Good Publicity'. Tell that to 'The Cheesecake
Shop' when I decide to buy a pie from the cafe rather than them. Because
bad publicity only sells when the audience is comprised of fools.
Yes, I know that it's my fault for having an old CPU, and it's only the
physical consequences of this that caused me to act - but the Fun Fact of
the day is: Whether or not my computer overheats, I really hate your flash
They are obnoxious, they are distracting. And now every time I think 'The
Cheesecake Shop', my first reaction is: 'Those assholes. Those are the
ones with those annoying goddamn ads.'
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't hate advertisements. I'm not telling you
to get rid of all your ads. I'm telling you to REPLACE THEM. Get BETTER
ones. Because these ones suck.
I hope you enjoy the idea of losing a potential customer. Because I used
to read up to twenty pages in a row (I like wiki-surfing). But until these
ads go away, I can't read this website anymore. Great Job, Marketting
Referred by: http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp
Comment: Regarding dinosaurs and the Bible, the Bible doesn't mention
dinosaurs. Period. The myth about the earth being six thousand years old
is an ancient one that is still being circulated among well meaning,
albeit misguided Christians today. It began in ancient times when people
knew nothing of dinosaurs, there was no archeology, no carbon dating, and
the earth was flat. At that time, a thousand years was thought to be an
incredibly long time so believing that the earth was six thousand years
old was an easy thing to believe, absent a point of reference. In the
Bible, the generations from Adam and Eve to Christ are recounted and, from
this one can reasonably calculate how long ago Adam and Eve lived. Therein
lies the rub. Contrary to the belief of ignorant but well meaning
Christians, Adam and Eve are not described in the Bible as being the first
man and woman. In fact, Genesis says something quite different.
According to what is actually written in Genesis, not the mythological
interpretation by country preachers, Adam was created and placed in the
Garden of Eden. Later, Eve was created from Adam's rib. They were
commanded to be virgins and not eat certain fruits found in the Garden.
Earlier in Genesis, 1:27, God created the ORIGINAL man. "So God created
man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. 1:29 And
God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon
the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a
tree yielding seed to you it shall be for meat." The point is that God
created the original man and woman at the same time, not serially, He did
not restrict the original man and woman to the Garden of Eden. He did not
command them to remain virgins. He did not restrict which fruits they
could eat from which trees. In other words, they were NOT Adam and Eve.
One more proof. When Cain slew Abel, God banished him to the Land of Nod
where Cain took a wife and had children. These people were NOT related to
Adam and Eve and there was clearly in existence a city and a civilization
of OTHER people. So, the earth had been in existence a VERY LONG TIME
before Adam and Eve. Even if you don't believe in God, this is obvious
within the context of accurately reading the Bible, hence the author of
this ridiculous "test" and its originating mythology are full of crap.