I’ll have to check back there tonight, if my wife lets me. 
I had to quit there just after Navigator posted something about an article 'cus it was just taking too much time right at that moment.
By the way, you ought to check out some of the threads in the end-times area, especially the Hubble one (if you haven’t already) and the Conspiracy one. Lots o’ laughs from Monk and his few supporters.
David B wrote:
I used my regular “daytime” e-mail account here at work. It’s not a web-based e-mail account, but it is inside a firewall. Maybe their registration system is looking for a firewall.
Sorry David.
I got bored and wandered away.
If I wanted to wade through mountains of pointless postings, I would have taken that Moderator position…
Falcon - let me know what thread you’re posting on!
“From some other planet, I get this funky high on yellow sun” – Matchbox 20
In http://www.leftbehind.com/cgi-bbs/Forum3/HTML/002263-2.html , which is the second page of the Hubble thread (excuse me, “Hubbel” thread), Monk implies that the Cassini space probe is secretly carrying nuclear weapons. His evidence? Why, a friend of a friend told him that:
He doesn’t seem to realize that the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) aboard a space probe are much much less efficient at turning plutonium into usable energy than a full-blown nuclear reactor is. The reactor in an aircraft carrier or a nuclear power plant uses much higher-purity plutonium than an RTG does, and uses the heat of the controlled chain reaction (which must be carefully monitored) to boil water which in turn drives steam turbines connected to electric generators. You can’t fit boilers or turbines aboard a space probe. RTGs use the normal, non-chain-reaction decay of lower-grade plutonium to generate electricity with far less equipment.
But never mind that. What I wanna know is, if the government wanted to put nuclear weapons aboard Cassini secretly, why did they tell anyone there was any plutonium on board the spacecraft at all?!
“Love 'em, fear 'em, and leave 'em alone.” – Dr. Spockiavelli
And I see that Doubting Thomas already brought up the objection I just made in my previous message – a week ago, no less – by saying:
Okay, guys, I must not have been following the discussion in this GD thread as well as the rest of y’all. Which of you is “Doubting Thomas?” 
Oh, and here’s a good one from near the end of the “Hubbel” thread (as of 2-Dec-1999 at 8:16 PM Central Time) from one Vinyrdguy3:
Of course I don’t remember such a thing – because the Social Security Number was always supposed to be used for identification and tracking purposes! Hard working Joe Smith in California doesn’t want lazy Joe Smith in Texas to get his Social Security checks, so there has to be a way to uniquely identify everyone within the Social Security system. That was the whole purpose of SSNs! Duh!
Man, I wish the leftbehind.com message board registration system would work for me.
tracer–if you like, I’ll register you for the name and password of your choice. I have a work and home email, so one of them should work. You can change your password once I send you the info, so you need not worry about me posting under your name. The only drawback is that any email sent to “you” will have to be fwd’d to you by me (although you may be able to change your email once registered).
Thanks, Gaud! I don’t think I can choose the password initially, so send the relevant info to my daytime e-mail address: wilcox@uppercase.xerox.com . Use “Joshua 10:40” for my username if you can.
(Boy, I hope no spammers frequent the Straight Dope Message Board!)
Only problems I can foresee is: (1) If you’re already registered under the e-mail address you provide, LeftBehind.com might not let you register a second username with that address; and (2) if I can’t change my e-mail address, and I start getting really really obnoxious and they ban me, they’ll be banning YOUR e-mail address so YOU will be the one that can’t register any more. So I’ll try not to get on TOO many people’s nerves. Well, except for Monk, maybe. He’s a loo-loo.
Done. I don’t care if you get me banned, or if I get nasty email. As long as I don’t have to fwd lustful emails from Lilylamb to you or something, I’ll be cool.
Gaudere and Tracer: You can’t change the e-mail address later, because they send you a new password if you do. But if you check off both boxes indicating you don’t want your e-mail showing and you don’t want to receive e-mail from admins and mods, then you shouldn’t get any e-mail from them at all.
Wow. Knock me over with a feather. Navigator posted a link to an article discussing what a theory is. It was great! I wish the rest of those nimrods would read it (and understand it, but that’s probably asking too much).
In case anybody’s interested: http://www.oklahoman.com/cgi-bin/shart?ID=411249&TP=getarticle
That the full link, David? All I get with Netscape is a blank page… I’ll try again whenever my SO/S.O./Esso allows me to sign back on…
I’m so whipped.
-David
The f*****s locked up my thread and Soulfrost’s asking where the c/e threads went. They gave a bogus answer claiming threads older than 14 days get deleted, and then locked everything up saying, “We won’t discuss this here anymore.” What bullshit. If he’d bothered to read the thread, he’d have seen that NONE of those threads were that old. But they won’t answer the actual question. I’m tempted to open a new thread on the topic but don’t want to get booted just yet…
Soulfrost: I just clicked on it and got to the article. Dunno what to tell you (you could try it from Navigator’s post in that Oklahoma thread).
Here I go again, posting by myself.
Anyway, after posting the above, I went into Ghoti’s new “Evolution–a new beginning” thread (see link below) and noted that I would respond, but don’t see the point because the admins will probably just delete it anyway. I vented. Wonder how long it (or I) will last.
The link to that thread is: http://www.leftbehind.com/cgi-bbs/Forum8/HTML/001216.html
In case they delete my message, it said:
Ghoti said:
Why bother? They’ll just delete it again and give some BS non-answer and lock up any thread in which somebody dares to ask about it (you know, like MBagnall’s claim that they delete threads that are over 14 days old, even though we specifically were discussing how those threads were not at all old).
For example, you just posted something here again about Dr. Scott and the scientific method. I know I posted a long response to you about that last time, including a lot about the way the scientific method cannot deal with issues of faith. I don’t think you ever responded at the time (there were a lot of tangents and popcorn munching going on by others, which tended to hide any actual discussion going on, so I’m not necessarily blaming you), and now it’s gone. Poof. I could reconstruct it, given some time, but I’m not going to bother if the administration is just going to delete it anyway. Frankly, if that’s the way they’re prone to acting, I may just leave altogether. I don’t want to, mind you, but if the admins make a habit of deleting anything they don’t like and not even deigning to talk about it, well, that’s not exactly conducive to discussions of any type.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
But one more thread to check out: http://www.leftbehind.com/cgi-bbs/Forum8/HTML/001214.html
“Scientists sequence first human chromosome”
They are talking about how complex the genome is and how it couldn’t have evolved that way. I stole some of KeithB’s material from a thread here about how much junk DNA there is and how no “intelligent designer” would have done that.
Ghoti is running the Fred Hoyle 10^40000 gag. Go get 'em Daniel!
www.leftbehind.com/cgi-bbs/Forum8/HTML/001214.html
Uh oh. Daniel Schwarr is about to get outed by Navigator in Oklahoma Science Books and Evolution. The Navster asks:
What will you do, what will you do? It’s a more reasonable question than “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior” and all that. It’s on topic. I know you’d never lie to them.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Oh, that’s a simple one, Manhattan. I could just ignore it (Lord knows they do enough of that). More likely, though, I will point out that God is a faith issue, as Nav himself has noted, and therefore really has nothing to do with the science of evolution.
But I probably won’t get back to the site 'til tonight.
Andros: I saw the Hoyle thing. Unfortunately, I’m not terribly qualified in that area. In general, it’s a stupid thing to try to use math to “disprove” what the evidence says happened, but that’s about as well as I can explain it. Maybe DrFidelius could do a better job, either as Piscator or here so Daniel could post it?
As a mathematician, I s’pose I should be the one to rebut a probabilistic argument. Except I’m not familiar with the rebuttals. (One of these days I need to read Climbing Mt. Improbable.)
For now, my attitude is, who cares, as long as we can beat them upside the head on the rest of it? If the best they can offer, without our ripping them to shreds, is ‘We don’t know how life began, but evolution accounts for the history of life since that moment better than any other theory does,’ then I’m happy.
Fact is, we don’t know how life began. Scientific speculation includes hypotheses that it began deep within the earth, or that it began on another planet, and got here via meteorite. The fundies may try to make something out of that, but without a case on the history of life since that moment, it means nothing.