Wordsmith.org
Posted By: consuelo Do you see what I see? - 01/01/02 08:31 PM

http://www.sotolgallery.com/graphics/bb/sfolio/grape.html
How about that pile of rocks, huh?
Are the gutter police still on vacation? Hi, JackieThat ought to get everyone looking at the site. Hi, WO'N!

How about an award for best description of this picture? You know, make it a word post.




Posted By: wwh Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/01/02 08:51 PM
Dear Consuelo: I don't know enough geology to describe accurately the process that created this formation. It obviously took millions of years. I would not try climbing it.

Posted By: wow Re: Speaking of natural rock formations - 01/01/02 08:56 PM
Polynesian folk have an open-minded outlook ...

http://www.psience.net/sites/molokai/mol01001.htm

Posted By: Keiva Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/01/02 09:01 PM
I don't know enough ... to describe accurately the process that created this formation.
No doubt Consuelo is familiar with the process.

Posted By: Wordwind Re: Speaking of natural rock formations - 01/01/02 09:14 PM
OK, so how do we refer to these? Erockica? Erocktica? (I like that one.) Erosrockica? Erockic Erocktic? Erosrockic? Or just "Rock and Roll" in the primal sense?

Thanks, Consuelo and wow.

Rocks in my head,
WW

Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/02/02 12:47 AM
mmm,hmm...anybody can see it's a wounded butterfly that bore the same fate as Lot's wife! So why worry about the GP's hi, Connie!...and you see what happens when you cast your glance back upon Sodom and Gemorrah? tsk,tsk

Posted By: consuelo Just look at that wing - 01/02/02 02:33 AM
A wounded flutterby? Did you see the heart shape design in the wing? Am I posting in the wrong thread here?

Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: Just look at that wing - 01/02/02 04:57 AM
Did you see the heart shape design in the wing?

Yes...well...the poor thing must've been wearing his heart on his wing when he looked back. Or "her" wing, perhaps.
No, I guess you're right...it would definitely be a "he," wouldn't it?

Oh, and since you asked for a formal name nomination, Connie, here's mine:
Lot's Broken (ahem)Butterfly

Posted By: Angel Re: Just look at that wing - 01/02/02 05:38 AM
A wounded flutterby? Did you see the heart shape design in the wing? Am I posting in the wrong thread here?


Quite honestly, I thought it looked like a nice set of mammaries in the rock...oh...but that is a different thread too, isn't it?or isn't tit? This isn't very angelic of me now is it?

Posted By: Angel Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/05/02 04:44 AM
Connie made me post this.
edit on 6/28/2002...I removed the link. It was to a picture of a tree that I had posted in my personal website. I do not wish to destroy the continuity of any thread, however, I no longer wish my personal life to be viewed in this forum.

Thank you.
Posted By: GallantTed Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/05/02 05:01 AM
Howye

I sees nothin - this whole thread is one big phallacy if ya asks me (but please don't!)

GT

Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/05/02 05:26 AM
new link

Holy crap! It's a penile colony! ain't no way around this one!

Posted By: Wordwind Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/05/02 03:39 PM
Angel, what did she DO to MAKE you post that? I am very curious here, though utterly dumbfounded over that photograph. And to think I have such devotion toward trees! This one seems to dangle a devilish grin somewhere in between those leaves of aghast.

Best regards,
DoneDendrologist

Posted By: Sparteye Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/05/02 06:24 PM
Well, that tree is obviously in the well hung garden of Babylon.

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/05/02 09:25 PM
Damn it, I knew all this tinkering around with GM was going to upset the balance of nature! Tain't natoorelle! It looks like a whole new way for trees to scatter their seed. Wouldn' wanna be around none when it's happenin', neither.

So who's claiming the credit for this one? PPL Therapeutics? Looks like a whole step up from cloning Dolly the Sheep. Or were her genes the ones they used?



Posted By: Angel Re: Do you see what I see? - 01/06/02 12:28 AM
Forgot to post the caption of the picture..
"See, they do grow on trees!" Keiva made me say it!

Posted By: Fiberbabe Resurrection - 03/09/02 02:29 PM
Well, evidently they grow on carrots too.

http://blort.meepzorp.com/fenestration/carrotcouple.jpg


Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: Resurrection - 03/10/02 04:26 PM
Hmmm, Fiberbabe...gives new meaning to Bugs Bunny's, "Ehhhhh...what's up, doc?" [merrily holding his carrot-e] Doesn't it?

Dat wascally wabbit!

Someone ought to be Onan up to it!

Posted By: TEd Remington Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/10/02 05:45 PM
I think it needs a Viagriculturalist

Posted By: Geoff Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/10/02 09:45 PM
ow about an award for best description of this picture? You know, make it a word post.

Spermhenge

Posted By: Geoff Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/10/02 09:48 PM
As Fiberbabe can attest, there's a rock of giant lingam, or phallas shape alongside the Columbia River a few miles east of Portland, OR, that the state now refers to as "Rooster Rock." Its original English name was more apropriate, but the church ladies forbade it, hence the euphamism.

Posted By: Fiberbabe Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/11/02 12:39 AM
As Fiberbabe can attest...

I do solemnly swear.

I'm also aware of its reputation as a nude beach. [Yeah, in Oregon. Who knew?] However, I'm unaware of its former name. Geoff? Educate me!

Posted By: consuelo Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/11/02 01:02 AM
Let me hazzard a guess. Would it be Cock Rock?
The Gutter Hussy Goddess

Posted By: Fiberbabe Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/11/02 01:13 AM
Dunno Connie ~ I did a quick Google, and the only hint I uncovered was "Cooper's Point". And if that's what Cooper's Point looks like, I'd like to congratulate his wife on her capabilities!

Posted By: Keiva Res/erection - 03/11/02 01:18 AM
Re: Resurrection
Well, evidently they grow on carrots too.


You been rooting around, gal?

http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=wordplay&Number=47675

Posted By: Geoff Re: Speaking of natural rock formations - 03/11/02 03:26 AM
Erocktica?

No, WW, dear. Petrophallic. There, doesn't that sound ever so much more proper?

Rocks in my head,

And carrots in your (let's see...What rhymes with head?) That'll drive the bunny buggy!

Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/11/02 05:15 PM

This one could be funny or mean-spirited, depending on one's perspective.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/hubble_image.html


k


Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/11/02 05:44 PM
That's hysterical, FallibleFiend! Everybody's got an attitude, huh?

Here, I made it clickable for ya:
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/hubble_image.html





Posted By: Max Quordlepleen . - 03/11/02 08:26 PM
Posted By: Keiva Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/11/02 11:18 PM
Whit and Max, though I fully agree with your comments, I wonder if the ladies might perhaps prefer the more phallic pictures previously posted in this thread?

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/12/02 02:24 AM
Ah, but one for the gents too, though not as explicit. You all might recognize The Grand Tetons in Wyoming. For your information, The Grand Tetons is actually French for The Big Boobs.

http://www.geocities.com/rlschieber/travel1.htm

Posted By: Geoff Re: Grand Tetons - 03/13/02 12:15 AM
Thanks, belM, for keeping us abreast of French terms! (Yes, I'm milking it for all it's worth.)

Posted By: Keiva Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/13/02 12:18 AM
Your mammose image is much appreciated, bel. [making this vaguely word-related -e ]
Posted By: consuelo Milking it - 03/13/02 12:19 AM
In Spanish they would be called "Las Chichotas", with hands held, palms upward, just below the "chi chis", formed as if to give a good grab and jiggled up and down. So, WO'N, what did I leave dangling?

Posted By: Keiva Re: Milking it - 03/13/02 12:29 AM
This just in from Quebec, bel's home:

Cows milk themselves with robotic machine
Canadian dairy farmers have begun to equip their barns with European-made gadgets that let cows milk themselves whenever they want.

Imported from Holland, the $250,000 robotic milkers coax the cattle by dispensing tasty treats in exchange for their teats, which the machine automatically hooks up to a vacuum that sucks out just the right amount of milk.

The end result--besides a barn full of happy cows free to wander--is an increase in milk production, and consequently a boost in farmers' earnings. ... About 30 farmers in Ontario and Quebec have purchased the machine. Yves Roux bought four of the robotic milkers.

He said it took a few tries for his cattle to become accustomed to the machines, but now all but a few stubborn cows take the bait and sit back while the robot does its job.


Posted By: TEd Remington Re: Milking it - 03/13/02 05:39 PM
And then when their milk-giving days are finished we turn them into sausage.

Truly:

It was the times of breast, it was the times of wurst.

Posted By: Geoff Re: Milking it - 03/13/02 05:45 PM
It was the times of breast, it was the times of wurst.

From the book, A Sale of Two Titties.

Posted By: Jackie Re: Milking it - 03/15/02 10:20 PM
It was the times of breast, it was the times of wurst.
A Sale of Two Titties.
Ohmigawd! You two have made my day! Did you-all plan this?





Posted By: Geoff Re: Milking it - 03/16/02 01:58 AM
It was the times of breast, it was the times of wurst.
A Sale of Two Titties.
Ohmigawd! You two have made my day! Did you-all plan this?


No, and thank goodness you laughed! I was afraid you'd give us the Dickens!

Posted By: Keiva Re: Milking it - 03/16/02 02:05 AM
An amused titter ran through the audience.

Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: Milking it - 03/16/02 02:54 AM
I was afraid you'd give us the Dickens!

No, Geoff...Dickens has already given us the Dickens!

Posted By: Geoff Re: Milking it - 03/16/02 05:05 AM
An amused titter ran through the audience.

Bra-vo, Ken! What a titillating thought! And we all remember Edgar Allen Poe, who, in one of his poems, counted breasts. "The belles, belles, belles, belles, the titty tabulation of the bells, bells, bells...."

Posted By: Geoff Re: Milking it - 03/16/02 05:12 AM
No, Geoff...Dickens has already given us the Dickens!.

Well, W O'n, with your name, I'm surprised you didn't think of the Japanese version of one of Walt's titles, "I Sing The Body Erect-ric."

Posted By: stales Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/16/02 02:21 PM
I didn't want to interrupt anything so have held back from firing my own shot.

My partner in crime CapK is, as we speak, erecting a pic to blow all of you away.



Watch for his post with the url......then rush to book your trips to the Nambung National Park, Western Australia.

stales

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen . - 03/16/02 07:56 PM
Posted By: Jackie Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/16/02 08:48 PM
Ain't that swell - now Aussies apparently think every K1W1 is the same person!
Here's some payback for you, Max: he's really an American!

Posted By: Jackie That picture!!! - 03/16/02 08:52 PM
Oh, no no no no no!!! Oh, too much, too much!

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen . - 03/16/02 09:00 PM
Posted By: Angel Re: That picture!!! - 03/16/02 11:29 PM
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! A headless woman! But I guess the head the guy is showing makes up for it?!?!?!?

Posted By: stales Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/17/02 02:11 AM
> My partner in crime CapK

OMG !!!!!!!!!!!!!

A thousand pardons Max - and you too CapK.

It was late.....er, there was an earthquake,...........er, a huge explosion.........there was fire.

thanks anyway.

stales

Posted By: Keiva Re: That picture!!! - 03/17/02 02:13 AM
A headless woman! But I guess the head the guy is showing makes up for it

Always nice to see folks getting ahead in their endeavors.

Posted By: belMarduk Re: That picture!!! - 03/17/02 02:17 AM
All I can say is OUCH!

Posted By: Angel Re: That picture!!! - 03/17/02 02:18 AM
Always nice to see folks getting ahead in their endeavors.

And what was he endeavoring to do?

Posted By: Angel Re: That picture!!! - 03/17/02 02:21 AM
All I can say is OUCH!

Bel, not "tabarnac"?

Posted By: Keiva Re: That picture!!! - 03/17/02 02:22 AM
Word-related question: whence comes the phrase "to get on the stick"?

Posted By: Angel Re: That picture!!! - 03/17/02 02:31 AM
Word-related question: whence comes the phrase "to get on the stick"?

Maybe here?
http://communities.msn.com/KimsOasis/unusualandfunpictures.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=180
Gives new meaning to "woody"!

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen . - 03/17/02 03:33 AM
Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/17/02 04:11 AM
pinnacles

Well, I'd say one head more than compensates for the loss of the other!

Posted By: Geoff Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/17/02 03:15 PM
Well, I'd say one head more than compensates for the loss of the other!

Oh, boy, Whit, you'd better put on your flack jacket! Women already think we men only think with the "other " head!

Posted By: wow Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/17/02 03:30 PM
Women already think we men only think with the "other " head!

You don't?
News to me!


Posted By: Jackie Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/17/02 09:50 PM
I assign nationality by the way someone identifies themselves, not where they were born.
Yeah, yeah--I was jus' tryin' to poke his borax a little bit...(dang, a person cain't even have a little fun around here...)

Posted By: Geoff Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/17/02 10:29 PM
Women already think we men only think with the "other " head!

You don't?
News to me!


Glad to have been of service to you, Ann! (Upper head)

Glad to have serviced you, Ann! (Other head)

There, see, we DO know the difference!

Your humble servant, Geoff

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/17/02 10:31 PM
Men think???




Posted By: belMarduk Re: That picture!!! - 03/17/02 10:37 PM
Angel,

I was going to write:

All I can say is ouch, a-yoy and TABARNAC but it is *really* a bad swearword here. My Mom's threat of "I'll wash your mouth out with soap" uttered to me when I was a child is *still reverberating through my synapses.

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen . - 03/17/02 11:03 PM
Posted By: stales Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/18/02 02:11 PM
"The" pic was taken in 1985 at the Nambung National Park, several hours north of Perth, WA. The prominent features present are known collectively as "The Pinnacles".

Over time there's been various explanations put forward for how they formed, with the common thread being that they reflect a change in soil conditions around ancient, long gone, tree root systems.

One reasonable sounding hypothesis and some pix are given at http://aussie.trafalgargroup.net/pinnacle.html:

The raw material for the limestone of the pinnacles came from sea shells in an earlier epoch rich in marine life. These shells were broken down into lime-rich sands which were brought ashore by waves and then carried inland by the wind to form high, mobile dunes. Three old systems of sand dunes run parallel to the WA coast, marking ancient shorelines.

The oldest of these, known as the Spearwood dune system, is characterised by yellow or brownish sands. In winter, rain, which is slightly acidic, dissolves small amounts of calcium carbonate as it percolates down through the sand. As the dune dries out during summer, this is precipitated as a cement around grains of sand in the lower levels of the dunes, binding them together and eventually producing a hard limestone rock, known as Tamala Limestone.

At the same time, vegetation that became established on the surface, aided this process. Plant roots stabilised the surface, and encouraged a more acidic layer of soil and humus (containing decayed plant and animal matter) to develop over the remaining quartz sand.

The acidic soil accelerated the leaching process, and a hard layer of calcrete formed over the softer limestone below. Cracks which formed in the calcrete layer were exploited by plant roots. When water seeped down along these channels, the softer limestone beneath was slowly leached away and the channels gradually filled with quartz sand. This subsurface erosion continued until only the most resilient columns remained. The Pinnacles, then, are the eroded remnants of the formerly thick bed of limestone.

As bush fires denuded the higher areas, south-westerly winds carried away the loose quartz sands and left these limestone pillars standing up to three and a half metres high.

Although the formation of the Pinnacles would have taken many thousands of years, they were probably only exposed in quite recent times. Aboriginal artefacts at least 6,000 years old have been found in the Pinnacles Desert despite no recent evidence of Aboriginal occupation. This tends to suggest that the Pinnacles were exposed about 6,000 years ago and then covered up by shifting sands, before being exposed again in the last few hundred years. This process can be seen in action today - with the predominantly southerly winds uncovering pinnacles in the northern part of the Pinnacles Desert but covering those in the south. Over time, the limestone spires will no doubt be covered again by other sand drifts and the cycle repeated, creating weird and wonderful shapes over and over again.


For the record, whilst I do think the pic is funny, (we were a lot more frisky in those days!!) I no longer condone such mistreatment of these features and apologise to whoever, wherever for our actions that day. My only excuse is that we were no more disrespectful than many/most others. One was allowed to walk - or even drive!- anywhere throughout the Pinnacles back then. Now it's very much a case of low impact ecotourism.

stales

Posted By: Jackie Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/18/02 07:14 PM
Wow--thanks, stales! That's really cool! In the caves in this part of the country, you can really see evidence of the cracks in the calcrete layer: skinny little roots are often seen dangling from the ceiling--creepy. And thanks for the word calcrete--if I learned it all those yrs. ago in my geology classes, I'd forgotten it. Calcrete = calcium + concrete?

Posted By: Rapunzel Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/18/02 09:21 PM
From stales' link: One of the years, Sports Illustrated shot some of their swimsuit issue here.

Hmmm... wonder how they posed the swimsuit models?

Posted By: Geoff Re: Do you see what I see? - 03/18/02 10:23 PM
we don't, we aren't, and if we aren't,...

But, Max, you're using Cartesian logic, which is dualistic, so you've inadvertently brought us back to having two heads!










Posted By: stales Re: Calcrete - 03/19/02 09:12 AM
You got it - I think. Could also be calcium + accreted/accretion.

Same goes for "silcrete" (silica + concrete/accreted/accretion) and "ferricrete" - have a guess!

stales

Posted By: Keiva Re: calcrete and silcrete - 03/19/02 04:36 PM
per Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, no concrete is involved:

calcrete Geology. 1. a conglomerate of surface sand and gravel cemented into a hard mass by calcium carbonate. 2. in a semiarid climate, a hard crust containing calcium carbonate formed on the surface of a soil.
silcrete Geology. a conglomerate of surficial sand and gravel cemented together by silica.

http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary

Posted By: stales Re: calcrete and silcrete - 03/20/02 02:35 PM
Keiva - "concretion"(n.) is a geological term - a subspherical lump of grains that have been cemented together by chemical means. Thus you are correct in saying that it has nothing to do with concrete, but concretion is in there somewhere....

stales

Posted By: consuelo Re: That picture!!! - 03/22/02 02:57 PM
Hope that thing is well sanded, I'd hate to think of splinter removal.

© Wordsmith.org