Skip to main content

There are more than a few on the Forum who fancy themselves to be well employed as thinkers

Bill G. the atheist {antiparticle of Bro. Bill G.} and some of his confederates quickly come to mind when I consider what is called the “Peter Principle”.

The following is alink

I cannot imagine the simple not being able to template this principle to atheist thinkers .

My level of incompetence always seems to disappear on the horizon.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I would apply that to our current government more than religious or non religious people.



This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.[1] Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
There are more than a few on the Forum who fancy themselves to be well employed as thinkers

Bill G. the atheist {antiparticle of Bro. Bill G.} and some of his confederates quickly come to mind when I consider what is called the “Peter Principle”.

The following is alink

I cannot imagine the simple not being able to template this principle to atheist thinkers .

My level of incompetence always seems to disappear on the horizon.

Hi Rram,

Sure do wish you would call him Deep, or Dawkins Jr., or even Darwinitis -- but, you referring to him as Bill G. sure does cause confusion. Why, even old Deep was confused by it on another discussion.

Now, I know you would not want me calling Deep by the name Mr. Rram. After all, no respectable Christian wants to be confused with an atheist.

So, please, my Friend, call him anything, call him George, call him Judy, call him late for supper -- but, please, not BG or Bill G.

Sure do appreciate your help in avoiding this confusion.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill (the real Bill G.)

Attachments

Images (1)
  • PREACH_DARWIN_Outline-1a
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
There are more than a few on the Forum who fancy themselves to be well employed as thinkers

Bill G. the atheist {antiparticle of Bro. Bill G.} and some of his confederates quickly come to mind when I consider what is called the “Peter Principle”.

The following is alink

I cannot imagine the simple not being able to template this principle to atheist thinkers .

My level of incompetence always seems to disappear on the horizon.

Hi Rram,

Sure do wish you would call him Deep, or Dawkins Jr., or even Darwinitis -- but, you referring to him as Bill G. sure does cause confusion. Why, even old Deep was confused by it on another discussion.

Now, I know you would not want me calling Deep by the name Mr. Rram. After all, no respectable Christian wants to be confused with an atheist.

So, please, my Friend, call him anything, call him George, call him Judy, call him late for supper -- but, please, not BG or Bill G.

Sure do appreciate your help in avoiding this confusion.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill (the real Bill G.)


Bro. Bill G.

I do not know he is other than Billy Joe Bob Gene.

His first name is Bill (short for Billy) his last name is Gene.

Hence I lovingly refer to him as “Bill G.” and you as Bro. Bill G.. Surely anyone can sort out the difference.
Each of the two Bill Gs’ are antiparticles of the other.

Lets consult the wisdom of the Great Wiki: link

1.They have the same mass but opposite charge

They both have an “at rest mass”. When in motion it seems one has as much force on a subject as the other.

The two have opposite charge, the one charged with convincing us there is no God. The other charged with convincing us that there is a God.

2. They can annihilate one another resulting in pairs of harmful gamma rays.

During the fisticuff things can become launched injuring bystanders.

3. Through all this they maintain their original charge.

Neither one will say “uncle”.
Okay, so that was pretty good, rram.

I agree with vplee that you call them these pet names to irritate them. I imagine it is because they irritate you.

I can't say that I would ever confuse Billy with Bill G though...like never...ever.

I will admit to thinking they were the same person at one time. They were both raised in Sheffield and both now live in California. I thought it was someone's idea of fun, having two distinctly opposite personas.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Not really, since several of the posters have not known who you were referring to rram.
I think you are doing it on purpose to upset both Mr Gray and Billy Joe.

But that's only a guess.


In the second grade, did you know a contrary child who said whatever necessary to push peoples' buttons?

It was the only way he could get attention. He reveled on the absurdity of his pronunciations and the admonishments against them.

I guess it's true. We must grow older. We need not grow up.
quote:
Sez rRamm:
Each of the two Bill Gs’ are antiparticles of the other.

Lets consult the wisdom of the Great Wiki: link

1.They have the same mass but opposite charge

They both have an “at rest mass”. When in motion it seems one has as much force on a subject as the other.

The two have opposite charge, the one charged with convincing us there is no God. The other charged with convincing us that there is a God.

2. They can annihilate one another resulting in pairs of harmful gamma rays.

During the fisticuff things can become launched injuring bystanders.

3. Through all this they maintain their original charge.

Neither one will say “uncle”.

Rramlimnn


rram,
Please refer to the "Best If Used By:" dates on all of your canned Tuna tinlets...
There can be much brain damage caused to ones self by consuming "tainted" seafood.
Also, if I might add...if you pull that foil wrapped pound-o-ground beef from the freezer...and it has a grayish/green patina to it, with a 1/4 inch "frosting" of yellow ice? DON'T EAT IT!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
Each of the two Bill Gs’ are antiparticles of the other.

Lets consult the wisdom of the Great Wiki: link

1.They have the same mass but opposite charge

They both have an “at rest mass”. When in motion it seems one has as much force on a subject as the other.

The two have opposite charge, the one charged with convincing us there is no God. The other charged with convincing us that there is a God.

2. They can annihilate one another resulting in pairs of harmful gamma rays.

During the fisticuff things can become launched injuring bystanders.

3. Through all this they maintain their original charge.

Neither one will say “uncle”.


This may be the first thing you ever wrote that I actually comprehended! Funny.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×