What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 2, 2010, 11:41:17 AM7/2/10

to

Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research
because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere,
a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong.
Apparently, that person is a German. Einstein, the MORON was a
German, too. Not only does 'Hendrik' not understand Newton, he
doesn't understand that I have invalidated most of Newton's and all of
Einstein's theories.

To wit: Newton's Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation lacks a
temperature correction; 'g' is: 32.174 feet per second EACH second,
rather than... per sec. SQUARED; and his second Law of Motion is
correct in WORDS, but isn't expressed even close to correctly as: F =
ma. The latter equation yields no results for anything.

Einstein is invalidated very easily by my showing that his SR violates
the Law of the Conservation of Energy; and the mechanism of gravity
is: "Flowing ether which creates a mass proportional force on objects,
and has the flowing ether replenished by the "hobo" ether ejected
along with the photons which are exchanged between the attracting
bodies.” Here's how I replied to "Hendrik":

** And you, Sir, are an airhead! The errant Status Quo, isn't a
"proof", it is
an excuse! You'll see. — NoEinstein — ** Please note the links to
my "beyond research" posts, below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hendrik van Hees" <Hendrik...@theo.physik.uni-giessen.de>
To: "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 2:30 PM
Subject: [REJ] Re: Inertia in geodesic motion

Your posting is inappropriate for sci.physics.research since it
contains
fundamental misunderstandings about Newtonian mechanics. There's no
resistance
against motion except forces between bodies (friction is also nothing
else
than a force between particles eithter!).

With kindest regards,
Hendrik van Hees.

On Thursday 01 July 2010 18:08:13 you wrote:
> On Jun 29, 8:34 am, enders <peter.end...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear enders: Inertia is simply the mass of an object. Motion of any
> kind has nothing to do with it! Since it requires a force greater
> than the resistance to set an object in motion, no mass will move
> until the force exceeds the object's weight. One proviso is in the
> case of objects resting on low friction surfaces, wheels or bearings:
> In such case the force being delivered must be suddenly applied, as an
> impulse, in order for the full inertial resistance to be felt. The
> latter suddenness is why a table cloth can be yanked out from under
> place settings of dishes. Pull the cloth too slowly and the full
> inertia of the dishes is never realized, and the dishes will wind up
> in the floor. — NoEinstein —
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > The equation determining geodetic motion in Einstein's 1915
> > calculation of the Mercury orbit does not contain inertia, or did I
> > overlook it?
> >
> > Within Newtonian physics, a circular satellite orbit is determined by
> > equilibrium of centrifugal and centripetal forces:
> >
> > force vector of gravity + vector of inertial force = 0
> >
> > What is the pendant of this equilibrium in GR?
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> > Peter
>

--
Hendrik van Hees
Justus-Liebig Universität Gießen
D-35392 Gießen
http://theorie.physik.uni-giessen.de/~hees/

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 2, 2010, 12:42:58 PM7/2/10

to

On 7/2/10 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research
> because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere,
> a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong.

This is no big surprise, as you get the physics wrong here too!

eric gisse

unread,

Jul 2, 2010, 3:59:50 PM7/2/10

to

Sam Wormley wrote:

I wonder what readers he is referring to, as this is the first time I've
seen someone reply to him in awhile.

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 3, 2010, 8:06:49 PM7/3/10

to

Dear Sam: You're a school teacher who got hired by those not
understanding physics to teach from books written by those not
understanding physics. Haven't you heard? "Those who CAN'T teach;
those who CAN, do!" I'm a doer, Sam! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 3, 2010, 8:10:04 PM7/3/10

to

Dear Eric: Click on my post 'profile' and you will see how many
readers I have. I explain my New Science, I don't encourage arguing
about those truths. Are you still in Alaska? — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 5, 2010, 9:38:26 AM7/5/10

to

On Jul 2, 12:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Give it up, Sam. You need to get into a learning mode to reply to
be. I'm the MESSENGER. If you know so much, pick any point of my
science, paraphrase your counter-argument, and let me explain how
Nature really works! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 5, 2010, 9:44:09 AM7/5/10

to

On Jul 2, 11:41 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
Dear Readers: My thoughtful reply contains very clearly-explained
science relating to the INERTIA of bodies. I invite any of you to
comment on the science. Any nut, like Sam Wormley, can attack the
messenger. Talking science should be what we do on sci.physics. —
NoEinstein —

>
> Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research
> because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere,
> a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong.
> Apparently, that person is a German. Einstein, the MORON was a
> German, too. Not only does 'Hendrik' not understand Newton, he
> doesn't understand that I have invalidated most of Newton's and all of
> Einstein's theories.
>
> To wit: Newton's Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation lacks a
> temperature correction; 'g' is: 32.174 feet per second EACH second,
> rather than... per sec. SQUARED; and his second Law of Motion is
> correct in WORDS, but isn't expressed even close to correctly as: F =
> ma. The latter equation yields no results for anything.
>
> Einstein is invalidated very easily by my showing that his SR violates
> the Law of the Conservation of Energy; and the mechanism of gravity
> is: "Flowing ether which creates a mass proportional force on objects,
> and has the flowing ether replenished by the "hobo" ether ejected
> along with the photons which are exchanged between the attracting
> bodies.” Here's how I replied to "Hendrik":
>
> ** And you, Sir, are an airhead! The errant Status Quo, isn't a
> "proof", it is
> an excuse! You'll see. — NoEinstein — ** Please note the links to
> my "beyond research" posts, below.
>

> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...

> An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...

> Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
> Curing Einstein’s Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...
> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

> Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is

> D-35392 Gießenhttp://theorie.physik.uni-giessen.de/~hees/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 5, 2010, 10:25:57 AM7/5/10

to

Enlighten me about Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER.

Raymond Yohros

unread,

Jul 5, 2010, 4:21:18 PM7/5/10

to

sci.physics.reaserch its a much better newsgroup than sci.physics
they are kind enough to tell you when you make a mistake!

regards
r.y

hanson

unread,

Jul 5, 2010, 6:19:33 PM7/5/10

to

...... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHAHA.....

>
"Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> wrote:
sci.physics.reaserch its a much better newsgroup than sci.physics
they are kind enough to tell you when you make a mistake!

regards --- r.y
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahaha... (1) then why are you hanging around here?
>
sci.physics is wonderfully entertaining as it has the grand
allure for Einstein Dingleberries to hope that they are NOT
wrong.. and hence defend their shit, in vain, like jihadists
do who are still in, or fresh out of their madrassas..
(2) does your religious persuasion compel you to stay in
s.p. and complain?... But, don't let me cramp your style.
Carry on and thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahanson

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 5, 2010, 10:12:05 PM7/5/10

to

On Jul 5, 10:25 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Sam: If you can paraphrase it, I will critique it. I didn't use
anything status quo in formulating my New Science. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 5, 2010, 10:19:42 PM7/5/10

to

On Jul 5, 4:21 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...@birdband.net> wrote:
>
Dear Raymond: Those posting on sci.physics.research are too dumb to
KNOW when they err. (They must ask others.) And they're too gullible
to realize that the moderators couldn't tell their own asses from
holes in the ground. Be BOLD, Raymond; make a concise statement about
any point of my New Science and see how I critique you. I'll promise
to be fair! — NoEinstein —

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 6, 2010, 12:00:32 AM7/6/10

to

Are you going to critique Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER? Or
enlighten me about it?

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 6, 2010, 11:31:24 AM7/6/10

to

On Jul 6, 12:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Sam: You've a visitor on my post. I don't go on wild-goose-
chases. Like I've told you and others before, paraphrase what you
wish to discuss so that the readers will know what is "in play". I'll
give you credit for stating the name of... "something" that I've not
seen before. I never need 'research' to explain my New Science. I
can probably answer you question in about a paragraph. But you have
to paraphrase your question, first; OK? — NoEinstein —

> enlighten me about it?- Hide quoted text -

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 6, 2010, 1:41:15 PM7/6/10

to

On 7/6/10 10:31 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Dear Sam: You've a visitor on my post. I don't go on wild-goose-
> chases. Like I've told you and others before, paraphrase what you
> wish to discuss so that the readers will know what is "in play". I'll
> give you credit for stating the name of... "something" that I've not
> seen before. I never need 'research' to explain my New Science. I
> can probably answer you question in about a paragraph. But you have
> to paraphrase your question, first; OK? — NoEinstein —

I figured you were not well read on tests of general relativity.

What areas of physics are you up on?

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 6, 2010, 7:48:08 PM7/6/10

to

On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Sam: Make a '+new post' stating anything that you suppose you
are 'up' on in physics and see how many readers you get. I am "up" on
the entire Universe; while you only defend the status quo—which is
your God. — NE —

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 12:06:44 AM7/7/10

to

On 7/6/10 6:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

> Dear Sam: Make a '+new post' stating anything that you suppose you
> are 'up' on in physics and see how many readers you get. I am "up" on

> the entire Universe; while you only defend the status quoï¿½which is
> your God. ï¿½ NE ï¿½

No matter what subject in physics I choose, you find some way
not to address it. Game's up, you lose!

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 12:26:20 PM7/7/10

to

On Jul 7, 12:06 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/10 6:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Sam: Make a '+new post' stating anything that you suppose you
> > are 'up' on in physics and see how many readers you get. I am "up" on

> > the entire Universe; while you only defend the status quo which is
> > your God. NE
>

> No matter what subject in physics I choose, you find some way
> not to address it. Game's up, you lose!

Dear Sam: Getting me to go on a wild-goose-chase to read the works of
others won't ever happen. You're supposed to be a 'smart' teacher
(ha, ha, HA!). You should be able to paraphrase what you wish for me
to comment on. Unless you can do that, then it is YOU who are not
addressing things, and lose! — NE —

PD

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 12:29:01 PM7/7/10

to

Here is NoEinstein's philosophy of teaching and learning: "If you are
so good a teacher, then you should be able to convince me without my
having to do any work. If you can't do that, then you are no good as a
teacher, and what you have to teach me is obviously wrong."

Compensation mechanism for deep-seated feelings of inadequacy.

"Not my fault. Never my fault. Always YOUR fault."

Benj

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 1:14:20 PM7/7/10

to

No question that "Sam" and his popular science magazines won't be
banned from sci.physics.research. It's "moderated" by the same clowns
who run Physics Forums. In religion it doesn't matter what you can
prove, the only thing that matters can be found in the bible you
thump. With these guys, that bible is a freshman physics textbook
(that they keep recommending I read).

For these incompetents and so-called "teachers" like "wormley" new
ideas are simply frightening as is any action that hints at actual
thinking. Luckily, I can insult the pants off these idiots and Wormley
can't ruin my life by flunking me the way he can all the students he
forces to worship him, nor can "Hendrik" keep any of my papers from
being published or get me fired from my job. Heh, THAT has already
been taken care of by others!

So all they can do is sit there asserting that being "high up" in
professional organizations makes you "right" and that I am "nothing"
or worse, "insane". Hey, you don't need to listen to anyone who is
"insane" do you?

So NoEinstein, You are making good progress, but you have a ways to go
to get up here in the rarefied air of kook-dom where I am. Hey, I'm
banned for life by those Physics Forums idiots for being a
"crackpot". Yawn. And they are still amateurs. Hey, I've had papers
"banned" from being published by the likes of Bell Labs back when they
were the envy of science. (And we even knew the editor of the journal
who said they applied so much pressure he couldn't resist it!) And
that takes some serious science to accomplish!

Androcles

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 1:31:16 PM7/7/10

to

"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:8dea86d9-0e68-4066...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...

==========================================
Huh! That's nothing, I've been thrown out of some of the worst pubs
in town.
Groucho Marx - Wikiquote
I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT
TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 11:29:28 PM7/7/10

to

On Jul 7, 12:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
In your DREAMS, PD! The only person who's inadequate, here, is you,
the couch potato ex teacher. — NE —

> "Not my fault. Never my fault. Always YOUR fault."- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 11:37:46 PM7/7/10

to

On Jul 7, 1:14 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
Dear Benj: Thanks for such a candid reply! I'm 'choosing up sides'.
You're selected for the team! The only good thing about PD and...
Sam, is that some of the readers probably enjoy seeing how unaffected
I am by either of those... teachers. (Ha, ha, HA!) I'm giving you
five stars. Talk some science. I want assume that you're a
crackpot. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 11:39:58 PM7/7/10

to

On Jul 7, 1:31 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
Androcles: I didn't know you had a sense of humor. Keep it up! —
NoEinstein —
>
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2010, 11:45:53 PM7/7/10

to

On Jul 7, 11:37 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
CORRECTION: Make that won't, instead of... 'want'! I've always been
"ear minded", meaning that I mispelled words, but got the SOUND
correct. — NE —

> > that takes some serious science to accomplish!- Hide quoted text -

PD

unread,

Jul 8, 2010, 10:59:57 AM7/8/10

to

On Jul 7, 10:37 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:14 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Benj: Thanks for such a candid reply! I'm 'choosing up sides'.
> You're selected for the team! The only good thing about PD and...
> Sam, is that some of the readers probably enjoy seeing how unaffected
> I am by either of those... teachers. (Ha, ha, HA!) I'm giving you
> five stars. Talk some science. I want assume that you're a
> crackpot. — NoEinstein —

I'm glad you're so thrilled at being unaffected by teaching.
This puts you in the same category as pumpkins, pillows, and pigs,
which are also completely unaffected by teaching.

PD

unread,

Jul 8, 2010, 11:04:31 AM7/8/10

to

On Jul 7, 10:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 12:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In your DREAMS, PD! The only person who's inadequate, here, is you,
> the couch potato ex teacher. — NE —
>

I always find it remarkable how many people come to this newsgroup
with the loudly pronounced battle cry:
"I dare you to try to teach me this so-called physics! I'll bet you
will not succeed! You see? I'm not convinced of your so-called truths.
You have failed to change my mind, and therefore I have *won* because
I have resisted all attempts to teach me."

Anyone who would find themselves victorious in willful ignorance is a
little mentally maladjusted.

PD

Uncle Ben

unread,

Jul 8, 2010, 4:14:26 PM7/8/10

to

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Pimpkins and pillows -- OK. But pigs learn quickly.

Uncle Ben

Androcles

unread,

Jul 8, 2010, 4:51:07 PM7/8/10

to

"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:f250dd2a-c827-4dfa...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...

Uncle Ben
======================================
A pimpkin sells his sister as a whore.

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 11, 2010, 1:30:40 PM7/11/10

to

On Jul 8, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Dear PD the Dunce School Teacher: The only ones "needing" educations
are those who can't figure things out for themselves. Going through
the supposed "education mills" isn't about getting educated, it's
about employing teachers and giving politicians platforms to run on.
If in first grade the kids were told to start figuring things out for
themselves, formal education, including college, could end after ten
years, or at age 16 for most students. — NoEinstein —

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 11, 2010, 1:33:15 PM7/11/10

to

PD: ... and those who GRAVITATE to the 'misaligned', don't have a
problem? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 11, 2010, 1:34:17 PM7/11/10

to

> Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Uncle Ben: I was a self-taught... Big Pig! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 11, 2010, 1:35:21 PM7/11/10

to

On Jul 8, 4:51 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
At Thanksgiving, that sounds... tasty! — NE —

> A pimpkin sells his sister as a whore.- Hide quoted text -

PD

unread,

Jul 12, 2010, 2:26:58 PM7/12/10

to

On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD the Dunce School Teacher: The only ones "needing" educations
> are those who can't figure things out for themselves. Going through
> the supposed "education mills" isn't about getting educated, it's
> about employing teachers and giving politicians platforms to run on.
> If in first grade the kids were told to start figuring things out for
> themselves, formal education, including college, could end after ten
> years, or at age 16 for most students. — NoEinstein —
>

Then by all means let's forget this nonsense about degrees in
architecture and just let anyone do it that can figure it out for
themselves. Especially the ones who say the architecture status quo is
obviously garbage, principally because it is the status quo! Why,
ANYONE should be allowed to design buildings, as long as they think
long and hard about it and convince themselves they know what they're
doing!

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 12, 2010, 5:38:08 PM7/12/10

to

On Jul 12, 2:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: You err Big Time when you try to
generalze from me to the rest of the public "possibly" needing to be
taught. Only, maybe one person in 100 million has (and uses) the
analytical ability that I have. I accept the engineering aspects of
architecture, but don't cling to the "status quo" in architecture
beyond that. Neither do I recommend changes simply for the sake of
changes. Those building have odd-ball looks, don't they.

I realize how frustrating it must be for you to keep trying to
belittle me and to fail. As far as science goes, I am as resistant to
attack as Ronald Reagan was. That's why he was called... "the Teflon
President." I'm the ‘Teflon’ King of the Hill of Science! —
NoEinstein —

PD

unread,

Jul 12, 2010, 5:46:01 PM7/12/10

to

On Jul 12, 4:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: You err Big Time when you try to
> generalze from me to the rest of the public "possibly" needing to be
> taught. Only, maybe one person in 100 million has (and uses) the
> analytical ability that I have.

Ah, so when YOU said that if kids were taught to think for themselves
formal education could end after ten years, you meant that this was so
only for one in 100 million kids? What about the other 99,999,999
kids?

Or do you not remember what you said four hours ago?

And is this disjointedness a result of your blinding genius?

> I accept the engineering aspects of
> architecture, but don't cling to the "status quo" in architecture
> beyond that. Neither do I recommend changes simply for the sake of
> changes. Those building have odd-ball looks, don't they.
>
> I realize how frustrating it must be for you to keep trying to
> belittle me and to fail.

Why would anyone try to belittle a clown?

> As far as science goes, I am as resistant to
> attack as Ronald Reagan was. That's why he was called... "the Teflon
> President." I'm the ‘Teflon’ King of the Hill of Science! —

Yes, indeed! Truer self-appraisal has not come from you yet! LOL!!!!

>
> NoEinstein —
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear PD the Dunce School Teacher: The only ones "needing" educations
> > > are those who can't figure things out for themselves. Going through
> > > the supposed "education mills" isn't about getting educated, it's
> > > about employing teachers and giving politicians platforms to run on.
> > > If in first grade the kids were told to start figuring things out for
> > > themselves, formal education, including college, could end after ten
> > > years, or at age 16 for most students. — NoEinstein —
>
> > Then by all means let's forget this nonsense about degrees in
> > architecture and just let anyone do it that can figure it out for
> > themselves. Especially the ones who say the architecture status quo is
> > obviously garbage, principally because it is the status quo! Why,
> > ANYONE should be allowed to design buildings, as long as they think
> > long and hard about it and convince themselves they know what they're

> > doing!- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Jul 12, 2010, 10:19:34 PM7/12/10

to

On Jul 12, 5:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: I don't give a damn that you can't
read and understand. So, when are you going home to feed your face?
— NE —

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -