Hey Bob casanova

[StanFast]

Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy

[StanFast]

The sun is 93 million miles away. Puts out so much energy, you can feel the heat from it.
How much power does your ham radio transmitter output?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy

Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.

Is there some point you think you're making?

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>The sun is 93 million miles away. Puts out so much energy, you can feel the heat from it.
>How much power does your ham radio transmitter output?

I don't have a ham transmitter; I've never been interested
enough in amateur radio to get a license.

That said, I believe such transmitters are limited to around
1kW (SSB allowance might be different; it is [was?] for CB).

Do you imagine you've made some sort of point? Maybe you
think that the difference in energy makes radio waves "stop"
at some point? Hint: They don't; photons don't just
disappear unless they're absorbed by something. Like
diamonds, or like arguing with morons, free photons are
essentially forever.

You *did* know that radio waves are EM radiation just like
visible light, and, like visible light, are also composed of
photons, right?

[Oxyaena]

On 6/14/2018 3:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
>
> Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
>
> Is there some point you think you're making?
>
>

None, besides trying (and failing) to troll you over your scuttle on the
Fermi Paradox thread. Yeah, he's not only horrible when it comes to
scientific literacy, he's pathetically bad at being a troll as well.
Sorry, Scumfest, but Nyikos, Ray, that Jehovah's Witness moron, JTEM Is
A Dick, Jonathan, and plenty of others have you beat, pal.

[StanFast]

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 3:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
> >
> > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
> >
> > Is there some point you think you're making?
> >
> >
>
> None,

maybe you inherited the same malady bob has.
See, there was a context at the time, something going on in the newsgroup at the time, that Bob was involved with, a discussion at the time going on in the group.
It must have completely fallen out of his brain and slipped his mind.

[StanFast]

maybe Bob thinks for the purposes of detection of signals for intelligent life, he can detect a sixty watt light bulb all the way on the other side of the universe

[zencycle]

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
>
> Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
>
> Is there some point you think you're making?
>

It's pretty clear that the point slow stanley is trying to make is that there is so much noise generated by other sources that detection of intelligent signals isn't possible. As Oxyaena points out, stanley's scientific literacy is woefully inadequate. Hell, he thinks equipment that is used to tap a phone will jam a radio. Things like narrow band filtering, heterodyning, and applications of coherence in data analysis and fourier transforms are all things people making comments on SETI need to have at least a basic understanding in. Hint for slow stanley - a 60 watt bulb at the other side of the galaxy isn't an appropriate analogy, A 60 watt bulb is an appropriate analogy for your intellectual power.

[StanFast]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
> >
> > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
> >
> > Is there some point you think you're making?
> >
> It's pretty clear that the point slow stanley is trying to make is that there is so much noise generated by other sources that detection of intelligent signals isn't possible.

No, that is not it

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 06:28:52 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 1:25:03 PM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >The sun is 93 million miles away. Puts out so much energy, you can feel the heat from it.
>> >How much power does your ham radio transmitter output?
>>
>> I don't have a ham transmitter; I've never been interested
>> enough in amateur radio to get a license.
>>
>> That said, I believe such transmitters are limited to around
>> 1kW (SSB allowance might be different; it is [was?] for CB).
>>
>> Do you imagine you've made some sort of point? Maybe you
>> think that the difference in energy makes radio waves "stop"
>> at some point? Hint: They don't; photons don't just
>> disappear unless they're absorbed by something. Like
>> diamonds, or like arguing with morons, free photons are
>> essentially forever.
>>
>> You *did* know that radio waves are EM radiation just like
>> visible light, and, like visible light, are also composed of
>> photons, right?

>maybe Bob thinks for the purposes of detection of signals for intelligent life, he can detect a sixty watt light bulb all the way on the other side of the universe

Maybe Sparky thinks he's made some sort of point. He hasn't,
even with his irrelevant comment about amateur radio.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 6/14/2018 3:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
>> > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
>> >
>> > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
>> >
>> > Is there some point you think you're making?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> None,
>
>
>maybe you inherited the same malady bob has.

Intelligence and comprehension of English? Yeah, I suspect
he has.

>See, there was a context at the time, something going on in the newsgroup at the time, that Bob was involved with, a discussion at the time going on in the group.
>It must have completely fallen out of his brain and slipped his mind.

When the subject is changed, and nothing from the original
is included in the new subject post, there is no context, so
that excuse of yours can be discarded.

Sparky doesn't yet comprehend the meaning of "context" in
Usenet, even though it's been carefully explained to him.

>esides trying (and failing) to troll you over your scuttle on the
>> Fermi Paradox thread. Yeah, he's not only horrible when it comes to
>> scientific literacy, he's pathetically bad at being a troll as well.
>> Sorry, Scumfest, but Nyikos, Ray, that Jehovah's Witness moron, JTEM Is
>> A Dick, Jonathan, and plenty of others have you beat, pal.

[StanFast]

How much power do those output?
do you even realize that determines how many photons are produced?

[StanFast]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 6/14/2018 3:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> >> > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
> >> >
> >> > Is there some point you think you're making?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> None,
> >
> >
> >maybe you inherited the same malady bob has.
>
> Intelligence and comprehension of English? Yeah, I suspect
> he has.
>
> >See, there was a context at the time, something going on in the newsgroup at the time, that Bob was involved with, a discussion at the time going on in the group.
> >It must have completely fallen out of his brain and slipped his mind.
>
> When the subject is changed,

i can help you. it was the same topic. you started out wrong right there.

and nothing from the original
> is included in the new subject post, there is no context,

what was going on in the newsgroup at the time in discussions you were involved in is the context.

[zencycle]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:05:03 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> > > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > >Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
> > >
> > > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
> > >
> > > Is there some point you think you're making?
> > >
> > It's pretty clear that the point slow stanley is trying to make is that there is so much noise generated by other sources that detection of intelligent signals isn't possible.
>
>
> No, that is not it
>

YEs, actually it is. your comment above "maybe Bob thinks for the purposes of detection of signals for intelligent life, he can detect a sixty watt light bulb all the way on the other side of the universe " along with the 'super amounts of energy from the sun' means exactly, you think the radiated output of the sun masks the energy of the bulb. This is a poor analogy. It's entirely possible to extract coherent data from a signal that's been masked by noise. I worked on a project long ago where data was modulated into the phase noise of a phase locked loop carrier. IT was experimental, but there were repeatable results, the point was to establish alternative communication methods it environments where there were high interference components. SETI is looking for coherence, not simply a random non-intelligent signal like a light bulb. You should really stop trying to talk about science or technology.

[StanFast]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:55:03 PM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:05:03 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:
> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > >Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
> > > >
> > > > Is there some point you think you're making?
> > > >
> > > It's pretty clear that the point slow stanley is trying to make is that there is so much noise generated by other sources that detection of intelligent signals isn't possible.
> >
> >
> > No, that is not it
> >
>
> YEs, actually it is. your comment above "maybe Bob thinks for the purposes of detection of signals for intelligent life, he can detect a sixty watt light bulb all the way on the other side of the universe " along with the 'super amounts of energy from the sun' means exactly, you think the radiated output of the sun masks the energy of the bulb.

Nope.
Photons produced (as in numbers) is determined by how much energy is involved.

There is only one person with his sockpuppets after explaining quite clearly could still get it wrong like this and be wrong in all of his thinking.

Former DEA agent: Robert F Golaszewski.

[zencycle]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:55:03 PM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:05:03 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
> > > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there some point you think you're making?
> > > > >
> > > > It's pretty clear that the point slow stanley is trying to make is that there is so much noise generated by other sources that detection of intelligent signals isn't possible.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, that is not it
> > >
> >
> > YEs, actually it is. your comment above "maybe Bob thinks for the purposes of detection of signals for intelligent life, he can detect a sixty watt light bulb all the way on the other side of the universe " along with the 'super amounts of energy from the sun' means exactly, you think the radiated output of the sun masks the energy of the bulb.
>
> Nope.
> Photons produced (as in numbers) is determined by how much energy is involved.

That isn't relevant to SETI

>
> There is only one person with his sockpuppets after explaining quite clearly could still get it wrong like this and be wrong in all of his thinking.

Tell you what, post a link where SETI states they are interested in detecting photons, not EM wave energy. Or a link that says they aren't looking for a coherent signal, but a particle.

>
> Former DEA agent: Robert F Golaszewski.

Posting in this forum won't help you get over your paranoia. If you're that convinced we are all harshmans sock puppets, prove it by showing IP addresses.

[Oxyaena]

I doubt he even has the intellectual capacity of a 60 watt bulb, or even
a brick for that matter.

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:11:49 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>what was going on in the newsgroup at the time in discussions you were involved in is the context.

By that reasoning, the context could be what was going on in the
world. In fact, and unless otherwise specified, the default context
is the subject of the thread in which the comment is embedded.

HTH but I doubt it.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT), the following

Irrelevant, since AFAIk no amateur radio enthusiasts are
attempting to communicate with hypothetical ETs.

>do you even realize that determines how many photons are produced?

Sparky, I'm a retired EE; I worked on radar systems, which
definitely involve signal strength and detection range, for
almost 30 years. So I *could*, given enough time and
incentive, calculate the possible detection ranges of
various signal levels, based on the propagation
characteristics of the signal (omni or beamed [with antenna
gain]) and the original signal power, and using what we know
of the detection of signals in a noisy environment. But it
ain't trivial, especially since I've been retired for 11
years and would have to do a fair amount of review, and
you're not worth the effort.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:58:21 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:55:03 PM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
>> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:05:03 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:
>> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-6, zencycle wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
>> > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > >Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is there some point you think you're making?
>> > > >
>> > > It's pretty clear that the point slow stanley is trying to make is that there is so much noise generated by other sources that detection of intelligent signals isn't possible.
>> >
>> >
>> > No, that is not it
>> >
>>
>> YEs, actually it is. your comment above "maybe Bob thinks for the purposes of detection of signals for intelligent life, he can detect a sixty watt light bulb all the way on the other side of the universe " along with the 'super amounts of energy from the sun' means exactly, you think the radiated output of the sun masks the energy of the bulb.
>
>Nope.
>Photons produced (as in numbers) is determined by how much energy is involved.
>
>There is only one person with his sockpuppets after explaining quite clearly could still get it wrong like this and be wrong in all of his thinking.
>
>Former DEA agent: Robert F Golaszewski.

There is no such person.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:11:49 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>> >On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:

>> >> On 6/14/2018 3:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> >> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
>> >> > <drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>> >> >> Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of energy

>> >> > Yes, I have; S. Doradus is an example.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there some point you think you're making?

>> >> None,

>> >maybe you inherited the same malady bob has.

>> Intelligence and comprehension of English? Yeah, I suspect
>> he has.

>> >See, there was a context at the time, something going on in the newsgroup at the time, that Bob was involved with, a discussion at the time going on in the group.
>> >It must have completely fallen out of his brain and slipped his mind.

>> When the subject is changed,

>i can help you. it was the same topic.

I wrote "subject", not "topic"; try to keep up. You are the
OP (that's "original poster", for the terminally
bewildered). The subject is "Hey Bob casanova" (note the
lack of proper caps again). Are you claiming that there was
anything posted in this subject prior to your initial post
above, in which you wrote "Maybe you have noticed how some
stars have super lots of energy". There wasn't.

> you started out wrong right there.

Nope.

>> and nothing from the original
>> is included in the new subject post, there is no context,

>what was going on in the newsgroup at the time in discussions you were involved in is the context.

Really? *Anything* going on *anywhere* in the group under
*any* topic? OK, so what is your reply to my response to
jonathan's post, since by your definition it's "context" for
this thread?

>> so
>> that excuse of yours can be discarded.
>>
>> Sparky doesn't yet comprehend the meaning of "context" in
>> Usenet, even though it's been carefully explained to him.

And you still don't; from your comment above you think
anything posted anywhere in a newsgroup is "context" for any
discussion.

[StanFast]

You provided examples of extremely large energetic things like stars to claim photons can be detected at any distance.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The Jason Bourne/Sonny Burnett amnesia is acting up again:

http://miamivice.wikia.com/wiki/Sonny_Burnett_Arc

[*Hemidactylus*]

He wasn’t involved in Golden Triangle with Castillo and Gretsky.

http://miamivice.wikia.com/wiki/Jack_Gretsky

http://miamivice.wikia.com/wiki/Bushido

He frequents strip clubs and blows agency money on buffets and sweetheart
dances. A burn notice is imminent.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 14:23:58 -0700 (PDT), the following

Nope. AFAICR the first mention of stars under this subject
header was by you, as noted above.

And you didn't answer the question (which I failed to end
with a question mark; sorry 'bout that).

>> > you started out wrong right there.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >> and nothing from the original
>> >> is included in the new subject post, there is no context,
>>
>> >what was going on in the newsgroup at the time in discussions you were involved in is the context.
>>
>> Really? *Anything* going on *anywhere* in the group under
>> *any* topic? OK, so what is your reply to my response to
>> jonathan's post, since by your definition it's "context" for
>> this thread?

[Crickets...]

>> >> so
>> >> that excuse of yours can be discarded.
>> >>
>> >> Sparky doesn't yet comprehend the meaning of "context" in
>> >> Usenet, even though it's been carefully explained to him.
>>
>> And you still don't; from your comment above you think
>> anything posted anywhere in a newsgroup is "context" for any
>> discussion.

[Crickets...]

[StanFast]

you didn't mention the cosmic background radiation *in this thread* either

[StanFast]

if you were involved in the discussion at the time, then it is context at that time for the group.
Only if you were actually paying army and have a normal memory and brainfunctioning, that is

[StanFast]

Paying attn

[StanFast]

No, I confined it to discussions you yourself were having.
What is so difficult about this for you?
Look, no matter where you were having a discussion, whether on the phone, email, in person or on the internet, around the time you had that discussion you should be able to recall or remember it. That should still be in your brain. And you should then be able to figure out how something could apply to that next discussion, no matter how it where it occurs, like the next post in here or thread around that time. This is not kiddies summer camp where everything needs to be thoroughly explained in detail for you, you should have intellectually matured by now to get the hang of this

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT), the following

Nope, nor did I mention the CMBR in *any* thread lately (as
in the past year or so). Your point, if any?

>> And you didn't answer the question (which I failed to end
>> with a question mark; sorry 'bout that).

And you still haven't. And since you're probably incapable
of finding that question (not enough neurons for detection,
I'd assume), here it is again:

"Are you claiming that there was anything posted in this
subject prior to your initial post above, in which you wrote
'Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of

energy?' ".

>> >> > you started out wrong right there.
>> >>
>> >> Nope.
>> >>
>> >> >> and nothing from the original
>> >> >> is included in the new subject post, there is no context,
>> >>
>> >> >what was going on in the newsgroup at the time in discussions you were involved in is the context.
>> >>
>> >> Really? *Anything* going on *anywhere* in the group under
>> >> *any* topic? OK, so what is your reply to my response to
>> >> jonathan's post, since by your definition it's "context" for
>> >> this thread?

Still waiting for an answer to this one, too.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 13:37:29 -0700 (PDT), the following

So, to reiterate my question above, what is your reply to my

response to jonathan's post, since by your definition it's

"context" for this thread, since it was indeed a "discussion
I was involved in at the time"?

But I'll let you off your petard. Just as "extinction",
despite your apparent inability to understand the concept,
doesn't apply to individuals, but only to species, "context"
applies to particular threads/subjects, not to the group as
a whole.

>> Only if you were actually paying army and have a normal memory and brainfunctioning, that is
>>
>>
>> > > >> >> so
>> > > >> >> that excuse of yours can be discarded.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Sparky doesn't yet comprehend the meaning of "context" in
>> > > >> >> Usenet, even though it's been carefully explained to him.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And you still don't; from your comment above you think
>> > > >> anything posted anywhere in a newsgroup is "context" for any
>> > > >> discussion.
>> > >
>> > > [Crickets...]
>
>No, I confined it to discussions you yourself were having.

See above, the note about "context" and its applicability to
discussions. Ask someone to explain the big hard words.

>What is so difficult about this for you?

Trying to beat information into the head of a recalcitrant
ignoramus is difficult for *anyone*.

>Look, no matter where you were having a discussion, whether on the phone, email, in person or on the internet, around the time you had that discussion you should be able to recall or remember it. That should still be in your brain. And you should then be able to figure out how something could apply to that next discussion, no matter how it where it occurs, like the next post in here or thread around that time. This is not kiddies summer camp where everything needs to be thoroughly explained in detail for you, you should have intellectually matured by now to get the hang of this

You are an idiot.

[StanFast]

Now you are having memory problems.
Again, you insist as proof of photons being detected at vast distances, you didnt use that as one of your examples?

[StanFast]

It is context for you personally since it was a discussion you were involved in.

[StanFast]

I checked, you mentioned things from 13 + billion years ago and cb signals.
My bad.
So the running total is:

you 300+ errors.
Me 1.

I think I am still beating you severely.

[jillery]

That was me, unless you still think I am he.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:53:46 -0700 (PDT), the following

Nope; this isn't the first time you've incorrectly
attributed something you vaguely remembered.

>Again, you insist as proof of photons being detected at vast distances, you didnt use that as one of your examples?

No, I didn't. It's not *my* memory which is faulty here.

Now to restore the part you ran away from:

[begin]

>> And you didn't answer the question (which I failed to end
>> with a question mark; sorry 'bout that).

And you still haven't. And since you're probably incapable
of finding that question (not enough neurons for detection,
I'd assume), here it is again:

"Are you claiming that there was anything posted in this
subject prior to your initial post above, in which you wrote
'Maybe you have noticed how some stars have super lots of

energy?' ".

>> >> > you started out wrong right there.
>> >>
>> >> Nope.
>> >>
>> >> >> and nothing from the original
>> >> >> is included in the new subject post, there is no context,
>> >>
>> >> >what was going on in the newsgroup at the time in discussions you were involved in is the context.
>> >>
>> >> Really? *Anything* going on *anywhere* in the group under
>> >> *any* topic? OK, so what is your reply to my response to
>> >> jonathan's post, since by your definition it's "context" for
>> >> this thread?

Still waiting for an answer to this one, too.

[end]

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:54:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

Sorry I wrote that you didn't answer the above in my earlier
post today in this subject; I didn't realize you've acquired
the annoying habit of splitting your replies without notice.

That said, it seems you haven't yet answered the question; I
guess I'll have to repeat it *again*:

So, to reiterate my question above, what is your reply to my
response to jonathan's post, since by your definition it's
"context" for this thread, since it was indeed a "discussion
I was involved in at the time"?

*Surely* you can answer that with no further information,
since it's "in context" for everything I post here by your
definition...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:10:01 -0700 (PDT), the following

Thanks for admitting your error.

>So the running total is:
>
>you 300+ errors.
>Me 1.

You'd better recheck your math.

>I think I am still beating you severely.

I have yet to see evidence that you think at all.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:42:12 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I thought it was you, but I wasn't sure.

And he's admitted his error; now he claims that I've made
"300+" mistakes to his 1.

[StanFast]

If you were involved in a discussion, that creates a context for you.

[StanFast]

Actually you made far more than that, but I was confining it to just this discussion, that includes your other nyms you most certainly use.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:36:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

Yes, *in that discussion*. Not in this one, or in any other
unrelated one. And not even really in the related ones, if
they don't derive directly from it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:37:29 -0700 (PDT), the following

>Actually you made far more than that, but I was confining it to just this discussion, that includes your other nyms you most certainly use.

I use no other nyms; that's the voices in your head.

As for my "far more than 300 mistakes" (which is ludicrous
even for *you*, given that there haven't been even close to
300 posts, more like 30 total, made by everyone in this
discussion since your initial one which opened the subject)
it should be fairly easy, given the number you claim I've
made, to post, say, 30 of them; that's less than 10%.

Do it here:

[StanFast]

And it should remain in your brain around that time.

[StanFast]

Why did you just make up nyms and voices in someone's head for no reason?
Are you having difficulties with that?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:50:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

>> Yes, *in that discussion*. Not in this one, or in any other
>> unrelated one. And not even really in the related ones, if
>> they don't derive directly from it.

>And it should remain in your brain around that time.

Look up "unrelated"; the definition might be a revelation
for you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:51:27 -0700 (PDT), the following

I made up nothing. *You* made up the imaginary playmate who
says things; *you* explain why you did.

>Are you having difficulties with that?

Not especially; I don't make up imaginary playmates who tell
me things; that's *your* schtick.

Now, for the part you snipped: