About Ray’s Paper
Frank J
Ray about the paper that has been due “any day now” for years. That
said, I have a radical suggestion. Please keep an open mind about it,
even if it sounds absurd at first.
Ray supposedly has trouble finishing the paper. Many (most?) of you
are convinced that he hasn’t even started it, but that’s beside the
point. Many of you have read enough of his posts to predict the
paper’s contents almost verbatim, so you can practically write it for
him. So why not do just that? If many of you submit drafts of what
you think he might write, he can select from them the best arguments
to complete (or start, if that’s the case) his paper. Then poor Ray
can finally be relieved of his burden. You can submit them anonymously
if you don't want your name attached to what you might consider
fiction.
If you are convinced (as I am) that his paper will not demolish
“Darwinism,” what’s the harm? You can also post a point-by-point
refutation if you are afraid that any ideas you gave Ray might be
convincing to some lurkers. Besides, the paper will undoubtedly
contradict many other forms of creationism, so even if they don’t read
the refutation, many creationist lurkers might not accept its
conclusions.
If I were a better writer, or at least a biologist instead of a
chemist, I’d do it. So I’m counting those of you who do write better
and know more biology to help out our fellow citizen. The more ideas
the better. What I can offer is to remind anyone who may have
forgotten is that Ray is an old-earth-young-biosphere creationist. So
please, no YEC arguments. Ray is also unique among creationists
because he denies “microevolution.” I can’t figure how to write that
up as a scientific paper, but I trust that at least some of you can.
On that note, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a * scientific
* paper, so please, no Dembski-esque avoidance of “connecting dots.”
Be specific on “what happened when” in biological history.
BTW, creationist lurkers – and participants if there are any left -
are also encouraged to help Ray.
spintronic
Why do you mock?
Darwin waited 20 years to publish his work.
Time is irrelevant.
Lee Jay
> Many of you have read enough of his posts to predict the
> paper’s contents almost verbatim, so you can practically write it for
> him. So why not do just that?
I already did. After I removed the logical fallacies and unsupported
assertions, all I was left with was page numbers. It's left as an
exercise for the reader to reproduce that result.
Lee Jay
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's right. I have pointed that out many times. It also took Harvard
Professor Janet Browne seven years to finish the second half of
Darwin's biography (1995-2002). It took James Secord a large part of
his life to write "Victorian Sensation." And it took Velikovsky twenty
years to write one his books as he waited for space exploration data
to be published.
I am in my fifth year. And I guarantee that it will be worth the wait.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
There is really no comparison between Ray and Darwin as the latter
never went around publicly telling everyone about his forthcoming work
that would be published in a given period of time, and when that
deadline passed he didn't publicly revise his deadline, pushing it
further and further into the distance, but Ray has done so for several
years now, and whines when people point this out.
In fact over a month ago, Ray proclaimed that "...I too will become
scarce very soon as my research is about to enter a phase that will
take up most of my time (day and night)."
See it here:
Yet since then he has been posting as often as in the month prior to
that statement, which suggests that maybe he isn't really committing
himself to this new phase of his research as he implied in his posting
of March 22nd.
Frank J
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Professor Janet Browne seven years to finish the second half of
> Darwin's biography (1995-2002). It took James Secord a large part of
> his life to write "Victorian Sensation." And it took Velikovsky twenty
> years to write one his books as he waited for space exploration data
> to be published.
>
> I am in my fifth year. And I guarantee that it will be worth the wait.
They had to wait, but you don't.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
You're missing the point. You're not supposed to remove the logical
fallacies and unsupported assertions.
spintronic
Perhaps Darwin knew there was nothin to get excited about.
And he did tell people. There is no doubt.
> that would be published in a given period of time, and when that
> deadline passed he didn't publicly revise his deadline, pushing it
> further and further into the distance,
Einstein did.
In fact, he was quoted as saying (something like) that he
"changed each year what he had written the year before"
> but Ray has done so for several years now, and whines
> when people point this out.
Let him do his Job then.
> In fact over a month ago, Ray proclaimed that "...I too will become
> scarce very soon as my research is about to enter a phase that will
> take up most of my time (day and night)."
So stop distracting him. You go Ray.
> See it here:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/7df45...
>
> Yet since then he has been posting as often as in the month prior to
> that statement, which suggests that maybe he isn't really committing
> himself to this new phase of his research as he implied in his posting
> of March 22nd.
T.O. Is distracting.
Lee Jay
My way is less boring.
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
> I am in my fifth year. And I guarantee that it will be worth the wait.
Is this a "money back if you're not completely satisfied" guarantee?
Lee Jay
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> That's right. I have pointed that out many times. It also took Harvard
> Professor Janet Browne seven years to finish the second half of Darwin's
> biography (1995-2002).
Let's see what Dr. Browne did from 1995-2002:
Books:
Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Volume 1. New York: Alfred Knopf Inc; London:
Jonathan Cape Ltd. 1995. Paperback, Princeton University Press and
Pimlico, London, 1996.
Medicine in Literature. A CD-ROM teaching/resource pack produced for the
Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, distributed
under licence, November 2002.
Chapters in other books:
7."Biogeography and Empire," in Nicholas Jardine, James Secord and Emma
Spary, eds., Cultures of Natural History: From Curiosity to Crisis,
(Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 305-21.
8. "Botany in the boudoir and garden: the Banksian context" in D. Miller,
ed., Visions of Empire: voyages, botany, and representations of nature
(Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp.153-172.
9. “Une science imperialiste: l’histoire naturelle britannique et les
voyages d’exploration de Banks a Darwin” in C. Blanckaert, ed., Le Museum
au premier siecle de son histoire (Paris, Archives du Museum nationale
d’ Histoire Naturelle, 1997), pp. 197-210.
10. “I could have retched all night: Charles Darwin and his body” in
Christopher Lawrence and Steven Shapin, eds., Science Incarnate:
Historical embodiments of Natural Knowledge (University of Chicago Press,
1998), pp. 240-287.
11. “I could have retched all night: Charles Darwin and his body”
Reprinted in L. Schiebinger ed., Feminism and the Body (Oxford University
Press, 2000), pp. 317-354.
12. “Darwin,” Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, 3rd Edition.
(Cambridge University Press 2000), pp.2537-41.
13. ‘Darwin,’ Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (Wiley 2000)
14. ‘Botany for Gentlemen: Erasmus Darwin and The Loves of the
Plants’ (see under articles) Reprinted in Open University Course
workbook, A103, An introduction to the Humanities, 1999. Reprinted in
S.G. Kohlstedt, ed., Isis Reader in Gender Studies (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 97-125.
15. “Darwin”, in Joy A. Palmer, ed., Fifty Key Thinkers on the
Environment (London: Routledge, 2001), pp.100-106.
Journal articles:
7. “E le Mogli? (Why no Wives?)” Intersezioni (1995): 165-69, Special
Number on “Le biografie scientifiche” edited by Antonello La Vergata.
8.“Officers and Council members of the BSHS, 1947-97” British Journal for
the History of Science 30 (1997): 77-89.
9. “L’appel des nouveaux espaces,” Les Cahiers des Science & Vie,
February 1999, no 49, 6-13.
10.“Darwin como vigere y escritor” (Darwin in Chile), Opening Address at
International meeting Darwin in Chiloe, November 1999, published Ciencia
Al Dia (2000) 4, vol 2, (www.ciencia.cl)
11.“A CD-Rom on Medicine in Literature” Health Information and Libraries
Journal 18 (2001): 156-158
12. “Darwin in Caricature: A Study in the Popularisation and
Dissemination of Evolution” Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society 145 (2001): 496-509.
13. “Natural History Collecting and the Biogeographical Tradition”
Historia, Ciencias,Saude-Manguinhos (2001)
On top of all that, I expect she teaches one or two classes a year, peer-
reviews a half-dozen journal articles, perhaps advises a few Ph.D.
students (a terrible time sink, I can tell you), sits on a few
committees, etc., etc., etc.
After five years, what do you have Ray? No abstract? No outline? No
bibliography?
Boikat
Because raytard claimed his "paper" was going to be "published" over
two years ago.
>
> Darwin waited 20 years to publish his work.
I doubt raytard will come anywhere close to the quality of Darwin's
works. Raytard will be lucky if it reaches the level of classic
Hovind.
>
> Time is irrelevant.
Oh? Are you unemployed?
Boikat
*Hemidactylus*
will destroy our lives for 20 years?
*Hemidactylus*
George book. Their names were Rey right. At least they taught us kids
something, which is more than I expect from you.
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=494350
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:50:21 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > That's right. I have pointed that out many times. It also took Harvard
> > Professor Janet Browne seven years to finish the second half of Darwin's
> > biography (1995-2002).
>
> Let's see what Dr. Browne did from 1995-2002:
>
> Books:
>
> Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Volume 1. New York: Alfred Knopf Inc; London:
> Jonathan Cape Ltd. 1995. Paperback, Princeton University Press and
> Pimlico, London, 1996.
>
False.
I said it took her seven years to produce the second half of Darwin's
bio. What you have cited above is the first half or volume. So this
reference obviously doesn't count.
"Voyaging" 1995 then "Power of Place" was published in 2002 (= 7
years).
> Medicine in Literature. A CD-ROM teaching/resource pack produced for the
> Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, distributed
> under licence, November 2002.
>
2002, Garamond, 2002!
Again this would not count.
You are O for 2.
Assuming your references correct, they are but, like you said,
CHAPTERS.
What's the point?
> Journal articles:
>
> 7. “E le Mogli? (Why no Wives?)” Intersezioni (1995): 165-69, Special
> Number on “Le biografie scientifiche” edited by Antonello La Vergata.
>
> 8.“Officers and Council members of the BSHS, 1947-97” British Journal for
> the History of Science 30 (1997): 77-89.
>
> 9. “L’appel des nouveaux espaces,” Les Cahiers des Science & Vie,
> February 1999, no 49, 6-13.
>
> 10.“Darwin como vigere y escritor” (Darwin in Chile), Opening Address at
> International meeting Darwin in Chiloe, November 1999, published Ciencia
> Al Dia (2000) 4, vol 2, (www.ciencia.cl)
>
> 11.“A CD-Rom on Medicine in Literature” Health Information and Libraries
> Journal 18 (2001): 156-158
>
> 12. “Darwin in Caricature: A Study in the Popularisation and
> Dissemination of Evolution” Proceedings of the American Philosophical
> Society 145 (2001): 496-509.
>
> 13. “Natural History Collecting and the Biogeographical Tradition”
> Historia, Ciencias,Saude-Manguinhos (2001)
>
Seven entries above. One is an oral address. That leaves six.
I have written much more by volume here at Talk Origins.
Again, what is the point?
> On top of all that, I expect she teaches one or two classes a year, peer-
> reviews a half-dozen journal articles, perhaps advises a few Ph.D.
> students (a terrible time sink, I can tell you), sits on a few
> committees, etc., etc., etc.
>
Speculation.
What about my schedule?
Again, what is your point?
> After five years, what do you have Ray? No abstract? No outline? No
> bibliography?
No, I will not release an abstract.
Bibliography?
That comes at the very end, usually. I have created many posts
updating the status. I see no need to re-explain myself thus
circumventing these messages.
Ray
redd...@bresnan.net
snipping
> > On top of all that, I expect she teaches one or two classes a year, peer-
> > reviews a half-dozen journal articles, perhaps advises a few Ph.D.
> > students (a terrible time sink, I can tell you), sits on a few
> > committees, etc., etc., etc.
>
> Speculation.
>
> What about my schedule?
What about it, Ray? Let's have a peek at Ray's schedule:
0800 Rescue mission closes for the day:
0800 to 1000 Panhandle in the park, mumble to yourself.
1000-1130 Rant incoherently at passing squirrels.
1130- 1225 Lunch at the dumpster behind Taco Bell.
1225-1400 Research, consisting of reading old comic books, and Jack
Chick tracts.
1400- 1600 at the library comupter, On T.O. running away from
evidence.
1600- 1900 Pray at the idol of Gene Scott.
1900 -1915 Spend 15 minutes hating Richard Dawkins.
1915 Supper at the Rescue Mission.
2000 Stake out bed for the night, fight off other transients
>
> Again, what is your point?
I can see you have a full day, Ray.
snip the rest.
DJT
wf3h
i knew darwin
darwin was a friend of mine.
and ray....you're no charles darwin
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
>Why do you mock?
Why not? Repeated claims without substance invite mockery.
Besides, how do you know this wasn't a serious proposal?
>Darwin waited 20 years to publish his work.
But Darwin didn't claim several times a day over those 20
years that his work would be published "any day now".
>Time is irrelevant.
Stay out of the mushrooms.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>That's right.
No, it's irrelevant (his comment about Darwin, that is).
> I have pointed that out many times. It also took Harvard
>Professor Janet Browne seven years to finish the second half of
>Darwin's biography (1995-2002). It took James Secord a large part of
>his life to write "Victorian Sensation." And it took Velikovsky twenty
>years to write one his books as he waited for space exploration data
>to be published.
....and none of these, unlike you, made public near-daily
proclamations of imminent release, for years. You do,
however, share something with one of your cited individuals;
like you, Velikovsky wrote nothing of substance.
>I am in my fifth year. And I guarantee that it will be worth the wait.
I'm sure it will. So what will happen on 22 Dec 2012, when
neither the end of the world nor your "paper" has appeared?
[M]adman
If Ray was working on a paper he should at least have an outline. Maybe a
title.
Perhaps post an excerpt. No such luck. Nothing from Ray.
Frank J
That's still much more productive than Spin & Mad.
>
> snip the rest.
>
> DJT
[M]adman
You are an econemy of intelligent remarks.
Notice that does not say "a wealth" of intelligent remarks.
>>
>> snip the rest.
>>
>> DJT
[M]adman
BWAHAHAHAHAH!H!H!H!H!H!H!
ohhhh!! Hahahahahahah!!!!!
-cough choke--- hahahaha
ROTFLMAO!!!!
[M]adman
>>>> are also encouraged to help Ray.
>>>
>>> Why do you mock?
>>>
>>> Darwin waited 20 years to publish his work.
>>>
>>> Time is irrelevant.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> That's right.
>
> No, it's irrelevant (his comment about Darwin, that is).
>
>> I have pointed that out many times. It also took Harvard
>> Professor Janet Browne seven years to finish the second half of
>> Darwin's biography (1995-2002). It took James Secord a large part of
>> his life to write "Victorian Sensation." And it took Velikovsky
>> twenty years to write one his books as he waited for space
>> exploration data to be published.
>
> ....and none of these, unlike you, made public near-daily
> proclamations of imminent release, for years. You do,
> however, share something with one of your cited individuals;
> like you, Velikovsky wrote nothing of substance.
>
>> I am in my fifth year. And I guarantee that it will be worth the
>> wait.
>
> I'm sure it will. So what will happen on 22 Dec 2012, when
> neither the end of the world nor your "paper" has appeared?
What will you do when it does.
Robert Camp
Actually, it doesn't say anything at all, except that you're a walking
solecism.
spintronic
You sound experienced.
spintronic
I know, it's a common thread among kooks.
You knew a man whose been dead for 130 years,
and Y.O.O advised Stephen Hawking on his theories.
All we need now is for "Lenny the loonball" to tell us of his
experiences at Woolsthorpe and how they moved away from
plague ridden London in 1665.
Lenny was correct of course for 252 years until Y.O.O went on the
1919 expedition to the Island of Príncipe.
Of course it was to prove *his* theory of curved space, that you
no doubt collaborated on.
TomS
<55b54917-4445-4e81...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>I think we can all agree that the novelty has worn off from teasing
>said, I have a radical suggestion. Please keep an open mind about it,
>even if it sounds absurd at first.
>
>Ray supposedly has trouble finishing the paper. Many (most?) of you
>point. Many of you have read enough of his posts to predict the
>him. So why not do just that? If many of you submit drafts of what
>you think he might write, he can select from them the best arguments
>can finally be relieved of his burden. You can submit them anonymously
>if you don't want your name attached to what you might consider
>fiction.
>
>If you are convinced (as I am) that his paper will not demolish
>refutation if you are afraid that any ideas you gave Ray might be
>convincing to some lurkers. Besides, the paper will undoubtedly
>the refutation, many creationist lurkers might not accept its
>conclusions.
>
>If I were a better writer, or at least a biologist instead of a
>and know more biology to help out our fellow citizen. The more ideas
>the better. What I can offer is to remind anyone who may have
>forgotten is that Ray is an old-earth-young-biosphere creationist. So
>please, no YEC arguments. Ray is also unique among creationists
>up as a scientific paper, but I trust that at least some of you can.
>On that note, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a * scientific
>Be specific on =93what happened when=94 in biological history.
>
>BTW, creationist lurkers =96 and participants if there are any left -
>are also encouraged to help Ray.
>
From time to time the thought crosses my mind about producing a
paper with the title "Taking Intelligent Design Seriously".
It would use the principles of ID systematically to show the way
to answer questions such as what we can reasonably infer about
the intelligent designer(s): how many of them there once were,
whether any of them are still around and active today; what sort
of things they are (and are not) responsible for; whether they
are limited by anything (such as space and time or the laws of
nature); what should do, based on our knowledge about them and
their purposes ...
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <IFPIl.33374$i9.2...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
If you are so confident that the world will end on 21 Dec 2012, sign over all
your property to me, effective midnight 21 Dec 2012. If you're right, you
lose nothing. If I'm right, I get to evict your troll ass just in time for
Christmas.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
wf3h
> On 26 Apr, 01:23, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25, 5:31 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > i knew darwin
>
> > darwin was a friend of mine.
>
> I know, it's a common thread among kooks.
>
> You knew a man whose been dead for 130 years,
> and Y.O.O advised Stephen Hawking on his theories.
dontcha just love it when creationists show they have no sense of
humor....shows how useless creationism is....
the moron doesn't even recognize the reference!
>
*Hemidactylus*
you?
*Hemidactylus*
unattainable it may be. It gives him motivation when he wakes in the
morning an watches his computer boot up, anticipating how he will do
battle with us yet another day? Or maybe it makes him ruminate while
he waits in the queue at the public library for his computer time.
Either way it gives him purpose.
Ye Old One
What else do you expect from an illiterate troll like Spincronic?
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<06b9a7dc-4ed0-4e26...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
Now, now... Spinny's on the wrong side of the ocean, he shouldn't be expected
to catch that.
But his reply sure is funny...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>So what will happen on 22 Dec 2012, when
>> neither the end of the world nor your "paper" has appeared?
>What will you do when it does.
Which "it", Ray's phantom "paper" or the Mayan "end of the
world"?
Regardless, why don't we wait and see?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
Cool! "Put your money where your faith is".
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:33:09 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et>:
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote:
> >So what will happen on 22 Dec 2012, when
> >> neither the end of the world nor your "paper" has appeared?
> >What will you do when it does.
>
> Which "it", Ray's phantom "paper" or the Mayan "end of the
> world"?
>
> Regardless, why don't we wait and see?
It's remotely possible that Ray's "paper" will be the cause of the
"End of the World".
DJT
Ray Martinez
Blue collar jealousy (Dana is an ambulance driver) of white collar
affluence.
Ray
redd...@bresnan.net
I wouldn't call living at the rescue mission "affluence".
DJT
Ernest Major
<try.n...@but.see.sig> writes
resort to Google to remind me of the original context.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by redd...@bresnan.net:
I think reality is robust enough to survive even such an
event; if bogus and fatuous maunderings could destroy the
world it would have happened long since.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
[Raydiot, referring to himself]:
>...white collar
>affluence.
You misspelled "flatulence".
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
I thought the whole idea was to stay on the road and keep clear of the
moors.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kent Paul Dolan
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> [Raydiot, referring to himself]:
>> ...white collar affluence.
> You misspelled "flatulence".
He misspelled "brown", too.
xanthian.
Devils Advocaat
[snipped for brevity]
>
> > There is really no comparison between Ray and Darwin as the latter
> > never went around publicly telling everyone about his forthcoming work
>
> Perhaps Darwin knew there was nothin to get excited about.
> And he did tell people. There is no doubt.
There is a big difference to discussing one's findings with a mere
handful of associates, and declaring one's forthcoming paper in public
newsgroups.
>
> > that would be published in a given period of time, and when that
> > deadline passed he didn't publicly revise his deadline, pushing it
> > further and further into the distance,
>
> Einstein did.
>
> In fact, he was quoted as saying (something like) that he
> "changed each year what he had written the year before"
Funnily enough a search of various quotation sites fails to offer up
anything resembling this being attributed to Albert Einstein.
Perhaps you can offer up a source?
But even if Albert Einstein did say something similar to this, again
there is a big difference between writing something and then changing
it, as opposed to claiming to be working on a paper yet offering no
evidence of such efforts.
>
> > but Ray has done so for several years now, and whines
> > when people point this out.
>
> Let him do his Job then.
>
> > In fact over a month ago, Ray proclaimed that "...I too will become
> > scarce very soon as my research is about to enter a phase that will
> > take up most of my time (day and night)."
>
> So stop distracting him. You go Ray.
When someone says they intend to do something and then chooses not to
follow through on what they have said, neither you or they can blame
others for their failure to do so.
>
> > See it here:
>
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/7df45...
>
> > Yet since then he has been posting as often as in the month prior to
> > that statement, which suggests that maybe he isn't really committing
> > himself to this new phase of his research as he implied in his posting
> > of March 22nd.
>
> T.O. Is distracting.
But Ray, being a self declared Christian should have better strength
of character and willpower.
After all, if he cannot stop himself from being distracted by this
newsgroup, how is he supposed to ignore the temptations of sin?
Dick C.
@news.albasani.net:
No, he is probably right about the the white collar. After all, most
donations to good will would come from middle class people. And they
would be donating used dress shirts.
>
> xanthian.
>
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>On 25 Apr, 23:06, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snipped for brevity]
>>
>> > There is really no comparison between Ray and Darwin as the latter
>> > never went around publicly telling everyone about his forthcoming work
>>
>> Perhaps Darwin knew there was nothin to get excited about.
>> And he did tell people. There is no doubt.
>
>There is a big difference to discussing one's findings with a mere
>handful of associates, and declaring one's forthcoming paper in public
>newsgroups.
This was pointed out to him. As with everything which
refutes his idiotic pronouncements he ignored it.
<snip>
Walter Bushell
<b30379bb-f07b-43cc...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 5:50�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Darwin waited 20 years to publish his work.
> >
> > > Time is irrelevant.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > That's right. I have pointed that out many times. It also took Harvard
> > Professor Janet Browne seven years to finish the second half of
> > Darwin's biography (1995-2002). It took James Secord a large part of
> > his life to write "Victorian Sensation." And it took Velikovsky twenty
> > years to write one his books as he waited for space exploration data
> > to be published.
> >
> > I am in my fifth year. And I guarantee that it will be worth the wait.
> >
> >
> I wonder how long it took the authors to write the first Curious
> George book. Their names were Rey right. At least they taught us kids
> something, which is more than I expect from you.
>
> http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=494350
But have you read, _Curious George and the Glory Hole_?
*Hemidactylus*
> In article
> <b30379bb-f07b-43cc-8eb5-e60865576...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> But have you read, _Curious George and the Glory Hole_?
>
and tapping the side of the stall twice?