What cranks have been run out of this group?
PD
1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
2. Marcel Luttgens
3. Monitek
4. paulps
Unfortunately, we've lost
A. Franz Heymann
B. Uncle Al
Who else?
tj Frazir
The Ghost In The Machine
<TheDrap...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 30 Dec 2005 14:57:33 -0800
<1135983453....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Not bad. 4-2 for the good guys. :-) 4-3 if one counts Frodo Morris.
(At least, I think that was his name. Last I heard he had finished
work on an experiment using Fe-57 and gamma rays that could detect
movements of a few millimeters per hour.)
A pity, for he was anything but a troll, AFAICT.
Sigh.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Traveler
>Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
>1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
>2. Marcel Luttgens
>3. Monitek
>4. paulps
ahahah... sci.physics needs all the cranks, alternative thinkers,
barbarians and crackpots it can get. Bring them all in. The mainstream
ass kissers are needed only so they can be laughed at for being so
fucking boring. ahahaha...
>Unfortunately, we've lost
>A. Franz Heymann
>B. Uncle Al
This is funny. Franz Heymann never understood that nothing can move in
spacetime and Uncle Dickhead has some stupid idea that he can break
the equivalence principle using crystals. ahahaha... And you chose
those two idiots to kiss their asses? Make sense. ahahaha... You have
no shame, PD. Great way to end the year: kissing ass in public.
ahahaha...
And BTW, does PD stands for pederast or pedophile? ahahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahahaha... Happy new year anyway. I like your sense of
humor. ahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
John
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135983453....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Troll
John
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:jcvg83-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Troll
Randy Poe
PD wrote:
> Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
> 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
> 2. Marcel Luttgens
> 3. Monitek
> 4. paulps
Spaceman.
And who was the machinist who would sit with his buddy
sipping beers and watching trucks go by, and told us SR
was invalid because they couldn't see any Lorentz
contraction on the lumber on the moving trucks?
- Randy
Eric Gisse
PD wrote:
> Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
> 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
> 2. Marcel Luttgens
> 3. Monitek
> 4. paulps
Like the hydra, when one head is cut off another regenerates. We still
have fuckheads like dumb donny and nick, even if the rare idiot is
chased off. More keep joining, like the fellow john posting in this
very thread.
>
> Unfortunately, we've lost
> A. Franz Heymann
Franz died.
Every time I see one of Androcles' bile-filled posts o' bitterness, I
can't help but wonder why Androcles couldn't be kind enough to grant us
his death.
> B. Uncle Al
>
> Who else?
Who knows. There are only about a dozen people in here who have any
education worth mentioning, but they are all vastly outnumbered by the
people who are simply louder. This group has gone to shit, and by
majority vote the group seems to be happy with it that way.
Al Zenner
news:1136000097.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Who knows. There are only about a dozen people in here who have any
> education worth mentioning, but they are all vastly outnumbered by the
> people who are simply louder. This group has gone to shit, and by
> majority vote the group seems to be happy with it that way.
For me, this triggers four separate ideas.
The best and the worse have one thing in common; they're self educated.
I would categorize participants differently, usually useful and usually
useless. A lot of "good educations" have resulted in medeocrity.
There's a substantial difference between having a great library of
facts at one's disposal and being able to fashion them into something
worthwhile.
In the past few days I had a conversation with an individual who bragged
to me about what a great education they have. It only took a few minutes
to realize that this individual was well trained, but not at all
educated.
So Eric, where I'm concerned "an education worth mentioning" isn't often
worth mentioning. This "river of shit" is occasionally contaminated by
a good idea. Unfortunately most participants are here to feast on the
shit.
Happy New Year!
Eric Gisse
Al Zenner wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1136000097.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Who knows. There are only about a dozen people in here who have any
> > education worth mentioning, but they are all vastly outnumbered by the
> > people who are simply louder. This group has gone to shit, and by
> > majority vote the group seems to be happy with it that way.
>
> For me, this triggers four separate ideas.
>
> The best and the worse have one thing in common; they're self educated.
I am mostly self-educated. It doesn't work as well as I'd wish. I know
barely any electromagnetic theory outside of a few interesting ways of
manipulating Maxwell's equations, but general relativity doesn't scare
me as much as it used to. My classical mechanics is weak, etc etc and
etc. Oh well, back to university in January.
The "self-educated" cranks seem to get an idea in their head then only
read material that supports their idea. People like Androcles, Pentcho
Valev, Henri Wilson, et al. They do not allow for the possibility of
being wrong.
Educating yourself means that you can and will be wrong because of
missed information. That one has hit me many times. :(
>
> I would categorize participants differently, usually useful and usually
> useless. A lot of "good educations" have resulted in medeocrity.
>
> There's a substantial difference between having a great library of
> facts at one's disposal and being able to fashion them into something
> worthwhile.
People like David Thompson, Henri Wilson, and Y. Porat come to mind.
They have their own pet theories, and they ignore all the evidence at
their disposal because they have all spent a substantial amount of time
on their pet theories.
>
> In the past few days I had a conversation with an individual who bragged
> to me about what a great education they have. It only took a few minutes
> to realize that this individual was well trained, but not at all
> educated.
Knowledge vs wisdom.
>
> So Eric, where I'm concerned "an education worth mentioning" isn't often
> worth mentioning. This "river of shit" is occasionally contaminated by
> a good idea. Unfortunately most participants are here to feast on the
> shit.
I was speaking of the carrer physicists, engineers and professors who
offer their knowledge here. They have a bigger depth of knowledge - it
is really easy to tell who is who.
>
> Happy New Year!
Y.Porat
now i would ask for instance
how Manny thousands of years it would too to people like
Zenner or Gisse that supported the undemocratic idea above)
to realize that
'The Lorentz factor does not apply to the photon'??
i would say never!!
because they where not born with that stuff of the inventor
they were born parrots
just now my brother that is an expert on creativity science
told me that
most great invention were done ;'on the periphery of the 'experts'
an di think it is obvious
the people on the central position are captured by the convention
moreover they are captured by private interests
that are blocking their creativity and worse than that
capture their INTEGRITY!!!!!
so
1 people like the above parrots or crooks (you name it)
are not satisfied just by their 'good position" at the 'establishment
with all the welfare accompanied---
they what to guard their position by chasing away
whoever seems to them threatening their ass!!
and the best sign that they are wrong and weak, is rather that wish
to chaise out others with different ideas.
they dont mind and dont what to realize that science now
*is in a deal lock* they dont mind it
they think only on their 'status'
while the great advantage of 'outsiders is' that they are much more
free
with their thinking because they have no much 'to loose'
2 all those fuckers do not realize that the only way to
got out of a 'dead lock situation' is by trial and error
(any rat knows it they dont !! (:-)
now it is only us the outsiders that can supply that trial and error
stuff
so instead of thanking us they what to chaise us out
or to shut us up
btw
all those snobs are not so much educated
and not all of us outsiders are not as much uneducated!!!
it is rather people like me that come from 'other' disciplines
than just mathematics (for instance experienced
engineers and even self educated people)
rather can do unexpected breakthroughs
because they see things from other practical angles
i could go on with it but i think i made my point
btw PD since you mentioned me :
i was working on my model more than 10 years
day and night (non of all those pompous idiots was investing
and 'drilling' such an effort on one issue with such persistence
and checking themselves again and again as engineers and good
scientists do!!)
and my fin digs are tested again and again and never fail!!
time test just strengthen them day by day !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Autymn D. C.
An individual is not a they!
donsto...@hotmail.com
An individual is not a they!
************************
Nice nitpick.
Keep up your important work.
Autymn D. C.
would too -> would take
chaise -> chase, hunt
loose -> lose
chaise -> chase, hunt
i -> I
me : -> me:
btw -> BTW
i -> I
non -> none
Engineers are dumb.
Y.Porat
for a human being and the greatest scientist ever found
on the INTERNET!!
i just admire her (or may be better Him !! only God knows)
just a pity that such a momentous personality is hiding behind
an anonymous name!!
it smodesty might be the main reason for its anonymity
its contribution to the linguistic level is just the marginal
contribution.
( BTW 'its' is good for a male and female as well!! God knows )
BTW i suggest that from now on
all Engineers will be banned here.
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1136001705.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Robert Winn and Rod Ryker?
Dirk Vdm
David Thomson
> I am mostly self-educated. It doesn't work as well as I'd wish.
You hypocrite. You tell me that I am less educated than you and you
are also self-educated.
> Educating yourself means that you can and will be wrong because of
> missed information. That one has hit me many times. :(
I guess so! No wonder your excuse for not knowing there are six
isotopes of hydrogen is that you haven't read about it.
> > I would categorize participants differently, usually useful and usually
> > useless. A lot of "good educations" have resulted in medeocrity.
You really are arrogant. The audacity to consider yourself capable of
judging the education of others! The only thing this shows is your
prejudice, since you admit you don't have the education necessary to
judge a good one.
What do you think a good education entails? Is it the accumulation of
facts? Is it the ability to repeat the ideas of others flawlessly?
> > There's a substantial difference between having a great library of
> > facts at one's disposal and being able to fashion them into something
> > worthwhile.
>
> People like David Thompson, Henri Wilson, and Y. Porat come to mind.
> They have their own pet theories, and they ignore all the evidence at
> their disposal because they have all spent a substantial amount of time
> on their pet theories.
You are so full of yourself. I can't speak for the others, but I spend
a lot of time reading and understanding the ideas of others, then
instead of just accepting it as gospel, I put the material to tests of
logic and coherence, and see how well it integrates with other
knowledge. I happen to accept nearly all of the established scientific
literature, not because someone told me it was true, but because I
rediscovered the truth for myself.
But in the process, I have found a few areas of weakness in modern
theory. And instead of just complaining about the weaknesses I
perceived, I found alternative explanations, which are fully
quantifiable and based upon the same empirical data as the theories I
disagreed with. These are the fruits of true skepticism, not some
wistful pet theory that I have fallen in love with.
You think you are educated and know what science is. But you have no
clue. Listening to you, science is what is printed in a peer reviewed
journal, regardless of the fact that several printed articles have
since been shown to be in error. To you, science is a kind of
religion, where the high priests lay out the teachings and the
neophytes soak them up without questioning. You are pitiful.
> > In the past few days I had a conversation with an individual who bragged
> > to me about what a great education they have. It only took a few minutes
> > to realize that this individual was well trained, but not at all
> > educated.
>
> Knowledge vs wisdom.
Sounds like you talking down my education and then spouting off several
inaccuracies concerning physics.
> > So Eric, where I'm concerned "an education worth mentioning" isn't often
> > worth mentioning. This "river of shit" is occasionally contaminated by
> > a good idea. Unfortunately most participants are here to feast on the
> > shit.
>
> I was speaking of the carrer physicists, engineers and professors who
> offer their knowledge here. They have a bigger depth of knowledge - it
> is really easy to tell who is who.
Not true. For years I didn't know that Uncle Al was a professional
physicist. From his foul language and lack of reasoning (...idiot) I
assumed he was just another unemployed, alcoholic scientist with too
much time on his hands. There seems to be a lot of these guys on the
newsgroups. A professional engineer or scientist would not risk their
career by engaging in the unethical communications methods employed
often by the unemployed on these newsgroups. In fact, one wonders
whether they are unemployed for just this reason. Of course, a lot of
them are just cranky old men who exceeded their life expectancy at
work, and now *we* have to deal with them.
You have heard of the old saying? ...Science progresses one death at a
time. That's something a lot of folks on this list should remain aware
of. There is no point in being assholes to each other. So what if
people present different ideas from the mainstream on these newsgroups?
This is the one place in all the world where we can do that and
exercise our freedom of speech with regard to science. It is not a
matter of being right or wrong, but of exchanging ideas, proving ideas,
and disproving ideas. If you get tired of it, go somewhere else.
You are not a savior with ultimate knowledge, chosen to judge each of
our educations like some prophet judging the worth of lives. You are
just a nobody, like the rest of us, coming to this group to become a
somebody to the others who join. Make your mark, but show respect for
the rights of others to make theirs, too.
Dave
David Thomson
Unfortunately? No wonder the newsgroups have seemed so much more
civilized lately. I thought I was just getting lucky to not read their
posts. Actually Franz was civilized, but Al definitely was not.
Science progresses one death at a time. As those of us who were the
youth with alternative views on physics rise in the ladder of time, we
will be seen more as visionaries and less as revolutionaries. In the
end, our ideas will be judged on their merits and not merely by the
prejudice of those who resist change.
Dave
Autymn D. C.
Yeah, it /is/ a matter of being riht or wrong. Go elsewhere if you
want a fantasyworld.
Autymn D. C.
its -> one's
i -> I
Authy -> Auty
Eric Gisse
David Thomson wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > I am mostly self-educated. It doesn't work as well as I'd wish.
>
> You hypocrite. You tell me that I am less educated than you and you
> are also self-educated.
Kiss my ass, then work on reading comprehension so you can understand
the meaning of the term "mostly".
The majority of my knowledge about particle physics, general
relativity, and quantum theory I learned on my own. The mathematics to
support my knowledge came from university along with a fair pile of
actual physics.
>
> > Educating yourself means that you can and will be wrong because of
> > missed information. That one has hit me many times. :(
>
> I guess so! No wonder your excuse for not knowing there are six
> isotopes of hydrogen is that you haven't read about it.
Duh.
>
> > > I would categorize participants differently, usually useful and usually
> > > useless. A lot of "good educations" have resulted in medeocrity.
>
> You really are arrogant. The audacity to consider yourself capable of
> judging the education of others! The only thing this shows is your
> prejudice, since you admit you don't have the education necessary to
> judge a good one.
I never said that.
Work on your reading comprehension.
>
> What do you think a good education entails? Is it the accumulation of
> facts? Is it the ability to repeat the ideas of others flawlessly?
A demonstrated capability to think for one's self, and learn.
>
> > > There's a substantial difference between having a great library of
> > > facts at one's disposal and being able to fashion them into something
> > > worthwhile.
> >
> > People like David Thompson, Henri Wilson, and Y. Porat come to mind.
> > They have their own pet theories, and they ignore all the evidence at
> > their disposal because they have all spent a substantial amount of time
> > on their pet theories.
>
> You are so full of yourself. I can't speak for the others, but I spend
> a lot of time reading and understanding the ideas of others, then
> instead of just accepting it as gospel, I put the material to tests of
> logic and coherence, and see how well it integrates with other
> knowledge. I happen to accept nearly all of the established scientific
> literature, not because someone told me it was true, but because I
> rediscovered the truth for myself.
Just like your asinine thoughts on neutrino theory, right? Get off your
high horse.
You only have access to Science and AAAS, which isn't even fucking
close to all the literature. When given references that contradict your
theory, you whine that you don't have access to them and then whine
more about how they can't possibly be true when you didn't even look.
>
> But in the process, I have found a few areas of weakness in modern
> theory. And instead of just complaining about the weaknesses I
> perceived, I found alternative explanations, which are fully
> quantifiable and based upon the same empirical data as the theories I
> disagreed with. These are the fruits of true skepticism, not some
> wistful pet theory that I have fallen in love with.
Certaintly seems like you have fallen in love with your pet theory, it
is empirically falsified and you can't let it go. It didn't even have a
chance because you never spent the time to research the literature.
>
> You think you are educated and know what science is. But you have no
> clue. Listening to you, science is what is printed in a peer reviewed
> journal, regardless of the fact that several printed articles have
> since been shown to be in error. To you, science is a kind of
> religion, where the high priests lay out the teachings and the
> neophytes soak them up without questioning. You are pitiful.
Being published raises the bar. I am not going to dig up a random
Physics Review while researching, and notice someone complaining about
"relativists".
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. Science
doesn't operate on blind faith, there are no "high priests" - though
there are a few superstars. You think if Hawking got drunk and said
something blindingly stupid, science would just toe the party line?
Shit, write some random physics professor at some random university.
Assuming he does research, ask him how hard current theories and models
are punished.
>
> > > In the past few days I had a conversation with an individual who bragged
> > > to me about what a great education they have. It only took a few minutes
> > > to realize that this individual was well trained, but not at all
> > > educated.
> >
> > Knowledge vs wisdom.
>
> Sounds like you talking down my education and then spouting off several
> inaccuracies concerning physics.
>
> > > So Eric, where I'm concerned "an education worth mentioning" isn't often
> > > worth mentioning. This "river of shit" is occasionally contaminated by
> > > a good idea. Unfortunately most participants are here to feast on the
> > > shit.
> >
> > I was speaking of the carrer physicists, engineers and professors who
> > offer their knowledge here. They have a bigger depth of knowledge - it
> > is really easy to tell who is who.
>
> Not true. For years I didn't know that Uncle Al was a professional
> physicist. From his foul language and lack of reasoning (...idiot) I
> assumed he was just another unemployed, alcoholic scientist with too
> much time on his hands. There seems to be a lot of these guys on the
> newsgroups. A professional engineer or scientist would not risk their
> career by engaging in the unethical communications methods employed
> often by the unemployed on these newsgroups. In fact, one wonders
> whether they are unemployed for just this reason. Of course, a lot of
> them are just cranky old men who exceeded their life expectancy at
> work, and now *we* have to deal with them.
Al has a keen sense of reasoning, it is just masked by his caustic
personality. You missed it because you failed to look beyond "idiot".
You put USENET on too high of a pedestal, what institution worth
anything actually cares what its' employees do on their off-hours?
Plenty of cranks have tried and failed to be rid of some of the people
here by going to their respective universities or employers and
complaining.
>
> You have heard of the old saying? ...Science progresses one death at a
> time. That's something a lot of folks on this list should remain aware
> of. There is no point in being assholes to each other. So what if
> people present different ideas from the mainstream on these newsgroups?
> This is the one place in all the world where we can do that and
> exercise our freedom of speech with regard to science. It is not a
> matter of being right or wrong, but of exchanging ideas, proving ideas,
> and disproving ideas. If you get tired of it, go somewhere else.
Ask and ye shall recieve. The posters with actual backgrounds in
physics and mathematics are getting fewer in number, while people with
pet theories and mental disorders are filling the newsgroups up at a
rapid pace. Have fun arguing with people like Henri or Seto.
>
> You are not a savior with ultimate knowledge, chosen to judge each of
> our educations like some prophet judging the worth of lives. You are
> just a nobody, like the rest of us, coming to this group to become a
> somebody to the others who join. Make your mark, but show respect for
> the rights of others to make theirs, too.
The only mark you will make here is a skidmark as the educated people
stop your theory into the ground every time you post it.
USENET is of no consequence, you can promote your theory here until you
are blue in the face. Try going to a university which has a halfway
decent physics program and talk to a professor. You won't like what you
will hear, but I suggest it anyway.
>
> Dave
Eric Gisse
Autymn D. C. wrote:
[snip]
Good fucking luck.
He absolutely refuses to learn how to properly communicate in english.
Most people improve when they are corrected about their use of a
language they are less than familiar with, but not him.
Fits nicely with him refusing to learn physics, actually. Symmetry in
all things!
David Thomson
> > > > I would categorize participants differently, usually useful and usually
> > > > useless. A lot of "good educations" have resulted in medeocrity.
> >
> > You really are arrogant. The audacity to consider yourself capable of
> > judging the education of others! The only thing this shows is your
> > prejudice, since you admit you don't have the education necessary to
> > judge a good one.
>
> I never said that.
It isn't a matter of your admitting it, it is clear from your posts
that you judged the educations of others.
> > What do you think a good education entails? Is it the accumulation of
> > facts? Is it the ability to repeat the ideas of others flawlessly?
>
> A demonstrated capability to think for one's self, and learn.
Only when it applies to you, apparently.
> Al has a keen sense of reasoning, it is just masked by his caustic
> personality. You missed it because you failed to look beyond "idiot".
He never wrote anything but "idiot" unless it was a mindless,
prejudicial and bigotted rant.
> You put USENET on too high of a pedestal, what institution worth
> anything actually cares what its' employees do on their off-hours?
You said it yourself, if Stephen Hawkings engaged in this kind of
behavior the rest of the establishment would not stand behind him.
> Ask and ye shall recieve. The posters with actual backgrounds in
> physics and mathematics are getting fewer in number, while people with
> pet theories and mental disorders are filling the newsgroups up at a
> rapid pace. Have fun arguing with people like Henri or Seto.
I don't have to argue with them, anymore than I have to argue with you.
I can stay focused on the issues that are meaningful to me and allow
them to have discussions which are meaningful to them.
Are you afraid of pet theories being presented on these newsgroups?
Does it bother you that other people think and believe different from
you? Without judging the behavior of the others, you are engaging in
the behavior of a fundamentalist. It is your way or the highway. You
sound like you alone are the prophet of truth and you are here to save
the rest of us from our ignorance. Such arrogance has led to the
suffering and death of countless millions of people over the past 3000
years.
> > You are not a savior with ultimate knowledge, chosen to judge each of
> > our educations like some prophet judging the worth of lives. You are
> > just a nobody, like the rest of us, coming to this group to become a
> > somebody to the others who join. Make your mark, but show respect for
> > the rights of others to make theirs, too.
>
> The only mark you will make here is a skidmark as the educated people
> stop your theory into the ground every time you post it.
Does it bother you that I will make a skidmark or that people you judge
to be educated will not like my theory? Nikola Tesla once made such
sweeping arrogant predictions about ideas he didn't believe in. Look
where it got him. What will you do when my theory makes it into a
respectable publication, complain louder?
> USENET is of no consequence, you can promote your theory here until you
> are blue in the face.
I will. But why are you here if USENET is of no consequence? Why are
you so concerned that Wilson, Porat, Hammond, DeMeo, Brown, Smart and
others have posted their theories online on USENET? What is your
mission?
> Try going to a university which has a halfway
> decent physics program and talk to a professor. You won't like what you
> will hear, but I suggest it anyway.
You mean like the University of Maryland? Where the physics professor
teaches who wrote the Scientific American article which made the front
cover that questions Relativity and promotes the Aether? Or do you
mean Cambridge in the UK, whose Lucasian professor Joseph Larmor wrote
one of the most exhaustive books about the physics of the Aether? I
actually do have contacts with some PhD physicists who are well placed
in the physics community, and who do recognize the merit of my work.
Such a theory cannot be thrust into the spotlight without first,
slowly, building up a base of supporters. I'm having far more success
than you yet realize.
Dave
Al Zenner
news:1136024056.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> medeocrity -> mediocrity
Typos happen.
> An individual is not a they!
Au contraire:
"The singular they is a special case of that pronoun
where they is used in the singular rather than the plural."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They
Look up and understand all aspects of "epicene."
Also:
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000872.php
http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/faq.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001582.html
There are more, but you get my drift.
Sam Wormley
For whatever reason, you don't seem to learn physics.
Eric Gisse
David Thomson wrote:
[snip]
> > Try going to a university which has a halfway
> > decent physics program and talk to a professor. You won't like what you
> > will hear, but I suggest it anyway.
>
> You mean like the University of Maryland? Where the physics professor
> teaches who wrote the Scientific American article which made the front
> cover that questions Relativity and promotes the Aether?
Why should I even bother when you repeat the same fallacies over and
over and over?
[snip]
Phil Holman
> 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
> 2. Marcel Luttgens
> 3. Monitek
> 4. paulps
>
> Unfortunately, we've lost
> A. Franz Heymann
> B. Uncle Al
>
Bill Vajk...........nothing unfortunate about that.
Phil H
Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors
I like it when this happens to pointless pedantic losers such as Autymn
Deborah Castleton.
Autymn there's more to life than pointing out grammar "corrections"
which are actually wrong, thus making yourself look like even more of
an idiot.
Why not simply dump your mac and clunky one-button mouse in a bin, and
then become a nun and join a convent? A life-long vow of silence would
suit you.
platopes
David Thomson wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Al has a keen sense of reasoning, it is just masked by his caustic
> > personality. You missed it because you failed to look beyond "idiot".
>
> He never wrote anything but "idiot" unless it was a mindless,
> prejudicial and bigotted rant.
>
> Dave
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/msg/388c65b5b91b1596
p
Y.Porat
you can get some private lessons from me
but i would not spend a second on ....... save me the insult
you fit nicely to Auty!!
'birds of a feather flock together '
enjoy *your *company fo rthe rest of your life .
Y.P
------------------------
Y.Porat
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Y.Porat
that is calling itself Auty
is actually an incarnation of the old disturbed crook farter
Uncle Al
he didnt disappear he just disguised himself
another symptom of mental sickness
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
David Thomson wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
> > 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
> > 2. Marcel Luttgens
> > 3. Monitek
> > 4. paulps
> >
> > Unfortunately, we've lost
> > A. Franz Heymann
> > B. Uncle Al
>
> Unfortunately? No wonder the newsgroups have seemed so much more
> civilized lately. I thought I was just getting lucky to not read their
> posts. Actually Franz was civilized, but Al definitely was not.
There are those who suffer fools gladly and those who do not. There are
some who think this group is for the purpose of suffering fools gladly.
There are some who think the point is to discuss physics, what is
known, what is not known. Uncle Al definitely thought this is what the
group should be about and not for suffering fools gladly. Though I
don't take the same approach that he does, I can't fault him for his
physics.
PD
>
> Science progresses one death at a time. As those of us who were the
> youth with alternative views on physics rise in the ladder of time, we
> will be seen more as visionaries and less as revolutionaries. In the
> end, our ideas will be judged on their merits and not merely by the
> prejudice of those who resist change.
>
> Dave
You have excluded the category that those who were seen as deluded will
be borne out as deluded and eventually be forgotten.
PD
Traveler
>
>David Thomson wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> > Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
>> > 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
>> > 2. Marcel Luttgens
>> > 3. Monitek
>> > 4. paulps
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, we've lost
>> > A. Franz Heymann
>> > B. Uncle Al
>>
>> Unfortunately? No wonder the newsgroups have seemed so much more
>> civilized lately. I thought I was just getting lucky to not read their
>> posts. Actually Franz was civilized, but Al definitely was not.
>
>There are those who suffer fools gladly and those who do not. There are
>some who think this group is for the purpose of suffering fools gladly.
>There are some who think the point is to discuss physics, what is
>known, what is not known. Uncle Al definitely thought this is what the
>group should be about and not for suffering fools gladly. Though I
>don't take the same approach that he does, I can't fault him for his
>physics.
ahahaha... The most dangerous fools are the ones who have succeeded in
convincing the world that they have a monopoly on knowledge creation
and dissemination. When the blind leads the blind and all that...
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
PD
There are simple ways to demonstrate that your science, Louis, is not
crap science. That doesn't include sucking up to the prevailing wisdom.
However, you haven't demonstrated anything of the kind.
PD
Der alte Hexenmeister
Hey crank!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac.JPG
Der alte Hexenmeister.
tj Frazir
The moron thinks photons can knock a nuetron out of an atom !
So does ssam.
I busted them boath 100 times.
BTW I think most of you are dumbfucks.
Traveler
I never claimed to have demonstrated anything other than the
crackpottery (including unmasking a bunch of notorious crackpots) that
is inherent in YOUR science. I enjoy doing it and I will continue to
do it because it's fun. ahaha... Yeah, it's an in-your-face kind of
crackpottery too: Time travel, dimensions curled up into little
fucking balls, particles following their geodesics in curved
spacetime, zillions of parallel universes forking at every instant,
virtual particles, every position in the universe is relative, etc...
ahahaha... It's fucking hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Phew! Physics is so much phucking
phun. ahahaha...
Autymn D. C.
> > An individual is not a they!
>
> Au contraire:
>
> "The singular they is a special case of that pronoun
> where they is used in the singular rather than the plural."
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They
>
> Look up and understand all aspects of "epicene."
"epicene." -> "epicene".
That's a description, not a prescription. Articles are useles for
telling riht from wrong.
they -> one
Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations. The American
convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters' hammers would snap
off if the marks were hitten in the riht order, and it was cheaper to
accept that and print as such instead of building over.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> it is more than obvious that the androgenic disturbed creature
> that is calling itself Auty
> is actually an incarnation of the old disturbed crook farter
> Uncle Al
> he didnt disappear he just disguised himself
> another symptom of mental sickness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I'm not more androgenic than normal humans. Porat is pathologicly
cripplen on the research skills needen to forloosen himself from his
delusions.
Autymn D. C.
> I like it when this happens to pointless pedantic losers such as Autymn
> Deborah Castleton.
none such
> Autymn there's more to life than pointing out grammar "corrections"
> which are actually wrong, thus making yourself look like even more of
> an idiot.
None are wrong. If I'm an "oneself", that's better than a "noneself".
> Why not simply dump your mac and clunky one-button mouse in a bin, and
> then become a nun and join a convent? A life-long vow of silence would
> suit you.
You're an addlen retard. I use a trackpad, as I've flatoutly tellen
you when I corrected you in the computerly thread on which input device
was best out of all.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
boath -> both
As neutrons are composite particles with polarisable charges, an
electric gradient current can kick such about.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Al Zenner
> Al Zenner wrote:
>> > An individual is not a they!
>> Au contraire:
>> "The singular they is a special case of that pronoun
>> where they is used in the singular rather than the plural."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They
>> Look up and understand all aspects of "epicene."
> "epicene." -> "epicene".
Wrong again, but since your so called science is your own invention
there's no reason to understand your English usage isn't as well.
> That's a description, not a prescription. Articles are useles for
> telling riht from wrong.
> they -> one
I see, you think you are the ultimate authority. Glad that's cleared
up then. I'll floss my way, you floss yours.
> Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations. The American
> convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters' hammers would snap
> off if the marks were hitten in the riht order, and it was cheaper to
> accept that and print as such instead of building over.
It doesn't matter why the convention exists so long as it is the
convention. I chose to follow the convention while you persist
in making a fool of yourself by criticising others who follow
conventions.
I don't think I'll allow myself to be sucked into criticism of all
your typo errors; you're overly simple minded to say nothing of
being "obvious." LOL
Say hi to your alter ego from me.
jmfb...@aol.com
Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>news:1136205480....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations. The American
>> convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters' hammers would snap
>> off if the marks were hitten in the riht order, and it was cheaper to
>> accept that and print as such instead of building over.
>
>It doesn't matter why the convention exists
Except she was wrong. Hammers didn't snap off.
so long as it is the
>convention. I chose to follow the convention while you persist
>in making a fool of yourself by criticising others who follow
>conventions.
Now consider this one taking an editing job at a publisher who
prints textbooks. IF she is getting a degree in science, this
is about the only job she'll be able to get.
/BAH
donsto...@hotmail.com
******************
None. One has the freedom to post to this Black Hole from Hell if
one's free will so chooses forever.
And there are meta-kranks.
And meta-meta-kranks.
"I never met a krank I didn't like"
-- free Will Rogers.
Why Don, Is he incarcerated???????
'Don, come away from the computer. Don't waste your life that way.
Waste your life working towards the good of Humanity instead. Then die
and enter EN (Eternal Nothingness)."
"A quickie first?"
"Sure. A quickie what?"
"87?"
"Great. Get the 2 slabs of raw liver and the mayonaise. Should we let
Dumpin watch this time?"
"Why not "Why not?""
""Why not???" Why not!!!!!!!!!!"
I (your emotion here) you.
Al Zenner
news:dpdr37$8qk...@s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
> In article <Xns973F80...@208.49.83.94>,
> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>news:1136205480....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>> Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations. The American
>>> convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters' hammers would
>>> snap off if the marks were hitten in the riht order, and it was
>>> cheaper to accept that and print as such instead of building over.
>>It doesn't matter why the convention exists
> Except she was wrong.
Now here's a funny way to start the new year.
Some time back you accused me of being sexist. Here we are in a
discussion where you home in on the gender (you suspect) of an
individual posting where I never considered that at all and if push
came to shove I'd have used the generic "he" since the person's sex
has no significance to me on usenet.
> Hammers didn't snap off.
You're right. I ignored that because I didn't want to expand this
into a "typewriter keys have no memory" / "oh yes they do" discussion.
The paragraph introducing the hammer problem was nothing more than bait.
I purposely have a very short attention span when it comes to this.
The poster has had 2 chances for a meaningful dialog, a third one isn't
likely to be any different. I won't prolong the agony.
>> so long as it is the
>>convention. I chose to follow the convention while you persist
>>in making a fool of yourself by criticising others who follow
>>conventions.
> Now consider this one taking an editing job at a publisher who
> prints textbooks.
You think so?
> IF she is getting a degree in science, this
> is about the only job she'll be able to get.
This person can probably con their ;-) way into almost any sort
of job. Keeping a job after the initial hype wears thin is, IMO,
unlikely.
Autymn D. C.
> > "epicene." -> "epicene".
> Wrong again, but since your so called science is your own invention
> there's no reason to understand your English usage isn't as well.
I cannot invent anything that doesn't exist. You dodge what you cannot
backen. I'm still unwrong, and you can't handle it by sharing your
feelings.
> It doesn't matter why the convention exists so long as it is the
> convention. I chose to follow the convention while you persist
> in making a fool of yourself by criticising others who follow
criticizing
> conventions.
The truth is never foolish. I do not tolerate foolish, mindles,
thouhtles conventions--especially those starten by illiterates and the
uncouth. You perpetuate and hearten these, so you are part of the ills
of the world. You have no clue how wrong what everyone says, does,
thinks, and believes every-doomen-day. You have no clue how wrong the
world is; obviously you don't have the mind to understand or criticize
what you cannot differentiate.
> I don't think I'll allow myself to be sucked into criticism of all
> your typo errors; you're overly simple minded to say nothing of
> being "obvious." LOL
I've none; yours are a'heaping like the dolt you are. Know English or
shut it:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/10b82e2222cc6105/c4044b7f300dfc76#c4044b7f300dfc76>.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> individual posting where I never considered that at all and if push
> came to shove I'd have used the generic "he" since the person's sex
> has no significance to me on usenet.
"he" is not generic. Are you blind? "one" is generic.
> > Hammers didn't snap off.
>
> You're right. I ignored that because I didn't want to expand this
> into a "typewriter keys have no memory" / "oh yes they do" discussion.
> The paragraph introducing the hammer problem was nothing more than bait.
Wrong, it's not about memory but hitting of both keys at once. I'm
a'talking about the originals of course.
> This person can probably con their ;-) way into almost any sort
one's
> of job. Keeping a job after the initial hype wears thin is, IMO,
> unlikely.
con means confidence. I give nobody confidence who doesn't deserve it.
-Aut
Randy Poe
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Al Zenner wrote:
> > > An individual is not a they!
> >
> > Au contraire:
> >
> > "The singular they is a special case of that pronoun
> > where they is used in the singular rather than the plural."
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They
> >
> > Look up and understand all aspects of "epicene."
>
> "epicene." -> "epicene".
"epicene." is correct.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
See Rule #1.
> That's a description, not a prescription. Articles are useles for
> telling riht from wrong.
useles -> useless
riht -> right.
I don't usually engage in spelling correction, but since this
is a grammar flame it's almost obligatory.
> they -> one
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html#they
Here we go again. Last June I posted an article quoting the Oxford
English Dictionary, and tens of worthy authors through the ages from
the 1300's to the present day, who have used `they', `them',
`theirs',
etc as singular gender-unspecific words. It is correct English. It
was only later grammarians who tried to enforce the rule that they
are plural words, and force us to use `he', etc. Luckily, most
people
have not followed their dictates.
> Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations.
extraneose -> extraneous
> The American
> convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters'
tupewriter -> typewriter
> hammers would snap
> off if the marks were hitten in the riht order,
riht -> right
> and it was cheaper to
> accept that and print as such instead of building over.
Can you come up with a cite illustrating that putting the
period outside the quote is the "right" order?
I believe this convention predates the typewriter.
- Randy
Ken S. Tucker
PD wrote:
> Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
> 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
> 2. Marcel Luttgens
> 3. Monitek
> 4. paulps
>
> Unfortunately, we've lost
> A. Franz Heymann
> B. Uncle Al
>
A few years back a crank named "Speicher" claims he's
leaving sp because of me, but the best was JosX, that
guy was ascii brilliant.
Ken
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1135983453....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
> 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
> 2. Marcel Luttgens
> 3. Monitek
> 4. paulps
>
> Unfortunately, we've lost
> A. Franz Heymann
> B. Uncle Al
>
> Who else?
I think that both Androcles and Ken Tucker will cirose their
livers in 2006.
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
We do make their livers jump a lot!
Ken S. Tucker
Sam Wormley wrote:
> We do make their livers jump a lot!
LOL
Damn I thought I was Kill-filed, how much does
it take to acquire that honor? And PLEASE note
I keep me same handle to make that very easy.
Traveler
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>Dick Van de merde wrote:
[crap]
> We do make their livers jump a lot!
ahahaha... "We?" ahahaha... One ass kisser kissing another ass
kisser's ass. Priceless! ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
PD
Yes, I know what you do. It is called heckling. Heckling is what
amateurs do, and they do it because they think it is fun. Teenagers who
smash in mailboxes do it because they think it is fun. Grafitti
painters, especially crappy ones, spray paint stuff because they think
it is fun. Same for the kids who use a penknife to carve obscenities on
their schooldesks and on bathroom stalls.
You go right on doing what you're doing. Nice of you to sign your work.
PD
Traveler
No you don't. You're clueless, you're an ass kisser and you're stupid
as fuck. ahahaha...
> It is called heckling. Heckling is what
>amateurs do, and they do it because they think it is fun. Teenagers who
>smash in mailboxes do it because they think it is fun. Grafitti
>painters, especially crappy ones, spray paint stuff because they think
>it is fun. Same for the kids who use a penknife to carve obscenities on
>their schooldesks and on bathroom stalls.
>
>You go right on doing what you're doing. Nice of you to sign your work.
ahahaha... I am getting to you, PD. You have taken offence. ahaha...
Part of the fun is when I get on the ass kissers' nerves. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Physics is so much phucking phun.
Al Zenner
> Al Zenner wrote:
>> You're right. I ignored that because I didn't want to expand this
>> into a "typewriter keys have no memory" / "oh yes they do" discussion.
>> The paragraph introducing the hammer problem was nothing more than
>> bait.
As I replied to jmfbahciv that the original:
"Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations. The American
convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters' hammers would
snap off if the marks were hitten in the riht order, and it was
cheaper to accept that and print as such instead of building over."
was merely bait, we now have a denial of the details:
> Wrong, it's not about memory but hitting of both keys at once. I'm
> a'talking about the originals of course.
Having pointed out the scheme, bait growing out of bait, why bother
to delve into details explaining the obvious. I'll admit I might be
wrong, it could be ordinary stupidity rather than premeditated bait.
That's not worth considering or arguing, IMO.
Gregory L. Hansen
Why grafitti? Why tag? Why must everyone know that Kilroy was here?
Same reason a dog pees on a tree. Not only do animals have higher thought
processes than some people want to admit, people are closer to animals
than they want to admit, too.
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <1136332758.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Traveler wrote:
>
>>Grafitti
>>painters, especially crappy ones, spray paint stuff because they think
>>it is fun. Same for the kids who use a penknife to carve obscenities on
>>their schooldesks and on bathroom stalls.
>
>Why grafitti? Why tag? Why must everyone know that Kilroy was here?
>
>Same reason a dog pees on a tree. Not only do animals have higher thought
>processes than some people want to admit, people are closer to animals
>than they want to admit, too.
ahahaha... You just can't let an oportunity to kiss ass go unchecked,
eh, Hanson? How much ass did you have to kiss in your doctoral thesis?
Inquiring minds and all that. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Physics
is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
PD
You give yourself way too much credit as a heckler.
I've taken no offense at a single thing you say, precisely because of
the comparison I gave above. I take no offense at a schoolchild who
scrawls obscenities on a bathroom stall, either, but there is also no
respect warranted, either.
PD
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On 3 Jan 2006 15:59:18 -0800, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
[cut]
>> ahahaha... I am getting to you, PD. You have taken offence. ahaha...
>> Part of the fun is when I get on the ass kissers' nerves. ahahaha...
>> AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Physics is so much phucking phun.
>
>You give yourself way too much credit as a heckler.
>I've taken no offense at a single thing you say, precisely because of
>the comparison I gave above. I take no offense at a schoolchild who
>scrawls obscenities on a bathroom stall, either, but there is also no
>respect warranted, either.
Yeah, sure. That's why you keep replying to my posts, right?
ahahaha... The problem with ass kissers like you is that they want
respect from others, to be listened to and to have their opinions
respected. Like Rodney Dangerfield, they hate is when they get no
respect. They don't know how to react. Some choose to hightail it out
of sci.physics like chickens. Others create websites to discredit
those that they disdain. Others like you feign to be above it all even
though we are all swimming in the same river of shit, as Uncle
Dickhead once put it so eloquently. ahahaha...
The problem is that the ass kissers can't control the so-called
crackpots because they don't put food on their table. ahahaha... And
that drives them nuts. Religion has always been a matter of control.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Physics is so much phucking phun.
ahaha...
jmfb...@aol.com
Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote in
>news:dpdr37$8qk...@s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
>
>> In article <Xns973F80...@208.49.83.94>,
>> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>
>>>"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>news:1136205480....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>> Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations. The American
>>>> convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters' hammers would
>>>> snap off if the marks were hitten in the riht order, and it was
>>>> cheaper to accept that and print as such instead of building over.
>
>>>It doesn't matter why the convention exists
>
>> Except she was wrong.
>
>Now here's a funny way to start the new year.
>
>Some time back you accused me of being sexist. Here we are in a
>discussion where you home in on the gender (you suspect) of an
>individual posting where I never considered that at all and if push
>came to shove I'd have used the generic "he" since the person's sex
>has no significance to me on usenet.
WTF are you meandering about?
>
>> Hammers didn't snap off.
>
>You're right. I ignored that because I didn't want to expand this
>into a "typewriter keys have no memory" / "oh yes they do" discussion.
Huh? I see no way that the discussion could take this direction.
>The paragraph introducing the hammer problem was nothing more than bait.
<shrug> It needed correction, especially after you copied it
and published it again.
>I purposely have a very short attention span when it comes to this.
>The poster has had 2 chances for a meaningful dialog, a third one isn't
>likely to be any different. I won't prolong the agony.
>
>>> so long as it is the
>>>convention. I chose to follow the convention while you persist
>>>in making a fool of yourself by criticising others who follow
>>>conventions.
>
>> Now consider this one taking an editing job at a publisher who
>> prints textbooks.
>
>You think so?
I just wrote it.
>
>> IF she is getting a degree in science, this
>> is about the only job she'll be able to get.
>
>This person can probably con their ;-) way into almost any sort
>of job. Keeping a job after the initial hype wears thin is, IMO,
>unlikely.
Then you have no grasp on reality.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Exactly.
>That's not worth considering or arguing, IMO.
Corrections are not worth it?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Autymn D. C. wrote:
>> Al Zenner wrote:
>> > > An individual is not a they!
>> >
>> > Au contraire:
>> >
>> > "The singular they is a special case of that pronoun
>> > where they is used in the singular rather than the plural."
>> >
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They
>> >
>> > Look up and understand all aspects of "epicene."
>>
>> "epicene." -> "epicene".
>
>"epicene." is correct.
>http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
>
>See Rule #1.
Is it really?!! Interesting. The text formatter we used
wouldn't have double-spaced the sentence. I'll have to
go to that other newsgroup and ask about it. :-) Thanks.
<snip>
>I believe this convention predates the typewriter.
I wonder how it got that way. The way I was taught
was that, if a quote was a full sentence, then the the
construct was ." and if the quote was a single word,
then the construct was ". because the quoted material
was a subset of the sentence. IIRC, we had to force
the double-spacing if the text quoted a sentence by
putting a pound sign after the .".
[very amused emoticon reads what it just typed] There's
nothing like spec'ing to create exceptions to the exceptions
to the rule. This one would need care to get transformed
into an ASCII doc file.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <1136316279....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>PD wrote:
>> Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
>> 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
>> 2. Marcel Luttgens
>> 3. Monitek
>> 4. paulps
>>
>> Unfortunately, we've lost
>> A. Franz Heymann
>> B. Uncle Al
>>
>> Who else?
John Baez
Jim Carr
Ed Green
A couple of people whose
posting names I can't remember
but threw in quality posts, one is
a farmer; I'm not sure what the others
did.
Jon Bell
Anybody who used to or is a monitor of s.p.r.
I suspect Mati Meron.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
>PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Traveler wrote:
>
>>Grafitti
>>painters, especially crappy ones, spray paint stuff because they think
>>it is fun. Same for the kids who use a penknife to carve obscenities on
>>their schooldesks and on bathroom stalls.
>
>Why grafitti? Why tag? Why must everyone know that Kilroy was here?
>
>Same reason a dog pees on a tree. Not only do animals have higher thought
>processes than some people want to admit, people are closer to animals
>than they want to admit, too.
Yep. Male humans do the same thing (pee to mark territory).
/BAH
PD
Randy Poe wrote:
>
> Can you come up with a cite illustrating that putting the
> period outside the quote is the "right" order?
>
> I believe this convention predates the typewriter.
>
Depends on whether you're American or British.
American says that the period sits inside a "quote."
British says that in some cases the period sits outside the "quote".
Chicago Manual of Style says there are exceptions, driven by clarity.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.Punctuation.html
PD
Gregory L. Hansen
I've always put the period in the quotes if I thought it belonged with
what was quoted. E.g.
And then she said "Don't be an ass."
You said "ass".
--
"The hardest conviction to get into the mind of the beginner is that the
education he is receiving in college is not a medical course but a life
course for which the work of a few years under teachers is but a
preparation." -- Sir William Osler
Gregory L. Hansen
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 03:33:15 +0000 (UTC),
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>In article <1136332758.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>Grafitti
>>>painters, especially crappy ones, spray paint stuff because they think
>>>it is fun. Same for the kids who use a penknife to carve obscenities on
>>>their schooldesks and on bathroom stalls.
>>
>>Why grafitti? Why tag? Why must everyone know that Kilroy was here?
>>
>>Same reason a dog pees on a tree. Not only do animals have higher thought
>>processes than some people want to admit, people are closer to animals
>>than they want to admit, too.
>
>ahahaha... You just can't let an oportunity to kiss ass go unchecked,
Oh, I don't care about your little spat with PD. But I am somewhat
interested in ethology. Some people hold the high thought processes of
humans in sharp contrast with unthinking animal instinct, so it's amusing
to recognize where they're not as far removed as they'd like to think.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
Al Zenner
Al Zenner
news:dpgjdc$8u0...@s793.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
> In article <Xns9740C2...@208.49.83.94>,
> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
snip
>>That's not worth considering or arguing, IMO.
> Corrections are not worth it?
There are at least two living proofs of that in this thread.
Traveler
Which is essential to species survival and population control. The
females have other things to worry about that are equally essential to
survival. ahahaha... But kidding aside, I have never seen human males
piss to mark territory. You must be referring to a deep fetish of
yours. Is Uncle Dickhead somehow included in your fantasies?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Having said that, you seem or prefer not to notice another survival
trait of most animals which is also present in humans (both male and
female). It's called ass kissing. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Der alte Hexenmeister
Androcles says "The same rule applies for quotes as applies to parentheses
in this sentence (and the following sentence)."
(This sentence, added as an afterthought, is correctly punctuated and
"complete".)
In Caxton and Gutenberg's day it was possible for the typesetter to place
the
lead blocks in line vertically, mimicking handwriting.
Der alte Hexenmeister.
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>Oh, I don't care about your little spat with PD. But I am somewhat
>interested in ethology. Some people hold the high thought processes of
>humans in sharp contrast with unthinking animal instinct, so it's amusing
>to recognize where they're not as far removed as they'd like to think.
Yeah, but the contextual implication of your reply to PD's post is
that the ass kissers of the physics community think they are excluded
from this generalization. They are not, he he... Theirs is the best
example of social animal behavior I can think of. Brutish beasts, all
of them, I tell ya! ahaha... And the older they are, the worse it
gets. We will not see a rebirth of physics until the old farts who
were born and trained in the last century croak or something.
Happy Hippy
> I never claimed to have demonstrated anything other than the
> crackpottery (including unmasking a bunch of notorious crackpots) that
> is inherent in YOUR science. I enjoy doing it and I will continue to
> do it because it's fun. ahaha... Yeah, it's an in-your-face kind of
> crackpottery too: Time travel, dimensions curled up into little
> fucking balls, particles following their geodesics in curved
> spacetime, zillions of parallel universes forking at every instant,
> virtual particles, every position in the universe is relative, etc...
> ahahaha... It's fucking hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Phew! Physics is so much phucking
> phun. ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Time travel? Hmmm.
Little balls dimensions? Galaxy theory has electrons being
made of millions of suns and planets that are equally-detailed
as ours, including having intelligent life.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
Complexity being infinite at all levels, this level is also
atoms with electrons made from material that is equally so small
as to be 'in another dimension'. So what? This can
be carried on forever, not just 26 dimensions or whatever
the strung theorists quiver.
Particles? Yes, at size levels in the 'middle of' a size dimension,
like where the atoms are in the form of planets, meteors, etc.
Parallel universes? Do you know what 'universe' means?
Relative positions? Ever throw a twig in the stream?
Ever race with toothpicks when the snow is melting?
How important is the presence of the other toothpick?
(Unless it's right in your face!)
John
Ken S. Tucker
Yup good point...
VD we know, but I'll *never* figure Sam for an anal kisser,
he's got good -sometimes comic style, and to important
to insult.
hanson
news:dtsnr1pm6gt9ngsk7...@4ax.com...
>>>>Traveler wrote:
>>>>Grafitti
>>>>painters, especially crappy ones, spray paint stuff because they think
>>>>it is fun. Same for the kids who use a penknife to carve obscenities on
>>>>their schooldesks and on bathroom stalls.
>>>
>> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>Why grafitti? Why tag? Why must everyone know that Kilroy was here?
>>>
>>>Same reason a dog pees on a tree. Not only do animals have higher thought
>>>processes than some people want to admit, people are closer to animals
>>>than they want to admit, too.
>>
>>Yep. Male humans do the same thing (pee to mark territory).
>
Males.. Shmales, Shemales?.... since you, Becky/BHA, said that:
"Standing is my preferred position"... ahahaha... Bulldyke? ... ahaha..
>
[Traveler]
Gregory L. Hansen
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:03:36 +0000 (UTC),
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>Oh, I don't care about your little spat with PD. But I am somewhat
>>interested in ethology. Some people hold the high thought processes of
>>humans in sharp contrast with unthinking animal instinct, so it's amusing
>>to recognize where they're not as far removed as they'd like to think.
>
>Yeah, but the contextual implication of your reply to PD's post is
>that the ass kissers of the physics community think they are excluded
>from this generalization. They are not, he he... Theirs is the best
>example of social animal behavior I can think of. Brutish beasts, all
>of them, I tell ya! ahaha... And the older they are, the worse it
>gets. We will not see a rebirth of physics until the old farts who
>were born and trained in the last century croak or something.
>ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Physics is so much phucking phun!
>ahaha...
Greg's Second Law of Humanity states that whatever your job, hobby, or
special interest is, you'll think it's more important than anyone else
does. Physics included. And that also includes heckling physicists.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <qt4or1hh7ficrjg0h...@4ax.com>,
>Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:03:36 +0000 (UTC),
>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, I don't care about your little spat with PD. But I am somewhat
>>>interested in ethology. Some people hold the high thought processes of
>>>humans in sharp contrast with unthinking animal instinct, so it's amusing
>>>to recognize where they're not as far removed as they'd like to think.
>>
>>Yeah, but the contextual implication of your reply to PD's post is
>>that the ass kissers of the physics community think they are excluded
>>from this generalization. They are not, he he... Theirs is the best
>>example of social animal behavior I can think of. Brutish beasts, all
>>of them, I tell ya! ahaha... And the older they are, the worse it
>>gets. We will not see a rebirth of physics until the old farts who
>>were born and trained in the last century croak or something.
>>ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Physics is so much phucking phun!
>>ahaha...
>
>Greg's Second Law of Humanity states that whatever your job, hobby, or
>special interest is, you'll think it's more important than anyone else
>does. Physics included. And that also includes heckling physicists.
Well, you're lucky it's only heckling. Most of you should be tarred an
feathered and paraded down the street as an example to the younger
generation. ahahaha... You are a disgrace, a monumental hindrance to
progress in physics. The field of physics has not advanced in decades.
Yours is an incestuous, aberrent science that feeds on itself and
pollinates itself with its own ideological genes. Heck, when I look at
monstrosities like superstring theory, virtual particles, multiple
parallel universes forking at every instant, time travel, motion in
spacetime, wormholes, black holes, quantum computing, etc..., I'd say
it's moving backwards at an accelerated space. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
John Schutkeker
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Unfortunately, we've lost
> A. Franz Heymann
> B. Uncle Al
It occurs to me that somebody could have a heart attack, and we'd never
find out about it.
John Schutkeker
@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
>
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1135983453....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Haven't heard from these fellas in a while
>> 1. TomGee (Thomas Garcia)
>> 2. Marcel Luttgens
>> 3. Monitek
>> 4. paulps
>>
>> Unfortunately, we've lost
>> A. Franz Heymann
>> B. Uncle Al
>>
>> Who else?
>>
>
> Troll
If he's a troll, he started an interesting thread. We need more trolls
like this.
Der alte Hexenmeister
"John Schutkeker" <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns9743E51F8B765lk...@207.115.17.102...
Uncle Al was run out, screaming "River if Shit, FOaD". Aesop called
that "Sour Grapes"
Heymann died.
>> Draper:
>> I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
>>
>> I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
>> than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
>> that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
> drifting
>> to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
>> reveals the true interest in the proposal.
>>
>> While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
>> intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
>> "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
>> reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
>> from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
>> someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
>> straight, and then make progress from there.
>>
>> I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
>> read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
>> confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
>> my heart does not.
>>
>> [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
>> appear]
>> PD
>> ========================
>> or this?
>>
>> ========================
>> Draper:
>> Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
>>
>> But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
>> let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
> at a
>> time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
>> error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
> the
>> error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
>> =========================
>>
>> Androcles:
>>
>> I'll agree to your terms.
>> My terms:
>> Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
>> or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
>> I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
>> discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
>> convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
>> is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
>> to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
>> ==========================
>>
>> Then you caved in and ran away, and here you are back again, after
>> all the work I did, with not so much as a
>> "party in error MUST acknowledge the error" or a
>> "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now."
>>
>> Google remembers it very well.
>> Androcles.
Hexenmeister, still trying to run out the hypocritical crank Phuckwit Duck.
jmfb...@aol.com
The mechanics of reproduction haven't changed in thousands of years.
Are you insisting that anybody who fucks should also be killed?
/BAH
donsto...@hotmail.com
Are you insisting that anybody who fucks should also be killed?
***********************
Wel, we do have a severe overpopulation problem that FFD (Fossil Fuel
Depletion) might not entirely take care of. Oh, I'm sorry. There's
always bird flu. Never mind.
- Emily LaTella
jmfb...@aol.com
You are purposely not answering the question. Since you also
have a similar sentiment, answer the question.
/BAH
Traveler
ahahaha... Well, if you fuck your own children and produce a bunch of
monstrous offsprings, you probably should be dealt with in some manner
or other. Incest is, allegorically speaking, what is happening in
physics. This is the point I made in my post which you carefully cut
out in your reply. Here it is again:
[...] The field of physics has not advanced in decades.
Yours is an incestuous, aberrent science that feeds on itself and
pollinates itself with its own ideological genes. Heck, when I look at
monstrosities like superstring theory, virtual particles, multiple
parallel universes forking at every instant, time travel, motion in
spacetime, wormholes, black holes, quantum computing, etc..., I'd say
it's moving backwards at an accelerated space. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Al Zenner
news:bgmvr1tvnsdgnm5qs...@4ax.com:
> ahahaha... Well, if you fuck your own children and produce a bunch of
> monstrous offsprings, you probably should be dealt with in some manner
> or other. Incest is, allegorically speaking, what is happening in
> physics. This is the point I made in my post which you carefully cut
> out in your reply. Here it is again:
> [...] The field of physics has not advanced in decades.
> Yours is an incestuous, aberrent science that feeds on itself and
> pollinates itself with its own ideological genes. Heck, when I look at
> monstrosities like superstring theory, virtual particles, multiple
> parallel universes forking at every instant, time travel, motion in
> spacetime, wormholes, black holes, quantum computing, etc..., I'd say
> it's moving backwards at an accelerated space. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Memes don't suffer the same sort of constraints as genetics. The
starting point for any meme allows for growth and combination in
every possible direction. Each of your "monstrosities" has been
useful. You have only to look at posts from sci.physics cranks
to see some that aren't.
Growth of knowledge is "moving backwards?"
Leave it to the master of catachresis.
Bret Cahill
What am I NOT doing?
Bret Cahill
jmfb...@aol.com
I snipped it out because I wanted my question answered, which
you still have not answered. What is your answer?
<snip again>
/BAH
Autymn D. C.
> "epicene." is correct.
> http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
>
> See Rule #1.
These rules are no good for the better-knowing.
> > That's a description, not a prescription. Articles are useles for
> > telling riht from wrong.
>
> useles -> useless
> riht -> right.
>
> I don't usually engage in spelling correction, but since this
> is a grammar flame it's almost obligatory.
useless -> useles
right -> riht
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.int-fiction/browse_frm/thread/6e0d90ecccd197d5/563ac155781e701c#563ac155781e701c>
> http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html#they
> Here we go again. Last June I posted an article quoting the Oxford
> English Dictionary, and tens of worthy authors through the ages from
>
> the 1300's to the present day, who have used `they', `them',
> `theirs',
> etc as singular gender-unspecific words. It is correct English. It
> was only later grammarians who tried to enforce the rule that they
> are plural words, and force us to use `he', etc. Luckily, most
> people
> have not followed their dictates.
What is the plural of "they" then, Aspergian scum? I don't care if
these writers couldn't ken out that "one" is onely (singular) and
neitherly (neutral). Mindles dolts like you are the wherefore for the
downfall of English:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan/browse_frm/thread/e6f91ded71191e71/e951f46c0985d830#e951f46c0985d830>.
> > Don't put extraneose punctuation in quotations.
>
> extraneose -> extraneous
extraneous -> extraneose
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan/browse_frm/thread/e6f91ded71191e71/e951f46c0985d830#e951f46c0985d830>
> > The American
> > convention came about when their shoddy tupewriters'
>
> tupewriter -> typewriter
typewriter -> tupewriter
Stop corruption of Greek or die.
> > hammers would snap
> > off if the marks were hitten in the riht order,
>
> riht -> right
right -> riht
I fiht the religiose lonely (monastic) scum from the Romans, Normans,
and Celts on.
> > and it was cheaper to
> > accept that and print as such instead of building over.
>
> Can you come up with a cite illustrating that putting the
> period outside the quote is the "right" order?
>
> I believe this convention predates the typewriter.
A period is an interval of time, doof. Cites do not illustrate what is
riht; brains do. If thou cannot, in thy Americanity, see how "Push
'1.'" and ilk is the invention of a cretin's mind, then thou cannot
help thyself.
-Aut