Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #581082 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-27 08:48 +0200 |
| Last post | 2022-03-29 13:52 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 08:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 02:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Evodio Bayon <eba@nctps.mx> - 2022-03-27 09:54 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:35 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-28 08:47 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 02:50 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:52 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 02:06 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-30 09:13 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-30 16:46 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:37 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:16 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Vance Rera <rerv@trscnat.ag> - 2022-04-03 20:38 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:08 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:04 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:14 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:26 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:25 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-02 08:18 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:37 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:39 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-02 08:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 18:17 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 14:57 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:07 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 15:22 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:33 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 12:30 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:53 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 00:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Elmer Joss <josl@nntdca.mx> - 2022-04-03 08:50 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 13:07 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Vance Rera <rerv@trscnat.ag> - 2022-04-03 20:24 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 15:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Vance Rera <rerv@trscnat.ag> - 2022-04-04 00:25 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 19:33 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Hagan Koon <koh@nisnaha.mx> - 2022-04-04 12:30 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 12:23 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-04 21:04 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 17:41 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-04 21:09 -0400
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-05 00:17 -0500
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 23:03 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 02:10 -0400
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-05 09:35 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 03:13 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-05 09:33 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 16:00 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-05 09:54 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-03 08:07 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 00:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 12:38 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-04 07:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 01:44 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:16 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 13:55 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:25 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 02:46 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 07:40 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 14:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 07:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 13:50 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 07:01 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 14:18 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 08:45 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-07 07:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 13:25 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 07:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-03 15:42 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-04 07:20 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 13:55 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:35 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-05 10:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 03:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 14:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 14:03 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 18:06 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-07 07:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 13:25 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 07:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mitch Yamaguchi <sdvw@aozrihai.wg> - 2022-04-07 19:23 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 14:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 07:56 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 13:58 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 08:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-07 07:45 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 01:20 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 08:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 23:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 01:06 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 08:40 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 23:56 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 20:50 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-08 19:05 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-09 08:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-08 23:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 13:02 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Coke Hishikawa <uhva@blseummh.nm> - 2022-04-09 13:21 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-09 12:18 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 09:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-10 11:29 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-10 12:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-10 16:54 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-11 00:50 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 21:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 07:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 11:01 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-11 05:50 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-11 18:20 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 09:48 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-11 09:54 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:32 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-11 18:39 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:28 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-12 06:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-12 06:47 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:58 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-12 11:14 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-12 11:10 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-12 18:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-13 02:37 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-14 08:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-13 23:44 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-14 04:16 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Emil Imada <irzd@tlqinosm.jt> - 2022-04-17 22:47 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 12:47 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 13:06 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-09 07:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-09 14:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 06:18 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 08:49 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 23:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 12:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 12:51 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 05:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 21:04 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 22:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 21:20 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 07:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-11 08:43 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-11 13:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 21:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-12 02:52 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-13 07:49 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-13 07:41 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-14 08:21 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-14 14:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 07:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:26 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:42 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-15 18:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 17:00 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 15:46 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-16 10:23 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-16 12:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-17 10:04 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-17 04:46 -0500
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 17:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-18 09:33 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 12:38 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-18 16:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 09:24 -0700
Crank Thomas Heger perseveres (in his imbecility) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 08:49 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 09:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 01:03 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 11:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:01 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-19 11:05 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 08:25 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-21 08:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:13 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-21 23:24 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 21:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 08:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-22 11:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 08:07 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 07:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-24 10:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 09:02 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:48 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 09:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 01:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 12:23 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-22 15:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 07:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 07:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 03:34 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-23 11:52 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 05:49 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 08:07 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 09:52 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:22 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 07:02 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 23:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 22:24 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:35 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-27 07:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-28 07:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 01:45 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Rady Konoe <akde@oakoradn.en> - 2022-04-28 09:03 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-29 08:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 20:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 21:03 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-30 07:47 +0200
Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 07:00 -0700
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 14:44 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 08:19 -0700
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 15:28 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 15:33 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 17:56 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-30 20:15 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 19:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-01 10:15 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 00:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 00:40 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-03 07:58 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-03 09:45 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 23:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-29 14:30 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 06:45 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 19:50 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 21:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-29 08:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 13:06 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 06:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-01 09:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 12:16 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-02 08:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 23:31 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 02:30 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 00:18 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-04 06:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 01:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-05 09:02 +0200
Crank Thomas Heger keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 06:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 22:17 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 22:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-06 08:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:24 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 01:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 01:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-07 07:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 00:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-08 08:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 12:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-10 07:12 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 00:19 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-11 07:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-11 11:25 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-12 10:31 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-12 21:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-15 11:26 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-18 07:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-18 16:42 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 11:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-12 21:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-13 08:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-14 06:43 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 19:49 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-15 08:34 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 12:53 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-18 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-20 09:32 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 19:29 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-15 08:50 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-19 08:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-19 11:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 06:56 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 02:05 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-20 09:17 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 15:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-21 08:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-21 18:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-21 11:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-22 07:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-21 23:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-30 07:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-31 12:08 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-01 08:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-01 12:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 05:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-02 08:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-02 07:58 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-02 09:36 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-03 07:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-03 12:13 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-04 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-06-04 10:04 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-04 13:24 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-05 08:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-05 12:34 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-06 08:56 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-06 11:07 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 01:18 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-07 07:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-07 19:38 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-08 08:40 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-08 12:05 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-10 07:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-10 10:31 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 00:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-11 07:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 06:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-13 11:46 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-14 08:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-06-14 13:08 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-15 12:44 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 09:39 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-21 07:51 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 00:53 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-07-05 08:12 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 20:14 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:29 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 07:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-08 08:43 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 22:24 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 13:07 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-06 08:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 00:16 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 00:29 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-07 08:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 23:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 00:35 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 00:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-07 11:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 02:26 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-08 08:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-19 20:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-03 07:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 17:09 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-07 07:32 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 13:53 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 05:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-08 08:33 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 12:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-09 07:20 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 02:24 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 03:04 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 10:14 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 00:25 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-18 15:54 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 06:17 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-18 15:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 07:05 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-19 08:57 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-19 11:42 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 06:57 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-19 16:17 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 07:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@invalid> - 2022-05-19 18:46 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 10:22 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-24 07:47 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-23 23:48 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-28 06:45 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-20 09:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:16 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 04:44 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 12:02 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 05:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-03 08:15 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 07:49 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:23 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 11:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 05:14 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:46 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 21:09 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 10:23 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 12:56 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 10:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 11:51 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 07:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Cody Sakellariou <yall@ckcldcdd.ar> - 2022-04-23 07:59 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 12:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 21:21 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Coke Hishikawa <uhva@blseummh.nm> - 2022-04-09 11:33 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 13:08 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-10 11:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 21:10 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-18 17:43 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 09:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-21 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-21 10:08 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-22 07:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 01:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-30 01:18 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-30 07:57 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-30 13:58 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-07-05 08:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-05 09:37 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-07-06 07:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-04 21:02 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-04-03 22:31 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:26 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:01 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-30 07:16 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-27 06:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 08:31 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-27 11:43 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-29 13:52 -0400
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 12:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t74luh$ohd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586117 |
On 2022-05-30 05:19:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 22.05.2022 um 08:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 07:29:25 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >>> My aim was actually, to find out, how Einstein made his mistakes. >> >> Just like any other mumbling idiot. >> > > It is not an easy task, if you try to understand errors. > > It is easy to identify them, One might think so but not easy enough for you, as you have made more wrong than correct identifications. > but not, if you try to understand, how someone came to a wrong conclusion. You have no hope in this until you get your identifications right and until you can understand how that someone came to least some of the correct conclusions. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 08:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jfods7Foo2jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586196 |
Am 31.05.2022 um 11:08 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-05-30 05:19:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am 22.05.2022 um 08:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 07:29:25 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> >>>> My aim was actually, to find out, how Einstein made his mistakes. >>> >>> Just like any other mumbling idiot. >>> >> >> It is not an easy task, if you try to understand errors. >> >> It is easy to identify them, > > One might think so but not easy enough for you, as you have made > more wrong than correct identifications. I made some errors and some were really stupid. But non of my errors were discovered in discussions about them (like this one), but by rewriting my own annotations over and over again. For instance I wrote, the delay would be x*c, while it is actually x/c. But non of you 'experts' have criticised this. Instead of that, I received tons of insults, which had almost no connection to the text or my critique. What shall I say??? Don't know, but simply continue and rewrite my annotations and will one day present a version, which contains no more errors. >> but not, if you try to understand, how someone came to a wrong >> conclusion. > > You have no hope in this until you get your identifications right > and until you can understand how that someone came to least some > of the correct conclusions. > I wrote a critique about Einstein's text, not about relativity. I therefore do not want to rewrite Einstein's text or try to find correct solutions for his errors. To find these errors is actually a method meant as selfeducation. The idea is to apply valid methods only and identify deviations from that and analyze, what the author did wrong. The effect is actually, that the application of valid methods get trained in this process and that errors are avoided. The method uses actually Einstein's text as training object. This is not meant as critique on relativity, but of this text, which I would regard as crap (because it contains hundreds of errors). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 12:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <62974563$0$18398$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #586251 |
Thomas Heger wrote: ... > Instead of that, I received tons of insults, which had almost no > connection to the text or my critique. This is a blatant, shameful lie Thomas > What shall I say??? What you should DO is to remove your head from the sand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a284e166-8dcf-4706-924f-50fc391710bbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586254 |
On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 12:54:30 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > ... > > Instead of that, I received tons of insults, which had almost no > > connection to the text or my critique. > This is a blatant, shameful lie Thomas Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying to pretend he knows something. Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, it has to be formulable in the language of the theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for that, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jfr20fFbj24U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586256 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 14:38 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 12:54:30 UTC+2, Python wrote: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >> ... >>> Instead of that, I received tons of insults, which had almost no >>> connection to the text or my critique. >> This is a blatant, shameful lie Thomas > > > Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, > and trying to pretend he knows something. > Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of > a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? > See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, > it has to be formulable in the language of the > theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for > that, poor stinker? > I do not see any conncetion of your comment to the topic of our discussion. So, please, could you be so kind and explain, how you relate 'Peano arithmetic' to SRT? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 07:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jfr1rrFbj24U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586254 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 12:54 schrieb Python: > Thomas Heger wrote: > ... >> Instead of that, I received tons of insults, which had almost no >> connection to the text or my critique. > > This is a blatant, shameful lie Thomas What do you mean with 'lie'? Apparently you don't mean 'insults', because I received tons of insults. (I could easily show this, but do not really want.) So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were justified by my own errors (???) But his is not how science works or how scientitsts should behave. > >> What shall I say??? > > What you should DO is to remove your head from the sand. > You will be surprised, but my head is not placed in any kind of sand. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 09:36 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t79lpg$s5s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586286 |
On 2022-06-02 05:58:24 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were > justified by my own errors (???) If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the message where the first "insult" was and your message that someone considered to need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious you may ask. > But his is not how science works or how scientitsts should behave. Or find the first "insult" by a scientist. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 07:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jftkieFpa8vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586289 |
Am 02.06.2022 um 08:36 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-06-02 05:58:24 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were >> justified by my own errors (???) > > If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the message > where the first "insult" was and your message that someone considered to > need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious you > may ask. I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName. I use my own real name, but many don't. I also think, that a large part of the traffic in the UseNet is created by AI. Therefore, I'm unable to identify, whether or not a critique stems from a real scientist or from a bunch of underpaid bullshit artists. I can only count insults and can insure you, the number is just enormous. This not really a problem, only a little annoying. >> But his is not how science works or how scientitsts should behave. > > Or find the first "insult" by a scientist. > Sorry, but the requirement 'by a scientist' is not easy to fulfill, because I have no means to find out, who is who and whether a User is actually a person or a 'persona', used by a machine. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 12:13 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t7cjb3$h33$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586351 |
On 2022-06-03 05:29:55 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 02.06.2022 um 08:36 schrieb Mikko: >> On 2022-06-02 05:58:24 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were >>> justified by my own errors (???) >> >> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the message >> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone considered to >> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious you >> may ask. > > I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName. Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote and how it was responded. ... > I can only count insults and can insure you, the number is just enormous. The number does not matter. The first case is the most important. ... >> Or find the first "insult" by a scientist. >> > Sorry, but the requirement 'by a scientist' is not easy to fulfill, > because I have no means to find out, who is who and whether a User is > actually a person or a 'persona', used by a machine. Then go to the very first one and don't care whether anybody is a scientist. Most likely nobody is. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 08:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg0apbF8ru7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586359 |
Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko: >>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were >>>> justified by my own errors (???) >>> >>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the >>> message >>> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone considered to >>> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious >>> you >>> may ask. >> >> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName. > > Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote > and how it was responded. Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar. In the German group de.sci.physik there was mainly an austrian with the username 'Fritz'. The patter seems to be, that kind of 'wolf-pack' attacks everybody, who dares to criticise Einstein's SRT. The text itself is as crappy as a paper can get, but was presented by the media as the pinnacle of all human endeavours. That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud, which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power. Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons? I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science should work. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 10:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t7fanj$3n2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586401 |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:01:14 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko: > >>>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were >>>>> justified by my own errors (???) >>>> >>>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the >>>> message where the first "insult" was and your message that someone >>>> considered to need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation >>>> is not obvious you may ask. >>> >>> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName. >> >> Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote and how it >> was responded. > > Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or > similar. > > In the German group de.sci.physik there was mainly an austrian with the > username 'Fritz'. And it does not come to your mind that these attacks might be caused by the BS you continually post to many groups. Latest example in DSE: The Aral sea has gotten smaller because of "growing earth" whereas everybody knows that this is caused by the Russians redirecting the feeding rivers for irrigation of their cotton fields. > The patter seems to be, that kind of 'wolf-pack' attacks everybody, who > dares to criticise Einstein's SRT. Because most "critics" simply criticize without understanding anything of it. > > The text itself is as crappy as a paper can get, but was presented by > the media as the pinnacle of all human endeavours. > > That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud, > which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power. As with any crackpot you come up with a giant unfounded conspiracy and you are the only one who is able to see this. In reality your bullshit is rejected by all sane people because of what it is. > Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons? Nobody, it exists only in your insane fantasy. > > I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science > should work. > > > ... > > > TH -- Reinhardt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 13:24 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t7fbs4$3th$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586401 |
On 2022-06-04 06:01:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko: > >>>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were >>>>> justified by my own errors (???) >>>> >>>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the >>>> message >>>> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone considered to >>>> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious >>>> you >>>> may ask. >>> >>> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName. >> >> Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote >> and how it was responded. > > Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar. As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from. Only the first insult is important. Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in different behaviour. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 08:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg31h3Fmj7eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586406 |
Am 04.06.2022 um 12:24 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-06-04 06:01:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko: >> >>>>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were >>>>>> justified by my own errors (???) >>>>> >>>>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the >>>>> message >>>>> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone >>>>> considered to >>>>> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious >>>>> you >>>>> may ask. >>>> >>>> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName. >>> >>> Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote >>> and how it was responded. >> >> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or >> similar. > > As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from. > Only the first insult is important. > > Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main > motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in > different behaviour. > Motivition is not important at all in science. Many scientists had very questionable motives, but discovered important things. It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important is, what they do. So, it would be better to abstract from the reasons, why a certain scientist had chosen a subject or attempted to solve a certain problem. It can be interesting, however, for historians in some cases, that try to estimate afterwards, why someone did something or why some endeavour was succesfull. But that is not really a scientific question and it is better to simply ignore it in the scientifc realm. Lets take Newton, for instance. Now, how do you connect his theory of gravity or his book 'principia' to his favor for alchemy and black magic? Or how about others like Stephan Hawking. Did it change the value of his findings, that he sat in a wheelchair? TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 12:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t7htao$l7r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586455 |
On 2022-06-05 06:41:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 04.06.2022 um 12:24 schrieb Mikko: >> On 2022-06-04 06:01:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko: >>> >>>>>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were >>>>>>> justified by my own errors (???) >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the >>>>>> message >>>>>> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone >>>>>> considered to >>>>>> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious >>>>>> you >>>>>> may ask. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName. >>>> >>>> Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote >>>> and how it was responded. >>> >>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or >>> similar. >> >> As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from. >> Only the first insult is important. >> >> Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main >> motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in >> different behaviour. >> > > Motivition is not important at all in science. Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout. You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion. > It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important > is, what they do. Depends on your purposes. To a large extent it is unimportant what they do but sometimes somebody does something important. Why they do what they do is important if you want to change their behaviour. Knowing motivation may also help to predict their future behaviour. Relevant to the current case is that if we know that your motivation is not scientific we may expect that you will never say anything useful but if it is you may say something useful in the future. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 08:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg5mp7F5kjjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586462 |
Am 05.06.2022 um 11:34 schrieb Mikko: >>>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or >>>> similar. >>> >>> As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from. >>> Only the first insult is important. >>> >>> Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main >>> motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in >>> different behaviour. >>> >> >> Motivition is not important at all in science. > > Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are > an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the > behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout. Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science, than certainly you should cover this topic. But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher. Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians tell stories about these. But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like psychology or history. > You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation > there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion. Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not the participants in a discussion. To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want, because we are discussiong a topic in physics. If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences, believe or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you at all. >> It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important >> is, what they do. > > Depends on your purposes. To a large extent it is unimportant what they do > but sometimes somebody does something important. Why they do what they do > is important if you want to change their behaviour. Knowing motivation may > also help to predict their future behaviour. People are usually too complex to succesfully predict their behaviour. But in case you like to do something really useless and almost impossible, than try that. > Relevant to the current case is that if we know that your motivation is > not scientific we may expect that you will never say anything useful > but if it is you may say something useful in the future. > Usefulness is not a criterium in physics. Physics is not engineering and not the science of building machines. Physics deals with nature itself and tries to uncover, how nature functions. But we can only find out this behaviour, whether that is useful for us or not. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 11:07 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t7kcj5$9fb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586495 |
On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 05.06.2022 um 11:34 schrieb Mikko: > >>>>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or >>>>> similar. >>>> >>>> As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from. >>>> Only the first insult is important. >>>> >>>> Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main >>>> motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in >>>> different behaviour. >>>> >>> >>> Motivition is not important at all in science. >> >> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are >> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the >> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout. > > Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science, It isn't. > than certainly you should cover this topic. > > But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher. Or any other people. > Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians > tell stories about these. > > But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like > psychology or history. So should be discussed in a better place than here. >> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation >> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion. > > Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not > the participants in a discussion. You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that then don't do that again. > To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want, because > we are discussiong a topic in physics. It should be irrelevant anyway although you are not discussion a topic in physics. > If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences, believe > or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you at all. Most importantly, you should not discuss those other topics here. >>> It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important >>> is, what they do. >> >> Depends on your purposes. To a large extent it is unimportant what they do >> but sometimes somebody does something important. Why they do what they do >> is important if you want to change their behaviour. Knowing motivation may >> also help to predict their future behaviour. > > People are usually too complex to succesfully predict their behaviour. > But in case you like to do something really useless and almost > impossible, than try that. That varies. Total prediction is impossible but certain aspects of behaviour are fairly predictable. >> Relevant to the current case is that if we know that your motivation is >> not scientific we may expect that you will never say anything useful >> but if it is you may say something useful in the future. > > Usefulness is not a criterium in physics. People read what they expect to be useful for their purposes. Some people want to learn, some show that they can irritate other people, some something else. That you participate in some discussion and not others shows what you consider most useful for your purposes. From that others may estimate what your purposes are. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 01:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <179ee73f-60f5-4721-bddf-a2a311dc0e72n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586501 |
On Monday, 6 June 2022 at 10:07:04 UTC+2, Mikko wrote: > That you participate in some discussion and not others shows what you > consider most useful for your purposes. From that others may estimate > what your purposes are. For you, for instance - it is supporting your brainwashing religion by any means possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 07:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg87pfFijarU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586501 |
Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>>> Motivition is not important at all in science. >>> >>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are >>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the >>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout. >> >> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science, > > It isn't. > >> than certainly you should cover this topic. >> >> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher. > > Or any other people. > >> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians >> tell stories about these. >> >> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like >> psychology or history. > > So should be discussed in a better place than here. > >>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation >>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion. >> >> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not >> the participants in a discussion. > > You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that then > don't do that again. Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905. This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included the topic of insults. That is more or less on topic for this thread, even if this was not meant as thread about personal relations of particpants in such a discussion. But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do. One possibility is, that many participants write messages, which intend to harm science itself. A possible explanation would be a large scale scale 'conspiracy' of some sort, which tries to hinder human progress in physics, because 'true physics' is claimed to be owned by the conspirators. For this purpose human or artificial 'disinformation agents' are hired, which try to disrupt discussions. Another possibility would be, that 'academia' is actually a disease and science in general went off the track, due to a combination of stupidity and greed. In any case: a scientific discussion should stay away from personal insults and should try to solve the problem in question and aim to enhance science in general. Only in this case there is no place for hidden science, if the avantgarde of science would discuss openly. But apparently hidden science is wanted, hence open discussions are not. >> To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want, >> because we are discussiong a topic in physics. > > It should be irrelevant anyway although you are not discussion a topic in > physics. Well, at least I have started this thread as a discussion about a text in physics. From there the thread drifted away several times. >> If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences, >> believe or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you >> at all. > > Most importantly, you should not discuss those other topics here. Why? ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 19:38 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t7nutc$n9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586526 |
On 2022-06-07 05:59:13 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
>>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>>>
>>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>>> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>>>
>>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.
>>
>> Or any other people.
>>
>>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
>>> tell stories about these.
>>>
>>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
>>> psychology or history.
>>
>> So should be discussed in a better place than here.
>>
>>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
>>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>>>
>>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
>>> the participants in a discussion.
>>
>> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that then
>> don't do that again.
>
> Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905.
>
> This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included
> the topic of insults.
You didn't stick to the original topic but switched to insults.
> But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do.
One well known cause is that some people imitate what others have done
already. Another one is that people tend to repeat what they have done
before. That's why I proposed that you should study the first example
of a particular kind of behaviour.
> One possibility is, that many participants write messages, which intend
> to harm science itself.
Hardly many but some might. Unlikely that anything posted here could be
useful for that purpose.
> A possible explanation would be a large scale scale 'conspiracy' of
> some sort, which tries to hinder human progress in physics, because
> 'true physics' is claimed to be owned by the conspirators.
Unlikely. A small scale conspiracy is easier to organize and more
likely to do something as stupid as to waste effort here.
> For this purpose human or artificial 'disinformation agents' are hired,
> which try to disrupt discussions.
Disrupting discussion here has very little effect on anything.
> Another possibility would be, that 'academia' is actually a disease and
> science in general went off the track, due to a combination of
> stupidity and greed.
>
> In any case: a scientific discussion should stay away from personal
> insults and should try to solve the problem in question and aim to
> enhance science in general.
There is no "problem in question". The scientific discussion is about
problems in science.
> Only in this case there is no place for hidden science, if the
> avantgarde of science would discuss openly.
In spite of recommendations of "New Atlantis" by Francis Bacon the science
is open. Various organizations perform more or less secret private research
for their own or their customers' use but that is nor regarded as scinece.
> But apparently hidden science is wanted, hence open discussions are not.
Someone might want but there is no way to prevent public science.
>>> To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want,
>>> because we are discussiong a topic in physics.
>>
>> It should be irrelevant anyway although you are not discussion a topic in
>> physics.
>
> Well, at least I have started this thread as a discussion about a text
> in physics.
>
> From there the thread drifted away several times.
In particular, you have switched to other topics.
>>> If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences,
>>> believe or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you
>>> at all.
>>
>> Most importantly, you should not discuss those other topics here.
> Why?
"A common sense rule for deciding whether a possible topic is likely to be
considered acceptable here is to remember that the name of this newsgroup
is sci[ence].physics.relativity. If it's not about science, it doesn't
belong here. If it is about science but has little to do with physics, it
doesn't belong here. If it is about physics but has little to do with
relativity, it doesn't belong here."
www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/relativity-welcome/
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgauj1F22biU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586552 |
Am 07.06.2022 um 18:38 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-06-07 05:59:13 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko: >>> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science. >>>>> >>>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are >>>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the >>>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout. >>>> >>>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science, >>> >>> It isn't. >>> >>>> than certainly you should cover this topic. >>>> >>>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher. >>> >>> Or any other people. >>> >>>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians >>>> tell stories about these. >>>> >>>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like >>>> psychology or history. >>> >>> So should be discussed in a better place than here. >>> >>>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation >>>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion. >>>> >>>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not >>>> the participants in a discussion. >>> >>> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that >>> then >>> don't do that again. >> >> Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905. >> >> This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included >> the topic of insults. > > You didn't stick to the original topic but switched to insults. I switched to such 'meta-discussions' about insults, because some participants wrote insults about me. I have actually received tons of such replies, while only very few about my annotations themselves. The usual pattern is, that someone wrote, that I'm unworthy for a reply, because I have no formal education in physics, be a Nazi and critizised Einstein, because he was a Jew. This attack is total nonsense, but still is a very common pattern. For instance it is a VERY bad practice to attack participants in a scientific discussion personally. It is therefore patently irrelvant, if I would be a Nazis (what I'm of course not). But sticking to the topic in question is seemingly already to difficult for the attackers, hence they use insults instead of arguments. >> But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do. > > One well known cause is that some people imitate what others have done > already. Another one is that people tend to repeat what they have done > before. That's why I proposed that you should study the first example > of a particular kind of behaviour. A usual pattern is also 'Group think', because people think, that enhancing the own group also enhances the own situation. This is caused by immitation of the behaviour of peers. This is actually how kids learn and why thinking in informal groups is very common. Another common influence is systematic brainwashing by enities related to believe or education. Also politicians likes to cast the behaviour of the citicens into certain forms, which they find useful for their particular agenda. Another mayor influence stems from the families aqnd what they have inherited. All of these (plus several others, like media, work or money) combined creates, what is the behaviour of an individual person. What is actually missing in this list, that is what the person itself should do, to enhance the own case and that, what would be good for mankind in general. Also science has an influence on what people do or think, because science provides the tools for thinking and most of the people cannot overcome these limits on their own. (I, btw, can.) >> One possibility is, that many participants write messages, which >> intend to harm science itself. > > Hardly many but some might. Unlikely that anything posted here could be > useful for that purpose. My idea was, that some sort of 'hidden physics' would exist, which is several decades in advance of the public one. The forces behind that hidden science would then hire 'bullshit artists', to maneauver the public's knowledge into dead ends. And Einstein's paper was in this sense meant as diversion from true knowledge by the public and served some sort of hidden agenda. He had helpers (his 'wing men'), who supported him to get credibility and attention, while he himself had to play the role of the 'nutty professor'. On a much smaller level such people here are helpers, too, who get some sort of benefit by some kind of hidden groups. My aim was now, to find out, whether such groups do exist and how they function and who they actually are. Unfortunatelly I have no answer to any of these questions. >> A possible explanation would be a large scale scale 'conspiracy' of >> some sort, which tries to hinder human progress in physics, because >> 'true physics' is claimed to be owned by the conspirators. > > Unlikely. A small scale conspiracy is easier to organize and more > likely to do something as stupid as to waste effort here. As far as I can tell, 'conspiracy' is the wrong term. More likely are large hierarchical groups, which maintain hidden agendas. On the lower levels they are more or less harmless, because they don't know much and do not have much influence on anything. >> For this purpose human or artificial 'disinformation agents' are >> hired, which try to disrupt discussions. > > Disrupting discussion here has very little effect on anything. Depends on your goals. > >> Another possibility would be, that 'academia' is actually a disease >> and science in general went off the track, due to a combination of >> stupidity and greed. >> >> In any case: a scientific discussion should stay away from personal >> insults and should try to solve the problem in question and aim to >> enhance science in general. > > There is no "problem in question". The scientific discussion is about > problems in science. Sure, but not all discussions here are scientific. >> Only in this case there is no place for hidden science, if the >> avantgarde of science would discuss openly. > > In spite of recommendations of "New Atlantis" by Francis Bacon the science > is open. Various organizations perform more or less secret private research > for their own or their customers' use but that is nor regarded as scinece. As about a lot of others things I have also an idea, where to search for Atlantis. I think, that the remains of Atlantis can be found at the south-west coast of Krete, under water on the ground of the Mediterranian sea. I think so, beause the Mediterranian sea was once cut off from the Atlantic by a land bridge between Africa and current Spain. For a very long time sea-levels fell inside a huge bassin, due to evaporation. The people at that era settled e.g. south of the former mountains, which today build Krete. Then, caused by 'Growing Earth', that land bridge was disrupted and the bassin filled with waters from the Atlantic (very similar to the land bridge between Black Sea and Mediterranian Sea). That looked, as if Atlantis sank, while in fact sea-levels had risen. >> But apparently hidden science is wanted, hence open discussions are not. > > Someone might want but there is no way to prevent public science. There are many ways... For instance dissenters could be imprisoned. Other methods could be lack of education, false science or brainwashing. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web