Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #414489 > unrolled thread

Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-03 00:35 +0000
    Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-03 03:05 +0000

#414489 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

So you think ad hominem of others is fine, but you get upset if someone
actually posts something intelligent using the name "Archimedes
Plutonium"?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#414494

Archimedes Plutonium fails:

>Here is an example from the Internet in sci.math of Ad Hominem of a writer
>who hates the person he is talking to, and no matter what the topic is,
>the message is always the same-- I hate your guts.

>On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> But can you tell us what is wrong with the following proof that the
>> ellipse is a conic section? After all, you say the ellipse is not a
>> conic section and what Archimedes Plutonium says is true is true, right?

<several other ad hominems by Archie snipped>

>Still haven't learned not to attack me?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web