Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 453 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:23 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:48 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:00 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:31 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:05 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:29 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:41 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 11:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:34 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 14:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 06:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 18:50 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 11:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 20:33 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 16:14 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 16:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 18:27 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 19:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 20:17 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 20:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 13:09 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:03 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 02:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 22:53 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 11:25 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 11:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 22:55 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 19:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 01:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 23:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 12:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 06:50 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 17:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 10:26 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 13:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-06 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 13:35 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 14:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 04:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:01 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:49 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 05:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:54 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 11:13 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:45 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 01:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:59 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 11:04 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 18:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 00:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 19:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 01:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 21:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 03:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 22:39 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 11:15 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 22:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 03:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:54 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 05:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 20:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 08:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 11:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 20:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:37 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:27 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:21 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 21:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:14 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:17 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:44 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 18:18 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:21 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:41 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:22 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:39 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 19:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 01:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 22:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 04:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 04:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 05:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 09:53 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 17:58 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:39 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 18:04 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:38 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:31 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 03:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:36 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 11:58 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 23:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 14:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:20 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 23:49 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 13:32 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 01:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:29 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 23:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 15:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-14 12:51 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:34 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 00:29 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 20:18 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 03:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 04:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 00:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 11:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 05:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 12:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 00:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 21:50 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 04:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 22:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 05:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 08:52 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 00:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:03 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:23 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 21:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:17 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 22:33 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 08:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 19:08 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 09:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 20:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 10:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 00:17 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 11:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 22:37 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 14:07 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 07:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 16:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 09:51 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 18:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 17:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:40 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 08:50 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 17:00 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 12:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:25 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 21:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 04:03 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 04:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:57 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 21:46 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 14:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 22:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 20:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:22 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 21:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 22:38 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:20 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:03 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 13:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 22:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 20:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 23:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 05:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 15:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 17:55 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 17:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:12 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 16:33 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 18:28 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:00 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:42 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:48 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 06:18 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:00 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:36 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:57 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:01 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:22 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:06 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:55 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:43 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:52 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:04 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 15:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:28 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 18:11 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-14 17:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 10:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 06:20 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-04 09:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-04 18:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 19:36 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 20:08 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 21:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100
Page 10 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 23 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 11:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e9f6e15-8a9b-47ea-8b50-0317b89a10f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378488 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:38:46 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:54 AM UTC-7, Luigi Durante wrote: > > David Waite wrote: > > > > >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of > > >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan > > >> > > >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > > >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > > > > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > > > in adulthood. > > > > He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage > > to do that. > > When someone is so insane that he talks to an imaginary friend while in adulthood, whether he can to any level of math or physics becomes irrelevant because he can not think rationally enough to be taken seriously about anything but his immoral religious beliefs. You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted literally are nonsense (already Galileo in his letters discusses this although in a rather "delicate" way for obvious reasons) and it's extremely easy to make fun of it. But this misses an obvious issue. Which is: the human condition for some reason is such that we don't know certain basics which on the face of it should be known to us _immediately_, _directly_, _effortlessly_, and _fully_: 1. who/what are we? (aka. "what is consciousness" - is it an element which is MORE primal than particles of matter (as mysticism asserts) or is it the OTHER way around: a result of matter coming together in a certain way (as physics would likely assert)), 2. what is the world of matter and why is it the way it is? This is just the beginning. The point is that most people can intuitively sense the existence of such questions (let's call it "the transcendence problem" to save typing here) even if they are not intellectually wrestling with it or even consciously aware of it. The "transcendence problem" is THE most basic and monumental question mark a human being faces. It's important to realise that for many people religion is simply a form of "dealing" with this on a daily basis. It is NOT per se a sign of "stupidity" (of course it CAN be, but the two ought not to be conflated). In general different things can work for many people, for example: 1. nothing-in-particular. Some people simply go about their daily lives without thinking much about this whole thing. This is esp. true of young people as - for example - death to them appears nonexistent. That's fine. But it's important to understand that for some other people this can be an ever-present "feeling" in which intellect does not (and cannot) participate or "explain it away". The nature of that "feeling" is direct and entirely non-intellectual anyway, like the sensation of "green" when looking at a blade of grass. 2. religion. That's the most common one (I'm not talking about someone who is religious merely because his parents were, etc. etc., I mean genuine feeling) and should really be the crux of all the atheists' debates: what is it in human nature that causes so many people to respond in this particular manner to the "transcendence problem"? THIS is the real question, not those silly religion bash-fests a la Bill Maher & Co. I like Bill but as soon as the word "religion" is mentioned, his brain simply shuts off. (This also comes out of his near total misunderstanding of Islam - but that's another topic.) 3. something else. Here the possibilities diverge quite a bit: some turn to philosophy, some to mythology, some to original sources that created particular religions, some try to come up with some "reasonable" marriage between science and religion, and so on. Summing up: I am all for knocking down the idiotic aspects of literally interpreted religions but I don't like focusing on this activity exclusively. And to me saying that a religious person is "an adult talking to an imaginary friend" is an example of such focusing on an easily demolished irrelevancy while at the same time ignoring the elephant in the room. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 11:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d9c95047-7ee2-42c0-9317-a42a18d33162@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378497 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:38:46 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:54 AM UTC-7, Luigi Durante wrote: > > > David Waite wrote: > > > > > > >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of > > > >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan > > > >> > > > >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > > > >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > > > > > > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > > > > in adulthood. > > > > > > He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage > > > to do that. > > > > When someone is so insane that he talks to an imaginary friend while in adulthood, whether he can to any level of math or physics becomes irrelevant because he can not think rationally enough to be taken seriously about anything but his immoral religious beliefs. > > You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted > literally are nonsense ... Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to lie about what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating in any way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 20:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbsj1g$fon$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378498 |
Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d9c95047-7ee2-42c0-9317-a42a18d33162@googlegroups.com... |Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to |lie about what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating in any way. Too bad you're not applying it to your own religion of Great Guru and his Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 14:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbslns$1slu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378498 |
On 3/10/2016 1:44 PM, David Waite wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >> You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted >> literally are nonsense ... > > Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play > mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric > teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it > isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to lie about > what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating > in any way. > I don't often insert myself into off-topic conversations like this, but if I could propose an alternate view from a scientific perspective. I disagree that re-interpretation of religious claims isn't allowed. Interpretation is in fact the bread and butter of religion. This is in fact why scriptural books are retained for centuries, because they lay out the different ways that people have interpreted their experiences and their inner feelings. I doubt that very many theologians or clergy are going to claim that they take those books to be textbooks or reference manuals, every sentence carefully written to be objective truth. But for that matter, this is true in science as well. Science isn't in the business of specifying truth. At best, it is in the business of *approximating* truth, through interpretation by models. Every single physical situation has two layers of this interpretation. First, the physical system is idealized, so that small effects not described by the model can be considered negligible; this is so that one never tries to describe every detail of a physical system to infinite degree, which would require a model of complexity equal to that of the system and specific to that system, making the reusability of the model futile. Second, even successful models are understood to be provisional at best, with every expectation that they will be found at some point to be wrong. A good example of this is Newtonian gravity, a truly fine and broadly applicable model, which is nevertheless known to be wrong, because it has been replaced by a *better* model called general relativity. But general relativity, though *presently* accepted, is also almost certainly wrong and will need to be replaced. Thus any model we have is at least at two levels an *interpretation* of nature. Where science has a lever is in the ability to test interpretations by means of experiment and observation. There is therefore a SUBSET of knowledge that is amenable to scientific investigation, and where that subset is defined precisely by that which can be put to observational or experimental test. But this is not exhaustive, of course, and there are lots of assertions for which some truth value or certainty can be assigned, but for which scientific investigation is admittedly useless. This is, for example, illustrated in the division between physics and metaphysics. As another example, there is no experimental test one can apply to assert the existence or nonexistence of the mathematical "monster group" M. Morality is another, where one is challenged to explain why murder being wrong is a universally and deeply held conviction. So here too one applies models or interpretations to hold together a coherent framework of knowledge and certainties, even though those models or interpretations are not scientifically testable. Religious experience is precisely that -- an interpretative framework or, if you like, an untestable model of certain aspects of nature and of ourselves. I think it is ludicrous to claim that only scientifically testable assertions can be said to be true or not, and it is even more foolish to claim that every assertion that is not scientifically verifiable is therefore false. But the point is that EVEN scientifically testable assertions (physical theories, for example) cannot be fully said to be True with a capital T, and at best they are really good interpretations of nature. (I don't go so far as Tom Roberts as to say we know NOTHING about reality with a scientific model. I think scientific development is precisely about assuring yourself that you have a better approximation to the truth than you did before, even if you can't say you've gotten there.) I think it is also ridiculous to claim that religion would only have value if one could hold it accountable to being rigidly true. In my experience, those who DO insist on it have an emotional need for assurance of absolute truth, and they condemn religion for falling short of that (while at the same time not holding science to the same standard.) Does general relativity have value only if it is the final theory of gravity and represents the Truth of how gravity works? No. My two cents. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b9e1cb1-0cf3-4ff2-bfde-626640705b68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378506 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/10/2016 1:44 PM, David Waite wrote: > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > >> You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted > >> literally are nonsense ... > > > > Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play > > mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric > > teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it > > isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to lie about > > what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating > > in any way. > > > > I don't often insert myself into off-topic conversations like this, but > if I could propose an alternate view from a scientific perspective. No you can't, for example, > I disagree that re-interpretation of religious claims isn't allowed. See you want to lie about what it taught and call it re-interpretation. That's anti-science dishonest and no not allowed by any rational thinking person. The anti-science and irrational therefor immoral nature of religion has no place in a scientific era whatsoever. And no one proposing the least bit otherwise should be respected any more than any other drooling idiot that talks to imaginary friends in his adulthood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 15:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbspe5$32r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378508 |
On 3/10/2016 2:43 PM, David Waite wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/10/2016 1:44 PM, David Waite wrote: >>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >> >>>> You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted >>>> literally are nonsense ... >>> >>> Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play >>> mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric >>> teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it >>> isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to lie about >>> what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating >>> in any way. >>> >> >> I don't often insert myself into off-topic conversations like this, but >> if I could propose an alternate view from a scientific perspective. > > No you can't, for example, > >> I disagree that re-interpretation of religious claims isn't allowed. > > See you want to lie about what it taught and call it re-interpretation. I think that depends on what you think is taught. If YOU PERSONALLY were taught that religious claims are all literally true, and if YOU PERSONALLY were taught that no contradictions or inconsistencies can be found in any religious writings, then you might rightly claim that what YOU PERSONALLY were taught is a lie. > That's > anti-science dishonest and no not allowed by any rational thinking person. The > anti-science and irrational therefor immoral nature of religion has no place in > a scientific era whatsoever. Hold on here. I disagree that religion is unilaterally anti-science. There are Nobel-prize winning scientists who are also religious, and so the claim that religion is INCOMPATIBLE with science is disproven by example of co-existence. I also disagree with you in claiming that what is irrational is immoral. Emotion is irrational -- including love, fear, and compassion for persecutors -- but emotion is not immoral. > And no one proposing the least bit otherwise should > be respected any more than any other drooling idiot that talks to imaginary > friends in his adulthood. I'll just note at this point your knee-jerk, emotionally vindictive response, where it appears that you did not even bother to read the bulk of what I wrote. I'll also note that at NO TIME did I give you any indication whether I myself am religious, so your prejudicial leap that anyone who is not a foaming-at-the-mouth atheist bigot like you is just as bad as a religious believer.... well, we'll just chalk that up to you being irrational and therefore immoral, ok? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 16:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbssbv$7q7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378519 |
On 3/10/2016 3:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/10/2016 2:43 PM, David Waite wrote: >> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 3/10/2016 1:44 PM, David Waite wrote: >>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>> >>>>> You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions >>>>> interpreted >>>>> literally are nonsense ... >>>> >>>> Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get >>>> to play >>>> mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral >>>> barbaric >>>> teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into >>>> something it >>>> isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have >>>> to lie about >>>> what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth >>>> perpetuating >>>> in any way. >>>> >>> >>> I don't often insert myself into off-topic conversations like this, but >>> if I could propose an alternate view from a scientific perspective. >> >> No you can't, for example, >> >>> I disagree that re-interpretation of religious claims isn't allowed. >> >> See you want to lie about what it taught and call it re-interpretation. > > I think that depends on what you think is taught. If YOU PERSONALLY were > taught that religious claims are all literally true, and if YOU > PERSONALLY were taught that no contradictions or inconsistencies can be > found in any religious writings, then you might rightly claim that what > YOU PERSONALLY were taught is a lie. I'm going to give you an example, just one, where you can see how easily people can be casually misled by reading to much into things. The Old Testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible has several books that are written in what is called a prophetic style. Keep in mind that the original form of those books were not writings at all, but memorized oral accounts. Scholars know that it this so-called prophetic style was a device where events IN THE PAST at the time of the telling were described as though they were to come IN THE FUTURE. This literary or story-telling device was done to provide some rationale or reasonable accounting for those events. Now, remember that the hearers of those accounts KNEW that the events happened in the past -- they lived those events themselves -- and so they UNDERSTOOD that the prophetic style was just that: a style. Today, this is not a common literary style at all, and so if you read this in a book, you'd think this was a claim about future events -- prophecy as precognition -- when that is not the intent of the message, nor was it ever. This is just one example of how reading something that is 2000 years old can be completely misconstrued. But the fault for the misconstrual is on US, not on the writers of the day. > >> That's >> anti-science dishonest and no not allowed by any rational thinking >> person. The >> anti-science and irrational therefor immoral nature of religion has no >> place in >> a scientific era whatsoever. > > Hold on here. I disagree that religion is unilaterally anti-science. > There are Nobel-prize winning scientists who are also religious, and so > the claim that religion is INCOMPATIBLE with science is disproven by > example of co-existence. > > I also disagree with you in claiming that what is irrational is immoral. > Emotion is irrational -- including love, fear, and compassion for > persecutors -- but emotion is not immoral. > >> And no one proposing the least bit otherwise should >> be respected any more than any other drooling idiot that talks to >> imaginary >> friends in his adulthood. > > I'll just note at this point your knee-jerk, emotionally vindictive > response, where it appears that you did not even bother to read the bulk > of what I wrote. I'll also note that at NO TIME did I give you any > indication whether I myself am religious, so your prejudicial leap that > anyone who is not a foaming-at-the-mouth atheist bigot like you is just > as bad as a religious believer.... well, we'll just chalk that up to you > being irrational and therefore immoral, ok? > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 19:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29013b4b-9d32-4368-aafe-b4ab2269ed8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378519 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:37:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 3/10/2016 2:43 PM, David Waite wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > I don't often insert myself into off-topic conversations like this, but > > > if I could propose an alternate view from a scientific perspective. > > > > No you can't, for example, > > > > > I disagree that re-interpretation of religious claims isn't allowed. > > > > See you want to lie about what it taught and call it re-interpretation. > > I think that depends on what you think is taught. If YOU PERSONALLY were > taught that religious claims are all literally true, and if YOU > PERSONALLY were taught that no contradictions or inconsistencies can be > found in any religious writings, then you might rightly claim that what > YOU PERSONALLY were taught is a lie. > > > That's anti-science dishonest and no not allowed by any rational thinking > > person. The anti-science and irrational therefor immoral nature of > > religion has no place in a scientific era whatsoever. > > Hold on here. I disagree that religion is unilaterally anti-science. > There are Nobel-prize winning scientists who are also religious, and so > the claim that religion is INCOMPATIBLE with science is disproven by > example of co-existence. > > I also disagree with you in claiming that what is irrational is immoral. > Emotion is irrational -- including love, fear, and compassion for > persecutors -- but emotion is not immoral. > > > And no one proposing the least bit otherwise should > > be respected any more than any other drooling idiot that talks to imaginary > > friends in his adulthood. > > I'll just note at this point your knee-jerk, emotionally vindictive > response, where it appears that you did not even bother to read the bulk > of what I wrote. I'll also note that at NO TIME did I give you any > indication whether I myself am religious, so your prejudicial leap that > anyone who is not a foaming-at-the-mouth atheist bigot like you is just > as bad as a religious believer.... well, we'll just chalk that up to you > being irrational and therefore immoral, ok? > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Thank you, Bod and Jan, for bringing some sanity into this irrational and vindictive deviation from the main topic (although the main topic was also irrational and vindictive :-) I'll just note that not all religion is irrational, contrary to David's irrational claim. Does he count the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa as irrational and, therefore, immoral? No one in his right mind would claim such. One more point. Science is a regimen wherein it is required that evidence must be repeatable by peers in order to be valid. Religious experiences (maybe we should call them spiritual experiences) cannot be called up and repeated by anyone, let alone peers (whatever THEY are), but certainly when many, many people have had such experiences, abject dismissal is not an honest response. Sure, SOME people who claim to have had spiritual experiences were found to be liars, but most are just normal honest folk. Thank you for your insight, and thanks to Jan for his, too. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 13:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de618c31-0e91-4dc8-b23b-4c6874aab353@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378498 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:38:46 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:54 AM UTC-7, Luigi Durante wrote: > > > > David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of > > > > >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan > > > > >> > > > > >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > > > > >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > > > > > in adulthood. > > > > > > > > He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage > > > > to do that. > > > > > > When someone is so insane that he talks to an imaginary friend while in adulthood, whether he can to any level of math or physics becomes irrelevant because he can not think rationally enough to be taken seriously about anything but his immoral religious beliefs. > > > > You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted > > literally are nonsense ... > > Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to lie about what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating in any way. You are still missing the point by focusing exclusively on the (admittedly abysmal!) literal meanings of some ancient stories. Certain things were simply written in a certain way in the old times, then layers upon layers of corruption were added - I agree with all that. But one cannot sweep the elephant under the rug by just laughing at certain external features as "imaginary friends" and the like. The reason it's popular is not that people are stupid - it's _a_ possibility but the phenomenon of religion popularity is simply way too omnipresent to be explainable by "stupidity". There is something much more interesting going on, I think. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbsogj$tb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378515 |
JanPB wrote: > You are still missing the point by focusing exclusively on the > (admittedly abysmal!) literal meanings of some ancient stories. Certain > things were simply written in a certain way in the old times, then > layers upon layers of corruption were added - I agree with all that. But > one cannot sweep the elephant under the rug by just laughing at certain > external features as "imaginary friends" and the like. The reason it's > popular is not that people are stupid - it's _a_ possibility but the > phenomenon of religion popularity is simply way too omnipresent to be > explainable by "stupidity". > There is something much more interesting going on, I think. US to buy eight more Russian RD-181 engines for Antares rocket http://tass.ru/en/science/861146
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 19:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7e923e15-d483-4099-ae90-c4fb21de5c7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378515 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:14:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:38:46 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:54 AM UTC-7, Luigi Durante wrote: > > > > > David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of > > > > > >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > > > > > >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > > > > > > in adulthood. > > > > > > > > > > He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage > > > > > to do that. > > > > > > > > When someone is so insane that he talks to an imaginary friend while in adulthood, whether he can to any level of math or physics becomes irrelevant because he can not think rationally enough to be taken seriously about anything but his immoral religious beliefs. > > > > > > You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted > > > literally are nonsense ... > > > > Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to lie about what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating in any way. > > You are still missing the point by focusing exclusively on the (admittedly > abysmal!) literal meanings of some ancient stories No I'm not. You're lying to yourself about what their point was to make them less socially unacceptable and calling it interpretation. Its just kidding yourself. For example, the very moment you flip it open and see a community encouraged to murder someone for gathering Saturday campfire wood, you should have thrown it straight in the trash bin where it belongs instead of kidding yourself that its all metaphorical mumbo jumbo that you're free to interpret as meaning anything else but what it actually said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 19:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <deb4c00d-56f4-4874-9d8e-d41f833833c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378536 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:53:58 PM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:14:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:38:46 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:54 AM UTC-7, Luigi Durante wrote: > > > > > > David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of > > > > > > >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > > > > > > >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > > > > > > > in adulthood. > > > > > > > > > > > > He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage > > > > > > to do that. > > > > > > > > > > When someone is so insane that he talks to an imaginary friend while in adulthood, whether he can to any level of math or physics becomes irrelevant because he can not think rationally enough to be taken seriously about anything but his immoral religious beliefs. > > > > > > > > You are missing the point a bit. I fully agree that religions interpreted > > > > literally are nonsense ... > > > > > > Nono, inrerpretation of the religions isn't ok either. You don't get to play mental gymnastics to lie to yourself to justify the utterly immoral barbaric teachings that is really there and pretend that turning it into something it isn't with metaphorical goblygook is any more rational. If you have to lie about what a religion is by interpreting it, then it isn't a myth worth perpetuating in any way. > > > > You are still missing the point by focusing exclusively on the (admittedly > > abysmal!) literal meanings of some ancient stories > > No I'm not. You're lying to yourself about what their point was to make them less socially unacceptable and calling it interpretation. Its just kidding yourself. No. Sorry. That's all I have to say on the topic. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 21:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <598843f2-f8d4-4335-86b4-64f3f742affb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378537 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:53:58 PM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:14:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > You are still missing the point by focusing exclusively on the (admittedly > > > abysmal!) literal meanings of some ancient stories > > > > No I'm not. You're lying to yourself about what their point was to make > > them less socially unacceptable and calling it interpretation. Its just > > kidding yourself. > > No. Sorry. That's all I have to say on the topic. > > -- > Jan "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 23:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3592ff3d-5cad-49ed-9a62-5fe5c57522c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378540 |
W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 06:06:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always > so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Said ralativistic moron, well known of his doubts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 04:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f836e5a7-a7da-4301-a159-13f5aed86a60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378542 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:19:44 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 06:06:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always > > so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." > > Said ralativistic moron, well known of his doubts. :-))))) The truth hurts, doesn't it. So lash out, rave and spit, so-certain-one :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 06:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ef211d70-5f8b-4b2e-b0a0-40141e0cb5b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378540 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:06:34 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:53:58 PM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:14:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > You are still missing the point by focusing exclusively on the (admittedly > > > > abysmal!) literal meanings of some ancient stories > > > > > > No I'm not. You're lying to yourself about what their point was to make > > > them less socially unacceptable and calling it interpretation. Its just > > > kidding yourself. > > > > No. Sorry. That's all I have to say on the topic. > > > > -- > > Jan > > "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always > so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." > -- Bertrand Russell But you're the fanatical fool in this case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 18:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fc7677d7-9d09-4741-97c0-2dbec7434be2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378575 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 7:18:05 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > [His usual stalking bullshit] When are you going to get an honest job?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8963124-c636-459f-9d7d-e168ce8001dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378515 |
On March 10, JanPB wrote: > But one cannot > sweep the elephant under the rug by just laughing at certain external > features as "imaginary friends" and the like. The reason it's popular is > not that people are stupid - it's _a_ possibility but the phenomenon > of religion popularity is simply way too omnipresent to be explainable > by "stupidity". There is something much more interesting going on, I think. Religion must serve some evolutionary purpose, being universal. It's a challenge for the Darwinists; how can irrationality be advantageous, a selected trait? If you confront them with this question, they sweep it away, or snarl "anti-Darwin!" - speaking of irrational - But there's one simple explanation, overlooked by Richard Dawkins & Gang: sentimentality. People are raised in a church, and can't break away. I hear this often from catholics; "I don't agree entirely with church doctrine, but I was brought up catholic, that's my family" You don't accept doctrine? When the pope speaks ex cathedra, that's the Mouth of God, blasphemer! -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f57fbf73-1b84-4ebf-b082-74acb2a6b0e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379173 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 6:08:15 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > On March 10, JanPB wrote: > > But one cannot > > sweep the elephant under the rug by just laughing at certain external > > features as "imaginary friends" and the like. The reason it's popular is > > not that people are stupid - it's _a_ possibility but the phenomenon > > of religion popularity is simply way too omnipresent to be explainable > > by "stupidity". There is something much more interesting going on, I think. > > Religion must serve some evolutionary purpose, No it musn't. That's why its slowly going extinct. Good riddance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbs9ki$17n8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378483 |
David Waite wrote: >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan >> >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > in adulthood. He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web