Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #410066 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-19 16:12 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-20 18:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 323 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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.
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 16:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 16:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 16:45 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-20 02:03 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 18:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-20 03:30 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 22:00 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 05:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 07:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 10:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 11:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 14:43 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 15:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 17:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 18:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 21:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 22:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-21 04:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-21 04:27 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 06:56 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-21 09:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> - 2017-02-21 17:29 +0000
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 08:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-21 06:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 07:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:56 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 13:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 16:09 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 14:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 16:37 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 15:26 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 17:46 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 16:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-21 23:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 15:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 17:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 16:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 14:40 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 13:27 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-23 04:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 06:23 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-23 06:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 08:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-23 17:43 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 12:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-23 22:48 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 14:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-23 19:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 19:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-24 05:24 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 20:44 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-24 06:11 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 21:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-23 23:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-23 10:25 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 12:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 04:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:05 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 07:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 10:11 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 09:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 11:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-25 14:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:05 -0600
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-23 10:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-23 10:27 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-23 12:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 04:25 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-24 04:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:06 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:06 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:09 -0600
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 11:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 11:33 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 16:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 18:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 13:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 06:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 14:22 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 13:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:09 -0600
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 18:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 20:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 20:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 15:44 -0800
Re: velocity and time sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 18:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 06:23 -0800
Re: velocity and time 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 12:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 13:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 06:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 09:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 12:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-27 14:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 18:33 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-27 18:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 04:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:15 -0600
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 05:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:30 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:49 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:57 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-28 19:21 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:49 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-28 20:02 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 14:00 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 13:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:01 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 17:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:19 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 11:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:52 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 16:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 17:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 20:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:56 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 09:17 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 13:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 16:04 -0600
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-28 21:03 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 13:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-28 22:21 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:25 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:22 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 13:52 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 13:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-28 22:39 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-01 01:54 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-01 02:15 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-01 02:59 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:49 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:23 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-01 02:39 +0100
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 18:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:18 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 18:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 18:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 20:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-01 04:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 09:23 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 09:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-01 12:23 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 16:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-02 02:26 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 18:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-02 03:13 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 21:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 17:34 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 20:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 17:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 20:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:58 -0600
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 09:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 13:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 13:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 16:07 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 15:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 18:11 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 16:25 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:55 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 12:33 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 10:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-01 18:26 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 21:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 17:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 20:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 08:00 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:48 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:50 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 12:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 10:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:00 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 18:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-05 20:25 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 20:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-06 12:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:44 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-06 14:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:27 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-06 18:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 19:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 06:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 09:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 08:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 09:26 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 09:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 10:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-07 21:09 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 13:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 15:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 15:29 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 16:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 17:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 21:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 22:26 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 10:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 18:39 -0700
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-14 05:25 -0700
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-14 19:10 -0700
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-15 06:41 -0700
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-14 19:11 -0700
Re: velocity and time Derek Womac <eruaeu@tewrdd.ec> - 2017-03-07 18:59 +0000
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:33 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 14:13 -0600
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-04 11:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 11:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-04 13:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 21:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 08:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 09:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 10:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 12:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:03 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 15:54 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:19 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:26 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 08:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:50 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:45 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 13:05 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 14:24 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 13:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:04 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:13 -0600
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-28 23:23 +0100
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 15:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 16:26 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:00 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 17:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 17:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 20:27 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 08:03 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:14 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 09:23 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 13:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 16:00 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 15:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 18:13 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 16:27 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:57 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-04 16:24 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 10:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 12:38 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 10:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:09 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 18:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:50 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 14:58 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 13:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 14:14 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:31 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 13:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:16 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:25 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 11:38 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 13:08 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 13:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-07 02:40 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 18:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-07 07:54 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 23:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 18:43 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:55 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 13:26 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:43 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:05 -0600
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 09:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 10:25 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 16:18 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 15:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 14:59 -0600
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-04 04:48 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 21:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 18:26 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 04:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:27 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:45 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 11:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 12:04 -0800
Lorentz Transformation of Radar Time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 06:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 17:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 18:24 -0800
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 16:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6628953a-3c19-4114-bd22-aa38072d343b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411215 |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:04:32 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/28/2017 3:12 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> You claim that you are. I think it is wonderful that you have found > >>> something you are interested in. If you are trying to get me interested in > >>> it, the way to get me totally uninterested is to say, Go to this site on > >>> the internet. > >> > >> I did that, Robert. I told you to go to http://www.google.com. Then I > >> told you what to put in the little box on that page by pressing five > >> keys on the keyboard. Now I gather what you're telling me is that you > >> have the attention span to go to an internet site and press five keys on > >> your keyboard. > >> > >>> What that tells me is that it does not interest you enough to even say anything > >>> about it. So I was right. It is just another meaningless thing you want to argue about. > >> > >> This is more 2nd-grade playground stuff, Robert. Don't you find yourself > >> the least bit embarrassed pulling this kind of stuff? > > > > Well, let me ask you something. Does RHIC have something to do with relativity? > > > > I suppose, Robert, this might be a little obvious if you went to the web > page I just told you about and typed in the five keys I told you about. > Do you think someone might drop a nuclear bomb on you if you do that? Well, I am just not curious about it. If it is not important enough to you to say, RHIC stands for such and such, then I already know what would happen. I would go to the definition and say, Well, that was another waste of time. Why do it? If you think I need to know what it means, you will tell me. If you do not tell me, you do not think I need to know what it means. I have lived this long without knowing what RHIC means. I will probably live the rest of my life not knowing what RHIC means. There are a lot of things in this world like that. I will never know what they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 17:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9aa8r$lig$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411232 |
On 2/28/2017 6:59 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:04:32 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/28/2017 3:12 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> You claim that you are. I think it is wonderful that you have found >>>>> something you are interested in. If you are trying to get me interested in >>>>> it, the way to get me totally uninterested is to say, Go to this site on >>>>> the internet. >>>> >>>> I did that, Robert. I told you to go to http://www.google.com. Then I >>>> told you what to put in the little box on that page by pressing five >>>> keys on the keyboard. Now I gather what you're telling me is that you >>>> have the attention span to go to an internet site and press five keys on >>>> your keyboard. >>>> >>>>> What that tells me is that it does not interest you enough to even say anything >>>>> about it. So I was right. It is just another meaningless thing you want to argue about. >>>> >>>> This is more 2nd-grade playground stuff, Robert. Don't you find yourself >>>> the least bit embarrassed pulling this kind of stuff? >>> >>> Well, let me ask you something. Does RHIC have something to do with relativity? >>> >> >> I suppose, Robert, this might be a little obvious if you went to the web >> page I just told you about and typed in the five keys I told you about. >> Do you think someone might drop a nuclear bomb on you if you do that? > > Well, I am just not curious about it. Of course you're not, Robert. As I said several times, you have no interest in facts. > If it is not important enough to you to say, RHIC stands for such and such, then I > already know what would happen. I would go to the definition and say, Well, that > was another waste of time. Why do it? Ah, how satisfying. Remember how I told you yesterday that I knew how hard it was going to be for you to go to a web page I gave you and for you to type in five characters on a keyboard that I suggested? Remember how I said that this would be nearly impossible for you to do, to the point where it might even make you nauseous to try? So why would you do that to yourself, knowing that the internal torment would get the better of you? You see, Robert, you are very easy to read. The way your mind works is pretty transparent, and it pretty simple in its operation. I'll bet you've been told this before. > If you think I need to know what it means, you > will tell me. If you do not tell me, you do not think I need to know what it means. > I have lived this long without knowing what RHIC means. I will probably live the rest > of my life not knowing what RHIC means. There are a lot of things in this world like > that. I will never know what they are. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 20:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1d0e302-4579-4853-897f-4017bef6cdc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411490 |
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 4:35:59 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/28/2017 6:59 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:04:32 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/28/2017 3:12 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> You claim that you are. I think it is wonderful that you have found > >>>>> something you are interested in. If you are trying to get me interested in > >>>>> it, the way to get me totally uninterested is to say, Go to this site on > >>>>> the internet. > >>>> > >>>> I did that, Robert. I told you to go to http://www.google.com. Then I > >>>> told you what to put in the little box on that page by pressing five > >>>> keys on the keyboard. Now I gather what you're telling me is that you > >>>> have the attention span to go to an internet site and press five keys on > >>>> your keyboard. > >>>> > >>>>> What that tells me is that it does not interest you enough to even say anything > >>>>> about it. So I was right. It is just another meaningless thing you want to argue about. > >>>> > >>>> This is more 2nd-grade playground stuff, Robert. Don't you find yourself > >>>> the least bit embarrassed pulling this kind of stuff? > >>> > >>> Well, let me ask you something. Does RHIC have something to do with relativity? > >>> > >> > >> I suppose, Robert, this might be a little obvious if you went to the web > >> page I just told you about and typed in the five keys I told you about. > >> Do you think someone might drop a nuclear bomb on you if you do that? > > > > Well, I am just not curious about it. > > Of course you're not, Robert. As I said several times, you have no > interest in facts. > > > If it is not important enough to you to say, RHIC stands for such and such, then I > > already know what would happen. I would go to the definition and say, Well, that > > was another waste of time. Why do it? > > Ah, how satisfying. Remember how I told you yesterday that I knew how > hard it was going to be for you to go to a web page I gave you and for > you to type in five characters on a keyboard that I suggested? Remember > how I said that this would be nearly impossible for you to do, to the > point where it might even make you nauseous to try? So why would you do > that to yourself, knowing that the internal torment would get the better > of you? > > You see, Robert, you are very easy to read. The way your mind works is > pretty transparent, and it pretty simple in its operation. I'll bet > you've been told this before. > > > If you think I need to know what it means, you > > will tell me. If you do not tell me, you do not think I need to know what it means. > > I have lived this long without knowing what RHIC means. I will probably live the rest > > of my life not knowing what RHIC means. There are a lot of things in this world like > > that. I will never know what they are. > > Well, I have run into this kind of thing before. Someone comes to me and says, Your happiness depends on whether you know what RHIC means. To me, it seems ridiculous. I was happy before they came along. I still seem fairly happy. So I will probably be happiest if I never know what RHIC means. There are a lot of things like that. I just do not have any curiosity about them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 08:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9bt3b$11np$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411507 |
On 3/2/2017 10:27 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 4:35:59 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/28/2017 6:59 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:04:32 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/28/2017 3:12 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> You claim that you are. I think it is wonderful that you have found >>>>>>> something you are interested in. If you are trying to get me interested in >>>>>>> it, the way to get me totally uninterested is to say, Go to this site on >>>>>>> the internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did that, Robert. I told you to go to http://www.google.com. Then I >>>>>> told you what to put in the little box on that page by pressing five >>>>>> keys on the keyboard. Now I gather what you're telling me is that you >>>>>> have the attention span to go to an internet site and press five keys on >>>>>> your keyboard. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What that tells me is that it does not interest you enough to even say anything >>>>>>> about it. So I was right. It is just another meaningless thing you want to argue about. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is more 2nd-grade playground stuff, Robert. Don't you find yourself >>>>>> the least bit embarrassed pulling this kind of stuff? >>>>> >>>>> Well, let me ask you something. Does RHIC have something to do with relativity? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I suppose, Robert, this might be a little obvious if you went to the web >>>> page I just told you about and typed in the five keys I told you about. >>>> Do you think someone might drop a nuclear bomb on you if you do that? >>> >>> Well, I am just not curious about it. >> >> Of course you're not, Robert. As I said several times, you have no >> interest in facts. >> >>> If it is not important enough to you to say, RHIC stands for such and such, then I >>> already know what would happen. I would go to the definition and say, Well, that >>> was another waste of time. Why do it? >> >> Ah, how satisfying. Remember how I told you yesterday that I knew how >> hard it was going to be for you to go to a web page I gave you and for >> you to type in five characters on a keyboard that I suggested? Remember >> how I said that this would be nearly impossible for you to do, to the >> point where it might even make you nauseous to try? So why would you do >> that to yourself, knowing that the internal torment would get the better >> of you? >> >> You see, Robert, you are very easy to read. The way your mind works is >> pretty transparent, and it pretty simple in its operation. I'll bet >> you've been told this before. >> >>> If you think I need to know what it means, you >>> will tell me. If you do not tell me, you do not think I need to know what it means. >>> I have lived this long without knowing what RHIC means. I will probably live the rest >>> of my life not knowing what RHIC means. There are a lot of things in this world like >>> that. I will never know what they are. >>> > Well, I have run into this kind of thing before. Someone comes to me and says, Your happiness > depends on whether you know what RHIC means. To me, it seems ridiculous. I was happy before > they came along. I still seem fairly happy. So I will probably be happiest if I never know > what RHIC means. There are a lot of things like that. I just do not have any curiosity about them. > I don't believe I'm one of the people who have ever told you that your happiness depends on whether you know what RHIC means. I believe I told you that I was aware that you would find it extremely difficult to perform even the basic steps that a six-year-old could do without difficulty, just because it would be doing what someone else suggested you do -- something that makes you gag a little inside. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 07:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e928f858-ce51-4788-89bf-d95bd83e12c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411536 |
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 7:03:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/2/2017 10:27 PM, Robert Winn wrote:> > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > > Well, I have run into this kind of thing before. Someone comes to me and says, Your happiness > > depends on whether you know what RHIC means. To me, it seems ridiculous. I was happy before > > they came along. I still seem fairly happy. So I will probably be happiest if I never know > > what RHIC means. There are a lot of things like that. I just do not have any curiosity about them. > > > > I don't believe I'm one of the people who have ever told you that your > happiness depends on whether you know what RHIC means. I believe I told > you that I was aware that you would find it extremely difficult to > perform even the basic steps that a six-year-old could do without > difficulty, just because it would be doing what someone else suggested > you do -- something that makes you gag a little inside. > As I said, it is inconceivable to me that RHIC would mean anything that I would care to know about. If it did, I would look it up. If it was something I absolutely did not want to know, you would probably tell me. So I would conclude that it falls into that category of things that I would find to be totally irrelevant to anything pertaining to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 09:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9c1os$1ch3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411552 |
On 3/3/2017 9:14 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 7:03:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/2/2017 10:27 PM, Robert Winn wrote:> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> >>> Well, I have run into this kind of thing before. Someone comes to me and says, Your happiness >>> depends on whether you know what RHIC means. To me, it seems ridiculous. I was happy before >>> they came along. I still seem fairly happy. So I will probably be happiest if I never know >>> what RHIC means. There are a lot of things like that. I just do not have any curiosity about them. >>> >> >> I don't believe I'm one of the people who have ever told you that your >> happiness depends on whether you know what RHIC means. I believe I told >> you that I was aware that you would find it extremely difficult to >> perform even the basic steps that a six-year-old could do without >> difficulty, just because it would be doing what someone else suggested >> you do -- something that makes you gag a little inside. >> > As I said, it is inconceivable to me that RHIC would mean anything that I would care to know about. Oh, I already know you don't care about observational facts. They mean nothing to you and you call them propaganda. But they do mean something to me, to scientists, and to most other people. > If it did, I would look it up. If it was something I absolutely did not want to know, you would > probably tell me. You have misjudged, Robert. You see, I really don't care whether you want to know about it or not. And you see, I have no interest in doing something for you, regardless whether you are trying to get me to do it or not. You see, Robert, most grown-ups are immune to the kind of games you like to play. > So I would conclude that it falls into that category of things that I would find to be totally > irrelevant to anything pertaining to me. You conclude a lot of silly things, Robert, as already described. So you go ahead and conclude whatever you feel like concluding. Meanwhile, other sensible people will conclude otherwise. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 13:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <703ab711-add4-45b6-b64f-928f2c52bcf2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411554 |
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:23:12 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/3/2017 9:14 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 7:03:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 3/2/2017 10:27 PM, Robert Winn wrote:> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>>>> > >>> Well, I have run into this kind of thing before. Someone comes to me and says, Your happiness > >>> depends on whether you know what RHIC means. To me, it seems ridiculous. I was happy before > >>> they came along. I still seem fairly happy. So I will probably be happiest if I never know > >>> what RHIC means. There are a lot of things like that. I just do not have any curiosity about them. > >>> > >> > >> I don't believe I'm one of the people who have ever told you that your > >> happiness depends on whether you know what RHIC means. I believe I told > >> you that I was aware that you would find it extremely difficult to > >> perform even the basic steps that a six-year-old could do without > >> difficulty, just because it would be doing what someone else suggested > >> you do -- something that makes you gag a little inside. > >> > > As I said, it is inconceivable to me that RHIC would mean anything that I would care to know about. > > Oh, I already know you don't care about observational facts. They mean > nothing to you and you call them propaganda. But they do mean something > to me, to scientists, and to most other people. > > > If it did, I would look it up. If it was something I absolutely did not want to know, you would > > probably tell me. > > You have misjudged, Robert. You see, I really don't care whether you > want to know about it or not. And you see, I have no interest in doing > something for you, regardless whether you are trying to get me to do it > or not. You see, Robert, most grown-ups are immune to the kind of games > you like to play. > > > So I would conclude that it falls into that category of things that I would find to be totally > > irrelevant to anything pertaining to me. > > You conclude a lot of silly things, Robert, as already described. So you > go ahead and conclude whatever you feel like concluding. Meanwhile, > other sensible people will conclude otherwise. > Fine. Talking to you is what I imagine it would be like being married to a contentious woman.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 16:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9cp0u$r40$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411602 |
On 3/3/2017 3:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > Fine. Talking to you is what I imagine it would be like being married to a contentious woman. I'm pretty sure a contentious woman would have walked away from the marriage by now. Keep in mind, Robert, that I'm on a group devoted to fans of science because I am a fan of science. You are posting here even though you think scientists are worthless people and in fact evil (remember your oranges). So you are here to engage in discussion with people you consider evil and worthless. Why you would do this seems to me to be odd. It's also a bit odd that you are trying to DO science by trying to figure out equations (even though that's not really what science does), which would put yourself in the same camp as worthless and evil people. Why you would try to emulate the activities of people you consider worthless and evil also seems a bit odd. So I suppose Robert that you are finding this discussion as irritating as a marriage to a contentious woman, you always have the option of not trying to discuss things with people you consider to be worthless and evil. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 15:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2712c2f5-d317-42a5-8953-7ce12878a9e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411607 |
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 3:00:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/3/2017 3:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > Fine. Talking to you is what I imagine it would be like being married to a contentious woman. > > I'm pretty sure a contentious woman would have walked away from the > marriage by now. > > Keep in mind, Robert, that I'm on a group devoted to fans of science > because I am a fan of science. You are posting here even though you > think scientists are worthless people and in fact evil (remember your > oranges). So you are here to engage in discussion with people you > consider evil and worthless. Why you would do this seems to me to be odd. > > It's also a bit odd that you are trying to DO science by trying to > figure out equations (even though that's not really what science does), > which would put yourself in the same camp as worthless and evil people. > Why you would try to emulate the activities of people you consider > worthless and evil also seems a bit odd. > > So I suppose Robert that you are finding this discussion as irritating > as a marriage to a contentious woman, you always have the option of not > trying to discuss things with people you consider to be worthless and evil. Well, but what if I get married and find out I am talking to someone like you? Don't you think it might be a good idea to prepare myself a little? I had no bad opinion of scientists until I had talked to some of them. Back in high school, I may even have had moments when I considered being a scientist. I would not consider it knowing what I know now. I am certainly glad I decided to do welding. The job I really liked was that sawmill job. Were you aware that scientists shut down almost all of the lumber industry in the United States back in the 1980's?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 18:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9d0r5$1728$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411616 |
On 3/3/2017 5:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > Well, but what if I get married and find out I am talking to someone like you? Don't you think it might > be a good idea to prepare myself a little? I had no bad opinion of scientists until I had talked to some > of them. Back in high school, I may even have had moments when I considered being a scientist. I would > not consider it knowing what I know now. I am certainly glad I decided to do welding. The job I really > liked was that sawmill job. Were you aware that scientists shut down almost all of the lumber industry > in the United States back in the 1980's? What is "almost all", Robert? 80%? 95%? 99%? Were you aware that that there are 90,000 people working in sawmills today, according to the lumber industry themselves? And that this is more than five times the number of physicists working today? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 16:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9a6d789-c737-4eba-b531-9071643e869c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411627 |
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:13:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/3/2017 5:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, but what if I get married and find out I am talking to someone like you? Don't you think it might > > be a good idea to prepare myself a little? I had no bad opinion of scientists until I had talked to some > > of them. Back in high school, I may even have had moments when I considered being a scientist. I would > > not consider it knowing what I know now. I am certainly glad I decided to do welding. The job I really > > liked was that sawmill job. Were you aware that scientists shut down almost all of the lumber industry > > in the United States back in the 1980's? > > What is "almost all", Robert? 80%? 95%? 99%? > Were you aware that that there are 90,000 people working in sawmills > today, according to the lumber industry themselves? And that this is > more than five times the number of physicists working today? > Why do you think there should be more physicists than lumber industry workers? I think the lumber industry should be one of the biggest industries in the country.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 07:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9eh3m$1e9q$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411630 |
On 3/3/2017 6:27 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:13:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/3/2017 5:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> Well, but what if I get married and find out I am talking to someone like you? Don't you think it might >>> be a good idea to prepare myself a little? I had no bad opinion of scientists until I had talked to some >>> of them. Back in high school, I may even have had moments when I considered being a scientist. I would >>> not consider it knowing what I know now. I am certainly glad I decided to do welding. The job I really >>> liked was that sawmill job. Were you aware that scientists shut down almost all of the lumber industry >>> in the United States back in the 1980's? >> >> What is "almost all", Robert? 80%? 95%? 99%? >> Were you aware that that there are 90,000 people working in sawmills >> today, according to the lumber industry themselves? And that this is >> more than five times the number of physicists working today? >> > Why do you think there should be more physicists than lumber industry workers? I think the lumber industry > should be one of the biggest industries in the country. I'm pretty sure nobody cares what you think should be. I'm not making any statements about what should be. I'm simply pointing out what IS, and contrary to your claims, the lumber industry is not "almost...shut down". -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 07:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f8e2ac6-6a33-4b05-abc9-a2ae5443d204@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411660 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 6:57:13 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/3/2017 6:27 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:13:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 3/3/2017 5:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> Well, but what if I get married and find out I am talking to someone like you? Don't you think it might > >>> be a good idea to prepare myself a little? I had no bad opinion of scientists until I had talked to some > >>> of them. Back in high school, I may even have had moments when I considered being a scientist. I would > >>> not consider it knowing what I know now. I am certainly glad I decided to do welding. The job I really > >>> liked was that sawmill job. Were you aware that scientists shut down almost all of the lumber industry > >>> in the United States back in the 1980's? > >> > >> What is "almost all", Robert? 80%? 95%? 99%? > >> Were you aware that that there are 90,000 people working in sawmills > >> today, according to the lumber industry themselves? And that this is > >> more than five times the number of physicists working today? > >> > > Why do you think there should be more physicists than lumber industry workers? I think the lumber industry > > should be one of the biggest industries in the country. > > I'm pretty sure nobody cares what you think should be. > I'm not making any statements about what should be. I'm simply pointing > out what IS, and contrary to your claims, the lumber industry is not > "almost...shut down". > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, it is almost shut down. Canada is now the leading producer of lumber in the world today. What Canada was producing before America was shut down was a drop in the bucket compared to what was being produced here. Drive up through northern Idaho sometime. You will see miles and miles of lumber railroad cars sitting there. They used to be used for hauling lumber to various parts of the United States. Now there is no use for them. They just sit there on unused railroad tracks because there is no lumber to speak of that they can haul. But you claim that because there were a few sawmills left running, mostly in southern states, that there is still a booming lumber industry here. No, it was shut down. Anyone who can see can tell it was shut down. Why do you think I am so stupid as to be unable to tell the lumber industry was shut down? I used to work in a sawmill. Am I still working in a sawmill? No, the sawmill I was working in was shut down. I know how difficult these concepts must seem to people who believe in a length contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 16:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o9em79$1mh1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411674 |
Robert Winn wrote: > I know how difficult these concepts must seem to people who > believe in a length contraction. You look very length contracted today, Mr Winn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 10:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75878fdb-d420-49ea-9fc3-bf2dbe3ef488@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411679 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 8:24:27 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > I know how difficult these concepts must seem to people who > > believe in a length contraction. > > You look very length contracted today, Mr Winn. Yes, I know. You see everything as being length contracted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 12:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9f1ji$bp8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411674 |
On 3/4/2017 9:02 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > No, it was shut down. Anyone who can see can tell it was shut down. Why do you think I am so stupid as > to be unable to tell the lumber industry was shut down? I used to work in a sawmill. Am I still working > in a sawmill? No, the sawmill I was working in was shut down. According to the lumber industry, they're not shut down or even almost shutdown. Their payroll is 3 billion dollar annually, according to them. Now, if you're going to say that everyone else is stupid for saying that it's not shut down, and that you know it's shut down because you personally don't have a job in a sawmill anymore, then I think you're better to just live alone. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 10:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8affeb09-5dd4-4c41-ac1f-4c9cde25ce53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411702 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:38:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2017 9:02 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > No, it was shut down. Anyone who can see can tell it was shut down. Why do you think I am so stupid as > > to be unable to tell the lumber industry was shut down? I used to work in a sawmill. Am I still working > > in a sawmill? No, the sawmill I was working in was shut down. > > According to the lumber industry, they're not shut down or even almost > shutdown. Their payroll is 3 billion dollar annually, according to them. > Now, if you're going to say that everyone else is stupid for saying that > it's not shut down, and that you know it's shut down because you > personally don't have a job in a sawmill anymore, then I think you're > better to just live alone. As I said, in Idaho you can drive past miles and miles of lumber train cars that were just put on unused tracks and left there because there is nothing to use them for now. According to you I am supposed to go past twenty miles of unused lumber cars in perfectly good condition and still believe that the lumber industry is the same way it has always been. All over the west you can drive past empty buildings that used to be sawmills. We can also watch seven million acres of trees burn every year and are told by Betty White that the reason is because of chains dragging on highways. So, yes, I am better to just leave alone. I do not believe your party propaganda.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 15:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9hupt$15nq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411706 |
On 3/4/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:38:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/4/2017 9:02 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> No, it was shut down. Anyone who can see can tell it was shut down. Why do you think I am so stupid as >>> to be unable to tell the lumber industry was shut down? I used to work in a sawmill. Am I still working >>> in a sawmill? No, the sawmill I was working in was shut down. >> >> According to the lumber industry, they're not shut down or even almost >> shutdown. Their payroll is 3 billion dollar annually, according to them. >> Now, if you're going to say that everyone else is stupid for saying that >> it's not shut down, and that you know it's shut down because you >> personally don't have a job in a sawmill anymore, then I think you're >> better to just live alone. > > As I said, in Idaho you can drive past miles and miles of lumber train cars that were just put on unused tracks > and left there because there is nothing to use them for now. According to you I am supposed to go past twenty > miles of unused lumber cars in perfectly good condition and still believe that the lumber industry is the same > way it has always been. All over the west you can drive past empty buildings that used to be sawmills. > We can also watch seven million acres of trees burn every year and are told by Betty White that the reason is > because of chains dragging on highways. So, yes, I am better to just leave alone. I do not believe your > party propaganda. > And I can also drive by abandoned concrete plants. This does not mean that the concrete industry is dead. I also see closed restaurants. This does not mean the restaurant industry is dead or even almost dead. I do not think an industry is dead unless every transportation vehicle or plant is occupied and humming. I know you look around and say, "I'd like to see every sawmill humming along and every railroad car loaded with logs, because that's the sign of an alive industry." But the fact is, this is from your own parochial view of priorities and assessment of health, and it has nothing really to do with health of anything. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 18:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b0b3ced-c05e-4dde-9e46-e10f607c2427@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411814 |
On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 2:09:21 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:38:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 3/4/2017 9:02 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> No, it was shut down. Anyone who can see can tell it was shut down. Why do you think I am so stupid as > >>> to be unable to tell the lumber industry was shut down? I used to work in a sawmill. Am I still working > >>> in a sawmill? No, the sawmill I was working in was shut down. > >> > >> According to the lumber industry, they're not shut down or even almost > >> shutdown. Their payroll is 3 billion dollar annually, according to them. > >> Now, if you're going to say that everyone else is stupid for saying that > >> it's not shut down, and that you know it's shut down because you > >> personally don't have a job in a sawmill anymore, then I think you're > >> better to just live alone. > > > > As I said, in Idaho you can drive past miles and miles of lumber train cars that were just put on unused tracks > > and left there because there is nothing to use them for now. According to you I am supposed to go past twenty > > miles of unused lumber cars in perfectly good condition and still believe that the lumber industry is the same > > way it has always been. All over the west you can drive past empty buildings that used to be sawmills. > > We can also watch seven million acres of trees burn every year and are told by Betty White that the reason is > > because of chains dragging on highways. So, yes, I am better to just leave alone. I do not believe your > > party propaganda. > > > > And I can also drive by abandoned concrete plants. This does not mean > that the concrete industry is dead. > > I also see closed restaurants. This does not mean the restaurant > industry is dead or even almost dead. > > I do not think an industry is dead unless every transportation vehicle > or plant is occup... Yes, we have discussed that before. You would think that there is a healthy lumber industry if there was one tree being sawed up somewhere in the United States. Then you could prove that there is a healthy lumber industry. I can go almost anywhere in the West and see there is no lumber industry to speak of. Now, if I went to the South or to an eastern state, I would see a lumber industry much the same as it was before the West was shut down. The last time I checked, there were 175 sawmills, mostly in southern states. There used to be twenty or so in Lincoln County, Montana. But you say that I am delusional because I believe that an injustice was done to lumber workers in the West. But it was not just the lumber industry. Back in 2008 I was doing welding for a truck mechanic. I split up with him and went to work for a steel fabrication company because the economy failed, and I thought that would be a better job in a failed economy. By 2014, the truck mechanic had built up his business to 25 employees, from one other truck mechanic and a bookkeeper when I was welding for him, while the steel fabrication company I went to work for had gone from 200 employees to 40. But that guy is in jail now. He got all excited because the federal government was going to steal his father's herd of cattle and got all involved in fighting with the federal government. Then he went up to Oregon and took over a wildlife refuge. He was great at fixing trucks, not so good at political activism. So we see the government plan. Shut down the lumber industry, shut down cattle ranching, shut down wheat farming. It is not difficult to tell what is planned. Shutting down the lumber industry was vital because if there was lumber to be bought at a reasonable price, people would keep building homes for themselves. So exactly how stupid do you think we are? We are supposed to believe that seven million acres of trees are being burned up every year in forest fires because of chains being dragged on highways? That is what Betty White told us. Your political party and other evil organizations have an agenda. We understand all about this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 12:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9kb14$14qi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411858 |
On 3/5/2017 8:11 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 2:09:21 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/4/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:38:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 3/4/2017 9:02 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> No, it was shut down. Anyone who can see can tell it was shut down. Why do you think I am so stupid as >>>>> to be unable to tell the lumber industry was shut down? I used to work in a sawmill. Am I still working >>>>> in a sawmill? No, the sawmill I was working in was shut down. >>>> >>>> According to the lumber industry, they're not shut down or even almost >>>> shutdown. Their payroll is 3 billion dollar annually, according to them. >>>> Now, if you're going to say that everyone else is stupid for saying that >>>> it's not shut down, and that you know it's shut down because you >>>> personally don't have a job in a sawmill anymore, then I think you're >>>> better to just live alone. >>> >>> As I said, in Idaho you can drive past miles and miles of lumber train cars that were just put on unused tracks >>> and left there because there is nothing to use them for now. According to you I am supposed to go past twenty >>> miles of unused lumber cars in perfectly good condition and still believe that the lumber industry is the same >>> way it has always been. All over the west you can drive past empty buildings that used to be sawmills. >>> We can also watch seven million acres of trees burn every year and are told by Betty White that the reason is >>> because of chains dragging on highways. So, yes, I am better to just leave alone. I do not believe your >>> party propaganda. >>> >> >> And I can also drive by abandoned concrete plants. This does not mean >> that the concrete industry is dead. >> >> I also see closed restaurants. This does not mean the restaurant >> industry is dead or even almost dead. >> >> I do not think an industry is dead unless every transportation vehicle >> or plant is occup... > > Yes, we have discussed that before. You would think that there is a healthy lumber industry if there was one > tree being sawed up somewhere in the United States. No, I would not think that. But I do think that an industry that employees 90,000 with a payroll of $3billion is not on its last legs. That's what the industry people say. > Then you could prove that there is a healthy lumber industry. I can go almost anywhere in the West > and see there is no lumber industry to speak of. Now, if I went to the South or to an eastern state, > I would see a lumber industry much the same as it was before the West was shut down. Well now, there you go. Just a bit ago you were saying the lumber industry was shut down nationwide. Now you are saying that in the southeastern states it isn't affected at all, and it's only in the western states that it's affected. Interestingly, the Sawmill Database here (http://www.sawmilldatabase.com/country_sawmills.php?id=11) says there are 227 sawmills in the US, and 84 of those 227 are in the American West (where the West means anything west of a line through middle of ND to the middle of TX). So it's not even dead in the west. So in fact, you made an erroneous statement that the lumber industry was shut down in the US as a whole, which you have now corrected for the southeast. And your statement is still wrong in the American West. > The last time I checked, there were 175 sawmills, mostly in southern states. > There used to be twenty or so in Lincoln County, Montana. Maybe you are equating America with Lincoln County, Montana. I see that the lumber industry in Lincoln County has been shut down. Is this what you mean when you say it is shut down in the US? > But you say that I am delusional because I believe that an injustice was > done to lumber workers in the West. Whether you believe an injustice has been done is irrelevant. When you try to support that contention with counterfactual claims, Robert, that's when you defeat your own purpose by tainting your position with lies. > But it was not just the lumber industry. Back in 2008 I was doing welding > for a truck mechanic. I split up with him and went to work for a steel > fabrication company because the economy failed, and I thought that would be > a better job in a failed economy. By 2014, the truck mechanic had built up > his business to 25 employees, from one other truck mechanic and a bookkeeper > when I was welding for him, while the steel fabrication company I went to work > for had gone from 200 employees to 40. But that guy is in jail now. He got all > excited because the federal government was going to steal his father's herd of > cattle and got all involved in fighting with the federal government. Then he > went up to Oregon and took over a wildlife refuge. He was great at fixing > trucks, not so good at political activism. > So we see the government plan. Shut down the lumber industry, shut down cattle > ranching, shut down wheat farming. It is not difficult to tell what is planned. > Shutting down the lumber industry was vital because if there was lumber to be > bought at a reasonable price, people would keep building homes for themselves. > So exactly how stupid do you think we are? I think you are pretty stupid to try to support your contentions with lies that are counter to obvious and easily discovered facts. > We are supposed to believe that seven million acres of trees are being burned up > every year in forest fires because of chains being dragged on highways? That > is what Betty White told us. > Your political party and other evil organizations have an agenda. We understand > all about this. > What political party are you calling my political party? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web