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

Groups > sci.physics > #557736 > unrolled thread

Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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

Contents

  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 19:45 -0800
    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 20:01 -0800
      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 20:06 -0800
        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 20:26 -0800
      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 20:24 -0800
        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 21:18 -0800
          Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 21:52 -0800
            Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 22:33 -0800
              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 22:49 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 11:06 -0600
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 10:16 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-29 11:31 -0800
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:46 -0600
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-29 12:03 -0800
                      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:17 -0600
                        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-29 12:23 -0800
                        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:57 -0800
                          Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:24 +0000
                            Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:57 -0800
                              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:52 +0000
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:11 -0800
                      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:24 +0000
              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 08:40 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 11:13 -0600
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:17 +0000
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:43 -0800
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:10 -0600
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:25 +0000
          Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 08:45 -0800
            Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:19 +0000
              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:42 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:26 +0000
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:48 -0800
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:24 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#557999

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> What you lay out for Jim, however, involves work. This is not in fact 
> what he wants to do. Instead, he is happy to banter and bluster, because 
> it's not really the scientific point he's interested in, but rather some 
> attention.
> 
> He's been highly successful with his banter/bluster tactics at 
> sustaining attention, even if it means resurrecting old conversations or 
> replying to himself.
> 
> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since 
> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now, 
> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.

Oddster,

I think you have the right idea.  The only chance all of you have to be sure that my message does not spread is if you can convince others to ignore my message.  So that would mean that you would want to get to them before they considered my hypothetical thinking.  

Maybe you all should start an organization, you know, get a webpage and all of that.  Then you can make lists and write papers explaining to people methods they can use to avoid considering my thinking.

Here is a link to get you started:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114202

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#558014

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> What you lay out for Jim, however, involves work. This is not in fact 
>> what he wants to do. Instead, he is happy to banter and bluster, because 
>> it's not really the scientific point he's interested in, but rather some 
>> attention.
>> 
>> He's been highly successful with his banter/bluster tactics at 
>> sustaining attention, even if it means resurrecting old conversations or 
>> replying to himself.
>> 
>> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since 
>> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now, 
>> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
> 
> Oddster,
> 
> I think you have the right idea.  The only chance all of you have to be
> sure that my message does not spread 

Just how many people do you want laughing at your delusional "message"?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557866

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 
> > 
> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> > 
> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> > 
> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> 
> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw speculation. SPECULATION!

Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no substantive dispute?

What do you think that indicates? 


> 
> And yet, you remain miffed that professionals don't take you seriously. Really?

So, Saykally is a professional, yet he was unable to find a substantive dispute, what do you think that indicates?  


> 
> Zinodo.org is where you published your paper... here is a review of this site, from https://sixstat.com/ratings-reviews/zenodo.org/ ...
> 
> "zenodo.org was registered 3 years 3 months ago. It has a alexa rank of #518,752 in the world. This domain uses the .org extension. It's Google PageRank is 6/10. It is estimated to be worth $ 1,680.00 with a daily income of $ 7.00."
> 
> In other words, perhaps they will publish just about anything, that $7 per day is very important...
> 
> If I had the time or inclination I would calculate your score on the Crackpot Index...
> 
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> 
> ... but right off the bat you score some low-hanging fruit...
> 
> * 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
> 
> * 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. 
> 
> * 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory
> 
> * 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 
> 
> * 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 
> 
> * 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 
> 
> Earlier you advised me to quit while I was ahead... maybe you should quit before you fall so far behind that you can never recover... but maybe it is too late for that by now...

So, do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your inability to dispute my hypothesis and your anger?  

What do you think that indicates?  What conclusion would anybody in our audience draw from this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557889

On 2/29/2016 10:40 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8,
>>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of
>>>> expertise
>>>

>>
>>
>>>
Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single 
calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing of 
substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw 
speculation. SPECULATION!
>
> Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
> substantive dispute?

he is stating fact, not emotional.

We agree with him, you have nothing.

>
> What do you think that indicates?
>

what do you think that indicates?




>>
>> And yet, you remain miffed that professionals don't take you
>> seriously. Really?
>
> So, Saykally is a professional, yet he was unable to find a
> substantive dispute, what do you think that indicates?

he's busy, and dosen't bother with your imagination


>>
>> In other words, perhaps they will publish just about anything, that
>> $7 per day is very important...
>>
>> If I had the time or inclination I would calculate your score on
>> the Crackpot Index...
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

>>
>> Earlier you advised me to quit while I was ahead... maybe you
>> should quit before you fall so far behind that you can never
>> recover... but maybe it is too late for that by now...
>
> ... my hypothesis ?

what is your hypothesis ?


>
> What do you think that indicates?  What conclusion would anybody in
> our audience draw from this?

that you are trying to play baseball,
but you dont have a bat, no glove, no field, and dont know how to play 
the game, and no ball either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557955

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > 
>> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 
>> > 
>> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
>> > 
>> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
>> > 
>> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
>> > 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>> 
>> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single
>> calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing
>> of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw
>> speculation. SPECULATION!
> 
> Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
> substantive dispute?

There was nothing emotional in that response; it was all factual.

The only person being emotional is you as your delusions are challenged,
which is typical of a delusional person.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557974

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 
> >> > 
> >> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> >> > 
> >> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> >> > 
> >> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
> >> > 
> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> >> 
> >> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single
> >> calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing
> >> of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw
> >> speculation. SPECULATION!
> > 
> > Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
> > substantive dispute?
> 
> There was nothing emotional in that response; it was all factual.

Hmm.  Really?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557998

On 2/29/2016 1:43 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some links to my undisputed paper:

>>>>> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>>>>
>>>> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single
>>>> calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing
>>>> of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw
>>>> speculation. SPECULATION!
>>>
>>> Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
>>> substantive dispute?
>>
>> There was nothing emotional in that response; it was all factual.
>
> Hmm.  Really?
>

So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, 
rips you a new a$$hole, and not only are you too stupid to realize it, 
you are then stupid enough to broadcast that fact here!

Now everyone here knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are 
crazier than an outhouse rat, and it was all accomplished by your very 
own hand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#558015

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
>> >> > 
>> >> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
>> >> > 
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>> >> 
>> >> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single
>> >> calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing
>> >> of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw
>> >> speculation. SPECULATION!
>> > 
>> > Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
>> > substantive dispute?
>> 
>> There was nothing emotional in that response; it was all factual.
> 
> Hmm.  Really?

Yes, it is only your delusional state that causes you to think otherwise. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557868

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:


> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit detector... and you may have broken it!

Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?  

Do you see the problem?  If you claim to be good at finding problems and then you any, well, what conclusion would anybody draw from that?

Let's be honest. You don't have a substantive dispute, and neither did Saykally.  Both of you had emotional reactions.

What do you think all of this indicates?

What greater conclusion can be drawn from all of this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557956

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
>> (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit
>> detector... and you may have broken it!
> 
> Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?  

In EVERYTHING you post.

> What do you think all of this indicates?

That you are delusional.

> What greater conclusion can be drawn from all of this?

That you need help from a mental health professional.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557971

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
> >> (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit
> >> detector... and you may have broken it!
> > 
> > Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?  
> 
> In EVERYTHING you post.

What does it indicate that you cannot address it directly?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#558016

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
>> >> (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit
>> >> detector... and you may have broken it!
>> > 
>> > Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?  
>> 
>> In EVERYTHING you post.
> 
> What does it indicate that you cannot address it directly?

I just did; EVERYTHING you post is bat shit crazy.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#558033

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> In EVERYTHING you post.
> > 
> > What does it indicate that you cannot address it directly?
> 
> I just did; EVERYTHING you post is bat shit crazy.

Hmm. I wonder why I can't find it.  Hmm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#558063

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> >> In EVERYTHING you post.
>> > 
>> > What does it indicate that you cannot address it directly?
>> 
>> I just did; EVERYTHING you post is bat shit crazy.
> 
> Hmm. I wonder why I can't find it.  Hmm.

You can't find what, any of your bat shit crazy posts?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web