Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #635047 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-01 22:54 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-06 20:28 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Are there any scientist here? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-01 22:54 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-02 02:14 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 01:41 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 17:37 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 17:56 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 04:15 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 04:36 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 11:15 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 11:59 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 15:54 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 16:38 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 17:41 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 04:23 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 18:46 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 18:34 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 18:21 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 04:44 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 05:51 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 07:36 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-05 01:23 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 03:54 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 04:15 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 00:37 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 18:15 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 02:48 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 20:36 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 21:03 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:27 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 23:43 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 19:07 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-07 20:16 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 16:33 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-07 20:05 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-07 09:00 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-07 20:17 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 17:15 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-08 00:40 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 18:03 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-08 23:59 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 21:15 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-09 17:05 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-09 18:59 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-09 18:51 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-09 21:34 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-10 02:19 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-07 19:45 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-07 18:44 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-08 00:37 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-07 19:51 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-08 23:59 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-08 19:54 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-09 22:36 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-09 19:01 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-09 19:00 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-10 02:11 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-11 13:47 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-11 13:54 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-12 22:36 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 18:48 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-13 21:09 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Серг ио <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 16:55 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-07 19:49 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 20:30 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 20:06 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-07 20:17 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-07 20:00 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-09 17:41 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-09 17:08 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-09 22:39 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-09 19:03 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-09 19:10 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-09 21:37 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-10 02:13 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-12 17:44 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-12 22:37 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 10:33 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-12 17:50 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 18:55 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-12 20:23 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Серг ио <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 17:06 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 20:06 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-13 21:14 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 20:59 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 18:25 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 21:43 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 07:37 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-14 09:43 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-14 17:25 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 17:16 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-14 17:25 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-12 22:33 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 18:55 -0500
Re: Are there any more fucktards like Serg here? Hell, yes! Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-13 21:12 +0000
Re: Are there any more fucktards like Serg here? Hell, yes! Серг ио <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 17:09 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 17:25 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 23:43 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 20:26 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-06 19:36 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-07 20:15 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 00:32 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-05 22:46 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-05 21:57 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-05 20:26 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 00:42 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 17:02 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-06 21:07 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 20:08 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-06 19:37 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-07 20:18 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-07 18:58 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-08 00:39 +0000
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-07 20:08 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 19:08 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? "Steamboat Charley" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 20:01 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-05 22:27 -0500
Re: Are there any scientist here? "Steamboat Charley" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 20:57 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 03:47 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 04:32 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 05:47 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 06:46 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 09:40 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:32 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:12 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 20:10 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 17:54 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 06:43 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 17:34 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 17:13 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:21 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 12:00 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 15:43 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 07:54 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 18:48 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 19:34 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 17:52 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 17:50 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 09:40 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-02 12:18 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 17:58 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 11:38 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-03 18:14 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 19:48 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-05 20:07 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:10 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-05 21:19 -0400
Re: Are there any scientist here? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 15:20 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 09:49 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-02 12:43 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 13:52 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-02 14:08 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 07:05 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 10:45 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 14:49 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 18:13 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 19:34 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 21:15 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 21:49 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 10:24 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 23:59 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 23:56 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-03 11:20 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 10:34 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 12:45 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-06 16:51 -0700
Re: Are there any scientist here? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 20:28 -0400
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 17:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59332f91$0$51805$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #635072 |
On 6/2/2017 9:00 AM, HVAC wrote: > Loopy says >> https://harlowcampbell1.shutterfly.com/4 > > HVAC, because faking forgeries is your life, and used to be your livelihood? > ---------- > > I categorically deny ever forging anything in my life. Mostly. > > But I just wanted to show the value of BJ's 'business card'. Zero. > > He is a fraud. > URL of DARPA is www.darpa.mil NOT www.darpa.gov. Caught red-handed in a lie again! Deny, deny, deny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 17:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59332f0e$0$51805$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #635064 |
On 6/2/2017 7:15 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > I however, possess a business card with the title: Principle Research > Scientist bearing the logo of one of America's premiere research > institutions. > ------------- > > https://harlowcampbell1.shutterfly.com/4 > > Took about 7 minutes. But BJ should use the card on the right. > FROTH! We have FROTH! I KNEW this would set Hardblow off! Wonderful photoshop, there Hardblow. But as usual you are a pathological liar. PS: The URL for DARPA is www.DARPA.mil NOT .gov! NEVER trust ANYTHING HArdblow posts!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96d846ef-51cc-4696-a857-c4518bc39d6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635048 |
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:14:42 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 06/02/2017 01:54 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Are there any scientist here? > > > Nope. Nothing here but Engineers who somehow wish they were scientists, > technicians who try to seek glory by pretending to be scientists. Lib > Writers such as yourself who are fascinated by science (in your case > science fiction) but flunked every science course they ever took. And of > course lastly by geezer kooks like Archie and Bert who cannot even > figure out how to tie their own shoes, but somehow think they can fool > everybody into thinking they are smart by drooling incomprehensible > babble. And lastly some like HVAC who cover serveral of the categories. > > I however, possess a business card with the title: Principle Research > Scientist bearing the logo of one of America's premiere research > institutions. > > Nuff said. > > Starfaker, use your fantasy imagination. What if it came into your > possession a freshman physics textbook from the future. What if you went > online posting some of the ideas and principles you found there but did > not reveal it's source. Remember I said FRESHMAN meaning it's simple > stuff and not advanced. What would they all say about you? It's obvious > isn't it? You'd be reviled as a kook as nuts as Bert or Archie. > > You see, humans simply reject things that don't agree with the dogma > they've had drilled into them. So they reject things that they think are > obviously wrong and kooky as goofy, but since they aren't willing to do > the experiments and could not understand them if they did, they ALSO > reject all true science more advanced than their understanding which > usually is way less than current understanding of scientists. > > Put that in your next script! I'm self educated.My best friends are very well educated.I'm told I'm clever.I give talks at universities on electron structure,and pohotons.I stop light 3 inches from its source.This blows their minds.Its much faster than a strobe. My method is still a mystery to the world.All know my G=EMC^2 is world wide,and two Popes sent me letters. I'm 89 takes to Einstein about inertia and gravity.At 85 I took up painting.I made full page at 85 when I built a tiny sail boat.I love to sail,and no matter which way the wind blows I set my own sail.I will be in my sail boat this weekend at Huntington Beach.Weather permitting. TreBert Ps Also eat my MSP for it keeps my thinking young the older I get. O ya
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogsdft$7cj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #635083 |
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>, the Face-Shitter and the criminal Graveyard Vandal aka "reber G=emc^2" wrote: "I'm self educated" <snip rest>, cuz Bert's stolen G=EMC^2 says: "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 17:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <593330fb$0$51805$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #635083 |
On 6/2/2017 12:40 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:14:42 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: >> On 06/02/2017 01:54 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Are there any scientist here? >>> >> Nope. Nothing here but Engineers who somehow wish they were scientists, >> technicians who try to seek glory by pretending to be scientists. Lib >> Writers such as yourself who are fascinated by science (in your case >> science fiction) but flunked every science course they ever took. And of >> course lastly by geezer kooks like Archie and Bert who cannot even >> figure out how to tie their own shoes, but somehow think they can fool >> everybody into thinking they are smart by drooling incomprehensible >> babble. And lastly some like HVAC who cover serveral of the categories. >> >> I however, possess a business card with the title: Principle Research >> Scientist bearing the logo of one of America's premiere research >> institutions. >> >> Nuff said. >> >> Starfaker, use your fantasy imagination. What if it came into your >> possession a freshman physics textbook from the future. What if you went >> online posting some of the ideas and principles you found there but did >> not reveal it's source. Remember I said FRESHMAN meaning it's simple >> stuff and not advanced. What would they all say about you? It's obvious >> isn't it? You'd be reviled as a kook as nuts as Bert or Archie. >> >> You see, humans simply reject things that don't agree with the dogma >> they've had drilled into them. So they reject things that they think are >> obviously wrong and kooky as goofy, but since they aren't willing to do >> the experiments and could not understand them if they did, they ALSO >> reject all true science more advanced than their understanding which >> usually is way less than current understanding of scientists. >> >> Put that in your next script! > > I'm self educated.My best friends are very well educated.I'm told I'm clever.I give talks at universities on electron structure,and pohotons.I stop light 3 inches from its source.This blows their minds.Its much faster than a strobe. My method is still a mystery to the world.All know my G=EMC^2 is world wide,and two Popes sent me letters. I'm 89 takes to Einstein about inertia and gravity.At 85 I took up painting.I made full page at 85 when I built a tiny sail boat.I love to sail,and no matter which way the wind blows I set my own sail.I will be in my sail boat this weekend at Huntington Beach.Weather permitting. TreBert Ps Also eat my MSP for it keeps my thinking young the older I get. O ya > Bert is often told he's ver clever (when looking into a mirror). It's not too late to sail for Hawaii! HVAC will give you all the encouragement you need. Take ARchiepoo with you too!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f58718c-4228-4d52-9681-9eb224271051@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635048 |
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:14:42 AM UTC-4, benj wrote: [] > > I however, possess a business card with the title: Principle Research > Scientist bearing the logo of one of America's premiere research > institutions. > > Nuff said. > > Starfaker, use your fantasy imagination. What if it came into your > possession a freshman physics textbook from the future. What if you went > online posting some of the ideas and principles you found there but did > not reveal it's source. Remember I said FRESHMAN meaning it's simple > stuff and not advanced. What would they all say about you? It's obvious > isn't it? You'd be reviled as a kook as nuts as Bert or Archie. And justifiably so. Without the supporting evidence, statements just copied from such a book would seem simply to be nonsense. Now if a whole chapter, showing how the equation for a new interpretation of some phenomenon was derived or experimental data results supporting it, was posted, then MAYBE (just MAYBE) we could see something useful. But Star, John, JM, AP, bert, just spout snippets of parts of something that they try to claim is kinda sorta a theory. Nothing to support their ideas. The imagined physics text would include some background and derivations. > > You see, humans simply reject things that don't agree with the dogma > they've had drilled into them. So they reject things that they think are > obviously wrong and kooky as goofy, but since they aren't willing to do > the experiments and could not understand them if they did, they ALSO > reject all true science more advanced than their understanding which > usually is way less than current understanding of scientists. Nonsense! It is not necessary to run the experiments to understand physics, but it is useful to know that the experiments were run and sometimes to review the results does make it easier to understand. benj, you obviously are here more to annoy than to enlighten. As I have said before, I am disappointed in you. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 18:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <593334d1$0$1358$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #635097 |
On 6/2/2017 2:38 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:14:42 AM UTC-4, benj wrote: > [] >> >> I however, possess a business card with the title: Principle Research >> Scientist bearing the logo of one of America's premiere research >> institutions. >> >> Nuff said. >> >> Starfaker, use your fantasy imagination. What if it came into your >> possession a freshman physics textbook from the future. What if you went >> online posting some of the ideas and principles you found there but did >> not reveal it's source. Remember I said FRESHMAN meaning it's simple >> stuff and not advanced. What would they all say about you? It's obvious >> isn't it? You'd be reviled as a kook as nuts as Bert or Archie. > > And justifiably so. Without the supporting evidence, statements > just copied from such a book would seem simply to be nonsense. Especially if all one does is just compare to the "flat earth" dogma you had drilled into you. > Now if a whole chapter, showing how the equation for a new > interpretation of some phenomenon was derived or experimental > data results supporting it, was posted, then MAYBE > (just MAYBE) we could see something useful. MAYBE is right! Hey even if you put the math there, nobody would read it and if they read it they couldn't understand it. Even now people have noticed that nobody uses math once they get out of school so the move it on to stop teaching math altogether as useless. > But Star, John, JM, AP, bert, just spout snippets of parts of > something that they try to claim is kinda sorta a theory. > Nothing to support their ideas. The imagined physics text would > include some background and derivations. > >> >> You see, humans simply reject things that don't agree with the dogma >> they've had drilled into them. So they reject things that they think are >> obviously wrong and kooky as goofy, but since they aren't willing to do >> the experiments and could not understand them if they did, they ALSO >> reject all true science more advanced than their understanding which >> usually is way less than current understanding of scientists. > > Nonsense! It is not necessary to run the experiments to > understand physics, but it is useful to know that the experiments > were run and sometimes to review the results does make it easier > to understand. You are the one spouting nonsense! One need not do experiments to understand mathematics because math is pure fantasy. But the ONLY test of physics is experiment. If you don't do that, you have nothing. > benj, you obviously are here more to annoy than to enlighten. > As I have said before, I am disappointed in you. > > ed Obviously the unenlightened person here is YOU. If you understood what science is (you can always read my last book to find out) you'd know that you are a perfect example of the unthinking rejection of advanced science as fraud because you are SURE it's not what you've been taught. Shame on you. PS. Obviously, my purpose here has nothing to do with seeking your approval (or of anyone else here including HVAC).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 19:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0aeefa50-0e4b-4798-9f59-6cffc1ab74d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635238 |
BJ quacked > benj, you obviously are here more to annoy than to enlighten. > As I have said before, I am disappointed in you. > > ed Obviously the unenlightened person here is YOU. If you understood what science is (you can always read my last book to find out) you'd know that you are a perfect example of the unthinking rejection of advanced science as fraud because you are SURE it's not what you've been taught. Shame on you. PS. Obviously, my purpose here has nothing to do with seeking your approval (or of anyone else here including HVAC). -------------- Man. A psychiatrist would have a field day with BJ. Probably a book, maybe even a movie about BJ's mental 'health'. Now who would play BJ in the movie? Do you remember Fat Bastard?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 20:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5935f24d$0$34565$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #635266 |
On 6/3/2017 10:48 PM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked >> benj, you obviously are here more to annoy than to enlighten. >> As I have said before, I am disappointed in you. >> >> ed > > Obviously the unenlightened person here is YOU. If you understood what > science is (you can always read my last book to find out) you'd know > that you are a perfect example of the unthinking rejection of advanced > science as fraud because you are SURE it's not what you've been taught. > > Shame on you. > PS. Obviously, my purpose here has nothing to do with seeking your > approval (or of anyone else here including HVAC). > -------------- > > Man. A psychiatrist would have a field day with BJ. Probably a book, maybe even a movie about BJ's mental 'health'. Now who would play BJ in the movie? Do you remember Fat Bastard? > Why do nutjobs always project what they are onto everyone else? HVAC is sane! Everyone else (especially his hero BJ) is the one who is crazy. I'll bet HVAC has the papers to prove he's crazy too! Doubtless his "pension" is just disability for mental illness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-04 21:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1f5245e-6128-45b0-a0c9-bce4419b03a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635238 |
On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 6:14:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 6/2/2017 2:38 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:14:42 AM UTC-4, benj wrote: > > [] > >> > >> I however, possess a business card with the title: Principle Research > >> Scientist bearing the logo of one of America's premiere research > >> institutions. > >> > >> Nuff said. > >> > >> Starfaker, use your fantasy imagination. What if it came into your > >> possession a freshman physics textbook from the future. What if you went > >> online posting some of the ideas and principles you found there but did > >> not reveal it's source. Remember I said FRESHMAN meaning it's simple > >> stuff and not advanced. What would they all say about you? It's obvious > >> isn't it? You'd be reviled as a kook as nuts as Bert or Archie. > > > > And justifiably so. Without the supporting evidence, statements > > just copied from such a book would seem simply to be nonsense. > > Especially if all one does is just compare to the "flat earth" dogma you > had drilled into you. I spout no dogma. But go ahead and make your false claims. > > > Now if a whole chapter, showing how the equation for a new > > interpretation of some phenomenon was derived or experimental > > data results supporting it, was posted, then MAYBE > > (just MAYBE) we could see something useful. > > MAYBE is right! Hey even if you put the math there, nobody would read it > and if they read it they couldn't understand it. Even now people have > noticed that nobody uses math once they get out of school so the move it > on to stop teaching math altogether as useless. (Ignoring the political rant as off thread.) I would read a post with Mathematics and if the claim was interesting, I might suggest they post it to the moderated group where those with more skills than I currently have could study and evaluate it. And I am sure others would read it. But the fact is most of the off the wall theories posted here have NO support, mathematical or experimental. > > > But Star, John, JM, AP, bert, just spout snippets of parts of > > something that they try to claim is kinda sorta a theory. > > Nothing to support their ideas. The imagined physics text would > > include some background and derivations. > > > >> > >> You see, humans simply reject things that don't agree with the dogma > >> they've had drilled into them. So they reject things that they think are > >> obviously wrong and kooky as goofy, but since they aren't willing to do > >> the experiments and could not understand them if they did, they ALSO > >> reject all true science more advanced than their understanding which > >> usually is way less than current understanding of scientists. > > > > Nonsense! It is not necessary to run the experiments to > > understand physics, but it is useful to know that the experiments > > were run and sometimes to review the results does make it easier > > to understand. > > You are the one spouting nonsense! One need not do experiments to > understand mathematics because math is pure fantasy. But the ONLY test > of physics is experiment. If you don't do that, you have nothing. there is a balance, prediction (from mathematics, at least in the modern era of science) and testing the prediction (experiments and the resulting data). You need both. Experiments only and you have only a poor-man's medieval era style engineering. > > > benj, you obviously are here more to annoy than to enlighten. > > As I have said before, I am disappointed in you. > > > > ed > > Obviously the unenlightened person here is YOU. If you understood what > science is (you can always read my last book to find out) you'd know > that you are a perfect example of the unthinking rejection of advanced > science as fraud because you are SURE it's not what you've been taught. I'm the one rejecting advanced science? LOL > > Shame on you. guess we're even. > > PS. Obviously, my purpose here has nothing to do with seeking your > approval (or of anyone else here including HVAC). Your reply overall is more heat than light. If you really are an advance degreed scientist, you seem to have a poor way of showing it. I'm just trying to be helpful. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 21:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59360333$0$53440$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #635350 |
On 6/5/2017 12:10 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 6:14:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 6/2/2017 2:38 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:14:42 AM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>> [] >>>> >>>> I however, possess a business card with the title: Principle Research >>>> Scientist bearing the logo of one of America's premiere research >>>> institutions. >>>> >>>> Nuff said. >>>> >>>> Starfaker, use your fantasy imagination. What if it came into your >>>> possession a freshman physics textbook from the future. What if you went >>>> online posting some of the ideas and principles you found there but did >>>> not reveal it's source. Remember I said FRESHMAN meaning it's simple >>>> stuff and not advanced. What would they all say about you? It's obvious >>>> isn't it? You'd be reviled as a kook as nuts as Bert or Archie. >>> >>> And justifiably so. Without the supporting evidence, statements >>> just copied from such a book would seem simply to be nonsense. >> >> Especially if all one does is just compare to the "flat earth" dogma you >> had drilled into you. > > I spout no dogma. But go ahead and make your false claims. >> >>> Now if a whole chapter, showing how the equation for a new >>> interpretation of some phenomenon was derived or experimental >>> data results supporting it, was posted, then MAYBE >>> (just MAYBE) we could see something useful. >> >> MAYBE is right! Hey even if you put the math there, nobody would read it >> and if they read it they couldn't understand it. Even now people have >> noticed that nobody uses math once they get out of school so the move it >> on to stop teaching math altogether as useless. > > (Ignoring the political rant as off thread.) > I would read a post with Mathematics and if the > claim was interesting, I might suggest they post it to > the moderated group where those with more skills than > I currently have could study and evaluate it. Right math education policy is off topic when it comes to science! > And I am sure others would read it. Bwahahahahaha! You are SURE others would read it? Dream on! Moderated groups are moderated to insure that only accepted idea are discussed there, mathematically described or otherwise. Anything else is pseudoscience, unscience, and just plain Kookery. Just as HVAC insures. > But the fact is most of the off the wall theories > posted here have NO support, mathematical or experimental. And the way you know it's "most" is? Ah, that means you actually know ALL kook theories and can therefore count the ones with support? Why do I think you are not telling the truth? >>> But Star, John, JM, AP, bert, just spout snippets of parts of >>> something that they try to claim is kinda sorta a theory. >>> Nothing to support their ideas. The imagined physics text would >>> include some background and derivations. >>> >>>> >>>> You see, humans simply reject things that don't agree with the dogma >>>> they've had drilled into them. So they reject things that they think are >>>> obviously wrong and kooky as goofy, but since they aren't willing to do >>>> the experiments and could not understand them if they did, they ALSO >>>> reject all true science more advanced than their understanding which >>>> usually is way less than current understanding of scientists. >>> >>> Nonsense! It is not necessary to run the experiments to >>> understand physics, but it is useful to know that the experiments >>> were run and sometimes to review the results does make it easier >>> to understand. >> >> You are the one spouting nonsense! One need not do experiments to >> understand mathematics because math is pure fantasy. But the ONLY test >> of physics is experiment. If you don't do that, you have nothing. > > there is a balance, prediction (from mathematics, at least in the > modern era of science) and testing the prediction (experiments and > the resulting data). You need both. Experiments only and you have > only a poor-man's medieval era style engineering. Experimental observations DO JOT require a mathematical prediction first. That is nonsense. Experiments can verify or refute a mathematical theory, but they also can stand on their own. Mathematics is not the only language that can be used to describe a theory though it is one of those commonly used. To think that math is more real than reality is pure unscience and kookery. >> >>> benj, you obviously are here more to annoy than to enlighten. >>> As I have said before, I am disappointed in you. >>> >>> ed >> >> Obviously the unenlightened person here is YOU. If you understood what >> science is (you can always read my last book to find out) you'd know >> that you are a perfect example of the unthinking rejection of advanced >> science as fraud because you are SURE it's not what you've been taught. > > I'm the one rejecting advanced science? LOL >> >> Shame on you. > > guess we're even. HVAC and I "get even". You and I are discussing what science is. >> PS. Obviously, my purpose here has nothing to do with seeking your >> approval (or of anyone else here including HVAC). > > Your reply overall is more heat than light. > If you really are an advance degreed scientist, > you seem to have a poor way of showing it. If you send money I can provide as much quality as you can afford. But then that is just selling you what you want to hear, not real science, isn't it? > I'm just trying to be helpful. > ed You mean trying to justify your (erroneous) point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f7a1623-a1b7-4056-b97b-773369c4c9e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635473 |
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 9:19:49 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 6/5/2017 12:10 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 6:14:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >> On 6/2/2017 2:38 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:14:42 AM UTC-4, benj wrote: [] > > > But the fact is most of the off the wall theories > > posted here have NO support, mathematical or experimental. > > And the way you know it's "most" is? Ah, that means you actually know > ALL kook theories and can therefore count the ones with support? Why do > I think you are not telling the truth? Well, give me a counter example. Show me a post from one of sci.physics members like john, bert, JM that has anything close to supporting evidence from a reliable source such as a published study. [] > >> You are the one spouting nonsense! One need not do experiments to > >> understand mathematics because math is pure fantasy. But the ONLY test > >> of physics is experiment. If you don't do that, you have nothing. > > > > there is a balance, prediction (from mathematics, at least in the > > modern era of science) and testing the prediction (experiments and > > the resulting data). You need both. Experiments only and you have > > only a poor-man's medieval era style engineering. > > Experimental observations DO JOT require a mathematical prediction > first. That is nonsense. Experiments can verify or refute a mathematical > theory, but they also can stand on their own. Mathematics is not the > only language that can be used to describe a theory though it is one of > those commonly used. To think that math is more real than reality is > pure unscience and kookery. I'm sorry you got the wrong impression that I think prediction always comes first. It is a cycle. Prediction->experiment. Experiment->prediction. However, Experiments on their own are descriptive only and not predictive. If you ran experiments for how X yields Y and measured Y for X in the range from 2.0 to 3.0, then that is all you have. You cannot say anything about the system for values of X outside that range without making an assumption, which results in a mathematical model and a prediction. You keep throwing that strawman argument that "math is more real than reality". I never said it, and never will. > > guess we're even. > > HVAC and I "get even". You and I are discussing what science is. ok > > >> PS. Obviously, my purpose here has nothing to do with seeking your > >> approval (or of anyone else here including HVAC). > > > > Your reply overall is more heat than light. > > If you really are an advance degreed scientist, > > you seem to have a poor way of showing it. > > If you send money I can provide as much quality as you can afford. But > then that is just selling you what you want to hear, not real science, > isn't it? > > > I'm just trying to be helpful. > > ed > > You mean trying to justify your (erroneous) point of view. Chuckle (sorry that wasn't even worth an LOL) ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f32377f-e63f-4320-a095-99a7e6675810@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635047 |
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:53:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Are there any scientist here? Just one: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5931BFE7.2E99@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #635047 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Are there any scientist here? i mean, besides me? Is hanson a scientist????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5740d86-a7d4-412e-8f05-d519cbf9fb85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635113 |
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:43:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Are there any scientist here? > > > i mean, besides me? What have you achieved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5931D3D3.1085@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #635114 |
James McGinn wrote: > > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:43:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Are there any scientist here? > > > > > > i mean, besides me? > > What have you achieved? achieved???? What's your definition of..."scientist"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5497ded-f445-4e51-905a-cabf2805f042@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635115 |
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:08:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > James McGinn wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:43:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Are there any scientist here? > > > > > > > > > i mean, besides me? > > > > What have you achieved? > > > achieved???? What's your definition of..."scientist"? Uh. Get a dictionary. In the meantime, answer the frickin question. James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes The Missing Link of Meteorology's Theory of Storms http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e044687-5f4d-4c04-ab89-0943a85e0e30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635180 |
On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 7:05:22 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > Uh. Get a dictionary... Yes, Jim, get a dictionary. First, look up 'vapor' and see what is says. Then look up 'evaporation' and see what it says. Then look up 'sublimation' and see what it says. Then look up 'crank', and you will see your own picture there...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e931babe-9c05-49db-b51e-319bc148ff20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635200 |
On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 10:46:01 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 7:05:22 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > Uh. Get a dictionary... > > Yes, Jim, get a dictionary. Uh, why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 18:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c067b072-32f8-4b0d-861a-1e0541c363ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635228 |
On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 2:49:17 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 10:46:01 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 7:05:22 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > Uh. Get a dictionary... > > > > Yes, Jim, get a dictionary. > > Uh, why? I told you why, you total dumbfuck...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web