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

Groups > sci.physics > #510740 > unrolled thread

Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

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: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 10:26 -0400
    Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 09:29 -0500
      Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 11:15 -0400
        Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-02 09:36 -0700
      Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-08-02 12:28 -0500
        Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-02 11:12 -0700
          Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-08-03 13:03 -0500
            Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-03 11:35 -0700
      Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 01:56 -0400
    Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 08:31 -0700
      Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE "NotTroll2Ol5" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2015-08-02 14:07 -0500
        Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 12:38 -0700
      Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-08-02 11:40 -0700
      Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-03 11:36 -0400

#510740 — Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>     classical physics.


Not if you're a kook.

Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the 
sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we 
scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab 
conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new, 
less rigid manner of testing.


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#510741

On 8/2/15 9:26 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>>     classical physics.
>
>
> Not if you're a kook.
>
> Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new,
> less rigid manner of testing.
>


   I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above, but it
   appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#510750

On 8/2/2015 10:29 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
>> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
>> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
>> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
>> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new,
>> less rigid manner of testing.
>>
>
>
>    I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above, but it
>    appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(


Yes. Old dogs and new tricks.

Once you make the decision to forgo the rigid testing demanded by 
science, you are on a path that will ALWAYS lead to failure. Kooks like 
these seek to skip the hard work. They dismiss as irrelevant anything or 
anyone that contradicts their kook worldview. They simply KNOW that
things like ghosts, ESP, etc. are real. If it can't be proven repeatedly 
in lab conditions, it's the labs fault. Not their kook 'science'.
When most rational people come up against something they do not 
understand, they seek to educate themselves in order to grasp it. Kooks, 
when faced with a concept they do not understand, deny it and throw it 
out. Be it John with his 'fractal universe', or Bert with his 
nonsensical G=EMC^2, or BJ with his remote viewing, or AA with his 
ether... ALL feel like they have a better idea. They get mad at me for 
calling a spade a spade and pointing out that the emperor has no clothes










-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

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

#510751

"HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> Harlow Campbell wrote:
 > Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
Harlow wrote:
>>> Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
>>> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
>>> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
>>> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
>>> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new,
>>> less rigid manner of testing.
>>>
Kike Wormley proselitized & wrote:
>>    I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above, but it
>>    appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(
>
Parrot Harlow wrote:
> Yes. Old dogs and new tricks.
> Once you make the decision to forgo the rigid testing demanded by science, 
> you are on a path that will ALWAYS lead to failure. Kooks like these seek 
> to skip the hard work. They dismiss as irrelevant anything or anyone that 
> contradicts their kook worldview. They simply KNOW that
> things like ghosts, ESP, etc. are real. If it can't be proven repeatedly 
> in lab conditions, it's the labs fault. Not their kook 'science'.
> When most rational people come up against something they do not 
> understand, they seek to educate themselves in order to grasp it. Kooks, 
> when faced with a concept they do not understand, deny it and throw it 
> out. Be it John with his 'fractal universe', or Bert with his nonsensical 
> G=EMC^2, or BJ with his remote viewing, or AA with his ether... ALL feel 
> like they have a better idea. They get mad at me for calling a spade a 
> spade and pointing out that the emperor has no clothes
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.... Harlow, now that you have made a
passionate case to worship Albert's Sphinter, and imply
that Einstein's usless crap is better, add yourself as a
"Self-kook" to the above listed ones... unless...
>
you, Harlow, can show where you have ever encountered
even one single, real world event, in your personal
life or career, which you were not able to solve without
using SR/GR...
>
... barring story telling, brain-farting and quarreling
over SR/GR.. Your  bizarre coat-tail-riding and
parroting is rooted in the fact that physics like all
other sciences are socio-politically enterprises &
hence subjected to the whims of social fashion and
political hackery.
>
So, Harlow unless you can show that one personal
SR/GR encounter, use the last paragraph above
as your excuse....
>
Till then, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahanson

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

#510765

On 8/2/2015 9:29 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 8/2/15 9:26 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>>>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>>>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>>>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>>>     classical physics.
>>
>>
>> Not if you're a kook.
>>
>> Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
>> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
>> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
>> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
>> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new,
>> less rigid manner of testing.
>>
>
>
>    I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above, but it
>    appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(
>
>
>
that you just now figured that out ought to be surprising....but it's not.

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

#510766

"David Staup" "<dstaup@charter.net>" whose handle
appropriately anagrams to "Standup Chatterer", wrote:
> Einstein Dingleberry kike Sam Wormley wrote:
>> HVAC Harlow Campbell the parrot, wrote:
>>>
Sam Wormley BELIEVES and wrote:
>>>>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>>>>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>>>>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>>>>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>>>>     classical physics.
>>>
Harlow the parrot, wrote:
>>> Not if you're a kook.
read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
>>> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
>>> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
>>> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
>>> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new,
>>> less rigid manner of testing.
>>>
Sam Wormley BELIEVES and wrote:
>>    I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above, but it
>>    appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(
>>
"Standup Chatterer" Staup made Staub & wrote:
> that you just now figured that out ought to be surprising....but it's not.
>
hanson wrote:
Harlow's remark. may have some validity in the traditional orthodox
way of BELIEFS in that "they seek a new less rigid manner of testing"
but Staup, you just made Staub by parroting the parrots.... ahahaha...
unless ... .you, Staup, can show where you have ever encountered
even one single, real world event, in your personal life or career,
which you were not able to solve without using SR/GR...
>
... barring story telling, brain-farting and quarreling
over SR/GR.. Your  bizarre coat-tail-riding and
parroting is rooted in the fact that physics like all
other sciences are socio-politically enterprises &
hence subjected to the whims of social fashion and
political hackery.
>
So, Staup, unless you can show that one personal
SR/GR encounter, use the paragraph above as your
excuse....
>
Till then, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahanson



> 

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

#511008

On 8/2/2015 1:12 PM, hanson wrote:
> "David Staup" "<dstaup@charter.net>" whose handle
> appropriately anagrams to "Standup Chatterer", wrote:
>> Einstein Dingleberry kike Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> HVAC Harlow Campbell the parrot, wrote:
>>>>
> Sam Wormley BELIEVES and wrote:
>>>>>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>>>>>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>>>>>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>>>>>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>>>>>     classical physics.
>>>>
> Harlow the parrot, wrote:
>>>> Not if you're a kook.
> read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
>>>> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
>>>> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
>>>> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
>>>> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new,
>>>> less rigid manner of testing.
>>>>
> Sam Wormley BELIEVES and wrote:
>>>    I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above,
>>> but it
>>>    appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(
>>>
> "Standup Chatterer" Staup made Staub & wrote:
>> that you just now figured that out ought to be surprising....but it's
>> not.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Harlow's remark. may have some validity in the traditional orthodox
> way of BELIEFS in that "they seek a new less rigid manner of testing"
> but Staup, you just made Staub by parroting the parrots.... ahahaha...
> unless ... .you, Staup, can show where you have ever encountered
> even one single, real world event, in your personal life or career,
> which you were not able to solve without using SR/GR...
>>
> ... barring story telling, brain-farting and quarreling
> over SR/GR.. Your  bizarre coat-tail-riding and
> parroting is rooted in the fact that physics like all
> other sciences are socio-politically enterprises &
> hence subjected to the whims of social fashion and
> political hackery.
>>
> So, Staup, unless you can show that one personal
> SR/GR encounter, use the paragraph above as your
> excuse....
>>
> Till then, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahanson
>
>
>
>>
>
the limits of your intellect are clear ....to all but yourself


chuckle

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

#511022

"David Staup" "<dstaup@charter.net>" whose handle
appropriately anagrams to "Standup Chatterer", cranked
himself because the Staubig kike was caught with
his pants down at his ankles making & doing Staub, &
could NOT show where/when he ever had encountered
even one single, real world event, in his personal life or career,
which he was not able to solve without using SR/GR...
>
ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, Staup, you Dreidel!
>
>>> Einstein Dingleberry kike Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> HVAC Harlow Campbell the parrot, wrote:
>>>>>
>> Sam Wormley BELIEVES and wrote:
>>>>>>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>>>>>>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>>>>>>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>>>>>>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>>>>>>     classical physics.
>>>>>
>> Harlow the parrot, wrote:
>>>>> Not if you're a kook.
>> read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
>>>>> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
>>>>> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
>>>>> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
>>>>> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a 
>>>>> new,
>>>>> less rigid manner of testing.
>>>>>
>> Sam Wormley BELIEVES and wrote:
>>>>    I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above,
>>>> but it
>>>>    appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(
>>>>
>> "Standup Chatterer" Staup made Staub & wrote:
>>> that you just now figured that out ought to be surprising....but it's
>>> not.
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Harlow's remark. may have some validity in the traditional orthodox
>> way of BELIEFS in that "they seek a new less rigid manner of testing"
>> but Staup, you just made Staub by parroting the parrots.... ahahaha...
>> unless ... .you, Staup, can show where you have ever encountered
>> even one single, real world event, in your personal life or career,
>> which you were not able to solve without using SR/GR...
>>>
>> ... barring story telling, brain-farting and quarreling
>> over SR/GR.. Your  bizarre coat-tail-riding and
>> parroting is rooted in the fact that physics like all
>> other sciences are socio-politically enterprises &
>> hence subjected to the whims of social fashion and
>> political hackery.
>>>
>> So, Staup, unless you can show that one personal
>> SR/GR encounter, use the paragraph above as your
>> excuse....
>>>
>> Till then, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahanson
>>>
>>
> the limits of your intellect are clear ....to all but yourself
>
>
> chuckle 

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

#510902

On 08/02/2015 10:29 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 8/2/15 9:26 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>>>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>>>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>>>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>>>     classical physics.
>>
>>
>> Not if you're a kook.
>>
>> Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
>> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
>> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
>> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
>> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a new,
>> less rigid manner of testing.
>>
>
>
>    I was hoping to have a positive science influence on the above, but it
>    appears that they don't care anything about the real physics.  :-(

Sam, to you and HVAC and his clique, "real physics" means your political 
lies. You all have no honesty nor integrity and even when you have your 
nose rubbed in your lies with even data from your own fraudulent friends 
you just keep on lying and denying. And then as icing on the cake you 
call anyone with actual data a "denier".

What the hell is this "we scientists" crap. You know, neither you nor 
HVAC have EVER held title "scientist". I have. And your only come-back 
is to say I'm lying and a kook. Yeah that is the way REAL science works 
alright. ...In Hollywood maybe. Your highest title was "observatory box 
mover" and I'm sure Harlow never made it past GS-8

Every time you or HVAC try to pretend to talk science you get your ass 
handed to you. So all you will do now is cut and paste the work of 
others so you can't be blamed And all HVAC does is jabber on with 
insults, lies, subject changes, slander, libel, and ignorance. Has 
ANYONE here EVER heard HVAC make an intelligent technical statement?

I never have. But what would you expect from someone who believes in 
ghosts, and astrology.

You both need to listen to Herb and learn how to think. Herb knows more 
real science than both you put together.
-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#510764

"HVAC"  wrote in message news:mpl97f$4gu$1@dont-email.me...

On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>     classical physics.


Not if you're a kook.

Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a 
new,
less rigid manner of testing.


*** And preferably a method by which any pseudo science hack
can qualify for that much coveted Nobel Prize.
Obama ushered in the new era of marginal requirements by
simply being a "well-spoken" Nigger ... 

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

#510776

"Hägar"  wrote in message 
news:Ld2dnV_RDJF1qiPInZ2dnUVZ5gednZ2d@giganews.com...



"HVAC"  wrote in message news:mpl97f$4gu$1@dont-email.me...

On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>     classical physics.


Not if you're a kook.

Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a
new,
less rigid manner of testing.


*** And preferably a method by which any pseudo science hack
can qualify for that much coveted Nobel Prize.
Obama ushered in the new era of marginal requirements by
simply being a "well-spoken" Nigger ...

******************************
It's a shame there isn't a prize for "well-spoken" Crackers because you're 
halfway there having mastered the Cracker requirement. 

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

#510781

"NotTroll2Ol5"  wrote in message 
news:mplppc$igi$1@speranza.aioe.org...



"Hägar"  wrote in message
news:Ld2dnV_RDJF1qiPInZ2dnUVZ5gednZ2d@giganews.com...



"HVAC"  wrote in message news:mpl97f$4gu$1@dont-email.me...

On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
>     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
>     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
>     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
>     classical physics.


Not if you're a kook.

Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a
new,
less rigid manner of testing.


*** And preferably a method by which any pseudo science hack
can qualify for that much coveted Nobel Prize.
Obama ushered in the new era of marginal requirements by
simply being a "well-spoken" Nigger ...

******************************
It's a shame there isn't a prize for "well-spoken" Crackers because 
you're
halfway there having mastered the Cracker requirement.


*** Why thanks, old buddy ... coming from a sheep humping
hillbilly Troll, that really means a lot to me ... ass you were [sic] 

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

#510869

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:31:55 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
> "HVAC"  wrote in message news:mpl97f$4gu$1@dont-email.me...
> 
> On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
> >     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
> >     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
> >     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
> >     classical physics.
> 
> 
> Not if you're a kook.
> 
> Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a 
> new,
> less rigid manner of testing.
> 
> 
> *** And preferably a method by which any pseudo science hack
> can qualify for that much coveted Nobel Prize.
> Obama ushered in the new era of marginal requirements by
> simply being a "well-spoken" Nigger ...


Good point, O Grand Cyclops!

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

#510957

In article <Ld2dnV_RDJF1qiPInZ2dnUVZ5gednZ2d@giganews.com>, 
hsahm@yahoo.com says...
> 
> "HVAC"  wrote in message news:mpl97f$4gu$1@dont-email.me...
> 
> On 8/2/2015 10:00 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >     What's false and what's not, is determined by the hard data of
> >     observation and experiment. To date, there has NEVER been an
> >     observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
> >     relativity. Einstein's relativity remains a fruitful tool of
> >     classical physics.
> 
> 
> Not if you're a kook.
> 
> Just read the posts written by BJ, AA, John, Bert, etc.
> They view science as the wool that is being pulled over our (the
> sheeple) eyes. To them, observation and experiment are tricks we
> scientists deploy. Since ESP, et al cannot be proven under lab
> conditions, that means the conditions are the problem. They seek a 
> new,
> less rigid manner of testing.
> 
> 
> *** And preferably a method by which any pseudo science hack
> can qualify for that much coveted Nobel Prize.
> Obama ushered in the new era of marginal requirements by
> simply being a "well-spoken" Nigger ... 

Crazy and a racist bigot too? I'm not really shocked.

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, and future Psychotronic World Dominator. 
Master of Remote Viewing. Level 5 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web