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

Groups > sci.physics > #547159 > unrolled thread

Common Sense

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Common Sense john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 04:22 -0800
    Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:12 -0600
      Re: Common Sense moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-22 14:51 +0000
    Common Sense HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 05:35 -0800
      Common Sense john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 06:36 -0800
        Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:53 -0600
          Re: Common Sense john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:03 -0800
            Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:05 -0600
              Re: Common Sense benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 14:05 -0500
        Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 09:13 -0600
        Common Sense HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:32 -0800
          Re: Common Sense benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 14:01 -0500
    Re: Common Sense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:25 -0800
      Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:29 -0600
        Re: Common Sense benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 14:08 -0500
          Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600
            Re: Common Sense HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 03:59 -0800
              Re: Common Sense benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:24 -0500
        Re: Common Sense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 00:44 -0800
          Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:34 -0600
            Re: Common Sense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:43 -0800
              Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:09 -0600
                Re: Common Sense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:13 -0800
                  Re: Common Sense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:53 -0600
                    Re: Common Sense "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 11:13 -0800
                      Re: Common Sense benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:29 -0500
                    Re: Common Sense Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 11:31 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#547159 — Common Sense

"It is a thousand times better to have
common sense without education than
to have education without common
sense." Robert G. Ingersoll 

There you go, Odd.
You need 999 more educations

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#547165

On 1/22/2016 6:22 AM, john wrote:
> "It is a thousand times better to have
> common sense without education than
> to have education without common
> sense." Robert G. Ingersoll

Robert G. Ingersoll was a lawyer and a speechmaker, not a scientist, John.

For every quote you can muster on the value of common sense, I'm sure I 
can find one from a scientist saying that common sense is unreliable.

Either way, common sense is not logic and logic is not common sense. Two 
completely different things. Which, by the way, a little education would 
have made clear to you.

>
> There you go, Odd.
> You need 999 more educations
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#547188

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 1/22/2016 6:22 AM, john wrote:
>> "It is a thousand times better to have
>> common sense without education than
>> to have education without common
>> sense." Robert G. Ingersoll

>Robert G. Ingersoll was a lawyer and a speechmaker, not a scientist, John.

>For every quote you can muster on the value of common sense, I'm sure I 
>can find one from a scientist saying that common sense is unreliable.

>Either way, common sense is not logic and logic is not common sense. Two 
>completely different things. Which, by the way, a little education would 
>have made clear to you.

>>
>> There you go, Odd.
>> You need 999 more educations
>>


Common sense says the sun goes around the earth, which is flat.

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

#547168

"It is a thousand times better to have 
common sense without education than 
to have education without common 
sense." Robert G. Ingersoll
------------

Common sense tells one that hundreds of years of science to get to where we are now cannot be discarded for some layman's brand of kook science that he pulled out of his ass. THAT is common sense.

I'm sure you agree with that. 
Right John?

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

#547186

You don't throw "hundreds of years" of
Science away.
Science "corrects" once in awhile.
Especially after spending billions on
fruitless endeavours like looking for
stupid shit like DM and gravity waves
when it has been LOGICALLY obvious
for decades that "gravitons" are
impossible 

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

#547189

On 1/22/2016 8:36 AM, john wrote:
> You don't throw "hundreds of years" of
> Science away.
> Science "corrects" once in awhile.

Well, John, on that point, sometimes the corrections are huge.
Strict causal determinism, which was a cornerstone of classical physics 
in the 19th century, was found to be simply wrong. Just wrong. OK as an 
approximation, but not as a foundational principle.
Independent space and time, also a cornerstone of Newtonian physics for 
three centuries, were discovered to be flat wrong. No matter how 
intuitive that feels.
The fact that *all* of nature is based on fields, and not on the 
particles and waves of 19th century physics, was a huge leap and not 
really of the category "correction".
The static, eternal universe was so entrenched in physicists' minds that 
even Einstein fought for it, but it turned out to be wrong.

And it's not just physics. Infectious agents in the 19th century were 
thought to necessarily be living. But then there were viruses, which do 
not meet the criteria for live. So then people thought that the thing 
needed was DNA. Then came prions, and most biologists thought that was 
too much to accept, but indeed it ended up true.

> Especially after spending billions on
> fruitless endeavours like looking for
> stupid shit like DM and gravity waves
> when it has been LOGICALLY obvious
> for decades that "gravitons" are
> impossible
>

John, I just got through a post where I pointed out that no one ANYWHERE 
except for you thinks of gravitons as something traveling from body A to 
body B in STRAIGHT LINES to effect an attraction of B to A. That's not 
what gravitons do. So, yes, YOUR idea of gravitons defies logic, but not 
the REAL idea of gravitons, which you have yet to learn about by reading.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#547192

Odd
Now we're GETTING somewhere!!

You say that gravitons DO NOT travel in
straight lines.
Can you then explain how the gravitational 
impetus is STRAIGHT towards VERY
distant bodies? Those gravitons must
have a memory of where they came from.
Explain how that can be. (I'm not saying they
can't, and I have an explanation for that, but please,
PLEASE, answer this once, Odd.)

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

#547200

On 1/22/2016 9:03 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Now we're GETTING somewhere!!
>
> You say that gravitons DO NOT travel in
> straight lines.

No, of course not. They never have. That is something that you made up 
on your own.

> Can you then explain how the gravitational
> impetus is STRAIGHT towards VERY
> distant bodies?

Sure, that's the weighted sum of gravitational quanta traveling all over 
the place.

You know this already, John. You KNOW light does not travel in straight 
lines. Diffraction proves that. Light bending around corners is an 
experimental reality. And DESPITE that, common sense and sensory 
experience tells us that light moves in straight lines, even though it 
DOESN'T. So then the question is, how can the two be reconciled?

A simple-minded person would go polar and just reject one or the other 
out of hand. "If light didn't travel in straight lines, you'd never have 
a sharp-edged shadow, so light going all over makes no sense." or 
conversely, "Diffraction proves light must be a wave, so any particle 
concept of light must be flat wrong, including photoelectric effect." 
Polar rejection is not helpful. Being simple-minded is not helpful.

Instead, there is work needed to see how light can give every appearance 
of traveling in straight lines in everyday life, even though we know it 
does not, and that RECONCILIATION is how you learn what light really does.

> Those gravitons must
> have a memory of where they came from.
> Explain how that can be. (I'm not saying they
> can't, and I have an explanation for that, but please,
> PLEASE, answer this once, Odd.)
>

I'm not going to try to answer that online, John, sorry. I just read a 
book that took 60 pages to explain that. But for the case of light, 
which is very much the same kind of thing, with photons not traveling in 
straight lines even though there is the experience that light SEEMS to 
travel in straight lines. This is EXACTLY what Feynman described in his 
short little book called QED, which is aimed at nonmathematical people 
like you. So if you want to learn how light can not travel in straight 
lines but seem to, READ THAT BOOK. Then you will also have a glimmer of 
how that works for gravitons too.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#547272

On 01/22/2016 11:05 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 9:03 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> Now we're GETTING somewhere!!
>>
>> You say that gravitons DO NOT travel in
>> straight lines.
>
> No, of course not. They never have. That is something that you made up
> on your own.
>
>> Can you then explain how the gravitational
>> impetus is STRAIGHT towards VERY
>> distant bodies?
>
> Sure, that's the weighted sum of gravitational quanta traveling all over
> the place.
>
> You know this already, John. You KNOW light does not travel in straight
> lines. Diffraction proves that. Light bending around corners is an
> experimental reality. And DESPITE that, common sense and sensory
> experience tells us that light moves in straight lines, even though it
> DOESN'T. So then the question is, how can the two be reconciled?
>
> A simple-minded person would go polar and just reject one or the other
> out of hand. "If light didn't travel in straight lines, you'd never have
> a sharp-edged shadow, so light going all over makes no sense." or
> conversely, "Diffraction proves light must be a wave, so any particle
> concept of light must be flat wrong, including photoelectric effect."
> Polar rejection is not helpful. Being simple-minded is not helpful.
>
> Instead, there is work needed to see how light can give every appearance
> of traveling in straight lines in everyday life, even though we know it
> does not, and that RECONCILIATION is how you learn what light really does.
>
>> Those gravitons must
>> have a memory of where they came from.
>> Explain how that can be. (I'm not saying they
>> can't, and I have an explanation for that, but please,
>> PLEASE, answer this once, Odd.)
>>
>
> I'm not going to try to answer that online, John, sorry. I just read a
> book that took 60 pages to explain that. But for the case of light,
> which is very much the same kind of thing, with photons not traveling in
> straight lines even though there is the experience that light SEEMS to
> travel in straight lines. This is EXACTLY what Feynman described in his
> short little book called QED, which is aimed at nonmathematical people
> like you. So if you want to learn how light can not travel in straight
> lines but seem to, READ THAT BOOK. Then you will also have a glimmer of
> how that works for gravitons too.
>
>
No gravitons.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#547193

On 1/22/2016 8:36 AM, john wrote:
> Especially after spending billions on
> fruitless endeavours like looking for
> stupid shit like DM and gravity waves
> when it has been LOGICALLY obvious
> for decades that "gravitons" are
> impossible

Just to point out something else, John.
You do know that dark matter doesn't depend on the existence of gravitons?
You do know that gravitational waves don't depend on the existence of 
gravitons?

So even if you think gravitons are nonsense, what does that have to do 
with dark matter or gravitational waves?

Also, you haven't answered any of the questions about funding.
What is IN YOUR OPINION the cap that should be put on investigating 
shot-in-the-dark ideas?
Is that cap also in effect for your shot-in-the-dark ideas?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#547195

You don't throw "hundreds of years" of science away. 
Science "corrects" once in awhile.
---------

Understand this, John. It is never a kook that makes corrections to science. It is other mainstream scientists who do that using mainstream science methodology.

All of science is built upon the foundations laid down by other scientists.

Even the fantastic leaps of scientific intuition made by Newton, Maxwell and Einstein were 
built by standing on the shoulders of their forebears and then seeing beyond.

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

#547267

On 01/22/2016 10:32 AM, HVAC wrote:
> You don't throw "hundreds of years" of science away. Science
> "corrects" once in awhile. ---------
>
> Understand this, John. It is never a kook that makes corrections to
> science. It is other mainstream scientists who do that using
> mainstream science methodology.

of course Tesla invented most of the 20th century but H&V calls him a 
kook. HVAC says you never have to make sense when you are just making 
shit up.


> All of science is built upon the foundations laid down by other
> scientists.

A great many of which were totally wrong which is why the new idea is an 
advance. No doubt H&V still thinks heat is a flow of phlogiston.

> Even the fantastic leaps of scientific intuition made by Newton,
> Maxwell and Einstein were built by standing on the shoulders of their
> forebears and then seeing beyond.

This is the level of H&V's understanding of science. Like any pro writer 
he can quote ALL the great shibboleths of the day. Understand actual 
science...well, not so much.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#547208

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:22:27 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
> "It is a thousand times better to have
> common sense without education than
> to have education without common
> sense." Robert G. Ingersoll 
> 
> There you go, Odd.
> You need 999 more educations

So often people have their heads filled with knowledge, but they can't solve problems.  They can't reason anything out.  When confronted with a contradiction they immediately try to find a reason to dismiss it, because they fear the confusion associated with problems that don't have easy answers. 

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

#547210

On 1/22/2016 10:25 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:22:27 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
>> "It is a thousand times better to have
>> common sense without education than
>> to have education without common
>> sense." Robert G. Ingersoll
>>
>> There you go, Odd.
>> You need 999 more educations
>
> So often people have their heads filled with knowledge, but they can't solve problems.
> They can't reason anything out.  When confronted with a contradiction they immediately
> try to find a reason to dismiss it, because they fear the confusion associated with
> problems that don't have easy answers.
>

What contradiction do you think is getting dismissed, Jim?

And in my book, knowledge of physics is entrained with problem-solving 
ability. In fact, you can't claim any knowledge of physics without 
having practiced solving problems. Too many people on this group claim 
to have some fancy new theory but they can't solve a single problem, not 
even a simple one. They think that's asking too much.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#547275

On 01/22/2016 11:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 10:25 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:22:27 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
>>> "It is a thousand times better to have
>>> common sense without education than
>>> to have education without common
>>> sense." Robert G. Ingersoll
>>>
>>> There you go, Odd.
>>> You need 999 more educations
>>
>> So often people have their heads filled with knowledge, but they can't
>> solve problems.
>> They can't reason anything out.  When confronted with a contradiction
>> they immediately
>> try to find a reason to dismiss it, because they fear the confusion
>> associated with
>> problems that don't have easy answers.
>>
>
> What contradiction do you think is getting dismissed, Jim?
>
> And in my book, knowledge of physics is entrained with problem-solving
> ability. In fact, you can't claim any knowledge of physics without
> having practiced solving problems. Too many people on this group claim
> to have some fancy new theory but they can't solve a single problem, not
> even a simple one. They think that's asking too much.
>
>
That's the problem Odd. All science can do is solve problems but can't 
really explain anything. It only solves problems within the confines of 
it's own metaparadigm and that means all the "forbidden" topics must be 
excluded.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#547566

On 1/22/2016 1:08 PM, benj wrote:
> That's the problem Odd. All science can do is solve problems but can't
> really explain anything. It only solves problems within the confines of
> it's own metaparadigm and that means all the "forbidden" topics must be
> excluded.

Give me an example of ONE thing you consider really explained.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#548257

On 1/22/2016 1:08 PM, benj wrote: 
> That's the problem Odd. All science can do is solve problems but can't 
> really explain anything. It only solves problems within the confines of 
> it's own metaparadigm and that means all the "forbidden" topics must be 
> excluded. 
-------------

Of course by 'forbidden' BJ means kooky.

Bj thinks that esp, ghosts and aliens deserve the same attention that science pays to dark matter.

Matter of fact, he is quite mad that they don't!

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

#548349

On 01/26/2016 06:59 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 1:08 PM, benj wrote:
>> That's the problem Odd. All science can do is solve problems but can't
>> really explain anything. It only solves problems within the confines of
>> it's own metaparadigm and that means all the "forbidden" topics must be
>> excluded.
> -------------
>
> Of course by 'forbidden' BJ means kooky.
>
> Bj thinks that esp, ghosts and aliens deserve the same attention that science pays to dark matter.
>
> Matter of fact, he is quite mad that they don't!
>
I have given numerous references to the scientific work done on ESP, 
Remote viewing and the like with many excellent books easily available 
on Amazon.com. HVAC prefers not to read anything so as to remain 
ignorant. I have referenced a number of Nobel prize-winning scientists 
who have found significant ESP evidence. HVAC who thinks he is the 
“moderator” of an unmoderated newsgroup thinks he's smarter than them. I 
have referenced government projects costing millions verifying ESP 
effects. In spite of FOIA proof, HVAC acts as if they do not exist. I 
have listed PROOF BEYOND DOUBT of a government cover-up of UFO 
information from the government's own documents. HVAC admits nothing.

So everybody, the ONLY thing that anonymous HVAC (whatever that is) has 
going for "him" is the assertion that this or that person "believes" in 
Ghosts, ESP, or the like. That's it. He has ONLY his "superpowers" to 
tell you what another person has in their mind!  No evidence, no records 
of posts, nada. Of course such “superpowers” would be ESP, would they 
not? Science is only about evidence. Religion and pseudoscience is about 
"belief".  HVAC has no science education and knows no science.

So the only question YOU must ask is are you interested in science or 
strategic writer fantasy. Make your choice.

These paragraphs will be repeated every time HVAC accuses someone of 
"believing" in something.

PS. My “superpowers” tell me HVAC is Gay and needs to come out.





-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#548242

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:29:03 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > So often people have their heads filled with 
> > knowledge, but they can't solve problems.
> > They can't reason anything out.  When confronted 
> > with a contradiction they immediately
> > try to find a reason to dismiss it, because they 
> > fear the confusion associated with
> > problems that don't have easy answers.
> >
> 
> What contradiction do you think is getting dismissed, Jim?

Maybe you can help Koenig.  He seems perplexed:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/-P3rzQpxCgAJ

> 
> And in my book, knowledge of physics is entrained with problem-solving 
> ability. 

Entrained, huh.  Uh, okay.  Let's see if you can help Koenig.

> In fact, you can't claim any knowledge of physics without 
> having practiced solving problems. Too many people on this group claim 
> to have some fancy new theory but they can't solve a single problem, not 
> even a simple one. 

This is your opportunity to show us how it is done.  

> They think that's asking too much.

If this is too much for you, we'll understand.

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

#548271

On 1/26/2016 2:44 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:29:03 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> So often people have their heads filled with
>>> knowledge, but they can't solve problems.
>>> They can't reason anything out.  When confronted
>>> with a contradiction they immediately
>>> try to find a reason to dismiss it, because they
>>> fear the confusion associated with
>>> problems that don't have easy answers.
>>>
>>
>> What contradiction do you think is getting dismissed, Jim?
>
> Maybe you can help Koenig.  He seems perplexed:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/-P3rzQpxCgAJ

I'm not interested in Koenig in a different newsgroup.

I'm interested in the contradiction that YOU perceive, and which 
contradiction YOU can cite.

Since YOU mentioned some unspecified contradiction, perhaps you could 
populate your imagination with something concrete.

>
>>
>> And in my book, knowledge of physics is entrained with problem-solving
>> ability.
>
> Entrained, huh.  Uh, okay.  Let's see if you can help Koenig.
>
>> In fact, you can't claim any knowledge of physics without
>> having practiced solving problems. Too many people on this group claim
>> to have some fancy new theory but they can't solve a single problem, not
>> even a simple one.
>
> This is your opportunity to show us how it is done.
>
>> They think that's asking too much.
>
> If this is too much for you, we'll understand.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web