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

Groups > sci.physics > #593018 > unrolled thread

Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along

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: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:40 -0700
    Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 11:40 -0700
      Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-17 14:49 -0500
      Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 22:00 -0700
        Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 10:50 -0700
          Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-18 13:27 -0500
          Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 11:34 -0700

#593018 — Re: it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Copernicus and Galileo made contributions to science. You, James, on
> >    the other hand reject basic physics.  Who knows were you went wrong,
> >    but you obsess about it, without taking any responsibility.
> 
> You nitwits can't put together a substantive argument.  And you have a world of resources at your fingertips.
> 
> What does this tell us?

Believers just believe.  They don't think.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#593566

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > Copernicus and Galileo made contributions to science. You, James, on
> > >    the other hand reject basic physics.  Who knows were you went wrong,
> > >    but you obsess about it, without taking any responsibility.
> > 
> > You nitwits can't put together a substantive argument.  And you have a world of resources at your fingertips.
> > 
> > What does this tell us?
> 
> Believers just believe.  They don't think.

yes that is what James does. He believes he is right
 without presenting any experimental evidence.

Good call Claudius!

:)

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

#593576

On 8/17/2016 1:40 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Copernicus and Galileo made contributions to science. You, James, on
>>>>    the other hand reject basic physics.  Who knows were you went wrong,
>>>>    but you obsess about it, without taking any responsibility.
>>>
>>> You nitwits can't put together a substantive argument.  And you have a world of resources at your fingertips.
>>>
>>> What does this tell us?
>>
>> Believers just believe.  They don't think.
>
> yes that is what James does. He believes he is right
>  without presenting any experimental evidence.
>
> Good call Claudius!
>
> :)
>

Claudius underscores the fact that James believes 100% in his 
imagination, no "evidence" needed.  He doesn't think.

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

#593634

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > Copernicus and Galileo made contributions to science. You, James, on
> > > >    the other hand reject basic physics.  Who knows were you went wrong,
> > > >    but you obsess about it, without taking any responsibility.
> > > 
> > > You nitwits can't put together a substantive argument.  And you have a world of resources at your fingertips.
> > > 
> > > What does this tell us?
> > 
> > Believers just believe.  They don't think.
> n
> yes that is what James does. He believes he is right
>  without presenting any experimental evidence.
> 
> Good call Claudius!
> 
> :)

You've presented nothing.  

McGinn wins because you surrender and resort to name calling.

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

#593673

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:00:53 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > Copernicus and Galileo made contributions to science. You, James, on
> > > > >    the other hand reject basic physics.  Who knows were you went wrong,
> > > > >    but you obsess about it, without taking any responsibility.
> > > > 
> > > > You nitwits can't put together a substantive argument.  And you have a world of resources at your fingertips.
> > > > 
> > > > What does this tell us?
> > > 
> > > Believers just believe.  They don't think.
> > n
> > yes that is what James does. He believes he is right
> >  without presenting any experimental evidence.
> > 
> > Good call Claudius!
> > 
> > :)
> 
> You've presented nothing.  
> 
> McGinn wins because you surrender and resort to name calling.

Denk, you were the one that pointed out the
characteristics of a believer. I just complemented you on
showing this is true of your alter ego.

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

#593676

On 8/18/2016 12:50 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:00:53 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>> Copernicus and Galileo made contributions to science. You, James, on
>>>>>>    the other hand reject basic physics.  Who knows were you went wrong,
>>>>>>    but you obsess about it, without taking any responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> You nitwits can't put together a substantive argument.  And you have a world of resources at your fingertips.

>>>>> What does this tell us?
>>>>
>>>> Believers just believe.  They don't think.
>>> n
>>> yes that is what James does. He believes he is right
>>>  without presenting any experimental evidence.
>>>
>>> Good call Claudius!

>>> :)
>>
>> You've presented nothing.
>>
>> McGinn wins because you surrender and resort to name calling.
>
> Denk, you were the one that pointed out the
> characteristics of a believer. I just complemented you on
> showing this is true of your alter ego.
>

Perhaps arguing with someone with diminished mentalism is not fair.

    McGinn could have worked in industry where he was exposed to 
chemical dust or vapors like the phencyclidines, perhaps that is where 
he gets his adversion to water vapor from.

McGinn, have you ever had to fill out a form like this ?

V15.81 Noncomplicance With Treatment
V65.2 Malingering
V71.01 Adult Antisocial Behavior
V71.02 Child or Adolescent Antisocial Behavior
V62.89 Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Note: This is coded on Axis II.
780.9 Age-Related Cognitive Decline
V62.82 Bereavement
V62.3 Academic Problem
V62.2 Occupational Problem
313.82 Identity Problem
V62.89 Religious or Spiritual Problem
V62.4 Acculturation Problem
V62.89 Phase of Life Problem
Additional Codes
300.9 Unspecified Mental Disorder (nonpsychotic)
296.xx Bipolar I Disorder
.0x Single Manic Episodea,c,f
Specify if: Mixed
.40 Most Recent Episode Hypomanicg,h,i
.4x Most Recent Episode Manica,c,f,g,h,i
.6x Most Recent Episode Mixeda,c,f,g,h,i
.5x Most Recent Episode Depresseda,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i
.7 Most Recent Episode Unspecifiedg,h,i
296.89 Bipolar II Disordera,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i
Specify (current or most recent episode):
Hypomanic/Depressed
301.13 Cyclothymic Disorder
296.80 Bipolar Disorder NOS
293.83 Mood Disorder Due to . . . [Indicate the General
Medical Condition]
Specify type:With Depressive Features/With Major
Depressive-Like Episode/With Manic Features/With
Mixed Features
DELIRIUM
293.0 Delirium Due to . . . [Indicate the General
Medical Condition]
____.__ Substance Intoxication Delirium (refer to
Substance-Related Disorders for substancespecific
codes)
____.__ Substance Withdrawal Delirium (refer to
Substance-Related Disorders for substancespecific
codes)
____.__ Delirium Due to Multiple Etiologies (code each of
the specific etiologies)
780.09 Delirium NOS
DEMENTIA
294.xx* Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type, With Early
Onset (also code 331.0 Alzheimer’s disease on
Axis III)
.10 Without Behavioral Disturbance
.11 With Behavioral Disturbance
294.xx* Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type, With Late
Onset (also code 331.0 Alzheimer’s disease on
Axis III)
.10 Without Behavioral Disturbance
.11 With Behavioral Disturbance
290.xx Vascular Dementia
.40 Uncomplicated
.41 With Delirium
.42 With Delusions
.43 With

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

#593679

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:00:53 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > > Copernicus and Galileo made contributions to science. You, James, on
> > > > > >    the other hand reject basic physics.  Who knows were you went wrong,
> > > > > >    but you obsess about it, without taking any responsibility.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You nitwits can't put together a substantive argument.  And you have a world of resources at your fingertips.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What does this tell us?
> > > > 
> > > > Believers just believe.  They don't think.
> > > n
> > > yes that is what James does. He believes he is right
> > >  without presenting any experimental evidence.
> > > 
> > > Good call Claudius!
> > > 
> > > :)
> > 
> > You've presented nothing.  
> > 
> > McGinn wins because you surrender and resort to name calling.
> 
> Denk, you were the one that pointed out the
> characteristics of a believer. I just complemented you on
> showing this is true of your alter ego.

Well, I think Denk is just pointing out that if any of you actually had an argument you would have presented it by now, and you would have no need for name calling.  

Now do you get it?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web