AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 13:56 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:38:02 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >On Aug 4, 10:54 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:46:09 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >> >news:kob9b3lkm3qf2uvaie1jvnv4sntg5a58tp(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >> >>>news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... >> >> >>>> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years >> >>>> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't >> >>>> determinative. >> >> >>>Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? (Answer >> >>>the question you evasive twit. >> >> >> I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. >> >> >> The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world should >> >> I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, in >> >> here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It >> >> would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. >> >> >> So what are you asking, really? >> >> >I'm asking you to answer the question. >> >> And you call me evasive? ;) >> >> I can't answer for Kent. What question, again? > >Read upthread. I'm not interested in guessing about it. Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 5 Aug 2007 14:14 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:5o3cb3hppbf7m0cedoerdfsqbgf94d2q34(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:38:02 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >>On Aug 4, 10:54 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:46:09 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>> >news:kob9b3lkm3qf2uvaie1jvnv4sntg5a58tp(a)4ax.com... >>> >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>> >>>news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> >>>> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 >>> >>>> years >>> >>>> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't >>> >>>> determinative. >>> >>> >>>Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? >>> >>>(Answer >>> >>>the question you evasive twit. >>> >>> >> I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. >>> >>> >> The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world >>> >> should >>> >> I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, >>> >> in >>> >> here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It >>> >> would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. >>> >>> >> So what are you asking, really? >>> >>> >I'm asking you to answer the question. >>> >>> And you call me evasive? ;) >>> >>> I can't answer for Kent. What question, again? >> >>Read upthread. > > I'm not interested in guessing about it. I'll take that as a retraction.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 14:47 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:14:15 GMT, <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:5o3cb3hppbf7m0cedoerdfsqbgf94d2q34(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:38:02 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>>On Aug 4, 10:54 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:46:09 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>> >news:kob9b3lkm3qf2uvaie1jvnv4sntg5a58tp(a)4ax.com... >>>> >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 >>>> >>>> years >>>> >>>> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't >>>> >>>> determinative. >>>> >>>> >>>Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? >>>> >>>(Answer >>>> >>>the question you evasive twit. >>>> >>>> >> I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. >>>> >>>> >> The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world >>>> >> should >>>> >> I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, >>>> >> in >>>> >> here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It >>>> >> would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. >>>> >>>> >> So what are you asking, really? >>>> >>>> >I'm asking you to answer the question. >>>> >>>> And you call me evasive? ;) >>>> >>>> I can't answer for Kent. What question, again? >>> >>>Read upthread. >> >> I'm not interested in guessing about it. > >I'll take that as a retraction. You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own question, why should I be bothered to care? Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 5 Aug 2007 16:16 On Aug 5, 11:47 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:14:15 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message > >news:5o3cb3hppbf7m0cedoerdfsqbgf94d2q34(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:38:02 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > >>>On Aug 4, 10:54 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:46:09 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>> >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message > >>>> >news:kob9b3lkm3qf2uvaie1jvnv4sntg5a58tp(a)4ax.com... > >>>> >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message > >>>> >>>news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... > > >>>> >>>> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 > >>>> >>>> years > >>>> >>>> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't > >>>> >>>> determinative. > > >>>> >>>Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? > >>>> >>>(Answer > >>>> >>>the question you evasive twit. > > >>>> >> I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. > > >>>> >> The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world > >>>> >> should > >>>> >> I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, > >>>> >> in > >>>> >> here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It > >>>> >> would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. > > >>>> >> So what are you asking, really? > > >>>> >I'm asking you to answer the question. > > >>>> And you call me evasive? ;) > > >>>> I can't answer for Kent. What question, again? > > >>>Read upthread. > > >> I'm not interested in guessing about it. > > >I'll take that as a retraction. > > You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one > asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own > question, why should I be bothered to care? Likewise.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 17:05
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:14 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: ><snip> >> You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one >> asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own >> question, why should I be bothered to care? > >Likewise. I'm cool with that. You can't handle science. Jon |