What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The set of all SUBSETS that don't contain themself -> PARADISE
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.98: The Independence Operator, P(A-->B), and the Dependence Operator
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jul 2010 10:25 On 7/5/10 8:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > On Jul 2, 12:42 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/2/10 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote: >> >>> Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research >>> because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere, >>> a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong. >> >> This is no big surprise, as you get the physics wrong here too! > > Give it up, Sam. You need to get into a learning mode to reply to > be. I'm the MESSENGER. If you know so much, pick any point of my > science, paraphrase your counter-argument, and let me explain how > Nature really works! � NE � Enlighten me about Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER.
From: Raymond Yohros on 5 Jul 2010 16:21 On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/2/10 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research > > because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere, > > a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong. > > This is no big surprise, as you get the physics wrong here too! > sci.physics.reaserch its a much better newsgroup than sci.physics they are kind enough to tell you when you make a mistake! regards r.y
From: NoEinstein on 5 Jul 2010 22:12 On Jul 5, 10:25 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: If you can paraphrase it, I will critique it. I didn't use anything status quo in formulating my New Science. NE > > On 7/5/10 8:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 12:42 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/2/10 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research > >>> because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere, > >>> a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong. > > >> This is no big surprise, as you get the physics wrong here too! > > > Give it up, Sam. You need to get into a learning mode to reply to > > be. I'm the MESSENGER. If you know so much, pick any point of my > > science, paraphrase your counter-argument, and let me explain how > > Nature really works! NE > > Enlighten me about Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER.
From: NoEinstein on 5 Jul 2010 22:19 On Jul 5, 4:21 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > Dear Raymond: Those posting on sci.physics.research are too dumb to KNOW when they err. (They must ask others.) And they're too gullible to realize that the moderators couldn't tell their own asses from holes in the ground. Be BOLD, Raymond; make a concise statement about any point of my New Science and see how I critique you. I'll promise to be fair! NoEinstein > > On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/2/10 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research > > > because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere, > > > a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong. > > > This is no big surprise, as you get the physics wrong here too! > > sci.physics.reaserch its a much better newsgroup than sci.physics > they are kind enough to tell you when you make a mistake! > > regards > r.y
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jul 2010 00:00
On 7/5/10 9:12 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:25 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dear Sam: If you can paraphrase it, I will critique it. I didn't use > anything status quo in formulating my New Science. � NE � >> >> On 7/5/10 8:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: >> >>> On Jul 2, 12:42 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/2/10 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>>> Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research >>>>> because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere, >>>>> a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong. >> >>>> This is no big surprise, as you get the physics wrong here too! >> >>> Give it up, Sam. You need to get into a learning mode to reply to >>> be. I'm the MESSENGER. If you know so much, pick any point of my >>> science, paraphrase your counter-argument, and let me explain how >>> Nature really works! � NE � >> >> Enlighten me about Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER. > Are you going to critique Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER? Or enlighten me about it? |