Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things
From: Mark Tarka (mark_tarka_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/03/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: i'm new"
- Previous message: Mark Tarka: "Re: i'm new"
- In reply to: Scott Coutts: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Next in thread: Scott Coutts: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Reply: Scott Coutts: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Reply: farooq_w_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Dec 2004 13:59:52 -0800
Scott Coutts <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in message news:<B7Xrd.57135$K7.29674@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> mark_tarka@yahoo.com wrote:
> > GOOGLE'S IMPROVED COMMUNICATION
> > MODE IS QUEER-AGENDA CRAP :-) I know,
> > it's free, why complain -- I'm just laughing at
> > the words the idiot used to explain its changes.
> > BTW, I had to _search_ to find sci.chem, it's
> > not listed in the science and technology ... hey,
> > I just checked, the old format is back. Google
> > is baaaad, man, real baaad! :-)
> >
> > AA, the covalent and ionic bonds in living
> > things are the same as in the corresponding
> > non-living things. It's the subtle bonds that
> > distinguish them.
> >
> > The clearest indication of the failure of folks
> > to understand this, as I've seen, is the laughable
> > seminar presentations by clowns with grants or
> > other support for drug development -- armed
> > with the latest graphical modeling software
> > they somehow are unable to explain e.g. how
> > the drug interacts with the supposed "pocket"
> > or "functional group" (an equivalent situation
> > to my statement about the drunk's explanation
> > of DNA helical structure) under actual physio-
> > logical conditions :-) More Vioxx, anyone?
> >
>
> You're not doing too good a job of explaining your theories either.
Uhmmmm, let's examine this closely,
1. You allegedly can't find two of my
letters supporting my charge upon accepted
science.
2. You apparently don't have credentials
you're proud of.
3. I'm not advancing any theory, new or not.
4. And, you're queer, aren't you (otherwise,
do you claim extraterresterial beings are
controlling your brain?)?
Mark (It's not _me_;, it's _them_ :-)
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: i'm new"
- Previous message: Mark Tarka: "Re: i'm new"
- In reply to: Scott Coutts: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Next in thread: Scott Coutts: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Reply: Scott Coutts: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Reply: farooq_w_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|