Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth

From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 12/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:53:41 GMT

"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:fg8rs0h2mqkuqfhfliq6470a924tac48v4@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 05:20:27 GMT, "George"
> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>news:d8nps05eqcmj8fum1fv86e3kq5bghlcrvk@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:52:59 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
>>> <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:m3cns05g7pa3e44n7939ks68s3v1rroj98@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:47:18 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
>>>>> <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:n9cgs0tckslse5a9j8pcedr01atqmdicap@4ax.com...
>>>>> >> Look at this way, for me there is evidence which appears inconsistent
>>>>> >> with Earth expansion, then there is evidence which seems to be only
>>>>> >> explained by an expanding Earth. Now the options, to remain
>>>>> >> resolutely faithful to a beloved theory, or just deny the evidence, or
>>>>> >> look for alternate explanations.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >I agree there is much evidence against EE. There has been some blather
>>>>here
>>>>> >re "Supporting EE" but nothing presented that withstands close scrutiny
>>>>that
>>>>> >will support EE.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I have asked several that aparrently support EE to post the basis of
>>>>their
>>>>> >reasoning. As of this time the only response has been blather at best,
>>>>but
>>>>> >mostly natural fertilizer of several varieties IMHO.
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> My ISP has contracted with Supernews and it is possible its retention
>>>>> rate is superior to the newsgroup you are using. It is also possible,
>>>>> you have neglected to read what is in the archive for your newsgroup,
>>>>> but prefer to select isolated post for your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> In either case, it does limit you to what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are looking for fertile ground explore Antarctica, Africa and
>>>>> the Lena River area.
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>Very broad references. Can you be more specific?
>>>>Ralph Nesbitt
>>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is NO!
>>>
>>> The only conclusions which will be of value to you are those you
>>> objectively explore. My arguing can only pursued you to see what I
>>> think I see, and can only affirm my own failure to see, if this is the
>>> case.
>>>
>>> JT
>>
>>Well, it is quite obvious that you have no interest in actually having a real
>>discussion (knowing, of course, that you'd get a scientific whipping over your
>>views, such as they are), so my advice to you would be to go back to your sand
>>lot and play with you pail and shovel.
>>
>
> George, the point to a discussion is to first see the others view.
> The fact you make the claims you do about EE having no evidence,
> clearly shows your mind is made up and do not want to be confused by
> any evidence which could undermine this surety of mind you wish to
> think you posses.
>
> I am sure this position allows you to believe you are scientifically
> whipping ass, but it only makes you look the fool.
>
> JT

The problem with that argument is that you assume that I am like you and aren't
capable of arguing the merits of a scientific idea. Clue: I'm not like you. The
other problem with your statement is that you refuse to prove that you have any
valid evidence, and instead act like a poker player holding his cards to his
chest so nobody will see them, in the hope that noone will realize that your
hand is a bluff. I'm calling your bluff, dude. Either put the cards on the
table or go home. Present to us the evidence you claim to have, or go back to
your sand box and play with the kiddies.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
    ... I don’t mind you repeating the same points over and over. ... What I meant was is that somebody who played a game with three suited ... cards, also liked the concepts in the I ... argument when there is no contrary or confirming evidence. ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
    ... Since I do not know what it is you think is an ancient ma que game or ... seen the exact idea expressed in illustrated playing cards. ... The cards have taiji diagrams in one suit and Chinese ... Here is evidence "outside" of my head. ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Symbols & Suits - matiao & mahjong (was Why a Sparrow?)
    ... proportional to what the evidence allows. ... some of the time I considered that your reasons were ... play cards in his student days. ... That is how the game of MJ has been dated. ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
    ... Just say what you think a predecessor MJ game ... Don't you think it is also possible that the cards could also be ... Can it be said that Pan used symbol "like" the taiji diagram in I- ... That is your evidence, but not the credible evidence you ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
    ... Just say what you think a predecessor MJ game ... Don’t you think it is also possible that the cards could also be ... For the 1 Cash he said ‘like the diagram …’ ... That is your evidence, but not the credible evidence you ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)