Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science)

alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan) wrote in
news:memo.20051112111711.508A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <11naf9qs3n1ihcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> into@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Skywise) wrote:
>
>> [1] Yet again you avoid the question of what YOU mean by 'qualified'.
>> Why do you avoid this question?
>
> One of the things I have linked into my homepage is this:
<Snipola of prattle>

And nowhere...NOWHERE!!!! in any of this do you clarify what you
mean by being 'qualified'. There's a vague reference to you saying
that some undisclosed company described you as an expert in some
undisclosed field.

So yet _again_ you avoid the question. This is what? the fourth,
fifth time? I'm losing count....

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts
.

Loading