Re: One more time
- From: Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:22:03 -0700
In article <462cd362$1_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"John Kepler" <jekepler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can anybody take issue with any of the above?
Tell ya' what....if you want to be taken seriously, why don't you submit
your "theories" to a peer-review publication with your associated research
like any real scientist and if it has merit, let us read it there.....pardon
me if I don't hold my breath waiting. This is opposed to blowing a bunch
of garbage on an un-moderated Usenet group like the rest of the
Looney-Tunes! You may be more "polite" than Turcaud and Conrad....but your
ideas are just as ridiculous and unsupported by any scientific data! Just
more Internet trash.
John
Or at least show up to meetings of experts in the field of science you
(Don Findlay) so loudly proclaim don't know what they're talking about.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: One more time
- From: don findlay
- Re: One more time
- References:
- One more time
- From: don findlay
- Re: One more time
- From: John Kepler
- One more time
- Prev by Date: Re: Rotational dynamics and crustal motion
- Next by Date: Re: Detailed ocenaic floor analysis. What does it really tell us?
- Previous by thread: Re: One more time
- Next by thread: Re: One more time
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
