Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots
From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 07/01/04
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Maybe in reply to: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Jul 2004 14:28:04 GMT
On 30 Jun 2004 04:07:58 -0700, Charlie-Boo <chvol@aol.com> said:
> Chris Menzel <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote
> > On 29 Jun 2004 14:32:47 -0700, Charlie-Boo <chvol@aol.com> said:
> > > daryl@atc-nycorp.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote in message
> > > news:<cbrt9s02fnj@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > > > Charlie-Boo says...
> > > >
> > > > >Maybe if you spent less time trying to psychoanalyze them and more
> > > > >time addressing the technical issues?
> > > >
> > > > This post is after literally dozens and dozens of attempts to
> > > > address Peter Olcott's points on a technical level. Those attempts
> > > > have accomplished nothing.
> > >
> > > Maybe you need a referee.
> >
> > That would be so only if there had been some sort of dispute that needed
> > adjudication. There was no dispute.
>
> Didn't Olcott dispute it?
Does "There was no SUCH dispute" help?
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Maybe in reply to: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|