Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesn't Extrapolate

From: Craig Markwardt (craigmnet_at_REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu)
Date: 08/15/04 

Date: 14 Aug 2004 22:43:33 -0500

r9ns@bestweb.net (Ralph Sansbury) writes:

> Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<onoeli9ga4.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...
> Sansbury <r9ns@bestweb.net writes
[ ... Sansbury snips entire thread ... CM ]

How could I both agree with your statements, as you claim:
  [ Sansbury: ]
> Ask him again. He did say so. And many others say so. Dont get hung
> up on exact quotes. The meaning of what he said is exactly equivalent
> to what I said. The original articles by Pettingill et al indicate
> that this is so.

and *ALSO* have avoided addressing your statements? as you also claim:
[ Sansbury: ]
> The questions Marquardt you have avoided answering directly are
  ...

Ignoring for the moment who "Marquardt" is, I won't "get hung up on
exact quotes." But when I explicitly *DISAGREE* with you [ Ref. 1],
then your "agreement" claim is hogwash.

So not only are you having reading problems, which you conveniently
erased [Ref. 1], you are having logic problems. And thus you continue
your habit of posting completely unsubstantiated claims. In this
case, you claimed I agreed with your Venus-noise theory, when in fact
I didn't. You could have checked the archives before you made your
claim, but you didn't. You could have acknowledged your error, but
instead you ignored it. You are getting into the "lying" zone again.

As I said before, you can assume that for all scientific matters I
pre-emptively *disagree* with you, unless you can provide a direct
quote.

CM

References
1. sci.astro post <onoeli9ga4.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>

Relevant Pages