Re: Dennis get your mail!
From: Dennis McCarthy (djmenck_at_aol.com)
Date: 09/10/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Gamma Function"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: God=G_uv Proof of 'Intelligent Design'"
- In reply to: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Dennis get your mail!"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Dennis get your mail!"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Dennis get your mail!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Sep 2004 21:37:30 GMT
>
>"Dennis McCarthy" <djmenck@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040910153424.04845.00003139@mb-m24.aol.com...
>>
>> Dennis: And Dirk sidesteps the wager.
>>
>> >[exceptional top-post]
>> >
>> >Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)
>> >
>> >Dirk Vdm
>>
>> Dennis: And it just gets sillier.
>
>Dennis aka Sue aka Jahn, it's *very* clear that you want to
>know how I found out and how I can prove it :-)
>And as you perfectly know, I already told your old mate Vern
>(who could be you as well, but I can't prove it, so never mind)
>to start guessing *why* you are the one who has to do the
>guessing. He didn't even try.
>Of course both of you perfectly know why that's the way to go.
>
>So you'll have to work for it. Start guessing.
>When you hit the jackpot, I'll let you know ;-)
>
Dirk, please forgive me, but do you think such childish convinces anyone? Read
closely: I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 that you are wrong -- that you
can't prove that I am Sue or Jahn or whatever -- and that in fact I am not.
You say you can prove it.
I'm saying you are lying.
And I'm willing to bet $1000 (or how much ever you want) on that.
Okay?
I didn't think so.
Of course you will continue to backdown from the wager. You'll say you don't
like to bet or it's just a trick or, you'll ignore it and just keeping saying
something childish like "guess how I found out," or "no that's not it." This
is precisely like many of our other correspondences where you simply can't
respond in any meaningful way -- like when you were trying to argue that time
is whatever a clock says it is:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3371818409d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
selm=20040218093418.17156.00002297%40mb-m03.aol.com&rnum=39
or the correspondence before that where you could not be made to understand the
well known problem involving modern physics and local, material causality:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20030423190125.188
42.00000393%40mb-m19.aol.com&rnum=16
Indeed, a couple paragraphs from that last correspondence sums up this one
quite nicely:
"Dennis: Oh, my dear Dirk, we had a guy on these boards a few months back who,
when confronted with peer-reviewed articles that challenged a particular
belief, would retort with something to the effect: "Oh, yes, I read the paper.
See if you can find the errors that I found." And he would never specify the
error other than that. So what I am trying to say here is really for your
benefit: Dirk, really, think about this for a moment. Do you really believe
that such, and please don't take offense, that such infantilism really
convinces anyone? It's almost sweetly naive. Look, Dirk, you made a mistaken
comment regarding physics and causality, embracing the concept of material
causality for all material effects -- apparently innocent of the fact that
such comments are at odds with modern physics. You have probably since become
aware that there is no way to extract yourself from such a comment gracefully,
so you hide behind vague allusions that I am making some unmentioned mistake
that you are keeping to yourself. No matter what you may believe, you
obviously haven't obscured the simple fact that you can't address the points I
made to anyone. And I think perhaps a few years down the road, you'll find it
less embarrassing just to admit the mistake immediately. Just a little advice
that I hope you won't take the wrong way.
(....)
"I hope I'm wrong, but judging by past performances, when faced with these
direct questions above, Dirk will respond by editing it all out and posting
vague insults. Let's see if I'm right...
*************************************************
"Anyway, the last two lines of the last post above proved to be prophetic. I
asked Dirk again and again what he believes to be the material causes of clock
differentiation or gravitation, and he edited it out repeatedly. Eventually, he
wrote "I don't know" to both. Lately, over half a dozen posts, Dirk has avoided
explaining what he originally meant by his seeming embrace of material causes
or what he meant by "reading comprehension problem" -- then, comically, he
self-dramatized this lack by suggesting his vacant posts comprised a chess-like
crafting. "
------------------------------------
The more things change... ;-)
Dirk now has made a ludicrous claim that someone who clearly doesn't follow my
ether view or apparently my view of clock retardation was me, that I was, for
some reason, posting these physics views anonymously. More, he is continuing
to state the lie that he can prove it. He has now been challenged with a $1000
wager that there is no such proof. But he'll back down of course
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Gamma Function"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: God=G_uv Proof of 'Intelligent Design'"
- In reply to: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Dennis get your mail!"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Dennis get your mail!"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Dennis get your mail!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
