Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress....
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Adieu: "Re: C - Constant?"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: K calculus OK?"
- In reply to: A.S.: "Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress...."
- Next in thread: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:09:12 GMT
A.S.:
>
>bryant_j_j@yahoo.com wrote:
>> err, but you missed or forgot about the posting where Landle admits
>> that he is Caltechdude and he admits changing his nicks, it is not
>> merely nttp posting addresses. you can check one of the threads that
>> start off with Landle and then he swithches to What is Qi. From that
>> point on it is exactly the same guy. i could point to the specific
>> postings if you'd like but i don't know how to do it with this new
>> Google Groups thing. based on Landle's own admission, he is indeed
>> Caltechdude, Cinquirer and What is Qi. He is also Qion since the
>> nttp-posting address for Qion is exactly the same as What is Qi.
>>
>> look, i am just trying to do you a favor here, so you don't repeat
>> yourself to the same guy masquerading as someone else and reparting
>the
>> same pathetic attempt to get you to "debunk" a specific crank
>theories.
>>
>>
>> as for A.S., at first i was not convinced that he is indeed
>> Caltechdude, Landle, etc because like you his style at first looked
>> different. but then as time went on his style and sentences became
>more
>> and more like that of Landle and his zillion other nicks. i the
>> crosschecked the nttp posting ip's and found that the one A.S. is
>using
>> is that of Qion or What is Qi. why don't you just ask you buddy to
>tell
>> you honestly if he is indeed all these other people. IMO, they are,
>> unless many people are using the same account (i.e. a mafia of pranic
>> healers taking turns logging in as A.S. and Qion, etc).
>>
>> bye.
>
>
>
>The "bizarre reason" can be explained in a simple way.
And it can be solved in a simpler way.
>
>Bryan, do you notice that when people associate a message
>or thread as started by Qion like this thread (owing to your
>replying to it immediately and stamping the "Qion" seal).
>There are few replies. So how could you expect Qion to start a
>thread on physics subjects unrelated to qi and expecting people
>to reply when just reading the "qi" word can already turn them
>off.
It's simple. He could actually start a thread containing physics
and that would eliminate the replies pointing out the lack of
relevant content.
>This is likely the main reason Qion has to change
>nicks just to have a normal discussion of physics related
>thread. His changing nicks don't involve attacking people
>personality which would have made it bad had it been so.
He doesn't have to change his name. He could simply post
an article with physics in it and then no one would point out
the lack thereof.
>By replying to this message and associating it to Qion or
>Qi. You destroyed the thread (this would also occur if
>he posted it using Qion).
No, qion posted an article to sci.physics.relativity that
was off-topic in that it contained no relativity, physics or
even science. He could have posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories
without crossposting to this newsgroup and chattered away without
interruption.
>This is why Ken Seto is not here to defend himself for the atomic model
>inconsistency commented by Bjoern and you don't have Heymann, Uncle Al
>here for the discussions because they being sure only things that can
>be detected by EM based instruments exist hence reject anything that
>that does have conform to their Standard Model except for Dark
>Matter or others suggested by their peers.
Is there a web site devoted to providing slogans for crackpots
or do the same slogans just pass from crank to crank from newsgroup
posts?
>In the other thread "Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?" posted
>by me. You didn't associate it to "Qion" so the discussion
>is alive. So you now undertand the "bizarre reason" is just
>a simple one.
But apparently, you chose the bizarre reason.
- Next message: Adieu: "Re: C - Constant?"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: K calculus OK?"
- In reply to: A.S.: "Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress...."
- Next in thread: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
