Re: Fact
From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 03/02/05
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: SR is An Aether Theory...and there is NO aether."
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: More M & M's: so what's the story on this "Sagnac effect" then, anyway?"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Fact"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Fact"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Fact"
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: Fact"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:17:14 +0100
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message news:d04nj6$5dl@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Paulps wrote:
[snip]
> > e) There are some resident trolls on this group that either though intent or
> > misunderstanding try to obscure these facts
>
> "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." [attribution
> lost, possibly R.A.Heinlein] In this case, your inability to identify actual facts.
... aka Hanlon's Razor:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HanlonsRazor
:-)
Dirk Vdm
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: SR is An Aether Theory...and there is NO aether."
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: More M & M's: so what's the story on this "Sagnac effect" then, anyway?"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Fact"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Fact"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Fact"
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: Fact"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
