Re: Attraction VS geometry


"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Dw0ef.5244$om5.1864@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Black Knight wrote:
>> "jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:haPdf.5183$om5.963@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>Black Knight wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:2hIdf.5136$om5.1172@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Black Knight wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:bxHdf.5128$om5.1611@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Joe Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 12 Nov "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Pioneers are the ones with the arrows in the back. Sue...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People who post one line while quoting 50 lines,
>>>>>>>>deserve to be pioneers. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't quote me, but there 50 lines below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The principle of equivalence is very interesting to Joe Fischer.
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>The principle of equivalence is very interesting to Joe Fischer.
>>>>>
>>>>>50 Knight moves without a capture means it's a draw.
>>>>>
>>>>>Watch out for the White Queen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Usenet standard result:- Draw. Everyone is happy unless they lose.
>>>>But is the game interesting?
>>>
>>>It must be - everybody keeps playing.
>>
>>
>> Nah... There's been quite a few losers. I defeated Uncle Al with a
>> blitzkrieg last month, he said "FOaD" and threw in the towel.
>> I haven't seen Jan Bielawski in a while either.
>> According to Bielawski, Relativity works because
>> It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Bielawski.
>> "would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer." -- Bielawski.
>>
>> [An error in Relativity] "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero
>> or
>> something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.
>>
>> That Einstein's divide-by-zero is trivial went over Bielawski's head, so
>> I shoved
>> it up his nose.
>>
>> If you really want to count the losers, google groups can supply the
>> names.
>> I don't bother with those with intelligence lower than a fuckwit,
>> throwing
>> the chess board over and yelling that they've won is stupid.
>> Usually the losers slink away with their tail between their legs or
>> refuse
>> to come out and fight fair.
>
> You think the losers are the ones who leave here?

Logic dictates many reasons for quitting the game, losing is one of them.
Some may quit because there is no competition, others because they
have learned what they set out to find and are not playing a game
anyway, but by far the commonest reason is the egotistical arrogant
know-it-all that has be soundly thrashed and is left with no recourse
except insult. The flame war then begins and I insult back.

>>>>To have a game, the rules have to be understood by both parties.
>>>>Not everyone here plays by the same rules, so I try to play by
>>>>their rules as well as my own. Watch out for the mirrored (-:
>>>
>>>I'll reflect on that, A.
>>
>>
>> Reflect on '2AB/(t'A-tA) = c' instead.
>
> Can't, it's transparent.

Nope... there is definitely a reflection at B or the light can't get back
to A.

>
>> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>>
>> When I went to school, AB + BA = 0; Einstein must have gone to
>> a different school... different folks have different rules.
>> I'm happy to teach physics to those that want to learn and
>> don't have an inflated ego, trying to teach Grandpa how to suck
>> eggs. When I was a kid I climbed trees and took bird's eggs,
>> never more than one from a nest, then I blew them.
>
> Keep blowing, Grandpa, but don't start going after all the eggs.

I'm running out of puff...
Androcles.



.