Re: a brief history of time vs a briefer history of time?
- From: "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:02:56 GMT
"Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:443c5164$0$53247$c30e37c6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| I'm reading the first book by Hawking and while I can follow it, I wouldn't
| say I'm completely conversant with his theories, I find it interesting.
I've read the first book by J.K. Rowling and while I can follow it, I wouldn't
say I'm completely conversant with her theories, I find it interesting.
| however I now find there is a second book out in the shops. what is the
| difference between the 2 books?
However I now find there is a fifth book out in the library. I've read them all.
http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/
They are all more spell binding than Hawking's crap.
Androcles.
|
| --
| Remove the _CURSEING to reply to me
|
| You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a
| man is wise by his questions. - Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
.
- References:
- a brief history of time vs a briefer history of time?
- From: Highlandish
- a brief history of time vs a briefer history of time?
- Prev by Date: Re: Electron and car.
- Next by Date: Re: Time for a photon.
- Previous by thread: Re: a brief history of time vs a briefer history of time?
- Next by thread: Teaching GR right after intermediate mechanics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
