Re: New version of a relativity FAQ

On Jun 28, 8:57 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:28:54 -0700:

On Jun 27, 9:02 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

You pointed out that there was an error - I corrected the error -

That was not the history really.

you
posted the correct form, confirming that my correction was OK.

No

A short
story that doesn't need to be retold time and again.

It can be said somewhat like you reminder other's mistakes. Anyone is
free to reminder to broad audience how smart you are each time you start
to insult others. E.g. Pete in this thread.

Why don't you balance out the mistakes with the insight? Or post the /
other/ times I correctly used the concepts I supposedly do not
understand?


If you have something worthwhile to discuss, then OK. On the other hand,
if you are just trying to be a prick by highlighting my occasional
error,

But your mistakes are much more:

Nice list. Looks like you are now going back through the years and
cataloging both real and imagined mistakes.

T^ab,

Yet I provided the correct form on my own without anything past it
being pointed out to me that I did something stupid.

systems of units, dimensions,

Slightly overbalanced in favor of "I know what I'm talking about" by
sheer usage of doing both correctly.

invariance of proper time,

...and have I made that one ever again?

potential energy, spherical systems, Newtonian
limits, photons, temperature...

The rest of these are not my mistakes. These are facts that you simply
don't agree with. Though I haven't the faintest fucking clue what you
mean about spherical systems, and I'm sure your complaint will be
equally neurotic.

So I've been posting pretty consistently since 2004 or so, and you can
come up with what amounts to a four real mistakes. I think I can still
look at myself in the mirror.


then you can get fucked.

After being recommended to change of attitude many times, after being
warned in many places, including here and in spf, and by several people,
you continue with your bizarre attitude!

I hardly think my attitude is that bizarre, especially on this
newsgroup. Plenty of people here speak with absolute confidence about
subjects they do not understand for years on end, even when they are
wrong every time.

I find it easier to have some self-confidence than act with deference
to every jackass on this newsgroup - most of which who couldn't take
the derivative of e without their hand being held.


Ok, take a look to next version of guidelines... when was ready.

Skip the guidelines. People act how they act - you ignored your own
guidelines plenty.


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org

.

Quantcast