Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics
From: Morituri-|-Max (newage_at_sendarico.net)
Date: 12/30/04
- Next message: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Androcles, one more try"
- In reply to: tadchem: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:36:59 GMT
tadchem wrote:
> There is no indication here that you are doing anything other than what you
> claim - citing Weinberg - no ownership of your own words, no disclaimer, no
> quotation marks. Nothing to indicate that this ISN'T Weinberg talking about
> Thomson's Aether Theory as you claim in the lead-in.
>
> That makes you a liar.
>
> Q.E.D.
>
> We don't cotton to liars around here.
Amen.. my conclusion exactly.. I guess he is surprised by peoples ability to go
back and look at what he said.. like politicians who get caught contradicting
themselves.. they also don't seem to realize that video tape doesn't forget.
- Next message: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Androcles, one more try"
- In reply to: tadchem: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
