Re: perpetual motion

On 28 Feb 2007 19:36:35 -0800, "gdewilde@xxxxxxxxx"
<gdewilde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 1, 3:41 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 18:33:12 -0800, "gdewi...@xxxxxxxxx"



<gdewi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:49 am, herbertglaz...@xxxxxxxxx (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Uncle Al of Irvine Perpetual motion is always being invented in the
mind's eye,

So why eliminate the discussion about it? The elimination seems
redundant and a waist of time.

and yet no machine ever worked

This is an assumption. You can never deliver the evidence for this
claim. You claim error but fail to point out where and why.

It really doesn't matter what you think before you look at something.
Your comment has nothing to do with my invention. It is merely a
reflection of prejudgement of it's author.

I think you can do much-much better as this.

Don't you agree?

Of course not, retard. One is not obliged to seek out and disprove
every claim.[.....]

Exactly, but if one does one should. And as you did but didn't it's
clear there is something wrong with your logic.

Huh? What exactly would that say if you hadn't been on drugs when you
wrote it?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: perpetual motion
    ... mind's eye, ... The elimination seems ... redundant and a waist of time. ... You claim error but fail to point out where and why. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: perpetual motion
    ... mind's eye, ... redundant and a waist of time. ... You claim error but fail to point out where and why. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast