"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>ps--you wrote:
>> By the way, as you may have noticed, you won't be able to draw
>> John into any kind of detailed discussion about the claims
>> made in the article.
>>This would be a battle of wits with the unarmed, cary. It's likely that you
>STILL haven't even understood H04 yet.
It is not merely LIKELY, but CERTAIN, that YOU don't understand H04, since
you have failed to rise to the occasion and explain the answer despite
numerous proddings. You also failed to respond to the probability question
which I offered, to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you
understand probability more than you seem to.
>You couldn't have done a better job of demonstrating an inability to
>comprehend the English language if you'd tried, then a Norwegian comes along
>who doesn't even understand English that well and BLEW you all away.
He was wrong.
>Now you want to "debate" Einstein's plagiarism in detail?
Are you capable of discussing Einstein technically?
lojbab
