In article <8ko09.28058$Fq6.2865116 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:ahshor$bd7$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
{...}
<> 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.
Well then you should have a delghtful time of it, shouldn't you? Humiliating
me and all that.
If you won't go first, I'll start. Do you really believe Einstein
"plagarized" Lorenz-Fitzgerald. If so, explain why. I'd suggest
you read "On the dynamics of the electron" before you start, though.
<It's likely that you
<STILL haven't even understood H04 yet.
WOMBAT!
<Even after debating with the
<feminazis for days, you thought the problem involved a spring, even though
<it was clearly stated that it was a *string*.
A fact which you -- you who ducked down behind the couch every one
of the several dozen times someone here challenged you to discuss
the physics of the case -- a fact which you suddenly realized
only AFTER I POINTED IT OUT MYSELF. And not til then.
See, John, I'm not a lying faux-christian like you. I'm a scrupulously
honest atheist. That includes pointing out my own mistakes, even
when you're incapable of recognizing them on sight.
<After you finally realized
<that error, you then claimed that it had to be a strong string, when the
<original problem CLEARLY stated they "are connected by a light string". The
<problem states CLEARLY that they are "suspended at rest", but you and all
<the feminazis went way out to lunch to try to ignore that significant point.
No, in fact I instantly admitted my error, re-affirmed the correct answer,
and then Parse and I got in an interesting discussion over what the correct
answer would have been under my mis-apprehension.
<
<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.
Only if you believe that:
S = at^2
(check any physics book; he was wrong)
Incidentally, I made no criticism of Brian's English: it's better than
yours. I merely pointed out that when it comes to invective, he
has a tin ear.
<
<Now you want to "debate" Einstein's plagiarism in detail?
Yes. I'm waiting...
-- cary
