🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 11:14, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted>
>
> 1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
> who has changed their views based on his work.
>
> 2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
> has not taken place.
>
> 3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
> every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
> constitutes a good use of his time.
>
> 4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
> needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 11:14, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted>
>
> 1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
> who has changed their views based on his work.
>
> 2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
> has not taken place.
>
> 3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
> every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
> constitutes a good use of his time.
>
> 4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
> needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

listen up professor

what about not changing the fucking subject lines,

then telling something related to the subject in case, not personal
attacks. Doctor Valev drives a lot of water in this town

review you attitude professor!!!

why on earth they need an institute to a perimeter?