🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20000204194153.22481.00001382@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
  ives100@aol.com (Ives100) wrote:
> I just went to your website and read your (ahem) theory.

I'm sorry, did you get a dry spot in your throat? Or did you
imagine my theory concerned ahems (whatever that are)?

> All I saw
> was a long
> run-on arguement.

I love run-on things... it gives the impression that one's got
a million things in one's mind without the time to offer them
all out at once!

> You offer absolutely NO PROOF of anything you
> wrote.

I'm sorry--Could you go back to my website and re-read the
text there? I could have sworn the text there went this way:
<"This" is what we see, and "this" is why we see it that way.>
If you'd like proof of what we see, you can always consult
your eyes (or other people's eyes... just ask them to tell you
what they see--and pretend you're some sort of blind man).
If, on the other hand, you'd like me to provide proof that the
way I see it is really the way I see it, we've going to end up
in some sort of asylum during our conversation, I can assure
you of this! If, on the third hand, you'd like me to give you
proof that the way I see it is the way you see it (or not see
it, depending on a number of clacking factors)... look yourself
and compare what you see against what I say I see: If, on
some fourth hand, you see something else than what I see, then
come back here and we shall argue about the different things
we see when we look upon the same thing. (And there is no
need to bring a fifth hand, a simple fifth will do nicely--Bloody
fifth hand will likely demand we share the fifth with him.)

> BTW,
> in science, it is really necessary to reasonably account for all the
> available
> evidence at hand.

In my world it is reasonably expected that the evidence
will prove or disprove the case, regardless whether it's at hand
or apparently coming straight at us in such a manner that
it shall be at hand in time to take out the runner before he
reaches first base.

> You seem to ignore virtually all the findings of
> modern
> particle physics and astrophysics in your theory.

Which findings, virtual or actual, do I ignore? I thought I was
addressing those finds which have been misinterpreted, by
providing a simpler interpretation (but I hardly think I would be
providing any sort of interpretation of findings I've ignored).

> It is very unclear why every paragraph has numerous words with
> quotation marks
> around them.

Those paragraphs are very likely speculations only. Check
again! I'm the sort of fellow likes to admit I do not know when
I do not know (what I do not know): That's the only way I know of
to then proceed to some actual knowledge!

> Can't you clearly define terms in your arguement?

I own a dictionary, and oft consult it, in fact. But I am
as liable as any of my fellow human beings to err: Therefore
if I have employed a term outside the bounds delimited by
most dictionaries, please let me know (it's a grand thing
either to correct one's errors, or to coin a new usage).

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

> Tom Dougherty  (Ives100@aol.com)
>





Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.