🚀 go-pugleaf

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<cb3gj9$3rh$2@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.0406191348.5a4e0fd3@posting.google.com...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Note, you have snipped the main part of my post,
> > not me of yours. And this speaks itself.
> 
> It does indeed.  In view of your reputation as a shit-writer,
> everybody who sees your name at the top of  a note mentally snips the
> content.  Dirk simply did it in practical terms.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Franz

Dear Franz, first of all I am glad to welcome you on the thread which
I opened and which is uninteresting for you. Then, I still remember,
which tremendous threads have you written about my paper "On
longitudinal EM wave. Lifting the bans". I remember, how you intended
to organise a consortium to guess my know-how, and you were their
chief theoretician; how Bilge re-phrased my dynamic divergence theorem
and you all, you in that number, applauded him. In this way you
factually applauded my paper. And you did so in my thread. I recall a
recent past, when to my questions on Relativity and QM you wrote so
stupid answers that were ashamed of them and deleted your posts; when
you tried to help Bilge, but without effect, as Bilge said nonsense
after nonsense, and you only echoed him; and I did not forget, how you
tried to prove before me that the curl of gradient of scalar potential
is identically zero. The trifle was, this scalar potential had the
delay phase. Dirk knew it and agreed that I correctly derived the
scalar potential excited by an element of current. Naturally, he
agreed with me, having this unread - oh, yes! ;-) And Bilge and you
admitted it, as you never, in no one word said that in this case the
scalar potential should not have the delay phase. And this was just
the aspect to which I drew Dirk's attention and he says, he snipped it
unread. But I don't care, have he read or not. The fact that you all
admitted the scalar potential, presented with delay phase, finally
shows: after this you have no right to rely on Maxwellian formalism,
as in Maxwellian formalism the scalar potential is nulled by
calibrating invariance. Thus, Franz, you are lying again, and you lie
deliberately, just as in the beginning of our discussions, and you are
going on covering your feebleness with boorishness. I read
neighbouring threads and see, how much you all are trying to find the
counter-arguments to our results. You have them not and will not have.
So, am I 'shitwriter' or not, but you discuss the issues raised by
mine, in context formulated by mine, and only emphasise your wrong
behaviour, feeling shy to confess to it. So don't select me among
others before whom you feel helpless. This is a very long list, and I
am far from being first in it. And I know you well during this time.
Such manner is a typical sign that you understood everything and now
are acting against your conviction. During these years your conscience
spoke twice. First, when you deleted your posts, and second, when you
went away from thread to be not a liar, and involved in mushrooms.
Should you better do it to the end of your lifetime. But this all is
the issue of your conscience.

But you lie again that my posts are snipped unread. The address of
paper is in the end of my advertisement. Should our material be
interesting to no one, people would not even enter my thread and read
an abstract. But during 20 days more than 500 people have read this
paper. And the fact speaks itself that on our web site Angelfire has
substituted its usual banners advertising TV serials by banners of
scientific journals. You know how practical Americans are. They would
not take this trouble without profit.

But if you want to stand in position number 3 that it is uninteresting
for you, no problem. Do you want or not, each your attempt to fling
mud at me turns so that you day to day smell worse. We in Russia have
a proverb: don't piss against the wind. It would be helpful for you to
assume this it and to analyse attentively the paragraph of my post
which Dirk snipped. In it I showed a great problem; don't think it as
a gap in your own ar...e. A gag for your ar...e you can find. But you
cannot gag the problem, it needs a solution. Without scandal and
respecting the opponent's opinion.

Sergey