targeting at OMCL.mil
Fri Mar 12 03:43:13 EST 2004
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:08:48 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
<gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
} } GS: So, instead of answering the question you are going to argue that
} } IS an ether?
} Dr. D.: No, instead of arguing, I'm going to not. Sorry, I see nothing
} productive in it.
} GS: Somehow that doesn't surprise me. You have evaded every important
} question I asked you.
No I haven't. I've answered many of them, as a quick review of the
messages listed in the references head will indicate. I've merely
refused to answer them in the way you wanted me to, which was to
provide you with a jumping off point for your prepared argument. Even
so, you managed to ignore what I said, assume what you prefered, and
carry on with your plans. For example, when you tried to engage me in
a discussion about a point of philosophy of science you no doubt had a
collection of answers as well as categorization of me prepared for,
you asked me what "did in" the ether. I indicated that since people
are still doing science on the question today, it can hardly be called
"done in". Now, the fact that there are engineers and physicists
working on these projects is fairly irrefutable. The European project
was written up in Science not long ago. Not being a physicist, and
seeing how they've amassed millions of dollars for their work, I just
trust the facts I read and conclude that they seem to find the
question still worth asking. Rather than accept this obvious
conclusion, as well as the fact that I have posted nothing indicating
an opinion on the subject, you "ask" me if that means I'm "arguing"
that there is an ether, a question that follows from exactly nothing
I've said, and only from your penchant to engage in arguments you hold
dear. That's just the most recent and glaring example. The message
thread that grew to over 400 lines was filled with that sort of thing,
and I chose not to engage in it. No offence to anyone who finds that
an engaging passtime, but I don't.
} But, of course, who can put you in a box....you're
} so.....well......just so darn special, now aren't you?
That'd be one of those self-referential conundrum thingies:
"special" == "box"
I just refuse to have my chain yanked, and refuse to yank back. If you
feel like your chain is being yanked, look at your own hands, because
it's not me yanking.
More information about the Neur-sci