Roy Lewallen wrote:
My postulate about objects in motion was a parody of Cecil's rejection
of theoretical cases on the basis that they can't exist in practice,

Roy, once again you distort what I have said.
I did NOT reject any theoretical cases. I said
I personally don't have time to consider those
cases as my daughter is facing emergency surgery
in New York state and I am standing by to hop a
plane during the Christmas season rush.

If you know more about my personal time than I do,
please let me know exactly how you accomplish that
feat. If your argument is that gurus know everything,
I will certainly understand. You have used that
argument before.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com