On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
So says the only self-proclaimed expert.
- snip -
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
The only person you're exposing is yourself and not in a good way. It
is extremely difficult to take your arguments seriously or even
understand them given your posts' poor spelling and grammar along with
the abysmal formatting.The spelling variants are understandable, my
schooling started on the banks of the Devon river. Words like
"fraustrated' are something else altogether. That isn't a fat-fingered
error.

Don't blame it one the web interface you post through.Your posts could
be composed and spell-checked in a text editor before the content is
pasted into a web interface. You could
also let
the web interface handle word-wrapping
instead of inserting
seemingly random cr/lf pairs in your
posts.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to present your theories
and arguments in a rational, cohesive manner.

in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong.
This is equaled and exceeded by your inability to clearly state and
detail your theories without the use of circular logic. Many times
when a question is asked rather than answer you choose to start a new
thread.

This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling?
What makes any of your ramblings the truth? Was your post on GB
standing alone (3 Sept 2009) the truth? You conveniently ignored the
fact that GB's declaration of war came about because Germany had
attacked GB's ally Poland. GB stood beside Poland and not alone.

If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point
I have previously suggested that you present your theories directly to
those in the academic community. Why not obtain validation there and
then come back and say 'I told you so'?

So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it .
Yet you always run to a new thread.

I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal.
Did I mention something about spelling, grammar and formatting?

I'm not certain how "many hams around the World is following this
augument" but that number is insignificantly small relative to the
world-wide amateur community. The size of the amateur community is in
turn insignificantly small relative to the world-wide academic
community. You choice of venue is as questionable as anything else.

selah