Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:19:32 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

An ordinary proof would be more than adequate.


I suppose you are right there Richard. Its just that we don't often get
the chance to use extraordinary twice in one sentence very often, I just
got carried away.



It is the
"extraordinary" proof (aka radiating particles on diamagnetic rods
enclosed in the equilibrium of a faraday shield to induce the
Luxembourg effect) that is probably the surest indicator of deception.

I was thinking his explanations might involve the Stockholm effect.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -