Owen Duffy wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in news:13dcljlrausna18
@corp.supernews.com:

I know the answer to that one! And I also know who would be making the
majority of the postings.

.... but, more importantly the last posting.

Owen

And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools!

Dean -- W4IHK

Dean Craft wrote:

...
And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools!

Dean -- W4IHK


Well, that is certainly one way to look at it.

Another might be:

Fools simply stop asking questions, accept mysteries, have a religious
devotion to the idea, "All is already known!", shout at all who keep
looking in cupboards for clues, etc., etc. ... time has a way of working
some of this out.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Dean Craft wrote:

...
And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools!

Dean -- W4IHK


Well, that is certainly one way to look at it.

Another might be:

Fools simply stop asking questions, accept mysteries, have a religious
devotion to the idea, "All is already known!", shout at all who keep
looking in cupboards for clues, etc., etc. ... time has a way of working
some of this out.


I don't know anyone here that is that way. I do know people who have
the temerity to question wild claims, and not accept them as fact until
good and compelling proof is offered, or if it at least "works" to a
close approximation. It is a mark of wisdom to understand that is
prudent, not foolish.

Has a person stopped asking questions if they ask a question about some
new and unproven concept?

The idea is to answer or discuss the question, not deride the questioner.

Otherwise we sound like:

Person 1: Boy the US healthcare system has some big problems

Person 2: LIBERAL!

Person 1: It's hot out today.

Person 2: LIBERAL!



- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Ohhh boy, another can of worms.

1) One mans poison is anothers' medicine.
2) People learn, a fool today--a genius tomorrow.
3) The three blind men go to see the elephant.
4) Mistakes are forgive-able.
5) etc.
6) etc.

I am afraid with your offering, I cannot offer fitting argument ... we
live, we learn.

Regards,
JS


Michael Coslo wrote:

I don't know anyone here that is that way. I do know people who have
the temerity to question wild claims, and not accept them as fact until
good and compelling proof is offered, or if it at least "works" to a
close approximation. It is a mark of wisdom to understand that is
prudent, not foolish.

Has a person stopped asking questions if they ask a question about
some new and unproven concept?

The idea is to answer or discuss the question, not deride the
questioner.

Otherwise we sound like:

Person 1: Boy the US healthcare system has some big problems

Person 2: LIBERAL!

Person 1: It's hot out today.

Person 2: LIBERAL!



- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On 30 Aug, 08:15, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Dean Craft wrote:

...
And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools!

Dean -- W4IHK

Well, that is certainly one way to look at it.

Another might be:

Fools simply stop asking questions, accept mysteries, have a religious
devotion to the idea, "All is already known!", shout at all who keep
looking in cupboards for clues, etc., etc. ... time has a way of working
some of this out.

I don't know anyone here that is that way. I do know people who have
the temerity to question wild claims, and not accept them as fact until
good and compelling proof is offered, or if it at least "works" to a
close approximation. It is a mark of wisdom to understand that is
prudent, not foolish.

Has a person stopped asking questions if they ask a question about some
new and unproven concept?

The idea is to answer or discuss the question, not deride the questioner.

Otherwise we sound like:

Person 1: Boy the US healthcare system has some big problems

Person 2: LIBERAL!

Person 1: It's hot out today.

Person 2: LIBERAL!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, to debate Proton s is to first describe it correctly.
Some would say that protons are without mass and composed only
of energy and onlso have momentum! Newton is quite clear that one has
to have mass to have momentum
and all the masters would state that you can't have equilibrium if a
photon does not have mass.
With respect to waves scientists state there are two types of waves!
It would appear that more experimentation is to take place before this
can be resoved.
Art

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:30:23 -0700, art wrote:

With respect to waves scientists state there are two types of waves!

Hi Arthur,

They would (without breathless exclamation) explain they are ordinary
and for centuries have been called transverse and longitudinal.

It would appear that more experimentation is to take place before this
can be resoved.

For those same centuries, experimentation has been ongoing and has no
implied necessity of stopping to ponder (aka resolving) any new wonder
of Physics. The only surprise can come from one who misapplies these
conventional terms - NEWS at 11!

In that regard, the news is sadly of the Fox headlines variety that
streams across the screen below creationist-intellectuals (sic)
screaming about the pollution of science (sic) with humanistic
left-wing bias. Those snippets of disneyfied science will inform
(sic) you about mind control through sonic waves never before known
(sic) to have that ability.

A scientist would explain it was due to enormous power levels
compressing the medium to non-linearity wherein a second source could
mix with it to produce heterodyning. The second source could be
modulated with a voice such that the target (a person) would hear "God
speaking to them." That being the breathlessly announced mind
control. I should quickly modify that with: a scientist would attempt
to explain, but sonic mind control of the rather more prosaic means of
yelling would overwhelm him, followed by a break for a commercial and
the hosts' call for Fox security to take the heretic away.

Sound, by the way, consists of both transverse and longitudinal wave
components. This becomes meaningful if your detector (antenna) is
small in relation to the wavelength. And as few relate Photons to
sound, they should be advised the two are quite integral to the most
commonplace reactions. For some, this may take quite some time to
resolve.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC