Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there...

Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are you
lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and see what
you have to say...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something...

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote in
| :
|
| It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind
alive--if
| not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his
| thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of
"God",
| however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is
| impossible...
|
| Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it
| very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of
existance...
|
| Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net
will
| provide mo
| http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm
|
|
| Stephen Hawking could be considered to be the contemporary equivalent
| of John Tyndall, a scientist about 100 years ago that was popular
| because of his ability to communicate scientific principles to the
| masses, but was consistently (and safely) a decade or two behind the
| current state of mainstream research. For example, the theory that
| matter is composed of spherical waves is nothing new. It was even
| proposed (and subsequently ridiculed) in Tyndall's day. There has
| always been criticizm of the big-bang theory which, after several
| decades, is finally receiving due attention. And the Michelson-Morley
| experiment is -only now- getting a second look by the mainstream
| scientific community because of attention drawn to the logical fallacy
| used by the experimenters to reach their conclusion. Until now their
| conclusion was accepted as fact because it was the foundation of
| Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and nobody dared criticize
| -that- man despite his own admissions that he might have been wrong.
| Which brings us to the -real- problem.....
|
| The politics of science is often more important than the science
| itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
| global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
| environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
| more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
| their names in the journals. And while I may not agree with some of
| the currently accepted scientific theories or conclusions, nothing in
| science is written in stone -- it is theory that is subject to change
| upon new discoveries that are being made all the time, and will
| continue to be made as long as there are people who are less than
| fully satisfied with the current level of understanding. With that in
| mind, it's easy to see how so many profound discoveries were made by
| malcontents living under religious authoritarian governments. In my
| opinion, there should be a seperation of science and state just like
| there is (supposed to be) a seperation of church and state. I think
| Galileo might agree with me on that one.
|
| As to whether life exists by accident or design, feel free to believe
| what you want. It's clear that science is far more complex than any
| one person can possibly comprehend, so to believe that the Universe
| works on purely scientific principles is, like any religion, simply a
| matter of faith. I place my faith not just in science, but also in the
| logical priciples upon which the scientific process works. The current
| state of science may not be perfect but at least it continues to grow
| and evolve, seeking deeper understandings of why things are the way
| they are, instead of stagnating like so many religious beliefs that
| were stalled by the blind acceptance of myths, legends, traditions and
| ancient literature.
|
| How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
| -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

From: (John=A0Smith)
Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there...
Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are
you lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and
see what you have to say...
Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something...
_
He was a novelty in the eighties, but is nowhere near those who are
considered tops in the field these days. He is no longer the "go to" guy
regarding space philosophy and astro physics.
The guy is more a cultural icon than definitive authority on any matter.

Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine your IQ has been tested
and blows him away...

And, surely you have rubbed elbows with colleges such as he has, perhaps you
even share many of the same friends--too bad about Carl Sagans' passing--I
bet you miss him... and hold many as close personal friends--the rich
exchange you have with them keeps you quite up to date--I can tell from your
text...

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an "Arm-Chair-Genius."

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (John Smith)
Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there...
Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are
you lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and
see what you have to say...
Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something...
_
He was a novelty in the eighties, but is nowhere near those who are
considered tops in the field these days. He is no longer the "go to" guy
regarding space philosophy and astro physics.
The guy is more a cultural icon than definitive authority on any matter.

From: (John=A0Smith)
Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine
your IQ has been tested

and blows him away...


Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you
continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the
topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial
is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not
allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once
again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to
struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda.

And, surely you have rubbed elbows with

colleges such as he has, perhaps you even

share many of the same friends--too bad

about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss

him...


And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of
yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single
post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity
of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen
"topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound
church member wearing Halloween mask) .


and hold many as close personal friends--

Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so
forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to
mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL..


the rich exchange you have with them keeps

you quite up to date--I can tell from your text...


And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts
"suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the
defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than
worth the entertainment.

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an

"Arm-Chair-Genius."


Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject
instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with
your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet
participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster,
but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who
comprehended proper communication etiquette.

Warmest regards,

John

Right backatcha!!

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:14:42 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (John*Smith)
Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine
your IQ has been tested

and blows him away...


Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you
continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the
topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial
is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not
allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once
again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to
struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda.

And, surely you have rubbed elbows with

colleges such as he has, perhaps you even

share many of the same friends--too bad

about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss

him...


And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of
yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single
post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity
of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen
"topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound
church member wearing Halloween mask) .


and hold many as close personal friends--

Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so
forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to
mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL..


the rich exchange you have with them keeps

you quite up to date--I can tell from your text...


And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts
"suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the
defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than
worth the entertainment.

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an

"Arm-Chair-Genius."


Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject
instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with
your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet
participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster,
but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who
comprehended proper communication etiquette.

Warmest regards,

John

Right backatcha!!


Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed
to transmit anywhere.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave:

"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to
transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the
radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only,
very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other
half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by
citizens...

.... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the
various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well
be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather
insane system...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:14:42 -0400, (I
| AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
|
| From: (John Smith)
| Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine
| your IQ has been tested
|
| and blows him away...
|
|
| Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you
| continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the
| topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial
| is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not
| allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once
| again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to
| struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda.
|
| And, surely you have rubbed elbows with
|
| colleges such as he has, perhaps you even
|
| share many of the same friends--too bad
|
| about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss
|
| him...
|
|
| And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of
| yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single
| post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity
| of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen
| "topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound
| church member wearing Halloween mask) .
|
|
| and hold many as close personal friends--
|
| Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so
| forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to
| mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL..
|
|
| the rich exchange you have with them keeps
|
| you quite up to date--I can tell from your text...
|
|
| And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts
| "suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the
| defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than
| worth the entertainment.
|
| Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an
|
| "Arm-Chair-Genius."
|
|
| Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject
| instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with
| your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet
| participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster,
| but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who
| comprehended proper communication etiquette.
|
| Warmest regards,
|
| John
|
| Right backatcha!!
|
|
| Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed
| to transmit anywhere.
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Dave:

"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to
transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the
radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only,
very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other
half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by
citizens...

... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the
various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well
be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather
insane system...

Warmest regards,
John

On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:31:49 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to
specialized hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority
of it is mine

is it half or the majority?

From: (John=A0Smith)
Dave:
"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed
to transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all,

Yea,,,well, N3CVJ has a bad habit of deliberately misattributing claims
to those he admires. Congratulations.

Warmest regards,

John

backatchacottonpicker

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Dave:

"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to
transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the
radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only,
very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other
half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by
citizens...

Forgive me then. I seemed to remember you first saying that ALL the
spectrum belonged to the citizens. I'm sorry if I got that wrong.


But if all of the spectrum doesn't belong to the citizens, then who
does it belong to?


... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the
various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well
be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather
insane system...


I would agree, and it seems that you've modified your original
proposal for "radio anarchy" to one of "looser regulation".

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Be kind to John.

I have been. I have treated him in kind response.

He shares your opinion that

people should be allowed to transmit

anywhere.

David Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

Such an opinion appears nowhere except in forges and your repetitious
references to such. The extent at which you defile yourself is nothing
short of astonishing.