|
Post by jonjel on Feb 9, 2011 13:04:15 GMT 1
Abacus.
I see you are yet again 'having a go' at a contributor for making a general comment aimed at no-one in particular. And yet you posted, as the OP in a new post:
Perhaps you could explain, and justify the remark you made in brackets?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 9, 2011 13:16:11 GMT 1
Abacus. I see you are yet again 'having a go' at a contributor for making a general comment aimed at no-one in particular. And yet you posted, as the OP in a new post: Perhaps you could explain, and justify the remark you made in brackets? Why do you conclude that the 'contributer's' 'general comments' were aimed at no-one in particular?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 9, 2011 13:41:21 GMT 1
Abacus. I see you are yet again 'having a go' at a contributor for making a general comment aimed at no-one in particular. And yet you posted, as the OP in a new post: Perhaps you could explain, and justify the remark you made in brackets? Look, this person has never made any worthwhile contributions since this board opened. All he has done is made snide comments about various people, myself included, and it's obvious to me (even if not to you) that he only posts here to cause trouble. If you can't see this you are not aware of what is going on. Perhaps if you came here more often you would understand what I mean. The comment about Louise was just a little joke so don't try to make a mountain out of a molehill, ok? At least she makes decent contributions.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 9, 2011 14:35:23 GMT 1
How nice, my greatest fans collecting all my greatest quotes!
I think someone needs to go and look up the definition of bigot -- I'm not intolerant of your beliefs, just totally intolerant of the attempts to spread misunderstanding and ignorance of what is actually very BASIC physics. We aren't talking hard stuff here, yet some would rather propogate some immense thread ALL based on their daft premise that a thing and the derivative of a thing both measure the same thing...........................
AsI've said before -- read what I say, and then go check it yourself, that's the only way to learn.
And what have we had on here that has been misunderstood? All the stuff you would expect, frankly -- quantum theory, gravitation, relativity, black holes, cosmology, the big bang, cosmological red-shift. Plus a few other subjects that aren't so common, like information theory, but when they DO crop up, we have the SAME mistakes and misunderstandings that you always get from someone -- like mistaking meaning for information, and not being able to accept that a string of zeros CAN contain as much information as a random string, or that a random string of characters contains MORe information that page of an encyclopedia -- all classic mistakes.
The only one that foxes me totally is carnyx, who seems to be a badly-programmed random sentence generator, rather than anything else, hence my word-salad remarks.
(O look, we've even got the -- it was just a JOKE lads -- defence. Didn't work for those daft sports comentators, and we've had far worse on here.........................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 9, 2011 15:49:22 GMT 1
@sta
Hahahahahaha!
Lovely ...
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 9, 2011 16:14:19 GMT 1
Don't know why you're laughing, because what I very obviously meant is I don't know why somebody would either be such a deluded idiot, or pretend to be such.
DO you REALLY, seriously think that what you post makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 9, 2011 18:01:51 GMT 1
Oh dear!
Hahahahahah!
I REALLY know, that you CAN'T answer that question!
.... So much for STA's knowledge of what is really going on in physics-world. Her own knowledge is historical and epistemological; pharisaical in effect.
For certain reasons, she seems unaware and may even be antipathetic to the creative nature of the debates that characterise the 'front-end' of physics. Or, as is also likely, that she has been excluded for reasons we see here.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 9, 2011 18:26:28 GMT 1
Hmm, clear instance of trying to sound impressive by raiding the thesaurus, much like a rather weedy bird trying to look more intimidating by puffing out their chest to their utmost extent. But doesn't help when they actually get into a scrap.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 9, 2011 19:03:27 GMT 1
STA
Hm .. your motivation is now clear.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 9, 2011 20:02:02 GMT 1
Obviously unable to deal with similies.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 9, 2011 20:03:27 GMT 1
Hi Carnyx. Nasty trumpet making bad noises again. Hi STA, thanks for that!
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 9, 2011 20:34:35 GMT 1
The comment about Louise was just a little joke so don't try to make a mountain out of a molehill, ok? I daren't respond to jibes made at me - I've already been threatened with being banned for saying 'pot, kettle?' I know my place
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 9, 2011 21:10:07 GMT 1
Louise. If it were women rather than John Cleese and the two Ronnies in that famous sketch, 'I know my place'. Superb. Who would you choose? How about Mrs Thatcher, Margo Ledbetter and Homer Simpson ha! I'm joking, it's irony, come on folks, come up with better trios.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 9, 2011 21:18:59 GMT 1
If we're allowed to gently poke fun at folk here, how about a trio of STA, Naymissus and Abacus?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 9, 2011 21:23:04 GMT 1
Kate Middleton, Katie Price, Lacey Turner ('Stacey' in Eastenders).
|
|