Religions > Atheism > School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 10:22:10 PM |
| Object: |
School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
That any child would be forced to sit in class with this person is abhorant.
I'm not denying it's right to teach, but that does not mean the right of
students should be violated by forcing them to be in the presence of someone
they feel to be living an unclean, inmmoral lifestyle. If the kids don't
have a problem with it, then fine; let it teach.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06090805.html
Parent: "I have to go home and tell a 14 year old you have to talk to a
teacher who's a male in female clothing"
BATAVIA, New York, September 8, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A school district
in western New York has refused to transfer high school students out of
classes being taught by a transsexual teacher, denying a request by parents.
Five parents submitted written requests to the district board, asking that
their children be removed from the classroom of a male teacher undergoing
sex change medical treatment, WSTM.com reported. The earth sciences teacher
has begun dressing as a woman. The teacher has been with the Batavia School
District for eight years.
Superintendent Richard Stutzman said the parents' requests did not meet the
district guidelines. Other students were granted transfers based on changes
to their program of study.
The Batavia School District held an information meeting for parents August
28. Legal experts presented information on the teacher's rights and
protections to more than 100 parents, reported News 10NBC. A transgender
expert and a doctor were also in attendance. Parents received notification
of the situation one week before the meeting.
Some parents were dismayed by the news. "I have to go home and tell a 14
year old you have to talk to a teacher who's a male in female clothing. And
if you don't address her as a she in 2 weeks, it's harassment because you
should be transitioned by now," Batavia parent Amber Robinson told News
10NBC after the meeting.
The district plans to hold a community-wide meeting on the issue September
12th.
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
28 Sep 2006 10:15:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006 6:47
pm Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:31:24 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4o1j3fFchu5tU1@individual.net>
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
4:13 am Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:03 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
- Refer: <LAESg.1747$ya1.892@news02.roc.ny>
< > wrote in message
news:1159400028.228992.93380@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This appears to be truth based on the fact that Winn has
produced nobody to
step forward and defend his equation.
Not even fellow loony George Hammond?!?
That's sad.
George Hammond did not understand velocity of light.
Ah, so, in short, my point is correct:
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL VERIFY YOUR CLAIMS. NOR CAN YOU
DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF YOUR FORMULA IN ANY PRACTICAL SENSE.
Not even another crackpot delusional lunatic!
That is because none of them even understand their own equations. How
can they critic the equations of others, even if the others are
fruitcakes?
I remember in our advanced math class in college, long, long time ago
in a far away place, the professor would write equations on the
blackboard
and we students would be scratching are heads. The stuff was so
simple to him he would intuitively skip a few steps, mentally
calculating them faster than he could write.
The fruitcakes are similar in that they take random parts of equations
and include them. However the mental parts they skipped are
calculated
incorrectly or not calculated at all. The casual reader, those who
are not steeped in math, have know way of understanding what the
missing
steps should be. For them, it becomes a matter of faith on whom to
believe, the scientist or the fruitcake. A personable fruitcake will
often win the debate.
As I suggested, the whole case is a very sad one of obvious mental
illness.
It is quite lucky then that I happen to be formally qualified in
math-kook detection!
Hammond is the undisputed king of them all.
He throws random equations into a blender, and vomits the mangled
results until empty. (Head and belly)
Winn is a mere apprentice kook.
I noticed that about Hammond about 5 years ago while reading his stuff
on an LDS website. It was then I found out I was an idiot (or was it
imbecile, I forget -- you know brain capacity and all).
This last week or two was my first encounter with Winn. Unfortunately,
putting the math aside for 35 years or so, I now tend to struggle
though it much slower.
Well, take your time, Darrell. I don't want to pressure you, but THESE
PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO SEE YOU PROVE ME WRONG.
Actually, we all looked up the FAQ, read it, and figure that's plenty.
No one's waiting to see you proved wrong yet again, we do that every day.
Just think of it as a
test you cannot afford to fail.
Why not? The world will not end if he doesn't tell you what everyone
else has been telling you for years. Civilization will not fall if one
Usenet nutcase refuses to accept that his theories are wrong. Get over it.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 3
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0402042145.2faac5c9@posting.google.com
you're a *****
1414fd53.0301242012.7786001e@posting.google.com
*I* said you were a *****, and you are
1414fd53.0201151612.5d801f91@posting.google.com
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
28 Sep 2006 10:10:38 PM |
|
|
In News 1159499172.707056.84500@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
6:47 pm Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:31:24 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4o1j3fFchu5tU1@individual.net>
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
4:13 am Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:03 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
- Refer: <LAESg.1747$ya1.892@news02.roc.ny>
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159400028.228992.93380@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This appears to be truth based on the fact that Winn has
produced nobody to
step forward and defend his equation.
Not even fellow loony George Hammond?!?
That's sad.
George Hammond did not understand velocity of light.
Ah, so, in short, my point is correct:
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL VERIFY YOUR CLAIMS. NOR CAN
YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF YOUR FORMULA IN ANY PRACTICAL
SENSE.
Not even another crackpot delusional lunatic!
That is because none of them even understand their own equations.
How can they critic the equations of others, even if the others are
fruitcakes?
I remember in our advanced math class in college, long, long time
ago in a far away place, the professor would write equations on the
blackboard
and we students would be scratching are heads. The stuff was so
simple to him he would intuitively skip a few steps, mentally
calculating them faster than he could write.
The fruitcakes are similar in that they take random parts of
equations and include them. However the mental parts they skipped
are calculated
incorrectly or not calculated at all. The casual reader, those who
are not steeped in math, have know way of understanding what the
missing
steps should be. For them, it becomes a matter of faith on whom to
believe, the scientist or the fruitcake. A personable fruitcake
will often win the debate.
As I suggested, the whole case is a very sad one of obvious mental
illness.
It is quite lucky then that I happen to be formally qualified in
math-kook detection!
Hammond is the undisputed king of them all.
He throws random equations into a blender, and vomits the mangled
results until empty. (Head and belly)
Winn is a mere apprentice kook.
I noticed that about Hammond about 5 years ago while reading his
stuff on an LDS website. It was then I found out I was an idiot (or
was it imbecile, I forget -- you know brain capacity and all).
This last week or two was my first encounter with Winn.
Unfortunately, putting the math aside for 35 years or so, I now tend
to struggle though it much slower.
Well, take your time, Darrell. I don't want to pressure you, but
THESE PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO SEE YOU PROVE ME WRONG. Just think of it
as a test you cannot afford to fail.
You've already been proven wrong, liar Robert.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
28 Sep 2006 10:25:51 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1159499172.707056.84500@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
6:47 pm Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:31:24 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4o1j3fFchu5tU1@individual.net>
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
4:13 am Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:03 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
- Refer: <LAESg.1747$ya1.892@news02.roc.ny>
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159400028.228992.93380@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This appears to be truth based on the fact that Winn has
produced nobody to
step forward and defend his equation.
Not even fellow loony George Hammond?!?
That's sad.
George Hammond did not understand velocity of light.
Ah, so, in short, my point is correct:
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL VERIFY YOUR CLAIMS. NOR CAN
YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF YOUR FORMULA IN ANY PRACTICAL
SENSE.
Not even another crackpot delusional lunatic!
That is because none of them even understand their own equations.
How can they critic the equations of others, even if the others are
fruitcakes?
I remember in our advanced math class in college, long, long time
ago in a far away place, the professor would write equations on the
blackboard
and we students would be scratching are heads. The stuff was so
simple to him he would intuitively skip a few steps, mentally
calculating them faster than he could write.
The fruitcakes are similar in that they take random parts of
equations and include them. However the mental parts they skipped
are calculated
incorrectly or not calculated at all. The casual reader, those who
are not steeped in math, have know way of understanding what the
missing
steps should be. For them, it becomes a matter of faith on whom to
believe, the scientist or the fruitcake. A personable fruitcake
will often win the debate.
As I suggested, the whole case is a very sad one of obvious mental
illness.
It is quite lucky then that I happen to be formally qualified in
math-kook detection!
Hammond is the undisputed king of them all.
He throws random equations into a blender, and vomits the mangled
results until empty. (Head and belly)
Winn is a mere apprentice kook.
I noticed that about Hammond about 5 years ago while reading his
stuff on an LDS website. It was then I found out I was an idiot (or
was it imbecile, I forget -- you know brain capacity and all).
This last week or two was my first encounter with Winn.
Unfortunately, putting the math aside for 35 years or so, I now tend
to struggle though it much slower.
Well, take your time, Darrell. I don't want to pressure you, but
THESE PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO SEE YOU PROVE ME WRONG. Just think of it
as a test you cannot afford to fail.
You've already been proven wrong, liar Robert.
Well, no, Jim, I have not been proven wrong.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
28 Sep 2006 10:30:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1159499172.707056.84500@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,,
at , typed this:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
6:47 pm Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:31:24 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4o1j3fFchu5tU1@individual.net>
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
4:13 am Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:03 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
- Refer: <LAESg.1747$ya1.892@news02.roc.ny>
< > wrote in message
news:1159400028.228992.93380@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This appears to be truth based on the fact that Winn has
produced nobody to
step forward and defend his equation.
Not even fellow loony George Hammond?!?
That's sad.
George Hammond did not understand velocity of light.
Ah, so, in short, my point is correct:
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL VERIFY YOUR CLAIMS. NOR CAN
YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF YOUR FORMULA IN ANY PRACTICAL
SENSE.
Not even another crackpot delusional lunatic!
That is because none of them even understand their own equations.
How can they critic the equations of others, even if the others are
fruitcakes?
I remember in our advanced math class in college, long, long time
ago in a far away place, the professor would write equations on the
blackboard
and we students would be scratching are heads. The stuff was so
simple to him he would intuitively skip a few steps, mentally
calculating them faster than he could write.
The fruitcakes are similar in that they take random parts of
equations and include them. However the mental parts they skipped
are calculated
incorrectly or not calculated at all. The casual reader, those who
are not steeped in math, have know way of understanding what the
missing
steps should be. For them, it becomes a matter of faith on whom to
believe, the scientist or the fruitcake. A personable fruitcake
will often win the debate.
As I suggested, the whole case is a very sad one of obvious mental
illness.
It is quite lucky then that I happen to be formally qualified in
math-kook detection!
Hammond is the undisputed king of them all.
He throws random equations into a blender, and vomits the mangled
results until empty. (Head and belly)
Winn is a mere apprentice kook.
I noticed that about Hammond about 5 years ago while reading his
stuff on an LDS website. It was then I found out I was an idiot (or
was it imbecile, I forget -- you know brain capacity and all).
This last week or two was my first encounter with Winn.
Unfortunately, putting the math aside for 35 years or so, I now tend
to struggle though it much slower.
Well, take your time, Darrell. I don't want to pressure you, but
THESE PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO SEE YOU PROVE ME WRONG. Just think of it
as a test you cannot afford to fail.
You've already been proven wrong, liar Robert.
Well, no, Jim, I have not been proven wrong.
There's a difference between "proven wrong" and "proven wrong to your
satisfaction". You've been proven wrong on almost every subject you've
participated in. You will never be proven wrong *to your satisfaction*
because you simply refuse to accept the evidence that proves you wrong.
You're a terribly insecure and unstable little man, Rob.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 3
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0402042145.2faac5c9@posting.google.com
you're a *****
1414fd53.0301242012.7786001e@posting.google.com
*I* said you were a *****, and you are
1414fd53.0201151612.5d801f91@posting.google.com
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 08:52:58 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1159499172.707056.84500@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
6:47 pm Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:31:24 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4o1j3fFchu5tU1@individual.net>
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 28 September 2006
4:13 am Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:03 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
- Refer: <LAESg.1747$ya1.892@news02.roc.ny>
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159400028.228992.93380@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This appears to be truth based on the fact that Winn has
produced nobody to
step forward and defend his equation.
Not even fellow loony George Hammond?!?
That's sad.
George Hammond did not understand velocity of light.
Ah, so, in short, my point is correct:
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL VERIFY YOUR CLAIMS. NOR CAN
YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF YOUR FORMULA IN ANY PRACTICAL
SENSE.
Not even another crackpot delusional lunatic!
That is because none of them even understand their own equations.
How can they critic the equations of others, even if the others are
fruitcakes?
I remember in our advanced math class in college, long, long time
ago in a far away place, the professor would write equations on the
blackboard
and we students would be scratching are heads. The stuff was so
simple to him he would intuitively skip a few steps, mentally
calculating them faster than he could write.
The fruitcakes are similar in that they take random parts of
equations and include them. However the mental parts they skipped
are calculated
incorrectly or not calculated at all. The casual reader, those who
are not steeped in math, have know way of understanding what the
missing
steps should be. For them, it becomes a matter of faith on whom to
believe, the scientist or the fruitcake. A personable fruitcake
will often win the debate.
As I suggested, the whole case is a very sad one of obvious mental
illness.
It is quite lucky then that I happen to be formally qualified in
math-kook detection!
Hammond is the undisputed king of them all.
He throws random equations into a blender, and vomits the mangled
results until empty. (Head and belly)
Winn is a mere apprentice kook.
I noticed that about Hammond about 5 years ago while reading his
stuff on an LDS website. It was then I found out I was an idiot (or
was it imbecile, I forget -- you know brain capacity and all).
This last week or two was my first encounter with Winn.
Unfortunately, putting the math aside for 35 years or so, I now tend
to struggle though it much slower.
Well, take your time, Darrell. I don't want to pressure you, but
THESE PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO SEE YOU PROVE ME WRONG. Just think of it
as a test you cannot afford to fail.
You've already been proven wrong, liar Robert.
Well, no, Jim, I have not been proven wrong.
There's a difference between "proven wrong" and "proven wrong to your
satisfaction". You've been proven wrong on almost every subject you've
participated in. You will never be proven wrong *to your satisfaction*
because you simply refuse to accept the evidence that proves you wrong.
You're a terribly insecure and unstable little man, Rob.
Sorry, but mathematics is not a democracy. You either get the right
answer or you do not. Since you know almost nothing about mathematics,
what you say about it does not mean much. In order to prove
mathematics wrong, you have to use mathematics. I know that seems like
a lot of trouble to you because in the past you have gone through life
just making accusations that you could percieve would be popular among
immoral people.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 10:59:12 AM |
|
|
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159537978.280577.118470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but mathematics is not a democracy. You either get the right
answer or you do not.
Okay, but here's the deal:
To determine that the answer is correct, you have to find somebody of
sufficient expertise who will check your work and say "This guy is correct."
EVERY EQUATION used in mathematics is tested by peers or by practice;
somebody checks the work, or the accuracy is proven by demonstration.
Every single person in the world could cram some calculus together and
declare it a substantial scientific breakthrough and accuse everybody else
of being wrong, but the only ones that float to the surface are the ones who
find somebody to vouch for them and say 'THIS GUY IS RIGHT! It's not just
his warped understanding of calculus or lack of accuracy...I AGREE WITH THIS
EQUATION'
Since you know almost nothing about mathematics, what you say about it
does not mean much. In order to prove mathematics wrong, you have to use
mathematics.
In order to prove mathematics right, you have to use mathematicians. So do
it. It's that simple. Just ONE, Robert.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 01:36:43 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159537978.280577.118470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but mathematics is not a democracy. You either get the right
answer or you do not.
Okay, but here's the deal:
To determine that the answer is correct, you have to find somebody of
sufficient expertise who will check your work and say "This guy is correct."
EVERY EQUATION used in mathematics is tested by peers or by practice;
somebody checks the work, or the accuracy is proven by demonstration.
Every single person in the world could cram some calculus together and
declare it a substantial scientific breakthrough and accuse everybody else
of being wrong, but the only ones that float to the surface are the ones who
find somebody to vouch for them and say 'THIS GUY IS RIGHT! It's not just
his warped understanding of calculus or lack of accuracy...I AGREE WITH THIS
EQUATION'
Since you know almost nothing about mathematics, what you say about it
does not mean much. In order to prove mathematics wrong, you have to use
mathematics.
In order to prove mathematics right, you have to use mathematicians. So do
it. It's that simple. Just ONE, Robert.
Right. Well, where am I supposed to find someone who knows enough
about mathematics to understand the equations who is not part of the
group who is being paid trillions by the government for understanding
the Lorentz equations with their present interpretation? So you are
saying that I should start looking for such a person?
It seems easier to me to just post the equations and wait until
someone says they understand them.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 03:42:12 PM |
|
|
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159555003.640321.74820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
In order to prove mathematics right, you have to use mathematicians. So
do
it. It's that simple. Just ONE, Robert.
Right. Well, where am I supposed to find someone who knows enough
about mathematics to understand the equations who is not part of the
group who is being paid trillions
A grad student. A high school teacher. A self-employed or retired
mathematician or professor. Somebody. Another friggin' welder. Anybody. ONE
PERSON out of the billions on the planet that isn't part of alt.abortion or
wherever it is that you claim you only post.
You clearly haven't even tried.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 04:22:37 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159555003.640321.74820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
In order to prove mathematics right, you have to use mathematicians. So
do
it. It's that simple. Just ONE, Robert.
Right. Well, where am I supposed to find someone who knows enough
about mathematics to understand the equations who is not part of the
group who is being paid trillions
A grad student. A high school teacher. A self-employed or retired
mathematician or professor. Somebody. Another friggin' welder. Anybody. ONE
PERSON out of the billions on the planet that isn't part of alt.abortion or
wherever it is that you claim you only post.
You clearly haven't even tried.
Tell me again why I am supposed to need this person.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 06:52:02 PM |
|
|
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159564957.536006.149590@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
In order to prove mathematics right, you have to use mathematicians.
So
do it. It's that simple. Just ONE, Robert.
Right. Well, where am I supposed to find someone who knows enough
about mathematics to understand the equations who is not part of the
group who is being paid trillions
A grad student. A high school teacher. A self-employed or retired
mathematician or professor. Somebody. Another friggin' welder. Anybody.
ONE
PERSON out of the billions on the planet that isn't part of alt.abortion
or
wherever it is that you claim you only post.
You clearly haven't even tried.
Tell me again why I am supposed to need this person.
You're dodging. Have you no dignity whatseover? Read the very first
sentence above, to which you responded.
-c
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 01:38:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
gatt wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1159537978.280577.118470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but mathematics is not a democracy. You either get the right
answer or you do not.
Okay, but here's the deal:
To determine that the answer is correct, you have to find somebody of
sufficient expertise who will check your work and say "This guy is correct."
EVERY EQUATION used in mathematics is tested by peers or by practice;
somebody checks the work, or the accuracy is proven by demonstration.
Every single person in the world could cram some calculus together and
declare it a substantial scientific breakthrough and accuse everybody else
of being wrong, but the only ones that float to the surface are the ones who
find somebody to vouch for them and say 'THIS GUY IS RIGHT! It's not just
his warped understanding of calculus or lack of accuracy...I AGREE WITH THIS
EQUATION'
Since you know almost nothing about mathematics, what you say about it
does not mean much. In order to prove mathematics wrong, you have to use
mathematics.
In order to prove mathematics right, you have to use mathematicians. So do
it. It's that simple. Just ONE, Robert.
Right. Well, where am I supposed to find someone who knows enough
about mathematics to understand the equations who is not part of the
group who is being paid trillions by the government for understanding
the Lorentz equations with their present interpretation? So you are
saying that I should start looking for such a person?
It seems easier to me to just post the equations and wait until
someone says they understand them.
An awful lot of people have said that, Rob.
They say you are wrong.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 3
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0402042145.2faac5c9@posting.google.com
you're a *****
1414fd53.0301242012.7786001e@posting.google.com
*I* said you were a *****, and you are
1414fd53.0201151612.5d801f91@posting.google.com
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 02:26:52 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159537978.280577.118470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but mathematics is not a democracy. You either get the right
answer or you do not.
Okay, but here's the deal:
To determine that the answer is correct, you have to find somebody of
sufficient expertise who will check your work and say "This guy is correct."
EVERY EQUATION used in mathematics is tested by peers or by practice;
somebody checks the work, or the accuracy is proven by demonstration.
Every single person in the world could cram some calculus together and
declare it a substantial scientific breakthrough and accuse everybody else
of being wrong, but the only ones that float to the surface are the ones who
find somebody to vouch for them and say 'THIS GUY IS RIGHT! It's not just
his warped understanding of calculus or lack of accuracy...I AGREE WITH THIS
EQUATION'
Since you know almost nothing about mathematics, what you say about it
does not mean much. In order to prove mathematics wrong, you have to use
mathematics.
In order to prove mathematics right, you have to use mathematicians. So do
it. It's that simple. Just ONE, Robert.
Right. Well, where am I supposed to find someone who knows enough
about mathematics to understand the equations who is not part of the
group who is being paid trillions by the government for understanding
the Lorentz equations with their present interpretation? So you are
saying that I should start looking for such a person?
It seems easier to me to just post the equations and wait until
someone says they understand them.
An awful lot of people have said that, Rob.
They say you are wrong.
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?]
Robert B. Winn
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 03:42:13 PM |
|
|
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 04:25:08 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 06:33:06 PM |
|
|
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159565108.861177.164810@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how
it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations,
If posting them to alt.abortion and being told you're wrong is your idea of
"using your equation," have at it I guess.
and you and the rest of the world can use Einstein's.
That's what the rest of the world does alright. And look at what they use
it for:
http://www.space.com
http://www.nasa.gov
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 04:51:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
gatt wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on her mystery down payment:
1414fd53.0312122347.79901...@posting.google.com
By April of 2001, the money I had managed to save for a down payment on a
house (from my husband and I working three jobs between us) was
confiscated by the IRS.
The first year of the Bush presidency, I got money back and am now a
homeowner.
1129172027.067956.70...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I never paid a down payment on my house. The government took it
all. Fortunately, my husband is a Navy veteran, we had good credit,
and he was able to use his military benefits to get a $0 down.
1130579291.315993.196310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
We did have a down.
1130263251.632250.146780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Any amount is more than the zero I put in, you stupid crackhead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 07:06:36 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
Well, one of the things I was planning to do with them was blathering.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 07:07:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
wrote:
gatt wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
Well, one of the things I was planning to do with them was blathering.
You do that anywhat. So was your definition of human being "human and
exists"?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on her mystery down payment:
1414fd53.0312122347.79901...@posting.google.com
By April of 2001, the money I had managed to save for a down payment on a
house (from my husband and I working three jobs between us) was
confiscated by the IRS.
The first year of the Bush presidency, I got money back and am now a
homeowner.
1129172027.067956.70...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I never paid a down payment on my house. The government took it
all. Fortunately, my husband is a Navy veteran, we had good credit,
and he was able to use his military benefits to get a $0 down.
1130579291.315993.196310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
We did have a down.
1130263251.632250.146780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Any amount is more than the zero I put in, you stupid crackhead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 07:36:09 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
Well, one of the things I was planning to do with them was blathering.
You do that anywhat. So was your definition of human being "human and
exists"?
Actually, that was not a definition. It was an example of two
characteristics that human beings have.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
29 Sep 2006 08:01:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
wrote:
gatt wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
Well, one of the things I was planning to do with them was blathering.
You do that anywhat. So was your definition of human being "human and
exists"?
Actually, that was not a definition. It was an example of two
characteristics that human beings have.
Ah, so that's not your definition anymore. Please post your new
definition of "human being".
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 4
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
<1414fd53.0207102116.2eb48a28@posting.google.com>
"I am not loyal to any party, you assclown." Sneechres, in:
<1414fd53.0306092230.6feb961a@posting.google.com>
"Terrorism was a problem that Bush unfortunately inherited
from the ineffectual assclown who preceded him." sneechres, in:
<1124047275.826268.208310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
"That you think you and assclown Craig here somehow have a right to
post to FR,..." Sneechres, in:
<1116109071.408620.206140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"Assclown. I'm talking about your attempt to re-define the issue."
Sneechres, in:
<8lqa7o$7n4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
"No, assclown, my eyes are green. Thanks for asking." Sneechres
Asaurus, in:
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
30 Sep 2006 12:39:13 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
Well, one of the things I was planning to do with them was blathering.
You do that anywhat. So was your definition of human being "human and
exists"?
Actually, that was not a definition. It was an example of two
characteristics that human beings have.
Ah, so that's not your definition anymore. Please post your new
definition of "human being".
A human being is a person.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
30 Sep 2006 12:17:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
wrote:
gatt wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
Well, one of the things I was planning to do with them was blathering.
You do that anywhat. So was your definition of human being "human and
exists"?
Actually, that was not a definition. It was an example of two
characteristics that human beings have.
Ah, so that's not your definition anymore. Please post your new
definition of "human being".
A human being is a person.
"Person" being defined as "human and individual", which does not define
a fetus.
Are you finally admitting that a fetus is not a human being?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 4
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
<1414fd53.0207102116.2eb48a28@posting.google.com>
"I am not loyal to any party, you assclown." Sneechres, in:
<1414fd53.0306092230.6feb961a@posting.google.com>
"Terrorism was a problem that Bush unfortunately inherited
from the ineffectual assclown who preceded him." sneechres, in:
<1124047275.826268.208310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
"That you think you and assclown Craig here somehow have a right to
post to FR,..." Sneechres, in:
<1116109071.408620.206140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"Assclown. I'm talking about your attempt to re-define the issue."
Sneechres, in:
<8lqa7o$7n4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
"No, assclown, my eyes are green. Thanks for asking." Sneechres
Asaurus, in:
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE BIBLE, fact or fiction |
30 Sep 2006 01:24:00 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
gatt wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1159558012.133245.72120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, it does not work that way. What you have to do is say, They say
you are wrong because ........ And then you show the mistake. Do you
think you can do that?
No, Robert. Nobody has to do that at all. That is not and never was how it
works in the real world.
Well, OK then. I'll use my equations, and you and the rest of the
world can use Einstein's. That seems fair to me.
Good idea. You plan on not blathering them all over usenet as truth now?
Well, one of the things I was planning to do with the | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
