"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:TeVjf.588108$x96.385072@attbi_s72...

Looking at your fumbles site I see that you have never made a mistake
in
your life.

What a silly thing to say.
Are you an idiot or are you just pretending?
I have made more mistakes in my life than the ones you will
find made by others on that list. The reason I don't list the
mistakes I have made, is because I have learned from them.
When someone corrects me, I aknowledge and learn. As you can
find out for yourself, when you have a *careful* look at the
list, the idiots you find there, don't do that.

Not a one. Nor have you ever in your life had the slightest bit
of imagination, vision, or questioned any theory with a different
deduction
from the given deduction once a deduction has hit the big time. Einstein
himself once told Heisenberg not to hold him to anything he said before
he
knew better. Hawking has publicly admitted to some big mistakes he made
in
his earlier times. Von Neumann and Lord Kelvin made singular mistakes so
great they are continually part of our humorous literature of [greats of
various fields'] truly immortal fumbles. Such are big time, titanic,
[professional] fumbles.

Exercise 1:
What are the two essential (-but overlooked by you-) criteria
a mistake must satisfy to appear on the list?

This is an open forum for the worst amateurs as well as gifted
amateurs.
It is an open forum for the worst professionals as well as gifted
professionals. It is an open forum for trial and error, trial and error,
trial and error. It is a forum for describing some "really weird
universes"
and string theory, for just one example, predicts countless possibilities
of
"really weird universes."

Yes, no argument on that. However, this is also an open forum
for idiots and for those who, like me, are intersted in how
these idiots behave when confronted with their condition.

Our own universe, according to some of the most
thoughtful greats, is subject in many ways to also being "really weird."
A
quote by physicist Marc Davis at one of the first conferences on string
theory has been echoed countless times since by the best and most
thoughtful
professionals, "We know next to nothing about the Universe." Hawking
stated
that the least supposed knowledgeable, the most ignorant among humankind,
could have the one right picture of the way things really are. That that
is
how really little we really know.


So per all these notables, you've wasted so much -- so very valuable --
space and time over the years. At least we amateurs are in great company
in
our fumbles.

No, you are not in great company. Apparently you belong to the
category of fumblers who don't learn from their mistakes. The
only company you're in, is the company of idiots. Idiots making
mistakes are vastly more numerous than the geniuses you have
in mind.

But you've made the most "immortal fumble" of them all. No
imagination -- only too obvious. No vision -- only too obvious. No
trials --
only too obvious. No errors -- only too obvious.

Yes, unlike the idiots, I try to learn before I try to teach,
so I spend my time with study.
I continue to study Mathematics and Physics and Village Idiot
Psychology.

No "fumbles," immortal or
otherwise. Thus a waste. Pure waste. You have peers in it but no superior
in
it who-so-ever. As I said, always "the most 'immortal fumble' of them
all."


"Fight enough dragons you become a dragon: Stare into the Abyss, the
Abyss
will stare back into you." Or something very much like that.


GLB


Marlowe (sarcastically): "Oh Norris, you made a mistake, Miss Rutledge
didn't want to see me." Norris (cool return): "I make many mistakes." --
The
Big Sleep.

So do I, but I don't try to impose my mistakes on others.

Exercise 2:
Tell me what you learned from
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CircuitSpeed.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BradQuote.html

Dirk Vdm

glbrad01 wrote:

Looking at your fumbles site I see that you have never made a mistake in
your life. Not a one. Nor have you ever in your life had the slightest
bit
of imagination, vision, or questioned any theory with a different
deduction
from the given deduction once a deduction has hit the big time. Einstein
himself once told Heisenberg not to hold him to anything he said before
he
knew better. Hawking has publicly admitted to some big mistakes he made
in
his earlier times. Von Neumann and Lord Kelvin made singular mistakes so
great they are continually part of our humorous literature of [greats of
various fields'] truly immortal fumbles. Such are big time, titanic,
[professional] fumbles.

This is an open forum for the worst amateurs as well as gifted
amateurs.
It is an open forum for the worst professionals as well as gifted
professionals. It is an open forum for trial and error, trial and error,
trial and error. It is a forum for describing some "really weird
universes"
and string theory, for just one example, predicts countless possibilities
of
"really weird universes." Our own universe, according to some of the most
thoughtful greats, is subject in many ways to also being "really weird."
A
quote by physicist Marc Davis at one of the first conferences on string
theory has been echoed countless times since by the best and most
thoughtful
professionals, "We know next to nothing about the Universe." Hawking
stated
that the least supposed knowledgeable, the most ignorant among humankind,
could have the one right picture of the way things really are. That that
is
how really little we really know.

So per all these notables, you've wasted so much -- so very valuable --
space and time over the years. At least we amateurs are in great company
in
our fumbles. But you've made the most "immortal fumble" of them all. No
imagination -- only too obvious. No vision -- only too obvious. No
trials --
only too obvious. No errors -- only too obvious. No "fumbles," immortal
or
otherwise. Thus a waste. Pure waste. You have peers in it but no superior
in
it who-so-ever. As I said, always "the most 'immortal fumble' of them
all."

I make many mistakes. You've made only one. What a terrible waste.

The poster makes a good point when he points out
that Moortel's life is ONE big "fumble".

As I pointed out in an old post,
which follows below,
the purpose of Mortell's web site is
to compensate for an inferiority complex,
and to attack folks who have
exposed his ignorance in the newsgroups.

Old post follows.
==============
Your web site tells far more about you,
than it does about the folks,
whose articles are featured on your web site.

It tells that you have an inferiority complex
and try to stroke your ego
by trying to slander other folks.

And it shows that you target certain folks,
( Probably because they have exposed your "fumbles"
in an open forum, rather than in a personal web page.)
and imply that particular posts,
which may or not be informative and valid,
are "Fumbles" by virtue of the fact
that they are referenced on your site.

For example, I see that you reference two of my posts
which make reference to my position,
that it makes more sense to get information
from "The horse's mouth, rather from a horse's *****."

Of course, it may be that you actually believe that a "horse's *****"
is the best source of information,
and that you are striving to be the best source.

And it shows that you are cowardly,
and need the security of people
with psychological problems similar to yours.

Perhaps you will prove me wrong by
posting a few references to some of the so-called "fumbles"
made by the other posters in sci.physics,
who, like you, habitually stroke their egos
by attacking other folks.

I will be anxiously looking forward to seeing
your references to some of these "fumbles".
==============
End of old post.

Case in point.
Wormley and Old Man recently attacked me
for pointing out that the Fine Structure Constant
was affected by mass, and no apology or response
was forthcoming when I posted NIST verification of this.

You can bet you won't see these REAL "fumbles"
on Mortell's web site, as Moortel does not
post the REAL "fumbles" of the sci.physics Taliban,
as this would undermine his rationalization for attacking
messengers, rather than addressing messages
in an open, honest, rational, intelligent, mature, moral way.

--
Tom Potter
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com