Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

TomGee wrote:

Bjoern,
I did read some of them

Please notice that I not only said that you should read them.
I also said "Try to learn something, for a change." Apparently
you missed that part.

I did try to learn something from them, but they are so filled with
unrelated facts, issues, and opinions, that to learn anything from

is to learn subjective review of the facts and the opinions of the
authors, and I know all that already. You read them and learned what
from them besides the personal beliefs of the writers?

and I responded to the silliness of referring
posters to websites which contain a plethora of facts and

Apparently you missed that these pages also contained

False definitions, yes. Personal and opinionated definitions, yes.
Unexplained theory and wrong conclusions, yes. No wonder you don't
have a clue, Bjoern, you're learning from the wrong persons, those

don't have a clue either. It was a waste of my time to read those
websites as they simply parrot theory as if it were fact or accepted
fact.

useless usually to straight-thinkers like me.

You think anything but straight.

Pot. Kettle. Black. (Heh heh, remember that?)

For those seeking to be
educated, they end up confused all the more.

Not if they have some reading comprehension abilities.

But if, like you and Wormy, they don't, they end confused all the

Those who cannot express
themselves properly or those who have no reasonable rebuttal to

claims, or those who cannot have any original thoughts, are those

poor

souls who refer others to websites.

Wrong. Referring to websites is quite natural when questions are

posed

which have been answered hundreds of times already, and for which
good explanations on the web exist.

It's quite natural only when you do have the answer to the question,

when you lack the prose to post your answer. Any teacher will tell

that is a ridiculous way to try to teach any one anything or to make

point about an issue in debate. You may as well refer them to the
library.

What do *you* think the sense of FAQ pages is?

They proclaim the current interpretations of the writers of the

as they understand it. It seems that most simply parrot their side

any issue which is contention.

You don't have any favorite sites
to refer others to so you refer us to Wormy's sites!

I merely pointed out that you apparently either did not read them,
or didn't bother to try learning anything from them.

You were wrong on both counts, then, as you usually are.

TomGee

Wormy, because every new idea is met with incredulity here by you,
Bjoern, UA, and many others who troll sci. ngs.

Whether or not I
understand physics basics has nothing to do with the fact that not

one of you can ovethrow my ideas, no matter how much you try or have
tried. All you can do is attack me personally since you cannot argue
effectively against my ideas. If you could, you would have done so
already, but you can't and so you have not. After fending off your
personal attacks, all I get from you experts is silence. Too bad you
don't follow up on what I'm telling you, because sooner or later you
would have to either find a way to overthrow my ideas, or come to
believe in what I say.
TomGee

Wormy, because every new idea is met with incredulity here by you,
Bjoern, UA, and many others who troll sci. ngs.

So you say, GR_GR,
But I've been here since about 9 or 10 yrs now, and I've seen those
like you come and go because they cannot offer up reasonable debate in
response to the many ideas posited in these ngs.