On Oct 29, 10:44*pm, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:23:00 -0400, HVAC wrote:
On 10/24/2012 1:15 PM, wrote:

Please cite ANY example of Bert being correct...Ever.

That is beside the point! Even if he WERE correct, you'd still nosedive
back into the box!

As I previously pointed out...Before you can think outside the box,
first you must know what's in the box already.

How would you know anything at all about it? *You have never once
thought outside the box. *So how would you know?

This 'ready, fire, aim' mentality is ridiculous.

It only seems that way to you. *To me, it's assuredly "ready, aim,
fire". *What seems transposed to you is simply our way of aiming our
imaginations and firing them at mainstream ideas that might have other
and better solutions. *What sounds "kooky" to you is just the
imaginations of people you will never understand because you don't
take any time to really get to know them.

You're always too busy putting on a show to actually be serious about
theoretical, hypothetical and postulatory science.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

Harlow knows absolutely everything he was ever indoctrinated to know,
at least that's what his boss Hitler used to think, and also what all
of his boss replacements required of their brown-nosed minions to
think.

When Harlow plays with his poop is when he gets the most excited,
especially when he gets to topic/author stalk and bash anyone for
pondering any notion(s) that puts the history of physics and science
at any risk of getting revised. Harlow would have made a terrific
Pope, or an even better Usenet/newsgroup contributor such as Warhol,
because revising anything (especially for the better) is simply not an
option.