On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:25:57 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:

We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.

This, is your originality???

This discussion isn't original. Why should I be original?

In fact, NOTHING you've ever posted has been 'original'...

Fact

- numerology has NOTHING to with dimensional relationships

We aren't discussing dimensional relationships. We're discussing
your attempt to turn dimensional relationships into numerology.

You mean YOU aren't discussing dimensionality, I was & am. Thus
the fact stated above. You cannot prove ANY published definition
of numerology that has ANYTHING to do with dimensional equations.

[...]

There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.

You're brain dead!

No, I'd only be brain dead if I really believed there was anything
anyone could write that you would dismiss out of hand.

Right

I asked you to "go back a show references where you
say anything but superficial BILGE on this!". I didn't
ask you to write MORE Bilge.

So? I've asked you numerous times to derive something or provide
mathematical definitions for things, and you never do. What makes
you so special?

Ask those that know me personally... In fact I've provided the
reasoning & expressions you simply won't look. Just like those
in "Pushing Gravity ...".

[...]
I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.

Bull... I've never seem it, searched the archives, and it's as far as I
can tell, its not there. If you had, you'd have ZERO problem re-writing
it. Now put up, or shut up!!! What I expect to see from you is more
whining Bilge.

I hope I met your expectations.

Oh, you exceed them. Your bluff was called, you couldn't put up,
and didn't shut up...

Paul Stowe