Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
. com...

Yes I can send it, though in future you may be interesting to know
that there exists an option "Save as html". Copy each page and then
walk through the paper to your heart's content, as all links will be
inside your machine.

If one "saves as html" one does indeed get the text. That's what I
started
by doing. However, the "links" in that html document are links to the
equation graphics. Which do NOT get downloaded when one "saves as
html."

In Netscape I can "Open Page in Composer" and then save it, and it will
save all the pictures, too, if the pictures use relative links. If the
pictures have absolute links, the phone will dial whenever I try to read
the page.

This is the principle of our e-journal - all links to formulas and
figures within the papers are relative. These are usual html-pages -
the text, formulas and figures inserted into a hidden table. This is
why I'm surprised: many hundreds of people have loaded our papers to
their machines, and no one had such problems. As I see, should he had
a wish to consider the issue, he would not have this problem, too.
Perhaps something other disturbs him.

He said me not to discuss in his thread but to create a new one - I
did so. He said me to send this paper to his e-mail box - I did so.
Another thing is, he defends the hypothesis of 'tired light',

I am not defending "tired light" in the thread you attempted to hijack. The
thread was explicitly and ONLY to identify historic arguments against tired
light.

whilst
our paper PROVES this hypothesis wrong and PROVES another explanation
of the Hubble's red shift.

Papers never "prove" anything. And there are many tired-light hypotheses.
Did you disprove them all? (I guess I'll find out.)

After quite long posting in which he says
different reasons preventing him from reading this paper and that I'm
every time in some way wrong, I came to a mind that he 'has no wish to
read' what he factually has read but was unable to disprove. So he has
cut our citation, 'lest to see' our arguments, in order to 'prove' me
anyway wrong and him having a right to do not read. How banal.

The professional has to meet such scientific challenges with an
objective criticism and scientific argumentation, if any. If he has
not, he has to take the truth as it is, irrespectively to, which
'truth' would be more convenient for him. Otherwise this would be
already not the science.

Regrettably, it concerns you too. Not for the sake of opposition I
asked you to solve the problem. It's a very simple problem, only not
for conventional techniques. As I see, you are escaping to answer. In
vain. It's disadvantageous not for me. You are escaping the
opportunities that give development.

Regards,
Sergey.