curse

Mark has probably gotten some ideas about me that are not true.
People can not get an extremely good idea about a person on the
internet.

People who I know - like people who live around me and people who I
meet at parties - know that I am nice and I talk a lot - I do not talk
about God to them - I do not ever talk about physics - I do not ever
talk about science - I almost all the time go to bars by myself
because I do not like to scream and I need to scream if I talk at a
bar - extreme amount of noise at bars - I do not like to go to a bar
with a person and not talk to them - I try not to talk to any person
at a bar because I need to scream - if any person tries to talk to me
about physics I start talking about girls - if any person tries to
talk to me about God I start talking about girls - I do not like
talking to people on computers like with these groups - I have not
ever told 1 girl who I dated 1 of my theories - 99 % of people who
know me do not know I am associated with physics.

This is probably true for most people who write articles for these
groups. They are different from what people think of them. Uncle Al
is probably nice to some people. Jack S. will talk to people who live
around him. Mark will date a girl who thinks there is a God. Richard
may be nice to some of his students as a physics teacher.

Kurt Stocklmeir

On Apr 20, 3:27 pm, wrote:
Mark has probably gotten some ideas about me that are not true.

Entirely possible.

People can not get an extremely good idea about a person on the
internet.

That works both ways, Kurt. I probably think I'm a different sort of
person from the sort you and others here think I am, though lately
I've been working on only expressing the real me.

People who I know - like people who live around me and people who I
meet at parties - know that I am nice and I talk a lot - I do not talk
about God to them - I do not ever talk about physics - I do not ever
talk about science -

I consider any subject fit for discussion, though I usually try to
tailor the level of discussion to who I think I'm talking with. I've
been surprised how often the other person ramps it up though.

It's been said that there are three Forbidden Topics at such
gatherings; sex, politics, and religion. Yet it seems that everyone
wants to talk about them...

In my experience it isn't so much what you say as how you say it.
Why, once I managed to explain Lorentz contraction to a drunk
carpenter over a pitcher of beer. In exchange he explained toenailing,
so we both came out ahead. I suspect he got more out of it than I did
though; next time we met I had purple thumbs and he didn't.

I almost all the time go to bars by myself
because I do not like to scream and I need to scream if I talk at a
bar - extreme amount of noise at bars - I do not like to go to a bar
with a person and not talk to them - I try not to talk to any person
at a bar because I need to scream

We are in exact agreement! Well, except I very rarely go to bars
because of that.

- if any person tries to talk to me
about physics I start talking about girls - if any person tries to
talk to me about God I start talking about girls - I do not like
talking to people on computers like with these groups - I have not
ever told 1 girl who I dated 1 of my theories - 99 % of people who
know me do not know I am associated with physics.

Other way around here; 99% of people that know me know I am.

This is probably true for most people who write articles for these
groups. They are different from what people think of them. Uncle Al
is probably nice to some people.

Almost certainly. His idea of "nice" may not be the same as everyone
else's though. ;)

Mark will date a girl who thinks there is a God.

I gave up on girls when I discovered women. And I've been married to
one for near thirteen years, thanks just the same. If you're
wondering, yes, we have occasional deep theological discussions. I
wouldn't have married her if we couldn't!


Mark L. Fergerson

In message .com,
writes
Richard
may be nice to some of his students as a physics teacher.

Thank you. I think I was nice to all of them ... in the distant past
when I did once teach physics.

--
Richard Herring

Please tell the following to your buddies, Kurt,
and then report back to me.

Although physical processes determine absolutely everything,
so that the future is just as fixed as the past,
time is a spatial dimension ( i.e. falsely directional ),
and we are 4-D rocks, static and immutable...

It's impossible to imagine. Yet gravity is modeled that way.
In General Relativity, time is spatial.

All changes ( including choices ) are merely notional, not real.
Likewise, entropy is merely notional. PseudoEntropy is our PseudoGod.
As God, PseudoEntropy creats, " uses " and then destroys us.

JeffŠRelf wrote:

Please tell the following to your buddies, Kurt,
and then report back to me.

Although physical processes determine absolutely everything,
so that the future is just as fixed as the past,
time is a spatial dimension ( i.e. falsely directional ),
and we are 4-D rocks, static and immutable...

It's impossible to imagine. Yet gravity is modeled that way.
In General Relativity, time is spatial.

All changes ( including choices ) are merely notional, not real.
Likewise, entropy is merely notional. PseudoEntropy is our PseudoGod.
As God, PseudoEntropy creats, " uses " and then destroys us.

No underscores in this post, Jeff? What's up with that?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
JeffSRelf wrote:

Please tell the following to your buddies, Kurt,
and then report back to me.

Although physical processes determine absolutely everything,
so that the future is just as fixed as the past,
time is a spatial dimension ( i.e. falsely directional ),
and we are 4-D rocks, static and immutable...

It's impossible to imagine. Yet gravity is modeled that way.
In General Relativity, time is spatial.

All changes ( including choices ) are merely notional, not real.
Likewise, entropy is merely notional. PseudoEntropy is our PseudoGod.
As God, PseudoEntropy creats, " uses " and then destroys us.

No underscores in this post, Jeff? What's up with that?


He got so excited at the chance to talk nonsense about time being a spatial
dimension, that he forgot his "signature" writing style....

I just love the way he abuses English...

In sci.physics, T Wake

wrote
on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:31 +0100
:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
JeffSRelf wrote:

Please tell the following to your buddies, Kurt,
and then report back to me.

Although physical processes determine absolutely everything,
so that the future is just as fixed as the past,
time is a spatial dimension ( i.e. falsely directional ),
and we are 4-D rocks, static and immutable...

It's impossible to imagine. Yet gravity is modeled that way.
In General Relativity, time is spatial.

All changes ( including choices ) are merely notional, not real.
Likewise, entropy is merely notional. PseudoEntropy is our PseudoGod.
As God, PseudoEntropy creats, " uses " and then destroys us.

No underscores in this post, Jeff? What's up with that?


He got so excited at the chance to talk nonsense about time being a spatial
dimension, that he forgot his "signature" writing style....

I just love the way he abuses English...


You don't want to know how he abuses C++.... :-)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The_Ghost flagrantly abuses Usenet everytime he begins his posts
by auto-quoting random headers ad nauseam, e.g.:

" In sci.physics, T Wake

wrote
on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:31 +0100
:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
... ".

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, T Wake

wrote
on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:31 +0100
:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
JeffSRelf wrote:

Please tell the following to your buddies, Kurt,
and then report back to me.

Although physical processes determine absolutely everything,
so that the future is just as fixed as the past,
time is a spatial dimension ( i.e. falsely directional ),
and we are 4-D rocks, static and immutable...

It's impossible to imagine. Yet gravity is modeled that way.
In General Relativity, time is spatial.

All changes ( including choices ) are merely notional, not real.
Likewise, entropy is merely notional. PseudoEntropy is our PseudoGod.
As God, PseudoEntropy creats, " uses " and then destroys us.

No underscores in this post, Jeff? What's up with that?


He got so excited at the chance to talk nonsense about time being a spatial
dimension, that he forgot his "signature" writing style....

I just love the way he abuses English...


You don't want to know how he abuses C++.... :-)

I take it he's never read Stroustrup, Cline, and Meyers then?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics, T Wake

wrote
on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:31 +0100
:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
JeffSRelf wrote:

Please tell the following to your buddies, Kurt,
and then report back to me.

Although physical processes determine absolutely everything,
so that the future is just as fixed as the past,
time is a spatial dimension ( i.e. falsely directional ),
and we are 4-D rocks, static and immutable...

It's impossible to imagine. Yet gravity is modeled that way.
In General Relativity, time is spatial.

All changes ( including choices ) are merely notional, not real.
Likewise, entropy is merely notional. PseudoEntropy is our PseudoGod.
As God, PseudoEntropy creats, " uses " and then destroys us.

No underscores in this post, Jeff? What's up with that?


He got so excited at the chance to talk nonsense about time being a
spatial
dimension, that he forgot his "signature" writing style....

I just love the way he abuses English...


You don't want to know how he abuses C++.... :-)


:-)