URI physics employee invents new antenna technology

"Dr_Postman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:52:28 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:

Hopefully, "Dr_Postman" will point out
where I am "defending a known netkook and spammer."

I had it wrong. You are defending a FELLOW kook.

Hopefully, "Dr_Postman" will point out
where I am "defending a FELLOW kook."

I suggest that in order to defend such an assertion
a rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL person would:
1. Define "kook"
2. Provide evidence of the other "FELLOW" being a "kook".
3. Provide evidence of a "fellowship between asserted "kooks".
4. Provide evidence of a defense was involved,
rather than some other purpose.

In the absence of a rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL
defense of his assertion, one must conclude that "Dr_Postman"
is either
irrational,
illogical,
unintelligent,
dishonest, or
IMMORAL.

Hopefully "Dr_Postman" will provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.

Of course, maybe "Dr_Postman" will again admit that
he "had it wrong",
and that he is just an immature, not-too-bright, mischievous boy
who strokes his ego by saying nasty, childish things
about his superiors.

--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp

"Dr_Postman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:28:20 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:

"Dr_Postman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:52:28 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:

Hopefully, "Dr_Postman" will point out
where I am "defending a known netkook and spammer."

I had it wrong. You are defending a FELLOW kook.

Hopefully, "Dr_Postman" will point out
where I am "defending a FELLOW kook."

You and Jay are made for each other.


I suggest that in order to defend such an assertion
a rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL person would:
1. Define "kook"

Easy:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/faq.html#q6
They usually follow the Woo Woo Credo:
http://tinyurl.com/57phq
And they follow The Way:
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

2. Provide evidence of the other "FELLOW" being a "kook".

Even easier:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/whiners.html#kotm
Jay won for June, 1995

3. Provide evidence of a "fellowship between asserted "kooks".
4. Provide evidence of a defense was involved,

You are the only one who jumped in, specifically telling
Sam that he should debate a known net kook.

rather than some other purpose.

We have Kook Sign! Got some more caps up your sleeve?

In the absence of a rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL
defense of his assertion, one must conclude that "Dr_Postman"
is either
irrational,
illogical,
unintelligent,
dishonest, or
IMMORAL.

Dan? Are you a Kettler reincarnation?

Hopefully "Dr_Postman" will provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.

I don't know if there is a FAQ about you, but there are more than
a few about Jay.

Of course, maybe "Dr_Postman" will again admit that
he "had it wrong",
and that he is just an immature, not-too-bright, mischievous boy
who strokes his ego by saying nasty, childish things
about his superiors.

Did him get his feelings hurt? Awwwwww.

As can be seen, I asked "Dr_Postman"
to "provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.",
and as can be seen he pretty much defines himself with this post.

--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp

"Dr_Postman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:41:15 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:


"Dr_Postman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:28:20 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:

"Dr_Postman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:52:28 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:

Hopefully, "Dr_Postman" will point out
where I am "defending a known netkook and spammer."

I had it wrong. You are defending a FELLOW kook.

Hopefully, "Dr_Postman" will point out
where I am "defending a FELLOW kook."

You and Jay are made for each other.


I suggest that in order to defend such an assertion
a rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL person would:
1. Define "kook"

Easy:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/faq.html#q6
They usually follow the Woo Woo Credo:
http://tinyurl.com/57phq
And they follow The Way:
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

2. Provide evidence of the other "FELLOW" being a "kook".

Even easier:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/whiners.html#kotm
Jay won for June, 1995

3. Provide evidence of a "fellowship between asserted "kooks".
4. Provide evidence of a defense was involved,

You are the only one who jumped in, specifically telling
Sam that he should debate a known net kook.

rather than some other purpose.

We have Kook Sign! Got some more caps up your sleeve?

In the absence of a rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL
defense of his assertion, one must conclude that "Dr_Postman"
is either
irrational,
illogical,
unintelligent,
dishonest, or
IMMORAL.

Dan? Are you a Kettler reincarnation?

Hopefully "Dr_Postman" will provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.

I don't know if there is a FAQ about you, but there are more than
a few about Jay.

Of course, maybe "Dr_Postman" will again admit that
he "had it wrong",
and that he is just an immature, not-too-bright, mischievous boy
who strokes his ego by saying nasty, childish things
about his superiors.

Did him get his feelings hurt? Awwwwww.

As can be seen, I asked "Dr_Postman"
to "provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.",
and as can be seen he pretty much defines himself with this post.

Idiot the Bruce has been reincarnated!

Welcome back, Dan.

As can be seen, I asked "Dr_Postman"
to "provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.",
and as can be seen he pretty much defines himself with this post.

--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:55:07 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:


Idiot the Bruce has been reincarnated!

Welcome back, Dan.

As can be seen, I asked "Dr_Postman"
to "provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.",
and as can be seen he pretty much defines himself with this post.


I'd deny I was Dan if I were you too.






--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: DrJaiMaharajFraud(at)hotmail.com

"Did the Venus transit occur during sunset, idiot?"
- Grant,on the GLP web board, explains to us how
sunrise happens in NY and Asia at the same time.

"Dr_Postman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:55:07 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:

Idiot the Bruce has been reincarnated!

Welcome back, Dan.

As can be seen, I asked "Dr_Postman"
to "provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.",
and as can be seen he pretty much defines himself with this post.

I'd deny I was Dan if I were you too.

As can be seen, I asked "Dr_Postman"
to "provide information that allows
rational, logical, intelligent, honest, MORAL people
to come to some conclusion about what he is.",
and as can be seen he pretty much defines himself with this post.

--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp