On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:55:52 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
sff.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:31:28 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
>>
sff.net> wrote:
>>>>>Please don't try to talk about what's "Scientific" and what isn't, that
>>>constitutes scientific evidence and what doesn't. Every time you do so,
>you
>>>get it wrong.
>>>
>>>Some examples:
>>
>
> Hal's mind is made up. Don't confuse him with facts.
>
>> My nominations for the most pendantic bullshit post of the week.
>
> My nomination for the most content-free comeback of the week.
>
>> Um, David, me thinks you have way too much spare time on your hands.
>
> Um, Hal, methinks you have way too much hands on your time.
>
>> Did you have a question somewhere in all that?
>
> No, actually. Never said I did.
>
>> What is it exactly
>> that you don't understand?
>
> The problem isn't that I don't understand--the problem is that I do.
>
> Renli's statements about science and what makes a scientific theory are
>just plain wrong. Examples drawn from actual science demonstrate the
>difference between what he is claiming and how science actually works.
and your point in all that is you refuse to accept chi exists because
it does not fit your definition scientific proof? Is that it? Or you
just want an excuse to abuse Ollie? If you have a specific question
about what chi is I'll be happy to explain it to you. If you just
want to abuse people for your amusement you go right ahead.
Hal
>
>--
>David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
>mailto:dburkhead@
sff.net "While we live, let us live."
>My webcomic Cold Servings
>
http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!
>Updates Wednesdays
>
>
>
