"clifto" <clifto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:s7u3f5-f1r.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> BaJoRi wrote:
>> "clifto" <clifto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:d951f5-quo.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> BaJoRi wrote:
>>>> You do realize that the guy forwarding this theory has been proven to
>>>> not
>>>> even have a science degree from an accredited learning institution,
>>>
>>> So it should be really, really easy for you to mention facts that
shoot
>>> holes in his theory.
>>>
>>>> has
>>>> posited these types of theories in the past (and been wrong),
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>>
>>>> has faced
>>>> fraud indictments
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>>
>>>> and is a convicted felon,
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>>
>>>> and is generally a quack?
>>>
>>> I like him a whole lot better than I can tolerate you.
>>
>> Because you don't like people who can actually read.
>
> No, I intensely dislike people whose only tactic is ad hominem. You
> delivered 100% personal attack and 0% fact.
>
>> Here is a name: look
>> him up. Google should do fine. Luis Sancho. Have fun.
>
> You made the assertions, you provide the evidence. Once again all I have
> is a name you accused, just more ad hominem. 100% personal attack and 0%
> fact.
It's quite simple, really, even for someone of your obvious intellectual
deficiency: You put forth an item about how a scientific experiment will
destroy the world, and when someone points out that the major proponent
for
said theory has no science degree, has multiple fraud convictions, and has
made these claims in the past and been proven a crackpot, you get all
pissy.
Sorry, bub. Why don't you research how Sancho's claims about Fermilab's
Tevatron accelarator panned out? Maybe you can check on Wagner's
whacked-out
claims regarding the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider. Maybe you can check
out something other than a news article in the NY Times.
Your problem is you read a newspaper article about a goofball and a
lawsuit
and immediately started to panic like Chicken Little, without bothering to
read up on anything you were bringing under discussion.
The fact that objects of the Solar System have been bombarded with those
same cosmic particles, of significantly higher energies than that of
either
the RHIC or LHC that scientists are attempting to recreate, for billions
of
years, without any harm to the Solar System, is a fairly convincing
argument
that the "doomsday" hypotheses are unfounded
>
> --
> "[I]t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns
or
> religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
> sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations."
> -- Barack Obama at a meeting with his equals, the elitist bourgeoisie
|
