Re: Usama Bin Boudin tries harder

"George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "don findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > When I read some real science on your web site, I'll let you know.
> >
> > "*Real* science"?   What's that George?  You mean the science that
> > begins with the observations of other people.  People you can refer to
> > and make lists of?  Lots of references, is that what you like?  And
> > what you think makes science 'real'?
> 
> No.  That makes it credible.  That's your problem - no credibility
> whatsoever.  Your web site contains no math, no numbers, no charts, no
> statistics, no literature review, and no references.  Just colorful drawings
> and a lot of bad-mouthing those with whom you disagree.  And you think that
> makes you credible?  That's what happens when a burned out field technician
> conducts shoddy research and then trys to spin it as science .  Its kind of
> like a janitor trying to operate a particle accelerator.  I think you should
> go back to school and learn how to do technical writing.  What you write is
> very unprofessional, to say the least.
> 
> You have stated in the past that you don't publish anything in professional
> papers because you don't like agree with publishing methods, etc.  I think
> you don't publish in professional papers anymore, and post this crap on the
> internet because no one will touch it.  And they shouldn't.  Why?  Because
> it is unprofessionally compiled, poorly written, contains unsubstantiated
> and/or erroneous information, and as written, is unverifiable.  It is,
> however, certifiable.  And so are you.  But you've heard this all before,
> right?


Well, ...hey,  ('George)',  seems like my site's having the desired
effect.  You're actually reading it  ( Good one)  (though I don't give
much for your comprehension level).  Bad one.   Tell you what, though,
if you don't like it you can always put it back on your filter. 
You're the only one (just about) (on this newsgroup) letting on
they're actually reading it.   Someone  (em. prof. with a passing
interest in the topic) just emailed me the other day to say that in
reply to a discussion where someone   "...calls attention to an
interesting website <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/index.html>created
by Don Findlay, an Australian consulting geologist who specializes in
structural geology and ore deposits.   Findlay claims that it's
expansion of the Earth that has produced our present distribution of
continents and oceans, and that plate tectonics is a sham.", he was
emailing his reply (with the site address attached (OF COURSE) to a
listserv of earth science teachers in New York State.   (Nice of him
to let me know.)   And a prof. in China recently wanted a pdf version.
  So it's getting about, ...getting about.   And has been for a while.
  Maybe it's time for you to post a comment for my website?  I'll put
you up a page.  (I think I've offered you this before.)  And anyone
else who thinks they have something to say about it.

Maybe you're one of these people who deem themselves guardians of
scientific morality (and integrity - 'George')?  (WARCRY : "What have
you published? What have you published?").   If so, then as usual you
miss the point.   My credibility isn't the issue.   Play the ball. 
(But yours, as reader,  is.)  By way of judging the emergence of the
paradigm you could watch out too for people on this ng. begin to give
consideration to actually answering questions on Earth Expansion.

(George * gets * sucked * right * in...)  * * * * *   Hey, 'George', I
want your comment.  On my website.  Got it?   Make it succinct as you
can.  I'll let you choose whether you wish it to be anony - mouse.  
Or you can have it in marching ants.
Cheers
don.  

> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
> results - Albert Einstein