Re: Usama Bin Boudin tries harder

"don findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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)

So I'm a masochist.

>(though I don't give
> much for your comprehension level).  Bad one.

Right!

Tell you what, though,
> if you don't like it you can always put it back on your filter.

Are you tempting me, or what?

> You're the only one (just about) (on this newsgroup) letting on
> they're actually reading it.

Perhaps because I have more patience than most, or simply prefer to give
people a benefit of a doubt.  Don't perceive this as an admission of any
kind because it's not.

>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.

Wow, there are now three people who have read it.  Boy, I'm impressed.

>   Maybe it's time for you to post a comment for my website?

Not a chance.  Publish it in Nature, and I can assure you that I will
submitt a rebuttal.

>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.

I suspect that you'll go to your grave believing it all to be a conspiracy.
Nothing I could add would change your mind in this regard, so why waste my
time?

> 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.

Its exactly the point.  You have none.  Your mouth is your own worst enemy,
as evidenced by your irrational tirades against well established theory.

>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.

Considering some of those who peruse this NG, I would not find this
surprising.  Have you heard from your French buddy Turdhard lately?

> (George * gets * sucked * right * in...)  * * * * *   Hey, 'George', I
> want your comment.  On my website.  Got it?

Not unless you publish your "research" in a professional journal first (if
you can find one that would accept it).  Then I would be happy to provide a
detailed, point by point rebuttal to the same journal.  And of course, in
order to publish it on your web page, you'd have to get permission from the
publisher to post it (copyrights, you know), and provide me with a stipend
as compensation for my time.  I gotta eat too, you know.  Its the only way
to make it fair and impartial.  What are you afraid of?  Or have you tried
this already and been rejected?
__________________________________________________________________________
Insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results - Albert Einstein