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
>  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

__________________________________________

Post from a while back:-
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=findlay+carey+vidale&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5f164087.0301251624.233ee4f3%40posting.google.com&rnum=2
goes a bit towards replying to your post.

As far as 'badmouthing' goes.  Are you serious?  What for example? 
You mean because platies, pterologists and pteromancers *ARE* dumb,
there's not need to say so?   It's a fact George, a piece of
scientific data,...a fact.  Which needs to be entered into the
discussion.  So other readers know where they're coming from - out of
the Loony Bin.  Does *your mother know you're out by the way?