From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:36:56 GMT


In article <2828@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.122126.27223@rhrk.uni-kl.de*, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>* Ted, leaving out things that don't suit you is called "falsifying evidence".
>* You know that term?

>Yeah.  It seems popular amongst liars such as Meritt and yourself.  The ONLY 
>way I'd satisfy you would be to post the book on usenet.  I'd get writers' 
>cramp, and I'd get sued.
>
>Claiming that I left anything meaningful out of that quote is bullshit.
>
>The man simply said that falls can be fatal for elephants.
>
>Can't stand it, can you?

You picked out of the book exactly those sentences that point in the direction
you want.  That's obvious from the paragraph in the book.  And in another
posting you write:

In <2818@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>Again, the weight of this entire body of evidence cannot be ignored.  It
>all points in the same direction.

No wonder.

A person who wants to be treated seriously should not select those pieces of
evidence that they like.  You could at least include sentences such as "At
other points, this author brings forth evidence that contradicts my theory."
But probably you don't even *see* that evidence.  It's not important to you
(above you write: "I left [no]thing meaningful out of that quote")
because you are fixed on your goal, on that silly myth.  I have no other
explanation for the fact that you refuse to correct simple errors in your
work (e.g. Chanukka).  Every serious researcher or theorist would do that.

BTW, you seem to have got the wrong impression that it's usage on t.o. to
greet each other with "Hello, you liar", because you are talked to that way.
But you are not abused here because that's usage on t.o.
You are abused because YOU EARNED IT!

Take example by Friedrich Kausch, the guy who doesn't believe in atoms
(I posted a pamphlet by him weeks ago).  He is more able to learn.  He
travelled through the universities with his anti-atomism pamphlet, containing
many examples why atoms are absurd.  First it was eight pages, then four, then
two.  E.g. in the old version there was an argument against the electromagnetic
spectrum.  He said that wave optics is absurd because if it were true, a red
rose would look black in green light.  It seems somebody showed him that it
*really* looks black, so he dropped the argument.  Now I haven't seen him for
five years, perhaps he gave up after losing all his arguments.

Did you ever drop one of the arguments you post weekly (hint: "weekly" is meant
sarcastically) or are you really that concrete-head you seem?

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Do you ask a Napoleon why it has to be Moscow, of all places?  Do you ask a
Mondrian why one has to paint only in the rectangularly framed primary colours
Red, Blue, and Yellow?  Ah, how all questions are ruined in view of a persuas-
ively recited system of madness! And is there a mortar keeping those systems
together firmer than real or supposed enemies?  -  Robert Gernhardt