From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:33:41 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Keywords: bald lies


But Bill Hardman, you still haven't replied to most of the comments in 
*this* post!  Your assertion is still a _bald_ lie!


In article <DJ9DuB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>
>> 
>> In article <goD5TB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> 
>> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>> >gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>> [deleted: Gisles' summary of what we have learned]
>> [deleted: A discussion of the "equation", between myself and Bill
>>  	  Hardman, where Bill demonstrates that he hasn't a clue
>> 	  what units of measurment are]
>> [equation for speed deleted]

Bill, you said:

>> >Please note that you assigned the unit.  You assigned meters, and
>> >seconds as the unit measures.  

this is my reponse:

>> 	No, PHYSICS assigned the meters and seconds as the units
>> of measure, _standard_ grade 10 algebra assigned the units.

>> So what?  Sure, Gisle could have substituted inches for meters
>> and picoseconds for seconds, a conversion factor is all that's 
>> required.  What's your point Bill?

	This is where you should have responded, Bill!
 
>> >> Richard Nistuk's great joke, which Bill Hardman so far has failed to
>> [deleted:  Gisle explains the joke]
>> [deleted: my discussion of PV and why I estimated my PV to be $3200.00]
>> >> Bill:
>> [deleted: Bills' attempt to increase ARC by the "insult method"]
>> >> Richard:
>> [deleted: my discussion of why I assigned  I=125 I.Q. points
>> 	  (a friend tells me that 100 I.Q. points is more about 
>> 	  average), and why I assigned D=4,  guess what! the equation
>> 	  still doesn't work, but you knew that already didn't you!]
>> [deleted: my disscussion of why I assigned x=1]
>[deleted: Richard's attempt to work equation]
>> >> >> O.K. help me out here, Bill, explain the words!!!
>> >> Bill:
>> >> > It's not worth my time.

	Your statement here is your first cop-out, in this thread.

	Gisle explains why:

>> >> I final question:
>> >> Bill, why it is worth your time entering all these discussions, only
>> >> to bail out every time you meet some real opposition?  You seem to
>> >> have a more imaginative range of excuses (the "out-gradient" was the
>> >> best so far) than the cheese salesman in the Monty Phyton "Cheese
>> >> Shop" skit!

>> >        When did I use the term out-gradient?

	Of course this is another of your standard tricks, selective
editing.  In the origional post I had made the comment:

	Nit pick!

You should have replied here too Bill.  You are _not_ current...


>> >        As usual, your observations are flawed.  I have never
>> >"bailed out" of any discussion.  I have not seen any "real"
>> >opposition in this newsgroup.

	Then why all the bail outs, why the selective editing?

>> 	Where's your response to my post (article 2045; dated: 11 Nov 1992
>> 00:27:21 GMT)?  Face up to your "real" opposition baby! 

>The post was never received at this site.

	I will repost the article in question, just for you Bill!

>> 	You are _not_ current.  You _have_ bailed out.  _Your_ assertion 
>> is a bald lie!

	This is still true!

>If it was received, it was replied to.  That would define current.
>Where is the lie Richard?

	The article you are "responding" to was recieved, wasn't it?  
You didn't respond to my question, did you?  You are _not_ current...


>Bill Hardman
>If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!

	keep that ARC up there Bill!


Richard Nistuk
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca