From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: 21 Nov 1992 09:03:15 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Keywords: bald lies

In article <okVJuB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>> 
>> But Bill Hardman, you still haven't replied to most of the comments in 
>> *this* post!  Your assertion is still a _bald_ lie!
>Do you read the articles in this newsgroup, or do you just blindly
>babble?  Your statements prove the latter.

Ouch!  Whatever...  You still haven't shown me that you know
what the equation is about.  You could have just posted an 
example from the 500 people you have seen do it.  

>> In article <DJ9DuB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
>> >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]


[deleted: Bill notes that Gisle assigned meters and seconds as unit
measures, I say that Physics assigns the units AND that Gisle
could have used other equivalent units.  So what's Bills' point?]

Bill says:
>The unit of measurement is assigned by the person doing the
>equation, usually the units that the person is familiar with.

	O.K. Bill what units would _you_ assign for PV, D and x?  We
have assumed that the unit of I is I.Q. points.

	So the units of PV must be I.Q. points * _something_.

>> >> >> >> 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.
>Didn't you see the reply in my other posting to Gisle?  Your raving
>now Richard.

	Yup I saw your rant at Gisle, so what?  Nice english BTW!

>>       Gisle explains why:
[deleted: Gisle asks why it's worth Bills' time to enter other discussions
only to bail out when he meets some opposition.  Gisle also accidently
attributes the term "out-gradient" to Bill(not hard, the attritions were
screwed up) and Bill has a hissy fit:]

>> >> >        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...

>I don't enter into childish banter.

Right.  ;)

>> >> >        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?
>See below.  Review path lines, check site restrictions and
>understand the Usenet.

O.K. Doke.

>> >>    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!
>You failed to keep current in the news group, I answered Gisle's
>post on why it would not be feasible to "help" you find your
>mis-understood words.  You have still not responded to that post.

	Why should I?  I wasn't aware of any mis-understood words.

>The editing is necessary as you have failed to properly edit your

	When you edit something, you should take care to keep it 
in context, and instead of deleting questions you can't answer, maybe
you could admit ignorance.

>posts and they exceed the 64kb limit of two feed sites and are

	The post in question was roughly 34kb long.

>promptly trashed up the line before I see most of them.  This
>article was not received at this site, just as to follow-up posts
>that I had done were not received in Florida, due to their size.

	Sure, Bill, whatever.

>You're raving Richard.  Seek professional help quickly before
>society enforces it upon you.

Thanks' Bill, I'll consider it!  :-)

>Bill Hardman

BTW:  You are still not current!

ARC'tung Baby.
-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca