Re: Hi Nancy :-))

In article <N%5F6.2162$W91.1199791@nntp3.onemain.com>, Steve Tyler wrote:
>Greg Neill wrote in message <81_E6.86$xA4.83062@weber.videotron.net>...
>> Yet he claimed, just a few posts back, that he asked
>> his question to his professors at university.
> I found that post of his to be ambiguous, if not outright inconsistent.
> Perhaps he will post a disambiguating reply.
>> If so, he is looking fatter and juicier for the killfile.
> <g> Lamb CHOPS!

I count 4 posts in a row attacking my person.

It always has a bitter-sweet taste to be rudiculed on grammar and spelling,
alledged age, etc. while my statements are so completely contradictory
with standard thinking, that they should be easily dismissed on content if
someone understood the wildly insane theorys of today.

Thank you all for pointing out you have not one argument against me, only
the tried and tested technique of character-assasination. Where was I
inconsistent btw.

If you were just drunk the last days ?
Maybe you can sober up now so we can debate the issues itself ?

For example:
What do you think about my rationale against the ever-expanding universe:
the force of gravity is assumed to work into infinity, yet the speed of the
blast is a fixed speed. Eventually, that speed must be eaten away by this
gravity and the universe must collapse, no matter how few mass it has.
This is a major point in modern cosmology, they even postulated things like
dark-matter/energy to /make/ the universe collapse (talk about 
irrationality!!). 

If I am wrong, I will learn something new, if I am right, you learn something
new: we cannot loose!

Jos