It is difficult sometimes to converse plitiely with anonymous, irrepsonsible Wandaqueen
because for a great number of its posts, a proper response would contain strong pejorative
language. In answer to Wandaqueen's supposed question: No. Its guess is highly inaccurate,
and appears more like a pretense of being new to the forum than actually being an intelligently conceived question.

Anonymous W. wrote:

"You are just quibbling with words. As far as I can tell that is all you ever do. All you have displayed is that you do not know any fundamental physics. Are you an English major dabbling in physics?"

A reaonable guess is that anonymous W.'s methodology for arriving at that conclusion and guess (about my science logic and background) might be typical of how coherent is anonymous W.'s application of the supposedly cautious, systematic approach to questions which we call "science."

• Mike is just illiterate about science - wandaqueen - January 23, 2005 - 04:04 UTC
  • Devise a proof which will satisfy an unfair, anonymous person - kantolfir2 - January 23, 2005 - 04:28 UTC
    • That's no proof - wandaqueen - January 23, 2005 - 14:08 UTC
      • The alleged question was not asked coherently - carefuluniverse - January 23, 2005 - 23:06 UTC
        • What is the matter? - wandaqueen - January 24, 2005 - 02:51 UTC
          • Anonymous Wandaqueen requested proof then dropped the ball - kantolfir2 - January 27, 2005 - 18:51 UTC
            • My preference - wandaqueen - January 27, 2005 - 19:27 UTC