Dick,

Until you define your terms, how in the heck are we even supposed to take any meaning from what you are talking about? You talk about 'prove', what kind of proof do you mean? Do you mean 'sufficient evidence from science kind of proof'? Certainly not, since your paper scoofs at that kind of proof. When you talk in terms of 'knowable data', are you talking about data that we know is true from our senses? Certainly not since you scoof at sense data as being knowable. When you talk about 'true', do you mean experimentalists have accurately predicted such values in observations according to the theoretical predictions of established scientific theories? The answer is obviously not since you scoof at such things being considered true.

This is nothing but failing to define what you mean, and confusion is the result. I'm not having fun at this point because you like basking in confusion and glorifying in your own ignorance. When will that symmetry in your head by broken? That's what I want to know.

• And why not? - doctordick - May 9, 2003 - 16:00 UTC
  • Because you spoil the fun - harvey1 - May 9, 2003 - 16:15 UTC
    • It's a joke! - doctordick - May 10, 2003 - 14:07 UTC
      • Ha Ha - harvey1 - May 10, 2003 - 23:40 UTC
        • The nadir of rational thought? - doctordick - May 13, 2003 - 11:13 UTC
          • You simply do not answer the questions as put forth - harvey1 - May 13, 2003 - 12:06 UTC