On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote:
So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you
presumed
to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to
think so.
Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend.
Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions.
I think we've already heard quite enough from those who have read a
couple of web sites and seen a couple of videos (yes, and in some
cases,
posses doctorates in physics and so forth). The purpose of Gautam's
kind
offer through Dan was to learn from someone who was not the dilettante
that the rest of us are.
Sure. Does that suddenly exclude the rest of us from pointing out
that we think the premise of your question is deeply flawed, and
would be wasting the time of a professional who has heard these same
things over and over?
I am not going to debate this with you. I /am/ interested in hearing
the informed conclusions of a person who was on the panel that
actually
wrote the report.
Then do so. But stop being a primadonna. Anything you post onlist is
up for discussion. You choose not to debate it further with me,
that's your choice. But don't try to pull some sort of "only certain
people can talk about this" shit, 'cause that's what that is: shit.
If you really think your first question, that is easily refuted, is
worthy then fine. I think you're wrong to ask it, and have said so. I
do think your second question is interesting, but the way you framed
it isn't.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
