Re: What's the Problem?

"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
[etc.]
You don't have any problem stating it, but you aren't apparently
inhibited by a complete lack of knowledge or understanding.

And your scientific refute is? Nothing. Just a mischaracterization
of the messenger.

His characterization of the messenger was right on the nose.

[etc.]
I can only conclude you're an imbecile.

Wrong conclusion caused by endless hours spent in a flourescent-lit
office reading articles by people who think that they know what
they're talking about.

Presumably you are talking about your own articles here since it's clear
that you think you know what you are talking about, and embarassingly
obvious that you don't.

[etc.]
Ha! You must have been hiding in your flourescent-lit office when the
recent tsunamis hit in Asia.
[the rest was even more childish than usual]

You seem to have an issue with fluorescent light that goes beyond the
fact that it's hard to spell. :-D

Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green

.