Chez Watt!!!Re: No transitional forms exist



On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:29:46 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-6a7fbd23-c8f6-436c-9d73-1a1c22764532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

In the category of 'how dark thou art, Mr Kettle!'

On Jun 23, 3:18 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ah, but will you continue to be so blindly arrogant that you
will continue to think that your support has any actual
meaning or relevance when the issue is words used in a
scientific venue? *That* is the real question, and extensive
observation says you will continue to be both blind and
arrogant.
--

Bob C.

In a scientific context, USE SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE!

Oh, my.


The arrogance and stupidity of you people is astonishing.





--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

.