Backward, turn backward, O Time in your Flight

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:54:59 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Not enough pictures?

No pictures, as I recall. As with most nonfiction books, this one
could have used pictures, graphs, charts, and other visuals. It would
have been a much better book with them, as it would have been much
better with an introduction and conclusion for each chapter, or at
least an abstract summarizing the author's conclusions. As with
visuals, that also is not dumbing down, and to think it is as you seem
to, well, that's dumbing down.


Did I say that?
Someone's got a guilty conscience.

--
Jeff R.
(not me)

Jorg Lueke wrote:

Some people have trouble distinguishing private from public and facts
from opinions

Oh, for a second, I thought you were talking about the news media.
Then again, maybe you are! 8-)

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:02:20 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Did I say that?
Someone's got a guilty conscience.

Also makes no sense. I know what you said. So do you. You said "Not
enough pictures?" Gee, I wonder what you could possibly have meant by
that? Can we see some wiggling now, please.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:02:20 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Did I say that?
Someone's got a guilty conscience.

Also makes no sense. I know what you said. So do you. You said "Not
enough pictures?" Gee, I wonder what you could possibly have meant by
that? Can we see some wiggling now, please.


No no no... no wiggling.
You go right ahead and make as many ingenuous comments as you like.
As you do.

Reid, you are the absolute *model* for the expression:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

Its just not enough to read a few books, Google a few terms, email a few
authors, then to claim some sort of expertise. You have to immerse
yourself -completely- in the topic (in most cases) before you are qualified
to express pronouncements such as you do. An aptitude for science is
helpful, too.

I refer, specifically, to another branch of metallurgy. Explain again,
please, how "whizzing" moves the metal on the surface of a coin (by *any*
action other than abrasion).

But that was then.
This is now.

--
Jeff R.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:55:04 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

* All of the hydrogen and most of the helium existing today were
formed through the Big Bang, though it took some time for the
electron-less plasma of hydrogen and helium nuclei to attract
electrons. A small percentage of the lithium existing today was
produced through the Big Bang as well.

Here's another correction. It's fun reading about this stuff. It's not
true, as I said earlier, that all of the hydrogen in the Universe
today was made though the Big Bang. Some is made today by people on
Earth from heavier compounds such as methane. But the vast majority
was made through the Big Bang. And, according to one estimate anyway,
about 80 percent of the helium in the Universe today was made in the
Big Bang, most of the remainder through fusion during stellar
evolution. There's no helium in humans or coins, but humans are rich
in hydrogen (water and most organic compounds), and the British mint,
I'm told, made coins of the alloy palladium-hydrogenium.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...

Here's another correction. It's fun reading about this stuff. It's not
true, as I said earlier, that all of the hydrogen in the Universe
today was made though the Big Bang. Some is made today by people on
Earth from heavier compounds such as methane...


*F-a-s-c-i-n-a-t-i-n-g*

Tell me, Reid - where did the "H4" in the "CH4" come from? WalMart?

--
Jeff R.
(shaking head in disbelief)

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:14:35 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

No no no... no wiggling.

Then please explain what you meant by "Not enough pictures?" Or were
you, you know, just trying to be disruptive again? As you continue to
be.

And now you say "You have to immerse yourself completely" in a topic
before you should express yourself about it in a discussion group like
this. Another brilliant statement.

This is a *discussion* group. It's not a bulletin board for
dissertations or an electronic stone tablet. People always have and
always will offer tentative expressions of what they know about a
topic in groups like this. It creates, you see, discussions. That's
why they're called discussion groups.

You can correct something someone else says. You can correct what you
say. You can claim you're never wrong about anything, never admit a
mistake, and argue when people correct you. You can refuse to
participate because of people like you who feel that you have to be an
expert before sharing what you know.

None of this is to say that it's right to claim expertise without
having it. I, for one, have in no way done anything close to this
about astrophysics or cosmology or the other topics that I've brought
up in this thread. I'm just sharing what I'm reading and learning,
correcting myself as necessary, the corrections resulting in part from
contradictory information that's sometimes out there, in part from my
coming across mistakes out there, in part from my not fully
understanding initially the correct information that's out there
because of its complexity.

Feel free to attack this as you've tried to attack other posts. On the
other hand, it would be far more constructive, and you'd look far
better, if you added something constructive to the subject matter
under discussion, which in large part is where the metals that make up
coins ultimately originate. Interesting topic, I'd say. What you're
doing is the exact opposite.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Jun 10, 11:15?pm, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:55:04 -0400, Reid Goldsborough

wrote:
* All of the hydrogen and most of the helium existing today were
formed through the Big Bang, though it took some time for the
electron-less plasma of hydrogen and helium nuclei to attract
electrons. A small percentage of the lithium existing today was
produced through the Big Bang as well.

Here's another correction. It's fun reading about this stuff. It's not
true, as I said earlier, that all of the hydrogen in the Universe
today was made though the Big Bang. Some is made today by people on
Earth from heavier compounds such as methane......

You can extract hydrogen from water but you are not creating or making
the hydrogen, it's always been there.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:14:35 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

No no no... no wiggling.

Then please explain what you meant by "Not enough pictures?" Or were
you, you know, just trying to be disruptive again? As you continue to
be.



Yes, you're right, Reid.
Pointing out your inconsistencies, inadequacies and inaccuracies probably is
"disruptive" and I shall attempt to cease shortly. (You'd *have* to admit,
I've left you well-nigh alone for a long time now.)


And now you say "You have to immerse yourself completely" in a topic
before you should express yourself about it in a discussion group like
this. Another brilliant statement.

No, but you do need to in order to make "expert" pronouncements.
As you do.


This is a *discussion* group. It's not a bulletin board for
dissertations or an electronic stone tablet. People always have and
always will offer tentative expressions of what they know about a
topic in groups like this. It creates, you see, discussions. That's
why they're called discussion groups.

....and I'm not "discussing"...(?)

(hmmm)

snip curious whining tirade

Its a shame, Reid, that you *still* don't get it.
It's your self-congratulatory tone, your demeaning attitude, your childish
(*not* child-like) naivety and your annoying literary affectations which
make my hair bristle.

As to "admitting mistakes"? How about "whizzing", Reid? You seem strangely
silent.

You are the Walter Mitty of this NG, Reid, just without the humour and the
sincerity.

--
Jeff R.

On Jun 11, 12:15?am, "Jeff R." concluded:

You are the Walter Mitty of this NG, Reid, just without the humour and the
sincerity.

--
Jeff R.

Does this mean you're not going to explain the Law of Conservation of
Mass and it's theoretical exceptions to him? ---- ;-)

(I'm not volunteering)
(but I am still wondering how one person can have a discussion)