>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:53:38 -0800, Z_amatk wrote:

>>>Rich put it very nicely. I don't need to add to that.
>>>
>>>BTW all of this evidence, fact etc. etc. not being opinion, did you
>>>know at one point according to a lot of "experts" the world was flat?
>>>I'm sure they had tests as well.

>>Excellent example...! ;-)
>>The point is: they *didn't* test for it,
>>they simply *believed* without questioning...
>>It appears you have little faith in the
>>"Scientific Method" (a real thing, that I
>>do not claim to have used ;-) - but I do claim
>>to have set up a reasonable set of tests
>>through which the camcorders went. And
>>I not only published my observations and
>>conclusions, but also the "raw data" (best
>>I could on the web) so you and others could
>>see what I based some of my conclusions on.
>>If you choose to dismiss it, or disbelieve it,
>>or whatever, that is your choice, but if so,
>>it does lead one to believe that you would
>>have been one of those accepting the
>>"flat earth" premise way back then...;-)

On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:22:19 -0800, Z_amatk wrote:

>I don't see that personal attacks on me are necessary. Your comment
>about me believing the world was flat... dude maybe I gave you too
>much credit... I was trying to show you that your opinions are just
>your opinions.... but because I disagree with your "findings" then
>you're going to resort to a personal attack?

That was not a "personal attack" - I did not call
you a "jerk" or some-such, but pointed out a
logical extension of what you wrote: if you
cannot accept presented evidence and logical
conclusions drawn from it as valid, you very
likely would not have accepted evidence and
the logical conclusions drawn from it regarding
the shape of the earth back when the predominant
view was of a "flat earth"... This is a logical
point following observations, not a "personal
attack", as is this: you do not appear able to
distinguish between observations, and opinions,
theories, and facts (they are different...;-).

>So if you need an example (although I thought you would GET what I was
>saying... guess I was wrong) where scientific FACT was proved wrong...
>here you go:

Yes, I "GET" it - but it was not relevant (or correct)...
(See RLs comments, for more...)