On Sep 17, 2:37 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:04 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 8:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 16, 12:40 pm, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>> On Sep 16, 5:57 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>>> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> mluttg...@wanadoo.fr <mluttg...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>>>> c8c88e4e-51df-41d4-b2c5-b26ec8623...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
> 
>>>>> [sneep]
> 
>>>>>> Paul, your lack of comments to my post of Sept. 13
>>>>>> is typical of SRists who, instead of aknowledging the
>>>>>> validity of an argument or of a demonstration,
>>>>>> choose not to speak.
> 
>>>>>> Marcel Luttgens
> 
>>>>> I rather think that the lack of comments to your post of Sept. 13
>>>>> is typical of just any ordinary normal person who, instead of
>>>>> trying YET AGAIN to bring the slightest bit of understanding
>>>>> into an essentially unfit mind, chooses to sigh and let it go.
> 
>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> 
>>>> No, the reason is simply that he can't refute my
>>>> analysis and that, like most relativists, frankness
>>>> is not his strongpoint.
> 
>>> Well, that's a remarkable conclusion to be made without any evidence.
> 
>>> It's rather bad science to have a hypothesis and go ahead and conclude
>>> that it's true, without any evidence, especially when there is a
>>> competitive hypothesis that can also account for the same
>>> observations. What you need is an experimental test that distinguishes
>>> between the two hypotheses, via the prediction of different outcomes
>>> from each hypothesis. Then you run that experiment to find out.
> 
>>> PD
> 
>> This was the post to which Paul B.Andersen didn't
>> reply. If he had a bit of courtesy, he would have
>> responded.
> 
> Point of order here, Marcel. There is no obligation to respond to any
> post on a newsgroup, either by courtesy or by any other account. If
> this were an implied rule, then no thread would die unless there were
> a mutual consent to end the conversation. I suggest you take a quick
> survey of a random sampling of threads and see how often that happens.
> Moreover, daring someone to respond, by threat of any conclusion that
> you may draw from lack of response, is likely to be counter-productive
> and in fact will lower your chances of a thoughtful response. As
> evidenced by the fact that as soon as I completed reading your two
> sentences above, I decided that reading further was going to be a
> waste of my time. You should of course feel free to follow up with any
> threatened conclusion you care to.
> 
> PD

You are free to escape recognizing that my derivation
of time slowing is right, but I find it pitiful.
I dindn't expect such a negative attitude from you.

Marcel Luttgens