On Sep 4, 2:10 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:

[
   reconstruct context from msgid <iwVvk.421847$JM.171553@newsfe16.ams2>
    http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/19acea740846468a
]

> iqgoogol@gmail.com <iqgoogol@gmail.com>
> aka strich.999
> aka ...
> wrote in message
>  3a5d8987-21c1-4ebd-8780-18c3bf4ea64c@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>> On Sep 4, 7:19 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...This has long since ceased to be an argument about the merits of Relativity.
>>> 
>>> - Ian Parker
>> 
>> A theory that cannot stand without PR crutches must be really frail...
>
> A wimp that cannot even reveal his own name must be really frail...
> Very frail as a matter of fact:
>     https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapReconstruction.html
>     https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html
>     https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidPremises.html
>     https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html
>     https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
> 
>> 
>> Good theories, like QED, stand solidly on their own merit...
> 
> QED = relativistic quantum field theory.
> If relativity needs PR crutches, then so does QED.
> 
> Dirk Vdm
 
Well if it isn't the Dork pulling tricks from his treasure chest of
misquotes (his surrogate girlfriend)
 
Do you see an R in QFT?

Let me repeat that: Do you see an R in QFT?


                                 [ Note - both QED and QFT are relativistic ;-) ]