Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Spaceman <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>   nbKdnY-BKe82bFbVnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@comcast.com
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> Spaceman <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>>   kdGdnedFcfSBcFbVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com
>>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>> Spaceman <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>>>>   UbadnYtLb80uZVfVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@comcast.com
>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>>> Spaceman <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>>>>>>   3oGdnfpIDr1WdFfVnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com
>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snipeed the usual bullshit and asks>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dirk,
>>>>>>>> Why are you sending my posts to sci.physics into your rubber
>>>>>>>> ruler group?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Read the charters of sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not posting about relativity,
>>>>> 
>>>>> As was to be expected.
>>>>> - Spaceman cannot or dares not answer the simple question,
>>>>> - Spaceman cannot find the charters of sci.physics and
>>>>> sci.physics.relativity.
>>>> 
>>>> As expected always Dirk plays with his website instead of
>>>> learning about what is stated and how it has been stated.
>>>> Dirk does not get that the experiment stated will be the
>>>> lightspeed postulates fix.
>>>> It should be stated lightspeed is only constant to all "at rest"
>>>> frames and it is a relative speed just like any other speed is.
>>> 
>>> Spaceman, Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory,
>>> seems to be afraid of answering the following question
>>> with Yes or No:
>>> 
>>>   |  The clock that stays on earth with the twin who
>>>   |  stays on earth, has a hand that goes tick tick tick...
>>>   |  We call the number of ticks between two events
>>>   |  "earth-clock-seconds".
>>>   |
>>>   |  The malfunctioning-travel-clock that goes with the
>>>   |  travelling twin, has a hand that goes tick tick tick...
>>>   |  We call the number of ticks between two events
>>>   |  "malfunctioning-travel-clock-seconds".
>>>   |
>>>   |  Can you live with this naming convention?
>>>   |  If you cannot reply with one simple word, then
>>>   |  don't bother replying.
>>>  http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4ca3ad202d568304
>>> 
>>> He did not bother to reply, so we can assume
>>> that he is either uncapable or afraid to reply.
>> 
>> Dirk pulled the answer in a single yes or no or do not reply
>> I refuse to be limited to yes or no answers since explanation
>> is important.
> 
> But of course I understand why you don't reply to the question.
> It's rather simple, either you can live with the convention, or
> you can't. But it's clear that, even if you would really like
> to respond - which is pretty obvious you do - you passed the
> point of no return, and you just don't have the guts anymore.
> Very amusing indeed - AVIP at its very, very, VERY best :-)

You have created a question that needs both a yes and a no so
of course I can not answer with one or the other and explanations
are more important than the yes or no alone.
But we know you don't like science that has "explanations"
and would rather stick with the "yes Einstein is a god and yes
we worship his abstract bullshit physics" instead.
:)