Maxwell Institute cited in agreement by Salon Article

[_ludwigm]

Big defeats start with small ones.

[_nc47]

Nelson, on the other forum, you first posted at 1:00p.m. You said here on this forum that you don't read that forum at 1:06. Can you see the problem with your answer 'no?'

Right, so saying 'no' when you had actually read and posted was what? Why are you having a hard time admitting something so simple?

Excellent question with cosmic consequences! The link was posted at 11:46 am (on my system). Although I can't remember when I clicked on the link and entered the forum, if I posted at 1:00 (which would probably be 12:00 in my system), that's afterwards. When I said that I was actually responding as if the state of things were the way they were at the time the original question was posed. Which is why I said I started responding after the link was posted.

Hope that helps!

[_gramps]

Nelson, on the other forum, you first posted at 1:00p.m. You said here on this forum that you don't read that forum at 1:06. Can you see the problem with your answer 'no?'

Right, so saying 'no' when you had actually read and posted was what? Why are you having a hard time admitting something so simple?

Excellent question with cosmic consequences! The link was posted at 11:46 am (on my system). Although I can't remember when I clicked on the link and entered the forum, if I posted at 1:00 (which would probably be 12:00 in my system), that's afterwards. When I said that I was actually responding as if the state of things were the way they were at the time the original question was posed. Which is why I said I started responding after the link was posted.

Hope that helps!

Sequence is what is at issue here, not time zone differences. Methinks you will make even a poor apologist. ;) Take care of yourself, Nelson.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Excellent question with cosmic consequences! The link was posted at 11:46 am (on my system). Although I can't remember when I clicked on the link and entered the forum, if I posted at 1:00 (which would probably be 12:00 in my system), that's afterwards. When I said that I was actually responding as if the state of things were the way they were at the time the original question was posed. Which is why I said I started responding after the link was posted.

But after you posted the above at 9:29 a.m. on June 25, you made another post in the Terrestrial subforum (at 9:34 a.m. on June 25). You seem to be reading the very forum you claim not to read. What gives?

[_gramps]

Excellent question with cosmic consequences! The link was posted at 11:46 am (on my system). Although I can't remember when I clicked on the link and entered the forum, if I posted at 1:00 (which would probably be 12:00 in my system), that's afterwards. When I said that I was actually responding as if the state of things were the way they were at the time the original question was posed. Which is why I said I started responding after the link was posted.

But after you posted the above at 9:29 a.m. on June 25, you made another post in the Terrestrial subforum (at 9:34 a.m. on June 25). You seem to be reading the very forum you claim not to read. What gives?

Rollo, I think only one with an apologist's mind can even begin to grasp his thinking.

Or he is smoking something, and in that case, I say 'Quit being a bogart, Nelson, and pass it along.'

It must be pretty powerful stuff to get him all confused with time like he seems to be.

[_nc47]

Excellent question with cosmic consequences! The link was posted at 11:46 am (on my system). Although I can't remember when I clicked on the link and entered the forum, if I posted at 1:00 (which would probably be 12:00 in my system), that's afterwards. When I said that I was actually responding as if the state of things were the way they were at the time the original question was posed. Which is why I said I started responding after the link was posted.

But after you posted the above at 9:29 a.m. on June 25, you made another post in the Terrestrial subforum (at 9:34 a.m. on June 25). You seem to be reading the very forum you claim not to read. What gives?

Yes, I believe I said that I started posting (hence reading, because I can't post without reading) in the subforum after the link was posted.

[_nc47]

Excellent question with cosmic consequences! The link was posted at 11:46 am (on my system). Although I can't remember when I clicked on the link and entered the forum, if I posted at 1:00 (which would probably be 12:00 in my system), that's afterwards. When I said that I was actually responding as if the state of things were the way they were at the time the original question was posed. Which is why I said I started responding after the link was posted.

Hope that helps!

Sequence is what is at issue here, not time zone differences. Methinks you will make even a poor apologist. ;) Take care of yourself, Nelson.

You will make a poor data analyst. I brought up time zone differences only to make sure I was comparing apples and apples.