On May 2, 5:01 am, mitchell porter wrote:
On Apr 29, 1:23 am, Dono wrote:

On Apr 28, 9:06 am, Surfer wrote:

We may need something like this.

"Modelling and Generating Complex Emergent Behaviour"http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/02whole.pdf

Kirsty Kitto is Rag Cahill new wife (a husband-wife crackpot team).
Which one of the two are you ?

Dude, you are imagining things. May I first point out my own anti-
Process-Physics credentials: if you look at the revision history of
the Wikipedia article on the theory, you will find me on 20 April 2007
attempting to insert a link to a Usenet discussion in which the "error
bar" criticism of the claims about absolute velocity was made.

I do, nonetheless, know Kirsty, and I can tell you she's not even at
Reg's university any more, let alone married to him. So may I ask how
you came upon this piece of misinformation? It does not inspire any
confidence in your own abilities to analyse, interpret, or otherwise
tell fact from fantasy, which are obviously abilities you need if you
are to be a credible champion of scientific orthodoxy.

Elsewhere in this thread I see it being asserted that Cahill's group
are here on Usenet incognito. Without investigating I can hardly say
yes or no, but the casual falsehood tossed off above leads me to think
it's just more paranoia. That laypeople should develop an enthusiasm
for an alternative scientific theory is hardly unknown, is it? If you
feel that these ideas have to be slapped down repeatedly, forget the
paranoia, just make a FAQ and focus on the substantive arguments.



You are right, "Surfer" is neither Cahill, nor Kirsty, it is a guy
called Peter H. Brown who , among other things, hosts the Cahill
papers. As to debunking, "Surfer" has been debunked many times over,
see he

http://www.savefile.com/files/1339961

and he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1b06ddbdac5b5#

To no avail, he still comes back with the same BS.