I THINK U R RITE I ALWAYZ THOT TEH PHYZICISTZ WER HIDING
SUMTHING!!!!11

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

Androcles wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip for netiquette]

Poor Androcles. Trying so hard to make the "point"
that snipping is rude, by trying to demonstrate what
he thinks is inappropriate snipping.

In this case, he snips my entire message leaving
null content.

But he added not a single word in response. Since
there was no content in the response, then no part
of the previous post can be judged relevant.

Hence once again the snippage was appropriate. Pointless,
but appropriate.

Let me take this opportunity to educate poor Androcles
further: If you are searching for postings by author,
then you should type that name into the "author" field
of the search form, not the "words" part of the form
("with all of the words", "with the exact phrase", etc.)
- Randy

Androcles wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

Below is Randy Poe's attempt to handle a coordinate system
which the imbecile Dirk Van de moortel says I do not understand.
[snip]

****ing imbecile Schwartz never does read anything (he can't).
Androcles.

Don't plagiarize. It merely uderscores your being a squealing piglet.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Androcles, you seem to have the attributions totally screwed
up. Since Randy's post do not appear here (is this a private
mail discussion, or what?), it is almost impossible to find
out who said what.

He's carrying on a discussion from a couple of other
threads. He claimed that I was insane for referring
to an equation which I never posted, I gave him the
reference to the posting containing that equation,
and he abandoned that thread and started this one.

The content he quoted at the start of this thread
was my post, in toto.

We are currently engaged in what you would think would
be the elementary calculation of how long it takes
a light signal travelling at c to catch up with
an object travelling at v, but somehow Androcles
manages to get enraged about the definitions of
everything, including the distances between objects.
None of it is in private e-mail.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Androcles, you seem to have the attributions totally screwed
up. Since Randy's post do not appear here (is this a private
mail discussion, or what?), it is almost impossible to find
out who said what.

He's carrying on a discussion from a couple of other
threads. He claimed that I was insane for referring
to an equation which I never posted, I gave him the
reference to the posting containing that equation,
and he abandoned that thread and started this one.

The content he quoted at the start of this thread
was my post, in toto.

We are currently engaged in what you would think would
be the elementary calculation of how long it takes
a light signal travelling at c to catch up with
an object travelling at v, but somehow Androcles
manages to get enraged about the definitions of
everything, including the distances between objects.

Actually, Randy, you guys are currently engaged in the
elementary calculation of how long it takes for you to
(rightfully) call him a piece of dog****, so he can say
*plonk* and pretend to never read your posts again.
He thinks you are suffering and he's having the time of
his life. If you might happen to think he is suffering,
you could be right or wrong. One never knows what a
piece of dog**** might be thinking.

Dirk Vdm

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip for netiquette]

Poor Androcles. Trying so hard to make the "point"
that snipping is rude, by trying to demonstrate what
he thinks is inappropriate snipping.

Hey...
Blatantly snipping MY points (and questions) is ****ing rude
and YOU are the guilty one.
You have pig-ignorantly and deliberately ignored many, many
of my questions while persistently asking your own, which
I, IN GOOD FAITH, have answered.



In this case, he snips my entire message leaving
null content.

Get the point, do you?



But he added not a single word in response. Since
there was no content in the response, then no part
of the previous post can be judged relevant.

I will now, though.
I said to you on 31/12/04

"Emission : (t1,x1)
Reflection : (t2,x2)
Reception : (t3,x3)
Now derive the Lorentz tranforms from what you've said."

You are still farting around, 5 days later.


Hence once again the snippage was appropriate. Pointless,
but appropriate.

Let me take this opportunity to educate poor Androcles
further:
Poor Poe brainlessly thinks (even though he cannot understand
Einstein's notation) he can "educate" me. What a joke!
Androcles.

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Androcles, you seem to have the attributions totally screwed
up. Since Randy's post do not appear here (is this a private
mail discussion, or what?), it is almost impossible to find
out who said what.

He's carrying on a discussion from a couple of other
threads. He claimed that I was insane for referring
to an equation which I never posted, I gave him the
reference to the posting containing that equation,
and he abandoned that thread and started this one.

The content he quoted at the start of this thread
was my post, in toto.

We are currently engaged in what you would think would
be the elementary calculation of how long it takes
a light signal travelling at c to catch up with
an object travelling at v, but somehow Androcles
manages to get enraged about the definitions of
everything, including the distances between objects.
None of it is in private e-mail.

- Randy

Poe snips any questions I have and imagines he can teach
that way. He knows nothing about frames and is making a
complete fool of himself.
Androcles.

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

Below is Randy Poe's attempt to handle a coordinate system
which the imbecile Dirk Van de moortel says I do not understand.
[snip]

****ing imbecile Schwartz never does read anything (he can't).
Androcles.

Don't plagiarize. It merely uderscores your being a squealing piglet.

Since when were you otherwise?
Androcles.



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Androcles" wrote in message k...

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Androcles, you seem to have the attributions totally screwed
up. Since Randy's post do not appear here (is this a private
mail discussion, or what?), it is almost impossible to find
out who said what.

He's carrying on a discussion from a couple of other
threads. He claimed that I was insane for referring
to an equation which I never posted, I gave him the
reference to the posting containing that equation,
and he abandoned that thread and started this one.

The content he quoted at the start of this thread
was my post, in toto.

We are currently engaged in what you would think would
be the elementary calculation of how long it takes
a light signal travelling at c to catch up with
an object travelling at v, but somehow Androcles
manages to get enraged about the definitions of
everything, including the distances between objects.
None of it is in private e-mail.

- Randy

Poe snips any questions I have and imagines he can teach
that way. He knows nothing about frames and is making a
complete fool of himself.
Androcles.

If Randy thinks he can educate you, he must be a complete fool
indeed, but somehow I think (and hope!) that Randy is trying to
accomplish something else.

Dirk Vdm

BIFF wrote:
I THINK U R RITE I ALWAYZ THOT TEH PHYZICISTZ WER HIDING
SUMTHING!!!!11

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

Lets say a ship takes off at mars and starts to travel
through space toward the earth; can we say that the
earth is traveling through space toward the ship?
No we cannot. Its motion is only relative to the
absolute motion through space-time of the ship.