I'm sorry, but this post is overly speculative for
sci.physics.research. Quantum theories are completely consistent with
fixed backgrounds. In fact, every quantum theory with any experimental
support is based on a fixed background. Moreover, the concept of
velocity is still meaningful in background-free theories. See a GR
text.

Sincerely,
Kevin Scaldeferri
moderator, s.p.r.

In article , fishfry
wrote:

I don't see how you can use quality of work to distinguish between a
deliberate hoax and a sincere but misguided effort. The quality of
work in Lynds's papers is nonexistent. The papers are meaningless and
trivial. He thinks he discovered measurement error and calls it a new
uncertainty principle. He doesn't know the freshman definition of
velocity. He claims velocity doesn't exist and then he gives the
example of a train going 100 km/hr. There is no intellectual content
to the papers at all. Given that, how can one tell whether Lynds is
pulling our legs to see how many people he can fool, versus sincerely
but incorrectly believing he's made a fundamental breakthrough in
physics?

His papers may be characterized as meaningless and trivial to a person
who doesn't understand the content.

In the quantum world velocity doesn't exist as it appears to exist in
the classical world.

Try this basic physical axiom:

1) Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum
particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate
system.

By insisting that motion only has meaning between quantum particles we
eliminate the concept of a background and without a background upon
which we can impose an arbitrarily contrived coordinate system we
cannot have the attribute of velocity which with a coordinate system is
defined with respect to a minimum of two four vectors (x1, y1, z1, t1)
and (x2, y2, z2, t2). Instead we must obtain a completely new
understanding of the attribute of motion by devising a completely new
and more primitive concept of velocity which can be accurately applied
to quanta. We could say that without the simultaneous multiple
trajectories or motions that all quantum particles possess that we
could not have the classical motion which we perceive or interpret with
our senses and instruments. Lynd may then lapse to discuss the
concept of classical velocity with regard to classical objects (like
trains). This doesn't mean that his denial on the quantum scale must
translate to his inability to discuss the classical concept. A good
comparative example is the notion of gas pressure. Such a notion
cannot truly exist at the quantum scale because the gas is composed of
discrete quantum scale objects which do not possess the attribute of
pressure which is a conceptualization of a continuous fluid exerting
pressure on a continuous surface. The gas is not continuous nor is the
container wall. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't keep my
tire pressure at 35 lbs/sq. in. for my automobile's tires nor that I
should be restricted from discussing pressure for ordinary engineering
designs and projects.

I've pointed out for years that it is not reasonable to apply classical
scale phenonenon to quantum objects; yet without giving it a second
thought this is done throughout physics academia worldwide. Perhaps
Lynd is, because he is an outsider, aware of this continuous faux pas
that plagues modern physics.

CC

For email change 'Ryder' to 'Rider'

See a GR text? In case you didn't notice Quantum theories have not
provided us a connection to the unification of gravity and
electromagnetism nor has GR really provided the appropriate framework
for the quantum world. In fact, its a matter of record that these two
theories, GR and QM are not even consistent with each other. In case
you missed the point, Kevin, the point was to challenge the assumptions
of GR. If you are so wedded to GR as being an accurate description of
physical reality then it isn't likely that you are a fit judge of
whether or not an idea is rational simply because it doesn't fit the
set of 'rules' implicit in General Relativity. It doesn't seem
possible to you that some of the foundational assumptions of GR are
unrealistic or at least beyond science? For example, implicit in GR
are notions that the fields of particles are continuous structures or
that a gravitational field, for instance, is a continuous structure.
The problem with that idea or "belief", as it really should be called,
is that it is not falsifiable even in principle. Consequently, it
isn't really a scientific idea but rather a religious conviction.
Thanks for letting us know that you eschew logic and reason and will
hold fast to your religious convictions even to the point of using them
as the basis of your censorship of ideas which run counter to your
religious beliefs.

CCRider

'for email change the 'y' in 'Ryder' to 'i'

CC wrote in message ...
snip
See a GR text? In case you didn't notice Quantum theories have not
provided us a connection to the unification of gravity and
electromagnetism nor has GR really provided the appropriate framework
for the quantum world.

ad infinitum until ?

Spud

CC wrote in message ...
I'm sorry, but this post is overly speculative for
sci.physics.research. Quantum theories are completely consistent with
fixed backgrounds. In fact, every quantum theory with any experimental
support is based on a fixed background. Moreover, the concept of
velocity is still meaningful in background-free theories. See a GR
text.

Sincerely,
Kevin Scaldeferri
moderator, s.p.r.

In article , fishfry
wrote:

I don't see how you can use quality of work to distinguish between a
deliberate hoax and a sincere but misguided effort. The quality of
work in Lynds's papers is nonexistent. The papers are meaningless and
trivial. He thinks he discovered measurement error and calls it a new
uncertainty principle. He doesn't know the freshman definition of
velocity. He claims velocity doesn't exist and then he gives the
example of a train going 100 km/hr. There is no intellectual content
to the papers at all. Given that, how can one tell whether Lynds is
pulling our legs to see how many people he can fool, versus sincerely
but incorrectly believing he's made a fundamental breakthrough in
physics?

His papers may be characterized as meaningless and trivial to a person
who doesn't understand the content.

In the quantum world velocity doesn't exist as it appears to exist in
the classical world.

Try this basic physical axiom:

1) Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum
particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate
system.

By insisting that motion only has meaning between quantum particles we
eliminate the concept of a background and without a background upon
which we can impose an arbitrarily contrived coordinate system we
cannot have the attribute of velocity which with a coordinate system is
defined with respect to a minimum of two four vectors (x1, y1, z1, t1)
and (x2, y2, z2, t2). Instead we must obtain a completely new
understanding of the attribute of motion by devising a completely new
and more primitive concept of velocity which can be accurately applied
to quanta. We could say that without the simultaneous multiple
trajectories or motions that all quantum particles possess that we
could not have the classical motion which we perceive or interpret with
our senses and instruments. Lynd may then lapse to discuss the
concept of classical velocity with regard to classical objects (like
trains). This doesn't mean that his denial on the quantum scale must
translate to his inability to discuss the classical concept. A good
comparative example is the notion of gas pressure. Such a notion
cannot truly exist at the quantum scale because the gas is composed of
discrete quantum scale objects which do not possess the attribute of
pressure which is a conceptualization of a continuous fluid exerting
pressure on a continuous surface. The gas is not continuous nor is the
container wall. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't keep my
tire pressure at 35 lbs/sq. in. for my automobile's tires nor that I
should be restricted from discussing pressure for ordinary engineering
designs and projects.

I've pointed out for years that it is not reasonable to apply classical
scale phenonenon to quantum objects; yet without giving it a second
thought this is done throughout physics academia worldwide. Perhaps
Lynd is, because he is an outsider, aware of this continuous faux pas
that plagues modern physics.

CC

For email change 'Ryder' to 'Rider'

See a GR text? In case you didn't notice Quantum theories have not
provided us a connection to the unification of gravity and
electromagnetism nor has GR really provided the appropriate framework
for the quantum world. In fact, its a matter of record that these two
theories, GR and QM are not even consistent with each other. In case
you missed the point, Kevin, the point was to challenge the assumptions
of GR. If you are so wedded to GR as being an accurate description of
physical reality then it isn't likely that you are a fit judge of
whether or not an idea is rational simply because it doesn't fit the
set of 'rules' implicit in General Relativity. It doesn't seem
possible to you that some of the foundational assumptions of GR are
unrealistic or at least beyond science? For example, implicit in GR
are notions that the fields of particles are continuous structures or
that a gravitational field, for instance, is a continuous structure.
The problem with that idea or "belief", as it really should be called,
is that it is not falsifiable even in principle. Consequently, it
isn't really a scientific idea but rather a religious conviction.
Thanks for letting us know that you eschew logic and reason and will
hold fast to your religious convictions even to the point of using them
as the basis of your censorship of ideas which run counter to your
religious beliefs.

CCRider

'for email change the 'y' in 'Ryder' to 'i'

CC

I see you got the usual "overly speculative" chestnut from
sci.research which gives me every good reason to follow your postings
in future,I would take the suggestion of the guy to look at the
original gr texts and particularily have a good chuckle at the
pathetic attempt of Einstein to isolate the motion of Mercury.

"According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an
ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to
the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars,
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with
reference to the fixed stars"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

If you ever stop laughing at the influence of the "motion of the fixed
stars" on the motion of Mercury (btw "fixed star" motion is
circumpolar motion which is, after all, a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth)perhaps you will see why things are truly dire,I
mean for goodness sake this guy is talking geocentricity openly.

"Oriel36" skrev i melding
om...
Einstein:
"According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an
ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to
the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars,
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with
reference to the fixed stars"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

If you ever stop laughing at the influence of the "motion of the fixed
stars" on the motion of Mercury (btw "fixed star" motion is
circumpolar motion which is, after all, a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth)perhaps you will see why things are truly dire,I
mean for goodness sake this guy is talking geocentricity openly.

You mean Oriel36 is talking geocentricity openly?
Einstein makes no reference to the motion of the stars
as observed in the Earth frame. Quite the contrary.

The expression "fixed stars" is obsolete, it is from a time
when all bright heavenly bodies were called stars, and
"fixed stars" and "moving stars" were what we now would
call stars and planets.
You are laughing at your own ignorance of the meaning
of the expression "fixed star".

If we skip the obsolete and redundant "fixed" from Einstein's text,
it becomes:
" .. planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would
permanently maintain its position with respect to
the stars, if we could disregard the motion of the stars
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration."

You must rather stupid to think that "the motion of the stars
themselves" is a reference to the circumpolar motion in the Earth
fixed frame. It is obviously a recognition of the fact that stars are
NOT fixed, but are moving relative to each other.
But if we ignore this relative motion of the stars, we can consider
the stars to define a non rotating frame of reference - which was
Einstein's obvious point with his statement.

And of course this statement does not include any
reference to "the influence of the 'motion of the fixed
stars' on the motion of Mercury". It is clearly the other
planets that has an influence on Mercury's orbit.
("the action of the other planets")

Hashanah!
What a stupid misunderstanding!
Even multiple misunderstanding!
Of such a simple text!

Paul, not finished laughing

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...

"Oriel36" skrev i melding
om...
Einstein:
"According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an
ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to
the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars,
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with
reference to the fixed stars"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

If you ever stop laughing at the influence of the "motion of the fixed
stars" on the motion of Mercury (btw "fixed star" motion is
circumpolar motion which is, after all, a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth)perhaps you will see why things are truly dire,I
mean for goodness sake this guy is talking geocentricity openly.

You mean Oriel36 is talking geocentricity openly?
Einstein makes no reference to the motion of the stars
as observed in the Earth frame. Quite the contrary.

The expression "fixed stars" is obsolete, it is from a time
when all bright heavenly bodies were called stars, and
"fixed stars" and "moving stars" were what we now would
call stars and planets.
You are laughing at your own ignorance of the meaning
of the expression "fixed star".

If we skip the obsolete and redundant "fixed" from Einstein's text,
it becomes:
" .. planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would
permanently maintain its position with respect to
the stars, if we could disregard the motion of the stars
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration."

You must rather stupid to think that "the motion of the stars
themselves" is a reference to the circumpolar motion in the Earth
fixed frame. It is obviously a recognition of the fact that stars are
NOT fixed, but are moving relative to each other.
But if we ignore this relative motion of the stars, we can consider
the stars to define a non rotating frame of reference - which was
Einstein's obvious point with his statement.

And of course this statement does not include any
reference to "the influence of the 'motion of the fixed
stars' on the motion of Mercury". It is clearly the other
planets that has an influence on Mercury's orbit.
("the action of the other planets")

Hashanah!
What a stupid misunderstanding!
Even multiple misunderstanding!
Of such a simple text!

Paul, not finished laughing

You will also soon find out that Oriel36 will not be
finished misunderstanding. It is Gerald Kelleher's
private way of life, his mission, you just witnessed.

Dirk Vdm

"Paul B. Andersen" skrev i melding ...

Hashanah!

A very interesting word. :-)

I wrote:
Hahahaha!

But my spell-checker changed it! :-)

So to repeat:
Hahahahahaha!

Paul, still not finished laughing

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" skrev i melding
om...
Einstein:
"According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an
ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to
the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars,
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with
reference to the fixed stars"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

If you ever stop laughing at the influence of the "motion of the fixed
stars" on the motion of Mercury (btw "fixed star" motion is
circumpolar motion which is, after all, a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth)perhaps you will see why things are truly dire,I
mean for goodness sake this guy is talking geocentricity openly.

You mean Oriel36 is talking geocentricity openly?
Einstein makes no reference to the motion of the stars
as observed in the Earth frame. Quite the contrary.

The expression "fixed stars" is obsolete, it is from a time
when all bright heavenly bodies were called stars, and
"fixed stars" and "moving stars" were what we now would
call stars and planets.
You are laughing at your own ignorance of the meaning
of the expression "fixed star".

If we skip the obsolete and redundant "fixed" from Einstein's text,
it becomes:
" .. planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would
permanently maintain its position with respect to
the stars, if we could disregard the motion of the stars
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration."

You must rather stupid to think that "the motion of the stars
themselves" is a reference to the circumpolar motion in the Earth
fixed frame. It is obviously a recognition of the fact that stars are
NOT fixed, but are moving relative to each other.
But if we ignore this relative motion of the stars, we can consider
the stars to define a non rotating frame of reference - which was
Einstein's obvious point with his statement.

And of course this statement does not include any
reference to "the influence of the 'motion of the fixed
stars' on the motion of Mercury". It is clearly the other
planets that has an influence on Mercury's orbit.
("the action of the other planets")

Hashanah!
What a stupid misunderstanding!
Even multiple misunderstanding!
Of such a simple text!

Paul, not finished laughing

Simple is not the word,ever hear of Kepler ?.

What a masterpiece !,it may be the teletubies way of doing astronomy
and even the creationists look sensible in comparison.

The trouble is that it is no longer possible to post in
sci.physics,you jokers might get the silly notion that you have
something other than a geocentric theory on your hands.Go outside and
do as Albert tells you,go back inside and build a fire with your
relativity books and take up stamp collecting ,gardening or something
else.

"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to
Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars. This deduction, which can be tested with great accuracy,
has been confirmed for all the planets save one, with the precision
that is capable of being obtained by the delicacy of observation
attainable at the present time. The sole exception is Mercury, the
planet which lies nearest the sun. Since the time Leverrier, it has
been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of Mercury,
after it has been corrected for the influences mentioned above, is not
stationary with respect to the fixed stars, but that it rotates
exceedingly slowly in the plane of the orbit and in the sense of the
orbital motion."

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...

"Oriel36" skrev i melding
om...
Einstein:
"According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an
ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to
the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars,
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with
reference to the fixed stars"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

If you ever stop laughing at the influence of the "motion of the fixed
stars" on the motion of Mercury (btw "fixed star" motion is
circumpolar motion which is, after all, a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth)perhaps you will see why things are truly dire,I
mean for goodness sake this guy is talking geocentricity openly.

You mean Oriel36 is talking geocentricity openly?
Einstein makes no reference to the motion of the stars
as observed in the Earth frame. Quite the contrary.

The expression "fixed stars" is obsolete, it is from a time
when all bright heavenly bodies were called stars, and
"fixed stars" and "moving stars" were what we now would
call stars and planets.
You are laughing at your own ignorance of the meaning
of the expression "fixed star".

If we skip the obsolete and redundant "fixed" from Einstein's text,
it becomes:
" .. planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would
permanently maintain its position with respect to
the stars, if we could disregard the motion of the stars
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration."

You must rather stupid to think that "the motion of the stars
themselves" is a reference to the circumpolar motion in the Earth
fixed frame. It is obviously a recognition of the fact that stars are
NOT fixed, but are moving relative to each other.
But if we ignore this relative motion of the stars, we can consider
the stars to define a non rotating frame of reference - which was
Einstein's obvious point with his statement.

And of course this statement does not include any
reference to "the influence of the 'motion of the fixed
stars' on the motion of Mercury". It is clearly the other
planets that has an influence on Mercury's orbit.
("the action of the other planets")

Hashanah!
What a stupid misunderstanding!
Even multiple misunderstanding!
Of such a simple text!

Paul, not finished laughing

You will also soon find out that Oriel36 will not be
finished misunderstanding. It is Gerald Kelleher's
private way of life, his mission, you just witnessed.

Dirk Vdm

Well if it is'nt Speicher's dog.

So you made a mistake and did'nt recognise the passage from the
kinematics rubbish of the 1905 paper,all the same your fumble or
whatever you call these things is funny.

The relativistic rubbish never made sense anyway,it just came at an
astronomical quiet period before the scale of the cosmos was
discovered in terms of galaxies,people don't care and those that do
are into multiple universes,balloon universes and heaven knows
what.People could'nt care less what you lot come up with next and you
can only correspond with idiots whoes only enjoyment is to follow the
same linguistic hopscotch as Albert in his hatchet job on astronomy
via Newton.

Here is that fumble that should have made it into your own site,cheer
up Dirk,it could be worse but not by much -



__________________________________________________ ____________________________


"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
``stationary system.''

What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the **** you produce later on?
**** that you expect someone will bother reading?

DVM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www

"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...

"Oriel36" skrev i melding
om...
Einstein:
"According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an
ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to
the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars,
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with
reference to the fixed stars"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

If you ever stop laughing at the influence of the "motion of the fixed
stars" on the motion of Mercury (btw "fixed star" motion is
circumpolar motion which is, after all, a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth)perhaps you will see why things are truly dire,I
mean for goodness sake this guy is talking geocentricity openly.

You mean Oriel36 is talking geocentricity openly?
Einstein makes no reference to the motion of the stars
as observed in the Earth frame. Quite the contrary.

The expression "fixed stars" is obsolete, it is from a time
when all bright heavenly bodies were called stars, and
"fixed stars" and "moving stars" were what we now would
call stars and planets.
You are laughing at your own ignorance of the meaning
of the expression "fixed star".

If we skip the obsolete and redundant "fixed" from Einstein's text,
it becomes:
" .. planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would
permanently maintain its position with respect to
the stars, if we could disregard the motion of the stars
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration."

You must rather stupid to think that "the motion of the stars
themselves" is a reference to the circumpolar motion in the Earth
fixed frame. It is obviously a recognition of the fact that stars are
NOT fixed, but are moving relative to each other.
But if we ignore this relative motion of the stars, we can consider
the stars to define a non rotating frame of reference - which was
Einstein's obvious point with his statement.

And of course this statement does not include any
reference to "the influence of the 'motion of the fixed
stars' on the motion of Mercury". It is clearly the other
planets that has an influence on Mercury's orbit.
("the action of the other planets")

Hashanah!
What a stupid misunderstanding!
Even multiple misunderstanding!
Of such a simple text!

Paul, not finished laughing

You will also soon find out that Oriel36 will not be
finished misunderstanding. It is Gerald Kelleher's
private way of life, his mission, you just witnessed.

Dirk Vdm

Well if it is'nt Speicher's dog.

So you made a mistake and did'nt recognise the passage from the
kinematics rubbish of the 1905 paper,all the same your fumble or
whatever you call these things is funny.

The relativistic rubbish never made sense anyway,it just came at an
astronomical quiet period before the scale of the cosmos was
discovered in terms of galaxies,people don't care and those that do
are into multiple universes,balloon universes and heaven knows
what.People could'nt care less what you lot come up with next and you
can only correspond with idiots whoes only enjoyment is to follow the
same linguistic hopscotch as Albert in his hatchet job on astronomy
via Newton.

Here is that fumble that should have made it into your own site,cheer
up Dirk,it could be worse but not by much -



__________________________________________________ ____________________________


"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
``stationary system.''

What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the **** you produce later on?
**** that you expect someone will bother reading?

DVM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

You still don't seem to understand why I asked you
these 4 questions.
So let me try to explain in simple words.
Let's have a close look at the message you are referring
to he
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr... ng.google.com
I will literally take over what you wrote:

| Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
| Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
| more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
| from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
| ``stationary system.''
|
| Dear Al,
| ...

This is what you gave us.
As you see,
- There is something severely wrong with the format.
- If this was a quotation from Einstein, you left out the quotes.
- You write a paragraph followed by "Dear Al..."
- In what you have included here, you have reformatted
and left out the failed introduction "Dear Al'.

So I will kindly ask again, and I will clarify what I mean:

1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started
with the beginning of your message "Dear Al,"?

3) An introduction to the **** you produce later on?
4) **** that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The '****' in question 4 is a reprise of the '****' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.

Didn't they teach you to write English in Germany?
How old are you?

Dirk Vdm