(John Baez) wrote in message ...

[...]

Puzzle #5: When was the Roman empire sold, and who bought it?

If you give up, try this:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/puzzles/5.html

and for extra points:

Puzzle #5a: When was the Roman Republic bought, and who sold it?

If you give up, try this:

http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/6477


Seriously though, one of the puzzling things about Sarfatti is how
his posts often give the impression he is deep in esoteric discussions
with a large gaggle of like-minded souls, and yet to my knowledge he
has never once responded to any sci.physics feedback, positive or
otherwise.


Cheers

John R Ramsden (jr@`rm -rf \`)

P.S. For obvious reasons please do not reply to spam-trap email.

John Ramsden wrote:
(John Baez) wrote in message ...

[...]

Puzzle #5: When was the Roman empire sold, and who bought it?

If you give up, try this:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/puzzles/5.html


and for extra points:

Puzzle #5a: When was the Roman Republic bought, and who sold it?

If you give up, try this:

http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/6477


Seriously though, one of the puzzling things about Sarfatti is how
his posts often give the impression he is deep in esoteric discussions
with a large gaggle of like-minded souls, and yet to my knowledge he
has never once responded to any sci.physics feedback, positive or
otherwise.


Cheers

John R Ramsden (jr@`rm -rf \`)

P.S. For obvious reasons please do not reply to spam-trap email.

Shouldn't the email be jr@'rm -rf /' ? ;-)

"John Ramsden" wrote in message
m...
(John Baez) wrote in message
...

[...]

Puzzle #5: When was the Roman empire sold, and who bought it?

If you give up, try this:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/puzzles/5.html

and for extra points:

Puzzle #5a: When was the Roman Republic bought, and who sold it?

If you give up, try this:

http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/6477


Seriously though, one of the puzzling things about Sarfatti is how
his posts often give the impression he is deep in esoteric discussions
with a large gaggle of like-minded souls, and yet to my knowledge he
has never once responded to any sci.physics feedback, positive or
otherwise.


I started posting here nearly 5 years ago now. It did not take me long to
figure out that Sarfatti is marching to the beat of a drum so different it
is not worth worrying about. The truly amazing thing is Lubos Motl would
not bother to actually check that John would say such. John does not post
around here must any more (of course I wish he would) but from when he did
an outburst such as attributed to him by Sarfatti would be completely out of
character.

Thanks
Bill

On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:24:41 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:

I started posting here nearly 5 years ago now.

And where, exactly, would "here" be?

Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.physics.relativity,sci .math,alt.religion.kibology

I'm guessing that in at least one of those groups, most people don't
give a red rat's ass about you or your ongoing ****ing contest with
some net k00k.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology

Kevin S. Wilson writes:

I'm guessing that in at least one of those groups, most people don't
give a red rat's ass about ... your ongoing ****ing contest with
some net k00k.

Words to live by, Kevins. Words to live by.

--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/
"Next you can move on to criticizing The Great Gatsby by noting all the
places where it differs from Beowulf." -- swt

In article ,
John Ramsden wrote:

Seriously though, one of the puzzling things about Sarfatti is how
his posts often give the impression he is deep in esoteric discussions
with a large gaggle of like-minded souls, and yet to my knowledge he
has never once responded to any sci.physics feedback, positive or
otherwise.

He used to - if you look back quite a ways using Google you can
find him engaged in heated debates with many people on sci.physics,
including me. When people got him very upset he would send letters
to their superiors threatening to sue them for libel and stuff like
that. For example, he sent such letters to my department chair,
dean, etc. He also did this to a physics grad student at UCR - and
now he has just done it to Lubos Motl. People tend to shut up when
he does this, because it's such a nuisance. Anyway, I don't think
public debate ever agreed with him, so when websites became popular
he pretty much withdrew to that format. He also has a mailing list,
and when he wants to annoy me he puts me on it. Of course I have my
countermeasures. It's all rather tiresome, though.

John Baez wrote:

snip

He also has a mailing list,
and when he wants to annoy me he puts me on it. Of
course I have my countermeasures. It's all rather
tiresome, though.


Some newsgroups, the sci.* heirarchy being a group of
them, attract a disproportionate population of obviously
mentally disturbed individuals.

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
...
John Baez wrote:

snip

He also has a mailing list,
and when he wants to annoy me he puts me on it. Of
course I have my countermeasures. It's all rather
tiresome, though.


Some newsgroups, the sci.* heirarchy being a group of
them, attract a disproportionate population of obviously
mentally disturbed individuals.


John, you really have to excuse Bill Vajk, who is ignorant in physics and
apparently very proud of that fact.
He believes, among other things, that the potential and kinetic energy of a
falling body simultaneously increase.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...orkHarder.html

More than a year of physical arguments by John Bell and many others have
failed to convince him of his error, and has led to him attacking these
posters.
Bill likes to send nasty letters and email to peoples bosses and colleagues
at their place of employment or study.

Just a heads up John.

Bill Vajk wrote:

John Baez wrote:

snip

He also has a mailing list,
and when he wants to annoy me he puts me on it. Of
course I have my countermeasures. It's all rather
tiresome, though.

Some newsgroups, the sci.* heirarchy being a group of
them, attract a disproportionate population of obviously
mentally disturbed individuals.

We've noticed, idiot critic troll Vajk. Tell us again, idiot critic
troll Vajk, how a falling body simultaneously increases its potential
and kinetic energies. Tell us gain, idiot critic troll Vajk, how
acceleration is not an absolute measurement. Whine and stomp your
feet and petulantly shout it out again, despite overwhelming empirical
evidence to the contrary.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

Littlemanwearingbigboypants snivels:

Bill Vajk wrote:

John Baez wrote:

snip

He also has a mailing list,
and when he wants to annoy me he puts me on it. Of
course I have my countermeasures. It's all rather
tiresome, though.

Some newsgroups, the sci.* heirarchy being a group of
them, attract a disproportionate population of obviously
mentally disturbed individuals.

We've noticed, idiot critic troll Vajk.

snip tourettish outburst

Schwartz and Varney, IMO, head the list of the most
loathsome as well as the most rabid. And Franz should
be chirping in any minute now.....

They're generally amusing, though I agree sometimes
they're simply tiresome with the same old same old
games and nonsense.

Perhaps the second string will emerge today as well. LOL