A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » The Theory of Relativity
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: , , , ,

Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old November 27th 04 posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.physics,sci.math
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,674
Default Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws

(Judith Hardy) wrote in message . com...
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
(David McAnally) wrote in message ...
"Androcles" writes:


To Androcles
McAnally, shadows with the pseudonym Speicher,
enjoy your tour into the psychotic world of
ultra kook dom, the're trolls, by any other name.
Ken


I have not posted to this newsgroup for some time, but your comments
make me want to puke.


Yes, I read your post Judith, and I think I
could arrange for a bit of "morning sickness"
you want. When?

Your disgusting and derisive comments were also made without making
any genuine contribution to the thread. Your empty-headed tripe makes
you a troll, because you waste everybody's time with your comment.

You also made your response knowing full-well that neither Speicher
nor McAnally would ever get to see it and that they would not be able
to defend themselves against your unwarranted abuse. Speicher will
not be able to read your post because he no longer reads the group,
and McAnally will not be able to read your post because he has you
kill filed (both of these are public knowledge). Attacking people who
have no recourse to respond is the action of a yellow-bellied coward.


So you interested in the color of my belly are you,
I'm beginning to like you.

It is interesting that you did not see fit to write explaining what
you thought was so wrong with what McAnally wrote, and making specific
objections to his points. Presumably you do not understand what the
discussion was about, and, therefore, were not able to any worthwhile
comments or contributions. It is interesting that you used 'trolls'
to rudely attack two people who have no recourse to answer you, when
you, yourself, are a troll of the worst kind. It is evident that you
are actually describing yourself and your own nature, when you use the
word 'troll' (after all, you were the person who introduced this
epithet).


Yes, I was terribly mean, I'll make it up to you.

Androcles is a well-known fool, and his connection with reality has
been served no useful purpose when you treat him as if he was more
intelligent than he actually is, as you have done above.


Oh, that's a sure sign of affection, you and I
could gossip about the neighbours after were done
getting you started on "morning sickness".

Is there any truth to the rumour that you changed one letter in your
name from an 'F' to a 'T'?


None at all, but thanks for asking. It's not everyday
a woman e-travels 12,000 miles to flirt with me.

I'd would have stuck with "F" but I got to many
messages from all them beautiful starlets, but
since the most beautiful women come from Australia
I thought I'd use "Tucker", meaning "I nourish the
babes".

When?
Ken F Tucker
Ads
  #92  
Old November 28th 04 posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.physics,sci.math
Judith Hardy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws

Your sleazy-minded innuendoes are not appreciated. I do not discuss
things with smutty-minded perverts.

Does your wife even know that she is married to a disgusting pervert.
Maybe somebody should tell her what an absolute jerk you are.

*plonk*

(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
(Judith Hardy) wrote in message . com...
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
(David McAnally) wrote in message ...
"Androcles" writes:

To Androcles
McAnally, shadows with the pseudonym Speicher,
enjoy your tour into the psychotic world of
ultra kook dom, the're trolls, by any other name.
Ken


I have not posted to this newsgroup for some time, but your comments
make me want to puke.


Yes, I read your post Judith, and I think I
could arrange for a bit of "morning sickness"
you want. When?

Your disgusting and derisive comments were also made without making
any genuine contribution to the thread. Your empty-headed tripe makes
you a troll, because you waste everybody's time with your comment.

You also made your response knowing full-well that neither Speicher
nor McAnally would ever get to see it and that they would not be able
to defend themselves against your unwarranted abuse. Speicher will
not be able to read your post because he no longer reads the group,
and McAnally will not be able to read your post because he has you
kill filed (both of these are public knowledge). Attacking people who
have no recourse to respond is the action of a yellow-bellied coward.


So you interested in the color of my belly are you,
I'm beginning to like you.

It is interesting that you did not see fit to write explaining what
you thought was so wrong with what McAnally wrote, and making specific
objections to his points. Presumably you do not understand what the
discussion was about, and, therefore, were not able to any worthwhile
comments or contributions. It is interesting that you used 'trolls'
to rudely attack two people who have no recourse to answer you, when
you, yourself, are a troll of the worst kind. It is evident that you
are actually describing yourself and your own nature, when you use the
word 'troll' (after all, you were the person who introduced this
epithet).


Yes, I was terribly mean, I'll make it up to you.

Androcles is a well-known fool, and his connection with reality has
been served no useful purpose when you treat him as if he was more
intelligent than he actually is, as you have done above.


Oh, that's a sure sign of affection, you and I
could gossip about the neighbours after were done
getting you started on "morning sickness".

Is there any truth to the rumour that you changed one letter in your
name from an 'F' to a 'T'?


None at all, but thanks for asking. It's not everyday
a woman e-travels 12,000 miles to flirt with me.

I'd would have stuck with "F" but I got to many
messages from all them beautiful starlets, but
since the most beautiful women come from Australia
I thought I'd use "Tucker", meaning "I nourish the
babes".

When?
Ken F Tucker

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws Paul Stowe Physics - General Discussion 0 July 25th 05 06:47 AM
Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws Uncle Al Physics - General Discussion 93 November 29th 04 11:34 PM
Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws Uncle Al Physics - General Discussion 3 November 17th 04 02:32 PM
Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws Uncle Al Physics - General Discussion 0 November 1st 04 04:30 PM
Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws Uncle Al Physics - General Discussion 0 September 30th 04 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2009 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Credit Cards - Mobile Phone - Credit Card Consolidation - Free Credit Reports - ID badge