On 17 Jan 2007 06:40:25 -0800, "PD" wrote:



On Jan 16, 10:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 07:49:26 -0800, "PD" wrote:



Note the difference, Henri? You tossed out a random guess, which is
usually wrong, as though it were a fact. PTP then came back and
corrected your mistake, citing a reference. You then acknowledged that
he knew something without admitting that you had made an error out of
ignorance. Rather than learn from this experience to try to alter the
pattern, you simply repeat it ad infinitum.

If a worm is cut in two at a certain place, both pieces will grow.


Further proof that you are incapable of changing your behavior, even
when given an explicit lesson that would motivate a change.

If you would care to, you can try Googling "will a worm cut in half
grow back?" and survey the first 10 or 30 links to learn something.

On the other hand, if you don't care to do that, you can continue to
simply state things you *think* are true as though you are certain of
them, and proceed merrily in a state of misinformed bliss. There isn't
a word for that kind of behavior, but in your honor, I think I'll coin
one: "ignoranus".

Where did I say "both pieces will grow back into a completely functional WORM?"

If a worm is cut in to pieces, then depending on where the cut was made, each
piece is likely to stay alive for at least some time and grow some new parts.

Here's an experiment for you to do in your spare time.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...Zoo_p011.shtml

PD

In article . com,
"My Tube" wrote:


come on, pudledick is a certfied moron, henri is
a phd compared to him, lets be honest

Still dancing for me, dyslexic loon?

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

PD wrote:

On Jan 17, 4:31 pm, "My Tube" wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 07:49:26 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Jan 14, 11:58 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:10:38 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck

wrote:
In article ,
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Worms live in a 1D world. ....straight ahead....If you cut them in half, each
half will carry on as though nothing happened. I don't think they have any EM
sensors at all.
They eat what's in front of them and it passes straight through, minus some
nourishment.

I suppose they use their 'noses'.

Urban legend about worms

Worms cut in half usually die.

http://www.css.cornell.edu/compost/worms/faq.html

What happens if you cut a worm in half?
Almost everyone wants to know the answer to this question. Some species
of worms can regenerate, or re-grow, a new tail, if their tail is cut
off. However, a worm cut too closely to its' head will have difficulty
growing a new tail. Most worms will not regenerate a head.What if the worm is cut longitudinally?

Generally, we tell students that if you cut a worm in half, you will
most likely end up with two dead pieces of worms. However, if you are
lucky, the piece with the head may grow a new tail, so you will have one
alive worm and one piece of dead worm.

Some worms have a natural reflex, in which they will eject their tail
when the tail is pulled. For example, when a bird catches the tail end
of a worm, the worm would eject or sever its' tail from the rest of its'
body. Thus, the worm remains alive and safe, while the bird gets only
part of the worm.
Nice to see you actually have SOME knowledge Diddle****, even if it ain't in
physics.

Note the difference, Henri? You tossed out a random guess, which is
usually wrong, as though it were a fact. PTP then came back and
corrected your mistake, citing a reference. You then acknowledged that
he knew something without admitting that you had made an error out of
ignorance. Rather than learn from this experience to try to alter the
pattern, you simply repeat it ad infinitum.

If a worm is cut in two at a certain place, both pieces will grow.

Further proof that you are incapable of changing your behavior, even
when given an explicit lesson that would motivate a change.

If you would care to, you can try Googling "will a worm cut in half
grow back?" and survey the first 10 or 30 links to learn something.

On the other hand, if you don't care to do that, you can continue to
simply state things you *think* are true as though you are certain of
them, and proceed merrily in a state of misinformed bliss. There isn't
a word for that kind of behavior, but in your honor, I think I'll coin
one: "ignoranus".

PD
come on, pudledick is a certfied moron, henri is
a phd compared to him, lets be honest

Henri a phd by *any* comparison? Uh... no.
I don't have to make any characterization of Henri. He's good at
demonstrating that all by himself.

Now, there is always someone in the peanut gallery who takes it as a
personal mission to root for the underdog, the underpowered, the
underwitted, the underprepared, the underqualified, the underclassed,
or the underequipped, no matter what. Such a cause has no bearing on
what the contest is about, it's just about the spectacle. If you like
that end of the bleachers, have at it.

PD

you do exactly what you say i do,

you started rooting for pudledick

but dont let my words fool you, lets do it for real,
we can measure it, we do it like men, let them
play chess, mano a mano, let tha best man win

i put my money on henry, you put on pudledick, end of story

On Jan 17, 4:55 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 06:40:25 -0800, "PD" wrote:







On Jan 16, 10:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 07:49:26 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Note the difference, Henri? You tossed out a random guess, which is
usually wrong, as though it were a fact. PTP then came back and
corrected your mistake, citing a reference. You then acknowledged that
he knew something without admitting that you had made an error out of
ignorance. Rather than learn from this experience to try to alter the
pattern, you simply repeat it ad infinitum.

If a worm is cut in two at a certain place, both pieces will grow.

Further proof that you are incapable of changing your behavior, even
when given an explicit lesson that would motivate a change.

If you would care to, you can try Googling "will a worm cut in half
grow back?" and survey the first 10 or 30 links to learn something.

On the other hand, if you don't care to do that, you can continue to
simply state things you *think* are true as though you are certain of
them, and proceed merrily in a state of misinformed bliss. There isn't
a word for that kind of behavior, but in your honor, I think I'll coin
one: "ignoranus".

Where did I say "both pieces will grow back into a completely functional WORM?"

If a worm is cut in to pieces, then depending on where the cut was made, each
piece is likely to stay alive for at least some time and grow some new parts.

Ah, so you *can* backpedal after all.
The above in your mind is consistent with "If you cut them in half,
each
half will carry on as though nothing happened," I suppose?
And by "some new parts", I suppose you mean that cells that were in
mid-division will count?


Here's an experiment for you to do in your spare
time.http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...Zoo_p011.shtml

Excellent, Henri! I see you tried the Google search I suggested. In so
doing, I imagine you learned something. I hope that you will get in the
habit of checking what you *think* is true *before* posting it. It will
save you the awkward effort of backpedaling.

In the case above, it might even be worth your time to *do* the lab
suggested so you can test whether it is possible that if "a worm is cut
in two at a certain place, both pieces will grow".

PD

In article . com,
"PD" wrote:

come on, pudledick is a certfied moron, henri is
a phd compared to him, lets be honest

Henri a phd by *any* comparison? Uh... no.
I don't have to make any characterization of Henri. He's good at
demonstrating that all by himself.

Now, there is always someone in the peanut gallery who takes it as a
personal mission to root for the underdog, the underpowered, the
underwitted, the underprepared, the underqualified, the underclassed,
or the underequipped, no matter what. Such a cause has no bearing on
what the contest is about, it's just about the spectacle. If you like
that end of the bleachers, have at it.

PD

The guy has a pretty transparent agenda.

Morph

Post poorly put together abusive posts

Rinse and repeat.

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article . com,
"PD" wrote:

come on, pudledick is a certfied moron, henri is
a phd compared to him, lets be honest

Henri a phd by *any* comparison? Uh... no.
I don't have to make any characterization of Henri. He's good at
demonstrating that all by himself.

Now, there is always someone in the peanut gallery who takes it as a
personal mission to root for the underdog, the underpowered, the
underwitted, the underprepared, the underqualified, the underclassed,
or the underequipped, no matter what. Such a cause has no bearing on
what the contest is about, it's just about the spectacle. If you like
that end of the bleachers, have at it.

PD

The guy has a pretty transparent agenda.

Morph

Post poorly put together abusive posts

Rinse and repeat.

yve been proved moron so many times, fok off,
you are a moron



--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article om,
"My Groups" wrote:

you do exactly what you say i do,

you started rooting for pudledick

but dont let my words fool you, lets do it for real,
we can measure it, we do it like men, let them
play chess, mano a mano, let tha best man win

i put my money on henry, you put on pudledick, end of story

Do you have a pathological need to display your idiocy on a global stage?

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

My Groups wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article . com,
"PD" wrote:

come on, pudledick is a certfied moron, henri is
a phd compared to him, lets be honest

Henri a phd by *any* comparison? Uh... no.
I don't have to make any characterization of Henri. He's good at
demonstrating that all by himself.

Now, there is always someone in the peanut gallery who takes it as a
personal mission to root for the underdog, the underpowered, the
underwitted, the underprepared, the underqualified, the underclassed,
or the underequipped, no matter what. Such a cause has no bearing on
what the contest is about, it's just about the spectacle. If you like
that end of the bleachers, have at it.

PD

The guy has a pretty transparent agenda.

Morph

Post poorly put together abusive posts

Rinse and repeat.

yve been proved moron so many times, fok off,
you are a moron

I know Puddledrip is a moron but he does give excellent HEAD!

Art Deco

On 17 Jan 2007 15:23:02 -0800, "PD" wrote:



On Jan 17, 4:55 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 06:40:25 -0800, "PD" wrote:







On Jan 16, 10:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 07:49:26 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Note the difference, Henri? You tossed out a random guess, which is
usually wrong, as though it were a fact. PTP then came back and
corrected your mistake, citing a reference. You then acknowledged that
he knew something without admitting that you had made an error out of
ignorance. Rather than learn from this experience to try to alter the
pattern, you simply repeat it ad infinitum.

If a worm is cut in two at a certain place, both pieces will grow.

Further proof that you are incapable of changing your behavior, even
when given an explicit lesson that would motivate a change.

If you would care to, you can try Googling "will a worm cut in half
grow back?" and survey the first 10 or 30 links to learn something.

On the other hand, if you don't care to do that, you can continue to
simply state things you *think* are true as though you are certain of
them, and proceed merrily in a state of misinformed bliss. There isn't
a word for that kind of behavior, but in your honor, I think I'll coin
one: "ignoranus".

Where did I say "both pieces will grow back into a completely functional WORM?"

If a worm is cut in to pieces, then depending on where the cut was made, each
piece is likely to stay alive for at least some time and grow some new parts.

Ah, so you *can* backpedal after all.

IO haven't back pedalled at all.

The above in your mind is consistent with "If you cut them in half,
each
half will carry on as though nothing happened," I suppose?
And by "some new parts", I suppose you mean that cells that were in
mid-division will count?

....that's basically correct. Immediately after the cut, both halves will
continue to wriggle as though nothing happened.

Here's an experiment for you to do in your spare
time.http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...Zoo_p011.shtml

Excellent, Henri! I see you tried the Google search I suggested. In so
doing, I imagine you learned something. I hope that you will get in the
habit of checking what you *think* is true *before* posting it. It will
save you the awkward effort of backpedaling.

I didn't learn anything. Only the experiment was described, not the results.
Why don't you contact them and find out what happened?


In the case above, it might even be worth your time to *do* the lab
suggested so you can test whether it is possible that if "a worm is cut
in two at a certain place, both pieces will grow".

Both pieces will grow certain parts. I didn't claim they will develop into
complete worms. One part often will. The other might not.


PD