Reply to article by: "rick nielsen" <rnielsen@centurytel.net>
Date written: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:41:51 -0500
MsgID:<kuydnR3c2sJxsDncRVn-ig@centurytel.net>

Hahahahahah this is without a doubt the funniest thing I have ever read ,

No doubt because you don't understand any of it.

<Snipped the blatent lies and immature name calling>

the only observations that are not accepable are those that can be proven
false, not just unlikely

Cite your sources for that blind faith ignorant assertion. That isn't even
logical. Scientific reasoning actually dictates that all observations are
unacceptable unless they can (1) be repeatable, or (2) be physically recordable.
Otherwise there is no way to prove *OR* disprove that the alleged observation
wasn't a lie, hoax, illusion, delusion, or real.

and by the way, theory and hypothesis, if you'll check your handy thesaurus
are synonyms, functionally the same word

I did check and you are wrong, they are not functionally the same word. Here, I
will prove your absolute stupidity by using it in some sentences...

Beethoven was a fine musician who had never studied musical hypothesis.
Bush made a decision based on experience rather than hypothesis.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================