Revised Bouw contra Faulkner back up:when Christian astronom

[Dunash]

http://www.geocentricity.com/fresp/

[Wiley]

Wiley likes how Bouw refers to himself in the third person. Wiley shall now adopt this manner.

[Jovianboy]

The use of the phrase "Christian astronomers" in the subject heading for this post is inappropriate. These men (Faulkner and Bouw) are clearly *creationist* astronomers (if indeed they do any real astronomy at all). I can assure you that there are plenty of non-creationist Christians who also happen to be astronomers. I am also sure that they would object to be being hurled into the same category as these reality-denying biblical literalists, under the umbrella of "Christian astronomers".

[Roy Batty]

Batty (Cerebus?) is not impressed with how Bouw links are always being tiringly posted on astronomy board. Not place for belief discussion. This place for alternative scientific astronomy surely?

_________________
N6MAA10816

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-03-19 19:48 ]</font>

[DStahl]

Welcome to the forum, JovianBoy. You make an excellent point. Dunash, do you think you could modify your title as suggested?

--Don Stahl

[Jigsaw]

Faaaaabulous stuff. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

From the article:

Apparently, none of today’s dictionaries have either word–heliocentrism or geocentrism–in them. Even the original twelve-volume Oxford English Dictionary (OED), finished in 1928, lacks both words.

Ahem. It's true that Merriam-Webster online, http://www.m-w.com/ does not have "geocentrism", but it accompanies that announcement with a list of variations, and at the top of the list is "geocentric".

Main Entry: geo·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "jE-O-'sen-trik
Function: adjective
Date: 1686
1 a : relating to, measured from, or as if observed from the earth's center -- compare TOPOCENTRIC b : having or relating to the earth as center -- compare HELIOCENTRIC
2 : taking or based on the earth as the center of perspective and valuation
- geo·cen·tri·cal·ly /-tri-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I guess it's more fun for Bouw to play the martyr.

And I absolutely adore the spectacle of two grown men arguing over whether, in Psalm 93:1, it's "stablish" or "establish". Say, guys, is it "picky", or "nitpicky"? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

FTR, the New International Version, which is considered the latest and most accurate translation, has it as (courtesy of Bible Gateway):

The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

--which seems to speak to Bouw's geocentric point, without a lot of pointless quibbling about etymology.

But hey, that's the whole point of the entire article, ain't it? Quibbling?

And I'd sure like to know what whether Tycho Brahe was poisoned has to do with any of it...

And, finally, am I the only one who finds the paragraph heading, "Science beyond Faulkner’s ken", to be stone hilarious?

He does not understand the underlying physics of Planck particles or massive superstrings...

Er, and Bouw does? Bouw is so good at physics that he can prove the Sun rotates around the Earth?

Talk about your pot calling your kettle black. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Tweedledum and Tweedledee.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-03-19 20:43 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-03-19 20:45 ]</font>

[Peter B]

Jigsaw said: "Tweedledum and Tweedledee..."

Despite not having read the article, I'm tempted to say Tweedledum and Tweedle-even-dumber.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Jovianboy]

Greetings all (sorry, forgot that in my first post).

Thanks for your welcome Don, though I doubt the subject heading will be changed. I can't be certain about Dunash, but my understanding of creationists is that they generally like to maintain a strictly polarized view of the interactions between Christianity and mainstream science. That is: "atheist-evolutionist-scientists VERSUS god-fearing-bible-believing-creationists", or as Dunash implied in his wording, regular "evolutionist" astronomers and "Christian astronomers" (and never the twain shall meet).

I point out again the large numbers of scientists who are Christians AND acknowledge that evolution and modern cosmology are accurate representations of reality. Do all creationists like to pretend that these people don't exist? I'm not sure, but polarizing an issue into a basic "us and them" has always been a useful tool in garnishing the support and subsequent loyalty of the less educated ("If you're not with us, you're against us, and therefore not a REAL Christian" etc). This kind of over-simplification seems to come naturally to most creationists, after all, it underpins their very (pseudo)science. At least we can't accuse them of being inconsistent.

That's how it seems from my end, anyway.

Cheers.

[quote]
On 2002-03-20 02:04, Jovianboy wrote: To: 2:37 A.M. PST
On 20020320 aka JD2452354 aka 1 CHUEN 9 CUMKU
<pre>LEFT 386/20 2 computers RIGHT 486/100
3| | |
4| March 21, 2002 | * Capella |
5| 5PM | |
6| |)Moon | |
7| | Lyncis . |
8| | 6h57m27s |

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-03-22 05:10 ]</font>

[Dunash]

"The Geocentric paradigm is at least as good as anyone else's but not better. If the
Galileo Affair been held after Einstein published his General Theory of
Relativity, it would have resulted in
an even draw by mathematical and physical necessity!" (Sir Fred Hoyle). So why all this gnashing of teeth?! However if STR is ever disproven, then the bruxism can begin....!

[David Hall]

On 2002-03-20 04:57, Dunash wrote:
"The Geocentric paradigm is at least as good as anyone else's but not better.

I usually try to stay out of these debates, but what the heck...

As I understand, I don't think you can really say that the Geocentric model is "just as good" according to Einsteinian relativity. You can of course adjust and manipulate the theory to "create" a geocentric model, just as you can create a Mars-centric, AlphaCentauri-centric, David-centric or even--gasp-- a heliocentric model. So a better way to say it is that it is "just as accurate", in that it can be used to make predictions about reality. But I think the mathematical gymnastics you need to go through to make the model compatible are a nightmare compared to the models most scientists use. Is that "just as good"?

I wonder if these geocentric scientists have ever actually sat down and tried to model geocentrism using Einstein's formulae (not that I have either, mind you). My way of thinking is that the easier-to-use of two congruous systems is the preferrable one. The only (or at least main) reason I see geocentrists arguing this angle is because they are trying to bolster support for a previously-determined conclusion.

That's all from me. I now return this discussion to the regularly-scheduled ranters. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[DoctorDon]

FTR, the New International Version, which is considered the latest and most accurate translation...

Considered by whom? The NIV is *awful*. It's heavily biased towards evangelical exegesis and the translators take liberties with the texts. Sure, it reads reasonably well, and it's better than the CEV or the NKJV, but I wouldn't use it for a real, scholarly debate without carefully checking the Greek or Hebrew myself. The New Revised Standard Version is much better.

But this is off-topic, so I'll shut up now.

Don

[Donnie B.]

Yes, isn't it interesting that all these folks who argue that GR allows them to create a valid geocentric model never seem to argue that the cosmos is actually Moon-centric?

After all, that's equally valid under GR. Could it be that (gasp) there's some other reason they want the Earth to be at the center?

What an utterly incredible conceit! Isn't this the sin of vanity?

[Dunash]

It may come as a surprise to some but what "works" for NASA
in sending space probes to the plan-
ets is actually the geocentric model!
The fact is that all navigation
including space navigation is
conducted using a geocentric
model. See the June 1976 Scientific
American.The conceptual system described
there is "a westerly rotating shell
of infinite radius on which the stars
are assumed to be fixed", which is
simply the non-rotating earth
model that is so denigrated.
Why does NASA do this? Because it
is simpler. Because it actually
works in reality. Because it pro-
duces a valid mathematical alterna-
tive that works. Because it is easier
to understand and work with.
And also because it is what we actu-
ally observe with our eyes daily.
Because it uses the laws of physics
and mathematics to get results.
Because it provides the tools of the trade for navigation. Because it delivers the
goods in spaceshots to the planets.
And it is not without some supportive evidence:The Barr Effect, Varshni's Result, Michelson- Morley Zero Velocity Result, Airy's Failure, Star Streaming, Walls of galaxies centered on our galaxy (or the earth!),uniformity of the microwave background etc

[DoctorDon]

On 2002-03-20 19:08, Dunash wrote:
"It may come as a surprise to some but what "works" for NASA in sending space probes to the planets is actually the geocentric model!"

It's especially a surprise for those of us that have actually done this. For the interplanetary satellites *I* have dealt with, at least, we used coordinate systems (and I don't like how you geocentrists use "coordinate systems" and "model" interchangibly. Just moving the zero point around doesn't have any effect on the dynamics of the system.) cenetered whereever appropriate. To get Ulysses to Jupiter, we used a heliocentric system (technically, barycentric, but what's a few million kilometers between friends?). To slingshot around Jupiter, we used a Jovicentric coordinate system. Even for earth-orbiting satellites, when you would use an earth-centered coordinate system to calculate where the thing is, you would still have to convert to a barycentric system if you wanted to (say) search for pulsars, because the earth's motion around the sun would smear out the pulsar signal if you didn't account for it.

How do geocentrists deal with that?

"The fact is that all navigation including space navigation is conducted using a geocentric model."

Not when I was doing it.

"See the June 1976 Scientific American."

Do you have a link handy?

"The conceptual system described there is 'a westerly rotating shell of infinite radius on which the stars are assumed to be fixed', which is simply the non-rotating earth model that is so denigrated."

Okay, I think I see what you're talking about here. To describe the orbital mechanics necessary to get Ulysses to Jupiter, you would use a heliocentric coordinate system, but then you would anchor that system to the celestial coordinate system purely as a point of reference. That is, the designation of the zero angle for azimuth is arbitrary, so by convention it is chosen to be at the vernal equinox, so that one can convert between geocentric and heliocentric more easily. The celestial (equatorial) coordinate system is, by necessity and tradition, geocentric.

However, I feel the need to point out the obvious that all this is only predicated on the fact that we are here, looking out, and so the traditional coordinate system is from that point of view. It is *not* the easiest. Right ascention and declination are really annoying coordinates. They drift across the sky as the earth precesses, so you always have to give the exact date in addition to the coordinates. A much simpler system would be a coordinate system calibrated to the most distant quasars, because they aren't going to move relative to us (proper motion) in the lifetime of the sun. However, that isn't going to happen because (a) astronomers are a conservative lot, when it comes to units (we're still using *magnitudes*, for crying out loud, rather than more physical units like flux or intensity) and (b) if you are trying to figure out where to point a telescope, while sitting on the rotating earth, it is easier to use coordinates that are rotating with you. The only reasons to lock the heliocentric coordinates to the celestial coordinates is if you want to tell where the satellite is from the point of view of the earth (say, if you wanted to point a radio tranciever at it so you could send instructions and receive data).

That stuff about "an infinite shell" only works because the parallax due to the earth's motion around the sun is so small that it only has a measurable effect on the closest stars. The vast majority of the stuff out there is so far away, that it can be approximated as fixed on a two-dimensional surface. If you ignore the stuff that interferes with doing this, it works: that's called a selection bias.

I don't get this geocentrist stuff. It seems to be taking an obvious tautology (that you can compute coordinates centered on any arbitrary point) and then arguing precisely from that generality that the earth is in a special location, thereby contradicting the very generailty needed to make the point in the first place.

Don

[Silas]

By that logic, Greenwich (near London) really is the zero meridian, and the day really begins at the International Date Line.

One challenge: when there is a large earthquake, the rotation of the earth (or the sky about the earth) is measurably altered. How does the geocentric theory explain this? Do the stars all conspire together to jolt a bit in their majestic courses, solely for the purpose of causing our earthquake? How is it that the farthest stars and the nearest coordinate their efforts?

This one observation ought to be enough to demolish the geostationary fantasy. It is a simple, factual observation, trivially explained under the standard model, but requiring the most incredible leaps of illogic to justify under the geocentric model.

re walls of galaxies, I *think* they only appear to be centered on us because of the limitations of our viewpoint. When better three-d models come out, I'll bet that such walls will be mostly the same from pretty much any viewpoint.

Silas

[Roy Batty]

On 2002-03-21 10:15, Silas wrote:
By that logic, Greenwich (near London) really is the zero meridian, and the day really begins at the International Date Line.

My goodness, you mean it doesnt? explains why i can never get up at the right time [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

_________________
N6MAA10816

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-03-21 11:02 ]</font>

[Dunash]

Tut tut Silas! If you call Geocentricity "fanatasy" you are by definition impugning Mach and Einstein!

In Geocentricty we basically reverse cause and effect. The ussual explanation for earthquakes is that they are due to stress
build-up along cracks in the earth. When the stress reaches the breaking point, the earthquake happens and the spin of the earth
is affected. In the Advanced Potential Model, the earthquake is due to stresses and strains within the rotating universe v.
corresponding strain build-up in the earth. Once the universe's strain snaps, the earth slips and the earthquake happens (usually along a weak point like a fault), and the universe adjusts its rotation rate accordingly.

[Silas]

On 2002-03-21 12:27, Dunash wrote:
Tut tut Silas! If you call Geocentricity "fanatasy" you are by definition impugning Mach and Einstein!

I've never heard anyone suggest that Einstein believed the earth didn't rotate.

In Geocentricty we basically reverse cause and effect.

I'd been noticing that...

The ussual explanation for earthquakes is that they are due to stress
build-up along cracks in the earth. When the stress reaches the breaking point, the earthquake happens and the spin of the earth
is affected. In the Advanced Potential Model, the earthquake is due to stresses and strains within the rotating universe v.
corresponding strain build-up in the earth. Once the universe's strain snaps, the earth slips and the earthquake happens (usually along a weak point like a fault), and the universe adjusts its rotation rate accordingly.

And where does the energy come from, to cause the whole of the cosmos to jerk backwards and forwards at such velocities?

I am able to accept that the rotating sphere of the cosmos doesn't violate special relativity, since the entire "frame of reference" is moving, as opposed to any objects within it.

But when the entire frame of reference changes direction rapidly, back and forth, that's gotta take energy. Lots of it. The cosmos should be glowing with heat after just a small terrestrial temblor.

Also: how does the cosmos "know" what effect it will have upon the earth by its little jars and jerks and jolts? The standard theory explains why a hurricane causes a gradual and smooth alteration of the earth's rotation, whereas an earthquake causes a sharp change. The stars, unless you imbue them with intelligence, can't choose what part of the earth to affect by their gravitational impulses.

Personally, were I a geocentrist, I would say that the rotation of the cosmos is steady and unjarred, and the jarring is, in fact, caused by the shaking of the earth, exactly as in the standard model. This eliminates most of my objections, and, in addition, doesn't violate scripture (in which earthquakes are mentioned.)

(Ya gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.)

Silas

[Jigsaw]

On 2002-03-20 06:39, DoctorDon wrote:
Considered by whom?

It's considered an accurate translation by a great many Fundamentalist churches.

The NIV is *awful*.

In your opinion.

It's heavily biased towards evangelical exegesis...

In your opinion. Or have you got a cite?

...and the translators take liberties with the texts.

Cite, please? In other words, "where?"

I wouldn't use it for a real, scholarly debate without carefully checking the Greek or Hebrew myself.

That's your perogative when dealing with any translation, but why single out the NIV?

The New Revised Standard Version is much better.

In your opinion.

But this is off-topic...

Dern tootin' it's off-topic, so why say it in the first place? Other than to vent your personal prejudice against the NIV, for whatever reason.

Are you by any chance a member of Terry Watkins' church?
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

Where the NIV came from.
http://www.zondervanbibles.com/niv.htm

The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.

The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease ofreading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.

The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

"Awful"? I don't think so. But then, that's just my opinion.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-03-21 20:24 ]</font>

[Jovianboy]

On 2002-03-21 12:27, Dunash wrote:
In Geocentricty we basically reverse cause and effect.

Violating the causality principle must be the surest sign of an illogical argument.

JB

[DoctorDon]

Hi,

I know this is totally off-topic, so I promise this will be my last post on the subject. Although this post is devoid of astronomy, per se, I do make some points about the treatment of sources and selection bias that are tangentially relevant to scientific methodology. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

> It's considered an accurate translation by a great many Fundamentalist churches.

Well, that's one point against it.

> > The NIV is *awful*.
> In your opinion.

I have no one else's to offer. I choose to call it awful because it presents itself as accurate and reliable, when it is not. The CEV is a much worse translation, but it doesn't pretend to be more than it is.

> > ...and the translators take liberties with the texts.
> Cite, please? In other words, "where?"

Um, I know what "cite" means, thank you very much.

Well, probably the most obvious example is where they correct the mistake that the author of the gospel of Matthew makes when translating Zech. 9:9, in Matt 21:5. The author of Matthew thinks that the text means a colt *and* the foal of a donkey, and he therefore modifies the "triumphal entry" story so that Jesus is riding on two animals at once (ouch!), because he's so obsessed about Jesus fulfilling prophecy that he's willing to alter the facts to make them fit his preconceptions. The NIV puts in the correct translation of Zech 9:9, but leaves in the Matthean passage about Jesus sitting on two animals at once, thus rendering the passage *completely* nonsensical.

I deduce from this that the translators of this version find their own preconception that the text not contain any errors to be stronger than the obvious error in front of them (compare with other editions and particularly with the greek if you don't believe me), and so they felt compelled to change matthew (in a fascinating irony, since matthew changed Mark for clearly similar reasons). If they'll do it once, here, you can't trust their bias not to affect their translation, which was my original point.

QED.

> ...why single out the NIV?

I didn't. Someone else did. Ask him. I just responded.

> > The New Revised Standard Version is much better.
> In your opinion.

Yes, based on fifteen years or so of study, that is my conclusion. Of course, for specific questions and purposes, and even in specific passages, one translation may outshine another, when those roles may be reversed on other issues. I prefer to have seven or eight handy for comparison. But overall, for general discussion, in terms of accessibility, objectivity, and reliability, I have found the NRSV to be the best.

> Dern tootin' it's off-topic, so why say it in the first place?

I wasn't the first place; I was the second place. Someone else was singing its praises, and I don't think it deserves such high praise. For those who may not be familiar with the thing, I wanted to provide an alternate viewpoint.

> Are you by any chance a member of Terry Watkins' church?

No. I'm a Quaker.

> Where the NIV came from.

I know where the NIV came from; I have two of them. There's no need to cite their mission statement at me.

Don

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-03-20 05:37, David Hall wrote:
That's all from me. I now return this discussion to the regularly-scheduled ranters.

Hurry up and graduate already!

On 2002-03-21 16:45, Silas wrote:
I've never heard anyone suggest that Einstein believed the earth didn't rotate.

I think this comes close: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless." That's from The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein and Infeld. That is Dunash's point.

<font size=-1>[Fixed formatting]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-03-22 04:30 ]</font>

<a name="20020322.4:11"> page 20020322.4:11 aka Lots of lines?
On 2002-03-21 07:09, DoctorDon wrote: To: 4:11:11:11:11:11
On 2002-03-20 19:08, Dunash wrote: To: 4:11:11:11:11
"It may come as a surprise to some but what "works" for NASA in sending space probes to the planets is actually the geocentric model!"
2
It's especially a surprise for those of us that have actually done this. For the interplanetary satellites *I* have dealt with, at least, we used coordinate systems (and I don't like how you geocentrists use "coordinate systems" and "model" interchangibly. Just moving the zero point around doesn't have any effect on the dynamics of the system.) cenetered whereever appropriate. To get Ulysses to Jupiter, we used a heliocentric system (technically, barycentric, but what's a few million kilometers between friends?). To slingshot around Jupiter, we used a Jovicentric coordinate system. Even for earth-orbiting satellites, when you would use an earth-centered coordinate system to calculate where the thing is, you would still have to convert to a barycentric system if you wanted to (say) search for pulsars, because the earth's motion around the sun would smear out the pulsar signal if you didn't account for it.
4
How do geocentrists deal with that?
6
"The fact is that all navigation including space navigation is conducted using a geocentric model."
8
Not when I was doing it.
10
"See the June 1976 Scientific American."
12
Do you have a link handy?
14
"The conceptual system described there is 'a westerly rotating shell of infinite radius on which the stars are assumed to be fixed', which is simply the non-rotating earth model that is so denigrated."
16
Okay, I think I see what you're talking about here. To describe the orbital mechanics necessary to get Ulysses to Jupiter, you would use a heliocentric coordinate system, but then you would anchor that system to the celestial coordinate system purely as a point of reference. That is, the designation of the zero angle for azimuth is arbitrary, so by convention it is chosen to be at the vernal equinox, so that one can convert between geocentric and heliocentric more easily. The celestial (equatorial) coordinate system is, by necessity and tradition, geocentric.
18
However, I feel the need to point out the obvious that all this is only predicated on the fact that we are here, looking out, and so the traditional coordinate system is from that point of view. It is *not* the easiest. Right ascention and declination are really annoying coordinates. They drift across the sky as the earth precesses, so you always have to give the exact date in addition to the coordinates. A much simpler system would be a coordinate system calibrated to the most distant quasars, because they aren't going to move relative to us (proper motion) in the lifetime of the sun. However, that isn't going to happen because (a) astronomers are a conservative lot, when it comes to units (we're still using *magnitudes*, for crying out loud, rather than more physical units like flux or intensity) and (b) if you are trying to figure out where to point a telescope, while sitting on the rotating earth, it is easier to use coordinates that are rotating with you. The only reasons to lock the heliocentric coordinates to the celestial coordinates is if you want to tell where the satellite is from the point of view of the earth (say, if you wanted to point a radio tranciever at it so you could send instructions and receive data).
20
That stuff about "an infinite shell" only works because the parallax due to the earth's motion around the sun is so small that it only has a measurable effect on the closest stars. The vast majority of the stuff out there is so far away, that it can be approximated as fixed on a two-dimensional surface. If you ignore the stuff that interferes with doing this, it works: that's called a selection bias.
22
I don't get this geocentrist stuff. It seems to be taking an obvious tautology (that you can compute coordinates centered on any arbitrary point) and then arguing precisely from that generality that the earth is in a special location, thereby contradicting the very generailty needed to make the point in the first place.
24
Don
[/quote]26 4:12 A.M.

[David Hall]

On 2002-03-22 04:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Hurry up and graduate already!

Sniff, I'm touched. I didn't think anyone would notice.

I was trying to wait until I had something important to say, but since you asked nicely, with this post I officially join the ranks of the PhD's.

This means I can doctor anything I want now, right?

[GrapesOfWrath]

<a name="fireworks">

On 2002-03-22 06:18, David Hall wrote:
This means I can doctor anything I want now, right?

I hereby confer upon you the right to make hugely doctoral errors.
<center><font size=+1>
Fireworks
</font></center>

[David Hall]

Thank you, thank you. It sure feels nice at the top.

I wish to thank all of the little people I had to step on to get where I am today. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Jim]

On 2002-03-22 07:13, David Hall wrote:
Thank you, thank you. It sure feels nice at the top.

I wish to thank all of the little people I had to step on to get where I am today. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

You're welcome. Now, please get your foot off my back.

(Idle thought... Do you really think posts such as those last two should count toward your PhD? ... Hmm, you have a point, aimless "fill material" is common to all dissertations. ... Okay, never mind, congratulations.)

<a name="20020811.5:52"> page 20020811.5:52 aka dredged from page 13
On 2002-03-19 12:33, Dunash wrote: To: 2-8-11 HUb'
http://www.geocentricity.com/fresp/

[/quote]

Usually ? When dredging on page 13
I go for the smallest number / thread
this time i did the opposite
and picked the MOST pages { that I say } quick scan