Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm sorry, I'm not going to treat Digi differently because he has some moderation ability on some other part of the forum. I treat him exactly like I treat other posters.
Then start treating every poster in a nice way, and you will find a lot of problems will fade.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No. Digi is an armchair mod--he moderates despite having no actual power in this forum. This frustrates him sexually and so he has to blumpkin all over other other posters in order to become aroused. After this mildly heinous sexual act is complete, he smears feces all over his body, takes a few pictures, posts them to a scat website, and masturbates all over the commissions.
This is light-hearted humor?! When we weren't even having a conversation? If not taking a liking to this sort of thing makes me a Nazi, I'll gladly accept that label.
Not sure how insults and mockery of my current image with graphic images constitutes "humor," especially when you have a history of either insulting me or ignoring my warnings.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm sorry, I'm not going to treat Digi differently because he has some moderation ability on some other part of the forum. I treat him exactly like I treat other posters.
So, poorly? Learn to respect people rather than inslting then trying to escape using the "it's only a joke" card. It has nothing to do with me being a mod...the same respect should be given equally to all members.
I wasn't being mean. The point is, either enforce moderation policies for everyone equally, or don't enforce them specifically. How many racist jokes have been directed at FotN? How many times have people told SoD he's an idiot? How many times have people just ripped sithsaber and JacopeX to shreds?
More times than I can count. Yet a post that I made--which I thought was pretty clearly a joke due to the use of the word "blumpkin" as a verb and the idea of Digi uploading scat porn--is somehow a VENDETTA against him!1!1!!1!
From now on, I'm hitting the report button at the slightest offense. Anything that doesn't actually bother me but could, theoretically, bother me, will be reported. That includes the sexual innuendo exchanged between Backfire and, you know, pretty much everyone.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I wasn't being mean. The point is, either enforce moderation policies for everyone equally, or don't enforce them specifically. How many racist jokes have been directed at FotN? How many times have people told SoD he's an idiot? How many times have people just ripped sithsaber and JacopeX to shreds?More times than I can count. Yet a post that I made--which I thought was pretty clearly a joke due to the use of the word "blumpkin" as a verb and the idea of Digi uploading scat porn--is somehow a VENDETTA against him!1!1!!1!
From now on, I'm hitting the report button at the slightest offense. Anything that doesn't actually bother me but could, theoretically, bother me, will be reported. That includes the sexual innuendo exchanged between Backfire and, you know, pretty much everyone.
I agree with you, and I do report people, but it is not my place to enforce anything. Maybe you should talk to Raz about taking the training to be a mod.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I wasn't being mean. The point is, either enforce moderation policies for everyone equally, or don't enforce them specifically. How many racist jokes have been directed at FotN? How many times have people told SoD he's an idiot? How many times have people just ripped sithsaber and JacopeX to shreds?More times than I can count. Yet a post that I made--which I thought was pretty clearly a joke due to the use of the word "blumpkin" as a verb and the idea of Digi uploading scat porn--is somehow a VENDETTA against him!1!1!!1!
From now on, I'm hitting the report button at the slightest offense. Anything that doesn't actually bother me but could, theoretically, bother me, will be reported. That includes the sexual innuendo exchanged between Backfire and, you know, pretty much everyone.
You're using some false claims here. The mods deal with everything we're made aware of, either personally or via reports. We deal with everything we can, but can't see everything, especially if it isn't reported. Citing other wrongs don't justify your own.
Also, it's one thing when posters know each other and have developed a friendship or reciprocal understanding...poking fun in those instances is fine. But you seem to take that concept and extend it to everyone. So, for example, if I don't converse with you and am suddenly being insulted, I can't automatically assume that it is with entirely good intentions. Nor can others, which is why you've gotten into trouble. I've been insulted by friends on KMC and thought nothing of it...but when my only interaction with you is you ignoring my warnings, insulting me, or mocking my moderator skills, how am I supposed to take it? Humorously? Please.
But more than anything, this post just highlights how you have to clean up your behavior in general, not just toward me.
Also, abuse of the report button is also a warn-able offense. Report when necessary, but if it becomes clear that it's an act of spite I doubt the reports will receive much attention.
If you have further concerns, please PM me so that we don't spam this thread anymore.
Skip your feelings of victimisation, Zeal. No-one is being treated any diferently. You have several times been taken to task recently for your treatment of other posters and I gave you specific warning in an earlier thread to stop making posts that do not advance a topic and only antagonise others.
Now you have done that again, and with the same person. Elswhere mod or not, that's too far. If you carry it on you will be banned. You would do well to re-think your attitude to posting in general as it is slowly leading you out of the forums.
Now, the warning has been issued and that is the end of the story. If you have any queries, take them to PM.
Bring this thread back on topic.
"Ho-hum. I believe somebody already dealth with that NOAA and GOES of yours. All in all nothing new to offer. Youre beginning to sound like that 65 year old ejit."
>>No one has "dealt with it". NOAA ansd GOES use a non-rotating, earth centered reference frame. Simple as that.
So does NASA for the GPS system.
This constitutes no news at all to those who have grasped the basic principle of relativity.
There are a number of folks who haven't.
******************************
"Basically it boils down to is this: the Lense-Thirring effect of using a some sort of rotating matter shell with the earth at the center CAN explain the Coriolis and centrifugal forces found herein the Earth,"
>>Bravo! That is now the second fundamental point you have admitted that is crucial to my geocentrist argument. We are making progress here......
"BUT it introduces a whole bunch of complications into the general mathematical laws;"
>>You have posted no evidence of this. In fact, it introduces absolutely nothing into any "mathematical laws". The coordinate transformation between "FIXED EARTH ROTATING STARS" and "FIXED STARS ROTATING EARTH" is baby simple, as Einstein has told you several dozen times. It is true, however, that the DYNAMICS involved in the transformation reveal a decided superiority to the "FIXED EARTH ROTATING STARS" (geocentric) frame, since the geocentric frame gives us a direct, physical explanation for why the water crawls up the side of the bucket (and by the way, congratulations for coming back into the debate after your mistaken assertion that centrifugal forces do not occur in vacuums. I admire your persistence, and there is nothing wrong with an honest mistake, especially one as creative as that one :-)
So, to reiterate: one can choose the simplest reference frame for work-a-day calculations- this is why NOAA and NASA, sensibly enough, use an EARTH CENTERED EARTH FIXED ("ECEF"😉 reference frame for geostationary satellites.
When the "reference frame" involves the whole universe, however, then the mathematics are going to be extremely complicated no matter which reference point is chosen (for example, the excruciatingly complicated Einstein gravitational tensors).
Einstein and Mach and Thirring showed that the Einstein equations work EQUALLY for an EARTH FIXED/UNIVERSE ROTATING FRAME, and a EARTH ROTATING/UNIVERSE FIXED FRAME----with one gigantic difference:
In the Earth fixed (geocentric) frame, we have an actual, physical source of the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces, which we DO NOT have in the Newtonian, heliocentric or Einsteinian, acentric frame.
In this precise sense, it is true to say that the Einstein equations tend to favor a geocentric universe.
********************************
"you can reduce the complications by specifying instead that it is the Earth that is ROTATING, just like Venus, Jupiter and the rest of the other planets in the Solar system. Frame dragging or the Lense-Thirring effect is NOT exclusive to geocentrism. "
>>The Coriolis and centrifugal forces DO NOT appear as a consequence of the distant rotating masses in a rotating-Earth model. If the Earth is rotating, then the rotating distant masses WILL NOT give rise to the Coriolis and centrifugal and Euler forces we actually do observe on Earth.
Therefore, it does not reduce the complications one iota to specify that the Earth is rotating. In fact, once you specify a rotating earth, you INCREASE the complications, because now you must introduce a notion of "inertia", which cannot be physically shown to have a direct cause. One must assert, without proving it, that any departure from a straight line motion involves an "acceleration", simply to account for the water climbing the sides of the bucket.
It is much simpler to assert, as Einstein, Mach, and Thirring do, that it is the rotation of the distant masses of the Universe which, DIRECTLY, attract the rotating water and cause it to rise up the sides of the rotating bucket (centrifuge).
But the impolrtant thing, is that you have now granted my point: you have agreed with me that there is no basis under which we can scientifically distinguish, from within the Einstein gravitational equations, between a FIXED EARTH (geocentric) universe, and a ROTATING EARTH (acentric) universe.
We have to look elsewhere for such evidence, and we have found it in spades: redshifts everywhere we look, concentric spheres of quasars and gamma-ray-bursts....indeed, each and all of these observations directly contradict the "acentric" universe on their face. Let us examine some of your attempts to "explain" these phenomena from within the framework of Standard Theory....
Originally posted by TransfinitumI think it is pretty clear what to make of a chap who dismisses valid citations from the physicist who founded General Relativity as a "bad application and demonstration of gyroscopic principles". The simple truth is, like a howler monkey, you can't understand and/or refute Einstein, and so you ignore him.
That is, indeed, cute.
I'll just go ahead and snip the rest of your nonsense, since turnabout is always fair play with a howler monkey.
**************************************************************"Bwahaha. Is this all i get after pointing out your intellectual dishonesty with your misquoted quotes on Einstein?"
>>Intellectual dishonesty? I honestly find it baffling that you should advance such an accusation against me, after I have caught you out asserting that centrifugal forces don't work in a vacuum. Isn't it possible, Sleepy, that you are simply in over your head here? Stop accusing me of moral lapses in the absence of demonstration, please.
"Nothing to say at all as to why you just arbitrarily apply universal gyroscopic stability/ barycenter only on Earth when it could be applied on Mars or Pluto?"
>>But where in the world have I ever said it only applies on Earth? Nowhere. It was you, remember, who asserted it would only work where "air" could provide the "centrifugal force" against the water, which would kinda sorta seem to rule out Mars and Pluto, wouldn't it?
It is abundantly clear to me, Sleepy, that you are flailing about and making things up as you go along here.
********************************************************************************************************************
"Just remember trying to use relativity's arguments that maintain no preferred reference frame exists against the arguments for heliocentrism, Pluto-centrism, my finger, and then using it to prove arguments for geocentrism is one gigantic double standard.
>>Which is precisely why I do not do it. I first establish that, under Relativity, all earlier-era arguments against geocentrism (Foucault's pendulum, stellar-parallax, retrograde motions, etc) are falsified.
THEN and only then, do we examine the question of whether the "acentric" ASSUMPTIONS of the Standard Theory interpretation of GR stand up to observation.
As we have seen, they don't.
The "acentrists", as we shall see, are driven to ever more outlandish and complicated explanations, involving ever more unseen "entities" (cold dark matter, homogeneous galaxy clusters, etc) in order to extricate themselves from the simplest, most straightforward explanation of the observation--- the Earth is, indeed, in a preferred reference point in our Universe, contrary to the predictions of Standard Theory.
And precisely in accord with the predictions of geocentrism.
**********************************************************************
"We just use the convenient reference frame to do our measurements. Insisting on earth's place on the universe would violate General relativity and if its done away, geocentrism would simply be untenable using the simpler Newtonian mechanics."
>>Quite to the contrary. Having established, as you admit above, that Mach's Principle (which you not quite correctly refer to as the Lens Thirring effect) provides us with complete physical proof for the derivation of all necessary gravitational forces in a geocentric Universe, we now see that the "acentric" interpretation of General Relativity is inadequate to explain the actual EVIDENCE we SEE in our telescopes and sensors.
******************************************************
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>I suggest you deal with the fact that Albert Einstein just told you he had to reintroduce the concept of an ether to General Relativity.
>>It is Albert Einstein, not Robert Sungenis, who was quoted. I note with satisfaction that you would rather divert and obfuscate, than deal with the quote. This is highly indicative of the weakness of your position generally here.
Albert Einstein just told you that he was forced to dispense with the notion of a vacuum. Here, let's let him tell you again. Like the rest of your pack, you seem to have a terrible time dealing with Albert Einstein's actual WORDS, as opposed to your hilariously deluded notions of what you WISH he would have said:
Einstein tells Sleep Deprived that the ether has been reintroduced in General Relativity:
****************************************************************"Rob Sungenis conveniently forgot to quote Einstein's address in the University of Leyden in April 1920 which occured just a couple of months after the quote you posted where he clarified his stance on the ether. Intellectual dishonesty again."
>>I note that you have failed to provide the alleged "quote" from Einstein. Why is that? Is it because you are intellectually dishonest? I merely ask, because you seem to be very big on accusing others, who DO provide quotes and citations, of intellectual dishonesty, while you yourself DO NOT provide the quotes and citations you make reference to in passing.
Believe me, Sleepy, the fair-minded observer can, over time, begin to notice the difference.
"The "ether" that Einstein talks about is different from the classical ether (medium of propagation for light) that was part of physics before he introduced relativity."
>>So what? The "Dirac sea" of allegedly "instantaneously appearing and disappearing" electron-positron pairs is different than the ether of Einstein, or the ether of Maxwell. The simple fact remains. Einstein attempted to formulate a physics in a vacuum, and failed. He acknowledged that he had to reincorporate the functions formerly attibuted to the ether into his "spacetime" in General Relativity, Subsequent developments in quantum theory have resulted in a complete abandonment of the vacuum. There is no such thing as a "vacuum", at the quantum level. So we see that again you have it precisely backwards. It is the vacuum which has been debunked in modern physics, not the ether.
********************************************************************************
"He believes that the classical ether like in the Morley-Michelson experiment was undone by his special relativity."
"The "ether" he is referring to is something else different (empty space equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields). "
>>LOL! If it is "empty", then it quite obviously cannot be "equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields", or anything else. This is why Albert Einstein has told you over and over again that the ether is reintroduced into general Relativity. The mere fact that you wish he would not have said so, is irrelevant. Although I appreciate how important it is for your argument to try and win this point, I must insist that what Einstein actually said, trumps what Sleepy wishes he would have meant :-)
"He could have used a completelty different name instead to spare all of us the confusion but i guess its something to latch on to and misinterpret if you have a religious agenda in mind. "
>>LOL! Now let me get this straight. Einstein uses the word "ether". I quote him. You accuse me of generating confusion by misrepresenting Einstein, while at the same time saying he ought to have said something OTHER than what I accurately quote as having in fact SAID.
You then take this as evidence of my having a religious agenda in mind.
Logic, Sleepy, is not your strong suit, my friend :-)
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>You don't remember it right. The centrifugal force is only "apparent" for you, since it cannot be physically derived from within the postulates of Newtonian gravitational theories. As I have told you before, this shortcoming of the Newtonian system is corrected by the work of Hans Thirring, Albert Einstein, and Ernst Mach.
You really need to get up to speed here, Sleepy. After all, we have made progress since the seventeenth century in these matters.
I will let you read the quote again:
quote:
"Let K [the Universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the Universe] and let K' [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K' [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K' coordinate system [Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K' [the Earth] had to be considered as 'absolute', and that K' [the Earth] could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Now what is crucial to remember here is that Albert Einstein is telling you, Sleepy, that in a geocentric Universe the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces are physically derivable as the direct result of distant masses, and not a "fictitious" consequence of rotation of the local frame.
This famous quote is what Ernst Mach meant when he said "Mass there (in the distant rotating masses) governs inertia here". This will become important in regard to your comments below.
*snip*"I believe i've said a thing or two already about frame dragging (Lense Thirring effect)."
>>Yes.
"Admitedly i was confused"
"with what you were trying to prove earlier with the Newton's bucket experiment mainly because it WASNT conceived to prove or even study centrifugal forces which is what you are trying to describe."
If one is a Newtonian, one interprets the bucket experiment to prove the existence of "absolute space". If one is a Relativist, one denies "absolute space", and cannot provide any physical cause for the centriful or Coriolis forces AT ALL. If one is a geocentrist, then one can dispense both with "absolute space", and provide a PHYSICAL CAUSE for the effects of the experiment.
I would certainly say the geocentric position is...how shall we say...not harmed by the comparison :-)
"So i tried striking a middle path and use balls and buckets to describe it. The bucket experiment was designed to prove Newton's concept of absolute space against someone (Leibniz?). Yet again, another example of geocentrist's taking things out of context and spinning it around to suit their needs."
>>Sleepy, the fact that you are really trying here, and that you are obviously doing research (which is more than can be said for the rest of your team) weighs up against this tendency you have to accuse me of dishonesty and misrepresentation, every time you lose a point in the debate.
I relaly wish you would simply assume, for the sake of our debate, that I have seriously looked into these matters, and have seriously presented a serious set of argumetns for the geocentric position.
It would allow us to dispense with the histrionics, and get down to the physics.
"While Mach's principle, which was an ambiguous philosophical conjecture and not some scientific law, and its implication of "mass there affects inertia here" was a source of inspiration for Einstein early work, he later abandoned it in the early 1920's when it was realized that inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion"
>>Notice this little bunny-hop here: "inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion". Now, a moment's reflection will show that real physical forces are not "implicit" in mathematical representations of them. Can you show us, please, Sleepy, exactly how this "motion is implicit" in a geodetic equation?
I am sure it will be fascinating to watch you try.
It is like saying that the motion of the Earth is "implicit" in the formula F=ma.
All one is really saying in such a case is "I hope I can wave a magic wand of mathematics at you and get you to stop asking me to provide a PHYSICAL (as opposed to a mathematical) CAUSE for this ACTUAL FORCE here that is ACTUALLY (not merely mathematically) pushing WATER (not merely the geodetic in my equation) up the sides of my bucket.
It is precisely because geocentrist physics can provide a PHYSICAL REASON for that CAUSE, while heliocentrism and acentrism CANNOT, that the geocentric explanation of the experiment is superior.
"and need not depend on the existence of matter elsewhere in the universe. As always, geocentrists have been very economical (ie. dishonest) with us with their so-called scientific truths."
>>Sleepy, if I didn't feel particularly charitable this Monday afternoon, I would conclude that you always accuse me of dishonesty, whenever you find yourself unable to answer my arguments.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No. Digi is an armchair mod--he moderates despite having no actual power in this forum. This frustrates him sexually and so he has to blumpkin all over other other posters in order to become aroused. After this mildly heinous sexual act is complete, he smears feces all over his body, takes a few pictures, posts them to a scat website, and masturbates all over the commissions.Given his new avatar, I believe that this picture is appropriate:
😆 😆 😆
That was ridiculously hilarious. Despite the FACT that Digi is a great comic book forum mod and a great poster.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, I have nothing more to add to this thread. Physics is really boring, and I'm quite certain that the debate of geocentrism and heliocentrism is rather pointless overall.
HEY!!! 😠 😠 😠 Physics are AWESOME!
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum*snip*
THE COPERNICAN DILEMMA
*snip*
"This "dilemma"is resolved by realizing that the gamma ray bursts are so bright that they can be seen at distances corresponding to the early universe."
>>Checkmate. Now, if the gentle reader will follow very carefully, he will see the definitive trap into which Sleepy has fallen.
First, on the strictly tactical level, I want to thank you, Sleepy, for confirming my suspicion that you would lift your "answer" from a website- in this case from Wikipedia-- and that you would do so without bothering to attribute or otherwise indicate that you were in fact QUOTING FROM A WEBSITE. Instead you merely lifted it and posted it without attribution. There is a word for this practice. That word is "plagiarism."
Note well, gentle reader, that this is the fellow who has been accusing me of intellectual dishonesty throughout this debate.
Well, you know what they say about the pot calling the kettle black......
Second, his "answer" completely demolishes his own arguments, and serve to perfectly confirm mine as we shall now see.
He first points out what is already obvious, given the observed redshift values. OF COURSE these would, under the redshift=recession hypothesis, represent "distances corresponding to the early universe."
And of course Professor Katz knows this perfectly well. I mean, come on Sleepy, do you imagine that an astrophysicist from Washington University gets his book published by Oxford Press, if he doesn't understand what the redshifts indicate in terms of distance/time under Standard Theory? Oxford? OK, Washington University? OK, Professor Katz? You all just forgot to check with Sleepy here, who could have straightened the whole durned thing out by reminding you that the gamma-ray bursts are so gosh almighty BRIGHT, you see, that THAT'S why they appear to us in a series of concentric shells, OK? Problem solved! Nothing to see here, folks, move right along......
Now, Sleepy, here's the thing.
You mention how "bright" the gamma ray bursts are, and this presents a bit of a problem for your "solution" here, since, if the older bursts are farther away/further back in time, then they should be LESS BRIGHT than the ones that are nearer/closer in time.
The problem for you here, Sleepy, is that there are NO FAINT GAMMA RAY BURSTS.
Now if we accept your argument, then we have to assume that the Universe just started spitting out nice neat little shells of gamma ray sources, sort of like poop from a goldfish, at precisely determined moments in the universal "expansion". Now why should the Universe pop out GRB's only at specific, precisely-coordinated moments, and not at others?
And why would the Universe poop out these precisely-timed GRB's, in such a way that the nearer/younger ones and the older/further ones are ALL BRIGHT?
You see, Sleepy, under your assumption, then the furthest GRB's have to be putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies. There is no known process of physics that can explain this.
And even if we grant you a magic wand, which you can wave to cancel all the known laws of physics, to get your GRB's to put out hypergalaxies' worth of energy, the shells are STILL SPACED PERIODICALLY, which means the GRB's were popping out at PREFERRED INTERVALS, which is the SAME PROBLEM YOU HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Let me save you the time, Sleepy. Wikipedia can't help you here.
Let the interested party google the following LIFT from Wikipedia, if they desire to establish that Sleepy is just cutting and pasting his whole shtick from, of all places, Wikipedia.....
"The discovery of afterglow emission associated with faraway galaxies definitively supported the extragalactic hypothesis. Not only are GRBs extragalactic events, but they are also observable to the limits of the visible universe; a typical GRB has a redshift of at least 1.0 (corresponding to a distance of 8 billion light-years), while the most distant known (GRB 050904) has a redshift of 6.29 (12.3 billion light years)."
TO BE CONTINUED
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Minus Physics II. I ended up dropping it because the entire class was failing, with curve. I'll probably retake it this summer.
How can the class fail "with curve"?
I don't get it.
The other thing people refer to as the "curve" when it comes to grades...is the highest grade becomes the "100%" and all tests are adjusted to that test. In other words, everyone's test score goes up.
The only problem with this is if someone gets a really high grade...like 98 or 100%. Then a "curve" does little or nothing to help the class.
Originally posted by dadudemon
How can the class fail "with curve"?I don't get it.
The other thing people refer to as the "curve" when it comes to grades...is the highest grade becomes the "100%" and all tests are adjusted to that test. In other words, everyone's test score goes up.
The only problem with this is if someone gets a really high grade...like 98 or 100%. Then a "curve" does little or nothing to help the class.
There's no set method for curving in the physics department, so basically professors can do what they want. This guy makes up the test, decides how difficult it is, and bases the curve off his own judgement (i.e. before we even take the damned test). I kid you not, and he is considered by far the worst physics professor here, and I should've listened to my two roommates who took him before me. Ugh. I talked to a guy who's still in the class, and the class average is a 50 at the moment.
Translation: If you ever go to UT, take your physics courses at ACC like everyone else lol.
Posting the same things over and over again, especially when there's no one new who's responding to it, can be considered spam. As it is, I doubt many people care because he seems to be the only one interested in this thread anymore. In told him why he was wrong, eloquently and thoroughly at that, but he ignored him and continued on.
Originally posted by DigiMark007he isnt restating it. he has new evidence, and i supremely doubt ur reading it
Posting the same things over and over again, especially when there's no one new who's responding to it, can be considered spam. As it is, I doubt many people care because he seems to be the only one interested in this thread anymore. In told him why he was wrong, eloquently and thoroughly at that, but he ignored him and continued on.