Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 5 Feb 2010 22:08 On 5-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > On 3-Feb-2010, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote: > > > >> As is constantly being argued in this newsgroup, opinion is not > >> equivalent to fact. > > > > arguing in a newgroup & fact in the same sentence! You a newbie? ;-) > > Facts still matter, even if most ignore them. Yes but mant in usenet, and elsewhere, ascribe the status of fact to their own opinion. -- bill-o
From: William Clark on 5 Feb 2010 22:19 In article <1f3aaf8b-3a0d-4da1-b23e-8ddb443505be(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 4, 1:57�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article > > <53af008f-f40d-42b8-99c3-675372576...(a)l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > �Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 3, 9:19�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > > state.edu> wrote: > > > > In article <7su2qsFcf...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > �"dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > > > >news:f19a6928-2b61-4a6d-8288-21254cae884a(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com. > > > > >.. > > > > > On Feb 3, 11:37 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > > > > state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > > > You don't seem to want to take my bet, so what else is there > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > say? > > > > > > > > > Your academic chauvinism is entertaining to me! > > > > > > > > > > You on the other hand, seem to need to make a "bet" in order to > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > something that every respectable academic does willingly and > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > free. > > > > > > > > > > Could it be that you don't actually have any publications in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > materials science literature? Certainly the Science Citation > > > > > > > > Index > > > > > says > > > > > > > > you don't, and I am more inclined to believe that than I am > > > > > > > > Bert. > > > > > > > > > > No, the answer is clear - you have not attended any materials > > > > > > > > science > > > > > > > > symposia, nor do you have any publications in the materials > > > > > > > > science > > > > > > > > journals. Pure and simple - you lied. And now you have to > > > > > > > > bluster > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > cover it up. Shame on you. > > > > > > > > > I know my background. You do not, and that is a fact. You are > > > > > > > lying > > > > > > > without proper knowledge. My CV has been posted for a long time > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > anyone to look at. You are probably just envious of the fact that > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > at least published academically in a field where your > > > > > > > productivity is > > > > > > > lacking. > > > > > > > > I did fid your publication list on Science Citation Index, or have > > > > > > you > > > > > > chosen to forget that? No evidence there of any materials science > > > > > > activity, so I believe that you were not telling the truth when you > > > > > > claimed to have a) attended materials science symposia, and b) > > > > > > published > > > > > > in the materials science literature. Your continued weaseling > > > > > > simply > > > > > > reinforces that opinion. All the hot air in the world cannot make > > > > > > up > > > > > > for > > > > > > that whopper. > > > > > > > Ahh! You're green with envy aren't you! > > > > > > > I'll defer to your cowardice, and make the bet fifty bucks! Surely > > > > > you > > > > > can trust your judgment for 50 bucks worth! > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > This is getting very interesting. �C'mon William. �What's $50? > > > > > �Surely > > > > > your > > > > > bluster...er....honor is worth more than that?? > > > > > > > Anybody want to make a side bet of $50? �My money is on Rob. > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > Go for it. It simply shows how little you understand about academic > > > > integrity. > > > > > The main issue in academic integrity is honesty. You are in fact > > > publishing statements that are dishonest, and you know for a fact that > > > you do not have complete information, and yet you publish these > > > statements anyways. > > > > You have the means to disprove them very simply. Academic integrity says > > you should be open with your sources and information. You continue to > > weasel and wriggle, so as long as you continue to do so, my claim stands > > as the facts. > > > > You made two claims that the evidence shows to were untrue. The ball is > > in your court. > > No one is under any obligation to prove themselves to you, most > especially me. You make groundless, false accusations; proving that > you have zero integrity, and then claim that because I don't "prove" > myself to you that it is I who lack integrity! > > The truth in this matter lies in your own actions. Still trying the flim-flam, are you? Don't you get tired of having to keep covering up your lie by claiming it is the one that calls it that is at fault? Integrity? You don't know the meaning of the word.
From: William Clark on 5 Feb 2010 22:20 In article <4b6b7f52$0$12454$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-EF4406.14023104022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > Why is it necessary to put money down in order simply to have people > > tell the "truth"? What a strange and perverted world you live in. > > Nothing else is going to keep you honest. Oh, I'm being perfectly open about this. It's your buddy that's the one lying.
From: Carbon on 5 Feb 2010 22:59 On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:08:15 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 5-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> On 3-Feb-2010, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote: >>> >>>> As is constantly being argued in this newsgroup, opinion is not >>>> equivalent to fact. >>> >>> arguing in a newgroup & fact in the same sentence! You a newbie? ;-) >> >> Facts still matter, even if most ignore them. > > Yes but mant in usenet, and elsewhere, ascribe the status of fact to > their own opinion. It's an interesting question, how things become true. Especially in those areas where there cannot be certainty. This is where things become true by consensus. This can work fairly well, for example in many jury trials. It can completely fail as well, for example the endless stream of talking heads on the news.
From: Moderate on 6 Feb 2010 08:47
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-EA5228.22203005022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <4b6b7f52$0$12454$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, > "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-EF4406.14023104022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > >> > Why is it necessary to put money down in order simply to have people >> > tell the "truth"? What a strange and perverted world you live in. >> >> Nothing else is going to keep you honest. > > Oh, I'm being perfectly open about this. It's your buddy that's the one > lying. He is not my buddy, but if I were as certain at you I would have put down my money a long time ago. |