Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant ones
in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.

Your chicken sh*t question of whether if Poincare is a plagiarist as well is
totally irrelevant. I do not care if he is. I don't want to do a lot of
research to find out, either. At this moment, it just doe not interest me.
So, read my lips. I don't give a f*ck.

The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 failed to find aether. Therefore,
the speed of light must be constant in any inertial frame of reference. The
idea of the existence of Aether thus was very much out. Lorentz et al then
laid out how light would have traveled in Michelson-Morley's setup in a neat
geometric diagram. Upon setting up the universal speed limit on light (and
transverse length being unaffected by observation, of course), he was able
to discover time dilation and length contraction. The math becomes purely
mechanical rather than abstract. Thus Lorentz transform was born.

So, why did the media excel Einstein into that position? Well, very simple,
either they lied about Lorentz's positive comment on Einstein, or they just
did not get the sarcasm made by Lorentz. Let's assume the latter. When
Einstein came along and claimed aether does not exist, Lorentz would say
"Einstein is a pure genius (oh really, yeah right) to conclude that there is
no aether [which we have known all along]." The media like yourself do not
understand the impact of Michelson-Morley experiment and the subsequent
discovery of Lorentz Transform. They just took the ball and ran with it
without thinking. How many newsmen do you know of that can explain time
dilation and length contraction? The subsequent generations of Scientifics
are not good historians either. So, the lie just perpetuates from
generation to generation until a good scientist with a good history
background or a good historian with a good scientific background comes along
to rectify this situation.

>>University of Manchester<<

Where the hell is it? No, I have no need to take a cheap shot at it.
However, I do sincerely hope they did not graduate you. You have wasted a
tremendous amount of the tax payer's money and a great deal of my productive
time.

In the meantime, Einstein is still laughing at you.

http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm

* * *

"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BoKcnfjFcf2ytZmiXTWJiA@giganews.com...
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:28:20 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
<lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:

>>>"Einstein would've had to have been smart enough to manipulate the whole
>of Science..."<<
>
>Let's say the argument on Einstein being a genius or a plagiarist
represents
>a 3-dimensional space. You just choose to dwell in a straight line. You
>don't even know you have come back to the starting location. Nobody is
>accusing Einstein of manipulation the whole science.

So why is he considered a genius by Science? Answer this. Don't avoid
it. Forget responding that the "Jew Media" has manipulated the
public's perceptions, because the public's perceptions don't matter
here.

Why is Einstein hailed as a genius by Science?

Explain how the "Jew media" has influenced the subject of Science
History.

Why did plagiariam victim Lorentz call Einstein a genius?

Why did plagiarism victim Max Planck offer his full support to
Einstein's SR theory.

No more evasive bullshit.

Answer those questions.

<snip>

>
>"Einstein, however, was able more effectively to remove the puzzle in a
>revolutionary fashion by postulating that the speed of light is constant
for
>all observers, whatever their motion relative to one another."
>
>Although I am not trying to criticize this article you presented, I have to
>point out the following facts. The only way for Lorentz (et al) to claim
>the anomaly of time dilation and length contraction is to accept Maxwell's
>hypothesis that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference.

Bullshit. They would maintain the speed of light is a constant
compared to the ether, not "any frame of reference". And if you're
going to splutter what's the difference, then you need to sit down a
learn the subject, not cherry pick little phrases that fit your
preconceived notion.


>There is no other way!!! Time dilation and length contraction cannot be
>thought up with this insight of yours alone.

What insight of mine? I'm merely quoting back science history and
general science understanding, neither of which you show any knack
for.

>
>Why don't you do yourself a favor by spending a few hours to understand
>Michelson-Morley Experiment and Lorentz's derivation to conclude time
>dilation and length contraction? I can guarantee you that the math is not
>that complicated. It only takes understanding of algebra.

Well, nice effort at a patronizing cant. I give it a B.
>
>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...xperiment.html

Ok. I read it. it says:
"After the development of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism,
several experiments were performed to prove the existence of ether and
its motion relative to the Earth".

"Thus, the idea was to measure the speed of light in different
directions in order to measure speed of the ether relative to Earth,
thus establishing its existence. "

"In 1895, Lorentz concluded that the "null" result obtained by
Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the
ether on their apparatus"

Yep I read a lot of stuff there about the ether, including a bit about
contraction being caused *by* the ether, but I see nothing there about
universal frames of reference and a constant speed of light for all
observers. And Certainly, NOTHING about time dilation.

Perhaps you should find another cite.

And it also says:
"Einstein's idea of space-time contraction replaced Lorentz's
interpretation of the contraction equation, and once and for all
relegated ether to the history books."
Which is exactly what I was saying.

You really don't understand the crucial difference between "relative
to the ether", and "relative to anything", do you?

Come back when you do.

>
>Also, don't forget to ask for your money back from that university.

The University of Manchester?

OK I will. Except I got in for free. Damn.

Oh, and feel free to take a cheap shot at Manchester University, and
show yourself up further.

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:29:18 -0500, John Fubar Knight wrote:

> Einstein is not "hailed as a genius by Science". He's not even "hailed as a
> genius by" most Americans. Einstein didn't even rank in the top 100 of
> America's favorite "persons of the year", so why did Time Magazine call him
> "person of the century"? Why was he refused admission to the US as a
> communist, and why did the government refuse to let him work on the
> Manhattan Project if Einstein was "hailed as a genius by" government?
>
> If Einstein was "hailed as a genius by" Encyclopedia Britannica, then why
> did it say of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic
> ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in
> history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein
> himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical
> ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering
> school in Zurich.

--------------------------------------------------------

Everyone of those items have been answered in detail in messages with you as
the originator several months ago.


Were you born stupid, John Fubar, or do you continually practice being stupid
(or - of course - both)?



Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:35:32 -0500, Australopithecus Afarensis wrote
(in message <lZ3Na.88006$%42.58244@fed1read06>):

> Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant ones
> in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
> Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.


But "you" don't exist except as an anonymous poster who wears a falsie for
some reason or another: shame, bounty hunters or threats by your mommie and
daddy.

"You" are a "poofboy".



Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------
gray-11@cybercoffee.com
http://www.compcomm.com/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US

"Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
>Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant ones
>in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
>Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.

What are your credentials as a scientist (or historian of science)?
If you cannot demonstrate same, your opinion isn't worth the electrons
you wasted in writing it.

lojbab

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:35:32 -0500, Australopithecus Afarensis wrote
(in message <lZ3Na.88006$%42.58244@fed1read06>):

Path:
text1.nnrp.aus1!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1. giganews.com!border1.nntp.au
s1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp-
relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!east.cox.ne t!cox.net!p01!fed1read06.POS
TED!not-for-mail

--------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:29:18 -0500, John Knight wrote
(in message <Ll0Na.117783$hd6.98939@fed1read05>):

Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!border1
..nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp-
relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!east.cox.ne t!cox.net!p01!fed1read05.POS
TED!not-for-mail


wrote
(in message <lZ3Na.88006$%42.58244@fed1read06>):

> Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant ones
> in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
> Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.
>
> Your chicken sh*t question of whether if Poincare is a plagiarist as well is
> totally irrelevant. I do not care if he is. I don't want to do a lot of
> research to find out, either. At this moment, it just doe not interest me.
> So, read my lips. I don't give a f*ck.
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 failed to find aether. Therefore,
> the speed of light must be constant in any inertial frame of reference. The
> idea of the existence of Aether thus was very much out. Lorentz et al then
> laid out how light would have traveled in Michelson-Morley's setup in a neat
> geometric diagram. Upon setting up the universal speed limit on light (and
> transverse length being unaffected by observation, of course), he was able
> to discover time dilation and length contraction. The math becomes purely
> mechanical rather than abstract. Thus Lorentz transform was born.
>
> So, why did the media excel Einstein into that position? Well, very simple,
> either they lied about Lorentz's positive comment on Einstein, or they just
> did not get the sarcasm made by Lorentz. Let's assume the latter. When
> Einstein came along and claimed aether does not exist, Lorentz would say
> "Einstein is a pure genius (oh really, yeah right) to conclude that there is
> no aether [which we have known all along]." The media like yourself do not
> understand the impact of Michelson-Morley experiment and the subsequent
> discovery of Lorentz Transform. They just took the ball and ran with it
> without thinking. How many newsmen do you know of that can explain time
> dilation and length contraction? The subsequent generations of Scientifics
> are not good historians either. So, the lie just perpetuates from
> generation to generation until a good scientist with a good history
> background or a good historian with a good scientific background comes along
> to rectify this situation.
>
>>> University of Manchester<<
>
> Where the hell is it? No, I have no need to take a cheap shot at it.
> However, I do sincerely hope they did not graduate you. You have wasted a
> tremendous amount of the tax payer's money and a great deal of my productive
> time.
>
> In the meantime, Einstein is still laughing at you.
>
> http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
>
> * * *
>
> "SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:BoKcnfjFcf2ytZmiXTWJiA@giganews.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:28:20 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
> <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
>
>>>> "Einstein would've had to have been smart enough to manipulate the whole
>> of Science..."<<
>>
>> Let's say the argument on Einstein being a genius or a plagiarist
> represents
>> a 3-dimensional space. You just choose to dwell in a straight line. You
>> don't even know you have come back to the starting location. Nobody is
>> accusing Einstein of manipulation the whole science.
>
> So why is he considered a genius by Science? Answer this. Don't avoid
> it. Forget responding that the "Jew Media" has manipulated the
> public's perceptions, because the public's perceptions don't matter
> here.
>
> Why is Einstein hailed as a genius by Science?
>
> Explain how the "Jew media" has influenced the subject of Science
> History.
>
> Why did plagiariam victim Lorentz call Einstein a genius?
>
> Why did plagiarism victim Max Planck offer his full support to
> Einstein's SR theory.
>
> No more evasive bullshit.
>
> Answer those questions.
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> "Einstein, however, was able more effectively to remove the puzzle in a
>> revolutionary fashion by postulating that the speed of light is constant
> for
>> all observers, whatever their motion relative to one another."
>>
>> Although I am not trying to criticize this article you presented, I have to
>> point out the following facts. The only way for Lorentz (et al) to claim
>> the anomaly of time dilation and length contraction is to accept Maxwell's
>> hypothesis that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference.
>
> Bullshit. They would maintain the speed of light is a constant
> compared to the ether, not "any frame of reference". And if you're
> going to splutter what's the difference, then you need to sit down a
> learn the subject, not cherry pick little phrases that fit your
> preconceived notion.
>
>
>> There is no other way!!! Time dilation and length contraction cannot be
>> thought up with this insight of yours alone.
>
> What insight of mine? I'm merely quoting back science history and
> general science understanding, neither of which you show any knack
> for.
>
>>
>> Why don't you do yourself a favor by spending a few hours to understand
>> Michelson-Morley Experiment and Lorentz's derivation to conclude time
>> dilation and length contraction? I can guarantee you that the math is not
>> that complicated. It only takes understanding of algebra.
>
> Well, nice effort at a patronizing cant. I give it a B.
>>
>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...xperiment.html
>
> Ok. I read it. it says:
> "After the development of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism,
> several experiments were performed to prove the existence of ether and
> its motion relative to the Earth".
>
> "Thus, the idea was to measure the speed of light in different
> directions in order to measure speed of the ether relative to Earth,
> thus establishing its existence. "
>
> "In 1895, Lorentz concluded that the "null" result obtained by
> Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the
> ether on their apparatus"
>
> Yep I read a lot of stuff there about the ether, including a bit about
> contraction being caused *by* the ether, but I see nothing there about
> universal frames of reference and a constant speed of light for all
> observers. And Certainly, NOTHING about time dilation.
>
> Perhaps you should find another cite.
>
> And it also says:
> "Einstein's idea of space-time contraction replaced Lorentz's
> interpretation of the contraction equation, and once and for all
> relegated ether to the history books."
> Which is exactly what I was saying.
>
> You really don't understand the crucial difference between "relative
> to the ether", and "relative to anything", do you?
>
> Come back when you do.
>
>>
>> Also, don't forget to ask for your money back from that university.
>
> The University of Manchester?
>
> OK I will. Except I got in for free. Damn.
>
> Oh, and feel free to take a cheap shot at Manchester University, and
> show yourself up further.
>
>

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:54 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in message <7o1agvsv1h2b8m4qpuun4c19904f8qpf1c@4ax.com>):

> "Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
>> Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant ones
>> in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
>> Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.
>
> What are your credentials as a scientist (or historian of science)?
> If you cannot demonstrate same, your opinion isn't worth the electrons
> you wasted in writing it.
>
> lojbab

--------------------------------------------------------

John Fubar Knight is also (among several other "identities")
"Australopithecus Afarensis".

I would imagine that s/he/it will soon start posting as "Vacaville Victoria"
as well as many other "falsies" which s/he/it wears.

g

I just wish to be anonymous as stevenl, your buddy in ignorance, a
self-claimed University-of-Manchester graduate. What is this a crime? I
get it. You ran out of all your reasoning to discuss this subject in a
gentlemanly matter. Now, you are resorting to attacking my identity. I am
just an ape-man. You can now throw more punches on this poor racially
inferior ape-man who just might be your direct ancestor for all you might
know.

Get a life, Gary! I am no bounty hunter whatever you can schizophrenically
come up with that one is beyond my wildest comprehension. I would have to
conclude that a few electrons in your brain are just too embarrassed about
being there and trying to get out --- Einstein logic in the finest, of
course.

I see you possess a little skill of trying to trace where the message comes
from. I can assure you that John Knight, a white supremacist and a
Jesus-freak, is not the same person as the great Australopithecus
Aphaeresis, non-white and atheist.

Is this a threat from you against my mommy and daddy, Gary the Gestapo? Are
you contemplating ill thoughts against my immediate family, Gary? I will be
waiting for you, Gary!!!

Have a nice farce of July, Gary Shockley!!!

* * *

"Gray Shockley" <gray7a6@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB2A6F400004B1E80DD1BC40@news-east.giganews.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:35:32 -0500, Australopithecus Aphaeresis wrote
(in message <lZ3Na.88006$%42.58244@fed1read06>):

> Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant ones
> in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
> Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.

But "you" don't exist except as an anonymous poster who wears a falsie for
some reason or another: shame, bounty hunters or threats by your mommie and
daddy.

"You" are a "poofboy".

Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------
gray-11@cybercoffee.com
http://www.compcomm.com/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US

* * *

"Gray Shockley" <gray7a6@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB2A72A200057D3D0DD1BC40@news-east.giganews.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:35:32 -0500, Australopithecus Afarensis wrote
(in message <lZ3Na.88006$%42.58244@fed1read06>):

Path:
text1.nnrp.aus1!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1. giganews.com!border1.nntp.
au
s1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp-
relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!east.cox.ne t!cox.net!p01!fed1read06.P
OS
TED!not-for-mail

--------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:29:18 -0500, John Knight wrote
(in message <Ll0Na.117783$hd6.98939@fed1read05>):

Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!borde
r1
..nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp-
relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!east.cox.ne t!cox.net!p01!fed1read05.P
OS
TED!not-for-mail


wrote
(in message <lZ3Na.88006$%42.58244@fed1read06>):

> Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant ones
> in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
> Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.
>
> Your chicken sh*t question of whether if Poincare is a plagiarist as well
is
> totally irrelevant. I do not care if he is. I don't want to do a lot of
> research to find out, either. At this moment, it just doe not interest
me.
> So, read my lips. I don't give a f*ck.
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 failed to find aether. Therefore,
> the speed of light must be constant in any inertial frame of reference.
The
> idea of the existence of Aether thus was very much out. Lorentz et al
then
> laid out how light would have traveled in Michelson-Morley's setup in a
neat
> geometric diagram. Upon setting up the universal speed limit on light
(and
> transverse length being unaffected by observation, of course), he was able
> to discover time dilation and length contraction. The math becomes purely
> mechanical rather than abstract. Thus Lorentz transform was born.
>
> So, why did the media excel Einstein into that position? Well, very
simple,
> either they lied about Lorentz's positive comment on Einstein, or they
just
> did not get the sarcasm made by Lorentz. Let's assume the latter. When
> Einstein came along and claimed aether does not exist, Lorentz would say
> "Einstein is a pure genius (oh really, yeah right) to conclude that there
is
> no aether [which we have known all along]." The media like yourself do
not
> understand the impact of Michelson-Morley experiment and the subsequent
> discovery of Lorentz Transform. They just took the ball and ran with it
> without thinking. How many newsmen do you know of that can explain time
> dilation and length contraction? The subsequent generations of
Scientifics
> are not good historians either. So, the lie just perpetuates from
> generation to generation until a good scientist with a good history
> background or a good historian with a good scientific background comes
along
> to rectify this situation.
>
>>> University of Manchester<<
>
> Where the hell is it? No, I have no need to take a cheap shot at it.
> However, I do sincerely hope they did not graduate you. You have wasted a
> tremendous amount of the tax payer's money and a great deal of my
productive
> time.
>
> In the meantime, Einstein is still laughing at you.
>
> http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
>
> * * *
>
> "SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:BoKcnfjFcf2ytZmiXTWJiA@giganews.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:28:20 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
> <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
>
>>>> "Einstein would've had to have been smart enough to manipulate the
whole
>> of Science..."<<
>>
>> Let's say the argument on Einstein being a genius or a plagiarist
> represents
>> a 3-dimensional space. You just choose to dwell in a straight line. You
>> don't even know you have come back to the starting location. Nobody is
>> accusing Einstein of manipulation the whole science.
>
> So why is he considered a genius by Science? Answer this. Don't avoid
> it. Forget responding that the "Jew Media" has manipulated the
> public's perceptions, because the public's perceptions don't matter
> here.
>
> Why is Einstein hailed as a genius by Science?
>
> Explain how the "Jew media" has influenced the subject of Science
> History.
>
> Why did plagiariam victim Lorentz call Einstein a genius?
>
> Why did plagiarism victim Max Planck offer his full support to
> Einstein's SR theory.
>
> No more evasive bullshit.
>
> Answer those questions.
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> "Einstein, however, was able more effectively to remove the puzzle in a
>> revolutionary fashion by postulating that the speed of light is constant
> for
>> all observers, whatever their motion relative to one another."
>>
>> Although I am not trying to criticize this article you presented, I have
to
>> point out the following facts. The only way for Lorentz (et al) to claim
>> the anomaly of time dilation and length contraction is to accept
Maxwell's
>> hypothesis that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference.
>
> Bullshit. They would maintain the speed of light is a constant
> compared to the ether, not "any frame of reference". And if you're
> going to splutter what's the difference, then you need to sit down a
> learn the subject, not cherry pick little phrases that fit your
> preconceived notion.
>
>
>> There is no other way!!! Time dilation and length contraction cannot be
>> thought up with this insight of yours alone.
>
> What insight of mine? I'm merely quoting back science history and
> general science understanding, neither of which you show any knack
> for.
>
>>
>> Why don't you do yourself a favor by spending a few hours to understand
>> Michelson-Morley Experiment and Lorentz's derivation to conclude time
>> dilation and length contraction? I can guarantee you that the math is
not
>> that complicated. It only takes understanding of algebra.
>
> Well, nice effort at a patronizing cant. I give it a B.
>>
>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...xperiment.html
>
> Ok. I read it. it says:
> "After the development of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism,
> several experiments were performed to prove the existence of ether and
> its motion relative to the Earth".
>
> "Thus, the idea was to measure the speed of light in different
> directions in order to measure speed of the ether relative to Earth,
> thus establishing its existence. "
>
> "In 1895, Lorentz concluded that the "null" result obtained by
> Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the
> ether on their apparatus"
>
> Yep I read a lot of stuff there about the ether, including a bit about
> contraction being caused *by* the ether, but I see nothing there about
> universal frames of reference and a constant speed of light for all
> observers. And Certainly, NOTHING about time dilation.
>
> Perhaps you should find another cite.
>
> And it also says:
> "Einstein's idea of space-time contraction replaced Lorentz's
> interpretation of the contraction equation, and once and for all
> relegated ether to the history books."
> Which is exactly what I was saying.
>
> You really don't understand the crucial difference between "relative
> to the ether", and "relative to anything", do you?
>
> Come back when you do.
>
>>
>> Also, don't forget to ask for your money back from that university.
>
> The University of Manchester?
>
> OK I will. Except I got in for free. Damn.
>
> Oh, and feel free to take a cheap shot at Manchester University, and
> show yourself up further.
>
>

Gary,

As you know John Kinght is a Jesus Freak, he would be very offended if some
one says.

F*ck God dead!!!

There you go.

F*ck God dead, the slogan of the great 'scurves'.

* * *

"Gray Shockley" <gray7a6@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB2A7BCC0007A4990DD1BC40@news-east.giganews.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:54 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in message <7o1agvsv1h2b8m4qpuun4c19904f8qpf1c@4ax.com>):

> "Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
>> Why is Einstein considered as a genius by science? Only the ignorant
ones
>> in history and lack of basic understanding of the works credited to
>> Einstein. I consider Einstein as a plagiarist. There you go.
>
> What are your credentials as a scientist (or historian of science)?
> If you cannot demonstrate same, your opinion isn't worth the electrons
> you wasted in writing it.
>
> lojbab

--------------------------------------------------------

John Fubar Knight is also (among several other "identities")
"Australopithecus Afarensis".

I would imagine that s/he/it will soon start posting as "Vacaville Victoria"
as well as many other "falsies" which s/he/it wears.

g