magnetic monopole

[gravityblock]

Rose,

If you won't study or even entertain Comay's model in the least bit, then by what authority does this give you to make a rational comment either for or against his model?  IMO, absolutely 0.  You are way out-of-bounds.

Gravock

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose,

If you won't study or even entertain Comay's model in the least bit, then by what authority does this give you to make a rational comment either for or against his model?  IMO, absolutely 0.  You are way out-of-bounds.

Gravock

lol.  Gravock - when you're God then you can tell me what I may or may not comment on or by what authority I can comment at all.  Until then I think I'm entitled to the usual rights of 'freedom of expression'.  It is my considered opinion that anyone who proposes that the proton comprises anti matter is entirely MISTAKEN.  Quite apart from which I find those analyses fraught with confusing and ill defined terminologies.  Added to which, I'm not sure that I'm under any obligation to either study or believe in the absurd postulates and posturings of anyone at all - least of all those recommended by you.  Any more than you're obliged to study my own thesis.  And more to the point.  This thread is TRIFFID's.  Give the guy a BREAK.  I think we've monopolised this discussion for way too long.  It really is interesting to read Triffid's posts.  On so many levels.  Let's get back on topic.

And triffid.  Abject apologies.  I will - as Loner puts it - go back to 'lurking'.  I've been dipping into this thread for a while now.  It really intrigues me.

Regards,
Rosemary

[gravityblock]

lol.  Gravock - when you're God then you can tell me what I may or may not comment on or by what authority I can comment at all.  Until then I think I'm entitled to the usual rights of 'freedom of expression'.  It is my considered opinion that anyone who proposes that the proton comprises anti matter is entirely MISTAKEN.  Quite apart from which I find those analyses fraught with confusing and ill defined terminologies.  Added to which, I'm not sure that I'm under any obligation to either study or believe in the absurd postulates and posturings of anyone at all - least of all those recommended by you.  Any more than you're obliged to study my own thesis.  And more to the point.  This thread is TRIFFID's.  Give the guy a BREAK.  I think we've monopolised this discussion for way too long.  It really is interesting to read Triffid's posts.  On so many levels.  Let's get back on topic.

And triffid.  Abject apologies.  I will - as Loner puts it - go back to 'lurking'.  I've been dipping into this thread for a while now.  It really intrigues me.

Regards,
Rosemary

The keyword you conveniently left out is "rational" along with overlooking the conditional "if" at the beginning of the statement I made in my previous post.  How can you make a rational comment on Comay's model in which you haven't studied?  You can't.  This is why you need some kind of authority in order to make rational comments on something in which you know nothing of.  Is God writing your posts for you?  Case Closed!  You're free to express your ignorance if you like, but this does the forum no good.  I think most will agree with this.

Gravock

[poynt99]

I think most will agree with this.

Gravock

Indeed. 

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Indeed. 

.99

Hello Poynty.   

And a Happy New Year to you too.

How can you seriously propose I'm in love with Harvey when I'm entirely in love with you???  Here's another little tribute I've composed in your honour. 

Enjoy.

Rosie Posie

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/12/217.html