Open Letter to Steorn

[argona369]

>I visit this topic to read Lawrence posts

Funny, I thought you where Lawrence.
How many names do you post under here btw?


The search for free energy has been going on for years and years.
Ask Stephan, he?s been here since the old yahoo days.
Real science. Real proof.
Feel free to spew away.

I would like to see everyone posting here back up their silly claims. If you want to claim there are no free energy devices in the universe. Then you have to provide evidence of such. If you want to anonymously post on the Internet that you claim someone is a scam. Then you should deliver the evidence Mr. anonymous or you are the con artist yourself.

Meanwhile you are just a bunch of Vatican Wikipedia editors IMHO.

I visit this topic to read Lawrence posts, I'm not at all interested in reading your quick spew, menstrual moods and conspiracy theories. What made you think that stuff is interesting?

I think anonymous has oil stocks and lots of em! I don't have to prove my claim, you can disprove it for me. By your own logic everyone should be guilty until proven innocent.

So there you have it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7kKTDvFQ7M

[Humbugger]

@Humbugger,

The skeptic does not and cannot, even if he wished to, bear the burden of proving a negative.  It is the duty of those who claim to have done the impossible to provide, if not proof, some reasonable evidence at least!

I have done that. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that CoE can be violated. Why don't you then just shut up and discontinue your useless rant?

I'm a free energy skeptic

You, a skeptic? That's quite an overstatement. Incompetents such as you are not called skeptics, they are just incompetents.

"Shut up, you incompetent!"  Is that your contribution to scientific debate?  A skeptic would be banned for that kind of rude and vicious personal attack.  I have read your "proof" that SMOT violates CoE and I am among many who remain unconvinced.   

Can you be specific regarding anything I have stated or claimed or taught being incompetent?  What do you mean that my confession of skepticism is "an overstatement"?  That would seem to imply that I am less skeptical than I say I am.

You sound very incoherent, bitterly angry beyond all reason and extremely abrasive and rude.  Try to lighten up and have a better day!

Humbugger

[Omnibus]

Correct. Shut up you incompetent. Don?t waste bandwidth and the time of those interested in truth and integrity in Science. Enough of you. And, if you continue with your impudent nonsense the attacks at you will escalate. Enough is enough.

As for my proof for the violation of CoE, there?s enough of it in this and other threads. Read it for Heaven?s sake before spewing complete nonsense. I?m not going to repeat it every time for some moron who hasn?t understood basic Physics yet but comes around with his arrogant opinions.

[Humbugger]

Correct. Shut up you incompetent. Don?t waste bandwidth and the time of those interested in truth and integrity in Science. Enough of you. And, if you continue with your impudent nonsense the attacks at you will escalate. Enough is enough.

As for my proof for the violation of CoE, there?s enough of it in this and other threads. Read it for Heaven?s sake before spewing complete nonsense. I?m not going to repeat it every time for some moron who hasn?t understood basic Physics yet but comes around with his arrogant opinions.

Exactly what "impudent nonsense" are you referring to?

Threatening escalating attacks...hmmm...maybe you can construct a giant SMOT and hurl steel balls at me, huh?

Humbugger under attack 

[Omnibus]

I'm under attack, you moron. You are attacking me.

The impudent nonsense is your insistence that there hasn't been arguments proving violation of CoE in the face of facts proving indisputably that violation. That's impudence to no end.