Tom Roberts proposed recently an experiment involving two identical clocks at
rest at different altitudes in a static gravitational field, comparing their tick
rates via electromagnetic (EM) signals between them, elapsed proper times,
timelike 4-vectors, gravitational potential φ, coordinate systems and several
other complexities, to end with Einstein's 1911 formula:

Δf/f = Δλ/λ = Δφ/c²

As expected from a pure breed relativist, Tom holds on Einstein's invention
based on E = mc², that the energy of gravitational field above ground HAS MASS and increases ground level mass m₀ by a factor (1 + Δφ/c²). Einstein
extended his 1911 idea to energy of EM radiation. Being a photon's energy
E₀ = hf₀ at ground level, it changes in an static gravitational field by a factor
(1 + Δφ/c²). As Δφ = 0 at ground level and negative at radial elevation h, as
measured from ground (h = 0), frequency for any value of h is LOWER than
frequency at ground level. And this ancient dream of an imbecile, 111 years
ago justifies the detuning of atomic clocks in GPS.

The problem with the relativistic "slang" of proper time, etc., is eliminated
by using modern technologies which don't measure very small frequency
changes, but directly compare DIGITAL TIMESTAMPS that both systems
exchanges using UHF or MW modulated carriers and digital counters.

This is the setup of the experiment:

1) Two identical passive hydrogen maser clocks, provided with 50 bits
digital counters are prepared side to side, at ground level.

2) A transmitter, which send the encoded timestamp once per second, is
built in the clock C₁. A receiver, which decodes the transmission of C₁ and
compare the difference with the ground level clock C₂, is built into it.
Also, a 15 digits display is used to show the accumulative difference
between TS₁ and TS₂.

3) A pure signal of EXACTLY 1.0000000000 Ghz is derived from each
atomic clock, to feed the 50 bits digital counters. Each counter can count
up to 1125899906842619 pulses before going back to zero and give a
carry bit that feed a separate 8 bit counter. Given that each pulse happens
each nanosecond EXACTLY, each 50 bit counter measure up to
1125899 seconds (13 days) before going back to zero and carrying a bit
to the 8 bits counter. So, the system at ground level can accumulate
differences for a lapse of 9 years.

4) The atomic clock C₁ is raised to a height of 74.948115 mt. Such
precision is achieved by using a laser, a mirror and a time counter at
ground level, so that the TIME DELAY is EXACTLY 500.00000 nsec.
Half that delay, 250.0000 nsec, is ADDED to the received TS, so both
clocks have now the same timestamp, measured once per second.
As the processing time (about 50 nsec) is the same for both clocks, it's
ignored as it cancels in the difference TS₁-TS₂ = ΔTS.

Once the system is ready and both counters are set to zero, the experiment
begins.

After 1,000,000 seconds (about 11 days), relativists present at the lab
expect an accumulated ΔTS = 8.

Real scientists present verify that, after 11 days, ΔTS = 0.

And ΔTS = 0 after a month, 12 months and even 9 years after time T₀ ,
when the experiment started.

What happened? The answer is that the difference of 7343.545 Joules
in both gravitational fields (at h = 0 and h = 74.948115 mt) didn't cause
ANY EFFECT on the oscillation of ultra-stable atomic clocks, and that
Δφ/c² factor affecting mass, time, frequency is/was just a wet dream.

As the experiment is made with private funds from eastern non-profit
ONG, and the scientists involved were randomly selected from hundred
of postulations, there is no way to modify the output data, which is
secured by electronic means (very strict).

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 3:33:48 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Tom Roberts proposed recently an experiment involving two identical clocks at
> rest at different altitudes in a static gravitational field, comparing their tick
> rates via electromagnetic (EM) signals between them, elapsed proper times,
> timelike 4-vectors, gravitational potential φ, coordinate systems and several
> other complexities, to end with Einstein's 1911 formula:
>
> Δf/f = Δλ/λ = Δφ/c²
>
> As expected from a pure breed relativist, Tom holds on Einstein's invention
> based on E = mc², that the energy of gravitational field above ground HAS MASS and increases ground level mass m₀ by a factor (1 + Δφ/c²). Einstein
> extended his 1911 idea to energy of EM radiation. Being a photon's energy
> E₀ = hf₀ at ground level, it changes in an static gravitational field by a factor
> (1 + Δφ/c²). As Δφ = 0 at ground level and negative at radial elevation h, as
> measured from ground (h = 0), frequency for any value of h is LOWER than
> frequency at ground level. And this ancient dream of an imbecile, 111 years
> ago justifies the detuning of atomic clocks in GPS.
>
> The problem with the relativistic "slang" of proper time, etc., is eliminated
> by using modern technologies which don't measure very small frequency
> changes, but directly compare DIGITAL TIMESTAMPS that both systems
> exchanges using UHF or MW modulated carriers and digital counters.
>
> This is the setup of the experiment:
>
> 1) Two identical passive hydrogen maser clocks, provided with 50 bits
> digital counters are prepared side to side, at ground level.
>
> 2) A transmitter, which send the encoded timestamp once per second, is
> built in the clock C₁. A receiver, which decodes the transmission of C₁ and
> compare the difference with the ground level clock C₂, is built into it.
> Also, a 15 digits display is used to show the accumulative difference
> between TS₁ and TS₂.
>
> 3) A pure signal of EXACTLY 1.0000000000 Ghz is derived from each
> atomic clock, to feed the 50 bits digital counters. Each counter can count
> up to 1125899906842619 pulses before going back to zero and give a
> carry bit that feed a separate 8 bit counter. Given that each pulse happens
> each nanosecond EXACTLY, each 50 bit counter measure up to
> 1125899 seconds (13 days) before going back to zero and carrying a bit
> to the 8 bits counter. So, the system at ground level can accumulate
> differences for a lapse of 9 years.
>
> 4) The atomic clock C₁ is raised to a height of 74.948115 mt. Such
> precision is achieved by using a laser, a mirror and a time counter at
> ground level, so that the TIME DELAY is EXACTLY 500.00000 nsec.
> Half that delay, 250.0000 nsec, is ADDED to the received TS, so both
> clocks have now the same timestamp, measured once per second.
> As the processing time (about 50 nsec) is the same for both clocks, it's
> ignored as it cancels in the difference TS₁-TS₂ = ΔTS.
>
> Once the system is ready and both counters are set to zero, the experiment
> begins.
>
> After 1,000,000 seconds (about 11 days), relativists present at the lab
> expect an accumulated ΔTS = 8.
>
> Real scientists present verify that, after 11 days, ΔTS = 0.
>
> And ΔTS = 0 after a month, 12 months and even 9 years after time T₀ ,
> when the experiment started.
>
> What happened? The answer is that the difference of 7343.545 Joules
> in both gravitational fields (at h = 0 and h = 74.948115 mt) didn't cause
> ANY EFFECT on the oscillation of ultra-stable atomic clocks, and that
> Δφ/c² factor affecting mass, time, frequency is/was just a wet dream.
>
> As the experiment is made with private funds from eastern non-profit
> ONG, and the scientists involved were randomly selected from hundred
> of postulations, there is no way to modify the output data, which is
> secured by electronic means (very strict).

I forgot to add that the mass of each atomic clock is exactly 10 Kg, so
the energy difference of 7343.54496371746 Joules can be calculated.

On 12/26/2021 1:33 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> After 1,000,000 seconds (about 11 days), relativists present at the lab
> expect an accumulated ΔTS = 8.

What's a relativist?
>
> Real scientists present verify that, after 11 days, ΔTS = 0.

You are assuming your conclusion. FAIL.
>
> And ΔTS = 0 after a month, 12 months and even 9 years after time T₀ ,
> when the experiment started.
>
> What happened? The answer is that
you assumed your conclusion and declared the outcome of the experiment
without ever running it.

(actually the equivalent has been run by actual scientists and the
outcome was equivalent to the ΔTS = 8.

[snip babbling]

On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 08:50:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/26/2021 1:33 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > After 1,000,000 seconds (about 11 days), relativists present at the lab
> > expect an accumulated ΔTS = 8.
> What's a relativist?

It's a fanatic piece of shit worshipping an insane crazie and
his insane ideology. Like you, Dono, Python...

Le 26/12/2021 à 10:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 08:50:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> What's a relativist?
>
> It's a fanatic piece of shit worshipping an insane crazie and
> his insane ideology. Like you, Dono, Python...

Be careful, do not insult relativists, and the word relativist is not
pejorative.
A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is called a
relativist.

On the other hand, it is true that there are fanatics like for example
Python (a Frenchman named Jean-Pierre Messager) who are them, real
berserk.
These people have nothing to do with science and do not come to forums to
talk about science. They are psychopaths in the medical aspect of the
term. They are force-fed with the joy of doing harm and only come to
discuss things to insult and slander.
It is obviously, and unfortunately, a plague.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 26/12/2021 à 10:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 08:50:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> What's a relativist?
>>
>> It's a fanatic piece of shit worshipping an insane crazie and
>> his insane ideology. Like you, Dono, Python...
>
> Be careful, do not insult relativists, and the word relativist is not
> pejorative.
> A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is called a
> relativist.

That is a physicist.

>
> On the other hand, it is true that there are fanatics like for example
> Python (a Frenchman named Jean-Pierre Messager) who are them, real
> berserk.
> These people have nothing to do with science and do not come to forums to
> talk about science. They are psychopaths in the medical aspect of the
> term. They are force-fed with the joy of doing harm and only come to
> discuss things to insult and slander.
> It is obviously, and unfortunately, a plague.
>
> R.H.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 26/12/2021 à 16:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> That is a physicist.

Yessssss!

I would say even more : that is an relativistic physicist.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 26/12/2021 à 16:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> That is a physicist.
>
> Yessssss!
>
> I would say even more : that is an relativistic physicist.
>
> R.H.
>

No, just a physicist.

All physicists study and use relativity these days. Every single one.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 16:22:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 26/12/2021 à 10:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >> On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 08:50:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >>> What's a relativist?
> >>
> >> It's a fanatic piece of shit worshipping an insane crazie and
> >> his insane ideology. Like you, Dono, Python...
> >
> > Be careful, do not insult relativists, and the word relativist is not
> > pejorative.
> > A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is called a
> > relativist.
> That is a physicist.

Odd, poor halfbrain, you've admitted many times you're not.
Samely as stupid Mike, Python and many other of your
brothers in faith.

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 1:56:55 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> No, just a physicist.
>
> All physicists study and use relativity these days. Every single one.

And you know this because, as a retired BsC with double major in Philosophy and Mathematics who became a woodworker,
are in real-time constant with the community of physicists through the site www.allphysicistsunited.org, which connects more
than 150,000 active physicists worldwide, who work in 50 different branches of modern physics. It's like the phybook.com, and
also allows casual meetings like Tinder.

Man, you deserve a Pulitzer or something like that. You, the amateur relativity journalist, are the best informed person in the world
in einstenian shit.

On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 17:56:55 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 26/12/2021 à 16:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >
> >> That is a physicist.
> >
> > Yessssss!
> >
> > I would say even more : that is an relativistic physicist.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> No, just a physicist.
>
> All physicists study and use relativity these days. Every single one.

Even physicists are not stupid enough to use it; they only
pretend.

On 12/26/2021 8:48 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 26/12/2021 à 10:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 08:50:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> What's a relativist?

> A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is called a
> relativist.
>
Wrong. A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is
called a physicist.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 1:56:55 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No, just a physicist.
>>
>> All physicists study and use relativity these days. Every single one.
>
> And you know this because, as a retired BsC with double major in
> Philosophy and Mathematics who became a woodworker,
> are in real-time constant with the community of physicists through the site
> www.allphysicistsunited.org, which connects more
> than 150,000 active physicists worldwide, who work in 50 different
> branches of modern physics. It's like the phybook.com, and
> also allows casual meetings like Tinder.

No, that’s not necessary.

Every physicist has had at least undergraduate and more likely graduate
coursework in relativity.

Moreover, every subfield of physics, from plasma physics to condensed
matter physics, from atomic physics to elementary particle physics, from
astronomy to low-temperature physics, regularly involves relativistic
results or direct descendants.

>
> Man, you deserve a Pulitzer or something like that. You, the amateur
> relativity journalist, are the best informed person in the world
> in einstenian shit.

Nonsense. Physicists say what I said. I’m not better informed than them,
but this is what they say.

>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:33:48 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz has wet dreams (again):

> And ΔTS = 0 after a month, 12 months and even 9 years after time T₀ ,
> when the experiment started.
>
> What happened?

What happened? Crank Richard Hertz is having a wet dream. Again.

Le 26/12/2021 à 18:22, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> On 12/26/2021 8:48 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 26/12/2021 à 10:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 08:50:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>> What's a relativist?
>
>> A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is called a
>> relativist.
>>
> Wrong. A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is
> called a physicist.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 26/12/2021 à 18:22, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 12/26/2021 8:48 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 26/12/2021 à 10:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>> On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 08:50:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What's a relativist?
>>
>>> A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is called
>>> a relativist.
>>>
>> Wrong. A person who studies or deals with the theory of relativity is
>> called a physicist.

Physicists in academics are at the bottom of the foodchain. They mostly
are into mechanics. No teaching capabilities.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> I forgot to add that the mass of each atomic clock is exactly 10 Kg, so
> the energy difference of 7343.54496371746 Joules can be calculated.

the mass of the clock is irrelevant, except for that of the driving
force, engaging the ticks.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 1:56:55 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> No, just a physicist.
>>>
>>> All physicists study and use relativity these days. Every single one.
>>
>> And you know this because, as a retired BsC with double major in
>> Philosophy and Mathematics who became a woodworker,
>> are in real-time constant with the community of physicists through the site
>> www.allphysicistsunited.org, which connects more
>> than 150,000 active physicists worldwide, who work in 50 different
>> branches of modern physics. It's like the phybook.com, and
>> also allows casual meetings like Tinder.
>
> No, that’s not necessary.
>
> Every physicist has had at least undergraduate and more likely graduate
> coursework in relativity.
>
> Moreover, every subfield of physics, from plasma physics to condensed
> matter physics, from atomic physics to elementary particle physics, from
> astronomy to low-temperature physics, regularly involves relativistic
> results or direct descendants.
>
>>
>> Man, you deserve a Pulitzer or something like that. You, the amateur
>> relativity journalist, are the best informed person in the world
>> in einstenian shit.
>
> Nonsense. Physicists say what I said. I’m not better informed than them,
> but this is what they say.
>

And I’ll just reiterate the obvious. What physicists do is not a secret.
You don’t have to be omniscient to know a lot about what physicists use and
how they work. You don’t have to guess, as though you’re excluded from a
secret society and it all happens behind a thick curtain.

All you have to do is read what they write. They write copiously.

Now, I’ve heard excuses from many people here about why they don’t read
physics.

“I don’t have the time to read physics. I’d rather just mouth off about it
on Usenet all day long.”

“Books are expensive and information should be free.”

“What they write makes no sense and so I treat it as wrong.”

“I think about new things and am not about to waste my time reading
anything that is not mine and therefore obsolete.”

“Reading books poisons the mind, and I refuse to be brainwashed by this
‘education’ nonsense.”

“So much of what’s in books is the boring stuff for beginners and I want to
jump straight to the fun stuff like relativity, which is nonsense by the
way.”

“True scientists don’t learn from others. Instead they question everything
said by others and come up with their own ideas.”

“The internet says conflicting things, and so it must mean that physicists
say conflicting things, so how would I know what book to read?”

“I’m intelligent, and if I can’t figure it out without a book, it’s either
useless or wrong.”

“It’s too big a job to read! There must be tens of thousands of books! Am I
supposed to read them ALL? That’s ridiculous. I’m not even going to start.”

“Just about every physics book has math in it. Math is not physics. If it
has math in it, it’s not really physics. There are no real physics books,
you see.”

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Nonsense. Physicists say what I said. I’m not better informed than
>> them, but this is what they say.
>
> And I’ll just reiterate the obvious. What physicists do is not a secret.

Come on, go away, troll.

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:47:39 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> >> Man, you deserve a Pulitzer or something like that. You, the amateur
> >> relativity journalist, are the best informed person in the world in einstenian shit.

> > Nonsense. Physicists say what I said. I’m not better informed than them,
> > but this is what they say.

> And I’ll just reiterate the obvious. What physicists do is not a secret.
> You don’t have to be omniscient to know a lot about what physicists use and
> how they work. You don’t have to guess, as though you’re excluded from a
> secret society and it all happens behind a thick curtain.
>
> All you have to do is read what they write. They write copiously.
>
> Now, I’ve heard excuses from many people here about why they don’t read
> physics.
>
> “I don’t have the time to read physics. I’d rather just mouth off about it
> on Usenet all day long.”
>
> “Books are expensive and information should be free.”
>
> “What they write makes no sense and so I treat it as wrong.”
>
> “I think about new things and am not about to waste my time reading
> anything that is not mine and therefore obsolete.”
>
> “Reading books poisons the mind, and I refuse to be brainwashed by this
> ‘education’ nonsense.”
>
> “So much of what’s in books is the boring stuff for beginners and I want to
> jump straight to the fun stuff like relativity, which is nonsense by the
> way.”
>
> “True scientists don’t learn from others. Instead they question everything
> said by others and come up with their own ideas.”
>
> “The internet says conflicting things, and so it must mean that physicists
> say conflicting things, so how would I know what book to read?”
>
> “I’m intelligent, and if I can’t figure it out without a book, it’s either
> useless or wrong.”
>
> “It’s too big a job to read! There must be tens of thousands of books! Am I
> supposed to read them ALL? That’s ridiculous. I’m not even going to start.”
>
> “Just about every physics book has math in it. Math is not physics. If it
> has math in it, it’s not really physics. There are no real physics books, you see.”

Bodkin, I'm really worried about you.

You are having A SECOND NERVOUS BREAKDOWN in less than TWO MONTHS.

Take it easy, man. After all, relativity is not a big deal. It doesn't worth the cost and pain for you becoming INSANE!

Do you have anyone close to you, so her/him can drive you to the doctor?

Chill out, please. I didn't mean to hurt you so much!

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:46:37 PM UTC-3, Ted Leo wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I forgot to add that the mass of each atomic clock is exactly 10 Kg, so
> > the energy difference of 7343.54496371746 Joules can be calculated.
> the mass of the clock is irrelevant, except for that of the driving
> force, engaging the ticks.

I just wanted to remark the extra gravitational energy that surrounds the atomic clock when it's raised 74.948115 mt
from the ground level.

As gravity permeates everything, maybe relativists can use such extra energy to distribute it among every atom that compose the clock.

A group of physicists revealed that there are 6.02214084E+23 atoms in a single crystal of silicon weighing about a kilogram. Rounding
up, it's about 0.1 Kg of mass. So, the clock has about 6.02E+25 atoms, which get a boost of 1.22E-22 Joules each.

Maybe they can use this to explain any change in the fundamental resonant frequency of 1.420405752 GHz, to which a bunch of
slightly overexcited Hydrogen atoms transition, from a tiny extra absorption of MW energy in the maser cavity.

Relativists are known to master equations with three or four free parameters, to get what they want.

von Newmann had a famous quote: "with four free parameters, I can make an elephant wiggle like a dog tail".

And it's known that von Newmann was one the most intelligent scientist in the XX century. Fermi reproduced such statement.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:47:39 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Man, you deserve a Pulitzer or something like that. You, the amateur
>>>> relativity journalist, are the best informed person in the world in einstenian shit.
>
>>> Nonsense. Physicists say what I said. I’m not better informed than them,
>>> but this is what they say.
>
>> And I’ll just reiterate the obvious. What physicists do is not a secret.
>> You don’t have to be omniscient to know a lot about what physicists use and
>> how they work. You don’t have to guess, as though you’re excluded from a
>> secret society and it all happens behind a thick curtain.
>>
>> All you have to do is read what they write. They write copiously.
>>
>> Now, I’ve heard excuses from many people here about why they don’t read
>> physics.
>>
>> “I don’t have the time to read physics. I’d rather just mouth off about it
>> on Usenet all day long.”
>>
>> “Books are expensive and information should be free.”
>>
>> “What they write makes no sense and so I treat it as wrong.”
>>
>> “I think about new things and am not about to waste my time reading
>> anything that is not mine and therefore obsolete.”
>>
>> “Reading books poisons the mind, and I refuse to be brainwashed by this
>> ‘education’ nonsense.”
>>
>> “So much of what’s in books is the boring stuff for beginners and I want to
>> jump straight to the fun stuff like relativity, which is nonsense by the
>> way.”
>>
>> “True scientists don’t learn from others. Instead they question everything
>> said by others and come up with their own ideas.”
>>
>> “The internet says conflicting things, and so it must mean that physicists
>> say conflicting things, so how would I know what book to read?”
>>
>> “I’m intelligent, and if I can’t figure it out without a book, it’s either
>> useless or wrong.”
>>
>> “It’s too big a job to read! There must be tens of thousands of books! Am I
>> supposed to read them ALL? That’s ridiculous. I’m not even going to start.”
>>
>> “Just about every physics book has math in it. Math is not physics. If it
>> has math in it, it’s not really physics. There are no real physics books, you see.”
>
> Bodkin, I'm really worried about you.
>
> You are having A SECOND NERVOUS BREAKDOWN in less than TWO MONTHS.

Why would you take my amused recollections of excuses to be a nervous
breakdown?

>
> Take it easy, man. After all, relativity is not a big deal. It doesn't
> worth the cost and pain for you becoming INSANE!
>
> Do you have anyone close to you, so her/him can drive you to the doctor?
>
> Chill out, please. I didn't mean to hurt you so much!
>

Well that’s good, because if you’d meant to, you’re not very good at it.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:40:10 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:46:37 PM UTC-3, Ted Leo wrote:
> > Richard Hertz wrote:

Because you entertained a troll, this makes you a troll too. Hnce,
spam reported.

I incite others to do the same.
We don't need noise makers like you.

ignorant troll rotchm spammed:

> On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:40:10 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:46:37 PM UTC-3, Ted Leo wrote:
>> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> [spamming crap ignored]

stop spamming, you uneducated ignorant.

https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities