NOBODY likes this troll's contentless spam.
After being spanked in the electronics repair group, it wants
to annoy everybody.

This nym-shifting stalker Corvid/Edward/others is upset because it will
never again troll USENET without its nyms being exposed...

=?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=b6rvid?= <bl@ckbirds.org>
=?UTF-8?B?8J+QriBDb3dzIGFyZSBOaWNlIPCfkK4=?= <nice@cows.moo>
Banders <snap@mailchute.com>
Covid-19 <always.look@message.header>
corvid <bl@ckb.ird>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.net>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.org>
Cows Are Nice <cows@nice.moo>
Cows are nice <moo@cows.org>
Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo>
dogs <dogs@home.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Great Pumpkin <pumpkin@patch.net>
Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com>
Local Favorite <how2recycle@palomar.info>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Sea <freshness@coast.org>
Standard Poodle <standard@poodle.com>
triangles <build@home.com>
and others...

--
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: One of man's greatest achievements
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
> References: <sr8mq8$6n5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <d06f4c61-4f97-4eb4-9ab2-00e90479ef3en@googlegroups.com> <a0704e47-bca4-445b-bc3e-734fe03b5cc9n@googlegroups.com> <86a59755-3726-4270-996e-8818670e8d91n@googlegroups.com> <555faed8-52c8-4d92-8dc6-ce2dc131cee1n@googlegroups.com> <7331b103-96cf-42a6-8b0e-39dd3bd2f275n@googlegroups.com> <baf05328-e55b-4da6-9db5-6d4d25e9a45dn@googlegroups.com> <7336046c-98f3-4bf9-a3b3-26205b170c91n@googlegroups.com> <cdf93f9f-5e4b-44c5-b918-9df7e22d601an@googlegroups.com> <srlt3t$8kf$5@dont-email.me>
> Lines: 25
> Message-ID: <jivDJ.162030$C3U7.74268@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:19:43 UTC
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:19:43 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1907
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:657746 free.spam:17095
>
> The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
>
> And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
>> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
>> CLUELESS...
>
> NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.
>
> And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
> formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
> Wed, 12 Jan 2022 06:39:58 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
> <srlt3t$8kf$5@dont-email.me>).
>
> This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
> readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
> follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.
>
> fz/Acwb9x+ar
>
>
>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:32:34 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <srm3n1$d17$1@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

dSA2DuIRNgCv

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:32:43 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <srm3nb$d17$2@dont-email.me>.

89gBrJ5jZecW

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:32:54 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <srm3nm$d17$3@dont-email.me>.

mCIcydz3ODOO

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 5:40:05 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 5:17:32 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:35:23 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote
> >> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:12:20 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >> > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:08:45 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > > > > On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:41:41 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux ...@decadence.org wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > This is commendable work...
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Many nations involved.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use of it...
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > <https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > It's just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They're just a bunch of career liars and cheats.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Fred does like to keep thing simple enough for him to understand. Working out what the James Webb telescope is intended to do is quite beyond him, while the idea that people involved are career liars and cheats is much less demanding. It's also pretty implausible, but Fred hasn't got a lot of options.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Unlike Cursitor Doom, he doesn't actively demand implausible explanations, but he's not got enough sense left to differentiate between degrees of implausibility.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You don't know what you're talking about or how things are done.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You do like to make that claim. The implication is that you think you do, but you don't post anything that suggests that you have a clue. Claiming the unspecified people are "career liars and cheats" is a rather unspecific allegation, but that does seem to be as much as you can manage.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > The space telescope idea has been around a long time, and quite of lot of work on prospective systems was funded, even though there was no actual program.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The really hard stuff was already done by the time they committed to a new program.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > These crummy overpriced boondoggles are all fantasy science.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Or so Fred likes to think. His idea of a "fantasy science" does see
> > m to extend into fields that more sensible people see as real science, but Fred has edited out since his brains turned to mush.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > They don't observe a single thing that is applicable to life on Earth.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Neither does Fred. He doesn't seem to have noticed that LIGO
> >> > > >
> >> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > hasn't either, but that this hasn't prevented it from being a a dramatic success.
> >> > >
> >> > > Who gives a damn about gravitational waves?
> >> > >
> >> > People who are slightly less pig-ignorant that you are. There are quite a few of them
> >>
> >> Dunno what kind of moron would expect a pig to be well read.
> >
> > That is the point of the insult.
> >
> >> That and few other idiotic slurs seem to be your favorites. The thing is, I don't really see you rising above the level of decrepitude you abhor.
> >
> > You can't. You don't know enough to distinguish shit from Shinola, so it all looks decrepit to you.
> >
> >> Then you and a lot of other sycophants conveniently ignore the huge expense of operating these boondoggles, and this despite the liars and cheaters misrepresenting how well they're doing, or not doing, and the limitless waste.
> >
> > Since you aren't equipped to notice when they do deliver what they promise, you do like to assume that everything you can't understand is a pointless boondoggle.
> >
> > If you went to the trouble of identifying something specific, we'd have to take you more seriously, but you aren't up anything beyond vague generalisations.
> >
> >> Some of these hellholes require a small freight train of resupply of components on a weekly basis. I'm sure that's all legitimate.
> >
> > Specific example?
>
> Bozo... The problem is you sling insults directed at the poster and not at something the poster wrote.

John Doe can't really produce a coherent and relevant responses. Fred Boggs posts vague and derogatory nonsense, and I object to that - sadly I can't do that without pointing out why Fred Boggs is reduced to this kind of Doeful level, which isn't all that complimentary to Fred Bloggs.

John Doe is implicitly claiming that he could do better, which would be an outright lie.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:28:40 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 5:17:32 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:35:23 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:12:20 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:08:45 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:41:41 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > This is commendable work...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Many nations involved.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use
> > > > > > > > > of it...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They're just a bunch of career liars and cheats.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fred does like to keep thing simple enough for him to understand. Working out what the James Webb telescope is intended to do is quite beyond him, while the idea that people involved are career liars and cheats is much less demanding. It's also pretty implausible, but Fred hasn't got a lot of options.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unlike Cursitor Doom, he doesn't actively demand implausible explanations, but he's not got enough sense left to differentiate between degrees of implausibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't know what you're talking about or how things are done..
> > > > >
> > > > > You do like to make that claim. The implication is that you think you do, but you don't post anything that suggests that you have a clue. Claiming the unspecified people are "career liars and cheats" is a rather unspecific allegation, but that does seem to be as much as you can manage
> > > > > > The space telescope idea has been around a long time, and quite of lot of work on prospective systems was funded, even though there was no actual program.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The really hard stuff was already done by the time they committed to a new program.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These crummy overpriced boondoggles are all fantasy science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or so Fred likes to think. His idea of a "fantasy science" does seem to extend into fields that more sensible people see as real science, but Fred has edited out since his brains turned to mush.
> > > > >
> > > > > > They don't observe a single thing that is applicable to life on Earth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither does Fred. He doesn't seem to have noticed that LIGO
> > > > >
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO>
> > > > >
> > > > > hasn't either, but that this hasn't prevented it from being a a dramatic success.
> > > >
> > > > Who gives a damn about gravitational waves?
> > > People who are slightly less pig-ignorant that you are. There are quite a few of them
> >
> > Dunno what kind of moron would expect a pig to be well read.
> That is the point of the insult.
> > That and few other idiotic slurs seem to be your favorites. The thing is, I don't really see you rising above the level of decrepitude you abhor.
> You can't. You don't know enough to distinguish shit from Shinola, so it all looks decrepit to you.
> > Then you and a lot of other sycophants conveniently ignore the huge expense of operating these boondoggles, and this despite the liars and cheaters misrepresenting how well they're doing, or not doing, and the limitless waste.
> Since you aren't equipped to notice when they do deliver what they promise, you do like to assume that everything you can't understand is a pointless boondoggle.

Who's going to give a damn when what they promised was garbage too?

>
> If you went to the trouble of identifying something specific, we'd have to take you more seriously, but you aren't up anything beyond vague generalisations.

Everything seems vague to an idiot who needs everything spelled out for him..

> > Some of these hellholes require a small freight train of resupply of components on a weekly basis. I'm sure that's all legitimate.
> Specific example?

Not my job to enlighten you.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Dork <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:srlspr$8kf$3@dont-
email.me:

> The usual drug-crazed babble...

Your mother was a drug crazed whore. They should put the twit in
prison for failing to flush you the moment the severely ass fucked
street slut shat you.

You could not post on the topic of this thread, much less the topic
of this group, if your inane, pathetic life depended on it.

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:22:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:28:40 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 5:17:32 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:35:23 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:12:20 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:08:45 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:41:41 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

<snip>

> > Since you aren't equipped to notice when they do deliver what they promise, you do like to assume that everything you can't understand is a pointless boondoggle.
>
> Who's going to give a damn when what they promised was garbage too?

The same comprehension problem that prevents you from noticing when the results are delivered had already prevent you from realising that results were actually valuable. Your opinions are comprehensively worthless.

> > If you went to the trouble of identifying something specific, we'd have to take you more seriously, but you aren't up anything beyond vague generalisations.
> Everything seems vague to an idiot who needs everything spelled out for him.
>
> > > Some of these hellholes require a small freight train of resupply of components on a weekly basis. I'm sure that's all legitimate.
>
> > Specific example?
>
> Not my job to enlighten you.

As if you had the capacity. This is your regular excuse for not posting specific information. The actual reason you don't do it seems to be much more likely to be that you can't manage it. Do try to prove me wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Always Wrong perpetually sets new records for wrongness...

--
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: One of man's greatest achievements
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 23:18:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Message-ID: <srnnkp$1sqa$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <sr8mq8$6n5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <d06f4c61-4f97-4eb4-9ab2-00e90479ef3en@googlegroups.com> <a0704e47-bca4-445b-bc3e-734fe03b5cc9n@googlegroups.com> <86a59755-3726-4270-996e-8818670e8d91n@googlegroups.com> <555faed8-52c8-4d92-8dc6-ce2dc131cee1n@googlegroups.com> <7331b103-96cf-42a6-8b0e-39dd3bd2f275n@googlegroups.com> <baf05328-e55b-4da6-9db5-6d4d25e9a45dn@googlegroups.com> <srk81e$2e7$3@dont-email.me> <0fd6c029-14dc-4cae-8ba1-3972af0b305dn@googlegroups.com> <srlspr$8kf$3@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="62282"; posting-host="5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
> User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:657791
>
> John Dork <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:srlspr$8kf$3@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> The usual drug-crazed babble...
>
> Your mother was a drug crazed whore. They should put the twit in
> prison for failing to flush you the moment the severely ass fucked
> street slut shat you.
>
> You could not post on the topic of this thread, much less the topic
> of this group, if your inane, pathetic life depended on it.
>
>

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bill Sloman)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo paraphrased)

Bozo Bill Sloman is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be
reasoned with...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f8b:: with SMTP id z11mr1988137qtj.396.1642037285546; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:28:05 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:9f0d:: with SMTP id n13mr2941225ybq.331.1642037285160; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:28:05 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:28:04 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <a59d6f4d-d502-4085-807c-033facc0fc59n@googlegroups.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=123.243.66.234; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.243.66.234
> References: <sr8mq8$6n5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <d06f4c61-4f97-4eb4-9ab2-00e90479ef3en@googlegroups.com> <a0704e47-bca4-445b-bc3e-734fe03b5cc9n@googlegroups.com> <86a59755-3726-4270-996e-8818670e8d91n@googlegroups.com> <555faed8-52c8-4d92-8dc6-ce2dc131cee1n@googlegroups.com> <7331b103-96cf-42a6-8b0e-39dd3bd2f275n@googlegroups.com> <baf05328-e55b-4da6-9db5-6d4d25e9a45dn@googlegroups.com> <7336046c-98f3-4bf9-a3b3-26205b170c91n@googlegroups.com> <cdf93f9f-5e4b-44c5-b918-9df7e22d601an@googlegroups.com> <a59d6f4d-d502-4085-807c-033facc0fc59n@googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <c40528b8-2bc5-4d22-bdd5-b6c4eb9f3a5cn@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: One of man's greatest achievements
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 01:28:05 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 31
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:657800
>
> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:22:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:28:40 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 5:17:32 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:35:23 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:12:20 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:08:45 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:41:41 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > Since you aren't equipped to notice when they do deliver what they promise, you do like to assume that everything you can't understand is a pointless boondoggle.
>>
>> Who's going to give a damn when what they promised was garbage too?
>
> The same comprehension problem that prevents you from noticing when the results are delivered had already prevent you from realising that results were actually valuable. Your opinions are comprehensively worthless.
>
>> > If you went to the trouble of identifying something specific, we'd have to take you more seriously, but you aren't up anything beyond vague generalisations.
>> Everything seems vague to an idiot who needs everything spelled out for him.
>>
>> > > Some of these hellholes require a small freight train of resupply of components on a weekly basis. I'm sure that's all legitimate.
>>
>> > Specific example?
>>
>> Not my job to enlighten you.
>
> As if you had the capacity. This is your regular excuse for not posting specific information. The actual reason you don't do it seems to be much more likely to be that you can't manage it. Do try to prove me wrong.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>
>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 13 Jan 2022 05:59:58 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <srof4u$f08$2@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

LALjtmgxUaJA

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 13 Jan 2022 06:01:19 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <srof7e$f08$3@dont-email.me>.

vfnKwF771bFd

On 11/01/2022 21:26, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2022-01-11 17:05, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 11/01/2022 02:21, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:27:39 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman
>>> wrote:
>>>> If you combine red shift with Olber's paradox, you also end up
>>>> with a uniform thermal background at about the same temperature.
>>>
>>> I can't say I appreciate Olber's paradox.  Perhaps I've not seen a
>>> good explanation of it.  I've often wondered myself why the sky is
>>> not more uniformly lit, but I reasoned that the more distant stars
>>> would be much weaker in appearance and so not make the sky
>>> uniformly bright.  I had not considered that a red shift would also
>>> remove much of the light from the visible spectrum.
>>
>> There are a couple of other problems with it.
>>
>> You need both an infinite universe and an infinite amount of time
>> and/or infinite speed of light for the light rays from every star to
>> reach you.
>
> Let's face it, the universe is mind boggling either way. I don't
> see why an infinite universe would be any more so than one that
> sprung from nothing 13.7 Gyr ago. It's not like the BB idea is
> without its problems, now is it?

It could still be infinite in extent after the Big Bang once you take
into account the very rapid exponential expansion.

Or there may be many (an infinite number of?) pocket universes on the
next scale up possibly each with their own set of fundamental constants.
We happen to be in one of the more interesting ones...

The trouble with infinities popping up in physical theories is that they
allow you to explore every conceivable possibility somewhere.

Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.

If M-theory proves to be right then Big Bang may just be a stepping
stone towards a wider more general theory in higher dimensions. TBH I
have my doubts about String Theory ever producing useful results in the
experimental world but there is no harm in them trying.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
> nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
> explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.

"prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word "prior"
even be well-defined?

CH

On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
>> nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
>> explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
>
> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word "prior"
> even be well-defined?
>
> CH

The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so there had
to be time already in place.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 10:08:22 AM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> > On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
> >> nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
> >> explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
> >
> > "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word "prior"
> > even be well-defined?
> >
> > CH
> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so there had
> to be time already in place.

This is a rather Newtonian view of time. Einstein reduced it to one more coordinate in the space time reference system. If there wasn;t anything there to locate before the big bang, there isn't any point in talking about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> > Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
> > nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
> > explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word "prior"
> even be well-defined?

For that matter, how can a question of the beginning of the universe not be a category error? The universe is existence itself, how can existence have a beginning or an end?

As to the nature of time at the "origin" of existence... what happens to time as nature is extrapolated back to the origin of existence? Does time fade away or cease to exist all at once at the moment of the singularity? Is the existence of time a step function or a continuous function or simply undefined at t=0?

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> > On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
> >> nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
> >> explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
> >
> > "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word "prior"
> > even be well-defined?
> >
> > CH
> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so there had
> to be time already in place.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the origin point.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
>> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
>>>> with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
>>>> showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
>>>> spacetime.
>>>
>>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word
>>> "prior" even be well-defined?
>>>
>>> CH
>> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so there
>> had to be time already in place.
>
> No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
> origin point.

What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but it
had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of nothing!)
were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it had to. So what
changed?

It's BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever he
likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real and
we're missing it.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> >> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> >>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
> >>>> with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
> >>>> showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
> >>>> spacetime.
> >>>
> >>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word
> >>> "prior" even be well-defined?
> >>>
> >> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so there
> >> had to be time already in place.

It there's nothing there to do anything time isn't doing anything useful.

> > No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
> > origin point.
>
> What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but it
> had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of nothing!)
> were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it had to. So what
> changed?

You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that doesn't serve any useful purpose until there are events happening which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no time.

> It's BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever he
> likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real and
> we're missing it.

That "something else" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we prefer to set it aside.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
>> On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was
>>>>>> space with nothing in it (not helped by popular science
>>>>>> programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at
>>>>>> all - ie no spacetime.
>>>>>
>>>>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the
>>>>> word "prior" even be well-defined?
>>>>>
>>>> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
>>>> there had to be time already in place.
>
> It there's nothing there to do anything time isn't doing anything
> useful.
>
>>> No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
>>> origin point.
>>
>> What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but
>> it had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of
>> nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it
>> had to. So what changed?
>
> You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that doesn't
> serve any useful purpose until there are events happening

There's no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening.

> which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
> time.

Maybe. You can't get from there to 'events means time'. or to 'no time
means no events'.

>> It's BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever
>> he likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real
>> and we're missing it.
>
> That "something else" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we
> prefer to set it aside.

Somebody's will have to be set aside.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:10:18 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> >> On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> >>>> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> >>>>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was
> >>>>>> space with nothing in it (not helped by popular science
> >>>>>> programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at
> >>>>>> all - ie no spacetime.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the
> >>>>> word "prior" even be well-defined?
> >>>>>
> >>>> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
> >>>> there had to be time already in place.
> >
> > It there's nothing there to do anything time isn't doing anything
> > useful.
> >
> >>> No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
> >>> origin point.
> >>
> >> What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but
> >> it had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of
> >> nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it
> >> had to. So what changed?
> >
> > You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that doesn't
> > serve any useful purpose until there are events happening.
>
> There's no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening.
> > which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
> > time.
>
> Maybe. You can't get from there to 'events means time'. or to 'no time
> means no events'.

No events does mean no time, which is all that I was asserting.

> >> It's BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever
> >> he likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real
> >> and we're missing it.
> >
> > That "something else" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we
> > prefer to set it aside.
>
> Somebody's will have to be set aside.

Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 10:20:01 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> >> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> >>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
> >>>> with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
> >>>> showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
> >>>> spacetime.
> >>>
> >>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word
> >>> "prior" even be well-defined?
> >>>
> >>> CH
> >> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so there
> >> had to be time already in place.
> >
> > No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
> > origin point.
> What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but it
> had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of nothing!)
> were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it had to. So what
> changed?
>
> It's BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever he
> likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real and
> we're missing it.

Sorry, i have no idea what you are trying to say. You are talking about time existing prior to the universe existing. Why does time have to extend to infinity in both directions, or either direction for that matter?

I think you may have some preconceptions of the universe. We have data points over the course of a few hundred years. Now we are extrapolating billions of years back as if things must absolutely correlate. But as we find new details of our data set, the extrapolations continue to change.

How much longer before someone comes up with the next new big idea and the extrapolations swing wildly again.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> >> On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> >>>> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> >>>>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was
> >>>>>> space with nothing in it (not helped by popular science
> >>>>>> programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at
> >>>>>> all - ie no spacetime.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the
> >>>>> word "prior" even be well-defined?
> >>>>>
> >>>> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
> >>>> there had to be time already in place.
> >
> > It there's nothing there to do anything time isn't doing anything
> > useful.
> >
> >>> No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
> >>> origin point.
> >>
> >> What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but
> >> it had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of
> >> nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it
> >> had to. So what changed?
> >
> > You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that doesn't
> > serve any useful purpose until there are events happening
> There's no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening.

You mean we have no evidence that there was nothing... or something happening before the singularity? Yeah, that's the nature of singularities. There's no evidence nothing happened. There's no evidence something happened.

> > which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
> > time.
> Maybe. You can't get from there to 'events means time'. or to 'no time
> means no events'.

What does time mean in an empty universe... or more accurately, a universe that isn't there?

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 10:25:48 UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> ...
> > ><https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>
> > 10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
> > telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives we
> > could have saved.
> ...
> The US spent 70 times the total cost of the telescope on the military in a single year.
>
> $753.5 billion vs $10 billion. It seems we would rather kill people than save them anyway.
>
> kw

And which one will keep the CHICOMs out of Taiwan?