| Re: Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
JP wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165419017.967432.231760@f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
> > course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
> > Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
> > as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
> > as "junk" science.
> >
> > No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
> > entitled to their own set of facts.
> >
> > E.P.
> >
>
> I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven
> impossible
> by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a
> mirror
> of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason.
That's fine. Can you send it directly to him, and spare the rest of
us?
Thanks.
E.P.
|