| Re: Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165424059.876526.259430@16g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...
>
> 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.
>
If "the rest of us" can refrain from answering his posts, fine.
If they decide to engage him, I'm in.
You can spare yourself anytime by not clicking the message.
As far as my sending a direct response to a public post....NO.
|