Re: ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John W. Arnn: "Re: Harris"
• Previous message: John W. Arnn: "Re: Harris"
• Maybe in reply to: Al Fargnoli: "ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""
• Next in thread: Eric Shook: "Re: ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""

Well, I do want to apologize for claiming that Eric didn't
understand math or English. Whatever he wrote that I was
responding to, couldn't have warranted my comments.

I should have quoted the statements to which I objected,
and explained my objection (only now, I don't have the
post that I was originally responding to).

It has been extremely frustrating to read people's rantings,
especially when they don't seem to know what they're talking
about. Is that what this newsgroup is for?

Al Fargnoli
Who should, sometimes, sit on his hands until he calms down!

• Next message: John W. Arnn: "Re: Harris"
• Previous message: John W. Arnn: "Re: Harris"
• Maybe in reply to: Al Fargnoli: "ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""
• Next in thread: Eric Shook: "Re: ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""