Subj : Re: "Hams to the Rescue After Katrina" MSNBC News Article
To   : alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From : Zoran Brlecic
Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 02:16:51

From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf

Matt Osborn wrote:

> You're walking on an assumption that is called gravity.  Just like
> G-d, plenty of evidence but no proof.

What pisses me off about your posts is this almost deliberate attempt to 
obfuscate by equivocating, word playing and substituting terms which are 
incompatible. You keep doing it in almost every post and it gets tired fast.
Like, for instance, in the example above: "plenty of evidence but no 
proof" is meaningless drivel. Of all the scientific disciplines, only 
mathematics deals with proof. Others, physics included, deal with 
evidence which is derived from a direct or indirect observation of 
certain phenomena and is the basis for a theory, such as the 
gravitational theory, for example.
Therefore, to say that there is "no proof" for gravity is gibberish, 
even in the solipsist sense.


73 .... WA7AA


P.S. I am dying to hear some "evidence" of what you call "G-d". I am 
sure the Nobel committee would be interested as well.

.