From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:25:34 +0000, David Mitchell wrote:   
      
   You seem to have accidentally ignored most of the points in this, so I'm   
   reposting them.   
      
   >> You have had this argument before  ... with "other Physicists" that use   
   >> the same example as I did.  Hummm. Imagine that!   
   >   
   > Naughty, naughty, putting words in my mouth, I said "So what, I've seen   
   > similar from other physicists"   
   >   
   > Not that I had "had this argument before ... with other physicists"   
   >   
   > I'm going to assume incompetence, rather than malice.   
   > This time.   
      
   Which was it?  Incompetence or malice?   
      
   Do you actually understand that there are different interpretations of the   
   mechanisms thought to underlie QM?   
      
   > I'm getting bored with your hostile attitude.   So far you haven't shown   
   > that you know even as much about QM as I do, let alone more.   
   >   
   Either prove your point, or apologise.   
      
   (The pop-science article just will not do!)   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)