XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro   
      
   In article ,   
      mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:   
   >In article , bjacoby@iwaynet.net writes:   
   >>In sci.astro mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> This is not philosp[hy but physics, so what it "seems" to you is   
   >>> irrelevant.  Temperature has a physical definition and it is *not*   
   >>> energy.   
   >>   
   >>So let's do some physics!  Are you saying that Temperature has NO   
   >>relation to energy of a system?   
   >   
   >It appears that reading comprehension is a dying art:-(   
   >   
   >Compare the two statements:   
   >   
   >1)  Temperature is not energy.   
   >2)  Temperature is not related to energy.   
   >   
   >Now, which of the two statements I used, in the text above?  Take your   
   >time, if you run into difficulties comparing, try to count words:-)   
      
   1)...one...four....ten...two.   
   2)...one..eight...twenty-three...forty-seven.   
   Original...five...twelve...sixty-nine...a hundred.   
      
   IF TWO=FORTY-SEVEN, CALL EXIT.   
      
   >When you'll recognize the difference, you're welcome to ask further   
   >questions.  Till then, don't bother, I'm not responding to strawmen,   
   >as a rule.   
      
   [emoticon stuffs more straw padding in its overalls]   
      
   /BAH   
      
   Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)