From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/22/2025 3:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> […]   
   >>>   
   >>> Let's cut to the chase here.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> No lies to retract.  You lied.   
   >>>   
   >>> What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said   
   >>> that you regard as a lie.   
   >>   
   >> The ones that you keep telling.   
   >>   
   >> "Never condemned"   
   >   
   > I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle   
   > with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to   
   > waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone   
   > who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to   
   > give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words   
   > to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.   
      
   You are the one that has quote mined.  You have always lied about what   
   you have been given.  The original source was found to be trustworthy   
   and spot on in their interpretation.  They were backed up by their anti   
   geocentric Catholic opponents because those opponents had to deal with   
   the same material and historical events and agreed with the   
   geocentrists.  It turned out that they disagreed about Galileo facing a   
   formal heresy charge the second time, but agreed that it had been a   
   formal heresy charge the first time.  They both agreed that the   
   Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy due to the findings of the   
   Council of Trent with respect to the beliefs of the Church fathers and   
   scriptural interpretation.  They disagreed about the issue having been   
   resolved before the Papal apology in the 1990's.  The geocentrists   
   claimed that heliocentrism remained a heresy after the Papal decree in   
   1820 only removed the prohibition for telling time and things like   
   planetary motions because there remained restrictions on what topics   
   heliocentrism could be applied to.  The anti geocentrics countered that   
   the remaining restrictions were never stated in the decree and they   
   quoted the entire decree, and all that was said was that authors had to   
   check with the church offices to determine if what they wanted to   
   publish was allowed.  Such was the efforts against the geocentrists.   
      
   You ran from the links and you lied about the sources and went into   
   denial.  It turned out that you were the one that had quote mined your   
   trusted source because I was able to demonstrate that they were actually   
   OK with claiming that Galileo had faced the heresy charge both times.   
   They just did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy.   
   You tried to counter with a stupid quote about the sentencing not   
   calling it a formal heresy, but that didn't matter for what your site   
   had claimed.  The sentencing called it a heresy and clearly defined the   
   heresy that Galileo was guilty of.   
      
   Running from  what I put up in this thread that just supported what you   
   had been given years ago was stupid.  Putting up your stupid "never been   
   condemned" quote to counter what you could not deal with was just a   
   stupid move.  It turned out that your sources were the ones that you   
   could not depend on.   
      
   These are just the facts, and anyone can go up and see what you did.   
      
      
   >   
   > What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von   
   > Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of   
   > posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to   
   > see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I   
   > respect so much :(   
   >   
   > ===========================================   
   >   
   > [1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for   
   > the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."   
   >   
   > [von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]   
   >   
   >   
   > [..]   
   >   
      
   The Vatican Observatory demonstrated that quote to be a lie when they   
   noted that the condemnation came from Rome and was issued by the   
   intruction of the Pope.  That is why you initially ran from the Vatican   
   Observatory link.  It was not just the Holy Office that condemned the   
   Copernican system, and your quote doesn't even demonstrate that Galileo   
   did not face a charge of formal heresy the first time, nor that he was   
   convicted of heresy the second time.  Your quote was only lying about   
   the Inquisition being the only bad boys.  The Pope agreed with the   
   Inquisition in 1616.  Another Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing and   
   punishment published and disseminated throughout the church.  The anti   
   geocentric Catholics admitted that the Pope did this to quash the   
   Copernican issue that was festering in the church, but they claimed that   
   it was not an official Papal act.   
      
   The Vatican Observatory link is the link that you snipped out of this   
   post.  Your source could not be trusted.  My sources have always been   
   verified.  You have just run and denied what you were given, and lying   
   about the trustworthiness of the sources when you could not deal with   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)