Sign of Genius

So, no answer to the question, then? I'll repeat it for the casual observer, since you predictably snipped it in your reply:

"...please answer the question addressed in the referenced news article. I've been waiting for a reply to that post for some time now. Thank you.

Your silence speaks volumes; no psychobabble about "projecting" required.

time.

--- At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.

In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant, so their recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was tantamount to their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.

---

--- Not true.

From:

"Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of "profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."

JF

John Fields wrote

time.

Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.

Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.

Fraid so.

That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.

Everything Bret knows is on that website.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote

Yes, of course!

I invite everyone to visit

He isn't smart enough to do that.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote >>

So what will he do?

2) Take down his site to try to show he is smart enough to do that but thereby implicitly admitting the site is rubbish,

What will he do?

With any luck, he will ESAD.

If the domain name is paid up and the server space is paid for it will likely sit there, devoid of any content.

Am I understanding properly that you suggested that they use an analog instrument to test error rates of a digital instrument?

They wouldn't know a BER test from a Fireberd. ;-)

I bet that would make you happy.

Graham

What is the wager?

John Fields wrote

wrong.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

before that.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

clear.

Corse it is.

Wrong, as always.

Dan Drake wrote

plain wrong.

clear.

it is?

Pathetic.

Irrelevant to what the word perjury means.

witnesses,

questioned

Different matter entirely to whether that qualifys as perjury.

Nope.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

the 1990s.

That fool Fields is clearly doing just that.

work undiluted in 1822,

They didnt get to ORDER a damned thing.

As I said, a separate matter entirely to when even those fools had realised that the earth did in fact revolve around the sun.

You cant even manage to grasp just what 'it' is actually being discussed.

You in spades when you cant even manage to work out just what is being discussed.

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Pity its doesnt even comment on what is actually being discussed.

What part of PERJURY do you not understand ?

Nope. I was JUST commenting there on whether what he said qualifys as PERJURY.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Only for those with nothing viable between their ears.

Dan Drake wrote

plain wrong.

doubt,

very clear.

what it is?

witnesses,

questioned

till the 1990s.

Galileo's work undiluted in 1822,

discussed.

It isnt just ANY lying under oath.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

understand.

It isnt MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

understand.

--- I agree; it's your flagrant and evidently intentionally misconstrued conception of the meaning of perjury which is on trial.

Since you seem to disagree with the generally held concept of what perjury is, then it behooves you to expound on your concept of the meaning of perjury if you want to be a player.

Otherwise, all you're doing is sitting in the bleachers hurling obscenities without really being in the game at all.

---

---

Better yet, try this from:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 79--PERJURY Sec. 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever-- (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."

More simply put, I think, is that perjury is when one lies after one has sworn to tell what he believes to be the truth before an august body, which is exactly what Galileo was forced to do in order to save his life.

Do you think that he really rejected Copernicus and embraced Ptolomy after having seen the dance of the heavens in his own telescope?

JF