[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:54:36 +1100
Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Not so Philip, The two Roberts and their GWW is full of them. We have lost
> this particular argument and must now put this one to bed.
> Perhaps we can
> call upon Regner to address Robert Sungennis' original 1st point and those
> posted by other's.
>
No need for a "call". That has always been the plan, and it hasn't changed.
> It has been a spirited debate with Regner and I congratulate him on his
> analytical skills.
>
Thank you for the kind words.
> Interestingly the celestial poles argument was well in
> progress before Regner's participation; he just got caught up in it
> before he had an opportunity to take on our other arguments.
>
Not entirely correct - As I stated my initial post:
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg00440.html
this is just a "a warm up". I chose to do so, because I knew you would
all be referring to the "Two spin axes of Earth" as proof of GC and then
it wouldn't matter what I said about any of the other points - now we can
hopefully address some of the other issues, one by one.
- Regner
> I sincerely hope that he stays with the forum.
>
Thank you. I have no plans to leave - But there might still be breaks
in my communications because of my workload - please be patient.
- Regner
> I am currently trying to get another heliocentrist, who
> is also a committed Christian, to return to the forum and take part.
>
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: philip madsen
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:48 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
>
>
> No apology needed Neville.. We all are responsible for building up our own
> expectations. I think it was myself who first suggested stopping the world
> and taking a picture every day. It took me a long time to work out how that
> would not happen, even after Regners explanations. Now we have the problem
> of finding another argument.. LOL
>
> Philip.
>
>
Other related posts:
