> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx> > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:40 PM > Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Angular momentum > > > > Dear Mike, > > Firstly I would like to say thanks to you for > acknowledging your mistake > > over > > vectors and scalar measurements and Neville's for > his tetchyness. It is > this > > attitude that makes for real progress. > > > > Now I for one would like to see Neville respond to > your question about > > celestial > > poles, but in the light of Neville's comment > below, it is unlikely to > happen > > unless... > > I suppose I could ask Neville directly myself but > I feel that would be > > unfair to Neville and be like twisting his arm and > you getting your answer > > by the back door. This could be resolved if you > and he spoke privately > about > > the difficulty. How about it Mike? I really would > like to know. > > > > Jack > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 2:01 AM > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Angular momentum > > > > > > > --- Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > note that this is because I have no intention of > > > responding to someone who is simultaneously > posting > > > ridicule on BadAstronomy about this, or any > related, > > > subject. > > > > > > I have not seen that you have acted in this way > > > regarding angular or linear momentum, so I will > > > continue this thread, but I have witnessed your > > > comments on the celestial poles, so I will not > detain > > > you from discussing it there. ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com