he asked for five firm affirmations of why your position is correct and he specifically asked for short non detailed responses. What we have seen so far, is long winded explanations of why Heliocentrism is wrong -- neither affirmative nor concise. I don't think it is me who is wasting time. You are either including me in this or not but in any case.....I have to Chuckle at this for two reasons.. 1. He asked for "reasons why" short, concise, and precise.....well it is all just "relative" is it not...I mean Robert(s) took over 600 pages I only used 5 little blurbs.......we did not touch "detail" at all...!?.. I "felt" we did complyed atleast in general, although we were certainly not under any obligation to.... 2. I did not know that you were framing the discussion?...In fact even if i had not kept within your definition of his "frame work" ..for the discussion...maybe it is my definition of the discussion that you should pay attention too......or......maybe not?...but that is the point...by what authoritative decree do you "pronounce" our answers as out side "the authoritative frame work".....Why do you think we must to conform to your frame work.? How about you conforming to ours..?........ You either want to discuss this or you do not have the time......If you don?t have the time to explore the "big questions"....don?t waste my time.....how about that...?:).......................lol perhaps i could have been more "concise" ( to the point)......would you rather i satated the following 1. There can only be one correct answer 2. you can't show it 3. we all know it 4. we are right 5. you are wrong.....sing this song...and let's all go home is that short enouph?................LOL Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Jack L I don't think I'm wasting Regner's time -- if he chooses to, I'm quite sure he is capable of ignoring what I say but I take the view that it doesn't hurt him to know that he is not alone in the lion's den. (Not, I hasten to add, that I have any illusion that he needs my help). On the subject of wasting time, he asked for five firm affirmations of why your position is correct and he specifically asked for short non detailed responses. What we have seen so far, is long winded explanations of why Heliocentrism is wrong -- neither affirmative nor concise. I don't think it is me who is wasting time. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, 18 October, 2007 6:24:05 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? DIV { MARGIN:0px;} Dear Paul, Considering the limited amount of time that Regner has said he is able to give this forum, your e-mail isn't helpful since your are preaching to the converted. I realise that the more heliocentrists that take part is more than welcomed, but in this case your contribution is the complete opposite of what he was asking. Had you not addressed it to him then I don't think it would have mattered. Regards Jack --------------------------------- Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.