Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 33839

Directory

In article <323C8CD1.4BEA@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>I back up my claim that I support the First Amendment through
>actions and not mere words, as evidenced by the lawsuit filed by
>my daughter that I stand behind her on.  Its a matter of public
>record.  
Sorry; I was under the misapprehension that your previous
statement was meant to be interpreted in the context in which
it was offered.
>People in newsgroups have a right to meet and discuss the topics
>they choose, not the topics foisted upon them by a few uncooperative
>others.
Is that in your copy of the Constitution?  On usenet we have the
privilege to choose the amount of bureaucracy we layer on our
discussions.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

I believe that happening of Jesus crucifixion was a normal human who
was 1 in thousands who were crucified but that a myth story was written
about him. He performed no miracles that violated physics or biology
science laws. Point blank he was a normal human that was crucified and
this myth story of son of god was manufactured around him.
If he , Jesus were a diety, then he could have forwarned humanity in a
spectacular way. On the cross , instead of saying empty words he could
have shouted   F = MA
  or better yet the Schroedinger Equation
  or something like e^(i x pi) = -1
 Why is the Bible utterly deplete of the best wisdom that humanity
has-- science or physics?  Why? Because Jesus was another normal
ordinary revolutionary against the Romans who was crucified.
  If Jesus's message was to get believers, surely , he could have
persuaded the whole world by broadcasting or made to be broadcast some
science that was 2 millenium ahead of his time. But no. There are only
secondary accounts of Jesus performing questionable miracles.
  If Jesus had given us the Schroedinger Equation on the cross, then
this man was really superhuman, but he did not
  The PU theory holds that god= Atom. And that all thoughts , deeds ,
actions are ordered up by the Nucleus of 231Pu. For good reason, the
231Pu atom ordered up that humans would mythologize Jesus and distort
his real human life so way out of proportion and out of truth. But now
that humanity has the PU theory, science subsumes religion.

Announcement - FREE 1-day short course for students at GSA Denver:
INTRODUCTION TO INTERPRETATION OF GRAVITY AND MAGNETICS IN EXPLORATION.
Saturday, October 26, 1996
This lecture presentation will provide an applied view of gravity and 
magnetic interpretation in hydrocarbon exploration.  Emphasis is on 
geological and tectonic analysis, which is portrayed by means of 
numerous real examples and short case histories from the USA, former 
USSR, South America, and elsewhere.   For more information, visit 
http://www2.csn.net/~rigibson/gsacours.html   or contact Dick Gibson 
(see contact information below). (he will be away from his office Sept.
21-Oct. 12, but e-mail will be accessed and answered)
The course is free, but preregistration (with Gibson Consulting) is 
necessary because of room limitations.  The program is designed for 
graduate students and upper level undergraduates interested in basin 
tectonic analysis and/or hydrocarbon exploration.  It is abstracted 
from an oil industry short course taught by Gibson, and a version for 
students was conducted at Indiana University last fall.
Thanks for your time!
Best regards,
Dick Gibson
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- 
______________________________________
Richard I. Gibson, Gibson Consulting
Gravity-Magnetic-Geologic Interpretations
P.O. Box 523, Golden, CO 80402 USA
Ph/Fax: (303) 278-0867,  rigibson@ix.netcom.com
http://www2.csn.net/~rigibson/gibcons2.html

In article <323b1d1f.75375315@news.airmail.net>, fdever@airmail.net says...
>
>aplus@mauigateway.com (Marvin) wrote:
>
>>aklein@villagenet.com (Al Klein), #include 
>>
>>
>>><>> I've also
>>><>>heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the  prerequisites of a
>>><>>life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
>>><>>debris forming a dictionary.
>>><>
>>><>Assuming that you exploded one print shop per second for 11 billion
>>><>years, the odds would be pretty good, wouldn't you say?
>>Actually if you look at probablility therory the odds are close to
>>zero (in any time frame not approaching infinity).  Given infinite
>>time anything is possible-BUT we know the universe has only been
>>around a finite amount of time.  Random causation as a creative force
>>is a joke- it doesn't work in nature, it doesn't work in science, it
>>doesn't even work in theory.  And it requires a lot more faith than
>>the simple and practical observation that creation demands a creator.
>>In Christ
It didnt happen that way, you stupid moron. (actually one of the chief requirements of 
christianity is having an IQ (I dont care if you claim to be a scientist or not) of less than 80). 
Can your stupid religion sodden brain understand the two-level quotes I just used??
You know and understand NOTHING about biology as a negative entropy process, you half-illiterate
idiot! Who the fuck are YOU to stand up there like a victim of Down syndrome with your pathetic 
small dick hanging out and preach probablity and biology?? Go stick to your superstitious 
fairy tales about your creator and his so-called son, and entertain and masturbate your 
fellow savages with your ghost stories around the campfire late at night - - screw and fuck off 
and leave the rest of rational intelligent humankind alone with your ghost stories and superstitious
drivel.
Now sign off and go fuck your sister, praising god all the while!!!!
Wissenschaftler.
PS - If you had nay brains or education, I would relate here how it actually works - - 
        but I m through wasting my time on your sub-moronic postings.
Now after fucking your sister, go jump into a bathtup of water, holding the live end of 
a live 115V electric cord and rid the world of one more piece of shit.
Boy!! The Romans had the right idea about how to make use of you and your ilk!!  
At least you re useful as Cat Food!!!!!!!!

In article <19960915230739602216@ao152.du.pipex.com>, Nick Hunter said...
>
>Dr Pepper  wrote:
>
>> I have seen this problem occuring more and more on ALL of the NG's
>> that I subscribe to.  I don't think that there is much that anyone can
>> do about it.  
>
>There are several things you can do, rather than just moan and throw up
>your hands as you seem to be doing:
>
major snip.......
A better, more effective method is the following:
Most newsreaders show the "Path:" field. Look at the last full
address in the path (i. e. !news.barfid.com!news). Send email
containing a polite note from you and enclose the full spam 
(including the headers). Send it to postmaster@barfid.com and/or
abuse@barfid.com.
Make your note congenial and plead for their help with their
subscriber. You'll be surprised at the results you get. Not all
ISPs will respond to you, but most take action.
-- 
dsterner@neosoft.com

In article <51cokr$1sl@resunix.sickkids.on.ca>,
greig@resunix.sickkids.on.ca (David Iain Greig) wrote:
| John Wilkins (wilkins@wehi.edu.au) wrote:
| 
| : I am a bit confused, as a non-geologist of major proportions.
| 
| Maybe you should try dieting and exercise.  Get away from the 
| newsgroup once in a while, John.
| 
That would involve exercise, wouldn't it? Sorry, I'm too old to take up
new hobbies like that. Can't afford the trainers, for a start.
Besides, the newsgroup is all I have [sob]. Oh, apart from the job, the
family and the PhD-in-progress...
-- 
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research

It is the glory of science that it finds the patterns 
in spite of the noise - Daniel Dennett

This is crap.  Why don't all of you losers stop posting in our group?
We've got enough babble as it is...
"Sure, it's babble, but it's OUR babble" :)

In article <517b1v$4q7@cowee.wcu.edu>, STRAUSS@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU (Robert
Strauss) wrote:
>IFF (If and ONLY if) creationists are willing to treat their "theory" as only a
>theory. That is, if they are willing to admit that if proven wrong, they will
>give up their religious beliefs.
>
>If not, then they should go back to church and leave science alone.
>
>Bob (soon to be flamed) Strauss
No flame from me, Bob, but rather a question/observation or two.  Since
creationists may be wrong from time to time about a specific point {so
that some point they thought was evidence of their case (but wasn't
really)}, you seem to be saying that they are required to toss out
*everything* if *anything* is proven false.  On the other hand would you
be willing to step up and make the same commitment and toss out all of
your 'science' concepts if one can be demonstrated to be faulty or
untrue?  Since I'm certain that you would not really go along with
"tossing out the baby with the bath water", why do you demand such of
others?  What you may fail to realize is that both parties (if we give
each the benefit of the doubt) ostensively are (1) searching for the
truth; or, at least, (2) searching for evidence to support what they
already accept as the truth.  Only those who truly qualify for item number
(1) could actually be considered to be any sort of scientist at all,
whether religious or not.  Since all creationists and scientists fall into
both groups perhaps you could tell us which group you fall into and why?
Regards,
-- 
C. Cagle
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR  97304
Ph: 503/362-7781
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.  If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
                - Howard Aiken

Here we have bishops, priests, and deacons, a Censorship Board, vigilant
librarians, confraternities and sodalities, Duce Maria, Legions of Mary,
Knights of this Christian order and Knights of that one, all surrounding
the sinner’s free will in an embattled circle.
Sean O’Casey (1884–1964), Irish dramatist. Letter, 8 June 1957, to Irish
Times (Dublin).

coupled with your current clerical error, it's a miracle we know anything!
Richard Ottolini  wrote in article
<51hcte$q6d@news.unocal.com>...
> No, conventional wisdom says he was born in the spring of 6 BC,
> before **Herold** died in 4 BC.

Everybody hates a prodigy, detests an old head on young shoulders.
Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466–1536),  Praise of Folly, ch. 13 (1509).

Chuck Karish wrote:

Within your most recent three replies, the discussion
contributed by you has degraded to sarcasm, wit, and 
distortion of the issues presented.
When a discussion degrades in that fashion, the parties
that have already sided one way or another tend to become
more polarized by a continuation as such.
I am not here to promote a polarization.  I want the issues
to remain on the table, and the participants to keep an open
mind to the discussions that are ahead of us.
With that in mind, there is little point in continuing this
thread with you as doing so would not be convincing anyone of
anything other than a propensity to argue.
The primary concern to the interested parties at this point
should be what the next revision of the proposed RFD includes.
I will soon be submitting a survey to the group to determine
answers to the outstanding issues.
If you have an idea that you've been considering and feel
should be a part of a survey, or something I may be overlooking,
please post it or e-mail to to me and I'll include it in the
survey.
Richard

Submicroscopic magnetic particles occurs in rocks, soils and in
different materials most often as products of solid solutions
decomposition like haematite-ilmenite, magnesioferrite or
pyrrhotite series. Such solutions carry useful genetic
information, but their phase analysis by familiar methods is
difficult owing to small sizes of those decomposition products
which measures 0.01-0.1 micron in diameter.
At the same time thin magnetic solid solution phases would acquire
appreciable remanent magnetization (RM) and in its features we may
judge about composition, sizes and crystal structure of RM
carriers. So, the composition is reflected in values of
temperature and amplitude of the alternating magnetic pole when RM
destroys, size, in single- or multidomain structure as well as in
degree of desaccomodation RM caused by ultrathin particles near
superparamagnetic state. Type of the crystal lattice is
determined by a degree of magnetic texturing of the corresponding
mineral phase.
Magnetic Dactyloscopy (MD) is a method of identification
of magnetic minerals and materials by set of above-listed
characteristics, which is determined at every interval of the
coercivity spectrum in continuous process. MD procedure is
unrivalled in its high resolution (up to 0.01 micron) and
productivity (by the automatic device - about 10-15 analysis per
day). Advantages of magnetic dactyloscopy as compared to other
methods of phase analysis, in addition to its highly express
character are as follows:
 a) the analysis covers the entire volume of the sample,
    whereas other methods enable to analyse only single
    points on the surface;
 b) precision of determination increases with decreasing
    size of magnetic particles (their weight content in
    the matrix remaining the same), which is a paradox
    for other methods of phase analysis;
 c) magnetic dactyloscopy does not require any preparation
    of samples, exept imparting to them a shape isometrical
    in plan.
By means of MD the phase composition of heterogeneous magnetic
mixtures is investigated, this may be effectively utilized for
experimental mineralogy and in recognition of ore genesis. At the
present time the distinguishing features of MD-parameters are
established. From this features it is possible to contour the
dispersal aureoles of skarn-metasomatic iron ores and to
distinguish gold-bearing magnetites.  Pronounced magnetic
characteristics of pyrhotites connected with platina ores were
obtained.
Now I work on simple equipment and seek the partners for making
an automated device for Magnetic Dactyloscopy on the base of any
vibrating magnetometer.
Send all your questions to: gernik@vvg.spb.ru
Vladislav Gernik

My book MAGNETIC METHODS IN GEOLOGY (Nedra, St. Petersburg,
1993, 203 p.) was published in Russian. I want to reprint it in
English version and seek appropriate publisher.
The monograph is meant for geologists and geophysicists, studying
the problems of mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, and
tectonics. This book differs from other books already published on
problems of rock magnetism and paleomagnetism by the coverage of
objects to be diagnosed, from submicroscopic inclusions in
minerals to thick bodies and strata; the range of the solved
problems and range of methods.
The novelty of the monograph consists in a principally new
approach to the interpretation of the nature of remanent magnetism
of minerals and rocks, as compared to the modern one. The
development of the new mechanism of magnetic hysteresis enabled to
extend significantly the application field of the magnetic
diagnostic methods as compared for example to those known from
D.W.Collinson's ("Methods in rock magnetism and paleomagnetism",
1982) and W.O'Reilly's ("Rock and mineral magnetism", 1984)
monographs.
The methods of diagnostics of submicroscopic inclusions in
magnetite and other ferromagnetics, described in this book, are
unrivalled for their resolution. A magnetite thermometer is
proposed, which enables to define the temperature of ferrite
inclusions formation in the range of 80-900śC with the precision up
to Ł10ś. New criteria and methods of paleomagnetic studies are
described. For geologists without a geophysical background, a
description of the principles of a qualitative interpretation of
magnetic anomalies is given with regard for the role of remanent
magnetization in their formation. The optimum set of the equipment
for the laboratory of magnetic diagnostics is suggested.
I am ready to send Table of contents, fragments in English ets on
the request.
  Vladislav V.Gernik 

soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver) wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:58:35 GMT, eddy3@ix.netcom.com (Edward L. Mincher)
>wrote:
>>-soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver) wrote:
>>->I am sorry, but I find this a total non-sequitur. I have read the bible, I
>>->find it full of nonsense, and frequently full of viciousness and stupidity as
>>->well. The bible is not the proof I require. The god of your bible clearly does
>>->not care about everyone in this world. He is either non-existent, too weak to
>>->protect his creations from things like ebola and hurricanes, or indifferent.
>>-He is able. Have you ask? 
>>-Eddy
>>-Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so
>>-that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
>>-every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of
>>-Heaven."  (Didymos Judas Thomas)
>So your deity is able but unwilling to save his followers from hurricanes? 
>(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
>      If no thought your mind does visit
>      make your speech not too explicit.
>               Piet Hein, 1966
>(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
Hi Suzane,
You want me to answer that while sisitting on my bud? I am, however,
much surpriced about all that is done for me.  He gave His Son the
"Roman Empire" almost over night. He'll give you more if you ask.
Eddy
Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When
he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will
be astonished, and he will rule over the All." --Didymos Judas Thomas

"J. Ross"  wrote:
>Edward L. Mincher wrote:
>> 
>> soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver) wrote:
>> 
>> >I am sorry, but I find this a total non-sequitur. I have read the bible, I
>> >find it full of nonsense, and frequently full of viciousness and stupidity as
>> >well. The bible is not the proof I require. The god of your bible clearly does
>> >not care about everyone in this world. He is either non-existent, too weak to
>> >protect his creations from things like ebola and hurricanes, or indifferent.
>> 
>> He is able. Have you ask?
>> Eddy
>  How the hell do you know he is able? Did he tell you? I agree with the 
>former opinion. When you read the bible, if you keep in mind the mindset 
>of society at the time, and the social and philisophical standards of the 
>period, it makes perfect sense-- as a work of fiction. The bible was 
>written by several different people who opted to include their two cents 
>on what they thought God ought to be and how man ought to live. It is 
>impossible to disprove that, and it seems a very simple conclusion to 
>draw and is by far the most obvious. Since then, because of their 
>inherent need to explain what they cannot understand, humans have taken 
>to interpreting the bible not as a man-made thing but as work of divinity 
>by an all-powerful, infinite being who simply thought we ought to know 
>what the deal was before we died and spent eternity in burning flames. I 
>can see why, in an age where science was infantile and understanding of 
>the world was very limited, it would be possible to logically lend some 
>credence to this notion. But that was 2000 years ago, and we no longer 
>think the world is flat. So why do we hold on to our security blanket? 
>Because man has a basic need to believe that everything will turn out 
>okay. The bible provides man with a step-by-step guide to assure that 
>such will be the case. Seems simple enough...
>> 
>> Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so
>> that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
>> every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of
>> Heaven."  (Didymos Judas Thomas)
> Did you intend for that to be an example of biblical sexism?
>-J Ross
>-- 
>http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/Nivejworld/index.html
Hi J,
> Did you intend for that to be an example of biblical sexism?
No. If you understand the times, you understand that only His Father
could keep Him alive.  
No not biblical. These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus
spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.  And He said,
"Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience
death."  (Didymos Judas Thomas) Some say Thamas is Q (i.e., the Q
Document)
> Since then, because of their inherent need to explain what they cannot 
>understand,
No. Actually the people were sophisticated and literate. In fact, they
gave us the writen word as we know it today (i.e., no pictures).
Moreover half the temple people were atheists. Many of your arguments
can be found in the Bible.
Eddy
JOH 3:8  The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof,  but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
so is every one  that is born of the Spirit.

This is a GEOLOGY group please stop posting messages about Religious items
and lets keep it to Geology related topics.
Thank You.
It's not what you got, it's what you do with it.
Try helping others, instead of hurting them.

In article <51g2er$qbr@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
Chuck Karish  wrote:
>be implemented individually or as a package.  As the RFD
>now reads, it's an all-or-nothing vote.
>
It's one newsgroup at a time, which was your question (my apologies for 
the clumsy snip).  The only vote that affects two newsgroups is a renaming 
vote, and only to the extent that it replaces one newsgroup with a second.  
This is standing Big 8 policy, non-negotiable.  Votes on the moderation
of different newsgroups will *not* be packaged, although there is a
phenomenon called "blanket voting" such that people *often tend* to
vote a whole reorg up or down at once, rather than properly approaching
each proposal on its own merits.
Moving to more general remarks...
Worth noting that Una Smith, who queried the setup of this reorg, was
until recently a member of group-advice, who are the right and left hands
of tale, news.announce.newgroups' moderator.  For all I know she's
rejoined.  Her disapproval is Yet Another Sign, in my view, that we're
looking at a bad idea here.
My main reason for opposition, to date, is Mr. Adams' continued
disrespect for the norms of newsgroup creation.  However, I might as
well offer some more.  One, there appears to be substantial opposition
to moderation from the readerships of the affected groups, and I'm not
seeing much if any support.  Two, banned-poster lists need to be
handled with care if at all, and it doesn't sound like this is
happening here.  Three, routine votes are a great way to mess up
a newsgroup.
Give this thread another few days and I'll doubtless find more.
My first post on re-entering this discussion commented snidely on
Mr. Adams' "apparent inability to snip".  He promptly sent me a very
courteous e-mail which snipped my post down to one (other) paragraph
and replied.  I'm delighted to see he has learned how to save
bandwidth and reader tedium.
However, I'm disappointed to see he hasn't learned how to be a
newsgroup proponent.
Joe Bernstein
-- 
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk, and bookstore worker
Speaking for myself and nobody else                joe@sfbooks.com
but...  co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now under discussion
in news.groups

Wissenschaftler wrote:
>In article <323b1d1f.75375315@news.airmail.net>, fdever@airmail.net says...
>>
>>aplus@mauigateway.com (Marvin) wrote:
>>
>>>aklein@villagenet.com (Al Klein), #include 
>>>
>>>
>>>><>> I've also
>>>><>>heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the  prerequisites of a
>>>><>>life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
>>>><>>debris forming a dictionary.
>>>><>
>>>><>Assuming that you exploded one print shop per second for 11 billion
>>>><>years, the odds would be pretty good, wouldn't you say?
>>>Actually if you look at probablility therory the odds are close to
>>>zero (in any time frame not approaching infinity).  Given infinite
>>>time anything is possible-BUT we know the universe has only been
>>>around a finite amount of time.  Random causation as a creative force
>>>is a joke- it doesn't work in nature, it doesn't work in science, it
>>>doesn't even work in theory.  And it requires a lot more faith than
>>>the simple and practical observation that creation demands a creator.
>>>In Christ
>
>
>It didnt happen that way, you stupid moron. (actually one of the chief requirements of 
>christianity is having an IQ (I dont care if you claim to be a scientist or not) of less than 80). 
>Can your stupid religion sodden brain understand the two-level quotes I just used??
>
>You know and understand NOTHING about biology as a negative entropy process, you half-illiterate
>idiot! Who the fuck are YOU to stand up there like a victim of Down syndrome with your pathetic 
>small dick hanging out and preach probablity and biology?? Go stick to your superstitious 
>fairy tales about your creator and his so-called son, and entertain and masturbate your 
>fellow savages with your ghost stories around the campfire late at night - - screw and fuck off 
>and leave the rest of rational intelligent humankind alone with your ghost stories and superstitious
>drivel.
>
>Now sign off and go fuck your sister, praising god all the while!!!!
>
>Wissenschaftler.
>
>PS - If you had nay brains or education, I would relate here how it actually works - - 
>        but I m through wasting my time on your sub-moronic postings.
>
>Now after fucking your sister, go jump into a bathtup of water, holding the live end of 
>a live 115V electric cord and rid the world of one more piece of shit.
>
>Boy!! The Romans had the right idea about how to make use of you and your ilk!!  
>At least you re useful as Cat Food!!!!!!!!
>
Wissenmeister,
	For shame. You comitted the cardinal sin of bulletin board
etiquette. You told the wrong person to go fuck his sister. It's in
the flamer's beginners handbook. If you tell the wrong person to go
fuck his sister, you have to say you're sorry, or you have to go down
in the annals of preserved history as a sociopath. You see, I didn't
write the thing you ascribed to my name. Not to mention the fact that
I don't have a sister. 
	 Not only that, but BESIDES giving my name a good rolling
over, and smearing my non-existent sister with sleazy images, you
committed the SECOND cardinal sin of bbs etiquette: You used "can your
stupid religion sodden brain understand the two-level quotes I just
used??" Thereby pouring out the cosmic bowls of ridicule upon your own
head in public.
	For a internet-literate guy with a public image to hold up,
you've already got two strikes against you. If I might make a
suggestion, please read the little scientific language thingies a
little more carefully. And especially carefully when you are planning
to tell him to go fuck his sister.
	And next time, have a reason when you call me a moron and tell
me to go fuck my sister. 
	-frank
When the tough get going, the weak get screwed.

I am researching the climate and geography of Earth during the late Cretaceous
period, just prior to the (what else) die-off of the dinosaurs. Can anyone
suggest books and/or websites that can provide a layman's overview? I am 
particularly interested in the position and climate of what is now Antarctica. 
Regards,
Philip Steiner
-- 
Philip Steiner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ps@mda.ca
MacDonald Dettwiler - - - - - - - - - Richmond, BC, Canada
++          Just my opinions, not my employer's         ++
+++++   Cruisin' the Burger Joints on the Infobahn   +++++

John Taber wrote:
> 
> In article <3239A9B3.C00@oro.net>, Richard Adams  writes:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:45:44 -0700, Richard Adams wrote:
> > >
> 
> What happened to my negative response?
> 
> John Taber              Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University
> John.Taber@vuw.ac.nz    P.O. Box, 600, Wellington, New Zealand
This is a vote against moderation.
There is a small amount of traffic in this group. Half of it is related
to this silly question. If the effort expended on this debate was
expended studying seismology, we may all be wiser.
regards
-- 
Mark G Robinson | ZL2TOD@ZL1AB | +64-9-846-3296
robotech@ihug.co.nz | Box 8770, Auckland 1035, New Zealand

A nervous hush fell over the crowd, as they anticipated the
announcement. Finally, Richard Adams   stepped to
the podium and said:
> 
> I'll be a proponent of this topic for as long as the evidence
> says its worth persuing.  The only ways to collect the current
> consensus which includes both contributors and observers is
> through surveys and posts in the group.  I'll DROP being the
> proponent in an instant if it isn't what the group wants.
> The surveys I conduct here are private e-mail.  People have a
> right to vote TO ME in private to avoid flames.  Other voting
> systems are not private, for example a CFV to pass or reject
> this whole thing.  When you vote in a CFV, your vote is part
> of the archived records.
> 
Would you please be so kind as to clarify something for me, and
perhaps for others who follows news.groups, but not necessarily the
groups you are involved with?
You are talking about voting in privte surveys that you are running.
This could easily be interpreted as your privately gathering votes for
some sort of block vote.
I think that you need to be careful in your use of the word votes now
that you have a formal RFD in the works.  To a lot of people, a Usenet
votes is a very distinct item, and discussion of your survey votes can
only serve to confuse the issue.
I further believe that you would be well served by clarifying exactly
what you mean by "votes" in the context of your survey, and further
clarify whether in your mind, these survey votes of yours have
anything to do with the formal CFV that you are trying to attain.
Thank you for clarifying your intentions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank Vaughan is baguio@ix.netcom.com
Why do so many publications expect people to write for free? 
It is, I'm afraid, because the bean-counters of the world have taken over, and since they have no self-worth, they assume no one else is worth anything either.
If I want exposure, I'll drop my pants the next time I'm at the mall.

In article <01bba30d$aadc7ea0$826860cc@dial.inetnebr.com>,
Robert D. Brown  wrote:
>> If it's not too much to ask, where's the evidence that things
>> happened this way?
>
>There is a contradiction between two sets of observations:
>
>(1) The co-simultaneous formation of mountains that constitute an oceanic
>impact's crater rim; and
>(2) Radiometric rock dates that differ for the age of formation for
>different arc segments of the crater's rim.
>
>The rock dating techniques are not invalid, they simply need to be adjusted
>for the anisotropic elemental abundance shifts imparted by the
>plasma-mediated mechanisms for the first creation of land after lunar
>genesis.  The "proof" is geometrical realization that empirically derived
>rock dates display N-S and E-W mirror symmetries across Pangaea's central
>magnetic axis (CMA) and magnetic equator, respectively.  
Where have you compiled the radiometric dates that show this
symmetry?
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <01bba335$e6481b20$796860cc@dial.inetnebr.com>,
Robert D. Brown  wrote:
>Now, when one does perform a radiometric age determination on a sample, the
>respective half lives of the radiometric elements and isotopes are used to
>calculate how much time must have passed for Parent(A) to transform into
>Daughter(B), with the quantities of A and B having most usually been
>determined by quantitative mass spectroscopy techniques.  This provides a
>first order approximation which in most instances is cross-checked by a
>separate parent(C)-daughter(D) series to exclude chemical processes that
>may have added or leached either A or B in some chemical manner that does
>not disrupt the crystal lattice of the sample being studied.
>
>The systematic shift that I have in mind is one that will foil the
>cross-checking routine because all of the radiometric series have trajected
>through a common (shared, singular) magnetic field (Earth's core-derived
>field, which was deshielded by the lunar-forming impact).  We can produce
>"better", e.g. more stable, more homogeneous, less error-inducing, magnetic
>fields in our laboratory equipment than was present in Earth's vicinity in
>the aftermath of lunar genesis, but we cannot come close to duplicating the
>very long trajectory paths that the Earth's natural spectrometer (the
>plasma torus of lunar genesis) employed.  The statistical errors of our
>best spectrometers obscure the anisotropic shifts experienced over the
>course of land formation via the "atom by atom" (plasma deposition)
>technique.
Make up your mind.  Either the laboratory spectrometers are
more precise than the cosmic spectroscopic effect, or they're not.
If the effect is too small to be observed reliably, it's too
small to affect radiometric dating.
These conclusions are at odds with observations that show
consistent isotopic ratios of non-radiogenic isotopes
in samples from all over the world. 
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <323C598E.67A6@crl.com>, Bill Smith   wrote:
>Robert D. Brown wrote:
>> > Try pushing on the tablecloth instead of pulling it, and you'll
>> > understand how ridiculous this sounds.
>> >
>> Dear Chuck:  now try adding a little starch to the tablecloth.  You seem to
>> have a problem with abstract reasoning and analogies.
Not at all.  A tablecloth with a little starch is not a bad
scaled analogue for the oceanic lithosphere under half the
Pacific Ocean.  The task of removing a starched tablecloth from
under a table full of dishes by pushing on the cloth is
comparable in difficulty to the task of explaining how to
abruptly subduct a large amount of oceanic lithosphere
without crumpling it.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu