orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/26/88)
In article <3980@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <2136@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes: >>In article <3952@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, (Michael Friedman) writes: >>> > dredd@osiris.UUCP (Gaziggity B. Yazghizzer) writes: >>>>Ok you hosers. I have just returned from Key West and >>>>there used to be a sign there that said "CUBA 90 Mi.", but I think it has been >>> >taken down. > >>> Any idea why? > >>It's moved closer, perhaps? Any comment on the scientific possibility >>of such a move? Tim? Mike? Let's get a discussion going, here. > >Mr. Lovell has brought up a very important factor which was ignored in >the discussion about the visibility of Cuba from Florida - continental >drift. In order to prove that I did not see Cuba it is not enough to >prove that it cannot be seen now. It must be proven that it could not >be seen in, say, 1975, or so. To do this you must prove either that >Cuba is not moving away from the US due to continental drift, or that >despite this movement Cuba was not visible even in 1975. > >I eagerly await further postings on this matter. This *would* be funny, Michael, except that it reflects your strategy not only in the whole seeing Cuba from Key West debate but in virtually every subject area. Rather than present substantive arguments backed up by facts, references and sound logic, you prefer to spew out rampant speculations which really differ little from the one here you are humorizing. Since you so often do this sort of thing in supposedly "serious" debate, the only humor I can find in this remark is that it resembles so closely your past argument style: present rampant speculation then wait for your opponents to refute a particular rampant speculation while you merrily spin out a new rampant speculation! Again, with no basis in fact, leaving your opponents to counter *that* piece of nonsense, ad absurdum.... tim sevener whuts!orb