Kevin -- My very first message was a response to Jones' OP. Here it is again in case you forgot:
"I'm a little disappointed, but as Daniel and others have suggested, at the very least, this seems to suggest that nuclear levels of excess heat have been measured yet again. Why bother with delaying the report for the sake of isotopic analysis otherwise?" Clearly there is no mention of you nor reference to your argument here. I hadn't even read your post. Then you decided "take me on" by stating: "Why bother with delaying the report for the sake of isotopic analysis otherwise? ***For exactly the reason I just detailed: they are using this information selfishly." The "wholesale copy" of your post was that sometimes when you respond to a thread on these forums, it copies the most recent responses on top of the OP. You're misinterpreting and getting indignant over nothing. To restate, let's move on with our lives. On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Kevin, you were the one who responded to my original post -- which had >> nothing to do with your speculations whatsoever. >> > ***That is simply not the case. Your post was a response to mine, and > included a wholesale copy of my post. So you try to knock down my > speculation without posting your own, saying alluvasuddenlike, that it > doesn't matter. Bowlsheet. Not pure bowlsheet, but plenty of it. If God > had intended for Texans to ski, He'd have made bullshit white. > >> > >
