Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Anti-gravity Out of Magnetics?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 867 posts in this discussion
Posted on Aug 22, 2009 11:22:29 AM PDT
To anyone still following this thread, I have something topic-related to share. While poking around on the internet, I ran across something very interesting in the Belfast, N. Ireland newspaper "The Newsletter" (www.newsletter.co.uk). A 9/27/07 article by Philip Bradfield ("Jet Did Cause 'Earth To Move' In Bangor (Wales)", contained the following statement:

"British Aerospace Systems (BAE) has a track record in experimental flight research, having for many years run a unit called "Greenglow" to explore ANTI-GRAVITY TECHNOLOGY or "field manipulation". The project was partnered with NASA's Break Thru Propulsion Physics Unit which is currently researching "faster-than-light travel"."

Posted on Aug 22, 2009 11:39:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 22, 2009 11:51:55 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"British Aerospace Systems (BAE) has a track record in experimental flight research, having for many years run a unit called "Greenglow" to explore ANTI-GRAVITY TECHNOLOGY or "field manipulation". The project was partnered with NASA's Break Thru Propulsion Physics Unit which is currently researching "faster-than-light travel"."

The NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Unit ran from 1996-2002. The report, which assessed numerous 'antigravity' systems concludes:

Lessons from the NASA Breakthroughs Propulsion Physics Project include:

(1) constraining the research tasks to only address immediate unknowns, curious effects or critical issues,

(2) putting more emphasis on the reliability of assertions than their implications, and

(3) having reviewers judge credibility rather than feasibility.

For the full report and its findings:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/overview.html

It makes for some interesting reading.

Project Greenglow has also ended, without any results.

If anyone is reading this thread and recalls the response to me citing the book 'Unscientific America' earlier this month, curiously this book has now been referenced on the 'SETI - Are They Missing The Obvious?' thread by... Marilyn.

Posted on Aug 22, 2009 11:55:15 AM PDT
Using the new buzz-words of "field manipulation" (instead of anti-gravity), I did a quick internet search, and located the following articles:

--- The 4/10/07 issue of "Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter", contained the article "Electric-field Manipulation of Spin States in Confined Non-Magnetic/Magnetic Heterostructures", by S. Borza (et al)

--- The 2009 APS March Meeting (3/16-20/09) had the following paper presented: "Electric-field Manipulation of Magnetization Vector" by Hideo Ohno (Abstract #T22.001)

--- e-docs.bea.com (no longer maintained after 8/31/09) opens to a 'BEA Tuxedo 8.0' screen, with a list of topics under "Field Manipulation Functions".

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 22, 2009 12:11:36 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Marilyn,

"--- The 4/10/07 issue of "Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter", contained the article "Electric-field Manipulation of Spin States in Confined Non-Magnetic/Magnetic Heterostructures", by S. Borza (et al)"

Field Manipulation is generally referring to the energy spectrum and states of electrons relative to a magnetic field.

"--- The 2009 APS March Meeting (3/16-20/09) had the following paper presented: "Electric-field Manipulation of Magnetization Vector" by Hideo Ohno (Abstract #T22.001)"

This discusses the manipulation of ferromagnetism and magnetization in semiconductors.

"--- e-docs.bea.com (no longer maintained after 8/31/09) opens to a 'BEA Tuxedo 8.0' screen, with a list of topics under "Field Manipulation Functions"."

This relates to the manipulation of fields in a computer programming language.

None of these relate to any form of space drive. Using 'buzz words' out of context will not find anything relevant to what you are attempting to research.

If you *really* want a space drive vaguely relating to electric propulsion then what you are looking for is an ion drive; one of the most interesting is the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) electro-magnetic thruster.

But as you have blocked my comments you won't read this.

Posted on Aug 22, 2009 1:22:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 22, 2009 1:25:03 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Marilyn, If you are going to post references to scientific endeavors, would you please do us all the courtesy of reading the material completely through, and qualify *before* posting that the endeavor went anywhere, produced any real results? It's called due diligence. Finding some title with a "buzzword", and then throwing it out here whether or not it amounts to anything, you are just embarrassing yourself, and wasting our time.

All I know of you is what I read of what you post, I have not been prejudiced one way or another.---and what I read makes me feel embarrassed for you; I lose respect for you, and am FAR less likely to waste any further time on whatever else you might have to say going forward.

I find it commendable of Martin Helsdon that he continues to respond to you, and continues in such a reasoned manner. He even still tries to HELP you, and point you towards science of real potential merit, such as the ion drive, which I saw featured on Science channel earlier this year.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 22, 2009 2:12:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 22, 2009 2:13:41 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
MO,

I've used this sequence, though without naming names, on the 'Search Engine Mishaps!' thread, and am now rejoicing in being a 'negative nit-picker'.

I wasn't able to face checking on the references on the last post on the Space Opera space drives thread as my 'skepticism quota' was subject to overload having read through too many of the 'Aliens' threads.

Ronald seems to have gone silent: I hope he hasn't been driven to perform 'funshi'.

Posted on Aug 22, 2009 2:32:34 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
I read your post. Elegant, restrained, subtle. Grin-worthy, yet legitimately short of smirk-worthy. At a certain point, one must allow oneself a modicum of satisfaction.

I doubt that Our Dear Mr. Crust would even remotely consider losing his head carryings-on such as these.

Posted on Aug 23, 2009 8:19:48 AM PDT
To My Ever-widening Band of Critics:

I never said I was a scientist. I am normal, inquisitive person. And I have a pretty thick hide. I could care less about the "negative posse" I've got, and their harping on "finding the end/discredit point", or that they have no respect for me, blah-blah-blah. You see my name on a post -- run the other way!

When I find something interesting, or relevant to this topic, I post it. Running down "whatever became of it" is not the point. The point is that something innovative and daring is/was being done, and I want to share the original data. Who knows? Maybe someone will see something relevant and still valuable in the original data, regardless of its "outcome".

What does amuse and confuse me, however, is how this thread in particular garners such constant and over-the-top negativity. MH at one point was practically begging me to rename this discussion! So methinks that there is indeed something valuable in this discussion, that causes the "negative posse" to rush right in to discredit the data, and me for posting it. Hmmmmm........

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2009 10:57:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 23, 2009 11:00:10 AM PDT
W. J. Dou says:
So basically what you're saying is you just want to swap links for someone to read. Sure, that's alright for most of us, but if you would just say that outright instead of trying to disguise it as something else, something more complex.

I appreciate Mr. Helsdon's, Ronald's, and as Helsdon has put it MO's posts. At first I thought Ronald was a bit of an ass (make that a lot), but then I saw the response of the original poster and saw "reason". I'm of the class that thinks that sometimes it's not enough just to say thing calmly and keep a level-head. Certain times people just need you to yell to get through (and Ronald seems to play this role), which, apparently, hasn't worked so far.

It's not nit-picking what the "critics" have said. Certain things are just physically or scientifically impossible, such as continuing to lift weight when you're in temporary muscle failure. And certain things are just not feasible at present, it's not made up that way, such as powering a space drive with anti-matter - just a teaspoon of it would bankrupt the US. Sure, it'd be feasible if everything in the world were free.

And since we're all here, even though this next question would be off-topic, I'm going to ask anyways. A page back someone was posting about whether or not one is a "quantum graviton type of person or a relativity spacetime curvature kind of guy". I'm curious to the different of the two.

I'm going to assume that one is a person who is more into string theory and another more into "regular", older scientific models. I've read up on "regular" science that has to do with subjects that interested me - like astrophysics, but I must admit that I haven't done much reading on string theory, mainly just because it's so different from "regular" science.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2009 11:49:31 AM PDT
Hi WJD,

I think (though not 100% sure) that the spacetime curvature theory is a 'continuous' type of theory. The rubber sheet analogy typically used is continuous, and there is no 'particle' associated with gravity. Bodies move towards each other because they warp and bend the sheet, and the shortest path through the sheet is a curve.

For quantum gravitons, the theory is that some body and another pull towards each other because they 'exchange' gravitons. That also would mean, I think, that there is some smallest 'bit' of gravity that could be exchanged.

Both theories avoid Newton's action at a distance problem. That is, how can one object mysteriously affect something way over there? For magnetism, it is because electrons are exchanged. TOR says for gravity, it is because space/time is warped. A quantum gravity theory says that it is because some particle gets bounced back and forth.

The reason they are working on a quantum gravity theory is that ALL the other forces of nature seem to work with a quantum explanation. AND, when calculating what happens near a black hole, TOR gets all sorts of infinities which make no sense and conflict with quantum theory.

The weird thing I find about quantum theory is that the particles of exchange can be 'virtual particles' meaning that they can't be measured or spotted going back and forth. Huh? So they aren't real particles, but made up particles that act like real particles? Very strange.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2009 11:54:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 23, 2009 12:02:07 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Hi W. J. Dou,

"quantum graviton type of person or a relativity spacetime curvature kind of guy".

I *believe* this is referring to whether gravity results from:

* Particles within quantum field theories (though this has problems at the size of a Planck length.) There's the on-going search for the Higgs boson, though there are models that don't require it. The M-theory variant of string theory may provide an answer, or not.

or

* The curvature of space by mass (though there is then the issue of what 'creates' the mass of an atom as in the total mass of its protons, neutrons and electrons.)

This is one of the areas where general relativity and quantum physics don't match up, though Loop Quantum Gravity (as part of Canonical Quantum Gravity, not as a spin foam model) looks promising.

There's an entertaining article in the June 2009 issue of New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity

Section 6 is relevant to this thread (copied below), though it notes that the claimed instances of countering gravity have failed to be replicated. Podkletnov has already been discussed on this thread; Martin Tajmar has made a number of claims (one cannot be replicated, another has been retracted as merely a property of rotating low temperature helium), his work on Heim theory - mentioned and ignored earlier in this thread - is more promising but not without its own issues.

-------------------

Though the notion of building a gravity shield has a long history, no one has yet managed to do it. Perhaps the most famous attempt was by Russian émigré scientist Evgeny Podkletnov.

In 1992, Podkletnov published a paper in which he claimed to have detected a 2 per cent weight reduction around a spinning disc made out of a ceramic superconductor.

Martin Tajmar, a researcher at the company Austrian Research Centers, published a similar claim in 2003 and was able to pursue the research further with funding from the European Space Agency. Three years later Tajmar and ESA announced they had measured an effect in a spinning superconductor that might, with further development, be harnessed to affect gravity. Others have tried and failed to replicate this effect.

Why does anyone think it might even be possible? Because relativity does not rule out the possibility that the bent space-time that gives rise to gravity's pull can be "unbent". "By appropriate arrangements, it should be possible to diminish - or enhance - the influence of gravity," says physicist Bahram Mashhoon at the University of Missouri.

Tajmar invokes an effect called "gravito-magnetism" as a way of doing this. According to general relativity, the mass of a rotating body will drag space-time around with it, putting a twist into it. Just as a spinning charge creates a magnetic field, a spinning mass creates a gravito-magnetic field.

This should have real-world effects - the Earth's spin, for instance, should cause satellite orbits to precess - but you won't be surprised to hear there are practical issues with using the idea to reduce gravity. "The relativistic effects are extremely small in practice," Mashhoon points out.

Though it's not even clear that a spinning superconductor has any gravito-magnetic influence, people should not be ridiculed for continuing to research in this area, Mashhoon says. It might just turn out to be the only way we can achieve interstellar travel. Some researchers have suggested that above a certain critical speed, relativity can give repulsive gravitational effects that could be used for propulsion as well as gravity shielding. "With present technology, it would take us about a million years or so to go to the nearest neighbouring star," Mashhoon says. "It is hard to blame people for looking into these things."

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2009 2:17:56 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Marilyn,

Probably pointless to comment, but as you've now accused me of being "a hybrid involved in a Slow Invasion" in an edit to one of your messages on another thread...

"When I find something interesting, or relevant to this topic, I post it. Running down "whatever became of it" is not the point. The point is that something innovative and daring is/was being done, and I want to share the original data. Who knows? Maybe someone will see something relevant and still valuable in the original data, regardless of its "outcome"."

In any study, its results and conclusions are of primary importance; to suggest that the study is on-going and to describe early stages and speculation as fact is to lay a trail of intellectual deception, whether by honest error or not.

Often early statements are distorted by the media (such as one your quoted earlier which stated that levitation had been performed, but if you read on to the second page the scientist claimed no such action, but that this was his next intended goal - and there is no subsequent report of success) or by anti-science sites striving to claim support for discredited or withdrawn statements.

When the misinformation of pseudoscience is reported and criticised, you term this negative nit-picking. The posts you praise as positive are those that support and align with your own beliefs, whether regarding flying-saucers, the B-2 using antigravity, STS-48 witnessing aliens being blown up by a secret US death ray fired from Australia, or some other 'fringe' belief. ['Fringe' is being polite.]

This denotes a closed mind. As to being a "normal, inquisitive person" you have now declared on another thread that "I am somewhat psychic. And, like most psychics, there are extra-sensory things I'm more sensitive to (and interested in) than others. And I am extremely interested in unexplainable paranormal experiences that may indicate presences near me in other dimensions."

This finally is a statement of your perspective: you are not interested in science but the 'paranormal'.

"What does amuse and confuse me, however, is how this thread in particular garners such constant and over-the-top negativity."

This is because antigravity 'research' is a field rife with hoaxers and pseudoscience. False science, anti-science, is damaging and destructive, misleading and corrupting. Debunking false statements is scarcely "over-the-top negativity", in fact everyone has been remarkably gentle and tolerant of your behaviour.

"MH at one point was practically begging me to rename this discussion!"

This was because I thought at the time you were genuinely interested in real research and scientific endeavour.

"So methinks that there is indeed something valuable in this discussion, that causes the "negative posse" to rush right in to discredit the data, and me for posting it. Hmmmmm........"

Sadly, it seems that rational and logical analysis of the (often irrelevant) sites you direct us to reinforces your false belief that there is some great conspiracy attempting to hide the 'truth' from you. I'm still not certain whether you realise that Proton are a Malaysian car manufacturer; their cars do not use a 'proton drive'.

My own personal interest and following of your subsequent postings resulted from your name-calling and bizarre statements. At first, not knowing your history on Amazon threads I thought that Ronald was doing you a disservice - I now understand and appreciate the use of the term 'wingnut' (though it also appears to have a political meaning).

Unfortunately, your methodology for finding 'interesting' information is flawed, as you do not open, read, and understand the sites, and you are unwilling or unable to distinguish between science, pseudoscience and anti-science. Basically, you are attempting to find 'information', 'speculation' and 'theories' that support your own beliefs.

I'm amused that you ignored my comment regarding your sighting of the 'goldie' UFO at Cahuilla Mountain, where there are numerous fault lines. Any such strange lights *may* be caused by the phenomena known as 'earthquake light' or 'earth light'. This is now well documented, even if the mechanisms are not fully understood, meaning that unusual luminous phenomenon can sometimes be seen in the sky in areas of tectonic stress, seismic activity and volcanic eruptions. 'Earth light' is not a fully accepted explanation but one that has garnered real research, even if the phenomenon is not understood and the idea is wrong.

This marks a major difference between the real investigation of UFOs and the alien believers: To jump to the assumption that these are alien vehicles or alien remotely controlled craft is the complex improbable 'answer'; Occam's Razor indicates an undocumented or unexplained or unrecognised natural phenomenon. And, inevitably, the alien believers often declare there is a conspiracy to hide information of alien visitors and that at some point there will be 'disclosure'.

I suppose that as you admit that you have a "pretty thick hide" this could be taken as evidence that David Icke is actually correct in his strange ideas of reptile aliens living on earth! [This statement is intended as a joke.] It is certainly no stranger than some of the things, copied below, that you have been saying about Ronald and myself.

A "clueless, bewildered" population? I fear so, but not for the reasons you describe. I was very very lucky to witness the launch of STS-1 on an official NASA stand three miles from the launch site; I have nothing but admiration for the achievements of American science and engineering, and its contribution to the technology and welfare of the West. However, having read through various threads on Amazon, that scientific age is now being undermined by widespread ignorance and superstition.

The people who counter your statements are not seeking to discredit you - you are doing that for yourself.

Recently updated statement by Marilyn on an Aliens thread:

***************

And yes, you asked the million dollar question: WHY do the M. Helsdons of the web work so diligently to explain away or stomp out every new speculative idea that is raised? The possibilities are amazing to consider:

--- He is taking money from a company working on beyond-speculative enterprises, and doesn't want to let the competition in on their little secret.

--- He is a paid dis-information specialist, in either the military or corporate world. Again, told to attack any new idea/theory with such ferocity that most posters abandon the thread, and never come back. (While the corporation or military entity knows the truth, and wants to keep it buried while they rake in billions from secret government contracts.)

--- He is possibly a hybrid involved in a Slow Invasion, and is doing his part to stomp out any and all interest in UFOs and ETs. A clueless, bewildered, never-saw-it-coming population is so much easier to overtake. (Check out the thread I started by hypothesizing how different ET invasions could take place. MH and RC were tripping over themselves to attack and discredit my speculations -- and me.)

To quote Deep Throat (from the Watergate era). "Just follow the money."

It's all about money and power, and how the well monied powerful will resort to literally anything to keep their power, and keep the money flowing.

The way his posts operate is a clue to his other-than-full-disclosure-attitude. His over-the-top ferocity and lengthy "explaining away" first responses are the most prominent clue, that he is acting on someone else's behalf. If his continuous hammering on the speculative idea/theory doesn't run off enough people, then he turns to attacking the poster, using a desperate mixture of ridicule, name-calling and faux feeling-sorry-for-the-poster who is so confused, mislead and downright looney. (NOT!)

If THAT fails, then he rushes to every new posting of dangerously new and outrageously possible idea/theory, and he and his buddies proceed with a back-and-forth twelve postings of nonsense. So that crucial posting ends up buried deep in junk no one wants to read, and all followers of that discussion bail.

Merely things to watch for. Just don't buy into their negative-stomping, and let these posters (like M. Helsdon and Ronald Craig) run you off from threads that are introducing some speculative ideas that are closer to the truth than these "stompers" -- and their backup corporations and/or military entities -- want anyone to believe.

Cheers!

Posted on Aug 23, 2009 3:56:33 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
I have to admit that I have suspected you, Martin, of being a "hybrid" from the very beginning. (I'm a little psychic, too, you see.) I'm glad Marilyn has finally confirmed this for me! :D

Confession time: I myself am also a hybrid; my mother was an Ohio Methodist and my father ... a large cheese. (Probably explains why he went off early in my childhood. As well as the crust, MO. I do try to shave it daily.) I am also in the pay of an ultra-secret government research organization. Which I identify with in an odd way, no doubt because I, too, am blessed with a massive endowment. ;D

Posted on Aug 24, 2009 4:38:11 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Ronald,

If you are "a little psychic" and Marilyn is "somewhat psychic" a Bene Gesserit blood lines programme seems in order to create the Kheeze Sanderwich, "the Shortening of the Way", "the One who can be in many forums at once"... 9-)

[Yes, this is off topic.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2009 5:21:09 PM PDT
"Did they try and fail?" **Paul Atredis, Dune**:)

Posted on Aug 24, 2009 6:00:00 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Kwi-satch Ha-der-ach
Give a dog a bone,
Shai-Hulud comes rolling home.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2009 6:25:08 PM PDT
Atomics!!!! :)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 25, 2009 9:09:11 PM PDT
If I knew how to "follow the money" I wouldn't be wasting my time on this post!

Assuming we want to talk about 'opposing' gravity with magnetics, have any of you owned a Levitron? I had one and it was great fun. You can find videos and descriptions of it by searching on Google. The only problem was in setup, the spinning top had a habit of flying away and you had to catch it quick or go chasing it. The same thing would happen as the top slowed down. I even had the extra base spinner which supposedly would keep hovering forever, but even VERY slight changes in room temperature would make the darn thing fly off by itself after 20 minutes or so. The manual even said you could fool your friends by putting the base in a desk drawer and have the top hover above your desk. I never did get that part to work.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2009 12:38:42 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
R.A. Lee,

"The manual even said you could fool your friends by putting the base in a desk drawer and have the top hover above your desk."

The base would have to be at the very top of the drawer, and the desk top very very thin to allow that to work. Ah, the nostalgia of toys and the manufacturer's claims versus the reality...

It's really disappointing that the world hasn't followed the history the media and toys promised: manned missions to Mars, Moon bases, large rotating space stations. I watched '2001' a few nights ago, and read a few chapters of the book and sadly concluded that the 'future' isn't what it was supposed to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2009 5:55:03 PM PDT
It seems to me that technology is rapidly outpacing mankind's cultural advancement. If we spent as much money on peaceful scientific endeavors as we do on making things for the purposes of destruction we might be in a different place today. But then, of course, we'd have to deal with all of our differences. We're doomed! :(

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2009 10:58:25 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Erik,

"If we spent as much money on peaceful scientific endeavors as we do on making things for the purposes of destruction we might be in a different place today."

Sadly, that probably isn't the case.

Research and technological innovation only occurs if someone is willing to pay for it: in the commercial world someone has to expect a tangible return as profit; non-commercial, non-governmental bodies finance a little pure science research; the largest source is governmental finance. In general governments will only finance what is likely to give them tangible results, either as popularity with their population or ruling elite (depending on the political system), or by providing them with some other benefit such as security. Therefore the very largest source of scientific and technological research tends to be civilian projects but mainly military projects. Even apparently civilian expenditure, such as the space race between the USA and USSR was mainly surrogate warfare as competition for national prestige with a significant payback into national security. A war by proxy to achieve a goal such as landing on the Moon was preferrable to a direct hot confrontation.

It was ever thus: since 1880 at the very least, with the competition in warship design and capability, military power has pushed forward scientific knowledge as expressed in technology and engineering. If you go back in history, bronze swords were better than copper, iron better than bronze etc. So human conflict is responsible for technological advancement as an expression of human culture. Without it, the world would be more peaceful but it would also have a far lower technology.

Arthur C. Clarke always hoped that the nations of the world would find space a more interesting field than war, and assumed that if the cold and hot wars ended, scientists and engineers would instead be employed discovering and creating peaceful solutions to the worlds problems - and reach for space, not in competition but in co-operation.

But... if the military-industrial-political triangle ended would politicians plough the same resources into peaceful projects? The likely answer is no: they'd want to save money and spend any peace dividend on something cheap and short term to win the approval of their supporters. Then there's the factor that the majority of their populations have no interest or understanding of real science and it wouldn't win votes.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2009 5:42:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 27, 2009 5:43:29 PM PDT
Unfortunately, I agree with Martin (it is Martin, right?). War and political conflict is what drives us forward, and it's hard to see that we would put as many resources into peaceful projects. Look at the autonomous robots area. In spite of things like the Roomba, I think it's the military pushing things along. The Predator drone and the DARPA Grand Challenge come to mind.

It somewhat irked me when I read that the only reason JFK set the goal of landing on the Moon was because the Russians were ahead of us in space technology. I read that they told him that the Russians would beat us to the first walk in space, 3 cosmonauts in space, even first orbiting of the moon. When he asked, "Well, what COULD we beat them at?" they told him the only chance was landing on the moon and returning. So, that's what he set as the goal.

BTW - years ago I read Clark's 3001 The Final Odyssey. The most interesting part of the book was the appendix, where he said that he thought that he way overestimated how long some of the technologies would take. I guess he's on the peaceful techno optimist side.

PS...my name is Bob.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2009 6:40:01 PM PDT
Hi "M,"
My posting was more of an idealogical nature than a realistic one. As a U.S. Army veteran, I am well aware of War's ever-increasing contributions to science. It just couldn't be more backwards.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2009 9:30:47 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 29, 2009 7:50:39 AM PDT]

Posted on Aug 28, 2009 9:47:54 PM PDT
Zack G.C. says:
Wow, lady, you need help.
I'd feel bad for you if it were true, but I don't, because it's not.
You've pasted the same message in every discussion here.
Your message has nothing to do with SF either.
It's spam and that's all.
Please, just quit before you get flamed worse than this.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  867
Initial post:  Jul 17, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions