TruthSeeker1234 Apology To Mackey

TruthSeeker1234 · 14th September 2006, 08:24 AM

I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would favor an asymmetrical building collapse over a symmetrical one. In opposing this view, Mackey invoked Newton's third law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaciton). In my haste, I mistakenly thought Mackey had invoked the third law of thermodynamics. Believing this, I called Mackey's position "inane".

It was wrong of me to say that, and I take it back. I'm sorry.

jhunter1163 · 14th September 2006, 08:37 AM

*awards TS1234 five respect points for public apology*

R.Mackey · 14th September 2006, 08:45 AM

Thank you. I appreciate this gesture.

If you would like to discuss why I believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics says no such thing, I would be glad to explain.

Z · 14th September 2006, 08:48 AM

Wow... OK, Truthseeker1234, I'm impressed. This is really a first for the CT crowd.

Oliver · 14th September 2006, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would favor an asymmetrical building collapse over a symmetrical one. In opposing this view, Mackey invoked Newton's third law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaciton). In my haste, I mistakenly thought Mackey had invoked the third law of thermodynamics. Believing this, I called Mackey's position "inane". It was wrong of me to say that, and I take it back. I'm sorry.

Seriously, Truthseeker1234: Is it your job to disquiet people in here?

You obviously have a problem with the controlled demolition
stuff. It seems, that you don´t understand why the buildings
fell. So i also think, that you have a problem with the official
story. On the other hand it brings me to the conclusion, that
you might believe in an involvement of the government.

So let me ask you:
What exactly is your point? Just go back - what do you really
want to know? Take some time to articulate the exact question
you have.

Regards,
Oliver

NobbyNobbs · 14th September 2006, 09:00 AM

Truthseeker:

I think your apology is appropriate and well done. Nice job.

Your physics, on the other hand, needs some work yet. Try an experiment for me. Take a bucket of sand and pour it slowly, from a height, onto the floor.

Please explain why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't insist that the resulting pile be asymmetrical.

Regnad Kcin · 14th September 2006, 09:04 AM

A very nice gesture on the OP's part.

DavidJames · 14th September 2006, 09:05 AM

I hate to play the forum cop twice in one morning, but as much as I've ranted against this guy since he showed up, he did have the decency to start this thread apologizing for an error in judgment. I applaud him for that.

I will gladly continue my rants against him in the other threads which deserve it, but not this one, I hope others would agree.

Stellafane · 14th September 2006, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would favor an asymmetrical building collapse over a symmetrical one. In opposing this view, Mackey invoked Newton's third law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaciton). In my haste, I mistakenly thought Mackey had invoked the third law of thermodynamics. Believing this, I called Mackey's position "inane".

It was wrong of me to say that, and I take it back. I'm sorry.

I may not agree with your theories and views, but it takes a big person to admit a mistake, publicly or otherwise. God knows I have a difficult time doing it myself. I applaud you for it.

14th September 2006, 08:24 AM	#1
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	TruthSeeker1234 Apology To Mackey I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would favor an asymmetrical building collapse over a symmetrical one. In opposing this view, Mackey invoked Newton's third law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaciton). In my haste, I mistakenly thought Mackey had invoked the third law of thermodynamics. Believing this, I called Mackey's position "inane". It was wrong of me to say that, and I take it back. I'm sorry.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

14th September 2006, 08:48 AM	#4
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Wow... OK, Truthseeker1234, I'm impressed. This is really a first for the CT crowd.
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

14th September 2006, 09:00 AM	#6
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,630	Truthseeker: I think your apology is appropriate and well done. Nice job. Your physics, on the other hand, needs some work yet. Try an experiment for me. Take a bucket of sand and pour it slowly, from a height, onto the floor. Please explain why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't insist that the resulting pile be asymmetrical.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

14th September 2006, 09:04 AM	#7
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,222	A very nice gesture on the OP's part.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

14th September 2006, 09:05 AM	#8
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,088	I hate to play the forum cop twice in one morning, but as much as I've ranted against this guy since he showed up, he did have the decency to start this thread apologizing for an error in judgment. I applaud him for that. I will gladly continue my rants against him in the other threads which deserve it, but not this one, I hope others would agree.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

14th September 2006, 08:37 AM	#2
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,622	awards TS1234 five respect points for public apology

14th September 2006, 08:45 AM	#3
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Thank you. I appreciate this gesture. If you would like to discuss why I believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics says no such thing, I would be glad to explain.

14th September 2006, 08:53 AM	#5
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would favor an asymmetrical building collapse over a symmetrical one. In opposing this view, Mackey invoked Newton's third law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaciton). In my haste, I mistakenly thought Mackey had invoked the third law of thermodynamics. Believing this, I called Mackey's position "inane". It was wrong of me to say that, and I take it back. I'm sorry. Seriously, Truthseeker1234: Is it your job to disquiet people in here? You obviously have a problem with the controlled demolition stuff. It seems, that you don´t understand why the buildings fell. So i also think, that you have a problem with the official story. On the other hand it brings me to the conclusion, that you might believe in an involvement of the government. So let me ask you: What exactly is your point? Just go back - what do you really want to know? Take some time to articulate the exact question you have. Regards, Oliver

14th September 2006, 09:05 AM	#9
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,289	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would favor an asymmetrical building collapse over a symmetrical one. In opposing this view, Mackey invoked Newton's third law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaciton). In my haste, I mistakenly thought Mackey had invoked the third law of thermodynamics. Believing this, I called Mackey's position "inane". It was wrong of me to say that, and I take it back. I'm sorry. I may not agree with your theories and views, but it takes a big person to admit a mistake, publicly or otherwise. God knows I have a difficult time doing it myself. I applaud you for it.
	__________________ Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com