-=> Quoting Richard Meic to Relatif Tuinn <=-
 RT>>> Appear? You would have to provide evidence that they are
 RT>>> actually gravitationally bound first. Can you?
 
 AC>> I asserted that there are quasars which *appear* to be
 AC>> gravitationally bound to objects thought to be much closer. Would
 AC>> it be worth my while to dig up references?
 
 RT> Like I said, "you would have to provide evidence that they are
 RT> actually gravitationally bound"
 RM> I noticed how "appear" was punched up for effect.  My personal view?
 RM> "Appear" is not good enough.  The Earth *appeared* to be flat many
 RM> centuries ago, yes?
Moron, I'm more careful with my language than any of you
Liberal losers.  No doubt this is a reflection of my superior
ability to use the tools of reason and logic.
I presented three lines of evidence that quasars are relatively
close.  One of those lines is that some quasars appear to be
gravitationally bound to objects thought to be much closer.
Your fellow moron (Tuinn) after acknowledge that I said "appear"
changed the argument from "appear" to "are" (and then he
repeated that distortion).  That is why "appear" is "punched
up."
The question you would ask, if not such a moron, is why did I say
"appear."  1) Because that's what it looks like and no one has
visited a quasar to verify where it is 2) Chimps plead that it is
just an illusion (i.e. such quasars are directly, but far, behind
undetected massive objects).
What's worse than being stupid is being deliberately stupid.
Keep up the crusade for censorship and indoctrination because
you'll never win with evidence and reason.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066
---------------