[at-l] Cell phones VS Nature - An attempt to clarify - LONG

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 8/3/2005 1:03:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shane@theplacewithnoname.com writes:
*
*
*
I guess you're trying to say that the AT is animate and not meant for
people?
*
*
*

         Animate, yes, incredibly so. So much so that it should never be 
prone to, or have to answer to, casual indifference. 

          Again Shane, we have discussed enough that the strawman of trying 
to pose me as saying the AT isn't meant for people exposes your methods for 
what they are. This issue of being "meant for people" is something you invented 
in order to confuse the provable scientific realities we've covered. It is, as 
you quoted me, disingenuous sophistry inventing fabricated terms designed to 
bypass the real, whole, and dynamic argument. As you quoted me as saying, it is 
a false argument. Meanwhile you are avoiding substantial Trail ideas at your 
own approval. Plainly available Trail information backs what I wrote. You 
sound like you're making things up off the top of your head. We are really dealing 
with this on different levels. One should be protected from the other. Guess 
which one results in a wilder Trail? My arguments are still here and firm. 
Yours dissipated in a smokescreen of accusations of personal attack...






*