The interaction between the post-perovskite phase change and a thermo-chemical boundary layer near the core-mantle boundary
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4GWC13T-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2eb505b1dc1b2b2635cf9a0e9e8c2539

Ciatations
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=2005E%26PSL.238..204N&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST
No , George Bush is not mentioned anywhere here
Full Record Information
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2005E%26PSL.238..204N
Piezoelectric & electrostriction effects
http://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/45/813/
George Bush not mentioned anywhere here again,
The Piezodielectric Effect and Electrostriction in Anisotropic or Isotropic
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v51/i12/p1096_1
Bugger , George Bush is not mentioned again.
Acoustic wave guides
http://qjmam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/search?qbe=qjmamj;53/3/429&journalcode=qjmamj&minscore=5000

Do you know something , George Bush is not mentioned in any publication.
Now can we go back to the original topic.
You could have done that.

<< Now can we go back to the original topic. >>

Hmmm?

You are a bit of a worry, All-.

First of all, you re-publish, verbatim, a considerable amount of a tract on earthquake activity that you dredged up from a conspiracy site.

Now you want us to believe it was all in the interests of science?

Come on, none of us came down in the last shower of rain.

You can add as many random scientific references as you like. you still cannot get away from the fact that:

- you did not properly attribute the extract in an way, or even hint that your posts were simply transcriptions of the work of another

- the person whose work you stole is a notorious conspiracy-addict, with a penchant for blaming the ills of the world on US Security agencies

- the site from which you chose to lift your information went on to state the following:

"In the post 9-11 environment, American foreign policy has adopted a new strategy known as the "Bush Doctrine". This strategy calls for pre-emptive strikes against any nation, group or individual that threatens American national security interests. As I write this document (in early December 2004), several apparently coincidental events weigh heavy in my mind. Was the massive earthquake in southern Iran, near the city of Bam a natural occurrence, or was it an example of the Bush Doctrine in action?

"Recently the American government has expressed it's displeasure with the Japanese and Chinese governments over their continued technological and financial involvement with Iran. Both Japan and China have also experienced a sudden rash of earthquake activity.

"Coincidence or something more sinister? Perhaps you should ask George W. Bush."

And now you come over all innocent... like - who, me?

>>Do you know something , George Bush is not mentioned in any publication. Now can we go back to the original topic.<<

Question: what exactly is the original topic?

Is it the same one espoused by the writer whose work you lifted?

Or something different.

Do tell.

Well for a start Pericles, The only thing lifted is the notion that you are reasonably intelligent ; for a start ; and it is not about George Bush doctrine at all;

you come unstuck there, primarily because three quarters of the commentary on OLO would also have included John Howard and Tony Blair. So it is not directed at them. Is it?

So continuing to recite the obvious folly is puerile ridicules and absurd; edit out the Politic garbage and we are left with a very interesting subject, until you came along at least.

It would be quite clear that you are not interested in the underlying content of the subject matter what so ever Pericles , but at least some may have a chance to learn a bit more about it , and have some interest in the subject .

How many Hyperlinks in this place do you use when they are posted Pericles ; Exactly ; if any , not many .
And how many comments can we make Pericles ?
You buggered up the final instalment , so you can be quite proud of yourself once more . I guess as usual , you just could not help your self ; At least try.

Isotropic transformation optics:
approximate acoustic and quantum cloaking :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.0085v2.pdf

It is no longer desirable to argue with an Idiot Pericles

Jeez, All-

>>You buggered up the final instalment , so you can be quite proud of yourself once more.<<

That's all you have to say for yourself, is it?

Nothing about the deception that you tried to pull, pretending someone else's work was your own?

Apart from the pretentious headline, and a condescending "Ok , hang in there now...", they were all someone else's words.

Complete with geological flummery and abstruse mathematics that - I am absolutely sure - you did not, and do not, understand.

And now you confirm that you were intending to round it off with someone else's conspiracy theory.

Sad.

And it was that conspiracy theory that mentioned the Bush doctrine, not me. I'm not even sure I know what it is. Or was.

>>It would be quite clear that you are not interested in the underlying content of the subject matter what so ever Pericles , but at least some may have a chance to learn a bit more about it , and have some interest in the subject<<

I'm sure that my comments would not have deterred the audience you are targetting, All-

>>It is no longer desirable to argue with an Idiot Pericles<<

Who is arguing?

Not you - you have admitted that you freely cut-and-pasted the work of an online conspiracy theorist.

And not me either. Springing someone who is a blatant plagiarist is not open to argument.

Have a great day.

I'm still wondering what the point of All-'s thread topic is.

It wasn't made clear in the first, second or third post.
In fact ... it still hasn't been made, unless of course Pericles is on to something :)

And I am even more dumbfounded why the editor (GrahamY) let it through in the first place.