Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote: <snip ****>
>>> You're easily confused today, jim. You might want to check into
>>> why that is. You're extolling the responsibility and accuracy of
>>> Sheldon, and yet here he is, voluntarily hosting and lending his
>>> imprimatur to Jobst's FAQ- who you covertly accuse of being a fraud
>>> practically every time you touch a keyboard to post to r.b.t. The
>>> cognitive dissonance is striking.
>> while i'm sure he can speak for himself on this issue, sheldon is not
>> claiming authorship, he's simply hosting.
>
> Hence my use of the word "hosting," jim.
>
>> "why" may be the point to question, but he's prepared to accept
>> things on face value from what i can see.
>>
>> /my/ point is that sheldon updates, jobst doesn't. sheldon doesn't
>> tell us more than he knows, jobst does. but you won't discuss that
>> distinction because it's not part of the fight, is it.
>
> Sheldon is fairly circumspect in his posts, I agree. Jobst is- like
> you- willing to go out on a limb and extrapolate from his base of
> knowledge and experience. The striking thing is that you regularly do
> everything you accuse Jobst of, yet you are so convinced of your
> rightness that you can't see it.
i don't say stuff i don't know - that's jobst's department. but you'd
know that if you knew enough to know.
> I have seen Jobst back down a number
> of times when someone proves one of his contentions wrong with good math
> or empirical data.
so why won't he correct his position on anodizing, fatigue, deformation,
brinelling, etc.?
> You, not so much. You insist they don't understand
> you rather than coming to your own understanding that your arguments
> often fail to prove or compel. Instead of improving the quality of your
> argument, your logic and writing deteriorates as you get manifestly
> frustrated and angry.
i get frustrated with fools. and that's my own damn-fool fault. but
/you/, who repeatedly can't or won't understand basic engineering math
and principles, absolutely cannot claim that i "fail to prove or compel"
since you clearly don't have sufficient knowledge. but if fail to
convince pigs to sing, that doesn't mean /i/ don't know the notes and
/you/ sure as hell can't claim the contrary.
>
> I guess the difference comes down to Jobst seeming to be mostly
> dedicated to advancing the common understanding of bikes, and you
> seeming to be mostly dedicated to bringing down Jobst a peg or two. The
> former is helpful to me, the latter is not. It's too bad, really. If
> you are, as you claim, trained in materials science then you could bring
> a lot to the discussion.
i can't bring anything to a discussion with you if it's over your head.
see above for the stupidity of arguing with fools.
> I've appreciated some of the rational posts
> you've made on the subject.
i wonder why that sounds so insincere? perhaps because you don't know
enough to differentiate?
> But you'd have to pack away the obvious
> animus you feel towards Jobst to make it so.
believe it or not, i really don't give a rat's ass about jobst
personally - i'll call out "extrapolation" whoever perpetrates it. ask
krygowski. what i care about is the deliberate corruption of common
learning for the sake of personal ego. why do people, as you put it,
"extrapolate" on facts so easily independently checked? it's beyond
bizarre.
