In article <
[email protected]>,
jim beam <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, dear. There you go again. Your standard practice is to
> > distort what others say, and then to refute the distorted version
> > rather than what the person actually wrote, and then you persuade
> > yourself that you've won the argument. It's called a straw man
> > fallacy, which you use so much that you had best stay away from
> > open flames.
> >
> > This is what makes you a liar and a fraud, by the way. It's sad,
> > because you might be right about stuff. But you are so focused on
> > taking down Jobst (and also Krygowski and Annan) that you fail to
> > contribute meaningfully to the discussions. Instead of providing
> > useful information, you merely aim to discredit.
>
> i present facts. the facts peak for themselves.
Few facts, jim. You frequently present supposition and opinion that you
have conflated with facts. And when the fact that you have the wrong
end of the stick is pointed out to you, you become rude, arrogant and
insulting.
> i contest ********.
You certainly spout enough of it.
> and brown nosing.
LOL.
> > Ethical and knowledgeable contributors use their knowledge to help
> > explain things and make it understandable to others, You use yours
> > as a club to demean others. Your participation here has nothing to
> > do with advancing the collective understanding and everything to do
> > with your bitterness and your ego trip.
> >
> >> you're insane if you think your inability to study and understand
> >> math and engineering principles give you the ability to write ****
> >> like that.
> >
> > I am quite aware that my knowledge of engineering is minimal, jim.
>
> no ****. but it sure doesn't stop you expressing underinformed
> opinion!
>
> > That's why I appreciate engineers who can write in plain English-
> > after all, as Feynmann pointed out, "if you can't explain it in
> > plain English you don't understand it yourself."
>
> that's ******** you sycophantic brown nose. by your twisted logic,
> jobst writing "in plain english" [and quoting feynmann] that bearings
> don't brinell is acceptable [to pick just one example], even when
> it's fact that they do.
I didn't mention Jobst. Jobst's writing is often not in very plain
English, in fact.
> utter ****-sucking ********.
You are merely vulgar now.
> > Fortunately there are plain language
> > descriptions of most engineering principles that are easily found
> > on the Internets using the Google, so I can fill in some of the
> > gaps in my understanding when they present themselves. I also
> > appreciate the engineers who provide ways to check things out at
> > home in a simple and straightforward manner- something I don't
> > recall you ever doing.
>
> no, you get bamboozled by ******** because you don't know any
> different.
> and worse, you defend your ignorance!
Perhaps you just don't get the fact that it is your arguments that fail
to be compelling time and time and time again. Part of that is simply
due to the fact that you waste so much time and energy on character
assassination. You appear to be little interested in improving the
quality of the discussion, and highly motivated by self-aggrandizement
(which is humorous in that you hide your identity...).
> >> your b.s. about "ejection" force exceeding retention force was a
> >> peach, especially when you kept on repeating it. but your
> >> subsequent howlers about iso standards being "regulations" and
> >> minimums being maximums -
> >
> > More of your distortions and lies. First, I was talking about CPSC
> > regulations not ISO standards, and I made that very clear in the
> > context (identifying them specifically as CPSC regulations and
> > providing the link to the regulations themselves).
>
> really? you cited cpsc linkage? funny, my news reader seems to have
> edited that out. and annan doesn't cite cpsc, he quotes iso.
Yup. I quoted the text of the CPSC regulations. Provided the link too.
Also noted that the CPSC intended to increase the pullout force
resistance, too.
> > Second, I never confused minimums
> > and maximums; you did that in at attempt to discredit and obfuscate
> > when it was clear that the facts didn't back up your position. You
> > will never win by lying. Haven't you learned that by now?
>
> ********.
What's "********?" You think you *can* win by lying? Rovianism may
work in politics, it has no hope in science.
> "Those regulations set a minimum standard for the maximum practical
> clamping force that can be achieved with the skewer."
>
> there's nothing maximal about a minimal standard.
Isn't it interesting that I can't find the post in the Google archives
where I supposedly wrote that. Do you have a specific citation for it?
> >> well dude, you do ahead and shroud your fragile little mind in all
> >> kinds of excuse, but the fact is, you're not qualified to endorse
> >> the use of toilet paper, let alone anything with numbers attached
> >> to it.
> >
> > Back to base ad hominem and invective, evidence again of the
> > weakness of your position and your logical armamentarium. And
> > perhaps also evidence of some some things about your personality
> > and character as well.
> >
> >> you're utterly innumerate.
> >
> > Not utterly, no.
>
> really? so is 1600N > 5000N?
Nope. But you can't guarantee that the right side of that expression is
5000N. That's the part you kept dancing around. Your entire position
is posited on the assumption- rather than a fact- that the right side of
the equation is necessarily higher than the left side. It's a
foundation of sand.
> > I can do arithmetic, basic algebra and have a good
> > understanding of statistics (since that applies directly to my
> > field of science, it was required in graduate school). I have
> > never had a need to learn advanced mathematics so I can't do that
> > stuff, and as a result can't always follow Luns's math. From what
> > you've posted it looks like you can't follow it either. In fact,
> > come to think of it, your participation pretty much disappears when
> > the heavy math comes out. What's up with that? Perhaps you are
> > not as numerate as you pretend.
>
> yeah, i'm a real dumb-ass. and a photo fraud. and you're real
> useful with all those fine technical contributions you make. go back
> to the bedroom brown-nose. your master awaits.
Again you're just being sad and pathetic. It's like being in an
argument with a 12 year old.