T
Tim McNamara
Guest
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>
>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>
>>
>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>> me wrong.
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
loudest opinion that wins the day.
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>
>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>
>>
>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>> me wrong.
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
loudest opinion that wins the day.