If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 2013-09-19, jim beam > wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 08:44 AM, Brent wrote: >> On 2013-09-18, jim beam > wrote: >>> On 09/17/2013 08:43 AM, Brent wrote: >>>> On 2013-09-17, jim beam > wrote: >>>>> On 09/17/2013 04:18 AM, . wrote: >>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 09:38 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 08:27 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...HEP001604.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks, i already have one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i note that you're too chicken-**** to ask me to prove it. too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken-**** and too retarded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You've proven you don't many times. It's in your language. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>> owned >>>>>>>>>>>>> and read engineering text books you'd write much more clearly and be >>>>>>>>>>>>> able to effectively communicate with degreed engineers. It's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>> readily apparent you don't have this sort of background self taught >>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I find it amusing that he balks at providing bona fides due to >>>>>>>>>>>> a thinly veiled excuse concerning the reliability of credentials >>>>>>>>>>>> on usenet, but is laughably anxious (insultingly so) to offer >>>>>>>>>>>> "proof" here that he has a specific book in his possession. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> as opposed to the laughability of two yellow backed clowns that >>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>> strawmen rather than actually take the risk of proving themselves >>>>>>>>>>> wrong??? >>>>>>>>>>> you two need to grow a pair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The projection and irony are stifling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?????????!!!!!! cojones - you should get some! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Repeated, baseless pretense, not surprisingly, continues to fail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> said the yellow-ass trying to use an electrical analogy for fluid flow. >>>>>>> that may "work" in 5th grade, but hardly fits someone pretending to be a >>>>>>> "degreed engineer". >>>>>> >>>>>> While it is a well accepted tenet that there are no perfect >>>>>> analogies, see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html, to >>>>>> begin to suggest that fluid and electrical flows are not textbook >>>>>> analogous examples is at least as ridiculous as is an offer to >>>>>> prove possession of an article by a statement on a newsgroup. >>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/watcir.html & >>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...c/watcir2.html >>>>> >>>>> hyperphysics is, as self-stated, "A resource that was initiated as a >>>>> resource for local high school physics teachers". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.cns.cornell.edu/cipt/labs...erCircuits.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> http://video.mit.edu/watch/series-an...-analogy-10933 >>>>> >>>>> that doesn't prove your point in the slightest. quite the contrary - >>>>> they have to gets arts majors through some science modules, so that's >>>>> how they do it. anybody claiming to be a "degreed engineer" relying on >>>>> that stuff is either out of their mind or an idiot bull****ter. >>>> >>>> One writes and speaks for the intended audience. >>> >>> you speak /for/ the audience??? you, ah, might want to re-phrase that. >>> if you have the slightest clue what "ambiguity" means at any rate. on >>> second thoughts, don't bother. >> >> I don't know if you're trying a usenet funny or what, but even though I >> don't speak backyard hack, > you apparently don't speak english either as my flagging your clumsy > ambiguity clearly went right over your head. It's only ambiguity to a backyard hack who has never had to give a technical presentation in his life. just put what I wrote into google and see what comes up. It's entirely about how to speak to an audience. You're just being an ass playing usenet games. >> I do attempt to write in a way you have a >> chance of understanding. > no, you write what /you/ understand. which isn't much. and that's why > you don't understand why i take issue with your retard driveling > nonsense when you get it wrong. I haven't gotten anything wrong. You simply don't know the correct terms nor how to use them properly. Likely because you've never used them except with yourself. >> However, if you'd prefer the style of >> engineering text books I can do that. > just like you can go ahead and explain mohr's circle w.r.t. cup and cone > fracture? sure, i'd love to see that!!! This absurd behavior of yours speaks volumes about you. The simple fact is you have some serious emotional/mental issues about your own abilities or not completing formal education or something where you lash out at anyone who has done those things you didn't achieve for whatever reason. You then combine this with a sense of arrogance. But in the end you wrench on Hondas in your yard while those you insult work as engineers. Whatever your problem is you should get over it. >> Not that you'd have a chance of >> understanding it. > you don't even understand what "understanding" means.. Go pick up a copy of that book. Read it. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 09/18/2013 08:03 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-09-19, jim beam > wrote: >> On 09/18/2013 08:44 AM, Brent wrote: >>> On 2013-09-18, jim beam > wrote: >>>> On 09/17/2013 08:43 AM, Brent wrote: >>>>> On 2013-09-17, jim beam > wrote: >>>>>> On 09/17/2013 04:18 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 09:38 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 08:27 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...HEP001604.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks, i already have one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i note that you're too chicken-**** to ask me to prove it. too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken-**** and too retarded. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've proven you don't many times. It's in your language. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> owned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and read engineering text books you'd write much more clearly and be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to effectively communicate with degreed engineers. It's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>> readily apparent you don't have this sort of background self taught >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it amusing that he balks at providing bona fides due to >>>>>>>>>>>>> a thinly veiled excuse concerning the reliability of credentials >>>>>>>>>>>>> on usenet, but is laughably anxious (insultingly so) to offer >>>>>>>>>>>>> "proof" here that he has a specific book in his possession. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as opposed to the laughability of two yellow backed clowns that >>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>> strawmen rather than actually take the risk of proving themselves >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong??? >>>>>>>>>>>> you two need to grow a pair. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The projection and irony are stifling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?????????!!!!!! cojones - you should get some! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Repeated, baseless pretense, not surprisingly, continues to fail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> said the yellow-ass trying to use an electrical analogy for fluid flow. >>>>>>>> that may "work" in 5th grade, but hardly fits someone pretending to be a >>>>>>>> "degreed engineer". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While it is a well accepted tenet that there are no perfect >>>>>>> analogies, see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html, to >>>>>>> begin to suggest that fluid and electrical flows are not textbook >>>>>>> analogous examples is at least as ridiculous as is an offer to >>>>>>> prove possession of an article by a statement on a newsgroup. >>>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/watcir.html & >>>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...c/watcir2.html >>>>>> >>>>>> hyperphysics is, as self-stated, "A resource that was initiated as a >>>>>> resource for local high school physics teachers". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.cns.cornell.edu/cipt/labs...erCircuits.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://video.mit.edu/watch/series-an...-analogy-10933 >>>>>> >>>>>> that doesn't prove your point in the slightest. quite the contrary - >>>>>> they have to gets arts majors through some science modules, so that's >>>>>> how they do it. anybody claiming to be a "degreed engineer" relying on >>>>>> that stuff is either out of their mind or an idiot bull****ter. >>>>> >>>>> One writes and speaks for the intended audience. >>>> >>>> you speak /for/ the audience??? you, ah, might want to re-phrase that. >>>> if you have the slightest clue what "ambiguity" means at any rate. on >>>> second thoughts, don't bother. >>> >>> I don't know if you're trying a usenet funny or what, but even though I >>> don't speak backyard hack, > >> you apparently don't speak english either as my flagging your clumsy >> ambiguity clearly went right over your head. > > It's only ambiguity to a backyard hack who has never had to give a > technical presentation in his life. oh brother. if only you knew. > just put what I wrote into google > and see what comes up. It's entirely about how to speak to an > audience. You're just being an ass playing usenet games. no, idiot. example: a congress critter speaks /for/ their electorate in the house, but /to/ voters when on the stump. you're not speaking /for/ "the audience" because you're not expressing their opinions, just your own - you're speaking /to/ them [and making a real hash of it]. you can speak "for their benefit", but you need to re-phrase what you said in that way. which is what i originally said. but no, you just blathered blindly on, completely unaware of your gaffe, even after it's been flagged. because you're a retard and you just don't get it. > >>> I do attempt to write in a way you have a >>> chance of understanding. > >> no, you write what /you/ understand. which isn't much. and that's why >> you don't understand why i take issue with your retard driveling >> nonsense when you get it wrong. > > I haven't gotten anything wrong. You simply don't know the correct > terms nor how to use them properly. Likely because you've never used > them except with yourself. go back to your old junior english teacher and tell them you need remedial. urgently. > >>> However, if you'd prefer the style of >>> engineering text books I can do that. > >> just like you can go ahead and explain mohr's circle w.r.t. cup and cone >> fracture? sure, i'd love to see that!!! > > This absurd behavior of yours speaks volumes about you. yeah, my absurd behavior is that i'm wasting time with a total retard that can't even speak english, let alone find a ****ing spell checker without having it crammed up their dumb retarded ass. > The simple fact > is you have some serious emotional/mental issues about your own > abilities or not completing formal education or something where you lash > out at anyone who has done those things you didn't achieve for whatever > reason. You then combine this with a sense of arrogance. But in the end > you wrench on Hondas in your yard while those you insult work as > engineers. Whatever your problem is you should get over it. i have a problem with people that masquerade as "engineers" when they're clueless retards whose minds are so closed, the possibility that if they're having a problem with something, that they might, just possibly, have ****ed up. you are such a person. you **** up. but instead of sitting back and trying to figure out why or how, [as a real engineer would], you just blather and bull**** and blame me for what /you/ did wrong. now, why i'm obliging your retardation is another matter, but your total lack of awareness on what boils down to a technical limitation on what you're apparently capable of comprehending, is something for which YOU are solely responsible, > >>> Not that you'd have a chance of >>> understanding it. > >> you don't even understand what "understanding" means.. > > Go pick up a copy of that book. Read it. i already have it retard. want me do double chicken-**** dare you to prove it??? oh, i just did. -- fact check required |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 09/18/2013 07:55 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
<8< retardation> >> > Meh. beam vs. Brandt was more entertaining. beam vs. Kunich was pretty > good too. who was kunich??? apparently didn't make much of an impression. -- fact check required |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 2013-09-19, jim beam > wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 08:03 PM, Brent wrote: >> On 2013-09-19, jim beam > wrote: >>> On 09/18/2013 08:44 AM, Brent wrote: >>>> On 2013-09-18, jim beam > wrote: >>>>> On 09/17/2013 08:43 AM, Brent wrote: >>>>>> On 2013-09-17, jim beam > wrote: >>>>>>> On 09/17/2013 04:18 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 09:38 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 08:27 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...HEP001604.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks, i already have one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i note that you're too chicken-**** to ask me to prove it. too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken-**** and too retarded. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've proven you don't many times. It's in your language. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and read engineering text books you'd write much more clearly and be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to effectively communicate with degreed engineers. It's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readily apparent you don't have this sort of background self taught >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it amusing that he balks at providing bona fides due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a thinly veiled excuse concerning the reliability of credentials >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on usenet, but is laughably anxious (insultingly so) to offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "proof" here that he has a specific book in his possession. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as opposed to the laughability of two yellow backed clowns that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>> strawmen rather than actually take the risk of proving themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong??? >>>>>>>>>>>>> you two need to grow a pair. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The projection and irony are stifling. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ?????????!!!!!! cojones - you should get some! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Repeated, baseless pretense, not surprisingly, continues to fail. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> said the yellow-ass trying to use an electrical analogy for fluid flow. >>>>>>>>> that may "work" in 5th grade, but hardly fits someone pretending to be a >>>>>>>>> "degreed engineer". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While it is a well accepted tenet that there are no perfect >>>>>>>> analogies, see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html, to >>>>>>>> begin to suggest that fluid and electrical flows are not textbook >>>>>>>> analogous examples is at least as ridiculous as is an offer to >>>>>>>> prove possession of an article by a statement on a newsgroup. >>>>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/watcir.html & >>>>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...c/watcir2.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> hyperphysics is, as self-stated, "A resource that was initiated as a >>>>>>> resource for local high school physics teachers". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.cns.cornell.edu/cipt/labs...erCircuits.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://video.mit.edu/watch/series-an...-analogy-10933 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that doesn't prove your point in the slightest. quite the contrary - >>>>>>> they have to gets arts majors through some science modules, so that's >>>>>>> how they do it. anybody claiming to be a "degreed engineer" relying on >>>>>>> that stuff is either out of their mind or an idiot bull****ter. >>>>>> >>>>>> One writes and speaks for the intended audience. >>>>> >>>>> you speak /for/ the audience??? you, ah, might want to re-phrase that. >>>>> if you have the slightest clue what "ambiguity" means at any rate. on >>>>> second thoughts, don't bother. >>>> >>>> I don't know if you're trying a usenet funny or what, but even though I >>>> don't speak backyard hack, >> >>> you apparently don't speak english either as my flagging your clumsy >>> ambiguity clearly went right over your head. >> >> It's only ambiguity to a backyard hack who has never had to give a >> technical presentation in his life. > > oh brother. if only you knew. You only pretend to be a back yard hack on usenet? LOL. >> just put what I wrote into google >> and see what comes up. It's entirely about how to speak to an >> audience. You're just being an ass playing usenet games. > no, idiot. example: a congress critter speaks /for/ their electorate in > the house, but /to/ voters when on the stump. you're not speaking /for/ > "the audience" because you're not expressing their opinions, just your > own - you're speaking /to/ them [and making a real hash of it]. Yes dickhead, I knew what you were getting at. You're just being an ass playing usenet funnies. You get off on that or something? > you can speak "for their benefit", but you need to re-phrase what you > said in that way. which is what i originally said. but no, you just > blathered blindly on, completely unaware of your gaffe, even after it's > been flagged. because you're a retard and you just don't get it. As usual you can't ****ing read. See where I wrote about you playing usenet funnies? I knew immediately what a dickhead like you was probably doing. In any case the meaning is so absolutely clear even a machine understands it. >> >>>> I do attempt to write in a way you have a >>>> chance of understanding. >> >>> no, you write what /you/ understand. which isn't much. and that's why >>> you don't understand why i take issue with your retard driveling >>> nonsense when you get it wrong. >> >> I haven't gotten anything wrong. You simply don't know the correct >> terms nor how to use them properly. Likely because you've never used >> them except with yourself. > go back to your old junior english teacher and tell them you need > remedial. urgently. Let me know when you learn how to use technical terms correctly. >>>> However, if you'd prefer the style of >>>> engineering text books I can do that. >> >>> just like you can go ahead and explain mohr's circle w.r.t. cup and cone >>> fracture? sure, i'd love to see that!!! >> >> This absurd behavior of yours speaks volumes about you. > yeah, my absurd behavior is that i'm wasting time with a total retard > that can't even speak english, let alone find a ****ing spell checker > without having it crammed up their dumb retarded ass. LOL. You do know what being spelling/grammer nazi on usenet means, right? >> The simple fact >> is you have some serious emotional/mental issues about your own >> abilities or not completing formal education or something where you lash >> out at anyone who has done those things you didn't achieve for whatever >> reason. You then combine this with a sense of arrogance. But in the end >> you wrench on Hondas in your yard while those you insult work as >> engineers. Whatever your problem is you should get over it. > i have a problem with people that masquerade as "engineers" when they're > clueless retards whose minds are so closed, the possibility that if > they're having a problem with something, that they might, just possibly, > have ****ed up. you are such a person. you **** up. but instead of > sitting back and trying to figure out why or how, [as a real engineer > would], you just blather and bull**** and blame me for what /you/ did wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't use the terminology correctly but you're such an ass that you won't admit your error. You're also an ass whom I've put in his place on numerous occasions. Here's a real world engineering challenge for you. Explain the reasons why an injection molded plastic part may be cracking at a hole, boss, or knuckle feature even though it does not see any loads which which exceed the yield stress of the material. This is a very simple question. Incredibly simple and requires no math. Someone without even a HS education could answer it if he has the right experience. This is very simple, all it requires is a little experience or the right textbook. Even google can give you some of the answer if you have half a clue. Don't give me any asked first BS, I've entertained your challenges in the past, like your backyard honda modification cam one, just to watch you squirm when given the correct answer, so you've got a few to make up for. > now, why i'm obliging your retardation is another matter, but your total > lack of awareness on what boils down to a technical limitation on what > you're apparently capable of comprehending, is something for which YOU > are solely responsible, At the end of the day I am working professionally and you're wrenching on hondas in your yard. >>>> Not that you'd have a chance of >>>> understanding it. >>> you don't even understand what "understanding" means.. >> Go pick up a copy of that book. Read it. > i already have it retard. want me do double chicken-**** dare you to > prove it??? oh, i just did. I doubt you have it, and even if you do, it's just a doorstop or something. All asking you to prove it would do is send you over to google books or grabbing a photo off ebay. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 9/18/2013 10:28 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 07:55 PM, T0m $herman wrote: > <8< retardation> >>> >> Meh. beam vs. Brandt was more entertaining. beam vs. Kunich was pretty >> good too. > > who was kunich??? apparently didn't make much of an impression. > > The resident rec.bicycles.racing troll. -- T0m $herm@n |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 2013-09-19, T0m $herman > wrote:
> On 9/18/2013 10:28 PM, jim beam wrote: >> On 09/18/2013 07:55 PM, T0m $herman wrote: >> <8< retardation> >>>> >>> Meh. beam vs. Brandt was more entertaining. beam vs. Kunich was pretty >>> good too. >> >> who was kunich??? apparently didn't make much of an impression. >> >> > The resident rec.bicycles.racing troll. beam is in the bicycling groups too.... I'd like to see a match up between beam and mountain bike hater/troll if he's still around... can't remember the troll's name though. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 09/18/2013 09:38 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-09-19, jim beam > wrote: >> On 09/18/2013 08:03 PM, Brent wrote: >>> On 2013-09-19, jim beam > wrote: >>>> On 09/18/2013 08:44 AM, Brent wrote: >>>>> On 2013-09-18, jim beam > wrote: >>>>>> On 09/17/2013 08:43 AM, Brent wrote: >>>>>>> On 2013-09-17, jim beam > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/17/2013 04:18 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 09:38 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/16/2013 08:27 AM, . wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...HEP001604.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks, i already have one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i note that you're too chicken-**** to ask me to prove it. too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken-**** and too retarded. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've proven you don't many times. It's in your language. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and read engineering text books you'd write much more clearly and be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to effectively communicate with degreed engineers. It's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readily apparent you don't have this sort of background self taught >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it amusing that he balks at providing bona fides due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a thinly veiled excuse concerning the reliability of credentials >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on usenet, but is laughably anxious (insultingly so) to offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "proof" here that he has a specific book in his possession. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as opposed to the laughability of two yellow backed clowns that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>> strawmen rather than actually take the risk of proving themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you two need to grow a pair. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The projection and irony are stifling. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?????????!!!!!! cojones - you should get some! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Repeated, baseless pretense, not surprisingly, continues to fail. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> said the yellow-ass trying to use an electrical analogy for fluid flow. >>>>>>>>>> that may "work" in 5th grade, but hardly fits someone pretending to be a >>>>>>>>>> "degreed engineer". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While it is a well accepted tenet that there are no perfect >>>>>>>>> analogies, see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html, to >>>>>>>>> begin to suggest that fluid and electrical flows are not textbook >>>>>>>>> analogous examples is at least as ridiculous as is an offer to >>>>>>>>> prove possession of an article by a statement on a newsgroup. >>>>>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/watcir.html & >>>>>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...c/watcir2.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hyperphysics is, as self-stated, "A resource that was initiated as a >>>>>>>> resource for local high school physics teachers". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.cns.cornell.edu/cipt/labs...erCircuits.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://video.mit.edu/watch/series-an...-analogy-10933 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that doesn't prove your point in the slightest. quite the contrary - >>>>>>>> they have to gets arts majors through some science modules, so that's >>>>>>>> how they do it. anybody claiming to be a "degreed engineer" relying on >>>>>>>> that stuff is either out of their mind or an idiot bull****ter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One writes and speaks for the intended audience. >>>>>> >>>>>> you speak /for/ the audience??? you, ah, might want to re-phrase that. >>>>>> if you have the slightest clue what "ambiguity" means at any rate. on >>>>>> second thoughts, don't bother. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if you're trying a usenet funny or what, but even though I >>>>> don't speak backyard hack, >>> >>>> you apparently don't speak english either as my flagging your clumsy >>>> ambiguity clearly went right over your head. >>> >>> It's only ambiguity to a backyard hack who has never had to give a >>> technical presentation in his life. >> >> oh brother. if only you knew. > > You only pretend to be a back yard hack on usenet? LOL. > >>> just put what I wrote into google >>> and see what comes up. It's entirely about how to speak to an >>> audience. You're just being an ass playing usenet games. > >> no, idiot. example: a congress critter speaks /for/ their electorate in >> the house, but /to/ voters when on the stump. you're not speaking /for/ >> "the audience" because you're not expressing their opinions, just your >> own - you're speaking /to/ them [and making a real hash of it]. > > Yes dickhead, I knew what you were getting at. You're just being an ass > playing usenet funnies. You get off on that or something? i'm not "being funny", i'm being serious. you clearly don't understand english because you're mistaking usage of "to" and "for". > >> you can speak "for their benefit", but you need to re-phrase what you >> said in that way. which is what i originally said. but no, you just >> blathered blindly on, completely unaware of your gaffe, even after it's >> been flagged. because you're a retard and you just don't get it. > > As usual you can't ****ing read. See where I wrote about you playing > usenet funnies? I knew immediately what a dickhead like you was probably > doing. In any case the meaning is so absolutely clear even a machine > understands it. you're resorting to your strawman tactics because you have nothing else left. not only is that retarded, it doesn't work! > >>> >>>>> I do attempt to write in a way you have a >>>>> chance of understanding. >>> >>>> no, you write what /you/ understand. which isn't much. and that's why >>>> you don't understand why i take issue with your retard driveling >>>> nonsense when you get it wrong. >>> >>> I haven't gotten anything wrong. You simply don't know the correct >>> terms nor how to use them properly. Likely because you've never used >>> them except with yourself. > >> go back to your old junior english teacher and tell them you need >> remedial. urgently. > > Let me know when you learn how to use technical terms correctly. says the guy that doesn't know correct english usage of "for and "to"... > >>>>> However, if you'd prefer the style of >>>>> engineering text books I can do that. >>> >>>> just like you can go ahead and explain mohr's circle w.r.t. cup and cone >>>> fracture? sure, i'd love to see that!!! >>> >>> This absurd behavior of yours speaks volumes about you. > >> yeah, my absurd behavior is that i'm wasting time with a total retard >> that can't even speak english, let alone find a ****ing spell checker >> without having it crammed up their dumb retarded ass. > > LOL. You do know what being spelling/grammer nazi on usenet means, > right? if you didn't **** up, i wouldn't be /able/ to do it idiot retard!!! clearly the logic fairy didn't poop in your diaper when you were still sucking on mamma's teats. > >>> The simple fact >>> is you have some serious emotional/mental issues about your own >>> abilities or not completing formal education or something where you lash >>> out at anyone who has done those things you didn't achieve for whatever >>> reason. You then combine this with a sense of arrogance. But in the end >>> you wrench on Hondas in your yard while those you insult work as >>> engineers. Whatever your problem is you should get over it. > >> i have a problem with people that masquerade as "engineers" when they're >> clueless retards whose minds are so closed, the possibility that if >> they're having a problem with something, that they might, just possibly, >> have ****ed up. you are such a person. you **** up. but instead of >> sitting back and trying to figure out why or how, [as a real engineer >> would], you just blather and bull**** and blame me for what /you/ did wrong. > > The simple fact of the matter is that you don't use the terminology > correctly but you're such an ass that you won't admit your error. You're > also an ass whom I've put in his place on numerous occasions. dude, you're accusing /me/ of the fact that /you/ don't know what the **** you're talking about. > > Here's a real world engineering challenge for you. Explain the > reasons why an injection molded plastic part may be cracking at a hole, > boss, or knuckle feature even though it does not see any loads which > which which which? try to proof read. in english. > exceed the yield stress of the material. This is a very simple > question. Incredibly simple and requires no math. Someone without even a > HS education could answer it if he has the right experience. This is very > simple, all it requires is a little experience or the right textbook. > Even google can give you some of the answer if you have half a clue. omg!!!!!!!!! 1. you don't know the question you think you're asking. 2. if you think that modeling complex three-dimensional anisotropic solidification contraction is "incredibly simple", you're out of your tiny mind. [see #1 above.] > > Don't give me any asked first BS, I've entertained your challenges in > the past, like your backyard honda modification cam one, just to watch > you squirm when given the correct answer, so you've got a few to make up > for. um, you're the one blowing smoke bucko. see above. > >> now, why i'm obliging your retardation is another matter, but your total >> lack of awareness on what boils down to a technical limitation on what >> you're apparently capable of comprehending, is something for which YOU >> are solely responsible, > > At the end of the day I am working professionally and you're wrenching > on hondas in your yard. "working professionally" doesn't mean any damned thing [in the english speaking world], retard - plumbers and soldiers are both "professionals" for example, but neither are your purported "engineers". can't you at least /try/ to learn proper english so you can communicate clearly? > >>>>> Not that you'd have a chance of >>>>> understanding it. > >>>> you don't even understand what "understanding" means.. > >>> Go pick up a copy of that book. Read it. > >> i already have it retard. want me do double chicken-**** dare you to >> prove it??? oh, i just did. > > I doubt you have it, and even if you do, it's just a doorstop or > something. so make up your mind - either i own it or i don't. it's easily provable, but you won't go there. > All asking you to prove it would do is send you over to > google books or grabbing a photo off ebay. so this is your idiot problem - you're too retarded to think of a suitable corroboration method that doesn't show you up for being dumber than ever before!!! absolutely priceless!!!! -- fact check required |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 09/19/2013 06:44 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-09-19, T0m $herman > wrote: >> On 9/18/2013 10:28 PM, jim beam wrote: >>> On 09/18/2013 07:55 PM, T0m $herman wrote: >>> <8< retardation> >>>>> >>>> Meh. beam vs. Brandt was more entertaining. beam vs. Kunich was pretty >>>> good too. >>> >>> who was kunich??? apparently didn't make much of an impression. >>> >>> >> The resident rec.bicycles.racing troll. > > beam is in the bicycling groups too.... I'd like to see a match up > between beam and mountain bike hater/troll if he's still around... can't > remember the troll's name though. oh please - check your facts before blathering. idiot. -- fact check required |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 09/19/2013 05:04 AM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/18/2013 10:28 PM, jim beam wrote: >> On 09/18/2013 07:55 PM, T0m $herman wrote: >> <8< retardation> >>>> >>> Meh. beam vs. Brandt was more entertaining. beam vs. Kunich was pretty >>> good too. >> >> who was kunich??? apparently didn't make much of an impression. >> >> > The resident rec.bicycles.racing troll. must have been an impostor. i never hung out on rbr - i read it once i think and it was all opinion, no fact. not my scene at all. -- fact check required |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
the importance of thermostats
On 9/18/2013 10:28 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 07:55 PM, T0m $herman wrote: > <8< retardation> >>> >> Meh. beam vs. Brandt was more entertaining. beam vs. >> Kunich was pretty >> good too. > > who was kunich??? apparently didn't make much of an > impression. > > Colorful contributor to RBT until his failed carbon fork caused him to sustain a crippling brain injury from which he has not fully recovered. -- Andrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
thermostats | Joey Tribiani | VW air cooled | 13 | July 11th 09 06:39 AM |
Richardson in Mexico, stresses Hispanic importance to Obama | [email protected] | Driving | 1 | December 7th 08 05:22 PM |
Of little or no importance... | Paddy's Pig | Auto Photos | 3 | December 15th 07 03:55 PM |
importance of torque signals in steering wheel | [email protected] | Technology | 1 | May 31st 05 04:09 AM |
importance of torque signals in steering wheel | [email protected] | Driving | 0 | May 30th 05 12:50 PM |