the importance of thermostats

"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

http://www.cns.cornell.edu/cipt/labs...erCircuits.pdf

http://video.mit.edu/watch/series-an...-analogy-10933

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.


--
fact check required

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.

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> 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.

More self delusion, hilarious rationalization and abject deceit,
from the group's all time most kill-filed, biggest bull**** artist.

In article >, 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...EHEP001604.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>> l
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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".

And you think that it would include major inaccuracies as a result of
that fact?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

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.


--
fact check required

On 09/17/2013 08:45 AM, . wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> More self delusion, hilarious rationalization and abject deceit,
> from the group's all time most kill-filed, biggest bull**** artist.

says the idiot using 5th grade science analogies to try and pass himself
of as a "degreed engineer" - delusion, hilarity and deceit indeed!!!


--
fact check required

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, I do attempt to write in a way you have a
chance of understanding. However, if you'd prefer the style of
engineering text books I can do that. Not that you'd have a chance of
understanding it.

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.


> 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.


> 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!!!


> Not that you'd have a chance of
> understanding it.

you don't even understand what "understanding" means..


--
fact check required

On 9/18/2013 9:25 PM, 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>> 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!!!
>
>
>> Not that you'd have a chance of
>> understanding it.
>
> you don't even understand what "understanding" means..
>
>
Meh. beam vs. Brandt was more entertaining. beam vs. Kunich was pretty
good too.

--
T0m $herm@n