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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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