AGW Scammer gets $541K in O'Bunny Stimulus Funds...

[Lord Valve]

Gee, Michael Mann's hockey stick knocked $541K into his
own net....while he's under investigation at Penn State.
The bigger you lie, the more O'Bunny pays you, it seems.

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjU3YjAxNTNlNDljNTM2YTY4YjExMWUyMDMwYTM=



A whole pile of Congresspukes flew to Copenhagen
(on the public nickel, of course) and partied hearty
in 5-star hotels; flew in on military jets (at $10,000
per hour operational cost - EACH, and there were
three or four of 'em...they won't say yet...) - there was
so much action, they had to ship in extra limos from
Germany to meet the demand. Naturally, a blizzard
blew in during the Global Warming shindig...****in'
LOSERS, bunch of outright crooks, and they're
gonna make you contribute to their goddamn
RELIGION whether you want to or not. And now
that England and much of Asia are shivering through
the coldest winter in thirty years, you can't find
Algore with a whole ****in' pack of bloodhounds...
probably hiding out in Patagonia counting his
carbon credit rakeoffs.

http://images.cafepress.com/image/18128827_125x125.jpg

Lord Valve
Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan
(Occupied United States of God Damn America)
BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! <Safety!!>

O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake,
A merica!

http://tinyurl.com/cv4mbm (ignorant)

Don't forget to nark this fishy post to !

http://www.bikepainter.com/oneanddone.jpg

[RichL]

Lord Valve > wrote:
> Gee, Michael Mann's hockey stick knocked $541K into his
> own net....while he's under investigation at Penn State.
> The bigger you lie, the more O'Bunny pays you, it seems.
>
>
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjU3YjAxNTNlNDljNTM2YTY4YjExMWUyMDMwYTM=
>
>
>
> A whole pile of Congresspukes flew to Copenhagen
> (on the public nickel, of course) and partied hearty
> in 5-star hotels; flew in on military jets (at $10,000
> per hour operational cost - EACH, and there were
> three or four of 'em...they won't say yet...) - there was
> so much action, they had to ship in extra limos from
> Germany to meet the demand. Naturally, a blizzard
> blew in during the Global Warming shindig...****in'
> LOSERS, bunch of outright crooks, and they're
> gonna make you contribute to their goddamn
> RELIGION whether you want to or not. And now
> that England and much of Asia are shivering through
> the coldest winter in thirty years, you can't find
> Algore with a whole ****in' pack of bloodhounds...
> probably hiding out in Patagonia counting his
> carbon credit rakeoffs.

^
|
|
|
THIS is your brain on drugs.

[Voice of Reason]

On Jan 14, 3:24*pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
> Gee, Michael Mann's hockey stick knocked $541K into his
> own net....while he's under investigation at Penn State.
> The bigger you lie, the more O'Bunny pays you, it seems.
>
> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjU3YjAxNTNlNDljNTM2....
>
> A whole pile of Congresspukes flew to Copenhagen
> (on the public nickel, of course) and partied hearty
> in 5-star hotels; flew in on military jets (at $10,000
> per hour operational cost - EACH, and there were
> three or four of 'em...they won't say yet...) *- there was
> so much action, they had to ship in extra limos from
> Germany to meet the demand. *Naturally, a blizzard
> blew in during the Global Warming shindig...****in'
> LOSERS, bunch of outright crooks, and they're
> gonna make you contribute to their goddamn
> RELIGION whether you want to or not. *And now
> that England and much of Asia are shivering through
> the coldest winter in thirty years, you can't find
> Algore with a whole ****in' pack of bloodhounds...
> probably hiding out in Patagonia counting his
> carbon credit rakeoffs.
>
> http://images.cafepress.com/image/18128827_125x125.jpg
>
> Lord Valve
> Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan
> (Occupied United States of God Damn America)
> BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! *<Safety!!>
>
> O ne
> B ig
> A ss
> M istake,
> A merica!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cv4mbm*(ignorant)
>
> Don't forget to nark this fishy post to !
>
> http://www.bikepainter.com/oneanddone.jpg

Al Gore is in storage until the many frozen landscapes around the
world thaw. If the groundhog doesn't see his shadow this year, I think
it's safe to say Al will develop cabin fever. :-)

He is, however, actively emailing his followers and encouraging them
to support EPA action on carbon dioxide emissions. He doesn't want his
frost-bitten lips to detract from the debate. Oh, I forgot...there is
no debate. Science has been settled.

[Arlowe]

RichL submitted this idea :
> Lord Valve > wrote:
>> Gee, Michael Mann's hockey stick knocked $541K into his
>> own net....while he's under investigation at Penn State.
>> The bigger you lie, the more O'Bunny pays you, it seems.
>>
>> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjU3YjAxNTNlNDljNTM2YTY4YjExMWUyMDMwYTM=
>>
>>
>>
>> A whole pile of Congresspukes flew to Copenhagen
>> (on the public nickel, of course) and partied hearty
>> in 5-star hotels; flew in on military jets (at $10,000
>> per hour operational cost - EACH, and there were
>> three or four of 'em...they won't say yet...) - there was
>> so much action, they had to ship in extra limos from
>> Germany to meet the demand. Naturally, a blizzard
>> blew in during the Global Warming shindig...****in'
>> LOSERS, bunch of outright crooks, and they're
>> gonna make you contribute to their goddamn
>> RELIGION whether you want to or not. And now
>> that England and much of Asia are shivering through
>> the coldest winter in thirty years, you can't find
>> Algore with a whole ****in' pack of bloodhounds...
>> probably hiding out in Patagonia counting his
>> carbon credit rakeoffs.
>
> ^
> |
> |
> |
> THIS is your brain on drugs.
^
|
|
|
This is your sense of humor Whinging.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

ing being kept firmly in place.

Furthermore, politics is a log-rolling exercise. A politician who
wants to be elected doesn't actually stand for anything; instead he
stands for whatever little groups of 5 per cent of the population
believes in. If he rolls up enough of those five per cent logs, he is
elected. The global warmie faithful, who don't care that global
warming is a hoax and a fraud, surely amount to at least 5 per cent of
the voters.

That's not all. Nothing unifies people so much as a common enemy.
That's why shaky South American dictators invent wars to stay in power
a few years longer, why Western pols so enthusiastically embraced the
"War on Terror" which in reality is war against a few old ideologues
who need help wiping their own arses. (The Twin Towers was a pinprick;
more women than the complete 9/11 death toll are raped and killed
every day in Somalia. In the larger terrorism perspective, the only
significance of 9/11 is that it happened on American soil and
frightened a hitherto arrogantly uncaring nation ****less by the
realization that distance would no longer protect them from the
stupidities of their leaders.) Now they have the War on Global
Warming, which everyone is supposed to think is a Good Thing, and
Scientific besides. (And the arguments against it on either scientific
or moral grounds take some brains to follow, so global warming is an
easy tool for racking up mass hysteria.) Anyone who thinks the pols
will give up such a superb handle on their populace is a wishful
thinker.

QED.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Lord Valve]

Half of your rant is missing - re-post?

LV



Andre Jute wrote:

> ing being kept firmly in place.
>
> Furthermore, politics is a log-rolling exercise. A politician who
> wants to be elected doesn't actually stand for anything; instead he
> stands for whatever little groups of 5 per cent of the population
> believes in. If he rolls up enough of those five per cent logs, he is
> elected. The global warmie faithful, who don't care that global
> warming is a hoax and a fraud, surely amount to at least 5 per cent of
> the voters.
>
> That's not all. Nothing unifies people so much as a common enemy.
> That's why shaky South American dictators invent wars to stay in power
> a few years longer, why Western pols so enthusiastically embraced the
> "War on Terror" which in reality is war against a few old ideologues
> who need help wiping their own arses. (The Twin Towers was a pinprick;
> more women than the complete 9/11 death toll are raped and killed
> every day in Somalia. In the larger terrorism perspective, the only
> significance of 9/11 is that it happened on American soil and
> frightened a hitherto arrogantly uncaring nation ****less by the
> realization that distance would no longer protect them from the
> stupidities of their leaders.) Now they have the War on Global
> Warming, which everyone is supposed to think is a Good Thing, and
> Scientific besides. (And the arguments against it on either scientific
> or moral grounds take some brains to follow, so global warming is an
> easy tool for racking up mass hysteria.) Anyone who thinks the pols
> will give up such a superb handle on their populace is a wishful
> thinker.
>
> QED.
>
> Andre Jute
> Visit Jute on Amps at
> http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
> "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
> constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
> wisdom"
> Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 15, 6:55*pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
> Half of your rant is missing - re-post?
>
> LV

Ah, looks like my wisdom was lost in translation. Again.

I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
Michael Mann is probably the White House sending a message to
prosecutors that if the President's favourite global warming bumbuddy
is convicted, he will be pardoned.

The lost part of my missive further concerned the obvious fact that
the current crop of western pols in office cannot admit that manmade
global warming, indeed global warming of any kind, is a political hoax
and scientific fraud. For one thing, when was the last time you ever
heard them admit to having made a mistake. For another, the taxes
raised on CO2 has already been factored in, and it would
administratively and politically impossible to disentangle now.

If you want reversals of these deeply damaging, pointless policies, I
suggest you stand a better chance working on those pols now in
opposition who are most likely to topple the clowns who have bought
into, or claimed to have bought into, global warming.

Then I continued:

> > Furthermore, politics is a log-rolling exercise. A politician who
> > wants to be elected doesn't actually stand for anything; instead he
> > stands for whatever little groups of 5 per cent of the population
> > believes in. If he rolls up enough of those five per cent logs, he is
> > elected. The global warmie faithful, who don't care that global
> > warming is a hoax and a fraud, surely amount to at least 5 per cent of
> > the voters.
>
> > That's not all. Nothing unifies people so much as a common enemy.
> > That's why shaky South American dictators invent wars to stay in power
> > a few years longer, why Western pols so enthusiastically embraced the
> > "War on Terror" which in reality is war against a few old ideologues
> > who need help wiping their own arses. (The Twin Towers was a pinprick;
> > more women than the complete 9/11 death toll are raped and killed
> > every day in Somalia. In the larger terrorism perspective, the only
> > significance of 9/11 is that it happened on American soil and
> > frightened a hitherto arrogantly uncaring nation ****less by the
> > realization that distance would no longer protect them from the
> > stupidities of their leaders.) Now they have the War on Global
> > Warming, which everyone is supposed to think is a Good Thing, and
> > Scientific besides. (And the arguments against it on either scientific
> > or moral grounds take some brains to follow, so global warming is an
> > easy tool for racking up mass hysteria.) Anyone who thinks the pols
> > will give up such a superb handle on their populace is a wishful
> > thinker.
>
> > QED.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Visit Jute on Amps at
> > *http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
> > "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
> > constructor"
> > John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> > "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
> > wisdom"
> > Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
Lord Valve > wrote:

> Half of your rant is missing - re-post?

Why? Twice as much **** is still ****.

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:55 pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
>> Half of your rant is missing - re-post?
>>
>> LV
>
> Ah, looks like my wisdom was lost in translation. Again.[...]

TLDR.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

[Tom Sherman °_°]

* Still Just Me * wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:13:09 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> > wrote:
>
>> I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
>> Michael Mann
>
> WTF business is it of yours what US taxpayers do with their money?

Has Mr. Jute ever had an opinion he did not want to share?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 19, 7:00*pm, * Still Just Me *
> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:13:09 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>
> > wrote:
> >I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
> >Michael Mann
>
> WTF business is it of yours what US taxpayers do with their money?

Everyone who owns shares in a US corporation is a US taxpayer, you
ignoramus. Everyone who licenses intellectual rights sooner or later
is a US taxpayer, you ignoramus. Furthermore, the lies the scammer
Michael Mann told were told on behalf of the world body, the UN, and
those lies caused policies which cost taxpayers elsewhere, so the
overturn of the liar Michael Mann's hockey stick, and the exposure and
punishment of the fraudster Michael Mann is a matter for everyone on
earth.

Let's see Still Just Me, gross ignorance again:
> >> WTF business is it of yours what US taxpayers do with their money?

Those other two clowns, Liddell Tommi Sherman and Jobst "I'm never
wrong" Brandt agreed wholeheartedly with Still Just Stupid's gross
ignorance. I'll deal with them separately.

Unsigned out of contempt for a blustering moron.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 20, 2:16*am, Tom Sherman °_°
> wrote:
> * Still Just Me * wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:13:09 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> > > wrote:
>
> >> I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
> >> Michael Mann
>
> > WTF business is it of yours what US taxpayers do with their money?
>
> Has Mr. Jute ever had an opinion he did not want to share?

Tell us, Liddell Tommi, where's the opinion I'm supposed to be sharing
in this:
> >>> I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
> >>> Michael Mann.

Those are just the agreed facts, that Michael Mann is an exposed cheat
and fraud who should be jailed for theft and drummed out of the once
honorable profession of science.

Until you get some grasp of the English language, dear Tommi, you
should stick to writing instruction sheets for bricklayers and not
expose your ignorance and your soundbite mind by sniping at your
betters on subjects you clearly do not grasp too well.

Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before the Climategate exposed those clowns as crooks

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 20, 3:16*am, Jobst Brandt > wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
> >>> Michael Mann.
> >> WTF business is it of yours what US taxpayers do with their money?
> > Has Mr. Jute ever had an opinion he did not want to share?
>
> That's not so bad,

Poor Jobst "I'm never Wrong" Brandt is here agreeing with the dire
ignorance of economics of the moron Still Just Stupid, as I explained
elsewhere in this thread.

Poor Jobst "I'm never Wrong" Brandt is further agreeing with the silly
miscomprehension by the quarterwit soundbiter Tommi Sherman that I
expressed an opinion in the text quoted,
> >>> I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
> >>> Michael Mann.
Nope, I was merely enumerating the oft-proven and now axiomatic fact
that Mann is a cheat and a fraud and has been repeatedly exposed.

Not that the facts ever bother Jobst "I'm never Wrong" Brandt much.

>but most of them have no technical basis.

I've been on RBT two years and in that time Jobst "I'm Never Wrong"
Brandt has deigned to engage me in technical discussion exactly once.
On every other occasion he issued sneering obiter dicta from his ivory
tower, then ran away like a whole Ministry of Shambling Pensioners.

> Bicycling is full of unbiased lore and demands critique, but just
> blurting it out without some reasonable proof is not worth the effort
> other than to belittle others.
>
> Jobst Brandt

On the single occasion that he did deign to discuss technicalities
with me, I demonstrated conclusively that Jobst Brandt's book The
Bicycle Wheel is so badly executed that in the key passage on which
all the rest depends, Brandt contradicts the key drawing on which all
the rest depends. Either the text or the drawing must be wrong. I
demonstrated furthermore that Brandt knew this through three editions
and several reprints and dishonestly did not correct the error despite
repeatedly being told of it by baffled readers. Instead he abused them
personally for daring to question his greatness.

Throwing childish tantrums, running around with little gangbangers
like Still Just Stupid and Liddell Tommi Sherman, kicking
intellectuals merely because they wear spectacles, should be beneath
your dignity, Jobst. Why isn't it?

Andre Jute
I know what I'm doing. Do you?

[thirty-six]

On 20 Jan, 12:57, Andre Jute > wrote:

> On the single occasion that he did deign to discuss technicalities
> with me, I demonstrated conclusively that Jobst Brandt's book The
> Bicycle Wheel is so badly executed that in the key passage on which
> all the rest depends, Brandt contradicts the key drawing on which all
> the rest depends. Either the text or the drawing must be wrong. I
> demonstrated furthermore that Brandt knew this through three editions
> and several reprints and dishonestly did not correct the error despite
> repeatedly being told of it by baffled readers. Instead he abused them
> personally for daring to question his greatness.

Would that be the ommision of the datum line on the spoke tension plot
which shows an increase in spoke tension through most of a wheel's
cycle?

[thirty-six]

On 20 Jan, 13:06, thirty-six > wrote:
> On 20 Jan, 12:57, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > On the single occasion that he did deign to discuss technicalities
> > with me, I demonstrated conclusively that Jobst Brandt's book The
> > Bicycle Wheel is so badly executed that in the key passage on which
> > all the rest depends, Brandt contradicts the key drawing on which all
> > the rest depends. Either the text or the drawing must be wrong. I
> > demonstrated furthermore that Brandt knew this through three editions
> > and several reprints and dishonestly did not correct the error despite
> > repeatedly being told of it by baffled readers. Instead he abused them
> > personally for daring to question his greatness.
>
> Would that be the ommision of the datum line on the spoke tension plot
> which shows an increase in spoke tension through most of a wheel's
> cycle?

I think I might check out the city library and correct the error on
the plot, if they have managed to find it.

[[email protected]]

Jute accused someone of:
>
> Throwing childish tantrums.

If we took a vote about the person who does this the most, who do you
guess will win by a landslide?

Who do you think will likely win the Childish Tantrum Throwing Olimpic
Gold medal, the pro tour and the world championships?

Who is going to get the Honoris Causa Doctorate in Throwing Childish
Tantrums?

[*]

On Jan 20, 8:02 am, " > wrote:
> Jute accused someone of:
>
>
>
> > Throwing childish tantrums.

??? "Accused _someone_ of throwing childish tantrums???

No - Jute accused Jobst Brant of "throwing childish tantrums", which
is exactly what Brandt does all too often.
>
> If we took a vote about the person who does this the most, who do you
> guess will win by a landslide?

Jute might might "win", but not "by a landslide"; Brandt would be a
close second (having been unseated in the past two years by Jute,
prior to that, he was at the top of the "childish tantrum" list).

[...]

[tonski]

On Jan 20, 6:02*am, " > wrote:
> Jute accused someone of:
>
>
>
> > Throwing childish tantrums.
>
> If we took a vote about the person who does this the most, who do you
> guess will win by a landslide?
>
> Who do you think will likely win the Childish Tantrum Throwing Olimpic
> Gold medal, the pro tour and the world championships?
>
> Who is going to get the Honoris Causa Doctorate in Throwing Childish
> Tantrums?

Tibeten Monkey..

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 20, 1:06*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
> On 20 Jan, 12:57, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > On the single occasion that he did deign to discuss technicalities
> > with me, I demonstrated conclusively that Jobst Brandt's book The
> > Bicycle Wheel is so badly executed that in the key passage on which
> > all the rest depends, Brandt contradicts the key drawing on which all
> > the rest depends. Either the text or the drawing must be wrong. I
> > demonstrated furthermore that Brandt knew this through three editions
> > and several reprints and dishonestly did not correct the error despite
> > repeatedly being told of it by baffled readers. Instead he abused them
> > personally for daring to question his greatness.
>
> Would that be the ommision of the datum line on the spoke tension plot
> which shows an increase in spoke tension through most of a wheel's
> cycle?

The discussion starts here:
Hey, Jobst, on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel the graph appears to show the
impossibility of...

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/fbbaeeca6f4eed3/15373b5b726d91a9?hl=en&q=group%3Arec.bicycles.tech&lnk=ol&

and continues here:
Hey Jobst Brandt, Part Deux, about the crook graph on p39 of The
Bicycle Wheel
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/9a444d064cd98f2/fb369ccad5a5b8b3?hl=en&q=group:rec.bicycles.tech

with Jobst Brandt's admission of guilt here:
The Paradigm of the Ugly Engineer
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/87f697e97a6d92bb/7aac6e219dbeeb56?hl=en&

Good luck in picking your way through Brandt's nastiness, and the
nastiness of the Brand Bumbuddies.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[Chalo]

thirty-six wrote:
>
> Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > On the single occasion that he did deign to discuss technicalities
> > with me, I demonstrated conclusively that Jobst Brandt's book The
> > Bicycle Wheel is so badly executed that in the key passage on which
> > all the rest depends, Brandt contradicts the key drawing on which all
> > the rest depends.
> > [snip]
>
> Would that be the ommision of the datum line on the spoke tension plot
> which shows an increase in spoke tension through most of a wheel's
> cycle?

I think you left out a word:

> Would that be the ommision [sic] of the datum line on the spoke tension plot
> which shows an [INSIGNIFICANT] increase in spoke tension through most of a wheel's
> cycle?

have a look at the diagram with delta tension values, and accompanying
table, about halfway down the page.

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/

Take note that the maximum drop in tension under load is about nine
times the maximum rise in tension, and about twenty times the median
rise in tension. Which force do you believe to be the more
significant in terms of what must be accommodated by the wheel's
structure?

Please assume Earth units and ambient conditions in making your
case.

Chalo

[thirty-six]

On 20 Jan, 20:08, Chalo > wrote:
> thirty-six wrote:
>
> > Andre Jute wrote:
>[i]
> > > On the single occasion that he did deign to discuss technicalities
> > > with me, I demonstrated conclusively that Jobst Brandt's book The
> > > Bicycle Wheel is so badly executed that in the key passage on which
> > > all the rest depends, Brandt contradicts the key drawing on which all
> > > the rest depends.
> > > [snip]
>
> > Would that be the ommision of the datum line on the spoke tension plot
> > which shows an increase in spoke tension through most of a wheel's
> > cycle?
>
> I think you left out a word:
>
> > Would that be the ommision [sic] of the datum line on the spoke tension plot
> > which shows an increase in spoke tension through most of a wheel's
> > cycle?
>
> have a look at the diagram with delta tension values, and accompanying
> table, about halfway down the page.
>
> http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/
>
> Take note that the maximum drop in tension under load is about nine
> times the maximum rise in tension, and about twenty times the median
> rise in tension. *Which force do you believe to be the more
> significant in terms of what must be accommodated by the wheel's
> structure?
>
> Please assume Earth units and ambient conditions in making your
> case.

Both hypothesis are eroneous. Both ignore crossing of the spokes and
dismiss the tying of the spokes as having any effect. It is precisely
the extra support given by the additional bracing which permits the
lowest spokes to lose all tension without any negative affect to the
wheel. The wheel runs well without any tension in the lowest spokes,
an infinite factor of magnitude.

[Ronko[_2_]]

In article <34a42127-4aca-49cf-a49e-
>,
says...
>
>
>On Jan 20, 3:16*am, Jobst Brandt > wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> >>> I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed
cheat
>> >>> Michael Mann.
>> >> WTF business is it of yours what US taxpayers do with their money?
>> > Has Mr. Jute ever had an opinion he did not want to share?
>>
>> That's not so bad,
>
>Poor Jobst "I'm never Wrong" Brandt is here agreeing with the dire
>ignorance of economics of the moron Still Just Stupid, as I explained
>elsewhere in this thread.
>
>Poor Jobst "I'm never Wrong" Brandt is further agreeing with the silly
>miscomprehension by the quarterwit soundbiter Tommi Sherman that I
>expressed an opinion in the text quoted,
>> >>> I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed
cheat
>> >>> Michael Mann.
>Nope, I was merely enumerating the oft-proven and now axiomatic fact
>that Mann is a cheat and a fraud and has been repeatedly exposed.
>
>Not that the facts ever bother Jobst "I'm never Wrong" Brandt much.
>
>>but most of them have no technical basis.
>
>I've been on RBT two years and in that time Jobst "I'm Never Wrong"
>Brandt has deigned to engage me in technical discussion exactly once.
>On every other occasion he issued sneering obiter dicta from his ivory
>tower, then ran away like a whole Ministry of Shambling Pensioners.
>
>> Bicycling is full of unbiased lore and demands critique, but just
>> blurting it out without some reasonable proof is not worth the effort
>> other than to belittle others.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
>On the single occasion that he did deign to discuss technicalities
>with me, I demonstrated conclusively that Jobst Brandt's book The
>Bicycle Wheel is so badly executed that in the key passage on which
>all the rest depends, Brandt contradicts the key drawing on which all
>the rest depends. Either the text or the drawing must be wrong. I
>demonstrated furthermore that Brandt knew this through three editions
>and several reprints and dishonestly did not correct the error despite
>repeatedly being told of it by baffled readers. Instead he abused them
>personally for daring to question his greatness.
>
>Throwing childish tantrums, running around with little gangbangers
>like Still Just Stupid and Liddell Tommi Sherman, kicking
>intellectuals merely because they wear spectacles, should be beneath
>your dignity, Jobst. Why isn't it?
>
>Andre Jute
>I know what I'm doing. Do you?
>

As these children evidently cannot play together, would their parents please
take them to separate sandboxes?

[Tom Sherman °_°]

The André Jute wrote:
> [...]

TLDR

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Chalo Colina wrote:
> [...]
> Please assume Earth units and ambient conditions in making your
> case.
>
Trevor appears to be unfamiliar with those conditions.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

flipper wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:19:40 -0500, * Still Just Me *
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:55:57 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
>>> said it long before the Climategate exposed those clowns as crooks
>>
>> So a couple guys were zealots.
>
> It isn't "a couple of guys." It's the head supposed 'gurus' running
> the premier research, and 'teaching' (read propaganda) facilities, and
> the IPCC, that produce the data all other researchers use.
>
>> That still doesn't disprove
>
> It's AGW that needs 'proof'.
>
>> the other
>> 89.99%
>
> Fabricated number. Not to mention science is not a popularity poll.
>
>> of the world's scientists
>
> Translation: In AGW speak "scientist" is defined as those who bow to
> the faith. It's circular.
>
>> who agree that the planet is warming
>> at an unprecedented rate,
>
> Anyone who looks at the historical record knows that isn't true.
>
>> and the 79.99%
>
> Another fabricated number.
>
>> that agree it's due to man's
>> activities.
>
> In science you need a hypothesis, falsified predictions, and
> experimental validation, none of which AGW has provided.
>
> And if you think otherwise then provide them.
>
>> But go on, get us another TV weatherman who will stand up and tell us
>> differently. We enjoy the humor.
>
> The typical AGW argument: No science, just ad hominem.

You're insulting Clueless's religious beliefs.

Well done! LOL

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 20, 11:50*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> wrote:
> The Andr Jute wrote:
> > [...]
>
> TLDR

That's all right, Liddell Tommi. By definition no one expects
illiterate little gangbangers to be able to read. -- AJ

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 21, 2:15*am, * Still Just Me *
> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:54:24 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 7:00*pm, * Still Just Me *
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:13:09 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >I pointed out that giving more tax payers' money to the exposed cheat
> >> >Michael Mann
>
> >> WTF business is it of yours what US taxpayers do with their money?
>
> >Everyone who owns shares in a US corporation is a US taxpayer, you
> >ignoramus. Everyone who licenses intellectual rights sooner or later
> >is a US taxpayer, you ignoramus. *
>
> It's still none of your damn business. You deal with foreign
> investments then you accept the fact that the foreign government will
> make decisions that impact your investment. You don't like it?

Oh dear. What's not to like? US government policy is determined at one
or two removes by Arab and Japanese corporations. Giving some money to
global warming bumbuddies like Michael Mann is a minor defiance, a
pinprick, an occasion for jokes, not important enough to qualify as
policy. US fiscal policy has been at the mercy of foreigners since
General de Gaulle fixed the value of the dollar by withdrawing
France's gold from Fort Knox. (Actually, the key to the decline of the
dollar was the French diplomatic coup of selling the nasty little
crossbred pup of Indochina to the Americans after it bit the French
sorely at Dien Bien Phu; the tall guy in the kepi merely pushed over
an empty husk with one finger.)

>Then
> stay the hell out. No one invited you and quite frankly, you're not
> welcome.

I've always found the better class of American most welcoming.
Whatever makes you think that the opinion of poor white isolationist
trash like you should matter to anyone?

> >Furthermore, the lies the scammer
> >Michael Mann told were told on behalf of the world body, the UN, and
> >those lies caused policies which cost taxpayers elsewhere, so the
> >overturn of the liar Michael Mann's hockey stick, and the exposure and
> >punishment of the fraudster Michael Mann is a matter for everyone on
> >earth.
>
> Tough ****. You don't like what he says,
> you send someone else to the
> UN from your side of the Atlantic to contradict him.

Not much point in going there when we can, and have, fixed the liar
Michael Mann's wagon from comfortable chairs in Canada and Ireland and
India and China and England. The only remaining question is how many
of the global warmie fraudsters have to do jail time.

>You have no right
> whatsoever to determine what the US spends its money on.

What money? The US is owned by the Arabs and the Japanese. Who do you
think owns Chrysler? Daimler-Benz AG. And who do you think owns DB?
The Saudi Royal Family. Next the Chinese will invest their surplus
profits in the States and in a generation will own most of it. You
should come to terms with it, sonny. If you're not as thick as you
seem, you should learn Mandarin; it will soon be spoken on street
corners you once thought of as yours.

As usual, you're so offbeam, Still Just Stupid, you're a joke.

Unsigned out of contempt

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 21, 4:34*am, flipper > wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:19:40 -0500, * Still Just Me *
>
> > wrote:
> >On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:55:57 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> > wrote:
>
> >>Andre Jute
> >> Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
> >>said it long before the Climategate exposed those clowns as crooks
>
> >So a couple guys were zealots.
>
> It isn't "a couple of guys." It's the head supposed 'gurus' running
> the premier research, and 'teaching' (read propaganda) facilities, and
> the IPCC, that produce the data all other researchers use.
>
> > That still doesn't disprove
>
> It's AGW that needs 'proof'.
>
> > the other
> >89.99%
>
> Fabricated number. Not to mention science is not a popularity poll.
>
> > of the world's scientists
>
> Translation: In AGW speak "scientist" is defined as those who bow to
> the faith. It's circular.
>
> > who agree that the planet is warming
> >at an unprecedented rate,
>
> Anyone who looks at the historical record knows that isn't true.
>
> > and the 79.99%
>
> Another fabricated number.
>
> > that agree it's due to man's
> >activities.
>
> In science you need a hypothesis, falsified predictions,

No question about it, that those manmade global warming fraudsters
have falsified many predictions, but what science needs is
*falsifiable* predictions.

>and
> experimental validation, none of which AGW has provided.
>
> And if you think otherwise then provide them.
>
> >But go on, get us another TV weatherman who will stand up and tell us
> >differently. We enjoy the humor.
>
> The typical AGW argument: No science, just ad hominem.

Still Just Stupid isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. He believes
in Manmade Global warming as an Immaculate Revelation, yet brags that
he drives a large, wasteful truck that makes CO2 like it's going out
of fashion.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Chump change.

Looks like at least two (2) Nobel Peace Prizes given out for blatantly
fraudulent works (of fiction):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

Bill "other one also won an Oscar, of course" S.

[Tony Elka]

In article >,
* Still Just Me * > wrote:

> You can stop with the "science isn't a popularity contest" nonsense.
> When 90% of the world's scientists agree that something is true based
> on the evidence, you'd have to be a real buffoon to go with the 10%
> who disagree based on their narrow political views.



That 10% is sometimes referred to as biostitutes.

It's an apt title, especially for the ones that get their funding and
support from corporations like Chevron, British Petroleum and Shell Oil
or think tanks such as Heritage, the direct descendent of the John Birch
Society.

They play hard, those assholes.

Tony

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
* Still Just Me * > wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:54:24 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> > wrote:
>

<snip Andre's usual drivel>

> It's still none of your damn business.

THEN STOP TALKING TO HIM. You are contributing to the problem by
responding to Andre.

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

[RichL]

flipper > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:30:32 -0800, Tony Elka
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> * Still Just Me * > wrote:
>>
>>> You can stop with the "science isn't a popularity contest" nonsense.
>>> When 90% of the world's scientists agree that something is true
>>> based on the evidence, you'd have to be a real buffoon to go with
>>> the 10% who disagree based on their narrow political views.
>>
>>
>>
>> That 10% is sometimes referred to as biostitutes.
>>
>> It's an apt title, especially for the ones that get their funding and
>> support from corporations like Chevron, British Petroleum and Shell
>> Oil or think tanks such as Heritage, the direct descendent of the
>> John Birch Society.
>>
>> They play hard, those assholes.
>>
>> Tony
>
> Ah, the ever popular poison well fallacy from another AGW, what's
> science got to do, got to do, with it?, religious zealot.
>
> As I already said, it's real damn simple: provide the conjecture, the
> falsifiable predictions made and the results of the validation
> experiments because the only valid argument in science *is* 'the
> science' and not 'how many', regardless of their 'credentials',
> 'believe' this or that.

And what constitutes "science" will continue to be defined by actual
scientists, not cork-sniffing audiophools or tube salesmen.

[RichL]

flipper > wrote:

> They told Einstein the same thing: dumb ass patent clerk 'disagreeing'
> with all those 'scientists'. And the ratio was better than a paltry,
> not to mention fabricated, '90%'

You got a citation for that statement? Talk about fabrication...

> I 'fit myself in' with scientists who expect 'science' to actually be
> science.

Then you won't mind posting your scientific credentials, right?

[sam booka]

flipper > tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" :

> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:09:35 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
>>flipper > wrote:
>>
>>> They told Einstein the same thing: dumb ass patent clerk
>>> 'disagreeing' with all those 'scientists'. And the ratio was better
>>> than a paltry, not to mention fabricated, '90%'
>>
>>You got a citation for that statement?
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/kidwell5/aebio.html
>
> " At the time of the publication on the theory of relativity, the
> people that read the papers met them with skepticism and ridicule. As
> the other papers were published, they were viewed the same way. Since
> these papers were so advanced, only a few physicists even understood
> them, and they slowly started to realize what a true genius Einstein
> actually was. "
>
>> Talk about fabrication...
>>
>>> I 'fit myself in' with scientists who expect 'science' to actually
>>> be science.
>>
>>Then you won't mind posting your scientific credentials, right?
>
> I neither make nor respond to appeal to authority fallacies.

Meanwhile, we already know Rich L, <alleged> Ph.D. is a re+4rd when it
comes to both history and climate science.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[Michael Press]

In article >,
flipper > wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:09:35 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
> >flipper > wrote:
> >
> >> They told Einstein the same thing: dumb ass patent clerk 'disagreeing'
> >> with all those 'scientists'. And the ratio was better than a paltry,
> >> not to mention fabricated, '90%'
> >
> >You got a citation for that statement?
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/kidwell5/aebio.html
>
> " At the time of the publication on the theory of relativity, the
> people that read the papers met them with skepticism and ridicule. As
> the other papers were published, they were viewed the same way. Since
> these papers were so advanced, only a few physicists even understood
> them, and they slowly started to realize what a true genius Einstein
> actually was. "

Any contemporary quotations? Annalen der Physik published
five papers by Einstein in 1905, and that supports the
view that his work was taken seriously. I could not find
contemporary reactions to it.

--
Michael Press

[RichL]

flipper > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:06:57 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
>> flipper > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:30:32 -0800, Tony Elka
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> * Still Just Me * > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can stop with the "science isn't a popularity contest"
>>>>> nonsense. When 90% of the world's scientists agree that something
>>>>> is true based on the evidence, you'd have to be a real buffoon to
>>>>> go with the 10% who disagree based on their narrow political
>>>>> views.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That 10% is sometimes referred to as biostitutes.
>>>>
>>>> It's an apt title, especially for the ones that get their funding
>>>> and support from corporations like Chevron, British Petroleum and
>>>> Shell Oil or think tanks such as Heritage, the direct descendent
>>>> of the John Birch Society.
>>>>
>>>> They play hard, those assholes.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>
>>> Ah, the ever popular poison well fallacy from another AGW, what's
>>> science got to do, got to do, with it?, religious zealot.
>>>
>>> As I already said, it's real damn simple: provide the conjecture,
>>> the falsifiable predictions made and the results of the validation
>>> experiments because the only valid argument in science *is* 'the
>>> science' and not 'how many', regardless of their 'credentials',
>>> 'believe' this or that.
>>
>> And what constitutes "science" will continue to be defined by actual
>> scientists, not cork-sniffing audiophools or tube salesmen.
>>
>
> Sorry, but there's already a definition of science and the scientific
> method.

Sorry, from what I've read here over the past few years, you believe in
the dumbed-down version that's taught in third grade.

[RichL]

flipper > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:09:35 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
>> flipper > wrote:
>>
>>> They told Einstein the same thing: dumb ass patent clerk
>>> 'disagreeing' with all those 'scientists'. And the ratio was better
>>> than a paltry, not to mention fabricated, '90%'
>>
>> You got a citation for that statement?
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/kidwell5/aebio.html
>
> " At the time of the publication on the theory of relativity, the
> people that read the papers met them with skepticism and ridicule. As
> the other papers were published, they were viewed the same way. Since
> these papers were so advanced, only a few physicists even understood
> them, and they slowly started to realize what a true genius Einstein
> actually was. "

A common misconception, and one that's propagated by overly popularized
renditions like the link you posted to. Third grade, like I said in a
different post.

Read this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Times-Ronald-W-Clark/dp/038001159X

Also read the extensive material available from the American Physical
Society's Division of History of Physics.

The idea of Einstein as an iconoclast who worked in isolation and was
doubted by the majority of leading physicists of the day is simply bunk.
The overwhelming evidence indicates that he was well aware of relevant
contemporary theoretical and experimental work of the day, and his
seminal 1905 papers were published in Annalen der Physik, one of the
most prestigious (and well-refereed) journals of the day and which
simply didn't publish papers that were likely to be the subject of
"ridicule" from respectable, first-rate physicists.

Einstein did not develop relativity in isolation; rather, he built it on
pioneering work of others, particularly Poincare and Lorentz theory-wise
and the seminal experiments of Michelson and Morley and of Fizeau.

The vast majority of the leading physicists of the day did not
"ridicule" that 1905 "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" paper. It was
not immediately *universally* accepted, which is essentially why
Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect rather than
relativity. Nevertheless, the Nobel committee is not in the business of
handing out prizes in physics to people who are considered worthy of
"skepticism and ridicule".

Read the Clark bio. Read some reviews of it first so you'll know that
I'm not simply pushing my views here.

>> Talk about fabrication...
>>
>>> I 'fit myself in' with scientists who expect 'science' to actually
>>> be science.
>>
>> Then you won't mind posting your scientific credentials, right?
>
> I neither make nor respond to appeal to authority fallacies.

Translation: "I have little or no scientific training".

Sorry, but physics isn't something you simply pick up overnight. You
study it formally (in the vast majority of cases), or you work in a job
for decades that requires you to gradually accumulate enough knowledge
and experience to be proficient at it (I've seen people do that in a few
cases). And once you do, you realize that the "scientific method" that
we're all taught in grade school is a vast oversimplification of the
reality of doing science.

[RichL]

flipper > wrote:

> I didn't say there was a 'no publish' conspiracy against him

You did imply that over 90% of scientists disagreed with him and
"ridiculed" him, which is patently false.

> Contrary to the popular belief, Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't
> unanimously accepted just because of one eclipse.
>
> Here's a 1932 German article highlighting an ether drift experiment.
>
>
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/queer-machine-checks-up-on-ether-drift/

Hey flipper, brush up on Einstein a bit.

The eclipse measurements pertained to Einstein's *general* relativity
(not part of the 1905 paper), rather than *special* relativity, which
the ether drift experiment pertains to.

No one said it was "universally" accepted either, you said there was
over 90% "disagreement", which is bunk, and posting one paper (written
at a time of increasing anti-Semitism in Germany just before Hitler was
named chancellor) doesn't prove a damned thing.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
> flipper > wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:09:35 -0500, "RichL" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> flipper > wrote:
>>>
>>>> They told Einstein the same thing: dumb ass patent clerk
>>>> 'disagreeing' with all those 'scientists'. And the ratio was better
>>>> than a paltry, not to mention fabricated, '90%'
>>> You got a citation for that statement?
>> http://home.pacbell.net/kidwell5/aebio.html
>>
>> " At the time of the publication on the theory of relativity, the
>> people that read the papers met them with skepticism and ridicule. As
>> the other papers were published, they were viewed the same way. Since
>> these papers were so advanced, only a few physicists even understood
>> them, and they slowly started to realize what a true genius Einstein
>> actually was. "
>
> A common misconception, and one that's propagated by overly popularized
> renditions like the link you posted to. Third grade, like I said in a
> different post.
>
> Read this one:
> http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Times-Ronald-W-Clark/dp/038001159X
>
> Also read the extensive material available from the American Physical
> Society's Division of History of Physics.
>
> The idea of Einstein as an iconoclast who worked in isolation and was
> doubted by the majority of leading physicists of the day is simply bunk.

It is beyond bunk. Einstein had lots of help, especially with knotty
mathematical problems.

> The overwhelming evidence indicates that he was well aware of relevant
> contemporary theoretical and experimental work of the day, and his
> seminal 1905 papers were published in Annalen der Physik, one of the
> most prestigious (and well-refereed) journals of the day and which
> simply didn't publish papers that were likely to be the subject of
> "ridicule" from respectable, first-rate physicists.
>
> Einstein did not develop relativity in isolation; rather, he built it on
> pioneering work of others, particularly Poincare and Lorentz theory-wise
> and the seminal experiments of Michelson and Morley and of Fizeau.
>

No kidding? Michelson-Morley came first? I missed that. Gads, 1887!
Wow. So that hung around, and nobody really said anything on it
that even began to explain it until 1905?


> The vast majority of the leading physicists of the day did not
> "ridicule" that 1905 "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" paper. It was
> not immediately *universally* accepted, which is essentially why
> Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect rather than
> relativity. Nevertheless, the Nobel committee is not in the business of
> handing out prizes in physics to people who are considered worthy of
> "skepticism and ridicule".
>


Heh. Yeah. But only for physics.

> Read the Clark bio. Read some reviews of it first so you'll know that
> I'm not simply pushing my views here.
>

+1 for the Clark bio.

>>> Talk about fabrication...
>>>
>>>> I 'fit myself in' with scientists who expect 'science' to actually
>>>> be science.
>>> Then you won't mind posting your scientific credentials, right?
>> I neither make nor respond to appeal to authority fallacies.
>
> Translation: "I have little or no scientific training".
>
> Sorry, but physics isn't something you simply pick up overnight. You
> study it formally (in the vast majority of cases), or you work in a job
> for decades that requires you to gradually accumulate enough knowledge
> and experience to be proficient at it (I've seen people do that in a few
> cases). And once you do, you realize that the "scientific method" that
> we're all taught in grade school is a vast oversimplification of the
> reality of doing science.
>
>


you should also explain to this guy that at the land grant sort of
college I went to, you knew you were in the upper level classes when
a 34 on a test was a B. The test was four pages, front and back,
handwritten answers. In 50 minutes.

That's when I knew I wasn't a physicist. And it wasn't a *severe* sort
of physics program. I have a minor, which should be interpreted as
"holy cow, don't ask this guy anything about physics!"

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> you should also explain to this guy that at the land grant sort of
> college I went to, you knew you were in the upper level classes when
> a 34 on a test was a B. The test was four pages, front and back,
> handwritten answers. In 50 minutes.

I'll have nightmares tonight at the memory. But actually I did well, I
sort of lived and breathed physics, the same way I lived and breathed
playing music as a teenager. It became an obsession. It seems only the
obsessed survive it and flourish in it.

> That's when I knew I wasn't a physicist. And it wasn't a *severe* sort
> of physics program. I have a minor, which should be interpreted as
> "holy cow, don't ask this guy anything about physics!"

Well, you probably know more than most folks do about it, and you
probably adopted a way of thinking that most folks don't experience,
either.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> you should also explain to this guy that at the land grant sort of
>> college I went to, you knew you were in the upper level classes when
>> a 34 on a test was a B. The test was four pages, front and back,
>> handwritten answers. In 50 minutes.
>
> I'll have nightmares tonight at the memory.

Sorry! You are one of five people who would get this.

Ooops! four people.

> But actually I did well, I
> sort of lived and breathed physics, the same way I lived and breathed
> playing music as a teenager. It became an obsession. It seems only the
> obsessed survive it and flourish in it.
>

Right, and I will start a support group for the obesessison-deprived.
I am not sure there is a building big enough.

>> That's when I knew I wasn't a physicist. And it wasn't a *severe* sort
>> of physics program. I have a minor, which should be interpreted as
>> "holy cow, don't ask this guy anything about physics!"
>
> Well, you probably know more than most folks do about it,

Yes. I got a fecking *B*, man, before I gave it up. A 34 on the
final, yo.

No, I really just found another obsession - indeterminacy.
Indeterminate forms are like...


> and you
> probably adopted a way of thinking that most folks don't experience,
> either.
>
>

Yessir. And thanks to the people at "The Big Bang Theory" for giving
me the courage to admit it.

You really like me.

-
Les Cargilll

[Michael Press]

In article >,
flipper > wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:55:37 -0800, Michael Press >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > flipper > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:09:35 -0500, "RichL" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >flipper > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> They told Einstein the same thing: dumb ass patent clerk 'disagreeing'
> >> >> with all those 'scientists'. And the ratio was better than a paltry,
> >> >> not to mention fabricated, '90%'
> >> >
> >> >You got a citation for that statement?
> >>
> >> http://home.pacbell.net/kidwell5/aebio.html
> >>
> >> " At the time of the publication on the theory of relativity, the
> >> people that read the papers met them with skepticism and ridicule. As
> >> the other papers were published, they were viewed the same way. Since
> >> these papers were so advanced, only a few physicists even understood
> >> them, and they slowly started to realize what a true genius Einstein
> >> actually was. "
> >
> >Any contemporary quotations? Annalen der Physik published
> >five papers by Einstein in 1905, and that supports the
> >view that his work was taken seriously. I could not find
> >contemporary reactions to it.
>
> I didn't say there was a 'no publish' conspiracy against him, that
> tactic is apparently reserved for AGW fanatics, nor did I say 'no one'
> was, at least, willing to consider it..
>
> Einstein was criticized and/or attacked on a number of grounds, some
> legitimate and some not (such as the NAZI "Jew science" propaganda)
> but the salient point, which everyone wants to ignore, is that
> Einstein's theories were eventually accepted on the basis of
> falsifiable predictions and experimental observation of said
> predictions, I.E. science, not 'it sounds good' and 'trust me' nor by
> refusing to debate, destruction of raw data sets, secrecy, and ad
> hominem against critics.
>
> Contrary to the popular belief, Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't
> unanimously accepted just because of one eclipse.
>
> Here's a 1932 German article highlighting an ether drift experiment.
>
> http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/queer-machine-checks-up-on-ether-drift/

But where are the contemporary reactions?

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Les Cargill > wrote:

> It is beyond bunk. Einstein had lots of help, especially with knotty
> mathematical problems.

Hence his famous quotation on the subject.

_Of_course_ Einstein worked off experiment, and the
results of others. We all do. There is a cottage
industry stuffing straw men and burning Einstein in
effigy. Einstein had an impeccable sense for physics.
That is why we respect him.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article >,
flipper > wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:48:07 -0800, Michael Press >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Les Cargill > wrote:
> >
> >> It is beyond bunk. Einstein had lots of help, especially with knotty
> >> mathematical problems.
> >
> >Hence his famous quotation on the subject.
> >
> >_Of_course_ Einstein worked off experiment, and the
> >results of others. We all do. There is a cottage
> >industry stuffing straw men and burning Einstein in
> >effigy. Einstein had an impeccable sense for physics.
> >That is why we respect him.
>
> Who is burning Einstein?

Everybody writing books and articles telling us how
he "stole" from others and took mathematical help
without credit.

--
Michael Press

[AMuzi]

* Still Just Me * wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
>>> next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.
>> First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
>> currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
>> else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
>> it's 'impossible' to do).
>
> Thanks for making up what I believe.
>
> The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
> you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
> a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
> specific change in global temperature.
>
> Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
> There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
> want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
> containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
> radiation causes problems in the human body.


Range is wide, not a simple question:
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=24260

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Michael Press]

In article >,
* Still Just Me * > wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
> >>next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.
> >
> >First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
> >currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
> >else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
> >it's 'impossible' to do).
>
> Thanks for making up what I believe.
>
> The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
> you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
> a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
> specific change in global temperature.
>
> Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
> There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
> want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
> containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
> radiation causes problems in the human body.

You hear the most outrageous lies about radiation.
Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody
it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody
could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They
ought to have them, too. When they canceled the
project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
full to bursting. The next day--nothing. Swept away.
But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:

> I had a lobotomy in the end.

Explains so much.

<eg>

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article >,
> * Still Just Me * > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
>>>> next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.
>>> First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
>>> currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
>>> else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
>>> it's 'impossible' to do).
>> Thanks for making up what I believe.
>>
>> The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
>> you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
>> a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
>> specific change in global temperature.
>>
>> Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
>> There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
>> want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
>> containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
>> radiation causes problems in the human body.
>
> You hear the most outrageous lies about radiation.
> Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody
> it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody
> could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They
> ought to have them, too. When they canceled the
> project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
> full to bursting. The next day--nothing. Swept away.
> But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
>

But which end?

--
les cargill

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Les Cargill > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article >,
> > * Still Just Me * > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
> >>>> next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.
> >>> First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
> >>> currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
> >>> else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
> >>> it's 'impossible' to do).
> >> Thanks for making up what I believe.
> >>
> >> The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
> >> you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
> >> a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
> >> specific change in global temperature.
> >>
> >> Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
> >> There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
> >> want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
> >> containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
> >> radiation causes problems in the human body.
> >
> > You hear the most outrageous lies about radiation.
> > Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody
> > it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody
> > could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They
> > ought to have them, too. When they canceled the
> > project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
> > full to bursting. The next day--nothing. Swept away.
> > But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
> >
>
> But which end?

Oh... You don't wanna look in there.

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

At least one GWA is calling for openness:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
(content within the opinion piece)

Bill "pssssssssssssssssss" S.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Who was talking about "weather" versus "climate"?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html