What is the Middle of the Road?

[Robert Morein]

As with all arguments dominated by extremists, there is a Middle of the
Road, a Happy Medium, a Golden Mean.
The argument of its inhabitants is seldom heard, drowned out by the
extremists.
Yet J.S. Mill said, "Truth is found at the meeting of opposites", or close.

Surely there must be some application of this modality to audio.
Is it not possible to exclude extremes of all sorts, and thus live in Happy
Harmony?

My heart cries out for Dave de Villiers, who, with incomparable eloquence,
said,
"Have been away from this NG for some years...
I see it has not changed that much...
Pity... "

Perhaps we should look into our hearts to find The Path, namely, the path to
the Village of the Happy Nice People, where Bozak echoes through the trees.

[Schizoid Man]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> Perhaps we should look into our hearts to find The Path, namely, the path
> to
> the Village of the Happy Nice People, where Bozak echoes through the
> trees.

I'm sorry, Robert, but when TubeGuy says "Nyqvist be damned. I know what I
hear.", I am compelled by my own intellectual integrity to correct him.

I do staunchly believe that ears are the best guide, but I also believe that
DBTs can be a valid testing methodology for components. After all, a bulk of
the British hi-fi press - What Hi-Fi and Hi-Fi Choice - does employ them.

Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio enthusiast/audiophile
community by reviewing products such as the Tice Clock.

I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in period,
then it is a defective cable.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> My heart cries out for Dave de Villiers, who, with incomparable eloquence,
> said,
> "Have been away from this NG for some years...
> I see it has not changed that much...
> Pity... "

Give it up, Bobo. Dave just wants an excuse to be pulled back in.

[John Atkinson]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
> such as the Tice Clock.

Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost churlish
to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock was
thought so negative by the manufacturer that they canceled
all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that doesn't
make such a good story, does it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Schizoid Man wrote:
> > Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
> > enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
> > such as the Tice Clock.
>
> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost churlish
> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock was
> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they canceled
> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that doesn't
> make such a good story, does it.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
>
Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do. In your case,
you drew the line at giving a positive review to a blatantly fraudulent
"device" marketed by cold-blooded cynics. Congratulations.
There are still positive reviews of Shakti Stones, Mpingo Discs, "cable
cookers" and other assorted BS to answer for, Atkinson.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > My heart cries out for Dave de Villiers, who, with incomparable
eloquence,
> > said,
> > "Have been away from this NG for some years...
> > I see it has not changed that much...
> > Pity... "
>
> Give it up, Bobo. Dave just wants an excuse to be pulled back in.
>
Typo: I meant to say "Muzak".

[Robert Morein]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > Perhaps we should look into our hearts to find The Path, namely, the
path
> > to
> > the Village of the Happy Nice People, where Bozak echoes through the
> > trees.
>
> I'm sorry, Robert, but when TubeGuy says "Nyqvist be damned. I know what I
> hear.", I am compelled by my own intellectual integrity to correct him.
>
> I do staunchly believe that ears are the best guide, but I also believe
that
> DBTs can be a valid testing methodology for components. After all, a bulk
of
> the British hi-fi press - What Hi-Fi and Hi-Fi Choice - does employ them.
>
> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio enthusiast/audiophile
> community by reviewing products such as the Tice Clock.
>
> I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in period,
> then it is a defective cable.
>
Why? A little time, a little current, a little healing for cold solder
joints ? ;)

[Surf]

little torrie****s writes:

> you've got assorted BS to answer for, Atkinson.



zzzzzz.........

[Schizoid Man]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message

> Schizoid Man wrote:

>> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
>> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
>> such as the Tice Clock.
>
> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost churlish
> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock was
> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they canceled
> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that doesn't
> make such a good story, does it.

John,

Perhaps you mistake my criticism for ire, and if you do so I do apologize.
The magazine has been endlessley debated in this forum and, in my opinion,
with good reason.

I do understand that Stereophile is first and foremost a business, and at
second a collection of individual opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. I
do, however, feel that your magazine could have a better job of educating
our community. That is the depth of my complaint with the publication.

Regarding the Tice Clock itself, if memory serves correctly Sam Tellig did
write that he system never sound better when it was plugged in, though he
was wisely reluctant to attribute the improvement to the clock itself.
However, the brouhaha that followed was hardly surprising. Human beings are
a subjective lot. Jumping to conclusions is what we do.

Regarding you personally, I have on more than one occasion commended you for
the restraint you have exercised here. I know first hand how trying this
forum can be (if I did use your magazine as cannon fodder, I do, again,
apologize).

Regards,
Schiz

[Robert Morein]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Schizoid Man wrote:
> > Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
> > enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
> > such as the Tice Clock.
>
> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost churlish
> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock was
> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they canceled
> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that doesn't
> make such a good story, does it.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
I believe it would be fair to say that I've never seen an official
endorsement, as per the Recommended Components List, of a dubious device.
However, one's reputation can be tarred as well by mere association. "We
shall be known by the company we keep". Does mere consideration of a
doubtful device confer upon it a degree of acceptance? Many readers of
Stereophile participate in the hobby with associational, rather than
logical, thought processes. They may infer something that was not intended.
A further amplification of this assocational effect has been given, at
times, by Sam Gilette, in his apparent effusive endorsement of dubious
strategies for sound improvement.

Internet service providers escape responsibility for posted content via the
Internet Decency Act of 1996, which absolved them from legal liability,
provided that they have no mechanism or policy to moderate content.
Conversely, if they do have a policy, they are fully responsible for posted
content. The analogous question would be, "Is Stereophile an open,
unmoderated forum, or is there a central authority that is clearly
responsible for its content?" I believe it is clear that the second case
applies.

Because Stereophile is the result of a very active content shaping process,
it can not claim protection from criticism by an argument similar to the
above. The review of items considered dubious by some or many is a directed,
conscious decision by Stereophile's management. In the absence of a
"nondiscriminatory" reason for consideration, another might be lack of a
priori knowledge that a product is worthless or fraudulent. The problem with
this argument, IMHO, is that for many years Stereophile ignored cheap,
utilitarian equipment, as well as certain offerings of mass-market Japanese
manufacturers that performed far in excess of typical mass market equipment.
In what I recall as an approximation of your position, Stereophile is
exclusive as opposed to inclusive.

John, my guess is that you intended to give the readers some light-hearted
fun. Here, you are in the midst of some very opinionated people. Some of us
have our own opinions regarding what we imagine to be Stereophile's paternal
obligation. Obviously, the magazine is shaped by your vision, and what an
interesting vision it is! Unfortunately, in a world where it is the single
most important audio magazine, there is ever less chance to find truth in
diversity.

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson said:

"Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost churlish
to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock was
thought so negative by the manufacturer that they canceled
all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that doesn't
make such a good story, does it."

It's meaningless in light of the magazine's cowardice in matters such
as Shakti Stones, Green Pens, and other like scams. The best story
would be making sure the things advertised actually do what is claimed,
and not accepting advertising for things that don't.

Why should anyone care if somebody who is commiting fraud, refuses to
advertise in your pages?

[[email protected]]

Robert Anti-science" Morein wrote:

"Why? A little time, a little current, a little healing for cold solder

joints ? ;) "


I shall look forward to the bias controlled listening tests that you
can use to demonstrate that cables have a break-in period.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Robert Anti-science" Morein wrote:
>
> "Why? A little time, a little current, a little healing for cold solder
>
> joints ? ;) "
>
>
> I shall look forward to the bias controlled listening tests that you
> can use to demonstrate that cables have a break-in period.
>
That's a joke, Son, a joke.

[Sylvan Morein]

In article m,
" wrote:

> Robert Anti-science" Morein wrote:
>
> "Why? A little time, a little current, a little healing for cold solder
>
> joints ? ;) "
>
>
> I shall look forward to the bias controlled listening tests that you
> can use to demonstrate that cables have a break-in period..

You'll be waiting a long time for my sick son Bob to do anything, NYOB! My
sick son Bob thinks he's an "expert" in everything, what we called in my day
"an asshole know-it-all". He's now planning to "invent" something in the
"home energy" field, but keep in mind he's 53 years old and has NEVER HAD A
PAYING JOB. NEVER!

You expect he has the patience and desire to do something as simple as a
listening test???? How do you think someone gets to be 53 without even
having a simple job, much less a career?

Here's a summary of the sad history of my son Bob.

Unfortunately, Bob can NEVER admit he's been beaten, or he's wrong. He
spent 12 years in college trying to write a thesis that was totally without
any scientific merit. When Drexel got tired of his bleating about not
giving him a degree, he sued them. And even after he was proven IN COURT to
have been wrong, he insisted on appealing to the Supreme Court in
Washington.

And to this day, still believes that THEY are wrong, too!

So you're not going to change him, god knows his mother tried and it killed
her.



Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS

PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Bob Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

>
> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."

[Schizoid Man]

"Sylvan Morein" > wrote in message

>> Robert Anti-science" Morein wrote:
>>
>> "Why? A little time, a little current, a little healing for cold solder
>>
>> joints ? ;) "

> You'll be waiting a long time for my sick son Bob to do anything, NYOB!
> My
> sick son Bob thinks he's an "expert" in everything, what we called in my
> day
> "an asshole know-it-all". He's now planning to "invent" something in the
> "home energy" field, but keep in mind he's 53 years old and has NEVER HAD
> A
> PAYING JOB. NEVER!

Judging by the length of your post, I'd say that you don't have a paying job
either, sir.

[Robert Morein]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sylvan Morein" > wrote in message
>
> >> Robert Anti-science" Morein wrote:
> >>
> >> "Why? A little time, a little current, a little healing for cold solder
> >>
> >> joints ? ;) "
>
> > You'll be waiting a long time for my sick son Bob to do anything, NYOB!
> > My
> > sick son Bob thinks he's an "expert" in everything, what we called in my
> > day
> > "an asshole know-it-all". He's now planning to "invent" something in
the
> > "home energy" field, but keep in mind he's 53 years old and has NEVER
HAD
> > A
> > PAYING JOB. NEVER!
>
> Judging by the length of your post, I'd say that you don't have a paying
job
> either, sir.
>
It's Bwian. He's been posting from highwinds-media.com on this group.
And, as I pointed out, I was joking.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> And, as I pointed out, I was joking.

Did you get a permit for this "joking"? Otherwise, the Hivies won't be able
to distinguish it from "claims".

[Arny Krueger]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
>> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
>> such as the Tice Clock.
>
> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost churlish
> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock was
> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they canceled
> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that
doesn't
> make such a good story, does it.

Yup, and the same thing happened with Shatki stones and any
number of vastly overpriced, overhyped and plain old snake
oil type products.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > And, as I pointed out, I was joking.
>
> Did you get a permit for this "joking"? Otherwise, the Hivies won't be
able
> to distinguish it from "claims".
>
No. When I get in a penitent mood, I'm sure the full import will hit me.

[Sander deWaal]

"Schizoid Man" > said:

>I do staunchly believe that ears are the best guide, but I also believe that
>DBTs can be a valid testing methodology for components.


You don't use your ears in a DBT? ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Schizoid Man wrote:
>> > Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
>> > enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
>> > such as the Tice Clock.
>>
>> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost churlish
>> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock was
>> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they canceled
>> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that doesn't
>> make such a good story, does it.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
>>
> Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do.

Sounds like a bicycle grease monkey is one of them :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:

>> Schizoid Man wrote:

>>> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
>>> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
>>> such as the Tice Clock.

>> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost
churlish
>> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock
was
>> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they
canceled
>> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that
doesn't
>> make such a good story, does it.

It makes the story more interesting, or at least more
confusing.


> Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do.

So, I'm told. But then RAO has the Middius clique, doesn't
it?

> In your case, you drew the line at giving a positive
review to a blatantly
> fraudulent "device" marketed by cold-blooded cynics.

That strikes me as a pretty good description of the Tice
Clock.

> Congratulations.

We thus might have some measure of the depths that SP won't
go down to.

> There are still positive reviews of Shakti Stones, Mpingo
Discs,
> "cable cookers" and other assorted BS to answer for,
Atkinson.

How do you distinguish these from the Tice clock?

;-)

[Margaret von B.]

Bwian McCarty > wrote
rdnews.com...
>
> FAILED STUDENT
> FAILED MOVIE MAKER
> FAILED SCREENWRITER
> FAILED INVESTOR
> FAILED DRIVER
> FAILED SON
> FAILED PARENTS
> FAILED INVENTOR
> FAILED PLAINTIFF
> FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
> FAILED HUMAN
> FAILED
> FAILED
>

Hello Bwian,

Does it really take ALL of that to make *you* feel superior?

Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Margaret von B. said:

> > Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do.

> Sounds like a bicycle grease monkey is one of them :-)

LOL (really).

Hey, I think I heard a shoelace pop in San Fran. Must be a humor quake.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > John Atkinson wrote:
>
> >> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
> >>> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
> >>> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
> >>> such as the Tice Clock.
>
> >> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost
> churlish
> >> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock
> was
> >> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they
> canceled
> >> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that
> doesn't
> >> make such a good story, does it.
>
> It makes the story more interesting, or at least more
> confusing.
>
>
> > Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do.
>
> So, I'm told. But then RAO has the Middius clique, doesn't
> it?
>
> > In your case, you drew the line at giving a positive
> review to a blatantly
> > fraudulent "device" marketed by cold-blooded cynics.
>
> That strikes me as a pretty good description of the Tice
> Clock.
>
> > Congratulations.
>
> We thus might have some measure of the depths that SP won't
> go down to.
>
> > There are still positive reviews of Shakti Stones, Mpingo
> Discs,
> > "cable cookers" and other assorted BS to answer for,
> Atkinson.
>
>
> How do you distinguish these from the Tice clock?
>
>

a) The Tice Clock is such a transparent hoax that even the sponge-brain
writers at the Pile could see through it.
>
b) Atkinson needed a sacrifical lamb to establish some credibility and
the Tice Clock was an easy target.
>
c) Tice didn't buy enough ad space
>
d) All of the above
>
OR?????


I like "d". ;-)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > >> Schizoid Man wrote:
> >
> > >>> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
> > >>> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
> > >>> such as the Tice Clock.
> >
> > >> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost
> > churlish
> > >> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock
> > was
> > >> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they
> > canceled
> > >> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that
> > doesn't
> > >> make such a good story, does it.
> >
> > It makes the story more interesting, or at least more
> > confusing.
> >
> >
> > > Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do.
> >
> > So, I'm told. But then RAO has the Middius clique, doesn't
> > it?
> >
> > > In your case, you drew the line at giving a positive
> > review to a blatantly
> > > fraudulent "device" marketed by cold-blooded cynics.
> >
> > That strikes me as a pretty good description of the Tice
> > Clock.
> >
> > > Congratulations.
> >
> > We thus might have some measure of the depths that SP won't
> > go down to.
> >
> > > There are still positive reviews of Shakti Stones, Mpingo
> > Discs,
> > > "cable cookers" and other assorted BS to answer for,
> > Atkinson.
> >
> >
> > How do you distinguish these from the Tice clock?
> >
> >
>
> a) The Tice Clock is such a transparent hoax that even the sponge-brain
> writers at the Pile could see through it.
> >
> b) Atkinson needed a sacrifical lamb to establish some credibility and
> the Tice Clock was an easy target.
> >
> c) Tice didn't buy enough ad space
> >
> d) All of the above
> >
> OR?????
>
>
> I like "d". ;-)



So you have all the logic skills of a garden variety creationist. You
know even a job at McDonalds will help you generate *some* income. And
it won't ask you to think too much.



Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > John Atkinson wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Schizoid Man wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
> > > >>> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
> > > >>> such as the Tice Clock.
> > >
> > > >> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost
> > > churlish
> > > >> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock
> > > was
> > > >> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they
> > > canceled
> > > >> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that
> > > doesn't
> > > >> make such a good story, does it.
> > >
> > > It makes the story more interesting, or at least more
> > > confusing.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do.
> > >
> > > So, I'm told. But then RAO has the Middius clique, doesn't
> > > it?
> > >
> > > > In your case, you drew the line at giving a positive
> > > review to a blatantly
> > > > fraudulent "device" marketed by cold-blooded cynics.
> > >
> > > That strikes me as a pretty good description of the Tice
> > > Clock.
> > >
> > > > Congratulations.
> > >
> > > We thus might have some measure of the depths that SP won't
> > > go down to.
> > >
> > > > There are still positive reviews of Shakti Stones, Mpingo
> > > Discs,
> > > > "cable cookers" and other assorted BS to answer for,
> > > Atkinson.
> > >
> > >
> > > How do you distinguish these from the Tice clock?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > a) The Tice Clock is such a transparent hoax that even the sponge-brain
> > writers at the Pile could see through it.
> > >
> > b) Atkinson needed a sacrifical lamb to establish some credibility and
> > the Tice Clock was an easy target.
> > >
> > c) Tice didn't buy enough ad space
> > >
> > d) All of the above
> > >
> > OR?????
> >
> >
> > I like "d". ;-)
>
>
>
> So you have all the logic skills of a garden variety creationist. You
> know even a job at McDonalds will help you generate *some* income. And
> it won't ask you to think too much.
>
>
>
It's Scott Wheeler:
>
http://tinyurl.com/bg5k4
>
Are those new glasses, Scooter? ;-)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>> Stereophile has also done no favors to the audio
> > > > >>> enthusiast/audiophile community by reviewing products
> > > > >>> such as the Tice Clock.
> > > >
> > > > >> Given the depth of your ire, it would seem almost
> > > > churlish
> > > > >> to point that Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock
> > > > was
> > > > >> thought so negative by the manufacturer that they
> > > > canceled
> > > > >> all their advertising in my magazine. But I guess that
> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> make such a good story, does it.
> > > >
> > > > It makes the story more interesting, or at least more
> > > > confusing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Even the most crack-crazed whore has things she won't do.
> > > >
> > > > So, I'm told. But then RAO has the Middius clique, doesn't
> > > > it?
> > > >
> > > > > In your case, you drew the line at giving a positive
> > > > review to a blatantly
> > > > > fraudulent "device" marketed by cold-blooded cynics.
> > > >
> > > > That strikes me as a pretty good description of the Tice
> > > > Clock.
> > > >
> > > > > Congratulations.
> > > >
> > > > We thus might have some measure of the depths that SP won't
> > > > go down to.
> > > >
> > > > > There are still positive reviews of Shakti Stones, Mpingo
> > > > Discs,
> > > > > "cable cookers" and other assorted BS to answer for,
> > > > Atkinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How do you distinguish these from the Tice clock?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > a) The Tice Clock is such a transparent hoax that even the sponge-brain
> > > writers at the Pile could see through it.
> > > >
> > > b) Atkinson needed a sacrifical lamb to establish some credibility and
> > > the Tice Clock was an easy target.
> > > >
> > > c) Tice didn't buy enough ad space
> > > >
> > > d) All of the above
> > > >
> > > OR?????
> > >
> > >
> > > I like "d". ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > So you have all the logic skills of a garden variety creationist. You
> > know even a job at McDonalds will help you generate *some* income. And
> > it won't ask you to think too much.
> >
> >
> >
> It's Scott Wheeler:
> >
> http://tinyurl.com/bg5k4
> >
> Are those new glasses, Scooter? ;-)



I doubt your mom would appreciate you showing clips of her giving birth
to you. If she kicks you out of the house what will you do?




Scott Wheeler

[jeffc]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Surely there must be some application of this modality to audio.
> Is it not possible to exclude extremes of all sorts, and thus live in
> Happy
> Harmony?

Actually, sometimes the middle of the road is the worst place to be.

[Robert Morein]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> Bwian McCarty > wrote
> rdnews.com...
> >
> > FAILED STUDENT
> > FAILED MOVIE MAKER
> > FAILED SCREENWRITER
> > FAILED INVESTOR
> > FAILED DRIVER
> > FAILED SON
> > FAILED PARENTS
> > FAILED INVENTOR
> > FAILED PLAINTIFF
> > FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
> > FAILED HUMAN
> > FAILED
> > FAILED
> >
>
> Hello Bwian,
>
> Does it really take ALL of that to make *you* feel superior?
>
> Margaret
>
I'm afraid so. And what is paradoxical is that he actually gives himself
license to scam himself, with
http://www.worldjazz.com and http://www.coralseastudios.com .
What kind of psychological compensation mechanism makes him indict innocent
people for what he himself does?
I'd love to pick his brain.

[jeffc]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in period,
> then it is a defective cable.

Maybe you feel the same way about internal combustion engines? It occurs to
me that someone who will only accept DBTs as a valid testing method must be
very insecure in your ability to hear.

[jeffc]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> Internet service providers escape responsibility for posted content via
> the
> Internet Decency Act of 1996, which absolved them from legal liability,
> provided that they have no mechanism or policy to moderate content.
> Conversely, if they do have a policy, they are fully responsible for
> posted
> content. The analogous question would be, "Is Stereophile an open,
> unmoderated forum, or is there a central authority that is clearly
> responsible for its content?" I believe it is clear that the second case
> applies.

Maybe it should be censored by the government.

[George M. Middius]

jeffc said:

> > I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in period,
> > then it is a defective cable.
>
> Maybe you feel the same way about internal combustion engines? It occurs to
> me that someone who will only accept DBTs as a valid testing method must be
> very insecure in your ability to hear.


That surmise is very close to the mark. Schizo is at a point in his young
and foolish life where he's just getting tired of his old dogmas and is now
ripe for imprinting with new ones. Furthermore, he has a strong need to
validate his extensive education (three degrees and counting), so the more
scientific-sounding a dogma patch looks to him, the more attractive it is.
The foundation of the dogma he seeks has to be compatible with his core
belief that you can't be overeducated. Hence the robotic obeisance toward
anything smacking of scientism: The less subjective an experience is, the
closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines himself to
inhabit.

[George M. Middius]

jeffc said:

> > Internet service providers escape responsibility for posted content via
> > the Internet Decency Act of 1996, which absolved them from legal liability,
> > provided that they have no mechanism or policy to moderate content.
> > Conversely, if they do have a policy, they are fully responsible for
> > posted content. The analogous question would be, "Is Stereophile an open,
> > unmoderated forum, or is there a central authority that is clearly
> > responsible for its content?" I believe it is clear that the second case
> > applies.

> Maybe it should be censored by the government.

You rightly mock Bobo's attempt to paint a privately owned entertainment
venue with a public convenience. Certainly the same rules don't apply to a
public park as to an art gallery.

[Sander deWaal]

"jeffc" > said:


>> I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in period,
>> then it is a defective cable.

>Maybe you feel the same way about internal combustion engines? It occurs to
>me that someone who will only accept DBTs as a valid testing method must be
>very insecure in your ability to hear.


To be honest, an internal combustion engine is an entire different
mechanism.

My take on this is that cable break in is a psychological phenomenon
(not to be ignored, BTW!).

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[John Atkinson]

jeffc wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Internet service providers escape responsibility for posted
> > content via the Internet Decency Act of 1996, which absolved
> > them from legal liability, provided that they have no mechanism
> > or policy to moderate content. Conversely, if they do have a
> > policy, they are fully responsible for posted content. The
> > analogous question would be, "Is Stereophile an open,
> > unmoderated forum, or is there a central authority that is
> > clearly responsible for its content?" I believe it is clear that
> > the second case applies.
>
> Maybe it should be censored by the government.

Something that has been repeatedly suggested by Howard Ferstler
on this forum. Curiously, however, he exempted his own writing and
the publications in which it appears from this demand :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Margaret von B.]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> jeffc said:
>
>> > I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in
>> > period,
>> > then it is a defective cable.
>>
>> Maybe you feel the same way about internal combustion engines? It occurs
>> to
>> me that someone who will only accept DBTs as a valid testing method must
>> be
>> very insecure in your ability to hear.
>
>
> That surmise is very close to the mark. Schizo is at a point in his young
> and foolish life where he's just getting tired of his old dogmas and is
> now
> ripe for imprinting with new ones. Furthermore, he has a strong need to
> validate his extensive education (three degrees and counting), so the more
> scientific-sounding a dogma patch looks to him, the more attractive it is.
> The foundation of the dogma he seeks has to be compatible with his core
> belief that you can't be overeducated. Hence the robotic obeisance toward
> anything smacking of scientism: The less subjective an experience is, the
> closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines himself
> to
> inhabit.
>

FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
refuses to discuss it... :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Margaret von B. said:

> > The less subjective an experience is, the
> > closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines himself
> > to inhabit.

> FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
> refuses to discuss it... :-)

A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> That surmise is very close to the mark. Schizo is at a point in his young
> and foolish life where he's just getting tired of his old dogmas and is now
> ripe for imprinting with new ones. Furthermore, he has a strong need to
> validate his extensive education (three degrees and counting), so the more
> scientific-sounding a dogma patch looks to him, the more attractive it is.
> The foundation of the dogma he seeks has to be compatible with his core
> belief that you can't be overeducated. Hence the robotic obeisance toward
> anything smacking of scientism: The less subjective an experience is, the
> closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines himself to
> inhabit.

I have said it once and I'll say it again - you need reading
comprehension lessons.

I despise dogma and always have. Perhaps you should consult the Google
archive. Don't worry, it won't lie to you! ;)

As far as my 'extensive education' is concerned, I think it may be
indeed be over as I've managed to find myself an interesting job.

My core belief that you cannot be overeducated certainly does apply to
you, Middius. You have shown the paucity of your own education more than
once on this forum.

Has the Stereophile staff not been feeding you, or is it natural for you
to constantly whine?

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Margaret von B. said:
>
>
>>>The less subjective an experience is, the
>>>closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines himself
>>>to inhabit.
>
>
>
>>FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
>>refuses to discuss it... :-)
>
>
> A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

And you are a closet homosexual (according to what I've read here).

What do they say about birds of a feather? ;-)

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Margaret von B. said:
>
>
>>>The less subjective an experience is, the
>>>closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines himself
>>>to inhabit.
>
>
>
>>FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
>>refuses to discuss it... :-)
>
>
> A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
of others.

Please do recommend some speakers and amps for us. I am sure Fremer and
Dudley and everyone else you fellate would have whispered something in
your ear.

Since you had so much trouble with 'trite', here's another vocabulary
exercise for you: charlatan.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charlatan

[George M. Middius]

Sally Ann said:

> >>FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
> >>refuses to discuss it... :-)

> > A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

> And you are a closet homosexual (according to what I've read here).

Silly girl. I'm completely out. You need to lower the octane on your
Cluelessnes Potion.

> What do they say about birds of a feather? ;-)

Scheduled a pilgrimage to Michigan yet? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

St. Beatrice the Newly Unbonked said:

> > A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

> Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
> himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
> of others.

I do declare, I believe you're trying to be funny. Or if not, then of what
are you babbling now?

> Please do recommend some speakers and amps for us. I am sure Fremer and
> Dudley and everyone else you fellate would have whispered something in
> your ear.
>
> Since you had so much trouble with 'trite', here's another vocabulary
> exercise for you: charlatan.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charlatan

You seem a little thin-skinned today. I would call Krooger a charlatan
except that he tries to recruit people, not sell them something. Does that
make me a despot?

[Lionel]

Schizoid Man a écrit :
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>> Margaret von B. said:
>>
>>
>>>> The less subjective an experience is, the
>>>> closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines
>>>> himself to inhabit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
>>> refuses to discuss it... :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(
>
>
> Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
> himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
> of others.


Do you really think that George has time to waste with such
pecadillo ?

He is speaking in the name of "the overwhelming consensus
opinion of wine connoisseurs".

:-D

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man asked "George":
>
>
<snipped>
>
>
> Has the Stereophile staff not been feeding you
> ?
>
>
http://tinyurl.com/a6wrd
>
Atkinson keeps his attack dogs lean. ;-)

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> St. Beatrice the Newly Unbonked said:
>
> > > A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(
>
> > Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
> > himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
> > of others.
>
> I do declare, I believe you're trying to be funny. Or if not, then of what
> are you babbling now?
>
> > Please do recommend some speakers and amps for us. I am sure Fremer and
> > Dudley and everyone else you fellate would have whispered something in
> > your ear.
> >
> > Since you had so much trouble with 'trite', here's another vocabulary
> > exercise for you: charlatan.
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charlatan
>
>
Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

[Surf]

little torrie****s whispers:

> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with
> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!


How much money did you make today, dickless?

[George M. Middius]

Surf said:

> little torrie****s whispers:
>
> > Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with
> > tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

> How much money did you make today, dickless?

I heard he's been mugging the kids who sell candy bars door to door.
Probably scores ten bucks two or three times a week.

[Arny Krueger]

Surf wrote:
> little torrie****s whispers:
>
>> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
with
>> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

> How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup accorting to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
of deceit for a price is justified.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Surf wrote:
> > little torrie****s whispers:
> >
> >> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
> with
> >> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
>
> > How much money did you make today, dickless?
>
> Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
> of deceit for a price is justified.
>
>
He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of snake-oil audio,
while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Surf wrote:
>>> little torrie****s whispers:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
customers
>> with
>>>> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
>>
>>> How much money did you make today, dickless?
>>
>> Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
kind
>> of deceit for a price is justified.

> He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
snake-oil audio,
> while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.

Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Surf wrote:
> > little torrie****s whispers:
> >
> >> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
> with
> >> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
>
> > How much money did you make today, dickless?
>
> Yup accorting to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
> of deceit for a price is justified.



Are you ****ed off because you can't get paid for yours?



Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> Surf wrote:
> >>> little torrie****s whispers:
> >>>
> >>>> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
> customers
> >> with
> >>>> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
> >>
> >>> How much money did you make today, dickless?
> >>
> >> Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
> kind
> >> of deceit for a price is justified.
>
> > He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
> snake-oil audio,
> > while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.
>
> Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
> RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.



"If irony killed."






Scott Wheeler

[George Middius]

Scott said:

>> Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
>> RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.

Arnii, you tickle me. What on earth can you mean by "large-scale Middius dupes"?
I think your Paranoa™Borg juice is running too thick.

>"If irony killed."

Now now. I'm sure you realize that neither Arnii nor the Kroobitch have any
"riches". Remember how flummoxed Turdy got at the thought of a $78K salary? To
him, "riches" probably means enough money to take an overseas vacation once
every three years.

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Surf wrote:
>> > little torrie****s whispers:
>> >
>> >> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
>> with
>> >> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
>>
>> > How much money did you make today, dickless?
>>
>> Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
>> of deceit for a price is justified.
>>
>>
> He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of snake-oil audio,
> while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.
>

As opposed to lubing bicycle chains.... :-)


Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Surf wrote:
>>>> little torrie****s whispers:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
> customers
>>> with
>>>>> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
>>>
>>>> How much money did you make today, dickless?
>>>
>>> Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
> kind
>>> of deceit for a price is justified.
>
>> He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
> snake-oil audio,
>> while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.
>
> Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
> RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.
>

Actually, managing wealth is a career, and a lucrative one. Operating a
couple of slide projectors at a church is not a career. And it most
certainly isn't a "managerial job" as you have claimed.


Cheers,

Margaret

[George Middius]

Margaret von B. said to ****-for-Brains:

>Actually, managing wealth is a career, and a lucrative one. Operating a
>couple of slide projectors at a church is not a career. And it most
>certainly isn't a "managerial job" as you have claimed.

Are you saying Arnii has overstated his "professional" responsibilities? That he
has deliberately tried to mislead RAO about his value in the world? That's
surprising in light of Mr. ****'s history of being candid and forthcoming about,
uh, everything.

Arnii, for shame. Go get your Christian suit cleaned and pressed. You've got
some church time coming. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
oups.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Surf wrote:
>>>> little torrie****s whispers:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
customers
>>> with
>>>>> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
>>>
>>>> How much money did you make today, dickless?
>>>
>>> Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
kind
>>> of deceit for a price is justified.
>>>
>>>
>> He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
snake-oil
>> audio, while he's flogging real estate for his wife's
firm.
>>
>
> As opposed to lubing bicycle chains.... :-)

Well Maggie given what you are always having to lube to turn
a buck...

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> Surf wrote:
>>>>> little torrie****s whispers:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
> customers
>>>> with
>>>>>> tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!
>>>>
>>>>> How much money did you make today, dickless?
>>>>
>>>> Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
> kind
>>>> of deceit for a price is justified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
> snake-oil
>>> audio, while he's flogging real estate for his wife's
> firm.
>>>
>>
>> As opposed to lubing bicycle chains.... :-)
>
> Well Maggie given what you are always having to lube to turn
> a buck...
>

Exactly what do you mean by the above statement, Mr. Krueger? Please explain
to me and others here who are not familiar with the lifestyle of the Krueger
family. Thank you.

Margaret

[jeffc]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "jeffc" > said:
>
>
>>> I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in
>>> period,
>>> then it is a defective cable.
>
>>Maybe you feel the same way about internal combustion engines? It occurs
>>to
>>me that someone who will only accept DBTs as a valid testing method must
>>be
>>very insecure in your ability to hear.
>
>
> To be honest, an internal combustion engine is an entire different
> mechanism.

Ya think? That wasn't really the point. The point is, we mock and fear
what we don't understand. And frankly, I've never heard of anyone who
really understands audio. Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.
So much for science (and I am a scientist by profession by the way).

[George M. Middius]

jeffc said:

> Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.

The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.


I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> jeffc said:
>
>
>>Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.
>
>
> The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
> The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
> The magnetism connected to the nucleus
> And gravity makes it all go 'round.
>
>
> I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
funny or clever for that? ;-))

However, remembering grade-school physics I'm not entirely sure gravity
makes the electron stay in its orbit. IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot
be applied to quantum particles.

[George M. Middius]

SchizTwerp said:

> > The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
> > The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
> > The magnetism connected to the nucleus
> > And gravity makes it all go 'round.

> > I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?
>
> I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
> funny or clever for that? ;-))

Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........

[Lionel]

In >, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote :

>
>
> jeffc said:
>
>> Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.
>
> The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
> The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
> The magnetism connected to the nucleus
> And gravity makes it all go 'round.

YOur knowledge in physics is as poor has your knowledge of about wines,
George...
Even not popularization for elementary school pupils.


> I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

A bad start yes. As usual. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
> >
> > jeffc said:
> >
> >
> >>Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.
> >
> >
> > The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
> > The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
> > The magnetism connected to the nucleus
> > And gravity makes it all go 'round.
> >
> >
> > I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?
>
> I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
> funny or clever for that? ;-))
>
> However, remembering grade-school physics



You took physics in grade school? wow.



I'm not entirely sure gravity
> makes the electron stay in its orbit.



That's a good one.



IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot
> be applied to quantum particles.



I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.




Scott Wheeler

[George Middius]

La Salope gets her panties in a bunch.

>> The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
>> The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
>> The magnetism connected to the nucleus
>> And gravity makes it all go 'round.

>YOur knowledge in physics is as poor has your knowledge of about wines,
>George...

Still better than your "knowledge" of English, Slut.

>Even not popularization for elementary school pupils.

Thank you for the daily dose of gibberish.


Now a harlot's a difficult student
Her wit will run toward the impudent
Teach her to write?
Go fly a kite!
But boffing would not be imprudent. ;-)

[George Middius]

Scott said:

>I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.

Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:

> SchizTwerp said:
>
>
>>>The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
>>>The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
>>>The magnetism connected to the nucleus
>>>And gravity makes it all go 'round.
>
>
>>>I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?
>>
>>I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
>>funny or clever for that? ;-))
>
>
> Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........

A joke, dear Georgie.

[George Middius]

Little Bo Peep muttered:

>>>>I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

>>>I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
>>>funny or clever for that? ;-))

>> Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........

>A joke, dear Georgie.

I think you're still smarting from Scott's breezy dismissal of your own leaden
attempts at humor, and you're acting out by imitating him.

I could be wrong, but I'm not.

[Schizoid Man]

George Middius wrote:

> Scott said:
>
>>I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.
>
> Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
> know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
> humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.

I would never be so stupid as to associate one's "knowledge" with the
number of degrees that one possesses.

Twain said, correctly IMO, that one should never let school intefere
with one's education.

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>

>
> I'm not entirely sure gravity
>
>>makes the electron stay in its orbit.
>

> That's a good one.


IIRC, in order for gravity to make the electron stay in orbit the
electron would have to have mass, right?

Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?

> IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot
>
>>be applied to quantum particles.
>
> I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.

[Lionel]

George Middius a écrit :
> La Salope gets her panties in a bunch.
>
>
>>>The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
>>>The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
>>>The magnetism connected to the nucleus
>>>And gravity makes it all go 'round.
>
>
>>YOur knowledge in physics is as poor has your knowledge of about wines,
>>George...
>
>
> Still better than your "knowledge" of English, Slut.


Three days ago George was writing :

"No fair. I killfiled Slut so I had no chance to get fluent
in her dialect."

LOL, what a doggedness...

http://smsc.cnes.fr/Fr/physique_fonda.htm
This will give you also an occasion to improve your, French
idiot. ;-)

[Lionel]

In >, George Middius wrote :

>
> Little Bo Peep muttered:
>
>>>>>I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?
>
>>>>I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
>>>>funny or clever for that? ;-))
>
>>> Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........
>
>>A joke, dear Georgie.
>
> I think you're still smarting from Scott's breezy dismissal of your own
> leaden attempts at humor, and you're acting out by imitating him.
>
> I could be wrong, but I'm not.

Yesterday I was writing :

"Apologies to George aren't necessary but prove that you are a kind guy...
Just for laugh and to confirm that you wasn't so wrong, I bet that if John
hadn't posted before, George's answer would have been totally different. Do
you see what I mean ? ;-)"

George is really TOO predictable... :-D

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

> > Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
> > know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
> > humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.
>
> I would never be so stupid as to associate one's "knowledge" with the
> number of degrees that one possesses.

I'm not ragging on your excess of education now. That was yesterday.

> Twain said, correctly IMO, that one should never let school intefere
> with one's education.

De Mille said the only part of movies he didn't like is actors.

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Schizoid Man said:
>
>
>>>Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
>>>know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
>>>humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.
>>
>>I would never be so stupid as to associate one's "knowledge" with the
>>number of degrees that one possesses.
>
>
> I'm not ragging on your excess of education now. That was yesterday.
>
>
>>Twain said, correctly IMO, that one should never let school intefere
>>with one's education.
>
>
> De Mille said the only part of movies he didn't like is actors.

He had the hots for Liz Taylor, right?

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure gravity
> >
> >>makes the electron stay in its orbit.
> >
>
> > That's a good one.
>
>
> IIRC, in order for gravity to make the electron stay in orbit the
> electron would have to have mass, right?


Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.




>
> Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?


To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
small.




>
> > IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot
> >
> >>be applied to quantum particles.
> >
> > I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.
>
> Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.


If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
Gravity does work on all quanta.



Scott Wheeler

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:

> Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
> force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
> to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
> gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.

Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same thing.

Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.

Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
kilograms, making its gravitational force completely negligible.

Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
educational (layman's terms):
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm

To quote from it:
"The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
subatomic particles."

>>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
>>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
>
> To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> small.

Not true. Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
Newtonian mechanics, which led to the development of of quantum physics
in the first place.

If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.

> If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
> Gravity does work on all quanta.

It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear that.

Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
> > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
> > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
> > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
>
> Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same thi=
ng.


Who said otherwise?



>
> Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.


But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
without mass.



>
> Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
> kilograms,



Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
have mass."


making its gravitational force completely negligible.




No. It makes it small but not negligable.




>
> Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> educational (layman's terms):
> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm




Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
find all the info I gave you to be dead on.





>
> To quote from it:
> "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
> and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> subatomic particles."


But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
hard to classify as negligable.




>
> >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> >
> > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > small.
>
> Not true.


Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.



Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> Newtonian mechanics,


Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
reletivity?



which led to the development of of quantum physics
> in the first place.


No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
about.






>
> If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
> not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.


Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
radiation that started it all.




>
> > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
> > Gravity does work on all quanta.
>
> It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear that.


They knew it.




>
> Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)



I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Again, I suggest you read my posts
more carefully. I also suggest you read your own sources more
carefully. You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
quanta.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://smsc.cnes.fr/Fr/physique_fonda.htm
> This will give you also an occasion to improve your, French idiot. ;-)

This will help you improve your English.
"At least" it can't hurt it.
http://www.fisher-price.com/us/fun/games/abc/



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

> > De Mille said the only part of movies he didn't like is actors.
>
> He had the hots for Liz Taylor, right?

Twain liked to drink. Your point?

[George M. Middius]

Scott said:

> > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)

> I didn't learn physics in grade school. I

I notice neither of you has been able to improve on my adaptation of the
song lyrics. Perhaps you'd like to debate how many Sluts can service a
firehose for the 'borgs? ;-)

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Schizoid Man said:
>
>
>>>De Mille said the only part of movies he didn't like is actors.
>>
>>He had the hots for Liz Taylor, right?
>
>
> Twain liked to drink. Your point?

I have none.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Scott said:
>
> > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
>
> > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I
>
> I notice neither of you has been able to improve on my adaptation of the
> song lyrics. Perhaps you'd like to debate how many Sluts can service a
> firehose for the 'borgs? ;-)


Nope. But I do hope Schiz appreciates the free education I'm giving him
on physics.




Scott Wheeler

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>Scott said:
>>
>>>>Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
>>
>>>I didn't learn physics in grade school. I
>>
>>I notice neither of you has been able to improve on my adaptation of the
>>song lyrics. Perhaps you'd like to debate how many Sluts can service a
>>firehose for the 'borgs? ;-)
>
> Nope. But I do hope Schiz appreciates the free education I'm giving him
> on physics.

Au contraire, Wheeler. I believe I am the one doling out the lesson, and
you the opinion.

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
> > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
> > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
> > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
> > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same
> thing.
Who said otherwise?
> Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
without mass.
> Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
> kilograms,
Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
have mass."
making its gravitational force completely negligible.
No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> educational (layman's terms):
> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> To quote from it:
> "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
> and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> subatomic particles."
But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
hard to classify as negligable.
> >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > small.
> Not true.
Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> Newtonian mechanics,
Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
reletivity?
which led to the development of of quantum physics
> in the first place.
No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
about.
> If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
> not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
radiation that started it all.
> > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
> > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear that.
They knew it.
> Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

*** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?

Again, I suggest you read my posts
more carefully.

***Ummm...no, thanks!

I also suggest you read your own sources more
carefully.

***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately. Take
your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...

You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
quanta.

***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget your
parka.


Cheers,

Margaret

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:

> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
>>>force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
>>>to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
>>>gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
>>
>>Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same thing.
>
> Who said otherwise?

Unless I am misunderstanding the above paragraph, you are conflating
electromagnetic force and gravitational force.

>>Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
>>anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
>
> But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> without mass.

Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?

>>Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
>>kilograms,
>
> Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> have mass."

I did not. I was reiterating what you said was true. In a manner of
speaking.

> making its gravitational force completely negligible.
>
> No. It makes it small but not negligable.

Negligible, Wheeler.

>>"The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
>>and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
>>effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
>>forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
>>subatomic particles."
>
> But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
> on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> hard to classify as negligable.

For the sake of precision, please define what exactly you mean by
quanta. Then perhaps you could elaborate on these "effects".

>>>>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
>>>>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
>>>
>>>To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
>>>small.
>>
>>Not true.
>
> Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.

Provided they have mass. In circles we go.


> Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
>
>>Newtonian mechanics,
>
> Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> reletivity?

You're talking about gravity holding an electron it its orbit. That is
the planetary model of the atom, which is based on Newtonian physics.

General relativity take Newtonian mechanics and extends it the other way
- to the macroscopic level of stars, black holes, the bending of
light, etc.

> No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> about.

Which proves my point. That an electron can behave both as a particle
and as a wave (the Photoelectric Effect). So gravity and Newtonian
physics could not explain its behaviour.

>>If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
>>not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
>>positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
>
> Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
> was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
> radiation that started it all.

Which is where Heisenberg's principle comes in - that if the electron is
simultaneously spinning around the nucleus and jumping from one energy
level to another (instantaneously appearing and disappearing in time),
then it does have the properties of a physical particle, nor the same
behavior nor is subjected to the same forces (i.e. gravity).

>>>If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
>>>Gravity does work on all quanta.
>>
>>It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear that.
>
> They knew it.

I doubt that, my friend.

>>Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
>
> I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Again, I suggest you read my posts
> more carefully. I also suggest you read your own sources more
> carefully. You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> quanta.

I must confess I did not read physics in grade school either, but did a
few undergraduate courses that I can still remember pieces of.

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> Schizoid Man wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnet=
ic
> > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
> > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
> > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same
> > thing.
> Who said otherwise?
> > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> without mass.
> > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
> > kilograms,
> Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> have mass."
> making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > educational (layman's terms):
> > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
> find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > To quote from it:
> > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
> > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > subatomic particles."
> But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
> on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> hard to classify as negligable.
> > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > > small.
> > Not true.
> Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > Newtonian mechanics,
> Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> reletivity?
> which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > in the first place.
> No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> about.
> > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
> > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
> was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
> radiation that started it all.
> > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
> > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear th=
at.
> They knew it.
> > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
>
> *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?


Close.




>
> Again, I suggest you read my posts
> more carefully.
>
> ***Ummm...no, thanks!



Wasn't talking to you.




>
> I also suggest you read your own sources more
> carefully.
>
> ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.



No thanks.



Take
> your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...



Goood to know. I was worried.




>
> You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> quanta.
>
> ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget your
> parka.



At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.




>=20
>=20
> Cheers,


Cheers




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
> >>>force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
> >>>to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
> >>>gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> >>
> >>Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same t=
hing.
> >
> > Who said otherwise?
>
> Unless I am misunderstanding the above paragraph, you are conflating
> electromagnetic force and gravitational force.


Looks like you are misunderstanding it. Where do you get that I am
conflating electromagnetic force and gravity form the "above
paragraph?"




>
> >>Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> >>anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> >
> > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > without mass.
>
> Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
> mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?


Ask Einstein. Well, I'll fill you in. Looks like the effect of gravity
is the same as the warping of space. That affects everything in space
with or without mass. Just because something does not exert a
gravitational force does not mean it is not affected by one. Ever heard
of a black hole? Know why they call em black holes?





>
> >>Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
> >>kilograms,
> >
> > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> > have mass."
>
> I did not. I was reiterating what you said was true. In a manner of
> speaking.


OK I didn't get that.




>
> > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> >
> > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
>
> Negligible, Wheeler.


My spelling sucks?




>
> >>"The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
> >>and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> >>effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> >>forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> >>subatomic particles."
> >
> > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
> > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> > hard to classify as negligable.
>
> For the sake of precision, please define what exactly you mean by
> quanta.




Plural of quantum. That would be quarks and leptons and such.



Then perhaps you could elaborate on these "effects".



Very simple. Gravity affects their motion.




>
> >>>>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> >>>>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> >>>
> >>>To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> >>>small.
> >>
> >>Not true.
> >
> > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
>
> Provided they have mass. In circles we go.


No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
Why not?






>
>
> > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> >
> >>Newtonian mechanics,
> >
> > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > reletivity?
>
> You're talking about gravity holding an electron it its orbit.



No. I'm talking about gravity having an effect on all quanta with or
without mass.





That is
> the planetary model of the atom, which is based on Newtonian physics.




This has nothing to do with anything I have said. You are not reading
carefully enough.






>
> General relativity take Newtonian mechanics and extends it the other way
> - to the macroscopic level of stars, black holes, the bending of
> light, etc.



It doesn't take it anywhere. It actually dispenses with it all
together. The two models have little in common except the results are
surprisingly similar under most circumstances.



>
> > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > about.
>
> Which proves my point. That an electron can behave both as a particle
> and as a wave (the Photoelectric Effect).


That was your point? How does that point conflict with the fact that
all things are affected by gravity and that electrons are bound to
atoms by electromagnetic force? If you read carefully that is pretty
much all *I* have said about it.




So gravity and Newtonian
> physics could not explain its behaviour.



Of course not. Graity has nothing to do with black body radation
and,indeed, Newtonian physics did not come close to predicting the true
behavior of black body radiation. It wasn't the quantification of
electron orbits that lead to the persuit of quantum mechanics. That was
one of the many discoveries from that persuit.




>
> >>If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
> >>not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> >>positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> >
> > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
> > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
> > radiation that started it all.
>
> Which is where Heisenberg's principle comes in - that if the electron is
> simultaneously spinning around the nucleus and jumping from one energy
> level to another (instantaneously appearing and disappearing in time),
> then it does have the properties of a physical particle, nor the same
> behavior nor is subjected to the same forces (i.e. gravity).


That came in later. It was the quantification of energy levels and such
that lead to the realization that the universe is not smooth but made
up of basic indivisable things we call quanta. Thisead to the
realization of a constant called Planc's constant. When the math was
done the **** hit the fan and we had the uncertainty principle. It was
a tough pill for many physicists to swallow but the math was
irrefutable and the evidence supported it. It's worked ever since.



>
> >>>If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
> >>>Gravity does work on all quanta.
> >>
> >>It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear th=
at.
> >
> > They knew it.
>
> I doubt that, my friend.


You are mistaken. Nothing in the standard model suggests that gravity
does not act upon any quanta.




>
> >>Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> >
> > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > more carefully. I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > carefully. You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > quanta.
>
> I must confess I did not read physics in grade school either, but did a
> few undergraduate courses that I can still remember pieces of.



I guessed as much.




Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> Schizoid Man wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > elecromagnetic
> > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
> > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
> > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same
> > thing.
> Who said otherwise?
> > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> without mass.
> > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
> > kilograms,
> Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> have mass."
> making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > educational (layman's terms):
> > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
> find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > To quote from it:
> > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
> > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > subatomic particles."
> But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
> on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> hard to classify as negligable.
> > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > > small.
> > Not true.
> Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > Newtonian mechanics,
> Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> reletivity?
> which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > in the first place.
> No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> about.
> > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
> > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
> was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
> radiation that started it all.
> > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
> > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear
> > that.
> They knew it.
> > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
>
> *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?


Close.




>
> Again, I suggest you read my posts
> more carefully.
>
> ***Ummm...no, thanks!



Wasn't talking to you.




>
> I also suggest you read your own sources more
> carefully.
>
> ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.



No thanks.



Take
> your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...



Goood to know. I was worried.




>
> You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> quanta.
>
> ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget your
> parka.



At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.


*** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a nice
way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't work.
:-)


Cheers,

Margaret

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? B=
ut
> > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to ha=
ve
> > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same
> > > thing.
> > Who said otherwise?
> > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > without mass.
> > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
> > > kilograms,
> > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> > have mass."
> > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
> > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > To quote from it:
> > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electro=
ns
> > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > > subatomic particles."
> > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
> > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > > > small.
> > > Not true.
> > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > reletivity?
> > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > in the first place.
> > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > about.
> > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass,=
is
> > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
> > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
> > radiation that started it all.
> > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't kn=
ow.
> > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear
> > > that.
> > They knew it.
> > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> >
> > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
>
>
> Close.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > more carefully.
> >
> > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
>
>
>
> Wasn't talking to you.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > carefully.
> >
> > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.
>
>
>
> No thanks.
>
>
>
> Take
> > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
>
>
>
> Goood to know. I was worried.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > quanta.
> >
> > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget your
> > parka.
>
>
>
> At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.
>
>
> *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a nice
> way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't work.
> :-)

I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
**** you too ;-)



Cheers.



Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler
>=20
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

> > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > without mass.
>
> Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
> mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?

Black hole. With or without the sun. Soundgarden? Maybe I've got the band
wrong. But there you go. No matter where you are, there you are.

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > George M. Middius wrote:
> >
> >>Scott said:
> >>
> >>>>Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> >>
> >>>I didn't learn physics in grade school. I
> >>
> >>I notice neither of you has been able to improve on my adaptation of the
> >>song lyrics. Perhaps you'd like to debate how many Sluts can service a
> >>firehose for the 'borgs? ;-)
> >
> > Nope. But I do hope Schiz appreciates the free education I'm giving him
> > on physics.
>
> Au contraire, Wheeler. I believe I am the one doling out the lesson, and
> you the opinion.


Oh well, I was only hoping you would appreciate the lesson. ****
happens.



Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you?
> > > > But
> > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to
> > > > have
> > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same
> > > thing.
> > Who said otherwise?
> > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > without mass.
> > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
> > > kilograms,
> > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> > have mass."
> > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
> > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > To quote from it:
> > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > Electrons
> > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > > subatomic particles."
> > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
> > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > > > small.
> > > Not true.
> > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > reletivity?
> > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > in the first place.
> > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > about.
> > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass,
> > > is
> > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
> > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
> > radiation that started it all.
> > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't
> > > > know.
> > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear
> > > that.
> > They knew it.
> > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> >
> > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
>
>
> Close.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > more carefully.
> >
> > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
>
>
>
> Wasn't talking to you.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > carefully.
> >
> > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.
>
>
>
> No thanks.
>
>
>
> Take
> > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
>
>
>
> Goood to know. I was worried.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > quanta.
> >
> > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget your
> > parka.
>
>
>
> At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.
>
>
> *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a nice
> way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't work.
> :-)

I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
**** you too ;-)


*** Appears that my comparison was unfair. I apologize to Arny. :-) At any
rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You should ask
him for some advice. I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
now. Thanks for the offer, but I'm not into small men, Scott.


Cheers,

Margaret

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a nice
> way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't work.
> :-)
>
>

I carefully checked out Scott's house when I visited him.
His foundation walls are not cracked and there is no
'training room' in his basement. His grass is green and his shrubs
full and well maintained.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you?
> > > > > But
> > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to
> > > > > have
> > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the sa=
me
> > > > thing.
> > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > > without mass.
> > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
> > > > kilograms,
> > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> > > have mass."
> > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
> > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > To quote from it:
> > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > Electrons
> > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > > > subatomic particles."
> > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravi=
ty
> > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > > > > small.
> > > > Not true.
> > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > reletivity?
> > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > in the first place.
> > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > > about.
> > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mas=
s,
> > > > is
> > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but th=
at
> > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black bo=
dy
> > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't
> > > > > know.
> > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear
> > > > that.
> > > They knew it.
> > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > >
> > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> >
> >
> > Close.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > more carefully.
> > >
> > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Wasn't talking to you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > carefully.
> > >
> > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.
> >
> >
> >
> > No thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Take
> > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> >
> >
> >
> > Goood to know. I was worried.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > quanta.
> > >
> > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget your
> > > parka.
> >
> >
> >
> > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.
> >
> >
> > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a n=
ice
> > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't wo=
rk.
> > :-)
>
> I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> **** you too ;-)
>
>
> *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.



And really stupid.



I apologize to Arny. :-)



Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
meet him face to face?



At any
> rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You should =
ask
> him for some advice.



Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.


I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> now. Thanks for the offer,


Wishful thinking or stupidity?




but I'm not into small men, Scott.



Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?





Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you?
> > > > > But
> > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to
> > > > > have
> > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the
> > > > same
> > > > thing.
> > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
> > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > > without mass.
> > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
> > > > kilograms,
> > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> > > have mass."
> > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
> > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > To quote from it:
> > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > Electrons
> > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
> > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
> > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > > > subatomic particles."
> > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of
> > > gravity
> > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
> > > > > small.
> > > > Not true.
> > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > reletivity?
> > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > in the first place.
> > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > > about.
> > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its
> > > > mass,
> > > > is
> > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but
> > > that
> > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black
> > > body
> > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't
> > > > > know.
> > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear
> > > > that.
> > > They knew it.
> > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
> > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > >
> > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> >
> >
> > Close.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > more carefully.
> > >
> > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Wasn't talking to you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > carefully.
> > >
> > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.
> >
> >
> >
> > No thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Take
> > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> >
> >
> >
> > Goood to know. I was worried.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > quanta.
> > >
> > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget your
> > > parka.
> >
> >
> >
> > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.
> >
> >
> > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a
> > nice
> > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't
> > work.
> > :-)
>
> I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> **** you too ;-)
>
>
> *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.



And really stupid.



I apologize to Arny. :-)



Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
meet him face to face?

*** Check your logic, genius.

At any
> rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You should
> ask
> him for some advice.



Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.

*** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.


I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> now. Thanks for the offer,


Wishful thinking or stupidity?

*** A good guess.


but I'm not into small men, Scott.



Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?

***No need to confess anything here, Scott. As long as your wife doesn't
know any better... :-) I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
Scott. In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
weak men who behave the way you do. Sometimes it also happens to men who
lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to be more
"manly" but it surely can be ugly.

Hope you get better soon.


Margaret

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:

> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Schizoid Man wrote:
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
>>>>>force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
>>>>>to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
>>>>>gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
>>>>
>>>>Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same thing.
>>>
>>>Who said otherwise?
>>
>>Unless I am misunderstanding the above paragraph, you are conflating
>>electromagnetic force and gravitational force.
>
>
>
> Looks like you are misunderstanding it. Where do you get that I am
> conflating electromagnetic force and gravity form the "above
> paragraph?"

Because we were talking about gravity and you suddenly started on about
gravitational force.

>>Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
>>mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?
>
> Ask Einstein. Well, I'll fill you in. Looks like the effect of gravity
> is the same as the warping of space. That affects everything in space
> with or without mass. Just because something does not exert a
> gravitational force does not mean it is not affected by one. Ever heard
> of a black hole? Know why they call em black holes?

Oh my god, are you about to tell me that black holes have no mass? If
so, let's stop this discussion right here.

>>> making its gravitational force completely negligible.
>>>
>>>No. It makes it small but not negligable.
>>
>>Negligible, Wheeler.
>
> My spelling sucks?

Actually I didn't notice the spelling error till now. Again, negligible.

>>>But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
>>>on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
>>>hard to classify as negligable.
>>
>>For the sake of precision, please define what exactly you mean by
>>quanta.
>
> Plural of quantum. That would be quarks and leptons and such.

Leptons and quarks? I thought we were talking about electrons. I think
you're getting into way too much details.

> Then perhaps you could elaborate on these "effects".
>
> Very simple. Gravity affects their motion.

6 of the 12 leptons are anti-particles, i.e. they don't really exist. If
so, how can they have mass? And if they don't have mass, how can they
exert a gravitational force?

>>Provided they have mass. In circles we go.
>
> No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
> Why not?

I hate to burst your bubble, but 99.999999999% (you get the idea) of an
atom's weight is in the nucleus, of which the proton is a part.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Do you think you will weigh the
same on a planet that is smaller than earth? Would you weigh the same if
you were on the event horizon? Of course not, because the gravitational
forces would be much higher.

To answer your question, if you could achieve a speed faster than light,
it would be possible to escape a black hole. However, as we know from
Special Relativity, the mass and the velocity of mass is inextricably
related.

>>You're talking about gravity holding an electron it its orbit.
>
> No. I'm talking about gravity having an effect on all quanta with or
> without mass.

Wheeler, trust me - unless a particle has mass it cannot exert a
gravitational force.

>>General relativity take Newtonian mechanics and extends it the other way
>> - to the macroscopic level of stars, black holes, the bending of
>>light, etc.

> It doesn't take it anywhere. It actually dispenses with it all
> together. The two models have little in common except the results are
> surprisingly similar under most circumstances.

Not at all. The areas of application are completely different.

>>Which proves my point. That an electron can behave both as a particle
>>and as a wave (the Photoelectric Effect).
>
> That was your point? How does that point conflict with the fact that
> all things are affected by gravity and that electrons are bound to
> atoms by electromagnetic force? If you read carefully that is pretty
> much all *I* have said about it.

I think not. You said that gravity holds the electron in orbit. That is
an incorrect statement.

> Of course not. Graity has nothing to do with black body radation
> and,indeed, Newtonian physics did not come close to predicting the true
> behavior of black body radiation.

Really? Please do elaborate.

>>I doubt that, my friend.
>
> You are mistaken. Nothing in the standard model suggests that gravity
> does not act upon any quanta.

Lack of mass, dear chap. Lack of mass.

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Schizoid Man said:
>
>
>>>But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
>>>without mass.
>>
>>Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
>>mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?
>
>
> Black hole. With or without the sun. Soundgarden? Maybe I've got the band
> wrong. But there you go. No matter where you are, there you are.

Very good, Middius. Your knowledge of contemporary pop culture continues
to impress.

[Schizoid Man]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> Because we were talking about gravity and you suddenly started on about
> gravitational force.

I meant electromagnetic force.

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't yo=
u?
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the
> > > > > same
> > > > > thing.
> > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on anoth=
er
> > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > > > without mass.
> > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
> > > > > kilograms,
> > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> > > > have mass."
> > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you wi=
ll
> > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > > Electrons
> > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligi=
ble
> > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnet=
ic
> > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of
> > > > gravity
> > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effe=
ct
> > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big =
and
> > > > > > small.
> > > > > Not true.
> > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > > reletivity?
> > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > in the first place.
> > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > > > about.
> > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its
> > > > > mass,
> > > > > is
> > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but
> > > > that
> > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black
> > > > body
> > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to h=
ear
> > > > > that.
> > > > They knew it.
> > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. Th=
at
> > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > >
> > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > >
> > >
> > > Close.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > more carefully.
> > > >
> > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > carefully.
> > > >
> > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Take
> > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > quanta.
> > > >
> > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget y=
our
> > > > parka.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.
> > >
> > >
> > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a
> > > nice
> > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't
> > > work.
> > > :-)
> >
> > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > **** you too ;-)
> >
> >
> > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
>
>
>
> And really stupid.
>
>
>
> I apologize to Arny. :-)




And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)





>
>
>
> Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> meet him face to face?
>
> *** Check your logic, genius.


Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot would
scrutinize the logic of it.




>
> At any
> > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You should
> > ask
> > him for some advice.
>
>
>
> Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.
>
> *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.


Are you drunk?



>
>
> I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > now. Thanks for the offer,
>
>
> Wishful thinking or stupidity?
>
> *** A good guess.


No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?




>
>
> but I'm not into small men, Scott.
>
>
>
> Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
>
> ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.


I guess you are drunk.



As long as your wife doesn't
> know any better... :-)


Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
you have to be to find Arny attractive?



I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> Scott.



Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
on audio look interesting.



In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> weak men who behave the way you do.



IME trolls like you have little real world experience.



Sometimes it also happens to men who
> lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to be more
> "manly" but it surely can be ugly.


No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
original thought?



>
> Hope you get better soon.




Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.



Cheers.


Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Schizoid Man wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
> >>>>>force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
> >>>>>to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
> >>>>>gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> >>>>
> >>>>Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same thing.
> >>>
> >>>Who said otherwise?
> >>
> >>Unless I am misunderstanding the above paragraph, you are conflating
> >>electromagnetic force and gravitational force.
> >
> >
> >
> > Looks like you are misunderstanding it. Where do you get that I am
> > conflating electromagnetic force and gravity form the "above
> > paragraph?"
>
> Because we were talking about gravity and you suddenly started on about
> gravitational force.




Better catch your breath. Your answer makes no sense. By the way,
*gavity* and *gravitational force* are the same thing in so far as this
conversation is concerned.








>
> >>Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
> >>mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?
> >
> > Ask Einstein. Well, I'll fill you in. Looks like the effect of gravity
> > is the same as the warping of space. That affects everything in space
> > with or without mass. Just because something does not exert a
> > gravitational force does not mean it is not affected by one. Ever heard
> > of a black hole? Know why they call em black holes?
>
> Oh my god, are you about to tell me that black holes have no mass? If
> so, let's stop this discussion right here.



Maybe we should. no that isn't what I was telling you at all. try to
keep up. Why are they called black holes? Hint, *nothing* can escape
from them. Light cant escape from their gravitational pull. How much
mass does light have? Hint, zero. Do you get it now? I really wanted to
let you figure this stuff out for yourself. Looks like I have to spell
it out for you.




>
> >>> making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> >>>
> >>>No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> >>
> >>Negligible, Wheeler.
> >
> > My spelling sucks?
>
> Actually I didn't notice the spelling error till now. Again, negligible.


Again. Wrong. Small but significant.




>
> >>>But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
> >>>on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
> >>>hard to classify as negligable.
> >>
> >>For the sake of precision, please define what exactly you mean by
> >>quanta.
> >
> > Plural of quantum. That would be quarks and leptons and such.
>
> Leptons and quarks? I thought we were talking about electrons.


What do you think an electron is?



I think
> you're getting into way too much details.


No. I'm just trying to be accurate. Sorry if that bothers you.




>
> > Then perhaps you could elaborate on these "effects".
> >
> > Very simple. Gravity affects their motion.
>
> 6 of the 12 leptons are anti-particles, i.e. they don't really exist.


Indeed, maybe we should end this converstaion. You are in way over your
head. Anti-particles *do* really exist. There are more than just 12
leptons by the way.



If
> so, how can they have mass?



Not all of them have mass.Some do some don't. has nothing to do them
being "anti-particles." Do you know what an "anti-particle" is?


And if they don't have mass, how can they
> exert a gravitational force?


OK try to follow. A lepton does not have to *exert* a gravitational
force to be *affected* by a gravitational force. Think about the black
hole, it *exerts* a gravitational force and the photon (massless
lepton) is trapped (affected by) the gravitational force of the black
hole.



>
> >>Provided they have mass. In circles we go.
> >
> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
> > Why not?
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but 99.999999999% (you get the idea) of an
> atom's weight is in the nucleus, of which the proton is a part.


WTF does that have to do with anything? Just answer the question. How
much mass does a photon have? Hint, none. Can a photon escape from a
black hole? Hint, no. Why not? Hint because of the gravitational force
the black hole exerts on the *massless* photon. If this doesn't make it
clear to you that gravity affects things that have no mass I see no
hope of you ever getting it.



>
> You're comparing apples and oranges.


No, you are. You bring up some amazingly irrelevant points when asked
simple questions. why?



Do you think you will weigh the
> same on a planet that is smaller than earth?


WTF does that have to do with the issue?



Would you weigh the same if
> you were on the event horizon?


Planets don't have event horizons. Where do you get this stuff? Star
Trek? Hell even those writers know that much.




Of course not, because the gravitational
> forces would be much higher.


Oh boy.





>
> To answer your question,


Please...



if you could achieve a speed faster than light,


God WTF is this? You can't so why start off with that?



> it would be possible to escape a black hole.


I guess Star Trek is your source. They escape black holes all the time
by going fatser than light. wow.


However, as we know from
> Special Relativity, the mass and the velocity of mass is inextricably
> related.


And how does that affect a photon which is massless? Hint, it doesn't.
But here is another clue, light travels at the speed of light. Once
trapped it can't escape a black hole. gravity acting on a massless
lepton.





>
> >>You're talking about gravity holding an electron it its orbit.
> >
> > No. I'm talking about gravity having an effect on all quanta with or
> > without mass.
>
> Wheeler, trust me - unless a particle has mass it cannot exert a
> gravitational force.


Schiz trust me. You really need to read more carefully. I have never
said anything without mass *exerts* gravitational force. I have said
everything big and small, massive and massless is *AFFECTED* by gravity
and/or gravitational force (if you still think there is a non-semantic
difference)







>
> >>General relativity take Newtonian mechanics and extends it the other way
> >> - to the macroscopic level of stars, black holes, the bending of
> >>light, etc.
>
> > It doesn't take it anywhere. It actually dispenses with it all
> > together. The two models have little in common except the results are
> > surprisingly similar under most circumstances.
>
> Not at all.


Yes.



The areas of application are completely different.



No. They are completely the same.




>
> >>Which proves my point. That an electron can behave both as a particle
> >>and as a wave (the Photoelectric Effect).
> >
> > That was your point? How does that point conflict with the fact that
> > all things are affected by gravity and that electrons are bound to
> > atoms by electromagnetic force? If you read carefully that is pretty
> > much all *I* have said about it.
>
> I think not.


Then you haven't been reading carefully despite all my warnings.



You said that gravity holds the electron in orbit.


No I didn't.



That is
> an incorrect statement.


One suggested by you and looked at as a joke by me. Review the thread.
Find any quote of me saying gravity holds an electron in orbit.



>
> > Of course not. Graity has nothing to do with black body radation
> > and,indeed, Newtonian physics did not come close to predicting the true
> > behavior of black body radiation.
>
> Really? Please do elaborate.


I think you need to take in the info I have already given to you before
taking on the history of the development of quantum mechanics.




>
> >>I doubt that, my friend.
> >
> > You are mistaken. Nothing in the standard model suggests that gravity
> > does not act upon any quanta.
>
> Lack of mass, dear chap. Lack of mass.



Wrong. Simply wrong. Review the story of the black hole and the little
photon that couln't.




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
> > Because we were talking about gravity and you suddenly started on about
> > gravitational force.
>
> I meant electromagnetic force.


Review the thread. Read slowly. Make no assumptions. then get back to
me.


Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't
> > > > > > you?
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the
> > > > > same
> > > > > thing.
> > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on
> > > > > another
> > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
> > > > without mass.
> > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
> > > > > kilograms,
> > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
> > > > have mass."
> > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
> > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you
> > > > will
> > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > > Electrons
> > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > negligible
> > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
> > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of
> > > > gravity
> > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that
> > > > effect
> > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > small.
> > > > > Not true.
> > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > > reletivity?
> > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > in the first place.
> > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
> > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
> > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > > > about.
> > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its
> > > > > mass,
> > > > > is
> > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
> > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but
> > > > that
> > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black
> > > > body
> > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to
> > > > > hear
> > > > > that.
> > > > They knew it.
> > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college.
> > > > That
> > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > >
> > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > >
> > >
> > > Close.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > more carefully.
> > > >
> > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > carefully.
> > > >
> > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediately.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Take
> > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > quanta.
> > > >
> > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget
> > > > your
> > > > parka.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useless.
> > >
> > >
> > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a
> > > nice
> > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't
> > > work.
> > > :-)
> >
> > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > **** you too ;-)
> >
> >
> > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
>
>
>
> And really stupid.
>
>
>
> I apologize to Arny. :-)




And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)





>
>
>
> Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> meet him face to face?
>
> *** Check your logic, genius.


Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot would
scrutinize the logic of it.




>
> At any
> > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You should
> > ask
> > him for some advice.
>
>
>
> Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.
>
> *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.


Are you drunk?



>
>
> I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > now. Thanks for the offer,
>
>
> Wishful thinking or stupidity?
>
> *** A good guess.


No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?




>
>
> but I'm not into small men, Scott.
>
>
>
> Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
>
> ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.


I guess you are drunk.



As long as your wife doesn't
> know any better... :-)


Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
you have to be to find Arny attractive?



I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> Scott.



Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
on audio look interesting.



In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> weak men who behave the way you do.



IME trolls like you have little real world experience.



Sometimes it also happens to men who
> lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to be more
> "manly" but it surely can be ugly.


No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
original thought?



>
> Hope you get better soon.




Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.

*** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man. :-) I'm
guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in a
>> nice way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't
>> work. :-)
>>
>>
>
> I carefully checked out Scott's house when I visited him.
> His foundation walls are not cracked and there is no
> 'training room' in his basement. His grass is green and his shrubs
> full and well maintained.

Well done Art. Did you notice a high chair at the dining table?

Cheers,

Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

> >>Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
> >>mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?

> > Black hole. With or without the sun. Soundgarden? Maybe I've got the band
> > wrong. But there you go. No matter where you are, there you are.

> Very good, Middius. Your knowledge of contemporary pop culture continues
> to impress.

It's not a question of knowledge. If they had a Jeopardy show about rock and
pop music, I'd be eliminated in the trials.

Your ego is trying to fill up the room. Does that make you uncomfortable?
It's very 'borg-like to base your self-esteem on the quantity of knowledge
you believe you possess. Knowledge is not equivalent to wisdom, nor does
possessing knowledge make you intrinsically more valuable. In the context of
electronics, knowledge of quantum physics is only a curiosity.

What's so great about being right all the time? Isn't it better to make
jokes about Krooger than to prove you're smarter than everybody else?

[Lionel]

a écrit :

> No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
> Why not?

Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)

[Lionel]

George "Betty Boop" Middius wrote :

> Black hole.

Are you speaking of your anus George ?

[[email protected]]

Group Leader "Middius" tries to put the Resistance back on track:
>
>
> What's so great about being right all the time? Isn't it better to make
> jokes about Krooger than to prove you're smarter than everybody else?
>
>
>



;-)

[Lionel]

George Môron Middius wrote :

> What's so great about being right all the time? Isn't it better to make
> jokes about Krooger than to prove you're smarter than everybody else?

Middius' pitiful pirouette proves that he finally understood
that the wind was turning. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a =E9crit :
>
> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
> > Why not?
>
> Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
> apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
> discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)
>
>

Don't mess with Wheeler, Lionel. He graduated Summa cum Hairspray from
the East Los Angeles Academy of Cosmetology. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't
> > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass=
to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > thing.
> > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with=
or
> > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
> > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron d=
oes
> > > > > have mass."
> > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might f=
ind
> > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you
> > > > > will
> > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic a=
nd
> > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of
> > > > > gravity
> > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that
> > > > > effect
> > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiat=
ion
> > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtoni=
an
> > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > > > > about.
> > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its
> > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into =
the
> > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but
> > > > > that
> > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black
> > > > > body
> > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or did=
n't
> > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to
> > > > > > hear
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college.
> > > > > That
> > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Close.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > more carefully.
> > > > >
> > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > carefully.
> > > > >
> > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources immediate=
ly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Take
> > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > quanta.
> > > > >
> > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget
> > > > > your
> > > > > parka.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be useles=
s=2E
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in=
a
> > > > nice
> > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't
> > > > work.
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > **** you too ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> >
> >
> >
> > And really stupid.
> >
> >
> >
> > I apologize to Arny. :-)
>
>
>
>
> And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> > meet him face to face?
> >
> > *** Check your logic, genius.
>
>
> Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot would
> scrutinize the logic of it.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > At any
> > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You sho=
uld
> > > ask
> > > him for some advice.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.
> >
> > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
>
>
> Are you drunk?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> >
> >
> > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> >
> > *** A good guess.
>
>
> No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> >
> > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
>
>
> I guess you are drunk.
>
>
>
> As long as your wife doesn't
> > know any better... :-)
>
>
> Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
> learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> you have to be to find Arny attractive?
>
>
>
> I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > Scott.
>
>
>
> Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
> back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
> on audio look interesting.
>
>
>
> In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > weak men who behave the way you do.
>
>
>
> IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
>
>
>
> Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to be m=
ore
> > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
>
>
> No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
> then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> original thought?
>
>
>
> >
> > Hope you get better soon.
>
>
>
>
> Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.
>
> *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man. :-) =
I'm
> guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....



Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
is that?



Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
> > a =E9crit :
> >
> > > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hol=
e?
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
> > apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
> > discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)
> >
> >
>
> Don't mess with Wheeler, Lionel. He graduated Summa cum Hairspray from
> the East Los Angeles Academy of Cosmetology. ;-)


You try to mock me by calling me a hairstylist. Here's the funy thing
about that Ritchie. Even though I am not a hairstylist I see nothing
wrong with being one. I know any number of hairstylists that, unlike
you, are gainfully employed, self supporting, highly accomplished and
happy individuals contributing to our collective well being. How ironic
is it that you would try to mock me by saying I am something so above
and beyond you? Think about it. Hey you have nothing better to do
anyways.



Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a =E9crit :
>
> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
> > Why not?
>
> Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
> apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
> discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)


But until then you won't accept it? Suit yourself. ;-)
Just for fun, please prove that the laws of physics do not apply just
beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Just after I will accept to
discuss the physics of a black hole. ;-)





Scott Wheeler

[George Middius]

Scott said to Little ****:

>You try to mock me by calling me a hairstylist. Here's the funy thing
>about that Ritchie. Even though I am not a hairstylist I see nothing
>wrong with being one. I know any number of hairstylists that, unlike
>you, are gainfully employed, self supporting, highly accomplished and
>happy individuals contributing to our collective well being. How ironic
>is it that you would try to mock me by saying I am something so above
>and beyond you? Think about it. Hey you have nothing better to do
>anyways.

Thing gets to lick the grease off bicycle chains. Try not to die of envy. ;-)

I just noticed that Thing directed his comment at Lionella. Apparently she got
"promoted" from sewer cleaner to factory carton sealer. Quite an exalted
accomplishment. I wonder if Lionella is a "special person", as we
euphemestically call certain handicapped individuals.

At least(tm) neither of them falls to Krooger's level of calling Usenet play a
"career". They have no income, no profession, no accomplishments, but sometimes
they win a tiny argument with a stranger in cyberspace. For career losers like
Slut and Thing, nothing beats being right in an anonymous venue while hiding
behind an invented screen name.

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Schizoid Man said:
>
>
>>>>Wheeler, listen to yourself. If gravitational force is a function of
>>>>mass, how will it act on something that has no mass?
>
>
>>>Black hole. With or without the sun. Soundgarden? Maybe I've got the band
>>>wrong. But there you go. No matter where you are, there you are.
>
>
>>Very good, Middius. Your knowledge of contemporary pop culture continues
>>to impress.
>
> It's not a question of knowledge. If they had a Jeopardy show about rock and
> pop music, I'd be eliminated in the trials.

Firstly, the remark was strictly tongue-in-cheek.

> Your ego is trying to fill up the room. Does that make you uncomfortable?

Yes, because I don't think it's true.

> It's very 'borg-like to base your self-esteem on the quantity of knowledge
> you believe you possess. Knowledge is not equivalent to wisdom, nor does
> possessing knowledge make you intrinsically more valuable. In the context of
> electronics, knowledge of quantum physics is only a curiosity.

I have never suggested that knowledge, education or wisdom are
interchageable ideas.

Concerning my discussion with Wheeler, I was just pointing out a
fallacious statement that I thought he made, while acknowledging my lack
of knowledge regarding physics, particularly quantum physics.

> What's so great about being right all the time? Isn't it better to make
> jokes about Krooger than to prove you're smarter than everybody else?

Nothing is great about being right all the time, and I don't think I try
to prove that I am smarter than anybody.

Sure, if someone says something that I disagree with (TubeGuy stating
'Nyqvist be damned') I am compelled to respond, not out of pride but
integrity.

[George Middius]

Mickey's lover said:

>>>>Black hole. With or without the sun. Soundgarden? Maybe I've got the band
>>>>wrong. But there you go. No matter where you are, there you are.

>>>Very good, Middius. Your knowledge of contemporary pop culture continues
>>>to impress.

>> It's not a question of knowledge. If they had a Jeopardy show about rock and
>> pop music, I'd be eliminated in the trials.

>Firstly, the remark was strictly tongue-in-cheek.

You excel at disguising your humor.

>> Your ego is trying to fill up the room. Does that make you uncomfortable?

>Yes, because I don't think it's true.

Don't worry about it. You're nowhere near as bad as Krooger or Little ****.

>> It's very 'borg-like to base your self-esteem on the quantity of knowledge
>> you believe you possess. Knowledge is not equivalent to wisdom, nor does
>> possessing knowledge make you intrinsically more valuable. In the context of
>> electronics, knowledge of quantum physics is only a curiosity.
>
>I have never suggested that knowledge, education or wisdom are
>interchageable ideas.

Funny how you seem to retrench only after being called on one of your
bloviations. Mickey does the same thing.

>Concerning my discussion with Wheeler, I was just pointing out a
>fallacious statement that I thought he made, while acknowledging my lack
>of knowledge regarding physics, particularly quantum physics.

Gravity acts on light if there's enough of it.

>> What's so great about being right all the time? Isn't it better to make
>> jokes about Krooger than to prove you're smarter than everybody else?
>
>Nothing is great about being right all the time, and I don't think I try
>to prove that I am smarter than anybody.

Really? Maybe I mistook your intention.

>Sure, if someone says something that I disagree with (TubeGuy stating
>'Nyqvist be damned') I am compelled to respond, not out of pride but
>integrity.

Have you ever looked at the Audio Advisor catalog? They have sections called
Tweaks under $50, Tweaks under $100, and like that. The implication is that the
more you spend, the better the "tweaks" are. Can you imagine what the 'borg
equivalent would be?

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't
> > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > thing.
> > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with
> > > > > or
> > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
> > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron
> > > > > does
> > > > > have mass."
> > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might
> > > > > > find
> > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you
> > > > > will
> > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of
> > > > > gravity
> > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that
> > > > > effect
> > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
> > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?
> > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > radiation
> > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
> > > > > about.
> > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its
> > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but
> > > > > that
> > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black
> > > > > body
> > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or
> > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to
> > > > > > hear
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college.
> > > > > That
> > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Close.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > more carefully.
> > > > >
> > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > carefully.
> > > > >
> > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > immediately.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Take
> > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > quanta.
> > > > >
> > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forget
> > > > > your
> > > > > parka.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > useless.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -in
> > > > a
> > > > nice
> > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It didn't
> > > > work.
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > **** you too ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> >
> >
> >
> > And really stupid.
> >
> >
> >
> > I apologize to Arny. :-)
>
>
>
>
> And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> > meet him face to face?
> >
> > *** Check your logic, genius.
>
>
> Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot would
> scrutinize the logic of it.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > At any
> > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You
> > > should
> > > ask
> > > him for some advice.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.
> >
> > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
>
>
> Are you drunk?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> >
> >
> > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> >
> > *** A good guess.
>
>
> No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> >
> > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
>
>
> I guess you are drunk.
>
>
>
> As long as your wife doesn't
> > know any better... :-)
>
>
> Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
> learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> you have to be to find Arny attractive?
>
>
>
> I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > Scott.
>
>
>
> Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
> back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
> on audio look interesting.
>
>
>
> In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > weak men who behave the way you do.
>
>
>
> IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
>
>
>
> Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to be
> > more
> > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
>
>
> No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
> then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> original thought?
>
>
>
> >
> > Hope you get better soon.
>
>
>
>
> Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.
>
> *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man. :-)
> I'm
> guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....



Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
is that?

*** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage point. The
*really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.

Cheers,

Margaret


PS. Grow up...

[Schizoid Man]

George Middius wrote:

> You excel at disguising your humor.

I guess we have something in common after all.

> Don't worry about it. You're nowhere near as bad as Krooger or Little ****.

Now that I have your endorsement I feel much better.

> Funny how you seem to retrench only after being called on one of your
> bloviations. Mickey does the same thing.

What is funny is how you *always* associate an intellectual discussion
with showing off.

I personally think Usenet is a bit more than simply a forum for bashing
Krooger or discussing his defecating habits.

The great thing about free speech is that you can have heretical ideas
(such as the one above) without being shot.

> Gravity acts on light if there's enough of it.

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

>>Nothing is great about being right all the time, and I don't think I try
>>to prove that I am smarter than anybody.
>
> Really? Maybe I mistook your intention.

Sarcasm noted.

>>Sure, if someone says something that I disagree with (TubeGuy stating
>>'Nyqvist be damned') I am compelled to respond, not out of pride but
>>integrity.
>
> Have you ever looked at the Audio Advisor catalog? They have sections called
> Tweaks under $50, Tweaks under $100, and like that. The implication is that the
> more you spend, the better the "tweaks" are. Can you imagine what the 'borg
> equivalent would be?

No. The only tweak I use cost me 5 bucks.

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't
> > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require ma=
ss
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not =
the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe wi=
th
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^=
-31
> > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might
> > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of
> > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that
> > > > > > effect
> > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside=
a
> > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheele=
r?
> > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things =
big
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth readi=
ng
> > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike i=
ts
> > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics =
but
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of bl=
ack
> > > > > > body
> > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or
> > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around =
to
> > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college.
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Close.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > immediately.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Take
> > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't forg=
et
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > parka.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > useless.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point out -=
in
> > > > > a
> > > > > nice
> > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It did=
n't
> > > > > work.
> > > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And really stupid.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> > > meet him face to face?
> > >
> > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> >
> >
> > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot would
> > scrutinize the logic of it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > At any
> > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You
> > > > should
> > > > ask
> > > > him for some advice.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.
> > >
> > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> >
> >
> > Are you drunk?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > >
> > >
> > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > >
> > > *** A good guess.
> >
> >
> > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> > >
> > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> >
> >
> > I guess you are drunk.
> >
> >
> >
> > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > know any better... :-)
> >
> >
> > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
> > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> >
> >
> >
> > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > Scott.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
> > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
> > on audio look interesting.
> >
> >
> >
> > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> >
> >
> >
> > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to be
> > > more
> > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> >
> >
> > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
> > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > original thought?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hope you get better soon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.
> >
> > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man. :-)
> > I'm
> > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
>
>
>
> Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
> is that?
>
> *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage point.



I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
;-)



The
> *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.




No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
common.




> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
>
> PS. Grow up...


I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so boring.




Cheers,


Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't
> > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require
> > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
> > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might
> > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects.
> > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of
> > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that
> > > > > > effect
> > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside
> > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things
> > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
> > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth
> > > > > > reading
> > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike
> > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
> > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of
> > > > > > black
> > > > > > body
> > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or
> > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college.
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Close.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > immediately.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Take
> > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't
> > > > > > forget
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > parka.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > useless.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point
> > > > > out -in
> > > > > a
> > > > > nice
> > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > work.
> > > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And really stupid.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> > > meet him face to face?
> > >
> > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> >
> >
> > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot would
> > scrutinize the logic of it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > At any
> > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You
> > > > should
> > > > ask
> > > > him for some advice.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a clue.
> > >
> > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> >
> >
> > Are you drunk?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > >
> > >
> > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > >
> > > *** A good guess.
> >
> >
> > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> > >
> > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> >
> >
> > I guess you are drunk.
> >
> >
> >
> > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > know any better... :-)
> >
> >
> > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
> > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> >
> >
> >
> > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > Scott.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
> > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
> > on audio look interesting.
> >
> >
> >
> > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> >
> >
> >
> > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to be
> > > more
> > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> >
> >
> > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
> > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > original thought?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hope you get better soon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.
> >
> > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man. :-)
> > I'm
> > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
>
>
>
> Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
> is that?
>
> *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage point.



I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
;-)



The
> *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.




No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
common.




> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
>
> PS. Grow up...


I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so boring.

*** You're still making apologies! Despite your incessant yapping the
original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those platform
shoes?

Cheers,

Margaret

PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)

[Lionel]

In . com>,
wrote :

>
>
> Lionel wrote:
>> a écrit :
>>
>> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
>> apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
>> discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)
>
>
> But until then you won't accept it? Suit yourself. ;-)
> Just for fun, please prove that the laws of physics do not apply just
> beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Just after I will accept to
> discuss the physics of a black hole. ;-)

Seems that none of us is sure about the force(s) that prevents a photon to
escape from a black hole, so I think that it's better to not use this
example to explain anything. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> In . com>,
> wrote :
>
> >
> >
> > Lionel wrote:
> >> a =E9crit :
> >>
> >> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black ho=
le?
> >> > Why not?
> >>
> >> Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
> >> apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
> >> discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)
> >
> >
> > But until then you won't accept it? Suit yourself. ;-)
> > Just for fun, please prove that the laws of physics do not apply just
> > beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Just after I will accept to
> > discuss the physics of a black hole. ;-)
>
> Seems that none of us is sure about the force(s) that prevents a photon to
> escape from a black hole,



Really? I'll go out on a limb and say I am quite certain (within
reason) that the force at work is gravity. Consider the options.




so I think that it's better to not use this
> example to explain anything. ;-)



Sorry you didn't like my illustration. I figured an extreme would be
more helpful. Would you prefer the citation of that grand observation
of the sun bending the light from a star during an eclipse? I suppose
that is a better illusration. It was what many considered to be the
confirmation of general reletivity. But do you think this would make a
better illustration for Schiz? I think the inability of a photon to
escape the gravitaional force of a black hole once it has passed the
threshold of the event horizon would be a better illustration. It's
still gravity working on soemthing without mass. You think maybe it
isn't gravity that is at work?




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms do=
n't
> > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require
> > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 1=
0^-31
> > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electr=
on
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you mig=
ht
> > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think =
you
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the object=
s=2E
> > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atom=
ic
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of =
of
> > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that
> > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outsi=
de
> > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things
> > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of gene=
ral
> > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth
> > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse i=
nto
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and the=
ir
> > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of
> > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or
> > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in colle=
ge.
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Close.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you two.=
..=2E
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't
> > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > > useless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point
> > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > nice
> > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It
> > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > work.
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And really stupid.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> > > > meet him face to face?
> > > >
> > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot wou=
ld
> > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At any
> > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You
> > > > > should
> > > > > ask
> > > > > him for some advice.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a cl=
ue.
> > > >
> > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you drunk?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > >
> > > > *** A good guess.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> > > >
> > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess you are drunk.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > know any better... :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
> > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
> > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
> > > on audio look interesting.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to =
be
> > > > more
> > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > >
> > >
> > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
> > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > > original thought?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.
> > >
> > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man. =
:-)
> > > I'm
> > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> >
> >
> >
> > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
> > is that?
> >
> > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage point.
>
>
>
> I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> ;-)
>
>
>
> The
> > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
>
>
>
>
> No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
> insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> common.
>
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> > PS. Grow up...
>
>
> I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so boring.
>
> *** You're still making apologies!



Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?




Despite your incessant yapping the
> original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those platform
> shoes?


I was never into disco.




>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
> PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)



No she calls me bunny.
Do your guys accept crack cocaine as payment for their services? :-)


Cheers,


Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms
> > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require
> > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.
> > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 ×
> > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you
> > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of
> > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that
> > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist
> > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things
> > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of
> > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth
> > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of
> > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or
> > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)
> > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in
> > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Close.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you
> > > > > > > two...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't
> > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > > useless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point
> > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > nice
> > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It
> > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > work.
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And really stupid.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to even
> > > > meet him face to face?
> > > >
> > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot
> > > would
> > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At any
> > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. You
> > > > > should
> > > > > ask
> > > > > him for some advice.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a
> > > > clue.
> > > >
> > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you drunk?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > >
> > > > *** A good guess.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? That
> > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> > > >
> > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess you are drunk.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > know any better... :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You could
> > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fall
> > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's posts
> > > on audio look interesting.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to
> > > > be
> > > > more
> > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > >
> > >
> > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults and
> > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > > original thought?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking good.
> > >
> > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man.
> > > :-)
> > > I'm
> > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> >
> >
> >
> > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
> > is that?
> >
> > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage point.
>
>
>
> I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> ;-)
>
>
>
> The
> > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
>
>
>
>
> No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
> insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> common.
>
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> > PS. Grow up...
>
>
> I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so boring.
>
> *** You're still making apologies!



Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?




Despite your incessant yapping the
> original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those platform
> shoes?


I was never into disco.




>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
> PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)



No she calls me bunny.

*** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
<shudder>

Do your guys accept crack cocaine as payment for their services? :-)

*** Are you running low on cash? I'll ask around if a middle aged CA ladyboy
would interest anybody.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Lionel]

In . com>,
wrote :

>
>
> Lionel wrote:
>> In . com>,
>> wrote :
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Lionel wrote:
>> >> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black
>> >> > hole? Why not?
>> >>
>> >> Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
>> >> apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
>> >> discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> > But until then you won't accept it? Suit yourself. ;-)
>> > Just for fun, please prove that the laws of physics do not apply just
>> > beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Just after I will accept to
>> > discuss the physics of a black hole. ;-)
>>
>> Seems that none of us is sure about the force(s) that prevents a photon
>> to escape from a black hole,
>
>
>
> Really? I'll go out on a limb and say I am quite certain (within
> reason) that the force at work is gravity. Consider the options.


One of the option could be that a photon is even not anymore a photon.


> so I think that it's better to not use this
>> example to explain anything. ;-)
>
>
>
> Sorry you didn't like my illustration. I figured an extreme would be
> more helpful. Would you prefer the citation of that grand observation
> of the sun bending the light from a star during an eclipse? I suppose
> that is a better illusration. It was what many considered to be the
> confirmation of general reletivity.

Of course if you have given this example or any other example of distortion
caused by the gravitation on the astromonic observation I'd hadn't done any
remark.

> But do you think this would make a
> better illustration for Schiz?

Yes I think so. Because these example ares verified daily in astronomy and
that the magnifying, deviation... effects of the gravitation on the
radiance (radiation ?) are well known and are compensated by ad-hoc
calculations.

> I think the inability of a photon to
> escape the gravitaional force of a black hole once it has passed the
> threshold of the event horizon would be a better illustration. It's
> still gravity working on soemthing without mass. You think maybe it
> isn't gravity that is at work?

Why do you imperatively want to put a name on this force since you are not
sure if it's gravity, since you are not sure that the existence of a photon
is still *possible* at these conditions of pressure, temperature...

[Lionel]

George "Betty Boop" Middius wrote :


> I just noticed that Thing directed his comment at Lionella. Apparently she
> got "promoted" from sewer cleaner to factory carton sealer.

Yes something like that but in more sportive.

(If needed, an other evidence that George has never killfiled me... What a
courage "George" !!!)

> Quite an
> exalted accomplishment. I wonder if Lionella is a "special person", as we
> euphemestically call certain handicapped individuals.

It's up to you to verify that George... But we both know that your curiosity
is subordinate to your cowardice. What a frustrating life pôôr George, I
feel a lot of pity for you.

> At least(tm) neither of them falls to Krooger's level of calling Usenet
> play a "career". They have no income, no profession, no accomplishments,

I don't want that your definition of "accomplishment" applies to me George,
this is my life accomplishment.
Ooops I'm afraid that this one is a little bit above your head, sorry. :-)

> but sometimes they win a tiny argument with a stranger in cyberspace. For
> career losers like Slut and Thing,

Your definition of a "career" doesn't applies to me little George and so the
rest of your argumentation.

> nothing beats being right in an
> anonymous venue while hiding behind an invented screen name.

Even if my name isn't in the "Who's Who" it is at least in the phone book.
Do you see what I mean "George" ? ;-)

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > oups.com.=
..=2E
> > > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms
> > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require
> > > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mas=
s=2E
> > > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are =
not
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts =
on
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7
> > > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you
> > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of
> > > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find t=
hat
> > > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist
> > > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all thi=
ngs
> > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of
> > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth
> > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unli=
ke
> > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and
> > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechan=
ics
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of
> > > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot =
or
> > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't aro=
und
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? =
:-)
> > > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in
> > > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Close.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you
> > > > > > > > two...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't
> > > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > > > useless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point
> > > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It
> > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And really stupid.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to e=
ven
> > > > > meet him face to face?
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot
> > > > would
> > > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At any
> > > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days. Y=
ou
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > him for some advice.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a
> > > > > clue.
> > > > >
> > > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you drunk?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > > >
> > > > > *** A good guess.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> > > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie? Th=
at
> > > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> > > > >
> > > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess you are drunk.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > > know any better... :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You cou=
ld
> > > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> > > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > > Scott.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you fa=
ll
> > > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's po=
sts
> > > > on audio look interesting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to
> > > > > be
> > > > > more
> > > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> > > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults =
and
> > > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > > > original thought?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking go=
od.
> > > >
> > > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man.
> > > > :-)
> > > > I'm
> > > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
> > > is that?
> > >
> > > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage poin=
t=2E
> >
> >
> >
> > I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > The
> > > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
> > insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> > random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> > common.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Margaret
> > >
> > >
> > > PS. Grow up...
> >
> >
> > I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so boring.
> >
> > *** You're still making apologies!
>
>
>
> Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?
>
>
>
>
> Despite your incessant yapping the
> > original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those platform
> > shoes?
>
>
> I was never into disco.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> > PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
>
>
>
> No she calls me bunny.
>
> *** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
> <shudder>


Heck if you want to sleep with Arny how does Bill Shoemaker turn you
off? Does sleeping with losers make you feel better about yourself?




>
> Do your guys accept crack cocaine as payment for their services? :-)
>
> *** Are you running low on cash?






I don't pay for sex. Try to follow the thread dude er
chick....whatever.




I'll ask around if a middle aged CA ladyboy
> would interest anybody.




How would that be different from your "normal" daily routine? Oh yeah,
you don't live in California do you?




Cheers.




Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is
> > > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms
> > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not require
> > > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have
> > > > > > > > > > mass.
> > > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 ×
> > > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you
> > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a
> > > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of
> > > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist
> > > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all
> > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of
> > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth
> > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which,
> > > > > > > > > unlike
> > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and
> > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum
> > > > > > > > mechanics
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of
> > > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't
> > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in
> > > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way there?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Close.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you
> > > > > > > > two...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
> > > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't
> > > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > > > useless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point
> > > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, It
> > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And really stupid.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to
> > > > > even
> > > > > meet him face to face?
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot
> > > > would
> > > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At any
> > > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days.
> > > > > > You
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > him for some advice.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a
> > > > > clue.
> > > > >
> > > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you drunk?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > > >
> > > > > *** A good guess.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was it
> > > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie?
> > > > > That
> > > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a change?
> > > > >
> > > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess you are drunk.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > > know any better... :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You
> > > > could
> > > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up do
> > > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > > Scott.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you
> > > > fall
> > > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's
> > > > posts
> > > > on audio look interesting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt to
> > > > > be
> > > > > more
> > > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as someone
> > > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults
> > > > and
> > > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > > > original thought?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking
> > > > good.
> > > >
> > > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little man.
> > > > :-)
> > > > I'm
> > > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How sad
> > > is that?
> > >
> > > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage
> > > point.
> >
> >
> >
> > I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > The
> > > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
> > insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> > random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> > common.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Margaret
> > >
> > >
> > > PS. Grow up...
> >
> >
> > I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so boring.
> >
> > *** You're still making apologies!
>
>
>
> Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?
>
>
>
>
> Despite your incessant yapping the
> > original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those platform
> > shoes?
>
>
> I was never into disco.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> > PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
>
>
>
> No she calls me bunny.
>
> *** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
> <shudder>


Heck if you want to sleep with Arny how does Bill Shoemaker turn you
off?

*** I'm 5'10" so midgets like you are out of the question.

Does sleeping with losers make you feel better about yourself?

*** Amazingly dull logic. Of course it is the money! However, at your height
you'll never have the opportunity to try the same. :-)

>
> Do your guys accept crack cocaine as payment for their services? :-)
>
> *** Are you running low on cash?


I don't pay for sex. Try to follow the thread dude er
chick....whatever.

*** But you seem to be preoccupied with it. Almost every sentence has some
reference to it. Is there a personal problem perhaps?

I'll ask around if a middle aged CA ladyboy
> would interest anybody.


How would that be different from your "normal" daily routine? Oh yeah,
you don't live in California do you?

*** I don't normally look dates for little girly-men from CA. But I'm
willing to help you, Scott.


Cheers,

Margaret


PS. You must be a relative nobody at work since you are so afraid to post
your rants through a proper account.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> In . com>,
> wrote :
>
> >
> >
> > Lionel wrote:
> >> In . com>,
> >> wrote :
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Lionel wrote:
> >> >> a =E9crit :
> >> >>
> >> >> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black
> >> >> > hole? Why not?
> >> >>
> >> >> Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
> >> >> apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
> >> >> discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But until then you won't accept it? Suit yourself. ;-)
> >> > Just for fun, please prove that the laws of physics do not apply just
> >> > beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Just after I will accept to
> >> > discuss the physics of a black hole. ;-)
> >>
> >> Seems that none of us is sure about the force(s) that prevents a photon
> >> to escape from a black hole,
> >
> >
> >
> > Really? I'll go out on a limb and say I am quite certain (within
> > reason) that the force at work is gravity. Consider the options.
>
>
> One of the option could be that a photon is even not anymore a photon.


You think a photon might become something else once it crosses the
*event horizon* of a black hole? News to me. Have any links verifying
this may be a possibility? I'd geniunely be interested.




>
>
> > so I think that it's better to not use this
> >> example to explain anything. ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry you didn't like my illustration. I figured an extreme would be
> > more helpful. Would you prefer the citation of that grand observation
> > of the sun bending the light from a star during an eclipse? I suppose
> > that is a better illusration. It was what many considered to be the
> > confirmation of general reletivity.
>
> Of course if you have given this example or any other example of distorti=
on
> caused by the gravitation on the astromonic observation I'd hadn't done a=
ny
> remark.




But do you think it would have worked better for Schiz? That was the
point you know, to illustrate the fact that gravity does affect things
without mass to Schiz.





>
> > But do you think this would make a
> > better illustration for Schiz?
>
> Yes I think so.



I really don't. But this is not a big disagreement really is it?




Because these example ares verified daily in astronomy and
> that the magnifying, deviation... effects of the gravitation on the
> radiance (radiation ?) are well known and are compensated by ad-hoc
> calculations.




Maybe you are forgetting what you already know. I think this means it
would have worked better for you. But you already knew it. I was really
trying to help Schiz understand things.




>
> > I think the inability of a photon to
> > escape the gravitaional force of a black hole once it has passed the
> > threshold of the event horizon would be a better illustration. It's
> > still gravity working on soemthing without mass. You think maybe it
> > isn't gravity that is at work?
>
> Why do you imperatively want to put a name on this force since you are not
> sure if it's gravity,



I am sure that it is gravity. As sure as I can reasonably be. If you
have any information that suggests it is not gravity that creates the
event horizon of a black hole please provide a link. I'd like to read
up on it.




since you are not sure that the existence of a photon
> is still *possible* at these conditions of pressure, temperature...



I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon, or
anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (or
at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* because
of gravity.



Scott Wheeler

[Schizoid Man]

I said:

> I'm not entirely sure gravity makes the electron stay in its orbit.

You (Wheeler) said:

> That's a good one.

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but the above seems to reek of
sarcasm which would mean that you disagree with what I say, which led to
this whole discussion in the first place.

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> I said:
>
> > I'm not entirely sure gravity makes the electron stay in its orbit.
>
> You (Wheeler) said:
>
> > That's a good one.
>
> Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but the above seems to reek of
> sarcasm which would mean that you disagree with what I say, which led to
> this whole discussion in the first place.


You are jumping to conclusions. I thought you were making a joke and I
thought it was funny. Haven't you ever told a joke and someone thought
it was funny and said "That's a good one?" I never thought there was
any question as to what really keeps an electron in its orbit for
either one of us. That was my assumption.




Scott Wheeler

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
>>I said:
>>
>>> I'm not entirely sure gravity makes the electron stay in its orbit.
>>
>>You (Wheeler) said:
>>
>>>That's a good one.
>>
>>Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but the above seems to reek of
>>sarcasm which would mean that you disagree with what I say, which led to
>>this whole discussion in the first place.
>
> You are jumping to conclusions. I thought you were making a joke and I
> thought it was funny. Haven't you ever told a joke and someone thought
> it was funny and said "That's a good one?"

Yes, but I have spent too much time on RAO so I am a little jaded.
Actually, it should be easy to see why "That's a good one" comes across
as sarcastic.

> I never thought there was
> any question as to what really keeps an electron in its orbit for
> either one of us. That was my assumption.

Mine too.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Lionel wrote:
> a écrit :
>
> > No. How much mass does a photon have? Can a photon escape a black hole?
> > Why not?
>
> Just for fun, please prove that physics rules of forces
> apply to a black hole and just after I will accept to
> discuss the mass of a photon... ;-)
>
>

Don't mess with Wheeler, Lionel. He graduated Summa cum Hairspray from
the East Los Angeles Academy of Cosmetology. ;-)


"At least" he hadn't flunked Goober's bicycle mechanics course.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...




You try to mock me by calling me a hairstylist. Here's the funy thing
about that Ritchie. Even though I am not a hairstylist I see nothing
wrong with being one. I know any number of hairstylists that, unlike
you, are gainfully employed, self supporting, highly accomplished and
happy individuals contributing to our collective well being. How ironic
is it that you would try to mock me by saying I am something so above
and beyond you? Think about it. Hey you have nothing better to do
anyways.


Bike chain grease just does wonders for Tor's hair.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...

>
> PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
>
>

How many will fit into your stretched poontang?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > oups.co=
m=2E..
> > > > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it=
is
> > > > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms
> > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not requ=
ire
> > > > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have
> > > > > > > > > > > mass.
> > > > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the unive=
rse
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =
=D7
> > > > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you
> > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I th=
ink
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has=
a
> > > > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of
> > > > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects=
of
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist
> > > > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all
> > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of
> > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth
> > > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which,
> > > > > > > > > > unlike
> > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to collap=
se
> > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum
> > > > > > > > > mechanics
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem=
of
> > > > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't
> > > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in
> > > > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way ther=
e?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Close.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you
> > > > > > > > > two...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act=
on
> > > > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't
> > > > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > > > > useless.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point
> > > > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well, =
It
> > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And really stupid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > meet him face to face?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot
> > > > > would
> > > > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At any
> > > > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > him for some advice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a
> > > > > > clue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you drunk?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** A good guess.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was=
it
> > > > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie?
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a chan=
ge?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess you are drunk.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > > > know any better... :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You
> > > > > could
> > > > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up=
do
> > > > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > > > Scott.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you
> > > > > fall
> > > > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's
> > > > > posts
> > > > > on audio look interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt=
to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as some=
one
> > > > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults
> > > > > and
> > > > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > > > > original thought?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking
> > > > > good.
> > > > >
> > > > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little m=
an.
> > > > > :-)
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How =
sad
> > > > is that?
> > > >
> > > > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage
> > > > point.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The
> > > > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
> > > insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> > > random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> > > common.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Margaret
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PS. Grow up...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so borin=
g=2E
> > >
> > > *** You're still making apologies!
> >
> >
> >
> > Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Despite your incessant yapping the
> > > original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those platf=
orm
> > > shoes?
> >
> >
> > I was never into disco.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Margaret
> > >
> > > PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > No she calls me bunny.
> >
> > *** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
> > <shudder>
>
>
> Heck if you want to sleep with Arny how does Bill Shoemaker turn you
> off?
>
> *** I'm 5'10" so midgets like you are out of the question.


I lost my virginity to a girl who was 5'10" but she looked like a super
model and had a real vagina. You never had a chance with me Maggie so
stop begging. Keep hitting on Arny. You may have a chance there.



>
> Does sleeping with losers make you feel better about yourself?
>
> *** Amazingly dull logic.



Ooh you actually responded to this one. Must of struck a chord. Sorry,
I was just making un of you.




Of course it is the money!



OK, so out of curiosity how much are you paying for sex these days? You
think maybe you can get Arny for less?




However, at your height
> you'll never have the opportunity to try the same. :-)



My height isn't the problem Maggie. It's my good taste not to mention
my fidelity. Call me old fashioned.





>
> >
> > Do your guys accept crack cocaine as payment for their services? :-)
> >
> > *** Are you running low on cash?
>
>
> I don't pay for sex. Try to follow the thread dude er
> chick....whatever.
>
> *** But you seem to be preoccupied with it.


You seem preoccupied with small dicks. Telling us something about
yourself?




Almost every sentence has some
> reference to it. Is there a personal problem perhaps?


You tell us? Are you an ugly chick who has to pay for dick or just a
guy with a little dick who pretends to be a girl?



>
> I'll ask around if a middle aged CA ladyboy
> > would interest anybody.
>
>
> How would that be different from your "normal" daily routine? Oh yeah,
> you don't live in California do you?
>
> *** I don't normally look dates for little girly-men from CA.


Yeah we know, you go for the ugly old loser types like Arny.



But I'm
> willing to help you, Scott.




No thanks. I have to go vomit now.





>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
>
> PS. You must be a relative nobody at work since you are so afraid to post
> your rants through a proper account.



Again that Ferstlerian logic of yours. AOL isn't a proper acount? OK.
By the way, Do you realize that at 5'10" your height related bigotry is
much like Arny when he pretends to be rich or Howard when he pretends
to be a note worthy writer?





Cheers,



Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> >
> >>I said:
> >>
> >>> I'm not entirely sure gravity makes the electron stay in its orbit.
> >>
> >>You (Wheeler) said:
> >>
> >>>That's a good one.
> >>
> >>Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but the above seems to reek of
> >>sarcasm which would mean that you disagree with what I say, which led to
> >>this whole discussion in the first place.
> >
> > You are jumping to conclusions. I thought you were making a joke and I
> > thought it was funny. Haven't you ever told a joke and someone thought
> > it was funny and said "That's a good one?"
>
> Yes, but I have spent too much time on RAO so I am a little jaded.




Fair enough. I wasn't really thinking about that at the time.




> Actually, it should be easy to see why "That's a good one" comes across
> as sarcastic.



As the one who said it and didn't mean it that way it is a bit harder
for me than you.





>
> > I never thought there was
> > any question as to what really keeps an electron in its orbit for
> > either one of us. That was my assumption.
>
> Mine too.





Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms
> > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not
> > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have
> > > > > > > > > > > mass.
> > > > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the
> > > > > > > > > universe
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 ×
> > > > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you
> > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of
> > > > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist
> > > > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all
> > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of
> > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body
> > > > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a
> > > > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth
> > > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which,
> > > > > > > > > > unlike
> > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to
> > > > > > > > > > collapse
> > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.
> > > > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum
> > > > > > > > > mechanics
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't
> > > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in
> > > > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way
> > > > > > > > > there?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Close.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you
> > > > > > > > > two...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Don't
> > > > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to be
> > > > > > > > useless.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to point
> > > > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well,
> > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And really stupid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" to
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > meet him face to face?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idiot
> > > > > would
> > > > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At any
> > > > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these days.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > him for some advice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get a
> > > > > > clue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you drunk?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** A good guess.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which was
> > > > > it
> > > > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie?
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a
> > > > > > change?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess you are drunk.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > > > know any better... :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You
> > > > > could
> > > > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard up
> > > > > do
> > > > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > > > Scott.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you
> > > > > fall
> > > > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's
> > > > > posts
> > > > > on audio look interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physically
> > > > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attempt
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as
> > > > > someone
> > > > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insults
> > > > > and
> > > > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have an
> > > > > original thought?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking
> > > > > good.
> > > > >
> > > > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little
> > > > > man.
> > > > > :-)
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How
> > > > sad
> > > > is that?
> > > >
> > > > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage
> > > > point.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The
> > > > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intelect,
> > > insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> > > random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> > > common.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Margaret
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PS. Grow up...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so
> > > boring.
> > >
> > > *** You're still making apologies!
> >
> >
> >
> > Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Despite your incessant yapping the
> > > original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those
> > > platform
> > > shoes?
> >
> >
> > I was never into disco.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Margaret
> > >
> > > PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > No she calls me bunny.
> >
> > *** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
> > <shudder>
>
>
> Heck if you want to sleep with Arny how does Bill Shoemaker turn you
> off?
>
> *** I'm 5'10" so midgets like you are out of the question.


I lost my virginity to a girl who was 5'10" but she looked like a super
model and had a real vagina.

*** Of course Scott, we all believe you. ;-) But humping a leg doesn't quite
qualify....

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
>>
>>
>
> How many will fit into your stretched poontang?

Hi Art,

Very noble of you to come to Scott's rescue on such a short notice. I'm
sorry I caused his ego to short with my guess of his undersized stature. In
short, I really feel bad about it. Gotta go now, but I'll be back shortly.
Now if I can only find those shorts....

Cheers,

Margaret

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > oups.com.=
..=2E
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ups.com=
..=2E.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > oups.=
com...
> > > > > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that =
it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in at=
oms
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have
> > > > > > > > > > > > mass.
> > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force =
are
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exe=
rts
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the
> > > > > > > > > > universe
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188=
=D7
> > > > > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that y=
ou
> > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.=
htm
> > > > > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity h=
as
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of
> > > > > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effec=
ts
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I fi=
nd
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist
> > > > > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all
> > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of
> > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black b=
ody
> > > > > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from=
a
> > > > > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Wor=
th
> > > > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which,
> > > > > > > > > > > unlike
> > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to
> > > > > > > > > > > collapse
> > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoev=
er.
> > > > > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels a=
nd
> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum
> > > > > > > > > > mechanics
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the probl=
em
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you for=
got
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheel=
er?
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in
> > > > > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way
> > > > > > > > > > there?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Close.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you
> > > > > > > > > > two...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not a=
ct
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica. Do=
n't
> > > > > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to=
be
> > > > > > > > > useless.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to poi=
nt
> > > > > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well,
> > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And really stupid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls" =
to
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > meet him face to face?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an idi=
ot
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At any
> > > > > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these day=
s=2E
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > him for some advice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Ge=
t a
> > > > > > > clue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you drunk?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** A good guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which w=
as
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie?
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a
> > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess you are drunk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > > > > know any better... :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard =
up
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > > > > Scott.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you
> > > > > > fall
> > > > > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's
> > > > > > posts
> > > > > > on audio look interesting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or physica=
lly
> > > > > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided attem=
pt
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis insu=
lts
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have =
an
> > > > > > original thought?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking
> > > > > > good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little
> > > > > > man.
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How
> > > > > sad
> > > > > is that?
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage
> > > > > point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The
> > > > > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or intele=
ct,
> > > > insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> > > > random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> > > > common.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PS. Grow up...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so
> > > > boring.
> > > >
> > > > *** You're still making apologies!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Despite your incessant yapping the
> > > > original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those
> > > > platform
> > > > shoes?
> > >
> > >
> > > I was never into disco.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Margaret
> > > >
> > > > PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No she calls me bunny.
> > >
> > > *** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
> > > <shudder>
> >
> >
> > Heck if you want to sleep with Arny how does Bill Shoemaker turn you
> > off?
> >
> > *** I'm 5'10" so midgets like you are out of the question.
>
>
> I lost my virginity to a girl who was 5'10" but she looked like a super
> model and had a real vagina.
>
> *** Of course Scott, we all believe you.


We?




;-) But humping a leg doesn't quite
> qualify....



How many legs did you hump before you figured that out? :-)




You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?



Cheers,



Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ups.com...


Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in
> > > > > > > > > > > > atoms
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have
> > > > > > > > > > > > mass.
> > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity
> > > > > > > > > > > exerts
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the
> > > > > > > > > > universe
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188
> > > > > > > > > > > ×
> > > > > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00858.htm
> > > > > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity
> > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of
> > > > > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the
> > > > > > > > > > effects
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I
> > > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist
> > > > > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all
> > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of
> > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black
> > > > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime.
> > > > > > > > > > Worth
> > > > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which,
> > > > > > > > > > > unlike
> > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to
> > > > > > > > > > > collapse
> > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit
> > > > > > > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum
> > > > > > > > > > mechanics
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the
> > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you
> > > > > > > > > > > > forgot
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics,
> > > > > > > > > > > Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in
> > > > > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way
> > > > > > > > > > there?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Close.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sources
> > > > > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without you
> > > > > > > > > > two...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not
> > > > > > > > > > act
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica.
> > > > > > > > > > Don't
> > > > > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going to
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > useless.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to
> > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh well,
> > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And really stupid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls"
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > meet him face to face?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an
> > > > > > idiot
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At any
> > > > > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these
> > > > > > > > days.
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > him for some advice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? Get
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > clue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you drunk?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** A good guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Maggie?
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a
> > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess you are drunk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > > > > know any better... :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. You
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > > > > Scott.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that you
> > > > > > fall
> > > > > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtler's
> > > > > > posts
> > > > > > on audio look interesting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or
> > > > > > physically
> > > > > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided
> > > > > > > attempt
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis
> > > > > > insults
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > original thought?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny looking
> > > > > > good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry little
> > > > > > man.
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. How
> > > > > sad
> > > > > is that?
> > > > >
> > > > > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage
> > > > > point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about that.
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The
> > > > > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or
> > > > intelect,
> > > > insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> > > > random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> > > > common.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PS. Grow up...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so
> > > > boring.
> > > >
> > > > *** You're still making apologies!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Despite your incessant yapping the
> > > > original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those
> > > > platform
> > > > shoes?
> > >
> > >
> > > I was never into disco.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Margaret
> > > >
> > > > PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No she calls me bunny.
> > >
> > > *** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
> > > <shudder>
> >
> >
> > Heck if you want to sleep with Arny how does Bill Shoemaker turn you
> > off?
> >
> > *** I'm 5'10" so midgets like you are out of the question.
>
>
> I lost my virginity to a girl who was 5'10" but she looked like a super
> model and had a real vagina.
>
> *** Of course Scott, we all believe you.


We?




;-) But humping a leg doesn't quite
> qualify....



How many legs did you hump before you figured that out? :-)




You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?


*** You first, Scott. Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts. Oh
well, **** happens.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How many will fit into your stretched poontang?
>
> Hi Art,
>
> Very noble of you to come to Scott's rescue on such a short notice. I'm
> sorry I caused his ego to short with my guess of his undersized stature.
> In short, I really feel bad about it. Gotta go now, but I'll be back
> shortly. Now if I can only find those shorts....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>

I was out of line by no stretch of the imagination. But, no matter how
deficient is one's stature, I am sure proper stretching exercise can lead to
some acceptable result. An ex-con who served a stretch in Soledad
wrote about this. Well, I don't want to stretch out this conversation any
longer....



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many will fit into your stretched poontang?
>>
>> Hi Art,
>>
>> Very noble of you to come to Scott's rescue on such a short notice. I'm
>> sorry I caused his ego to short with my guess of his undersized stature.
>> In short, I really feel bad about it. Gotta go now, but I'll be back
>> shortly. Now if I can only find those shorts....
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>
> I was out of line by no stretch of the imagination. But, no matter how
> deficient is one's stature, I am sure proper stretching exercise can lead
> to
> some acceptable result.

You know Art, years ago during a short stay in London I visited the Tower
where they had a bench that was used to stretch the prisoners to death in
the good old days. Maybe a short vacation at the Tower would do our friend
some good. Besides, the english shortbread cookies are fabulous!

>An ex-con who served a stretch in Soledad
>wrote about this.

I guess his luck was in short supply!

>Well, I don't want to stretch out this conversation any
>longer....

I agree, keep it short!


Cheers,

Margaret

[Schizoid Man]

Margaret von B. wrote:

> You know Art, years ago during a short stay in London I visited the Tower
> where they had a bench that was used to stretch the prisoners to death in
> the good old days. Maybe a short vacation at the Tower would do our friend
> some good. Besides, the english shortbread cookies are fabulous!

The Tower also guards the Crown Jewels. Coincidence? Hehehe.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message
...

> What's so great about being right all the time?

Middius, first try being right for your first time.

>Isn't it better to make jokes about Krooger than to prove
you're smarter than everybody else?

I am humbled by the thought of a person like Middius who
seems to think that telling jokes about me is more important
to him than anything else.

[Lionel]

In >, Arny Krueger wrote :

>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What's so great about being right all the time?
>
> Middius, first try being right for your first time.
>
>>Isn't it better to make jokes about Krooger than to prove
> you're smarter than everybody else?
>
> I am humbled by the thought of a person like Middius who
> seems to think that telling jokes about me is more important
> to him than anything else.

How not to be humbled since it is his life accomplishment. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > oups.com.=
..=2E
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > oups.co=
m=2E..
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > ups.c=
om...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > oup=
s=2Ecom...
> > > > > > > > > > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > elecromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > force at work with electrons and their orbits in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > atoms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to answer your question, no an electron does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does ha=
ve
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mass.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > Who said otherwise?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > exerts
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.
> > > > > > > > > > > But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the
> > > > > > > > > > > universe
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > without mass.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.109381=
88
> > > > > > > > > > > > =D7
> > > > > > > > > > > > 10^-31
> > > > > > > > > > > > kilograms,
> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an
> > > > > > > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > have mass."
> > > > > > > > > > > making its gravitational force completely negligible.
> > > > > > > > > > > No. It makes it small but not negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > > > > educational (layman's terms):
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy0085=
8=2Ehtm
> > > > > > > > > > > Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > find all the info I gave you to be dead on.
> > > > > > > > > > > > To quote from it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Electrons
> > > > > > > > > > > > and atomic particles have such small masses gravity
> > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > negligible
> > > > > > > > > > > > effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Electromagnetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior=
of
> > > > > > > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > subatomic particles."
> > > > > > > > > > > But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the
> > > > > > > > > > > effects
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > gravity
> > > > > > > > > > > on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I
> > > > > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > > > > > hard to classify as negligable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exi=
st
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>outside
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's princip=
le,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on a=
ll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > small.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.
> > > > > > > > > > > Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
> > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian mechanics,
> > > > > > > > > > > Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard=
of
> > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > reletivity?
> > > > > > > > > > > which led to the development of of quantum physics
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > > > > No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black
> > > > > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > > > > > and the predicted behavior of black body radiation fr=
om
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > > > stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime.
> > > > > > > > > > > Worth
> > > > > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If they did, then the charge of the electron (which,
> > > > > > > > > > > > unlike
> > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > mass,
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > not negligible) would just cause the electron to
> > > > > > > > > > > > collapse
> > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > positively charged nucleus without any orbit
> > > > > > > > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > > > > > > > Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum
> > > > > > > > > > > mechanics
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the
> > > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > > > > body
> > > > > > > > > > > radiation that started it all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think gravity does not act on quanta you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > forgot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Gravity does work on all quanta.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren=
't
> > > > > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > They knew it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you say you did grade-school physics,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wheeler?
> > > > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it =
in
> > > > > > > > > > > college.
> > > > > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > > > would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *** Didn't Bugs Bunny get lost trying to dig his way
> > > > > > > > > > > there?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Close.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you read my posts
> > > > > > > > > > > more carefully.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ***Ummm...no, thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wasn't talking to you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I also suggest you read your own sources more
> > > > > > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ***I recommend that both of you review all your sourc=
es
> > > > > > > > > > > immediately.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Take
> > > > > > > > > > > your time too, I'm sure we'll manage somehow without =
you
> > > > > > > > > > > two...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Goood to know. I was worried.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You won't find anything that claims gravity does not
> > > > > > > > > > > act
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > quanta.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ***I think there's potential evidence in Antarctica.
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't
> > > > > > > > > > > forget
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > parka.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > At least come up with something funny if you are going =
to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > useless.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *** It wasn't meant to be funny. It was an attempt to
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > out -in
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > > way- that you're just a Krueger with a turntable. Oh we=
ll,
> > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see, your were just trying to be a polite prick.
> > > > > > > > > **** you too ;-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *** Appears that my comparison was unfair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And really stupid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I apologize to Arny. :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And made an even bigger ass of yourself. ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Really? How can you do that when you haven't got the "balls"
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > meet him face to face?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** Check your logic, genius.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lighten up dimbulb. It was an insult. Nothing more. Only an
> > > > > > > idiot
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > scrutinize the logic of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At any
> > > > > > > > > rate, Arny seems to succeed with anger management these
> > > > > > > > > days.
> > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > him for some advice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jee wiz didn't you see the smiley face after the **** you? =
Get
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > clue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** You ARE acting like Arny! How funny.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you drunk?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm sure he has forgiven your undersized lawsuit by
> > > > > > > > > now. Thanks for the offer,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wishful thinking or stupidity?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *** A good guess.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, that was a a logical deduction. Try to keep up. But which
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > Maggie. Were you horny or stupid?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but I'm not into small men, Scott.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ah, the old small penis bit. Got any original material Magg=
ie?
> > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > crap is just boring. Can you manage to not be boring for a
> > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ***No need to confess anything here, Scott.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess you are drunk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As long as your wife doesn't
> > > > > > > > know any better... :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unlike you she thought Arny was rather repulsive o look at. Y=
ou
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > learn a thing or two from her about good taste. damn, how hard
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > you have to be to find Arny attractive?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was just making an educated guess on your stature,
> > > > > > > > Scott.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah right. Of course it wasn't a garden variety insult that =
you
> > > > > > > fall
> > > > > > > back on just about every day. You're starting to make Fesrtle=
r's
> > > > > > > posts
> > > > > > > on audio look interesting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my experience it is usually men of small stature or
> > > > > > > physically
> > > > > > > > weak men who behave the way you do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IME trolls like you have little real world experience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sometimes it also happens to men who
> > > > > > > > lose their ability to perform. It is merely a misguided
> > > > > > > > attempt
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > "manly" but it surely can be ugly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No Maggie it's just your same old boring routine. As soon as
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > calls you on your bull**** you go right to the small penis
> > > > > > > insults
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > then to the performance insults. It's just boring. Do you have
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > original thought?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hope you get better soon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope you get laid soon. It's bad news when you find Arny look=
ing
> > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** So the bottom line is that you're just another angry litt=
le
> > > > > > > man.
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > guessing about 5'5" max without the platform shoes.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bottom line is you turned out to be no brighter than Ferstler. =
How
> > > > > > sad
> > > > > > is that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *** Well, Scott, things always look different from a low vantage
> > > > > > point.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose some so quick to get on their knees would know about th=
at.
> > > > > ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The
> > > > > > *really* sad part is that I diagnosed you so quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the sad part was that you did it with the same degree or
> > > > > intelect,
> > > > > insightfulness and accuracy of Ferstler. Did you think that was a
> > > > > random dig? It's really surprising how much the two of you have in
> > > > > common.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS. Grow up...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not the one making the old little dick jokes. Stop being so
> > > > > boring.
> > > > >
> > > > > *** You're still making apologies!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now who is acting like Krueger? Are you trying to get him in bed?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Despite your incessant yapping the
> > > > > original question still stands. Just how tall are you w/o those
> > > > > platform
> > > > > shoes?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was never into disco.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret
> > > > >
> > > > > PS. Does your wife call it the "little photon"? :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No she calls me bunny.
> > > >
> > > > *** So you got big ears to boot. My mind sees a Bill Shoemaker clone
> > > > <shudder>
> > >
> > >
> > > Heck if you want to sleep with Arny how does Bill Shoemaker turn you
> > > off?
> > >
> > > *** I'm 5'10" so midgets like you are out of the question.
> >
> >
> > I lost my virginity to a girl who was 5'10" but she looked like a super
> > model and had a real vagina.
> >
> > *** Of course Scott, we all believe you.
>
>
> We?
>
>
>
>
> ;-) But humping a leg doesn't quite
> > qualify....



I would think not. So who is we if the person whose leg you are humping
doesn't count? You seem to be all alone on this one.




>
>
>
> How many legs did you hump before you figured that out? :-)




That many? Sorry you were such a slow learner.





>
>
>
>
> You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
> pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
>
>
> *** You first, Scott.



Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?




Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts. Oh
> well, **** happens.



You wouldn't like the answer.





Cheers,



Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
> pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
>
>
> *** You first, Scott.



Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?




Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts. Oh
> well, **** happens.



You wouldn't like the answer.


*** Apparently, neither do you. :-) The devastating insecurity of short
men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than the
physical appearance itself.


Cheers,

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Arny Krueger
wrote :

> > "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast
> > [dot] net> wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> What's so great about being right all the time?
> >
> > Middius, first try being right for your first time.

> >>Isn't it better to make jokes about Krooger than to
prove
> > you're smarter than everybody else?

> > I am humbled by the thought of a person like Middius who
> > seems to think that telling jokes about me is more
important
> > to him than anything else.

> How not to be humbled since it is his life accomplishment.
;-)

I was thinking about the irony of Middius. His basic shtick
is to elevate himself in the eyes of various and sundry
delusional numbskulls (e.g. Art Sackman, Marc Phillips, and
Scott Wheeler) by making childish jokes about this
conference's best technical contributor. I conclude that the
real target of his abuse is related to his frustrations with
technology, not the person.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I was thinking about the irony of Middius. His basic shtick
> is to elevate himself in the eyes of various and sundry
> delusional numbskulls (e.g. Art Sackman, Marc Phillips, and
> Scott Wheeler) by making childish jokes about this
> conference's best technical contributor. I conclude that the
> real target of his abuse is related to his frustrations with
> technology, not the person.
>
>

Yes, we four have nothing personal against Howie.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to the Big ****:

> > I conclude that the
> > real target of his abuse is related to his frustrations with
> > technology, not the person.

> Yes, we four have nothing personal against Howie.

Doesn't it sound like Krooger is being animated by La Salope? The Krooglish
is funkier than usual.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said to the Big ****:
>
>> > I conclude that the
>> > real target of his abuse is related to his frustrations with
>> > technology, not the person.
>
>> Yes, we four have nothing personal against Howie.
>
> Doesn't it sound like Krooger is being animated by La Salope? The
> Krooglish
> is funkier than usual.
>

I think it sounds more like Krueger just after he had a session
with Rev. Wickes.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

a écrit :


> I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
> photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
> Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
> generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon, or
> anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (or
> at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
> photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* because
> of gravity.

Ok just this point to answer you and I stop because this
discussion is already surpassing my modest competences.

When the liberation speed reachs speed of light (photons)
the Newtonian physics doesn't apply anymore because of
unreliable results.
OTOH relativity explains that at this point the distortion
of the couple time-space is so intense that nothing is
anymore observable anyway.

So the gravity is the force which create the black hole but
you cannot say that photons are prisonners of a black hole
because of the gravity.

I think that starting with the following link you will find
interesting way to explains my above blah, blah, blah.

[Lionel]

George Môron Middius a écrit :

> Doesn't it sound like Krooger is being animated by La Salope? The Krooglish
> is funkier than usual.

If it's true, may I suggest you to follow his example ?

:-D

[Lionel]

Lionel a écrit :
> a écrit :
>
>
>> I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
>> photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
>> Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
>> generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon, or
>> anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (or
>> at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
>> photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* because
>> of gravity.
>
>
> Ok just this point to answer you and I stop because this discussion is
> already surpassing my modest competences.
>
> When the liberation speed reachs speed of light (photons) the Newtonian
> physics doesn't apply anymore because of unreliable results.
> OTOH relativity explains that at this point the distortion of the couple
> time-space is so intense that nothing is anymore observable anyway.
>
> So the gravity is the force which create the black hole but you cannot
> say that photons are prisonners of a black hole because of the gravity.
>
> I think that starting with the following link you will find interesting
> way to explains my above blah, blah, blah.

The link :
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SchwarzschildRadius.html

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> jeffc said:
>
> > > Internet service providers escape responsibility for posted content
via
> > > the Internet Decency Act of 1996, which absolved them from legal
liability,
> > > provided that they have no mechanism or policy to moderate content.
> > > Conversely, if they do have a policy, they are fully responsible for
> > > posted content. The analogous question would be, "Is Stereophile an
open,
> > > unmoderated forum, or is there a central authority that is clearly
> > > responsible for its content?" I believe it is clear that the second
case
> > > applies.
>
> > Maybe it should be censored by the government.
>
> You rightly mock Bobo's attempt to paint a privately owned entertainment
> venue with a public convenience. Certainly the same rules don't apply to a
> public park as to an art gallery.
>
George, I was not equating the two. I made an analogic argument, which is
this: Stereophile cannot claim that the mention, commentary, or review of
dubious tweaks is the result of nonselective inclusion, because the editor
of Stereophile controls the process of inclusion.

There are no rules here, and I did not mean to imply that there should be.

[George Middius]

Signal said:

>>> Actually, it should be easy to see why "That's a good one" comes across
>>> as sarcastic.

>>As the one who said it and didn't mean it that way it is a bit harder
>>for me than you.

>Very funny.

I thought he was practicing up for a sermon.

[George Middius]

Robert Morein said:

>> You rightly mock Bobo's attempt to paint a privately owned entertainment
>> venue with a public convenience. Certainly the same rules don't apply to a
>> public park as to an art gallery.

>George, I was not equating the two. I made an analogic argument, which is
>this: Stereophile cannot claim that the mention, commentary, or review of
>dubious tweaks is the result of nonselective inclusion, because the editor
>of Stereophile controls the process of inclusion.
>
>There are no rules here, and I did not mean to imply that there should be.

Have you been assimilated? The obsession with Stereophile is a telltale sign of
Hiviness. Don't follow in Thing's slime trail.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a =E9crit :
>
>
> > I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
> > photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
> > Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
> > generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon, or
> > anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (or
> > at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
> > photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* because
> > of gravity.
>
> Ok just this point to answer you and I stop because this
> discussion is already surpassing my modest competences.
>
> When the liberation speed reachs speed of light (photons)
> the Newtonian physics doesn't apply anymore because of
> unreliable results.
> OTOH relativity explains that at this point the distortion
> of the couple time-space is so intense that nothing is
> anymore observable anyway.
>
> So the gravity is the force which create the black hole but
> you cannot say that photons are prisonners of a black hole
> because of the gravity.



But your link says gravity is the force that traps a photon. What do
you think the G stands for in that equation?



>
> I think that starting with the following link you will find
> interesting way to explains my above blah, blah, blah.



I don't find the math as interesting as the layman explinations. But it
looks to me that it clearly states gravity is the force that would be
preventing a photon from escaping a black hole. Thank you for the link
though.




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
> >
> >
> > *** You first, Scott.
>
>
>
> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?





I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you any
manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and answer the
question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to be a
girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?



>
>
>
>
> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts. Oh
> > well, **** happens.



I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and accuracy
of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being likened
to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my comments?




>
>
>
> You wouldn't like the answer.
>
>
> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)




No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity. Besides.
if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more and
deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.




The devastating insecurity of short
> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than the
> physical appearance itself.



Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing else.
You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short people.
Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing up I
spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is at
the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
back. I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
taller than they are. That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass now.
That's pretty pathetic.



Cheers,




Scott Wheeler

[George Middius]

Scott said:

>Did you get beat up by a midget or something?

Easy, Scott, that was almost funny.


>When I was growing up I
>spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
>was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
>opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is at
>the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
>back. I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
>taller than they are. That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
>you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass now.
>That's pretty pathetic.

Accusations of Kroopathy? That's low. Let's not cross any lines we'll regret.

[Schizoid Man]

George Middius wrote:

> Have you been assimilated? The obsession with Stereophile is a telltale sign of
> Hiviness. Don't follow in Thing's slime trail.

I just realized something. You're hazed me for being a Star Wars fan
(admittedly, I am a tepid one), but what is all this Trekkie nerd crap
about being assimilated into Borgs?

Or are you just gutted that the world is without Star Trek series now
that Voyager (or was it Enterprise) has been cancelled?

[Lionel]

a écrit :
>
> Lionel wrote:
>
a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
>>>photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
>>>Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
>>>generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon, or
>>>anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (or
>>>at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
>>>photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* because
>>>of gravity.
>>
>>Ok just this point to answer you and I stop because this
>>discussion is already surpassing my modest competences.
>>
>>When the liberation speed reachs speed of light (photons)
>>the Newtonian physics doesn't apply anymore because of
>>unreliable results.
>>OTOH relativity explains that at this point the distortion
>>of the couple time-space is so intense that nothing is
>>anymore observable anyway.
>>
>>So the gravity is the force which create the black hole but
>>you cannot say that photons are prisonners of a black hole
>>because of the gravity.
>
>
>
>
> But your link says gravity is the force that traps a photon. What do
> you think the G stands for in that equation?

I propose you a link that could be an interesting *start*
for investigation about those marvellous objects.

>>I think that starting with the following link you will find
>>interesting way to explains my above blah, blah, blah.
>
>
>
>
> I don't find the math as interesting as the layman explinations. But it
> looks to me that it clearly states gravity is the force that would be
> preventing a photon from escaping a black hole. Thank you for the link
> though.

Don't forget to investigate about the pertinence of the
Newtonian laws of physics (especially to gravity) when the
escape speed is equivalent to the speed of the light... Or
you would miss a very interesting point.

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
>> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
>> >
>> >
>> > *** You first, Scott.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
>> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?
>
>
>
>
>
> I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you any
> manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and answer the
> question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to be a
> girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
>> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts. Oh
>> > well, **** happens.
>
>
>
> I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and accuracy
> of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being likened
> to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my comments?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> You wouldn't like the answer.
>>
>>
>> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
>
>
>
>
> No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity. Besides.
> if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more and
> deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
>
>

*** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.

>
>
> The devastating insecurity of short
>> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than the
>> physical appearance itself.
>
>
>
> Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing else.
> You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short people.

*** Fear of short people? Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!


> Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing up I
> spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
> was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
> opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is at
> the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
> back.

*** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-) Was he on the same trip with the
supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?

>I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
> taller than they are.

*** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?

>That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
> you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass now.
> That's pretty pathetic.
>

*** But the reality is that you're still short. :-) Time for a new title.


Cheers,

Margaret

[Schizoid Man]

Margaret von B. wrote:

> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.

Napoleon was 5' 2".

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> George Middius wrote:
>
> > Have you been assimilated? The obsession with Stereophile is a telltale sign of
> > Hiviness. Don't follow in Thing's slime trail.
>
> I just realized something. You're hazed me for being a Star Wars fan
> (admittedly, I am a tepid one), but what is all this Trekkie nerd crap
> about being assimilated into Borgs?
>
>
You didn't know?? "George" is a diehard Trekkie. Also a big Coneheads
fan. In fact he first posted to Usenet as: conehead_at_overthe_dot_net.
A bit later, he signed his posts as "Glanbrok, conquerer of
bluntskulls". Google tells all! ;-)
>
> Or are you just gutted that the world is without Star Trek series now
> that Voyager (or was it Enterprise) has been cancelled?
>
He's waiting for a new Shatner/Nimoy flick. :-D

[Margaret von B.]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>
>> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
>
> Napoleon was 5' 2".

But Napoleon wasn't debilitatingly insecure so it didn't matter.

Cheers,

Margaret


PS. Fixed that stereo yet?

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
>>George Middius wrote:
>>
>>

> You didn't know?? "George" is a diehard Trekkie. Also a big Coneheads
> fan. In fact he first posted to Usenet as: conehead_at_overthe_dot_net.
> A bit later, he signed his posts as "Glanbrok, conquerer of
> bluntskulls". Google tells all! ;-)
>
>>Or are you just gutted that the world is without Star Trek series now
>>that Voyager (or was it Enterprise) has been cancelled?
>>
>
> He's waiting for a new Shatner/Nimoy flick. :-D

He doesn't have to wait long. It's called Priceline.com. :-)

[George Middius]

Schizoid Man said:


>>Have you been assimilated? The obsession with Stereophile is a telltale sign >>
>>Hiviness. Don't follow in Thing's slime trail.

>I just realized something. You're hazed me for being a Star Wars fan
>(admittedly, I am a tepid one), but what is all this Trekkie nerd crap
>about being assimilated into Borgs?
>
>Or are you just gutted that the world is without Star Trek series now
>that Voyager (or was it Enterprise) has been cancelled?


You reach new heights of cluelessness with every passing week.

[Schizoid Man]

Margaret von B. wrote:

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Margaret von B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>*** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
>>
>>Napoleon was 5' 2".
>
>
> But Napoleon wasn't debilitatingly insecure so it didn't matter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
>
> PS. Fixed that stereo yet?

Working on it. I took your advice and am in the process of borrowing a
"real" amp :-) - the McCormack DNA-05.

I was reading a pretty interesting book last night called House of
Leaves. It's defies classification, but the best description would be
experimental fiction.

I was also listening to the 30th Anniversary Edition of The White Album
and I think it's one very inconsistent record. Ob-la-di Ob-la-da is on
the same disc as While My Guitar?

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > *** You first, Scott.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you any
> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and answer the
> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to be a
> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts. Oh
> >> > well, **** happens.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and accuracy
> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being likened
> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my comments?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
> >>
> >>
> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity. Besides.
> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more and
> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
> >
> >
>
> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.


No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.




>
> >
> >
> > The devastating insecurity of short
> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than the
> >> physical appearance itself.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing else.
> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short people.
>
> *** Fear of short people?




So it would seem.




Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!





I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them around is
your revenge.






>
>
> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing up I
> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is at
> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
> > back.
>
> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)



OK Howard er a Maggie.




Was he on the same trip with the
> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?



Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the theory
that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair to say
I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a super
model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't think she
ever went into modeling.









>
> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
> > taller than they are.
>
> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?



What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings frequent?





>
> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass now.
> > That's pretty pathetic.
> >
>
> *** But the reality is that you're still short.



Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in common?



:-) Time for a new title.





Duh Maggie perhaps?



Cheers,




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a =E9crit :
> >
> > Lionel wrote:
> >
> a =E9crit :
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
> >>>photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
> >>>Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
> >>>generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon, or
> >>>anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (or
> >>>at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
> >>>photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* because
> >>>of gravity.
> >>
> >>Ok just this point to answer you and I stop because this
> >>discussion is already surpassing my modest competences.
> >>
> >>When the liberation speed reachs speed of light (photons)
> >>the Newtonian physics doesn't apply anymore because of
> >>unreliable results.
> >>OTOH relativity explains that at this point the distortion
> >>of the couple time-space is so intense that nothing is
> >>anymore observable anyway.
> >>
> >>So the gravity is the force which create the black hole but
> >>you cannot say that photons are prisonners of a black hole
> >>because of the gravity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But your link says gravity is the force that traps a photon. What do
> > you think the G stands for in that equation?
>
> I propose you a link that could be an interesting *start*
> for investigation about those marvellous objects.


If you think I am wrong about something why not just point me to one
that acyually contradicts what I have said so far?



>
> >>I think that starting with the following link you will find
> >>interesting way to explains my above blah, blah, blah.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't find the math as interesting as the layman explinations. But it
> > looks to me that it clearly states gravity is the force that would be
> > preventing a photon from escaping a black hole. Thank you for the link
> > though.
>
> Don't forget to investigate about the pertinence of the
> Newtonian laws of physics (especially to gravity) when the
> escape speed is equivalent to the speed of the light... Or
> you would miss a very interesting point.



Thanks.




Scott Wheeler

[Lionel]

a écrit :
>
> Lionel wrote:
>
a écrit :
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
>>>>>photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
>>>>>Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
>>>>>generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon, or
>>>>>anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (or
>>>>>at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
>>>>>photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* because
>>>>>of gravity.
>>>>
>>>>Ok just this point to answer you and I stop because this
>>>>discussion is already surpassing my modest competences.
>>>>
>>>>When the liberation speed reachs speed of light (photons)
>>>>the Newtonian physics doesn't apply anymore because of
>>>>unreliable results.
>>>>OTOH relativity explains that at this point the distortion
>>>>of the couple time-space is so intense that nothing is
>>>>anymore observable anyway.
>>>>
>>>>So the gravity is the force which create the black hole but
>>>>you cannot say that photons are prisonners of a black hole
>>>>because of the gravity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>But your link says gravity is the force that traps a photon. What do
>>>you think the G stands for in that equation?
>>
>>I propose you a link that could be an interesting *start*
>>for investigation about those marvellous objects.
>
>
>
> If you think I am wrong about something why not just point me to one
> that acyually contradicts what I have said so far?


Sorry but you need to read French

http://www.astronomes.com/c3_mort/p341_trousnoirs.html

"Evidemment, dans ces conditions extrêmes, la physique de
Newton ne donne pas de résultats fiables. Il faut faire
appel à la relativité générale pour décrire l'astre qui se
forme. La théorie d'Einstein montre alors que la déformation
de l'espace-temps autour du résidu est telle que rien, pas
même la lumière, ne peut plus s'échapper. L'étoile est
désormais impossible à observer, elle ne se manifeste plus
que par d'intenses perturbations de l'espace-temps dans son
voisinage. L'étoile est devenue un trou noir."

http://nrumiano.free.fr/Fetoiles/t_noirs.html

http://www.cosmovisions.com/trounoir.htm

"La définition précédente a le mérite de donner à peu de
frais une première intuition de ce qu'il advient dans un
trou noir. Mais elle reste inadéquate dans la mesure où un
trou noir ne peut être envisagé réellement qu'à partir des
notions de la relativité générale, autrement dit selon les
concepts de la théorie de la gravitation d'Einstein, pour
laquelle champ de gravitation signifie courbure de
l'espace-temps. Un trou noir sera alors plutôt envisagé
comme une région de l'univers où une courbure extrême révèle
des propriétés de l'espace-temps spéciales."

>>>>I think that starting with the following link you will find
>>>>interesting way to explains my above blah, blah, blah.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't find the math as interesting as the layman explinations. But it
>>>looks to me that it clearly states gravity is the force that would be
>>>preventing a photon from escaping a black hole. Thank you for the link
>>>though.
>>
>>Don't forget to investigate about the pertinence of the
>>Newtonian laws of physics (especially to gravity) when the
>>escape speed is equivalent to the speed of the light... Or
>>you would miss a very interesting point.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.

You're welcome.

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
>> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > *** You first, Scott.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
>> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you any
>> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and answer the
>> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to be a
>> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
>> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts.
>> >> > Oh
>> >> > well, **** happens.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and accuracy
>> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being likened
>> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my comments?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity. Besides.
>> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more and
>> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
>
>
> No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > The devastating insecurity of short
>> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than the
>> >> physical appearance itself.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing else.
>> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short people.
>>
>> *** Fear of short people?
>
>
>
>
> So it would seem.
>
>
>
>
> Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them around is
> your revenge.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing up I
>> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
>> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
>> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is at
>> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
>> > back.
>>
>> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
>
>
>
> OK Howard er a Maggie.
>
>
>
>
> Was he on the same trip with the
>> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
>
>
>
> Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the theory
> that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair to say
> I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a super
> model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't think she
> ever went into modeling.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
>> > taller than they are.
>>
>> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
>
>
>
> What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings frequent?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
>> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass now.
>> > That's pretty pathetic.
>> >
>>
>> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
>
>
>
> Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in common?
>
>

Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing. But don't worry
Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too. Wild speculations
about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about your
accomplishments. However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about their
*AUDIO* accomplishments. OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup. That's sadder
than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two of you
than I ever could.

Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)


Cheers,

Margaret

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height who
> >> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *** You first, Scott.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
> >> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you any
> >> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and answer the
> >> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to be a
> >> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> >> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it hurts.
> >> >> > Oh
> >> >> > well, **** happens.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and accuracy
> >> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being likened
> >> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my comments?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity. Besides.
> >> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more and
> >> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
> >
> >
> > No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The devastating insecurity of short
> >> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than the
> >> >> physical appearance itself.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing else.
> >> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short people.
> >>
> >> *** Fear of short people?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So it would seem.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them around is
> > your revenge.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing up I
> >> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
> >> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
> >> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is at
> >> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
> >> > back.
> >>
> >> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > OK Howard er a Maggie.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Was he on the same trip with the
> >> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
> >
> >
> >
> > Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the theory
> > that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair to say
> > I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a super
> > model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't think she
> > ever went into modeling.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
> >> > taller than they are.
> >>
> >> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
> >
> >
> >
> > What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings frequent?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
> >> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass now.
> >> > That's pretty pathetic.
> >> >
> >>
> >> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in common?
> >
> >
>
> Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing.


A yeah right Maggie. You were in a room full of guys, audiophile geeks
no less and you went unnoticed. So much for your physical presence.



But don't worry
> Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too.



Oh come up with something original for a change. Isn't it bad enough
you went unnoticed in a room full of geeky guys? If you want to stand
out *you* have to be interesting. Maybe this is why you set your
standards so low. I mean c'mon, you want to bed Arny.





Wild speculations
> about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about your
> accomplishments.



Maggie you are out of touch with reality. You're the one who always
falls back on the tired old small dick jokes. You're the one bragging
about being (snicker) 5'10," Duh Maggie does seem to fit.




However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
> especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about their
> *AUDIO* accomplishments.



Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.




OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
> who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup.



I'm sorry you are so hard up that you find a story about losing my
virginity to a tall attactive woman as a sexual conquest. If you suffer
from self esteem issues when it comes to sex I suggest you don't make
it a topic of discussion.




That's sadder
> than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two of you
> than I ever could.
>
> Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)


No, but you're still as perceptive and cunning as Ferstler. Hang on to
your fantasies Maggie. If it makes you feel better....
You still haven't answered my question though. Are you a guy of average
height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you a really ugly chick
who has to pay for sex? I mean if you are a hot chick that stands 5'10"
you *will* get noticed in a room full of geeky audiophile dudes. Didn't
happen did it? ouch.....







Cheers,



Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a =E9crit :
> >
> > Lionel wrote:
> >
> a =E9crit :
> >>
> >>>Lionel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> a =E9crit :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I am as sure as I reasonably can be that in fact a photon is still a
> >>>>>photon even when it goes beyond the *event horizon* of a black hole.
> >>>>>Please don't confuse the event horizon with the singularity that
> >>>>>generates it. I do realize we have no idea what becomes of a photon,=
or
> >>>>>anything else, when it hits a singularity but up until that moment (=
or
> >>>>>at least close to it well after crossing the event horizon) it's a
> >>>>>photon and it can't escape once it crosses the *event horizon* becau=
se
> >>>>>of gravity.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ok just this point to answer you and I stop because this
> >>>>discussion is already surpassing my modest competences.
> >>>>
> >>>>When the liberation speed reachs speed of light (photons)
> >>>>the Newtonian physics doesn't apply anymore because of
> >>>>unreliable results.
> >>>>OTOH relativity explains that at this point the distortion
> >>>>of the couple time-space is so intense that nothing is
> >>>>anymore observable anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>So the gravity is the force which create the black hole but
> >>>>you cannot say that photons are prisonners of a black hole
> >>>>because of the gravity.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But your link says gravity is the force that traps a photon. What do
> >>>you think the G stands for in that equation?
> >>
> >>I propose you a link that could be an interesting *start*
> >>for investigation about those marvellous objects.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you think I am wrong about something why not just point me to one
> > that acyually contradicts what I have said so far?
>
>
> Sorry but you need to read French




That aint gonna happen. But thanks again for the link. Great site.





>
> http://www.astronomes.com/c3_mort/p341_trousnoirs.html
>
> "Evidemment, dans ces conditions extr=EAmes, la physique de
> Newton ne donne pas de r=E9sultats fiables. Il faut faire
> appel =E0 la relativit=E9 g=E9n=E9rale pour d=E9crire l'astre qui se
> forme. La th=E9orie d'Einstein montre alors que la d=E9formation
> de l'espace-temps autour du r=E9sidu est telle que rien, pas
> m=EAme la lumi=E8re, ne peut plus s'=E9chapper. L'=E9toile est
> d=E9sormais impossible =E0 observer, elle ne se manifeste plus
> que par d'intenses perturbations de l'espace-temps dans son
> voisinage. L'=E9toile est devenue un trou noir."
>
> http://nrumiano.free.fr/Fetoiles/t_noirs.html
>
> http://www.cosmovisions.com/trounoir.htm
>
> "La d=E9finition pr=E9c=E9dente a le m=E9rite de donner =E0 peu de
> frais une premi=E8re intuition de ce qu'il advient dans un
> trou noir. Mais elle reste inad=E9quate dans la mesure o=F9 un
> trou noir ne peut =EAtre envisag=E9 r=E9ellement qu'=E0 partir des
> notions de la relativit=E9 g=E9n=E9rale, autrement dit selon les
> concepts de la th=E9orie de la gravitation d'Einstein, pour
> laquelle champ de gravitation signifie courbure de
> l'espace-temps. Un trou noir sera alors plut=F4t envisag=E9
> comme une r=E9gion de l'univers o=F9 une courbure extr=EAme r=E9v=E8le
> des propri=E9t=E9s de l'espace-temps sp=E9ciales."
>
> >>>>I think that starting with the following link you will find
> >>>>interesting way to explains my above blah, blah, blah.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I don't find the math as interesting as the layman explinations. But it
> >>>looks to me that it clearly states gravity is the force that would be
> >>>preventing a photon from escaping a black hole. Thank you for the link
> >>>though.
> >>
> >>Don't forget to investigate about the pertinence of the
> >>Newtonian laws of physics (especially to gravity) when the
> >>escape speed is equivalent to the speed of the light... Or
> >>you would miss a very interesting point.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Thanks.
>=20
> You're welcome.






Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > *** You first, Scott.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
>> >> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you any
>> >> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and answer
>> >> > the
>> >> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to be
>> >> > a
>> >> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
>> >> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it
>> >> >> > hurts.
>> >> >> > Oh
>> >> >> > well, **** happens.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and
>> >> > accuracy
>> >> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being
>> >> > likened
>> >> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my comments?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity.
>> >> > Besides.
>> >> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more
>> >> > and
>> >> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
>> >
>> >
>> > No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The devastating insecurity of short
>> >> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> physical appearance itself.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing else.
>> >> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short
>> >> > people.
>> >>
>> >> *** Fear of short people?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So it would seem.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them around is
>> > your revenge.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing up
>> >> > I
>> >> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
>> >> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
>> >> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is
>> >> > at
>> >> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
>> >> > back.
>> >>
>> >> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > OK Howard er a Maggie.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Was he on the same trip with the
>> >> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the theory
>> > that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair to say
>> > I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a super
>> > model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't think she
>> > ever went into modeling.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
>> >> > taller than they are.
>> >>
>> >> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings frequent?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
>> >> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass
>> >> > now.
>> >> > That's pretty pathetic.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in common?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing.
>
>
> A yeah right Maggie. You were in a room full of guys, audiophile geeks
> no less and you went unnoticed. So much for your physical presence.
>
>
>
> But don't worry
>> Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too.
>
>
>
> Oh come up with something original for a change. Isn't it bad enough
> you went unnoticed in a room full of geeky guys? If you want to stand
> out *you* have to be interesting. Maybe this is why you set your
> standards so low. I mean c'mon, you want to bed Arny.
>
>
>
>
>
> Wild speculations
>> about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about your
>> accomplishments.
>
>
>
> Maggie you are out of touch with reality. You're the one who always
> falls back on the tired old small dick jokes. You're the one bragging
> about being (snicker) 5'10," Duh Maggie does seem to fit.
>
>
>
>
> However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
>> especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about their
>> *AUDIO* accomplishments.
>
>
>
> Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
>
>
>
>
> OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
>> who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry you are so hard up that you find a story about losing my
> virginity to a tall attactive woman as a sexual conquest. If you suffer
> from self esteem issues when it comes to sex I suggest you don't make
> it a topic of discussion.
>
>
>
>
> That's sadder
>> than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two of
>> you
>> than I ever could.
>>
>> Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)
>
>
> No, but you're still as perceptive and cunning as Ferstler. Hang on to
> your fantasies Maggie. If it makes you feel better....
> You still haven't answered my question though. Are you a guy of average
> height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you a really ugly chick
> who has to pay for sex? I mean if you are a hot chick that stands 5'10"
> you *will* get noticed in a room full of geeky audiophile dudes. Didn't
> happen did it? ouch.....
>

Who am I to comment on my looks, Scott? It is a very subjective thing and
opinions vary, so I leave it to others. However, the ORIGINAL question
concerned your height which is a simple fact and not subject to opinions.
Until you overcome your shame of yourself and answer the simple question,
you'll get no answers about me. PAS. I do find it interesting that you are
so devastated about it.

Cheers,

Margaret


PS. No cheating.

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> jeffc wrote:
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> > message ...
> > > Internet service providers escape responsibility for posted
> > > content via the Internet Decency Act of 1996, which absolved
> > > them from legal liability, provided that they have no mechanism
> > > or policy to moderate content. Conversely, if they do have a
> > > policy, they are fully responsible for posted content. The
> > > analogous question would be, "Is Stereophile an open,
> > > unmoderated forum, or is there a central authority that is
> > > clearly responsible for its content?" I believe it is clear that
> > > the second case applies.
> >
> > Maybe it should be censored by the government.
>
> Something that has been repeatedly suggested by Howard Ferstler
> on this forum.

Huh? While I certainly would like to see some of the con
artists in this business put in the slammer for what they
do, I certainly do not favor government censorship of the
press.

I do think that people should be given IQ tests before being
allowed to purchase high-end gear, of course (they should
not be allowed into the hobby at all if their scores are
below 100), and such tests would not be a bad idea when it
comes to permitting journalists to publish, although there I
would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.

Well, let's face it, it is very possible for someone who is
quite intelligent to be a con artist, so maybe the best
thing to do would be to put me in full charge of licensing
and leave it at that.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium height
> >> >> >> > who
> >> >> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > *** You first, Scott.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes to
> >> >> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for sex?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you any
> >> >> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and answer
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to be
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> >> >> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it
> >> >> >> > hurts.
> >> >> >> > Oh
> >> >> >> > well, **** happens.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and
> >> >> > accuracy
> >> >> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being
> >> >> > likened
> >> >> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my comments?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity.
> >> >> > Besides.
> >> >> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The devastating insecurity of short
> >> >> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap than
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> physical appearance itself.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing else.
> >> >> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short
> >> >> > people.
> >> >>
> >> >> *** Fear of short people?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So it would seem.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them around is
> >> > your revenge.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing up
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever knew
> >> >> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
> >> >> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing is
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on his
> >> >> > back.
> >> >>
> >> >> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > OK Howard er a Maggie.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Was he on the same trip with the
> >> >> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the theory
> >> > that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair to say
> >> > I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a super
> >> > model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't think she
> >> > ever went into modeling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
> >> >> > taller than they are.
> >> >>
> >> >> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings frequent?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
> >> >> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass
> >> >> > now.
> >> >> > That's pretty pathetic.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in common?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing.
> >
> >
> > A yeah right Maggie. You were in a room full of guys, audiophile geeks
> > no less and you went unnoticed. So much for your physical presence.
> >
> >
> >
> > But don't worry
> >> Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh come up with something original for a change. Isn't it bad enough
> > you went unnoticed in a room full of geeky guys? If you want to stand
> > out *you* have to be interesting. Maybe this is why you set your
> > standards so low. I mean c'mon, you want to bed Arny.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wild speculations
> >> about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about your
> >> accomplishments.
> >
> >
> >
> > Maggie you are out of touch with reality. You're the one who always
> > falls back on the tired old small dick jokes. You're the one bragging
> > about being (snicker) 5'10," Duh Maggie does seem to fit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
> >> especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about their
> >> *AUDIO* accomplishments.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
> >> who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry you are so hard up that you find a story about losing my
> > virginity to a tall attactive woman as a sexual conquest. If you suffer
> > from self esteem issues when it comes to sex I suggest you don't make
> > it a topic of discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That's sadder
> >> than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two of
> >> you
> >> than I ever could.
> >>
> >> Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)
> >
> >
> > No, but you're still as perceptive and cunning as Ferstler. Hang on to
> > your fantasies Maggie. If it makes you feel better....
> > You still haven't answered my question though. Are you a guy of average
> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you a really ugly chick
> > who has to pay for sex? I mean if you are a hot chick that stands 5'10"
> > you *will* get noticed in a room full of geeky audiophile dudes. Didn't
> > happen did it? ouch.....
> >
>
> Who am I to comment on my looks, Scott?


Nobody. I think not being noticed in a room full of geeky dudes speaks
loud and clear on the subject. Sorry.....




It is a very subjective thing and
> opinions vary, so I leave it to others.




You already did Maggie. You went unnoticed. You didn't even catch
Arny's eye. How sad is that, to want (cough choke)do Arny and to go
unnoticed by him. How many girls were in the room that day Maggie. I
mean, just how much competition did you have? (chuckle)





However, the ORIGINAL question
> concerned your height which is a simple fact and not subject to opinions.
> Until you overcome your shame of yourself and answer the simple question,
> you'll get no answers about me.


And if I told you what then? Denial, posturing, some more tired boring
jokes? I don't think you will ever answer the big question Maggie but
it is funny enough to keep asking it. Are you just a guy of average
height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you an ugly chick (so
ugly as to not be noticed by a room full of geeky guys) that pays for
sex?





PAS. I do find it interesting that you are
> so devastated about it.



I do find it funny that you think I'm devastated by your stupidity.





Cheers,




Scott

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium
>> >> >> >> > height
>> >> >> >> > who
>> >> >> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > *** You first, Scott.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for
>> >> >> >> sex?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you
>> >> >> > any
>> >> >> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and
>> >> >> > answer
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
>> >> >> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it
>> >> >> >> > hurts.
>> >> >> >> > Oh
>> >> >> >> > well, **** happens.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and
>> >> >> > accuracy
>> >> >> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being
>> >> >> > likened
>> >> >> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my
>> >> >> > comments?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity.
>> >> >> > Besides.
>> >> >> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The devastating insecurity of short
>> >> >> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap
>> >> >> >> than
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> physical appearance itself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing
>> >> >> > else.
>> >> >> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short
>> >> >> > people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *** Fear of short people?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > So it would seem.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them around
>> >> > is
>> >> > your revenge.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing
>> >> >> > up
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever
>> >> >> > knew
>> >> >> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
>> >> >> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > back.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > OK Howard er a Maggie.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Was he on the same trip with the
>> >> >> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the
>> >> > theory
>> >> > that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair to
>> >> > say
>> >> > I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a super
>> >> > model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't think
>> >> > she
>> >> > ever went into modeling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
>> >> >> > taller than they are.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings frequent?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
>> >> >> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass
>> >> >> > now.
>> >> >> > That's pretty pathetic.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in common?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing.
>> >
>> >
>> > A yeah right Maggie. You were in a room full of guys, audiophile geeks
>> > no less and you went unnoticed. So much for your physical presence.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But don't worry
>> >> Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh come up with something original for a change. Isn't it bad enough
>> > you went unnoticed in a room full of geeky guys? If you want to stand
>> > out *you* have to be interesting. Maybe this is why you set your
>> > standards so low. I mean c'mon, you want to bed Arny.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Wild speculations
>> >> about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about your
>> >> accomplishments.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Maggie you are out of touch with reality. You're the one who always
>> > falls back on the tired old small dick jokes. You're the one bragging
>> > about being (snicker) 5'10," Duh Maggie does seem to fit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
>> >> especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about
>> >> their
>> >> *AUDIO* accomplishments.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
>> >> who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm sorry you are so hard up that you find a story about losing my
>> > virginity to a tall attactive woman as a sexual conquest. If you suffer
>> > from self esteem issues when it comes to sex I suggest you don't make
>> > it a topic of discussion.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That's sadder
>> >> than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two of
>> >> you
>> >> than I ever could.
>> >>
>> >> Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > No, but you're still as perceptive and cunning as Ferstler. Hang on to
>> > your fantasies Maggie. If it makes you feel better....
>> > You still haven't answered my question though. Are you a guy of average
>> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you a really ugly chick
>> > who has to pay for sex? I mean if you are a hot chick that stands 5'10"
>> > you *will* get noticed in a room full of geeky audiophile dudes. Didn't
>> > happen did it? ouch.....
>> >
>>
>> Who am I to comment on my looks, Scott?
>
>
> Nobody. I think not being noticed in a room full of geeky dudes speaks
> loud and clear on the subject. Sorry.....
>
>
>
>
> It is a very subjective thing and
>> opinions vary, so I leave it to others.
>
>
>
>
> You already did Maggie. You went unnoticed. You didn't even catch
> Arny's eye. How sad is that, to want (cough choke)do Arny and to go
> unnoticed by him. How many girls were in the room that day Maggie. I
> mean, just how much competition did you have? (chuckle)
>
>
>
>
>
> However, the ORIGINAL question
>> concerned your height which is a simple fact and not subject to opinions.
>> Until you overcome your shame of yourself and answer the simple question,
>> you'll get no answers about me.
>
>
> And if I told you what then? Denial, posturing, some more tired boring
> jokes? I don't think you will ever answer the big question Maggie but
> it is funny enough to keep asking it. Are you just a guy of average
> height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you an ugly chick (so
> ugly as to not be noticed by a room full of geeky guys) that pays for
> sex?
>
>
>
>
>
> PAS. I do find it interesting that you are
>> so devastated about it.
>
>
>
> I do find it funny that you think I'm devastated by your stupidity.
>

As long as you're having fun. :-) I have an excellent idea for you, Scott.
Why don't you show this entire thread to your wife and ask her opinion about
it. I'm sure she'll stand by her man, however short he may be!


Cheers,

Margaret

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I am humbled by the thought of a person like Middius who
> seems to think that telling jokes about me is more important
> to him than anything else.

The guy is a dummy. Really.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium
> >> >> >> >> > height
> >> >> >> >> > who
> >> >> >> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for sex?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > *** You first, Scott.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who likes
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for
> >> >> >> >> sex?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach you
> >> >> >> > any
> >> >> >> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and
> >> >> >> > answer
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend to
> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> >> >> >> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where it
> >> >> >> >> > hurts.
> >> >> >> >> > Oh
> >> >> >> >> > well, **** happens.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and
> >> >> >> > accuracy
> >> >> >> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being
> >> >> >> > likened
> >> >> >> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my
> >> >> >> > comments?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity.
> >> >> >> > Besides.
> >> >> >> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some more
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our entertainment.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The devastating insecurity of short
> >> >> >> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap
> >> >> >> >> than
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> physical appearance itself.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing
> >> >> >> > else.
> >> >> >> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of short
> >> >> >> > people.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> *** Fear of short people?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So it would seem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them around
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > your revenge.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was growing
> >> >> >> > up
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I ever
> >> >> >> > knew
> >> >> >> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of his
> >> >> >> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny thing
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat on
> >> >> >> > his
> >> >> >> > back.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > OK Howard er a Maggie.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Was he on the same trip with the
> >> >> >> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the
> >> >> > theory
> >> >> > that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair to
> >> >> > say
> >> >> > I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a super
> >> >> > model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't think
> >> >> > she
> >> >> > ever went into modeling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I am
> >> >> >> > taller than they are.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings frequent?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
> >> >> >> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his ass
> >> >> >> > now.
> >> >> >> > That's pretty pathetic.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in common?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > A yeah right Maggie. You were in a room full of guys, audiophile geeks
> >> > no less and you went unnoticed. So much for your physical presence.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But don't worry
> >> >> Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Oh come up with something original for a change. Isn't it bad enough
> >> > you went unnoticed in a room full of geeky guys? If you want to stand
> >> > out *you* have to be interesting. Maybe this is why you set your
> >> > standards so low. I mean c'mon, you want to bed Arny.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wild speculations
> >> >> about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about your
> >> >> accomplishments.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Maggie you are out of touch with reality. You're the one who always
> >> > falls back on the tired old small dick jokes. You're the one bragging
> >> > about being (snicker) 5'10," Duh Maggie does seem to fit.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
> >> >> especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about
> >> >> their
> >> >> *AUDIO* accomplishments.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
> >> >> who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm sorry you are so hard up that you find a story about losing my
> >> > virginity to a tall attactive woman as a sexual conquest. If you suffer
> >> > from self esteem issues when it comes to sex I suggest you don't make
> >> > it a topic of discussion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That's sadder
> >> >> than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two of
> >> >> you
> >> >> than I ever could.
> >> >>
> >> >> Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No, but you're still as perceptive and cunning as Ferstler. Hang on to
> >> > your fantasies Maggie. If it makes you feel better....
> >> > You still haven't answered my question though. Are you a guy of average
> >> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you a really ugly chick
> >> > who has to pay for sex? I mean if you are a hot chick that stands 5'10"
> >> > you *will* get noticed in a room full of geeky audiophile dudes. Didn't
> >> > happen did it? ouch.....
> >> >
> >>
> >> Who am I to comment on my looks, Scott?
> >
> >
> > Nobody. I think not being noticed in a room full of geeky dudes speaks
> > loud and clear on the subject. Sorry.....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It is a very subjective thing and
> >> opinions vary, so I leave it to others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You already did Maggie. You went unnoticed. You didn't even catch
> > Arny's eye. How sad is that, to want (cough choke)do Arny and to go
> > unnoticed by him. How many girls were in the room that day Maggie. I
> > mean, just how much competition did you have? (chuckle)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > However, the ORIGINAL question
> >> concerned your height which is a simple fact and not subject to opinions.
> >> Until you overcome your shame of yourself and answer the simple question,
> >> you'll get no answers about me.
> >
> >
> > And if I told you what then? Denial, posturing, some more tired boring
> > jokes? I don't think you will ever answer the big question Maggie but
> > it is funny enough to keep asking it. Are you just a guy of average
> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you an ugly chick (so
> > ugly as to not be noticed by a room full of geeky guys) that pays for
> > sex?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PAS. I do find it interesting that you are
> >> so devastated about it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I do find it funny that you think I'm devastated by your stupidity.
> >
>
> As long as you're having fun. :-)



Isn't that the point?




I have an excellent idea for you, Scott.
> Why don't you show this entire thread to your wife and ask her opinion about
> it. I'm sure she'll stand by her man, however short he may be!





I guess I hurt your feelings. Sorry. I thought it was all supposed to
be in fun. You even started a thread just about me. Don't be such a
sore loser Maggie. That's the kind of thing Ritchie does when he's
taken some lumps. Just regroup, take your time and think of something
to say that is funny or interesting and, hopefully, original. Good
luck.



Cheers,




Scott Wheeler
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Pointlessly Dim said:

> I do think that people should be given IQ tests before being
> allowed to purchase high-end gear, of course (they should
> not be allowed into the hobby at all if their scores are
> below 100),

I agree with this 100%. If we'd had such regulations, the audio world would
be blessedly free of Ferstler, Nousiane, Krooger, and most especially
duh-Mikey.

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Sockpuppet-Lover said:

> > I am humbled by the thought of a person like Middius

> The guy is a dummy. Really.

I assume that's a compliment, in light of your documented support of
sockpuppets on Usenet.

[[email protected]]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > I am humbled by the thought of a person like Middius who
> > seems to think that telling jokes about me is more important
> > to him than anything else.
>
> The guy is a dummy. Really.
>
>
Actually, Howard, whoever it is that posts as "George M. Middius" is a
psycho. Really. :-(

[ScottW]

wrote:
> Margaret von B. wrote:


Hey you two.... get a room!

ScottW

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium
>> >> >> >> >> > height
>> >> >> >> >> > who
>> >> >> >> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for
>> >> >> >> >> > sex?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > *** You first, Scott.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who
>> >> >> >> >> likes
>> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for
>> >> >> >> >> sex?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach
>> >> >> >> > you
>> >> >> >> > any
>> >> >> >> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and
>> >> >> >> > answer
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
>> >> >> >> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where
>> >> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> >> > hurts.
>> >> >> >> >> > Oh
>> >> >> >> >> > well, **** happens.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and
>> >> >> >> > accuracy
>> >> >> >> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being
>> >> >> >> > likened
>> >> >> >> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my
>> >> >> >> > comments?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity.
>> >> >> >> > Besides.
>> >> >> >> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some
>> >> >> >> > more
>> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our
>> >> >> >> > entertainment.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The devastating insecurity of short
>> >> >> >> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap
>> >> >> >> >> than
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> physical appearance itself.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing
>> >> >> >> > else.
>> >> >> >> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of
>> >> >> >> > short
>> >> >> >> > people.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> *** Fear of short people?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So it would seem.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them
>> >> >> > around
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > your revenge.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was
>> >> >> >> > growing
>> >> >> >> > up
>> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I
>> >> >> >> > ever
>> >> >> >> > knew
>> >> >> >> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of
>> >> >> >> > his
>> >> >> >> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny
>> >> >> >> > thing
>> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > at
>> >> >> >> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat
>> >> >> >> > on
>> >> >> >> > his
>> >> >> >> > back.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > OK Howard er a Maggie.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Was he on the same trip with the
>> >> >> >> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the
>> >> >> > theory
>> >> >> > that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > say
>> >> >> > I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a
>> >> >> > super
>> >> >> > model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't
>> >> >> > think
>> >> >> > she
>> >> >> > ever went into modeling.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I
>> >> >> >> >am
>> >> >> >> > taller than they are.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings
>> >> >> > frequent?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
>> >> >> >> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his
>> >> >> >> > ass
>> >> >> >> > now.
>> >> >> >> > That's pretty pathetic.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in
>> >> >> > common?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > A yeah right Maggie. You were in a room full of guys, audiophile
>> >> > geeks
>> >> > no less and you went unnoticed. So much for your physical presence.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > But don't worry
>> >> >> Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh come up with something original for a change. Isn't it bad enough
>> >> > you went unnoticed in a room full of geeky guys? If you want to
>> >> > stand
>> >> > out *you* have to be interesting. Maybe this is why you set your
>> >> > standards so low. I mean c'mon, you want to bed Arny.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Wild speculations
>> >> >> about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about
>> >> >> your
>> >> >> accomplishments.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Maggie you are out of touch with reality. You're the one who always
>> >> > falls back on the tired old small dick jokes. You're the one
>> >> > bragging
>> >> > about being (snicker) 5'10," Duh Maggie does seem to fit.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
>> >> >> especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> *AUDIO* accomplishments.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
>> >> >> who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm sorry you are so hard up that you find a story about losing my
>> >> > virginity to a tall attactive woman as a sexual conquest. If you
>> >> > suffer
>> >> > from self esteem issues when it comes to sex I suggest you don't
>> >> > make
>> >> > it a topic of discussion.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That's sadder
>> >> >> than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> than I ever could.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No, but you're still as perceptive and cunning as Ferstler. Hang on
>> >> > to
>> >> > your fantasies Maggie. If it makes you feel better....
>> >> > You still haven't answered my question though. Are you a guy of
>> >> > average
>> >> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you a really ugly
>> >> > chick
>> >> > who has to pay for sex? I mean if you are a hot chick that stands
>> >> > 5'10"
>> >> > you *will* get noticed in a room full of geeky audiophile dudes.
>> >> > Didn't
>> >> > happen did it? ouch.....
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Who am I to comment on my looks, Scott?
>> >
>> >
>> > Nobody. I think not being noticed in a room full of geeky dudes speaks
>> > loud and clear on the subject. Sorry.....
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It is a very subjective thing and
>> >> opinions vary, so I leave it to others.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You already did Maggie. You went unnoticed. You didn't even catch
>> > Arny's eye. How sad is that, to want (cough choke)do Arny and to go
>> > unnoticed by him. How many girls were in the room that day Maggie. I
>> > mean, just how much competition did you have? (chuckle)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > However, the ORIGINAL question
>> >> concerned your height which is a simple fact and not subject to
>> >> opinions.
>> >> Until you overcome your shame of yourself and answer the simple
>> >> question,
>> >> you'll get no answers about me.
>> >
>> >
>> > And if I told you what then? Denial, posturing, some more tired boring
>> > jokes? I don't think you will ever answer the big question Maggie but
>> > it is funny enough to keep asking it. Are you just a guy of average
>> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you an ugly chick (so
>> > ugly as to not be noticed by a room full of geeky guys) that pays for
>> > sex?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > PAS. I do find it interesting that you are
>> >> so devastated about it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I do find it funny that you think I'm devastated by your stupidity.
>> >
>>
>> As long as you're having fun. :-)
>
>
>
> Isn't that the point?
>
>
>
>
> I have an excellent idea for you, Scott.
>> Why don't you show this entire thread to your wife and ask her opinion
>> about
>> it. I'm sure she'll stand by her man, however short he may be!
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess I hurt your feelings. Sorry. I thought it was all supposed to
> be in fun. You even started a thread just about me. Don't be such a
> sore loser Maggie.

And we have another self-proclaimed "winner" in RAO. Very good, Scott,
you've finally accomplished something in life. At least you have owned the
"short stuff" moniker, that's a start.


>That's the kind of thing Ritchie does when he's
> taken some lumps. Just regroup, take your time and think of something
> to say that is funny or interesting and, hopefully, original. Good
> luck.
>

But you're still short. And you cannot do anything about that. :-)

Frankly, I'm pretty satisfied with my current effort. Maybe it isn't funny,
interesting or original but it sure elicited a response from *you* that was
like...awful many... words per one of mine. Hmmm...


Cheers,

Margaret

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>
>
> Hey you two.... get a room!
>
> ScottW


Eeeeew.




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > You never answered the question, are you a man of medium
> >> >> >> >> >> > height
> >> >> >> >> >> > who
> >> >> >> >> >> > pretends to be a girl or an ugly chick who has to pay for
> >> >> >> >> >> > sex?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > *** You first, Scott.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Neither. Now your turn, are you a man of medium height who
> >> >> >> >> >> likes
> >> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> >> pretend to be a girl or a really ugly girl who has to pay for
> >> >> >> >> >> sex?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I see you never learned to take turns. Did your daddy teach
> >> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> >> > any
> >> >> >> >> > manners at all? I see no dign that he did. So be polite and
> >> >> >> >> > answer
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > question. Are you a man of medium height who likes to pretend
> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> > girl or are you a really ugly girl who pays for sex?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Just how :-) tall :-) are you *barefoot*? Based on all
> >> >> >> >> >> > the insults and name calling, I must have REALLY hit where
> >> >> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> >> > hurts.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Oh
> >> >> >> >> >> > well, **** happens.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I have already told you your insults have all the insight, and
> >> >> >> >> > accuracy
> >> >> >> >> > of the offerings one can find from Ferstler. Do you like being
> >> >> >> >> > likened
> >> >> >> >> > to Ferstler? Are you too thick to find your answers in my
> >> >> >> >> > comments?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> You wouldn't like the answer.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> *** Apparently, neither do you. :-)
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > No, I just get a kick out of your public display of stupidity.
> >> >> >> >> > Besides.
> >> >> >> >> > if I gave you a number you would just go Fesrtler on us some
> >> >> >> >> > more
> >> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> > deny it. I guess that will be the next act for our
> >> >> >> >> > entertainment.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> *** So that 5'5" must have been right on the spot.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No but the comparing your intelect to Ferstler's clearly was.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > The devastating insecurity of short
> >> >> >> >> >> men is really amusing as it often becomes a greater handicap
> >> >> >> >> >> than
> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> physical appearance itself.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Well we have learned a little about your prejudices if nothing
> >> >> >> >> > else.
> >> >> >> >> > You want to sleep with ugly losers and you have a fear of
> >> >> >> >> > short
> >> >> >> >> > people.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> *** Fear of short people?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So it would seem.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Midget tossing is one of my favorite sports!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I guess did get beat up by a midget. Watching guys toss them
> >> >> >> > around
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > your revenge.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Did you get beat up by a midget or something? When I was
> >> >> >> >> > growing
> >> >> >> >> > up
> >> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> > spent a lot of time around pro fighters. The badest dude I
> >> >> >> >> > ever
> >> >> >> >> > knew
> >> >> >> >> > was a kickboxer who stood all of about 5'6". I remeber one of
> >> >> >> >> > his
> >> >> >> >> > opponents commenting on his stature before the fight. Funny
> >> >> >> >> > thing
> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> > the end of the fight the guy looked pretty short himself flat
> >> >> >> >> > on
> >> >> >> >> > his
> >> >> >> >> > back.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> *** Sure Scott, we believe that too ;-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > OK Howard er a Maggie.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Was he on the same trip with the
> >> >> >> >> supermodel with a REAL vagina who took your virginity?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Why does reality upset you so? I am begining to lean towards the
> >> >> >> > theory
> >> >> >> > that you are a "man" pretending to be a girl. I think it is fair
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > say
> >> >> >> > I took hers as well. Prom night tradition. Did I say she was a
> >> >> >> > super
> >> >> >> > model? I think I said she looked like a super model. I don't
> >> >> >> > think
> >> >> >> > she
> >> >> >> > ever went into modeling.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >I learned a long time ago not to look down on people because I
> >> >> >> >> >am
> >> >> >> >> > taller than they are.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> *** What have the kindergarteners done to you anyway?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What have the midgets done to you lately? Are the beatings
> >> >> >> > frequent?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >That isn't why I look down on you Maggie. Have
> >> >> >> >> > you had any luck getting Arny into bed? I see you kissing his
> >> >> >> >> > ass
> >> >> >> >> > now.
> >> >> >> >> > That's pretty pathetic.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> *** But the reality is that you're still short.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yeah right. Are you courting Arny becuse you have so much in
> >> >> >> > common?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Unlike you, we do have physical stature, for one thing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A yeah right Maggie. You were in a room full of guys, audiophile
> >> >> > geeks
> >> >> > no less and you went unnoticed. So much for your physical presence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But don't worry
> >> >> >> Scott, you have a lot in common with Arny and Howard too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh come up with something original for a change. Isn't it bad enough
> >> >> > you went unnoticed in a room full of geeky guys? If you want to
> >> >> > stand
> >> >> > out *you* have to be interesting. Maybe this is why you set your
> >> >> > standards so low. I mean c'mon, you want to bed Arny.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wild speculations
> >> >> >> about me, sexually oriented insults and incessant bragging about
> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> accomplishments.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maggie you are out of touch with reality. You're the one who always
> >> >> > falls back on the tired old small dick jokes. You're the one
> >> >> > bragging
> >> >> > about being (snicker) 5'10," Duh Maggie does seem to fit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, the one difference that sets Howard, and
> >> >> >> especially Arny, heads above you is the fact that they brag about
> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> *AUDIO* accomplishments.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > OTOH, you belong to the same category as calcereal
> >> >> >> who brags about his sexual conquests in an *AUDIO* newsgroup.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm sorry you are so hard up that you find a story about losing my
> >> >> > virginity to a tall attactive woman as a sexual conquest. If you
> >> >> > suffer
> >> >> > from self esteem issues when it comes to sex I suggest you don't
> >> >> > make
> >> >> > it a topic of discussion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's sadder
> >> >> >> than sad, Scott, and speaks louder and more convincingly of the two
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> than I ever could.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Alas, at the end of the day you're still a short. :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, but you're still as perceptive and cunning as Ferstler. Hang on
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > your fantasies Maggie. If it makes you feel better....
> >> >> > You still haven't answered my question though. Are you a guy of
> >> >> > average
> >> >> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you a really ugly
> >> >> > chick
> >> >> > who has to pay for sex? I mean if you are a hot chick that stands
> >> >> > 5'10"
> >> >> > you *will* get noticed in a room full of geeky audiophile dudes.
> >> >> > Didn't
> >> >> > happen did it? ouch.....
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Who am I to comment on my looks, Scott?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nobody. I think not being noticed in a room full of geeky dudes speaks
> >> > loud and clear on the subject. Sorry.....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It is a very subjective thing and
> >> >> opinions vary, so I leave it to others.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You already did Maggie. You went unnoticed. You didn't even catch
> >> > Arny's eye. How sad is that, to want (cough choke)do Arny and to go
> >> > unnoticed by him. How many girls were in the room that day Maggie. I
> >> > mean, just how much competition did you have? (chuckle)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > However, the ORIGINAL question
> >> >> concerned your height which is a simple fact and not subject to
> >> >> opinions.
> >> >> Until you overcome your shame of yourself and answer the simple
> >> >> question,
> >> >> you'll get no answers about me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And if I told you what then? Denial, posturing, some more tired boring
> >> > jokes? I don't think you will ever answer the big question Maggie but
> >> > it is funny enough to keep asking it. Are you just a guy of average
> >> > height who likes to pretend to be a girl or are you an ugly chick (so
> >> > ugly as to not be noticed by a room full of geeky guys) that pays for
> >> > sex?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > PAS. I do find it interesting that you are
> >> >> so devastated about it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I do find it funny that you think I'm devastated by your stupidity.
> >> >
> >>
> >> As long as you're having fun. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Isn't that the point?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have an excellent idea for you, Scott.
> >> Why don't you show this entire thread to your wife and ask her opinion
> >> about
> >> it. I'm sure she'll stand by her man, however short he may be!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I guess I hurt your feelings. Sorry. I thought it was all supposed to
> > be in fun. You even started a thread just about me. Don't be such a
> > sore loser Maggie.
>
> And we have another self-proclaimed "winner" in RAO.


You're cofused maggie. You being a sore loser doesn't make anyone a
winner. You could always start another cry for help thread. Doesn't
seem the other one went over that well.




Very good, Scott,
> you've finally accomplished something in life. At least you have owned the
> "short stuff" moniker, that's a start.



OK Duh Maggie. Get back to me when you catch a clue.




>
>
> >That's the kind of thing Ritchie does when he's
> > taken some lumps. Just regroup, take your time and think of something
> > to say that is funny or interesting and, hopefully, original. Good
> > luck.
> >
>
> But you're still short.



No, you are still acting like Ferstler. If you want to take it further
I'm sure there is some insult book you can dig up and plagiarize.



And you cannot do anything about that. :-)



I see you didn't accept my friendly advice. You are still boring,
humorless and completely unoriginal. Oh well......









>
> Frankly, I'm pretty satisfied with my current effort.



That explains your attraction to Arny. Mediocrity suits you.




Maybe it isn't funny,
> interesting or original but it sure elicited a response from *you*




And at least Ferstler is published. (chuckle)




that was
> like...awful many... words per one of mine. Hmmm...



Yeah. More and more like Ferstler with each post.





Cheers,





Scott Wheeler

[ScottW]

Don't you remember how girls showed you they liked you in grade school?
I remember one calling me ugly for weeks and then admitting she
wanted to kiss me. Wonder what Marge has in mind for you?

You could always hook her up with the ever amorous PorkyG.

ScottW

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
>> And we have another self-proclaimed "winner" in RAO.
>
>
> You're cofused maggie. You being a sore loser doesn't make anyone a
> winner. You could always start another cry for help thread. Doesn't
> seem the other one went over that well.
>

Hopefully you were not stupid enough to do it at work.

>
>
>
> Very good, Scott,
>> you've finally accomplished something in life. At least you have owned
>> the
>> "short stuff" moniker, that's a start.
>
>
>
> OK Duh Maggie. Get back to me when you catch a clue.
>
>

Your timing was TOO good.

>
>
>>
>>
>> >That's the kind of thing Ritchie does when he's
>> > taken some lumps. Just regroup, take your time and think of something
>> > to say that is funny or interesting and, hopefully, original. Good
>> > luck.
>> >
>>
>> But you're still short.
>
>
>
> No, you are still acting like Ferstler. If you want to take it further
> I'm sure there is some insult book you can dig up and plagiarize.
>

Speaking of insults, you are the only one slinging them around. Guess you
read the book.

>
>
> And you cannot do anything about that. :-)
>
>
>
> I see you didn't accept my friendly advice. You are still boring,
> humorless and completely unoriginal. Oh well......
>

But proven to be good enough to get a response from *you*.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Frankly, I'm pretty satisfied with my current effort.
>
>
>
> That explains your attraction to Arny. Mediocrity suits you.
>

And "30 Short" suits you? :-)

>
>
>
> Maybe it isn't funny,
>> interesting or original but it sure elicited a response from *you*
>
>
>
>
> And at least Ferstler is published. (chuckle)
>

:-)

>
>
>
> that was
>> like...awful many... words per one of mine. Hmmm...
>
>
>
> Yeah. More and more like Ferstler with each post.
>
>

:-)

>

Say Scott, have you measured yourself lately? Maybe the Growth Fairy left
you a present.


Cheers,

Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> Don't you remember how girls showed you they liked you in grade school?
> I remember one calling me ugly for weeks and then admitting she
> wanted to kiss me.

It's not cool to make fnn of handicapped people. Unless her blindness got
cured, of course.

[ScottW]

I never make fnn of anyone, except people who refer to women as "nasty
dripping gash".

If Margaret was a women, she'd despise you and your gynephobia. Instead
she calls you for a lifeline.

ScottW

[Margaret von B.]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I never make fnn of anyone, except people who refer to women as "nasty
> dripping gash".
>
> If Margaret was a women,

....she would obviously have a MPD/DID.


> she'd despise you and your gynephobia. Instead
> she calls you for a lifeline.

You're obviously basing your opinions on some sort of housewife/breeder who
represents all women to you. But others are out there actively involved in
the business world and at least in my line of work that happens all the
time. I've learned to ignore it. Incidentally some of these words are
uttered by people who are widely admired.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson wrote:
[snip]
> I do think that people should be given IQ tests before being
> allowed to purchase high-end gear, of course (they should
> not be allowed into the hobby at all if their scores are
> below 100), and such tests would not be a bad idea when it
> comes to permitting journalists to publish, although there I
> would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.
>
Now we can put a number on you. It explains a lot.

[John Atkinson]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
> permitting journalists to publish, although there I
> would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.

Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
upward of 150?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Lionel]

In . com>, John Atkinson
wrote :

> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>> [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
>> permitting journalists to publish, although there I
>> would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.
>
> Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> upward of 150?

Is it written on his passport ?
Middius asks about the size of his... ;-)

[Lionel]

In >, Howard Ferstler wrote :

> I do think that people should be given IQ tests before being
> allowed to purchase high-end gear, of course (they should
> not be allowed into the hobby at all if their scores are
> below 100), and such tests would not be a bad idea when it
> comes to permitting journalists to publish, although there I
> would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.


May we understand that you have a IQ of 111 ?

[ScottW]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >I never make fnn of anyone, except people who refer to women as "nasty
> > dripping gash".
> >
> > If Margaret was a women,
>
> ...she would obviously have a MPD/DID.
>
>
> > she'd despise you and your gynephobia. Instead
> > she calls you for a lifeline.
>
> You're obviously basing your opinions on some sort of housewife/breeder who
> represents all women to you.

You're obviously clueless and definitely not a women. Perhaps a
transvestite with no opportunity for childbirth. No women refers to
mothers as breeders. You're a rather pathetic sockpuppet.

> But others are out there actively involved in
> the business world

If I referred to women as "nasty dripping gash" at work... I'd expect
to be terminated.

> and at least in my line of work that happens all the
> time. I've learned to ignore it.

As if that is respectable.

Evil flourishes in Maggies world.

> Incidentally some of these words are
> uttered by people who are widely admired.


Not by me. Your own tolerance for oppressive behavior doesn't say
much for your character, but what can we expect from someone trying to
impersonate a women.

ScottW

[George Middius]

Scottiedork whined:

> If I referred to women as "nasty dripping gash" at work... I'd expect
>to be terminated.

There goes your cabaret career.

[Margaret von B.]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >I never make fnn of anyone, except people who refer to women as "nasty
>> > dripping gash".
>> >
>> > If Margaret was a women,
>>
>> ...she would obviously have a MPD/DID.
>>
>>
>> > she'd despise you and your gynephobia. Instead
>> > she calls you for a lifeline.
>>
>> You're obviously basing your opinions on some sort of housewife/breeder
>> who
>> represents all women to you.
>
> You're obviously clueless and definitely not a women. Perhaps a
> transvestite with no opportunity for childbirth. No women refers to
> mothers as breeders. You're a rather pathetic sockpuppet.
>

Looks like I hit a home run. Wife? Mother? Again, that MPD/DID surfaces...

>> But others are out there actively involved in
>> the business world
>
> If I referred to women as "nasty dripping gash" at work... I'd expect
> to be terminated.
>

That's because you don't produce much revenue to your business.

>> and at least in my line of work that happens all the
>> time. I've learned to ignore it.
>
> As if that is respectable.
>

I call it early retirement.

> Evil flourishes in Maggies world.
>

Not really. Only weaklings are affected.

>> Incidentally some of these words are
>> uttered by people who are widely admired.
>
>
> Not by me. Your own tolerance for oppressive behavior doesn't say
> much for your character, but what can we expect from someone trying to
> impersonate a women.
>

Again, your blather stems from the housewife/breeder at home. You like to
think that you're somehow noble or chivalrous, but the truth is that you and
your kind are simply not needed to solve the problem. It will solve itself.
Thank you. Besides, you cannot even use the word "woman" properly.

Margaret

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> > [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
> > permitting journalists to publish, although there I
> > would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.
>
> Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> upward of 150?

FerstlerLogic would presume that whatever test Mr. Kessler took was
fixed. Failing that, of course, Harold would have to admit to the
existence of magic. ;-)

[ScottW]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >I never make fnn of anyone, except people who refer to women as "nasty
> >> > dripping gash".
> >> >
> >> > If Margaret was a women,
> >>
> >> ...she would obviously have a MPD/DID.
> >>
> >>
> >> > she'd despise you and your gynephobia. Instead
> >> > she calls you for a lifeline.
> >>
> >> You're obviously basing your opinions on some sort of housewife/breeder
> >> who
> >> represents all women to you.
> >
> > You're obviously clueless and definitely not a women. Perhaps a
> > transvestite with no opportunity for childbirth. No women refers to
> > mothers as breeders. You're a rather pathetic sockpuppet.
> >
>
> Looks like I hit a home run. Wife? Mother? Again, that MPD/DID surfaces...
>
> >> But others are out there actively involved in
> >> the business world
> >
> > If I referred to women as "nasty dripping gash" at work... I'd expect
> > to be terminated.
> >
>
> That's because you don't produce much revenue to your business.

There is absolution (and early retirement) in money for Maggie.

>
> >> and at least in my line of work that happens all the
> >> time. I've learned to ignore it.
> >
> > As if that is respectable.
> >
>
> I call it early retirement.
>
> > Evil flourishes in Maggies world.
> >
>
> Not really. Only weaklings are affected.

Only the strong shall survive. You go girl.

>
> >> Incidentally some of these words are
> >> uttered by people who are widely admired.
> >
> >
> > Not by me. Your own tolerance for oppressive behavior doesn't say
> > much for your character, but what can we expect from someone trying to
> > impersonate a women.
> >
>
> Again, your blather stems from the housewife/breeder at home. You like to
> think that you're somehow noble or chivalrous, but the truth is that you and
> your kind are simply not needed to solve the problem. It will solve itself.

I'm sure your endless admiration and strong money driven character is
changing hearts and minds the world over.

With every post you reveal yourself and it ain't pretty, Maggie.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> John Atkinson said:
>
>> > [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
>> > permitting journalists to publish, although there I
>> > would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.
>>
>> Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
>> that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
>> upward of 150?
>
> FerstlerLogic would presume that whatever test Mr. Kessler took was
> fixed.

Right, the IQ test was not
DBT and level matched.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
> Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> upward of 150?
>
>
This is not necessarily an indication that he is compos mentis. I
suspect Kessler is stark raving mad.

[Margaret von B.]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >I never make fnn of anyone, except people who refer to women as
>> >> >"nasty
>> >> > dripping gash".
>> >> >
>> >> > If Margaret was a women,
>> >>
>> >> ...she would obviously have a MPD/DID.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > she'd despise you and your gynephobia. Instead
>> >> > she calls you for a lifeline.
>> >>
>> >> You're obviously basing your opinions on some sort of
>> >> housewife/breeder
>> >> who
>> >> represents all women to you.
>> >
>> > You're obviously clueless and definitely not a women. Perhaps a
>> > transvestite with no opportunity for childbirth. No women refers to
>> > mothers as breeders. You're a rather pathetic sockpuppet.
>> >
>>
>> Looks like I hit a home run. Wife? Mother? Again, that MPD/DID
>> surfaces...
>>
>> >> But others are out there actively involved in
>> >> the business world
>> >
>> > If I referred to women as "nasty dripping gash" at work... I'd expect
>> > to be terminated.
>> >
>>
>> That's because you don't produce much revenue to your business.
>
> There is absolution (and early retirement) in money for Maggie.
>

My plan suits me perfectly. I'd like to hear your "without money" plan. Come
to think of it, I really don't.

>>
>> >> and at least in my line of work that happens all the
>> >> time. I've learned to ignore it.
>> >
>> > As if that is respectable.
>> >
>>
>> I call it early retirement.
>>
>> > Evil flourishes in Maggies world.
>> >
>>
>> Not really. Only weaklings are affected.
>
> Only the strong shall survive. You go girl.
>

Again you reveal your ignorance. Oprah is the only one you can think of.

>>
>> >> Incidentally some of these words are
>> >> uttered by people who are widely admired.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not by me. Your own tolerance for oppressive behavior doesn't say
>> > much for your character, but what can we expect from someone trying to
>> > impersonate a women.
>> >
>>
>> Again, your blather stems from the housewife/breeder at home. You like to
>> think that you're somehow noble or chivalrous, but the truth is that you
>> and
>> your kind are simply not needed to solve the problem. It will solve
>> itself.
>
> I'm sure your endless admiration and strong money driven character is
> changing hearts and minds the world over.
>

I'm not out to change the world, just to recognize the realities and adapt.
Do a search on Darwin and read.

> With every post you reveal yourself and it ain't pretty, Maggie.
>

Hardly surprising from a dinosaur who seems to be convinced that no woman
would ever stand up to him.


Margaret

[ScottW]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> >>
> >> That's because you don't produce much revenue to your business.
> >
> > There is absolution (and early retirement) in money for Maggie.
> >
>
> My plan suits me perfectly.


Still working and still enduring feminine bigotry. Sounds real
perfect.


> I'd like to hear your "without money" plan. Come
> to think of it, I really don't.

Oh yes... lets play the unsubstantiated bragging game. It's sooooo
relevant in the usenet world. I'll let the lady go first. What are
your retirement assumptions:
retirement age, life expectancy, income requirements (be sure to
include health care and long term care expenses, they can be scary),
income sources, asset appreciation, and finally monte carlo simulation
results?

>
> >>
> >> >> and at least in my line of work that happens all the
> >> >> time. I've learned to ignore it.
> >> >
> >> > As if that is respectable.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I call it early retirement.
> >>
> >> > Evil flourishes in Maggies world.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not really. Only weaklings are affected.
> >
> > Only the strong shall survive. You go girl.
> >
>
> Again you reveal your ignorance. Oprah is the only one you can think of.

I think you've had your face pressed against the glass ceiling too
long. It's distorted your vision.

>
> >>
> >> >> Incidentally some of these words are
> >> >> uttered by people who are widely admired.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Not by me. Your own tolerance for oppressive behavior doesn't say
> >> > much for your character, but what can we expect from someone trying to
> >> > impersonate a women.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Again, your blather stems from the housewife/breeder at home. You like to
> >> think that you're somehow noble or chivalrous, but the truth is that you
> >> and
> >> your kind are simply not needed to solve the problem. It will solve
> >> itself.
> >
> > I'm sure your endless admiration and strong money driven character is
> > changing hearts and minds the world over.
> >
>
> I'm not out to change the world, just to recognize the realities and adapt.
> Do a search on Darwin and read.


Natural selection is obviously no longer in play for mankind, but I
suspect you're headed for extinction.

>
> > With every post you reveal yourself and it ain't pretty, Maggie.
> >
>
> Hardly surprising from a dinosaur who seems to be convinced that no woman
> would ever stand up to him.

Standing up on RAO must be a small consolation for the daily bending
over you have told us you endure in your real world.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" emitted :
>
>>My take on this is that cable break in is a psychological phenomenon
>>(not to be ignored, BTW!).
>
> That's my take on it too. When you *actively focus* your concentration
> on small sound differences (eg. say you've just installed new cables
> and ask yourself 'do they sound any different'), that's when your mind
> can play tricks. The harder you search, the narrower the gaze, and the
> more likely you will presume audible differences that aren't there
> because your focus mismatches, on subsequent listens. Over time, and
> with less mental exertion, the truth outs itself...
> That is my experience anyway.
>
>

That's the problem with "critical listening".
Comparative listening should be relaxed,
and focused on the totality of the music, not the
details of particular sounds.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Arny Krueger]

Signal wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" emitted :
>
>> My take on this is that cable break in is a psychological
phenomenon
>> (not to be ignored, BTW!).
>
> That's my take on it too. When you *actively focus* your
concentration
> on small sound differences (eg. say you've just installed
new cables
> and ask yourself 'do they sound any different'), that's
when your mind
> can play tricks. The harder you search, the narrower the
gaze, and the
> more likely you will presume audible differences that
aren't there
> because your focus mismatches, on subsequent listens. Over
time, and
> with less mental exertion, the truth outs itself...
> That is my experience anyway.

This is bogus kind of truth that comes from erstwhile
manufacturers of high end cables...

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> That's the problem with "critical listening".
> Comparative listening should be relaxed,
> and focused on the totality of the music, not the
> details of particular sounds.

'Borg say: "Music always sounds the same. Next!"

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
> > permitting journalists to publish, although there I
> > would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.
>
> Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> upward of 150?
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Which shows that more is required than a high IQ. Goebbels
had a very high IQ, so I have read (and a PhD, to top things
off), and Hitler's general staff had a pretty high average
IQ, too.

It is kind of like with sports: power is important, but so
is control. A high IQ is important, but one also needs to be
blessed with a bit of common sense.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> John Atkinson wrote:

> > Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> > that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> > upward of 150?

> This is not necessarily an indication that he is compos mentis. I
> suspect Kessler is stark raving mad.

Yes, it is quite possible for a very intelligent person to
be completely out of touch with reality. Dumb people can be
that way, too, of course. Just look at Middius.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Duh-trepid said:

> > > [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
> > > permitting journalists to publish, although there I
> > > would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.

> > Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> > that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> > upward of 150?

> Which shows that more is required than a high IQ.
> Goebbels ...
> Hitler ...


Make up your mind, Ubermensch Clerkler. Is it IQ tests you want or
something more sinister? Perhaps you're also a fan of Mengele. I'm sure
he could have learned what causes people to hear music differently.

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Unwise, Patron of Sockpuppets and Champion of
Eugenics, said:

> Yes, it is quite possible for a very intelligent person to
> be completely out of touch with reality. Dumb people can be
> that way, too, of course. Just look at Middius.

What happened to your ranting about "sockpuppets", Clerkie? I guess
you're admitting the sockpuppets are all on *your* side. I'm talking, of
course, about Dickie "torrie****s" Malesweski (to whom you just
replied), Mickey "NYOB" McMickey, Lionella "La Salope" Sha-pwee, and
Michael "Bwian McLardass" Conzo. Two are crazy, one is a retard, and the
other one shovels **** for a living. And they all hide behind
pseudonyms.

Your army of sockpuppets, and welcome to Them.

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > > I am humbled by the thought of a person like Middius who
> > > seems to think that telling jokes about me is more important
> > > to him than anything else.
> >
> > The guy is a dummy. Really.
> >
> >
> Actually, Howard, whoever it is that posts as "George M. Middius" is a
> psycho. Really. :-(

Agreed.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Signal wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" emitted :
>
> >Yes, it is quite possible for a very intelligent person to
> >be completely out of touch with reality. Dumb people can be
> >that way, too, of course.

> I believe you have a great fondness for artificial surround sound
> processing.....

Yep.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Duh-trepid said:
>
> > > > [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
> > > > permitting journalists to publish, although there I
> > > > would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.
>
> > > Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> > > that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> > > upward of 150?
>
> > Which shows that more is required than a high IQ.
> > Goebbels ...
> > Hitler ...
>
> Make up your mind, Ubermensch Clerkler. Is it IQ tests you want or
> something more sinister? Perhaps you're also a fan of Mengele. I'm sure
> he could have learned what causes people to hear music differently.

Do you ever take a break from RAO? I mean, you are ALWAYS
here, like a sucker fish attached to a shark.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Persistently Unwise said to Little ****:

> Agreed.

Cavorting with sockpuppets again, Harold? You must be terribly desperate
for affirmation.

This particular loser you're playing pat-a-cake with is an unemployed
dirtbag. In fact, he's a criminal, or he has been one in the past. Now,
he's an aging hippie who sponges off his poor old parents rather than
earning a living. Do you know what his greatest achievement is? He put
up a Web page to advertise "custom bicycle mods" or some such.

Not that the truth should matter to you, of course. You're involved in a
holy war, and anybody who joins your blessed militia is welcome.
Anonyrodents, retards, and soulless automatons are especially welcome,
judging from your public demeanor toward Them.

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Supremely Obtuse said:

> > Make up your mind, Ubermensch Clerkler. Is it IQ tests you want or
> > something more sinister? Perhaps you're also a fan of Mengele. I'm sure
> > he could have learned what causes people to hear music differently.

> Do you ever take a break from RAO?

What happened to your ranting about "sockpuppets", Clerkie? I guess
you're admitting the sockpuppets are all on *your* side. I'm talking, of
course, about Dickie "torrie****s" Malesweski (to whom you just
replied), Mickey "NYOB" McMickey, Lionella "La Salope" Sha-pwee, and
Michael "Bwian McLardass" Conzo. Two are crazy, one is a retard, and the
other one shovels **** for a living. And they all hide behind
pseudonyms.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> > > that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> > > upward of 150?
>
> > This is not necessarily an indication that he is compos mentis. I
> > suspect Kessler is stark raving mad.
>
> Yes, it is quite possible for a very intelligent person to
> be completely out of touch with reality.

Do you disagree with Kessler's dislike of tweaks?

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is bogus kind of truth that comes from erstwhile
> manufacturers of high end cables...
>
>

"At least" its a kind of truth.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

George "Betty Boop" Middius a écrit :
>
> And they all hide behind
> pseudonyms.

I'm on the phone book George. What about you ? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>> [IQ] tests would not be a bad idea when it comes to
>> permitting journalists to publish, although there I
>> would put the cut-off point at maybe 110.
>
> Phew...Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> upward of 150?

Somehow my subjective evaluation of what Ken Kessler writes
is more important to me than some isolated test results
related to a questionable technical measurement.

But John, since you brought that measurement up, I feel
compelled to also share that I'd be more impressed if his IQ
was not less than mine. Some think that people with IQs over
140 or 150 are like geniuses. It's that's true, Kessler's
writing is an affront to genius. I'm talking about content
here, not style. He's got tons of style, but then there's
the abysmal lack of useful content.

[Arny Krueger]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> That's the problem with "critical listening".
>> Comparative listening should be relaxed,
>> and focused on the totality of the music, not the
>> details of particular sounds.
>
> 'Borg say: "Music always sounds the same. Next!"

Borg say, Middus posts always sound the same - like lying
about and jealousy of his intellectual betters. Next!

[Arny Krueger]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> This is bogus kind of truth that comes from erstwhile
>> manufacturers of high end cables...
>>
>>
>
> "At least" its a kind of truth.

Art, what would you know about truth, given your complete
domination by Middius?

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'm on the phone book George. What about you ? ;-)

I didn't know that you were a short person.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
> is more important to me than some isolated test results
> related to a questionable technical measurement.
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
> > is more important to me than some isolated test results
> > related to a questionable technical measurement.

Do you have something to say about that? Other than nothing being more
important to Krooger than a ready supply of fresh, steaming, stinky
turds.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
>> > is more important to me than some isolated test results
>> > related to a questionable technical measurement.
>
> Do you have something to say about that? Other than nothing being more
> important to Krooger than a ready supply of fresh, steaming, stinky
> turds.
>

.....that Krooger is completely unaware of his own glimmer
of self awareness

"Somehow my subjective evaluation of what Ken Kessler writes
is more important to me than some isolated test results
related to a questionable technical measurement."

"Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
is more important to me than some isolated test results
related to a questionable technical measurement."



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Arny Krueger]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
>> is more important to me than some isolated test results
>> related to a questionable technical measurement.

<Art writes nothing>


This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
> > ...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
> >> is more important to me than some isolated test results
> >> related to a questionable technical measurement.
>
> <Art writes nothing>
>
>
> This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.
>
>
In Sack-O's case, less is definitely more.....

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
>>> is more important to me than some isolated test results
>>> related to a questionable technical measurement.
>
> <Art writes nothing>
>
>
> This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.
>
>

You are a complete idiot, a moron.
You have no idea what happened.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Margaret von B.]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That's because you don't produce much revenue to your business.
>> >
>> > There is absolution (and early retirement) in money for Maggie.
>> >
>>
>> My plan suits me perfectly.
>
>
> Still working and still enduring feminine bigotry. Sounds real
> perfect.
>

I'm sure the Prozac crowd could not cope. Right?

>
>> I'd like to hear your "without money" plan. Come
>> to think of it, I really don't.
>
> Oh yes... lets play the unsubstantiated bragging game. It's sooooo
> relevant in the usenet world. I'll let the lady go first. What are
> your retirement assumptions:
> retirement age, life expectancy, income requirements (be sure to
> include health care and long term care expenses, they can be scary),
> income sources, asset appreciation, and finally monte carlo simulation
> results?
>

Easily done. Be able to do maintain my existing lifestyle while growing my
portfolio. Monte Carlo....LOL! Your life appears to be really complicated.

>>
>> >>
>> >> >> and at least in my line of work that happens all the
>> >> >> time. I've learned to ignore it.
>> >> >
>> >> > As if that is respectable.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I call it early retirement.
>> >>
>> >> > Evil flourishes in Maggies world.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Not really. Only weaklings are affected.
>> >
>> > Only the strong shall survive. You go girl.
>> >
>>
>> Again you reveal your ignorance. Oprah is the only one you can think of.
>
> I think you've had your face pressed against the glass ceiling too
> long. It's distorted your vision.
>

You might be better off worrying about your own internal ceilings.

>>
>> >>
>> >> >> Incidentally some of these words are
>> >> >> uttered by people who are widely admired.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Not by me. Your own tolerance for oppressive behavior doesn't say
>> >> > much for your character, but what can we expect from someone trying
>> >> > to
>> >> > impersonate a women.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Again, your blather stems from the housewife/breeder at home. You like
>> >> to
>> >> think that you're somehow noble or chivalrous, but the truth is that
>> >> you
>> >> and
>> >> your kind are simply not needed to solve the problem. It will solve
>> >> itself.
>> >
>> > I'm sure your endless admiration and strong money driven character is
>> > changing hearts and minds the world over.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not out to change the world, just to recognize the realities and
>> adapt.
>> Do a search on Darwin and read.
>
>
> Natural selection is obviously no longer in play for mankind, but I
> suspect you're headed for extinction.
>

I think that IS your problem.

>>
>> > With every post you reveal yourself and it ain't pretty, Maggie.
>> >
>>
>> Hardly surprising from a dinosaur who seems to be convinced that no woman
>> would ever stand up to him.
>
> Standing up on RAO must be a small consolation for the daily bending
> over you have told us you endure in your real world.

I agree that RAO does not really matter. The "bending over" expression you
like to use so much is very revealing of you.

Cheers,

Margaret

[ScottW]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >
> >> I'd like to hear your "without money" plan. Come
> >> to think of it, I really don't.
> >
> > Oh yes... lets play the unsubstantiated bragging game. It's sooooo
> > relevant in the usenet world. I'll let the lady go first. What are
> > your retirement assumptions:
> > retirement age, life expectancy, income requirements (be sure to
> > include health care and long term care expenses, they can be scary),
> > income sources, asset appreciation, and finally monte carlo simulation
> > results?
> >
>
> Easily done. Be able to do maintain my existing lifestyle while growing my
> portfolio. Monte Carlo....LOL! Your life appears to be really complicated.
>

If your plan is based upon simple assumed rates of return and does not
include a monte carlo simulation of possible market actions (stock or
real estate).... it isn't much of a plan. Perhaps you should seek the
advise of a competent financial planner. This conversation only proves
one thing, you haven't done your homework.

ScottW

[Margaret von B.]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> >
>> >> I'd like to hear your "without money" plan. Come
>> >> to think of it, I really don't.
>> >
>> > Oh yes... lets play the unsubstantiated bragging game. It's sooooo
>> > relevant in the usenet world. I'll let the lady go first. What are
>> > your retirement assumptions:
>> > retirement age, life expectancy, income requirements (be sure to
>> > include health care and long term care expenses, they can be scary),
>> > income sources, asset appreciation, and finally monte carlo simulation
>> > results?
>> >
>>
>> Easily done. Be able to do maintain my existing lifestyle while growing
>> my
>> portfolio. Monte Carlo....LOL! Your life appears to be really
>> complicated.
>>
>
> If your plan is based upon simple assumed rates of return and does not
> include a monte carlo simulation of possible market actions (stock or
> real estate).... it isn't much of a plan. Perhaps you should seek the
> advise of a competent financial planner. This conversation only proves
> one thing, you haven't done your homework.
>
> ScottW
>

Scott, you truly are a minor league talent. Very minor.

:-)

Margaret

[ScottW]

Margaret von B. wrote:
>
> Scott, you truly are a minor league talent. Very minor.
>
> :-)

Thanks but you're being to kind. It really only required an amateurish
level of effort to diminish you to unsubstantiated personal criticism.

ScottW

[Margaret von B.]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>>
>> Scott, you truly are a minor league talent. Very minor.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Thanks but you're being to kind. It really only required an amateurish
> level of effort to diminish you to unsubstantiated personal criticism.
>
> ScottW
>

Nice self-proclaimed victory, I see. I guess you have to get 'em anyway you
can. Now go back to your desk and look busy.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> What happened to your ranting about "sockpuppets", Clerkie?

I guess some of the good guys decided to fight fire with
fire.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
> >>> is more important to me than some isolated test results
> >>> related to a questionable technical measurement.
> >
> > <Art writes nothing>
> >
> >
> > This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.
> >
> >
>
> You are a complete idiot, a moron.
> You have no idea what happened.

My guess is that you forgot what you wanted to say and then
forgot that you had not typed anything, anyway, and then hit
the send key to clear the screen.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

MINe 109 wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > > > Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
> > > > that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
> > > > upward of 150?
> >
> > > This is not necessarily an indication that he is compos mentis. I
> > > suspect Kessler is stark raving mad.
> >
> > Yes, it is quite possible for a very intelligent person to
> > be completely out of touch with reality.
>
> Do you disagree with Kessler's dislike of tweaks?
>
> Stephen

I have probably read his stuff maybe two times at the most,
and to be honest I really cannot remember what the guy has
said about anything. This may come as a shock to you but
when I start to read a freako audio article (this nearly
always takes place at a news stand) I will usually give up
the close reading after the first or second paragraph and
then scan the rest of the piece ASAP. Generally, I then
dismiss the small amount I have read and go read a history,
science, woodworking, or mechanical-subject magazine of some
kind.

Actually, I automatically tend to suspect anyone who writes
for tweako magazines at the get go. They basically have to
prostitute themselves to do that sort of thing, no matter
how intelligent they may be.

Incidentally, have I ever defined "audio tweako" for you
guys? An audio tweako is a geek who lacks the intellect of
computer geeks.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >> "Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
>> >>> is more important to me than some isolated test results
>> >>> related to a questionable technical measurement.
>> >
>> > <Art writes nothing>
>> >
>> >
>> > This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are a complete idiot, a moron.
>> You have no idea what happened.
>
> My guess is that you forgot what you wanted to say and then
> forgot that you had not typed anything, anyway, and then hit
> the send key to clear the screen.
>

You are compleletely clueless. I 'did'
write something.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Ponderously Predictable jabbered:

> > What happened to your ranting about "sockpuppets", Clerkie?
>
> I guess some of the good guys decided to fight fire with
> fire.

I can see why you decided against a career in PR.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:

> > Do you disagree with Kessler's dislike of tweaks?

> I have probably read his stuff maybe two times at the most,
> and to be honest I really cannot remember what the guy has
> said about anything.

That's odd, as you seem to have strong negative opinions about him and
his views.

> This may come as a shock to you but
> when I start to read a freako audio article (this nearly
> always takes place at a news stand) I will usually give up
> the close reading after the first or second paragraph and
> then scan the rest of the piece ASAP. Generally, I then
> dismiss the small amount I have read and go read a history,
> science, woodworking, or mechanical-subject magazine of some
> kind.

You probably missed his printed vow not to review audio cables.

> Actually, I automatically tend to suspect anyone who writes
> for tweako magazines at the get go. They basically have to
> prostitute themselves to do that sort of thing, no matter
> how intelligent they may be.

They're all tweako magazines.

> Incidentally, have I ever defined "audio tweako" for you
> guys? An audio tweako is a geek who lacks the intellect of
> computer geeks.

Your humor is waaay over my head...

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> > An audio tweako is a geek who lacks the intellect of
> > computer geeks.

> Your humor is waaay over my head...

Harold got a Master's in Boogerology.

[Lionel]

Howard Ferstler a écrit :
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
>>>>>is more important to me than some isolated test results
>>>>>related to a questionable technical measurement.
>>>
>>><Art writes nothing>
>>>
>>>
>>>This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You are a complete idiot, a moron.
>>You have no idea what happened.
>
>
> My guess is that you forgot what you wanted to say and then
> forgot that you had not typed anything, anyway, and then hit
> the send key to clear the screen.

:-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Howard Ferstler a écrit :
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
>>>>>>is more important to me than some isolated test results
>>>>>>related to a questionable technical measurement.
>>>>
>>>><Art writes nothing>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are a complete idiot, a moron.
>>>You have no idea what happened.
>>
>>
>> My guess is that you forgot what you wanted to say and then
>> forgot that you had not typed anything, anyway, and then hit
>> the send key to clear the screen.
>
> :-)

You are as stupid as Howard.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Howard Ferstler a écrit :
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Arny Krueger" > almost wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Somehow my subjective evaluation of music reproduction
>>>>>>>is more important to me than some isolated test results
>>>>>>>related to a questionable technical measurement.
>>>>>
>>>>><Art writes nothing>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is one of your more intelligent comments, Art.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are a complete idiot, a moron.
>>>>You have no idea what happened.
>>>
>>>
>>>My guess is that you forgot what you wanted to say and then
>>>forgot that you had not typed anything, anyway, and then hit
>>>the send key to clear the screen.
>>
>>:-)
>
>
> You are as stupid as Howard.

:-D

[dave weil]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:23:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > John Atkinson wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Perhaps Mr. Ferstler would be interested to learn
>> > > > that renowned subjective reviewer Ken Kessler has an IQ
>> > > > upward of 150?
>> >
>> > > This is not necessarily an indication that he is compos mentis. I
>> > > suspect Kessler is stark raving mad.
>> >
>> > Yes, it is quite possible for a very intelligent person to
>> > be completely out of touch with reality.
>>
>> Do you disagree with Kessler's dislike of tweaks?
>>
>> Stephen
>
>I have probably read his stuff maybe two times at the most,
>and to be honest I really cannot remember what the guy has
>said about anything. This may come as a shock to you but
>when I start to read a freako audio article (this nearly
>always takes place at a news stand) I will usually give up
>the close reading after the first or second paragraph and
>then scan the rest of the piece ASAP.

Hmmmm, this describes what I do when I encounter one of YOUR articles.
That is, unless I'm having trouble sleeping.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to Slut:

> You are as stupid as Howard.

But more expensive.

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:23:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >I have probably read his stuff maybe two times at the most,
> >and to be honest I really cannot remember what the guy has
> >said about anything. This may come as a shock to you but
> >when I start to read a freako audio article (this nearly
> >always takes place at a news stand) I will usually give up
> >the close reading after the first or second paragraph and
> >then scan the rest of the piece ASAP.

> Hmmmm, this describes what I do when I encounter one of YOUR articles.
> That is, unless I'm having trouble sleeping.

Dave, I simply do not care what you and people like you
think of my published materials. There is no "converting" to
a rational approach, anyway, so I do not expect any of you
to pick up one of my review or commentary articles, or one
of my books, and suddenly discovering that what you have
been believing all along is claptrap. Once a fool is at home
in a fool's paradise (and tweako audio is indeed a fool's
paradise), there is no getting him to leave.

On the other hand, while I do not spend a lot of time
debating assorted tweako journalists here on RAO (assuming,
of course, that the various sockpuppets I encounter are not
such individuals in disguise), you DO spend a lot of time
"debating" (for want of a better word) me.

If I were going to spend time debating someone and calling
them to task for wrecking a fine hobby like high-end audio,
I would certainly do a bit of research on what they have
published.

Know your enemies, so they say.

Howard Ferstler