On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
>>>>>>> Pell Grant and go to college.
>>
>>>>>> ? ?You are the one with ZERO education.
>>
>>>>>Then why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?
>>
>>>> We're hardly nut cases.
>>
>>>Circular furrows are impossible? And then trying to defend your [lack
>>>of] reasoning on the matter?
>
>> Yup, I made a mistake
>
>Yea, you made a mistake alright. You tried to fake a tech background.
>
>THAT'S the mistake.
---
You are quite the rabid dog, aren't you?
Plus, you don't know what you're talking about.
FYI, I've been in business for the last 25 years doing electronic
design for individuals, Fortune 500 companies, and the US government.
I also have a patent and lots and lots of happy customers.
And you?
---
>> and, as I recall, acknowledged it quite some
>> time ago. If I didn't, then I'll acknowledge it here and now.
>
>> Now how about if you acknowledge the impracticability of your electric
>> tractor scheme?
>
>I never got any serious feedback on why it _wouldn't_ work.
---
Of course not, since you consider anything that you disagree with as
being "not serious"
Just for starters I can tell you, again, that your harebrained battery
charge/discharge scheme won't work.
Matter of fact, I showed you why it wouldn't work and because you
couldn't work the math or because you're so into believing that
everyone but you is wrong you chose to consider it "not serious".
If you're so sure it'll work why aren't you out getting it done
instead of playing stupid games?
---
>All I got with the continuous operation version was:
>
>"LOL!"
---
Because it was ridiculous on the face of it.
---
>"Cite?"
---
Because verification of your extravagant claims was necessary.
---
>"Show your calculations."
---
Because verification of your extravagant claims was necessary.
Being able to do neither, and thereby _prove_ that your premise wasn't
ridiculous is what's caused those words to stick in your craw.
---
>>>Three months and $100,000 in diesel to plow a field?
>
>> As I recall, someone verified that the 1/2 MPH was correct in some
>> instances.
>
>In some instances some people don't need a PC.
>
>You think that was a bad invention too?
---
Non sequitur
---
>Face it: your problem is a lack of basic reasoning ability.
>
>Another sure sign you never passed any college level math courses.
>
>Math is applied logic.
>
>You cannot do basic logic.
---
Dumbass, I make a living doing basic logic.
---
>> (charge the batteries in five
>> minutes)
>
>It's only going to be _discharging_ for 5 minutes. The cells can be
>made smaller.
---
That's even worse then, since even if you can get them to charge in 1
minute that tractor's going to be idle 20%% of the time. Plus, you'll
never get them to charge in 1 minute.
---
>>>Forget about the Pell grant. You'll never get through the math.
>
>> You seem to have ether conveniently forgotten about a couple of pages
>> that I posted
>
>I remember your middle school level math post. It was a pointless as
>Al Gore saying, "CO2 is a clear oderless gas . . ."
---
And yet it managed to prove your harebrained scheme wrong
---
>You discredit yourself trying to present a trivial truth as something
>useful.
---
Quite the opposite, since if something useful can be accomplished by
applying a trivial truth, that's elegant. Not that you'd know
anything about _that_.
---
>You don't seem to comprehend that the more you try to impress with
>nothing the dumber you look.
---
I think just the opposite is true, in that the more you can accomplish
with the least in, the more impressive the result.
---
>>>> The reason we respond to your posts is that we're trying to make
>>>> things better by letting you know that you, and whoever follows you,
>>>> are headed for disaster downstream.
>
>>>Gonna laugh me to death with circular furrows?
>
>> Nope,
>
>Aww, come on.
>
>> actually I think it's kind of sad that you can't take
>> good-natured advice
>
>Like trying to use the 0.5 hp example without posting the diesel
>equivalent?
---
The example was just that; a way to show you how to do your own
calculation. Your inability to take it from there wasn't my fault.
---
>And then when the diesel _is_ calculated then trying to dodge the
>issue? And then you ratherly stupidly tried to deny that the cost of
>diesel was _the entire_ reason for the original post.
>
>Your basic reasoning ability is compromised.
---
I think you have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension.
---
>> Anyway, it doesn't make any difference what you do with my attempts at
>> having you understand, mathematically,
>
>It was obvious you didn't have any math background when you kept
>trying to use the 0.5 hp example without posting the diesel
>equivalent.
---
See above.
---
>That's not a "mistake" in the sense of an honest calculation error.
>
>That's a mistake in getting caught.
---
See above
---
>>>>>Look, everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.
>
>>>> And yet, in the face of that, you keep posting.
>
>>>If you can't take the heat, go to another thread.
>
>> Heat?
>
>> LOL,
>
>Back to typing "LOL?"
---
No, still at it when I see something patently ridiculous.
---
>Those are your only two choices?
>
>1. Dodging tech issues
>
>2. Typing "LOL"
---
Well, I've certainly taken the tech issues head-on, so that's not a
choice I've taken.
And as for #2, I guess you see a lot of LOLs because so much of what
you write is ridiculous drivel.
---
>> you flatter yourself.
>
>You think someone will be impressed with your middle school level math
>calculations.
---
Nope, I just presented my work so others could check it.
That's what scientists do, but I wouldn't expect you to know anything
about that, either.
Unlike you, who either can't or won't do the work because you're
afraid it might prove your idea(s) to be flawed. And we can't have
that, can we, since finding one chink in your armor would bring the
whole house of cards crashing down.
---
>Yer nutz.
---
What about 'em?
---
>> As far as leaving goes, I think I'll stay and keep pulling the rug out
>> from under you, just for grins, for a while yet.
>
>Well we know you cannot comment on tech or you'll just make a fool of
>yourself.
---
Saying it frequently won't make it any less false.
---
>So here are your only two choices:
>
>1. Dodging tech issues
>
>2. Typing "LOL"
---
You're starting to sound like a stuck record.
---
>>>>>Since I'm opposed to censorship my readership cannot be eliminated
>>>>>altogether
>
>>>> Sure it can.
>
>>>> Just stop posting.
>
>>>You have two choices:
>
>>>1. Get ridiculed ever time you try to pretend you know anything about
>>>science or technology, and/or
>
>> "ever time" ???
>
>Maybe you can get as job as a spell checker.
---
Well, at least one of us can.
---
>It's obvious you won't
>be able to impress anyone with your middle school calculations.
---
What is it with this fixation you have about impressing people?
It's very strange in that you want to impress people with _your_
fictional whiz-bang electric tractor, but _I'm_ not allowed to with a
little algebra?
Is there such a shortage of glory that you want it all, or are you an
attention-starved brat who wants everyone excluded from the limelight
but him?
---
>> You don't know enough about science _or_ technology to come up with
>> meaningful ridicule, so let's go on to #2...
>
>Thus spake the circular furrow denier.
