View Single Post
  #295  
Old December 9th 08, 02:49 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
taichiskiing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,256
Default dumb as a brick

On Dec 8, 10:40 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:40 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:18 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:11 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:36 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:29 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:


It is more verstaile because you can discuss it on RSA and no one
knows what you are talking about so you can always claim to be
correct.


It's not "no one" but a small group of gapers on RSA now still
bewildered by their little knowledge. We have tried your bashing in
sci.math, you failed miserably.


If someone were to post here on "a new method of making carved turns",
there would be a lot of discussion among knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics.


It sounds like a small knowledge trying to hold on its status quos. I
wouldn't mind to discuss the subject with "knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics," nevertheless,
haven't run into any such caliber here. My "angular acceleration" and
"slipping turn" challenge are still on the table.


Nevertheless, "high" level science is based on math, and math begins
with "definition," so, define your terms used is the fundamental
practice of science. The scientific method you mentioned above is only
a lower end of techniques.


However, when you just make something up, you are free to invent your
own terminology and will always "win" any debate on techique or
science.


Nothing made up in my scientific arguments, as I said, they were based
on Newton's Mechanism theory. It is your little knowledge domain and
narrow-minded vocabularies couldn't keep up.


A small knowledge "argues" to "win" verbal gratification for its ego.


A great knowledge "argues" to "seek" higher level knowledge.


Quad erat demonstrandum


Precisely.


Not quite. I misspelled "quod".


"Precisely," you have no balls to spell it correctly or to make your
statement clearly.


What do my balls have to do with my spelling?


That's something to do with testosterones I guess. Little characters
tend to make misspells, stuttering, and/or making obfuscated
statements when they are under stress, such conditions as lost their
nerves, dare not to commit, or sheer shameless denials. You have to
man up to see it.


Besides, "quad" has more obski content than "quod".


It doesn't matter; MsWord has indicated the other two are misspells.
Obfuscation it is.


IS
Ads