If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
dumb as a brick
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. IS |
Ads |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
dumb as a brick
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? Besides, "quad" has more obski content than "quod". |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
dumb as a brick
In article
, Richard Henry wrote: "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? I'm beginning to think that is a hallmark of netkookery, the whole "balls" thing. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
dumb as a brick
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:29:42 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap: Let's discuss something important. *Should I wrap up my Sarah Palin Action Figure, and place it under the Christmas Tree that I set up in the living room, or the one in the Vath Cave? When you say "action figure", do you really mean "life-size inflatable"? No. It's twelve inches. Want me to post twelve inches? I'd have to do it twice. A mighty Hungarian warrior The blood of Attila runs through me |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
dumb as a brick
In article
, taichiskiing wrote: 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. This may be your funniest post yet. Dave |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
dumb as a brick
On Dec 9, 7:49*am, taichiskiing
wrote: 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. Priceless! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.skiing,rec.skiing.alpine,rec.skiing.backcountry,rec.skiing.nordic | Peter Steppe | Backcountry Skiing | 0 | January 5th 05 08:19 PM |