View Single Post
  #20   Report Post  
Old July 29th 15, 05:42 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Grokman Grokman Grokman Grokman is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2015
Posts: 61
Default One-handed pullups




Children! Children! I go out for one night, and look at what you've
done to the house! g

PV, I don't know if you missed the origins of all of these conflicts,
or if you just decided to ignore them. It isn't because Gunner tells
"tall tales." It's because he's insulted, slandered, tried to
humiliate, and threatened every one of them -- myself included. A few
people (myself included) just got fed up with his vile and dishonest
style of argument, and his whole approach to sharp disagreements is
now the subject. As an inveterate bull****ter, Gunner takes the heat
for it. Like Jonny Bonkers, he's just reaping what he's sown.

It really starts with attitudes towards civility. You either have it
by age 10, or you don't. It's hard to see it now -- it's degenerated
so much that the entire battle is kind of dirty -- but there's no
doubt how it started and where it came from. He's never let up: anyone
he disagrees with is a "libtard," a "Marxist," "gay," or worse.

He lacks the ability to disagree in a civil way and, as a result, he
argues like white trash. His threats to have people killed actually
are criminal. Probably because of the company he keeps, or the
environment he's in, he's deluded himself that he's managed to skirt
the law with his many threats, which are hardly veiled. He's wrong.. It
isn't "banter" when you get specific about weapons to be used and
people on a "list" to be killed. If someone really got upset about it,
it wouldn't be hard to have Gunner investigated for terroristic
threats.

So recognize where the divide is. People who are basically civil can
sometimes get really heated and insulting. White trash tell you you're
on a "list" of people his "friends" are going to shoot and kill.

And you have to admit, Whoyakidding's Cliffs Notes have a genuine
literary quality. d8-)

Nice summary, Ed. But PV knows every word of it already. He doesn't
care, he has his own bashing to do and it will be entertaining to see
how many more ludicrous 125=256 excuses he can come up along the way.

BTW, I have a very fast bike, a lot of riding experience, and live
where I can occasionally open the throttle. I've been over 125 a
couple times recently while passing. It in no way made me feel
entitled to say I'd gone 256, because that would be stupid and nobody
would believe it.

Ultimately most people here (less the Castradis) believe you as little as they believe Gummer.

Let's assume that's true. Who gives a ****? I don't care much about
anybody's opinion unless it's founded on reason. There isn't much of
that in this newsgroup, especially not from people like you. I do
respect Ed and Ed's opinions. He thinks straight and writes smoothly.
He's a guy I'd enjoy meeting in person. In fact, I recently sent him
an invite along with some photos of my current project, and a couple
video walkthroughs of a computer model. If you want to KNOW about my
speed claim for example, ask Ed if there were any bikes in those
photos that could back up my statements. You won't do anything like
that because you prefer **** you made up over reasonable evidence.
That's just one of the things that make you a crackpot.


MMMMMMMMmmmmmmm
Oh, Ed, MMMMMMmmmmmmmm
Oh, Ed,
Yuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmm
Oh, Ed,
Back up my statements, SLuuuuuuuurp,
Oh, Ed, give it to me Ed, give me your reasonable evidence
GUUULP BUUUUURP AHHHHHHHHH buuuuuuurp
Oh, Ed, what a wad, that was delicious....
NOW will you watch my Comptery Model??


Uh, yeah, there is a big-mother bike in the garage, and it looks very
fast. The bike has a spectacular view of a beautiful lake among
mountains. I envy the bike. g

Regarding the fat model: What do you want me to do? I know just enough
about it to have an idea about what is not known. When I was writing
and editing articles on rimonabant, which I did for six months, I read
over 200 journal articles on intra-abdominal adiposity, metabolic
syndrome, inverse-agonists, endocannabinoid receptors, and Type I and
Type II diabetes. I know just enough to be dangerous. Don't let me get
near a scalpel. g

My reaction to what you've been saying is this: I am impressed with
what you've done. It appears that you're looking at some simple
relationships and deriving from them a heart-rate proxy for optimized
fat reduction -- or optimized something. My experience with metabolism
suggests that you may or may not have the right correlations, and that
you may or may not have enough factors in your model for it to be
meaningful.

I have no way to know. I'd need to read at least another dozen or two
dozen journal articles, and I gave that up for Lent five years ago.
Math still interests me but I find it tedious to remind myself about
things I haven't used for 20 years. It takes more time that I like to
invest in such things.

So I'm the wrong guy to comment on the substance of it. I'm still
impressed, however.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, you are one of the few who even took a look at it!
But....but....but..... Shouldn't Captain Oblivious -- the Caped Crusader and Defender of RCM -- be able to help? Isn't he, like, a fukn genius'n'****??

Shouldn't Super Oblivious be scrutinizing Le Fat Burning Theorem, looking to discredit me in any friggin way possible?? Shouldn't he be trying to impress RCM with his NEW and IMPROVED handjive, with bull**** mathematical handwaving that he kluged off Ig****'s bull**** math site???

Hmmmmm, Iknow, mebbe I can help the Good Cap'n discredit me. Here's some idears, off the top of my head.

1. He could look at it, and dismiss it as trivial.
Oh, but then he'd have to explain why... ooops.

2. He could call it irrelevant.
Oh, but then he'd have to explain why... ooops.

3. He could call it inaccurate.
Oh, but then he'd have to explain why... ooops.

4. He could call it flat out wrong.
Oh, but then he'd have to explain why... ooops.

5. He could claim it is a rehash of what's already been done.
Hooboy, he'd REALLY have to explain that one. Another ooops.

6. He could accuse me of plagiarism.
Oh, poor Captain Oblivious/kidding, dat mutha****a will be searching google for the next fukn year.

7. He could claim I stole this work from a puhfessuh or grad student or sumpn.
Hmmmm, that sounds promising, because unless someone complained, there would be no way to verify this, RIGHT UP KIDDING'S ASS, I MEAN, ALLEY.

8. He could claim my Daddy did my homework for me.
Hmmm, that's another promising tack.

9. He could claim that what I did is so fukn simple, any moron could do it.
Oooops.... bad idear, cuz then he would be pretty much obligated to reproduce it.

Oh, Oh, OH!!! I got it, I got it!!!

10. OK, here's the best one:
Captain America/Oblivion's tried and true strategy:

He could duck and dodge the Theorem, and just flail his arms, calling me a crackpot, a fraud, a failure, a mathematical ilitirit, the HoloBarre is ****, I'm ****, Banquer is ****, Gummer is ****, that he's too busy looking for a name for our PV/Banquer/Gummer TEAM to be bothered with silly math, he's too busy being successful (while stalking Gummer for over 5 years), etc etc etc etc.

Yeah, I think THAT is Kidding's best strategy. After all, he's well practiced at it, it's tried and true for him, and it WORKS -- at least on the morons/Castradis in RCM.

So his argerment would be: PV is fulla****, therefore his Theorem is fulla****. Therefore he's full****. Therefore.... well, you get the idear.

So Ed, what do you think, #10 for our Captain America/Oblivious?