Wed, Nov 29, 2006, 3:28am (EST+5) (Pete*C.) doth
sayeth:
Under a pile of clothes is easy, try making your bed, then dump a pile
of laundry on top, now crawl into bed under the mess. If it was someone
poor who couldn't afford to heat the place properly it's more insulation
too, not just a mess.

Easy maybe, but I don't see it for keeping warm. I've slept cold
before, and if I didn't have extra blankets to put over me, I would
"not" pile clothes on top of myself, they'd slip off, I'd put the
clothes on, then go to bed.



JOAT
Democratic justice. One man, one rock.

"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
...
RicodJour wrote:
Show all work.
There apparently were sections of the article dealing with inverted
suffocation that you didn't read. Perhaps you should read them.

I read the complete link you provided.


Other than that, good post.

R


Perhaps you would like to explain how she was able to get in the gap but
not get out ... how a gap large enough to admit her was too small to
permit struggle, too small to permit her to tilt sideways to a horizontal
position and breathe, too small to allow her to call for help. After
death, her leg DID move to a horizontal position without ANY muscular
exertion ... That is how her foot came to be exposed. There was 'wiggle
room'.


Easy, the bookcase tipped forward some, she fell behind it, and it fell back
toward the wall.

Bill in Detroit wrote:

Perhaps you would like to explain how she was able to get in the gap but
not get out ... how a gap large enough to admit her was too small to
permit struggle, too small to permit her to tilt sideways to a
horizontal position and breathe, too small to allow her to call for
help. After death, her leg DID move to a horizontal position without ANY
muscular exertion ... That is how her foot came to be exposed. There was
'wiggle room'.

Your answer should contain no assumptions ... just good hard science,
please. You should be able to meet the same standards you are asking of me.

Any reasoning on my part would consist entirely of conjecture - not
hard science. There's not enough information for anything more than
guesses and assumptions. All I know is that she died in a freaky way
and I feel sorry for her and her family.

I regret using the subjective term "scrawny". However, the BMI for this
woman, as evidenced by the link I provided, is 17.5 where a BMI of 19 is
considered the lowest healthy weight. She is thus properly labeled as
underweight ... that is not an assumption.

I think that what set me off was the scrawny part. If there were more
complete information on the person's genetics, body type and other
"hard science" factors, than the BMI could be a useful tool. The BMI
thing is no more accurate in categorizing people then IQ tests, and
we've both met people with huge IQs that we wouldn't trust to safely
cross the street alone.

I have never assumed that the tv itself was on the bookshelf because I
think that it would have gotten knocked off in her struggles. My guess
would be that the TV was on the dresser. And that she managed to get the
plug inserted just fine this time.

Maybe...

R

Locutus wrote:


Easy, the bookcase tipped forward some, she fell behind it, and it fell back
toward the wall.



So her body mass and physical strength were sufficient to tip it forward
enough to access the plug on more than one occasion, but not enough to
budge it when she really needed to?

Makes sense to me.

Except for the part where she was in the habit of tipping a bookcase
away from the wall merely to access an electrical plug but she could no
longer move the bookshelf when she was fighting for her life. And also
the part where a bookshelf tipped into the room due to a body being
wedged in behind it didn't look odd to anyone.

I give up. But I still cannot grasp how she could get wedged behind a
bookshelf that she could move to fall behind but not move to escape
from. That is ... why could she move it the first time but not the second?

I'm walking away from this.

Bill

Bill in Detroit wrote:
Locutus wrote:


Easy, the bookcase tipped forward some, she fell behind it, and it
fell back toward the wall.


So her body mass and physical strength were sufficient to tip it forward
enough to access the plug on more than one occasion, but not enough to
budge it when she really needed to?

Makes sense to me.

Except for the part where she was in the habit of tipping a bookcase
away from the wall merely to access an electrical plug but she could no
longer move the bookshelf when she was fighting for her life. And also
the part where a bookshelf tipped into the room due to a body being
wedged in behind it didn't look odd to anyone.

I give up. But I still cannot grasp how she could get wedged behind a
bookshelf that she could move to fall behind but not move to escape
from. That is ... why could she move it the first time but not the second?

I'm walking away from this.

Bill
Sorry to jump in at the tail end of this, but isn't it possible a) she
hit her head on the way down and suffocated while unconscious, or b) the
wedging action of the fall compressed her diaphragm (that feeling of
"having the wind knocked out of you" that we are all familiar with). I
would guess "b". That would explain her inability to scream for help and
subsequent suffocation.

"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
...
Locutus wrote:


Easy, the bookcase tipped forward some, she fell behind it, and it fell
back toward the wall.

So her body mass and physical strength were sufficient to tip it forward
enough to access the plug on more than one occasion, but not enough to
budge it when she really needed to?

Let me preface this with this is purely conjecture.

Leverage. At the TOP of the bookcase it would require considerable less
force to tip the bookcase than what would be needed once she was behind,
where any force she could exert would be at the middle or bottom of a
bookcase.

Makes sense to me.

Except for the part where she was in the habit of tipping a bookcase away
from the wall merely to access an electrical plug but she could no longer
move the bookshelf when she was fighting for her life. And also the part
where a bookshelf tipped into the room due to a body being wedged in
behind it didn't look odd to anyone.


I doubt she was in the habit of "tipping the bookcase", it was most likely
an accident, if she was on top of the bookcase and lost balance, her weight
could easily tip the bookcase out from the wall. And if that started to
happen, what would most people do? They would shift their bodyweight in the
opposite direction (ie, toward the wall).

I give up. But I still cannot grasp how she could get wedged behind a
bookshelf that she could move to fall behind but not move to escape from.
That is ... why could she move it the first time but not the second?


Remember she was inverted, most likely with the weight of the bookcase
smashing her to the wall, her arms would either be extended abover her, or
to her sides, she would have no way to position herself to exert any
considerable force, considering she was "scrawny".

"Charlie M. 1958" wrote in message
...
Bill in Detroit wrote:
Locutus wrote:


Easy, the bookcase tipped forward some, she fell behind it, and it fell
back toward the wall.


So her body mass and physical strength were sufficient to tip it forward
enough to access the plug on more than one occasion, but not enough to
budge it when she really needed to?

Makes sense to me.

Except for the part where she was in the habit of tipping a bookcase away
from the wall merely to access an electrical plug but she could no longer
move the bookshelf when she was fighting for her life. And also the part
where a bookshelf tipped into the room due to a body being wedged in
behind it didn't look odd to anyone.

I give up. But I still cannot grasp how she could get wedged behind a
bookshelf that she could move to fall behind but not move to escape from.
That is ... why could she move it the first time but not the second?

I'm walking away from this.

Bill
Sorry to jump in at the tail end of this, but isn't it possible a) she hit
her head on the way down and suffocated while unconscious, or b) the
wedging action of the fall compressed her diaphragm (that feeling of
"having the wind knocked out of you" that we are all familiar with). I
would guess "b". That would explain her inability to scream for help and
subsequent suffocation.

That's a plausible theory as well.

I think we can all agree this is a freak accident, but I don't think it's
anywhere close to impossible.

Bill in Detroit wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Just as an engineering exercise, it might be interesting to figure out how
to design a bookcase that prevented this risk while not standing a
ludicrous distance from the wall or presenting a tipping hazard.

Attach it to the wall with screws driven behind the shelving or French
cleats?

It sounds like it must already have been several inches from the wall
because 1) the object she was fishing out fell behind it and 2) when she
fell behind it, it did not tip.

How is it that an entire human being could get wedged back there and NOT
tip it? The only possibility that comes to mind is that the bookshelf
was fairly deep.

Or it was fully loaded, and maybe set into an alcove. Very
probably she was anorectic and physically weak.


I still think that this one deserves close scrutiny by the coroner.

Pete C. wrote:
" wrote:
bloody hell. Thats one of the maddest things i've heard in a long
time.

Theres probably a lesson to be learnt, but i've no idea what!

Barry
www.woodworking.wizkids.co.uk

Well, if it happened in the UK there would probably be an uproar to ban
bookcases. Never heard anywhere else insane enough to even talk about
banning kitchen knives. Damn, those 15" razor sharp planer knives must
be banned already, better hide them...

Hummm, my recently aquired hedgers slasher, 10" blade 40" haft, and now
well sharpened, was a good buy, probably be banned next year.
Welcome to the UK, truely band-it country.

George wrote:

It's the BBC, not known for BS and if you want you can trace the original
report from the Local paper - St Petersburg Chronicle or something.


BBC _not_ known for BS? Yeah, right. Neither is the NYT.

BS, maybe not, Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists would never BS....

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

Sorry to jump in at the tail end of this, but isn't it possible a) she
hit her head on the way down and suffocated while unconscious, or b) the
wedging action of the fall compressed her diaphragm (that feeling of
"having the wind knocked out of you" that we are all familiar with). I
would guess "b". That would explain her inability to scream for help and
subsequent suffocation.

Add bang on head whilst inverted causes vomiting in most people, U/C +
vomit = dead quite often...

Sat, Dec 2, 2006, 12:03am (EST+5)
(badger.badger) doth sayeth:
BS, maybe not, Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists would never BS....

You can always tell a gentleman, because a gentleman always says
"amazing" instead of "bull****".



JOAT
I am, therefore I think.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:58:53 GMT, "badger.badger"
wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
" wrote:
bloody hell. Thats one of the maddest things i've heard in a long
time.

Theres probably a lesson to be learnt, but i've no idea what!

Barry
www.woodworking.wizkids.co.uk

Well, if it happened in the UK there would probably be an uproar to ban
bookcases. Never heard anywhere else insane enough to even talk about
banning kitchen knives. Damn, those 15" razor sharp planer knives must
be banned already, better hide them...

Hummm, my recently aquired hedgers slasher, 10" blade 40" haft, and now
well sharpened, was a good buy, probably be banned next year.
Welcome to the UK, truely band-it country.

Maybe you just need to convince the gov't that it is a utensil required
for religious ceremony by the RoP. The government will be guarenteed to
keep their hands off then. [only slight sarcasm]



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

J T wrote:
Sat, Dec 2, 2006, 12:03am (EST+5)
(badger.badger) doth sayeth:
BS, maybe not, Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists would never BS....

You can always tell a gentleman, because a gentleman always says
"amazing" instead of "bull****".

Amazing.

I'd always heard that a gentleman is someone who never insults someone
unintentionally.

R

"badger.badger" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

It's the BBC, not known for BS

BBC _not_ known for BS? Yeah, right. Neither is the NYT.

BS, maybe not, Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists would never BS....

Really? I read news.bbc.co.uk daily, and I don't find it pro Blair or Bush.
Quite the opposite.

Tim W

"Tim W" wrote in message
news

"badger.badger" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

It's the BBC, not known for BS

BBC _not_ known for BS? Yeah, right. Neither is the NYT.

BS, maybe not, Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists would never BS....

Really? I read news.bbc.co.uk daily, and I don't find it pro Blair or
Bush.
Quite the opposite.


You're missing the point. They're pro-BBC(NYT) at the expense of anyone
else. Sometimes the "news" is created, not just selected for presentation
in support of themselves.

George wrote:

"Tim W" wrote in message
news

"badger.badger" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

It's the BBC, not known for BS

BBC _not_ known for BS? Yeah, right. Neither is the NYT.

BS, maybe not, Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists would never BS....

Really? I read news.bbc.co.uk daily, and I don't find it pro Blair or
Bush.
Quite the opposite.


You're missing the point. They're pro-BBC(NYT) at the expense of anyone
else. Sometimes the "news" is created, not just selected for
presentation in support of themselves.

Looking beyond "the news" it isn't just pro/anti politicians, its
blindsiding the sheeple with soap and sport, thus ensuring a stupid and
easy to manage populace, then feeding them whatever the gov't requires.
Childrens programming is especially dangerous, "Whoever has the youth,
has the future." Adolf Hitler.

"badger.badger" wrote in message
...
Childrens programming is especially dangerous, "Whoever has the youth, has
the future." Adolf Hitler.


"Bumaga vsyo terpit" -Joseph Stalin

Paper can bear anything (printed on it). Old Russian proverb he was to have
quoted in reference to the "Stalin Constitution" and its fine-sounding
words. Might as well have been describing the Fourth Estate, though. They
speak of themselves as "watchdogs" and necessary to keep the rest of the
world in line, but who's watching them or holding them accountable?

Fri, Dec 1, 2006, 9:13pm (EST-3) (RicodJour)
did sayeth:
I'd always heard that a gentleman is someone who never insults someone
unintentionally.

Amazing.



JOAT
I am, therefore I think.