#Cartoon about the word 'liberalism'
Weasel Zepp
wrote:
>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>
>Ted
Marvelous.
We can add right wing definitions of "liberalism" to other slogans of
the right, like "Ignorance is knowledge" and "War is peace".
**************************************
"If Laura Bush truly wants her gown to reflect the tone of this inaugural
she ought to shoplift it."
-- San Francisco Chronicle 1/4/01
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
To subscribe to Zepp's News and Commentaries, email me at ze...@snowcrest.net with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject header.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
To purchase a CD collection of Zepp's Commentary, 125 essays, go to
http://www.snowcrest.net/form_to_order_cd.htm
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>>
>>Ted
>
>
>Marvelous.
You've only yourselves to blame for "liberal" being changed to refer
to something slimy and evil. It was a fine word when before the
leftist crowd latched onto it. Many years ago a "liberal" was
somebody who believed in minimal government instead of "can't we find
some other way we can intrude into people lives?"
--Ace
citizen
"Weasel Zepp" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
news:i8qm8u8keb6j2ouff...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
> >
> >Ted
>
>
> Marvelous.
>
> We can add right wing definitions of "liberalism" to other slogans of
> the right, like "Ignorance is knowledge" and "War is peace".
Zeppy you are a social democrat!
There has been democrat liberals in this country sense the 1960's.
lib·er·al·ism
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing
intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b
: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and
usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold
standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized :
the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Here is what the democrats are now!
DNC Goals:
-Heavy taxation on inheritance and eventually the abolition of inheritance
of property and businesses.
-State control and monopoly regulation of communication and transportation.
-State control of labor through the unions resulting in labor union rule of
the country.
-Universal public education mandated for all children for the purpose of
political indoctrination, abolition of private schools and home schooling.
-Establishing a progressive tax to punish production and personal
achievement and to continually increase the tax burden on all classes.
Eventually the population will come to accept full confiscation of all
property and production value to be redistributed according to need.
What a coincidence. That's the same goals as stated in the Communist
Manifesto.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?
LET THEM TAKE ARMS"
- Thomas Jefferson -US Ambassador to France.
God Bless America!
Stew-Libertarian
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor1.html
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
http://www.sas-aim.org/
Weasel Zepp
Let's see if we've got this straight, Patty Cakes: you're saying that
liberal was a great word before it started refering to liberals?
Uh-hum....
>
>
>
>--Ace
citizen
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:36 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
> <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:10:27 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
> >>>
> >>>Ted
> >>
> >>
> >>Marvelous.
> >
> >You've only yourselves to blame for "liberal" being changed to refer
> >to something slimy and evil. It was a fine word when before the
> >leftist crowd latched onto it. Many years ago a "liberal" was
> >somebody who believed in minimal government instead of "can't we find
> >some other way we can intrude into people lives?"
>
> Let's see if we've got this straight, Patty Cakes: you're saying that
> liberal was a great word before it started refering to liberals?
Who are the liberals?
Zeppy you are a social democrat!
There has been no democrat liberals in this country sense the 1960's.
lib·er·al·ism
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing
intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b
: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and
usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold
standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized :
the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Here is what the social democrats are now!
DNC Goals:
God Bless America!
Stew-Libertarian
>
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:36 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
><thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:10:27 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>>>>
>>>>Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>Marvelous.
>>
>>You've only yourselves to blame for "liberal" being changed to refer
>>to something slimy and evil. It was a fine word when before the
>>leftist crowd latched onto it. Many years ago a "liberal" was
>>somebody who believed in minimal government instead of "can't we find
>>some other way we can intrude into people lives?"
>
>Let's see if we've got this straight, Patty Cakes: you're saying that
>liberal was a great word before it started refering to liberals?
>
>Uh-hum....
<chuckle> Willful ignorance will get you nowhere, Zepp. (It's never
worked in the past for you) The word "liberal" used to mean minimal
government. That was before you immature mommy-seeking leftists
latched onto it and made it mean something else.
--Ace
Weasel Zepp
wrote:
>
>"Weasel Zepp" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>news:i8qm8u8keb6j2ouff...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>> >
>> >Ted
>>
>>
>> Marvelous.
>>
>> We can add right wing definitions of "liberalism" to other slogans of
>> the right, like "Ignorance is knowledge" and "War is peace".
>
>Zeppy you are a social democrat!
Well, yes. And...?
>
>There has been democrat liberals in this country sense the 1960's.
Actually, there have been democrat liberals in this country since the
1760s. They wrote the Constitution.
>
>lib·er·al·ism
>Date: 1819
>1 : the quality or state of being liberal
>2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing
>intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b
>: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and
>usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold
>standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
>essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
>standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized :
>the principles and policies of a Liberal party
>
>Here is what the democrats are now!
>
>DNC Goals:
>
>-Heavy taxation on inheritance and eventually the abolition of inheritance
>of property and businesses.
Bullshit.
>
>-State control and monopoly regulation of communication and transportation.
>
Regulation, yes. Monopoly, no. Another Stewie lie.
>-State control of labor through the unions resulting in labor union rule of
>the country.
Let's see if I have this right: unions are bad and government
controlled because they are organized labor. Corporations, on the
other hand, are good and have nothing at all to do with the government
because they are organized management. Does that about cover it,
Stewie?
>
>-Universal public education mandated for all children for the purpose of
>political indoctrination, abolition of private schools and home schooling.
>
You need to read some recent history. It was liberal Catholics who
pushed for the right to home school and set up private schools after
Protestants, who then controlled the public schools, forbade both.
BTW, Stewie, what type of school did you attend?
>-Establishing a progressive tax to punish production and personal
>achievement and to continually increase the tax burden on all classes.
>
Those who gain more from being in America should pay more. Why should
the rich get a free ride?
>Eventually the population will come to accept full confiscation of all
>property and production value to be redistributed according to need.
More utter bullshit.
>
>What a coincidence. That's the same goals as stated in the Communist
>Manifesto.
>
Which, no doubt, is where you got it, since I doubt you are bright
enough to come up with such an elaborate smear on your own.
>
>
>"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
>from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?
>LET THEM TAKE ARMS"
>- Thomas Jefferson -US Ambassador to France.
>
>
>
>God Bless America!
>
>
>Stew-Libertarian
>
>http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor1.html
>http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
>http://americanfreedomnews.com
>http://www.libertystory.net/
>http://www.sas-aim.org/
>
>
>
**************************************
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:16:22 -0600, "citizen" <st...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Weasel Zepp" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>>news:i8qm8u8keb6j2ouff...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>>> >
>>> >Ted
>>>
>>>
>>> Marvelous.
>>>
>>> We can add right wing definitions of "liberalism" to other slogans of
>>> the right, like "Ignorance is knowledge" and "War is peace".
>>
>>Zeppy you are a social democrat!
>
>Well, yes. And...?
>>
>>There has been democrat liberals in this country sense the 1960's.
>
>Actually, there have been democrat liberals in this country since the
>1760s. They wrote the Constitution.
Then they turned into libertarians.
--Ace
citizen
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:16:22 -0600, "citizen" <st...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Weasel Zepp" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
> >news:i8qm8u8keb6j2ouff...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
> >> >
> >> >Ted
> >>
> >>
> >> Marvelous.
> >>
> >> We can add right wing definitions of "liberalism" to other slogans of
> >> the right, like "Ignorance is knowledge" and "War is peace".
> >
> >Zeppy you are a social democrat!
>
> Well, yes. And...?
So how do you get liberal out of this?
Main Entry: social democracy
Function: noun
Date: 1888
: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from
capitalism to socialism by democratic means
- social democrat noun
- social democratic adjective
> >
> >There has been democrat liberals in this country sense the 1960's.
>
> Actually, there have been democrat liberals in this country since the
> 1760s. They wrote the Constitution.
Yes but the social democrat is not a liberal.
> >
> >lib·er·al·ism
> >Date: 1819
> >1 : the quality or state of being liberal
> >2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing
> >intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of
Christianity b
> >: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and
> >usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the
gold
> >standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
> >essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual
and
> >standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d
capitalized :
> >the principles and policies of a Liberal party
> >
> >Here is what the democrats are now!
> >
> >DNC Goals:
> >
> >-Heavy taxation on inheritance and eventually the abolition of
inheritance
> >of property and businesses.
>
> Bullshit.
Social democracy in action.
> >
> >-State control and monopoly regulation of communication and
transportation.
> >
> Regulation, yes. Monopoly, no. Another Stewie lie.no social democracy in
action.
>
> >-State control of labor through the unions resulting in labor union rule
of
> >the country.
>
> Let's see if I have this right: unions are bad and government
> controlled because they are organized labor. Corporations, on the
> other hand, are good and have nothing at all to do with the government
> because they are organized management. Does that about cover it,
> Stewie?
Corporations are capitalism at work.
Unions are social democracy in action.
> >
> >-Universal public education mandated for all children for the purpose of
> >political indoctrination, abolition of private schools and home
schooling.
> >
> You need to read some recent history. It was liberal Catholics who
> pushed for the right to home school and set up private schools after
> Protestants, who then controlled the public schools, forbade both.
Social democracy is to control all of the school tax money.
That's why the social democrats orcastrated the1962 SC decission "Seperation
between Church and state" that put thousands of private and parochial
school's out of business.
>
> BTW, Stewie, what type of school did you attend?
None of your:>))
>
> >-Establishing a progressive tax to punish production and personal
> >achievement and to continually increase the tax burden on all classes.
> >
> Those who gain more from being in America should pay more. Why should
> the rich get a free ride?
Zeppy you sure are a social democrat:>))
>
> >Eventually the population will come to accept full confiscation of all
> >property and production value to be redistributed according to need.
>
> More utter bullshit.
More social democracy in action.
> >
> >What a coincidence. That's the same goals as stated in the Communist
> >Manifesto.
> >
> Which, no doubt, is where you got it, since I doubt you are bright
> enough to come up with such an elaborate smear on your own.
All me envious one:>))
ken...@shangrila.net
"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
You're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey, Ace. Nonsequitur was
talking about you.
ken...@shangrila.net
citizen wrote:
Coincidence? That's what you copied them from isn't it?
citizen
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
news:3C8B966D...@bellatlantic.net...
TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
http://www.jerseyguy.com/tenplanks.html
Our elected representatives have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom
concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST
GOVERNMENT in America.
In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political
ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that
the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society)
will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the
middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period
of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of
communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten
steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society.
Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that our
country was founded upon, have now, in 1992, been realized by the concerted
efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your
daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties!
First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents
of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary
of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to
be constitutional in 1921. Private owners of property required to get
permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally
owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being
paid into the U.S. Treasury.)
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated in-come tax. (Corporate Tax
Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act
of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied
against American citizens to this day.)
Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished
by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the
"privilege" of transferr-ing property after death and gift before death.)
Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The
confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of
government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them
in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative
or regulatory laws.)
Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of
a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal
Reserve Bank, 1913--the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks
which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)
Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and
transportation in the hands of the State.
(Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934;
Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation
Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966;
Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for
highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956);
Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate
trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of
Transportation, 1966.)
Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement
of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of
Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will
receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming
activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed
in 1936.)
Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial
armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as
federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866.
American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of
1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913.
Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926.
Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935,
stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by
eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and
time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of
1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)
Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries,
gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing
companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration
foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.")
Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with
industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly
funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money
(unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of
1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts
of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch
Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's
Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties.
Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in
education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books.
(Research source: Encyclopedia Britannica.)
Weasel Zepp
That's where he got it. He dumbed down the language to appeal to his
core constituency, and then attributed to the Democrats.
The tecnical term for that is "lying".
Steve Canyon (Ace)
the coincidence is that is exactly what the loony lefties are after.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
Lot's of you loonies run around and talk about me. I rather enjoy
being the impossible dream for you poor saps. I'm the guy you're
looking at stretched out in the hammock between the foresails when you
say, "wow, must be nice." I'm the guy your woman is looking at when
she's thinking about what a loser you are.
--Ace
citizen
That's what you do zeppy:>))
>and then attributed to the Democrats.
Correction social democrats.
>
> The tecnical term for that is "lying".
No lying is non-tecnical and simply what social democrats are doing by
calling themselve's liberal.
Exposing that lie is what I am doing.
Have another look:>))
DNC Goals:
-Heavy taxation on inheritance and eventually the abolition of inheritance
of property and businesses.
-State control and monopoly regulation of communication and transportation.
-State control of labor through the unions resulting in labor union rule of
the country.
-Universal public education mandated for all children for the purpose of
political indoctrination, abolition of private schools and home schooling.
-Establishing a progressive tax to punish production and personal
achievement and to continually increase the tax burden on all classes.
Eventually the population will come to accept full confiscation of all
property and production value to be redistributed according to need.
What a coincidence. That's the same goals as stated in the Communist
Manifesto.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
simony postelthwaite,esq.
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:36 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
><thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:10:27 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>>>>
>>>>Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>Marvelous.
>>
>>You've only yourselves to blame for "liberal" being changed to refer
>>to something slimy and evil. It was a fine word when before the
>>leftist crowd latched onto it. Many years ago a "liberal" was
>>somebody who believed in minimal government instead of "can't we find
>>some other way we can intrude into people lives?"
>
>Let's see if we've got this straight, Patty Cakes: you're saying that
>liberal was a great word before it started refering to liberals?
I think he's saying "...before it started referring to..." socialists.
simony postelthwaite,esq.
wrote:
As in lying socialist weasels?
Weasel Zepp
(simony postelthwaite,esq.) wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 07:33:53 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:36 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
>><thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:10:27 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Ted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Marvelous.
>>>
>>>You've only yourselves to blame for "liberal" being changed to refer
>>>to something slimy and evil. It was a fine word when before the
>>>leftist crowd latched onto it. Many years ago a "liberal" was
>>>somebody who believed in minimal government instead of "can't we find
>>>some other way we can intrude into people lives?"
>>
>>Let's see if we've got this straight, Patty Cakes: you're saying that
>>liberal was a great word before it started refering to liberals?
>
>I think he's saying "...before it started referring to..." socialists.
In that case, he was lying, since the vast majority of liberals are
not socialists.
Weasel Zepp
up. We got that name from Brett Kottman, a shrill Reagan defender who
would shriek "Lying Socialist Weasel!" at anyone who dast criticize
the gibber.
So we formed a club.
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:59:33 GMT, postel...@neveronsunday.sans
>(simony postelthwaite,esq.) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 07:33:53 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:36 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
>>><thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:10:27 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Marvelous.
>>>>
>>>>You've only yourselves to blame for "liberal" being changed to refer
>>>>to something slimy and evil. It was a fine word when before the
>>>>leftist crowd latched onto it. Many years ago a "liberal" was
>>>>somebody who believed in minimal government instead of "can't we find
>>>>some other way we can intrude into people lives?"
>>>
>>>Let's see if we've got this straight, Patty Cakes: you're saying that
>>>liberal was a great word before it started refering to liberals?
>>
>>I think he's saying "...before it started referring to..." socialists.
>
>In that case, he was lying, since the vast majority of liberals are
>not socialists.
Bull, you can be a democrat without being a socialist, but a modern
day liberal is nothing but a stinking socialist.
--Ace
ken...@shangrila.net
"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
> Lot's of you loonies run around and talk about me. I rather enjoy
> being the impossible dream for you poor saps. I'm the guy you're
> looking at stretched out in the hammock between the foresails when you
> say, "wow, must be nice." I'm the guy your woman is looking at when
> she's thinking about what a loser you are.
>
> --Ace
If I ever see some idiot with a hammock rigged between foresails, I won't be
thinking that, at all. But if I know it's you, I won't be surprised.
simony postelthwaite,esq.
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:59:33 GMT, postel...@neveronsunday.sans
>(simony postelthwaite,esq.) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 07:33:53 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:36 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
>>><thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:10:27 -0800, Weasel Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:00:23 -0500, Ted Clayton <clay...@cmich.edu>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Marvelous.
>>>>
>>>>You've only yourselves to blame for "liberal" being changed to refer
>>>>to something slimy and evil. It was a fine word when before the
>>>>leftist crowd latched onto it. Many years ago a "liberal" was
>>>>somebody who believed in minimal government instead of "can't we find
>>>>some other way we can intrude into people lives?"
>>>
>>>Let's see if we've got this straight, Patty Cakes: you're saying that
>>>liberal was a great word before it started refering to liberals?
>>
>>I think he's saying "...before it started referring to..." socialists.
>
>In that case, he was lying, since the vast majority of liberals are
>not socialists.
But lying socialist weasels were socialists?
Steve Canyon (Ace)
Well, we don't have to worry about you ever getting close enough to
notice. The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
empty the trash and then you don't seem to know what a foresail is
anyway.
--Ace
Ted Clayton
He's the guy I'm thinking about when I'm thinking about people who name
themselves after a cartoon character to try to look cool, and then name
themselves "Ace" in addition to try to look even cooler.
Ted
stalky
pitiably of elitism:
>... The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>empty the trash ...
so only so many can fit in a wading pool once the big rubber ducky's in
righ...@scumbag.com
nut;
"Ace" LooseCannon?
Shit, the stupit twit wouldn't be able to best even Daryl Grier.
(former Usnet foil)
------------------------------------------------------
"The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral equivalent of the Founding
Fathers of America."
-Ronald Reagan
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
>ken...@shangrila.net wrote:
I was named after my father, who was 1/8 cherokee had never heard of
comic strips when he named me, he was named after his father who
never heard of comic strips period. My mother
The nickname "ace" was added by my school buddies who thought I was
"cool" enough to wear that tag.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
..... My mother, I was going to add, who was half Comanche and 1/8
kiowa, and a master degree in teaching, had Indian nicknames for all
us kids that were even cooler...
Must be hard on you poor little swizzleheads to be so ordinary.
>The nickname "ace" was added by my school buddies who thought I was
>"cool" enough to wear that tag.
>
>
>
>
>
>--Ace
--Ace
hal
>
>Must be hard on you poor little swizzleheads to be so ordinary.
So are you always such and arrogant egotistical prick, or do you just
play one on the Internet?
>
>>The nickname "ace" was added by my school buddies who thought I was
>>"cool" enough to wear that tag.
You're a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
Hal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--Ace
>
>
>--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:13:09 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Must be hard on you poor little swizzleheads to be so ordinary.
>
>So are you always such and arrogant egotistical prick, or do you just
>play one on the Internet?
No, I'm really arrogant and egotistical. Why? Because I can. My
childhood hero was a Hunkpapa warrior name of Gall. You white boys
would call him a chief but they didn't have chiefs. My mamma used to
say I had a lot of "gall."
>>>The nickname "ace" was added by my school buddies who thought I was
>>>"cool" enough to wear that tag.
>
>You're a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
Actually, my legend is still being created.
--Ace
ken...@shangrila.net
"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
Whether I know what a foresail is or not, I normally don't unfurl mine in the
marina. No accounting for taste, though.
Weasel Zepp
You have to unfurl them so you can get the maximum listening pleasure
from your "Boze" speakers. Don't you know ANYTHING about canoes?
Weasel Zepp
It sounded like "Ace". It was actually "Asshole".
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--Ace
>>
>>
>>--Ace
nah
>>The nickname "ace" ...
it was really 'ass' but poor morton doesn't hear very well either
righ...@scumbag.com
<kurt~loc...@hatemail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:10:34 -0500, stalky wrote:
>> >
>> > routinely stupid "Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> whimpered
>> > pitiably of elitism:
>> >
>> >>... The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>> >>empty the trash ...
>> >
>> > so only so many can fit in a wading pool once the big rubber ducky's in
>>
>> "Ace" LooseCannon?
>
>aka Lotsadrones.. Just like Blowhard Scorns, back on dial-up..
Is Stevie the one we called "McDhumbline"?
Christ, no wonder his stupidity sounded familiar.
Just like the "slurper" when he "peeked in" the last couple of months.
I saved his loony sigs all these years, knowing full well that someone
who "was smarter than 99% of the rest of us" wasn't going away
forever.
(I wonder how long Mr. "Hang-up" KnicKKKlas will be gone"
>--And even Fraud Robertson peeked in..
Is he healed up now?
>
====================================================
Poor, pathetic, DIMWIT DANA, blusterers thusly:
IT PROVES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Hey ASSHOLE no one but you cares about this,
but it does show you are a hypocritical LOON.
Come on Roseasshole tell us what town you live in,
or are you to chicken to fight.
I am in Phoenix, and my number is listed,
come on chicken man, make your hat.
Bill Bonde
Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
> >
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > >
> > >righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:10:34 -0500, stalky wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > routinely stupid "Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> whimpered
> > >> > pitiably of elitism:
> > >> >
> > >> >>... The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
> > >> >>empty the trash ...
> > >> >
> > >> > so only so many can fit in a wading pool once the big rubber ducky's in
> > >>
> > >> "Ace" LooseCannon?
> > >
> > > Sleeved Crayon? John Porker, aka "Skippy", aka Rhumbaline,
> > > aka Lotsadrones.. Just like Blowhard Scorns, back on dial-up..
> >
>
Do you have a list of all these stupid made up names you use to refer to
people? Some are pretty near impossible to figure out.
> > Is Stevie the one we called "McDhumbline"?
>
> I think so.. tampabay, marina, high-voltage transmission lines..
>
HVDC transmission lines to you, Kurt.
Chris Nelson
news:o3un8ugggma7mg54i...@4ax.com...
Liar.
--
Chris
AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
Steve Canyon (Ace)
I don't either but since they both my foresails are on roller furlers
they are hoisted on the stays whether they are unfurled or not. You
need to think a little bigger, Ken, we're not talking daysailers here.
Maybe when you grow up.....
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:39:07 GMT, ken...@shangrila.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:21:39 GMT, ken...@shangrila.net wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Lot's of you loonies run around and talk about me. I rather enjoy
>>> >> being the impossible dream for you poor saps. I'm the guy you're
>>> >> looking at stretched out in the hammock between the foresails when you
>>> >> say, "wow, must be nice." I'm the guy your woman is looking at when
>>> >> she's thinking about what a loser you are.
>>> >>
>>> >> --Ace
>>> >
>>> >If I ever see some idiot with a hammock rigged between foresails, I won't be
>>> >thinking that, at all. But if I know it's you, I won't be surprised.
>>>
>>> Well, we don't have to worry about you ever getting close enough to
>>> notice. The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>>> empty the trash and then you don't seem to know what a foresail is
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> --Ace
>>
>>Whether I know what a foresail is or not, I normally don't unfurl mine in the
>>marina. No accounting for taste, though.
>
>
>You have to unfurl them so you can get the maximum listening pleasure
>from your "Boze" speakers. Don't you know ANYTHING about canoes?
>**************************************
I'd sure like to see Zepp try to settle his hulk in a canoe.... LOL
>"If Laura Bush truly wants her gown to reflect the tone of this inaugural
>she ought to shoplift it."
> -- San Francisco Chronicle 1/4/01
>Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
>
>To subscribe to Zepp's News and Commentaries, email me at ze...@snowcrest.net with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject header.
>
>For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
>
>To purchase a CD collection of Zepp's Commentary, 125 essays, go to
>http://www.snowcrest.net/form_to_order_cd.htm
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:16:48 GMT, hal wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:13:09 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Must be hard on you poor little swizzleheads to be so ordinary.
>>
>>So are you always such and arrogant egotistical prick, or do you just
>>play one on the Internet?
>>
>>>
>>>>The nickname "ace" was added by my school buddies who thought I was
>>>>"cool" enough to wear that tag.
>>
>>You're a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
>>
>>Hal
>
>It sounded like "Ace". It was actually "Asshole".
Got assholes on the mind, Tubby? Need someone to wipe yours again?
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt~loc...@hatemail.com> wrote:
>righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> >
>> >righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:10:34 -0500, stalky wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > routinely stupid "Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> whimpered
>> >> > pitiably of elitism:
>> >> >
>> >> >>... The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>> >> >>empty the trash ...
>> >> >
>> >> > so only so many can fit in a wading pool once the big rubber ducky's in
>> >>
>> >> "Ace" LooseCannon?
>> >
>> > Sleeved Crayon? John Porker, aka "Skippy", aka Rhumbaline,
>> > aka Lotsadrones.. Just like Blowhard Scorns, back on dial-up..
>>
>> Is Stevie the one we called "McDhumbline"?
>
>I think so.. tampabay, marina, high-voltage transmission lines..
Tampa bay is a real big place, Licknutz and lots of folks have a boat
and more than a few of them keep it in a marina.
Of course, you wouldn't know that, would you, truck driver. The truck
you drive is strictly local, isn't it? Ever been out of Oklahoma
City? LOL
BTW, I travel a lot when I'm in the states. I've got a lot of folks
to see before I head out again. You might want to check the headers
more often.
The fact that you're an ignorant fool when it comes to transmission
lines is a fact regardless of who you talk to, truck driver.
BTW
Still trying to figure out why DC power doesn't produce reactive
losses?
Still trying to figure out why DC transmission lines don't create
problems regarding intra-system stability?
You going to run off and hide again because you've been made to like a
fool.... again.
--Ace
ken...@shangrila.net
"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
The boy with the biggest toy wins, huh? OK, you win.
citizen
"Chris Nelson"
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it> wrote in
message news:Estj8.28003$ZR2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Got anything to back up that claim?
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?
LET THEM TAKE ARMS"
- Thomas Jefferson -US Ambassador to France.
God Bless America!
Stew-Libertarian
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor1.html
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
http://www.sas-aim.org/
Sam Barber
Actually, Kurt is a masochist so he will be back to display some more
self-flagellation.
Steve Canyon (Ace)
I won a long time ago. Now I'm just enjoying the spoils.
--Ace
Got My Mind Right, Boss!
nah
about the 'usenet useless ridiculous sockpuppet' award
>I won a long time ago. Now I'm just enjoying the spoils.
you must love the stench of dead bodies if you like bush
Steve Canyon (Ace)
You poor little baby... You're really obsessed by George W aren't
you? You can't get him off your little mind. LOL Doesn't it burn
your butt to know that he has this power over you?
--Ace
Chris Nelson
news:u8t9leg...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes. I'm a modern day liberal but not a socialist. One counterexample is all
that's needed to disporve a sweeping generalization.
The idea that liberals are socialists is a ridiculous claim. The burden of
proof is on the idiot who claims liberals are socialists to prove it.
It's part of the Big Lie technique - repeat a lie often enough and it
becomes accepted as truth. Conservatives have been doing this for years -
equating liberalism with socialism, just like they equate homosexuality with
pedophilia, atheism with immorality, or claiming that the media is liberally
biased, or that salvation can be obtained only through faith in Christ.
nah
<thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:22:27 -0500, nah wrote:
>
>>"Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>>
>>about the 'usenet useless ridiculous sockpuppet' award
>>
>>>I won a long time ago. Now I'm just enjoying the spoils.
>>
>>you must love the stench of dead bodies if you like bush
>
>... poor little baby...
is that your excuse now?
grow up and become responsible
then you'll quit supporting the lying murderer bush
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
wrote:
Maybe what you mean is that you're a democrat but not a modern day
liberal.
To me, anyone that won't be satisfied without equal outcome instead of
merely equal opportunity is a socialist.
>The idea that liberals are socialists is a ridiculous claim. The burden of
>proof is on the idiot who claims liberals are socialists to prove it.
>
>It's part of the Big Lie technique - repeat a lie often enough and it
>becomes accepted as truth. Conservatives have been doing this for years -
>equating liberalism with socialism, just like they equate homosexuality with
>pedophilia, atheism with immorality, or claiming that the media is liberally
>biased, or that salvation can be obtained only through faith in Christ.
--Ace
simony postelthwaite,esq.
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:39:07 GMT, ken...@shangrila.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:21:39 GMT, ken...@shangrila.net wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Lot's of you loonies run around and talk about me. I rather enjoy
>>> >> being the impossible dream for you poor saps. I'm the guy you're
>>> >> looking at stretched out in the hammock between the foresails when you
>>> >> say, "wow, must be nice." I'm the guy your woman is looking at when
>>> >> she's thinking about what a loser you are.
>>> >>
>>> >> --Ace
>>> >
>>> >If I ever see some idiot with a hammock rigged between foresails, I won't be
>>> >thinking that, at all. But if I know it's you, I won't be surprised.
>>>
>>> Well, we don't have to worry about you ever getting close enough to
>>> notice. The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>>> empty the trash and then you don't seem to know what a foresail is
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> --Ace
>>
>>Whether I know what a foresail is or not, I normally don't unfurl mine in the
>>marina. No accounting for taste, though.
>
>
>You have to unfurl them so you can get the maximum listening pleasure
>from your "Boze" speakers. Don't you know ANYTHING about canoes?
>**************************************
That would be "Bozo" speakers and he can unfurl you with any
watertight laptop right here on usenet, cheap.
Weasel Zepp
I didn't even know Mattel MADE a lap top.
Chris Nelson
Having lived many years in the San Francisco Bay Area, associated with
liberal students while attending university, and as one who hangs out with
liberal friends and belongs to liberal organizations, I can tell you with
absolute honesty that I have yet to meet a liberal who expressed support for
the "equal outcome" view. Yet we all subscribe to the liberal idea of equal
opportunity. We certainly do see unequal outcome as a clear symptom of
deeper problems, but I haven't met anyone who thinks that equal outcome
should be forced through laws. Liberals in general support solutions that
attack the roots of problems rather than the symptoms.
Methinks you are clinging to a strawman definition of "liberal".
Chris Holt
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:50:45 GMT, "Chris Nelson" wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>In that case, he was lying, since the vast majority of liberals are
>>>>>>not socialists.
>>>>>Bull, you can be a democrat without being a socialist, but a modern
>>>>>day liberal is nothing but a stinking socialist.
>>>>Liar.
>>>Got anything to back up that claim?
>>Yes. I'm a modern day liberal but not a socialist. One counterexample is all
>>that's needed to disporve a sweeping generalization.
> Maybe what you mean is that you're a democrat but not a modern day
> liberal.
> To me, anyone that won't be satisfied without equal outcome instead of
> merely equal opportunity is a socialist.
That's a very poor definition of 'socialist'. You could argue
that anyone who believes that the military should be accountable
to the people via the government is a socialist in that respect;
it has to do with where and how people are held responsible, not
with things like opportunities vs. outcomes. E.g. I know
socialists (most of them, in fact) who believe in equality of
opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
citizen
"Chris Nelson"
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it> wrote in
Methinks you have a revised definition you call liberal, but is actually a
definition of a socialist.
You are totally against individual rights!
A liberal is for all of the "Bill of Rights".
Can you say that you are?
lib·er·al·ism
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing
intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b
: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and
usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold
standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized :
the principles and policies of a Liberal party
This is the definition of a liberal what you are is a social democrat.
Chris Nelson
I am? That's news to me!
> A liberal is for all of the "Bill of Rights".
Yup.
> Can you say that you are?
As Ned Flanders might say, "Yes indeedley-doodley". Unlike the
conservatives, who want to tear down the separation of chruch and state, and
curtail free speech.
r_c_brown
Correct. Sweeping generalization is a poor method of argument.
>
> The idea that liberals are socialists is a ridiculous claim. The burden of
> proof is on the idiot who claims liberals are socialists to prove it.
>
> It's part of the Big Lie technique - repeat a lie often enough and it
> becomes accepted as truth. Conservatives have been doing this for years -
> equating liberalism with socialism, just like they equate homosexuality with
> pedophilia, atheism with immorality, or claiming that the media is liberally
> biased, or that salvation can be obtained only through faith in Christ.
These are sweeping generalizations re what conservatives do. Why did you do that?
citizen
"Chris Nelson"
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it> wrote in
So you stand for all of the BOR?
>
> > A liberal is for all of the "Bill of Rights".
Only a true liberal agrees with this simple reading!
The Second Amendment and Fifth Grade Grammar
Any competent high school English student should be able to parse the Second
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and understand it with
clarity.
Firstly, it is over punctuated. There are two extraneous commas, and certain
nouns are capitalized in the writing style of the time. The punctuation does
not change the meaning of the sentence.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia" is a nominative absolute.
"..being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase
modifying "Militia".
The subject of the sentence is "the right of the people". The prepositional
phrase "of the people" modifies "right".
"..to keep and bear Arms" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right".
"..shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb
modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed".
This right is a declaration of the right of the people considered as
individuals. It is established as unalienable and consequently, no majority
has the authority to deprive them of it.
There is no other meaning.
A social democrat is brainwashed into thinking that only a scholar or the
SC can read the meaning of the "Second Amendment"!
>
> Yup.
>
> > Can you say that you are?
>
> As Ned Flanders might say, "Yes indeedley-doodley". Unlike the
> conservatives, who want to tear down the separation of chruch and state,
The Department of Education is un-constitutional and was force upon the
public by the "separation of chruch and state"!
and
> curtail free speech.
Where?
Steve Canyon (Ace)
I don't remember supporting him at all, you poor sad thing. It's only
because you're so bewildered, irrational and paranoid. Aren't those
meds helping you with that stuff anymore?
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
wrote:
You all say that you don't but when push comes to shove that's where
you stand.
> Yet we all subscribe to the liberal idea of equal
>opportunity. We certainly do see unequal outcome as a clear symptom of
>deeper problems, but I haven't met anyone who thinks that equal outcome
>should be forced through laws. Liberals in general support solutions that
>attack the roots of problems rather than the symptoms.
Sure <wink wink> like the something-for-nothing welfare programs that
create new dependencies to trap potential voters into.
>Methinks you are clinging to a strawman definition of "liberal".
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
Socialists either don't know or pretend to not know the difference...
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
Zepp's still looking for a keyboard that won't lock up when he drops a
few french fries into it.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt~loc...@hatemail.com> wrote:
>"Steve Canyon (Ace)" wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> >
>> > righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:10:34 -0500, stalky wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > routinely stupid "Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> whimpered
>> > > >> > pitiably of elitism:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >>... The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>> > > >> >>empty the trash ...
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > so only so many can fit in a wading pool once the big rubber ducky's in
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "Ace" LooseCannon?
>> > > >
>> > > > Sleeved Crayon? John Porker, aka "Skippy", aka Rhumbaline,
>> > > > aka Lotsadrones.. Just like Blowhard Scorns, back on dial-up..
>> > >
>> > > Is Stevie the one we called "McDhumbline"?
>> >
>> > I think so.. tampabay, marina, high-voltage transmission lines..
>> >
>> > > Christ, no wonder his stupidity sounded familiar.
>> >
>> > Yup, same microcephalic behavior..
>> >
>>
>>Tampa bay is a real big place,
>
>No kidding? So is Chicago..
>
>>Of course, you wouldn't know that, would you, [..]
>
>What's that again, slip-sailor?
>
>>[..] Ever been out of Oklahoma City?
>
>Yup.
>
>>BTW, I travel a lot when I'm in the states.
>
>Yeah, we already know travel between Chicago and Tampa, Porky..
Actually, neither Tampa or Chicago...
I travel between Illinois (not chicago) where my brother lives, New
York (state) where both my sisters live, Atlanta where my Business is
still running, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Colorado where my kids
live, and Montana where my folks, several aunts, uncles, cousins (etc)
live. My boat isn't in a slip at the moment, she's up on sticks
(boater term) getting a new rudder and some other minor repairs and
waiting for me to put together a little crew for some new adventures.
>>The fact that you're an ignorant fool when it comes to transmission
>>lines is a fact[..]
>
>Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>inductive losses regarding your static example?
<chuckle> DC transmission voltage is always static you moron. I see
you still haven't figured it out and have to resort to a really silly
attempt at bluffing your way through..
>Here's a clue, Porky,
6'2 185 lbs, you stupid truckdriver. 34 inch waist, 44 in chest, 17
inch neck, 5 lbs less than when I played college basketball and that
accounts for the fact that my artificial leg is lighter than the one
it replaces.
>real transmission lines, including EHV-DC lines have losses. That
Not reactive losses, dumbass. Know why? No you don't LOL
>you're
>still stinging from that time I schooled your dumbass about phase is
>testimony to just how little you know about anything..
You did what? You're not only stupider than a sack of potatoes,
you've lost your grasp on reality, truckdriver
>You do know what those capacitors up there on the poles are for now, eh?
Capacitors on DC lines? Hahahahahaha, you are a moron. Do you have
any idea what do when you hit them with a steady DC voltage? ...
... NOTHING. that's what. You're not even smart enough for a truck
driver.
>>Still trying to figure out why DC power doesn't produce reactive losses?
>
>In the static, textbook sense? Nope, already knew that, Porky..
LOL, sorry, your bluff doesn't work....
Here's a clue, Moron. Just look up what reactive is and maybe in the
explanation you'll be able to fathom why it doesn't happen with DC
>Now, tell us about those losses when the current is travelling
>through 450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving them
>around..
Hahahahahaha, the wind is moving them around? ....and that makes
reactive losses? What an idiot.... Here's what happens concerning
reactive losses... NOTHING! LOL
Here's what's going on here for folks that may not understand...
Lochner has finally gotten someone to explain to him that reactive
losses occur on AC transmission lines because of the moving magnetic
field generated by the rising and falling in the voltage and moving
through the conductor. A current is generated when you pass a
conductor through a magnetic field or when you pass a magnetic field
through a conductor. So now, desperately trying to backpeddle his way
back, he's claiming that DC lines can generate reactive losses by the
movement of the actual conductors.
There's several flies in his ointment, all of which proves again and
again that this fool who claims to have an education in physics
doesn't even have a clue how electricity works.
First of all the lines of magnetic force around each conductor remain
consistent with respect to it's conductor no matter how much the
conductor moves around so no current is generated in the conductor
from it's own magnetic field.
Secondly, anytime one conductor came close enough to be affected by
the lines of force of other conductor, you'd have an arc across them
and that would stop everything.
Thirdly, (and this makes lockner's bluff even more hilarious) even if
one conductor did move through the magnetic field of the other without
arcing across, the current generated would not be truly reactive in
it's nature because reactive losses are when the AC voltage cycle
leads or lags the current cycle and since DC power doesn't have
cycles, reactive losses cannot occur on DC transmission lines....
ever. LOL
>Tell us which equation(s) you'd use, too..
To compute reactive losses in a DC line? Hahahahahaha
>>You going to run off and hide again [..]
>
>You mean I have to kill-file your sloppy thinking?
>
>--Not this time, Crayon. I'm not going to let you off easy this time..
You snipped out the question about why DC power lines get around the
system stability concerns that AC has. That have you stumped too,
truck driver?
Better run and hide, Truckdriver. You're claim to have studied
physics has been blown away in your ridiculous "wind" claim.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
wrote:
Sure you are. you've got an alternative set of rights like "the right
to force other to feed you....."
>> A liberal is for all of the "Bill of Rights".
>
>Yup.
>
>> Can you say that you are?
>
>As Ned Flanders might say, "Yes indeedley-doodley". Unlike the
>conservatives, who want to tear down the separation of chruch and state, and
>curtail free speech.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt~loc...@hatemail.com> wrote:
>Shrill Blonde <std...@mail.com> pouted out loud when:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> >
>> > righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:10:34 -0500, stalky wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > routinely stupid "Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> whimpered
>> > > >> > pitiably of elitism:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >>... The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>> > > >> >>empty the trash ...
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > so only so many can fit in a wading pool once the big rubber ducky's in
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "Ace" LooseCannon?
>> > > >
>> > > > Sleeved Crayon? John Porker, aka "Skippy", aka Rhumbaline,
>> > > > aka Lotsadrones.. Just like Blowhard Scorns, back on dial-up..
>>
>>Do you have a list of all these stupid made up names [..]
>
>Uh, no, Shrill Bonehead. Those are names I made up to spoof
>such intentionally ignorant right-wing <l>users, such as yourself..
>
>John Parker has been known to post as "Skipper", "Rhumbline" and
>"Loxodrome", in case you couldn't figure out how to use Google
>to search the prior Deja News archives..
>
>Need me to look that up for you also?
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22%3Crhumbline%40tds.net%3E%22&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=author:rhumbline%40yachtingmail.net+
>
>> > > Is Stevie the one we called "McDhumbline"?
>> >
>> > I think so.. tampabay, marina, high-voltage transmission lines..
>>
>>HVDC transmission lines to you[..]
>
>Uh, no, it's referred to as "Extremely High Voltage, Direct Current"
>(EHV-DC) in nearly all of the 'cites' you've posted so far, Bonehead..
>
>--You really should try and lie less, so you don't get get caught so often, Bonehead..
So says a guy that hasn't yet figured out that reactive losses can't
possibly occur on DC lines and tries to bluff his way through with
some totally bizarre nonsense about wind plowing the lines around.
LOL
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt~loc...@hatemail.com> wrote:
>"Sleeved Crayon" whimpered for still more attention from:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner was laughing at the primate posturings from:
>> >
>> >"Sleeved Crayon" whined when:
>> > >
>> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >righ...@scumbag.com wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:10:34 -0500, stalky wrote:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > routinely stupid "Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> whimpered
>> > > > > >> > pitiably of elitism:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >>... The marina I'm in doesn't allow folks like you in except to
>> > > > > >> >>empty the trash ...
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > so only so many can fit in a wading pool once the big rubber ducky's in
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> "Ace" LooseCannon?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sleeved Crayon? John Porker, aka "Skippy", aka Rhumbaline,
>> > > > > > aka Lotsadrones.. Just like Blowhard Scorns, back on dial-up..
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is Stevie the one we called "McDhumbline"?
>> > > >
>> > > > I think so.. tampabay, marina, high-voltage transmission lines..
>> > > >
>> > > > > Christ, no wonder his stupidity sounded familiar.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yup, same microcephalic behavior..
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >Tampa bay is a real big place,
>> >
>> > No kidding? So is Chicago..
>> >
>> > >Of course, you wouldn't know that, would you, [..]
>> >
>> > What's that again, slip-sailor?
>> >
>> > >[..] Ever been out of Oklahoma City?
>> >
>> > Yup.
>> >
>> > >BTW, I travel a lot when I'm in the states.
>> >
>> > Yeah, we already know [you] travel between Chicago and Tampa, Porky..
>
>>Actually, neither Tampa or Chicago...
>
>You've posted from Tampa Bay and now Illinois, Porky..
And Tampa Bay is not necessarily Tampa and Illinois is not necessarily
Chicago, Halfwit. The only time I'm in either Tampa or Chicago is to
change planes. I don't like big cities much.
>Are the nits fresh today?
>
>>I travel between Illinois[..], New York (state) [..], Atlanta [..]
>
>Thanks for telling on yourself, Crayon..
???????
>>My boat isn't in a slip at the moment, she's up on sticks
>>[..] getting a new rudder and some other minor repairs [..]
>
>I knew you weren't much of a sailor.. <LOL!>
As if you knew anything about sailing....
I Brought her all the way from the Philippines with only me and
totally inexperienced girlfriend aboard. Before that did a
circumnavigation with two friends. Rudder damage on my boat due to
manufacturing flaw.
>> > >The fact that you're an ignorant fool when it comes to transmission
>> > >lines is a fact[..]
>> >
>> > Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>> > inductive losses regarding your static example? Here's a clue, Porky,
>>
>>6'2 185 lbs, [Mr. Lochner].
>
>6'7", 200 lbs here, you pompously posturing primate..
I'd bet that you were more like 5'6" and 300 lbs given the insecurity
and inferiority you demonstrate by pretending to be something you
aren't.
>>34 inch waist, 44 in chest, 17 inch neck, [..]
>
>Think you act "big" enough to hide behind you pathetic epithets, Crayon?
>
><LOL!> I noticed you tried to dodge the following, Crayon..
>
>> > Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>> > inductive losses regarding your static example? Here's a clue, Porky,
>> > real transmission lines, including EHV-DC lines have losses. That
>> > you're still stinging from that time I schooled your dumbass about
>> > phase is testimony to just how little you know about anything..
>>
>>[..] DC transmission voltage is always static [..]
>
>Not in a dynamic situation like overhead transmission lines..
Uhmmm yeah, dumbass, DC voltage is always static. That's why they
call it "DC."
>>Not reactive losses, dumbass. Know why? [..]
>
>And you think there aren't some reactive losses, hunh?
That's right dimwit. There are none! Can't happen.
>Ever figure out why EHV-DC transmission lines aren't cost
>effective until you've reached a distance of 450 km?
Have to justify cost of the terminals truck driver, but of course the
other advantages of DC might create a situation where DC line would be
preferable. That would be the lack of reactive losses and the need
for a non synchronous connection. Stuff you haven't even begun to
figure out yet.
>Here's another clue, Porky, it's called line transients..
>That's why the Siemens was let a contract to replace those
>mercury vapor switching devices in the inverters, and don't
>try and call them 'converters' in front of me, dumbass..
Line transients aren't reactive losses truck driver. Not even close.
Aren't you embarrassed to let everyone see what a fool you are?
Reactive losses are unique to AC power.
>I've worked on that equipment before..
Bullshit, asshole. DC power has no reactive losses. You aren't
qualified to plug in a toaster. LOL
>Check it out sometime before you go exposing your prideful ignorance again..
>
>>I see you still haven't figured it out [..]
>
>Oh, I've figured your experience with the 'real-world' to be virtually nil..
>
>You looked some minor web-pages up about EHV-DC transmission lines
>and neglected the real-world effects of transmission line analysis
>that didn't fit neatly into your personal attacks upon my character..
Hahahaha, "the real world effects of transmission line analysis?"
that's gobbledygook from an idiot that says absolutely nothing...
Oh yeah, you have no character to attack, Trucky, if you did you
wouldn't need to pretend to know things you obviously don't.
>> > You do know what those capacitors up there on the poles are for now, eh?
>>
>>Capacitors on DC lines?
>
>Nope, three phase AC lines, Crayon.. Guess you missed that reference..
Hahahaha, You made no reference to AC lines there, truck driver. You
actually thought that there were capacitors on DC lines, and the funny
thing is that capacitors don't have any function on DC for the same
reason that DC doesn't have reactive losses. But then since
capacitors are used to offset inductive reactive losses, truck driver,
so why aren't they on DC lines? Bet you don't know that either.
BTW, Did you hurt yourself with that pathetic attempt at backtracking
there, truck driver?
>> > >Still trying to figure out why DC power doesn't produce reactive losses?
>> >
>> > In the static, textbook sense? Nope, already knew that, Porky..
>>
>>LOL, sorry, your bluff doesn't work....
>
>It's not a bluff, Crayon. It's just you trying to dodge answering..
You were just trying to dodge answering, huh? Nice of you to admit it
but everyone knew anyway.
>>Here's a clue, [Mr. Lochner]. Just look up what reactive is [..]
It's pathetic the way you think you can dredge up some respect by
calling yourself "Mr. Lochner." Your fantasy world probably has a lot
to do with people calling you something other than "hey stupid."
>Uh, Crayon.. If you think that there aren't line transients upon
>a long wire that produce RLC reactance-losses, you're sorely mistaken..
Nope. Not a chance since reactive losses are when the voltage cycle
and current cycle are offset and since DC power has no cycles you're
an idiot.
>Been there, done that, laughed at your pompous posturings too..
I only look pompous to you because your such a nobody.
>> > Now, tell us about those losses when the current is travelling
>> > through 450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving them
>> > around..
>>
>>[..]. the wind is moving them around? ....and that makes
>>reactive losses? [..]
I'm still laughing at your "wind" example truck driver. It's funny
watching a dummy like you pretend to know something when it's obvious
that you don't have a clue.
>Oh, you're depending on symmetry to cancel out the field again.
No you silly dumbass. I'm depending on the fact that the voltage
cycle can't lead or lag the current cycle on a dc line because there
are no cycles. It's the most elementary fact there is about reactive
losses, you half witted fool
>That neglects the resistance of the wires, the dielectric variations
>between these wires, the couplings between these hypothetical wires,
>not to mention the means these wires are attached to the towers..
Hahahaha, so how does all that cause the voltage to lead or lag the
current? That's what reactive losses are, truck driver.
>Yeah right, "no reactive losses", at least according to several
>equations I can recall from E&M I/II, as well as Engineering Physics..
You recall? You've obviously never been in the same room with an
engineering physics book.
>> > Tell us which equation(s) you'd use, too..
>>
>>To compute reactive losses in a DC line? [..]
>
>Nope, to show that those losses hypothetically go to zero, Crayon..
Here's a little test for you truck driver, that is if you know what a
sine wave is....
Draw a 360 degree sine wave on a piece of paper and label it
"current.". Now draw another identical 360 degree sine wave over the
top of the first but starting an inch to the right and label it
"voltage," Now draw another horizontal line from where the two waves
cross to just below where the second wave reached it's peak value.
The distance from that horizontal line upwards to the second wave's
peak value is a measurement of reactive loss on an AC line.
Now you do the same thing for a DC line.
Are you having some trouble drawing a sine wave for the voltage and
current on a DC line, l truck driver?
>>Need me to post that Biot-Savart law again for you?
>
>> > >You going to run off and hide again [..]
>> >
>> > You mean I have to kill-file your sloppy thinking?
>> >
>> > --Not this time, Crayon. I'm not going to let you off easy this time..
>>
>>You snipped out the question about why DC power lines get around the
>>system stability concerns that AC has.
>
>Nope,
Yep, you have no idea what system stability means which is no surprise
since you don't even know what reactive is.
>I posted the equation that shows how the DC generated magnetic
>field cancels out, but it doesn't consider real-world situations
>where the power transmission is in a dynamic scenario and not a
>'convenient' hypothetical conjecture from a web-page or text book..
>
>>That have you stumped too, [Mr. Lochner]?
>
>Nope, having worked around such inverters for years, I know what
>at least some of the "gotcha's" and glitches are caused by, Crayon..
Perhaps cleaning and painting them after somebody safely de-energised
them and roped of the places you were told to stay away from..
SO WHY CAN'T YOU TALK ABOUT INTRA-SYSTEM STABILITY, trucky?
Don't know what it means?
Is that why?
>>Better run and hide, [Mr. Lochner].
>
><LOL!> Take your own advice this time, you're out-classed and
>about to make a fool of yourself yet again, Crayon..
Which is why you snipped out all the stuff I wrote that bewildered you
so badly?
>>You're claim to have studied physics [..]
...is as bogus as a twelve dollar bill.
>Try stringing together coherent sentences, Crayon..
Spelling flames? getting desperate? LOL
>--Otherwise your indignant ranting will be ignored for the sloppy thinking it truely is..
Run and hide now trucky....
Here's the stuff you snipped... I know it's over your head... Try
having someone read it you before you embarrass yourself again...
Here's what's going on here for folks that may not understand...
That included Lochner... LOL
Lochner has finally gotten someone to explain to him that reactive
losses occur on AC transmission lines because of the moving magnetic
field generated by the rising and falling in the voltage and moving
through the conductor. A current is generated when you pass a
conductor through a magnetic field or when you pass a magnetic field
through a conductor. So now, desperately trying to backpeddle his way
back, he's claiming that DC lines can generate reactive losses by the
movement of the actual conductors.
There's several flies in his ointment, all of which proves again and
again that this fool who claims to have an education in physics
doesn't even have a clue how electricity works.
First of all the lines of magnetic force around each conductor remain
consistent with respect to it's conductor no matter how much the
conductor moves around so no current is generated in the conductor
from it's own magnetic field.
Secondly, anytime one conductor came close enough to be affected by
the lines of force of other conductor, you'd have an arc across them
and that would stop everything.
Thirdly, (and this makes lochner's bluff even more hilarious) even if
one conductor did move through the magnetic field of the other without
arcing across, the current generated would not be truly reactive in
it's nature because reactive losses are when the AC voltage cycle
leads or lags the current cycle and since DC power doesn't have
cycles, reactive losses cannot occur on DC transmission lines....
ever. LOL
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
I take it that he's mad an ass of himself before? He's got some sort
of a inferiority problem and thinks he can pretend to know things that
he doesn't. He's not bright enough to figure out that knowledge is
one thing that you can't fake.
--Ace
nah
>nah wrote:
>>Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>>>nah wrote:
>>>>"Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
>>>>about the 'usenet useless ridiculous sockpuppet' award
>>>>
>>>>>I won a long time ago. Now I'm just enjoying the spoils.
>>>>
>>>>you must love the stench of dead bodies if you like bush
>>>
>>>... poor little baby...
>>
>>is that your excuse now?
>>
>>grow up and become responsible
>>
>>then you'll quit supporting the lying murderer bush
>
>
>I don't remember supporting him at all, ...
when have you done otherwise?
Sam Barber
<thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote:
Repeatedly.
>He's got some sort
>of a inferiority problem and thinks he can pretend to know things that
>he doesn't.
Exactly. He's pretended to know that there is evidence of Bush
wrongdoing in the Enron affair since mid-January that will lead to
Bush's impeachment in April, yet when asked what that evidence is, he
has none to present and gets upset that one would dare ask him.
>He's not bright enough to figure out that knowledge is
>one thing that you can't fake.
He has no idea what logical and critical reasoning means.
>
>--Ace
---
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
- and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
Chris Nelson
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:28:38 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
> <cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
> wrote:
>
> >"citizen" <st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:u8vb4hd...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >I am? That's news to me!
>
> Sure you are. you've got an alternative set of rights like "the right
> to force other to feed you....."
???
You are one confused individual.
Chris Holt
There are idiots who are socialists, of course; and they may fit
the category you're talking about. But there are also idiots who
are liberals, idiots who are conservatives, idiots who are right
wing, idiots who are libertarians... To categorize any set of
political beliefs on the basis of the idiots, rather than the
substantial arguments behind them, is an act of laziness; it's
a way of saying "I can't be bothered to deal with real concerns."
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt~loc...@hatemail.com> wrote:
>"Sleeved Crayon (Ass)" wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner was laughing at the inane remarks of:
>>
>> >Shrill Bonehead <std...@mail.com> pouted out loud when:
>>possibly occur on DC lines [..]
>
>I noticed you can't state a single equation, Crayon.. <LOL!>
There's no equation for reactance on a DC line you ignorant ass and
all the bluster in the world about equations isn't going to change
that fact.
>You know what happens when you first turn on the current, Crayon?
ROTFLOL, I've been waiting for that one.
Consider this, gentle lurkers....
Lochner's education on this issue is a bit slower than I expected but
then he never was very bright. Now he's finally figured out (only
with my help) that reactance can only occur when the current is
changing, and he's come this far in only two or three weeks, even
though it's all over the internet that reactance is strictly an AC
phenomenon.
I see he's abandoned his fuzzy "static" argument and forgotten his
"wind blows the conductor around" argument.
So now he's going to claim that there's reactive losses when the
current first flows. He's obviously grasping at any straw he can get
his fingers around and this one is as ridiculous as the rest.
So let's see, 60 hertz AC power goes from to zero and back 120 times a
second and that produces the inductive reactance. while the current in
a DC go from zero to steady flow only when you first energize it,
maybe once every few months or so....
>--And it's not 'static' electricity, either, Crayon.. <LOL!>
You figured that out, huh? Remarkable... Maybe you're ready for an
eighth grade science class now, trucky.
Still no response to my question about intra-system stability, I see.
I little too deep for you I suppose.
LOL
Forgive me, but I love it so....
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
OK semen breath, lets see you prove it.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt~loc...@hatemail.com> wrote:
>"Sleeved Crayon (Ass)" whimpered for more attention from:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner was amused at the histrionics posted by:
>>And Tampa Bay is not necessarily Tampa and Illinois is not[..]
>
>yada-yada-yada..
>
>> > Are the nits fresh today?
>> >
>> >>I travel between Illinois[..], New York (state) [..], Atlanta [..]
>> >
>> > Thanks for telling on yourself, Crayon..
>>
>>???????
>
>I already knew you were clueless..
>
>> >>My boat isn't in a slip at the moment, she's up on sticks
>> >>[..] getting a new rudder and some other minor repairs [..]
>> >
>> > I knew you weren't much of a sailor.. <LOL!>
>>
>>As if you knew anything about sailing....
>
><LOL!> Same John Parker barkin'.. *>yawn!<*
Son now I'm John Parker? That's about the third person I became this
week.
>>[..] Rudder damage on my boat due to manufacturing flaw.
>
>Sure it is..
>
>> >> > >The fact that you're an ignorant fool when it comes to transmission
>> >> > >lines is a fact[..]
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>> >> > inductive losses regarding your static example? Here's a clue, Porky,
>> >>
>> >>6'2 185 lbs, [Mr. Lochner].
>> >
>> > 6'7", 200 lbs here, you pompously posturing primate..
>>
>>I'd bet that you were more like 5'6" and 300 lbs [..]
>
>And you'd lose..
>
>> >>34 inch waist, 44 in chest, 17 inch neck, [..]
>> >
>> > Think you act "big" enough to hide behind you pathetic epithets, Crayon?
>> >
>> > <LOL!> I noticed you tried to dodge the following, Crayon..
>> >
>> >> > Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>> >> > inductive losses regarding your static example? Here's a clue, Porky,
>> >> > real transmission lines, including EHV-DC lines have losses. That
>> >> > you're still stinging from that time I schooled your dumbass about
>> >> > phase is testimony to just how little you know about anything..
Dodge what, trucky. Of course DC lines have losses, just not reactive
losses, you ignorant ass.
>> >>[..] DC transmission voltage is always static [..]
>> >
>> > Not in a dynamic situation like overhead transmission lines..
>>
>>Uhmmm yeah, dumbass, DC voltage is always static. [..]
>
>Uh, no, EHV-DC isn't "static" electricity, Crayon..
>
>> >>Not reactive losses, dumbass. Know why? [..]
>> >
>> > And you think there aren't some reactive losses, hunh?
>>
>>That's right [Mr. Lochner] [..]
>
>You are completely incorrect in your simple-minded guesses..
<chuckle> You going to try to toss out that claim about the wind
blowing the conductors around again, trucky?
>> > Ever figure out why EHV-DC transmission lines aren't cost
>> > effective until you've reached a distance of 450 km?
>>
>>Have to justify cost of the terminals [Mr. Lochner],
>
>You meant the 'converters', Crayon? <LOL!> Wrong again..
No I mean the terminals which consist of more than the converters,
trucky.
>> > Here's another clue, Porky, it's called line transients..
>> > That's why the Siemens was let a contract to replace those
>> > mercury vapor switching devices in the inverters, and don't
>> > try and call them 'converters' in front of me, dumbass..
>>
>>Line transients aren't reactive losses [Mr. Lochner].
>
>They can cause such. Where's the equations you were going to
>back up you simple-minded guesswork with, Crayon?
It takes no equations to back up my claim that reactive losses don't
occur on DC line, trucky-child. Reactance is a function of changes in
the current that retards said change in the current cycles causing it
to lag the voltage cycles. DC doesn't have those cycles, trucky, LOL.
that's why they call it DC.
>> > I've worked on that equipment before..
>>
>>Bullshit, [Mr. Lochner]
>
>Nope, been there, done that, embarrassed the shit outta you with it too..
Notice how trucky lochner is all talk and no proof?
>> > Check it out sometime before you go exposing your prideful ignorance again..
>> >
>> >>I see you still haven't figured it out [..]
>> >
>> > Oh, I've figured your experience with the 'real-world' to be virtually nil..
>> >
>> > You looked some minor web-pages up about EHV-DC transmission lines
>> > and neglected the real-world effects of transmission line analysis
>> > that didn't fit neatly into your personal attacks upon my character..
>>
>>[..], "the real world effects of transmission line analysis?"
>
>Look it up sometime, when you've pulled your head out..
>
>>Oh yeah, you have no character to attack,[..]
>
>Backed yourself into another corner, Crayon? <LOL!>
>
>> >> > You do know what those capacitors up there on the poles are for now, eh?
>> >>
>> >>Capacitors on DC lines?
>> >
>> > Nope, three phase AC lines, Crayon.. Guess you missed that reference..
>>
>>[..] You made no reference to AC lines there, [..]
>
>Sure did, you must've missed, what with you trying to alter the content
>and context of my messages, Crayon..
LOL, no trucky, we're talking about DC and you thought there were
capacitors on DC lines.
>> >> > >Still trying to figure out why DC power doesn't produce reactive losses?
>> >> >
>> >> > In the static, textbook sense? Nope, already knew that, Porky..
>> >>
>> >>LOL, sorry, your bluff doesn't work....
>> >
>> > It's not a bluff, Crayon. It's just you trying to dodge answering..
>>
>>You were just trying to dodge answering,[..]
>
>Nope, just pointing out your evasions again, Crayon..
>
>> > Uh, Crayon.. If you think that there aren't line transients upon
>> > a long wire that produce RLC reactance-losses, you're sorely mistaken..
>>
>>Nope. Not a chance since reactive losses [..]
>
>Thank you for demonstrating how little you know about electricity, Crayon..
Backed into his usual place in the corner, trucky lochner resorts to
snipping and hiding LOL
>> > Been there, done that, laughed at your pompous posturings too..
>>
>>I only look pompous to you because [..]
>
>*>yawn!<* Another lame personal attack.. Backed into a corner again, Crayon?
>
>> >> > Now, tell us about those losses when the current is travelling
>> >> > through 450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving them
>> >> > around..
>> >>
>> >>[..]. the wind is moving them around? ....and that makes
>> >>reactive losses? [..]
>> >
>> > Oh, you're depending on symmetry to cancel out the field again.
>> >
>> > That neglects the resistance of the wires, the dielectric variations
>> > between these wires, the couplings between these hypothetical wires,
>> > not to mention the means these wires are attached to the towers..
>
>>[..], so how does all that cause the voltage to lead or lag [..]
>
>Long wires have inductance, Porky.. Check it out sometime..
Try and prove it, trucky.
LOL, Inductance happens when you pass a conductor through a field,
trucky, explain how that happens on a line, long or otherwise.
>> > Yeah right, "no reactive losses", at least according to several
>> > equations I can recall from E&M I/II, as well as Engineering Physics..
>>
>>You recall?
>
>Yup, got the textbooks right here..
>
>> >> > Tell us which equation(s) you'd use, too..
>> >>
>> >>To compute reactive losses in a DC line? [..]
>> >
>> > Nope, to show that those losses hypothetically go to zero, Crayon..
LOL, show how they are ever NOT zero, trucky.
>>Here's a little test for you [..]
>
>No equations, I see.. And you expect me, a degreed engineering
>physicist, to accept your inadequate over-simplifications as
>somehow more important than my own professional experiences?
There are no equations for stuff that exists only in the minds of
truck drivers with personality defects.
Reactive losses does not occur in direct current, trucky, even when
the wind blows. LOL
So why don't you provide an equation for reactive losses in a DC line?
Back it up with cites that specify that it's for DC.
Get back when you get that little task done?
>I'll make you deal, you stop with your mawkish twaddle and
>attacks, and I'll put you back into my kill-files..
Are your getting tired of being embarrassed, trucky?
>Otherwise, you're going to get scorched again and again
>with the twaddle you write back to me.. <LOL!>
>
>> >>Need me to post that Biot-Savart law again for you?
Off on another subject changing expedition, trucky?
You need to do something. Your bluster is wearing thin.
>> >> > >You going to run off and hide again [..]
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean I have to kill-file your sloppy thinking?
>> >> >
>> >> > --Not this time, Crayon. I'm not going to let you off easy this time..
>> >>
>> >>You snipped out the question about why DC power lines get around the
>> >>system stability concerns that AC has.
>> >
>> > Nope, I posted the equation that shows how the DC generated magnetic
>> > field cancels out, but it doesn't consider real-world situations
>> > where the power transmission is in a dynamic scenario and not a
>> > 'convenient' hypothetical conjecture from a web-page or text book..
>> >
>> >>That have you stumped too, [Mr. Lochner]?
>> >
>> > Nope, having worked around such inverters for years, I know what
>> > at least some of the "gotcha's" and glitches are caused by, Crayon..
>>
>>Perhaps cleaning and painting them[..]
>
>Still backed into the corner, with your immature attacks, Porker?
>
>>SO WHY CAN'T YOU TALK ABOUT INTRA-SYSTEM STABILITY,[..]
>
>So why can't you stop with your immature attacks and emotional
>appeals to fallacious pseudo-logic, Porker?
SO WHY CAN'T YOU TALK ABOUT INTRA-SYSTEM STABILITY, Trucky?
>> >>Better run and hide, [Mr. Lochner].
>> >
>> > <LOL!> Take your own advice this time, you're out-classed and
>> > about to make a fool of yourself yet again, Crayon..
>>
>>Which is why you snipped out[..]
>
>All of your immature remarks and over-simplified twaddle, yes..
>
>> >>You're claim to have studied physics [..]
>> >
>> > Try stringing together coherent sentences, Crayon..
>>
>>Spelling flames? [..]
>
>Nope, your lack of grammar is making you sound confused..
>>
>> > --Otherwise your indignant ranting will be ignored for the sloppy thinking it truely is..
>>
>>Run and hide n[..]
>
>--What's the matter Porker? Got caught in another lie?
citizen
"Chris Nelson"
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it> wrote in
> "citizen" <st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
If your brainwashing can not let you read the "Second Amendment", like any
fifth grade grammar student can, you are just a social democrat.
Well see you are not a liberal after all:>))
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
wrote:
>"Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote in message
>news:vvvv8uspkpm335ocl...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:28:38 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
>> <cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"citizen" <st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:u8vb4hd...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> You are totally against individual rights!
>> >
>> >I am? That's news to me!
>>
>> Sure you are. you've got an alternative set of rights like "the right
>> to force other to feed you....."
>
>???
>
>You are one confused individual.
I'm not confused. Your agenda says people have a "right" to be taken
care of. For that to be true means that someone else must be forced
to provide that care.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
wrote:
I deal quite nicely with socialist's real concerns. First of all
they're cowards looking to leech off the productivity of others. My
concern is to see that it doesn't happen.
--Ace
citizen
"Chris Holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C9103A0...@ncl.ac.uk...
> Steve Canyon (Ace) wrote:
> > Chris Holt <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>Steve Canyon (Ace) wrote:
>
> >>>To me, anyone that won't be satisfied without equal outcome instead of
> >>>merely equal opportunity is a socialist.
>
> >>That's a very poor definition of 'socialist'. You could argue
> >>that anyone who believes that the military should be accountable
> >>to the people via the government is a socialist in that respect;
> >>it has to do with where and how people are held responsible, not
> >>with things like opportunities vs. outcomes. E.g. I know
> >>socialists (most of them, in fact) who believe in equality of
> >>opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
>
> > Socialists either don't know or pretend to not know the difference...
>
> There are idiots who are socialists, of course; and they may fit
> the category you're talking about. But there are also idiots who
> are liberals, idiots who are conservatives, idiots who are right
> wing, idiots who are libertarians...
And idiots who are Brits.
To categorize any set of
> political beliefs on the basis of the idiots, rather than the
> substantial arguments behind them, is an act of laziness; it's
> a way of saying "I can't be bothered to deal with real concerns."
>
The issue here is in America liberals who call themselves liberal are not
liberal they are socialists, unless you want to murder the definition of
what a liberal is.
The closest to the definition of a liberal in the USA is a libertarian.
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>"Sleeved Crayon (Ass)" was again scorched by:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner was laughing hysterically about how:
>> >
>> >"Sleeved Crayon (Ass)" wrote:
>[...]
>> > >So says a guy that hasn't yet figured out that reactive losses can't
>> > >possibly occur on DC lines [..]
>> >
>> > I noticed you can't state a single equation, Crayon.. <LOL!>
>>
>>There's no equation for reactance on a DC line[..]
>
>It's called Lenz's Law, you ignorant fool.. Here, read about it..
>
>http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indtra.html
>
>Inductor Transient
>
> When a battery is connected to a series resistor and
> inductor, the inductor resists the change in current and
> the current therefore builds up slowly. Acting in
> accordance with Faraday's law and Lenz's law, the
> amount of impedance to the buildup of current is
> proportional to the rate of change of the current. That is,
> the faster you try to make it change, the more it resists.
> The current builds up toward the value it would have
> with the resistor alone because once the current is no
> longer changing, the inductor offers no impedance. The
> rate of this buildup is often characterized by the time
> constant L/R . Establishing a current in an inductor
> stores energy in the magnetic field formed by the coils of
> the inductor.
ROTFLOL, wrong on two counts, Trucks, you moron.
First, did you happen to notice in the above that it specifies that
it's connected to an inductor? That means that it's not a line.
Inductance only occurs when a magnetic field is moved through a
conductor or when a conductor is moved through a conductor. That is
such basic information you'd have to know that to get into a college
level physics class.
Secondly, like I said before, inductance will occur only while the
current is changing and once the DC reaches its steady state value it
stops.
I explained all that to you before, trucky. Were you too stupid to
understand before?
>Note that in the Direct Current model, it's called "impedance",
>and referred to as "Voltage Reflection", Crayon..
<chuckle> Impedance has nothing to do with DC, Trucky. Impedance is
the term used to describe the net effect of reactance and reactance,
both inductive and capacitive. It's a common term used on AC systems.
Look it up, Moron, LOL If you're not getting tired of eating crow.
>See also, Voltage Transients..
>
>http://www.niagramohawk.com/house/pwrqual/trans.html
>
>Look it up under the heading of "Transients on Transmission Lines"..
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0792379632/reviews/104-9836336-8117515#07923796325000
>
>Transient Stability of Power Systems : A Unified
>Approach to Assessment and Control (Kluwer
>International Series in Engineering and Computer Science,)
>by Mania Pavella, Damien Ernst, Daniel Ruiz-Vega
>Hardcover - (September 2000)
>
>
>Editorial Reviews
>
>>From Book News, Inc.
>Three Belgian researchers (U. of Liege) look at one unified approach
>to on-line dynamic security assessment and control to enable a power
>system to withstand unexpected contingencies without experiencing
>voltage or transient instabilities. The problem has greatly increased
>since deregulation, when utilities are being operated much closer
>to their limits in order to generate private profit. Their approach
>is called Single Machine Equivalent, SIME to its friends, and is a
>hybrid direct-temporal method that processes information about the
>system behavior in order to get one-shot stability assessment in the
>same way as direct methods.
Not a word about DC lines, Moron, but keep trying, I love
demonstrating that you've never studied physics for the rest of the
group.
>Preventative SIME relies on time-domain programs to get information
>about simulated stability scenarios of anticipated contingencies,
>and emergency SIME uses real-time measurements that take into account
>the actual occurrence of a contingency.Book News, Inc.®, Portland, OR
Still can't find anything about DC line reactance?
>Book Description
>Transient Stability of Power Systems is a monograph devoted to a
>hybrid-direct temporal method called SIME (for Single Machine
>Equivalent).
>SIME processes temporal information about the multimachine system
>dynamics to assess and control any type of transient instabilities
>under any type and model of power systems.
Nothing there about DC lines or reactance, trucky.
>--Any type and model, how about that..
You should try to read things that you can understand. You know, the
little books that have dick, jane and spot.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>"Sleeved Crayon (Ass)" again imagined intellectual superiority when:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner was replying to the snivelling remarks of
>>
>> >"Sleeved Crayon (Ass)" whimpered for more attention from:
>> >>
>> >> Kurt Lochner was amused at the histrionics posted by:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Sleeved Crayon" whimpered for still more attention from:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kurt Lochner was laughing at the primate posturings from:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Sleeved Crayon" whined when:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> >> >>My boat isn't in a slip at the moment, she's up on sticks
>> >> >>[..] getting a new rudder and some other minor repairs [..]
>> >> >
>> >> > I knew you weren't much of a sailor.. <LOL!>
>> >>
>> >>As if you knew anything about sailing....
>> >
>> > <LOL!> Same John Parker barkin'.. *>yawn!<*
>>
>>Son now I'm John Parker?
>
>You whine just like him, brag about your sail boat, and
>rarely have a clue as to what you're dissembling on about..
I haven't really said much about my boat, Moron. Does it make you
jealous, trucky?
Maybe you can get your mommy to buy you one. You're obviously too
stupid to earn enough yourself.
>> >> >> > Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>> >> >> > inductive losses regarding your static example? Here's a clue, Porky,
>> >> >> > real transmission lines, including EHV-DC lines have losses. That
>> >> >> > you're still stinging from that time I schooled your dumbass about
>> >> >> > phase is testimony to just how little you know about anything..
>>
>>Dodge what, [Mr. Lochner]. Of course DC lines have losses,
>>just not reactive losses, [..]
>
>Look up Lenz's Law, Porker..
LOL, Do you mean the one that talks about an inductor, not a line?
Apparently you don't know the difference between an inductor and a
line. You're not bright enough to understand the stuff you find on
the internet.
That's because you're a moron pretending to have an education in
physics.
>> >> >>Not reactive losses, dumbass. Know why? [..]
>> >> >
>> >> > And you think there aren't some reactive losses, hunh?
>> >>
>> >>That's right [Mr. Lochner] [..]
>> >
>> >You are completely incorrect in your simple-minded guesses..
>>
>>[..] You going to try to toss out that claim about the wind
>>blowing the conductors around again, [Mr. Lochner]?
>
>You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission lines
>aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing winds, Porker?
If lines got close enough to pass through each others fields, they'd
trip, trucky. Bundled conductors are close enough but are held in
position in relation to each other.
>> >> > Ever figure out why EHV-DC transmission lines aren't cost
>> >> > effective until you've reached a distance of 450 km?
>> >>
>> >>Have to justify cost of the terminals [Mr. Lochner],
>> >
>> > You meant the 'converters', Crayon? <LOL!> Wrong again..
>>
>>No I mean the terminals which consist of more than the converters,
>
>They're called "inverters", Porker..
The DC to AC process is called inversion, the AC to DC process is
called conversion, and the terminals have other hardware as well, but
not capacitors, LOL. Too bad you weren't able to find that info,
moron.
>Get it right, for once..
The irony is pretty funny.
>> >> > Here's another clue, Porky, it's called line transients..
>> >> > That's why the Siemens was let a contract to replace those
>> >> > mercury vapor switching devices in the inverters, and don't
>> >> > try and call them 'converters' in front of me, dumbass..
>> >>
>> >>Line transients aren't reactive losses [Mr. Lochner].
>> >
>> > They can cause such.
Not on DC lines, Moron. Reactance doesn't occur on DC lines Trucky.
Reactance requires passing a conductor through a magnetic field,
trucky. Aint going to happen on a line trucky, no matter if you hold
your breath and turn blue.
>Where's the equations you were going to
>> > back up you simple-minded guesswork with, Crayon?
>>
>>It takes no equations to back up my claim [..]
>
><LOL!>
You know when trucky has run out of bullshit....
He can't pretend to know about electricity anymore so he's left with
editing my posts.
>Then, you obviously cannot back up your false claim..
>
>> >> > I've worked on that equipment before..
>> >>
>> >>Bullshit, [Mr. Lochner]
>> >
>> > Nope, been there, done that, embarrassed the shit outta you with it too..
>>
>>Notice how [Mr. Lochner] is all talk and no proof?
>
>Nope, but I did notice how you couldn't back up yours...
>
>--That you are completely wrong is backed by your lack of mathematical proof..
Mathematical proof for your ignorance?
You've already demonstrated that you don't know ANYTHING about physics
and everybody on usenet has seen it.
You don't know that reactance doesn't occur on DC lines.
You thought "impedance" was what they called reactance on a DC line.
You thought there was a use for capacitors on a DC line.
....and you claim to have studied physics... LOL
Have you ever wondered why you feel the need to pretend to know things
that you don't? There's got to be a real emotional defect in there
somewhere, Lochner. You must be so unsatisfied with what you are that
you need to pretend to be something else. Maybe you should try to
improve on your real self so you don't have to pretend to be something
else. Maybe you're not even a truck driver.. Maybe you're just a
grocery store bagboy.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>"Grease Crayon (Ass)" whined and wailed to no avail at:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner turned up the heat on the metatarsals of:
>> >
>> >"Grease Crayon (Ass)" was again scorched by:
>> >>
>> >> Kurt Lochner was laughing hysterically about how:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Grease Crayon (Ass)" wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> > >So says a guy that hasn't yet figured out that reactive losses can't
>> >> > >possibly occur on DC lines [..]
>> >> >
>> >> > I noticed you can't state a single equation, Crayon.. <LOL!>
>> >>
>> >>There's no equation for reactance on a DC line[..]
>> >
>> > It's called Lenz's Law, you ignorant fool.. Here, read about it..
>> >
>> > http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indtra.html
>> >
>> > Inductor Transient
>> >
>> > When a battery is connected to a series resistor and
>> > inductor, the inductor resists the change in current and
>> > the current therefore builds up slowly. Acting in
>> > accordance with Faraday's law and Lenz's law, the
>> > amount of impedance to the buildup of current is
>> > proportional to the rate of change of the current. That is,
>> > the faster you try to make it change, the more it resists.
>> > The current builds up toward the value it would have
>> > with the resistor alone because once the current is no
>> > longer changing, the inductor offers no impedance. The
>> > rate of this buildup is often characterized by the time
>> > constant L/R . Establishing a current in an inductor
>> > stores energy in the magnetic field formed by the coils of
>> > the inductor.
>>
>>ROTFLOL, wrong on two counts,[..]
>
>Yes, you are completely wrong, on both counts, Crayon..
... the demented truck driver stammered....
because he had no counter argument.
>>First, did you happen to notice in the above that it specifies that
>>it's connected to an inductor? That means that it's not a line.
>
>A long wire is still an inductor, Grease Crayon..
>Look up the definition next time, before you embarrass yourself again..
Only if its wound, trucky.. LOL
any "physics student know what an inductor is, you moron, and you
don't.
I love helping you display your ignorance, bagboy.
>>Inductance only occurs when a magnetic field is moved through a
>>conductor or when a conductor is moved through a conductor.
>
>Thank you for again demonstrating that you cannot state the correct
>concepts nor the correct equations that support your incorrect beliefs..
...stammered the uneducated hick from Oklahoma who had no argument to
present.
>>That is such basic information you'd have to know that to get into
>>a college level physics class.
>
>You incorrect here also, which again proves my point that you haven't
>even taken a college-level physics course as yet.. <LOL!>
Says the guy that thinks capacitors have a function on DC transmission
lines.
>> > Note that in the Direct Current model, it's called "impedance",
>> > and referred to as "Voltage Reflection", Crayon..
>>
>>[..] Impedance has nothing to do with DC, [Mr. Lochner].
>
><LOL!> Better dig out your DC circuit theory books again, Crayon..
>
>>Impedance is the term used to describe the net effect of reactance [..]
>
>That's what I've been saying all along, Grease Crayon..
Uhmmm, no, you said that "reactance" was called "impedance" on DC. I
had to explain what a stupid thing that was..
>> > See also, Voltage Transients..
>> >
>> > http://www.niagramohawk.com/house/pwrqual/trans.html
>> >
>> > Look it up under the heading of "Transients on Transmission Lines"..
>> >
>> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0792379632/reviews/104-9836336-8117515#07923796325000
>> >
>> > Transient Stability of Power Systems : A Unified
>> > Approach to Assessment and Control (Kluwer
>> > International Series in Engineering and Computer Science,)
>> > by Mania Pavella, Damien Ernst, Daniel Ruiz-Vega
>> > Hardcover - (September 2000)
>> >
>> > Editorial Reviews
>> >
>> > From Book News, Inc.
>> > Three Belgian researchers (U. of Liege) look at one unified approach
>> > to on-line dynamic security assessment and control to enable a power
>> > system to withstand unexpected contingencies without experiencing
>> > voltage or transient instabilities. The problem has greatly increased
>> > since deregulation, when utilities are being operated much closer
>> > to their limits in order to generate private profit. Their approach
>> > is called Single Machine Equivalent, SIME to its friends, and is a
>> > hybrid direct-temporal method that processes information about the
>> > system behavior in order to get one-shot stability assessment in the
>> > same way as direct methods.
>>
>>Not a word about DC lines, [..]
>
>Oh yes there is, read the next two paragraphs again, Grease Crayon..
Not a word about DC lines, moron.
LOL, you don't even know what it means
>> > Preventative SIME relies on time-domain programs to get information
>> > about simulated stability scenarios of anticipated contingencies,
>> > and emergency SIME uses real-time measurements that take into account
>> > the actual occurrence of a contingency.Book News, Inc.®, Portland, OR
It looks like something you stumbles across while searching for
information on intra-system stability.
Too bad you don't have a clue what it means...
...certainly nothing about DC lines.
>> > Book Description
>> > Transient Stability of Power Systems is a monograph devoted to a
>> > hybrid-direct temporal method called SIME (for Single Machine
>> > Equivalent).
>> > SIME processes temporal information about the multimachine system
>> > dynamics to assess and control any type of transient instabilities
>> > under any type and model of power systems.
>
>> > --Any type and model, how about that..
>>
>>You should try to read things that you can understand. [..]
>
>In my most recent Engineering Electromagnetic textbook, there's
>an entire chapter devoted to transmission lines, Crayon. And guess
>what, there's even a transmission line analysis for DC lines..
>
>--And guess what? It refutes your simpleton claims completely..
BULLSHIT ....
...and that's why you didn't post it.
ROTFLOL!
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>"Grease Crayon (Ass)" screeched when:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner noted the usual ignorance displayed by:
>> >
>> >"Grease Crayon (Ass)" again imagined an intellectual superiority when:
>> >>
>> >> Kurt Lochner was replying to the snivelling remarks of
>> >> >
>> >> >"Grease Crayon (Ass)" whimpered for more attention from:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kurt Lochner was amused at the histrionics posted by:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Sleeved Crayon" whimpered for still more attention from:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Kurt Lochner was laughing at the primate posturings from:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"Sleeved Crayon" whined when:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >> >> >>My boat isn't in a slip at the moment, she's up on sticks
>> >> >> >>[..] getting a new rudder and some other minor repairs [..]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I knew you weren't much of a sailor.. <LOL!>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>As if you knew anything about sailing....
>> >> >
>> >> > <LOL!> Same John Parker barkin'.. *>yawn!<*
>> >>
>> >>Son now I'm John Parker?
>> >
>> > You whine just like him, brag about your sail boat, and
>> > rarely have a clue as to what you're dissembling on about..
>>
>>I haven't really said much about my boat, [Mr. Lochner].
>
>Like your sail boat has anything to do with this thread..
So why did you bring it up, Trucky?
>>Maybe you can get your mommy to buy you one.
>
>Ewww, another juvenile ad hominems from the cornered right-winger..
Must've hit a soft spot, eh trucky?
Bagging groceries doesn't pay enough to buy a boat?
Too bad.
><LOL!>
>
>> >> >> >> > Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>> >> >> >> > inductive losses regarding your static example? Here's a clue, Porky,
>> >> >> >> > real transmission lines, including EHV-DC lines have losses. That
>> >> >> >> > you're still stinging from that time I schooled your dumbass about
>> >> >> >> > phase is testimony to just how little you know about anything..
>> >>
>> >>Dodge what, [Mr. Lochner]. Of course DC lines have losses,
>> >>just not reactive losses, [..]
>> >
>> > Look up Lenz's Law, Porker..
>>
>>[..] Do you mean the one that talks about an inductor, not a line?
>
><LOL!> And you think a straight wire isn't an inductor, Porker?
Only if you pass it though a magnetic field, Trucky. How are you
going to do that with a transmission line, Moron? Have the wind blow
on it? LOL
>> >> >> >>Not reactive losses, dumbass. Know why? [..]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And you think there aren't some reactive losses, hunh?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>That's right [Mr. Lochner] [..]
>> >> >
>> >> >You are completely incorrect in your simple-minded guesses..
>> >>
>> >>[..] You going to try to toss out that claim about the wind
>> >>blowing the conductors around again, [Mr. Lochner]?
>> >
>> > You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission lines
>> > aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing winds, Porker?
>>
>>If lines got close enough to pass through each others fields, [..]
>
>And guess what sorts of examples are presented in a typical E&M text, Porker..
LOL That's what you're doing, you moron, guessing. I know what they
say.
>> >> >> > Ever figure out why EHV-DC transmission lines aren't cost
>> >> >> > effective until you've reached a distance of 450 km?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Have to justify cost of the terminals [Mr. Lochner],
>> >> >
>> >> > You meant the 'converters', Crayon? <LOL!> Wrong again..
>> >>
>> >>No I mean the terminals which consist of more than the converters,
>> >
>> > They're called "inverters", Porker..
>>
>>The DC to AC process is called inversion, the AC to DC process [..]
...is called conversion, bagboy. How come you didn't know that?
bcause you're a moron?
><LOL!> Thanks for again demonstrating just how limited you knowledge
>of electricity is. Just like your political opinions, utterly without
>merit..
Still snipping what you can't deal with?
Gosh, you must have no shame to expose your ignorance this way.
>> >> >> > Here's another clue, Porky, it's called line transients..
>> >> >> > That's why the Siemens was let a contract to replace those
>> >> >> > mercury vapor switching devices in the inverters, and don't
>> >> >> > try and call them 'converters' in front of me, dumbass..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Line transients aren't reactive losses [Mr. Lochner].
>> >> >
>> >> > They can cause such.
>>
>>Not on DC lines, [Mr. Lochner]
>
>Your definition of 'reactance' is at odds with established studies..
Which you have totally failed to produce.
>> >> > Where's the equations you were going to
>> >> > back up you simple-minded guesswork with, Crayon?
>> >>
>> >>It takes no equations to back up my claim [..]
>> >
>> > <LOL!>
>> >
>> > Then, you obviously cannot back up your false claim..
>
>Still trying to dissemble your way out of that corner, Porker?
>
>> >> >> > I've worked on that equipment before..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Bullshit, [Mr. Lochner]
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope, been there, done that, embarrassed the shit outta you with it too..
>> >>
>> >>Notice how [Mr. Lochner] is all talk and no proof?
>> >
>> > Nope, but I did notice how you couldn't back up yours...
>> >
>> > --That you are completely wrong is backed by your lack of mathematical proof..
>>
>>Mathematical proof for your ignorance?
>
>No, mathematical proof of your 'redefinition' of "reactance", Porker..
>
>--I noticed that you still have none.. <LOL!>
>
Just a reminder...
U still haven't addressed the issue of intra-system stability,
Moron...
I'm anxiously waiting to thump you about that too.
--Ace
Chris Nelson
Examples?
Chris Nelson
>
> "Chris Nelson"
> <cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it> wrote
in
> message news:WDOj8.32944$af7.26548@rwcrnsc53...
> > "citizen" <st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> If your brainwashing can not let you read the "Second Amendment", like any
> fifth grade grammar student can, you are just a social democrat.
>
> Well see you are not a liberal after all:>))
I support the Second Amendment.
Marksman
"Chris Nelson"
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it> wrote in
I find that unbelievable.
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
wrote:
>"Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote in message
>news:ohh29ucrttr62b6uq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:40:33 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
>> <cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Steve Canyon (Ace)" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote in message
>> >news:vvvv8uspkpm335ocl...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:28:38 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
>> >> <cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"citizen" <st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:u8vb4hd...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> You are totally against individual rights!
>> >> >
>> >> >I am? That's news to me!
>> >>
>> >> Sure you are. you've got an alternative set of rights like "the right
>> >> to force other to feed you....."
>> >
>> >???
>> >
>> >You are one confused individual.
>>
>> I'm not confused. Your agenda says people have a "right" to be taken
>> care of. For that to be true means that someone else must be forced
>> to provide that care.
>
>Examples?
Welfare
--Ace
Chris Nelson
Welfare is there for people who have fallen upon desperate times.
The budget for welfare is minuscule compared to the budget for the military,
for which I am also forced to pay.
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
wrote:
You wanted an example of where you thought people had a right to force
others to take care of them. I gave you an example. Now you're
whining that its good to force people to take care of others.....
>The budget for welfare is minuscule compared to the budget for the military,
>for which I am also forced to pay.
The military budget protects everybody's ass, and I pay a hell of lot
more than you..
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>"Greased Canyon (Ass)" started screeching when directly heated by:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner was scorching yet another abjectly inept reply from:
>> >
>> >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" whined and wailed to no avail at:
>> > >
>> > > Kurt Lochner turned up the heat on the metatarsals of:
>> > > >
>> > > >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" was again scorched by:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Kurt Lochner was laughing hysterically about how:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" whined about:
>> > > >[...]
>> > > >> > >So says a guy that hasn't yet figured out that reactive losses can't
>> > > >> > >possibly occur on DC lines [..]
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I noticed you can't state a single equation, Crayon.. <LOL!>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>There's no equation for reactance on a DC line[..]
>> > > >
>> > > > It's called Lenz's Law, you ignorant fool.. Here, read about it..
>> > > >
>> > > > http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indtra.html
>> > > >
>> > > > Inductor Transient
>> > > >
>> > > > When a battery is connected to a series resistor and
>> > > > inductor, the inductor resists the change in current and
>> > > > the current therefore builds up slowly. Acting in
>> > > > accordance with Faraday's law and Lenz's law, the
>> > > > amount of impedance to the buildup of current is
>> > > > proportional to the rate of change of the current. That is,
>> > > > the faster you try to make it change, the more it resists.
>> > > > The current builds up toward the value it would have
>> > > > with the resistor alone because once the current is no
>> > > > longer changing, the inductor offers no impedance. The
>> > > > rate of this buildup is often characterized by the time
>> > > > constant L/R . Establishing a current in an inductor
>> > > > stores energy in the magnetic field formed by the coils of
>> > > > the inductor.
>> > >
>> > >ROTFLOL, wrong on two counts,[..]
>> >
>> > Yes, you are completely wrong, on both counts, Crayon..
>>
>>the demented truck driver stammered....
>>because he had no counter argument.
>
>Let's take a quick tally here. I asked you to state the particular
>physical laws that substantiate your lame counter-argument, which
>you didn't (or couldn't, because they don't exist) and then you
>falsely try to claim that I have no "counter-arguement"? <LOL!>
The physical law is the one about how you induce a current into a
conductor either by passing the conductor through a magnetic field,
toadstool, or by changing the magnetic field so the lines of force
move around the conductor, Most eighth graders know that one. All
college level physics students know it.
It's apparent that you don't.
>That's pretty lame for a right-winger, even for you, Greased Canyon
>(Ass)..
>
>> > >First, did you happen to notice in the above that it specifies that
>> > >it's connected to an inductor? That means that it's not a line.
>> >
>> > A long wire is still an inductor, Greased Canyon..
>> > Look up the definition next time, before you embarrass yourself again..
>>
>>Only if its wound, [Mr. Lochner]
>
>I can see that you're still abjectly ignorant about transmission lines,
>Greased Canyon (Ass)..
More "blah, blah, blah" from the bagboy...
>Tell me how a wire 450 km long isn't an inductor..
Uhmmmm, YOU tell me how it *is,* snot for brains.
>Be sure to include the relevant formulae and some numerical examples
>as to how these effects are somehow magically transcended by EHV-DC..
There's no changes in the magnetic field of a DC current, trucky,
that's why they call it DC.
>> > >Inductance only occurs when a magnetic field is moved through a
>> > >conductor or when a conductor is moved through a conductor.
>> >
>> > Thank you for again demonstrating that you cannot state the correct
>> > concepts nor the correct equations that support your incorrect beliefs..
>> >
>> > >That is such basic information you'd have to know that to get into
>> > >a college level physics class.
>> >
>> > You incorrect here also, which again proves my point that you haven't
>> > even taken a college-level physics course as yet.. <LOL!>
>>
>>Says the guy that thinks capacitors have a function on DC[..]
>
>Oh my, Greased Canyon is caught in yet another lie..
Ignorance is bliss isn't it Licknuts?
>Hey, Porker, I was referring to those capacitors in reference to
>adjusting the phase of AC polyphase distributions systems, you know,
>as a comparison to your so-called (and non-existent) "inherent system
>stability" claims, which you also did not (and could not) substantiate..
ROTFLOL, you were asking what the capacitors on a DC line were for,
nitwit. BTW, capacitors is not relevant to my question to you about
intra-system stability. You flunk that too. You flunk a lot, don't
you?
>You're batting 0.000 today, but let me hold your feet just a bit closer
>to the fire I've been building up for your 'sole' enjoyment.. <LOL!>
>
>> > > > Note that in the Direct Current model, it's called "impedance",
>> > > > and referred to as "Voltage Reflection", Crayon..
>> > >
>> > >[..] Impedance has nothing to do with DC, [Mr. Lochner].
>> >
>> > <LOL!> Better dig out your DC circuit theory books again, Crayon..
>> >
>> > >Impedance is the term used to describe the net effect of reactance [..]
>> >
>> > That's what I've been saying all along, Grease Crayon..
You might be able to learn, albeit very slowly.
>>Uhmmm, no, you said that "reactance" was called "impedance" on DC.
>
>Exactly. See, you're merely educable after all..
im·ped·ance.
1.Symbol Z A measure of the total opposition to current flow in an
alternating current circuit, made up of two components, ohmic
resistance and reactance, and usually represented in complex notation
as Z = R + iX, where R is the ohmic resistance and X is the reactance.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Hmmmm, the dictionary knows that impedance is the combined effect of
resistance and reactance on an AC circuit. You'd expect a guy that's
"worked on the equipment" to know it. You'd expect a guy that's
studied it to know it. You're a phony, trucky. You *are* just a
bagboy.
>> > > > See also, Voltage Transients..
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.niagramohawk.com/house/pwrqual/trans.html
>> > > >
>> > > > Look it up under the heading of "Transients on Transmission Lines"..
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0792379632/reviews/104-9836336-8117515#07923796325000
>> > > >
>> > > > Transient Stability of Power Systems : A Unified
>> > > > Approach to Assessment and Control (Kluwer
>> > > > International Series in Engineering and Computer Science,)
>> > > > by Mania Pavella, Damien Ernst, Daniel Ruiz-Vega
>> > > > Hardcover - (September 2000)
>> > > >
>> > > > Editorial Reviews
>> > > >
>> > > > From Book News, Inc.
>> > > > Three Belgian researchers (U. of Liege) look at one unified approach
>> > > > to on-line dynamic security assessment and control to enable a power
>> > > > system to withstand unexpected contingencies without experiencing
>> > > > voltage or transient instabilities. The problem has greatly increased
>> > > > since deregulation, when utilities are being operated much closer
>> > > > to their limits in order to generate private profit. Their approach
>> > > > is called Single Machine Equivalent, SIME to its friends, and is a
>> > > > hybrid direct-temporal method that processes information about the
>> > > > system behavior in order to get one-shot stability assessment in the
>> > > > same way as direct methods.
>> > >
>> > >Not a word about DC lines, [..]
>> >
>> > Oh yes there is, read the next two paragraphs again, Grease Crayon..
>>
>>Not a word about DC lines, [Mr. Lochner]
>
><LOL!> you don't even know what I mean..
<LOL!> you don't even know what *you* mean..
>Read it again, and say the words out loud if you need help this time..
Go ahead and explain the part where it says DC lines can have
inductive reactance.
>> > > > Preventative SIME relies on time-domain programs to get information
>> > > > about simulated stability scenarios of anticipated contingencies,
>> > > > and emergency SIME uses real-time measurements that take into account
>> > > > the actual occurrence of a contingency.Book News, Inc.®, Portland, OR
>>
>>It looks like something you stumbles across [..]
>
>Oh really? And what did you and Shrill Bonehead's first noises about
>Extremely High Voltage - Direct Current look like to me at first?
LOL, It looked like something you knew nothing about. Looks even more
like that now.
>Deja vu...
>
>> > > > Book Description
>> > > > Transient Stability of Power Systems is a monograph devoted to a
>> > > > hybrid-direct temporal method called SIME (for Single Machine
>> > > > Equivalent).
>> > > > SIME processes temporal information about the multimachine system
>> > > > dynamics to assess and control any type of transient instabilities
>> > > > under any type and model of power systems.
>> > > >
>> > > > --Any type and model, how about that..
>> > >
>> > >You should try to read things that you can understand. [..]
>> >
>> > In my most recent Engineering Electromagnetic textbook, there's
>> > an entire chapter devoted to transmission lines, Crayon. And guess
>> > what, there's even a transmission line analysis for DC lines..
>> >
>> > --And guess what? It refutes your simpleton claims completely..
>>
>>BULLSHIT [...] and that's why you didn't post it.
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>Ahh, yet another negative claim from a right-winger in over his head..
>
>--More grist for my liberal grill..
>
Still can't address the question about intra-system stability, eh?
Only a sicko would need to pretend to know things that he obviously
doesn't know.
Only a dumb ass would think that he could fake knowledge..
...You're one sick dumbass, Lochner.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>"Greased Canyon (Ass)" was last heard being seared by:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner adjusted the heat to full scorch for:
>> >
>> >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" screeched when:
>> > >
>> > > Kurt Lochner noted the usual ignorance displayed by:
>> > > >
>> > > >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" again imagined an intellectual superiority when:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Kurt Lochner was replying to the snivelling remarks of
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" whimpered for more attention from:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Kurt Lochner was amused at the histrionics posted by:
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" whimpered for still more attention from:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Kurt Lochner was laughing at the primate posturings from:
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >"Greased Canyon (Ass)" whined when:
>> > > >> >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >[..]
>> > > >
>> > > >> >> >>My boat isn't in a slip at the moment, she's up on sticks
>> > > >> >> >>[..] getting a new rudder and some other minor repairs [..]
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > I knew you weren't much of a sailor.. <LOL!>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>As if you knew anything about sailing....
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > <LOL!> Same John Parker barkin'.. *>yawn!<*
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Son now I'm John Parker?
>> > > >
>> > > > You whine just like him, brag about your sail boat, and
>> > > > rarely have a clue as to what you're dissembling on about..
>> > >
>> > >I haven't really said much about my boat, [Mr. Lochner].
>> >
>> > Like your sail boat has anything to do with this thread..
>>
>>So why did you bring it up, [Mr. Lochner]?
>
>To point out what an evasive lying right-wing <l>user you are..
>
>> > >Maybe you can get your mommy to buy you one.
>> >
>> > Ewww, another juvenile ad hominems from the cornered right-winger..
>> >
>> > <LOL!>
>>
>>Must've hit a soft spot, eh [Mr. Lochner]?
>>Bagging groceries doesn't pay enough to buy a boat?
>>Too bad.
>
>You keep repeating the same mistake, over and over again..
>
>Your ad hominems are but proof-simple of how contemptibly ignorant you are..
>
>> > > >> >> >> > Oh, you mean where you were shown to be an ignorant dumbass about
>> > > >> >> >> > inductive losses regarding your static example? Here's a clue, Porky,
>> > > >> >> >> > real transmission lines, including EHV-DC lines have losses. That
>> > > >> >> >> > you're still stinging from that time I schooled your dumbass about
>> > > >> >> >> > phase is testimony to just how little you know about anything..
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Dodge what, [Mr. Lochner]. Of course DC lines have losses,
>> > > >>just not reactive losses, [..]
>> > > >
>> > > > Look up Lenz's Law, Porker..
>> > >
>> > >[..] Do you mean the one that talks about an inductor, not a line?
>> >
>> > <LOL!> And you think a straight wire isn't an inductor, Porker?
>>
>>Only if you pass it though a magnetic field, [Mr. Lochner].
>
>Let's see, there's a magnetic field around the Earth, in case you
>hadn't noticed with a compass, Porker.. While it may seem small
>to you as an insignificant speck, its effects are cumulative over
>even a short distance of say even 450 km.. <LOL!>
ROTFLOL, Lochner continues to prove what an idiot he is....
First the wind blows them around and then the earth's magnetic
field.... Next it'll be the genie in the bottle.
>>How are you going to do that with a transmission line, [Mr. Lochner]?
>
>Easy, suspend it above the earth a few dozen feet, with appropriate
>insulators, and look out for that corona, and I don't mean the beer..
<chuckle> There's the truck driver's attempt at a scientific
explanation of how something works. "Just hang it up and have a
beer."
>LOL! <wheezing...>
Didn't your momma tell you she'd boot your ass out if she caught you
smoking in her house again, bagboy?
>> > > >> >> >>Not reactive losses, dumbass. Know why? [..]
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > And you think there aren't some reactive losses, hunh?
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>That's right [Mr. Lochner] [..]
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >You are completely incorrect in your simple-minded guesses..
>> > > >>
>> > > >>[..] You going to try to toss out that claim about the wind
>> > > >>blowing the conductors around again, [Mr. Lochner]?
>> > > >
>> > > > You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission lines
>> > > > aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing winds, Porker?
>> > >
>> > >If lines got close enough to pass through each others fields, [..]
>> >
>> > And guess what sorts of examples are presented in a typical E&M text, Porker..
>>
>>[..]That's what you're doing, [Mr. Lochner], guessing.
>
>Nope, just referencing a few text books to fuel you frenzied replies..
>
>You should be feeling some heat by now too..
That's just a grocery store checker calling you for your bagboy
duties.
>> > > >> >> > Ever figure out why EHV-DC transmission lines aren't cost
>> > > >> >> > effective until you've reached a distance of 450 km?
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>Have to justify cost of the terminals [Mr. Lochner],
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > You meant the 'converters', Crayon? <LOL!> Wrong again..
>> > > >>
>> > > >>No I mean the terminals which consist of more than the converters,
>> > > >
>> > > > They're called "inverters", Porker..
>> > >
>> > >The DC to AC process is called inversion, the AC to DC process [..]
... is called conversion.
still snipping out the stuff that embarrasses you?
Like your claim about.. <chuckle> ...DC capacitors?
Like your claim about the wind blowing on the conductors?
>> > <LOL!> Thanks for again demonstrating just how limited you knowledge
>> > of electricity is. Just like your political opinions, utterly without
>> > merit..
>>
>>Still snipping what you can't deal with?
>
>Nope, just saving you the embarrassment of having interjected one too
>many mistakes into your weak, if not obviously meritless, counter-spews..
<chuckle> Irony anyone?
>I notice also that you've been completely unable to present even so
>much as a web-site (not to mention a simple formula) to support your
>intentional lies, obfuscations and negative claims, Greased Canyon..
A formula for DC reactance lives only in your imagination, Trucky..
same place where your physics studies are... The only use you'd have
for a physics book is to sit on so you can reach your sippy cup on the
table.
>Tell you what, wait right there in the fire and I'll go get the BBQ sauce..
Just put the BBQ sauce in the grocery bag, bagboy... Get on with
it...
>I'll be especially kind to your roasting carcass while I put it on, ok?
>
>> > > >> >> > Here's another clue, Porky, it's called line transients..
>> > > >> >> > That's why the Siemens was let a contract to replace those
>> > > >> >> > mercury vapor switching devices in the inverters, and don't
>> > > >> >> > try and call them 'converters' in front of me, dumbass..
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>Line transients aren't reactive losses [Mr. Lochner].
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > They can cause such.
>> > >
>> > >Not on DC lines, [Mr. Lochner]
>> >
>> > Your definition of 'reactance' is at odds with established studies..
>>
>>Which you have totally failed to produce.
>
><LOL!> This from the end-user that can't produce a single web-site,
>nor a single formula, and not even a numerical example, and has to
>deliberately mischaracterize 90% of my replies in order to save 'face'
>for being such an abjectly stupid 'ditto-head' on simple electrical
>engineering facts..
I don't need any web sites to make you look like a dunce, bagboy. I
just feed you the lines and watch while you shit on yourself.
>I've 'produced' 100% more details than you could manage, Greased Canyon,
>and that wasn't difficult in comparison to the 'zero-effort' you've shown..
It doesn't take any effort to expose your ignorance, Baggy, I can do
it in my sleep.
But it's nice of you to admit how hard you've worked at it... ...and
learned nothing about electricity in the process.
>You ready for that bar-B-que sauce now, Crayon?
>
>> > > >> > Where's the equations you were going to
>> > > >> > back up you simple-minded guesswork with, Crayon?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>It takes no equations to back up my claim [..]
>> > > >
>> > > > <LOL!>
>> > > >
>> > > > Then, you obviously cannot back up your false claim..
>> >
>> > Still trying to dissemble your way out of that corner, Porker?
>> >
>> > > >> >> > I've worked on that equipment before..
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>Bullshit, [Mr. Lochner]
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Nope, been there, done that, embarrassed the shit outta you with it too..
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Notice how [Mr. Lochner] is all talk and no proof?
>> > > >
>> > > > Nope, but I did notice how you couldn't back up yours...
>> > > >
>> > > > --That you are completely wrong is backed by your lack of mathematical proof..
>> > >
>> > >Mathematical proof for your ignorance?
>> >
>> > No, mathematical proof of your 'redefinition' of "reactance", Porker..
>> >
>> > --I noticed that you still have none.. <LOL!>
>>
>>Just a reminder...
>
>Oh, you don't like how cornered you're getting?
>
>>U still haven't addressed the issue of intra-system stability,
>
>I've addressed it as much as needed, it's just that you can't comprehend it..
Can't find web sites about it, huh? that's because it's such basic
knowledge they didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to need
them.
You are that stupid...
>And I'm waiting with baited breath for your final pronouncements, Greased Canyon...
>
>--While I sear your tired ramblings for the foolish crap it truly is..
>
I think it's time for your meds, Bagboy, you're starting to rant.
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>"Greased Canyon (Ass)" was last heard snivelling back at:
>
>That an electrical distribution system for Direct Current is without
>losses due to reactances from transients is utterly without merit,
>Crayon..
LOL,prove it. bagboy
>
Have you figured out what I meant by intra-system stability yet? LOL
--Ace
Steve Canyon (Ace)
<kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>I'll admit that I hadn't heard anything about EHV-DC power transmission
>in the past two decades, I was aware of Nikola Tesla's efforts towards
>such a power distribution system. At the time, when Westinghouse and
>Edison were trying to establish their competing power generation and
>distribution systems, polyphase electricity generation & distribution
>was considered safer and more reliable, and significantly more "stable"
>than the rather more "lossy" DC-distribution system that Edison built..
<chuckle> I thought you said you had worked on DC terminals. Now you
admit that you didn't even know they existed.
And you thought there were capacitors on DC lines.. ROTFLOL
And you didn't know that changing AC to DC is called conversion...
and you think the wind blows the lines around and creates reactive
losses on DC transmission lines.
IOW, you're a moron.
>Now, while you want to pretend, with your faulty over-generalizations,
>that I'm somehow more ignorant than yourself about such basic premises,
LOL You're more ignorant than almost everybody.
>I have yet to see you present but one relevant equation or numerical
>example that supports your over-simplified counter-arguments..
You've yet to present anything that supports your claim of inductive
reactive losses on a DC line.
Because it doesn't exist..
Forgive me folks, for "picking" on this dysfunctional idiot, but I'm
having way to much fun to stop.
>> > > > In my most recent Engineering Electromagnetic textbook, there's
>> > > > an entire chapter devoted to transmission lines, Crayon. And guess
>> > > > what, there's even a transmission line analysis for DC lines..
>> > > >
>> > > > --And guess what? It refutes your simpleton claims completely..
>> > >
>> > >BULLSHIT [...] and that's why you didn't post it.
>> >
>> > ROTFLMAO!
>> >
>> > Ahh, yet another negative claim from a right-winger in over his head..
>> >
>> > --More grist for my liberal grill..
>>
>>Still can't address the question about intra-system stability, [..]
>
>Well, I can see where you might get the impression that the opposing
>magnetic fields cancelling might reduce some of the transient problems
>that polyphase transmission systems experience, however you're still
>neglecting several basic and important problems that a EHV-DC system has
>inherently. You've presented but the simplest concepts regarding this,
>and as a result, I think that you're ill-equipped to do anything but
>quibble endlessly about the minute details that you think you
>understand..
ROTFLOL sorry....not even close, dumb ass. You might want to look up
the word "intra" and try again.
>And while I'm not a specialist in the power distribution engineering
>discipline, I can easily see that you're even less knowledgable than I..
You're not a specialist in anything but bagging groceries.
>--And you've reacted like a right-wing Usenet loony in regards to that fact..
--Ace
righ...@scumbag.com
<thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote like a right wing nut;
><kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>
>>"Greased Canyon (Ass)" was last heard snivelling back at:
>>
>>That an electrical distribution system for Direct Current is without
>>losses due to reactances from transients is utterly without merit,
>>Crayon..
>
>LOL,prove it. bagboy
I'd rather he just keep proving how well he makes you look stupid.
That's infinitely more interesting.
====================================================
I always wondered why George Bush chose Dan Quayle as his running mate in
'88. Maybe it's because Danny reminded of his dimwit son...
Steve Canyon (Ace)
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 02:45:07 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
><thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:51:15 -0600, Kurt Lochner
>><kurt_l...@hotmeals.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Greased Canyon (Ass)" was last heard snivelling back at:
>>>
>>>That an electrical distribution system for Direct Current is without
>>>losses due to reactances from transients is utterly without merit,
>>>Crayon..
>>
>>LOL,prove it. bagboy
>
>I'd rather he just keep proving how well he makes you look stupid.
<chuckle> and he's going to do this by:
Claiming that he worked on DC terminals then admitting that he didn't
even know they existed.
Claiming that there were capacitors on DC lines.. ROTFLOL
Not knowing that changing AC to DC is called conversion...
Thinking the wind blows the lines around and creates reactive
losses on DC transmission lines when reactive losses are exclusive to
alternating current.
>That's infinitely more interesting.
Roselles and Lochner are two of a kind... Twin morons.
--Ace
righ...@scumbag.com
<thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote like a right wing nut;
>And you thought there were capacitors on DC lines.. ROTFLOL
Hell, AceHole
Look what you think conservatism is.
Who gives a flying fuck about "DC lines"
If you're knowledge of Politics is an indication of what you know
about "DC Lines" , we'll just laugh at you.
====================================================
Poor, pathetic, DIMWIT DANA, blusterers thusly:
IT PROVES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Hey ASSHOLE no one but you cares about this,
but it does show you are a hypocritical LOON.
Come on Roseasshole tell us what town you live in,
or are you to chicken to fight.
I am in Phoenix, and my number is listed,
come on chicken man, make your hat.
righ...@scumbag.com
<thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>I'd rather he just keep proving how well he makes you look stupid.
>
><chuckle> and he's going to do this by:
>
>Claiming that he worked on DC terminals then admitting that he didn't
>even know they existed.
No, listening you you go on about something that has absolutley NO
relevance to most anything.
Steve Canyon (Ace)
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:50:42 GMT, "Steve Canyon (Ace)"
><thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
>>>I'd rather he just keep proving how well he makes you look stupid.
>>
>><chuckle> and he's going to do this by:
>>
>>Claiming that he worked on DC terminals then admitting that he didn't
>>even know they existed.
you snipped out some of Lochner's stupidity..
He claimed that there were capacitors on DC lines.. ROTFLOL
He didn't know that changing AC to DC is called conversion...
He thought the wind blows the lines around and creates reactive
losses on DC transmission lines when reactive losses are exclusive to
alternating current.
>No, listening you you go on about something that has absolutley NO
>relevance to most anything.
The relevance is in showing that Lochner's claims of an education are
as phony as a twelve dollar bill.
But nothing has relevance to anything to half-wits like, Roselle, who
aren't smart enough or industrious enough to put a roof over yourself.
You half-witted lazy lefties like to live in a fantasy where you're
not the losers you are in the real world.
--Ace