OT: The state of American education today?

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 12:09:07 PM3/30/11

to

While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
"By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"

Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION years!

Are Florida teachers unionized?

Thanks,
Rich

Willem

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 12:58:46 PM3/30/11

to

Rich Grise wrote:
) While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
) http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
) "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
) TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
)
) Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION years!

Quite nearly 28 million years, actually.
(By my reckoning it's about 28.3 million years.)
So I'm guessing they just dropped that million somewhere.

SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

Pimpom

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 1:38:59 PM3/30/11

to

Willem wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
> ) While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
> ) http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
> ) "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were
> possible, IT
> WOULD ) TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR -
> PROXIMA
> CENTAURI!" )
> ) Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28
> MILLION
> years!
>
> Quite nearly 28 million years, actually.
> (By my reckoning it's about 28.3 million years.)
> So I'm guessing they just dropped that million somewhere.

Yeah, probably a typo rather than pure ignorance. If it were
true, existing spacecraft could easily do the distance in a few
weeks.

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 1:53:02 PM3/30/11

to

Pimpom wrote:

I dunno about the accuracy of "typo" here, considering it's hand-
lettered. ;-)

But that's probably kinda like "outtakes" in (on? of? from?) an animated
cartoon. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Ed Huntress

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 1:59:21 PM3/30/11

to

"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:imvqmp$d4g$3...@dont-email.me...

> Pimpom wrote:
>
>> Willem wrote:
>>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>> ) While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
>>> ) http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
>>> ) "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were
>>> possible, IT
>>> WOULD ) TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR -
>>> PROXIMA
>>> CENTAURI!" )
>>> ) Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28
>>> MILLION
>>> years!
>>>
>>> Quite nearly 28 million years, actually.
>>> (By my reckoning it's about 28.3 million years.)
>>> So I'm guessing they just dropped that million somewhere.
>>
>> Yeah, probably a typo rather than pure ignorance. If it were
>> true, existing spacecraft could easily do the distance in a few
>> weeks.
>
> I dunno about the accuracy of "typo" here, considering it's hand-
> lettered. ;-)

Look at the line break after "28." There's more than enough room for "years"
after it on that line -- even enough for "million." There was no need for a
line break, especially since they hyphenated a word in the next line. That
was an editor or graphic artist who screwed it up.

--
Ed Huntress

Spehro Pefhany

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 2:12:18 PM3/30/11

to

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:09:07 -0700, Rich Grise
<ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

>While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
>http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
>"By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
>TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR

It would take almost 4x that to reach the nearest star.

> - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"

Actually, it's often called "Sol".

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 2:11:00 PM3/30/11

to

I think they meant 100 *million* miles per hour, if that were possible.

Cheers,
John

Doug Miller

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 3:55:42 PM3/30/11

to

It *is* true. It *does* take more than 28 years to get to Proxima Centauri.
;-)

J Burns

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 8:03:18 PM3/30/11

to

Horace Connelly is retired, so he probably went to school elsewhere. He
graduated in 1956, the peak year for SAT performance.

The Orlando Odditorium is 20 miles from his house. Connelly may have
confronted the management about the fact, believe it or not, that Robert
Leroy Ripley died on the air in 1949. If word got out, what would happen
to attendance? I don't know why else the Syndicate would attempt to
destroy his credibility by publishing a false factoid.

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 8:32:26 PM3/30/11

to

Particularly since, even driving at 100MPH, it's unlikely that the car is ever
going to leave the surface of the Earth. ;-)

Mark Brader

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 10:23:16 PM3/30/11

to

Spehro Pefhany:

> It would take almost 4x that to reach the nearest star.

Rich Grise:

> > - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
>
> Actually, it's often called "Sol".

Depends on what you mean "the nearest" *to*.
--
Mark Brader | "Have you got anything without Spam in it?"
Toronto | "Well, there's Spam, egg, sausage, and Spam.
m...@vex.net | That's not got *much* Spam in it." --Monty Python

Ecnerwal

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 10:37:54 PM3/30/11

to

In article <QMGdnat5O9UJeA7Q...@vex.net>,
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Spehro Pefhany:
> > It would take almost 4x that to reach the nearest star.
>
> Rich Grise:
> > > - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
> >
> > Actually, it's often called "Sol".
>
> Depends on what you mean "the nearest" *to*.

S. O. L. would do well to answer the subject line.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 30, 2011, 11:16:48 PM3/30/11

to

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:09:07 -0700, Rich Grise
> <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
>>http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
>>"By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
>>TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR
>
> It would take almost 4x that to reach the nearest star.
>
>> - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
>
> Actually, it's often called "Sol".
>

Actually, I had noticed that myself when I was double- and triple-checking
my arithmetic; I just didn't post it. :-)

Thanks!
Rich

RST Engineering

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 3:04:07 AM3/31/11

to

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:03:18 -0400, J Burns <bur...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

It is less a hit on education as it is on whoever proofread the
article.

What's a factor of 10^6 to an editor?

Jim

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 4:01:19 PM3/31/11

to

I think they meant "By driving in a car at 100 *million* miles an hour,
if it were possible,....".

After all, it is possible to drive in a car at 100 MPH.

Just seems logical to me, and the numbers come out approximately right.

You're welcome,
John

Willem

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 4:15:26 PM3/31/11

to

John - KD5YI wrote:
) On 3/30/2011 11:09 AM, Rich Grise wrote:
)> While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
)> http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
)> "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
)> TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
)>
)> Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION years!
)>
)> Are Florida teachers unionized?
)>
)> Thanks,
)> Rich
)>
)
) I think they meant "By driving in a car at 100 *million* miles an hour,
) if it were possible,....".
)
) After all, it is possible to drive in a car at 100 MPH.
)
) Just seems logical to me, and the numbers come out approximately right.

Yes, the 'if it were possible' was a big hint.
I wonder what the time dilation is at a 100 million miles an hour.
After all, it's almost 15% of lightspeed.

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 4:35:55 PM3/31/11

to

You can make the calculations. I'd be interested in your results.

John

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 4:42:46 PM3/31/11

to

On 3/31/2011 3:15 PM, Willem wrote:

Note that the point of reference is not stated. So, if you choose to
answer your own question, take all points of reference into account.

John

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 5:51:28 PM3/31/11

to

John - KD5YI wrote:

> On 3/30/2011 11:09 AM, Rich Grise wrote:
>> While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
>> http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
>> "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
>> TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
>>
>> Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION
>> years!
>>
>> Are Florida teachers unionized?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>>
>
> I think they meant "By driving in a car at 100 *million* miles an hour,
> if it were possible,....".
>
> After all, it is possible to drive in a car at 100 MPH.
>

It's also quite impossible to drive a car through outer space. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 6:01:07 PM3/31/11

to

I noticed the smiley face this time.

Cheers to you, too.
john

Mark Brader

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 6:07:46 PM3/31/11

to

Rich Grise:

>>> While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:

>>> http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/

>>> "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD

>>> TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
>>>

>>> Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION years!

"John":

>> I think they meant "By driving in a car at 100 *million* miles an hour,

>> if it were possible,....".
>>

>> After all, it is possible to drive in a car at 100 MPH.

"Willem":

> Yes, the 'if it were possible' was a big hint.

But it isn't possible to drive to Proxima Centauri, so "if it were possible"
works either way. And the correction factor of 1,000,000 works either way.

> I wonder what the time dilation is at a 100 million miles an hour.
> After all, it's almost 15% of lightspeed.

Not much. sqrt(1-.149^2) is only about 0.989, so allowing for time
dilation only changes things by about 1.1%.
--
Mark Brader | "After that, he spent a long time just reading netnews.
m...@vex.net | Sorry, I mean of course that he was debugging his
Toronto | terminal emulation code..." --Lars Wirzenius

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 6:28:02 PM3/31/11

to

On 3/31/2011 5:07 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> But it isn't possible to drive to Proxima Centauri, so "if it were possible"
> works either way. And the correction factor of 1,000,000 works either way.

Right! There are no gas stations on the way.

(I'm assuming, since I've not made the trip)

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 6:34:54 PM3/31/11

to

Six times zero.

Michael A. Terrell

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 7:40:21 PM3/31/11

to

John - KD5YI wrote:
>
> On 3/31/2011 5:07 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> >
> > But it isn't possible to drive to Proxima Centauri, so "if it were possible"
> > works either way. And the correction factor of 1,000,000 works either way.
>
> Right! There are no gas stations on the way.

Too may potholes!

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Eric Sosman

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 8:09:28 PM3/31/11

to

(1 - v^2/c^2)^(-0.5), clean and oil your abacus first.

--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid

ehsjr

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 8:13:07 PM3/31/11

to

None needed. Although, if you can't refuel, how are you
gonna run the engine to keep life support going so the
driver can stay alive for 28,000,000 years? Inquiring
minds want to know!

Ed

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 8:24:15 PM3/31/11

to

Spam (the canned kind).

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 8:26:05 PM3/31/11

to

But, that is not a solution. It is an equation. Please solve. Also
please state your point of observation.

Many thanks.

Eric Sosman

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 9:24:15 PM3/31/11

to

Mark Brader already offered the solution this equation describes.
As for point of reference, didn't Michelson and Morley put paid to the
relevance of the question? (If you've been getting behind in reading
your journals, check the issues from about a century and a quarter ago.)

--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 10:31:18 PM3/31/11

to

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:04:07 -0700, RST Engineering <jwe...@gmail.com>

>>On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:03:18 -0400, J Burns <bur...@nowhere.com>
>>

>>It is less a hit on education as it is on whoever proofread the
>>article.
>>
>>What's a factor of 10^6 to an editor?
>
> Six times zero.

<chuckle> ;-)

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 10:32:16 PM3/31/11

to

So, the point of reference (or observer's position) does not matter?

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 10:33:33 PM3/31/11

to

John - KD5YI wrote:
> On 3/31/2011 4:51 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
>> John - KD5YI wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2011 11:09 AM, Rich Grise wrote:
>>>> While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
>>>> http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
>>>> "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT
>>>> WOULD TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA
>>>> CENTAURI!"
>>>>
>>>> Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION
>>>> years!
>>>>
>>>> Are Florida teachers unionized?
>>>

>>> I think they meant "By driving in a car at 100 *million* miles an hour,
>>> if it were possible,....".
>>>
>>> After all, it is possible to drive in a car at 100 MPH.
>>>
>> It's also quite impossible to drive a car through outer space. :-)
>

> I noticed the smiley face this time.
>

But just imagine how many people we could employ building that bridge. ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 10:53:31 PM3/31/11

to

For the time dilation, I've read that, well, it doesn't matter,
because either one could be used as a point of observation -
the difference only shows up if the car turns around and comes
back, because it is the one who has undergone acceleration.

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 10:55:50 PM3/31/11

to

Eric Sosman wrote:
>
> Mark Brader already offered the solution this equation describes.
> As for point of reference, didn't Michelson and Morley put paid to the
> relevance of the question? (If you've been getting behind in reading
> your journals, check the issues from about a century and a quarter ago.)
>

What does "... put paid to the relevance of the question" mean?

Thanks,
Rich

John - KD5YI

unread,

Mar 31, 2011, 11:04:01 PM3/31/11

to

Then I may be barking up the wrong tree. Not for the first time.

Cheers,
John

Eric Sosman

unread,

Apr 1, 2011, 12:49:38 AM4/1/11

to

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/293200.html

--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

Apr 1, 2011, 2:59:02 PM4/1/11

to

On Mar 30, 11:09 am, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
> "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
> TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
>
> Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION years!
>
> Are Florida teachers unionized?
>

> Thanks,
> Rich

Maybe the driver took the carpool lane...

TMT

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

Apr 1, 2011, 3:01:41 PM4/1/11

to

You don't need to refuel...it is all down hill so you coast.

Of course you have to put up with being passed by all those Starfleet
ships with warp drive.

TMT

John R. Carroll

unread,

Apr 1, 2011, 3:16:27 PM4/1/11

to

That and K0oKs on their imaginary 265 MPH motorcycles.
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

Spehro Pefhany

unread,

Apr 1, 2011, 3:53:10 PM4/1/11

to

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:09:07 -0700, Rich Grise
<ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

>While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
>http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
>"By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
>TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
>
>Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION years!
>
>Are Florida teachers unionized?

Perhaps, but I'm sure with an application of sufficient voltage and
current they could be fully ionized.

Rich Grise

unread,

Apr 2, 2011, 10:05:26 AM4/2/11

to

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:09:07 -0700, Rich Grise
>

>>While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
>>http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
>>"By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT WOULD
>>TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA CENTAURI!"
>>
>>Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION years!
>>
>>Are Florida teachers unionized?
>
> Perhaps, but I'm sure with an application of sufficient voltage and
> current they could be fully ionized.

<groan>

George Weinberg

unread,

Apr 2, 2011, 3:27:25 PM4/2/11

to

Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in
news:imvkk1$cdu$1...@dont-email.me:

> While reading today's comix, I hit on this one:
> http://comics.com/ripleys_believe_it_or_not/2011-03-30/
> "By driving at 100 miles per hour in a car, if it were possible, IT
> WOULD TAKE MORE THAN 28 YEARS TO REACH THE NEAREST STAR - PROXIMA
> CENTAURI!"
>
> Well, yeah, significantly more than 28 years - more like 28 MILLION
> years!
>
> Are Florida teachers unionized?
>

> Thanks,
> Rich
>

Follow up trivia puzzle:

In an Asimov story, one of the characters gives the differing impressions
made by the word "unionized" on two of the other characters as the sort of
thing which would eventually lead to the end of the world. Yet this
differnce had nothing to do with approval or diaspproval. What then was the
difference?

It can be figured out without having read the story.
George

Steve Moulding

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 10:19:27 AM4/3/11

to

unionized = not ionized (Chemistry)
unionized = having formed a union (Labor)
Steve

SoothSayer

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 12:03:22 PM4/3/11

to

The "not ionized" term would be hyphenated.

In ALL cases.

If it isn't, the term is UNIONized, as in the latter definition.

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 12:38:12 PM4/3/11

to

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 08:19:27 -0600, "Steve Moulding" <fti...@xmission.com>
wrote:

>George Weinberg wrote:

ionized = having a union un-formed (Wisconsin)

Willem

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 1:24:16 PM4/3/11

to

SoothSayer wrote:
) On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 08:19:27 -0600, "Steve Moulding"
)<fti...@xmission.com> wrote:
)>unionized = not ionized (Chemistry)
)>unionized = having formed a union (Labor)
)>Steve
)>
) The "not ionized" term would be hyphenated.
)
) In ALL cases.
)
) If it isn't, the term is UNIONized, as in the latter definition.

Cite ?

SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

SoothSayer

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 1:53:16 PM4/3/11

to

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 17:24:16 +0000 (UTC), Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl>
wrote:

>SoothSayer wrote:
>) On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 08:19:27 -0600, "Steve Moulding"
>)<fti...@xmission.com> wrote:
>)>unionized = not ionized (Chemistry)
>)>unionized = having formed a union (Labor)
>)>Steve
>)>
>) The "not ionized" term would be hyphenated.
>)
>) In ALL cases.
>)
>) If it isn't, the term is UNIONized, as in the latter definition.
>
>Cite ?
>
>
>SaSW, Willem

The lack of understanding of this is rampant among you last three
generations of twits coming out of the colleges all over the world, not
just here. That's since the late seventies.

http://www.mywritingblog.com/2007/09/decline-of-hyphen.html

Not me, BTW.

Willem

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 2:48:36 PM4/3/11

to

SoothSayer wrote:
) On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 17:24:16 +0000 (UTC), Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl>
) wrote:
)
)>SoothSayer wrote:
)>) On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 08:19:27 -0600, "Steve Moulding"
)>)<fti...@xmission.com> wrote:
)>)>unionized = not ionized (Chemistry)
)>)>unionized = having formed a union (Labor)
)>)>Steve
)>)>

)>) The "not ionized" term would be hyphenated.
)>)
)>) In ALL cases.
)>)
)>) If it isn't, the term is UNIONized, as in the latter definition.

)>
)>Cite ?
)>
)>
)>SaSW, Willem
)
) The lack of understanding of this is rampant among you last three
) generations of twits coming out of the colleges all over the world, not
) just here. That's since the late seventies.
)
) http://www.mywritingblog.com/2007/09/decline-of-hyphen.html

So, no cite then, just a rant. Thought as much.

Steve Moulding

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 5:22:27 PM4/3/11

to

Hmmm.... Who should I believe in this case: Isaaac Asimov who holds a PhD
in Biochemistry and who has written so many books and articles over his
lifetime that they are practically a library in and of themselves and nearly
uncountable, or some guy called Soothsayer who wants to set himself up as an
authority on the hypenation of certain words?

Thanking.... Thinking...
Crickets chirping...

Steve

SoothSayer

unread,

Apr 3, 2011, 10:07:58 PM4/3/11

to

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl>
wrote:

>

>So, no cite then, just a rant. Thought as much.

You're a goddamned retard for even asking for a citation, as well as
for being too stupid to simply know that I am right.

I thought as much.

Gunner Asch

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 11:08:25 AM4/4/11

to

You HAVE to be a Leftwinger.

Only leftwingers and the insane would demand people believe their spew
without some evidence its true (and it seldom is)

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

Michael A. Terrell

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 2:11:15 PM4/4/11

to

Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:07:58 -0700, SoothSayer
> <SayS...@TheMonastery.org> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>So, no cite then, just a rant. Thought as much.
> >
> > You're a goddamned retard for even asking for a citation, as well as
> >for being too stupid to simply know that I am right.
> >
> > I thought as much.
>
> You HAVE to be a Leftwinger.
>
> Only leftwingers and the insane would demand people believe their spew
> without some evidence its true (and it seldom is)

Actually, it's the stupidest troll on Usenet:

THE DIMBOOB SCORECARD

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

pyotr filipivich

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 3:00:45 PM4/4/11

to

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

>On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:07:58 -0700, SoothSayer
><SayS...@TheMonastery.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So, no cite then, just a rant. Thought as much.
>>
>> You're a goddamned retard for even asking for a citation, as well as
>>for being too stupid to simply know that I am right.
>>
>> I thought as much.
>
>
>You HAVE to be a Leftwinger.
>
>Only leftwingers and the insane would demand people believe their spew
>without some evidence its true (and it seldom is)

Lefties are all about how they feel, not about the facts of the
matter.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Ed Huntress

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 4:15:07 PM4/4/11

to

"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:k85kp6pi3muiv9n4s...@4ax.com...

> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700
> typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:07:58 -0700, SoothSayer
>><SayS...@TheMonastery.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, no cite then, just a rant. Thought as much.
>>>
>>> You're a goddamned retard for even asking for a citation, as well as
>>>for being too stupid to simply know that I am right.
>>>
>>> I thought as much.
>>
>>
>>You HAVE to be a Leftwinger.
>>
>>Only leftwingers and the insane would demand people believe their spew
>>without some evidence its true (and it seldom is)
>
> Lefties are all about how they feel, not about the facts of the
> matter.

The irony here is that you're addressing Gunner, who just claimed that the
debt run up under Obama is "5 times" that of all other presidents preceding
him -- while the fact is that just the last three Republicn presidents,
alone, ran it up by 5 times more than Obama.

Either you're writing to the arithmetically challenged, or your point should
be expanded to include wingers of both sides. The farther one moves from the
center, the loonier one gets.

--
Ed Huntress

SoothSayer

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 7:25:38 PM4/4/11

to

On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:07:58 -0700, SoothSayer
><SayS...@TheMonastery.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So, no cite then, just a rant. Thought as much.
>>
>> You're a goddamned retard for even asking for a citation, as well as
>>for being too stupid to simply know that I am right.
>>
>> I thought as much.
>
>
>You HAVE to be a Leftwinger.
>
>Only leftwingers and the insane would demand people believe their spew
>without some evidence its true (and it seldom is)
>
>Gunner

You have to be a total retard. Only total retards think that something
they were not directly told about by their mommy must be false. You are
one such retard.

Then, there is that spelling and grammar thing. You suck so bad that
you suck at sucking, dumbfuck. You must be a DUMBwinger. Most of you
retarded fucks that think everyone that doesn't think the way you do is a
"lefwinger" should be lined up against a wall and shot, and left for the
fucking birds. That's the lot in life a self impotent retarded fuck like
you should get.

dca...@krl.org

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 8:01:04 PM4/4/11

to

On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

>
> The irony here is that you're addressing Gunner, who just claimed that the
> debt run up under Obama is "5 times" that of all other presidents preceding
> him -- while the fact is that just the last three Republicn presidents,
> alone, ran it up by 5 times more than Obama.
>
> Either you're writing to the arithmetically challenged, or your point should
> be expanded to include wingers of both sides. The farther one moves from the
> center, the loonier one gets.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

I tried to find Gunners statement about the debt run up under Obama
and could not find it in this thread.

Dan

Ed Huntress

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 8:14:51 PM4/4/11

to

<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:b6b48f6d-dea5-4f7f...@j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

It was in the "OT-Taxing the rich" thread, this past Saturday:

>And now in just over 2 yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all those
>that went before have created.
>
>Leftwingers.....
>
>Gunner

Here are the actual numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner Asch

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 10:05:32 PM4/4/11

to

On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:25:38 -0700, SoothSayer
<SayS...@TheMonastery.org> wrote:

3 spelling errors in your rant.

Laugh laugh laugh!

What a fucking bozo. But then..he is a Leftwinger..so its expected.

Gunner Asch

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 10:07:03 PM4/4/11

to

Bushs debt...$3 Trillion
Obamas debt..$15 Trillion

3x5 = 15...no?

Ed Huntress

unread,

Apr 4, 2011, 10:46:58 PM4/4/11

to

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8ukp6dg9s6g8i04p...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The irony here is that you're addressing Gunner, who just claimed that
>>> the
>>> debt run up under Obama is "5 times" that of all other presidents
>>> preceding
>>> him -- while the fact is that just the last three Republicn presidents,
>>> alone, ran it up by 5 times more than Obama.
>>>
>>> Either you're writing to the arithmetically challenged, or your point
>>> should
>>> be expanded to include wingers of both sides. The farther one moves from
>>> the
>>> center, the loonier one gets.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>> I tried to find Gunners statement about the debt run up under Obama
>>and could not find it in this thread.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Bushs debt...$3 Trillion
> Obamas debt..$15 Trillion
>
> 3x5 = 15...no?

It would, if those were the real numbers. Debt under Obama, up to Mar. 31,
is $2.361 T.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Bush II, $6.102 T.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

>
> Gunner

(If anyone is using the Wikipedia data I linked to before, there is a
mistake in it -- or it was an estimate done some time ago. At the end of
Bush's last budget, Wikipedia says that the debt was $10.413 T. Although
Wikipedia's other data in the table agrees with Treasury, this figure does
not. Treasury says it's $11.909 T)

--
Ed Huntress

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

Apr 5, 2011, 2:10:22 AM4/5/11

to

On Apr 4, 9:46 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo...

>
>
>
> > Gunner
>
> (If anyone is using the Wikipedia data I linked to before, there is a
> mistake in it -- or it was an estimate done some time ago. At the end of
> Bush's last budget, Wikipedia says that the debt was $10.413 T. Although
> Wikipedia's other data in the table agrees with Treasury, this figure does
> not. Treasury says it's $11.909 T)
>
> --

> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well done Ed.

TMT

dca...@krl.org

unread,

Apr 5, 2011, 8:41:13 AM4/5/11

to

On Apr 4, 8:14 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> It was in the "OT-Taxing the rich" thread, this past Saturday:
>

> Ed Huntress

Thanks.

Dan

George Weinberg

unread,

Apr 9, 2011, 1:22:11 PM4/9/11

to

"Steve Moulding" <fti...@xmission.com> wrote in
news:inaoeq$f6c$1...@news.xmission.com:

Well,that one was way to easy, probably these slightly related follow
ups are also:

Another one from an Asimov story, a Russian visitor to the US who can
barely understand English is complaining about how horribly crime ridden
and immoral the US is. Why, he was just sitting in the park and a couple
fellow park patrons, upon learnig he could not speak English (at all as
they apparently thought), immediately began cheerfully discussing their
fiendish plot to abduct and murder a whole bunch of people, at least
nineteen! But the guest was slightly mistaken as to what he was hearing.
What could these semi-fiends have been talking about? Bonus points if
you can name any of the individual victims without looking anything up.
I sure can't.

One morer:
You are given a one word nerdiness test, read the word and define it.
"Persuade" is the failing answer. What is the word?

George

John R. Carroll

unread,

Apr 9, 2011, 1:23:58 PM4/9/11

to

Coax.

--
John R. Carroll

Carl G.

unread,

Apr 9, 2011, 6:52:53 PM4/9/11

to

"George Weinberg" <geeemdo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9EC26978A9...@199.245.68.61...

> Well,that one was way to easy, probably these slightly related follow
> ups are also:
>
> Another one from an Asimov story, a Russian visitor to the US who can
> barely understand English is complaining about how horribly crime ridden
> and immoral the US is. Why, he was just sitting in the park and a couple
> fellow park patrons, upon learnig he could not speak English (at all as
> they apparently thought), immediately began cheerfully discussing their
> fiendish plot to abduct and murder a whole bunch of people, at least
> nineteen! But the guest was slightly mistaken as to what he was hearing.
> What could these semi-fiends have been talking about? Bonus points if
> you can name any of the individual victims without looking anything up.
> I sure can't.

> George

Spoiler for name of short story...

"Nothing Like Murder" From "More Tales of the Black Widowers".

As for the 19, they are like the bicycle riding circus animals.

Carl G.

josephkk

unread,

Apr 9, 2011, 9:04:31 PM4/9/11

to

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:46:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
wrote:

And how many years of Bush the lesser and how many years of Obummer does
those numbers represent?

Ed Huntress

unread,

Apr 9, 2011, 10:43:55 PM4/9/11

to

"josephkk" <joseph_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hd02q65bs4d65l6qb...@4ax.com...

I'm assuming you know how to measure time. Here's a question for you: Where
were the fiscal conservatives while Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush were
running up $11,909 Trillion dollars in national debt? Did they just suddenly
learn how to count when Obama entered office?

And what were those three doing running deficits while the economy was
humming along? There are good reasons to run deficits when you're in a
recession, but I never heard of one for running deficits while the GDP is
rising. That's why they called Reagan the Amiable Dunce. GW Bush was even
more clueless.

--
Ed Huntress

alexy

unread,

Apr 10, 2011, 12:37:52 PM4/10/11

to

George Weinberg <geeemdo...@sonic.net> wrote:

>One morer:
>You are given a one word nerdiness test, read the word and define it.
>"Persuade" is the failing answer. What is the word?

Convince?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

josephkk

unread,

Apr 12, 2011, 2:04:44 AM4/12/11

to

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 22:43:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
wrote:

^^^^^^^ Period instead of comma?

>learn how to count when Obama entered office?
>
>And what were those three doing running deficits while the economy was
>humming along? There are good reasons to run deficits when you're in a
>recession, but I never heard of one for running deficits while the GDP is
>rising. That's why they called Reagan the Amiable Dunce. GW Bush was even
>more clueless.

You seem to mistake my view of the bushes and raygun. I didn' like
nixxon, carter nor clinton neither. I am beginning to think that they all
were creeps and crooks all the way through washington.

George Weinberg

unread,

Apr 12, 2011, 11:27:40 AM4/12/11

to

alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote in news:insmcv$pfa$1...@dont-email.me:

> George Weinberg <geeemdo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>One morer:
>>You are given a one word nerdiness test, read the word and define it.
>>"Persuade" is the failing answer. What is the word?
>
> Convince?

No. Big hint, it's another homograph.

George