Eotvos - Status Update
Phil Holman
Al?
Phil H
hanson
news:dtSdnUhYdLg...@comcast.com...
> Mid September was slated for the parity test result.
> What's the latest Al?
> Phil H
>
ahahaha... Do you have to rub it in that blatantly, Phil?
Can't you see that Al, the poor fuck, is tormented by
an entire horde of well wishers, to the point where he
can't tell any longer who is who, for or against, chiral
or not, in Al's tool box in this hilarious segment of this
grand Eotvoes soap opera here.... Personally, I
am waiting for the folks from the PRC to weigh in, the
good folks who followed all of Al's instructions for this
show about which Al asserted that it's: "Mine, all mine."
news:43173874...@hate.spam.net...
ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
ahahaha... ahahanson
Uncle Al
>
> Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
> Al?
Total silence from PR China for the past 6 weeks to me and also to
co-conspirator academic inquiries. A degreed Mandarin Chinese speaker
has volunteered to pursue this with e-mail, fax, and phone. In
progress.
I'm kinda thinkin' maybe the Equivalence Principle has fallen. Given
the timing vs. experiment duration, it would be an Eotvos factor of
more than 10^(-12) difference/average compared to demonstrated balance
sensitivity of 10^-(13) and my predicted 3x10^(-12). That's a whole
big pile of standard deviations.
I may read about it before being Officially informed, but it can't be
made to stick that way. The archived public record datestamping my
claim dates back to before 1999,
Google
"Uncle Al" Eotvos 9370 hits
Google Groups
eotvos author:Uncle author:Al 2540 hits
"Uncle Al" Eotvos 4150 hits
Every spewing idiot who declaims I cannot possibly retain possession
of my creation makes it more likely that I will. They are my willing
bitches. The PR China group cannot do the relevant calculations nor
can they reproduce the software that does (I know what and who it
required). Two other academic Eotvos groups - given the mammoth flow
of grant funding to follow - would be sudden sincere enemies of my
enemy. And on and on.
One further curiosity: The newsletter of the American Physical
Society Topical Group in Gravitation, "Matters of Gravity," has
published each spring and fall (15 September) for the past 12 years -
but not this September.
Given the Perimeter Institute chugging along, Randall's book, Gravity
Probe B, Stanford and Eot-Wash with small centers-of-mass separation
1/r^2 experiment results, the international Big G controversy, etc.,
there are abundant things to discuss.
Proximity is not causality, still... and I've been a gadfly about the
ears of MOG personnel while developing the parity Eotvos experiment.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Jan Panteltje
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4332F55C...@hate.spam.net>:
>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>> Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
>> Al?
>
>Total silence from PR China for the past 6 weeks to me and also to
>co-conspirator academic inquiries. A degreed Mandarin Chinese speaker
>has volunteered to pursue this with e-mail, fax, and phone. In
>progress.
>
>I'm kinda thinkin' maybe the Equivalence Principle has fallen. Given
>the timing vs. experiment duration, it would be an Eotvos factor of
>more than 10^(-12) difference/average compared to demonstrated balance
>sensitivity of 10^-(13) and my predicted 3x10^(-12). That's a whole
>big pile of standard deviations.
If they have some signal, they will want to re-run, and then will test and
test and test for systematic errors.
Forget about it.
Years, then it will have to be done in a different way by other groups.
MAYBE then we will have something.
Look at the silence from the gravity experiment...
Even whotshisname no longer posts here (must have locked him up, eeh Varney).
I do not mind you being the one who 'did it' but I do not expect anything
for a long time....
(Xept if 0 of cause).
But you have to give credit to those Chinese, they build it, they run it,
ideas are a dime a dozen.
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4332F55C...@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
Eotvos update:
http://www.airdisaster.com/latest.jpg
Eotvos as it was conceived:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38675000/jpg/_38675783_challenger_238.jpg
Androcles
Puppet_Sock
> Phil Holman wrote:
> >
> > Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
> > Al?
>
> Total silence from PR China for the past 6 weeks to me and also to
> co-conspirator academic inquiries. A degreed Mandarin Chinese speaker
> has volunteered to pursue this with e-mail, fax, and phone. In
> progress.
Is anything "interesting" happening politically just now in PR China?
Experimenters might be some place with the doors closed and their
butts hiding under tables. How about weather? Does that area of
China get hurricanes?
Socks
Mark Fergerson
> On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:04 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4332F55C...@hate.spam.net>:
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>>Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
>>>Al?
>>
>>Total silence from PR China for the past 6 weeks to me and also to
>>co-conspirator academic inquiries. A degreed Mandarin Chinese speaker
>>has volunteered to pursue this with e-mail, fax, and phone. In
>>progress.
>>
>>I'm kinda thinkin' maybe the Equivalence Principle has fallen. Given
>>the timing vs. experiment duration, it would be an Eotvos factor of
>>more than 10^(-12) difference/average compared to demonstrated balance
>>sensitivity of 10^-(13) and my predicted 3x10^(-12). That's a whole
>>big pile of standard deviations.
>
> If they have some signal, they will want to re-run, and then will test and
> test and test for systematic errors.
I tend to concur. After all, great discoveries are usually
heralded by phrases like "I wasn't expecting _that_".
> Forget about it.
> Years, then it will have to be done in a different way by other groups.
As long as the "different way" looks for the same thing.
> MAYBE then we will have something.
> Look at the silence from the gravity experiment...
Silence from an experiment expected to confirm or refine known
results may indicate "something unexpected".
> Even whotshisname no longer posts here (must have locked him up, eeh Varney).
> I do not mind you being the one who 'did it' but I do not expect anything
> for a long time....
> (Xept if 0 of cause).
I'd think a null result would rate at least a preliminary
announcement. A non-null OTOH would reasonably generate silence
because nobody wants to be the next Pons & Fleischman.
But silence can indeed be significant, especially if somebody
wearing red shoulderboards starts thinking weaponization...
>>One further curiosity: The newsletter of the American Physical
>>Society Topical Group in Gravitation, "Matters of Gravity," has
>>published each spring and fall (15 September) for the past 12 years -
>>but not this September.
>>
>>http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/
You have to admit, that's pretty damn strange.
>>Given the Perimeter Institute chugging along, Randall's book, Gravity
>>Probe B, Stanford and Eot-Wash with small centers-of-mass separation
>>1/r^2 experiment results, the international Big G controversy, etc.,
>>there are abundant things to discuss.
I've just come off a mild case of flu; what "international Big G
controversy"?
>>Proximity is not causality, still... and I've been a gadfly about the
>>ears of MOG personnel while developing the parity Eotvos experiment.
So, Unc might not be on their speed-dial list? ;>)
Mark L. Fergerson
Uncle Al
>
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:04 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
> > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4332F55C...@hate.spam.net>:
>
> >>Phil Holman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
> >>>Al?
> >>
> >>Total silence from PR China for the past 6 weeks to me and also to
> >>co-conspirator academic inquiries. A degreed Mandarin Chinese speaker
> >>has volunteered to pursue this with e-mail, fax, and phone. In
> >>progress.
> >>
> >>I'm kinda thinkin' maybe the Equivalence Principle has fallen. Given
> >>the timing vs. experiment duration, it would be an Eotvos factor of
> >>more than 10^(-12) difference/average compared to demonstrated balance
> >>sensitivity of 10^-(13) and my predicted 3x10^(-12). That's a whole
> >>big pile of standard deviations.
> >
> > If they have some signal, they will want to re-run, and then will test and
> > test and test for systematic errors.
>
> I tend to concur. After all, great discoveries are usually
> heralded by phrases like "I wasn't expecting _that_".
You forget that that the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz comes
along with its own controls - the two hemiparity Eotvos experiments of
each hand of quartz vs. fused silica. In any case, different test
masses can be cut, fabricated, and completely run within four months.
The equipment is qualified from previous classical runs, as are the
protocols for running the thing and analyzing data and errors. The
signal is phase-lock amplified slaved to balance rotation. Everything
external cancels at will. I did it my way and I did it right. My
people are the best at every step.
The loaded rotor is *perfectly* classically balanced to all orders of
mass distribution and moments of inertia. Quartz is quartz to the
limits of fabrication excellence. A net signal - a big one! - has
only one possible origin: left hands vacuum free fall differently from
right hands. It's Petitjean's CHI what done it.
> > Forget about it.
> > Years, then it will have to be done in a different way by other groups.
>
> As long as the "different way" looks for the same thing.
Already covered. Luo did solid cylinders. Adelberger was assigned
solid spheres at his insistence. Solid pentagonal dodecahedra also
qualify if you are a little bit Rococo. CNC machining and polishing to
optical standards is no big deal.
> > MAYBE then we will have something.
> > Look at the silence from the gravity experiment...
>
> Silence from an experiment expected to confirm or refine known
> results may indicate "something unexpected".
Yeah. We're increasingly thinking we did it with sigmas to spare. GR
is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level. Hooh-rah. Now, I'm
bored again.
> > Even whotshisname no longer posts here (must have locked him up, eeh Varney).
> > I do not mind you being the one who 'did it' but I do not expect anything
> > for a long time....
> > (Xept if 0 of cause).
>
> I'd think a null result would rate at least a preliminary
> announcement. A non-null OTOH would reasonably generate silence
> because nobody wants to be the next Pons & Fleischman.
>
> But silence can indeed be significant, especially if somebody
> wearing red shoulderboards starts thinking weaponization...
Yeah, but it's a secret that cannot be kept. This post, for example.
We then ask, "how stooopid is the US government?" Real stooopid in
real time, but also real paranoid especially after the fact. Uncle
Al, being a loyal citizen, has sent notice through channels. Nothing
will come of it.
> >>One further curiosity: The newsletter of the American Physical
> >>Society Topical Group in Gravitation, "Matters of Gravity," has
> >>published each spring and fall (15 September) for the past 12 years -
> >>but not this September.
> >>
> >>http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/
>
> You have to admit, that's pretty damn strange.
>
> >>Given the Perimeter Institute chugging along, Randall's book, Gravity
> >>Probe B, Stanford and Eot-Wash with small centers-of-mass separation
> >>1/r^2 experiment results, the international Big G controversy, etc.,
> >>there are abundant things to discuss.
>
> I've just come off a mild case of flu; what "international Big G
> controversy"?
Measured numbers don't jive big time and nobody can find an error in
disparate groups' work. At the moment it looks like the Eot-Wash
quadrupole pendulum is in the lead. They are no damned good at
picking materials, though.
> >>Proximity is not causality, still... and I've been a gadfly about the
> >>ears of MOG personnel while developing the parity Eotvos experiment.
>
> So, Unc might not be on their speed-dial list? ;>)
They might wonder how a foreign researcher independently discovered
what was already known and publicly disclosed,
"Affine vs. Metric Gravitation Parity Test" Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 49(2)
54 (2004)
and why he cannot produce a reason for test mass configuration. If I
were diddling cylinders I would have their height equal their
diameter. The parity Eotvos experiment has their height equal to
sqrt(3) times their radius. It's in Petitjean's math and we've
checked it with explicit QCM calculation of tellurium crystallattice
samplings,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b36
There's second order stuff beyond moments of inertia, also
inexplicable without Petitjean.
I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors
Uncle Al wrote:
> Yeah. We're increasingly thinking we did it with sigmas to spare. GR
> is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level. Hooh-rah. Now, I'm
> bored again.
I severely doubt there'll be a reproducible non-null, but I hope I'm
wrong.
If you're that confident, you should now be thinking up some kind of
practical use of this phenomenon, if one exists. Can't say I can think
of any off hand....
Eric Gisse
If there is net signal, a crack will appear in the facade covering four
centuries of a confirmed equivalence of gravitational and inertial
mass.
If it is real, the crack will be used to massively uncouple the two
*now different* definitions of mass and with luck, take us to the
stars.
THIS is the *only* reason I care about GR - to take us to the stars. I
want to see humanity reach the stars within my lifetime.
*shakes dice*, c'mon baby, daddy wants a stardrive!
mountain man
news:1127438113....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> THIS is the *only* reason I care about GR - to take us to the stars. I
> want to see humanity reach the stars within my lifetime.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/surfi_03.htm
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Rural Oz.
www.mountainman.com.au
Jan Panteltje
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4333419A...@hate.spam.net>:
>I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
>and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
>the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
LOL
>folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
>if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
>--
>Uncle Al
It is really funny :-)
Mark Fergerson
If it takes _that_ long for MOG's next issue to come out, a lot
of gravitationalistas will be needing Depends...
> The equipment is qualified from previous classical runs, as are the
> protocols for running the thing and analyzing data and errors. The
> signal is phase-lock amplified slaved to balance rotation. Everything
> external cancels at will. I did it my way and I did it right. My
> people are the best at every step.
I forgot no such thing(s). I meant that the hands-on
experimenters' eyebrows will rise because they fully expected (OK,
were hoping for) a null.
> The loaded rotor is *perfectly* classically balanced to all orders of
> mass distribution and moments of inertia. Quartz is quartz to the
> limits of fabrication excellence. A net signal - a big one! - has
> only one possible origin: left hands vacuum free fall differently from
> right hands. It's Petitjean's CHI what done it.
A bigger signal oughta put their eyebrows between their scapulae.
See below.
>>>Forget about it.
>>>Years, then it will have to be done in a different way by other groups.
>>
>> As long as the "different way" looks for the same thing.
> Already covered. Luo did solid cylinders. Adelberger was assigned
> solid spheres at his insistence. Solid pentagonal dodecahedra also
> qualify if you are a little bit Rococo. CNC machining and polishing to
> optical standards is no big deal.
Ye gods and little fishhooks; four months _each_? MOG may be
obsolete by then...
>>>MAYBE then we will have something.
>>>Look at the silence from the gravity experiment...
>>
>> Silence from an experiment expected to confirm or refine known
>>results may indicate "something unexpected".
> Yeah. We're increasingly thinking we did it with sigmas to spare. GR
> is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level. Hooh-rah. Now, I'm
> bored again.
So get back in your stinks lab and figure out how to mass-produce
some of those "unmakeable" high-CHI materials you were talking about
earlier this year. Gonna need such stuff for practical apps anyway.
Maybe determine their decomposition products under various
conditions and run the reaction(s) backwards? It works in physics...
>> I'd think a null result would rate at least a preliminary
>>announcement. A non-null OTOH would reasonably generate silence
>>because nobody wants to be the next Pons & Fleischman.
>>
>> But silence can indeed be significant, especially if somebody
>>wearing red shoulderboards starts thinking weaponization...
> Yeah, but it's a secret that cannot be kept. This post, for example.
> We then ask, "how stooopid is the US government?" Real stooopid in
> real time, but also real paranoid especially after the fact. Uncle
> Al, being a loyal citizen, has sent notice through channels. Nothing
> will come of it.
Ahem. Right. Lessee, B. J. Clinton gave the ChiComs a long, hard
peek under the hoods of our ballistic missile guidance systems and
got clean away with it, and now you've given them the basics of what
will make nuke warheads completely obsolete. No problem.
>> I've just come off a mild case of flu; what "international Big G
>>controversy"?
> Measured numbers don't jive big time and nobody can find an error in
> disparate groups' work. At the moment it looks like the Eot-Wash
> quadrupole pendulum is in the lead. They are no damned good at
> picking materials, though.
Oh, shit. There must be a location-specific dependence; um, did
any of them consult a local petroleum geologist?
>>>>Proximity is not causality, still... and I've been a gadfly about the
>>>>ears of MOG personnel while developing the parity Eotvos experiment.
>>
>> So, Unc might not be on their speed-dial list? ;>)
> They might wonder how a foreign researcher independently discovered
> what was already known and publicly disclosed,
>
> "Affine vs. Metric Gravitation Parity Test" Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 49(2)
> 54 (2004)
>
> and why he cannot produce a reason for test mass configuration. If I
> were diddling cylinders I would have their height equal their
> diameter. The parity Eotvos experiment has their height equal to
> sqrt(3) times their radius. It's in Petitjean's math and we've
> checked it with explicit QCM calculation of tellurium crystallattice
> samplings,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b36
>
> There's second order stuff beyond moments of inertia, also
> inexplicable without Petitjean.
Really. Stuff like degree of twist?
> I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
> and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
> the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
> folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
> if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
Yeah, remember who your supporters were way back when. Even if I
did once mistakenly call you a biochemist.
Mark L. Fergerson
Uncle Al
Grant funding to study other materials, create better predictive
theory, and increase the effect. Macroscopic decoupling of
gravitational and inertial mass says "starship" and "weaponiziation."
Uncle Al *likes* killing the enemy. We don't do nearly enough of it
overseas or domestically.
Traveler
>Uncle Al *likes* killing the enemy. We don't do nearly enough of it
>overseas or domestically.
Anybody who insists on talking about himself in the third person is a
narcissistic asshole. ahahaha... You have never contributed shit to
science and you never will. You are an autistic megalomaniac with a
virulent inferiority complex. It's because of loudmouth assholes like
you that humanity is still talking about time travel and wormholes and
still has not figured out the mechanism of gravity.
So give it up, dipshit. Go play with your lego set and your captain
Kirk figurines and leave science to real thinkers. There are enough
ass kissers in it already. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Mark Fergerson wrote:
> >>Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>>On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:04 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
> >>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4332F55C...@hate.spam.net>:
> >>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>
> >>>>>Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
> >>>>>Al?
> >>>>
> >>>>Total silence from PR China for the past 6 weeks to me and also to
> >>>>co-conspirator academic inquiries. A degreed Mandarin Chinese speaker
> >>>>has volunteered to pursue this with e-mail, fax, and phone. In
> >>>>progress.
> >>>>
>
> > is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level. Hooh-rah. Now, I'm
> > bored again.
>
> So get back in your stinks lab and figure out how to mass-produce
> some of those "unmakeable" high-CHI materials you were talking about
> earlier this year. Gonna need such stuff for practical apps anyway.
> Maybe determine their decomposition products under various
> conditions and run the reaction(s) backwards? It works in physics...
[6.6]chiralane was subject to the gentle ministrations of AI org-syn
software. One group boasting of its prowess stopped bothering me.
The other resigned gracefully. I suppose I'll have to think about
it. That never results in anything but ridicule and success.
> > Yeah, but it's a secret that cannot be kept. This post, for example.
> > We then ask, "how stooopid is the US government?" Real stooopid in
> > real time, but also real paranoid especially after the fact. Uncle
> > Al, being a loyal citizen, has sent notice through channels. Nothing
> > will come of it.
>
> Ahem. Right. Lessee, B. J. Clinton gave the ChiComs a long, hard
> peek under the hoods of our ballistic missile guidance systems and
> got clean away with it, and now you've given them the basics of what
> will make nuke warheads completely obsolete. No problem.
I contacted appropriate authorities with my concerns. My ass is
covered. Hell, it was only a hobby - like Pandora opening boxes.
> >> I've just come off a mild case of flu; what "international Big G
> >>controversy"?
>
> > Measured numbers don't jive big time and nobody can find an error in
> > disparate groups' work. At the moment it looks like the Eot-Wash
> > quadrupole pendulum is in the lead. They are no damned good at
> > picking materials, though.
>
> Oh, shit. There must be a location-specific dependence; um, did
> any of them consult a local petroleum geologist?
Not local gee, Big G. Somebody must have oiled a knife edge or
something. The quadrupole pendulum benefits from minimal thickness
and maximal mass/area with maximum stiffness. The published
experiment was a gilded (no static charges) fused silica plate, d=2.20
g/cm^3. One would better pursue full leaded glass (5.2 g/cm^3), cubic
zirconia (d=5.8 g/cm^3), bismuth germanate (7.1 g/cm^3), or lead
tungstate (8.28 g/cm^3). They are all grown to large size and their
transparency allows checking for absolute homogenity.
Platinum-aluminum alloys are very hard (Platigems) and dense. 95%
Platinum alloys with gallium, indium, and copper have high density
(~19 g/cm^3) with high strength steel properties,
95.5% Pt, 3.0% Ga, 1.5% In
95.2% Platinum, 4.8% Ga, In, Cu
1550-1650 C melt
700 C for 30 minutes and slow cool to harden.
1000 C and water quench to soften
Inert gas but not reducing atmopheres
Vickers Hardness 318/Rockwell A 76/Rockwell C 32
125,000 psi tensile
104,000 psi yield
Nobody ever listens to Uncle Al.
> > I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
> > and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
> > the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
> > folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
> > if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
>
> Yeah, remember who your supporters were way back when. Even if I
> did once mistakenly call you a biochemist.
Not as bad as being called an engineer. I can't imagine the
imprecation of being called a physicist. At least chemists get laid.
"8^>)
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>
>So give it up, dipshit. Go play with your lego set and your captain
>Kirk figurines and leave science to real thinkers. There are enough
>ass kissers in it already. ahahaha...
>
>Louis Savain
You're a goddamned retard, boy.
Traveler
ahahaha... I'd rather be a retard than an ass kisser. ahahaha... What
does Uncle Dickhead's ass smell like today, Varney? ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
platopes
Traveler wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:35:17 GMT, NunYa Bidness
> <nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:46:58 -0400, Traveler <trav...@nospam.net>
> >Gave us:
> >
> >>
> >>So give it up, dipshit. Go play with your lego set and your captain
> >>Kirk figurines and leave science to real thinkers. There are enough
> >>ass kissers in it already. ahahaha...
> >>
> >>Louis Savain
> >
> > You're a goddamned retard, boy.
>
> ahahaha... I'd rather be a retard than an ass kisser.
You're both.
p
Traveler
ahahaha... Are you a homosexual, Mitch? Enquiring minds want to know.
ahahaha... A pedophile, maybe? ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
hanson
news:4333419A...@hate.spam.net...
> to Mark Fergerson:
[Al]
> ... the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz comes along with
> its own controls - the two hemiparity Eotvos experiments of
> each hand of quartz vs. fused silica. In any case, different test
> masses can be cut, fabricated, and completely run within four months.
> The equipment is qualified from previous classical runs, as are the
> protocols for running the thing and analyzing data and errors. The
> signal is phase-lock amplified slaved to balance rotation.
> Everything external cancels at will.
> **** My people are the best at every step. ****
>
> The loaded rotor is *perfectly* classically balanced to all orders of
> mass distribution and moments of inertia. Quartz is quartz to the
> limits of fabrication excellence.
> A net signal - a big one! - has only one possible origin:
> **** It's Petitjean's CHI what done it. ****
>
> Luo did solid cylinders. Adelberger was assigned solid spheres
> We're increasingly thinking we did it with sigmas to spare.
> GR is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level.
> Hooh-rah. Now, I'm bored again.>
>
>
[Al]
> Yeah, but it's a secret that cannot be kept. This post, for example.
> Real stooopid in real time, but also real paranoid especially
> after the fact. Uncle Al, being a loyal citizen, has sent notice
> through channels. Nothing will come of it.
>
>
[Al]
> Measured numbers [for G] don't jive big time and nobody can find an
> error in disparate groups' work. At the moment it looks like the Eot-Wash
> quadrupole pendulum is in the lead. They are no damned good at
> picking materials, though.
>
The reason that "nobody can find an error " is not with the experiments.
The root of the problem lays in the fact the Faraday constant (F), (N_A)
Avogadro's #, and Newton's (G) are intertwined and interrelated. Hence
unless NEW relations can be found that do not experimentally connect
these constants with each other, no improvement in accuracy can be
expected. In a first step measurements of FNG pairs should be done
with the hope that a product or ratio of F&G, G&N, N&F etc. will bring
more accurate experimental results. One such composite values are
known to a high accuracy, then rest is easy. = I've posted on this issue
many times in the past. But, of course, especially N_A, the mole, faces
the same emotional barrier/hang-up with the orthodox physics community
as does the term "chirality"... Hey, twisted mirror images and moles are
hard to swallow for people who have difficulties with the interpretations of
simple relativity... ahahaha...
>
[Al]
> They [who??] might wonder how a foreign researcher [Luo???]
> independently discovered what was already known and publicly disclosed,
> 54 (2004) [D9.006] by Alan M. Schwartz (MGLS, Ltd.)
>
> ... why he [who?] cannot produce a reason for test mass configuration.
> If I were diddling cylinders I would have their height equal their
> diameter. The parity Eotvos experiment has their height equal to
> sqrt(3) times their radius. It's in Petitjean's math and we've
> checked it with explicit QCM calculation of tellurium crystallattice
> samplings, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b36
> There's second order stuff beyond moments of inertia, also
> I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
> and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
> the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
> folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
> if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
> Uncle Al
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha.. OK, uncle Moses... whether it's **"Mine, all mine"** is
ultimately not determined by you, since you didn't fund it AND since
physics happens to be a social enterprise too, whether you & your
Army of Light likes it or not...
So, if I were in your shoes, I'd mend fences, I' be looking for new
allies (and be nice to them, since you want somenthing from them)
and I'd begin to look where, in case of non-null effects of F<>m*b,
[F, the force difference onto chiral vs achiral SiO2 or matter] does
show up in nature. If so, then for instance, one can imagine that a
spatial enrichment difference of different CHI - SiO2 grains in cosmic
nebulae would occur over the eons, and if a /_\ conc., a stratification
of different CHI matter can be detected in some of the galaxies' or
nebulae bands/arms via their IR, Mw or radar spectra, then you
have the "empirical" proof for your "Mine, all mine" notion. == OTOH,
if no effects are to be found anywhere then the entire exercise remains
an intellectual masturbation... But it was fun, respectively, anyway....
Like said, I'd get busy, make friends in the astrophys community and ...
to use your bosom buddies Savain's vernacular ... start to kiss ass
until your lips and tongue are raw.... ahahaha... Get with it, Al! Don't let
this one slip away like your Cockroach repellant or your Diamonds.
[A] ===> Don't bag on the US government. Instead, use your current
notoriety (and team up with an astrodude) and get a fat grant. Once you
have the dough, then and only then can you say it's "Mine, all mine".
Good luck to you. Remember: == It's HOW you say it that matters. ==
Go for it, Al, or they will go .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... again, over you...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
NunYa Bidness
>Go for it, Al, or they will go .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... again, over you...
>ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
You're an idiot. Ha ha ha, and ahahaha included. You're about as
retarded as a person your age can get.
Traveler
What a lame nerd you are, Varney. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Bob Cain
Traveler wrote:
> ahahaha... I'd rather be a retard than an ass kisser. ahahaha... What
> does Uncle Dickhead's ass smell like today, Varney? ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Seems from here that you have an obsession with the male
anus and it's near vicinity as well as penetrations thereof.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>
>What a lame nerd you are, Varney. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
The saddest part of your life is that you act like a six year old
amongst your peers. And YES, they are your peers.
You're lookin' pretty sad, ahahaha boy.
You need a new act, asswipe.
hanson
aka Lodo, the Dreidel "TokaMundo" <Toka...@weedizgood.org>
aka To-becom...@weed-is-good.org is AGAIN loaded & fully
undun from the effects of his bad weed he'd put into his bong when
he painfully lisped in ....
news:eqcaj19cn1fmks1hu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:54:15 -0400, Traveler <trav...@nospam.net>
> Gave us:
>>What a lame nerd you are, Varney. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> The saddest part of your life is that you act like a six year old
> amongst your peers. And YES, they are your peers.
> You're lookin' pretty sad, ahahaha boy.
> You need a new act, asswipe.
>
Did Louis crank you, Varney?... sure looks like it... AHAHAHA...
hahaha...ahahanson
hanson
news:bdj9j1pk9hqv1fs8i...@4ax.com...
that Varney as "NunYa Bidness" <nunyab...@nunyabidness.org>
aka Lodo, the Dreidel "TokaMundo" <Toka...@weedizgood.org>
aka To-becom...@weed-is-good.org is AGAIN loaded & fully
undun from the effects of his bad weed he'd put into his bong when
>>"hanson" <han...@quick.net> Gave us: [**B**]
>>>Go for it, Al, or they will go .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... again, over you...
>>>ahahaha... ahahahanson
>>>
>> You're an idiot. Ha ha ha, and ahahaha included. You're about as
>>retarded as a person your age can get.
>
> What a lame nerd you are, Varney. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
> Louis Savain
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
.... hahaha... AHAHAHA... you are right, Louis. Varney aka Lodo got
disturbed in his sorry condition, by the terms "mole" & "masturbation".
when it made his mentation lame as he tried to get it up... unsuccessfully...
ahahaha... Therefore, I will redo the post without the [**B**] line, so
that Varney can re-"mole-st" himself without being "dis-turbed"...
ahaha... ahahanson
...[snipped [**B**] to pacify self-retarding Varney, the Lodo]..... ahahaha....
ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
aka Lodo, the Dreidel "TokaMundo" <Toka...@weedizgood.org>
aka To-becom...@weed-is-good.org is AGAIN loaded & fully
undun from the effects of his bad weed he'd put into his bong when
he painfully lisped....
>>ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> You're an idiot. Ha ha ha, and ahahaha included.
> You're about as retarded as a person your age can get.
>
.... ahahaha... AHAHA... OK, OK, Lodo. Let me redo the post
for your benefit sans the (above [**B**] ) line that so offended you....
despite the fact that you didn't notice, due to your sorry condition,
that you called your Führer of the Army of Light, Al, being "an idiot":
== "uncle Al" + "Ha ha ha" = 472 google group hits.
== "uncle Al" + "Ha ha ha" = 707 google web hits.
Bad scene, Lodo, but thanks for the laughs, again, you poor sod.
ahahaha....ahaha... ahahanson
...[snipped [**B**]to pacify Lodo Varney, the self-molester]..... ahahaha....
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Mark Fergerson
While you're at it, think you can take seriously the concept of a
material with CHI > 1? "Supertwist" comes to mind.
>>>> I've just come off a mild case of flu; what "international Big G
>>>>controversy"?
>>
>>>Measured numbers don't jive big time and nobody can find an error in
>>>disparate groups' work. At the moment it looks like the Eot-Wash
>>>quadrupole pendulum is in the lead. They are no damned good at
>>>picking materials, though.
>>
>> Oh, shit. There must be a location-specific dependence; um, did
>>any of them consult a local petroleum geologist?
> Not local gee, Big G.
OK, I Googled. I like this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5397/2180
Pictures help us engineers...
> Somebody must have oiled a knife edge or something.
I wonder if the German group considered floating their apparatus
on water (after substituting the apparatus' materials for those that
would float on it and weren't wetted by it of course). Might reveal
the source of their "error".
> The quadrupole pendulum benefits from minimal thickness
> and maximal mass/area with maximum stiffness. The published
> experiment was a gilded (no static charges) fused silica plate, d=2.20
> g/cm^3. One would better pursue full leaded glass (5.2 g/cm^3), cubic
> zirconia (d=5.8 g/cm^3), bismuth germanate (7.1 g/cm^3), or lead
> tungstate (8.28 g/cm^3). They are all grown to large size and their
> transparency allows checking for absolute homogenity.
Somebody must not be in the habit of reading old science fiction
(the bit about glass Jo-blocks in _Venus Equilateral_).
> Platinum-aluminum alloys are very hard (Platigems) and dense. 95%
> Platinum alloys with gallium, indium, and copper have high density
> (~19 g/cm^3) with high strength steel properties,
>
> 95.5% Pt, 3.0% Ga, 1.5% In
> 95.2% Platinum, 4.8% Ga, In, Cu
> 1550-1650 C melt
>
> 700 C for 30 minutes and slow cool to harden.
> 1000 C and water quench to soften
> Inert gas but not reducing atmopheres
> Vickers Hardness 318/Rockwell A 76/Rockwell C 32
> 125,000 psi tensile
> 104,000 psi yield
>
> Nobody ever listens to Uncle Al.
If they did, what would you have to complain about?
>>>I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
>>>and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
>>>the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
>>>folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
>>>if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
>>
>> Yeah, remember who your supporters were way back when. Even if I
>>did once mistakenly call you a biochemist.
> Not as bad as being called an engineer. I can't imagine the
> imprecation of being called a physicist. At least chemists get laid.
> "8^>)
So do engineers, but we have to disguise ourselves as salesmen
first. :>(
Mark L. Fergerson
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Mark Fergerson wrote:
> >>Uncle Al wrote:
> >>>Mark Fergerson wrote:
> >>>>Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>>>>On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:04 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
> >>>>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4332F55C...@hate.spam.net>:
> >>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
> > [6.6]chiralane was subject to the gentle ministrations of AI org-syn
> > software. One group boasting of its prowess stopped bothering me.
> > The other resigned gracefully. I suppose I'll have to think about
> > it. That never results in anything but ridicule and success.
>
> While you're at it, think you can take seriously the concept of a
> material with CHI > 1? "Supertwist" comes to mind.
[snip]
CHI is normalized in any number of dimensions. CHI=0 is achiral.
CHI=1 is perfect theoretical parity divergence. There is nothing
outside the interval in either direction. Let mathematicians do the
math. Uncle Al only found a *small* mistake in the work. Somewhat
later, sent [6.6]chiralane's structure, NIST rewrote its
stereochemistry assignment software. We suspected we were onto
something.
Artificial intelligence software for chemical synthesis chokes on
[6.6]chiralane, even at assigning a systematic name. Here ya go,
Pilgrim! It starts "tetradecacyclo..." and ends "...heptacosane."
See if you can supply the creamy filling.
;chiralan.hin
forcefield mm+
sys 0
view 40 0.16717 55 15 0.9545546 0.2187459 -0.2024248 0.06143304
-0.8090225 -0.5845584 -0.291636 0.5455573 -0.7856944 2.6954e-018
-3.9392e-018 -55
mol 1
atom 1 - C ** - 0 0.8868 -0.8868 -0.8868 4 3 s 12 s 26 s 27 s
atom 2 - C ** - 0 0.0261 2.0795 -1.2281 4 16 s 21 s 23 s 28 s
atom 3 - C ** - 0 0 0 0 4 1 s 4 s 7 s 21 s
atom 4 - C ** - 0 0.8868 0.8868 0.8868 4 3 s 8 s 15 s 22 s
atom 5 - C ** - 0 0 0 3.0063 4 6 s 8 s 29 s 30 s
atom 6 - C ** - 0 -1.2281 0.0261 2.0795 4 5 s 7 s 14 s 31 s
atom 7 - C ** - 0 -0.8868 -0.8868 0.8868 4 3 s 6 s 10 s 17 s
atom 8 - C ** - 0 1.2281 -0.0261 2.0795 4 4 s 5 s 9 s 32 s
atom 9 - C ** - 0 1.437 -1.437 1.437 4 8 s 10 s 12 s 33 s
atom 10 - C ** - 0 0.0261 -2.0795 1.2281 4 7 s 9 s 11 s 34 s
atom 11 - C ** - 0 0 -3.0063 0 4 10 s 27 s 35 s 36 s
atom 12 - C ** - 0 2.0795 -1.2281 0.0261 4 1 s 9 s 13 s 37 s
atom 13 - C ** - 0 3.0063 0 0 4 12 s 22 s 38 s 39 s
atom 14 - C ** - 0 -1.437 1.437 1.437 4 6 s 15 s 19 s 40 s
atom 15 - C ** - 0 -0.0261 2.0795 1.2281 4 4 s 14 s 16 s 41 s
atom 16 - C ** - 0 0 3.0063 0 4 2 s 15 s 42 s 43 s
atom 17 - C ** - 0 -2.0795 -1.2281 -0.0261 4 7 s 18 s 20 s 44 s
atom 18 - C ** - 0 -3.0063 0 0 4 17 s 19 s 45 s 46 s
atom 19 - C ** - 0 -2.0795 1.2281 0.0261 4 14 s 18 s 21 s 47 s
atom 20 - C ** - 0 -1.437 -1.437 -1.437 4 17 s 24 s 27 s 48 s
atom 21 - C ** - 0 -0.8868 0.8868 -0.8868 4 2 s 3 s 19 s 24 s
atom 22 - C ** - 0 2.0795 1.2281 -0.0261 4 4 s 13 s 23 s 49 s
atom 23 - C ** - 0 1.437 1.437 -1.437 4 2 s 22 s 26 s 50 s
atom 24 - C ** - 0 -1.2281 -0.0261 -2.0795 4 20 s 21 s 25 s 51 s
atom 25 - C ** - 0 0 0 -3.0063 4 24 s 26 s 52 s 53 s
atom 26 - C ** - 0 1.2281 0.0261 -2.0795 4 1 s 23 s 25 s 54 s
atom 27 - C ** - 0 -0.0261 -2.0795 -1.2281 4 1 s 11 s 20 s 55 s
atom 28 - H ** - 0 -0.3001 2.6076 -2.1192 1 2 s
atom 29 - H ** - 0 -0.0192 -0.8693 3.6565 1 5 s
atom 30 - H ** - 0 0.0192 0.8693 3.6565 1 5 s
atom 31 - H ** - 0 -2.1192 -0.3001 2.6076 1 6 s
atom 32 - H ** - 0 2.1192 0.3001 2.6076 1 8 s
atom 33 - H ** - 0 2.0643 -2.0643 2.0643 1 9 s
atom 34 - H ** - 0 -0.3001 -2.6076 2.1192 1 10 s
atom 35 - H ** - 0 -0.8693 -3.6565 0.0192 1 11 s
atom 36 - H ** - 0 0.8693 -3.6565 -0.0192 1 11 s
atom 37 - H ** - 0 2.6076 -2.1192 -0.3001 1 12 s
atom 38 - H ** - 0 3.6565 -0.0192 -0.8693 1 13 s
atom 39 - H ** - 0 3.6565 0.0192 0.8693 1 13 s
atom 40 - H ** - 0 -2.0643 2.0643 2.0643 1 14 s
atom 41 - H ** - 0 0.3001 2.6076 2.1192 1 15 s
atom 42 - H ** - 0 0.8693 3.6565 0.0192 1 16 s
atom 43 - H ** - 0 -0.8693 3.6565 -0.0192 1 16 s
atom 44 - H ** - 0 -2.6076 -2.1192 0.3001 1 17 s
atom 45 - H ** - 0 -3.6565 -0.0192 0.8693 1 18 s
atom 46 - H ** - 0 -3.6565 0.0192 -0.8693 1 18 s
atom 47 - H ** - 0 -2.6076 2.1192 -0.3001 1 19 s
atom 48 - H ** - 0 -2.0643 -2.0643 -2.0643 1 20 s
atom 49 - H ** - 0 2.6076 2.1192 0.3001 1 22 s
atom 50 - H ** - 0 2.0643 2.0643 -2.0643 1 23 s
atom 51 - H ** - 0 -2.1192 0.3001 -2.6076 1 24 s
atom 52 - H ** - 0 -0.0192 0.8693 -3.6565 1 25 s
atom 53 - H ** - 0 0.0192 -0.8693 -3.6565 1 25 s
atom 54 - H ** - 0 2.1192 -0.3001 -2.6076 1 26 s
atom 55 - H ** - 0 0.3001 -2.6076 -2.1192 1 27 s
endmol 1
Gary Sokolich
news:dh2t2...@enews4.newsguy.com:
> Seems from here that you have an obsession with the male
> anus and it's near vicinity as well as penetrations thereof.
> Bob
Seems from here that that excites you. After all, you do reside in the SF
Bay area where obsession with the male anus as well as penetrations thereof
are well known. By chance, did your ex-wife dump you because she caught
you exchanging bodily fluids with the boy next door??
Mark Fergerson
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>>Uncle Al wrote:
> [snip]
>>>[6.6]chiralane was subject to the gentle ministrations of AI org-syn
>>>software. One group boasting of its prowess stopped bothering me.
>>>The other resigned gracefully. I suppose I'll have to think about
>>>it. That never results in anything but ridicule and success.
>>
>> While you're at it, think you can take seriously the concept of a
>>material with CHI > 1? "Supertwist" comes to mind.
>
> [snip]
>
> CHI is normalized in any number of dimensions. CHI=0 is achiral.
> CHI=1 is perfect theoretical parity divergence. There is nothing
> outside the interval in either direction. Let mathematicians do the
> math.
Unc, that wasn't up to your usual standards of ridicule; I was
hoping to prod you to do the success part (CHI > 1).
Lessee, spacetime is (possibly) left-handed; how about a high-CHI
molecule whose dexter enantiomer cannot be made because spacetime
refuses to contain it, but its laevo form can? Or is that bad SF?
> Uncle Al only found a *small* mistake in the work. Somewhat
> later, sent [6.6]chiralane's structure, NIST rewrote its
> stereochemistry assignment software. We suspected we were onto
> something.
>
> Artificial intelligence software for chemical synthesis chokes on
> [6.6]chiralane, even at assigning a systematic name.
Artificial intelligences are naturally stupid.
> Here ya go,
> Pilgrim! It starts "tetradecacyclo..." and ends "...heptacosane."
> See if you can supply the creamy filling.
Not my field, thanks just the same. I can blow stuff up real
good, but I'd never have invented platinum-catalyzed thermites.
Mark L. Fergerson
Thomas Johnson
Phil Holman wrote:
> Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
> Al?
>
Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with the
experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".
Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.
You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.
If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.
Thomas.
Jason Stanidge
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127758390.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How do you know all this?
Thomas Johnson
Back in April, when Scwhartz was making some of his rudest comments, I
forwarded some of them to Prof. Luo. At that time, I was not even sure
that Schwartz wasn't just making up the whole thing about Prof. Luo
doing the experiments. Prof. Luo sent an email to Schartz and cc'd me.
The email made it very clear that Schwartz was not a full
collaborator, that his comments on the newsgroups were not welcome, and
that further communication between them was not going to happen.
When the experimentor on the project refers to your discussions as
"specious and paradoxical", you should probably take note.
Schwartz did calm down for a long while after I made a couple of posts
letting him know that I had knew something of the real story. He let
me know that he wasn't pleased with my methods:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7432d6e8888acc6b?dmode=source&hl=en
Thomas.
jmfb...@aol.com
You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.
/BAH
Sheldon Harper
news:dhb8qu$8u0...@s835.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
> You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
> be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
> think long-term will disrupt them.
Please google Pons Fleischmann and do a little reading.
These newsgroups have been here before and no doubt will be here
again.
Quantum Mirror
What an asshole! Your only purpose is to stir up conflict, you have
never done anything positive in your life and never will. You should be
forced to read every post in this newsgroup by spaceman 1000 times. You
would end up craving every word Al ever wrote. At least he was trying
to do some real physics. What are you trying to accomplish? Making as
many lives as miserable as possible before you die?
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43372396...@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
The Chinee told you to fuck off, eh?
Does it burn, stooopid, does it burn?
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer Alan Schwartz,
the royal fuckwit, "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
mumble some crap in message
news:421CA8D5...@hate.spam.net...
> Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
> Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
> measured in the stationary frame.
> 1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
What a right royal stooopid motherfucker.
See the peeing puppy moortel, he'll not be glad to add
you to his list of truly IMMORTAL fumbles. I will, though.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles
Thomas Johnson
Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
skeptical of working with people they don't know.
Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo. Luo acts on it, and
occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
and master of the research project. He continued to do this even after
being directly scolded for this behavior.
Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration. There
never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.
I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
displeasure at having been lied to for the past year. I must have
missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
person who isn't around to defend himself. I must have missed the post
where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
was out of bounds.
If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you are
showing tacit approval of his actions.
Thomas.
jmfb...@aol.com
Honey, this is smoke and mirrors. I don't know how clearly
I can put this but I am not interested in the politics. I
am interested in the utility and possibilities now that
serious CPU power is available to every Tom, Dick, and Al.
>
>Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo.
I don't care. I am not interested in the politics.
> .. Luo acts on it, and
>occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
>posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
>and master of the research project.
I don't about anybody else, but I did not read "lord and master"
in any of those posts. I am grownup enough to know that he
was not. I don't know the details of how scientists in China
get paid but I do know that their bosses are nobody outside
their political system, let alone outside of the country.
> ..He continued to do this even after
>being directly scolded for this behavior.
>
>Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration.
And I never thought there was a collaboration. Apparently you
decided there had to be one because Uncle was posting about work
getting done. So you felt obligated to fix that.
> . There
>never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
>inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.
I didn't insults in those posts. Apparently you did.
Furthermore, you had to explain them as insults to people who
were doing work.
>
>I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
>displeasure at having been lied to for the past year.
Do you think I would have cared if that were the case? I am
not interested in personality conflicts, internal politics of
the science biz, nor your assumption of what I should think
and how I should limit my reading abilities and scope of these
reports.
> ... I must have
>missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
>person who isn't around to defend himself.
Did this person who was being attacked ask you to intervene for
him?
> .. I must have missed the post
>where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
>was out of bounds.
I ignore most of Uncle's rhetoric unless I'm looking the pun.
>
>If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you are
>showing tacit approval of his actions.
Wow! Damned if I do and damned if I don't. And you think Uncle's
style is bad. Yours is worse. Not only that, but you like
to pass on gossip for the sole purpose of making trouble.
This is a trait that is usually attributed to females.
Like I stated in a previous post, you have absolutely no long-term
thinking.
/BAH
Al Zenner
jmfbahciv recently posted something about cognitive dissonance. Guess who
is on the receiving end at the moment. It is much easier to continue to
believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.
It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.
Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the east.
Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.
jmfb...@aol.com
Are you talking to me [/BAH]or him?
Just in case you are referring to me, did you also read
what I was interested in and what I noted as the good
side effects of Uncle's efforts? It had nothing to do
with the contents of Uncle's exploration.
It occurred to me last night that people reading my posts may
not have an adequate long term thinking ability. I have
said that I don't care about who gets credit (if it is
a Nobel level) because I am not going to be alive if
that work is awarded.
Is the science biz really this obsessed more with who did
what when than scratching their curiosity itch and passing
on better methods to help with the research?
>It is much easier to continue to
>believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
>in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
>notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.
>
>It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.
Uncle has difficulties. I'm not talking about his foibles.
I am talking about how Uncle did do the work he did.
>
>Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
>earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the east.
>Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.
Thus, if a person is not socially acceptable, none of his or her
work should be used? Are you suggesting that all of the side
results of Uncle's project be removed and eradicated to wait
for a more PCable person to "rediscover"?
If this is the case, then you are going to have to eradicate
everything after Newton; he, reportedly, was also not a nice
man. So anything that has used the results of his work,
has to be thrown out. This is all manufactured items; your
computers; networks; possibly even indoor plumbing. Oh,
and there won't be any employment since jobs these days
are based on results of the results of that work.
/BAH
Al Zenner
news:dhj2l5$8qk...@s911.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
> In article <Xns96E0A0...@63.223.5.248>,
> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1127969088.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>> If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz',
>>> you are showing tacit approval of his actions.
>>jmfbahciv recently posted something about cognitive dissonance. Guess
>>who is on the receiving end at the moment.
> Are you talking to me [/BAH]or him?
I was talking to you, but since you pointed this out, true for both
of you.
> Just in case you are referring to me, did you also read
> what I was interested in and what I noted as the good
> side effects of Uncle's efforts? It had nothing to do
> with the contents of Uncle's exploration.
Actually it has everything to do with the contents, as you demonstrate
later and elsewhere.
> It occurred to me last night that people reading my posts may
> not have an adequate long term thinking ability. I have
> said that I don't care about who gets credit (if it is
> a Nobel level) because I am not going to be alive if
> that work is awarded.
Hard to say unless your long term thinking ends quite soon.
> Is the science biz really this obsessed more with who did
> what when than scratching their curiosity itch and passing
> on better methods to help with the research?
The science biz is obsessed with doing science. What has been going on with
Uncle Al, his supporters, and his detractors, has the trappings of science
but in the end it hasn't been science at all, but a major political effort
on Uncle Al's part to have a particular experiment run reviled by others
who either have a personal dislike for the guy and-or don't understand the
significance of the experiment which Uncle Al is personally unable to
undertake under the best of circumstances.
You seem to believe that science was being done in a new way. Unfortunately
you bought into a salesman's pitch. The study of chirality has a history
predating Uncle Al.
>>It is much easier to continue to
>>believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
>>in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
>>notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.
>>It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.
> Uncle has difficulties. I'm not talking about his foibles.
> I am talking about how Uncle did do the work he did.
Please explain to me what "work he did" and the scientific significance
of such work.
>>Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
>>earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the
>>east. Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.
> Thus, if a person is not socially acceptable, none of his or her
> work should be used? Are you suggesting that all of the side
> results of Uncle's project be removed and eradicated to wait
> for a more PCable person to "rediscover"?
You obviously missed the little L-R joke.
Once again, what work? Others have done a lot of actually significanrt
theoretical work on chirality. Petitjean's web page might enlighten you.
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
Please list for me any significant and substantial scientific achievments
you claim Uncle Al has given to he world resulting from this project. Also
describe their impact on present day knowledge.
> If this is the case, then you are going to have to eradicate
> everything after Newton; he, reportedly, was also not a nice
> man.
Newton imparted worthwhile knowledge. So did von Braun. Science and
technology has accepted results from all sorts of mad and nasty folks
so that's *not* the problem. No one appears to be jealous of Uncle Al.
Their sensibilities are offended on personal and professional levels.
It takes a greater degree of understanding than most in these science
newsgroups possess to appreciate what Uncle Al has been promoting. That
in itself presents one problem. But in the end, so far as I have been
able to ascertain, the totality of Al's contribution has been promoting
the concept for experiment.
That's not to say that others involved in his project haven't come up with
interesting avenues to pursue, but I haven't seen anything published as
yet. Have I missed anything?
> So anything that has used the results of his work,
> has to be thrown out. This is all manufactured items; your
> computers; networks; possibly even indoor plumbing. Oh,
> and there won't be any employment since jobs these days
> are based on results of the results of that work.
Sorry, but your reducio ad absurdum falls flat, probably because you're
marching to the beat of Uncle Al's drum.
As I implied earlier, you're so heavily emotionally invested in your beliefs
that no amount of contradictory fact is likely to have any impact other
than ushering in additional defensive rhetoric. Just as the folks began to
believe that turning knobs was actually fun you seem taken to believing that
form is more important than function in a discipline where function is
everything. How many different ways are there to invent a wheel? Are the ways
important, or the result? You can study ways allyou want, but when all the
ways lead to "no result" (not to be confused, however, with "null output"
which is a result) what have you achieved?
I understand that unwinding from believing in a person and their project is
a difficult process, sometimes consisting of intermediate steps. I'm sure
someone formally trained in psychology beyond the introductory courses I
took can explain the entire process much better than I.
jmfb...@aol.com
Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote in
>news:dhj2l5$8qk...@s911.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
>
>> In article <Xns96E0A0...@63.223.5.248>,
>> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>
>>>"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:1127969088.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>> If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz',
>>>> you are showing tacit approval of his actions.
>
>>>jmfbahciv recently posted something about cognitive dissonance. Guess
>>>who is on the receiving end at the moment.
>
>> Are you talking to me [/BAH]or him?
>
>I was talking to you, but since you pointed this out, true for both
>of you.
>
>> Just in case you are referring to me, did you also read
>> what I was interested in and what I noted as the good
>> side effects of Uncle's efforts? It had nothing to do
>> with the contents of Uncle's exploration.
>
>Actually it has everything to do with the contents, as you demonstrate
>later and elsewhere.
Sigh! I can not have anything to do with the contents because
I don't understand that part. I leave the science biz to
scientits.
>
>> It occurred to me last night that people reading my posts may
>> not have an adequate long term thinking ability. I have
>> said that I don't care about who gets credit (if it is
>> a Nobel level) because I am not going to be alive if
>> that work is awarded.
>
>Hard to say unless your long term thinking ends quite soon.
Assuming everything is perfect: 10 years research and
development; another 10-20 for engineering apps. Perhaps
another 50 for the tech to become common, it is taken for
granted and taught in kindergarten physics classes.
This is all assuming that the results are not subject
to national top security classifications.
>
>> Is the science biz really this obsessed more with who did
>> what when than scratching their curiosity itch and passing
>> on better methods to help with the research?
>
>The science biz is obsessed with doing science.
From these posts, I've started to think that it has
to do with old policies and procedures based on the
old boy network.
> ..What has been going on with
>Uncle Al, his supporters, and his detractors,
There are two, IIRC, people who actually talk about the science rather
than personality conflicts. The thread drifts of these two have
been interesting.
> .. has the trappings of science
>but in the end it hasn't been science at all, but a major political effort
>on Uncle Al's part to have a particular experiment run reviled by others
>who either have a personal dislike for the guy and-or don't understand the
>significance of the experiment which Uncle Al is personally unable to
>undertake under the best of circumstances.
This is another part that is interesting. If somebody, who is
outside the field w.r.t. employment, has a good idea, how in the
hell does your biz hear about it? This is the negative part
of science's procedures about papers. The good thing about
these procedures is retaining knowledge.
>
>You seem to believe that science was being done in a new way.
Not the science. You still don't seem to be reading what
I write. It is possible that I'm not writing clearly enough;
writing is not on my list of fun things to do.
> .. Unfortunately
>you bought into a salesman's pitch. The study of chirality has a history
>predating Uncle Al.
You have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at. Instead,
you interpret everything as an emotional reaction. Pot, kettle,
black.
>
>>>It is much easier to continue to
>>>believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
>>>in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
>>>notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.
>
>>>It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.
>
>> Uncle has difficulties. I'm not talking about his foibles.
>> I am talking about how Uncle did do the work he did.
>
>Please explain to me what "work he did" and the scientific significance
>of such work.
The one result that I can say will affect science is the
computation methods and tools that were uesd. Do you
honestly think that AMD ignored all this? Do you honestly
think that people will be content to wait in line for years
for a Cray time slot if they can run it on something they
can plug into their house current? Are you underestimating
the extreme usefulness of being able to do enough computing
to discard the ideas that won't work before a Cray is used?
And a kiddie, who is brilliant, will not have to go through
8 years of advanced training to try out new computational
methods. He can do it in his room when he's bored to tears
by adding 2 + 2 repeatedly.
Furthermore, the future geniuses can have access to other
people who are learning to think AND they conversational
access to people who have already learned how to think.
Do you honestly not see the tsunamis of learning and
exploration that will be done if people with varied
backgrounds and knowledge can meet without having to
pay for physical travel?
>
>>>Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
>>>earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the
>>>east. Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.
>
>> Thus, if a person is not socially acceptable, none of his or her
>> work should be used? Are you suggesting that all of the side
>> results of Uncle's project be removed and eradicated to wait
>> for a more PCable person to "rediscover"?
>
>You obviously missed the little L-R joke.
This is not a fucking joking matter. It is so serious I cannot
describe how serious it is.
>
>Once again, what work?
The work that makes it possible for other scientists and
engineers to do their jobs.
>Others have done a lot of actually significanrt
>theoretical work on chirality. Petitjean's web page might enlighten you.
>
>http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
>
>Please list for me any significant and substantial scientific achievments
>you claim Uncle Al has given to he world resulting from this project. Also
>describe their impact on present day knowledge.
Uncle led. It is how he got people, who would have never talked
to each other in their lifetimes, together working on little
pieces of Uncle's project. Those little pieces are extraordinary.
Even the computer games people are becoming aware of multi-CPU
systems (which my biz ignored for 20+ years). I am not crediting
Uncle as the sole mover of these configurations and computing
possibilities, but I am crediting him with starting more people
to talk to more people about the existence of multi-tightly-
coupled CPUs.
This is one side effect of Uncle's effort. In the computing biz,
as with any other manfuctured "toy", word of mouth eventually
because a market demand. It happened with VCRs, cellphones,
microwave ovens, and any electronic device that you can buy
off the shelf today.
>
>> If this is the case, then you are going to have to eradicate
>> everything after Newton; he, reportedly, was also not a nice
>> man.
>
>Newton imparted worthwhile knowledge. So did von Braun. Science and
>technology has accepted results from all sorts of mad and nasty folks
>so that's *not* the problem.
Perhaps you should use my impressions as data rather than
blithely dismissing them as noise. But, alas, I forgot; you
are a scientist and everybody else is an idiot with no ability
to think.
> .. No one appears to be jealous of Uncle Al.
Then you have not been reading anything that has been written.
>Their sensibilities are offended on personal and professional levels.
I understand this. What I'm worried about is the latter. Snobs
don't cause progress because progress means change and adaptation.
>It takes a greater degree of understanding than most in these science
>newsgroups possess to appreciate what Uncle Al has been promoting. That
>in itself presents one problem. But in the end, so far as I have been
>able to ascertain,
Then you haven't noticed anything other than your very narrow field
of knowledge. I'm telling you that a lot has been done and
has effects. None of this is "scientific" but it all was
in how the project got itself together and the tools that
were made to do the computational work and the communications
while getting that work done. Do you have any idea how
difficult it is to have people who can't yell over the wall
at each other get anything productive done? Especially when
that work has not been transformed into an engineering discipline
yet.
> .. the totality of Al's contribution has been promoting
>the concept for experiment.
And you keep looking at the syllabus of the project. I'm
looking at all the work that was done before that paragraph
was written. That is the grunt work of science. From my
point of view, the hypothesis is the pretty packaging.
[I think I'd better don my moth-eaten flame suit now. You will
never understand what I meant by that but I couldn't figure
out how write it clearer and better.]
>
>That's not to say that others involved in his project haven't come up with
>interesting avenues to pursue,
Finally!! This is what I've been looking at.
> ..but I haven't seen anything published as
>yet. Have I missed anything?
We don't generally publish. Our biz has not acquired your biz'
methods of handing down knowledge. We are getting there but
it's made a u-turn, IMO, because of the unfortunate addition
of the word science in the degree name.
>
>> So anything that has used the results of his work,
>> has to be thrown out. This is all manufactured items; your
>> computers; networks; possibly even indoor plumbing. Oh,
>> and there won't be any employment since jobs these days
>> are based on results of the results of that work.
>
>Sorry, but your reducio ad absurdum falls flat, probably because you're
>marching to the beat of Uncle Al's drum.
Oh, honey. You don't have any idea what drum I march to.
>
>As I implied earlier, you're so heavily emotionally invested
No. There is no basis for your conclusion.
> ..in your beliefs
Ah, there is a name for this; you are imposing your emotion
reactions into my personna. If I were an animal, it would
be called anthropomorphism but limited to attributing your
personal beliefs.
>that no amount of contradictory fact is likely to have any impact other
>than ushering in additional defensive rhetoric. Just as the folks began to
>believe that turning knobs was actually fun you seem taken to believing that
>form is more important than function in a discipline where function is
>everything. How many different ways are there to invent a wheel?
Thousands. Materials, design, size, number, terrain, etc.
A lot of people are making a lot of money improving a round
thing.
> Are the ways
>important, or the result?
It's a CATCH-22 with a useful feedback mechanism. This is something
you seem to be missing. Getting a new result usually requires
creating new tools and/or methods that can be used in thousands
of other endeavors. The result may become a seed corn
for a gazillion other results--which create new methods,...
> .. You can study ways allyou want, but when all the
>ways lead to "no result" (not to be confused, however, with "null output"
>which is a result) what have you achieved?
Now you are talking about something else because Uncle's project
did not lead to "no result". Just the computation aspect is
going to be <ahem>interesting.
>
>I understand that unwinding from believing in a person and their project is
>a difficult process, sometimes consisting of intermediate steps.
I'm sure you don't understand becaues you need to start going through
that process.
> .. I'm sure
>someone formally trained in psychology beyond the introductory courses I
>took can explain the entire process much better than I.
If you have to wait until it can be explained in English ASCII,
you will never see what I am talking about.
/BAH
Quantum Mirror
Thomas Johnson wrote:
> > You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
> > be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
> > think long-term will disrupt them.
>
> Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
> skeptical of working with people they don't know.
>
> Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo. Luo acts on it, and
> occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
> posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
> and master of the research project. He continued to do this even after
> being directly scolded for this behavior.
>
> Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration. There
> never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
> inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.
>
> I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
> displeasure at having been lied to for the past year.
The only lie I have seen over and over is your true identity crybaby
Richard Schultz! Only someone with years of hatred and declared
vengeance for anti-semitic statements would stoop so low and go to so
much trouble to try and destroy the work of another, with so much one
sided passion.
I must have
> missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
> person who isn't around to defend himself. I must have missed the post
> where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
> was out of bounds.
Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?
Traveler
>Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
>internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
>poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
>is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
>with them all?
I'm getting the feeling that Quantum shit invested some money in one
of Uncle Al's hairbrained schemes and would like to see some of the
money back. Notoriety from a non-null announcement would be a good way
to attract more clueless investors. ahahaha... ahahaha...
Sam Wormley
> Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
> internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
> poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
> is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
> with them all?
>
Traveler
Hold on second, Wormlette. Isn't Uncle Dickhead Jewish? So you two ass
kissers are attacking a Jewish man (Richard Schultz) for criticizing
another Jewish man (Uncle Dickhead)? Makes a lot of sense. Not!
WattMan
"Quantum Mirror" <jun...@pgrb.com> wrote in message
news:1128174850.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The inescapable conclusion is that Richard Schultz and Thomas Johnson
are both noms de plume adopted by Uncle Al's soon-to-be ex-wife.
Only Mrs Uncle Al would have the motivation to do the dastardly things
that Shultz and Johnson do to Uncle Al. Her actions are excusable. Can
you imagine what it would be like to be married to Uncle Al?
Schoenfeld
Quantum Mirror
Traveler wrote:
> "Quantum shit" <jun...@pgrb.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
> >internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
> >poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
> >is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
> >with them all?
>
> I'm getting the feeling that Quantum shit invested some money in one
> of Uncle Al's hairbrained schemes and would like to see some of the
> money back. Notoriety from a non-null announcement would be a good way
> to attract more clueless investors. ahahaha... ahahaha...
You had the wrong feeling as usual. I like to read his posts when they
contain physics. That is so much better than reading "ass kisser" or
synonymous cussing and swearing with no physics content posted 50-100
times daily. Your posts are boring, repetitious, worthless, uneducated
horse droppings. The kind which has destroyed this news group. I only
come here to read what Uncle Al and a couple of others have to say and
when he no longer contributes I will not return. I will leave it to
scum like you!
Sam Wormley
Drink up Schoenfeld... I took you off my crank list at your request
so's you could get a job.
Al Zenner
news:dhlsdn$8qk...@s1003.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
> In article <Xns96E173...@63.223.5.248>,
> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
This has been one of the nicest non-discussion discussions I've had in
a long time. Thank you.
jmfb...@aol.com
Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote in
>news:dhlsdn$8qk...@s1003.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
>
>> In article <Xns96E173...@63.223.5.248>,
>> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>
>This has been one of the nicest non-discussion discussions I've had in
>a long time. Thank you.
<grin> You are welcome. It reminded me a tad of our brain
storming sessions at my job.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"WattMan" <hm_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Can
>you imagine what it would be like to be married to Uncle Al?
Yup. Life would never be boring.
/BAH
WattMan
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dhoafa$8qk...@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
Oh yes, I understand that some women actually get a strange excitement
from being the subject of abuse and humiliation.
Of course, you'd have to weigh that upside against the Unc's reputation
for
delivering lots of talk and no results. Could have serious implications
for the
marital bed. Maybe the soon-to-be ex-Mrs Uncle Al will write a book.
jmfb...@aol.com
"WattMan" <hm_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:dhoafa$8qk...@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
>> In article <lPx%e.60670$mb4....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>> "WattMan" <hm_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Can
>>>you imagine what it would be like to be married to Uncle Al?
>>
>> Yup. Life would never be boring.
>
>Oh yes, I understand that some women actually get a strange excitement
>from being the subject of abuse and humiliation.
Check your assumptions. Uncle's mate would have to
have remarkable thinking abilities to stay a step
ahead.
<snip>
/BAH