High court rules out life sentences for some juveniles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

You believe in a god, sir?

>
>>> It's been 120 years since we had a massacre in the U.S. (wounded
>>> knee. which ended up with 146 men, women and children killed).
>>> Sad to say that I cannot say the same about Europe (6 million
>>> Jews exterminated, with an equal number of others exterminated
>>> in the Nazi killing machine) and your country (107,000 Dutch Jews sent
>>> to Auschwitz... only 5,200 survived). You should be ashamed of
>>> your history. Claiming you can't "remember it," is no excuse for
>>> forgetting it.
>>>
>>
>>The USA is about 300 years old, give or take. Europe spreads over many
>>millennia, dear sir.
>
> You would think Europeans would have learned in those many
> millennia... Yet there is no evidence of that having happened.

Learned what, sir? That the death penalty is wrong? Yes sir, most of Europe
have learned that. They have also learned not to trust America as the only
thing they have invented and not plagiarized is condensed milk, dear fellow.

>
>> In perspective, your people have had thier fair share
>>of bloodshed, sir.
>
> How do you remember that? Did you experience the U.S 300 years ago?

It's called "an education", sir.

> Were you there at Wounded Knee?? Europe, in the last 100 years,
> murdered in various genocides at least 100 times the total number of
> murders in genocides in the U.S. in that full 300 years. Shit...
> Europe managed to do it five times at much in only FIVE years In the
> 20th Century!!! And more than once in that 20th Century. While the
> bloody history of Europe's past should cause you to weep... but you
> can't REMEMBER it. How very convenient for you.

However, most of europe had the sense to abolish the death penalty, sir.

>
> The 20th Century was the bloodiest century in human history. And
> that bloodshed was 99.99% the result of Europe's citizens inability
> to get along with each other.

Whilest America sat back till the last minute then tried to claim they saved
everyone sir.

>
> However, you've certainly left me ROTFLMAO.

Puerile, sir.

>
> Let's look at only a few wars in Europe, from the 13th Century on.
>
> Before 19th Century --
>
> * 1208-1227 Conquest of Estonia
> * 1209-1229 Albigensian Crusade
> * 1282-1302 War of the Sicilian Vespers
> * 1296-1357 Wars of Scottish Independence
> * 1337-1453 Hundred Years' War
> * 1419-1434 Hussite Wars
> * 1455-1487 Wars of the Roses

> * 1522-1559 Habsburg-Valois Wars

> * 1558-1583 Livonian War
> * 1562-1598 French Wars of Religion

> * 1568-1648 Eighty Years' War

> * 1580-1583 War of the Portuguese Succession
> * 1585-1604 Anglo-Spanish War (1585)
> * 1594-1603 Nine Years War (Ireland)

> * 1618-1648 Thirty Years' War

> * 1640-1688 Portuguese Restoration War

> * 1642-1651 English Civil War
> * 1652-1674 Anglo-Dutch Wars
> * 1667-1668 War of Devolution
> * 1667-1683 Great Turkish War

> * 1688-1697 War of the League of Augsburg

> * 1700-1721 Great Northern War
> * 1701-1713 War of the Spanish Succession

> * 1718-1720 War of the Quadruple Alliance

> * 1740-1748 War of the Austrian Succession
> * 1756-1763 Seven Years' War
> * 1789-1799 French Revolution
>
> 19th century
>
> * 1792-1815 Napoleonic Wars

> * 1830 Ten Days Campaign (following the Belgian Revolt)
> * 1830-1831 Polish-Russian war
> * 1848-1851 First Schleswig War

> * 1848-1866 Italian Independence wars
>
> * 1848-1849 First Italian Independence War

> * 1859 Second Italian Independence War
> * 1866 Third Italian Independence War
>

> * 1854-1856 Crimean War

> * 1864 Second Schleswig War
> * 1864 January Uprising
> * 1866 Austro-Prussian War

> * 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War
> * 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War
> * 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War
> * 1893-1896 Cod War of 1893
> * 1897 First Greco-Turkish War

>
> 20th century
>
> (In general all wars are listed)
>
> * 1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War

> * 1912-1913 Balkan Wars

> o 1912-1913 First Balkan War
> o 1913 Second Balkan War

> * 1914-1918 World War I
> * 1916 Easter Rising
> * 1917-1921 Russian Civil War

> * 1918 Finnish Civil War
> * 1918 Polish-Czech war for Teschen Silesia

> * 1918-1919 Polish-Ukrainian War
> * 1918-1919 Greater Poland Uprising
> * 1918-1920 Estonian Liberation War

> * 1918-1920 Latvian War of Independence

> * 1919-1920 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
> * 1919-1921 Silesian Uprisings
> * 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet War
> * 1919-1921 Anglo-Irish War
> * 1920 Polish-Lithuanian War
> * 1922-1923 Irish Civil War
> * 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War
> * 1939-1945 World War II

> o 1939-1940 Winter War
> o 1941-1944 Continuation War
> o 1944 Slovak National Uprising
> * 1946-1949 Greek Civil War
> * 1956 Uprising in Poznan
> * 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary
> * 1959-Ongoing ETA's campaign
> * 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
> * 1969-1998 The Troubles of Northern Ireland
> * 1970-1984 Red Brigades campaign of terror
> * 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus
> * 1988-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War
> * 1989 Romanian Revolution
> * 1991 Ten-Day War in Slovenia
> * 1991-1992 War in South Ossetia
> * 1991-1993 Georgian civil war
> * 1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
> * 1992 War of Transnistria
> * 1992-1998 First War in Abkhazia
> * 1992-1995 Bosnian War

> * 1994-1996 First Chechen War

> * 1996-1999 First and Second Kosovo Wars
> * 1997-Ongoing Northern Irish Republican Dissidents conflict
> * 1998 Second War of Abkhazia
> * 1999 Dagestan War
> * 1999-Ongoing Second Chechen War

> * 1999-2001 Insurgency in the Presevo Valley

>
> 21st century
>
> * 2001 2001 Macedonia conflict
> * 2002 Perejil Island Crisis
> * 2002-2007 Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge
> * 2004 2004 unrest in Kosovo
> * 2004 Adjara crisis
> * 2008 War in South Ossetia
>
> Yeah... you guys have done a great job ---- in slaughtering each
> other. I suppose you are real proud of yourself, that there was no
> "war against European cockroaches" during those times. "Save
> the cockroach."

You've looked up actual history, sir? You've done some research. I'm
amazed. We shall see how long it takes you to catch up. Not long I'd wager.
You seem to be invading everybody and you still have the barbaric death
penalty.

>
> <fx: Death Disco stares wide eyed with open mouth gaping at proof of
> the long history of European hate for each other>

Wishful thinking on your part, sir.

>
>>>>> Clearly just one psychiatrist would not be enough in your case. You're
>>>>> a case for a textbook to be written about nothing but your mental
>>>>> aberrations. You need an entire wing at the best psychiatric hospital
>>>>> in Vienna, Austria, accompanied by an around the clock team of the
>>>>> best psychiatric minds in the world examining nothing but your case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Puerile.
>>>
>>> You're in a rut, my boy... why not try using a thesaurus, and come up
>>> with some more inventive words. You frenetic, stupid, disingenuous,
>>> gormless, choleric, ignoble, foolish, craven, idiotic, vacuous,
>>> empty-headed, vapid, nefarious, bilious, witless, moronic, hedonistic,
>>> smarmy, nihilist, xenophobic brain-dead demagogue. And those were
>>> just a starter set.
>>>
>>
>>"Puerile." will do just fine, sir. It describes around 95% of your debate,
>

> TRANSLATION ""Puerile." will do just fine, sir. It describes around 95%
> of your debate."

Are you getting angry sir?

"You pray to a god to strike me down for correcting your English, sir?
Hardly the response of an athiest."

Is not a lie, sir.

>>> Hey, sport... tell me what this "something than ourselves" whispered
>>> in your ear that no one else could hear? This should be good.
>>>
>>
>>You hear whisperings in your ear, sir? You should see someone about that.
>
> You're the one claiming to have heard "something higher than
> ourselves" tell you that there is a "right to life for all biological
> life." If you now insist you didn't hear it from "something higher
> than ourselves," who was it who told you about something that is
> obviously not in physical or scientific evidence of existing?
>

"You're the one claiming to have heard "something higher than ourselves""

I made no such claim, sir.

> TRANSLATION: "You are going to try thinking? You should sir. You might
> like it"
>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>>Have you ever looked up how many "disease causing organisms" people carry?
>
> Have you? So you advise to shoot people, and not step on cockroaches.
> How very "sensitive" of you, shit-for-brains. Why don't you go live
> among the cockroaches since you show so much empathy toward them?
>

"Have you?"

No sir, but I don't need to. You blurted about desease carrying organisms,
sir.

>>"Do you step on that cockroach or do you let that cockroach crawl on your
>>baby while you run to get some kind of paper or something to remove that
>>cockroach gently to avoid hurting your baby and that cockroach?"
>>
>>No sir. I pick up the cochroach, I take it outside and let it go.
>
> You mean you'd pick it off of the arm of your baby, after your baby
> has been infected with e-coli. How very fatherly of you... now you
> only have to worry about your baby dying from e-coli.

If it was on the arm of my baby then killing it would spread it's "disease
causing organisms" all over my baby sir.
You should think your debates through, sir. Did you have any children that
lived sir?

>
>>I would
>>guess that you would stamp on it, splattering the poor little creature
>>ans
>>spreading it's blood which contains "more than 50 disease causing
>>organisms" all over your baby. There is absolutely no reason to kill the
>>cockroach sir.
>
> I'd stamp the shit out of it just for kicks. And then spread Clorox
> all over the mess, and throw my shoe in an incinerator, before it
> could touch my baby. Bacteria can't jump from the floor to my baby,
> but it sure can go from any of the six legs of that cockroach to my
> baby's body before I could "pick it up." But then your answer is that
> you consider the life of the cockroach to be more valuable than the
> possibility of transmitting a deadly disease to your baby. That's
> exactly the answer I expected from you. You do know that the "poor
> little cockroach" will be food for the birds shortly in any case,
> while the possible fatal illness it might transmit to your child will
> haunt you forever... or not... since you seem cold as ice when it
> comes to worrying about humans, including your own baby, but
> warm and fuzzy all over when it comes to worrying about cockroaches.
>

"I'd stamp the shit out of it just for kicks"

Then you are a murderer, sir, on two counts. One for killing the poor
innocent cockroach and two for infecting you baby by spreading the cockroach's
disease carrying organisms all over your baby, sir.

> Apparently if the choice came to you having to kill a cockroach to
> prevent the execution of an innocent, you'd simply not _have the
> heart_ to kill that cockroach, you call "the poor little creature."
> Maybe I should have framed my thought experiment thusly, to
> clearly put into focus how little you care about HUMANS, and how
> much you care about COCKROACHES!

You should work on thinking things through before trying thought experiments
on others, sir.

>
> Since you find humans and cockroaches no different, if you had
> to kill a human or kill a cockroach, and had no other choice, which
> would you kill? After all, you can't make the same choice as
> Buridan's donkey in this thought experiment. One or the other,
> sport. Which one is it?
>
> Regardless... I'm now getting a better focus on why you deny the
> Holocaust. It's because to you six million Jews are worth less than
> six million and one cockroaches, in your sick mind.
>
>>>>>>> You're not happy merely assassinating the English language, you
>>>>>>> want to crucify it before murdering it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Another one of your puerile response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another one of your mindless drivel responses. Is "puerile" a
>>>>> new word you've discovered?
>>>>
>>>>Puerile.
>>>
>>> Thanks for answering the question with your agreement.
>>
>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying then you should not be
>>allowed to take part.
>
> Pardon me... but I asked the question "Is 'puerile' a new word you've
> discovered?" And you answered with that word proving it is impossible
> that I was lying. The only reason you call me a liar is because you
> have nothing else to use in defense of your ignorance. So you expect
> to call me, what you just proved yourself to be.... shit-for-brains.
>

If you cannot win your arguments without lying or (inclusive) name calling

then you should not be allowed to take part.

>>>>>>>>>>> However; we totally set aside any trial for such an adult, until

Wiki is not known for its accuracy, sir.

> English criminal law applies to the law in the U.K.
>

Yes sir, but if you suggest that killing in self defense does not carry a
prison term in the UK then you are wrong sir.

That was not a cite, sir.

Killing in self defense is manslaughter and is punishable by imprisonment,
sir.

In Britain, a person can go to prison for killing in self defence. They
generally do, sir.

>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>>
>>
>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you were
>>honest with yourself.
>
> Once again your argument against my proof is that I must be using
> YOUR strategy. When have you EVER "told the truth"?
>

You have provided no proof, sir. You have only provided an incorrectly
referenced cite.

You're guessing, sir.

>
>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>
>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you were
>>honest with yourself.
>
> Stop repeating your lies. Repetition has no relation to accuracy.

I repeat only your lies, sir.

>
>>> Why don't you try something new... Like telling the truth?
>>
>>Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...
>

> TRANSLATION: "Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...."

>
>>> <clip raving hysterical denial of the truth>
>>>
>>>>>>>"Homicide does not necessarily
>>>>>>> involve deliberation. But it can. Deliberation under the law
>>>>>>> is a very complex issue. There can be deliberation in homicide,
>>>>>>> and manslaughter, and murder. While there be a lack of
>>>>>>> deliberation in homicide and manslaughter. Murder must show
>>>>>>> deliberation. Why is this so hard for you to grasp??? Is the
>>>>>>> retention of facts really that difficult for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem to spend a lot of time answering questions that nobody asked
>>>>>>them
>>>>>>reprimanding them for not knowing the answer and this is without the
>>>>>>courtesy of bothering to find out if they do know the answer. Puerile
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh... tough shit, kid. You're the ignoramus who insisted "If a
>>>>> person deliberatly (sic) kills another then it is murder."
>>>>
>>>>Only on you, dear fellow. Such exposes your stupidity.
>>>>
>>> I'm not the one having offered the incredibly ignorance comment that
>>> "If a person deliberatly (sic) kills another then it is murder." You
>>> offered that incredibly ignorant comment, and don't have a leg to
>>> stand on. I'll bet if YOU had to kill someone in self-defense that
>>> you'd be the first one screaming of innocence.
>>
>>Nonsense, dear fellow.
>
> Face it, shit-for-brains... you're a wimp who only recently was
> weaned.
>

"Face it, shit-for-brains"

Hardly a compelling argument, sir.

"No proof offered. Your claim fails"

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.

>>> <clip more hysterical raving from the Bubble-boy who has been deprived
>>> of any intellect whatsoever>
>>>
>>
>>I have already accepted your surrender, sir.
>
> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --

"my young ignorant child"

You have a prejudice against the "young" (Sic), sir!

Yes, sir. But I corrected it in my follow up post, the one you are about to
pretend you have not seen.

>>> This is a simple problem in arithmetic if one understands the
>>> question. And you should be able to compute it in your head, and
>>> not need to even resort to paper and pen, or a computer. You
>>> shouldn't even need "the back of an envelope."
>>>
>>
>>It was very simple, sir. They teach it to 13 year old physics students. Is
>>that where you learned it, sir?
>
> Yet, you fucked it up. And even fucked it up using pen and pencil,
> and calculator, and references... none of which were needed to solve
> the very easy problem.

"Yet, you fucked it up"

I did sir. Nevertheless, I corrected. It is fortunate I was not submitting
it to anyone whose opinion matters. However, I am still waiting to see you
answer the simple problem I set for you. What was the expression you used?
"Overly complicated"

>
>>>>> Nor do I have to consult wikipedia to know what mens rea and actus
>>>>> reus mean. But obviously you had to look it up.
>>>
>>> <clip vacuous repeating of my comment>
>>
>>I've already accepted your surrender.
>
> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>
> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
> etc... etc... etc...
> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_
>

"But you're no longer worth my time"

That was your surrender, sir.

>>>
>>>>What you are saying to me is that you did not do any research. This
>>>>explains
>>>>why you get so many words wrong. I suggest you buy a dictionary, sir.
>>>>
>>> <clip vacuous repeating of my comment>
>>
>>I've already accepted your surrender.
>
> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>
> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
> etc... etc... etc...
> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_
>

"But you're no longer worth my time"

That was your surrender, sir.

>>>>
>>>>At some point I did, yes. It's called research. It's how most people
>>>>learn
>>>>words which is considerably more than your method of guessing them, dear
>>>>fellow.
>>>
>>> Then you should look up the word "prejudice" and see what a fool
>>> you are, and how it describes your anti-Semitism perfectly.
>>
>>I did look it up sir. You claim that you do not need to. Curious
>
> I've looked it up... and guess what? Not one single mention of the
> word "static" exists in ANY definition of the word "prejudice" in ANY
> English dictionary that I can find. And I have looked at about a
> dozen of them, both on-line dictionaries and those I have in my
> private library. So what dictionary have you been using that has
> the word "static" in the definition of the word "prejudice"???
> I recall the definition you did provide that only proved me right
> as to the word being subjective -- a "mental abstraction," of no
> real physical existence. And nowhere in that definition you provided
> does the word "static" appear. So put up or shut up.

"word "static" exists in ANY definition of the word "prejudice"

I never said it did, sir.

>
> *deathly silence*

You are anything but silent, sir.

If you cannot win your arguments without lying or name calling then you

should not be allowed to take part.

".</sarcasm>"

Of course it was, sir. I doubt even you can be that stupid.

Your debate has no logical flow, sir.

>>> In addition my home library is quite extensive -- See-
>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/library.mov
>>> And I am a voracious reader.
>>>
>>
>>> That however, is only a small part of my total library, since it does
>>> not include technical works which I maintain in my computer room.
>>> Which can be seen here --
>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Library.JPG
>>
>>It is not wise to post personal information on a public forum to someone
>>your are having an aggressive debate with, sir.
>
> Should I fear you??? I don't see how pictures of my home library
> represent a threat to my safety, given I have already provided my
> real name (which was detected by a cyber-stalker who could not
> stand being intellectually defeated). That would represent a possible
> threat, since another cyber-stalker began posting my address and
> phone number and even called my home phone in a threatening
> manner in speaking to my wife, but hung up before I could come
> to the phone. See --
> http://tinyurl.com/mev6pd

" Should I fear you??? "

No sir. I offer no threat to your safety but I cannot speak for others.

>
>>However, you are proof that reading does not make a person "smart"
>
> Spoken like a boy who hasn't read a book in the past month.

You're guessing, sir.

No, sir. I was right. you failed to reference and post the correct cite.

>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/27/usa.ewenmacaskill
> Subject -- "Compensation for men FBI let be framed."

Have you never been taught the correct procedure for referencing cites, sir?

>
>>>>>>" If we had a perfect justice
>>>>>>> system we would not convict the innocent, and we would never
>>>>>>> permit an innocent to die in prison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You do not have a perfect justice system.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because there is no such thing as "a perfect justice system."
>>>>
>>>>This is an strong argument fo the abolishment of the death penalty.
>>>
>>> Total mindless drivel. If you're looking for a "perfect criminal
>>> justice system," and there is no such thing, then YOU are arguing for
>>> the abolition of the "criminal justice system." And only a fool would
>>> argue that.
>>>
>>
>>No, sir. I am arguing the abolition of the death penalty.
>
> So you don't care if innocent men die in prison, you just don't want
> guilty murderers to be executed. Now that we have determined that...
> it is fair to say that your reasons are based not upon innocent men
> dying in prison, but upon your Bible-thumping belief that the lives
> of murderers are worth more than the lives of the innocents who do
> die in prison.
>

"So you don't care if innocent men die in prison"

Yes I do, sir. that's why I oppose the death penalty.

There is no logical flow to your argument, sir.

>
>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying then you should not be
>>allowed to take part.
>
> I'm only examining the FACT that you do not oppose innocent men
> dying in prison, because you do not oppose a criminal justice system
> in which that occurs, while you do oppose executing guilty murderers.
> Calling me a liar doesn't change the fact that there is no way you
> can dispute what I have said. I pointed out that two innocents have
> been PROVEN to have died in prison. You insist it doesn't bother
> you to the point that you would oppose a criminal justice system
> in which that can possibly happen (which is EVERY criminal justice
> system). While you do oppose a guilty murderer dying in prison
> through legal execution. You once said "murder is murder."
> Well, let me also say that "dead is dead." The only difference
> between an innocent dying in prison, and a guilty murderer being
> executed, is that the former WAS INNOCENT, and the latter
> WAS GUILTY OF MURDER. You do not oppose the former
> happening, but jump up and down like a puppet on a string
> at the thought of the latter happening.
>

"I'm only examining the FACT"

Correction, sir. That should say "I'm only examining my GUESS".

>>>>>> and a perfect justice system would not include the death
>>>>>>penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again arguing from a false premise... there is no such thing
>>>>> as "a perfect justice system." Innocents are convicted probably
>>>>> every day in some court somewhere in the U.S. Shall we let
>>>>> all the criminals remain free because of the chance of an innocent
>>>>> dying in prison? Or do you argue abolish the U.S. criminal
>>>>> justice system and let the criminals continue on their way.
>>>>
>>>>My premise is quite correct. If there were a perfect justice system it
>>>>would not have a death penalty.
>>>
>>> Proven to be a lie. A TOTAL LIE. I've already showed you an
>>> example of an imperfect justice system even if there were no death
>>> penalty. Innocents, NOT sentenced to the death penalty, die in prison
>>> every day. Apparently you are willing to let them die, and call it
>>> "perfect."
>>>
>>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>>Becoming angry will not aid your argument, sir.
>>
> It can't hurt when I see a fool insisting he doesn't care about
> innocents who die in prison, that his only concern is saving the
> lives of guilty murderer who might go on to murder again and
> again.

" It can't hurt when I see a fool insisting he doesn't care about
> innocents who die in prison"

I made no such claim, sir.

>
>>>> Any imperfect justice system which includes all off
>>>>them should not inclde a death penalty.
>>>
>>> What the fuck are you raving about? Exactly what language are you
>>> trying to communicate in, sport?
>>
>>English, sir.
>
> And not doing a very good job of it, my boy. Although if your
> intention was to assassinate it.. you did a fine job, my boy. Two
> spelling errors in one and a half lines of text, and the use of the
> word "them" without the slightest suggestion of who you mean
> by "them."

"And not doing a very good job of it, my boy"

You did not recognise it, sir. You should take lessons in English;
especially one in what words mean.

Your debate is puerile and wasteful, sir.

Because I'm not you, sir.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Jun 2, 2010, 1:23:17 AM6/2/10

On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
wrote:

>
>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:uf7606lsgpi3tgojf...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:12:43 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6lu006db3d7mcu76l...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:30:15 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>"> But you're no longer worth my time"
>>>
>>>Curios. You announce that we are done but you reply to one of my posts
>>>afterwards. This is strange.
>>
>> That was in respect to that particular post, and that particular
>> evening, shit-for-brains.
>
>No sir " But you're no longer worth my time", is clearly in respect to a
>person, not a partucular post, sir.

Of course... it was in respect to YOUR post. Try to pay attention.

>> Bet you're disappointed to see me wipe out every one of your
>> irrational arguments again. But let me be absolutely clear...
>> if I do stop replying to your comments that are obviously
>> a product of a disturbed and degenerate mind, it will only be
>> because I've grown tired of pounding each and every one of your
>> shriveled-up arguments into dust.
>>
>
>Declaring yourself the winner does not make you the winner, dear sir. Court
>sessions would be a lot shorter had it been the case.

Hey, you've been declaring yourself the winner, stating that you've
already "accepted <my> flag of surrender." How did you figure that
out other than declaring yourself the winner?

I'll bet you wish!

>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>> etc... etc... etc...
>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_.
>>
>
>No it doesn't, sir.

Yes, it does, my young student.

>>>>>>>Puerile. With all sincerity I am convinced that you are not 78 years
>>>>>>>old. Your mind is dull, unfocused and your arguments are childish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect in real life you are a rather lonely 17-year-old Dutch boy,
>>>>>> who is a virgin, afraid of the opposite sex, pimply and overweight,
>>>>>> has no friends, lacks even moderate athletic abilities, is considered
>>>>>> weird by his schoolmates, lives on junk food, spends an
>>>>>> excessive amount of time surfing porn and White Power sites,
>>>>>> and is so overly-mothered it's creepy.
>>>>>
>>>>>You already said that.
>>>>
>>>> It needs repeating.... Over and over... since it appears to be quite
>>>> accurate, having brought you bellowing out of the belly of the beast.
>>>
>>>Nothing needs repeating over and over, my friend.
>>
>> No proof offered. Your claim fails. Consider how often you have
>> repeated your mindless drivel in respect to using the word "puerile"
>> (as if it's the only insult you know), and your equally mindless
>> drivel that you talk to "something higher than ourselves." Plus
>> your silly God-like pronunciations that you "are not obligated to
>> prove anything" you claim as fact. Good grief... do you also picture
>> yourself as sitting on a cloud with a shiny and tiny hula hoop over
>> your head, changing your opinion into fact, just because you say so?
>>
>

>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.

All you need to do is look at your past comments, to see your puerile
use of the word "puerile" over and over as if it is your prayer
mantra, that you must repeat over and over to gain entrance to
that "holy spot" you insist belongs to you sitting next to
"something higher than ourselves." What does that joker look
like if he has objective existence rather than the subjective
existence resulting from a mental aberration you suffer from?
Perhaps you have a picture of that joker that you can share with
us. Or is it a picture on the cover of that Bible you keep
thumping?

>>>Repetition has no relation to accuracy.
>>
>> How very "puerile" that claim is. Keep in mind that you repeating
>> your lies has no relation to the truth.
>>
>
>I don't have to lie, sir. Lying is your strategy.

Heh... when caught in a lie, call the other a liar hoping to ignore
having been caught in a lie.

>>>Saying that, however;
>>>Curios. You announce that we are done but you reply to one of my posts
>>>afterwards. This is strange.
>>
>> What's really strange is your psychotic belief that you hear voices
>> _from on high_ that have told you that "all biological life has a
>> right to life." Hallelujah, brother.
>>
>
>> While insisting you don't need to prove it because you've heard
>> those voices. Arguing it is "the unknown," but known to you as
>> "something higher than ourselves." And then you try to deny you're
>> a Bible-thumper. Get outta here.
>
>
>I made no such claims, sir.

Stop lying. You made the exact comment that this "right to life for
all biological life" that you bang the drum for, was an "honour
strictly owned by something higher than ourselves." Obviously
it's not something that has an objective existence, or you could
show me a picture of it. Yet you offered it as PROOF of this
absurd Tooth Fairy "right to life for all biological life." Thus,
you are a liar. There is no such proof... you know it... I know
it... every reasonable person on this planet knows it. You may
_believe it_ but that has absolutely nothing to do with PROOF!
People who are religious have every right to "believe" what they
want to believe... but it is insanity to contend that "believing"
is enough to make it FACT... which is somehow PROVEN only
because of a "belief." It is the bane of all mankind in today's
world as we watch Muslim fanatics shout "Allahu Akbar" before
blowing themselves up to murder a few dozen "non-believers."
Be careful what your "something higher than ourselves," tells you to
do, sport.

>>>>>> I suspect you do average in school since you don't appear to be
>>>>>> retarded to me, but you certainly have deep psychological issues, and
>>>>>> an inability to relate to others when speaking in your mother-tongue,
>>>>>> thus you struggle along making mistake after mistake in the English
>>>>>> language, boring us in AADP, showing a political philosophy based upon
>>>>>> a belief in your "Aryan superiority," that you've never "seen a Black
>>>>>> person," and a refusal to accept that the extermination of six million
>>>>>> Jews in the 20th Century actually happened. In addition to arguing
>>>>>> that you do remember "the Crusades," "WW II," and "the Greeks." Just
>>>>>> what do you remember about the Greeks? Try to impress me with your
>>>>>> knowledge of Aeschylus. Do you remember even one of his plays?
>>>>>> Can you name even one of his plays? Do you remember what Crusade
>>>>>> was led by Richard the Lionheart? No fair using Google now!!
>>>>>
>>>>>You already said that.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Do you remember what Crusade
>>>>>> was led by Richard the Lionheart?"
>>>>>
>>>>>No sir. I wan't there.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you stated you remember the Crusades... In fact you asked me
>>>> if I remembered the Crusades. You couldn't ask that if you didn't
>>>> remember the Crusades.
>>>
>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>
>You use the expression, "young" like some form of accusation, sir.

No... I use it matter-of-factly.

> It is
>evident that you escrimate against "the young".

If there were a word in the English language that defined "escrimate"
perhaps you might be right. But given that there is no such word
your comment is just mindless drivel... apparently trying to accuse
me of something that doesn't exist in the English language.

We, my wife and I, have had children... they were nurtured to respect
their elders, and to learn from their wisdom. They have now had
children... and because our children were nurtured to respect their
elders, their children are being nurtured to respect their elders.
It's a shame that you lack such nurturing.

>However I am most definately
>younger than 78 but I am older than your mental age, dear fellow.

No proof offered. Your claim fails. An argument of presumed fact but
lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

>>>No I didn't, sir. However.
>>
>> I have the proof, sport. Your words that "You do not remember what is
>> not in your memory and it is not in your memory if you did not
>> experience or witness it first hand." Which means the same as saying
>> "you do remember what is in your memory OR what you witness first
>> hand." And by relating the Crusades in mentioning them they must be
>> in your memory. Otherwise you've had a full frontal lobotomy and
>> haven't revealed that fact here. See -
>> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/memory
>> MEMORY -"The ability to remember things" You do remember
>> how to mathematically divide a numerator by a denominator, because
>> it was taught to you, and not that you have a natural instinct without
>> having been taught. So why can't you remember the Holocaust? Did
>> you attend a school in which WW II was not taught, but the Crusades
>> were?
>

>Your logic is erroneous, sir.

An argument of presumed fact but lacking a referenced cite is
inadmissible. Exactly how is my logic erroneous? What logical
fallacy can you show in respect to my logic? All my comments to
the best of my knowledge abide by the principles laid down by
Aristotle as syllogistic logic. All my comments abide by the Square
of Oppositions. I dislike Sophistical arguments since they lack
logic... yet that is how most of your arguments are formed.

Aristotle identified 13 logical fallacies in Sophistical Refutations.
Look them up, and tell me where my logic can be refuted. If
you can't you're just a deranged liar, on a mission of 1) Holocaust
denial, 2) racism, 3) a _save the cockroach_ crusade, 4) hearing
voices from "something higher than ourselves," that is "unknown"
to everyone but you, and 5) hoping to victimize the English
language. Clearly if you are not on Ritalin� you should be.

BTW -- You "remember" arithmetic, because your memory has
retained what you were taught, but you can't "remember" the
Holocaust... now that sophistry! Or perhaps you never were
taught history or of the Holocaust. In which case... educated
yourself -- Starting with --
http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/tp/holocaust.htm
This is the perfect place for the beginner to start learning about
the Holocaust. Just as an arithmetic primary was the perfect
place for you to start learning arithmetic. If that's what you claim
is "experience," then "experience" learning of the Holocaust.
Plus, there is an exact link to "Why We Should Remember,"
which is a letter addressed directly to the youth of today
on why it is important to "remember" the Holocaust. See --
http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/ourturn.htm

Just as your first introduction to arithmetic, began with the
explanation of why it is important to "remember" how to
use arithmetic, you can now learn why it is important to
"remember" the extermination of six million Jews on your
continent less than 70 years ago. Since your parents have
obviously abdicated their responsibility to teach you, you
should become a leader, and educated YOURSELF. Without
whining that _no one taught you about the Holocaust_,
so you can't "remember" it.... but they did teach you
"arithmetic" and that's something you can "remember."

>> So if you can't remember a THING we call the Holocaust you are
>> certainly denying that there was a Holocaust. Yet you do "remember"
>> a thing called the Crusades. Since you continue to have the
>> information that there were Crusades in your mind. How else
>> could you know of it, if it was not present in your memory?
>>
>> and --
>

>I made no such claim, sir.
>

Of course you did. Your exact words -- "You cannot forget or remember
the extermination of 6 million jews (sic) unless you remember them."
And then your comment about "remember." Your words -- "You do not

remember what is not in your memory and it is not in your memory
if you did not experience or witness it first hand."

Are you now denying those were your words?

Rubbish... I can feel that fear in every word you write. Don't tell
me what I can feel and cannot feel, Herr Dictator. I said "sound very
afraid." I didn't say "you are very afraid." Unlike you I don't
offer my opinion regarding how I feel as if it represents some
fact of nature. As you do in whining about your _save the
cockroaches_ campaign. Whether you are or not... you sound
very afraid to me, sport.

And that's exactly what you have offered in respect to my words
"Now let's see YOUR proof, if you're not afraid," after I had posted
my creds. I still haven't seen yours... so all there has been from
you is *deathly silence* Which is just more reason for me to have
formed the opinion that you do "sound very afraid to me."

If you cannot or will not post your own creds, to show that you have
been educated, then it is obvious that you offer ONLY *deathly
silence*.

>>> If you cannot win your arguments without lying or name calling then you should
>>>not be allowed to take part.
>>
>> I never, ever lie. Claiming I do is simply your own smear tactics to
>> discredit my exposing your own lies and deceit. It's a popular
>> tactic used by those who are either exposed for being a liar or want
>> to shift the argument (which is recognized as lost) to one of ad
>> hominem, about presumed, but unexplained or lacking a cite to past
>> comments. Simply call the person who exposes you -- a liar. And
>> then *plonk* him as if that proves he is a liar. As to name
>> calling... I have seldom found a more "name-calling-worthy" poster
>> than you, sport.
>>
>

>Another lie, sir.

Heh... when caught in a lie, call the other a liar hoping to ignore
having been caught in a lie.

>> But you have no cite of any lie from me, while I have the evidence of
>> your claims that you _talk to_ "something higher than ourselves," and
>> "it" talks back to you. Plus all the times I have caught you in a lie
>> and your answer was --
>>
>
>Your cite your own lies, sir.

Heh... when caught in a lie, call the other a liar hoping to ignore
having been caught in a lie. Clearly, my dear fellow, despite your
God-complex raving... you DO need to prove your allegations.
To do that... you need to juxtapose two different comments from
me which without a doubt represent a lie in one or the other of
them. Where you have lied, is quite easy to show. Each time
you claim that you "don't need to prove it," you show a part of
you that is psychotically driven to believe he is God. Humans,
my boy... need to prove EVERYTHING that they state is a FACT.
Claiming you "don't need to prove it," is claiming you are God.
And that makes you a liar.

While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one... yet they have
no relevance in respect to proving anything, unless they are
grounded in FACT... EVIDENCE... PROOF. They only prove
you have an opinion to offer that is not grounded in fact, or by
evidence. Opinions which you hope to slip by as FACT... which again
makes you a liar.

You mean you're DENYING that all of those words are YOURS? Now
you've again proved yourself to be a liar. But I need to see it
clearly. Do you deny that all or any of the above comments included
in quotation marks came from you????

ROTFLMAO. That's your EXCUSE??? I guess you figure you can murder
someone and use the excuse that another has also committed murder, so
you should be forgiven. You do know that pot... kettle... black is
not used in the fashion you use it, don't you? Since in pointing your
finger at me, there are three fingers on your hand pointing right back
at YOU.

Pay attention: Instead, you use that term when you see someone
criticize ANOTHER for some reason, and that someone has used that same
criticism in the same way in HIS COMMENTS. For example... if your
friend mxsmanic criticized another member of this group for using a
particular method and mxsmanic was also known for using that same
particular method, you, as a third party, would jump in and respond to
mxsmanic with "pot.... kettle...black." But in using it as a second
party, directed at me, your implication is that I am using the same
method as YOU... which simply shows that you believe you are the
original "pot... "

Oh, crap... this is much too complicated for your tiny mind to absorb
in one lesson.

>>>"What is the theoretical electromagnetic resonant frequency in Hz of a 20
>>>cm quarter-wave-length transmission line"
>>
>> That's what I said. However that is not the full problem as I
>> presented it. Try to be precise and read my words, you moron.
>> Repeating --
>>
>> " What is the theoretical electromagnetic resonant frequency in Hz of
>> a 20 cm quarter-wave-length transmission line, presuming the velocity
>> of light is exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second, and no other
>> factors affect this resonant frequency?"
>
>The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, not 300,000,000
>meters/per second, sir. Some people round it to that and when determining f
>in megacycles set C to 300 but they lose accuracy.

Heh... in other words... you fucked it up. Thanks for that.

>The formula for resonanct is f=c/lamda in Cs dear sir of if you are
>contructiing a coaxial antenna (unlikely on the frequency you have chosen)
>then the formula is f=(c/lamda)*v

Yada... yada... yada... you're only trying to bury your ignorance in
a flood of irrelevant commentary.

>Where c is the speed of light, lamda is wavelength, and v is velocity
>factor.

Yada... yada... yada... you're only trying to bury your ignorance in
a flood of irrelevant commentary.

>Basic antenna principles, sir. You need to catch up on your research

I emphasized that it was simple, and needed no calculator, reference,
or even pen and paper. Apparently you fell asleep in class when I
explained that to the class.

>Yes sir. The answer was wrong.

And there it is, folks. I rest my case.

>It occurred to me a few minutes after I
>posted and while making tea that I calculated the quarter waves backwards
>and that i didn't actually need to calculate them at all as all you asked
>for was the "resonant frequency"(Sic) of the antenna. but had as you
>could see from my follow up post, I corrected it and came up with the right
>answer. Of course I expect you to protest most strongly that you did not see
>my follow up post. Now sir, we shall see how you handled my particular
>problem.

Yada, yada, yada. Do you know how much credit they give you
for knowing the answer AFTER you turn in your examination paper???
Jack-shit!!!

Try running back to the teacher and asking for your examination
paper back, because you thought of something while you were taking
a leak in the latrine.

Rubbish. Hz is the ONLY acceptable term as the SI unit of frequency.
See -
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-2.html
This is the official unit names established by the "Bureau
International des Poids et Mesures." The International System
of Units - le Syst�me international d'unit�s. And is recognized
nearly globally, and accepted as the recognized System of Units
used in both the U.K. and the Netherlands. See --
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/general.html

I don't have the slightest idea where you came up with Cs, since doing
a Google search of Cs, comes up with everything like "Credit Suisse
Group," and other organizations using that acronym. When I do
a Google search on - Cs "cycles per second" - I still find nothing.
There are a few that use C/S ( C slash S)... but no organization or
academy uses that or Cs, that I know of. In any case, the U.K. and
the Netherlands accept the official name of Hz, as "cycles per
second."

I notice your avoiding the more complex problem, after patting
yourself on the back for using a calculator, references, pen and
paper, and a relatively large amount of time to solve a problem
that should have been solved in your head in 30 seconds. And
then -- getting it wrong... and admitting it.

As to your problem, I have hardly ever involved myself with db
loss or gain, although the formulas in log are readily available
to those interested in such things. I'm certainly aware of how
to compute capacitive reactance which is trivial, and in your
argument --

R = 3.183 x 10^4 Ohms = 31.83 K Ohms

c = 10^-9 Farads

f = 500 Hz

thus -

Xc = 1/(2 x [pi] x f x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 500 x 10^-9 Ohms)

thus reducing --

Xc= 3.183 x 10^5 ohms = 318.3 K Ohms

and --

cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4
x 10^-9) Hz

thus reducing --

cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz

at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms

cutoff frequency = -3 db

At the cutoff frequency the phase angle is 45 degrees

I dealt in digital data... data loss and db loss are two different
things. In transmitting digital data the db line loss is irrelevant
except for a highly degraded line loss or a total line loss. Digital
data has various redundancies such as parity checks and hamming
code in both horizontal, vertical and in total bit count per message.
Plus military traffic is always routed through secure communication
centers processing both unclassified and the highest classification
military traffic uses. These communication centers use a "red" -
"black" concept, where all traffic comes in as "black" fully
encrypted, and passes through decryption machine within this
secure, and highly shielded from electronic leakage. communication
center. After decryption the traffic is called "red," and highly
classified messages are now in the clear, but remain in the
communications center while they are in the "red." The communication
center then processes, and saves the traffic in what are called
ledgers, and journals on high density media, then routes the
traffic to the destination (s), and sends it back to the on-site
crypto center for encryption again before exiting the communication
center as "black" traffic, encrypted again to the final destination.

Your lesson for the day.

I only threw that trivial problem at you to see if you knew shit
about electronics. In the old days (ahh... the old days) we needed
to take a scope to disks on large platters and adjust the output on
the floating heads to resonance. It appears you have a little
knowledge but have no understanding of how to take an examination.

>>>> Now this theoretical frequency is a simple problem in arithmetic if
>>>> one understands the question. And you should be able to compute it in
>>>> your head, and not need to even resort to paper and pen, or a
>>>> computer.
>>>>
>>>"Now this theoretical frequency is a simple problem in arithmetic "
>>>
>>>Very simple, sir. I'm amazed you chose not to gave me one on Ohm's law.
>>
>> Ohm's law does not deal with AC. When reactive elements such as
>> capacitors, inductors, or transmission lines are involved in a circuit
>> to which AC or time-varying voltage or current is applied, the
>> relationship between voltage and current becomes the solution to a
>> differential equation, so Ohm's law does not directly apply since that
>> form contains only resistances having value R, not complex impedances
>> which may contain capacitance ("C") or inductance ("L").
>

>Wrong, sir. Ohms law applies to ac very much so as long as you remember to
>include impedence and phase angles rather than just resistance sir.
>

Rubbish. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law
Ohm's law simply refers to the relationship between current, voltage,
and resistance. Reactance is not part of Ohm's law.

Quoting -- "When reactive elements such as capacitors, inductors, or

transmission lines are involved in a circuit to which AC or
time-varying voltage or current is applied, the relationship between
voltage and current becomes the solution to a differential equation,

so Ohm's law (as defined above) does not directly apply since that

form contains only resistances having value R, not complex impedances
which may contain capacitance ("C") or inductance ("L")."

>> Kirchoff's law is applicable with AC circuits.
>
>Of course it does, sir. It also applies to DC circuits,

Of course it does... but just because A implies B + C, does not mean D
implies B + C. Kirchoff's Law provides solutions using differential
equations. Ohm's Law does not. Kirchoff's Law defines the electric
potential as a line integral. Thus introducing Integration in the
calculus.

>>
>>>My question to you is slightly more complicated but I'm sure you can crack
>>>it.
>>
>> And yet you chose to overly complicate it. Why can't you be just as
>> precise when you refer to "something higher than ourselves," given you
>> insist that this "something" has told you personally about having
>> given a "right to life to all biological life"?
>>
>
>The question was very simple sir. It merely expresses the attentuation of a
>low pass filter at a given frequency. All the numbers for you to solve it
>are there, sir. If I wanted to "overly complicate it" I would have asked for
>the phase angle in radians, dear sir.

Knowing the phase angle makes it trivial to convert to radians, son.
rad = degrees x (2.14159... /180)

30� = pi/6
45� = pi/4
60� = pi/3
90� = pi/2
120� = 2(pi)/3
150� = 5(pi)/6
180� = pi
210� = 7(pi)/6
240� = 4(pi)/3
270� = 3(pi)/2
360� = 2(pi)

Chee...

>> Your trouble is that you confuse your subjective views with objective
>> facts. No matter how hard you try... they are not the same. There
>> is no possibility whatsoever of "something higher than ourselves,"
>> actually being an "object" that we can examine and agree upon what
>> that object is. Just as there is no possibility whatsoever of
>> "prejudice" actually being an "object" that we can examine and agree
>> upon what that object is.
>>
>
>Your feeble attempt to avoide the problem posed has been noted, sir.
>

Now that I've made my "feeble attempt"... just try to answer mine
using a feeble attempt. We're not examining my expertise in low-pass
filters, and db. I've been retired longer than you've been living.
We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your horn
about --

"I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
algorythm."

Not even capable of spelling algorithm correctly. Not even capable
of spelling "theorem," correctly. The two prime arguments in your
entire sentence. If you look below you will see your comment has
seven ">" in front of it, signifying that you began this thumping your
chest, yet your knuckles still drag on the ground when you walk.
While it's obscene that you dare to mention Bayes' Theorem,
considering how seldom you show the slightest knowledge of
what inductive logic even is.

Now either answer my question, since you never did answer my first
question correctly, having turned in your answer before "reading the
fucking question." If you can't then shut the fuck about your
superiority and address your holocaust denial, your racism, your
belief that you hear voices from "something higher than ourselves,"
and your belief that six million and one cockroaches are "superior"
to six million innocent Jews.

If that question was too complicated for you I'll give you an easier
one. Since you seem to claim familiarity with differential
equations... solve this one. Understand that this is the EASIEST
of all differential equation to solve, and is used over and over in
solving motion equations related to gravitation -- This one should
be a snap for you --

Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g

With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)

We'll work our way down until we find your level of knowledge.

However, I have yet to see a single word from you that makes me
believe you have received a proper education in the arts, and
humanities. I have no idea of your natural given intelligence but it
is obvious to me that your nurturing has been greatly injured. I have
seldom met anyone with a mind that is so closed as yours is. The test
of a man's intellect is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his
mind. Yours hasn't even been out for a walk in a very long time.
Apparently it is too small and narrow-minded to be let out by itself.

>>>>>>>Perhaps the use of caps will help you around your obvious learning
>>>>>>>difficulty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't prove your silly argument. How long has it been since
>>>>>> you were weaned? Answer the question, without using a question.
>>>>>> Bet you can't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything.
>>>>
>>>> So you can't answer the question. Why did I already know that if
>>>> I'm not smart?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're guessing again, sir.
>>>Curios. You announce that we are done but you reply to one of my posts
>>>afterwards. This is strange.
>>
>> You're repeating yourself, shit-for-brains. Yet you're still avoiding
>> the question.
>>
>
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
at you, sport.

You're guessing that I'm guessing... which makes your guess nothing
but hot air.

>>>>>>>It's your
>>>>>>>arrogance that pushes to to actually rewrite the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the one having rewritten the word to suit your own childish
>>>>>> ego, while having absolutely no proof of your argument. The
>>>>>> only use of "static" in describing any word is "electrical or acoustic
>>>>>> activity that can disturb communication." And you try that
>>>>>> with just about every word you offer. Words either convey the
>>>>>> meaning of an "object," thus "objective,' or they convey the
>>>>>> meaning of a "mental abstraction," thus "subjective."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. I use "Static" in a correct context.
>>>>
>>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>>
>>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.
>>
>> Quite true... your lack of a referenced cite showing "static" to refer
>> to "prejudice" makes your argument inadmissible.
>
>It was not a cite, sir, so no reference is required.

"Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"

>>>> Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat of
>>>> Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
>>>> saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
>>>
>>>I have no obligation to prove my arguments.
>>
>> Using that psychotic God-complex of yours does not mean you have no
>> obligation to prove your arguments, shit-for-brains. Only "something
>> higher than ourselves" does not have to prove "its" arguments. But
>> I guess I should pity you because you have that psychotic
>> Bible-thumper belief that "something higher than ourselves" talks to
>> you directly.... Hallelujah, brother.
>
>I am not religious sir.

No, you just hear voices from "something higher than ourselves" who
whispered in your ear that there is this "right to life for all
cockroaches and insects and bacteria and viruses... oh, yeah... and
humans" ROTFLMAO.

>>>>>>>> In fact, I do not redefine definitions. I use them as weapons to
>>>>>>>> crush idiots like you, who have little knowledge of the English
>>>>>>>> language, and thus distort words in a biased effort to twist to your
>>>>>>>> own sick agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You repeatidly and deliberately misuse dictionary definition
>>>>>>>regardless
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>that you have cobnsulted a dictionary but you change them anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I put the definitions up... and you simply ignore them as if they do
>>>>>> not exist. How can I possibly deal with someone who speaks gibberish,
>>>>>> and insists the English language is made as he desires to make it, not
>>>>>> as it actually exists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You change them, sir.
>>>>
>>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>>
>>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.
>>
>> Quite right... so why do you keep claiming cites without references,
>> shit-for-brains?
>
>I don't, sir.

You did so just above, shit-for-brains.

>>>> Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat of
>>>> Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
>>>> saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
>>>>
>>>> Oh, wait... you do abide by that diktat.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're guessing again, sir.
>>
>> Wrong, shit-for-brains. I have the evidence. Of course if you
>> actually BELIEVE you talk to "something higher than ourselves,"
>> then you are not held responsible for your lies, since you are
>> simply mentally unbalanced and do not know the difference
>> between truth and fiction, and believe you hear voices.
>

>No you don't, sir.

Yes, I do. You most certainly insisted there is this "right to life"
for all biological life, especially cockroaches." And you insisted
that you KNOW this because of "something higher than ourselves."
Which you insist is an UNKNOWN. Yet you argue that you do
know it, otherwise how would you have come into that information
from the one you claim gave that very "right to life to cockroaches"?
It's simple logic... you're the one who argued it exists. You're the
who argued it comes from "something higher than ourselves."
Well how can you have come into that information about a "right
to life for cockroaches" if you did not heard it from the very person
you claim is responsible for it? Who told you if not that "something
higher than ourselves"? Does "it" have special "angels" that talk to
you, passing you messages second-hand from "something higher than
ourselves"? Further you said it is an "unknown." Well, how the hell
do you know of it, if it's an "unknown"?

Obviously you've just piled lie upon lie upon lie. And now even deny
you wrote it... but I have the evidence. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fc1729e6f9101be5
Here it is, sport... your words enshrined forever in Google. Proof
that you stated -- "We do not have the to (sic) say who has the right
to life. That honour is strictly owned by something higher than
ourselves." And when I asked how you came about this information
in my words -- "Who would that be?" You responded in one word -
"Unknown." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/92a6b831782818bf

If it's "unknown," sport... how do you KNOW it? As I said... that
God-complex of yours will do you in every time. Trust me... you
don't hear voices from "something higher than ourselves," and
you don't hear "its" angels talking to you either. Thus, you have no
evidence of any "right to life for cockroaches." It's that BIBLE-
THUMPING!!! Now those are YOUR words, sport. They are
in Google, proven to have come from you.... not "something
higher than ourselves," although you may think you are.

I don't give a rat's ass that you live in the U.K. I live in the
U.S., and if I want to use words that are from the U.S. you'll
just have to suck it up like a man. Now address the issue of
your xenophobia, which is showing in your claim that I have
to use YOUR particular wording... when you can't even spell!!

This group was created by a poster now long gone named
"Etan Ben-Ami" in 1993. He was a member of the "National
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty," and as far as I know
was not European, since that coalition is based in Washington,
D.C. There is no recognized body that has ruled that U.K.
English is the only language permitted in AADP. Nonetheless,
I don't correct you when you use the spelling of "honour," while in
the U.S. it is spelled "honor." If you insist we use YOUR type of
spelling that is xenophobia. I am open minded and you can
use either U.K. English or U.S. English. I just wish you'd use
it CORRECTLY!

However, let's again be frank... it would not matter if I did oppose
the U.S. Death Penalty, since my argument with you is about your
Holocaust denial, your racist comments and your underlying
stupidity (which I hope is not genetic but rather a product of
cruel and unusual nurturing).

The U.S. Death Penalty is an argument which virtually has no
factual answer as to whether it should apply or not. That is why this
group has survived as long as it has. In the words of the great
Bertrand Russell -- "The most savage controversies are those about
matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." To me,
quite a bit depends upon the method of selecting those who "deserve"
to be executed, and then weeding out among those who "deserve"
to be executed, the worst of the worst, and those who are
considered almost certain to kill again given the slightest
opportunity.

For example... Rogelio Reyes Cannady!!

Here was a murderer serving two consecutive life sentences
of multiple murders he committed in 1990. While he was
incarcerated, he beat 55-year-old Leovigildo Bonal, a fellow
inmate, to death with a padlock he attached to the end of a belt.
Prison guards found Bonal lying the cell floor with his hands
tied behind his back with a belt. Cannady had no apparent
wounds or injuries, but his steel-toed boots he had used to
kick Bonal repeatedly in the head, and his clothing were
covered with blood. For that murder, Cannaday was thankfully
executed, and will never murder in or out of prison again.

But in the end, people all have their subjective view on this matter,
and most would not change their view regardless of what might
happen as a result of their support or opposition to the death
penalty. In fact, I am the only poster that I know of in this group
who has categorically stated what would need to happen for me
to change my view:

I would readily accept the U.S. death penalty being abolished if it
were forcibly abolished world-wide. But as long as abolitionists whine
about the U.S. executing only 1212 of the worst of the worst murderers
in the past 33 years and five months, averaging just a shade over 36
murderers (and ONLY murderers) per year, using the most rigid controls
and due process of any other nation even convicting their murderers -
while staying silent when Iran executes for adultery and homosexuality
using the most grotesque methods in those executions - while China
executes more in one year than we have executed in 33 - while Islam
has a death penalty in sharia law... and uses it freely - while mass
murderers guilty of genocide of the highest order escape punishment --
I have no choice but to argue that the U.S. has the right to decide
for itself what to do with OUR murderers.

And I can PROVE that locking them up and throwing away the key
has not worked in the past 33 years... See above. Nor do I EVER
expect it to work to the point that innocents are not murdered by any
murderer we send to prison for life. It is as impossible to achieve
that as it is impossible for a criminal justice system to exist that
does not accept the mathematical possibility of an innocent dying
in prison. Not even the largest computer in the world could eliminate
that mathematical possibility if we expect a criminal justice system
is used to protect innocent citizens from those who prey on innocent
citizens.

>>>>>"Xenophobia is the uncontrollable fear of foreigners.[1] It comes from the
>>>>>Greek words ????? (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner" and ?????
>>>>>(phobos), meaning "fear." Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways
>>>>>involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an
>>>>>outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities,
>>>>>aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed
>>>>>purity.[2] Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an
>>>>>"uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an
>>>>>unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".["
>>>>>
>>>>>Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
>>>>>Wikpedia.
>>>>>accessed: 27/05/10.

Gee... how did you "remember" all that, given that you've stated --

"You do not remember what is not in your memory and it is not in your
memory if you did not experience or witness it first hand."

You actually experienced or witnessed the Greeks??? You naughty boy,
you!!!

>>>>>I was correct as always, dear sir. the word "Xenophobia" was perfectly
>>>>>germane to my argument.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean does it describe YOUR methods, then there is no question
>>>> that it applies to YOU. For example, just now you questioned the
>>>> source of the word "mommy." That's definitely an example of your
>>>> xenophobia -- "fear of foreigners." While your Bible-thumping raving
>>>> about a death penalty for murderers in a land foreign to you,
>>>> certainly expresses a "relations and perceptions of an ingroup"
>>>> toward those you consider an outgroup (the U.S.).
>>>
>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>>>No, sir.I mean it describe your methods.
>>
>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>
>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible

Quite true... so why did you claim that you're a blockhead?

>>
>>>If you cannot argue without lying then you should not be allowed to play
>>>at all.
>>
>> Why do you keep offering cites without references, shit-for-brains?
>
>I do not, sir.
>
>
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>

ROTFLMAO... It's too late, sport... you already turned in your
examination without offering cites or references. Trying to do
it now... is locking the barn door after the cows have moved on.

Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
at you, sport.

Is the word "if" (a conditional clause) too complicated for you? IF
you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird.

>>>> It's been 120 years since we had a massacre in the U.S. (wounded
>>>> knee. which ended up with 146 men, women and children killed).
>>>> Sad to say that I cannot say the same about Europe (6 million
>>>> Jews exterminated, with an equal number of others exterminated
>>>> in the Nazi killing machine) and your country (107,000 Dutch Jews sent
>>>> to Auschwitz... only 5,200 survived). You should be ashamed of
>>>> your history. Claiming you can't "remember it," is no excuse for
>>>> forgetting it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The USA is about 300 years old, give or take. Europe spreads over many
>>>millennia, dear sir.
>>
>> You would think Europeans would have learned in those many
>> millennia... Yet there is no evidence of that having happened.
>
>Learned what, sir? That the death penalty is wrong? Yes sir, most of Europe
>have learned that. They have also learned not to trust America as the only
>thing they have invented and not plagiarized is condensed milk, dear fellow.

Yet you go on killing in genocides, like in the former Yugoslavia, and
instigating genocide in Africa, while piously and quite hypocritically
patting yourself on the back for "saving the lives of murderers." How
in the fuck can you be PROUD of that??? My wife is native-French,
while an American citizen for more than 30 years, and she is appalled
by the tragedy of what France has turned itself into. In looking the
other way and ignoring crime running rampant in the banlieu, with
every night a bonfire of cars, which with octopus tentacles creeps
closer and ever closer to the edges of Paris proper. People are no
longer unafraid to go out at night, or to travel on the Metro after 10
in the evening, when 30 years ago one could walk on just about any
street in Paris at 3 in the morning and be relatively safe. One could
ride the last Metro in any station and feel comfortable. While
expecting the police to be everywhere is a pipe-dream. Were it not
for the French "free" (sic) medical system, her entire extended family
would be at our doorstep and never leave the U.S. Every weekend
when we call them, all they do is complain about the present
conditions in France. The price of everything... the dreadful service
in both the public and private sector... the constant strikes shutting
down transportation... the dirty streets no longer kept as they were
before... and the crime... and the crime... and the crime...

>>> In perspective, your people have had thier fair share
>>>of bloodshed, sir.
>>
>> How do you remember that? Did you experience the U.S 300 years ago?
>
>It's called "an education", sir.

So you've never received an "education" about the Holocaust. And then
you wonder why I pity the lack of nurturing you have received in
your life.

>> Were you there at Wounded Knee?? Europe, in the last 100 years,
>> murdered in various genocides at least 100 times the total number of
>> murders in genocides in the U.S. in that full 300 years. Shit...
>> Europe managed to do it five times at much in only FIVE years In the
>> 20th Century!!! And more than once in that 20th Century. While the
>> bloody history of Europe's past should cause you to weep... but you
>> can't REMEMBER it. How very convenient for you.
>
>However, most of europe had the sense to abolish the death penalty, sir.

See above... Be sure to ask the Pope to bless you for saving the lives
of murderers... I understand he doesn't give a fuck about Blacks in
Africa either.... just like you.

>> The 20th Century was the bloodiest century in human history. And
>> that bloodshed was 99.99% the result of Europe's citizens inability
>> to get along with each other.
>
>Whilest America sat back till the last minute then tried to claim they saved
>everyone sir.

Since when are we RESPONSIBLE for Europe??? When was the last time
any nation in Europe helped us? I'll tell you when... when the French
helped us 300 years ago, in their own interests to gain our
independence. And we still "remember" it. While YOU can't even
remember the Nazis in your Europe attempting the extermination of
European Jewry. Six million murdered innocent Jews.. less than 70
years ago... and you can't "remember," while you do remember the
Crusades, and the "Greeks."

>> However, you've certainly left me ROTFLMAO.
>
>Puerile, sir.

What I see as your sickness is duly noted. What I see as your
affection for genocide and war is also duly noted. What I see
as your affection for murderers is also duly noted.

You should try it some time... You've argued you can't even remember
the Holocaust. Too busy to look it up... you little anti-Semitic
twerp.

>I'm
>amazed. We shall see how long it takes you to catch up. Not long I'd wager.
>You seem to be invading everybody and you still have the barbaric death
>penalty.

And you still have the cursed genocide of close to a million innocent
Tutsis brought by a European power who wants to maintain French
hegemony in Africa. You know what Mitterand said about those
million murdered innocent Tutsis... murdered with French complicity,
providing arms to the Hutus... urging them to get on with the
massacre??? He is quoted as saying -- "in such countries, genocide is
not too important." Nice leaders you elect. You curse us for
electing Bush, and it turns out that Mitterand was responsible for at
least 20 times the deaths that Bush and Blair are responsible for.
Every time I mention this... Europeans posting here suddenly turn
deaf, dumb, and blind.

>> <fx: Death Disco stares wide eyed with open mouth gaping at proof of
>> the long history of European hate for each other>
>
>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-knee-jerk-reaction.htm

>>>>>> Clearly just one psychiatrist would not be enough in your case. You're
>>>>>> a case for a textbook to be written about nothing but your mental
>>>>>> aberrations. You need an entire wing at the best psychiatric hospital
>>>>>> in Vienna, Austria, accompanied by an around the clock team of the
>>>>>> best psychiatric minds in the world examining nothing but your case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Puerile.
>>>>
>>>> You're in a rut, my boy... why not try using a thesaurus, and come up
>>>> with some more inventive words. You frenetic, stupid, disingenuous,
>>>> gormless, choleric, ignoble, foolish, craven, idiotic, vacuous,
>>>> empty-headed, vapid, nefarious, bilious, witless, moronic, hedonistic,
>>>> smarmy, nihilist, xenophobic brain-dead demagogue. And those were
>>>> just a starter set.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Puerile." will do just fine, sir. It describes around 95% of your debate,
>>

>> TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

>> I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,

>> but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>Americans beleive that a child is not mature until the age of 18,
>>>>>>>>>>>in Britian, 16. In historical Britain, even younger.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe in the execution of anyone who commits murder
>>>>>>>>>> under the age of 18. I'm totally disinterested in the laws in the
>>>>>>>>>> U.K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Murder is murder. You support death penalty or you oppose it. "Ifs
>>>>>>>>>and buts" give rise to descrimination.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct premise. Wrong inference. Wrong conclusion. The U.S.
>>>>>>>> death penalty is not murder. I support only the U.S. death penalty.

>>>>>>>> A crazy argument that if I support the U.S. death penalty I must

>Are you getting angry sir?

Yeah... when I see someone offer an insulting lie, it makes me angry
and also full of pity for someone who needs to use lies and smears in
methods so sneaky and smarmy. It reminds me OF others who used
the same type of lies in the 1930s, insisting there were those who
were not _praying to Jesus_ but to a "God" that wanted them to
conspire to rule the world. That led to the greatest blood-bath our
species has ever witnessed. Of course, you insist you "don't remember
it."

>"You pray to a god to strike me down for correcting your English, sir?
>Hardly the response of an athiest."
>
>Is not a lie, sir.

Rubbish. I said "If there were a "God." You expect that to mean I
pray to such an imaginary "God." So I suppose if I wrote "If you
were a Nazi," that would mean that you pray to the Nazis. You
need an intense mental examination... and I am dead serious about
that. I think you miss your mommy... being away from home for
the first time in your young life.

>>>> Hey, sport... tell me what this "something than ourselves" whispered
>>>> in your ear that no one else could hear? This should be good.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You hear whisperings in your ear, sir? You should see someone about that.
>>
>> You're the one claiming to have heard "something higher than
>> ourselves" tell you that there is a "right to life for all biological
>> life." If you now insist you didn't hear it from "something higher
>> than ourselves," who was it who told you about something that is
>> obviously not in physical or scientific evidence of existing?
>>

>I made no such claim, sir.

Sure you did. You asserted the exact words when I asked who
you claim gave this "right to life" to all biological life... you
responded with "something higher than ourselves." Then you
did a two-step and called it "nature," and then you called
it "biology." Do ALL these mental abstractions TALK TO YOU?
They must... since that is the only source in which you could come
by your claim that there is a FACTUAL "right to life for all
'biological life." "Something higher than ourselves," and "nature"
and "biology," do not talk to ANY human. They convey no information
in respect to any "right" of anything. The universe began with a
"big bang," and not one atom, not one particle, not one molecule,
not one protein, not one DNA snippet, not one chromosome,
not one gene, resulting from the various transformations that
energy turning into mass experienced in the past 13.5 billion years,
has a "right to life." And we, and all biological life, simply
consist of an enormous number of these particles that have no "right
to life." Our lives are writ on water.

Then you don't know how many "disease causing organisms" people carry.
So you're really arguing from a point of declared ignorance.

>>>"Do you step on that cockroach or do you let that cockroach crawl on your
>>>baby while you run to get some kind of paper or something to remove that
>>>cockroach gently to avoid hurting your baby and that cockroach?"
>>>
>>>No sir. I pick up the cochroach, I take it outside and let it go.
>>
>> You mean you'd pick it off of the arm of your baby, after your baby
>> has been infected with e-coli. How very fatherly of you... now you
>> only have to worry about your baby dying from e-coli.
>
>If it was on the arm of my baby then killing it would spread it's "disease
>causing organisms" all over my baby sir.

RTFQ!!! I never said it was on the arm of your baby. I offered you
the CHOICE between killing it, or knowing that it WOULD BE on the arm
of your baby. You chose to let it go to the arm of your baby, and
THEN let it wiggle its six legs a bit before you could grasp it,
spreading even more germs to your own hand, and carefully depositing
it outside your window for the birds to feast upon. I wonder why you
don't have some _cockroach cages_, in which you can _save the
cockroach_ of the world from those nasty birds.

>You should think your debates through, sir. Did you have any children that
>lived sir?

Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living? Trust me...
you start bringing insults to my real family or real children, rather
than a hypothetical thought experiment and you will find yourself
being accused of screwing your sister. Remember that YOU started
it. Now apologize and let's move on.

>>>I would guess that you would stamp on it, splattering the poor little creature
>>>ans spreading it's blood which contains "more than 50 disease causing
>>>organisms" all over your baby. There is absolutely no reason to kill the
>>>cockroach sir.
>>
>> I'd stamp the shit out of it just for kicks. And then spread Clorox
>> all over the mess, and throw my shoe in an incinerator, before it
>> could touch my baby. Bacteria can't jump from the floor to my baby,
>> but it sure can go from any of the six legs of that cockroach to my
>> baby's body before I could "pick it up." But then your answer is that
>> you consider the life of the cockroach to be more valuable than the
>> possibility of transmitting a deadly disease to your baby. That's
>> exactly the answer I expected from you. You do know that the "poor
>> little cockroach" will be food for the birds shortly in any case,
>> while the possible fatal illness it might transmit to your child will
>> haunt you forever... or not... since you seem cold as ice when it
>> comes to worrying about humans, including your own baby, but
>> warm and fuzzy all over when it comes to worrying about cockroaches.
>>
>

>Then you are a murderer, sir, on two counts. One for killing the poor
>innocent cockroach

ROTFLMAO. Read the definition of murder, you ignorant child.
MURDER -- "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially
with premeditated malice."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder

Insects are NOT "human." Only someone on the edge of sanity could
argue that _cockroaches_ are HUMAN.

Oh, wait... you need a cite for that, because you're too ignorant to
figure it out for yourself. Here you go --
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/human
HUMAN -- "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H.
sapiens."

But of course, you've also said that -- "if i do not approve of a
definition I simply choose not to use it." Which makes it easy for
you to invent your own definitions, although it makes communicating
with other humans... IMPOSSIBLE! You sound like Michael
Jackson singing the role of Danny to his pet rat, "Ben," as his only
friend. BTW -- do you consider rats "superior" to cockroaches??
Heh heh heh.

> and two for infecting you baby by spreading the cockroach's
>disease carrying organisms all over your baby, sir.

Wrong... I killed the cockroach on the floor... my hypothetical baby
was NOT on the floor. You lifted the cockroach carefully from your
hypothetical baby's arm, thoroughly infecting your hypothetical
baby with up to 50 known diseases.

You should be ashamed of yourself. That cockroach NEVER touched
my baby.

>
>> Apparently if the choice came to you having to kill a cockroach to
>> prevent the execution of an innocent, you'd simply not _have the
>> heart_ to kill that cockroach, you call "the poor little creature."
>> Maybe I should have framed my thought experiment thusly, to
>> clearly put into focus how little you care about HUMANS, and how
>> much you care about COCKROACHES!
>
>You should work on thinking things through before trying thought experiments
>on others, sir.

You should RTFQ when you see thought experiments rather than
contriving your own set of circumstances and accusing the other
of "murder." How many "murders" have you committed in washing
your hands??

>> Since you find humans and cockroaches no different, if you had
>> to kill a human or kill a cockroach, and had no other choice, which
>> would you kill? After all, you can't make the same choice as
>> Buridan's donkey in this thought experiment. One or the other,
>> sport. Which one is it?

And we see Death Disco respond with *deathly silence*
For a guy that raves on and on about irrelevant things, and
insists he _talks to "something higher than ourselves"_ we
now find he is at a loss for words.

>> Regardless... I'm now getting a better focus on why you deny the
>> Holocaust. It's because to you six million Jews are worth less than
>> six million and one cockroaches, in your sick mind.

>>>>>>>> You're not happy merely assassinating the English language, you
>>>>>>>> want to crucify it before murdering it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Another one of your puerile response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another one of your mindless drivel responses. Is "puerile" a
>>>>>> new word you've discovered?
>>>>>
>>>>>Puerile.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for answering the question with your agreement.
>>>
>>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying then you should not be
>>>allowed to take part.
>>
>> Pardon me... but I asked the question "Is 'puerile' a new word you've
>> discovered?" And you answered with that word proving it is impossible
>> that I was lying. The only reason you call me a liar is because you
>> have nothing else to use in defense of your ignorance. So you expect
>> to call me, what you just proved yourself to be.... shit-for-brains.
>>
>
>If you cannot win your arguments without lying or (inclusive) name calling
>then you should not be allowed to take part.

Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? This is just
more of your God-complex at work. Nonetheless... the only liar is
you... because I NEVER, EVER LIE!! You need to offer a cite of my
words that demonstrates I have lied. In fact, my never having lied
has brought me more grief in arguments than if I had lied. When I
win arguments the claims that I'm a liar come out of the woodwork...
like your pet "cockroaches."

Only in your mind. Wiki makes your puny knowledge measurable only on
a scale less than the Planck constant.

>> English criminal law applies to the law in the U.K.
>>
>
>Yes sir, but if you suggest that killing in self defense does not carry a
>prison term in the UK then you are wrong sir.

Killing in recognized self-defense does not carry any crime at
all. It's only when it has been determined that the definition
of self-defense has not been met that anyone can be accused
or convicted of any crime. If the recognized LEGAL conditions
of self-defense are MET... there has no crime committed.

You did not SUGGEST... but INSISTED that factually -- "You kill

someone in self defense in Britian (sic) then your conviction will

read that of masnlaughter (sic)." But you were wrong, and now you
are lying hope to wiggle out of that silly comment. If you
kill in legally recognized self-defense in Britian (sic) then you
have committed NO CRIME.

It is when you kill, and it not recognized as being in self-defense,
even if you plead that it was, that you will be accused and tried
in a court of law for "manslaughter," or even "murder" if it is
found that your claim of self-defense was rubbish and you killed
intentionally and with malice aforethought.

Then you can't assert what is not in evidence. You may "think" I am
guessing, but despite your belief in that God-complex of yours, you
cannot possibly know what I am thinking.

>Killing in self defense is manslaughter and is punishable by imprisonment,
>sir.

Heh... Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat

of Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
saying it, and eventually they will believe it"

While you may claim that "I have no obligation to prove my arguments
or to answer anything," that only means even you know that your
argument is not true.

Heh... Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat

of Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
saying it, and eventually they will believe it"

While you may claim that "I have no obligation to prove my arguments
or to answer anything," that only means even you know that your
argument is not true. A person can go to prison for "claiming to have
killed in self-defense," when the judiciary determines that the
killing did not meet the legal standards of self-defense. But a
person having met the legal standards of self-defense will never be
prosecuted for a crime. It is a fundamental principle of the law that
killing in "legally recognized self-defense" is NOT a crime.

>>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you were
>>>honest with yourself.
>>
>> Once again your argument against my proof is that I must be using
>> YOUR strategy. When have you EVER "told the truth"?
>>
>
>You have provided no proof, sir. You have only provided an incorrectly
>referenced cite.

ROTFLMAO. That from the guy who insists he doesn't have to provide
proof of anything he says -- Such as his words --

"I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
"I am not obliged to prove it to you."
"I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
"I do not need to offer scientific proof"
"I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
"I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
etc... etc... etc...
And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."

Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_.

Since when are you a better source of information than the sources
I've provided? Let's be clear... you ASSERTED -- "Killing in self

defense is manslaughter and is punishable by imprisonment,

sir." PROVE IT! Show me one reference in which there is the
clear statement that "killing in self-defense is manslaughter."
Just one, sport. No legal system accepts that argument. Every
legal system in the western world recognizes the right of
self-defense.

However, I am certain that the following reference is proof positive
of my argument. It is the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
Crown Prosecution Services." See --
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
prosecuted for such action.."

End of story... you lose, sport. Unless you argue that this voice
of "something higher than ourselves," told you that "The Crown
Prosecution Service" is a bunch of crap.

Since when are you a better source of information than the sources
I've provided?

See above. Or see the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
Crown Prosecution Services." See --
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
prosecuted for such action.."

>>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>>
>>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you were
>>>honest with yourself.
>>
>> Stop repeating your lies. Repetition has no relation to accuracy.
>
>I repeat only your lies, sir.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
I wasn't the liar he's found me to be so I could show he is not
correct, but the bastard hit the nail right on the head. Guess my
only chance is to call HIM a liar."'

>>>> Why don't you try something new... Like telling the truth?
>>>
>>>Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...
>>
>> TRANSLATION: "Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...."

So you admit you're a liar.

>>>> <clip raving hysterical denial of the truth>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Homicide does not necessarily
>>>>>>>> involve deliberation. But it can. Deliberation under the law
>>>>>>>> is a very complex issue. There can be deliberation in homicide,
>>>>>>>> and manslaughter, and murder. While there be a lack of
>>>>>>>> deliberation in homicide and manslaughter. Murder must show
>>>>>>>> deliberation. Why is this so hard for you to grasp??? Is the
>>>>>>>> retention of facts really that difficult for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You seem to spend a lot of time answering questions that nobody asked
>>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>reprimanding them for not knowing the answer and this is without the
>>>>>>>courtesy of bothering to find out if they do know the answer. Puerile
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh... tough shit, kid. You're the ignoramus who insisted "If a
>>>>>> person deliberatly (sic) kills another then it is murder."
>>>>>
>>>>>Only on you, dear fellow. Such exposes your stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one having offered the incredibly ignorance comment that
>>>> "If a person deliberatly (sic) kills another then it is murder." You
>>>> offered that incredibly ignorant comment, and don't have a leg to
>>>> stand on. I'll bet if YOU had to kill someone in self-defense that
>>>> you'd be the first one screaming of innocence.
>>>
>>>Nonsense, dear fellow.
>>
>> Face it, shit-for-brains... you're a wimp who only recently was
>> weaned.
>>
>

>Hardly a compelling argument, sir.
>

Better than any you've ever had.

>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.

See --
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/prejudice
and --
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/static

Don't you feel a little silly arguing the English language, which you
hardly have a grasp of, with someone whose mother-tongue is
English? Would you prefer we write our comments in Dutch?
How's about Italian?

>>>> <clip more hysterical raving from the Bubble-boy who has been deprived
>>>> of any intellect whatsoever>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have already accepted your surrender, sir.
>>
>> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
>> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
>> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
>> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>

>You have a prejudice against the "young" (Sic), sir!

An unreferenced cite is inadmissable (sic).

>Yes, sir. But I corrected it in my follow up post, the one you are about to
>pretend you have not seen.

Yada, yada, yada. Do you know how much credit they give you
for knowing the answer AFTER you turn in your examination paper???
Jack-shit!!!

Try running back to the teacher and asking for your examination
paper back, because you thought of something while you were taking
a leak in the latrine.

I read your "excuse," but I haven't got around to responding to all of
your disturbed mind comments. I have other priorities, plus I take my
time... so I don't have to ask the teacher for my work to be returned
because I was in a hurry. Most nights I do even read AADP comments
until after midnight, when I'm sure my wife is sound asleep.

>>>> This is a simple problem in arithmetic if one understands the
>>>> question. And you should be able to compute it in your head, and
>>>> not need to even resort to paper and pen, or a computer. You
>>>> shouldn't even need "the back of an envelope."
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was very simple, sir. They teach it to 13 year old physics students. Is
>>>that where you learned it, sir?
>>
>> Yet, you fucked it up. And even fucked it up using pen and pencil,
>> and calculator, and references... none of which were needed to solve
>> the very easy problem.
>
>"Yet, you fucked it up"
>
>I did sir. Nevertheless, I corrected. It is fortunate I was not submitting
>it to anyone whose opinion matters. However, I am still waiting to see you
>answer the simple problem I set for you. What was the expression you used?
>"Overly complicated"

Hardly. Now that I've answered it when can I expect the answer to my
second question, or even my third question.

>>>>>> Nor do I have to consult wikipedia to know what mens rea and actus
>>>>>> reus mean. But obviously you had to look it up.
>>>>
>>>> <clip vacuous repeating of my comment>
>>>
>>>I've already accepted your surrender.
>>
>> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
>> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
>> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
>> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>>
>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>> etc... etc... etc...
>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_
>>
>
>"But you're no longer worth my time"
>
>That was your surrender, sir.
>

You may think so... shit... you think you're God, or at least God
talks to you. But you should notice that I'm still here. Thus,
you're a bit premature in claiming victory.

While our purpose here should not be "victory," but progress... thus
my purpose is simply to provide a small measure of nurturing to you
that has obviously been neglected by those who should have nurtured
you. I've come not to expect more from you than what your nurturing
has failed to provide.

>>>>>What you are saying to me is that you did not do any research. This
>>>>>explains
>>>>>why you get so many words wrong. I suggest you buy a dictionary, sir.
>>>>>
>>>> <clip vacuous repeating of my comment>
>>>
>>>I've already accepted your surrender.
>>
>> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
>> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
>> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
>> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>>
>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>> etc... etc... etc...
>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_
>>
>
>"But you're no longer worth my time"
>
>That was your surrender, sir.

You may think so... shit... you think you're God, or at least God
talks to you. But you should notice that I'm still here. Thus,
you're a bit premature in claiming victory.

>>>>>At some point I did, yes. It's called research. It's how most people
>>>>>learn
>>>>>words which is considerably more than your method of guessing them, dear
>>>>>fellow.
>>>>
>>>> Then you should look up the word "prejudice" and see what a fool
>>>> you are, and how it describes your anti-Semitism perfectly.
>>>
>>>I did look it up sir. You claim that you do not need to. Curious
>>
>> I've looked it up... and guess what? Not one single mention of the
>> word "static" exists in ANY definition of the word "prejudice" in ANY
>> English dictionary that I can find. And I have looked at about a
>> dozen of them, both on-line dictionaries and those I have in my
>> private library. So what dictionary have you been using that has
>> the word "static" in the definition of the word "prejudice"???
>> I recall the definition you did provide that only proved me right
>> as to the word being subjective -- a "mental abstraction," of no
>> real physical existence. And nowhere in that definition you provided
>> does the word "static" appear. So put up or shut up.

>I never said it did, sir.
>

Yet you argued that "prejudice" is a "static word."

>> *deathly silence*
>
>You are anything but silent, sir.

Can't stand the heat when I put your feet to the fire, can you?

Is that all you have? Don't you feel stupid not having of consequence
to say? You should you know... you should feel VERY stupid!!

then "claim victory" as if that proves he is a liar. As to name

calling... I have seldom found a more "name-calling-worthy" poster
than you, sport.

>>".</sarcasm>"

>
>Of course it was, sir. I doubt even you can be that stupid.

Well... wait a minute... you argued that humans are not "superior" to
what you referred to as the "poor little creature" called the
cockroach. So given that premise which is a true premise from your
own words... you argue that six million and one cockroaches are worth
more to you than six million innocent Jews. It's a fair question
since you insisted that a cockroach is no less than a human being.

But I need to hear it from you... so given your original premise...
another thought experiment... If you had to kill a cockroach to
save a murderer from execution... would you kill that cockroach??
Remember... you don't want to be called a "murderer" (sic)... do you??

No proof offered. Your claim fails. Plus "an unreferenced is
inadmissable (sic)." Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

>>>> In addition my home library is quite extensive -- See-
>>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/library.mov
>>>> And I am a voracious reader.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> That however, is only a small part of my total library, since it does
>>>> not include technical works which I maintain in my computer room.
>>>> Which can be seen here --
>>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Library.JPG
>>>
>>>It is not wise to post personal information on a public forum to someone
>>>your are having an aggressive debate with, sir.
>>
>> Should I fear you??? I don't see how pictures of my home library
>> represent a threat to my safety, given I have already provided my
>> real name (which was detected by a cyber-stalker who could not
>> stand being intellectually defeated). That would represent a possible
>> threat, since another cyber-stalker began posting my address and
>> phone number and even called my home phone in a threatening
>> manner in speaking to my wife, but hung up before I could come
>> to the phone. See --
>> http://tinyurl.com/mev6pd
>
>" Should I fear you??? "
>
>No sir. I offer no threat to your safety but I cannot speak for others.

So it's your friends I have to worry about. Heh... recall the words
of de Cervantes -- "Tell me thy company, and I'll tell thee what thou
art."

>>>However, you are proof that reading does not make a person "smart"
>>
>> Spoken like a boy who hasn't read a book in the past month.
>
>You're guessing, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails. Plus "an unreferenced is
inadmissable (sic)" Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

Wrong... the cite is completely accurate...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/27/usa.ewenmacaskill
Subject -- "Compensation for men FBI let be framed."

However, I know I'm dealing with someone not totally competent
in this thing they call the "Internet," so here's another cite --
http://wbztv.com/local/Peter.Limone.Joe.2.588773.html
and another --
http://www.justicedenied.org/issue/issue_27/fbi's_legacy_of_shame.html
and another --
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290914,00.html
and another --
http://www.kval.com/news/national/8731057.html

Now if you cannot even get one out these five URLs, then you are
certifiable.

>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/27/usa.ewenmacaskill
>> Subject -- "Compensation for men FBI let be framed."
>
>Have you never been taught the correct procedure for referencing cites, sir?

Have you ever been able to follow a URL link providing a cite??

>>>>>>>" If we had a perfect justice
>>>>>>>> system we would not convict the innocent, and we would never
>>>>>>>> permit an innocent to die in prison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You do not have a perfect justice system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because there is no such thing as "a perfect justice system."
>>>>>
>>>>>This is an strong argument fo the abolishment of the death penalty.
>>>>
>>>> Total mindless drivel. If you're looking for a "perfect criminal
>>>> justice system," and there is no such thing, then YOU are arguing for
>>>> the abolition of the "criminal justice system." And only a fool would
>>>> argue that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, sir. I am arguing the abolition of the death penalty.
>>
>> So you don't care if innocent men die in prison, you just don't want
>> guilty murderers to be executed. Now that we have determined that...
>> it is fair to say that your reasons are based not upon innocent men
>> dying in prison, but upon your Bible-thumping belief that the lives
>> of murderers are worth more than the lives of the innocents who do
>> die in prison.
>>
>
>"So you don't care if innocent men die in prison"
>
>Yes I do, sir. that's why I oppose the death penalty.

No proof offered. You don't oppose an innocent man dying in prison,
as Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco did, while not sentenced to the death
penalty. How strange... you oppose executing murderers, but you
support innocents dying in prison. What a preposterous, ridiculous,
ludicrous, farcical, laughable, idiotic, stupid, foolish, silly,
inane, imbecilic, insane, hare-brained; unreasonable, irrational,
illogical, nonsensical, pointless, and senseless agenda you have.

No proof offered your claim fails. Plus "an unreferenced is
inadmissable (sic)" Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

Do you know that you qualify as being risibly stupid?
I'll bet I'm not the first one to tell you that.

>>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying then you should not be
>>>allowed to take part.
>>
>> I'm only examining the FACT that you do not oppose innocent men
>> dying in prison, because you do not oppose a criminal justice system
>> in which that occurs, while you do oppose executing guilty murderers.
>> Calling me a liar doesn't change the fact that there is no way you
>> can dispute what I have said. I pointed out that two innocents have
>> been PROVEN to have died in prison. You insist it doesn't bother
>> you to the point that you would oppose a criminal justice system
>> in which that can possibly happen (which is EVERY criminal justice
>> system). While you do oppose a guilty murderer dying in prison
>> through legal execution. You once said "murder is murder."
>> Well, let me also say that "dead is dead." The only difference
>> between an innocent dying in prison, and a guilty murderer being
>> executed, is that the former WAS INNOCENT, and the latter
>> WAS GUILTY OF MURDER. You do not oppose the former
>> happening, but jump up and down like a puppet on a string
>> at the thought of the latter happening.
>>
>
>"I'm only examining the FACT"
>
>Correction, sir. That should say "I'm only examining my GUESS".

Wrong. Those are the FACTS. You support a criminal justice
system. It is mathematically impossible to create a criminal justice
system which does not have the possibility of an innocent dying
in prison. End of story.

>
>>>>>>> and a perfect justice system would not include the death
>>>>>>>penalty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again arguing from a false premise... there is no such thing
>>>>>> as "a perfect justice system." Innocents are convicted probably
>>>>>> every day in some court somewhere in the U.S. Shall we let
>>>>>> all the criminals remain free because of the chance of an innocent
>>>>>> dying in prison? Or do you argue abolish the U.S. criminal
>>>>>> justice system and let the criminals continue on their way.
>>>>>
>>>>>My premise is quite correct. If there were a perfect justice system it
>>>>>would not have a death penalty.
>>>>
>>>> Proven to be a lie. A TOTAL LIE. I've already showed you an
>>>> example of an imperfect justice system even if there were no death
>>>> penalty. Innocents, NOT sentenced to the death penalty, die in prison
>>>> every day. Apparently you are willing to let them die, and call it
>>>> "perfect."
>>>>
>>>
>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>
>>>Becoming angry will not aid your argument, sir.
>>>
>> It can't hurt when I see a fool insisting he doesn't care about
>> innocents who die in prison, that his only concern is saving the
>> lives of guilty murderer who might go on to murder again and
>> again.
>
>" It can't hurt when I see a fool insisting he doesn't care about
>> innocents who die in prison"
>
>I made no such claim, sir.

When you support a criminal justice system it is always with the
caveat that in your support for that criminal justice system must
also be your support for the possibility of an innocent dying in
prison. I am not so stupid that I do not realize that my support
for a criminal justice system in the U.S., recognizing that as
all criminal justice system it is imperfect, implies my support
for the possible death of an innocent in prison. It's called "the
lesser of two evils." With the other evil being support for the
end of the criminal justice system, which would then create
a vacuum in which no innocent could die in prison, nor could
any guilty criminal even go to prison.

>>>>> Any imperfect justice system which includes all off
>>>>>them should not inclde a death penalty.
>>>>
>>>> What the fuck are you raving about? Exactly what language are you
>>>> trying to communicate in, sport?
>>>
>>>English, sir.
>>
>> And not doing a very good job of it, my boy. Although if your
>> intention was to assassinate it.. you did a fine job, my boy. Two
>> spelling errors in one and a half lines of text, and the use of the
>> word "them" without the slightest suggestion of who you mean
>> by "them."
>

>You did not recognise it, sir. You should take lessons in English;
>especially one in what words mean.

ROTFLMAO... you mean like your claim that "prejudice" is a "static"
word??? In any case do you deny that you had two spelling errors,
and a totally incomprehensible use of "them" in your short sentence?
What is "them" supposed to relate to? Any imperfect Justice System
is EVERY Justice System. Humans are incapable of being _perfect_.
It is a given that there is a mathematical possibility of both
convicting an innocent and that innocent dying in prison. Those
are what we call "mathematical facts." "All of" WHAT??? My boy.

My point is that obviously, if you support a criminal justice
system, with or without the death penalty. you cannot logically oppose
the death penalty on _moral grounds_, arguing the possibility of
executing an innocent is the _moral reason_ you oppose the death
penalty. Since it is EXPLICIT in supporting a criminal justice system
that you do not oppose the possibility of an innocent dying in prison.

You have to find another reason (and trust me... there are many)
to oppose the death penalty. If I were to oppose the death penalty
I could do a better job at it than nine out of ten abolitionists
posting to AADP. And I would not use the silly argument that
there is the possibility of executing an innocent, since it is
fundamental in accepting the use of a criminal justice system
to control predators, that we also accept the possibility of
convicting an innocent and that innocent dying in prison. I
have the proof... if you could ever find a way to examine the
cites I have provided.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."'

And I thank my luck stars that I am not you, my son. I would not
trade all the years that I would live longer to be you. I've seen
things that you will never see. You'll see things that I will never
see. And I can only hope that you gain some maturity and wisdom
as you grow older... because as you are... the human race suffers.
"All are punish'd."

Death Disco

unread,

Jun 2, 2010, 1:06:26 PM6/2/10

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:uf7606lsgpi3tgojf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:12:43 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:6lu006db3d7mcu76l...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:30:15 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"> But you're no longer worth my time"
>>>>
>>>>Curios. You announce that we are done but you reply to one of my posts
>>>>afterwards. This is strange.
>>>
>>> That was in respect to that particular post, and that particular
>>> evening, shit-for-brains.
>>
>>No sir " But you're no longer worth my time", is clearly in respect to a
>>person, not a partucular post, sir.
>
> Of course... it was in respect to YOUR post. Try to pay attention.

My words were, "No sir " But you're no longer worth my time", is clearly in

respect to a person, not a partucular post, sir."

Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should not
be allowed to play.

>>> Bet you're disappointed to see me wipe out every one of your
>>> irrational arguments again. But let me be absolutely clear...
>>> if I do stop replying to your comments that are obviously
>>> a product of a disturbed and degenerate mind, it will only be
>>> because I've grown tired of pounding each and every one of your
>>> shriveled-up arguments into dust.
>>>
>>
>>Declaring yourself the winner does not make you the winner, dear sir.
>>Court
>>sessions would be a lot shorter had it been the case.
>
> Hey, you've been declaring yourself the winner, stating that you've
> already "accepted <my> flag of surrender." How did you figure that
> out other than declaring yourself the winner?

I have not declared myself the winner, dear sir. I was asserting an obvious
truth.

Are you a habitual gambler sir?

I have already accepted your flag of surrender, sir.

>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.
>
> All you need to do is look at your past comments, to see your puerile
> use of the word "puerile" over and over as if it is your prayer
> mantra, that you must repeat over and over to gain entrance to
> that "holy spot" you insist belongs to you sitting next to
> "something higher than ourselves." What does that joker look
> like if he has objective existence rather than the subjective
> existence resulting from a mental aberration you suffer from?
> Perhaps you have a picture of that joker that you can share with
> us. Or is it a picture on the cover of that Bible you keep
> thumping?

You are struggling to interpret my comments, sir. Perhaps you should play
with "special" people, like you.

"Stop lying"

I don't have to lie, sir. Lying is your strategy.

Do you see what you did wrong there, sir? You confused "fact" with "guess".

>
>> It is
>>evident that you escrimate against "the young".
>
> If there were a word in the English language that defined "escrimate"
> perhaps you might be right. But given that there is no such word
> your comment is just mindless drivel... apparently trying to accuse
> me of something that doesn't exist in the English language.
>

"escrimate" is a typographical error, sir.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typographical+error

> We, my wife and I, have had children... they were nurtured to respect
> their elders, and to learn from their wisdom. They have now had
> children... and because our children were nurtured to respect their
> elders, their children are being nurtured to respect their elders.
> It's a shame that you lack such nurturing.

"We, my wife and I, have had children"

Did any of them live, sir or did they die as a result of infection caused by
you covering them in cockroach blood?

" they were nurtured to respect their elders, and to learn from their
wisdom"

How disappointed they must have been to discover from being your children
that age does not always carry wisdom. Such would be a harsh lesson for
them. I grieve for them, sir. At least now, they have observed that wisdom
comes with open eyes and an open mind, and not a natural process of age.

>
>>However I am most definately
>>younger than 78 but I am older than your mental age, dear fellow.
>
> No proof offered. Your claim fails. An argument of presumed fact but
> lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.

Your logic does not follow normal rational reasoning, sir.

"BTW -- You "remember" arithmetic"

Yes, sir.

>
>>> So if you can't remember a THING we call the Holocaust you are
>>> certainly denying that there was a Holocaust. Yet you do "remember"
>>> a thing called the Crusades. Since you continue to have the
>>> information that there were Crusades in your mind. How else
>>> could you know of it, if it was not present in your memory?
>>>
>>> and --
>>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>

I have already accepted your flag of surrender, sir.

>>I made no such claim, sir.
>>
> Of course you did. Your exact words -- "You cannot forget or remember
> the extermination of 6 million jews (sic) unless you remember them."
> And then your comment about "remember." Your words -- "You do not
> remember what is not in your memory and it is not in your memory
> if you did not experience or witness it first hand."

"Of course you did."

I did not, sir.

>
> Are you now denying those were your words?

No, sir.

You claimed that you could, "hear" me, sir.
Any fear that you experience is your own, sir. If you were to be able to
feel my emotions sir, you would feel my amusement.

I am not obliged to prove anything to you, dear fellow.

> If you cannot or will not post your own creds, to show that you have
> been educated, then it is obvious that you offer ONLY *deathly
> silence*.
>

No, sir. The "deathly silence" came from your post so it is your response
despite that you have been anything but silent, sir

>>>> If you cannot win your arguments without lying or name calling then you
>>>> should
>>>>not be allowed to take part.
>>>
>>> I never, ever lie. Claiming I do is simply your own smear tactics to
>>> discredit my exposing your own lies and deceit. It's a popular
>>> tactic used by those who are either exposed for being a liar or want
>>> to shift the argument (which is recognized as lost) to one of ad
>>> hominem, about presumed, but unexplained or lacking a cite to past
>>> comments. Simply call the person who exposes you -- a liar. And
>>> then *plonk* him as if that proves he is a liar. As to name
>>> calling... I have seldom found a more "name-calling-worthy" poster
>>> than you, sport.
>>>
>>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>>Another lie, sir.
>
> Heh... when caught in a lie, call the other a liar hoping to ignore
> having been caught in a lie.

No, sir. The lies are definately yours.

>
>>> But you have no cite of any lie from me, while I have the evidence of
>>> your claims that you _talk to_ "something higher than ourselves," and
>>> "it" talks back to you. Plus all the times I have caught you in a lie
>>> and your answer was --
>>>
>>
>>Your cite your own lies, sir.
>
> Heh... when caught in a lie, call the other a liar hoping to ignore
> having been caught in a lie. Clearly, my dear fellow, despite your
> God-complex raving... you DO need to prove your allegations.
> To do that... you need to juxtapose two different comments from
> me which without a doubt represent a lie in one or the other of
> them. Where you have lied, is quite easy to show. Each time
> you claim that you "don't need to prove it," you show a part of
> you that is psychotically driven to believe he is God. Humans,
> my boy... need to prove EVERYTHING that they state is a FACT.
> Claiming you "don't need to prove it," is claiming you are God.
> And that makes you a liar.

No, sir. The lies are definately yours.

>
> While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one... yet they have
> no relevance in respect to proving anything, unless they are
> grounded in FACT... EVIDENCE... PROOF. They only prove
> you have an opinion to offer that is not grounded in fact, or by
> evidence. Opinions which you hope to slip by as FACT... which again
> makes you a liar.

"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one"

They do sir? So you have only the one opinion. Curious

>
>>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>>> etc... etc... etc...
>>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_.
>>> All above are obvious attempts to cover you your lies.
>>
>>You already said that sir. Really, sir; do you think that repeating your
>>lies adds credibility to them? It really does not work that way, sir.
>
> You mean you're DENYING that all of those words are YOURS? Now
> you've again proved yourself to be a liar. But I need to see it
> clearly. Do you deny that all or any of the above comments included
> in quotation marks came from you????
>

"You mean you're DENYING that all of those words are YOURS?"

No, sir.

"ROTFLMAO"

Curious.

"That's your EXCUSE??? "

There is nothing for me to excuse, sir.

> Pay attention: Instead, you use that term when you see someone
> criticize ANOTHER for some reason, and that someone has used that same
> criticism in the same way in HIS COMMENTS. For example... if your
> friend mxsmanic criticized another member of this group for using a
> particular method and mxsmanic was also known for using that same
> particular method, you, as a third party, would jump in and respond to
> mxsmanic with "pot.... kettle...black." But in using it as a second
> party, directed at me, your implication is that I am using the same
> method as YOU... which simply shows that you believe you are the
> original "pot... "
>

" Pay attention"

Oh I do sir. I would hate to miss any of your detritus, sir.

> Oh, crap... this is much too complicated for your tiny mind to absorb
> in one lesson.
>
>>>>"What is the theoretical electromagnetic resonant frequency in Hz of a
>>>>20
>>>>cm quarter-wave-length transmission line"
>>>
>>> That's what I said. However that is not the full problem as I
>>> presented it. Try to be precise and read my words, you moron.
>>> Repeating --
>>>
>>> " What is the theoretical electromagnetic resonant frequency in Hz of
>>> a 20 cm quarter-wave-length transmission line, presuming the velocity
>>> of light is exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second, and no other
>>> factors affect this resonant frequency?"
>>
>>The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, not 300,000,000
>>meters/per second, sir. Some people round it to that and when determining
>>f
>>in megacycles set C to 300 but they lose accuracy.
>
> Heh... in other words... you fucked it up. Thanks for that.

No sir. You were the one whom "fucked up" lightspeed, sir.

>
>>The formula for resonanct is f=c/lamda in Cs dear sir of if you are
>>contructiing a coaxial antenna (unlikely on the frequency you have chosen)
>>then the formula is f=(c/lamda)*v
>
> Yada... yada... yada... you're only trying to bury your ignorance in
> a flood of irrelevant commentary.
>

>>Where c is the speed of light, lamda is wavelength, and v is velocity
>>factor.
>
> Yada... yada... yada... you're only trying to bury your ignorance in
> a flood of irrelevant commentary.
>

No, sir. I have just explained the formula to you. You are ignorant of it.
How curious.

I have already accepted your flag of surrender, sir.

>>Basic antenna principles, sir. You need to catch up on your research
>
> I emphasized that it was simple, and needed no calculator, reference,
> or even pen and paper. Apparently you fell asleep in class when I
> explained that to the class.
>

"I emphasized that it was simple"

So why is it that you cannot follow it when I explained it to you?

" Yada... yada... yada... you're only trying to bury your ignorance in a
flood of irrelevant commentary.
"

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>

>>
>>Yes sir. The answer was wrong.
>
> And there it is, folks. I rest my case.

Yes, sir. Noticing your own mistakes is a virtue of wisdom and gives rise to
learning from them. These are qualities you are proven to lack.

>
>>It occurred to me a few minutes after I
>>posted and while making tea that I calculated the quarter waves backwards
>>and that i didn't actually need to calculate them at all as all you asked
>>for was the "resonant frequency"(Sic) of the antenna. but had as you
>>could see from my follow up post, I corrected it and came up with the
>>right
>>answer. Of course I expect you to protest most strongly that you did not
>>see
>>my follow up post. Now sir, we shall see how you handled my particular
>>problem.
>
> Yada, yada, yada. Do you know how much credit they give you
> for knowing the answer AFTER you turn in your examination paper???
> Jack-shit!!!

There was no examination paper, dear sir. As I sad previously, the answer
was not seen by anyone whose opinions matter. However, it is obvious you did
not read the corrected version or had you know what it is you are talking
about you would have observed that I once again neglected to take into
account the inverse relationship between frequency and wavelength on the
quarter waves. My antenna theory is rusty. I have built one in a while. What
about you, sir? When did you last build one?

"Rubbish. Hz is the ONLY acceptable term as the SI unit of frequency See -"

You're Wrong, sir. You don't have the authority to tell anyone else what
notation to use.

> I don't have the slightest idea where you came up with Cs, since doing
> a Google search of Cs, comes up with everything like "Credit Suisse
> Group," and other organizations using that acronym. When I do
> a Google search on - Cs "cycles per second" - I still find nothing.
> There are a few that use C/S ( C slash S)... but no organization or
> academy uses that or Cs, that I know of. In any case, the U.K. and
> the Netherlands accept the official name of Hz, as "cycles per
> second."
>

You should read your books sir. You should find such an expression there.
Perhaps your books are exclusively for show.

You haven't answered the problem I gave you, yet.

>
> As to your problem, I have hardly ever involved myself with db
> loss or gain, although the formulas in log are readily available
> to those interested in such things. I'm certainly aware of how
> to compute capacitive reactance which is trivial, and in your
> argument --
>
> R = 3.183 x 10^4 Ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>
> c = 10^-9 Farads
>
> f = 500 Hz
>
> thus -
>
> Xc = 1/(2 x [pi] x f x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 500 x 10^-9 Ohms)

Xc=1/w(omega)c sir but it equates to the same thing.

>
> thus reducing --
>
> Xc= 3.183 x 10^5 ohms = 318.3 K Ohms
>

318.310K to be more accurate, sir but you are doing very well

> and --
>
> cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4
> x 10^-9) Hz
>
> thus reducing --
>
> cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
>
> at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>
> cutoff frequency = -3 db

The question did not ask for the cutoff frequency or the db loss at cut of
frequency. it Asked for the db loss and phase angled at 500 Cs, sir.

>
> At the cutoff frequency the phase angle is 45 degrees
>
> I dealt in digital data... data loss and db loss are two different
> things. In transmitting digital data the db line loss is irrelevant
> except for a highly degraded line loss or a total line loss. Digital
> data has various redundancies such as parity checks and hamming
> code in both horizontal, vertical and in total bit count per message.
> Plus military traffic is always routed through secure communication
> centers processing both unclassified and the highest classification
> military traffic uses. These communication centers use a "red" -
> "black" concept, where all traffic comes in as "black" fully
> encrypted, and passes through decryption machine within this
> secure, and highly shielded from electronic leakage. communication
> center. After decryption the traffic is called "red," and highly
> classified messages are now in the clear, but remain in the
> communications center while they are in the "red." The communication
> center then processes, and saves the traffic in what are called
> ledgers, and journals on high density media, then routes the
> traffic to the destination (s), and sends it back to the on-site
> crypto center for encryption again before exiting the communication
> center as "black" traffic, encrypted again to the final destination.
>
> Your lesson for the day.

That you should read the question, sir.

"Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir."

You have had your first attempt sir and you did not answer the question.In
your own words. " Do you know how much credit they give you for knowing the

answer AFTER you turn in your examination paper??? Jack-shit!!! "

Nonsense, sir. Ohms law applies electricity, whether it is DC or AC is
irrelevent. As AC is contantly in flux then that has to be taken into
account so impedence and phase angle are calculated.

>
> Quoting -- "When reactive elements such as capacitors, inductors, or
> transmission lines are involved in a circuit to which AC or
> time-varying voltage or current is applied, the relationship between
> voltage and current becomes the solution to a differential equation,
> so Ohm's law (as defined above) does not directly apply since that
> form contains only resistances having value R, not complex impedances
> which may contain capacitance ("C") or inductance ("L")."
>
>
>>> Kirchoff's law is applicable with AC circuits.
>>
>>Of course it does, sir. It also applies to DC circuits,
>
> Of course it does... but just because A implies B + C, does not mean D
> implies B + C. Kirchoff's Law provides solutions using differential
> equations. Ohm's Law does not. Kirchoff's Law defines the electric
> potential as a line integral. Thus introducing Integration in the
> calculus.
>

"Of course it does... "
Then we agree on something, sir.

Very longwinded, sir. The correct formula is radians = degrees*pi/180
Of course you would have spotted that a complete circle is 2pi.

>
>>> Your trouble is that you confuse your subjective views with objective
>>> facts. No matter how hard you try... they are not the same. There
>>> is no possibility whatsoever of "something higher than ourselves,"
>>> actually being an "object" that we can examine and agree upon what
>>> that object is. Just as there is no possibility whatsoever of
>>> "prejudice" actually being an "object" that we can examine and agree
>>> upon what that object is.
>>>
>>
>>Your feeble attempt to avoide the problem posed has been noted, sir.
>>
> Now that I've made my "feeble attempt"... just try to answer mine
> using a feeble attempt. We're not examining my expertise in low-pass
> filters, and db. I've been retired longer than you've been living.
> We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your horn
> about --
>

"Now that I've made my "feeble attempt"... "

It was feeble sir. You got as far as working out the capacitive reactance.
then you went off at a tangent.

> "I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
> and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
> algorythm."
>

That's Bayes' theorum, sir. Please give the fellow the respect he deserves.
"Bayes' theorum" calculated probabiliters and thier counter effects and
linear regression calculates the line of best fit. Of course you know
standard deviation and Binomial distribution.

> Not even capable of spelling algorithm correctly. Not even capable
> of spelling "theorem," correctly. The two prime arguments in your
> entire sentence. If you look below you will see your comment has
> seven ">" in front of it, signifying that you began this thumping your
> chest, yet your knuckles still drag on the ground when you walk.
> While it's obscene that you dare to mention Bayes' Theorem,
> considering how seldom you show the slightest knowledge of
> what inductive logic even is.

>
> Now either answer my question, since you never did answer my first
> question correctly, having turned in your answer before "reading the
> fucking question." If you can't then shut the fuck about your
> superiority and address your holocaust denial, your racism, your
> belief that you hear voices from "something higher than ourselves,"
> and your belief that six million and one cockroaches are "superior"
> to six million innocent Jews.
>

"you never did answer my first question correctly"

Yes I did, sir.

> If that question was too complicated for you I'll give you an easier
> one. Since you seem to claim familiarity with differential
> equations... solve this one. Understand that this is the EASIEST
> of all differential equation to solve, and is used over and over in
> solving motion equations related to gravitation -- This one should
> be a snap for you --
>
> Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g
>
> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)

Given you have a closed cylinder with a volume of 1050 cm^3 use integration
and tranposition to get the maxumum surface area from the minimum material
used.

Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40 ohm,
calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissapated across
each line, sir.

>
> We'll work our way down until we find your level of knowledge.
>
> However, I have yet to see a single word from you that makes me
> believe you have received a proper education in the arts, and
> humanities. I have no idea of your natural given intelligence but it
> is obvious to me that your nurturing has been greatly injured. I have
> seldom met anyone with a mind that is so closed as yours is. The test
> of a man's intellect is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his
> mind. Yours hasn't even been out for a walk in a very long time.
> Apparently it is too small and narrow-minded to be let out by itself.
>

"We'll work our way down until we find your level of knowledge"

We have already found yours, sir.

>>>>>>>>Perhaps the use of caps will help you around your obvious learning
>>>>>>>>difficulty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't prove your silly argument. How long has it been since
>>>>>>> you were weaned? Answer the question, without using a question.
>>>>>>> Bet you can't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can't answer the question. Why did I already know that if
>>>>> I'm not smart?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing again, sir.
>>>>Curios. You announce that we are done but you reply to one of my posts
>>>>afterwards. This is strange.
>>>
>>> You're repeating yourself, shit-for-brains. Yet you're still avoiding
>>> the question.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>
> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
> at you, sport.
>

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

No, sir. You have no basis to back up your assertions, so they can only be
guesses.

>>>>>>>>It's your
>>>>>>>>arrogance that pushes to to actually rewrite the word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one having rewritten the word to suit your own childish
>>>>>>> ego, while having absolutely no proof of your argument. The
>>>>>>> only use of "static" in describing any word is "electrical or
>>>>>>> acoustic
>>>>>>> activity that can disturb communication." And you try that
>>>>>>> with just about every word you offer. Words either convey the
>>>>>>> meaning of an "object," thus "objective,' or they convey the
>>>>>>> meaning of a "mental abstraction," thus "subjective."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nonsense. I use "Static" in a correct context.
>>>>>
>>>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>>>
>>>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.
>>>
>>> Quite true... your lack of a referenced cite showing "static" to refer
>>> to "prejudice" makes your argument inadmissible.
>>
>>It was not a cite, sir, so no reference is required.
>
> "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"

The word is "cite", sir.

>
>>>>> Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat of
>>>>> Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
>>>>> saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
>>>>
>>>>I have no obligation to prove my arguments.
>>>
>>> Using that psychotic God-complex of yours does not mean you have no
>>> obligation to prove your arguments, shit-for-brains. Only "something
>>> higher than ourselves" does not have to prove "its" arguments. But
>>> I guess I should pity you because you have that psychotic
>>> Bible-thumper belief that "something higher than ourselves" talks to
>>> you directly.... Hallelujah, brother.
>>
>>I am not religious sir.
>
> No, you just hear voices from "something higher than ourselves" who
> whispered in your ear that there is this "right to life for all
> cockroaches and insects and bacteria and viruses... oh, yeah... and
> humans" ROTFLMAO.

No I don't sir. Wait a can hear your voice now. It's a high pitched
meaningless whine.

>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, I do not redefine definitions. I use them as weapons to
>>>>>>>>> crush idiots like you, who have little knowledge of the English
>>>>>>>>> language, and thus distort words in a biased effort to twist to
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> own sick agenda.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You repeatidly and deliberately misuse dictionary definition
>>>>>>>>regardless
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>that you have cobnsulted a dictionary but you change them anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I put the definitions up... and you simply ignore them as if they do
>>>>>>> not exist. How can I possibly deal with someone who speaks
>>>>>>> gibberish,
>>>>>>> and insists the English language is made as he desires to make it,
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> as it actually exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You change them, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>>>
>>>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.
>>>
>>> Quite right... so why do you keep claiming cites without references,
>>> shit-for-brains?
>>
>>I don't, sir.
>
> You did so just above, shit-for-brains.

No I didn't, sir.

"Yes, I do."

No you don't, sir.

> Obviously you've just piled lie upon lie upon lie. And now even deny

> you wrote it... but I have the evidence. See --
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fc1729e6f9101be5
> Here it is, sport... your words enshrined forever in Google. Proof
> that you stated -- "We do not have the to (sic) say who has the right
> to life. That honour is strictly owned by something higher than
> ourselves." And when I asked how you came about this information
> in my words -- "Who would that be?" You responded in one word -
> "Unknown." See --
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/92a6b831782818bf
>

Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should not
be allowed to play.

> If it's "unknown," sport... how do you KNOW it? As I said... that
> God-complex of yours will do you in every time. Trust me... you
> don't hear voices from "something higher than ourselves," and
> you don't hear "its" angels talking to you either. Thus, you have no
> evidence of any "right to life for cockroaches." It's that BIBLE-
> THUMPING!!! Now those are YOUR words, sport. They are
> in Google, proven to have come from you.... not "something
> higher than ourselves," although you may think you are.
>

" If it's "unknown," sport... how do you KNOW it?"

I do not, sir. If I did then it wouldn't be unknown therefore it would be
known but it's unknown. Am I going too fast for you, sir?

That is irrelevant, sir. You only know American English (sic), sir.

> This group was created by a poster now long gone named
> "Etan Ben-Ami" in 1993. He was a member of the "National
> Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty," and as far as I know
> was not European, since that coalition is based in Washington,
> D.C. There is no recognized body that has ruled that U.K.
> English is the only language permitted in AADP. Nonetheless,
> I don't correct you when you use the spelling of "honour," while in
> the U.S. it is spelled "honor." If you insist we use YOUR type of
> spelling that is xenophobia. I am open minded and you can
> use either U.K. English or U.S. English. I just wish you'd use
> it CORRECTLY!
>

I do, sir. You are the fellow who repeatedly attempts to redefine words,
sir.

> However, let's again be frank... it would not matter if I did oppose
> the U.S. Death Penalty, since my argument with you is about your
> Holocaust denial, your racist comments and your underlying
> stupidity (which I hope is not genetic but rather a product of
> cruel and unusual nurturing).

"my argument with you is about your Holocaust denial, "

I have made no such denial, sir.

"your racist comments "

I have made no racist comments, sir.

No, sir. It hasn't worked and neither has the death penalty.

>>>>>>"Xenophobia is the uncontrollable fear of foreigners.[1] It comes from
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>Greek words ????? (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner" and ?????
>>>>>>(phobos), meaning "fear." Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways
>>>>>>involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an
>>>>>>outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its
>>>>>>activities,
>>>>>>aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed
>>>>>>purity.[2] Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an
>>>>>>"uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is
>>>>>>ascribed "an
>>>>>>unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".["
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
>>>>>>Wikpedia.
>>>>>>accessed: 27/05/10.
>
> Gee... how did you "remember" all that, given that you've stated --
> "You do not remember what is not in your memory and it is not in your
> memory if you did not experience or witness it first hand."
>
> You actually experienced or witnessed the Greeks??? You naughty boy,
> you!!!
>

Remember what, sir? Are you still clutching at straws?

>>>>>>I was correct as always, dear sir. the word "Xenophobia" was
>>>>>>perfectly
>>>>>>germane to my argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you mean does it describe YOUR methods, then there is no question
>>>>> that it applies to YOU. For example, just now you questioned the
>>>>> source of the word "mommy." That's definitely an example of your
>>>>> xenophobia -- "fear of foreigners." While your Bible-thumping raving
>>>>> about a death penalty for murderers in a land foreign to you,
>>>>> certainly expresses a "relations and perceptions of an ingroup"
>>>>> toward those you consider an outgroup (the U.S.).
>>>>
>>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>
>>>>No, sir.I mean it describe your methods.
>>>
>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>
>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible
>
> Quite true... so why did you claim that you're a blockhead?

I did not, sir.

>
>>>
>>>>If you cannot argue without lying then you should not be allowed to play
>>>>at all.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep offering cites without references, shit-for-brains?
>>
>>I do not, sir.
>>
>>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>
> ROTFLMAO... It's too late, sport... you already turned in your
> examination without offering cites or references. Trying to do
> it now... is locking the barn door after the cows have moved on.
>

No I didn't sir.

> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
> at you, sport.

No, dear fellow. They all point at you.

I ended my comment with a question mark, sir. I was asking you a question.

I have not killed anyone sir.

>
>>>> In perspective, your people have had thier fair share
>>>>of bloodshed, sir.
>>>
>>> How do you remember that? Did you experience the U.S 300 years ago?
>>
>>It's called "an education", sir.
>
> So you've never received an "education" about the Holocaust. And then
> you wonder why I pity the lack of nurturing you have received in
> your life

I received much education about the holocaust, sir.

>
>>> Were you there at Wounded Knee?? Europe, in the last 100 years,
>>> murdered in various genocides at least 100 times the total number of
>>> murders in genocides in the U.S. in that full 300 years. Shit...
>>> Europe managed to do it five times at much in only FIVE years In the
>>> 20th Century!!! And more than once in that 20th Century. While the
>>> bloody history of Europe's past should cause you to weep... but you
>>> can't REMEMBER it. How very convenient for you.
>>
>>However, most of europe had the sense to abolish the death penalty, sir.
>
> See above... Be sure to ask the Pope to bless you for saving the lives
> of murderers... I understand he doesn't give a fuck about Blacks in
> Africa either.... just like you.

I care not for the pope, sir.

>
>>> The 20th Century was the bloodiest century in human history. And
>>> that bloodshed was 99.99% the result of Europe's citizens inability
>>> to get along with each other.
>>
>>Whilest America sat back till the last minute then tried to claim they
>>saved
>>everyone sir.
>
> Since when are we RESPONSIBLE for Europe??? When was the last time
> any nation in Europe helped us? I'll tell you when... when the French
> helped us 300 years ago, in their own interests to gain our
> independence. And we still "remember" it. While YOU can't even
> remember the Nazis in your Europe attempting the extermination of
> European Jewry. Six million murdered innocent Jews.. less than 70
> years ago... and you can't "remember," while you do remember the
> Crusades, and the "Greeks."
>

"Since when are we RESPONSIBLE for Europe??? "

You are not, sir but you persistently try to make Europe do things your way.
If they do not, you have one of your so well known temper tantrums and bomb
something.

>>> However, you've certainly left me ROTFLMAO.
>>
>>Puerile, sir.
>
> What I see as your sickness is duly noted. What I see as your
> affection for genocide and war is also duly noted. What I see
> as your affection for murderers is also duly noted.

"What I see "

Are pretty clouds, people picking mushrooms, the world speaking American
English (sic), your nuclear weapons looming threateningly over the world's
populace sir and the electric chair warmed up, sir

Wikipedia is such a life saver for you, sir. Perhaps you should read those
books in your collection.

>>I'm
>>amazed. We shall see how long it takes you to catch up. Not long I'd
>>wager.
>>You seem to be invading everybody and you still have the barbaric death
>>penalty.
>
> And you still have the cursed genocide of close to a million innocent
> Tutsis brought by a European power who wants to maintain French
> hegemony in Africa. You know what Mitterand said about those
> million murdered innocent Tutsis... murdered with French complicity,
> providing arms to the Hutus... urging them to get on with the
> massacre??? He is quoted as saying -- "in such countries, genocide is
> not too important." Nice leaders you elect. You curse us for
> electing Bush, and it turns out that Mitterand was responsible for at
> least 20 times the deaths that Bush and Blair are responsible for.
> Every time I mention this... Europeans posting here suddenly turn
> deaf, dumb, and blind.

"And you still have the cursed genocide of close to a million innocent
> Tutsis brought by a European power who wants to maintain French
> hegemony in Africa"

No I don't sir.

>
>>> <fx: Death Disco stares wide eyed with open mouth gaping at proof of
>>> the long history of European hate for each other>
>>
>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

"Yeah"

Then you concern yourself too much with the thoughts of other people sir.
How typically American of you. Others' opinions are none of your business,
sir.

>
>>"You pray to a god to strike me down for correcting your English, sir?
>>Hardly the response of an athiest."
>>
>>Is not a lie, sir.
>
> Rubbish. I said "If there were a "God." You expect that to mean I
> pray to such an imaginary "God." So I suppose if I wrote "If you
> were a Nazi," that would mean that you pray to the Nazis. You
> need an intense mental examination... and I am dead serious about
> that. I think you miss your mommy... being away from home for
> the first time in your young life.

You imagine there is a god, sir. You prayed for it to strike me down, sir..

"Sure you did"

No I didn't, sir.

>>> Or do you now admit that you _just made it up_? Let me make

No, sir. I don't need to know that as it does not alter the point.

>
>>>>"Do you step on that cockroach or do you let that cockroach crawl on
>>>>your
>>>>baby while you run to get some kind of paper or something to remove that
>>>>cockroach gently to avoid hurting your baby and that cockroach?"
>>>>
>>>>No sir. I pick up the cochroach, I take it outside and let it go.
>>>
>>> You mean you'd pick it off of the arm of your baby, after your baby
>>> has been infected with e-coli. How very fatherly of you... now you
>>> only have to worry about your baby dying from e-coli.
>>
>>If it was on the arm of my baby then killing it would spread it's "disease
>>causing organisms" all over my baby sir.
>
> RTFQ!!! I never said it was on the arm of your baby. I offered you
> the CHOICE between killing it, or knowing that it WOULD BE on the arm
> of your baby. You chose to let it go to the arm of your baby, and
> THEN let it wiggle its six legs a bit before you could grasp it,
> spreading even more germs to your own hand, and carefully depositing
> it outside your window for the birds to feast upon. I wonder why you
> don't have some _cockroach cages_, in which you can _save the
> cockroach_ of the world from those nasty birds.
>

" knowing that it WOULD BE on the arm of your baby."

Are you getting angry again, sir?

>>You should think your debates through, sir. Did you have any children that
>>lived sir?
>
> Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living? Trust me...
> you start bringing insults to my real family or real children, rather
> than a hypothetical thought experiment and you will find yourself
> being accused of screwing your sister. Remember that YOU started
> it. Now apologize and let's move on.
>

"Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living?"

I am sure she could be persuaded, sir. For a broken down hopeless old man
such as yourself, she me very likely increase the price.

>>>>I would guess that you would stamp on it, splattering the poor little
>>>>creature
>>>>ans spreading it's blood which contains "more than 50 disease causing
>>>>organisms" all over your baby. There is absolutely no reason to kill the
>>>>cockroach sir.
>>>
>>> I'd stamp the shit out of it just for kicks. And then spread Clorox
>>> all over the mess, and throw my shoe in an incinerator, before it
>>> could touch my baby. Bacteria can't jump from the floor to my baby,
>>> but it sure can go from any of the six legs of that cockroach to my
>>> baby's body before I could "pick it up." But then your answer is that
>>> you consider the life of the cockroach to be more valuable than the
>>> possibility of transmitting a deadly disease to your baby. That's
>>> exactly the answer I expected from you. You do know that the "poor
>>> little cockroach" will be food for the birds shortly in any case,
>>> while the possible fatal illness it might transmit to your child will
>>> haunt you forever... or not... since you seem cold as ice when it
>>> comes to worrying about humans, including your own baby, but
>>> warm and fuzzy all over when it comes to worrying about cockroaches.
>>>
>>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>

I have already accepted your flag of surrender, sir.

"But you're no longer worth my time"

>>Then you are a murderer, sir, on two counts. One for killing the poor
>>innocent cockroach
>
> ROTFLMAO. Read the definition of murder, you ignorant child.
> MURDER -- "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially
> with premeditated malice."
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder
>
> Insects are NOT "human." Only someone on the edge of sanity could
> argue that _cockroaches_ are HUMAN.

The unlawful, deliberate killing, sir. So if womeone were to kill you it
would not be murder.

>
> Oh, wait... you need a cite for that, because you're too ignorant to
> figure it out for yourself. Here you go --
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/human
> HUMAN -- "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H.
> sapiens."

You reference incorrectly, sir. Will you ever learn?

>
> But of course, you've also said that -- "if i do not approve of a
> definition I simply choose not to use it." Which makes it easy for
> you to invent your own definitions, although it makes communicating
> with other humans... IMPOSSIBLE! You sound like Michael
> Jackson singing the role of Danny to his pet rat, "Ben," as his only
> friend. BTW -- do you consider rats "superior" to cockroaches??
> Heh heh heh.
>

" But of course, you've also said that -- "if i do not approve of a
definition I simply choose not to use it." Which makes it easy for you to
invent your own definitions"

Your logic is erroneous, sir.

>> and two for infecting you baby by spreading the cockroach's
>>disease carrying organisms all over your baby, sir.
>
> Wrong... I killed the cockroach on the floor... my hypothetical baby
> was NOT on the floor. You lifted the cockroach carefully from your
> hypothetical baby's arm, thoroughly infecting your hypothetical
> baby with up to 50 known diseases.
>

"I killed the cockroach on the floor... my hypothetical baby
> was NOT on the floor"

Yes, it was sir. You knocked over its cot when you rushed to murder the
cockroach. I hope the baby was not yours, sir.

> You should be ashamed of yourself. That cockroach NEVER touched
> my baby.
>>
>>> Apparently if the choice came to you having to kill a cockroach to
>>> prevent the execution of an innocent, you'd simply not _have the
>>> heart_ to kill that cockroach, you call "the poor little creature."
>>> Maybe I should have framed my thought experiment thusly, to
>>> clearly put into focus how little you care about HUMANS, and how
>>> much you care about COCKROACHES!
>>
>>You should work on thinking things through before trying thought
>>experiments
>>on others, sir.
>
> You should RTFQ when you see thought experiments rather than
> contriving your own set of circumstances and accusing the other
> of "murder." How many "murders" have you committed in washing
> your hands??
>

"RTFQ"

Language, sir.

>>> Since you find humans and cockroaches no different, if you had
>>> to kill a human or kill a cockroach, and had no other choice, which
>>> would you kill? After all, you can't make the same choice as
>>> Buridan's donkey in this thought experiment. One or the other,
>>> sport. Which one is it?
>
> And we see Death Disco respond with *deathly silence*
> For a guy that raves on and on about irrelevant things, and
> insists he _talks to "something higher than ourselves"_ we
> now find he is at a loss for words.

No, sir. That was your response.

>
>>> Regardless... I'm now getting a better focus on why you deny the
>>> Holocaust. It's because to you six million Jews are worth less than
>>> six million and one cockroaches, in your sick mind.
>
> And we see Death Disco respond with *deathly silence*
> For a guy that raves on and on about irrelevant things, and
> insists he _talks to "something higher than ourselves"_ we
> now find he is at a loss for words.

No, sir. That was your response.

>
>>>>>>>>> You're not happy merely assassinating the English language, you
>>>>>>>>> want to crucify it before murdering it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Another one of your puerile response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another one of your mindless drivel responses. Is "puerile" a
>>>>>>> new word you've discovered?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Puerile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for answering the question with your agreement.
>>>>
>>>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying then you should not be
>>>>allowed to take part.
>>>
>>> Pardon me... but I asked the question "Is 'puerile' a new word you've
>>> discovered?" And you answered with that word proving it is impossible
>>> that I was lying. The only reason you call me a liar is because you
>>> have nothing else to use in defense of your ignorance. So you expect
>>> to call me, what you just proved yourself to be.... shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>
>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying or (inclusive) name calling
>>then you should not be allowed to take part.
>
> Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? This is just
> more of your God-complex at work. Nonetheless... the only liar is
> you... because I NEVER, EVER LIE!! You need to offer a cite of my
> words that demonstrates I have lied. In fact, my never having lied
> has brought me more grief in arguments than if I had lied. When I
> win arguments the claims that I'm a liar come out of the woodwork...
> like your pet "cockroaches."

"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"

Indeed, sir. Will you take instruction only from another American, sir?

"Only in your mind"

No, sir. In reality

>
>>> English criminal law applies to the law in the U.K.
>>>
>>
>>Yes sir, but if you suggest that killing in self defense does not carry a
>>prison term in the UK then you are wrong sir.
>
> Killing in recognized self-defense does not carry any crime at
> all. It's only when it has been determined that the definition
> of self-defense has not been met that anyone can be accused
> or convicted of any crime. If the recognized LEGAL conditions
> of self-defense are MET... there has no crime committed.

Killing carries a custodial sentence, even if it is in self-defence. That is
British law, of course.

>
> You did not SUGGEST... but INSISTED that factually -- "You kill
> someone in self defense in Britian (sic) then your conviction will
> read that of masnlaughter (sic)." But you were wrong, and now you
> are lying hope to wiggle out of that silly comment. If you
> kill in legally recognized self-defense in Britian (sic) then you
> have committed NO CRIME.

You are wrong, sir.

>
> It is when you kill, and it not recognized as being in self-defense,
> even if you plead that it was, that you will be accused and tried
> in a court of law for "manslaughter," or even "murder" if it is
> found that your claim of self-defense was rubbish and you killed
> intentionally and with malice aforethought.

You do not know British law, sir.

Of course, we can, sir. You do it persistently.

>
>>Killing in self defense is manslaughter and is punishable by imprisonment,
>>sir.
>
> Heh... Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat
> of Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
> saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
>

I am under no obligation to prove anything to you, sir.

> While you may claim that "I have no obligation to prove my arguments
> or to answer anything," that only means even you know that your
> argument is not true.
>

No it doesn't, sir.

I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
pointless.

>>>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you
>>>>were
>>>>honest with yourself.
>>>
>>> Once again your argument against my proof is that I must be using
>>> YOUR strategy. When have you EVER "told the truth"?
>>>
>>
>>You have provided no proof, sir. You have only provided an incorrectly
>>referenced cite.
>
> ROTFLMAO. That from the guy who insists he doesn't have to provide
> proof of anything he says -- Such as his words --
>
> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
> etc... etc... etc...
> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_.
>

I did not ask for proof, sir. I informed you that you had not provided any.
On the other hand, you repeatedly ask for proof so proof is your commitment.

> Since when are you a better source of information than the sources
> I've provided? Let's be clear... you ASSERTED -- "Killing in self
> defense is manslaughter and is punishable by imprisonment,
> sir." PROVE IT! Show me one reference in which there is the
> clear statement that "killing in self-defense is manslaughter."
> Just one, sport. No legal system accepts that argument. Every
> legal system in the western world recognizes the right of
> self-defense.
>
> However, I am certain that the following reference is proof positive
> of my argument. It is the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
> Crown Prosecution Services." See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
> prosecuted for such action.."

I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
pointless.

>
> End of story... you lose, sport. Unless you argue that this voice
> of "something higher than ourselves," told you that "The Crown
> Prosecution Service" is a bunch of crap.
>

"You lose, sport"

You're guessing, sir.

Since I came to Britain, sir.

>
> See above. Or see the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
> Crown Prosecution Services." See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
> prosecuted for such action.."

I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
pointless.

>
>>>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>>>
>>>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you
>>>>were
>>>>honest with yourself.
>>>
>>> Stop repeating your lies. Repetition has no relation to accuracy.
>>
>>I repeat only your lies, sir.
>

> TRANSLATION "I repeat only your lies, sir.."'

>
>>>>> Why don't you try something new... Like telling the truth?
>>>>
>>>>Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...
>>>
>>> TRANSLATION: "Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...."
>
> So you admit you're a liar.

No, sir. I admit that you are.

You're guessing, sir.

>
>>>>> <clip more hysterical raving from the Bubble-boy who has been deprived
>>>>> of any intellect whatsoever>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have already accepted your surrender, sir.
>>>
>>> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
>>> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
>>> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
>>> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>>You have a prejudice against the "young" (Sic), sir!
>
> An unreferenced cite is inadmissable (sic).

That was not a cite, sir. Do you have a clue, sir?

Is the pinnacle of your intellectual capability sir?

>
> I read your "excuse," but I haven't got around to responding to all of
> your disturbed mind comments. I have other priorities, plus I take my
> time... so I don't have to ask the teacher for my work to be returned
> because I was in a hurry. Most nights I do even read AADP comments
> until after midnight, when I'm sure my wife is sound asleep.

"I read your "excuse," "

I offerecd no excuse, sir. There was nothing to excuse.

>
>>>>> This is a simple problem in arithmetic if one understands the
>>>>> question. And you should be able to compute it in your head, and
>>>>> not need to even resort to paper and pen, or a computer. You
>>>>> shouldn't even need "the back of an envelope."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It was very simple, sir. They teach it to 13 year old physics students.
>>>>Is
>>>>that where you learned it, sir?
>>>
>>> Yet, you fucked it up. And even fucked it up using pen and pencil,
>>> and calculator, and references... none of which were needed to solve
>>> the very easy problem.
>>
>>"Yet, you fucked it up"
>>
>>I did sir. Nevertheless, I corrected. It is fortunate I was not submitting
>>it to anyone whose opinion matters. However, I am still waiting to see you
>>answer the simple problem I set for you. What was the expression you used?
>>"Overly complicated"
>
> Hardly. Now that I've answered it when can I expect the answer to my
> second question, or even my third question.

It is fortunate I was not submitting it to anyone whose opinion matters,
sir.

>
>>>>>>> Nor do I have to consult wikipedia to know what mens rea and actus
>>>>>>> reus mean. But obviously you had to look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> <clip vacuous repeating of my comment>
>>>>
>>>>I've already accepted your surrender.
>>>
>>> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
>>> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
>>> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
>>> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>>>
>>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>>> etc... etc... etc...
>>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_
>>>
>>
>>"But you're no longer worth my time"
>>
>>That was your surrender, sir.
>>
> You may think so... shit... you think you're God, or at least God
> talks to you. But you should notice that I'm still here. Thus,
> you're a bit premature in claiming victory.

"You may think so"

I do, sir.

>
> While our purpose here should not be "victory," but progress... thus
> my purpose is simply to provide a small measure of nurturing to you
> that has obviously been neglected by those who should have nurtured
> you. I've come not to expect more from you than what your nurturing
> has failed to provide.

You're guessing sir. You have no purpose. You are a waste, sir.

>
>>>>>>What you are saying to me is that you did not do any research. This
>>>>>>explains
>>>>>>why you get so many words wrong. I suggest you buy a dictionary, sir.
>>>>>>
>>>>> <clip vacuous repeating of my comment>
>>>>
>>>>I've already accepted your surrender.
>>>
>>> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
>>> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
>>> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
>>> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>>>
>>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>>> etc... etc... etc...
>>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_
>>>
>>
>>"But you're no longer worth my time"
>>
>>That was your surrender, sir.
>
> You may think so... shit... you think you're God, or at least God
> talks to you. But you should notice that I'm still here. Thus,
> you're a bit premature in claiming victory.

"You may think so"

I do, sir.

You're guessing sir. You have no purpose. You are a waste, sir.

>
>>>>>>At some point I did, yes. It's called research. It's how most people
>>>>>>learn
>>>>>>words which is considerably more than your method of guessing them,
>>>>>>dear
>>>>>>fellow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you should look up the word "prejudice" and see what a fool
>>>>> you are, and how it describes your anti-Semitism perfectly.
>>>>
>>>>I did look it up sir. You claim that you do not need to. Curious
>>>
>>> I've looked it up... and guess what? Not one single mention of the
>>> word "static" exists in ANY definition of the word "prejudice" in ANY
>>> English dictionary that I can find. And I have looked at about a
>>> dozen of them, both on-line dictionaries and those I have in my
>>> private library. So what dictionary have you been using that has
>>> the word "static" in the definition of the word "prejudice"???
>>> I recall the definition you did provide that only proved me right
>>> as to the word being subjective -- a "mental abstraction," of no
>>> real physical existence. And nowhere in that definition you provided
>>> does the word "static" appear. So put up or shut up.
>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>>I never said it did, sir.
>>
> Yet you argued that "prejudice" is a "static word."

It is, dear fellow.

>
>>> *deathly silence*
>>
>>You are anything but silent, sir.
>
> Can't stand the heat when I put your feet to the fire, can you?

You cannot acclaim me for your words, sir.

No, sir.

>
> I never, ever lie. Claiming I do is simply your own smear tactics to
> discredit my exposing your own lies and deceit. It's a popular
> tactic used by those who are either exposed for being a liar or want
> to shift the argument (which is recognized as lost) to one of ad
> hominem, about presumed, but unexplained or lacking a cite to past
> comments. Simply call the person who exposes you -- a liar. And
> then "claim victory" as if that proves he is a liar. As to name
> calling... I have seldom found a more "name-calling-worthy" poster
> than you, sport.

" I never, ever lie."

>
>>>".</sarcasm>"
>>
>>Of course it was, sir. I doubt even you can be that stupid.
>
> Well... wait a minute... you argued that humans are not "superior" to
> what you referred to as the "poor little creature" called the
> cockroach. So given that premise which is a true premise from your
> own words... you argue that six million and one cockroaches are worth
> more to you than six million innocent Jews. It's a fair question
> since you insisted that a cockroach is no less than a human being.

Why Jews, sir? Do you see them more important than the rest of the world?
Are you a racist, sir?

>
> But I need to hear it from you... so given your original premise...
> another thought experiment... If you had to kill a cockroach to
> save a murderer from execution... would you kill that cockroach??
> Remember... you don't want to be called a "murderer" (sic)... do you??

"But I need to hear it from you"

You cannot hear me, sir.

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible

>>>>> In addition my home library is quite extensive -- See-
>>>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/library.mov
>>>>> And I am a voracious reader.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That however, is only a small part of my total library, since it does
>>>>> not include technical works which I maintain in my computer room.
>>>>> Which can be seen here --
>>>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Library.JPG
>>>>
>>>>It is not wise to post personal information on a public forum to someone
>>>>your are having an aggressive debate with, sir.
>>>
>>> Should I fear you??? I don't see how pictures of my home library
>>> represent a threat to my safety, given I have already provided my
>>> real name (which was detected by a cyber-stalker who could not
>>> stand being intellectually defeated). That would represent a possible
>>> threat, since another cyber-stalker began posting my address and
>>> phone number and even called my home phone in a threatening
>>> manner in speaking to my wife, but hung up before I could come
>>> to the phone. See --
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mev6pd
>>
>>" Should I fear you??? "
>>
>>No sir. I offer no threat to your safety but I cannot speak for others.
>
> So it's your friends I have to worry about. Heh... recall the words
> of de Cervantes -- "Tell me thy company, and I'll tell thee what thou
> art."
>

"So it's your friends I have to worry about."

You feel that you need to worry?

Death Disco

unread,

Jun 2, 2010, 1:27:56 PM6/2/10

"Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co> wrote in message news:...

>
> "Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...

> "So it's your friends I have to worry about."

>
>
>
> You feel that you need to worry?
>
>
>>>>>However, you are proof that reading does not make a person "smart"
>>>>
>>>> Spoken like a boy who hasn't read a book in the past month.
>>>
>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>
>> No proof offered. Your claim fails. Plus "an unreferenced is
>> inadmissable (sic)" Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
>

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.

>
>>

"However, I know"

No you don't sir.

Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should not
be allowed to play.

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible

>> Do you know that you qualify as being risibly stupid?
>> I'll bet I'm not the first one to tell you that.

"Do you know that you qualify as being risibly stupid?"

No sir. With the exception of you, there is no such thing as a stupid
person.

>>
>>>>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying then you should not be
>>>>>allowed to take part.
>>>>
>>>> I'm only examining the FACT that you do not oppose innocent men
>>>> dying in prison, because you do not oppose a criminal justice system
>>>> in which that occurs, while you do oppose executing guilty murderers.
>>>> Calling me a liar doesn't change the fact that there is no way you
>>>> can dispute what I have said. I pointed out that two innocents have
>>>> been PROVEN to have died in prison. You insist it doesn't bother
>>>> you to the point that you would oppose a criminal justice system
>>>> in which that can possibly happen (which is EVERY criminal justice
>>>> system). While you do oppose a guilty murderer dying in prison
>>>> through legal execution. You once said "murder is murder."
>>>> Well, let me also say that "dead is dead." The only difference
>>>> between an innocent dying in prison, and a guilty murderer being
>>>> executed, is that the former WAS INNOCENT, and the latter
>>>> WAS GUILTY OF MURDER. You do not oppose the former
>>>> happening, but jump up and down like a puppet on a string
>>>> at the thought of the latter happening.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"I'm only examining the FACT"
>>>
>>>Correction, sir. That should say "I'm only examining my GUESS".
>>
>> Wrong. Those are the FACTS. You support a criminal justice
>> system. It is mathematically impossible to create a criminal justice
>> system which does not have the possibility of an innocent dying
>> in prison. End of story.

"Those are the FACTS"

No, sir. They were guesses.

No death, innocent or guilty as a result of imprisonment is accptable, sir.

" I am not so stupid that I do not realize that my support for a criminal
justice system in the U.S., recognizing that as all criminal justice system
it is imperfect, implies my support for the possible death of an innocent in
prison. It's called "the lesser of two evils." "

Do you tell yourself that excuse when you sleep at night, sir. The death on
an innocent is not a lesser evil.

>>
>>>>>>> Any imperfect justice system which includes all off
>>>>>>>them should not inclde a death penalty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the fuck are you raving about? Exactly what language are you
>>>>>> trying to communicate in, sport?
>>>>>
>>>>>English, sir.
>>>>
>>>> And not doing a very good job of it, my boy. Although if your
>>>> intention was to assassinate it.. you did a fine job, my boy. Two
>>>> spelling errors in one and a half lines of text, and the use of the
>>>> word "them" without the slightest suggestion of who you mean
>>>> by "them."
>>>
>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>
>>>You did not recognise it, sir. You should take lessons in English;
>>>especially one in what words mean.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO... you mean like your claim that "prejudice" is a "static"
>> word??? In any case do you deny that you had two spelling errors,
>> and a totally incomprehensible use of "them" in your short sentence?
>> What is "them" supposed to relate to? Any imperfect Justice System
>> is EVERY Justice System. Humans are incapable of being _perfect_.
>> It is a given that there is a mathematical possibility of both
>> convicting an innocent and that innocent dying in prison. Those
>> are what we call "mathematical facts." "All of" WHAT??? My boy.

" you mean like your claim that "prejudice" is a "static" word???"

No, dear fellow. Prejudice is a static word.

>>
>> My point is that obviously, if you support a criminal justice
>> system, with or without the death penalty. you cannot logically oppose
>> the death penalty on _moral grounds_, arguing the possibility of
>> executing an innocent is the _moral reason_ you oppose the death
>> penalty. Since it is EXPLICIT in supporting a criminal justice system
>> that you do not oppose the possibility of an innocent dying in prison.

You're quite wrong, sir. The execution of innocent is not the sole reason
for opposing the death penalty.

>> TRANSLATION "Your debate is puerile and wasteful, sir.."'

As do I, sir. As I thank my stars that I am not your son, sir.

Death Disco

unread,

Jun 5, 2010, 3:55:05 PM6/5/10

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:luej06dn2df6r0fs7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:06:26 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
> wrote:
>
> Finally have some spare time to wipe out the wimp...

I look forward to seeing that sir. You have a lot of work to do. Have you
been filling your time by practicing some swotting, sir?

>
>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>> wrote:

<snip>

>>>
>>> Of course... it was in respect to YOUR post. Try to pay attention.
>>
>>My words were, "No sir " But you're no longer worth my time", is clearly
>>in
>>respect to a person, not a partucular post, sir."
>

> You again have it ass-backwards. _The post_ having been written by a
> particular person. Do try to pay attention to the English language.

"ass-backwards"

Curious.

" But you're no longer worth my time"

Was perfectly clear, sir. You cannot take time back, you know.

>
>>Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should
>>not
>>be allowed to play.
>

> [2] see bottom of post.

If I stay awake that long, sir.

>>> Hey, you've been declaring yourself the winner, stating that you've
>>> already "accepted <my> flag of surrender." How did you figure that
>>> out other than declaring yourself the winner?
>>
>>I have not declared myself the winner, dear sir. I was asserting an
>>obvious
>>truth.
>

> That's declaring, shit-for-brains. Do try to learn more about the
> English language. The synonyms for "asserting" are "proclaim,"
> "declare," "announce," "state," "voice," "express," etc... etc...
> etc...

No sir. I was asserting the obvious truth.

"shit-for-brains"

Oh, dear, sir. If you cannot win your arguments without lying or (inclusive)
name-calling then you should not be allowed to take part.

<snip>

>>> I'll bet you wish!
>>
>>Are you a habitual gambler sir?
>

> I haven't yet lost any money betting on your ignorance, Sir
> shit-for-brains.
>

That is because you didn't bet any, sir.

>>>>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>>>>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>>>>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>>>>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>>>>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>>>>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>>>>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>>>>> etc... etc... etc...
>>>>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>>>>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No it doesn't, sir.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does, my young student.
>>
>>No it doesn't, sir.
>

Denying something doesn't automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Yes, it does, my petulant child. If you don't "know," how can you
> claim it? And you did claim that this Tooth Fairy "right to life"
> that you invented from your imagination comes from "something
> higher than ourselves." What is that "something," and how did it
> tell you of this "right to life"? Oh... wait.. the voices came to you
> as you were thumping your Bible... never mind...
>

"Yes, it does"

No it doesn't, sir.

<snip>

>>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>I have already accepted your flag of surrender, sir.
>

> Our goal here is not to claim "victory" but to see some progress in
> reducing your abysmal ignorance of all things, including your racism,
> your Holocaust denial, and your belief that you hear voices from
> "something higher than ourselves."
>

Our goal here is not to claim "victory"

You lying is as transparent as ever, sir.

>>
>>You are struggling to interpret my comments, sir. Perhaps you should play
>>with "special" people, like you.
>

> All people are "special," shit-for-brains. You're a racist for
> implying otherwise. And they are all more "special" than cockroaches,
> despite your deep and abiding affection for cockroaches, who you
> consider _the equal of humans_.
>

"All people are "special," "

You certainly are, sir.

>>
>>I don't have to lie, sir. Lying is your strategy.
>

> [2] see bottom of post.

Are you bored with your own repetition, sir?

> [1] see bottom of post.

As should you, sir.

>
>>
>>I don't have to lie, sir. Lying is your strategy.
>

> [2] see bottom of post.

As should you, sir.

> then offer a comment such as "I am not obliged to prove anything to
> you, sir," as if that proves he is a liar. Remember when you pouted
> and burst out in tears as you wrote -- "I am not obligated to prove
> anything to you, sir"?

"I never, ever lie"

Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should not
be allowed to play.

<snip>

>>>>You use the expression, "young" like some form of accusation, sir.
>>>
>>> No... I use it matter-of-factly.
>>
>>Do you see what you did wrong there, sir? You confused "fact" with
>>"guess".
>

> And you confuse "cockroaches" with humans. Insisting that stepping
> on a cockroach is "murder." ROTFLMAO.

How is that relevent to your previous remark, sir?

>
> However, as usually you have your English fucked up: I was using the
> term "matter-of-factly," as meaning "being plain, straightforward, or
> unemotional." See --
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matter-of-factly
> You need to expand your knowledge of the English language.
> Because matter-of-factly... it stinks. This time I'm using it in the
> other sense.
>

" However, as usually you have your English fucked up"

Language, sir.
Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without resorting to vulgarity

then you should not be allowed to play.

>>>> It is evident that you escrimate against "the young".
>>>
>>> If there were a word in the English language that defined "escrimate"
>>> perhaps you might be right. But given that there is no such word
>>> your comment is just mindless drivel... apparently trying to accuse
>>> me of something that doesn't exist in the English language.
>>>
>>
>>"escrimate" is a typographical error, sir.
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typographical+error
>

> Apology accepted.

None was given, sir.

>
>>> We, my wife and I, have had children... they were nurtured to respect
>>> their elders, and to learn from their wisdom. They have now had
>>> children... and because our children were nurtured to respect their
>>> elders, their children are being nurtured to respect their elders.
>>> It's a shame that you lack such nurturing.
>

> [1] see bottom of post.

As should you, sir.

>
>>Did any of them live, sir or did they die as a result of infection caused
>>by
>>you covering them in cockroach blood?
>

> Did your mother try to abort you with a hanger??? That would
> explain a lot. I believe you're too stupid to even know what color
> cockroach "blood," is. In any case... you insist you've never seen
> Cockroach "blood" because that would mean you committing "murder."
> ROTFLMAO... The Cockroach lover... La Cucaracha... La Cucaracha ...
> Doesn't want to travel on...

"Did your mother try to abort you with a hanger??? "

Apparently not, sir. There is no dent in my head

>
> [1] see bottom of post.

AS should you, sir.

>
>>How disappointed they must have been to discover from being your children
>>that age does not always carry wisdom. Such would be a harsh lesson for
>>them. I grieve for them, sir. At least now, they have observed that wisdom
>>comes with open eyes and an open mind, and not a natural process of age.
>

> How disappointed your mother must been to discover she bore a child
> who would never be able to carry wisdom. Such was a harsh lesson for
> your mother, as she cried... "why didn't I use birth control??" At
> least now she has observed that there is not only the physical pain
> that comes with childbirth, but the mental anguish in watching a child
> grow into a rude, uneducated, and ignorant teenager, like you.
>

"How disappointed your mother must been to discover she bore a child who
would never be able to carry wisdom"

You're confusing my mother with yours, sir.

>>>>However I am most definately
>>>>younger than 78 but I am older than your mental age, dear fellow.
>>>
>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails. An argument of presumed fact but
>>> lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>>
>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible.
>

You will never get the hang of referencing will you sir? This comes as no
suprise to me.

> You're the one making the claim, sport. Don't try to spin this in the
> opposite direction as you do so often. Your argument consists of
> no proof offered, thus you are responsible to provide a cite to
> your assertion or you are a liar. But then... we already know that...
> don't we?
>

"You're the one making the claim"

"Claims", sir. We are both making claims, unfoundered with no fear of a
libel suit. It's fun isn't it?

<snip>

>>> An argument of presumed fact but lacking a referenced cite is
>>> inadmissible. Exactly how is my logic erroneous? What logical
>>> fallacy can you show in respect to my logic? All my comments to
>>> the best of my knowledge abide by the principles laid down by
>>> Aristotle as syllogistic logic. All my comments abide by the Square
>>> of Oppositions. I dislike Sophistical arguments since they lack
>>> logic... yet that is how most of your arguments are formed.
>>>
>

> [1] see bottom of post.

As should you, sir.

>>
>>Your logic does not follow normal rational reasoning, sir.
>

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Knee+jerk+reaction

You appear to be pasting that link randomly, sir. IS your computer
malfunctioning?

>
> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

You did not Cite, sir. Have you always been this retarded, sir or is it a
product of your brain death?

<Snip Mr PV being pretentious>
>
>>Yes, sir.
>
> Well, thank you for agreeing with me. Now that we know you
> "remember" arithmetic... learned through a basic education,
> we know that you never learned anything else... or "remember"
> anything else. Strange that you would "remember" arithmetic
> but not "remember" the extermination of six million Jews.
> Or perhaps not so strange... perhaps it is a forgetfulness that
> is purposeful.
>

"Well, thank you for agreeing with me"

Agree with you sir? Answering your question does not constitute agreeing
with you.

"Now that we know you "remember" arithmetic... "

If your guess of my age is anything to go by, then my experience of
arythmetic was not that long ago. Yes I do remember it because I experienced
it, dear fellow. Come now, sir. Surely you must be tired of losing by now.

> Could it be because it happened in Europe, and your country
> easily gave up 107,000 Dutch Jews to the gas chambers??

My country did no such thing, sir.

We should remind yourself why you think I'm Dutch sir

"
Bet you're Dutch, with a dingleberry hanging from your ass because
of your unhygienic paedomorphic habits. You're certainly
not Italian... I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
minor in college. You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
French, born and raised in Paris... so I can do very well in
the French spoken language, and good enough in the written
language. You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
have time, and no longer have the drive I once had. I don't think
you're Spanish or Portuguese. Nor from the former East bloc.

And since you mention ...

Cite:
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
From: Planet Visitor II <hidden to protect privacy>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:11:17 -0400
Local: Thurs, May 27 2010 5:11 am
Subject: Re: High court rules out life sentences for some juveniles

"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
minor in college"

This is your logic for thinking I'm not Italian, sir?

"You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
French, born and raised in Paris... "

This is your logic for thinking I'm not French, sir?

"You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
have time, and no longer have the drive I once had"

This is your logic for thinking I'm not German, sir?

You neglected to post your reasoning for believing me Dutch, sir.

>
>>>>> So if you can't remember a THING we call the Holocaust you are
>>>>> certainly denying that there was a Holocaust. Yet you do "remember"
>>>>> a thing called the Crusades. Since you continue to have the
>>>>> information that there were Crusades in your mind. How else
>>>>> could you know of it, if it was not present in your memory?
>>>>>
>>>>> and --
>>>>
>>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>>I have already accepted your flag of surrender, sir.
>

> Really, little boy, if you cannot win an argument you should
> not try to claim victory. Our goal here is not to claim "victory"
> but to see some progress in reducing your abysmal ignorance
> of all things.
>

You surrendered, sir and I accepted it.

>>>>I made no such claim, sir.
>>>>
>>> Of course you did. Your exact words -- "You cannot forget or remember
>>> the extermination of 6 million jews (sic) unless you remember them."
>>> And then your comment about "remember." Your words -- "You do not
>>> remember what is not in your memory and it is not in your memory
>>> if you did not experience or witness it first hand."
>

> [1] see bottom of post.
>

As should you, sir.

>
>>I did not, sir.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

Denying something doesn't automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Yes you did, you little Holocaust denier.

I did not, sir.

>
>>> Are you now denying those were your words?
>>
>>No, sir.
>

> Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier. Don't think you are?
> Well, let me ask you... do you "remember" that there was an
> extermination of six million Jews in the 20th Century???

"Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier"

No sir.

>
> We know already that you do not remember it... thus you deny it
> happened as far as you're concerned. And in that you urge others
> to deny it happened if they did not "experience or witness the
> Holocaust first hand." Meaning in a few years you hope to have
> enlisted a whole new species who do not remember the Holocaust
> in YOUR DEFINITION of "remember," and thus, like you, would also
> deny it ever happened. That is your goal in life... isn't it?? Answer
> the question.

"We know already that you do not remember it... thus you deny it
> happened as far as you're concerned"

Your logic does not follow normal rational reasoning, sir.

>
> Yet you fondly "remember" the Greeks. You naughty boy, you.

Only the ones I've met, sir.

<snip>

>>>>I don't sound very anything, sir. You cannot hear me,
>>>
>>> Rubbish... I can feel that fear in every word you write. Don't tell
>>> me what I can feel and cannot feel, Herr Dictator. I said "sound very
>>> afraid." I didn't say "you are very afraid." Unlike you I don't
>>> offer my opinion regarding how I feel as if it represents some
>>> fact of nature. As you do in whining about your _save the
>>> cockroaches_ campaign. Whether you are or not... you sound
>>> very afraid to me, sport.
>>>
>

> [1] see bottom of post.

As should you, sir.

>
>>You claimed that you could, "hear" me, sir.
>>Any fear that you experience is your own, sir. If you were to be able to
>>feel my emotions sir, you would feel my amusement.
>

There was no denial, sir. You responses are getting more random, dear
fellow.

>
> "All biology has a birth given right to life." - your words. ROTFLMAO.
> Even those cockroaches you insist are each equal to a human being.
> Come on, sport... try that thought experiment... would you kill two
> cockroaches to save one innocent human from dying in prison???
>

Shall we wait for you temper tantrum to calm down, sir?

<snip>

>>> And that's exactly what you have offered in respect to my words
>>> "Now let's see YOUR proof, if you're not afraid," after I had posted
>>> my creds. I still haven't seen yours... so all there has been from
>>> you is *deathly silence* Which is just more reason for me to have
>>> formed the opinion that you do "sound very afraid to me."
>>>
>>
>>I am not obliged to prove anything to you, dear fellow.
>

There was no denial, sir. Is your computer malfunctioning again?
>
> Heh... good to see you admit your stupidity and demonstrate your
> God-complex in just a few words. It will be added to the other at
> least five distinct mentions of your belief that you are God, and are
> answerable to no one even if you assert you come from a planet
> circling Alpha Centauri, and have "super-powers."

>
>>> If you cannot or will not post your own creds, to show that you have
>>> been educated, then it is obvious that you offer ONLY *deathly
>>> silence*.
>>>
>>
>>No, sir. The "deathly silence" came from your post so it is your response
>>despite that you have been anything but silent, sir
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>
Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

> Obviously your ignorance is noted, and recognized as part of your
> inability to process information in the English language.

>
>>>
>>> Heh... when caught in a lie, call the other a liar hoping to ignore
>>> having been caught in a lie.
>>
>>No, sir. The lies are definately yours.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

> [2] see bottom of post.

"I never, ever lie. "

Anothr lie, sir.

>
>>>>> But you have no cite of any lie from me, while I have the evidence of
>>>>> your claims that you _talk to_ "something higher than ourselves," and
>>>>> "it" talks back to you. Plus all the times I have caught you in a lie
>>>>> and your answer was --
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your cite your own lies, sir.
>>>
>>> Heh... when caught in a lie, call the other a liar hoping to ignore
>>> having been caught in a lie. Clearly, my dear fellow, despite your
>>> God-complex raving... you DO need to prove your allegations.
>>> To do that... you need to juxtapose two different comments from
>>> me which without a doubt represent a lie in one or the other of
>>> them. Where you have lied, is quite easy to show. Each time
>>> you claim that you "don't need to prove it," you show a part of
>>> you that is psychotically driven to believe he is God. Humans,
>>> my boy... need to prove EVERYTHING that they state is a FACT.
>>> Claiming you "don't need to prove it," is claiming you are God.
>>> And that makes you a liar.
>>
>>No, sir. The lies are definately yours.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

That was not a cite, sir. I am loathed to admit the impossible but i beleive
your stupidity is increasing.

>
>>> While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one... yet they have
>>> no relevance in respect to proving anything, unless they are
>>> grounded in FACT... EVIDENCE... PROOF. They only prove
>>> you have an opinion to offer that is not grounded in fact, or by
>>> evidence. Opinions which you hope to slip by as FACT... which again
>>> makes you a liar.
>>
>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one"
>>
>>They do sir? So you have only the one opinion. Curious
>

> "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural. I don't
> know what it means in your mother-tongue which is apparently Tigrinya.

" "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural"

"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has 'one'"

The "one" implies singular, sir.

<snip>

>>>
>>
>>"You mean you're DENYING that all of those words are YOURS?"
>>
>>No, sir.
>

> That proves you lie. You admit that you lie, and have a God-complex
> in which you can say ANYTHING, and never be questioned as to the
> factual proof of what you say. You admit you can lie with impunity,
> and not be disputed in even offering the most repugnant lie you could
> invent. Such as your claim that you do not "remember" the Holocaust,
> while arguing you do "remember" the Crusades... and "those Greeks."
>

"That proves you lie".

No, sir.

<snip>

>>>>Pot? Pot? This is kettle; colour check please.
>>>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/hypocrite
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO. That's your EXCUSE??? I guess you figure you can murder
>>> someone and use the excuse that another has also committed murder, so
>>> you should be forgiven. You do know that pot... kettle... black is
>>> not used in the fashion you use it, don't you? Since in pointing your
>>> finger at me, there are three fingers on your hand pointing right back
>>> at YOU.
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.

>>
>>There is nothing for me to excuse, sir.
>

> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/psychotic

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> That's what you think... because you have that God-complex. Remember
> when you stated -- ""I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I

> have the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."

> From what I've heard you sound just like Moses would have sounded
> when he told his flock that he had _talked to God_ and God told
> him in respect to the 10 Commandments -- "I am the exclusive author
> of these commandments and only I have the authority to make
> declarations based upon it." Accompanied by lightning and thunder.
> You damn fool.
>

"That's what you think"

Exactly, sir.

>>> Pay attention: Instead, you use that term when you see someone
>>> criticize ANOTHER for some reason, and that someone has used that same
>>> criticism in the same way in HIS COMMENTS. For example... if your
>>> friend mxsmanic criticized another member of this group for using a
>>> particular method and mxsmanic was also known for using that same
>>> particular method, you, as a third party, would jump in and respond to
>>> mxsmanic with "pot.... kettle...black." But in using it as a second
>>> party, directed at me, your implication is that I am using the same
>>> method as YOU... which simply shows that you believe you are the
>>> original "pot... "
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.
>
>>Oh I do sir.
>
> So you admit you're the "pot." Finally!!! The penny drops.

So you admit you're the "pot."

No, sir. However, I do believe that you are smoking it presently.

>
>> I would hate to miss any of your detritus, sir.
>

> Heh... I believe you actually looked at a dictionary. We're having a
> breakthrough. Now if you could just understand that "prejudice"
> is NOT a "static" word. To call it such is meaningless, and just
> more of your ritual scatophagous mindless drivel.
>

"Heh... I believe you actually looked at a dictionary"

When one is learning a language, it is useful to browse a dictionary of that
language sir. It is a practice that I reccomend you try.

>>>>> " What is the theoretical electromagnetic resonant frequency in Hz of
>>>>> a 20 cm quarter-wave-length transmission line, presuming the velocity
>>>>> of light is exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second, and no other
>>>>> factors affect this resonant frequency?"
>>>>
>>>>The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, not 300,000,000
>>>>meters/per second, sir. Some people round it to that and when
>>>>determining
>>>>f in megacycles set C to 300 but they lose accuracy.
>>>
>>> Heh... in other words... you fucked it up. Thanks for that.
>>
>>No sir. You were the one whom "fucked up" lightspeed, sir.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>
Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

> No, sport.. you were the one whom (sic) fucked up the examination.
> Don't blame me for your illiteracy.

"No, sport.. you were the one whom (sic) fucked up the examination"
There was no examination, sir.
"Don't blame me for your illiteracy"
Numeracy, my dear fellow; not literacy.

>
>>>>The formula for resonanct is f=c/lamda in Cs dear sir of if you are
>>>>contructiing a coaxial antenna (unlikely on the frequency you have
>>>>chosen)
>>>>then the formula is f=(c/lamda)*v
>>>
>>> Yada... yada... yada... you're only trying to bury your ignorance in
>>> a flood of irrelevant commentary.
>>
>>http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-knee-jerk-reaction.htm
>

You are indeed, sir.

>
>>>>Where c is the speed of light, lamda is wavelength, and v is velocity
>>>>factor.
>>>
>>> Yada... yada... yada... you're only trying to bury your ignorance in
>>> a flood of irrelevant commentary.
>>>
>>
>>No, sir. I have just explained the formula to you. You are ignorant of it.
>>How curious.
>

> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/psychotic

There was no denial sir. Your confusion is increasing.

> You did not understand the problem. You ADMITTED you initially had it
> wrong.

Yes, sir. I spotted my mistake and corrected it. You got your problem wrong;
you have yet to spot it, admit it or correct it. Such illustrates your lack
of wisdom. How old did you day you are?

<snip>

>>So why is it that you cannot follow it when I explained it to you?
>

Because your psychotic, sir? Admitting it is the first step, dear fellow

>
>>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>>
>>>>Yes sir. The answer was wrong.
>>>
>>> And there it is, folks. I rest my case.
>>
>>Yes, sir. Noticing your own mistakes is a virtue of wisdom and gives rise
>>to
>>learning from them. These are qualities you are proven to lack.
>

> Yet, above... you said -- "No sir. You were the one whom (sic) "fucked
> up" lightspeed, sir." That argues that you got the problem "right,"
> but you ADMITTED that you didn't, so you're again proven to be a liar.
>

""No sir. You were the one whom (sic) "fucked
> up" lightspeed, sir."

You did, sir. you claimed it was 300,000,000 M/s.

>>>>It occurred to me a few minutes after I
>>>>posted and while making tea that I calculated the quarter waves
>>>>backwards
>>>>and that i didn't actually need to calculate them at all as all you
>>>>asked
>>>>for was the "resonant frequency"(Sic) of the antenna. but had as you
>>>>could see from my follow up post, I corrected it and came up with the
>>>>right answer. Of course I expect you to protest most strongly that you
>>>>did not
>>>>see my follow up post. Now sir, we shall see how you handled my
>>>>particular
>>>>problem.
>>>
>>> Yada, yada, yada. Do you know how much credit they give you
>>> for knowing the answer AFTER you turn in your examination paper???
>>> Jack-shit!!!
>>
>>There was no examination paper, dear sir. As I sad previously, the answer
>>was not seen by anyone whose opinions matter. However, it is obvious you
>>did
>>not read the corrected version or had you know what it is you are talking
>>about you would have observed that I once again neglected to take into
>>account the inverse relationship between frequency and wavelength on the
>>quarter waves.
>

> TRANSLATION: "There was no examination paper, dear sir. As I sad

> previously, the answer was not seen by anyone whose opinions matter.
> However, it is obvious you did not read the corrected version or had you
> know what it is you are talking about you would have observed that I once
> again neglected to take into account the inverse relationship between
> frequency and wavelength on the quarter waves."
>
>>My antenna theory is rusty.
>

> That's strange.. that tin hat you wear on your head to receive
> reception from the one you call "something higher than ourselves,"
> seems to be tuned in properly. Have you tried adding more tin
> foil in a zig-zag pattern... or perhaps praying to your _cockroach
> God_?
>

"That's strange"

That you didn't spot my quarter wave mistake or pinpoint where my first
mistake was wrong? Yes sir. That is very strange.

>>I have built one in a while. What
>>about you, sir? When did you last build one?
>

> LOL..." I have built one in a while," too. You ignorant child. Are
> you also this stupid in your mother tongue? Don't lie now.

I shall take that as a "Never". shall I ,sir.

<snip>

>>>>> BTW -- Cs is not the correct use to reference "cycles per second." See
>>>>
>>>>Cs is a perfectly acceptable term, sir. some use C/s and some prefer C/t
>>>>or C/(T60)
>>>
>>> Rubbish. Hz is the ONLY acceptable term as the SI unit of frequency.
>>> See -
>>> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-2.html
>>> This is the official unit names established by the "Bureau
>>> International des Poids et Mesures." The International System

>>> of Units - le Système international d'unités. And is recognized

>>> nearly globally, and accepted as the recognized System of Units
>>> used in both the U.K. and the Netherlands. See --
>>> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/general.html
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.

>>
>>You're Wrong, sir. You don't have the authority to tell anyone else what
>>notation to use.
>

> I'm not the authority. I'm the messenger. The authority is the

> Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The International System

> of Units - le Système international d'unités. Please don't try to
> claim that you've now tuned in your tin hat, and "something
> higher than ourselves," has told you that you are a messenger from
> God... and God know more than The bureau International des Poids et
> Mesures." The International System of Units - le Système
> international d'unités.
>

"I'm not the authority. I'm the messenger"

You are neither, sir.

> Apparently you make up your own rules and insist that no one can
> question your rules or nullify your "rules" because you get and give
> your orders directly from "something higher than ourselves," who you
> probably imagine is a cockroach in flowing ermine with a halo
> over its head. And you insist that because of that no human
> entity regardless of how highly qualified can show disagreement
> with your pathetically cryptic "rules" known only to you, in your
> belief in your God-complex.

>
>>> I don't have the slightest idea where you came up with Cs, since doing
>>> a Google search of Cs, comes up with everything like "Credit Suisse
>>> Group," and other organizations using that acronym. When I do
>>> a Google search on - Cs "cycles per second" - I still find nothing.
>>> There are a few that use C/S ( C slash S)... but no organization or
>>> academy uses that or Cs, that I know of. In any case, the U.K. and
>>> the Netherlands accept the official name of Hz, as "cycles per
>>> second."
>>>
>>
>>You should read your books sir. You should find such an expression there.
>>Perhaps your books are exclusively for show.
>

There was no denial sir. Perhaps you should have your computer looked at or
maybe your head or maybe both.

>
> TRANSLATION: "You should read your books sir. You should find such an
> expression there.
>>Perhaps your books are exclusively for show.."
>
> I've looked in all my books, and I can't find any such recognized
> expression for "cycles per second." Perhaps you should look in your
> one book... that Bible that you keep thumping on... maybe it's in
> there.
>

"I've looked in all my books,"

You have read them all in this small time, sir?

>>
>>You haven't answered the problem I gave you, yet.
>

> Nor have you. I could give you a multitude of problems that you
> could not even attempt to solve, sport.
>

"Nor have you. "

Yes I have, sir. I am still waiting for your solution if you can offer one.
"I've looked in all my books"

Then you should find the answer in them, sir.

> I'm not here to pander to your ignorance.

Nor I to yours, sir.

>
>>> As to your problem, I have hardly ever involved myself with db
>>> loss or gain, although the formulas in log are readily available
>>> to those interested in such things. I'm certainly aware of how
>>> to compute capacitive reactance which is trivial, and in your
>>> argument --
>>>
>>> R = 3.183 x 10^4 Ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>
>>> c = 10^-9 Farads
>>>
>>> f = 500 Hz
>>>
>>> thus -
>>>
>>> Xc = 1/(2 x [pi] x f x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 500 x 10^-9 Ohms)
>>
>>Xc=1/w(omega)c sir but it equates to the same thing.
>>>
>>> thus reducing --
>>>
>>> Xc= 3.183 x 10^5 ohms = 318.3 K Ohms
>>>
>>318.310K to be more accurate, sir but you are doing very well
>

> Heh... you idiot. That is only LESS accurate. Your original data
> gave R = 3.183... you cannot invent that 318310, as presumable
> "more accurate" than your original number. Your entire problem
> is limited to 3.183, which is four significant digits. Offering
> a claim that "318.31..." is "more accurate" is a crock of shit,
> since it implies five digits of accuracy.

Temper, temper. If you cannot handle the problem you should ask for help. PI
has more than 5 digits of accuracy, sir.

>
> 3.183 is the LIMIT of accuracy in your entire problem. You
> can't INVENT greater accuracy than those four significant digits.
> And in any case, the number 3.183000000001 is "more
> accurate" than your invention if one wants to get closer to
> the limit of the original number than you've come up with.
> You do know about "limits," I would hope... futilely hope
> that is.
>

Wrong, sir. Carry on

> And you claim an ability to compute numbers, yet screw up
> the most basic of all mathematical principles... that values
> cannot be obtained having greater significance than the
> significant digits within the mathematical computation.
> Whenever you make a measurement, that measurement
> is only as precise as the original significant digits being
> computed.
>

" And you claim an ability to compute numbers"

I made no such claim, sir.

> Chee... that's stuff you learn in the 7th grade, or earlier.

Is that the last time you had any education, sir?

>
>>> and --
>>>
>>> cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4
>>> x 10^-9) Hz
>>>
>>> thus reducing --
>>>
>>> cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
>>>
>>> at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>
>>> cutoff frequency = -3 db
>>
>>The question did not ask for the cutoff frequency or the db loss at cut of
>>frequency. it Asked for the db loss and phase angled at 500 Cs, sir.
>

> Oh, gee... I must have not RTFQ. I like to solve practical
> problems, and knowing the cutoff frequency is more important
> than the parameters you asked about.
>

"I must have not RTFQ"

Indeed, sir.

>>> At the cutoff frequency the phase angle is 45 degrees
>>>
>>> I dealt in digital data... data loss and db loss are two different
>>> things. In transmitting digital data the db line loss is irrelevant
>>> except for a highly degraded line loss or a total line loss. Digital
>>> data has various redundancies such as parity checks and hamming
>>> code in both horizontal, vertical and in total bit count per message.
>>> Plus military traffic is always routed through secure communication
>>> centers processing both unclassified and the highest classification
>>> military traffic uses. These communication centers use a "red" -
>>> "black" concept, where all traffic comes in as "black" fully
>>> encrypted, and passes through decryption machine within this
>>> secure, and highly shielded from electronic leakage. communication
>>> center. After decryption the traffic is called "red," and highly
>>> classified messages are now in the clear, but remain in the
>>> communications center while they are in the "red." The communication
>>> center then processes, and saves the traffic in what are called
>>> ledgers, and journals on high density media, then routes the
>>> traffic to the destination (s), and sends it back to the on-site
>>> crypto center for encryption again before exiting the communication
>>> center as "black" traffic, encrypted again to the final destination.
>>>
>>> Your lesson for the day.
>>
>>That you should read the question, sir.
>

> That you're an idiot. I already knew that.

No, sir. You've proven, you are the idiot.

>
>>"Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir."
>>
>>You have had your first attempt sir and you did not answer the question.In
>>your own words. " Do you know how much credit they give you for knowing
>>the
>>answer AFTER you turn in your examination paper??? Jack-shit!!! "
>

> And when can I expect even an attempt by you to solve this problem?

>
> Find the steady-state temperature distribution in the half-space z > 0
> if the temperature distribution u(r,0) = F(r) is maintained on the
> bounding plane face z = 0. Assume that F(r) satisfies the conditions
> for the existence of its Hankel transform [1]. Show your work.
> Your answer should be in the form of u(r,z) = ????

You still have not answered your problem, sir.
>
> Not only can you not solve it... you don't have the slightest idea
> what it even MEANS. You cannot even derive the first step necessary
> to solve that problem. I suspect you're frantically looking all over
> the Internet for something to give you a hint.
>

"Not only can you not solve it"

A guess, sir.

>>
>>Nonsense, sir. Ohms law applies electricity, whether it is DC or AC is
>>irrelevent. As AC is contantly in flux then that has to be taken into
>>account so impedence and phase angle are calculated.
>

There was no denial sir. There was only your apology of a response.

>
> I keep proving my arguments and you keep claiming that God talks to
> you and gives you another story. Need I remind you that an assertion
> lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible?

" I keep proving my arguments "

You have never proved any, sir.

>
> Ohm's law does not involve itself with AC. Once again.. See..
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law
> That's my referenced cite. And the quote remains the same.

Yes it does, sir.

>
>>> Quoting -- "When reactive elements such as capacitors, inductors, or
>>> transmission lines are involved in a circuit to which AC or
>>> time-varying voltage or current is applied, the relationship between
>>> voltage and current becomes the solution to a differential equation,
>>> so Ohm's law (as defined above) does not directly apply since that
>>> form contains only resistances having value R, not complex impedances
>>> which may contain capacitance ("C") or inductance ("L")."
>

> Here are more cites --
> http://www.the12volt.com/ohm/ohmslaw.asp
> and --
> http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_2/1.html
> and --
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmlaw.html
> and --
> http://www.angelfire.com/pa/baconbacon/page2.html
> and --
> http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/ohmslaw.htm
> and -
> http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Electricity/ohmslaw.htm
> and --
> http://www.purchon.com/physics/ohmslaw.htm
> and --
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Sample_Projects/Ohms_Law/ohmslaw.html
> That one's from NASA, and there is no mention of AC. Chee... but you
> are hard headed.
>
> None of them mention AC.
Perhaps you should read your books, sir.

You are an idiot, sir. What do you suppose you use to calculate the current
through an ac circuit of the voltage across its capacitors or inductors?
The Black arts? To calculate current, The formula is I=E/Z and to calculate
the voltage across an inductor or capacitor the formula is Vl=I*XL and Vc =
I*XC respectively.

>
>>>>> Kirchoff's law is applicable with AC circuits.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it does, sir. It also applies to DC circuits,
>>>
>>> Of course it does... but just because A implies B + C, does not mean D
>>> implies B + C. Kirchoff's Law provides solutions using differential
>>> equations. Ohm's Law does not. Kirchoff's Law defines the electric
>>> potential as a line integral. Thus introducing Integration in the
>>> calculus.
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.

>
>>Then we agree on something, sir.
>

> I never implied that Kirchoff's law did not apply to both AC and DC.

I made no claim that you did, sir.

> AC circuits are much more complicated than DC circuits. Computing
> instantaneous resistance and impedance in AC circuits requires
> satisfying differential equations. You couldn't solve even the
> easiest of differential equations.
>

"AC circuits are much more complicated than DC circuits"

That is something else, we agree on, sir.

"You couldn't solve even the easiest of differential equations."

You are guessing, sir.

> Kirchoff's law examines "nodes." Because the sum of the current
> flowing into any node must equal the sum of the current flowing out of
> any node. Both in steady DC and in instantaneous AC current, which
> changes depending upon the frequency and other factors, but always
> remains instantaneously the sum of the current flowing into that node
> equaling the sum of the current flowing out of that node.

You should reference a text you copy information from or it's plagiarism,
sir.

> That's exactly what I wrote, shit-for-brains. Other than I use
> 2.14159... an approximation for pi. Here it is again --

No, sir you wrote.

">>> Knowing the phase angle makes it trivial to convert to radians, son.
>>> rad = degrees x (2.14159... /180)
>>>
>>> 30° = pi/6
>>> 45° = pi/4
>>> 60° = pi/3
>>> 90° = pi/2
>>> 120° = 2(pi)/3
>>> 150° = 5(pi)/6
>>> 180° = pi
>>> 210° = 7(pi)/6
>>> 240° = 4(pi)/3
>>> 270° = 3(pi)/2
>>> 360° = 2(pi)
>>>
"
>
> rad = degrees x (2.14159... /180)
>

> See it right above the list of various radians at degrees?

the formula for converting degrees to radians is Radians=degrees*pi/180,
sir. That is not what you wrote.

>
>>>>> Your trouble is that you confuse your subjective views with objective
>>>>> facts. No matter how hard you try... they are not the same. There
>>>>> is no possibility whatsoever of "something higher than ourselves,"
>>>>> actually being an "object" that we can examine and agree upon what
>>>>> that object is. Just as there is no possibility whatsoever of
>>>>> "prejudice" actually being an "object" that we can examine and agree
>>>>> upon what that object is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your feeble attempt to avoide the problem posed has been noted, sir.
>>>>
>>> Now that I've made my "feeble attempt"... just try to answer mine
>>> using a feeble attempt. We're not examining my expertise in low-pass
>>> filters, and db. I've been retired longer than you've been living.
>>> We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your horn
>>> about --
>>>
>>

"I've been retired longer than you've been living."

You're guessing, sir.

> [1] see bottom of post.

>>
>>It was feeble sir. You got as far as working out the capacitive reactance.
>>then you went off at a tangent.
>

>>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

There was no denial, sir. You mucked it up.

>>
>>> "I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
>>> and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
>>> algorythm."
>>>
>>
>>That's Bayes' theorum, sir. Please give the fellow the respect he
>>deserves.
>>"Bayes' theorum" calculated probabiliters and thier counter effects and
>>linear regression calculates the line of best fit. Of course you know
>>standard deviation and Binomial distribution.
>

> You idiot. I was quoting YOU... and your hysterical need to appear
> knowledgeable when you're not. You didn't capitalize it, you didn't
> give it a possessive sense, and you misspelled "theorem." All in
> all you screwed it up pretty badly. You are incapable of reading and
> understanding the English language. Look at my comment containing
> ">>" and forget about you jumping in. My comment read --
>

" knowledgeable when you're not"

You're guessing, sir.

" All in
> all you screwed it up pretty badly. "

It that is what you call screwing up pretty badly then you need a life sir.
Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are writing a paper on
English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst and only used as
ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their arguments any other
way. I am still waiting for your answer to the very SIMPLE problem I gave
you.

> "We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your
> horn about --
>

> "I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
> and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
> algorythm."
>

> See the quotation marks, shit-for-brains?? What makes you think I'd
> be as dumb as you and not know how to spell "theorem," and
> "algorithm"?
>
> There has seldom been a poster to AADP who is more in need of a spell
> checker than you, Sir shit-for-brains.
>

As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
arguments any other way".

Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.

>>> Not even capable of spelling algorithm correctly. Not even capable
>>> of spelling "theorem," correctly. The two prime arguments in your
>>> entire sentence. If you look below you will see your comment has
>>> seven ">" in front of it, signifying that you began this thumping your
>>> chest, yet your knuckles still drag on the ground when you walk.
>>> While it's obscene that you dare to mention Bayes' Theorem,
>>> considering how seldom you show the slightest knowledge of
>>> what inductive logic even is.
>

> Heh... the penny drops... And Death Disco is speechless.

Wishful thinking on your part, sir.

>>>

>>> Now either answer my question, since you never did answer my first
>>> question correctly, having turned in your answer before "reading the
>>> fucking question." If you can't then shut the fuck about your
>>> superiority and address your holocaust denial, your racism, your
>>> belief that you hear voices from "something higher than ourselves,"
>>> and your belief that six million and one cockroaches are "superior"
>>> to six million innocent Jews.
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.
>>
>>Yes I did, sir.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

That wasn't denial sir.
Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.

>
> No you didn't.

Yes I did, sir.

>
>>> If that question was too complicated for you I'll give you an easier
>>> one. Since you seem to claim familiarity with differential
>>> equations... solve this one. Understand that this is the EASIEST
>>> of all differential equation to solve, and is used over and over in
>>> solving motion equations related to gravitation -- This one should
>>> be a snap for you --
>>>
>>> Solve the differential equation d²x/dt² = -g
>>>
>>> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>

> Heh.. got you going, eh? Gee... my boy... this solution is probably
> all over the net. It's a very general differential equation with no
> numbers involved... those numbers which always confuse you.
>

"Heh.. got you going, eh?"

Wishful thinking on your part, sir.

You still have not answered your problem, sir. I have noted your repeated
efforts to avoid it.

>>Given you have a closed cylinder with a volume of 1050 cm^3 use
>>integration
>>and tranposition to get the maxumum surface area from the minimum material
>>used.
>

> "tranposition" (sic)??? "maxumum" (sic)???

I also said integration when I should have said differentiation.

>
> You can't even pose your questions accurately. But let's take a quick
> stab at it --

"You can't even pose your questions accurately"
Yes I can, sir. We shall see what your answer brings.

>
> V=pi*R²*H = 1050 cm³
>
> with R being the radius and H being the height
>
> so H = 1050/(pi)*R²
>
> The surface area, including ends is --
>
> S=2*(pi)R*H + 2*(pi)*R²
>
> Substituting for H --
>
> S=2*1050/R + 2*(pi)*R²
>
> Setting dS/dR = 0 and solving the differential equation for R the
> answer is (V/2*(pi))^1/3 = R
>
> Reducing --> R=(1050/2*(pi))^1/3 = 5.508 cm
>
> Now that we have R, we can solve for H
>
> H=1050/(pi*)*R² = 11.017 cm
>
> Thus the closed cylinder has maximum surface area using minimum
> material at :
>
> Radius = 5.508 cm
> Height = 11.017 cm
>
> V = (pi)*5.508²*11.017 = 1050 cm³
>

Impressive, sir. Your answer is correct.I shall assume it's your own work.

>
>>Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40 ohm,
>>calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissapated
>>across
>>each line, sir.
>

> I don't have time for you to throw silly problem after problem at me,
> when you can't solve a very simple differential equation.

You're guessing sir.

>I can
> certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
> approach. Just how simple do you expect the problems I offer must be?
> Perhaps a little bit of algebra is the limit of your education? Beyes'
> Theorem, my ass.

" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
> approach"

No, you cannot sir. Not when you failed to answer the simple DB problem I
gave you earlier.

>
> Once again -- how do you even APPROACH a solution to --
>
> Finding the steady-state temperature distribution in the half-space z

>> 0 if the temperature distribution u(r,0) = F(r) is maintained on the
> bounding plane face z = 0. Assume that F(r) satisfies the conditions
> for the existence of its Hankel transform [1]. Show your work.
> Your answer should be in the form of u(r,z) = ????
>

> Come on, smart-ass, what's the FIRST STEP in trying to solve
> this problem?
>

Once again, "Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms,

and a capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss
and the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir."

"
> So there is no need to throw simple problems at me to cover up your
> own ignorance. Differential equations like the one I offered should
> be a snap for you. In fact I'm sure you could find the answer on the
> Internet.
>

"So there is no need to throw simple problems at me to cover up your
> own ignorance"

Problems you cannot solve, sir. You've only managed one and it wasn't an
electrical engineering problem sir. That sort of exposes your own
ignorance, sir.

> While the problem of finding the steady-state temperature distribution
> in the half-space z >0, with the parameters given is a more difficult
> problem that you will not find on the Internet. I don't believe even
> Earl could solve it. I admit that I couldn't without a _cheat sheet_.
>

It's hardly a "simple" problem then, sir.

> But I can "understand" the solution in going through that _cheat
> sheet_. I'm quite sure that you couldn't.

You're guessing, sir.

>I'll even you a hint --
> From reading the problem it is clear that the temperature "u" is
> independent of the polar angle theta. So we can set our initial
> parameters in the form of a differential equation set to zero.
> What is that differential equation? I don't even ask you to solve
> it. Just explain it in English. No need to show Jacobi delta partial
> derivative notation, since it is not a standard text character. Just
> explain how you would construct that partial differential that you
> would want to set to zero.
>

Provide me with the references and sources you used and I shall see if I can
figure it out but it doesn't read like an electrical engineering problem. It
reads like a physics problem.

>>> However, I have yet to see a single word from you that makes me
>>> believe you have received a proper education in the arts, and
>>> humanities. I have no idea of your natural given intelligence but it
>>> is obvious to me that your nurturing has been greatly injured. I have
>>> seldom met anyone with a mind that is so closed as yours is. The test
>>> of a man's intellect is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his
>>> mind. Yours hasn't even been out for a walk in a very long time.
>>> Apparently it is too small and narrow-minded to be let out by itself.
>>>
>>
>>"We'll work our way down until we find your level of knowledge"
>>
>>We have already found yours, sir.
>

> Which is far above what we've found with yours.

A curious statement as you have managed to answer only one problem I posed
for you.

<snip>

>>>
>>> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
>>> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
>>> at you, sport.
>>>

As I said before, sir. They are pointing directly at you.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

>
> Perhaps verbal pictures are too complicated for you, sonny. But this
> group is text only. So picture this as your hand pointing at me
> in respect to "pot... kettle..." and examine it. See --
> http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl

"Perhaps verbal pictures are too complicated for you, sonny"

Basic electrical principles are too complicated for you, evidently sir.

>
>>>>I was answering your debate, sir.
>>>
>>> You're guessing that I'm guessing... which makes your guess nothing
>>> but hot air.
>>>
>>
>>No, sir. You have no basis to back up your assertions, so they can only be
>>guesses.
>

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

Exactly my point, sir. As I said, "You have no basis to back up your

assertions, so they can only be guesses"

>>>>It was not a cite, sir, so no reference is required.
>>>
>>> "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"
>>
>>The word is "cite", sir.
>

> That's why I followed it with a (sic), you moron. See --
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sic
> Quote -- "Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one
> containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in
> its original form or written intentionally."
>

"That's why I followed it with a (sic), "

Which was incorrectly placed sir.

> Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both
> "cite" and "inadmissible" in your original comment as
> shown. I'm just showing your inability to spell check your
> comments, when they desperately need spell checking. See --
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/735c577f27d0b75f
> Look for it down at the bottom of your own message,
> shit-for-brains.
>

"Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both "cite""

No Didn't sir.

> You know there are FREE spell-checkers available on
> the Internet. You should use one. Just search Google
> for "free spell checker."

Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.

>>
>>No I don't sir. Wait a can hear your voice now. It's a high pitched
>>meaningless whine.
>

> No... that's the sound of those cockroaches that you protect from
> being "murdered" (sic). ROTFLMAO. Death Disco --> AADP's
> cockroach protector. Won't let anything harm his "poor
> innocent cockroach," insisting that killing a cockroach is defined
> as "murder" to him.
>

"No"

It's definately your voice, sir.

> In any case, your argument when put into logical terms is "x is
> something higher than ourselves." and "x is an unknown." But
> you know that "x is something higher than ourselves," So
> "x is not unknown to Death Disco." qed -- Death Disco claims to
> "know the unknown."

Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.

Simple logic, sir.

>>>>> Quite right... so why do you keep claiming cites without references,
>>>>> shit-for-brains?
>>>>
>>>>I don't, sir.
>>>
>>> You did so just above, shit-for-brains.
>>
>>No I didn't, sir.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Yes, you did, shit-for-brains. Of course you did. Your words are
> still shown above.. The words "You change them, sir." That's an
> unfounded accusation, and an assertion lacking a referenced cite
> is inadmissible. Why do you continue to lie? Are you simply a
> pathological liar, are you simply stupid, or what is the reason
> you need to lie?
>

"Yes, you did".

No I didn't, sir.

>>>>

>>>>No you don't, sir.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. You most certainly insisted there is this "right to life"
>>> for all biological life, especially cockroaches." And you insisted
>>> that you KNOW this because of "something higher than ourselves."
>>> Which you insist is an UNKNOWN. Yet you argue that you do
>>> know it, otherwise how would you have come into that information
>>> from the one you claim gave that very "right to life to cockroaches"?
>>> It's simple logic... you're the one who argued it exists. You're the
>>> who argued it comes from "something higher than ourselves."
>>> Well how can you have come into that information about a "right
>>> to life for cockroaches" if you did not heard it from the very person
>>> you claim is responsible for it? Who told you if not that "something
>>> higher than ourselves"? Does "it" have special "angels" that talk to
>>> you, passing you messages second-hand from "something higher than
>>> ourselves"? Further you said it is an "unknown." Well, how the hell
>>> do you know of it, if it's an "unknown"?
>>>
>>
>>"Yes, I do."
>>
>>No you don't, sir.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Answer the question. Given that there is proof that you claim to know
> of "something higher than ourselves," and you claim that it is an
> "unknown," how do you know it is "something higher than ourselves,"
> if it is "unknown"? You argue along the lines of A = 5, but A =
> "unknown," except YOU know that A =5.
>

"Given that there is proof that you claim to know of "something higher than
ourselves,"

No I don't sir.

>>> Obviously you've just piled lie upon lie upon lie. And now even deny
>>> you wrote it... but I have the evidence. See --
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fc1729e6f9101be5
>>> Here it is, sport... your words enshrined forever in Google. Proof
>>> that you stated -- "We do not have the to (sic) say who has the right
>>> to life. That honour is strictly owned by something higher than
>>> ourselves." And when I asked how you came about this information
>>> in my words -- "Who would that be?" You responded in one word -
>>> "Unknown." See --
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/92a6b831782818bf
>>>
>>
>>Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should
>>not
>>be allowed to play.
>

> [2] see bottom of post. While it is "play" rather than any need to
> put any effort into it to grind your paedomorphic arguments to dust.

That explains why you keep losing, sir.

<snip>

>>" If it's "unknown," sport... how do you KNOW it?"
>>
>>I do not, sir.
>

> Ah, but you said it is "something higher than ourselves." How
> do you know there is "something" and how do you know whether
> that imaginary "something" is "higher" or "lower" than
> ourselves? If it's an "unknown" you can't possibly know
> that it is "something," or "higher or lower than ourselves."

"How do you know there is "something" "

I do not, sir. It is unknown.

>
>> If I did then it wouldn't be unknown therefore it would be
>>known but it's unknown. Am I going too fast for you, sir?
>

> Shit, son... you drove off the track days ago. You certainly
> insisted it was "known" to you as "something higher than
> ourselves." Was "it" in the shape of an Easter Bunny, or Santa
> Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? Did "it" have a big halo on its
> head? Was "it" thumping the Bible in tune with your thumping?
> Did "it" have the body of a cockroach and the head of bin Laden?
> The world wants to know... and only you claim to "know."

"Shit, son"

I shall take that as a yes.

>>>>No, sir. The BRITISH word is "Mummy". "Mommy" is not used here. I know
>>>>because I live here, sir. You do not, sir.
>>>
>>> I don't give a rat's ass that you live in the U.K. I live in the
>>> U.S., and if I want to use words that are from the U.S. you'll
>>> just have to suck it up like a man. Now address the issue of
>>> your xenophobia, which is showing in your claim that I have
>>> to use YOUR particular wording... when you can't even spell!!
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.

>
>>That is irrelevant, sir. You only know American English (sic), sir.
>

> Hey.. you finally tried to use a (sic). I'm impressed.
> But you still haven't grasped the idea behind it because
> "American English" is spoken by as many English speaking
> humans, as is "U.K. English."
>

"Hey.. you finally tried to use a (sic)."

You wrong again, sir. I did not try to use a '(sic)'; I used a (sic)

> Now if you could only learn and try to "remember" what you
> learn about the Holocaust.

I learn what a need about the holocaust from those who do "remember" it sir,
and not some anally retentive American who was nowhere near the "shit when
it hit the fan".

>
> There are relatively few changes in spelling between UK
> English and U.S. English, while both have their separate
> idioms and slang expressions. I'm familiar with just
> about all UK idioms and slang expressions, and sometimes
> I even use them... but in the end I'm American... and
> you are xenophobic.
>

"There are relatively few changes in spelling between UK
> English and U.S. English"

> The argument that only the English spoken and written in the UK
> can be used in AADP, is simply another manifestation of your
> xenophobia. I prefer to use the English that I learned in my
> primary education. Why don't you do the same and disappear
> to a site where Tigrinya is the language used?

>
> It's tragicomic that someone like you, with such a feeble grasp of any
> form of the English language, should have the cheek to
> insist upon what one can or cannot offer in respect to the recognized
> English language in the U.S. I ignore a great deal of spelling
> errors and grammatical mistakes, except when one uses his own
> grammatical mistakes or spelling errors in either personally
> attacking me in ad hominem, or offering the most illogical
> arguments, or just outright lying.
>

Pot? Pot? This is kettle; colour check please.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/hypocrite

>>> This group was created by a poster now long gone named

>>> "Etan Ben-Ami" in 1993. He was a member of the "National
>>> Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty," and as far as I know
>>> was not European, since that coalition is based in Washington,
>>> D.C. There is no recognized body that has ruled that U.K.
>>> English is the only language permitted in AADP. Nonetheless,
>>> I don't correct you when you use the spelling of "honour," while in
>>> the U.S. it is spelled "honor." If you insist we use YOUR type of
>>> spelling that is xenophobia. I am open minded and you can
>>> use either U.K. English or U.S. English. I just wish you'd use
>>> it CORRECTLY!
>>>
>>
>>I do, sir. You are the fellow who repeatedly attempts to redefine words,
>>sir.
>

> Wrong, sport. I have your words -- "if i do not approve of a
> definition I simply choose not to use it." Now that's attempting
> to "redefine" words insisting that only YOUR definitions apply.
> And then you had the chutzpah to say in more of your double-speak --
> "The dictinary (sic) definition is just a string of words to you,
> apparently."
>

" I have your words "

Which you have proved on every occasion that you are incapable of
understanding, dear fellow.

> Apparently "dictinary" (sic) definitions are NOT EVEN "a string of
> words to you," since you admit you ignore definitions that expose your
> ignorance

Oh, dear sir. that's worthy of three. Those three are:.

Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should not
be allowed to play.

>>> However, let's again be frank... it would not matter if I did oppose
>>> the U.S. Death Penalty, since my argument with you is about your
>>> Holocaust denial, your racist comments and your underlying
>>> stupidity (which I hope is not genetic but rather a product of
>>> cruel and unusual nurturing).
>>
>>"my argument with you is about your Holocaust denial, "
>>
>>I have made no such denial, sir.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Of course you have. Your words -- "You do not remember what is not in

> your memory and it is not in your memory if you did not experience or

> witness it first hand." And more of your words -- "You cannot forget

> or remember the extermination of 6 million jews (sic) unless you

> remember them." And more of your words -- "You cannot forget or

> remember the extermination of 6 million jews (sic) unless you remember

> them and to remember them you must have experienced them first hand."

> And then asserting as some kind of fact that the JEWS could
> "remember" the Holocaust -- "Only if they were there, dear fellow."
> Now that's insisting that OTHERS cannot "remember" the Holocaust,
> which is absolutely clear "Holocaust denial."

"Of course you have"

No I haven't, sir.

>
> Clearly arguments meant to insist that no one should remember the
> Holocaust unless they actually TOOK PART IN IT, as either a Nazi, or a
> Jew are meant to deny the Holocaust. I remember you also wrote in
> great hypocrisy -- "The events of that atroicity (sic) are long since
> over and those who commited (sic) them are also gone. Our best chance
> is to learn from it, but we won't." Well, shit, sport... How can we
> "learn from it," when you insist we cannot even "remember it"???
>
> Not since Janus have we seen a more two-faced poster to AADP than
> you are. And that's a looong time ago. After the Greeks... but I
> "remember" the Romans.

Your logic is erroneous, sir.

>>"your racist comments "
>>
>>I have made no racist comments, sir.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Of course you have... Your words -- "There are no blacks," and
> your words " I've never met a person who has black skin," and
> your words "I've never met one because there aren't any." Denying
> there is a definition of a "Black" race, and hoping to challenge the
> fact that racism is used against that "Black" race. A race you insist
> does not exist, thus racism cannot exist against someone who
> is Black... because NO ONE is Black according to you. That's one of
> the more innovative attempts to challenge the argument that racism
> exists I've seen in some time.

"Of course you have"

No I haven't sir.

"There are no blacks,"

Is not racist, dear fellow.. Are you unable to distinguish brown from black,
sir? Are you colour blind or just a short sighted old fool?

>
> Others, knowing the English language far better than you, expressed
> astonishment at your comment. I do more than that... I call
> a spade a spade in AADP. And I have seldom found comments more
> racially offensive than dismissing an entire race of humans, as
> if they have no "real existence."

>
>>>
>>> Gee... how did you "remember" all that, given that you've stated --
>>> "You do not remember what is not in your memory and it is not in your
>>> memory if you did not experience or witness it first hand."
>>>
>>> You actually experienced or witnessed the Greeks??? You naughty boy,
>>> you!!!
>>>
>>
>>Remember what, sir? Are you still clutching at straws?
>>

> Well, you "remembered" there were the Greeks. But I like the way you
> refer to wikipedia, and then dismiss it as inaccurate when I refer to
> it. More of your two-faced arguments, accompanied by a juicy
> assortment of your lies.
>

"Well, you "remembered" there were the Greeks"

There still are Greeks, sir. You can find them in Greece.

>>>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible
>>>
>>> Quite true... so why did you claim that you're a blockhead?
>>
>>I did not, sir.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Now.... now... don't get angry... Of course you did. You recognized
> that I had clipped your words, and you accepted that I had, in the
> words I had offered, Sir Blockhead.
>

There are certainly involuntary muscle movements occuring sir. They are a
result of my laughter,

>>>>>
>>>>>>If you cannot argue without lying then you should not be allowed to
>>>>>>play
>>>>>>at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep offering cites without references, shit-for-brains?
>>>>
>>>>I do not, sir.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO... It's too late, sport... you already turned in your
>>> examination without offering cites or references. Trying to do
>>> it now... is locking the barn door after the cows have moved on.
>>>
>>
>>No I didn't sir.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> Yes, you did, sport... Here it is again... See --
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/71dc5a37c3ec1e13
>

No I did not, "sport".

> This comment of yours predates any correction you might have had
> after taking a piss. Notice in your comment you CHANGE the
> parameter given in the question. It doesn't matter that what you
> provided was the exact speed of light in a vacuum. It was a question
> in which calculators, and references were not permitted. If you had
> used pen and paper you would still be scratching your head in
> trying to figure it out, and guessing at the exact speed of light in
> a vacuum rather than RTFQ. Kids of today don't know how to add and
> subtract without a calculator. You go to a grocery store, and the
> bill is $3.50 and you give the teen-age cashier $5.50, and she looks
> like you're crazy because you gave her the $0.50 and it doesn't
> compute in her brain. She only knows how to enter something
> higher than the charge, and knows only that $5.00 is enough.
> She needs the register to do her arithmetic for her, and suspects
> you're trying to give her a tip.
>

" It was a question
> in which calculators, and references were not permitted"

My dear, good fellow; you do not have any authority to tell me what tools to
use to solve a problem. If I choose to use a calculator or a cite then or
even an abacus or even a Cray then that is my choice and you have no say in
the matter, sir.

>>> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
>>> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
>>> at you, sport.
>>
>>No, dear fellow. They all point at you.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

> You're the one pointing the finger at me with "pot... kettle...
> black," shit-for-brains. Wait... this is too complicated for you.
> Imagine that this is your hand... I hope this picture helps you...
> http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl

"You're the one pointing the finger at me with "pot... kettle...
> black"

Fingers, sir. Plural.

> Check out those three fingers of YOUR hand.

I have a total of five digits on each hand and I am pointing them at you,
even the thumb.

<snip>

>>>>You believe in a god, sir?
>>>
>>> Is the word "if" (a conditional clause) too complicated for you? IF
>>> you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird.
>>

"Is the word "if" (a conditional clause)"

Yes it is sir.

"IF you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird"

I could fly in an aeroplane, sir.

>>I ended my comment with a question mark, sir. I was asking you a question.
>

> Well... I don't believe in a God. Certainly not one who figures that
> all biological life, down to viruses and mosquitoes must be given some
> "right to life." Nor do I consider cockroaches to be equal to human
> beings as you have insisted.
>

"I don't believe in a God"

You don't, sir? Then why do you keep asking it to strike me down?

<snip>

>>I have not killed anyone sir.
>

> So that's your excuse for the slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa????

You perceive that innocence is an excuse? Curious.

> The problem is you are two-faced. You accuse all Americans
> of being involved in killings elsewhere, while you ignore the
> genocide perpetrated by your own people.
>

"The problem is you are two-faced."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

"while you ignore the genocide perpetrated by your own people"

My own people, sir? I believe that I never revealed who my people are.

>>>>>> In perspective, your people have had thier fair share
>>>>>>of bloodshed, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you remember that? Did you experience the U.S 300 years ago?
>>>>
>>>>It's called "an education", sir.
>>>
>>> So you've never received an "education" about the Holocaust. And then
>>> you wonder why I pity the lack of nurturing you have received in
>>> your life
>>
>>I received much education about the holocaust, sir.
>

> Yet you insist you "remember" NOTHING. And charge everyone else
> with your diktat that _no one_ can remember unless they "experienced
> it first hand." That's not an "education," when you take a nap during
> lessons.
>

"Yet you insist you "remember" NOTHING"

I do remember nothing. I wasn't at the holocaust. I do remember much of my
education, however.

>>> See above... Be sure to ask the Pope to bless you for saving the lives
>>> of murderers... I understand he doesn't give a fuck about Blacks in
>>> Africa either.... just like you.
>>
>>I care not for the pope, sir.
>

> I don't believe you. You have ever right to deny it... but I have
> every right to not believe you. For all anyone knows, you may
> believe that he is that "something higher than ourselves," that
> you insist has given "the right to life to all biological life."

"I don't believe you"

That is your problem, sir.

>
>>>>> The 20th Century was the bloodiest century in human history. And
>>>>> that bloodshed was 99.99% the result of Europe's citizens inability
>>>>> to get along with each other.
>>>>
>>>>Whilest America sat back till the last minute then tried to claim they
>>>>saved everyone sir.
>>>
>>> Since when are we RESPONSIBLE for Europe??? When was the last time
>>> any nation in Europe helped us? I'll tell you when... when the French
>>> helped us 300 years ago, in their own interests to gain our
>>> independence. And we still "remember" it. While YOU can't even
>>> remember the Nazis in your Europe attempting the extermination of
>>> European Jewry. Six million murdered innocent Jews.. less than 70
>>> years ago... and you can't "remember," while you do remember the
>>> Crusades, and the "Greeks."
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.

>
>>You are not, sir but you persistently try to make Europe do things your
>>way.
>>If they do not, you have one of your so well known temper tantrums and
>>bomb
>>something.
>

> Wrong again... the only people interfering in the affairs of other
> states in respect to the death penalty is the EU trying to exert
> pressure on the U.S. in an internal matter. I don't know of
> any American having posted to AADP who gives a shit what
> the EU does with her murderers. I know I don't care! Yet the
> EU remains *profoundly silence* when it comes to condemning
> Islamic Sharia law, which stones women for adultery, and hangs
> those who are homosexuals.
>

"Wrong again"

Oh please, sir. Once cannnot watch the news without hearing about someone
your people bombed.

> While Europe continues to fancy Africa as part of her colonial
> empire, and will commit murder and genocide if doing so can
> maintain hegemony over the indigenous population and the
> mineral resources of Africa.

Your xenophobia is showing again, sir.

>
> We had war declared on us, and our sovereign territory invaded
> and taken over, when Iranians stormed our embassy and kept
> diplomatically protected American citizens as hostages. I
> would have had no problem with declaring war on Iran, and
> invading that country regardless of what might have happened
> to those hostages. Iran needed to be taught a harsh lesson
> about diplomatic immunity, and the sovereignty of embassies.
> Khomeini was the "supreme leader" of Iran, and his single
> comment of "release them," would have resulted in instant
> release... instead he supported the storming of that sovereign
> embassy, and taking those with diplomatic immunity into
> hostages. That was a clear act of war. And Europe stood
> silent, refusing to condemn Iran... because of a thing called
> "oil."
>
> As it was, our milksop president at the time, Jimmy Carter, instead
> wasted lives in a crude attempt to rescue those hostages which
> would not have been successful even if there was not that disaster
> with the helicopters. Don't tell me about doing things OUR way.
>

As I said, your country is as knee deep in blood as everyone else, sir.

>>>>> However, you've certainly left me ROTFLMAO.
>>>>
>>>>Puerile, sir.
>>>
>>> What I see

>>Are pretty clouds, people picking mushrooms, the world speaking American

>>English (sic), your nuclear weapons looming threateningly over the world's
>>populace sir and the electric chair warmed up, sir
>

> Apparently you're off your meds, Sir shit-for-brains.

Maybe I can borrow some of yours, sir.

> I notice that you used it as a reference in at least two places. These
> two --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
>

Yes, sir. You're the one whom likes showing off your book collection.

> In any case, if I were to cite any books in my library as a reference
> you would petulantly pout that it was an "unreferenced" (sic) cite.
> Thus, the only real references available are those on the Internet.
> Such as free dictionaries (which I've used to pummel your arguments
> into fine dust), and sources of information, one of which is
> wikipedia.
>

" In any case, if I were to cite any books in my library as a reference
> you would petulantly pout that it was an "unreferenced" (sic) cite."

You are welcome to do so, sir as long as you reference them correctly.

>>>>I'm
>>>>amazed. We shall see how long it takes you to catch up. Not long I'd
>>>>wager.
>>>>You seem to be invading everybody and you still have the barbaric death
>>>>penalty.
>>>
>>> And you still have the cursed genocide of close to a million innocent
>>> Tutsis brought by a European power who wants to maintain French
>>> hegemony in Africa. You know what Mitterand said about those
>>> million murdered innocent Tutsis... murdered with French complicity,
>>> providing arms to the Hutus... urging them to get on with the
>>> massacre??? He is quoted as saying -- "in such countries, genocide is
>>> not too important." Nice leaders you elect. You curse us for
>>> electing Bush, and it turns out that Mitterand was responsible for at
>>> least 20 times the deaths that Bush and Blair are responsible for.
>>> Every time I mention this... Europeans posting here suddenly turn
>>> deaf, dumb, and blind.
>>
>>"And you still have the cursed genocide of close to a million innocent
>>> Tutsis brought by a European power who wants to maintain French
>>> hegemony in Africa"
>>
>>No I don't sir.
>

> Yes... you do, Sir Double-Speak.

No I don't, sir.

>
>>>
>>>>> <fx: Death Disco stares wide eyed with open mouth gaping at proof of
>>>>> the long history of European hate for each other>
>>>>
>>>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

<snip>

>>>>Are you getting angry sir?
>>>
>>> Yeah... when I see someone offer an insulting lie, it makes me angry
>>> and also full of pity for someone who needs to use lies and smears in
>>> methods so sneaky and smarmy. It reminds me OF others who used
>>> the same type of lies in the 1930s, insisting there were those who
>>> were not _praying to Jesus_ but to a "God" that wanted them to
>>> conspire to rule the world. That led to the greatest blood-bath our
>>> species has ever witnessed. Of course, you insist you "don't remember
>>> it."
>>

> [1] see bottom of post.

>>
>>Then you concern yourself too much with the thoughts of other people sir.
>

> I do not abide horse-shit. Nor do I abide racism. Nor do I abide
> Holocaust denial. Nor do I abide lying. You've demonstrated every
> one of those arguments I do not abide, Sir shit-for-brains. Just a
> few of the devious methods you have used include malice, craftiness,
> and duplicity. Plus you are a congenital liar, and a fraud from snout
> to tail.
>

"I do not abide horse-shit. Nor do I abide racism. Nor do I abide
> Holocaust denial."

It's not for you to abide it or condemn it, sir. Other people's political
views are not your business.

" Nor do I abide lying"

So why do you do it so often, sir? Why are you such a hipocrite?

>>How typically American of you. Others' opinions are none of your business,
>>sir.
>

> Rubbish. Such trash implies that anyone can say anything and no one
> can voice disapproval of what they say. You are claiming that a
> "freedom of speech" implies no "freedom to refute." That's how the
> Nazis took power.. and took away power from the people. A time
> comes when silence is betrayal to one's own moral instincts. You'd
> like nothing better than to silence those who oppose your rather sick
> views.
>

"Rubbish"

No, it is not, "Rubbish", sir. People like you surreptitiously practice
fascism, sir. The same sport your Nazi friends practiced

>>>>"You pray to a god to strike me down for correcting your English, sir?
>>>>Hardly the response of an athiest."
>>>>
>>>>Is not a lie, sir.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. I said "If there were a "God." You expect that to mean I
>>> pray to such an imaginary "God." So I suppose if I wrote "If you
>>> were a Nazi," that would mean that you pray to the Nazis. You
>>> need an intense mental examination... and I am dead serious about
>>> that. I think you miss your mommy... being away from home for
>>> the first time in your young life.
>>
>>You imagine there is a god, sir. You prayed for it to strike me down,
>>sir..
>

> Really, little boy, if you cannot win an argument you should
> not try to lie your way out of losing it. It's just another logical
> fallacy you use -- The logical fallacy of "accent." See --
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#accent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

>
> Changing the meaning of my words.

You do that enough on your own, sir.

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>>> Then you don't know how many "disease causing organisms" people carry.
>>> So you're really arguing from a point of declared ignorance.
>>
>>No, sir. I don't need to know that as it does not alter the point.
>>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> But you're wrong again. You argued that humans carry more diseases
> than cockroaches. Then you claim you don't know how many diseases
> humans carry. So you've again violated logic. Arriving at an
> irrelevant conclusion since you admit you didn't have your facts...
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#elenchi

But you're wrong again

No, sir.

>>>
>>> RTFQ!!! I never said it was on the arm of your baby. I offered you
>>> the CHOICE between killing it, or knowing that it WOULD BE on the arm
>>> of your baby. You chose to let it go to the arm of your baby, and
>>> THEN let it wiggle its six legs a bit before you could grasp it,
>>> spreading even more germs to your own hand, and carefully depositing
>>> it outside your window for the birds to feast upon. I wonder why you
>>> don't have some _cockroach cages_, in which you can _save the
>>> cockroach_ of the world from those nasty birds.
>>>
>>
>>" knowing that it WOULD BE on the arm of your baby."
>

> My question was --
> "Do you step on that cockroach or do you let that cockroach crawl on

> your baby while you run to get some kind of paper or something to
> remove that cockroach gently to avoid hurting your baby and that
> cockroach?"

I pick up the cockroach with my hand and take it outside, sir.

>
> Obviously you would not "step on that cockroach" when it was already
> on your baby's arm... or would you?

I would not step on the cockroach full stop sir. I recall you stating that
you would step on it for the hell of it. Do you deny those words, sir?

>The question was phrased to
> argue would you kill that cockroach BEFORE it could crawl on your
> baby's arm, with the condition that you could not reach that cockroach
> with your hand before it did crawl on your baby's arm? Leaving you
> ONLY the choice of killing it BEFORE it could crawl on your baby, or
> seeing it crawl on your baby's arm.
>
> This is not brain surgery, shit-for-brains. It could be quite
> possible that a cockroach was crawling on the floor close to your
> baby's crib, and we all know how fast cockroaches can scurry.
> Faster than you can get a tissue or even reach down to grab it
> before it has traveled right up the leg of the crib and down onto your
> baby's arm or mouth for that matter. The human instinct is to
> protect your baby from that cockroach, UNLESS you consider
> the cockroach as equal to your own baby. You can only step on it
> BEFORE it reaches your baby, or leave it to crawl on your baby and
> irrationally believe you are fast enough to reach down with your
> fingers and the cockroach will accommodate you in picking it up. That
> could never happen, sport. I don't think simply trying to pick up a
> cockroach that is free to travel is generally very successful. Chee...
> but you are brutally dumb.

Your question is bunkum. and I have already answered it, sir.

>
>>Are you getting angry again, sir?
>>

> Well... let me see... you told me "Others' opinions are none of your
> business." Now you seem to be overly concerned about my opinions.
> But I freely admit that Holocaust denial pisses me off. And you are
> a Holocaust denier. That's the benchmark of my being pissed off
> at you.

"Well... let me see... you told me "Others' opinions are none of your
> business." "

Did you dislike that, sir? It was a kind of comment that a fascist would
object too

>>>>You should think your debates through, sir. Did you have any children
>>>>that
>>>>lived sir?
>>>
>>> Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living? Trust me...
>>> you start bringing insults to my real family or real children, rather
>>> than a hypothetical thought experiment and you will find yourself
>>> being accused of screwing your sister. Remember that YOU started
>>> it. Now apologize and let's move on.
>>>
>>
>>"Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living?"
>>
>>I am sure she could be persuaded, sir.
>

> Last I heard she was only getting a dollar a trick.

It cannot be my mother you are thinking of, sir. She does not accept
American money because she has standards. However I do enjoy that you are
such an ignoramus that you fail to comprehend that in my motherland,
prostitution is neither illegal nor immoral. It is a respectable profession.
The "your mother is a whore" lines do not work on us, dear fellow.

>
>> For a broken down hopeless old man
>>such as yourself, she me very likely increase the price.
>

> I'm not into catching diseases. But what's this "she me very..."?

"I'm not into catching diseases"

Neither is she, sir.

"But what's this "she me very..."

English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.

.. >

>>>>
>>>>Then you are a murderer, sir, on two counts. One for killing the poor
>>>>innocent cockroach
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO. Read the definition of murder, you ignorant child.
>>> MURDER -- "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially
>>> with premeditated malice."
>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder
>>>
>>> Insects are NOT "human." Only someone on the edge of sanity could
>>> argue that _cockroaches_ are HUMAN.
>>
>>The unlawful, deliberate killing, sir.
>

> "of one human by another," shit-for-brains.

That must be awfully convenient for you. You are still a murdering bastard,
sir

>
>> So if womeone were to kill you it would not be murder.
>

> What the fuck is a "womeone" (sic)? Is that one of your gang member
> that I have to worry about murdering me??
>

English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.

>>> Oh, wait... you need a cite for that, because you're too ignorant to
>>> figure it out for yourself. Here you go --
>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/human
>>> HUMAN -- "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H.
>>> sapiens."
>>
>>You reference incorrectly, sir. Will you ever learn?
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>
> AADP does not accept definitions in your native Tigrinya.

AADP niether accepts or denies anythingm sir. it is a newsgroup.

AADP neither accepts nor denies anything sir. It is a newsgroup.

>
>>> But of course, you've also said that -- "if i do not approve of a
>>> definition I simply choose not to use it." Which makes it easy for
>>> you to invent your own definitions, although it makes communicating
>>> with other humans... IMPOSSIBLE! You sound like Michael
>>> Jackson singing the role of Danny to his pet rat, "Ben," as his only
>>> friend. BTW -- do you consider rats "superior" to cockroaches??
>>> Heh heh heh.
>>>
>>
>>" But of course, you've also said that -- "if i do not approve of a
>>definition I simply choose not to use it." Which makes it easy for you to
>>invent your own definitions"
>>
>>Your logic is erroneous, sir.
>

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>
> My logic is impeccable, Sir shit-for-brains.

Your logic is wrong so it is erroneous, sir.

>
>>>> and two for infecting you baby by spreading the cockroach's
>>>>disease carrying organisms all over your baby, sir.
>>>
>>> Wrong... I killed the cockroach on the floor... my hypothetical baby
>>> was NOT on the floor. You lifted the cockroach carefully from your
>>> hypothetical baby's arm, thoroughly infecting your hypothetical
>>> baby with up to 50 known diseases.
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post

>>
>>Yes, it was sir. You knocked over its cot when you rushed to murder the
>>cockroach. I hope the baby was not yours, sir.
>

> More of your lies.

No, sir.

>
>>> You should be ashamed of yourself. That cockroach NEVER touched
>>> my baby.
>

> See what I wrote, Sir shit-for-brains? Proving you lied.

No it doesn't sir. The cockroach was a hypothetical part of one of your
puerile games, sir.

>
>>> You should RTFQ when you see thought experiments rather than
>>> contriving your own set of circumstances and accusing the other
>>> of "murder." How many "murders" have you committed in washing
>>> your hands??
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"RTFQ"
>>
>>
>>
>>Language, sir.
>

> See --
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rtfq

If you will post acronyms, sir.

>
> Educated yourself, for fuck's sake. You can't stumble through
> life remaining ignorant... even if you think you can.

I shall be right behind you in the queue, ignoramus.

>
>>>>> Since you find humans and cockroaches no different, if you had
>>>>> to kill a human or kill a cockroach, and had no other choice, which
>>>>> would you kill? After all, you can't make the same choice as
>>>>> Buridan's donkey in this thought experiment. One or the other,
>>>>> sport. Which one is it?
>>>
>>> And we see Death Disco respond with *deathly silence*
>>> For a guy that raves on and on about irrelevant things, and
>>> insists he _talks to "something higher than ourselves"_ we
>>> now find he is at a loss for words.
>>
>>
>>
>>No, sir. That was your response.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>
> Just more of your lies. It seems you've given up and just offer
> lie after lie.
>

Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should not
be allowed to play.

It was from your post so it is your response, sir

>>>
>>>>> Regardless... I'm now getting a better focus on why you deny the
>>>>> Holocaust. It's because to you six million Jews are worth less than
>>>>> six million and one cockroaches, in your sick mind.
>>>
>>> And we see Death Disco respond with *deathly silence*
>>> For a guy that raves on and on about irrelevant things, and
>>> insists he _talks to "something higher than ourselves"_ we
>>> now find he is at a loss for words.
>>
>>No, sir. That was your response.
>

You typed it, sir. It was your response.

>
>>>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying or (inclusive) name
>>>>calling
>>>>then you should not be allowed to take part.
>>>
>>> Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? This is just
>>> more of your God-complex at work. Nonetheless... the only liar is
>>> you... because I NEVER, EVER LIE!! You need to offer a cite of my
>>> words that demonstrates I have lied. In fact, my never having lied
>>> has brought me more grief in arguments than if I had lied. When I
>>> win arguments the claims that I'm a liar come out of the woodwork...
>>> like your pet "cockroaches."
>>
>>

"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"

Who are you to tell people what to believe, what politics to support, what
religions to support?

>>
>>"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"
>>
>>
>>
>>Indeed, sir. Will you take instruction only from another American, sir?
>

> Answer the question, Sir shit-for-brains. What makes you wiggle and
> squeal like a stuck pig, offering irrelevant implications that you
> hope to use to avoid the fact of your Nazi persona insists what
> I can and can't do? In the way you framed your argument I wouldn't
> give a shit if you were fucking Interpol. Who the hell are YOU to
> tell me what I can and can't do??? Aside from your God-complex
> believing you are "something higher than ourselves," and can order
> everyone around... or do you think you can only order Americans
> around, you xenophobic mental fruit loop?
>

"Answer the question"

Who are you to tell people what to believe, what politics to support, what
religions to support?

>>>>Wiki is not known for its accuracy, sir.
>>>
>>> Only in your mind. Wiki makes your puny knowledge measurable only on
>>> a scale less than the Planck constant.
>>
>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post
>>
>>
>>
>>No, sir. In reality
>>
>
> And yet you used it... Twice... and probably in many more places. You
> used it in referring to --
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

At no juncture did I claim it was 100% inaccurate, sir.

>
> Of course, you two-faced piece of garbage... you didn't even
> know what a "hypocrite" was until I called you a "hypocrite" and
> you swiftly ran to see with the word means.
>

"Of course, you two-faced piece of garbage"

Are you getting angry again you xenophobic hypocrite?

>>>>> English criminal law applies to the law in the U.K.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes sir, but if you suggest that killing in self defense does not carry
>>>>a
>>>>prison term in the UK then you are wrong sir.
>>>
>>> Killing in recognized self-defense does not carry any crime at
>>> all. It's only when it has been determined that the definition
>>> of self-defense has not been met that anyone can be accused
>>> or convicted of any crime. If the recognized LEGAL conditions
>>> of self-defense are MET... there has no crime committed.
>>
>>Killing carries a custodial sentence, even if it is in self-defence. That
>>is
>>British law, of course.
>

> Wrong. Why do you keep lying, when the evidence against your
> argument keeps piling up?
>

Wrong.

> Even when I prove using the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The

> Crown Prosecution Services." See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
> prosecuted for such action.."
>

You have proved nothing sir.

> Do you have any idea just how IGNORANT you look when you
> ignore FACTS???
>

I do not ignore FACTS, sir.

>>> You did not SUGGEST... but INSISTED that factually -- "You kill
>>> someone in self defense in Britian (sic) then your conviction will
>>> read that of masnlaughter (sic)." But you were wrong, and now you
>>> are lying hope to wiggle out of that silly comment. If you
>>> kill in legally recognized self-defense in Britian (sic) then you
>>> have committed NO CRIME.
>>
>>You are wrong, sir.
>

> It's not me you're calling "wrong," shit-for-brains. I'm only the
> messenger. You're calling the British government WRONG!
> You're insisting that "The Crown Prosecution Service" does not
> honor a self-defense argument if "The Crown Prosecution
> Service" decides the killing was a legal self-defense killing.
>

"It's not me you're calling "wrong," "

Yes it is,sir.

> Good grief... but you keep raising the bar of your stupidity.
> Apparently I've managed to tilt your personality toward the
> deranged.
>

Pot, kettle, black, sir.

>>> It is when you kill, and it not recognized as being in self-defense,
>>> even if you plead that it was, that you will be accused and tried
>>> in a court of law for "manslaughter," or even "murder" if it is
>>> found that your claim of self-defense was rubbish and you killed
>>> intentionally and with malice aforethought.
>>
>>
>>
>>You do not know British law, sir.
>

> I'm just the messenger. You're arguing that "The Crown
> Prosecution Service" does not know British law, Sir shit-for-brains.
> Perhaps your argument is that you're hearing voices from
> "something higher than ourselves," who keep telling you
> that "The Crown Prosecution Service," doesn't know what
> it's talking about.
>

"I'm just the messenger"

No, you are not, sir.

> Good grief... but you keep raising the bar of your stupidity.
> Apparently I've managed to tilt your personality toward the
> deranged.

> Nor can you, Sir shit-for-Brains. But you're sure trying in using a
> constant flood of lies and deceit.

pot, kettle, black, sir.

>
>>Of course, we can, sir. You do it persistently.
>

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible

No, it isn't, sir.

>
>>>>Killing in self defense is manslaughter and is punishable by
>>>>imprisonment,
>>>>sir.
>>>
>>> Heh... Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat
>>> of Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
>>> saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
>>>
>>
>>I am under no obligation to prove anything to you, sir.
>

> But you do need to prove it to "The Crown Prosecution Service,"
> since they have a different story than you're pandering.

No, sir.

>
>>> While you may claim that "I have no obligation to prove my arguments
>>> or to answer anything," that only means even you know that your
>>> argument is not true.
>>>
>>
>>No it doesn't, sir.
>>

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

Will you be posting referenced cites to all your assertions above then, sir?

>>
>>>
>>> While you may claim that "I have no obligation to prove my arguments
>>> or to answer anything," that only means even you know that your
>>> argument is not true. A person can go to prison for "claiming to have
>>> killed in self-defense," when the judiciary determines that the
>>> killing did not meet the legal standards of self-defense. But a
>>> person having met the legal standards of self-defense will never be
>>> prosecuted for a crime. It is a fundamental principle of the law that
>>> killing in "legally recognized self-defense" is NOT a crime.
>>>
>>
>>I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
>>pointless.
>>
>

> Of course it would. You've lost above... and you lose again here.

You cannot win an argument simply by declaring your opponent the loser, sir.

>
> This is the is the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The

> It's not ME you're lying to... it's you lying to "The Crown
> Prosecution Services."
>

No, sir.

>>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I did not ask for proof, sir. I informed you that you had not provided
>>any.
>>On the other hand, you repeatedly ask for proof so proof is your
>>commitment.
>

> Well, if you're not asking for any proof... then fuck-off. The
> difference is when you lie or use fraud or use one of your greasy,
> smarmy comments that you believe pass for some fact, I demand
> you prove it. Otherwise, it's just you fabricating some of your
> horse-shit.
>

"Well, if you're not asking for any proof... then fuck-off."

Language, sir.

>>> Since when are you a better source of information than the sources

>>> I've provided? Let's be clear... you ASSERTED -- "Killing in self
>>> defense is manslaughter and is punishable by imprisonment,
>>> sir." PROVE IT! Show me one reference in which there is the
>>> clear statement that "killing in self-defense is manslaughter."
>>> Just one, sport. No legal system accepts that argument. Every
>>> legal system in the western world recognizes the right of
>>> self-defense.
>>>
>>> However, I am certain that the following reference is proof positive
>>> of my argument. It is the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
>>> Crown Prosecution Services." See --
>>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
>>> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
>>> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
>>> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
>>> prosecuted for such action.."
>>
>>I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
>>pointless.
>>

> No you didn't. This is the first time you've seen me refer to an
> actually UK Government source of reference. This is something you
> cannot hide from. This is not something you can DENY. Just
> even trying to do so is an example of your use of lies.
>

Sir, your repeat your same junk so often it becomes a dull roar. You cannot
win arguments by repeating them over and over again.

>>>
>>> End of story... you lose, sport. Unless you argue that this voice
>>> of "something higher than ourselves," told you that "The Crown
>>> Prosecution Service" is a bunch of crap.
>>>
>>

> [1] see bottom of post
>
>>You're guessing, sir.
>
> Not one bit, Sir shit-for-brains. Go ahead and call "The Crown
> Prosecution Service." Here's their number, and this is their
> REAL telephone number -- 020 7796 8000. Or visit them
> at "The Crown Prosecution Service, 50 Ludgate Hill, London,
> EC4M 7EX" See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/

"Not one bit"

Every bit, sir.

>
> Don't give me any more lies about UK self-defense laws, because
> you are totally ignorant of UK law.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you've already lost three times now. When do you plan to
>>>>> stop lying, shit-for-brains???
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>
>>> Since when are you a better source of information than the sources
>>> I've provided?
>>
>>
>>
>>Since I came to Britain, sir.
>

> Another logical fallacy. The non sequitur -- See
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nonseq

No, sir.
>
> Go ahead and call "The Crown Prosecution Service." Here's their
> number, and this is their REAL telephone number -- 020 7796 8000. Or
> visit them at "The Crown Prosecution Service, 50 Ludgate Hill, London,
> EC4M 7EX" See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/
>

Did you ring them, sir?

> Don't give me any more lies about UK self-defense laws, because
> you are totally ignorant of UK law.

Bull, sir. I live in the UK.

>>>
>>> See above. Or see the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
>>> Crown Prosecution Services." See --
>>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
>>> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
>>> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
>>> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
>>> prosecuted for such action.."
>>
>>I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
>>pointless.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
> Denying it over and over... does not make your absurd argument
> true.

It doesn't have to if my argument is already true,sir.

>
> Go ahead and call "The Crown Prosecution Service." Here's their
> number, and this is their REAL telephone number -- 020 7796 8000. Or
> visit them at "The Crown Prosecution Service, 50 Ludgate Hill, London,
> EC4M 7EX" See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/

Repetition doesn't help your argument, sir.

>
> Don't give me any more lies about UK self-defense laws, because
> you are totally ignorant of UK law.

>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>>>>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>>>>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you
>>>>>>were honest with yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop repeating your lies. Repetition has no relation to accuracy.
>>>>
>>>>I repeat only your lies, sir.
>>>

>>> TRANSLATION "I repeat only my lies, sir.."'

>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you try something new... Like telling the truth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...
>>>>>
>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...."
>>>
>>> So you admit you're a liar.
>>
>>
>>No, sir. I admit that you are.
>

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

Wrong, sir.

>
> You also admit that you're ignorant of the law... and of all things
> related to humanity. But you can build an antenna that picks
> up signals from "something higher than ourselves." You're
> cuckoo.

"You also admit that you're ignorant of the law"

No I do not, sir.

>>>>Hardly a compelling argument, sir.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Better than any you've ever had.
>>
>>
>>You're guessing, sir.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/excuse

Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar, sir.

>>>>
>>>>You have a prejudice against the "young" (Sic), sir!
>>>
>>> An unreferenced cite is inadmissable (sic).
>>
>>
>>That was not a cite, sir. Do you have a clue, sir?
>

> Then you admit it was ad hominem... another of your logical
> fallacies -- See --
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
>

I'll take that as a ,"no", sir.

>>>>Yes, sir. But I corrected it in my follow up post, the one you are about
>>>>to pretend you have not seen.
>>>
>>> Yada, yada, yada.
>>
>>Is the pinnacle of your intellectual capability sir?
>

> I was referring to your whining denial that you did not answer the
> question correctly and even admitted that you had not... and now
> you lie and argue you never were incorrect, after admitting you
> were.
>

"I was referring to"

Nothing, sir.

>>>
>>> I read your "excuse," but I haven't got around to responding to all of
>>> your disturbed mind comments. I have other priorities, plus I take my
>>> time... so I don't have to ask the teacher for my work to be returned
>>> because I was in a hurry. Most nights I do even read AADP comments
>>> until after midnight, when I'm sure my wife is sound asleep.
>>

> [1] see bottom of post

>>
>>
>>I offerecd no excuse, sir. There was nothing to excuse.
>

Iknow the meanings of both those words sir. As I said,
I offered no excuse, sir. There was nothing to excuse.

>>
>>>
>>> Hardly. Now that I've answered it when can I expect the answer to my
>>> second question, or even my third question.
>>
>>It is fortunate I was not submitting it to anyone whose opinion matters,
>>sir.
>>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>

Posting irrelevent links does not win your argument for you, sir.

>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nor do I have to consult wikipedia to know what mens rea and actus
>>>>>>>>> reus mean. But obviously you had to look it up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <clip vacuous repeating of my comment>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've already accepted your surrender.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's that psychotic God-complex of yours talking to you rather than my
>>>>> "surrender," my young ignorant child. Saying things that make it
>>>>> appear you believe you are God, that what you say must be taken as
>>>>> fact rather than your silly opinion... comments of yours such as --
>>>>>
>>>>> "I don't need to prove it, dear fellow."
>>>>> "I am not obliged to prove it to you."
>>>>> "I am not obliged to prove anything to you, sir."
>>>>> "I do not need to offer scientific proof"
>>>>> "I am the exclusive author of my issue and only I have
>>>>> the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic) upon it."
>>>>> "I have no obligation to prove my arguments or to answer anything."
>>>>> etc... etc... etc...
>>>>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>>>>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"But you're no longer worth my time"
>>>>
>>>>That was your surrender, sir.
>>>>
>>> You may think so... shit... you think you're God, or at least God
>>> talks to you. But you should notice that I'm still here. Thus,
>>> you're a bit premature in claiming victory.
>

> [1] see bottom of post
>
>>I do, sir.
>>
> Well, thanks for admitting you're a bit premature.

I made no such admission, sir
>
> Apology accepted.
>

None was offered, sir.

>>>
>>> While our purpose here should not be "victory," but progress... thus
>>> my purpose is simply to provide a small measure of nurturing to you
>>> that has obviously been neglected by those who should have nurtured
>>> you. I've come not to expect more from you than what your nurturing
>>> has failed to provide.
>>
>>You're guessing sir. You have no purpose. You are a waste, sir.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

Posting irrelevent links does not win your argument for you, sir.

> [1] see bottom of post
>>
>>
>>I do, sir.
>
> Please... one apology from you about this is enough. I accept your
> apology.

I offered no apology, sir.

>
>
>>> While our purpose here should not be "victory," but progress... thus
>>> my purpose is simply to provide a small measure of nurturing to you
>>> that has obviously been neglected by those who should have nurtured
>>> you. I've come not to expect more from you than what your nurturing
>>> has failed to provide.
>>
>>
>>
>>You're guessing sir. You have no purpose. You are a waste, sir.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

Posting irrelevent links does not win your argument for you, sir.

>
>>>
>>>>>>>>At some point I did, yes. It's called research. It's how most people
>>>>>>>>learn
>>>>>>>>words which is considerably more than your method of guessing them,
>>>>>>>>dear
>>>>>>>>fellow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you should look up the word "prejudice" and see what a fool
>>>>>>> you are, and how it describes your anti-Semitism perfectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I did look it up sir. You claim that you do not need to. Curious
>>>>>
>>>>> I've looked it up... and guess what? Not one single mention of the
>>>>> word "static" exists in ANY definition of the word "prejudice" in ANY
>>>>> English dictionary that I can find. And I have looked at about a
>>>>> dozen of them, both on-line dictionaries and those I have in my
>>>>> private library. So what dictionary have you been using that has
>>>>> the word "static" in the definition of the word "prejudice"???
>>>>> I recall the definition you did provide that only proved me right
>>>>> as to the word being subjective -- a "mental abstraction," of no
>>>>> real physical existence. And nowhere in that definition you provided
>>>>> does the word "static" appear. So put up or shut up.
>>>
>>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>>
>>>>I never said it did, sir.
>>>>
>>> Yet you argued that "prejudice" is a "static word."
>>
>>It is, dear fellow.
>>

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

Wrong again, sir.

>>
>>>
>>>>> *deathly silence*
>>>>
>>>>You are anything but silent, sir.
>>>
>>> Can't stand the heat when I put your feet to the fire, can you?
>>
>>You cannot acclaim me for your words, sir.
>

> Please consult an English dictionary. I would never be one
> who would "acclaim" your words, Sir shit-for-brains.

You do everytime you repeat them, sir. The ones I actually say, that is.

>
>
>>>
>>> Is that all you have? Don't you feel stupid not having of consequence
>>> to say? You should you know... you should feel VERY stupid!!
>>

> [2] see bottom of post
>>
>>
>>No, sir.
>
> I didn't say you DO... I said you SHOULD feel VERY stupid!! I don't
> think you have enough intelligence to even realize just how stupid
> you are.
>

"I said you SHOULD feel VERY stupid"

Not when pitted against you, sir.

>>> I never, ever lie. Claiming I do is simply your own smear tactics to
>>> discredit my exposing your own lies and deceit. It's a popular
>>> tactic used by those who are either exposed for being a liar or want
>>> to shift the argument (which is recognized as lost) to one of ad
>>> hominem, about presumed, but unexplained or lacking a cite to past
>>> comments. Simply call the person who exposes you -- a liar. And
>>> then "claim victory" as if that proves he is a liar. As to name
>>> calling... I have seldom found a more "name-calling-worthy" poster
>>> than you, sport.
>>
>

> [1] see bottom of post
>>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
> What are you denying now, Sir shit-for-brains??

You were claiming that you never ever lie, sir.

>>> Well... wait a minute... you argued that humans are not "superior" to
>>> what you referred to as the "poor little creature" called the
>>> cockroach. So given that premise which is a true premise from your
>>> own words... you argue that six million and one cockroaches are worth
>>> more to you than six million innocent Jews. It's a fair question
>>> since you insisted that a cockroach is no less than a human being.
>>
>>
>>Why Jews, sir? Do you see them more important than the rest of the world?
>>Are you a racist, sir?
>

> Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis... you insist you
> don't "remember" it... so it is not in your memory. Given that fact,
> it is obvious that you care more about six million and one cockroaches
> than those six million innocent Jews slaughtered by your kinsmen
> on the continent of Europe.
>

" Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis"

What about everyone else who were exterminated by the Nazis, sir? Don't they
count? What about those whom were tortured by the Japanese, sir? Don't tthey
count?

> You're the only racist, sport. That why you need to call me a racist
> because I mentioned the Jews... the Jews who you CANNOT
> remember... but I do remember them.

"You're the only racist, sport">

You're guessing, "sport".

>>> But I need to hear it from you... so given your original premise...
>>> another thought experiment... If you had to kill a cockroach to
>>> save a murderer from execution... would you kill that cockroach??
>>> Remember... you don't want to be called a "murderer" (sic)... do you??
>>

> [1] see bottom of post

>>
>>
>>You cannot hear me, sir.
>

> I can hear your Holocaust denial all the way across the Atlantic, Sir
> shit-for-brains.

"I can hear your Holocaust denial "

No you can't sir. You hear only your own fantasies

>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails. Plus "an unreferenced is
>>> inadmissable (sic)." Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
>>
>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible
>>
>

> Well... it's about time you got it right... since you've never managed
> to put those five words together without fucking up the English
> language in the process. But it seems you are still fucking it
> up... the Oxford English Dictionary makes no reference to the
> word "unreferenced" (sic). Even when examining all the words
> having the prefix of "un." I've ignored mentioning it because
> it's just too trivial and I understand just how little English you
> know. But face it, Sir shit-for-brains... you're an idiot. You
> should form your pitiful argument such that it states -- "A
> cite without reference is inadmissible."
>

"Well... it's about time you got it right"

English is not easy to master, sir. You are 78 and you are still struggling
with it.

> [1] see bottom of post

>>
>>
>>
>>You feel that you need to worry?
>

> You seemed to claim I do. You're the only one claiming I _should
> worry_.
>

"You seemed to claim "

No I didn't sir. Get one fact straight, dear fellow. What you and I do here
is what the British call "Banter". It is harmless fun for both of us, I
hope. There is no threat to your health or any form of physical violence
from me, sir. That is not my way. I detest people who beleive they can win
arguments with thier fists. It's a losing strategy from day one. You will
get no such threat from me, sir.

> And at this point, Death Disco felt he had been hammered quite enough
> for one sitting, and decided to just stop responding.

No sir. I caught the "send" shortcut. Alt+S when aiming for alt+tab.

However I responded to the rest in another post.

Death Disco

unread,

Jun 8, 2010, 2:10:15 PM6/8/10

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:ah5r06do51ge3jus8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:05 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>

> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:luej06dn2df6r0fs7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:06:26 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Finally have some spare time to wipe out the wimp...
>>
>>I look forward to seeing that sir. You have a lot of work to do. Have you
>>been filling your time by practicing some swotting, sir?
>

> I've had more important things to do than wipe the floor with
> someone who spends his days playing "dungeons and dragons,"
> as you do, Sir shit-for-brains.

I am keen to meet the fellow, sir. It would be curious to see someone whom
you actually beat in an argument. He must have been asleep, or drunk or
both, sir.

>
>>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>

>>" But you're no longer worth my time"
>>
>>Was perfectly clear, sir. You cannot take time back, you know.
>

> Your "something higher than ourselves" told you that??
>

I see you are still trying to avoid your own screwups, sir.

>>> I haven't yet lost any money betting on your ignorance, Sir
>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>
>>That is because you didn't bet any, sir.
>

> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains.

Are the bailiffs banging on your door, sir? Hmm? Do they shout through your
letter box of that all so very bright home of yours, sir? Are they
threatening to take it away from you because you cannot pay your gambling
debts, sir. You should give it up, sir. You are no good at it.

>>"All people are "special," "
>>
>>You certainly are, sir.
>

> All people are "special," even you, you sick in the head racist.

You certainly are, sir.

>
>>>>
>>>>I don't have to lie, sir. Lying is your strategy.
>>>
>>> [2] see bottom of post.
>>
>>Are you bored with your own repetition, sir?
>

> You mean YOUR repetition, sport...

No, sir. I mean, your repetion..

Since I only use that when

>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post.
>>
>>As should you, sir.
>

> You're insane...

My, dear fellow. Pot, kettle, black.

>>
>>Apparently not, sir. There is no dent in my head
>

> I'll bet you haven't checked carefully in your scalp... look for a
> "666" mark.

You are a Christian, sir.

>
>>We should remind yourself why you think I'm Dutch sir
>

> Who's this "we," Sir shit-for-brains?

>
>>"
>>Bet you're Dutch, with a dingleberry hanging from your ass because
>>of your unhygienic paedomorphic habits. You're certainly
>>not Italian... I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>minor in college. You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>French, born and raised in Paris... so I can do very well in
>>the French spoken language, and good enough in the written
>>language. You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had. I don't think
>>you're Spanish or Portuguese. Nor from the former East bloc.
>>And since you mention ...
>>
>>"
>

> Man, that was a real logical and convincing observation on my part, if
> I do say so myself.

You do, sir?

>
>>Cite:
>>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>>From: Planet Visitor II <hidden to protect privacy>
>>Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:11:17 -0400
>>Local: Thurs, May 27 2010 5:11 am
>>Subject: Re: High court rules out life sentences for some juveniles
>>
>>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>minor in college"
>>
>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not Italian, sir?
>

> Well, try me, if you are Italian. Prove it.

">>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>minor in college"
"

How exactly does your comment prove that I am not Italian, sir?

>
>>"You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>French, born and raised in Paris... "
>>
>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not French, sir?
>

> Well, try me, if you are French. Prove it.

How exactly does your comment prove that I am not French, sir?

>
>>"You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had"
>>
>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not German, sir?
>

> Well, try me, if you are German. Prove it.

How exactly does your comment prove that I am not German, sir?

>
>>You neglected to post your reasoning for believing me Dutch, sir.
>

> Because I don't speak Dutch, and the Dutch offer quite a
> bit of education in the English language.

That is your reason for thinking me Dutch, sir? I can see you have not
thought this through.

>>As should you, sir.
>
> I "remember" quite a bit of events that happened before I was born,

No you don't, sir. You was not there.

>>>>I did not, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>Denying something doesn't automatically make the denier a liar, sir.
>>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.

Denial proves or disproves nothing, sir.

>>
>>>
>>> Yes you did, you little Holocaust denier.
>>
>>I did not, sir.
>

> Yes, you did, Sir shit-for-brains. And you're also a Holocaust
> denier... claiming you hear voices.

I did not, sir.

>
>>>
>>>>> Are you now denying those were your words?
>>>>
>>>>No, sir.
>>>
>>> Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier. Don't think you are?
>>> Well, let me ask you... do you "remember" that there was an
>>> extermination of six million Jews in the 20th Century???
>>
>>"Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier"
>>
>>No sir.
>

> If you claim you don't "remember" it happening, that is a clear
> indication that you "deny" it happening.
>

Your logic does not follow normal rational reasoning, sir.

>>>
>>> Yet you fondly "remember" the Greeks. You naughty boy, you.
>>
>>Only the ones I've met, sir.
>

> Heh... that must have been a night of debauchery.

A night, sir? Nobody goes to Greece for just one night, sir.

>Don't bother
> sharing the sordid details...

I won't, sir.

> this is a family oriented newsgroup.

Since when, sir?

>>>>You claimed that you could, "hear" me, sir.
>>>>Any fear that you experience is your own, sir. If you were to be able to
>>>>feel my emotions sir, you would feel my amusement.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>There was no denial, sir. You responses are getting more random, dear
>>fellow.
>

> Need I point out again --

Not if it is your usual gibberish, sir.

>>>
>>
>>Shall we wait for you temper tantrum to calm down, sir?
>

> Heh... as the Dalai Lama noted --

Are you planning to re-interpret his word too, sir?

>>
>>"I never, ever lie. "
>>
>>Anothr lie, sir.
>

> Really,

Yes, sir.

"little boy, "

You're guessing again, sir.

>>>>

>>>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one"
>>>>
>>>>They do sir? So you have only the one opinion. Curious
>>>
>>> "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural. I don't
>>> know what it means in your mother-tongue which is apparently Tigrinya.
>>
>>" "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural"
>>
>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has 'one'"
>>
>>The "one" implies singular, sir.
>

> "Opinions".... plural. "one".... used as a pronoun... for example ...
> the simple English constructed sentence -- "she visited ONE of her
> cousins." Notice that she does not have only ONE cousin. Thus
> a person does not have only ONE opinion.
>
> Chee... but you are uneducated.

You're guessing again, sir.

>>
>>"Heh... I believe you actually looked at a dictionary"
>>
>>When one is learning a language, it is useful to browse a dictionary of
>>that
>>language sir. It is a practice that I reccomend you try.
>

> Too bad

Your refusal to educate yourself has been noted, sir.

>>"Don't blame me for your illiteracy"
>>Numeracy, my dear fellow; not literacy.
>

> The terms are not mutually exclusive, Sir shit-for-brains.

So you do not understand the expression, "mutually exclusive", either.

>>
>>There was no denial sir. Your confusion is increasing.
>

> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mindless drivel?

Do you, sir?

>>""No sir. You were the one whom (sic) "fucked
>>> up" lightspeed, sir."
>>
>>You did, sir. you claimed it was 300,000,000 M/s.
>

> No, Sir shit-for-brains... I said "presuming the velocity of light is
> exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second."

But it isn't, sir.

>
> The question was posed to not use a calculator or references.. because
> the reference was given and the arithmetic could be done in the
> head (not your head, of course, but the head of someone with at
> least a room temperature IQ). I told you that the problem could be
> solved in 30 seconds in the head... with nothing else... and I showed
> how it could be. Unless you have a problem figuring out in your head
> what the answer to 3000 divided by 8 is. 3/8 is 0.375... ching...
> ching... ching... and there's the answer 375... bip.. bip... bip.
> Kids these days... all of them need a calculator and can't read
> questions accurately.
>

"The question was posed to not use a calculator or references"

That is not your decision, sir.

> Good grief... it's so difficult for me to deal with the juvenile
> uneducated.
>

Looking the in mirror must be a real problem for you then, sir.

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

"Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole?"

To respond to them, sir.

>
>>That you didn't spot my quarter wave mistake or pinpoint where my first
>>mistake was wrong? Yes sir. That is very strange.
>

> I'm very forgiving of your basic ignorance.

I am less forgiving of yours.

>
>>>>I have built one in a while. What
>>>>about you, sir? When did you last build one?
>>>
>>> LOL..." I have built one in a while," too. You ignorant child. Are
>>> you also this stupid in your mother tongue? Don't lie now.
>>
>>I shall take that as a "Never". shall I ,sir.
>

> Since the word "never" does not appear in my comment,

You avoided the question, sir.

>>>
>>
>>"I'm not the authority. I'm the messenger"
>>
>>You are neither, sir.
>

> But you implied I was the "authority" behind my argument, when it's
> obvious that the AUTHORITY is "Bureau International des Poids et

> Mesures. The International System of Units - le Système international

> d'unités." That is... a lesser authority to those voices you hear
> from "something higher than ourselves." He he he he he. You
> psychotic fruitcake. Tell me again how you know more than the

> Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The International System
> of Units - le Système international d'unités.
>

"But you implied "

No I didn't, sir.

>>You have read them all in this small time, sir?
>

> I'm a fast reader.

You would have to be the fastest reader on the planet, sir.

> Can't do it, can you???

Can't do what, sir?

Yet I've provided cite after cite showing
> Hz being the recognized standard for "cycles per second."
>

If you had read your books sir, you would see that cs and c/s are also used.

> You're one hard-headed piece of work, Sir shit-for-brains.

Thank you, sir.

>
>>>>You haven't answered the problem I gave you, yet.
>>>
>>> Nor have you. I could give you a multitude of problems that you
>>> could not even attempt to solve, sport.
>>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>

>>Yes I have, sir. I am still waiting for your solution if you can offer
>>one.
>

> No, problem.... See -
> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-2.html

That does not answer the question, sir. You have avoided it yet again.

>
>>"I've looked in all my books"
>>
>>Then you should find the answer in them, sir.
>

> I did find the answer in a very concise reference in my library titled
> the "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers." About 2000 pages
> deep, edited by Donald G Fink (look him up), published by McGraw Hill,
> with ISBN 0-07-020973-1.

" About 2000 pages deep"

2304 to be exact, sir.
>Go to your library and ask them for it.
> Then go to page 1-9... Systems of Measurement. And you will see
> that Frequency is measured in Hz.

Are those the only pages you looked at in the entire book, sir?

>
> And yet I can find no reference to "Cs is the standard for cycles per
> second." In fact every reference states that "Hz is the standard
> for cycles per second."

If that book is any good then it should contain the formulas to answer those
little problems I gave you. Maybe you should try buying a copy and reading
it, sir.

Hz is an abbreviation of a mathematical expression, sir; as are Kilo, Mega,
Omega etc, etc. C/s are the mathematical expression itself sir and not a
standard abbreviation. Hertz is an abbreviation, sir. We are not answerable
to you regarding our choice of terms sir. Of course, should you feel the
desire you are welcome to call your legal representative and have him sue my
colleagues and I, sir.

>>>>>
>>>>> R = 3.183 x 10^4 Ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>
>>>>> c = 10^-9 Farads
>>>>>
>>>>> f = 500 Hz
>>>>>
>>>>> thus -
>>>>>
>>>>> Xc = 1/(2 x [pi] x f x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 500 x 10^-9 Ohms)
>>>>
>>>>Xc=1/w(omega)c sir but it equates to the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>
>>>>> Xc= 3.183 x 10^5 ohms = 318.3 K Ohms
>>>>>
>>>>318.310K to be more accurate, sir but you are doing very well
>>>
>>> Heh... you idiot. That is only LESS accurate. Your original data
>>> gave R = 3.183... you cannot invent that 318310, as presumable
>>> "more accurate" than your original number. Your entire problem
>>> is limited to 3.183, which is four significant digits. Offering
>>> a claim that "318.31..." is "more accurate" is a crock of shit,
>>> since it implies five digits of accuracy.
>>
>>Temper, temper. If you cannot handle the problem you should ask for help.
>

> I'm not the type who finds humor in your ignorance.

You're the one whom failed the problem sir.

>
>> PI has more than 5 digits of accuracy, sir.
>

> When I state 3.14159...

You have over snipped, sir. You appear to be as ignorant on snipping, as you
are everything else.

> Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
> pi is only as accurate as your calculator, thus it is not incorrect to
> show pi as an approximation because that's what it is, no matter how
> long one writes integers. Nor can one write pi as a quotient of two
> integers, in exact terms. While your use of 318.310 implies a
> constant "more accurate" than your original constant, Sir
> shit-for-brains.
>

"Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
> pi is only as accurate as your calculator"

Nonsense, sir. Pi goes on for as long as there can be new digits calculated.
and alot of people do not need a calculator to calculate it as you would.
They spend a finate amount of time on it.

"I can't believe you don't know the difference between a rational
and an irrational number."

You are guessing again, sir.

>>> And you claim an ability to compute numbers, yet screw up
>>> the most basic of all mathematical principles... that values
>>> cannot be obtained having greater significance than the
>>> significant digits within the mathematical computation.
>>> Whenever you make a measurement, that measurement
>>> is only as precise as the original significant digits being
>>> computed.
>>>
>>
>>" And you claim an ability to compute numbers"
>>
>>I made no such claim, sir.
>

> That's sad... you now admit you have no ability to compute numbers.
> Glad we agree with that.

I made no such claim, sir. Lack of a positive does not assert a negative,
sir.

>
>>> Chee... that's stuff you learn in the 7th grade, or earlier.
>>
>>Is that the last time you had any education, sir?
>

> We've already been through this, Sir shit-for-brains... See --
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Maryland.jpg
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Boston.jpg
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Transcript.jpg
>

A lot has changed in 22 years, sir. Of course, it is very easy to fake such
documents and you appear to have no qualifications relating to electrical
engineering, sir.

> See why I accuse you of slander and lies???

You accuse me of a lot of things, sir without knowing anything about me or
being able to back up your accusations. Of course, I find the irony as
funnier as that I find that you confuse slander with libel, sir.

For an "educated" man sir, you truly are stupid.

> Now where are your educational credentials?

In the bottom draw of the desk in my workshop, sir, where they shall stay. I
am under no obligation to show them to you, sir.

>
>>>>> and --
>>>>>
>>>>> cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4
>>>>> x 10^-9) Hz
>>>>>
>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>
>>>>> cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
>>>>>
>>>>> at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>
>>>>> cutoff frequency = -3 db
>>>>
>>>>The question did not ask for the cutoff frequency or the db loss at cut
>>>>of
>>>>frequency. it Asked for the db loss and phase angled at 500 Cs, sir.
>>>
>>> Oh, gee... I must have not RTFQ. I like to solve practical
>>> problems, and knowing the cutoff frequency is more important
>>> than the parameters you asked about.
>>>
>>
>>"I must have not RTFQ"
>>
>>Indeed, sir.
>

> TRANSLATION "Indeed, sir.."
>
> I haven't seen you take a stab at any of my questions 2 or 3, Sir
> shit-for-brains.

That's right sir and there are still three questions you have not answered.

>>
>>You still have not answered your problem, sir.
>

> No.

Because you can't, sir.

>>
>>"Not only can you not solve it"
>>

>>A guess, sir.
>
> That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems
> I asked you to solve. While you can't even formulate your problems
> understandably.
>

"That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems"

That is true, sir. But your problems go deeper that a few numbers, sir.

>>>>Nonsense, sir. Ohms law applies electricity, whether it is DC or AC is
>>>>irrelevent. As AC is contantly in flux then that has to be taken into
>>>>account so impedence and phase angle are calculated.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>There was no denial sir. There was only your apology of a response.
>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie.
>
> So your apology is accepted.

No apology was offered, sir. You're comments in respect to AC and ohms law
were wrong but you don't have the backbone to admit it, sir.

>>You have never proved any, sir.
>

> I've proved that your comments always show you are --
>

No you haven't, sir.

>>
>>You are an idiot, sir. What do you suppose you use to calculate the
>>current
>>through an ac circuit of the voltage across its capacitors or inductors?
>

> Kirchoff's law. Not Ohm's law.

Ohm's Law, you imbecile: E=I/Z is Ohm's law, not Kirchoff's! Do your
research, sir.

>
>>The Black arts? To calculate current, The formula is I=E/Z and to
>>calculate
>>the voltage across an inductor or capacitor the formula is Vl=I*XL and Vc
>>=
>>I*XC respectively.
>

> I = E/R is Ohm's law.

At last, the penny drops, sir.

Despite your ignorance of basic electronics, R
> is not = Z, or = C, or = L. All of which change instantaneously in an
> AC circuit, while R is a constant, and I and E can be computed using
> simple arithmetic, and instantaneous AC cannot be computed using
> simple arithmetic.
>

You moron, sir. Z=impedence, E IS EMF and I is current. Get an education,
sir.

>>"AC circuits are much more complicated than DC circuits"

>>
>>That is something else, we agree on, sir.
>>
>>"You couldn't solve even the easiest of differential equations."
>>
>>You are guessing, sir.
>

> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.

No, sir. The easiest of differential equations include Y=X, Y=1 or Y=X^2
sir.
They are examples of the "easiest", sir.

"You have no idea how to even approach a solution. "

You are guessing again, sir.

>
>>> Kirchoff's law examines "nodes." Because the sum of the current
>>> flowing into any node must equal the sum of the current flowing out of
>>> any node. Both in steady DC and in instantaneous AC current, which
>>> changes depending upon the frequency and other factors, but always
>>> remains instantaneously the sum of the current flowing into that node
>>> equaling the sum of the current flowing out of that node.
>>
>>You should reference a text you copy information from or it's plagiarism,
>>sir.
>

> ROTFLMAO. This is common knowledge within all textbooks that
> examine Kirchoff's law.

There's more to it than that, sir. of course, your feeble attempt at mockery
does not diprove you copied that cite without referencing, sir.

"> It is not plagiarism to relate a scientific fact."

It is if you cite one without refrencing it, sir.

> The only thing you can argue are that my FACTS are wrong... and you
> know you can't do that.

They aren't your facts, sir.

>>>>
>>>>Very longwinded, sir. The correct formula is radians = degrees*pi/180
>>>>Of course you would have spotted that a complete circle is 2pi.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what I wrote, shit-for-brains. Other than I use
>>> 2.14159... an approximation for pi. Here it is again --
>>
>>No, sir you wrote.
>

> And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
> number, and cannot be expressed as a constant.. obviously. While
> we don't concern ourselves with degrees that have more than 6
> digits of accuracy. In fact, degrees in general only have at most
> three digits of accuracy, at which point further accuracy is usually
> stated in minutes, and seconds. Each degree being split up into 60
> minutes, and each minute being split up into 60 seconds.

"And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
> number"

You cannot state that Pi suddently starts with 2 any more than you can
declare the last three digits, sir.
.

>>> rad = degrees x (2.14159... /180)
>>>
>>> See it right above the list of various radians at degrees?
>>
>>the formula for converting degrees to radians is Radians=degrees*pi/180,
>>sir. That is not what you wrote.
>

> See the three dots following 2.14159...? That means in standard
> mathematics that this is an approximation. And it is a completely
> accurate approximation. We're not sending a rocket to Mars, Sir
> shit-for-brains. And you cannot possibly argue that pi is a
> constant. While I clearly showed the various important degrees
> in pi.
>

Pi starts with a 3, sir.

>>"I've been retired longer than you've been living."
>>
>>You're guessing, sir.
>

> And yet you've offered nothing that would refute my guess.

You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.

But
> even the thought that you are older than me, and have yet learned
> so little of life, sends shivers up my spine.

I have already stated that I am younger than you, sir.
Your words were: "I've been retired longer than you've been living."
How old were you when you retired sir?

>
>>> [1] see bottom of post.
>>>>
>>>>It was feeble sir. You got as far as working out the capacitive
>>>>reactance.
>>>>then you went off at a tangent.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>There was no denial, sir. You mucked it up.
>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>

You mucked it up, sir.

>>
>>" knowledgeable when you're not"
>>
>>You're guessing, sir.
>

> And yet you've offered nothing that would disprove my comment.

You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.

>
>>" All in all you screwed it up pretty badly. "
>>
>>It that is what you call screwing up pretty badly then you need a life
>>sir.
>>Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are writing a paper
>>on
>>English language sir.
>

> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
> Aristotle.

Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.

>
>>On newsgroups it's minor at worst and only used as
>>ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their arguments any other
>>way. I am still waiting for your answer to the very SIMPLE problem I gave
>>you.
>

> Heh... More ad hominem to cover up your lack of a proper
> education. See --
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem

Your avoidence of the problem is noted, sir. You are too great a coward to
admit that you cannot do it, sir.

>
>>
>>> "We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your
>>> horn about --
>>>
>>> "I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
>>> and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
>>> algorythm."
>>>
>>> See the quotation marks, shit-for-brains?? What makes you think I'd
>>> be as dumb as you and not know how to spell "theorem," and
>>> "algorithm"?
>>>
>>> There has seldom been a poster to AADP who is more in need of a spell
>>> checker than you, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>
>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>arguments any other way".
>

> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
> Aristotle.

Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.

>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>
>

" I already have more of them then I need "

Well try using them from time to time, sir.

>>>
>>> Heh... the penny drops... And Death Disco is speechless.
>>
>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>

> And yet that's all you have to say.
.
Which is not "speechless", sir. You screwed it up again, sir.

>>> No you didn't.
>>
>>Yes I did, sir.
>

> No you didn't, Sir shit-a-lot.

Yes I did, sir.

>>>
>>>>> If that question was too complicated for you I'll give you an easier
>>>>> one. Since you seem to claim familiarity with differential
>>>>> equations... solve this one. Understand that this is the EASIEST
>>>>> of all differential equation to solve, and is used over and over in
>>>>> solving motion equations related to gravitation -- This one should
>>>>> be a snap for you --
>>>>>
>>>>> Solve the differential equation d²x/dt² = -g
>>>>>
>>>>> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>>>
>>> Heh.. got you going, eh? Gee... my boy... this solution is probably
>>> all over the net. It's a very general differential equation with no
>>> numbers involved... those numbers which always confuse you.
>>>
>>
>>"Heh.. got you going, eh?"
>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>

> Heh heh... and yet not even an attempt. My goodness, DD... it's
> the SIMPLEST differential equation I know of.

It is sir. Then I suggest you learn differential calculus, sir.

>
>>You still have not answered your problem, sir. I have noted your repeated
>>efforts to avoid it.
>

> I don't have time for your bullshit,

Your lack of backbone to admit that it is beyond you has been noted, sir.

>
>>> You can't even pose your questions accurately. But let's take a quick
>>> stab at it --
>>
>>"You can't even pose your questions accurately"
>>Yes I can, sir. We shall see what your answer brings.
>

> "You just admitted you can't."

No I didn't, sir.

You said integration... I ignored it

I noticed that, sir, but did you know I was meaning to type "differentiate",
sir?

> because it made no sense... you realized it made no sense... you
> admitted you didn't pose your question accurately. Chee... what
> else do you want when I have your CONFESSION???

That was after the above comment, sir. Please pay attention.

>
>>> V=pi*R²*H = 1050 cm³
>>>
>>> with R being the radius and H being the height
>>>
>>> so H = 1050/(pi)*R²
>>>
>>> The surface area, including ends is --
>>>
>>> S=2*(pi)R*H + 2*(pi)*R²
>>>
>>> Substituting for H --
>>>
>>> S=2*1050/R + 2*(pi)*R²
>>>
>>> Setting dS/dR = 0 and solving the differential equation for R the
>>> answer is (V/2*(pi))^1/3 = R
>>>
>>> Reducing --> R=(1050/2*(pi))^1/3 = 5.508 cm
>>>
>>> Now that we have R, we can solve for H
>>>
>>> H=1050/(pi*)*R² = 11.017 cm
>>>
>>> Thus the closed cylinder has maximum surface area using minimum
>>> material at :
>>>
>>> Radius = 5.508 cm
>>> Height = 11.017 cm
>>>
>>> V = (pi)*5.508²*11.017 = 1050 cm³
>>>
>>
>>Impressive, sir. Your answer is correct.
>

> No, shit... Dick Tracy...

You do not handle praise very well, sir. I suppose that's because you never
get any.

>now when can we expect you to answer either
> of my questions, after fucking up the answer

Language, sir. I did sir. Nevertheless, I corrected. It is fortunate I was
not submitting it to anyone whose opinion matters. However, I am still

waiting to see you answer the simple problem I set for you. What was the
expression you used? "Overly complicated"

>to a very, very, trivial
> question regarding resonance.

As is this one, sir

"> So when you claimed that my approximation of pi was incorrect you
"> were full of shit.

Is that your proof, sir?

>In this problem, I did use a calculator, rather
> than pen and paper ... and entered pi symbolically, which provided an
> approximation dependent upon the range of the calculator I used. There
> is no such thing as an exact value of pi. They are ALL
> approximations. Thus my response was exactly as yours... an
> approximation! pi is an approximation.

Everyone starts Pi with a three, sir... well except for you that is.

>
>> I shall assume it's your own work.
>

> You can assume anything you wish, Sir shit-for-brains. It's a free
> country. You also assume that "something higher than ourselves,"
> talks to you. Now how about that easy problem with differential
> equations...

Would you rather I assumed that you copied it from a book, sir?

>
> Solve the differential equation d²x/dt² = -g
>
> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>

> Solve it??? I don't even think you know how to even formulate it
> correctly! Let's see... first you need to integrate once with
> respect to "t." How does such a formula LOOK... much less ask you to
> to solve it. v(t) = ???? Come on, Sir shit-for-brains. You're so
> smart... what does the right side of that equation even LOOK LIKE???
> This is high school math. Show me what you got... so you can
> raise those knuckles that drag on the ground, and start thumping
> your chest in mindless hubris. --
>
> v(t) = ???

You haven't solved this one, yet:

>
> If you can't solve that one... I have nothing to prove.
>While
> even if you solve it, it is so simple that I would not even give
> you credit for solving it. There must be at least 10,000 sites
> on the Internet giving the proper notation to that next step.
> You don't answer it, we have determined the level of your
> education and intellect... and found it sorely lacking.
>

Wrong, sir. You have already stated that there is no point to me solving it.
However, if you solve this problem

I might and I mean, "might" overlook that you screwed up ohms law.

>>>>Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40
>>>>ohm,
>>>>calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissapated
>>>>across each line, sir.
>>>
>>> I don't have time for you to throw silly problem after problem at me,
>>> when you can't solve a very simple differential equation.
>>
>>You're guessing sir.
>

> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.

Your puerile attempt to avoid the problem without having the backbone to
admit it has ben noted, sir.

>>>I can
>>> certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>> approach. Just how simple do you expect the problems I offer must be?
>>> Perhaps a little bit of algebra is the limit of your education? Beyes'
>>> Theorem, my ass.
>>
>>" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>> approach"
>>
>>No, you cannot sir.
>

> Sure I can, shit-for-brains. I've already thrown three at you that
> you're afraid to even take a stab at.

There's two I've thrown at you which you haven't answered sir. I have a
third, for you.
You have a paralell tuned circuit with a resistance of 68 ohm, a resonant
frequency of 5khz, and an inductor of 145.4 mH. Calculate the capacitance.

That's three each now, sir.

>
>> Not when you failed to answer the simple DB problem I
>>gave you earlier.
>

> When you learn how to formulate your problems accurately you'll
> get better results. Offering mumbo-jumbo only shows your own
> ignorance.

Your puerile attempt to avoid the problem without having the backbone to
admit it has ben noted, sir.

> Hell... here's one for you that does have a schematic along
> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>

Answer the problem I gave you sir.

> But make up your mind... I thought you claimed it was "accurate" to
> 318310.
>

>>> Once again -- how do you even APPROACH a solution to --
>>>

>>> Find the steady-state temperature distribution in the half-space z
>>> 0 if the temperature distribution u(r,0) = F(r) is maintained on the
>>> bounding plane face z = 0. Assume that F(r) satisfies the conditions
>>> for the existence of its Hankel transform [1]. Show your work.
>>> Your answer should be in the form of u(r,z) = ????
>>>

>>> Come on, smart-ass, what's the FIRST STEP in trying to solve
>>> this problem?
>>>
>>
>>Once again, "Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830
>>ohms,
>>and a capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB
>>loss
>>and the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir."
>>

> Hell... here's one for you that does have a schematic along
> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg

>
>>> So there is no need to throw simple problems at me to cover up your
>>> own ignorance. Differential equations like the one I offered should
>>> be a snap for you. In fact I'm sure you could find the answer on the
>>> Internet.
>>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>>
>>Problems you cannot solve, sir.
>

> Wrong, sport... problems you can't formulate properly, poorly
> translated from some book in Dutch on "antennas." That you
> need to refer to when you try to bring your tin hat into
> resonance to hear the words of "something higher than ourselves,"
> who keeps telling you that "cockroaches have a right to life."
> Does that tin hat really require a 400 V load output?

>
>>You've only managed one and it wasn't an
>>electrical engineering problem sir. That sort of exposes your own
>>ignorance, sir.
>

> Hell... here's a positive electrical engineering problem for you that
> even has a schematic along with the problem. Try to answer this one
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>
> That's the way problems are supposed to be presented... rather than
> the mumbo-jumbo trash that you offer. No wonder you can't
> READ problems accurately... you can't even WRITE them properly.

>
>>> While the problem of finding the steady-state temperature distribution
>>> in the half-space z >0, with the parameters given is a more difficult
>>> problem that you will not find on the Internet. I don't believe even
>>> Earl could solve it. I admit that I couldn't without a _cheat sheet_.
>>>
>>
>>It's hardly a "simple" problem then, sir.
>>

> Yes... but you don't even know the first thing how to start.

>>
>>> But I can "understand" the solution in going through that _cheat
>>> sheet_. I'm quite sure that you couldn't.
>>
>>You're guessing, sir.
>>

> Well, prove it!
>
>
>
> *profound silence from Sir shit-for-brains*

>
>>
>>>I'll even you a hint --
>>> From reading the problem it is clear that the temperature "u" is
>>> independent of the polar angle theta. So we can set our initial
>>> parameters in the form of a differential equation set to zero.
>>> What is that differential equation? I don't even ask you to solve
>>> it. Just explain it in English. No need to show Jacobi delta partial
>>> derivative notation, since it is not a standard text character. Just
>>> explain how you would construct that partial differential that you
>>> would want to set to zero.
>>>
>>
>>Provide me with the references and sources you used and I shall see if I
>>can
>>figure it out but it doesn't read like an electrical engineering problem.
>>It
>>reads like a physics problem.
>

> Give you the source so you can look up the answer? You must be
> joking. However, the title of the source contains the word
> "Engineering."

>
>>>>> However, I have yet to see a single word from you that makes me
>>>>> believe you have received a proper education in the arts, and
>>>>> humanities. I have no idea of your natural given intelligence but it
>>>>> is obvious to me that your nurturing has been greatly injured. I have
>>>>> seldom met anyone with a mind that is so closed as yours is. The test
>>>>> of a man's intellect is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his
>>>>> mind. Yours hasn't even been out for a walk in a very long time.
>>>>> Apparently it is too small and narrow-minded to be let out by itself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"We'll work our way down until we find your level of knowledge"
>>>>
>>>>We have already found yours, sir.
>>>
>>> Which is far above what we've found with yours.
>>
>>A curious statement as you have managed to answer only one problem I posed
>>for you.
>

> While you have correctly answered not a one of mine. Hell... you have
> three waiting for you, and you can't even take a stab at any of them.
> I can keep 'em coming all day long... including putting the circuits
> up in my web page so you can't whine that they are not clear to you.
> As you did when you fucked up the only question I gave you that you
> even TRIED to answer.

>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
>>>>> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
>>>>> at you, sport.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>As I said before, sir. They are pointing directly at you.
>

> Apparently you're also blind.

>
>>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>>
>>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>

> You're insane... by now even you must realize that your trolley has
> jumped the tracks. And that's no guess. That's a clinical diagnosis.

>
>>> Perhaps verbal pictures are too complicated for you, sonny. But this
>>> group is text only. So picture this as your hand pointing at me
>>> in respect to "pot... kettle..." and examine it. See --
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl
>>
>>
>>"Perhaps verbal pictures are too complicated for you, sonny"
>>
>>
>>Basic electrical principles are too complicated for you, evidently sir.
>

> Heh... I haven't seen any picture of electrical principles from you,
> Sir shit-for-brains.
>
> Hell... here's a positive electrical engineering problem for you that
> even has a schematic along with the problem. Try to answer this one
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>
> I've got hundreds of them.

>
>>>>>>I was answering your debate, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're guessing that I'm guessing... which makes your guess nothing
>>>>> but hot air.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, sir. You have no basis to back up your assertions, so they can only
>>>>be
>>>>guesses.
>>>
>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>>
>>
>>Exactly my point, sir. As I said, "You have no basis to back up your
>>assertions, so they can only be guesses"
>>

> You're the one asserting that I'm guessing. Prove it. I've
> got the proof.
>
> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations. You
> have no idea how to even approach a solution. IMO, differential
> equations are far above both your educational level and your
> intellect. You have offered nothing that would prove me wrong
> in my belief. If you did not have the resource of the Internet
> I doubt seriously you could even describe what a differential
> equation even is.

>
>>>>>>It was not a cite, sir, so no reference is required.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"
>>>>
>>>>The word is "cite", sir.
>>>
>>> That's why I followed it with a (sic), you moron. See --
>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sic
>>> Quote -- "Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one
>>> containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in
>>> its original form or written intentionally."
>>>
>>
>>"That's why I followed it with a (sic), "
>>
>>Which was incorrectly placed sir.
>

> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains. It was placed quite accurately. Since
> both your use of "site" and your misspelling of "inadmissible,"
> required mention that it was garbage English.

>>
>>> Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both
>>> "cite" and "inadmissible" in your original comment as
>>> shown. I'm just showing your inability to spell check your
>>> comments, when they desperately need spell checking. See --
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/735c577f27d0b75f
>>> Look for it down at the bottom of your own message,
>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>
>>"Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both "cite""
>>
>>
>>
>>No Didn't sir.
>

> Yes, you did, Sir shit-for-brains. I've even shown you the
> proof that exists in your own words that you posted to AADP.
> Once again, because you seem deaf, dumb and blind when
> I show PROOF... See --

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/735c577f27d0b75f
> Look for it down at the bottom of your own message,

> Sir shit-for-brains.
>
> How's it feel to be caught lying again??? Man, I'm getting rich
> off you... that's another ten spot my friend owe me.

>
>>> You know there are FREE spell-checkers available on
>>> the Internet. You should use one. Just search Google
>>> for "free spell checker."
>>
>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>arguments any other way".
>

> You can say it forever, and it won't for a single second hide your
> shown ignorance of the English language.
>
> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
> Aristotle. You only show your lack of an education when you try to
> defend your ignorance that shows in your words, Sir shit-for-brains.
> You're one of the few posters to Usenet who seems proud of his
> lack of an education, insisting I can't point it out.

>
>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>

> And yet that's all you have to say. Repetitive mindless drivel. A
> very sad commentary on your ignorance of the English language,
> as you attempt denial while having rolled yourself up in the fetal
> position in a corner of your dark room.

>>
>>>>
>>>>No I don't sir. Wait a can hear your voice now. It's a high pitched
>>>>meaningless whine.
>>>
>>> No... that's the sound of those cockroaches that you protect from
>>> being "murdered" (sic). ROTFLMAO. Death Disco --> AADP's
>>> cockroach protector. Won't let anything harm his "poor
>>> innocent cockroach," insisting that killing a cockroach is defined
>>> as "murder" to him.
>>>
>>
>>"No"
>>
>

> Yes.

>
>>It's definately your voice, sir.
>

> Too bad your comment only again displays your ignorance of the
> English language. It can only take so much abuse, you know?
> Soon she will bite you back... the word is spelled "definitely," Sir
> shit-for-brains. A Thesaurus would have showed you that. Why
> don't you buy one?

>
>>> In any case, your argument when put into logical terms is "x is
>>> something higher than ourselves." and "x is an unknown." But
>>> you know that "x is something higher than ourselves," So
>>> "x is not unknown to Death Disco." qed -- Death Disco claims to
>>> "know the unknown."
>>
>>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.
>

> But you said you _know_ it. You said it was "something higher
> than ourselves." Well, how could that be if you didn't hear it from
> "it"? Who told you? Oh, wait... it's that Bible talking to you
> again... never mind.
>
>>
>>Simple logic, sir.
>
> ROTFLMAO. Doesn't that word stick in your craw, considering you
> have no idea what it really means???

>
>>>>>>> Quite right... so why do you keep claiming cites without references,
>>>>>>> shit-for-brains?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> You did so just above, shit-for-brains.
>>>>
>>>>No I didn't, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie. I'm simply pointing out that your
> entire argument is based upon denial of what you've clearly
> argue... it's that two-faced nature of yours.

>
>>>
>>> Yes, you did, shit-for-brains. Of course you did. Your words are
>>> still shown above.. The words "You change them, sir." That's an
>>> unfounded accusation, and an assertion lacking a referenced cite
>>> is inadmissible. Why do you continue to lie? Are you simply a
>>> pathological liar, are you simply stupid, or what is the reason
>>> you need to lie?
>>>
>>"Yes, you did".
>>
>>No I didn't, sir.
>

> See above... PROOF positive. Poor ol' Sir shit-for-brains... caught
> in yet another lie.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No you don't, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I do. You most certainly insisted there is this "right to life"
>>>>> for all biological life, especially cockroaches." And you insisted
>>>>> that you KNOW this because of "something higher than ourselves."
>>>>> Which you insist is an UNKNOWN. Yet you argue that you do
>>>>> know it, otherwise how would you have come into that information
>>>>> from the one you claim gave that very "right to life to cockroaches"?
>>>>> It's simple logic... you're the one who argued it exists. You're the
>>>>> who argued it comes from "something higher than ourselves."
>>>>> Well how can you have come into that information about a "right
>>>>> to life for cockroaches" if you did not heard it from the very person
>>>>> you claim is responsible for it? Who told you if not that "something
>>>>> higher than ourselves"? Does "it" have special "angels" that talk to
>>>>> you, passing you messages second-hand from "something higher than
>>>>> ourselves"? Further you said it is an "unknown." Well, how the hell
>>>>> do you know of it, if it's an "unknown"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Yes, I do."
>>>>
>>>>No you don't, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie.

>>>
>>> Answer the question. Given that there is proof that you claim to know
>>> of "something higher than ourselves," and you claim that it is an
>>> "unknown," how do you know it is "something higher than ourselves,"
>>> if it is "unknown"? You argue along the lines of A = 5, but A =
>>> "unknown," except YOU know that A =5.
>>>
>>
>>"Given that there is proof that you claim to know of "something higher
>>than
>>ourselves,"
>>
>>
>>No I don't sir.
>

> So now you're denying that there is "something higher than
> ourselves"??? Good grief, Sir shit-for-brains... your whole rotted
> Bible-thumping empire is crumbling down. Next thing we know you'll
> begin arguing that a man's life is worth more than the life of a
> cockroach.

>
>>>>> Obviously you've just piled lie upon lie upon lie. And now even deny
>>>>> you wrote it... but I have the evidence. See --
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fc1729e6f9101be5
>>>>> Here it is, sport... your words enshrined forever in Google. Proof
>>>>> that you stated -- "We do not have the to (sic) say who has the right
>>>>> to life. That honour is strictly owned by something higher than
>>>>> ourselves." And when I asked how you came about this information
>>>>> in my words -- "Who would that be?" You responded in one word -
>>>>> "Unknown." See --
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/92a6b831782818bf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should
>>>>not
>>>>be allowed to play.
>>>
>>> [2] see bottom of post. While it is "play" rather than any need to
>>> put any effort into it to grind your paedomorphic arguments to dust.
>>
>>
>>That explains why you keep losing, sir.
>>

> Haven't lost any money yet, Sir shit-for-brains. BTW --
> Here's a positive electrical engineering problem for you that even
> has a schematic along with the problem. Try to answer this one
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>
> I've got hundreds of them. Educate yourself. At my age, if it were
> not for the words of Aristotle I would not need further education.
> But as Aristotle wrote -- "All men by nature desire to know." It's
> what separates us from your "poor creature," the cockroach.
> Right now I'm trying to plumb the depths of your ignorance of
> all things... and I have yet to sound bottom.

>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>" If it's "unknown," sport... how do you KNOW it?"
>>>>
>>>>I do not, sir.
>>>
>>> Ah, but you said it is "something higher than ourselves." How
>>> do you know there is "something" and how do you know whether
>>> that imaginary "something" is "higher" or "lower" than
>>> ourselves? If it's an "unknown" you can't possibly know
>>> that it is "something," or "higher or lower than ourselves."
>>
>>
>>
>>"How do you know there is "something" "
>>
>>
>>
>>I do not, sir. It is unknown.
>

> And yet... you claim to "know." Quite an enigma. But then your
> Bible often does present enigmas. Like it announces that it "knows"
> Jesus is _the son of God_. and you know there is "something
> higher than ourselves." Although you've never seen or touched
> "it"... so someone or something must have told you about "it."
> We are not BORN with the idea that there is "something higher
> than ourselves." Quite the contrary... the id presumes there is
> nothing higher than our personal self. Thus it is not a "natural"
> object, that we can touch and feel.

>
>>>> If I did then it wouldn't be unknown therefore it would be
>>>>known but it's unknown. Am I going too fast for you, sir?
>>>
>>> Shit, son... you drove off the track days ago. You certainly
>>> insisted it was "known" to you as "something higher than
>>> ourselves." Was "it" in the shape of an Easter Bunny, or Santa
>>> Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? Did "it" have a big halo on its
>>> head? Was "it" thumping the Bible in tune with your thumping?
>>> Did "it" have the body of a cockroach and the head of bin Laden?
>>> The world wants to know... and only you claim to "know."
>>
>>"Shit, son"
>>
>>I shall take that as a yes.
>

> Take it any way you want to... it's a free country... and you are free
> to be as ignorant and uneducated as you desire. If you feel like
> me telling you your argument is shit, is a "yes," that only shows
> who's the real idiot.

>
>>>>>>No, sir. The BRITISH word is "Mummy". "Mommy" is not used here. I know
>>>>>>because I live here, sir. You do not, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass that you live in the U.K. I live in the
>>>>> U.S., and if I want to use words that are from the U.S. you'll
>>>>> just have to suck it up like a man. Now address the issue of
>>>>> your xenophobia, which is showing in your claim that I have
>>>>> to use YOUR particular wording... when you can't even spell!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post.
>>>
>>>>That is irrelevant, sir. You only know American English (sic), sir.
>>>
>>> Hey.. you finally tried to use a (sic). I'm impressed.
>>> But you still haven't grasped the idea behind it because
>>> "American English" is spoken by as many English speaking
>>> humans, as is "U.K. English."
>>>
>>
>>"Hey.. you finally tried to use a (sic)."
>>
>>
>>You wrong again, sir. I did not try to use a '(sic)'; I used a (sic)
>

> Yeah... but you didn't use it correctly, so you only "tried" to
> use it. The word English is a proper word in the English
> language. While it is only your xenophobia and native-tongue
> of Tigrinya that takes closed-minded offense at the term
> "American English."

>
>>> Now if you could only learn and try to "remember" what you
>>> learn about the Holocaust.
>>
>>I learn what a need about the holocaust from those who do "remember" it
>>sir,
>>and not some anally retentive American who was nowhere near the "shit when
>>it hit the fan".
>

> ROTFLMAO... That from the guy who denied the Holocaust.
> What humongous chutzpah (look it up in your tiny pocket
> English dictionary, Sir shit-for-brains).

>
>>>
>>> There are relatively few changes in spelling between UK
>>> English and U.S. English, while both have their separate
>>> idioms and slang expressions. I'm familiar with just
>>> about all UK idioms and slang expressions, and sometimes
>>> I even use them... but in the end I'm American... and
>>> you are xenophobic.
>>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>>
>>> The argument that only the English spoken and written in the UK
>>> can be used in AADP, is simply another manifestation of your
>>> xenophobia. I prefer to use the English that I learned in my
>>> primary education. Why don't you do the same and disappear
>>> to a site where Tigrinya is the language used?
>>
>>>
>>> It's tragicomic that someone like you, with such a feeble grasp of any
>>> form of the English language, should have the cheek to
>>> insist upon what one can or cannot offer in respect to the recognized
>>> English language in the U.S. I ignore a great deal of spelling
>>> errors and grammatical mistakes, except when one uses his own
>>> grammatical mistakes or spelling errors in either personally
>>> attacking me in ad hominem, or offering the most illogical
>>> arguments, or just outright lying.
>>>
>>
>>Pot? Pot? This is kettle; colour check please.
>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/hypocrite
>

> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back

> at you, "pot." See --
> http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl

>
>>>>> This group was created by a poster now long gone named
>>>>> "Etan Ben-Ami" in 1993. He was a member of the "National
>>>>> Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty," and as far as I know
>>>>> was not European, since that coalition is based in Washington,
>>>>> D.C. There is no recognized body that has ruled that U.K.
>>>>> English is the only language permitted in AADP. Nonetheless,
>>>>> I don't correct you when you use the spelling of "honour," while in
>>>>> the U.S. it is spelled "honor." If you insist we use YOUR type of
>>>>> spelling that is xenophobia. I am open minded and you can
>>>>> use either U.K. English or U.S. English. I just wish you'd use
>>>>> it CORRECTLY!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I do, sir. You are the fellow who repeatedly attempts to redefine words,
>>>>sir.
>>>
>>> Wrong, sport. I have your words -- "if i do not approve of a
>>> definition I simply choose not to use it." Now that's attempting
>>> to "redefine" words insisting that only YOUR definitions apply.
>>> And then you had the chutzpah to say in more of your double-speak --
>>> "The dictinary (sic) definition is just a string of words to you,
>>> apparently."
>>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>Which you have proved on every occasion
>

> Well, finally you admit the truth.

>
>>> Apparently "dictinary" (sic) definitions are NOT EVEN "a string of
>>> words to you," since you admit you ignore definitions that expose your
>>> ignorance
>>
>
>>Oh, dear sir. that's worthy of three. Those three are:.
>>
>>
>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>arguments any other way".
>

> You only show your lack of an education when you try to
> defend your ignorance that shows in your words, Sir shit-for-brains.
> You're one of the few posters to Usenet who seems proud of his
> lack of an education, while insisting I can't point it out.

>
>> Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>

> I already have more of them then I need to handle the likes of
> you. It's stunningly farcical and grotesque for you to say that I
> should invest in a Thesaurus, when you insisted that if you don't like
> a definition you don't accept it.
>
> <fx: Death Disco rushes to his pocket English dictionary to look
> up the meaning of the word "farcical." Believing it has something
> to do a cycle that goes a long distance>
>
> And yet that's all you have to say. A very sad attempt at denial
> while you have rolled yourself up in the fetal position in a corner
> of your dark room.
>>
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/psychotic
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

>
>>Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should
>>not
>>be allowed to play.
>>

> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same ol' mindless drivel???

>
> Really, little boy, if you cannot win an argument you should

> not try to claim victory by calling the other a liar with no proof.

>
>>>>> However, let's again be frank... it would not matter if I did oppose
>>>>> the U.S. Death Penalty, since my argument with you is about your
>>>>> Holocaust denial, your racist comments and your underlying
>>>>> stupidity (which I hope is not genetic but rather a product of
>>>>> cruel and unusual nurturing).
>>>>
>>>>"my argument with you is about your Holocaust denial, "
>>>>
>>>>I have made no such denial, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>

> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same ol' mindless drivel???
>
> You're insane... by now even you must realize that your trolley has
> jumped the tracks. Reading your lengthy repetitive drivel is like
> staring at a cow for forty-five minutes of my life.

>
>>>
>>> Of course you have. Your words -- "You do not remember what is not in
>>> your memory and it is not in your memory if you did not experience or
>>> witness it first hand." And more of your words -- "You cannot forget
>>> or remember the extermination of 6 million jews (sic) unless you
>>> remember them." And more of your words -- "You cannot forget or
>>> remember the extermination of 6 million jews (sic) unless you remember
>>> them and to remember them you must have experienced them first hand."
>>> And then asserting as some kind of fact that the JEWS could
>>> "remember" the Holocaust -- "Only if they were there, dear fellow."
>>> Now that's insisting that OTHERS cannot "remember" the Holocaust,
>>> which is absolutely clear "Holocaust denial."
>>
>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>>
>>
>>
>>No I haven't, sir.
>

> Yes, you have. Anyone can see it if they look at your words. You
> cannot deny FACT.

>>
>>>
>>> Clearly arguments meant to insist that no one should remember the
>>> Holocaust unless they actually TOOK PART IN IT, as either a Nazi, or a
>>> Jew are meant to deny the Holocaust. I remember you also wrote in
>>> great hypocrisy -- "The events of that atroicity (sic) are long since
>>> over and those who commited (sic) them are also gone. Our best chance
>>> is to learn from it, but we won't." Well, shit, sport... How can we
>>> "learn from it," when you insist we cannot even "remember it"???
>>>
>>> Not since Janus have we seen a more two-faced poster to AADP than
>>> you are. And that's a looong time ago. After the Greeks... but I
>>> "remember" the Romans.
>>
>>
>>Your logic is erroneous, sir.
>
>

> ROTFLMAO. Doesn't that word stick in your craw, considering you
> have no idea what it really means???
>
> Your arguments take on the method of arguing that -
>
> Joe is the father of Tom
> Tom is the father of Sam
> So Joe is the father of Sam!
>
> Sophism where the deception lies hidden in the for of the
> presumed syllogism. You'll have to look up the big words,
> Sir shit-for-brains.

>
>>>
>>>>"your racist comments "
>>>>
>>>>I have made no racist comments, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
> I've already proven why I believe you are a racist. You certainly
> hope to protect racists by insisting that there is no "Black race,"
> thus there cannot be racism against something that doesn't exist.

>
>>>
>>> Of course you have... Your words -- "There are no blacks," and
>>> your words " I've never met a person who has black skin," and
>>> your words "I've never met one because there aren't any." Denying
>>> there is a definition of a "Black" race, and hoping to challenge the
>>> fact that racism is used against that "Black" race. A race you insist
>>> does not exist, thus racism cannot exist against someone who
>>> is Black... because NO ONE is Black according to you. That's one of
>>> the more innovative attempts to challenge the argument that racism
>>> exists I've seen in some time.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Of course you have"
>>
>>No I haven't sir.
>

> LOL... I show it... and you deny it. How many lies do you intend
> to heap upon other lies?

>
>>"There are no blacks,"
>>
>>Is not racist, dear fellow.. Are you unable to distinguish brown from
>>black,
>>sir? Are you colour blind or just a short sighted old fool?
>

> It's a cover for racism. If there are no Blacks, your argument is
> that it is impossible for anyone to be racist against a race that
> doesn't exist. You can't follow the dots when I connect them
> for you.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Others, knowing the English language far better than you, expressed
>>> astonishment at your comment. I do more than that... I call
>>> a spade a spade in AADP. And I have seldom found comments more
>>> racially offensive than dismissing an entire race of humans, as
>>> if they have no "real existence."
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee... how did you "remember" all that, given that you've stated --
>>>>> "You do not remember what is not in your memory and it is not in your
>>>>> memory if you did not experience or witness it first hand."
>>>>>
>>>>> You actually experienced or witnessed the Greeks??? You naughty boy,
>>>>> you!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Remember what, sir? Are you still clutching at straws?
>>>>
>>> Well, you "remembered" there were the Greeks. But I like the way you
>>> refer to wikipedia, and then dismiss it as inaccurate when I refer to
>>> it. More of your two-faced arguments, accompanied by a juicy
>>> assortment of your lies.
>>>
>>

> http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/europe/hegemony.html
>
> So you had to look it up. ROTFLMAO. While you still have
> no idea what it means or how to apply it to an argument.

>>
>>There still are Greeks, sir. You can find them in Greece.
>

> I'm sure you've had "contact" and have "experienced them
> first hand." But spare us the sordid details, while I'm sure you
> "remember" them. This is a family oriented newsgroup.

>
>>>>>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite true... so why did you claim that you're a blockhead?
>>>>
>>>>I did not, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>>

> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same ol' mindless drivel???
>
> Oh, well -- It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when
> it is obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your
> implication.

>
>>> Now.... now... don't get angry... Of course you did. You recognized
>>> that I had clipped your words, and you accepted that I had, in the
>>> words I had offered, Sir Blockhead.
>>>
>>
>>There are certainly involuntary muscle movements occuring sir. They are a
>>result of my laughter,
>

> More like the involuntary muscle movements of your sphincter in
> fear...

>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you cannot argue without lying then you should not be allowed to
>>>>>>>>play
>>>>>>>>at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep offering cites without references, shit-for-brains?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not, sir.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO... It's too late, sport... you already turned in your
>>>>> examination without offering cites or references. Trying to do
>>>>> it now... is locking the barn door after the cows have moved on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No I didn't sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>
>

> Chee.... It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it
> is obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>
> You're a broken record... and do so because you can't raise a
> reasonable contradiction to my proofs.

>
>>>
>>> Yes, you did, sport... Here it is again... See --
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/71dc5a37c3ec1e13
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>No I did not, "sport".
>

> Look at the proof, Sir shit-for-brains.

>
>>> This comment of yours predates any correction you might have had
>>> after taking a piss. Notice in your comment you CHANGE the
>>> parameter given in the question. It doesn't matter that what you
>>> provided was the exact speed of light in a vacuum. It was a question
>>> in which calculators, and references were not permitted. If you had
>>> used pen and paper you would still be scratching your head in
>>> trying to figure it out, and guessing at the exact speed of light in
>>> a vacuum rather than RTFQ. Kids of today don't know how to add and
>>> subtract without a calculator. You go to a grocery store, and the
>>> bill is $3.50 and you give the teen-age cashier $5.50, and she looks
>>> like you're crazy because you gave her the $0.50 and it doesn't
>>> compute in her brain. She only knows how to enter something
>>> higher than the charge, and knows only that $5.00 is enough.
>>> She needs the register to do her arithmetic for her, and suspects
>>> you're trying to give her a tip.
>>>
>>
>>" It was a question
>>> in which calculators, and references were not permitted"
>>
>>
>>
>>My dear, good fellow; you do not have any authority to tell me what tools
>>to
>>use to solve a problem.
>

> Rubbish. All testers have the authority to tell those who take tests
> what sources and assets are available to the student. Chee... have
> you ever ACTUALLY taken a test? Sometimes you even have
> to use the pencil THEY provide, and cannot use your own.

>
>>If I choose to use a calculator or a cite then or
>>even an abacus or even a Cray then that is my choice and you have no say
>>in
>>the matter, sir.
>

> And in doing so managed to fuck up the answer... didn't you?
> That was a big laugh. All those flipping numbers... and you end
> up with the wrong result in terms of the parameters stated in the
> problem. I had a big laugh with that one. Smart-ass overload.

>
>>>>> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
>>>>> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
>>>>> at you, sport.
>>>>
>>>>No, dear fellow. They all point at you.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>

> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mindless drivel?
> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.

>>
>>> You're the one pointing the finger at me with "pot... kettle...
>>> black," shit-for-brains. Wait... this is too complicated for you.
>>> Imagine that this is your hand... I hope this picture helps you...
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl
>>
>>
>>
>>"You're the one pointing the finger at me with "pot... kettle...
>>> black"
>>
>>
>>
>>Fingers, sir. Plural.
>

> More of your illogical inventions of words not used. In any
> case, you don't even understand the concept of "plural" in the
> English language, having screwed up the argument about
> "one having an opinion."

>
>>> Check out those three fingers of YOUR hand.
>>
>>
>>I have a total of five digits on each hand and I am pointing them at you,
>>even the thumb.
>

> That would be you waving goodbye to every brain you've ever had.

>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>You believe in a god, sir?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the word "if" (a conditional clause) too complicated for you? IF
>>>>> you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird.
>>>>
>>
>>"Is the word "if" (a conditional clause)"
>>
>>Yes it is sir.
>

> Well, then... wake up!!

>
>>"IF you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird"
>>
>>
>>
>>I could fly in an aeroplane, sir.
>

> No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you. If you
> could jump on the back of one of your dragons, he could
> fly... but YOU'LL never be able to fly. English is much too
> complicated for you. You CANNOT fly. You can TAKE
> an airplane, and IT will fly you to whatever destination
> you've paid to go to. And that's it. You can flap your
> arms as hard as you want... and you will not fly.
>
> In any case... read my word, Sir shit-for-brains. It refers
> to BIRDS... and doesn't even say that YOU can't fly but
> that IF you were a bird you could fly. But, given that
> you also hear voices I suspect you also believe you can be
> transmogrified into a bird, simply by stepping into the
> teleporter from StarTrek. Perhaps a carrion eating bird...
> it would certainly be apposite (look that word up in your handy
> pocket English dictionary).

>
>>>>I ended my comment with a question mark, sir. I was asking you a
>>>>question.
>>>
>>> Well... I don't believe in a God. Certainly not one who figures that
>>> all biological life, down to viruses and mosquitoes must be given some
>>> "right to life." Nor do I consider cockroaches to be equal to human
>>> beings as you have insisted.
>>>
>>
>>"I don't believe in a God"
>>
>>You don't, sir? Then why do you keep asking it to strike me down?
>

> Are you still confused about the word "if," Sir shit-for-brains???
> But trust me... if would no big loss to humanity. Although
> cockroaches might attend your funeral. With cockroaches,
> mourning the loss of their "champion," who insists they are
> each the equal of a human being, up to the neck of everyone
> around it. No greater love hath man... than Death Disco for
> the cockroach.

>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I have not killed anyone sir.
>>>
>>> So that's your excuse for the slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa????
>
>>
>>You perceive that innocence is an excuse? Curious.
>

> When you're part of the problem!!! Let's see... there were close
> to a million Tutsis slaughtered by Hutus supported by French
> weapons and French diplomatic and military assistance.
> How many cockroaches are those close to a million Tutsis
> WORTH to YOU??? No equivocating now... just give me a
> number of how many cockroaches you would "murder" (sic)
> to save those close to a million Tutsis? You see why you're
> part of the problem??? It's because you're afraid to answer
> when you have already answered: that to you one cockroach
> is worth EXACTLY one human... no more... no less.

>
>>> The problem is you are two-faced. You accuse all Americans
>>> of being involved in killings elsewhere, while you ignore the
>>> genocide perpetrated by your own people.
>>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/psychotic
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl

>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>
>>My own people, sir? I believe that I never revealed who my people are.
>

> Oh... so you're ABOVE the human race. Now your other arguments
> make perfect sense. You're psychotic!! And xenophobic as well.

>
>>>>>>>> In perspective, your people have had thier fair share
>>>>>>>>of bloodshed, sir.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you remember that? Did you experience the U.S 300 years ago?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's called "an education", sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you've never received an "education" about the Holocaust. And then
>>>>> you wonder why I pity the lack of nurturing you have received in
>>>>> your life
>>>>
>>>>I received much education about the holocaust, sir.
>>>
>>> Yet you insist you "remember" NOTHING. And charge everyone else
>>> with your diktat that _no one_ can remember unless they "experienced
>>> it first hand." That's not an "education," when you take a nap during
>>> lessons.
>>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>
>>I do remember nothing.
>
> How true!! Oh course you don't. You've demonstrated that in just the
> past few days, when you forget what you wrote, and then lie in
> denying you wrote it. But the word "do" was unnecessary, since
> it doesn't alter your claim that "I remember nothing."

>
>> I wasn't at the holocaust. I do remember much of my
>>education, however.
>

> You mean arithmetic. Big deal. But again we have your
> two-faced claim. 1) You state "I do remember NOTHING."
> and then you state 2) "I do remember much of my education."
>
> Which is it???

>
>>
>>>>> See above... Be sure to ask the Pope to bless you for saving the lives
>>>>> of murderers... I understand he doesn't give a fuck about Blacks in
>>>>> Africa either.... just like you.
>>>>
>>>>I care not for the pope, sir.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. You have ever right to deny it... but I have
>>> every right to not believe you. For all anyone knows, you may
>>> believe that he is that "something higher than ourselves," that
>>> you insist has given "the right to life to all biological life."
>>
>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>That is your problem, sir.
>

> How can the fact that you insist you hear voices from "something
> higher than ourselves," possibly be MY problem?

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>
>>Oh please, sir. Once cannnot watch the news without hearing about someone
>>your people bombed.
>>
>

> "In respect to the death penalty"!!! Can't you ever read my words
> without distorting them, and lying about it???
>
> If you're on one of your anti-American pouting tantrums there are many
> sites that will accommodate you. But clearly, Europe, living in the
> glass house that it does, should not be throwing stones at the U.S.
> The 20th Century was the bloodiest century in the history of
> mankind. And what continent was responsible for that blood???
>
> I'll be the last one to deny the failures of U.S. foreign policy for
> the past 40 years. When can we see you admit that Europe was
> responsible for the bloodiest slaughter in the history of man
> during the 20th Century???

>
>>> While Europe continues to fancy Africa as part of her colonial
>>> empire, and will commit murder and genocide if doing so can
>>> maintain hegemony over the indigenous population and the
>>> mineral resources of Africa.
>>
>>Your xenophobia is showing again, sir.
>

> Actually it's Europe's xenophobia, in hoping to maintain hegemony
> (look up the word and see what it means, rather than just using
> it in your mindless drivel) in Africa... as if Africa is a "European
> colony." See --
> http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/europe/hegemony.html

>
>>>
>>> We had war declared on us, and our sovereign territory invaded
>>> and taken over, when Iranians stormed our embassy and kept
>>> diplomatically protected American citizens as hostages. I
>>> would have had no problem with declaring war on Iran, and
>>> invading that country regardless of what might have happened
>>> to those hostages. Iran needed to be taught a harsh lesson
>>> about diplomatic immunity, and the sovereignty of embassies.
>>> Khomeini was the "supreme leader" of Iran, and his single
>>> comment of "release them," would have resulted in instant
>>> release... instead he supported the storming of that sovereign
>>> embassy, and taking those with diplomatic immunity into
>>> hostages. That was a clear act of war. And Europe stood
>>> silent, refusing to condemn Iran... because of a thing called
>>> "oil."
>>>
>>> As it was, our milksop president at the time, Jimmy Carter, instead
>>> wasted lives in a crude attempt to rescue those hostages which
>>> would not have been successful even if there was not that disaster
>>> with the helicopters. Don't tell me about doing things OUR way.
>>>
>>
>>As I said, your country is as knee deep in blood as everyone else, sir.
>

> So that excuses "everyone else"??? While historically you're totally
> full of shit... and I've proved it by listing how deep the blood has
> ran in Europe.
>
> I'll be the last one to deny the failures of U.S. foreign policy for
> the past 40 years. We have always been an agrarian country
> and found ourselves ill equipped politically to be the only country
> following WW II, with the military might to stand between democracy
> and slavery of the masses. When can we see you admit that
> Europe was responsible for the bloodiest slaughter in the history of
> man during the 20th Century??? Had that not happened...
> the U.S. would never have foolishly taken various ill advised
> foreign ventures. Cause... then effect.

>
>>>>>>> However, you've certainly left me ROTFLMAO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Puerile, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I see
>>
>>>>Are pretty clouds, people picking mushrooms, the world speaking American
>>>>English (sic), your nuclear weapons looming threateningly over the
>>>>world's
>>>>populace sir and the electric chair warmed up, sir
>>>
>>> Apparently you're off your meds, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>>Maybe I can borrow some of yours, sir.
>

> Oh, gee... I'm shattered.. poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
> an original thought in his head and simply uses the typical "you
> to," as some kind of excuses for his psychotic behavior.

> And you, Sir shit-for-brains - like showing off your ignorance of all
> things. You could do with a few books of your own, rather than that
> dusty ol' Bible and your pocket English dictionary.

>
>>> In any case, if I were to cite any books in my library as a reference
>>> you would petulantly pout that it was an "unreferenced" (sic) cite.
>>> Thus, the only real references available are those on the Internet.
>>> Such as free dictionaries (which I've used to pummel your arguments
>>> into fine dust), and sources of information, one of which is
>>> wikipedia.
>>>
>

> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mindless drivel?
> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.

>>
>>You are welcome to do so, sir as long as you reference them correctly.
>

> I don't need your "permission" for anything, Sir shit-for-brains. And
> my references are ALWAYS totally accurate. I recall when you were
> too stupid to even follow one of my cite, necessitating offering a
> half-dozen more for you to select from. While you are also
> welcome to spread as much poison toward the human race as you
> desire. And you don't need my permission to do so.

>
>>>>>>I'm
>>>>>>amazed. We shall see how long it takes you to catch up. Not long I'd
>>>>>>wager.
>>>>>>You seem to be invading everybody and you still have the barbaric
>>>>>>death
>>>>>>penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you still have the cursed genocide of close to a million innocent
>>>>> Tutsis brought by a European power who wants to maintain French
>>>>> hegemony in Africa. You know what Mitterand said about those
>>>>> million murdered innocent Tutsis... murdered with French complicity,
>>>>> providing arms to the Hutus... urging them to get on with the
>>>>> massacre??? He is quoted as saying -- "in such countries, genocide is
>>>>> not too important." Nice leaders you elect. You curse us for
>>>>> electing Bush, and it turns out that Mitterand was responsible for at
>>>>> least 20 times the deaths that Bush and Blair are responsible for.
>>>>> Every time I mention this... Europeans posting here suddenly turn
>>>>> deaf, dumb, and blind.
>>>>
>>>>"And you still have the cursed genocide of close to a million innocent
>>>>> Tutsis brought by a European power who wants to maintain French
>>>>> hegemony in Africa"
>>>>
>>>>No I don't sir.
>>>
>>> Yes... you do, Sir Double-Speak.
>>
>>No I don't, sir.
>

> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/psychotic
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl

>
> Yes... you do, Sir Double-Speak.
>
>>>>>

>>>>>>> <fx: Death Disco stares wide eyed with open mouth gaping at proof
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the long history of European hate for each other>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>
>>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.

>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>>>>Are you getting angry sir?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah... when I see someone offer an insulting lie, it makes me angry
>>>>> and also full of pity for someone who needs to use lies and smears in
>>>>> methods so sneaky and smarmy. It reminds me OF others who used
>>>>> the same type of lies in the 1930s, insisting there were those who
>>>>> were not _praying to Jesus_ but to a "God" that wanted them to
>>>>> conspire to rule the world. That led to the greatest blood-bath our
>>>>> species has ever witnessed. Of course, you insist you "don't remember
>>>>> it."
>>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post.
>>>>
>>>>Then you concern yourself too much with the thoughts of other people
>>>>sir.
>>>
>>> I do not abide horse-shit. Nor do I abide racism. Nor do I abide
>>> Holocaust denial. Nor do I abide lying. You've demonstrated every
>>> one of those arguments I do not abide, Sir shit-for-brains. Just a
>>> few of the devious methods you have used include malice, craftiness,
>>> and duplicity. Plus you are a congenital liar, and a fraud from snout
>>> to tail.
>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>It's not for you to abide it or condemn it, sir.
>

> Who are you to tell me what I can do? Is this more of your
> God-complex speaking?

>
>> Other people's political
>>views are not your business.
>

> Who are you to tell me what is or is not my business, given this
> is Usenet, and not a closed political meeting of cigar-smoking
> swindlers? Is this more of your God-complex speaking? Are
> you acting as the guard for that closed political meeting?

>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>>
>>
>>
>>So why do you do it so often, sir? Why are you such a hipocrite?
>

> Such a what??? Good grief... but you ARE ignorant of the
> English language. You might as well throw away that pocket
> English dictionary... it's not doing you any good. Obviously
> you believe you've learned a new word... while your middle
> name is "hypocrite."
>
> Misusing English is bad enough... but you're trying to assassinate
> it.

>
>>>>How typically American of you. Others' opinions are none of your
>>>>business,
>>>>sir.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. Such trash implies that anyone can say anything and no one
>>> can voice disapproval of what they say. You are claiming that a
>>> "freedom of speech" implies no "freedom to refute." That's how the
>>> Nazis took power.. and took away power from the people. A time
>>> comes when silence is betrayal to one's own moral instincts. You'd
>>> like nothing better than to silence those who oppose your rather sick
>>> views.
>>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>
>>
>>No, it is not, "Rubbish", sir.
>

> Okay... have it your way... it's INSANITY!! Is that better??

>
>> People like you surreptitiously practice
>>fascism, sir. The same sport your Nazi friends practiced
>

> ROTFLMAO. That from the guy who denies the Holocaust.
> How can you even mention "Nazi," given you insist you
> can't remember them if you didn't "experience them first
> hand." Where you a Nazi? Are you a neo-Nazi?? Don't
> forget you defended the Nazis in arguing you can't "remember"
> if the Nazis did anything harmful in WW II, because you
> didn't "experience it first hand."
>
> You really think name-calling bothers me, when I have the
> evidence of YOUR HOLOCAUST DENIAL!!!

>
>>>>>>"You pray to a god to strike me down for correcting your English, sir?
>>>>>>Hardly the response of an athiest."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is not a lie, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish. I said "If there were a "God." You expect that to mean I
>>>>> pray to such an imaginary "God." So I suppose if I wrote "If you
>>>>> were a Nazi," that would mean that you pray to the Nazis. You
>>>>> need an intense mental examination... and I am dead serious about
>>>>> that. I think you miss your mommy... being away from home for
>>>>> the first time in your young life.
>>>>
>>>>You imagine there is a god, sir. You prayed for it to strike me down,
>>>>sir..
>>>
>>> Really, little boy, if you cannot win an argument you should
>>> not try to lie your way out of losing it. It's just another logical
>>> fallacy you use -- The logical fallacy of "accent." See --
>>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#accent
>>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>

>>
>>>
>>> Changing the meaning of my words.
>>
>>
>>
>>You do that enough on your own, sir.
>

> TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
> I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
> but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."
>

> Your words -- "if i do not approve of a definition I simply choose not
> to use it."
>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie.

>
>>
>>>>> Then you don't know how many "disease causing organisms" people carry.
>>>>> So you're really arguing from a point of declared ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>No, sir. I don't need to know that as it does not alter the point.
>>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>

> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
> obvious that he speaks a lie.

>
>>>
>>> But you're wrong again. You argued that humans carry more diseases
>>> than cockroaches. Then you claim you don't know how many diseases
>>> humans carry. So you've again violated logic. Arriving at an
>>> irrelevant conclusion since you admit you didn't have your facts...
>>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#elenchi
>>
>>
>>But you're wrong again
>>
>>No, sir.
>

> Yes, Sir shit-for-brains. You admitted you don't know how many
> diseases humans carry. Yet your argument was that human carry
> more diseases than cockroaches. That's an argument that contains a
> logical fallacy.

>
>>>>>
>>>>> RTFQ!!! I never said it was on the arm of your baby. I offered you
>>>>> the CHOICE between killing it, or knowing that it WOULD BE on the arm
>>>>> of your baby. You chose to let it go to the arm of your baby, and
>>>>> THEN let it wiggle its six legs a bit before you could grasp it,
>>>>> spreading even more germs to your own hand, and carefully depositing
>>>>> it outside your window for the birds to feast upon. I wonder why you
>>>>> don't have some _cockroach cages_, in which you can _save the
>>>>> cockroach_ of the world from those nasty birds.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>" knowing that it WOULD BE on the arm of your baby."
>>>
>>> My question was --
>>> "Do you step on that cockroach or do you let that cockroach crawl on
>>> your baby while you run to get some kind of paper or something to
>>> remove that cockroach gently to avoid hurting your baby and that
>>> cockroach?"
>>
>>
>>I pick up the cockroach with my hand and take it outside, sir.
>

> Heh... try it sometime. Are you going to put on your "super powers"
> costume that "something higher than ourselves" gave you, so you can
> be faster than a speeding bullet, and pick up that cockroach, because
> it's hoping to rest in your tender arms, and will quietly wait for you
> to pick it up? Fat chance!!
>
> Since you're imagining powers that you do not have, I could argue that
> the cockroach will pick you up and take you outside, then come back in
> and eat your baby. You need to examine the parameters of every
> problem given... it's something that you are a failure at in offering
> your pitiful problems. You proved that from the very first problem.
> If you "pick up that cockroach, you have permitted it to crawl on your
> baby's arms and face, before you can "get some kind of paper or
> something..." You can only kill it OR "permit it" to crawl on your
> baby. There is no "door number three." If you kill it, it will NOT
> get on your baby at all.

>
>>> Obviously you would not "step on that cockroach" when it was already
>>> on your baby's arm... or would you?
>>
>>I would not step on the cockroach full stop sir.
>

> Clear... you would let it possibly infect your baby with various
> pathogenic bacteria and viruses they carry on their hairy legs and
> bodies. Pathogens that include tuberculosis, cholera, leprosy,
> dysentery, and typhoid... along with bacteria like salmonella
> and viruses that can cause other diseases. You will not find a
> single reference to cockroaches that does not mention that they
> are carriers of diseases of all kinds. Yet you care more about
> one cockroach than you do the safety and health of your baby.

>
>> I recall you stating that
>>you would step on it for the hell of it. Do you deny those words, sir?
>

> Without a doubt. I would never let a cockroach get close to my
> baby if it was in my power to kill it before it did. Cockroaches
> have as much value to me as a stone. And I would throw a
> stone in water for the hell of it... just to watch it skip.

>
>>>The question was phrased to
>>> argue would you kill that cockroach BEFORE it could crawl on your
>>> baby's arm, with the condition that you could not reach that cockroach
>>> with your hand before it did crawl on your baby's arm? Leaving you
>>> ONLY the choice of killing it BEFORE it could crawl on your baby, or
>>> seeing it crawl on your baby's arm.
>>>
>>> This is not brain surgery, shit-for-brains. It could be quite
>>> possible that a cockroach was crawling on the floor close to your
>>> baby's crib, and we all know how fast cockroaches can scurry.
>>> Faster than you can get a tissue or even reach down to grab it
>>> before it has traveled right up the leg of the crib and down onto your
>>> baby's arm or mouth for that matter. The human instinct is to
>>> protect your baby from that cockroach, UNLESS you consider
>>> the cockroach as equal to your own baby. You can only step on it
>>> BEFORE it reaches your baby, or leave it to crawl on your baby and
>>> irrationally believe you are fast enough to reach down with your
>>> fingers and the cockroach will accommodate you in picking it up. That
>>> could never happen, sport. I don't think simply trying to pick up a
>>> cockroach that is free to travel is generally very successful. Chee...
>>> but you are brutally dumb.
>>
>>
>>Your question is bunkum. and I have already answered it, sir.
>>

> I know you have. You would permit your baby to possibly be infected
> you _your friend... the cockroach_.

>
>>>
>>>>Are you getting angry again, sir?
>>>>
>>> Well... let me see... you told me "Others' opinions are none of your
>>> business." Now you seem to be overly concerned about my opinions.
>>> But I freely admit that Holocaust denial pisses me off. And you are
>>> a Holocaust denier. That's the benchmark of my being pissed off
>>> at you.
>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>
>>
>>Did you dislike that, sir? It was a kind of comment that a fascist would
>>object too
>

> Only a fascist would argue that the opinions of others are _none of
> my business_. That's the mark of a fascist... and that was YOUR
> comment... not mine... you sick little fascist. Joseph Goebbels
> had this to say about fascism -- "It is the absolute right of the
> state to supervise the formation of public opinion." And that
> is YOUR intention... to silence me, insisting that "Others' opinions
> are none of your business." Everyone's opinions are everyone's
> business when they try to trample on human rights or display
> incredible ignorance.

>>
>>>>>>You should think your debates through, sir. Did you have any children
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>lived sir?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living? Trust me...
>>>>> you start bringing insults to my real family or real children, rather
>>>>> than a hypothetical thought experiment and you will find yourself
>>>>> being accused of screwing your sister. Remember that YOU started
>>>>> it. Now apologize and let's move on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living?"
>>>>
>>>>I am sure she could be persuaded, sir.
>>>
>>> Last I heard she was only getting a dollar a trick.
>>
>>
>>It cannot be my mother you are thinking of, sir. She does not accept
>>American money because she has standards. However I do enjoy that you are
>>such an ignoramus that you fail to comprehend that in my motherland,
>>prostitution is neither illegal nor immoral. It is a respectable
>>profession.
>>The "your mother is a whore" lines do not work on us, dear fellow.
>>

> So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
> the Damrak... isn't she a little bit old for that "respectable
> profession"? Does she also perform with donkeys??

>
>>>
>>>> For a broken down hopeless old man
>>>>such as yourself, she me very likely increase the price.
>>>
>>> I'm not into catching diseases. But what's this "she me very..."?
>>
>>
>>"I'm not into catching diseases"
>>
>>Neither is she, sir.
>

> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>
>>

>>"But what's this "she me very..."
>>
>>
>>
>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>
>

> English is not your - any language - Sir shit-for-brains. There are
> worse things than fractured English... there is the method you
> use of forming illogical, racist, comments, peppered with lies and
> denials, including a denial of the FACT that you are a Holocaust
> denier. I can abide fractured English if there is an argument in
> that English that is not filled with lies, and other sickening ideas.

>
>>>>>>Then you are a murderer, sir, on two counts. One for killing the poor
>>>>>>innocent cockroach
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO. Read the definition of murder, you ignorant child.
>>>>> MURDER -- "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially
>>>>> with premeditated malice."
>>>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder
>>>>>
>>>>> Insects are NOT "human." Only someone on the edge of sanity could
>>>>> argue that _cockroaches_ are HUMAN.
>>>>
>>>>The unlawful, deliberate killing, sir.
>>>
>>> "of one human by another," shit-for-brains.
>>
>>That must be awfully convenient for you. You are still a murdering
>>bastard,
>>sir
>

> Heh... that from the guy who insists a cockroach is worth every bit as
> much as a human being. It's laughable.

>
>>>> So if womeone were to kill you it would not be murder.
>>>
>>> What the fuck is a "womeone" (sic)? Is that one of your gang member
>>> that I have to worry about murdering me??
>>>
>>
>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>

> Hey, I don't care whether English is or is not your mother-tongue.
> I welcome anyone who makes an effort to learn a language. What
> I can't tolerate is the way you have assassinated that language with
> your lies, your disgusting display of racism, your basic ignorance,
> and your insufferable hypocrisy and xenophobia. Not to mention
> your intention to make everyone who did not "experience first hand"
> the Holocaust, forget it.

>
>>
>>>>> Oh, wait... you need a cite for that, because you're too ignorant to
>>>>> figure it out for yourself. Here you go --
>>>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/human
>>>>> HUMAN -- "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H.
>>>>> sapiens."
>>>>
>>>>You reference incorrectly, sir. Will you ever learn?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>>>
>>> AADP does not accept definitions in your native Tigrinya.
>>
>>AADP niether accepts or denies anythingm sir. it is a newsgroup.
>>

> So in your native Tigrinya language the cockroach is equal to the
> human, and both have been told by "something higher than
> ourselves," that they "a right to life." Is cannibalism also part
> of your culture?

>
>>
>>AADP neither accepts nor denies anything sir. It is a newsgroup.
>

> You're repeating yourself, Sir shit-for-brains.

>
>>>
>>>>> But of course, you've also said that -- "if i do not approve of a
>>>>> definition I simply choose not to use it." Which makes it easy for
>>>>> you to invent your own definitions, although it makes communicating
>>>>> with other humans... IMPOSSIBLE! You sound like Michael
>>>>> Jackson singing the role of Danny to his pet rat, "Ben," as his only
>>>>> friend. BTW -- do you consider rats "superior" to cockroaches??
>>>>> Heh heh heh.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>" But of course, you've also said that -- "if i do not approve of a
>>>>definition I simply choose not to use it." Which makes it easy for you
>>>>to
>>>>invent your own definitions"
>>>>
>>>>Your logic is erroneous, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>>

> Denying there is a definition of a word in the English language is
> lying, Sir shit-for-brains. If you deny a FACT, you are obviously
> lying. Such as you insisting that in English killing a cockroach is
> "murder" (sic), while it may be so in your native village it is not
> so in the English language. Because in English, "murder" is defined
> as one human illegally killing another with malice. So you sure were
> lying there. PROOF.
>
> You may love cockroaches so much that you consider them an
> "endangered species," but the FACT is that killing a cockroach
> is NOT defined as "murder," in the English language. So you
> LIED.

>
>>>
>>> My logic is impeccable, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>>Your logic is wrong so it is erroneous, sir.
>

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>
>>>

>>>>>> and two for infecting you baby by spreading the cockroach's
>>>>>>disease carrying organisms all over your baby, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong... I killed the cockroach on the floor... my hypothetical baby
>>>>> was NOT on the floor. You lifted the cockroach carefully from your
>>>>> hypothetical baby's arm, thoroughly infecting your hypothetical
>>>>> baby with up to 50 known diseases.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it was sir. You knocked over its cot when you rushed to murder the
>>>>cockroach. I hope the baby was not yours, sir.
>>>
>>> More of your lies.
>>
>>
>>No, sir.
>>
>

> Yes, you whiny little child. The word "knocked" does not appear in
> any of my comments in this thread. So you're caught in yet another
> lie. How many is that now? At least two dozen... and that doesn't
> even count your comments in abject ignorance.

>
>>>>> You should be ashamed of yourself. That cockroach NEVER touched
>>>>> my baby.
>>>
>>> See what I wrote, Sir shit-for-brains? Proving you lied.
>>
>>
>>No it doesn't sir. The cockroach was a hypothetical part of one of your
>>puerile games, sir.
>>

> Yes... and it showed that you had no problem with your baby being
> possibly infected by the bacteria and viruses carried by that
> cockroach.
>
> Come on, Sir shit-for-brains. Would you "murder" (sic) two
> cockroaches if it could save one murderer from a U.S. death penalty?
> That's the litmus test to show just how deep your affection is for
> all of the over 4,000 recognized cockroach species.

>
>>>
>>>>> You should RTFQ when you see thought experiments rather than
>>>>> contriving your own set of circumstances and accusing the other
>>>>> of "murder." How many "murders" have you committed in washing
>>>>> your hands??
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RTFQ"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Language, sir.
>>>
>>> See --
>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rtfq
>>
>>
>>If you will post acronyms, sir.
>>
>

> Sure... why not? You post mindless drivel, lies, and Holocaust
> denial.

>
>>> Educated yourself, for fuck's sake. You can't stumble through
>>> life remaining ignorant... even if you think you can.
>>
>>I shall be right behind you in the queue, ignoramus.
>

> There is no question that reason would have the same effect on
> you as daylight has on Dracula.

>
>>>
>>>>>>> Since you find humans and cockroaches no different, if you had
>>>>>>> to kill a human or kill a cockroach, and had no other choice, which
>>>>>>> would you kill? After all, you can't make the same choice as
>>>>>>> Buridan's donkey in this thought experiment. One or the other,
>>>>>>> sport. Which one is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> And we see Death Disco respond with *deathly silence*
>>>>> For a guy that raves on and on about irrelevant things, and
>>>>> insists he _talks to "something higher than ourselves"_ we
>>>>> now find he is at a loss for words.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, sir. That was your response.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>> Just more of your lies. It seems you've given up and just offer
>>> lie after lie.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Really sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should
>>not
>>be allowed to play.
>

> TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
> I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
> but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."
>

> Come on, Sir shit-for-brains... how many cockroaches would you
> "murder" (sic) if doing so would save an innocent human from the death
> penalty, who would be executed if you did not "murder" (sic) any
> cockroach???
>
> I know you admitted to being "numeric challenged," but this only
> requires a constant from zero to + infinity.

>
>>It was from your post so it is your response, sir
>

> You're insane... by now even you must realize that your trolley has
> jumped the tracks. Your work products in this group are a little
> bit below those produced by a clown, and a little bit above those
> produced by a trained seal.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regardless... I'm now getting a better focus on why you deny the
>>>>>>> Holocaust. It's because to you six million Jews are worth less than
>>>>>>> six million and one cockroaches, in your sick mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we see Death Disco respond with *deathly silence*
>>>>> For a guy that raves on and on about irrelevant things, and
>>>>> insists he _talks to "something higher than ourselves"_ we
>>>>> now find he is at a loss for words.
>>>>
>>>>No, sir. That was your response.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>
>>You typed it, sir. It was your response.
>

> <fx: waves hand to get Death Disco's attention> You're insane you
> know. You're not just one brick short of a load... you're one load
> short of a load.

>
>>>
>>>>>>If you cannot win your arguments without lying or (inclusive) name
>>>>>>calling
>>>>>>then you should not be allowed to take part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? This is just
>>>>> more of your God-complex at work. Nonetheless... the only liar is
>>>>> you... because I NEVER, EVER LIE!! You need to offer a cite of my
>>>>> words that demonstrates I have lied. In fact, my never having lied
>>>>> has brought me more grief in arguments than if I had lied. When I
>>>>> win arguments the claims that I'm a liar come out of the woodwork...
>>>>> like your pet "cockroaches."
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"
>>
>>
>>
>>Who are you to tell people what to believe, what politics to support, what
>>religions to support?
>>

> I've never done that... I don't care that you believe cockroaches are
> the same as humans. I simply point it out and let others find their
> own opinion about your opinion. I NEVER tell people what they can
> and can't do. That would be a violation of free speech. But YOU
> are telling me what I can and cannot do. So who the fuck are you
> to be giving ORDERS to me???
>
> I've never said you CAN'T "deny the Holocaust." Of course you CAN
> deny the Holocaust. There is no rule in which someone cannot say
> what they believe, regardless of how offensive another might take what
> they believe. There are probably millions of humans on this planet
> who "deny the Holocaust," while most of them are certainly located in
> the middle-east, and are Muslims. Such as those in Iran who deny the
> Holocaust as a matter of faith told to them by their religious
> fruitcake leaders. But I am free to SAY that they "deny the
> Holocaust," because it is a FACT. I am free to relate what they have
> said and written. Just as I am free to say that YOU "deny the
> Holocaust," because it is a FACT... stated in your own words. Right
> here in AADP.
>
> I can also relate that YOU demanded the Jews forget the Holocaust...
> in your psychotically sick words -- ""After sixty years, it's time for
> them <the Jews> to get over it." Who the hell are you to tell
> every Jew, in your anti-Semitism, that they should "get over" knowing
> that six million Jews were exterminated less than 70 years ago?
> Who the hell are you to make demands on EVERY Jew???
>
> When you offer a lie in English, I never say you CAN'T lie. I only
> point out that you HAVE lied. But this is again... much too
> complicated for you to grasp the difference.

>
>>>>"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, sir. Will you take instruction only from another American, sir?
>>>
>>> Answer the question, Sir shit-for-brains. What makes you wiggle and
>>> squeal like a stuck pig, offering irrelevant implications that you
>>> hope to use to avoid the fact of your Nazi persona insists what
>>> I can and can't do? In the way you framed your argument I wouldn't
>>> give a shit if you were fucking Interpol. Who the hell are YOU to
>>> tell me what I can and can't do??? Aside from your God-complex
>>> believing you are "something higher than ourselves," and can order
>>> everyone around... or do you think you can only order Americans
>>> around, you xenophobic mental fruit loop?
>>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>>
>>
>>Who are you to tell people what to believe, what politics to support, what
>>religions to support?
>

> You're lying again.
>
> I've never done that... I don't care that you believe cockroaches are
> the same as humans. I simply point it out and let others find their
> own opinion about your opinion. I NEVER tell people what they can
> and can't do. That would be a violation of free speech. But YOU
> are telling me what I can and cannot do. So who the fuck are you
> to be giving ORDERS to me???
>
> I've never said you CAN'T "deny the Holocaust." Of course you CAN
> deny the Holocaust. There is no rule in which someone cannot say
> what they believe regardless of how offensive another might take what
> they believe. There are probably millions of humans on this planet
> who "deny the Holocaust," while most of them are certainly located in
> the middle-east, and are Muslims. Such as those in Iran who deny the
> Holocaust as a matter of faith told to them by their religious
> fruitcake leaders. But I am free to SAY that they "deny the
> Holocaust," because it is a FACT. I am free to relate what they have
> said and written. Just as I am free to say that YOU "deny the
> Holocaust," because it is a FACT... stated in your own words. Right
> here in AADP.
>
> I can also relate that YOU demanded the Jews forget the Holocaust...
> in your psychotically sick words -- ""After sixty years, it's time for
> them <the Jews> to get over it." Who the hell are you to tell
> every Jew, in your anti-Semitism, that they should "get over" knowing
> that six million Jews were exterminated less than 70 years ago?
> Who the hell are you to make demands on EVERY Jew???
>
> When you offer a lie in English, I never say you CAN'T lie. I only
> point out that you HAVE lied. But this is again... much too
> complicated for you to grasp the difference.

>
>
>>>>>>Wiki is not known for its accuracy, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only in your mind. Wiki makes your puny knowledge measurable only on
>>>>> a scale less than the Planck constant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, sir. In reality
>>>>
>>>
>>> And yet you used it... Twice... and probably in many more places. You
>>> used it in referring to --
>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>>
>>
>>At no juncture did I claim it was 100% inaccurate, sir.
>

> So it only "accurate" when YOU use it. ROTFLMAO. What a
> sick hubris you have.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you two-faced piece of garbage... you didn't even
>>> know what a "hypocrite" was until I called you a "hypocrite" and
>>> you swiftly ran to see with the word means.
>>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>
>>Are you getting angry again you xenophobic hypocrite?
>

> Mother Theresa (if she was still alive) would get angry at your --
>
> 1) acting like a craven coward
> 2) displaying the depressing burden of your exiguous education
> 3) showing your disgusting ignorance
> 4) planting some defamatory slander
> 5) insisting that voices are telling you things that are "unknown"
> 6) sowing your hebephrenic and insensate nature
> 7) expressing your acerbic insolence
> 8) inserting your nefarious antipathy toward humanity
> 9) raving in your lubricous xenophobic hubris
> 10) exhibiting a proclivity for disgraceful buffoonery
> 11) ranting in frenzied and fallacious demagoguery
> 12) revealing your malfeasant racism
> 13) parading a shameful and evil Holocaust denial
> 14) creating a catachrestic destruction of the English language
> 15) flaunting your grotesque and ludicrous catagenetic representation
> of humans as no better than cockroaches
> or --
> 16) offering your disingenuous and fraudulent lying
>
> etc...etc... etc...

>
>>>>>>> English criminal law applies to the law in the U.K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes sir, but if you suggest that killing in self defense does not
>>>>>>carry
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>prison term in the UK then you are wrong sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Killing in recognized self-defense does not carry any crime at
>>>>> all. It's only when it has been determined that the definition
>>>>> of self-defense has not been met that anyone can be accused
>>>>> or convicted of any crime. If the recognized LEGAL conditions
>>>>> of self-defense are MET... there has no crime committed.
>>>>
>>>>Killing carries a custodial sentence, even if it is in self-defence.
>>>>That
>>>>is British law, of course.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Why do you keep lying, when the evidence against your
>>> argument keeps piling up?
>>
>>
>>Wrong.
>

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>

> I proved my argument with a referenced cite, for the OFFICIAL U.K.

> government site of "The Crown Prosecution Services." See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
> prosecuted for such action.."
>

> It's a good thing you lack the capacity to be embarrassed, even when
> shown to deny the Holocaust. Because here I have pinned you right
> to the wall... and yet you continue to deny the truth. Which most
> certainly makes you again, hoping to pass off a lie, rather than admit
> to the truth.

>
>>
>>You have proved nothing sir.
>

> the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The Crown Prosecution Services."

> has proved it for me. I don't need to prove what is already in
> evidence. See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

>
>>
>>> Do you have any idea just how IGNORANT you look when you
>>> ignore FACTS???
>>
>>I do not ignore FACTS, sir.
>

> ROTFLMAO... the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The Crown

> Prosecution Services." See --
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
> prosecuted for such action.."
>>

>>>>> You did not SUGGEST... but INSISTED that factually -- "You kill
>>>>> someone in self defense in Britian (sic) then your conviction will
>>>>> read that of masnlaughter (sic)." But you were wrong, and now you
>>>>> are lying hope to wiggle out of that silly comment. If you
>>>>> kill in legally recognized self-defense in Britian (sic) then you
>>>>> have committed NO CRIME.
>>>>
>>>>You are wrong, sir.
>>>
>>> It's not me you're calling "wrong," shit-for-brains. I'm only the
>>> messenger. You're calling the British government WRONG!
>>> You're insisting that "The Crown Prosecution Service" does not
>>> honor a self-defense argument if "The Crown Prosecution
>>> Service" decides the killing was a legal self-defense killing.
>>>
>>
>>"It's not me you're calling "wrong," "
>>
>>Yes it is,sir.
>

> No, it isn't, Sir shit-for-brains. And all your denials won't make me
> the author of the proof I gave you.

>>
>>> Good grief... but you keep raising the bar of your stupidity.
>>> Apparently I've managed to tilt your personality toward the
>>> deranged.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Pot, kettle, black, sir.
>

> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>

>>>>> It is when you kill, and it not recognized as being in self-defense,
>>>>> even if you plead that it was, that you will be accused and tried
>>>>> in a court of law for "manslaughter," or even "murder" if it is
>>>>> found that your claim of self-defense was rubbish and you killed
>>>>> intentionally and with malice aforethought.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You do not know British law, sir.
>>>
>>> I'm just the messenger. You're arguing that "The Crown
>>> Prosecution Service" does not know British law, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>> Perhaps your argument is that you're hearing voices from
>>> "something higher than ourselves," who keep telling you
>>> that "The Crown Prosecution Service," doesn't know what
>>> it's talking about.
>>>
>>
>>"I'm just the messenger"
>>
>>No, you are not, sir.
>>
>

> Yes, I am, Sir shit-for-brains. And all your denials won't make me
> the author of the proof I gave you.

> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>
>>>

>>>>Of course, we can, sir. You do it persistently.
>>>
>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible
>>
>>No, it isn't, sir.
>>

> ROTFMAO. Now you're even calling yourself a liar. Since you
> were the one who originally claimed "Your unreferenced site (sic) is
> inadmissable (sic)"
>
>>>

>>>>>>Killing in self defense is manslaughter and is punishable by
>>>>>>imprisonment,
>>>>>>sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh... Saying it, is not proving it. Unless you abide by the diktat
>>>>> of Hitler, who insisted that "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
>>>>> saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am under no obligation to prove anything to you, sir.
>>>
>>> But you do need to prove it to "The Crown Prosecution Service,"
>>> since they have a different story than you're pandering.
>>
>>
>>No, sir.
>

> You have every right to continue to lie. But there is factual
> evidence that you are lying.

>
>>>>> While you may claim that "I have no obligation to prove my arguments
>>>>> or to answer anything," that only means even you know that your
>>>>> argument is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No it doesn't, sir.
>>>>
>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>>
>>
>>Will you be posting referenced cites to all your assertions above then,
>>sir?
>>

> I've done it over and over. Whenever you see quotation marks they
> show your past words. While you just babble mindless drivel
> incoherently, without a SINGLE reference, other than two references
> to wikipedia meant as ad hominem, and nothing else of a nature
> that shows an effort to deny your words from the past.

>
>>>>>
>>>>> While you may claim that "I have no obligation to prove my arguments
>>>>> or to answer anything," that only means even you know that your
>>>>> argument is not true. A person can go to prison for "claiming to have
>>>>> killed in self-defense," when the judiciary determines that the
>>>>> killing did not meet the legal standards of self-defense. But a
>>>>> person having met the legal standards of self-defense will never be
>>>>> prosecuted for a crime. It is a fundamental principle of the law that
>>>>> killing in "legally recognized self-defense" is NOT a crime.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
>>>>pointless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it would. You've lost above... and you lose again here.
>>
>>
>>You cannot win an argument simply by declaring your opponent the loser,
>>sir.
>>

> ROTFLMAO. Your words -- "I have already accepted your flag of
> surrender, sir." What a proven hypocrite you are, Sir
> shit-for-brains.

>
>>>
>>> This is the is the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
>>> Crown Prosecution Services." See --
>>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
>>> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
>>> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
>>> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
>>> prosecuted for such action.."
>>>>
>>> It's not ME you're lying to... it's you lying to "The Crown
>>> Prosecution Services."
>>>
>>
>>
>>No, sir.
>>

> You can deny it until the cows come home... but facts show you to
> now be lying in that denial.

>
>>>>> And finally -- Your claim that "It's the unknown, sir."
>>>>> Which you argue is _an unknown but known to you_.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I did not ask for proof, sir. I informed you that you had not provided
>>>>any.
>>>>On the other hand, you repeatedly ask for proof so proof is your
>>>>commitment.
>>>
>>> Well, if you're not asking for any proof... then fuck-off. The
>>> difference is when you lie or use fraud or use one of your greasy,
>>> smarmy comments that you believe pass for some fact, I demand
>>> you prove it. Otherwise, it's just you fabricating some of your
>>> horse-shit.
>>>
>>
>>"Well, if you're not asking for any proof... then fuck-off."
>>
>>Language, sir.
>>

> It's English... you should try it sometime.

> Wrong. YOU cannot hide your lies in denial of FACT.

>
>>>>> End of story... you lose, sport. Unless you argue that this voice
>>>>> of "something higher than ourselves," told you that "The Crown
>>>>> Prosecution Service" is a bunch of crap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post
>>>
>>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>
>>> Not one bit, Sir shit-for-brains. Go ahead and call "The Crown
>>> Prosecution Service." Here's their number, and this is their
>>> REAL telephone number -- 020 7796 8000. Or visit them
>>> at "The Crown Prosecution Service, 50 Ludgate Hill, London,
>>> EC4M 7EX" See --
>>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/
>>
>>"Not one bit"
>>
>>Every bit, sir.
>>
>

> TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

> I wasn't the proven liar he found me to be so I could show he is not
> correct, but the bastard hit the nail right on the head. All I have
> left is to deny FACTS."

>
>>>
>>> Don't give me any more lies about UK self-defense laws, because
>>> you are totally ignorant of UK law.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you've already lost three times now. When do you plan to
>>>>>>> stop lying, shit-for-brains???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when are you a better source of information than the sources
>>>>> I've provided?
>>>>
>>>>Since I came to Britain, sir.
>>>
>>> Another logical fallacy. The non sequitur -- See
>>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nonseq
>>
>>
>>No, sir.
>

> Yes, Sir shit-for-brains. "The Crown Prosecution Service" was here
> hundreds of years before you arrived to pollute that splendor eternal,
> called England --
>
> There is no land like England,
> Where'er the light of day be;
> There are no hearts like English hearts,
> Such hearts of oak as they be;
> There is no land like England,
> Where'er the light of day be:
> There are no men like Englishmen,
> So tall and bold as they be!
> And these will strike for England,
> And man and maid be free
> To foil and spoil the tyrant
> Beneath the greenwood tree.
> Tennyson.

>
>>> Go ahead and call "The Crown Prosecution Service." Here's their
>>> number, and this is their REAL telephone number -- 020 7796 8000. Or
>>> visit them at "The Crown Prosecution Service, 50 Ludgate Hill, London,
>>> EC4M 7EX" See --
>>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/
>>>
>>
>>Did you ring them, sir?
>

> No... it's a local call for you, Sir shit-for-brains. After all, YOU
> are the one insisting that my cite is not a reputable reference.
> Talk is cheap... prove it isn't. Prove that you know more about
> English law than "The Crown Prosecution Service" does.

>
>>> Don't give me any more lies about UK self-defense laws, because
>>> you are totally ignorant of UK law.
>>
>>
>>Bull, sir. I live in the UK.
>

> Pity for the U.K., I'd say. However, that argument is irrelevant.
>
> To put this into logical perspective, to claim because you "live in
> the U.K.," that you know more about law in the U.K., than "The Crown
> Prosecution Service" does, is like claiming you once visited the
> inside of a Catholic church, so you know more about the ecclesiastical
> canons of Catholic law than the Pope.
>
> It's a lie... from top to bottom... from start to finish... from end
> to end. But it's just one of your typical lies.

>
>>>>> See above. Or see the OFFICIAL U.K. government site of "The
>>>>> Crown Prosecution Services." See --
>>>>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
>>>>> Quote -- "it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably
>>>>> and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property
>>>>> or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not
>>>>> prosecuted for such action.."
>>>>
>>>>I have responded to this further up the post, sir. Repeating it would be
>>>>pointless.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>> Denying it over and over... does not make your absurd argument
>>> true.
>>
>>
>>It doesn't have to if my argument is already true,sir.
>>

> Yet your argument is false. And you have proved nothing. Claiming
> you "live in the UK" is an absurd claim of thus knowing English law
> better than "The Crown Prosecution Service."

>
>>>
>>> Go ahead and call "The Crown Prosecution Service." Here's their
>>> number, and this is their REAL telephone number -- 020 7796 8000. Or
>>> visit them at "The Crown Prosecution Service, 50 Ludgate Hill, London,
>>> EC4M 7EX" See --
>>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/
>>
>>
>>Repetition doesn't help your argument, sir.
>>

> I don't believe you're going to pick up the phone because you know
> what that would mean. Denial doesn't help your argument, that
> you "live in the U.K.," and that is sufficient proof that you know
> more about the law in the U.K., that "The Crown Prosecution Service"
> does. In fact it only cements your lie.

>
>>> Don't give me any more lies about UK self-defense laws, because
>>> you are totally ignorant of UK law.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently you just use your imagination in your arguments, and
>>>>>>>>> don't even bother with the truth. To you... like to Hitler... the
>>>>>>>>> TRUTH is just an inconvenience if it conflicts with your agenda.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You have just describes your "Strategy" correctly sir. It's time you
>>>>>>>>were honest with yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop repeating your lies. Repetition has no relation to accuracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I repeat only your lies, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> TRANSLATION "I repeat only my lies, sir.."'
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why don't you try something new... Like telling the truth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Pot? Pot? this is kettle. Colour check please...."
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit you're a liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, sir. I admit that you are.
>>>
>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>>
>>Wrong, sir.
>

> Caught yet again in another of your lies. Since you have already
> insisted originally that "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable
> (sic)."

>
>>>
>>> You also admit that you're ignorant of the law... and of all things
>>> related to humanity. But you can build an antenna that picks
>>> up signals from "something higher than ourselves." You're
>>> cuckoo.
>>
>>"You also admit that you're ignorant of the law"
>>
>>No I do not, sir.
>>

> Actually what you claim is that because you "live in the U.K.," that
> you know more about law in the U.K., than "The Crown Prosecution
> Service" does. If that's not a bold lie, I don't what would be a
> lie. It's like claiming you once visited the inside of a Catholic
> church, so you know more about the ecclesiastical canons of
> Catholic law than the Pope.

>
>>>>>>Hardly a compelling argument, sir.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Better than any you've ever had.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>>Denying something alone does not automatically make the denier a liar,
>>sir.
>

> Nor does claiming I'm guessing have any validity.

>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have a prejudice against the "young" (Sic), sir!
>>>>>
>>>>> An unreferenced cite is inadmissable (sic).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That was not a cite, sir. Do you have a clue, sir?
>>>
>>> Then you admit it was ad hominem... another of your logical
>>> fallacies -- See --
>>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
>>>
>>
>>I'll take that as a ,"no", sir.
>>
>

> Take it any way you want to, Sir shit-for-brains. It's a free
> country, and although you abuse the right... you have a right
> to say anything that pops into that empty head of yours.

>
>>>>>>Yes, sir. But I corrected it in my follow up post, the one you are
>>>>>>about
>>>>>>to pretend you have not seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yada, yada, yada.
>>>>
>>>>Is the pinnacle of your intellectual capability sir?
>>>
>>> I was referring to your whining denial that you did not answer the
>>> question correctly and even admitted that you had not... and now
>>> you lie and argue you never were incorrect, after admitting you
>>> were.
>>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

>
>>>>> I read your "excuse," but I haven't got around to responding to all of
>>>>> your disturbed mind comments. I have other priorities, plus I take my
>>>>> time... so I don't have to ask the teacher for my work to be returned
>>>>> because I was in a hurry. Most nights I do even read AADP comments
>>>>> until after midnight, when I'm sure my wife is sound asleep.
>>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I offerecd no excuse, sir. There was nothing to excuse.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/excuse
>>
>>Iknow the meanings of both those words sir. As I said,
>>I offered no excuse, sir. There was nothing to excuse.
>

> Your words, just above -- " But I corrected it in my follow up post."
> That's called an "excuse," for fucking it up in the first place. Try
> to read your pocket English dictionary, rather than believe you
> can find the answer in your Bible.

>
>>>>> Hardly. Now that I've answered it when can I expect the answer to my
>>>>> second question, or even my third question.
>>>>
>>>>It is fortunate I was not submitting it to anyone whose opinion matters,
>>>>sir.
>>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>>>
>>
>>Posting irrelevent links does not win your argument for you, sir.
>

> You should learn from your mistakes, Sir shit-for-brains.

> Since when does "I do, sir" not offer an "admission"?

>
>>> Apology accepted.
>>>
>>
>>None was offered, sir.
>
>

> Yes, you did.

>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> While our purpose here should not be "victory," but progress... thus
>>>>> my purpose is simply to provide a small measure of nurturing to you
>>>>> that has obviously been neglected by those who should have nurtured
>>>>> you. I've come not to expect more from you than what your nurturing
>>>>> has failed to provide.
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing sir. You have no purpose. You are a waste, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>>
>>Posting irrelevent links does not win your argument for you, sir.
>>

> TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
> I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
> but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."
>
>>>
>>>>>

> Yes, you did.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> While our purpose here should not be "victory," but progress... thus
>>>>> my purpose is simply to provide a small measure of nurturing to you
>>>>> that has obviously been neglected by those who should have nurtured
>>>>> you. I've come not to expect more from you than what your nurturing
>>>>> has failed to provide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing sir. You have no purpose. You are a waste, sir.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
>>
>>Posting irrelevent links does not win your argument for you, sir.
>

> Did those voices you hear from "something higher than ourselves,"
> tell you that, Sir shit-for-brains?

> Gee... so you admit you were wrong when you posted the
> words " "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"
> Imagine that... you admit you lied.

>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> *deathly silence*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are anything but silent, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't stand the heat when I put your feet to the fire, can you?
>>>>
>>>>You cannot acclaim me for your words, sir.
>>>
>>> Please consult an English dictionary. I would never be one
>>> who would "acclaim" your words, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>>
>>You do everytime you repeat them, sir. The ones I actually say, that is.
>>

> You still haven't consulted that English dictionary, Sir
> shit-for-brains. But then you feel English dictionaries are
> unnecessary, because in your words -- "if i do not approve of

> a definition I simply choose not to use it."
>
>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> Is that all you have? Don't you feel stupid not having of consequence
>>>>> to say? You should you know... you should feel VERY stupid!!
>>>>
>>> [2] see bottom of post
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, sir.
>>>
>>> I didn't say you DO... I said you SHOULD feel VERY stupid!! I don't
>>> think you have enough intelligence to even realize just how stupid
>>> you are.
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>
>>Not when pitted against you, sir.
>

> That's because you lack any "shame DNA" After all, you
> felt no shame when you denied the Holocaust.

>
>>>>> I never, ever lie. Claiming I do is simply your own smear tactics to
>>>>> discredit my exposing your own lies and deceit. It's a popular
>>>>> tactic used by those who are either exposed for being a liar or want
>>>>> to shift the argument (which is recognized as lost) to one of ad
>>>>> hominem, about presumed, but unexplained or lacking a cite to past
>>>>> comments. Simply call the person who exposes you -- a liar. And
>>>>> then "claim victory" as if that proves he is a liar. As to name
>>>>> calling... I have seldom found a more "name-calling-worthy" poster
>>>>> than you, sport.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>
>>> What are you denying now, Sir shit-for-brains??
>>
>>You were claiming that you never ever lie, sir.
>

> And you cannot find any proof that I have. Put it up here, Sir
> shit-for-brains. I need to win some more money off my friend.

>
>>>>> Well... wait a minute... you argued that humans are not "superior" to
>>>>> what you referred to as the "poor little creature" called the
>>>>> cockroach. So given that premise which is a true premise from your
>>>>> own words... you argue that six million and one cockroaches are worth
>>>>> more to you than six million innocent Jews. It's a fair question
>>>>> since you insisted that a cockroach is no less than a human being.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why Jews, sir? Do you see them more important than the rest of the
>>>>world?
>>>>Are you a racist, sir?
>>>
>>> Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis... you insist you
>>> don't "remember" it... so it is not in your memory. Given that fact,
>>> it is obvious that you care more about six million and one cockroaches
>>> than those six million innocent Jews slaughtered by your kinsmen
>>> on the continent of Europe.
>>>
>>
>>" Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis"
>>
>>
>>What about everyone else who were exterminated by the Nazis, sir? Don't
>>they
>>count? What about those whom were tortured by the Japanese, sir? Don't
>>tthey
>>count?
>

> What about the six million Jews... don't THEY count??? Apparently
> your argument is that because others were murdered in a war in which
> 50 million people lost their lives, those six million Jews are
> insignificant. That only shows your anti-Semitism and your deep
> desire to have everyone FORGET those six million Jews. It's a typical
> cunning plan of all anti-Semites... to argue that we should FORGET
> about the Jews, and concentrate on those others who lost their lives
> in WW II. Your country sent 107,000 Dutch Jews to the death camps,
> and only 5,000 survived. You must be very proud of your country...
> with the blood of those Jews having stained the honor of an otherwise
> quite civilized country... your country. How many non-Jewish Dutch
> died in WW II???? Check it out.

>
>>> You're the only racist, sport. That why you need to call me a racist
>>> because I mentioned the Jews... the Jews who you CANNOT
>>> remember... but I do remember them.
>>
>>"You're the only racist, sport">
>>
>>You're guessing, "sport".
>

> It's a subjective viewpoint. White-power group members would gladly
> accept you as not being a racist. While my opinion holds that you are
> a racist because of the various comments you have offered in insisting
> that you've "never seen a Black person." But that's another one of
> those definitions that you "choose not to use." The definition of
> BLACK -- "Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black
> skin..." See --
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/black
>
> Seek help, Sir shit-for-brains

>
>>>>> But I need to hear it from you... so given your original premise...
>>>>> another thought experiment... If you had to kill a cockroach to
>>>>> save a murderer from execution... would you kill that cockroach??
>>>>> Remember... you don't want to be called a "murderer" (sic)... do you??
>>>>
>>> [1] see bottom of post
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You cannot hear me, sir.
>>>
>>> I can hear your Holocaust denial all the way across the Atlantic, Sir
>>> shit-for-brains.
>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>
>>No you can't sir. You hear only your own fantasies
>

> I must be able to hear them. Since I repeat them so accurately,
> when expose your lies, your racism, your Holocaust denial, and
> your _hearing voices from "something higher than ourselves."
>>
>>>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails. Plus "an unreferenced cite is

>>>>> inadmissable (sic)." Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
>>>>
>>>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well... it's about time you got it right... since you've never managed
>>> to put those five words together without fucking up the English
>>> language in the process. But it seems you are still fucking it
>>> up... the Oxford English Dictionary makes no reference to the
>>> word "unreferenced" (sic). Even when examining all the words
>>> having the prefix of "un." I've ignored mentioning it because
>>> it's just too trivial and I understand just how little English you
>>> know. But face it, Sir shit-for-brains... you're an idiot. You
>>> should form your pitiful argument such that it states -- "A
>>> cite without reference is inadmissible."
>>>
>>

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>>
>>English is not easy to master, sir. You are 78 and you are still
>>struggling
>>with it.
>

> Oh, gee... I'm shattered... Death Disco, who hope to annihilate the
> English language by insisting if he sees a definition he _doesn't
> like_ he simply refuses to accept it, tells me I'm struggling with
> English.

> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.

>
>>
>>
>>No I didn't sir.
>

> And yet you warned me. Apparently you know more about any
> threat to me than I do... so I can only presume you are privy to
> such a threat to me or my family. Don't feel lonesome... it's not
> the first time I've been personally threatened because I was
> exposing the _beast_ that represented other arguments.

>
>>et one fact straight, dear fellow. What you and I do here
>>is what the British call "Banter". It is harmless fun for both of us, I
>>hope. There is no threat to your health or any form of physical violence
>>from me, sir. That is not my way. I detest people who beleive they can win
>>arguments with thier fists. It's a losing strategy from day one. You will
>>get no such threat from me, sir.
>

> And yet..... you "warned me." Strange...

>>
>>> And at this point, Death Disco felt he had been hammered quite enough
>>> for one sitting, and decided to just stop responding.
>>
>>No sir. I caught the "send" shortcut. Alt+S when aiming for alt+tab.
>>
>>However I responded to the rest in another post.
>

> This one is quite enough to have made a complete fool of you.

Death Disco

unread,

Jun 8, 2010, 4:16:13 PM6/8/10

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:ah5r06do51ge3jus8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:05 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
> wrote:
>
>>
> I'm betting that question comes from one of your Dutch handbooks

You have lost your bet, sir.

> on Electric Circuits and includes a schematic along with the question,
> which you just tried to translate into English, and fucked it up
> properly as you did with that other problem. If you can't put the
> question up with a schematic it's about worthless, in the way you
> offered it. But here's help... do it yourself.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase

No, sir. The question was taken from a British academic souce and the
question was worded correctly. Your response admits that you are unable to
understand the question, sir.

>
> In any case your problem is a piece of junk not worth my
> time.

Wrong, sir.

>
> However, here's one for you that does have a schematic along

> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg

I see you've found the section on transients in your book, sir
>
> This has every bit of the information you need to solve the
> question.
>

It does, sir.

> ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one with my
> friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin.
>

"ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one "

What I would do, you ask. I would start by looking at what the circuit does,
sir. At first glance, I see two potential dividers there. I would then
redraw the equivalent circuit then work out PHI. Once I have that, I can
plot a graph of the charge/discharge voltage of that capacitor and for good
measure, I would probably plot the current, also.

You lose your bet, sir.

"with my friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin"

You do not fool me, sir. You do not have any friends.

Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40 ohm,
calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissipated across
each line, sir.

You have a parallel tuned circuit with a resistance of 68 ohm, a resonant

frequency of 5khz, and an inductor of 145.4 mH. Calculate the capacitance.

A fourth question, for you, sir. as you've added another, so shall I.

You have a resonant tuned circuit of 500 c/s and an inductor of 1mH this
give you an inductive reactance of 3.142 ohms. Tell me the capacitive
reactance and show your workings, sir.

>>" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>> approach"
>>
>>No, you cannot sir.
>

> Sure I can, shit-for-brains. I've already thrown three at you that
> you're afraid to even take a stab at.
>

" Sure I can, shit-for-brains"

No, you cannot sir.

"I've already thrown three at you that
> you're afraid to even take a stab at."

No you haven't, sir.

>> Not when you failed to answer the simple DB problem I
>>gave you earlier.
>

> When you learn how to formulate your problems accurately you'll
> get better results. Offering mumbo-jumbo only shows your own
> ignorance.

It's formulated correctly, sir.

>>
>>Problems you cannot solve, sir.
>
>

"Wrong, sport... "
I'm glad to hear it, sir. I look forward to seeing your solutions, dear
fellow.

>>>
>>
>>It's hardly a "simple" problem then, sir.
>>

> Yes... but you don't even know the first thing how to start.

You are guessing, sir.

>>
>>> But I can "understand" the solution in going through that _cheat
>>> sheet_. I'm quite sure that you couldn't.
>>
>>You're guessing, sir.
>>

> Well, prove it!

You haven't posted the cheat sheet yet, sir

>
>
>
> *profound silence from Sir shit-for-brains*

You were anything by silent, sir.

>>Provide me with the references and sources you used and I shall see if I
>>can
>>figure it out but it doesn't read like an electrical engineering problem.
>>It
>>reads like a physics problem.
>

> Give you the source so you can look up the answer?

So you looked up the answer sir. I could have guessed.

>You must be
> joking. However, the title of the source contains the word
> "Engineering."
>

Is it electrical enginnering, sir?.

>>
>>A curious statement as you have managed to answer only one problem I posed
>>for you.
>

> While you have correctly answered not a one of mine. Hell... you have
> three waiting for you, >

>><snip>
>>

"While you have correctly answered not a one of mine"

You are incorrect, sir. I answered your first one correctly, second time
round.

"Hell... you have three waiting for you,"

You have 4 waiting for you.

>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
>>>>> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
>>>>> at you, sport.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>As I said before, sir. They are pointing directly at you.
>

> Apparently you're also blind.

No, sir.

>
>>Basic electrical principles are too complicated for you, evidently sir.
>

> Heh... I haven't seen any picture of electrical principles from you,
> Sir shit-for-brains.
>

You need pictures, sir?
You should be able to draw them from the parameters I gave you, sir.

>>>
>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>>
>>

>>Exactly my point, sir. As I said, "You have no basis to back up your
>>assertions, so they can only be guesses"
>>

> You're the one asserting that I'm guessing. Prove it. I've
> got the proof.

You have never backed up your assertions, without proof they are guesses,
sir.

>
> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.

No, sir.

>>>>>>It was not a cite, sir, so no reference is required.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"
>>>>
>>>>The word is "cite", sir.
>>>
>>> That's why I followed it with a (sic), you moron. See --
>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sic
>>> Quote -- "Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one
>>> containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in
>>> its original form or written intentionally."
>>>
>>
>>"That's why I followed it with a (sic), "
>>
>>Which was incorrectly placed sir.
>

> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains. It was placed quite accurately. Since
> both your use of "site" and your misspelling of "inadmissible,"
> required mention that it was garbage English.
>>

It was incorrectly placed sir..

>>
>>"Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both "cite""
>>
>>
>>
>>No Didn't sir.
>

> Yes, you did,

No Didn't sir.

>
>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>arguments any other way".
>

> You can say it forever, and it won't for a single second hide your
> shown ignorance of the English language.

English is not my first language, xenophobe,

>
> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
> Aristotle.

Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.

>
>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>

> And yet that's all you have to say. Repetitive mindless drivel.

Pot, kettle, black, sir.

>>>>No I don't sir. Wait a can hear your voice now. It's a high pitched
>>>>meaningless whine.
>>>
>>> No... that's the sound of those cockroaches that you protect from
>>> being "murdered" (sic). ROTFLMAO. Death Disco --> AADP's
>>> cockroach protector. Won't let anything harm his "poor
>>> innocent cockroach," insisting that killing a cockroach is defined
>>> as "murder" to him.
>>>
>>
>>"No"
>>
>

> Yes.

No.

>
>>It's definately your voice, sir.
>

> Too bad your comment only again displays your ignorance of the
> English language.

You're guessing, sir.

>>>
>>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.
>

Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.

>>
>>Simple logic, sir.
>

> ROTFLMAO. Doesn't that word stick in your craw, considering you
> have no idea what it really means???

Id that the best you can do, sir? It is apparently.

>>>
>>"Yes, you did".
>>
>>No I didn't, sir.
>

> See above... PROOF positive. Poor ol' Sir shit-for-brains... caught
> in yet another lie.
>

No proof at all, sir.

>>"Shit, son"
>>
>>I shall take that as a yes.
>

> Take it any way you want to...

Oh I will, sir.

>>>>>>You believe in a god, sir?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the word "if" (a conditional clause) too complicated for you? IF
>>>>> you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird.
>>>>
>>
>>"Is the word "if" (a conditional clause)"
>>
>>Yes it is sir.
>

> Well, then... wake up!!

You're droning would send anyone to sleep, sir.

>
>>"IF you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird"
>>
>>
>>
>>I could fly in an aeroplane, sir.
>

> No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you. If you
> could jump on the back of one of your dragons,

My dragons, sir?

"No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you"

Only if you forget to get on it, sir.

>
> In any case... read my word, Sir shit-for-brains. It refers
> to BIRDS... and doesn't even say that YOU can't fly but

> that IF you were a bird you could fly.

And my words do not testify that I cannot fly without an aircraft, sir.
They stipulate only that I can fly on one.

I would hope that you did not do much programming in your alleged masters
degree, sir. You do not have the logic for it.

But, given that
> you also hear voices I suspect you also believe you can be
> transmogrified into a bird, simply by stepping into the
> teleporter from StarTrek. Perhaps a carrion eating bird...
> it would certainly be apposite (look that word up in your handy
> pocket English dictionary).
>

"But, given that
> you also hear voices "

I can hear them now, sir. the radio is on.

>>>>I ended my comment with a question mark, sir. I was asking you a
>>>>question.
>>>
>>> Well... I don't believe in a God. Certainly not one who figures that
>>> all biological life, down to viruses and mosquitoes must be given some
>>> "right to life." Nor do I consider cockroaches to be equal to human
>>> beings as you have insisted.
>>>
>>
>>"I don't believe in a God"
>>
>>You don't, sir? Then why do you keep asking it to strike me down?
>

"Are you still confused about the word "if," "

Oh there's no confusion, sir.

>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I have not killed anyone sir.
>>>
>>> So that's your excuse for the slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa????
>
>>
>>You perceive that innocence is an excuse? Curious.
>

> When you're part of the problem!!!

The part of the problem is the people doing the killing; the other part of
the problem is the politics behind the people doing the killing. If you are
involved in neither of those then you are not part of the problem.

>> I wasn't at the holocaust. I do remember much of my
>>education, however.
>

> You mean arithmetic. Big deal. But again we have your
> two-faced claim. 1) You state "I do remember NOTHING."

> and then you state 2) "I do remember much of my education."
>
> Which is it???

"You mean arithmetic"
No, sir. I mean a whole lot more.

"I do remember NOTHING."

If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you

should not be allowed to play

>
> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>

> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>

>>That is your problem, sir.
>

> How can the fact that you insist you hear voices from "something
> higher than ourselves," possibly be MY problem?

I made no such claim, sir.

If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you

should not be allowed to play

>>
>>Oh please, sir. Once cannnot watch the news without hearing about someone
>>your people bombed.
>>
>

> "In respect to the death penalty"!!! Can't you ever read my words
> without distorting them, and lying about it???
>

"In respect to the death penalty"!!!

Is that what you call it?

>>> While Europe continues to fancy Africa as part of her colonial
>>> empire, and will commit murder and genocide if doing so can
>>> maintain hegemony over the indigenous population and the
>>> mineral resources of Africa.
>>
>>Your xenophobia is showing again, sir.
>

> Actually it's Europe's xenophobia,

No, sir. It's yours.

>>As I said, your country is as knee deep in blood as everyone else, sir.
>

> So that excuses "everyone else"???

No, sir.

>>Maybe I can borrow some of yours, sir.
>

> Oh, gee... I'm shattered.. poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
> an original thought in his head and simply uses the typical "you
> to," as some kind of excuses for his psychotic behavior.

"poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
> an original thought in his head "

Don't you, sir? That's hardly suprising.

>>Yes, sir. You're the one whom likes showing off your book collection.
>

> And you, Sir shit-for-brains - like showing off your ignorance

No, sir. I like showing off yours. I'm amazed that one who has so many books
knows so little. Perhaps you should try reading them.

>>No I don't, sir.
>

>
> Yes... you do, Sir Double-Speak.
>
No I don't, sir.

>> Other people's political

>>views are not your business.
>

"Who are you to tell me what is or is not my business"

Who are you to poke your nose into what is none of your business?

> You really think name-calling bothers me, when I have the
> evidence of YOUR HOLOCAUST DENIAL!!!
>

No, you don't sir

>>
>>I pick up the cockroach with my hand and take it outside, sir.
>

"Heh... try it sometime"

I do, sir.

>
>>> Obviously you would not "step on that cockroach" when it was already
>>> on your baby's arm... or would you?
>>
>>I would not step on the cockroach full stop sir.
>

> Clear... you would let it possibly infect your baby with various
> pathogenic bacteria and viruses they carry on their hairy legs and
> bodies.

No, sir. I would move it. You would stomp on it and infect your baby with
bacteria from its blood, sir.

>> I recall you stating that
>>you would step on it for the hell of it. Do you deny those words, sir?
>

> baby if it was in my power to kill it before it did"

Why not just move it, sir? Why are you Americans so obsessed with killing?

>>>The question was phrased to
>>> argue would you kill that cockroach BEFORE it could crawl on your
>>> baby's arm, with the condition that you could not reach that cockroach
>>> with your hand before it did crawl on your baby's arm? Leaving you
>>> ONLY the choice of killing it BEFORE it could crawl on your baby, or
>>> seeing it crawl on your baby's arm.

>>
>>

>>Your question is bunkum. and I have already answered it, sir.
>>

> I know you have. You would permit your baby to possibly be infected
> you _your friend... the cockroach_.

So you did not read my answer, sir. Typical,, dear fellow.

>>Did you dislike that, sir? It was a kind of comment that a fascist would
>>object too
>

> Only a fascist would argue that the opinions of others are _none of
> my business_.

No, sir. Only a fascist would argue that other people's opinions are his
business.

> So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
> the Damrak... isn't she a little bit old for that "respectable

> profession"? Does she also perform with donkeys??
>

So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
> the Damrak

What did she look like, sir?

"Does she also perform with donkeys??"

Is that a request, sir? Does bestiality rock your boat, sir? I had
suspected. If you bring the donkey you usually mate with I'm sure that young
lady you met on the Damrak might accomodate you.

>>>
>>>> For a broken down hopeless old man
>>>>such as yourself, she me very likely increase the price.
>>>
>>> I'm not into catching diseases. But what's this "she me very..."?
>>
>>
>>"I'm not into catching diseases"
>>
>>Neither is she, sir.
>

> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible. Did they fail you on referencing at
university, sir or did you fake your certificate?

>>
>>"But what's this "she me very..."
>>
>>
>>
>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>
>

> English is not your - any language -

English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet; however,
it is still better than yours is.

> Heh... that from the guy who insists a cockroach is worth every bit as
> much as a human being. It's laughable.

It's worth more than you are, sir.

" Hey, I don't care whether English "

Sir? You are going to have to stop your delusion that I care at all about
what you think.

"So in your native Tigrinya language "

It makes a nice change from being called, Dutch, sir.

>>
>>AADP neither accepts nor denies anything sir. It is a newsgroup.
>

> You're repeating yourself, Sir shit-for-brains.
>

You have not answered the argument, sir.

>>>
>>> See --
>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rtfq
>>
>>
>>If you will post acronyms, sir.
>>
>

> Sure... why not?

Because you have the bandwidth to post the full expressions even if you lack
the vocabulary, sir.

>
>>> Educated yourself, for fuck's sake. You can't stumble through
>>> life remaining ignorant... even if you think you can.
>>
>>I shall be right behind you in the queue, ignoramus.
>

> There is no question that reason would have the same effect on
> you as daylight has on Dracula.

It would have no effect if he lay asleep in his coffin with the lid closed,
imbecile.

>>"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"
>>
>>
>>
>>Who are you to tell people what to believe, what politics to support, what
>>religions to support?
>>

> I've never done that... "

Wrong, sir. You always do it. if you read a post where someone has a
political or a religious view you don't like, you hound them, you lie and
you try to humiliate and discredit them by twisting their words. You are a
fascist through and through, sir. In addition, you call your practice
"exposing people". You are lower than any cockroach, sir.

>>
>>
>>At no juncture did I claim it was 100% inaccurate, sir.
>

> So it only "accurate" when YOU use it. ROTFLMAO. What a
> sick hubris you have.
>

So it only "accurate" when YOU use it.

No, sir. So it only "innaccurate" when YOU use it

>>>>
>>>>Why Jews, sir? Do you see them more important than the rest of the
>>>>world?
>>>>Are you a racist, sir?
>>>
>>> Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis... you insist you
>>> don't "remember" it... so it is not in your memory. Given that fact,
>>> it is obvious that you care more about six million and one cockroaches
>>> than those six million innocent Jews slaughtered by your kinsmen
>>> on the continent of Europe.
>>>
>>
>>" Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis"
>>
>>
>>What about everyone else who were exterminated by the Nazis, sir? Don't
>>they
>>count? What about those whom were tortured by the Japanese, sir? Don't
>>tthey
>>count?
>

> What about the six million Jews... don't THEY count???

What about the Polish, sir? Don't they count? What about the Czechs, sir?
Don't they count? What about the norwegians, sir>? Don't they count? What
about the French, sir? Don't they count? What about the Bitish, sir? Don't
they count? What about your own people sir? Don't they count? What about all
the other allied nations who lost people in world war 2, sir? Don't they
count? Then there's thecivilians, sir. Even Germany's own people were
subject to the tyranny, sir. Open your eyes!

> Apparently
> your argument is that because others were murdered in a war in which
> 50 million people lost their lives, those six million Jews are
> insignificant.

You're wrong again, sir. My argument is that all were significant.

>That only shows your anti-Semitism

That is not possible, sir.

> It's a subjective viewpoint. White-power group members would gladly
> accept you as not being a racist.

They would not, sir. They would not accept me as white, sir.

>While my opinion holds that you are
> a racist because of the various comments you have offered in insisting

> that you've "never seen a Black person."

Your opinion is wrong, sir.
"never seen a Black person." is not racist, sir. There are no black people.

>>No you can't sir. You hear only your own fantasies
>

> I must be able to hear them.

You hear voices, sir?

>>English is not easy to master, sir. You are 78 and you are still
>>struggling
>>with it.
>

> Oh, gee... I'm shattered.

You should be, sir.

>>et one fact straight, dear fellow. What you and I do here
>>is what the British call "Banter". It is harmless fun for both of us, I
>>hope. There is no threat to your health or any form of physical violence
>>from me, sir. That is not my way. I detest people who beleive they can win
>>arguments with thier fists. It's a losing strategy from day one. You will
>>get no such threat from me, sir.
>

> And yet..... you "warned me." Strange...

The only thing that's strange is you, sir.

> This one is quite enough to have made a complete fool of you.

Only in your fantasies, sir.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Jun 10, 2010, 11:39:45 PM6/10/10

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 21:16:13 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
wrote:

>
>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ah5r06do51ge3jus8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:05 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>> wrote:
>>

>>I've already given you the easiest of differential equations. You
>>have no idea how to even approach a solution. IMO, differential
>>equations are far above both your educational level and your
>>intellect. You have offered nothing that would prove me wrong
>>in my belief. If you did not have the resource of the Internet
>>I doubt seriously you could even describe what a differential
>>equation even is.
>>

>>While your question is itself a piece of rubbish... is it a Wye
>>connection with a neutral? A Wye connection without a neutral?
>>A Delta connection? You need to provide a schematic
>>clarifying which voltage is which, in particular where VL
>>is measured from and to. The schematic also needs to
>>include the 4th and possible 5th wire that carries the unbalanced
>>current and offsets from the reference "0 V". In particular you
>>only go in circles if you have a single three phase voltage, yet
>>have three different individual line potentials, without a
>>defined method of doing the 3 voltages -> 1 voltage.
>>
>>Only with a circuit schematic or more information as to the
>>configuration of the power supply itself, can one compute the
>>equivalent circuit A phase... Circuit B phase... and Circuit C phase.
>>It's not even specified which phase or phases are used as the
>>load. Your question obviously came at the end of a lesson in
>>which various factors were PRESUMED... this is not the case
>>in real life. Only with further information given or a schematic
>>can one determine the equivalent Circuit A Phase... Circuit B
>>Phase.... and Circuit C Phase. If it's an unbalanced Wye load
>>we could use matrix algebra to compute various factors, but
>>we would still need which phase or phases are used for the
>>load voltage out.

>
>You have lost your bet, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

>> I'm betting that question comes from one of your Dutch handbooks

>> on Electric Circuits and includes a schematic along with the question,
>> which you just tried to translate into English, and fucked it up
>> properly as you did with that other problem. If you can't put the
>> question up with a schematic it's about worthless, in the way you
>> offered it. But here's help... do it yourself.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase
>
>
>No, sir. The question was taken from a British academic souce and the
>question was worded correctly. Your response admits that you are unable to
>understand the question, sir.

I don't believe you. Post that source, and the entire problem as it
appears in that source. If you can't do that... you're simply lying.
I'll tell you what... you answer it, and provide a step-by-step answer
to see what you use that you omitted from the parameters of the
problem. One does not even know if you are referring to 400VL
as A/C or D/C.

But the gentle reader should notice that in more of your lies and
deceptions you even clipped out my entire comment which
disproved your argument. So I had to put it back in. You're a very
sick boy... seek help --

>> In any case your problem is a piece of junk not worth my
>> time.
>
>Wrong, sir.

Bullshit, it's just like all your comments... mindless drivel.

>> However, here's one for you that does have a schematic along
>> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>
>I see you've found the section on transients in your book, sir

TRANSLATION "That fucking PV... he knows that I don't know
squat when it comes to examining a circuit schematic."

>> This has every bit of the information you need to solve the
>> question.
>>
>
>It does, sir.

And I'll bet you can't solve it.

>> ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one with my
>> friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin.
>>
>
>"ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one "
>
>What I would do, you ask. I would start by looking at what the circuit does,
>sir. At first glance, I see two potential dividers there. I would then
>redraw the equivalent circuit then work out PHI. Once I have that, I can
>plot a graph of the charge/discharge voltage of that capacitor and for good
>measure, I would probably plot the current, also.

ROTFLMAO. You need to provide the ANSWER, sport... not more of your
bullshit. What is the value of v (sub t) for t > 0 ???? From the
problem there is no need to graph it, or try your bullshit. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
You have not correctly solved even one of the problems I've given you.
It has a very straightforward answer, if one knows the Laplace
transform method. In fact, there are all kinds of tables listing
various values. Here's some help --
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html
I think you're a load of bullshit and have no idea how to solve any
Laplace transform.

>You lose your bet, sir.
>

Heh... declaring victory while at the same time admitting defeat in
solving the problem.

> "with my friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin"
>
>You do not fool me, sir. You do not have any friends.

LOL... That from the guy who still has his mommy bring him
his warm milk at night.

"If" you had another brain it would be lonely.

>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Well, let's see. We've already found the cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x

[pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4 x 10^-9) Hz
thus reducing -- cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
cutoff frequency = -3 db

For the phase angle in degrees we know that it is equal to
-tan^-1(f(in)/f(cutoff))... and f(in)/f(cutoff) = 0.1. So from basic
trig we find that -tan^-1*(0.1) = 10 in degrees. So the phase angle
at 500 Hz is 10 degrees.

As to the dB loss there is insufficient information, since it is
determined by the order of the filter itself. For example: for
first order low pass filters the gain rolls off at a rate of -20
dB/per decade, in the stop band. On the other hand, for
second order low pass filters the roll off is -40 dB/per decade. But
since the frequency you gave is 500 Hz, and the cutoff frequency is
5,000 Hz, I would suspect there would be no dB loss at 500 Hz. See -
http://www.play-hookey.com/ac_theory/lo_pass_filters.html

Now answer please --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg

>
>Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40 ohm,
>calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissipated across
>each line, sir.

Insufficient information. Provide a circuit schematic and I'll solve
that problem. I mean... you DO have a schematic for the circuit
you describe... don't you????

Answer please --

Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g
With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/fourier_transform_quiz.jpg

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/laplace_quiz.jpg

These should keep you busy... if you can even handle one of them.

"If" you were any dumber you'd have to be watered twice a week.

>You have a parallel tuned circuit with a resistance of 68 ohm, a resonant
>frequency of 5khz, and an inductor of 145.4 mH. Calculate the capacitance.
>

Heh... what's this 5khz??? I thought you argued there was no
such thing... that it is KCs?

However... XL at resonance is --> 2*pi*f*h = 4.568 K ohms...
Thus CL must also be 4.568 K ohm. And simple arithmetic to
compute C = 1/(2(pi)*f*4568) gives C = 6.968 *10^-9 = 6.968 nf.

Answer please --

Find the steady-state temperature distribution in the half-space z
0 if the temperature distribution u(r,0) = F(r) is maintained on the
bounding plane face z = 0. Assume that F(r) satisfies the conditions
for the existence of its Hankel transform [1]. Show your work.
Your answer should be in the form of u(r,z) = ????

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Gauss_law_quiz.jpg

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Thevenin_quiz.jpg

I keep making them easier for you... haven't seen you solve one
yet.

>A fourth question, for you, sir. as you've added another, so shall I.
>
>
>You have a resonant tuned circuit of 500 c/s and an inductor of 1mH this
>give you an inductive reactance of 3.142 ohms. Tell me the capacitive
>reactance and show your workings, sir.

ROTFLMAO!!! Okay...
<sarcasm>
We have an XL of 3.142 ohms... So we add the sum of your ignorance to
XL which gives us XL + googol. We then know the relationship of XC to
XL, so we add the sum of your ignorance to XC which gives us XC +
googol. So we have XL + googol = XC + googol, and subtracting googol
from both sides of that equation we have XL = XC. So at resonance XL
= XC. Given XL =3.142 ohms at resonance., XC must also equal 3.412
ohms at resonance.
</sarcasm>

You doofus!!!! At resonance XL = XC. You GAVE me XL, and asked
for XC. Not just trivial but an identity. Actually... no work
involved there. Where do you get your problems from??? Joe Miller's
Joke Book of Electronic Ignorance?

Answer please --
An amplifier has a 4bB noise figure; the bandwidth is B = 500 KHz.
Calculate the input signal power that yields a unity SNR at the
output. Assume T (sub o) = 290 degrees Kelvin and an input
resistance of one ohm.

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/fourier_quiz.jpg

And because you asked me a question about a geometric shape --
One more for good measure --
Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/sphere_quiz.jpg

<fx: PV sits back and laughs his head off>

>>>" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>>> approach"
>>>
>>>No, you cannot sir.
>>
>> Sure I can, shit-for-brains. I've already thrown three at you that
>> you're afraid to even take a stab at.
>>
>
>" Sure I can, shit-for-brains"
>
>No, you cannot sir.

See above, Sir shit-for-brains... I have thousands of them that are
well beyond your intellect.

"If" you were any smarter, your mommy could teach you to fetch.

>"I've already thrown three at you that
>> you're afraid to even take a stab at."
>
>No you haven't, sir.

Of course I have... they are shown above... and you haven't solved
a single question I've thrown at you... NOT ONE!!!

>>> Not when you failed to answer the simple DB problem I
>>>gave you earlier.
>>
>> When you learn how to formulate your problems accurately you'll
>> get better results. Offering mumbo-jumbo only shows your own
>> ignorance.
>
>It's formulated correctly, sir.

No... it's not.

>
>>>
>>>Problems you cannot solve, sir.
>>
>>
>"Wrong, sport... "
>I'm glad to hear it, sir. I look forward to seeing your solutions, dear
>fellow.

See above, shit-for-brains.

>>>>
>>>
>>>It's hardly a "simple" problem then, sir.
>>>
>> Yes... but you don't even know the first thing how to start.
>
>You are guessing, sir.

And yet... there you sit... claiming I haven't thrown a problem
at you that you cannot solve. And then you wonder why I call
you a pathological liar.

>>>> But I can "understand" the solution in going through that _cheat
>>>> sheet_. I'm quite sure that you couldn't.
>>>
>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>
>> Well, prove it!
>
>You haven't posted the cheat sheet yet, sir

When you solve the first step, shit for brains.

>>
>>
>> *profound silence from Sir shit-for-brains*
>
>You were anything by silent, sir.

Your name is "Sir shit-for-brains." Try to separate fact from
your rather disturbed and creepy imagination.

>>>Provide me with the references and sources you used and I shall see if I
>>>can figure it out but it doesn't read like an electrical engineering problem.
>>>It reads like a physics problem.
>>
>> Give you the source so you can look up the answer?
>
>So you looked up the answer sir. I could have guessed.

I have all the answers. You have none.

>>You must be
>> joking. However, the title of the source contains the word
>> "Engineering."
>>
>
>Is it electrical enginnering, sir?.

No... it's electrical "engineering," you stupid shit-for-brains.
Get yourself a spell checker. It will not only improve the appearance
of your comments, but teach you how to spell.

>>>
>>>A curious statement as you have managed to answer only one problem I posed
>>>for you.
>>
>> While you have correctly answered not a one of mine. Hell... you have
>> three waiting for you, >
>>><snip>
>>>
>
>"While you have correctly answered not a one of mine"
>
>You are incorrect, sir. I answered your first one correctly, second time
>round.

The point is that you answered incorrectly. I don't usually answer
questions until I am sure of the answer. See above. I've enjoyed
this since it has made me at times go back to the references I
maintain... you are quite permitted to use any references you might
find helpful... but so far there hasn't been any real effort shown on
your part, because you've become aware that the situation is much
too complex for your limited skills.

"If" brains were taxed, you'd break the EU bank in refunds.

>"Hell... you have three waiting for you,"
>
>You have 4 waiting for you.

I have none waiting for me. In fact, there are two of your own
waiting for you to provide a schematic. You do know what a schematic
is... don't you???

You now have eight questions waiting for you. I promise to give
you at least two for every one you ask me... and I'll bet you whine
that you are unable to answer or even try to answer any of them
with an answer that makes any sense.

Right now the score is eight questions to you with only one
"second-chance" feeble answer from you, and no unanswered
questions from you to me.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
>>>>>> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
>>>>>> at you, sport.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As I said before, sir. They are pointing directly at you.
>>
>> Apparently you're also blind.
>
>No, sir.

Talk's cheap, son. See --
http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl

>>>Basic electrical principles are too complicated for you, evidently sir.
>>
>> Heh... I haven't seen any picture of electrical principles from you,
>> Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>
>You need pictures, sir?
>You should be able to draw them from the parameters I gave you, sir.

Wrong. YOU should be able to draw them from the parameters you
gave, Sir shit-for-brains. You assert YOU CAN... so you need to PROVE
IT. We both know that you cannot draw the circuits in question given
only the limited parameters you've given.

>>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly my point, sir. As I said, "You have no basis to back up your
>>>assertions, so they can only be guesses"
>>>
>> You're the one asserting that I'm guessing. Prove it. I've
>> got the proof.
>
>You have never backed up your assertions, without proof they are guesses,
>sir.

And yet, you're the one asserting I'm guessing. Logic really is
too complicated for you, sonny. Stick with the warm milk from mommy
at night, and stay out of Internet information sites about electronics
that are too complicated for you.

>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>
>No, sir.

Yes, sonny. The differential equation is --

Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g

With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)

They don't come any easier than that...

<fx: Death Disco begins to sweat, and turn blood-red in the
face>

>>>>>>>It was not a cite, sir, so no reference is required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"
>>>>>
>>>>>The word is "cite", sir.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I followed it with a (sic), you moron. See --
>>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sic
>>>> Quote -- "Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one
>>>> containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in
>>>> its original form or written intentionally."
>>>>
>>>
>>>"That's why I followed it with a (sic), "
>>>
>>>Which was incorrectly placed sir.
>>
>> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains. It was placed quite accurately. Since
>> both your use of "site" and your misspelling of "inadmissible,"
>> required mention that it was garbage English.
>>>
>
>It was incorrectly placed sir..

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

>>>

>>>"Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both "cite""
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No Didn't sir.
>>
>> Yes, you did,
>
>No Didn't sir.
>

Yes, did... Sir shit-for-brains. Unlike you and your absurd lies I
have the PROOF... in your own words. you challenge me to provide
proof positive of your dishonesty. I have this proof, Sir
shit-for-brains. It is unambiguous, undoubted, and in your own hand,
and I believe it is in the interest of newsgroup readers to realize
that your protestations of honesty, repeated over and over, are not
true. You are a pathological liar.

>>
>>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>>arguments any other way".
>>
>> You can say it forever, and it won't for a single second hide your
>> shown ignorance of the English language.
>
>English is not my first language, xenophobe,

Well, English is my mother-tongue and I despise it being assassinated
by someone who isn't intent upon learning English, but instead intent
upon using it to spread poisonous filth, and pathological lies. After
all.... you did write that -- "if i do not approve of a definition I
simply choose not to use it." That's proof you are not trying to
learn English, but to corrupt it.

However, you're the xenophobe, since you insisted I cannot use
"American English." I just wish you'd use English in ways in which
you do not intend to corrupt the English language. I'll take any
kind... as long as you don't use it to spread hate, and Holocaust
denial, and other venomous lies.

>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>> Aristotle.
>
>
>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.
>

We're talking about your stupidity.. which is truly astonishing in
it's breadth and length.

>>
>>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>>
>> And yet that's all you have to say. Repetitive mindless drivel.
>
>Pot, kettle, black, sir.

Hardly... See..
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/thesaurus.jpg
That's just one of them, Sir shit-for-brains... You really are an
emotional wreck, my boy... seek help.

>
>>>>>No I don't sir. Wait a can hear your voice now. It's a high pitched
>>>>>meaningless whine.
>>>>
>>>> No... that's the sound of those cockroaches that you protect from
>>>> being "murdered" (sic). ROTFLMAO. Death Disco --> AADP's
>>>> cockroach protector. Won't let anything harm his "poor
>>>> innocent cockroach," insisting that killing a cockroach is defined
>>>> as "murder" to him.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"No"
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>No.

YES!!! Heh heh heh... got you going. You've made lying your
profession. YES... YES... YES...

>>>It's definately your voice, sir.
>>
>> Too bad your comment only again displays your ignorance of the
>> English language.
>
>You're guessing, sir.

Hardly... there is not a single post from you that does not contain
either a new lie, or a denial of your past lies. And lying is
well-known as an attempt to cover-up for ignorance. Your
post here carries a number of your lies.

>>>>
>>>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.
>>
>> But you said you _know_ it. You said it was "something higher
>> than ourselves." Well, how could that be if you didn't hear it from
>> "it"? Who told you? Oh, wait... it's that Bible talking to you
>> again... never mind.
>>
>
>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.

And yet.... you insist you DO KNOW there is "something higher than
ourselves," who has TOLD YOU there is this fairy tale of "a right to
life for cockroaches, rats, flies, bacteria and other pathogens." With
each human falling someone in between one cockroach and two
cockroaches in worth.

Once again, in your imaginary belief that "nature" is that "something
higher than ourselves" and has given all biological life a "right to
life," you offer another one of your logical fallacies, "The appeal to
nature" fallacy. See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

It's thinking like yours that leads to the taking of life, in the
mistaken belief that doing so protects "a right to life." Clearly in
your argument about your precious cockroaches, you have insisted
that the lives of two cockroaches as twice as important as the
life of one human being.

I'll ask you again... would you kill two cockroaches to save a
murderer from being executed?

>>>Simple logic, sir.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO. Doesn't that word stick in your craw, considering you
>> have no idea what it really means???
>
>Id that the best you can do, sir? It is apparently.

Was that the best you could do in arguing "Simple logic," in support
of one of the most massive efforts to diminish the human race ever
seen in Usenet?

>>>>
>>>"Yes, you did".
>>>
>>>No I didn't, sir.
>>
>> See above... PROOF positive. Poor ol' Sir shit-for-brains... caught
>> in yet another lie.
>>
>
>No proof at all, sir.

And yet the proof is there... in your own words. your argument when

put into logical terms is "x is something higher than ourselves." and
"x is an unknown." But you know that "x is something higher than
ourselves," So "x is not unknown to Death Disco."

quod erat demonstrandum -- Death Disco claims to "know the unknown."

And what's even more revealing is that you clipped the proof, but
left only your denials in.

"Nature" doesn't give a shit about biological life, Sir
shit-for-brains. Your unnatural belief that abstractions _talk to
you_, is the sign of a sick mind.

>>>"Shit, son"
>>>
>>>I shall take that as a yes.
>>
>> Take it any way you want to...
>
>Oh I will, sir.

You've always been a master of lies... why should I expect otherwise?

"If" ignorance were a crime, you'd be on the "ten most wanted" list.

>
><snip Mr Noles' puerile nonsense>

Heh... Death Disco admits that my credentials are in order, yet has
even swallowed the key to his desk in which he keeps his imaginary
credentials (along with his trusty Bible), to make sure he can claim
anything he wants.

>>>>>>>You believe in a god, sir?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the word "if" (a conditional clause) too complicated for you? IF
>>>>>> you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>"Is the word "if" (a conditional clause)"
>>>
>>>Yes it is sir.
>>
>> Well, then... wake up!!
>
>You're droning would send anyone to sleep, sir.

There's a solution for that... simply ignore my ruination of
all your arguments, rather than respond with these endless streams
of lies and mindless drivel of yours.

>>>"IF you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I could fly in an aeroplane, sir.
>>
>> No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you. If you
>> could jump on the back of one of your dragons,
>
>My dragons, sir?

Yeah, one of your imaginary dragons.

>
>"No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you"
>
>Only if you forget to get on it, sir.
>

You're insane... by now even you must realize that your trolley has
jumped the tracks. Have mommy bring you some warm milk and
tuck you in, you've used up all your lies for today.

>> In any case... read my word, Sir shit-for-brains. It refers
>> to BIRDS... and doesn't even say that YOU can't fly but
>> that IF you were a bird you could fly.
>
>And my words do not testify that I cannot fly without an aircraft, sir.
>They stipulate only that I can fly on one.

That's not YOU flying, Sir shit-for-brains.

>I would hope that you did not do much programming in your alleged masters
>degree, sir. You do not have the logic for it.

ROTFLMAO... Death Disco insists that getting on a plane that
flies means HE can fly... and calls that _his logic_. Perhaps
you should examine the logical fallacy of "The Affirmation of
the Consequent." See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#consequent
Notice that your argument is "A" - I can fly implies "B" because the
aircraft can fly me. Just because "B" is true, does not mean "A" is
true. You cannot fly, bird boy.

"If" there were an Easter Bunny, Death Disco would claim that the
Easter Bunny told him there is this "right to life for cockroaches and
other vermin."

>But, given that
>> you also hear voices I suspect you also believe you can be
>> transmogrified into a bird, simply by stepping into the
>> teleporter from StarTrek. Perhaps a carrion eating bird...
>> it would certainly be apposite (look that word up in your handy
>> pocket English dictionary).
>>
>
>"But, given that
>> you also hear voices "
>
>I can hear them now, sir. the radio is on.

Is that those voices coming from your tin hat antenna? Pretty soon
you'll have to put up a sign to warn others. See --
http://tinyurl.com/32tx8n3

>
>>>>>I ended my comment with a question mark, sir. I was asking you a
>>>>>question.
>>>>
>>>> Well... I don't believe in a God. Certainly not one who figures that
>>>> all biological life, down to viruses and mosquitoes must be given some
>>>> "right to life." Nor do I consider cockroaches to be equal to human
>>>> beings as you have insisted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"I don't believe in a God"
>>>
>>>You don't, sir? Then why do you keep asking it to strike me down?
>>
>> Are you still confused about the word "if," Sir shit-for-brains???
>> But trust me... if would no big loss to humanity. Although
>> cockroaches might attend your funeral. With cockroaches,
>> mourning the loss of their "champion," who insists they are
>> each the equal of a human being, up to the neck of everyone
>> around it. No greater love hath man... than Death Disco for
>> the cockroach.
>>
>
>"Are you still confused about the word "if," "
>
>Oh there's no confusion, sir.

They why is it you continue to insist the word doesn't exist in my
comment, shit-for-brains?

"If" ignorance were painful, you'd be in agony.

>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I have not killed anyone sir.
>>>>
>>>> So that's your excuse for the slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa????
>>
>>>
>>>You perceive that innocence is an excuse? Curious.
>>
>> When you're part of the problem!!!
>
>The part of the problem is the people doing the killing; the other part of
>the problem is the politics behind the people doing the killing. If you are
>involved in neither of those then you are not part of the problem.
>

All men are political animals. If you don't fight against it... then
you are fighting for it. I haven't yet seen you write that you regret
or despise the killing of those Tutsis. But I have seen you insist
you do not know of the Holocaust, while telling the Jews that
"after sixty years, it's time for them to get over it."

>>> I wasn't at the holocaust. I do remember much of my
>>>education, however.
>>
>> You mean arithmetic. Big deal. But again we have your
>> two-faced claim. 1) You state "I do remember NOTHING."
>> and then you state 2) "I do remember much of my education."
>>
>> Which is it???
>
>"You mean arithmetic"
>No, sir. I mean a whole lot more.

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

> "I do remember NOTHING."

>
>If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you
>should not be allowed to play
>

I put up your EXACT words, Sir shit-for-brains. Don't imply I'm lying
when you said exactly that in very precise words.

>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>
>> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
>> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
>> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>>
>>>That is your problem, sir.
>>
>> How can the fact that you insist you hear voices from "something
>> higher than ourselves," possibly be MY problem?
>
>I made no such claim, sir.

Sure you did, you airhead. How do you KNOW that there is
a "right to life for all biological life"? There is no written word
from "someone higher than ourselves," unless you are thumping
your Bible. You imagine that "nature" and "biology" TALK TO
YOU?? No one else hears those voices from "nature" and "biology."
An abstraction cannot offer some kind of fact. "Nature" and
"biology" do not dispense "rights" to anything or any one.

"If" one wanted to write rubbish, they could take lessons from you.

>If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you
>should not be allowed to play
>

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>

>>>Oh please, sir. Once cannnot watch the news without hearing about someone
>>>your people bombed.
>>>
>>
>> "In respect to the death penalty"!!! Can't you ever read my words
>> without distorting them, and lying about it???
>
>"In respect to the death penalty"!!!
>
>Is that what you call it?

Isn't that what was stated in my words? Are you deaf, dumb and
blind... or just incredibly stupid with a pathological need to lie?

Once again... to clear this up, because of you hoping to first remove
my words, and then twist them into saying what I did not say... here
is my comment... repeated for you -- which you had clipped out.
---------------------------------

Wrong again... the only people interfering in the affairs of other
states in respect to the death penalty is the EU trying to exert
pressure on the U.S. in an internal matter. I don't know of
any American having posted to AADP who gives a shit what
the EU does with her murderers. I know I don't care! Yet the
EU remains *profoundly silence* when it comes to condemning
Islamic Sharia law, which stones women for adultery, and hangs
those who are homosexuals.

---------------------------------
See the words "in respect to the death penalty," you lying sack of
shit?

>>>> While Europe continues to fancy Africa as part of her colonial
>>>> empire, and will commit murder and genocide if doing so can
>>>> maintain hegemony over the indigenous population and the
>>>> mineral resources of Africa.
>>>
>>>Your xenophobia is showing again, sir.
>>
>> Actually it's Europe's xenophobia,
>
>No, sir. It's yours.
>

Wrong, shit-for-brains. As I've explained I don't give a rat's ass if
the EU holds a parade and makes sure that every murderer enjoys
a conjugal weekend with Miss EU. That's the EU's business.

However, when the EU starts fucking with what WE do with OUR
murderers... they are the ones demonstrating xenophobia. You really
need to look up the word, shit for brains. See --
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/xenophobia
XENOPHOBIA -- "Extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs,
their religions, etc."

Our custom is that we handle our murderers as we see fit... you and
the rest of the EU show "extreme dislike" for OUR custom. In fact,
the same applies to the U.S. being a strongly religious based
citizenship (for some reason which eludes me... because it's truly
stupid, IMO. But I can form that opinion, without being xenophobic,
because I am an American). The EU really has little to do other than
complain about the so-called "American religious right," that drives
members of the EU into fits of raving hysteria, and fear greater than
their fear of an EU 9/11.

Don't even try to argue otherwise, because the evidence is there.

As you've argued -- "Who are you to poke your nose into what is none
of your business?" Apparently your xenophobia applies to your
objection to me sticking my nose in... while you have no problem with
you sticking YOUR nose in... what is none of your business.

>>>As I said, your country is as knee deep in blood as everyone else, sir.
>>
>> So that excuses "everyone else"???
>
>No, sir.

Then why do I not see you having ever complained about the Holocaust
or the genocide in Rwanda, or the genocide in the former state of
Yugoslavia? Why have I never seen you complain about the growing
influence of Islamic terrorism in Europe which led to the murder of
Theo Van Gogh? Or the fact that riots raged across the EU when
cartoons were published lampooning Mohammed? Or the fact that
Geert Wilders must be protected 24 hours a day, every day, because
he is anti-Muslim terrorism? Or the fact that Muslim fathers and
brothers murder their daughters if they have anything to do with
non-Muslims, believing "family honor" (sic) is better served through
murder of one's own family? Why have I not seen you complain
about these images right from the UK --
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/03/In-their-own-words/

Or is that you in one of those "protests"?

>>>Maybe I can borrow some of yours, sir.
>>
>> Oh, gee... I'm shattered.. poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
>> an original thought in his head and simply uses the typical "you
>> to," as some kind of excuses for his psychotic behavior.
>
>"poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
>> an original thought in his head "
>
>Don't you, sir? That's hardly suprising.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>Yes, sir. You're the one whom likes showing off your book collection.

>>
>> And you, Sir shit-for-brains - like showing off your ignorance
>
>No, sir. I like showing off yours. I'm amazed that one who has so many books
>knows so little. Perhaps you should try reading them.
>

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

And yet, I've answered all your questions, while you have answered not
a single one of mine, other than a feeble stab in your original
answer, and then thinking you'd better revise it after you took a
piss. And a question that was not meant to test anything other than
your very basic knowledge of resonance. Which any 14-year-old
knows if he is interested in science of any kind. So you really
haven't proved that you're older than 14.

>>>No I don't, sir.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>> Yes... you do, Sir Double-Speak.
>>
>No I don't, sir.

>>> Other people's political
>>>views are not your business.
>>
>> Who are you to tell me what is or is not my business, given this
>> is Usenet, and not a closed political meeting of cigar-smoking
>> swindlers? Is this more of your God-complex speaking? Are
>> you acting as the guard for that closed political meeting?
>>
>
>"Who are you to tell me what is or is not my business"
>
>Who are you to poke your nose into what is none of your business?
>

Who are you to tell me what is "none of your business"? That's
your fascism talking, Sir shit-for-brains.

Clearly you are the one trying to set LIMITS on my "freedom of
speech." Pure fascism on your part.

"If" brains were dynamite, you couldn't blow your nose.

>> You really think name-calling bothers me, when I have the
>> evidence of YOUR HOLOCAUST DENIAL!!!
>>
>
>No, you don't sir
>

Sure I do... your exact words --

1) "You do not remember what is not in your memory and it is not in

your memory if you did not experience or witness it first hand."

2) "You cannot forget or remember the extermination of 6 million jews
unless you remember them."

3) "You cannot forget or remember the extermination of
6 million jews unless you remember them and to remember

them you must have experienced them first hand."

etc.. etc... etc... While you do "remember" the Crusades and the
Greeks bearing gifts!!! And below all the other murders committed
in WW II... but you NEVER "remember" the Holocaust.

>>>I pick up the cockroach with my hand and take it outside, sir.
>>
>> Heh... try it sometime. Are you going to put on your "super powers"
>> costume that "something higher than ourselves" gave you, so you can
>> be faster than a speeding bullet, and pick up that cockroach, because
>> it's hoping to rest in your tender arms, and will quietly wait for you
>> to pick it up? Fat chance!!
>
>"Heh... try it sometime"
>
>I do, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

"A cockroach, for instance, flees from a predator when it detects a
puff of air. It works out the wind direction, and acts in less than 60
milliseconds."

and --
"High-speed videos showed that a cockroach could run 1.5 metres
(almost five feet) per second. As it increased speed, the cockroach
leaned back and ran on only four of its six legs. To zoom along at top
speed, it ran on only its two back legs."

See --
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/animal.asp

Biological facts that limit the response time of all humans show it
is virtually impossible to reach down and pick up a cockroach with
the fingers of your hand. At most you'll get only the slippery
feel of the bacterial agents that cover his body, as he quickly
rushes across the face of your baby in getting away. Unless you have
fed that cockroach a hearty dose of vodka beforehand.

>>>> Obviously you would not "step on that cockroach" when it was already
>>>> on your baby's arm... or would you?
>>>
>>>I would not step on the cockroach full stop sir.
>>
>> Clear... you would let it possibly infect your baby with various
>> pathogenic bacteria and viruses they carry on their hairy legs and
>> bodies.
>
>
>No, sir. I would move it. You would stomp on it and infect your baby with
>bacteria from its blood, sir.

The problem did not offer a "door number three," shit-for-brains. By
inventing one you only show your ignorance and sly attempts to cheat
on the problem. It's that "if" factor that you want to use... the
"if" I could pick it up before it ran on my baby I would... but you
can't because the problem itself does not permit it.

>>> I recall you stating that
>>>you would step on it for the hell of it. Do you deny those words, sir?
>>
>> Without a doubt. I would never let a cockroach get close to my
>> baby if it was in my power to kill it before it did. Cockroaches
>> have as much value to me as a stone. And I would throw a
>> stone in water for the hell of it... just to watch it skip.
>>
>>" Without a doubt. I would never let a cockroach get close to my
>> baby if it was in my power to kill it before it did"
>
>Why not just move it, sir? Why are you Americans so obsessed with killing?

Because that wasn't part of the "thought experiment." Look... if
you're going to cheat and lie... then do whatever you want... but it's
obvious that all you are doing is cheating while hoping to use ad
hominem to attack me for wanting to protect my baby.

In the end... the thought experiment proved one thing... and one thing
only... you value the life of that cockroach equally or greater than
the value you place on the health of your baby. I do not value the
life of that cockroach equal to anything more than a rock. And just
as I would try to catch a rock that was thrown at my baby, I would try
to kill that cockroach before it had any chance of running onto any
part of my baby, or any object that my baby would come across.
And I don't permit my baby to _crawl on the floor_.

>>>>The question was phrased to
>>>> argue would you kill that cockroach BEFORE it could crawl on your
>>>> baby's arm, with the condition that you could not reach that cockroach
>>>> with your hand before it did crawl on your baby's arm? Leaving you
>>>> ONLY the choice of killing it BEFORE it could crawl on your baby, or
>>>> seeing it crawl on your baby's arm.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your question is bunkum. and I have already answered it, sir.
>>>
>> I know you have. You would permit your baby to possibly be infected
>> you _your friend... the cockroach_.
>
>So you did not read my answer, sir. Typical,, dear fellow.

There is no "door number three," cheater.

>>>>
>>>>>Are you getting angry again, sir?
>>>>>
>>>> Well... let me see... you told me "Others' opinions are none of your
>>>> business." Now you seem to be overly concerned about my opinions.
>>>> But I freely admit that Holocaust denial pisses me off. And you are
>>>> a Holocaust denier. That's the benchmark of my being pissed off
>>>> at you.
>
>>>
>>>Did you dislike that, sir? It was a kind of comment that a fascist would
>>>object too
>>
>> Only a fascist would argue that the opinions of others are _none of
>> my business_.
>
>
>No, sir. Only a fascist would argue that other people's opinions are his
>business.

Only a fascist objects to "freedom of speech."

When other people's opinions demonstrate hate I feel it is my moral
obligation to confront that hate. You would argue that doing so is
fascism... but doing so is "freedom of speech."

When you argue Holocaust denial, there is no question that I will
confront you. Your problem is that you can't defend your Holocaust
denial views, so you insist they are "your business," and thus "none
of my business." Confronting Holocaust denial is not fascism...
Holocaust denial is fascism.

>>>>>>>You should think your debates through, sir. Did you have any children
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>lived sir?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living? Trust me...
>>>>>> you start bringing insults to my real family or real children, rather
>>>>>> than a hypothetical thought experiment and you will find yourself
>>>>>> being accused of screwing your sister. Remember that YOU started
>>>>>> it. Now apologize and let's move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living?"
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure she could be persuaded, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Last I heard she was only getting a dollar a trick.
>>>
>>>
>>>It cannot be my mother you are thinking of, sir. She does not accept
>>>American money because she has standards. However I do enjoy that you are
>>>such an ignoramus that you fail to comprehend that in my motherland,
>>>prostitution is neither illegal nor immoral. It is a respectable
>>>profession.
>>>The "your mother is a whore" lines do not work on us, dear fellow.
>>>
>> So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
>> the Damrak... isn't she a little bit old for that "respectable
>> profession"? Does she also perform with donkeys??
>>
>
>>So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
>> the Damrak
>
>What did she look like, sir?

A drunken slut.

>"Does she also perform with donkeys??"
>
>Is that a request, sir?

Why would you think so? Does she honor requests?

>Does bestiality rock your boat, sir?

Apparently it rocks yours... since you seem quite determined to
defend your mother's video with that donkey.

> I had
>suspected. If you bring the donkey you usually mate with I'm sure that young
>lady you met on the Damrak might accomodate you.

Your mother has her own donkey. Your sister bought it for her using
the money that you pay your sister for those "sexual favors" she gives
you. Those things are bad enough... but they dim in importance to
your attempts to deny the Holocaust.

>>>>> For a broken down hopeless old man
>>>>>such as yourself, she me very likely increase the price.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not into catching diseases. But what's this "she me very..."?
>>>
>>>
>>>"I'm not into catching diseases"
>>>
>>>Neither is she, sir.
>>
>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>
>
>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible. Did they fail you on referencing at
>university, sir or did you fake your certificate?
>

What "unreferenced cite"?

>>>"But what's this "she me very..."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>>
>>
>> English is not your - any language -
>
>
>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet; however,
>it is still better than yours is.
>

You only wish... While my wish is that you stop --

1) acting like a craven coward
2) displaying the depressing burden of your exiguous education
3) showing your disgusting ignorance
4) planting some defamatory slander
5) insisting that voices are telling you things that are "unknown"
6) sowing your hebephrenic and insensate nature
7) expressing your acerbic insolence
8) inserting your nefarious antipathy toward humanity
9) raving in your lubricous xenophobic hubris
10) exhibiting a proclivity for disgraceful buffoonery
11) ranting in frenzied and fallacious demagoguery
12) revealing your malfeasant racism
13) parading a shameful and evil Holocaust denial
14) creating a catachrestic destruction of the English language
15) flaunting your grotesque and ludicrous catagenetic representation
of humans as no better than cockroaches

and --
16) offering your disingenuous and fraudulent cheating and lying

etc...etc... etc...

>>>>>>>Then you are a murderer, sir, on two counts. One for killing the poor
>>>>>>>innocent cockroach
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFLMAO. Read the definition of murder, you ignorant child.
>>>>>> MURDER -- "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially
>>>>>> with premeditated malice."
>>>>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Insects are NOT "human." Only someone on the edge of sanity could
>>>>>> argue that _cockroaches_ are HUMAN.
>>>>>
>>>>>The unlawful, deliberate killing, sir.
>>>>
>>>> "of one human by another," shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>>That must be awfully convenient for you. You are still a murdering
>>>bastard,
>>>sir
>>
>> Heh... that from the guy who insists a cockroach is worth every bit as
>> much as a human being. It's laughable.
>
>It's worth more than you are, sir.

Awww... isn't that sweet... Death Disco loves murderers, but insists
he also loves cockroaches.

>>>>> So if womeone were to kill you it would not be murder.
>>>>
>>>> What the fuck is a "womeone" (sic)? Is that one of your gang member
>>>> that I have to worry about murdering me??
>>>>
>>>
>>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>>
>" Hey, I don't care whether English "
>
>Sir? You are going to have to stop your delusion that I care at all about
>what you think.
>

And yet you're still here. The gentle reader would find that a bit
unbelievable. You seem to care a great deal about what I think, since
you insist that I not speak of what I think of the opinions of
others... that you in your best fascist uniform insist is "none of
your business." You care so much about "what I think," that you
want to shut me up... one way or another. You're a very sick boy,
shit-for-brains... seek help.

Hey... bet you can't answer any of those nine questions I've given
you. Come on... I need to make some money from my friend. He's
betting you can solve the one on Fourier transforms. I'm betting you
had to look up what a "Fourier transform" even is.

"If" your ambition is to get educated... you're going at it in the
wrong direction, shit-for-brains.

>
>> So in your native Tigrinya language the cockroach is equal to the
>> human, and both have been told by "something higher than
>> ourselves," that they "a right to life." Is cannibalism also part
>> of your culture?
>>
>
>"So in your native Tigrinya language "
>
>It makes a nice change from being called, Dutch, sir.

HTH

>>>
>>>AADP neither accepts nor denies anything sir. It is a newsgroup.
>>
>> You're repeating yourself, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>
>You have not answered the argument, sir.

Your argument is that I have no right to free speech in this newsgroup
or any newsgroup, because you insist it's "none of your business." How
am I supposed to answer such an argument, other than to remark that
it's typical fascism?

>>>> See --
>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rtfq
>>>
>>>
>>>If you will post acronyms, sir.
>>>
>>
>> Sure... why not?
>
>Because you have the bandwidth to post the full expressions even if you lack
>the vocabulary, sir.

If you can't figure out the acronym that only reflects upon your
intelligence, shit-for-brains.

>>
>>>> Educated yourself, for fuck's sake. You can't stumble through
>>>> life remaining ignorant... even if you think you can.
>>>
>>>I shall be right behind you in the queue, ignoramus.
>>
>> There is no question that reason would have the same effect on
>> you as daylight has on Dracula.
>
>It would have no effect if he lay asleep in his coffin with the lid closed,
>imbecile.
>

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"

>>>
>>>Who are you to tell people what to believe, what politics to support, what
>>>religions to support?
>>>
>> I've never done that... "
>
>Wrong, sir. You always do it. if you read a post where someone has a
>political or a religious view you don't like, you hound them, you lie and
>you try to humiliate and discredit them by twisting their words. You are a
>fascist through and through, sir. In addition, you call your practice
>"exposing people". You are lower than any cockroach, sir.
>

My, my... look at that fascist rage. All because I've humiliated
and discredited you and your Holocaust revision.

But given you have more affection for the cockroach than for the
health of your baby, it's no insult for YOU to claim I'm "lower
than any cockroach." My word... YOU LOVE COCKROACHES!!
So why should I worry that _you don't love ME_?

Come on... let's try another "thought experiment." If you could
save the life of one cockroach by killing me... would you kill me? Of
course you would... There is that much hate in your heart for me.
Would you kill one cockroach to save my life, or the life of ANY
human???

You're not well... you're mentally unbalanced... seek help.

>>>At no juncture did I claim it was 100% inaccurate, sir.
>>
>> So it only "accurate" when YOU use it. ROTFLMAO. What a
>> sick hubris you have.
>>
>
>So it only "accurate" when YOU use it.
>
>No, sir. So it only "innaccurate" when YOU use it

If that were only a word in the English language. Do you always
make mistakes when you fly into one of your childish tantrums?
Answer the question.

>>>>>Why Jews, sir? Do you see them more important than the rest of the
>>>>>world?
>>>>>Are you a racist, sir?
>>>>
>>>> Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis... you insist you
>>>> don't "remember" it... so it is not in your memory. Given that fact,
>>>> it is obvious that you care more about six million and one cockroaches
>>>> than those six million innocent Jews slaughtered by your kinsmen
>>>> on the continent of Europe.
>>>>
>>>
>>>" Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis"
>>>
>>>
>>>What about everyone else who were exterminated by the Nazis, sir? Don't
>>>they count? What about those whom were tortured by the Japanese, sir? Don't
>>>tthey count?
>>
>> What about the six million Jews... don't THEY count???
>
>What about the Polish, sir? Don't they count? What about the Czechs, sir?
>Don't they count? What about the norwegians, sir>? Don't they count? What
>about the French, sir? Don't they count? What about the Bitish, sir? Don't
>they count? What about your own people sir? Don't they count? What about all
>the other allied nations who lost people in world war 2, sir? Don't they
>count? Then there's thecivilians, sir. Even Germany's own people were
>subject to the tyranny, sir. Open your eyes!

What about the Jews? Suddenly you "remember" the Polish, the Czechs,
the Norwegians, the French, the British, the Americans... Yet, you
cannot "remember" the Jews. And then you question my finding that to
be Holocaust denial. You do know the definition of "The Holocaust" in
its latest and most current meaning, don't you? See --
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/holocaust?view=uk

See that "holocaust" (lower case, without "the") means "destruction or
slaughter on a mass scale," while "The Holocaust" (upper case "H"
and including the word "the") means "the mass murder of Jews under
the German Nazi regime in World War II."

Now I don't call you a "holocaust" denier (small "h"), since you seem
to suddenly "remember" all the "destruction or slaughter on a mass
scale." But I do call you a "Holocaust denier" (upper case "H") for
the simple reason that you insist you cannot "remember" the killing of
the Jews in WW II. In fact you do everything in your power to argue
that there were no Jews murdered in WW II because of their race or
religion. You "remember" every murder in WW II EXCEPT the murder
of the Jews. You've just shown that in plain words.

>> Apparently
>> your argument is that because others were murdered in a war in which
>> 50 million people lost their lives, those six million Jews are
>> insignificant.
>
>You're wrong again, sir. My argument is that all were significant.

Yet you never mention the Jews... in fact you insist you CANNOT
"remember" any Jews exterminated in WW II, while you certainly
"remember" others murdered in WW II.

You're one very sick puppy.

>>That only shows your anti-Semitism
>
>That is not possible, sir.

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

>
>>

>>>> You're the only racist, sport. That why you need to call me a racist
>>>> because I mentioned the Jews... the Jews who you CANNOT
>>>> remember... but I do remember them.
>>>
>>>"You're the only racist, sport">
>>>
>>>You're guessing, "sport".
>>
>> It's a subjective viewpoint. White-power group members would gladly
>> accept you as not being a racist.
>
>They would not, sir. They would not accept me as white, sir.

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

But here it comes, gentle reader... according to Death Disco even
White-power groups are not "White people." So obviously he argues
that because THEY are not "White," they would not accept him as
"White."

>>While my opinion holds that you are
>> a racist because of the various comments you have offered in insisting
>> that you've "never seen a Black person."
>
>
>Your opinion is wrong, sir.
>"never seen a Black person." is not racist, sir. There are no black people.
>

Wrong again, sport. You may not like English definitions... you may
even insist you don't accept English definitions.... yet there they
are.... staring you in the face -- See --
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/black
BLACK -- "Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black
skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South
Africa." Notice that "Black" in that case is capitalized. Just as
Italian, or French, or German is capitalized. But then you claim
you've never seen an Italian, or French, or German, either. It's
those damn cockroaches, that have your affection... all 4,000
recognized species of cockroaches.

>>>No you can't sir. You hear only your own fantasies
>>

>> I must be able to hear them. Since I repeat them so accurately,

>>when expose your lies, your racism, your Holocaust denial, and
>>your _hearing voices from "something higher than ourselves."
>>
>
>You hear voices, sir?
>
I hear you claiming to hear voices from "nature," "biology," and
"something higher than ourselves." It's no feat to hear voices
from REAL PEOPLE. But it's quite a feat for you to claim you
hear voices from abstractions such as "nature," "biology," and
"something higher than ourselves." Do you also hear voices
from your friend... the cockroach???

>>>English is not easy to master, sir. You are 78 and you are still
>>>struggling with it.
>>

>> Oh, gee... I'm shattered. Death Disco, who hope to annihilate the

>>English language by insisting if he sees a definition he _doesn't
>>like_ he simply refuses to accept it, tells me I'm struggling with
>>English.
>

>You should be, sir.

Really, my ignorant juvenile spoiled brat... if you feel attacking me
because of my age is somehow relevant, it only shows how miserably
inadequate, and filled with hate, and Holocaust denial, your arguments
are.

>>>et one fact straight, dear fellow. What you and I do here
>>>is what the British call "Banter". It is harmless fun for both of us, I
>>>hope. There is no threat to your health or any form of physical violence
>>>from me, sir. That is not my way. I detest people who beleive they can win
>>>arguments with thier fists. It's a losing strategy from day one. You will
>>>get no such threat from me, sir.
>>
>> And yet..... you "warned me." Strange...
>
>The only thing that's strange is you, sir.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>> And at this point, Death Disco felt he had been hammered quite enough

>>>> for one sitting, and decided to just stop responding.
>>>
>>>No sir. I caught the "send" shortcut. Alt+S when aiming for alt+tab.
>>>
>>>However I responded to the rest in another post.
>>
>> This one is quite enough to have made a complete fool of you.
>
>Only in your fantasies, sir.

It's always nice to meet up with someone like you... since it makes
my limited intellect positively glow in brilliance in comparison.

Now about those nine problems... I'll expect an answer to at least
one of them in 48 hours, unless you expect to weasel out of it.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Jun 13, 2010, 3:25:52 PM6/13/10

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:10:15 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
wrote:

>
>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ah5r06do51ge3jus8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:05 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:luej06dn2df6r0fs7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:06:26 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Finally have some spare time to wipe out the wimp...
>>>
>>>I look forward to seeing that sir.

Apparently you have a masochist streak in you.

>> I've had more important things to do than wipe the floor with
>> someone who spends his days playing "dungeons and dragons,"
>> as you do, Sir shit-for-brains.
>

>I am keen to meet the fellow, sir. He must have been asleep, or drunk or
>both, sir.

So you admit to being asleep, or drunk or both.

>>>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>

>>What's curious is how you managed to tune your tin hat antenna to pick
>>up voices from "something higher than ourselves." What frequency
>>is it where you hear those voices from "something higher than
>>ourselves"?

>>>" But you're no longer worth my time"
>>>
>>>Was perfectly clear, sir. You cannot take time back, you know.
>>
>> Your "something higher than ourselves" told you that??
>>
>>

>>>If I stay awake that long, sir.
>>

>>Having a normal span of attention is not one of your natural
>>abilities, Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>
>>>>>> Hey, you've been declaring yourself the winner, stating that you've
>>>>>> already "accepted <my> flag of surrender." How did you figure that
>>>>>> out other than declaring yourself the winner?
>>>>>
>>>>>I have not declared myself the winner, dear sir. I was asserting an
>>>>>obvious truth.
>>>>
>>>> That's declaring, shit-for-brains. Do try to learn more about the
>>>> English language. The synonyms for "asserting" are "proclaim,"
>>>> "declare," "announce," "state," "voice," "express," etc... etc...
>>>> etc...

>>Oh, dear, Sir shit-for-brains. You have never offered an argument
>>that does not either show you are ---

>>
>>1) acting like a craven coward
>>2) displaying the depressing burden of your exiguous education
>>3) showing your disgusting ignorance
>>4) planting some defamatory slander
>>5) insisting that voices are telling you things that are "unknown"
>>6) sowing your hebephrenic and insensate nature
>>7) expressing your acerbic insolence
>>8) inserting your nefarious antipathy toward humanity
>>9) raving in your lubricous xenophobic hubris
>>10) exhibiting a proclivity for disgraceful buffoonery
>>11) ranting in frenzied and fallacious demagoguery
>>12) revealing your malfeasant racism
>>13) parading a shameful and evil Holocaust denial
>>14) creating a catachrestic destruction of the English language
>>15) flaunting your grotesque and ludicrous catagenetic representation
>>of humans as no better than cockroaches
>>or --
>>16) offering your disingenuous and fraudulent lying
>>
>>etc...etc... etc...

>>>No sir. I was asserting the obvious truth.
>>

>>Are you brain-dead??? When you "assert," you are declaring! Even a
>>trained chimpanzee could understand that, Sir shit-for-brains.

>>
>I see you are still trying to avoid your own screwups, sir.

I see you are still trying to avoid admitting that a voice from
"something higher than ourselves," has been talking to you
personally.

>>>> I haven't yet lost any money betting on your ignorance, Sir
>>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is because you didn't bet any, sir.
>>
>> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains.
>
>Are the bailiffs banging on your door, sir? Hmm? Do they shout through your
>letter box of that all so very bright home of yours, sir? Are they
>threatening to take it away from you because you cannot pay your gambling
>debts, sir. You should give it up, sir. You are no good at it.

I'm racking in the money. But aren't those guys in the white coats
with the straight jackets banging on your door, Sir
shit-for-brains?

>>>"All people are "special," "
>>>
>>>You certainly are, sir.
>>
>> All people are "special," even you, you sick in the head racist.
>
>You certainly are, sir.

You're especially "special." As humans we need to pity those who are
mentally unstable, as you are.

>>>
>>>Are you bored with your own repetition, sir?
>>
>> You mean YOUR repetition, sport...
>
>No, sir. I mean, your repetion..

And yet you can't stop lying.

>>
>> You're insane...
>
>My, dear fellow. Pot, kettle, black.

So you admit you're insane. And insist I'm insane for recognizing
that you're insane. Finally... a breakthrough!!!

>>>
>>>Apparently not, sir. There is no dent in my head
>>
>> I'll bet you haven't checked carefully in your scalp... look for a
>> "666" mark.
>
>You are a Christian, sir.
>

No, Sir shit-for-brains... you have me mixed up with your
Bible-thumping self. After all... I don't claim to hear voices
from "something higher than ourselves," as you do.

>>>We should remind yourself why you think I'm Dutch sir
>>
>> Who's this "we," Sir shit-for-brains?
>>
>>>"
>>>Bet you're Dutch, with a dingleberry hanging from your ass because
>>>of your unhygienic paedomorphic habits. You're certainly
>>>not Italian... I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>minor in college. You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>>French, born and raised in Paris... so I can do very well in
>>>the French spoken language, and good enough in the written
>>>language. You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had. I don't think
>>>you're Spanish or Portuguese. Nor from the former East bloc.
>>>And since you mention ...
>>>
>>>"
>>
>> Man, that was a real logical and convincing observation on my part, if
>> I do say so myself.
>
>You do, sir?

Do you also have a reading disability?? After all, you don't want to
wipe that dingleberry away... just think of all the germs you'd be
"murdering" (sic)... ROTFLMAO. I'll bet you're afraid to even sit,
in fear you might crush some of those germs.

>>>Cite:
>>>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>>>From: Planet Visitor II <hidden to protect privacy>
>>>Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:11:17 -0400
>>>Local: Thurs, May 27 2010 5:11 am
>>>Subject: Re: High court rules out life sentences for some juveniles
>>>
>>>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>minor in college"
>>>
>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not Italian, sir?
>>
>> Well, try me, if you are Italian. Prove it.
>
>">>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>minor in college"
>"
>
>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not Italian, sir?
>

It proves TO ME that you are not Italian. That's
good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???

>>>"You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>>French, born and raised in Paris... "
>>>
>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not French, sir?
>>
>> Well, try me, if you are French. Prove it.
>
>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not French, sir?
>

It proves TO ME that you are not French. That's
good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???

>>>"You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had"
>>>
>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not German, sir?
>>
>> Well, try me, if you are German. Prove it.
>
>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not German, sir?

It proves TO ME that you are not German. That's
good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???

>>>You neglected to post your reasoning for believing me Dutch, sir.
>>
>> Because I don't speak Dutch, and the Dutch offer quite a
>> bit of education in the English language.
>
>That is your reason for thinking me Dutch, sir? I can see you have not
>thought this through.

I think everything through, Sir shit-for-brains. I form my opinions
independent of arguments from the deranged... like you.

>>>As should you, sir.
>>
>> I "remember" quite a bit of events that happened before I was born,
>
>No you don't, sir. You was not there.

ROTFLMAO... You mean "were not there." And yet I "remember"
them. Are you now in your fascist method intending to tell me what
I can and cannot "remember"? The fact that I "was not there" is
irrelevant to whether it happened before or after I was born. I
can "remember" the Kennedy assassination, even though I "was
not there." "Being there" is irrelevant to what our minds are
capable of "remembering."

>>>>>I did not, sir.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>Denying something doesn't automatically make the denier a liar, sir.
>>>
>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>
>Denial proves or disproves nothing, sir.

You seem determined to deny.

>>>>
>>>> Yes you did, you little Holocaust denier.
>>>
>>>I did not, sir.
>>
>> Yes, you did, Sir shit-for-brains. And you're also a Holocaust
>> denier... claiming you hear voices.
>
>I did not, sir.

Sure you did. You related that "something higher than ourselves"
had TOLD you that there is "a right to life for all biological life."
Claiming that it is "murder" to kill any biological life... including
cockroaches... making each of us a murderer a million, billion times,
each time we wash our hands. No wonder they call you "the
unwashed." You're determined to "murder" (sic) as few of those
germs as possible. If that "something higher than ourselves" didn't
TELL you there is such a "right to life," how did you come into that
information? Was it pixies... or the Tooth Fairy... or the Easter
Bunny... or Santa Claus??? Or was it your "mommy" making
you say your prayers to that "something higher than ourselves"???

>>>>>> Are you now denying those were your words?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier. Don't think you are?
>>>> Well, let me ask you... do you "remember" that there was an
>>>> extermination of six million Jews in the 20th Century???
>>>
>>>"Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier"
>>>
>>>No sir.
>>
>> If you claim you don't "remember" it happening, that is a clear
>> indication that you "deny" it happening.
>>
>
>Your logic does not follow normal rational reasoning, sir.
>

To your deep annoyance, it follows perfect logical reasoning.
See --
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/remember
Since you are xenophobic toward the "the British."

REMEMBER -- "to be able to bring back a piece of information into your
mind, or to keep a piece of information in your memory"
Or --
"to be kept in people's memories because of a particular action or
quality"
Or --
"to hold a special ceremony to honour a past event or someone who has
died"

There is nothing that argues we cannot "remember" what we did not
"experience first hand." And we certainly didn't "have to be there"
to remember something happened.

But then you've already insisted in your fascist way, that if you
don't like a definition you just refuse to accept it. But in this
case you are also INVENTING your own definitions in the English
language in which you presume to demand that "remember"
is defined as "only having experienced first hand" what you can
"remember." How neat that is for the Nazis. Or the neo-Nazis
of today.

>>>> Yet you fondly "remember" the Greeks. You naughty boy, you.
>>>
>>>Only the ones I've met, sir.
>>
>> Heh... that must have been a night of debauchery.
>
>A night, sir? Nobody goes to Greece for just one night, sir.
>

Zoommm...... that one flew right over your pointy head.

>
>>Don't bother sharing the sordid details...
>
>I won't, sir.
>

Thank you.

>
>
>> this is a family oriented newsgroup.
>
>Since when, sir?

Zooommm...... so did that one.

>>>>>You claimed that you could, "hear" me, sir.
>>>>>Any fear that you experience is your own, sir. If you were to be able to
>>>>>feel my emotions sir, you would feel my amusement.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>There was no denial, sir. You responses are getting more random, dear
>>>fellow.
>>
>> Need I point out again --
>
>Not if it is your usual gibberish, sir.
>

The truth has never been something that you want to see, Sir
shit-for-brains. You believe you can "invent" your own truth.

>>>>
>>>
>>>Shall we wait for you temper tantrum to calm down, sir?
>>

>> Heh... as the Dalai Lama noted -- "If a human being never
>> shows anger, then I think something's wrong. He's not
right in the brains" See --
>>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1993865,00.html

>
>Are you planning to re-interpret his word too, sir?

Are you still unable to follow a link, you little liar?? Didn't I
give you a link to his words? Just as I do with your words
that indict you as an admitted "murderer" (sic). (I saw you wash
your hands... you brutal killer, you. What about that "Right to life"
for those "poor innocent creatures... the germs"?) Have you
thought about turning yourself in to the authorities and claiming
"self-defense"??? ROTFLMAO.

>>>"I never, ever lie. "
>>>
>>>Anothr lie, sir.
>>

>> Really, you admit you lied???
>
>Yes, sir.

Well then why don't you stop lying?

>"little boy, "
>
>You're guessing again, sir.
>

And yet there is no evidence that you are not a "little boy, with
an equally little brain."

Is it also your fascist demand that I "stop guessing"??? Any
other orders for me, Gruppenführer Disco???

>>>>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one"
>>>>>
>>>>>They do sir? So you have only the one opinion. Curious
>>>>
>>>> "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural. I don't
>>>> know what it means in your mother-tongue which is apparently Tigrinya.
>>>
>>>" "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural"
>>>
>>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has 'one'"
>>>
>>>The "one" implies singular, sir.
>>
>> "Opinions".... plural. "one".... used as a pronoun... for example ...
>> the simple English constructed sentence -- "she visited ONE of her
>> cousins." Notice that she does not have only ONE cousin. Thus
>> a person does not have only ONE opinion.
>>
>> Chee... but you are uneducated.
>
>You're guessing again, sir.

Well, you obviously are not educated in the English language in
respect to the use of plurals.

>>>
>>>"Heh... I believe you actually looked at a dictionary"
>>>
>>>When one is learning a language, it is useful to browse a dictionary of
>>>that language sir. It is a practice that I reccomend you try.
>>

>> Too bad you slept through most of that education. But I think you're sweating
>> about now... because I picked the right nation.

>
>Your refusal to educate yourself has been noted, sir.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>"Don't blame me for your illiteracy"

>>>Numeracy, my dear fellow; not literacy.
>>
>> The terms are not mutually exclusive, Sir shit-for-brains.
>
>So you do not understand the expression, "mutually exclusive", either.

You stupid, stupid child. The term "mutually exclusive" means
that both events cannot occur at the same time. The two events
in question in this argument are --
1) Your illiteracy.
2) Your inability to understand numeracy.

I said that they are NOT "mutually exclusive," you implied that they
ARE "mutually exclusive." "Mutually exclusive" is a term that I am
quite familiar with, since logic circuits often use it. Such circuits
are called XOR gates. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_gate

You can see the logic symbol for an XOR gate, or go down
further and see how an XOR output is constructed of some
AND gates or some OR gates. Looking at the input/output
truth table you'll see that there is an output ONLY when
either A or B are active, and no output when A and B
are both inactive, or both active.

Educate yourself.

>>>
>>>There was no denial sir. Your confusion is increasing.
>>
>> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mindless drivel?
>
>Do you, sir?

Given that I only repeat your "mindless drivel" why would I
get tired of it?

>
>>>""No sir. You were the one whom (sic) "fucked
>>>> up" lightspeed, sir."
>>>
>>>You did, sir. you claimed it was 300,000,000 M/s.
>>
>> No, Sir shit-for-brains... I said "presuming the velocity of light is
>> exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second."
>
>But it isn't, sir.

So what? The velocity of light is only a constant in a vacuum.
Scientists have slowed down light to a crawl when going through
various mediums. The question did not ask for the "speed
of light in a vacuum." It asked to PRESUME the velocity of light
is exactly 300,000,000 meters/ per second. Apparently you admit
you can't follow directions.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-11/st_alphageek

>> The question was posed to not use a calculator or references.. because
>> the reference was given and the arithmetic could be done in the
>> head (not your head, of course, but the head of someone with at
>> least a room temperature IQ). I told you that the problem could be
>> solved in 30 seconds in the head... with nothing else... and I showed
>> how it could be. Unless you have a problem figuring out in your head
>> what the answer to 3000 divided by 8 is. 3/8 is 0.375... ching...
>> ching... ching... and there's the answer 375... bip.. bip... bip.
>> Kids these days... all of them need a calculator and can't read
>> questions accurately.
>>
>
>"The question was posed to not use a calculator or references"
>
>That is not your decision, sir.
>

Rubbish... every question is based upon certain parameters, including
what can be used in solving the question.

>> Good grief... it's so difficult for me to deal with the juvenile
>> uneducated.
>>
>
>Looking the in mirror must be a real problem for you then, sir.

Too bad you have such terrible problems in the English language.
"Looking the in mirror"??? What is that supposed to mean?

>> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
>> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
>> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>
>"Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole?"
>
>To respond to them, sir.

You don't need to repeat them to respond to them, Sir shit-for-brains.
Respond to them as you read them.

>>>That you didn't spot my quarter wave mistake or pinpoint where my first
>>>mistake was wrong? Yes sir. That is very strange.
>>
>> I'm very forgiving of your basic ignorance.
>
>I am less forgiving of yours.

That's because there is nothing to forgive.

>>
>>>>>I have built one in a while. What
>>>>>about you, sir? When did you last build one?
>>>>
>>>> LOL..." I have built one in a while," too. You ignorant child. Are
>>>> you also this stupid in your mother tongue? Don't lie now.
>>>
>>>I shall take that as a "Never". shall I ,sir.
>>
>> Since the word "never" does not appear in my comment,
>
>You avoided the question, sir.
>

You presumed to create a word that is not within my comment.
Further, I was making a mockery of your comment by mimicking
your exact words which made no sense whatsoever. Those words
of yours were "I have built one in a while." What the hell is
that supposed to mean?

>>>>
>>>
>>>"I'm not the authority. I'm the messenger"
>>>
>>>You are neither, sir.
>>
>> But you implied I was the "authority" behind my argument, when it's
>> obvious that the AUTHORITY is "Bureau International des Poids et
>> Mesures. The International System of Units - le Système international
>> d'unités." That is... a lesser authority to those voices you hear
>> from "something higher than ourselves." He he he he he. You
>> psychotic fruitcake. Tell me again how you know more than the
>> Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The International System
>> of Units - le Système international d'unités.
>>
>
>"But you implied "
>
>No I didn't, sir.
>

Right... you stated an outright distortion of the facts. I never
claimed to be the "authority" behind my argument, while you
lied and claimed that I have no "right" to quote an "authority"
to justify my argument. In other words, you're not interested
in the truth... you just believe yourself to be more qualified

than the " "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The
International System of Units - le Système international

d'unités." But given that you also claim you are the "authority"
behind an Easter Bunny claim that there is "a right to life for
all biological life... including cockroaches and other vermin,
bacteria and viruses," it's clear just how delusional your
belief in your own "authority" actually is.

>
>>>You have read them all in this small time, sir?
>>
>> I'm a fast reader.
>
>You would have to be the fastest reader on the planet, sir.

I've had a lot of time.

>> Can't do it, can you???
>
>
>Can't do what, sir?
>

Handle the truth.

>
>>Yet I've provided cite after cite showing
>> Hz being the recognized standard for "cycles per second."
>>
>
>
>If you had read your books sir, you would see that cs and c/s are also used.

Guess what? -- An assertion lacking a referenced cite is
inadmissible.

>> You're one hard-headed piece of work, Sir shit-for-brains.
>
>Thank you, sir.

You're welcome... always glad to help the retarded deal with their
problem.

>>>>>You haven't answered the problem I gave you, yet.
>>>>
>>>> Nor have you. I could give you a multitude of problems that you
>>>> could not even attempt to solve, sport.
>>>>
>>>
>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>
>>>Yes I have, sir. I am still waiting for your solution if you can offer
>>>one.
>>
>> No, problem.... See -
>> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-2.html
>
>That does not answer the question, sir. You have avoided it yet again.
>

Now that you admit you are mistaken about C/S, Cs, or whatever the
fuck you want to call it to avoid recognizing it as Hz, I have already
answered all your questions in my previous post.

>>
>>>"I've looked in all my books"
>>>
>>>Then you should find the answer in them, sir.
>>
>> I did find the answer in a very concise reference in my library titled
>> the "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers." About 2000 pages
>> deep, edited by Donald G Fink (look him up), published by McGraw Hill,
>> with ISBN 0-07-020973-1.
>
>" About 2000 pages deep"
>
>2304 to be exact, sir.

You counted THEM??? Mine doesn't have the pages numbered. It
just has the sections numbered. You spent all your time COUNTING
the pages??? Don't you have anything better to do?

>>Go to your library and ask them for it.
>> Then go to page 1-9... Systems of Measurement. And you will see
>> that Frequency is measured in Hz.
>
>Are those the only pages you looked at in the entire book, sir?

It is the page that references the STANDARD System of measurements,
Sir shit-for-brains. And nowhere in that book does the term C/S, or
Cs appear.

>> And yet I can find no reference to "Cs is the standard for cycles per
>> second." In fact every reference states that "Hz is the standard
>> for cycles per second."
>
>If that book is any good then it should contain the formulas to answer those
>little problems I gave you. Maybe you should try buying a copy and reading
>it, sir.

Your problems have already been answered. Now when can I expect you
to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???

<fx: sweat begins to form on Death Disco's forehead, as his cheeks
turn a ruddy red, realizing he can't solve even one of them,
regardless of what source he can find that might give him an answer>

>Hz is an abbreviation of a mathematical expression, sir; as are Kilo, Mega,
>Omega etc, etc.

Hz is an abbreviation for the Name "Heinrich Hertz," a contributor to
science... see --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz
As such the term for "cycles per second" is Hz... not Hertz. While
you may find someone posts something like 1050 Hertz.. it is not
correct. In that respect Hz is NOT an abbreviation... but is the
standard representation for "cycles per second."

>C/s are the mathematical expression itself sir and not a
>standard abbreviation.

ROTFLMAO. Wrong again... Sir shit-for-brains. C/S is the
abbreviation
for "C/S Construction Specialties," and "C & S Wholesale Grocers," and
"C & S Oyster Bar," and other companies. It is not the recognized
electronic industry representation of "cycles per second."

> Hertz is an abbreviation, sir. We are not answerable
>to you regarding our choice of terms sir. Of course, should you feel the
>desire you are welcome to call your legal representative and have him sue my
>colleagues and I, sir.

You don't have an "colleagues," Sir shit-for-brains. What you have
are a few fellow dweebs who all collectively sit around with your
fingers up your ass.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R = 3.183 x 10^4 Ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c = 10^-9 Farads
>>>>>>
>>>>>> f = 500 Hz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thus -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xc = 1/(2 x [pi] x f x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 500 x 10^-9 Ohms)
>>>>>
>>>>>Xc=1/w(omega)c sir but it equates to the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xc= 3.183 x 10^5 ohms = 318.3 K Ohms
>>>>>>
>>>>>318.310K to be more accurate, sir but you are doing very well
>>>>
>>>> Heh... you idiot. That is only LESS accurate. Your original data
>>>> gave R = 3.183... you cannot invent that 318310, as presumable
>>>> "more accurate" than your original number. Your entire problem
>>>> is limited to 3.183, which is four significant digits. Offering
>>>> a claim that "318.31..." is "more accurate" is a crock of shit,
>>>> since it implies five digits of accuracy.
>>>
>>>Temper, temper. If you cannot handle the problem you should ask for help.
>>
>> I'm not the type who finds humor in your ignorance.
>
>You're the one whom failed the problem sir.

Already answered... Sir shit-for-brains.

>>
>>> PI has more than 5 digits of accuracy, sir.
>>
>> When I state 3.14159...
>
>You have over snipped, sir. You appear to be as ignorant on snipping, as you
>are everything else.

I used six digits of accuracy, Sir shit-for-brains. Can't you count?

>
>> Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator, thus it is not incorrect to
>> show pi as an approximation because that's what it is, no matter how
>> long one writes integers. Nor can one write pi as a quotient of two
>> integers, in exact terms. While your use of 318.310 implies a
>> constant "more accurate" than your original constant, Sir
>> shit-for-brains.
>>
>
>"Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator"
>
>Nonsense, sir. Pi goes on for as long as there can be new digits calculated.
>and alot of people do not need a calculator to calculate it as you would.
>They spend a finate amount of time on it.

Pi is NOT a constant in any sense of having an absolute value. When
will you ever recognize the difference between rational and irrational
numbers? Pi is only as accurate as the number of digits used, and
it tells you nothing of what the next digit will be.

>"I can't believe you don't know the difference between a rational
> and an irrational number."
>
>You are guessing again, sir.

And yet you continue to show that you don't know the difference.

>>>> And you claim an ability to compute numbers, yet screw up
>>>> the most basic of all mathematical principles... that values
>>>> cannot be obtained having greater significance than the
>>>> significant digits within the mathematical computation.
>>>> Whenever you make a measurement, that measurement
>>>> is only as precise as the original significant digits being
>>>> computed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>" And you claim an ability to compute numbers"
>>>
>>>I made no such claim, sir.
>>
>> That's sad... you now admit you have no ability to compute numbers.
>> Glad we agree with that.
>
>I made no such claim, sir. Lack of a positive does not assert a negative,
>sir.

You admitted elsewhere that you were not "illiterate" (although you
are), but that you suffer from "innumeracy."

>>>> Chee... that's stuff you learn in the 7th grade, or earlier.
>>>
>>>Is that the last time you had any education, sir?
>>
>> We've already been through this, Sir shit-for-brains... See --
>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Maryland.jpg
>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Boston.jpg
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Transcript.jpg
>>
>
>A lot has changed in 22 years, sir. Of course, it is very easy to fake such
>documents and you appear to have no qualifications relating to electrical
>engineering, sir.
>

And yet I've solved all the problems you presented to me... including
the laughable one where you stated the circuit was resonant, and gave
me XL, and asked me to compute XC, as if there is anything to even
compute given that at resonance XL = XC.

>> See why I accuse you of slander and lies???
>
>You accuse me of a lot of things, sir without knowing anything about me or
>being able to back up your accusations. Of course, I find the irony as
>funnier as that I find that you confuse slander with libel, sir.

Hey... good for you, it seems you looked up the definition. I
always get those two mixed up... especially when someone like
you appear on paper to be screaming out his lies and hate.

>For an "educated" man sir, you truly are stupid.

And yet... there are those eight problems that you have not dared
to even touch.

>> Now where are your educational credentials?
>
>In the bottom draw of the desk in my workshop, sir, where they shall stay. I
>am under no obligation to show them to you, sir.
>

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. He called
my bluff knowing I'm just a big baby spewing out a lot of hot air,
while having little in the way of any education. I wish I wasn't as
shit-for-brains as he has found me to be so I could show he is not
correct, but the bastard hit the nail right on the head. AGAIN!!"

>>
>>>>>> and --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4
>>>>>> x 10^-9) Hz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cutoff frequency = -3 db
>>>>>
>>>>>The question did not ask for the cutoff frequency or the db loss at cut
>>>>>of
>>>>>frequency. it Asked for the db loss and phase angled at 500 Cs, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, gee... I must have not RTFQ. I like to solve practical
>>>> problems, and knowing the cutoff frequency is more important
>>>> than the parameters you asked about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"I must have not RTFQ"
>>>
>>>Indeed, sir.
>>
>> TRANSLATION "Indeed, sir.."
>>
>> I haven't seen you take a stab at any of my questions 2 or 3, Sir
>> shit-for-brains.
>
>That's right sir and there are still three questions you have not answered.

All answered... Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.

>>>
>>>You still have not answered your problem, sir.
>>
>> No.
>
>Because you can't, sir.

Wrong... all answered, Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.

>>>
>>>"Not only can you not solve it"
>>>
>>>A guess, sir.
>>
>> That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems
>> I asked you to solve. While you can't even formulate your problems
>> understandably.
>>
>
>"That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems"
>
>That is true, sir. But your problems go deeper that a few numbers, sir.

Not at all... they all have an answer in numbers. But you have to
know how to arrive at those numbers. And that is what is beyond
your meager knowledge of electronics or the mathematics that
is necessary to arrive at answers in electronics circuits. Even the
most basic of data in respect to electronics is based upon
mathematics. Such as I = V/R.

>>>>>Nonsense, sir. Ohms law applies electricity, whether it is DC or AC is
>>>>>irrelevent. As AC is contantly in flux then that has to be taken into
>>>>>account so impedence and phase angle are calculated.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>There was no denial sir. There was only your apology of a response.
>>
>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>> obvious that he speaks a lie.
>>
>> So your apology is accepted.
>
>No apology was offered, sir.

Sure there was. You're trying to make excuses for your lies. And
in doing so admit you've lied... and thus apologize for having lied.

> You're comments in respect to AC and ohms law
>were wrong but you don't have the backbone to admit it, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

>>>You have never proved any, sir.

>>
>> I've proved that your comments always show you are --
>>

>>12) revealing your malfaisant racism

>>13) parading a shameful and evil Holocaust denial
>>14) creating a catachrestic destruction of the English language
>>15) flaunting your grotesque and ludicrous catagenetic representation
>>of humans as no better than cockroaches
>>or --
>>16) offering your disingenuous and fraudulent lying
>>etc... etc... etc...
>>

>>Look at all the new words in English you can look up.

>
>No you haven't, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

>>>

>>>You are an idiot, sir. What do you suppose you use to calculate the
>>>current
>>>through an ac circuit of the voltage across its capacitors or inductors?
>>
>> Kirchoff's law. Not Ohm's law.
>
>Ohm's Law, you imbecile: E=I/Z is Ohm's law, not Kirchoff's! Do your
>research, sir.

E=I/R is Ohm's law, Sir shit-for-brains. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law
Rather there in bold letters -- I = V/R. But now I've got you using
"E."

>>
>>>The Black arts? To calculate current, The formula is I=E/Z and to
>>>calculate
>>>the voltage across an inductor or capacitor the formula is Vl=I*XL and Vc
>>>=
>>>I*XC respectively.
>>
>> I = E/R is Ohm's law.
>
>At last, the penny drops, sir.

Since R is not V except in a DC circuit, Ohm's law applies to DC
circuits and not to resistances that are Z which is impedance,
and appears only in AC circuits.

>> Despite your ignorance of basic electronics, R
>> is not = Z, or = C, or = L. All of which change instantaneously in an
>> AC circuit, while R is a constant, and I and E can be computed using
>> simple arithmetic, and instantaneous AC cannot be computed using
>> simple arithmetic.
>>
>
>You moron, sir. Z=impedence,

Correct... Z is not = R.

> E IS EMF and I is current. Get an education, sir.

I'm still old school, and we always referred to voltage as E. I admit
that is a mistake. It results from an old four word rhyme to
remember how inductive and capacitive impedance work. The
rhyme was ELI THE ICE MAN. And in that rhyme one can then
devise that "voltage (E) leads current (I) (ELI) in inductive
impedance, while current (I) leads voltage (E) (ICE) in capacitive
impedance."

Of course Voltage now has the standard of V as its representation,
just as "cycles per second" has the standard of Hz as its
representation. But there is still evidence of E being used
to represent Voltage. On circuit schematics, E is shown as the
voltage across batteries, or generators, (the voltage out of those
devices), while V is shown across all other devices such as resistors,
etc.

You see how easy it is to admit mistakes? Now if we could only
get you to recognize even 1 out of every 100 mistakes you make.
But then you wouldn't be "hard-headed," would you???

>>>"AC circuits are much more complicated than DC circuits"
>>>
>>>That is something else, we agree on, sir.
>>>
>>>"You couldn't solve even the easiest of differential equations."
>>>
>>>You are guessing, sir.
>>
>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>
>No, sir. The easiest of differential equations include Y=X, Y=1 or Y=X^2
>sir.
>They are examples of the "easiest", sir.

Rubbish. Now of those presumed identities are part of any
differential equation.

>
>"You have no idea how to even approach a solution. "
>
>You are guessing again, sir.

And yet I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.

>
>>
>>>> Kirchoff's law examines "nodes." Because the sum of the current
>>>> flowing into any node must equal the sum of the current flowing out of
>>>> any node. Both in steady DC and in instantaneous AC current, which
>>>> changes depending upon the frequency and other factors, but always
>>>> remains instantaneously the sum of the current flowing into that node
>>>> equaling the sum of the current flowing out of that node.
>>>
>>>You should reference a text you copy information from or it's plagiarism,
>>>sir.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO. This is common knowledge within all textbooks that
>> examine Kirchoff's law.
>
>There's more to it than that, sir. of course, your feeble attempt at mockery
>does not diprove you copied that cite without referencing, sir.
>
>
>"> It is not plagiarism to relate a scientific fact."
>
>It is if you cite one without refrencing it, sir.

Wrong!!! I can't even begin to relate how many scientific papers
are written using Newton's laws without the mention of Newton!

>> The only thing you can argue are that my FACTS are wrong... and you
>> know you can't do that.
>
>They aren't your facts, sir.

When I show them to you as proof of my arguments they represent
my facts proving my arguments. While all I have from you is
mumbles, whining, sobbing hysterically while curled up in the
fetal position, lies, hate, ignorance and mindless drivel.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>Very longwinded, sir. The correct formula is radians = degrees*pi/180
>>>>>Of course you would have spotted that a complete circle is 2pi.
>>>>
>>>> That's exactly what I wrote, shit-for-brains. Other than I use
>>>> 2.14159... an approximation for pi. Here it is again --
>>>
>>>No, sir you wrote.
>>
>> And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
>> number, and cannot be expressed as a constant.. obviously. While
>> we don't concern ourselves with degrees that have more than 6
>> digits of accuracy. In fact, degrees in general only have at most
>> three digits of accuracy, at which point further accuracy is usually
>> stated in minutes, and seconds. Each degree being split up into 60
>> minutes, and each minute being split up into 60 seconds.
>
>"And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
>> number"
>
>You cannot state that Pi suddently starts with 2 any more than you can
>declare the last three digits, sir.

Aw... Death Disco caught me in a typo... Good grief... if I had a
nickel for every typo from him it would be like winning the
lottery.

>>>> rad = degrees x (2.14159... /180)
>>>>
>>>> See it right above the list of various radians at degrees?
>>>
>>>the formula for converting degrees to radians is Radians=degrees*pi/180,
>>>sir. That is not what you wrote.
>>
>> See the three dots following 2.14159...? That means in standard
>> mathematics that this is an approximation. And it is a completely
>> accurate approximation. We're not sending a rocket to Mars, Sir
>> shit-for-brains. And you cannot possibly argue that pi is a
>> constant. While I clearly showed the various important degrees
>> in pi.
>>
>
>
>Pi starts with a 3, sir.

Awww.... death disco caught me in a typo.

>>>"I've been retired longer than you've been living."
>>>
>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>
>> And yet you've offered nothing that would refute my guess.
>
>You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.
>

Well, I retired on 23 April 1993. I doubt seriously you are over
the age of 17. But I'm sure that you'll put on your fascist
uniform and insist I am not _allowed to think_, Herr
Sturmbannführer Disco.

>> But
>> even the thought that you are older than me, and have yet learned
>> so little of life, sends shivers up my spine.
>
>I have already stated that I am younger than you, sir.
>Your words were: "I've been retired longer than you've been living."
>How old were you when you retired sir?
>

How old are you??? Since you never answer my questions,
why do you think I should answer yours until you answer even
one of mine?

>>
>>>> [1] see bottom of post.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was feeble sir. You got as far as working out the capacitive
>>>>>reactance.
>>>>>then you went off at a tangent.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>There was no denial, sir. You mucked it up.
>>
>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>>
>
>You mucked it up, sir.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>

>>>" knowledgeable when you're not"
>>>
>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>
>> And yet you've offered nothing that would disprove my comment.
>
>You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.

Heh... Am I supposed to give you a fascist salute in responding to
your "order" that I am not _allowed to think_, Herr Sturmbannführer
Disco? You fit perfectly in that fascist outfit.

>>>" All in all you screwed it up pretty badly. "
>>>
>>>It that is what you call screwing up pretty badly then you need a life
>>>sir.
>>>Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are writing a paper
>>>on English language sir.
>>
>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>> Aristotle.
>
>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.
>

A "typo" is the exchange on ONE LETTER of the alphabet for ANOTHER
when typing. Changing words, or changing meaning, or grammatical
mistakes, are NOT considered typos, Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>On newsgroups it's minor at worst and only used as
>>>ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their arguments any other
>>>way. I am still waiting for your answer to the very SIMPLE problem I gave
>>>you.
>>
>> Heh... More ad hominem to cover up your lack of a proper
>> education. See --
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
>
>Your avoidence of the problem is noted, sir. You are too great a coward to
>admit that you cannot do it, sir.
>

And yet you have the answers to your simplistic and ill-conceived and
badly distorted questions, while I still wait for even one answer from
you.

>>>
>>>> "We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your
>>>> horn about --
>>>>
>>>> "I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
>>>> and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
>>>> algorythm."
>>>>
>>>> See the quotation marks, shit-for-brains?? What makes you think I'd
>>>> be as dumb as you and not know how to spell "theorem," and
>>>> "algorithm"?
>>>>
>>>> There has seldom been a poster to AADP who is more in need of a spell
>>>> checker than you, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>>
>>>
>>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>>arguments any other way".
>>
>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>> Aristotle.
>
>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.
>

A "typo" is the exchange on ONE LETTER of the alphabet for ANOTHER
when typing. Changing words, or changing meaning, or grammatical
mistakes, are NOT considered typos, Sir shit-for-brains.

>
>>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>>
>
>" I already have more of them then I need "
>
>Well try using them from time to time, sir.
>

Generally I don't need one, since I know quite a few different words
that mean about the same thing, but have a slightly different shading.

But it is enough to mention that you have offered Holocaust
denial to put you in your place.

>>>>
>>>> Heh... the penny drops... And Death Disco is speechless.
>>>
>>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>>
>> And yet that's all you have to say.
>.
>Which is not "speechless", sir. You screwed it up again, sir.

"Mindless drivel" is nothing but demonstrating you are "speechless."

>>>> No you didn't.
>>>
>>>Yes I did, sir.
>>
>> No you didn't, Sir shit-a-lot.
>
>Yes I did, sir.

NO you didn't, Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>>>> If that question was too complicated for you I'll give you an easier
>>>>>> one. Since you seem to claim familiarity with differential
>>>>>> equations... solve this one. Understand that this is the EASIEST
>>>>>> of all differential equation to solve, and is used over and over in
>>>>>> solving motion equations related to gravitation -- This one should
>>>>>> be a snap for you --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Solve the differential equation d²x/dt² = -g
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>>>>
>>>> Heh.. got you going, eh? Gee... my boy... this solution is probably
>>>> all over the net. It's a very general differential equation with no
>>>> numbers involved... those numbers which always confuse you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Heh.. got you going, eh?"
>>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>>
>> Heh heh... and yet not even an attempt. My goodness, DD... it's
>> the SIMPLEST differential equation I know of.
>
>It is sir. Then I suggest you learn differential calculus, sir.
>

"Differential calculus" is a broad subject, sport. You consider it
nothing but finding a derivative... called "differentiation." It is
hardly difficult knowing only the Cartesian coordinate system to
determine the slope of a line at a point using the tangent to
that point that is determined by approaching that point as
close as the infinitesimal limit.

That minor part of the basics of "the Differential Calculus,"
does not touch upon solving "differential equations." Differential
equations relate functions of more than one variable to their
partial derivatives. I doubt you even can comprehend such a
concept, or how to approach solving a partial differential
equation.

>>
>>>You still have not answered your problem, sir. I have noted your repeated
>>>efforts to avoid it.
>>
>> I don't have time for your bullshit,
>
>Your lack of backbone to admit that it is beyond you has been noted, sir.
>

And yet I found the time. Now when will we see anything but
jelly for your backbone???

>>>> You can't even pose your questions accurately. But let's take a quick
>>>> stab at it --
>>>
>>>"You can't even pose your questions accurately"
>>>Yes I can, sir. We shall see what your answer brings.
>>
>> "You just admitted you can't."
>
>No I didn't, sir.
>
>You said integration... I ignored it
>
>I noticed that, sir, but did you know I was meaning to type "differentiate",
>sir?

That's NOT a "typo," Sir shit-for-brains.

>
>> because it made no sense... you realized it made no sense... you
>> admitted you didn't pose your question accurately. Chee... what
>> else do you want when I have your CONFESSION???
>
>That was after the above comment, sir. Please pay attention.

And yet we already have your CONFESSION.

>>>> V=pi*R²*H = 1050 cm³
>>>>
>>>> with R being the radius and H being the height
>>>>
>>>> so H = 1050/(pi)*R²
>>>>
>>>> The surface area, including ends is --
>>>>
>>>> S=2*(pi)R*H + 2*(pi)*R²
>>>>
>>>> Substituting for H --
>>>>
>>>> S=2*1050/R + 2*(pi)*R²
>>>>
>>>> Setting dS/dR = 0 and solving the differential equation for R the
>>>> answer is (V/2*(pi))^1/3 = R
>>>>
>>>> Reducing --> R=(1050/2*(pi))^1/3 = 5.508 cm
>>>>
>>>> Now that we have R, we can solve for H
>>>>
>>>> H=1050/(pi*)*R² = 11.017 cm
>>>>
>>>> Thus the closed cylinder has maximum surface area using minimum
>>>> material at :
>>>>
>>>> Radius = 5.508 cm
>>>> Height = 11.017 cm
>>>>
>>>> V = (pi)*5.508²*11.017 = 1050 cm³
>>>>
>>>
>>>Impressive, sir. Your answer is correct.
>>
>> No, shit... Dick Tracy...
>
>You do not handle praise very well, sir. I suppose that's because you never
>get any.
>

Praise from Holocaust deniers like you means nothing to me. Now
answer my questions... or just one of them.

>>now when can we expect you to answer either
>> of my questions, after fucking up the answer
>
>Language, sir. I did sir. Nevertheless, I corrected. It is fortunate I was
>not submitting it to anyone whose opinion matters. However, I am still
>waiting to see you answer the simple problem I set for you. What was the
>expression you used? "Overly complicated"

Overly stupid... is the correct term.

>>to a very, very, trivial
>> question regarding resonance.
>
>As is this one, sir
>
>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Already answered. Sir shit-for-brains. Now it's your turn.

>"> So when you claimed that my approximation of pi was incorrect you
>"> were full of shit.
>
>Is that your proof, sir?
>

Your question has been answered, Sir shit-for-brains. Quit squirming,
and answer one of my questions.

>
>>In this problem, I did use a calculator, rather
>> than pen and paper ... and entered pi symbolically, which provided an
>> approximation dependent upon the range of the calculator I used. There
>> is no such thing as an exact value of pi. They are ALL
>> approximations. Thus my response was exactly as yours... an
>> approximation! pi is an approximation.
>
>Everyone starts Pi with a three, sir... well except for you that is.

Heh... "typo." That's the way a "typo" is defined. When I have
used 3.14159... over and over, and then I type 2.14159..., that's
a typo. When you substitute "integration" for "differentiate,"
that's NOT a typo.

>>> I shall assume it's your own work.
>>
>> You can assume anything you wish, Sir shit-for-brains. It's a free
>> country. You also assume that "something higher than ourselves,"
>> talks to you. Now how about that easy problem with differential
>> equations...
>
>Would you rather I assumed that you copied it from a book, sir?

It's a free country, Sir shit-for-brains... only a fascist would try
to tell you what to assume... you know.... like your fascist demands
that I only assume what YOU want to assume.

>> Solve the differential equation d²x/dt² = -g
>>
>> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>>
>> Solve it??? I don't even think you know how to even formulate it
>> correctly! Let's see... first you need to integrate once with
>> respect to "t." How does such a formula LOOK... much less ask you to
>> to solve it. v(t) = ???? Come on, Sir shit-for-brains. You're so
>> smart... what does the right side of that equation even LOOK LIKE???
>> This is high school math. Show me what you got... so you can
>> raise those knuckles that drag on the ground, and start thumping
>> your chest in mindless hubris. --
>>
>> v(t) = ???
>
>You haven't solved this one, yet:
>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Already solved, Sir shit-for-brains. We're now waiting for you to
solve the above problem. BTW -- You can get any help your little
heart desires... just as long as see your answer.

>> If you can't solve that one... I have nothing to prove. While
>> even if you solve it, it is so simple that I would not even give
>> you credit for solving it. There must be at least 10,000 sites
>> on the Internet giving the proper notation to that next step.
>> You don't answer it, we have determined the level of your
>> education and intellect... and found it sorely lacking.
>>
>
>
>Wrong, sir. You have already stated that there is no point to me solving it.
>However, if you solve this problem
>
>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Already solved it, Sir shit-for-brains. See my comment from two days
ago.

>I might and I mean, "might" overlook that you screwed up ohms law.
>

It's "Ohm's law," Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>>>Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40
>>>>>ohm,
>>>>>calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissapated
>>>>>across each line, sir.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time for you to throw silly problem after problem at me,
>>>> when you can't solve a very simple differential equation.
>>>
>>>You're guessing sir.
>>
>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>
>Your puerile attempt to avoid the problem without having the backbone to
>admit it has ben noted, sir.
>

And yet you have from me the answer to your problem... and we now
await your answer to me to my problem.

>>>>I can
>>>> certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>>> approach. Just how simple do you expect the problems I offer must be?
>>>> Perhaps a little bit of algebra is the limit of your education? Beyes'
>>>> Theorem, my ass.
>>>
>>>" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>>> approach"
>>>
>>>No, you cannot sir.
>>
>> Sure I can, shit-for-brains. I've already thrown three at you that
>> you're afraid to even take a stab at.
>
>
>There's two I've thrown at you which you haven't answered sir. I have a
>third, for you.
>You have a paralell tuned circuit with a resistance of 68 ohm, a resonant
>frequency of 5khz, and an inductor of 145.4 mH. Calculate the capacitance.
>
>That's three each now, sir.

Already answered that one as well, Sir shit-for-brains. That means
you owe me two answers from among the eight questions I posed to
you.

At this point, Death Disco gave up answering any of my responses,
while simply leaving everything in.

Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html

All remarks unanswered by Death Disco --

>>
>>> Not when you failed to answer the simple DB problem I
>>>gave you earlier.
>>
>> When you learn how to formulate your problems accurately you'll
>> get better results. Offering mumbo-jumbo only shows your own
>> ignorance.
>
>Your puerile attempt to avoid the problem without having the backbone to
>admit it has ben noted, sir.

Already answered, Sir shit-for-brains. You're starting to sweat now.

>>>"Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>>>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>>>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir."
>>
>> Hell... here's one for you that does have a schematic along
>> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>>
>
>Answer the problem I gave you sir.

Already answer, Sir shit-for-brains. You're sweating profusely now.

>> But make up your mind... I thought you claimed it was "accurate" to
>> 318310.
>>

Heh... are you claiming it was a "typo"????

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Jun 18, 2010, 11:42:23 PM6/18/10

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 21:16:13 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
wrote:

Hey... Sir shit-for-brains. When can I expect you to answer a single
question of mine, given that all yours which can be answered have been
answered?

Repeating my comment, which you avoided by suddenly disappearing for
a week.

>
>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ah5r06do51ge3jus8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:05 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>> wrote:
>>

>You have lost your bet, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

>> I'm betting that question comes from one of your Dutch handbooks

I don't believe you. Post that source, and the entire problem as it

appears in that source. If you can't do that... you're simply lying.
I'll tell you what... you answer it, and provide a step-by-step answer
to see what you use that you omitted from the parameters of the
problem. One does not even know if you are referring to 400VL
as A/C or D/C.

>> In any case your problem is a piece of junk not worth my
>> time.
>
>Wrong, sir.

Bullshit, it's just like all your comments... mindless drivel.

>> However, here's one for you that does have a schematic along

>> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>
>I see you've found the section on transients in your book, sir

TRANSLATION "That fucking PV... he knows that I don't know

squat when it comes to examining a circuit schematic."

>> This has every bit of the information you need to solve the
>> question.
>>
>
>It does, sir.

And I'll bet you can't solve it.

>> ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one with my

>> friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin.
>>
>
>"ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one "
>
>What I would do, you ask. I would start by looking at what the circuit does,
>sir. At first glance, I see two potential dividers there. I would then
>redraw the equivalent circuit then work out PHI. Once I have that, I can
>plot a graph of the charge/discharge voltage of that capacitor and for good
>measure, I would probably plot the current, also.

ROTFLMAO. You need to provide the ANSWER, sport... not more of your

bullshit. What is the value of v (sub t) for t > 0 ???? From the
problem there is no need to graph it, or try your bullshit. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
You have not correctly solved even one of the problems I've given you.
It has a very straightforward answer, if one knows the Laplace
transform method. In fact, there are all kinds of tables listing
various values. Here's some help --
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html

I think you're a load of bullshit and have no idea how to solve any
Laplace transform.

>You lose your bet, sir.
>

Heh... declaring victory while at the same time admitting defeat in
solving the problem.

> "with my friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin"

>
>You do not fool me, sir. You do not have any friends.

LOL... That from the guy who still has his mommy bring him

his warm milk at night.

"If" you had another brain it would be lonely.

>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a

>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Well, let's see. We've already found the cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x

[pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4 x 10^-9) Hz
thus reducing -- cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
cutoff frequency = -3 db

For the phase angle in degrees we know that it is equal to

-tan^-1(f(in)/f(cutoff))... and f(in)/f(cutoff) = 0.1. So from basic
trig we find that -tan^-1*(0.1) = 10 in degrees. So the phase angle
at 500 Hz is 10 degrees.

Now answer please --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg

>Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40 ohm,
>calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissipated across
>each line, sir.

Insufficient information. Provide a circuit schematic and I'll solve

that problem. I mean... you DO have a schematic for the circuit
you describe... don't you????

Answer please --

Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g
With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/fourier_transform_quiz.jpg

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/laplace_quiz.jpg

These should keep you busy... if you can even handle one of them.

"If" you were any dumber you'd have to be watered twice a week.

>You have a parallel tuned circuit with a resistance of 68 ohm, a resonant

>frequency of 5khz, and an inductor of 145.4 mH. Calculate the capacitance.
>

Heh... what's this 5khz??? I thought you argued there was no

such thing... that it is KCs?

However... XL at resonance is --> 2*pi*f*h = 4.568 K ohms...
Thus CL must also be 4.568 K ohm. And simple arithmetic to
compute C = 1/(2(pi)*f*4568) gives C = 6.968 *10^-9 = 6.968 nf.

Answer please --

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Gauss_law_quiz.jpg

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Thevenin_quiz.jpg

I keep making them easier for you... haven't seen you solve one
yet.

>A fourth question, for you, sir. as you've added another, so shall I.

>
>
>You have a resonant tuned circuit of 500 c/s and an inductor of 1mH this
>give you an inductive reactance of 3.142 ohms. Tell me the capacitive
>reactance and show your workings, sir.

ROTFLMAO!!! Okay...

<sarcasm>
We have an XL of 3.142 ohms... So we add the sum of your ignorance to

XL which gives us 3.142 + googol. We then know the relationship of XC

to XL, so we add the sum of your ignorance to XC which gives us XC +

googol. So we have 3.142 + googol = XC + googol, and subtracting
googol from both sides of that equation we have 3.142 = XC. So at
resonance XL = XC. Given XL =3.142 ohms at resonance., XC must also

equal 3.412 ohms at resonance.
</sarcasm>

Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/fourier_quiz.jpg

And because you asked me a question about a geometric shape --
One more for good measure --
Answer please --
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/sphere_quiz.jpg

<fx: PV sits back and laughs his head off>

>>>" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even

>>>> approach"
>>>
>>>No, you cannot sir.
>>
>> Sure I can, shit-for-brains. I've already thrown three at you that
>> you're afraid to even take a stab at.
>>
>
>" Sure I can, shit-for-brains"
>
>No, you cannot sir.

See above, Sir shit-for-brains... I have thousands of them that are
well beyond your intellect.

"If" you were any smarter, your mommy could teach you to fetch.

>"I've already thrown three at you that

>> you're afraid to even take a stab at."
>
>No you haven't, sir.

Of course I have... they are shown above... and you haven't solved
a single question I've thrown at you... NOT ONE!!!

No... it's not.

>
>>>

>>>Problems you cannot solve, sir.
>>
>>
>"Wrong, sport... "
>I'm glad to hear it, sir. I look forward to seeing your solutions, dear
>fellow.

See above, shit-for-brains.

>>>>
>>>
>>>It's hardly a "simple" problem then, sir.
>>>
>> Yes... but you don't even know the first thing how to start.
>
>You are guessing, sir.

And yet... there you sit... claiming I haven't thrown a problem

at you that you cannot solve. And then you wonder why I call
you a pathological liar.

>>>> But I can "understand" the solution in going through that _cheat

>>>> sheet_. I'm quite sure that you couldn't.
>>>
>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>
>> Well, prove it!
>
>You haven't posted the cheat sheet yet, sir

When you solve the first step, shit for brains.

>>
>>

>> *profound silence from Sir shit-for-brains*
>
>You were anything by silent, sir.

Your name is "Sir shit-for-brains." Try to separate fact from

your rather disturbed and creepy imagination.

>>>Provide me with the references and sources you used and I shall see if I

>>>can figure it out but it doesn't read like an electrical engineering problem.
>>>It reads like a physics problem.
>>
>> Give you the source so you can look up the answer?
>
>So you looked up the answer sir. I could have guessed.

I have all the answers. You have none.

>>You must be

>> joking. However, the title of the source contains the word
>> "Engineering."
>>
>
>Is it electrical enginnering, sir?.

No... it's electrical "engineering," you stupid shit-for-brains.

Get yourself a spell checker. It will not only improve the appearance
of your comments, but teach you how to spell.

>>>

>>>A curious statement as you have managed to answer only one problem I posed
>>>for you.
>>
>> While you have correctly answered not a one of mine. Hell... you have
>> three waiting for you, >
>>><snip>
>>>
>
>"While you have correctly answered not a one of mine"
>
>You are incorrect, sir. I answered your first one correctly, second time
>round.

The point is that you answered incorrectly. I don't usually answer

questions until I am sure of the answer. See above. I've enjoyed
this since it has made me at times go back to the references I
maintain... you are quite permitted to use any references you might
find helpful... but so far there hasn't been any real effort shown on
your part, because you've become aware that the situation is much
too complex for your limited skills.

"If" brains were taxed, you'd break the EU bank in refunds.

>"Hell... you have three waiting for you,"

>
>You have 4 waiting for you.

I have none waiting for me. In fact, there are two of your own

waiting for you to provide a schematic. You do know what a schematic
is... don't you???

Right now the score is eight questions to you with only one
"second-chance" feeble answer from you, and no unanswered
questions from you to me.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Remember... when you point your finger at me, in "calling the kettle
>>>>>> black," there are three fingers on that same hand pointing right back
>>>>>> at you, sport.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As I said before, sir. They are pointing directly at you.
>>
>> Apparently you're also blind.
>
>No, sir.

Talk's cheap, son. See --
http://tinyurl.com/2vwejyl

>>>Basic electrical principles are too complicated for you, evidently sir.

>>
>> Heh... I haven't seen any picture of electrical principles from you,
>> Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>
>You need pictures, sir?
>You should be able to draw them from the parameters I gave you, sir.

Wrong. YOU should be able to draw them from the parameters you

gave, Sir shit-for-brains. You assert YOU CAN... so you need to PROVE
IT. We both know that you cannot draw the circuits in question given
only the limited parameters you've given.

>>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly my point, sir. As I said, "You have no basis to back up your
>>>assertions, so they can only be guesses"
>>>
>> You're the one asserting that I'm guessing. Prove it. I've
>> got the proof.
>
>You have never backed up your assertions, without proof they are guesses,
>sir.

And yet, you're the one asserting I'm guessing. Logic really is

too complicated for you, sonny. Stick with the warm milk from mommy
at night, and stay out of Internet information sites about electronics
that are too complicated for you.

>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>
>No, sir.

Yes, sonny. The differential equation is --

Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g

With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)

They don't come any easier than that...

<fx: Death Disco begins to sweat, and turn blood-red in the
face>

>>>>>>>It was not a cite, sir, so no reference is required.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Your unreferenced site (sic) is inadmissable (sic)"
>>>>>
>>>>>The word is "cite", sir.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I followed it with a (sic), you moron. See --
>>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sic
>>>> Quote -- "Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one
>>>> containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in
>>>> its original form or written intentionally."
>>>>
>>>
>>>"That's why I followed it with a (sic), "
>>>
>>>Which was incorrectly placed sir.
>>
>> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains. It was placed quite accurately. Since
>> both your use of "site" and your misspelling of "inadmissible,"
>> required mention that it was garbage English.
>>>
>
>It was incorrectly placed sir..

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

>>>

>>>"Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both "cite""
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No Didn't sir.
>>
>> Yes, you did,
>
>No Didn't sir.
>

>>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>>arguments any other way".
>>
>> You can say it forever, and it won't for a single second hide your
>> shown ignorance of the English language.
>
>English is not my first language, xenophobe,

Well, English is my mother-tongue and I despise it being assassinated

by someone who isn't intent upon learning English, but instead intent
upon using it to spread poisonous filth, and pathological lies. After
all.... you did write that -- "if i do not approve of a definition I
simply choose not to use it." That's proof you are not trying to
learn English, but to corrupt it.

>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --

>> Aristotle.
>
>
>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.
>

We're talking about your stupidity.. which is truly astonishing in

it's breadth and length.

>>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>>
>> And yet that's all you have to say. Repetitive mindless drivel.
>
>Pot, kettle, black, sir.

Hardly... See..

http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/thesaurus.jpg
That's just one of them, Sir shit-for-brains... You really are an
emotional wreck, my boy... seek help.

>>>>>No I don't sir. Wait a can hear your voice now. It's a high pitched
>>>>>meaningless whine.
>>>>
>>>> No... that's the sound of those cockroaches that you protect from
>>>> being "murdered" (sic). ROTFLMAO. Death Disco --> AADP's
>>>> cockroach protector. Won't let anything harm his "poor
>>>> innocent cockroach," insisting that killing a cockroach is defined
>>>> as "murder" to him.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"No"
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>No.

YES!!! Heh heh heh... got you going. You've made lying your
profession. YES... YES... YES...

>>>It's definately your voice, sir.

>>
>> Too bad your comment only again displays your ignorance of the
>> English language.
>
>You're guessing, sir.

Hardly... there is not a single post from you that does not contain

either a new lie, or a denial of your past lies. And lying is
well-known as an attempt to cover-up for ignorance. Your
post here carries a number of your lies.

>>>>

>>>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.
>>
>> But you said you _know_ it. You said it was "something higher
>> than ourselves." Well, how could that be if you didn't hear it from
>> "it"? Who told you? Oh, wait... it's that Bible talking to you
>> again... never mind.
>>
>
>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefor I cannot know it.

And yet.... you insist you DO KNOW there is "something higher than

ourselves," who has TOLD YOU there is this fairy tale of "a right to
life for cockroaches, rats, flies, bacteria and other pathogens." With
each human falling someone in between one cockroach and two
cockroaches in worth.

I'll ask you again... would you kill two cockroaches to save a
murderer from being executed?

>>>Simple logic, sir.

>>
>> ROTFLMAO. Doesn't that word stick in your craw, considering you
>> have no idea what it really means???
>
>Id that the best you can do, sir? It is apparently.

Was that the best you could do in arguing "Simple logic," in support

of one of the most massive efforts to diminish the human race ever
seen in Usenet?

>>>>

>>>"Yes, you did".
>>>
>>>No I didn't, sir.
>>
>> See above... PROOF positive. Poor ol' Sir shit-for-brains... caught
>> in yet another lie.
>>
>
>No proof at all, sir.

And yet the proof is there... in your own words. your argument when

put into logical terms is "x is something higher than ourselves." and
"x is an unknown." But you know that "x is something higher than
ourselves," So "x is not unknown to Death Disco."

quod erat demonstrandum -- Death Disco claims to "know the unknown."

And what's even more revealing is that you clipped the proof, but
left only your denials in.

"Nature" doesn't give a shit about biological life, Sir
shit-for-brains. Your unnatural belief that abstractions _talk to
you_, is the sign of a sick mind.

>>>"Shit, son"

>>>
>>>I shall take that as a yes.
>>
>> Take it any way you want to...
>
>Oh I will, sir.

You've always been a master of lies... why should I expect otherwise?

"If" ignorance were a crime, you'd be on the "ten most wanted" list.

>
><snip Mr Noles' puerile nonsense>

Heh... Death Disco admits that my credentials are in order, yet has

even swallowed the key to his desk in which he keeps his imaginary
credentials (along with his trusty Bible), to make sure he can claim
anything he wants.

>>>>>>>You believe in a god, sir?

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the word "if" (a conditional clause) too complicated for you? IF
>>>>>> you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>"Is the word "if" (a conditional clause)"
>>>
>>>Yes it is sir.
>>
>> Well, then... wake up!!
>
>You're droning would send anyone to sleep, sir.

There's a solution for that... simply ignore my ruination of

all your arguments, rather than respond with these endless streams
of lies and mindless drivel of yours.

>>>"IF you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird"

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I could fly in an aeroplane, sir.
>>
>> No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you. If you
>> could jump on the back of one of your dragons,
>
>My dragons, sir?

Yeah, one of your imaginary dragons.
>

>"No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you"
>
>Only if you forget to get on it, sir.
>

You're insane... by now even you must realize that your trolley has

jumped the tracks. Have mommy bring you some warm milk and

tuck you in, you've used up all your lies for today.

That's not YOU flying, Sir shit-for-brains.

>I would hope that you did not do much programming in your alleged masters

>degree, sir. You do not have the logic for it.

ROTFLMAO... Death Disco insists that getting on a plane that

flies means HE can fly... and calls that _his logic_. Perhaps
you should examine the logical fallacy of "The Affirmation of
the Consequent." See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#consequent
Notice that your argument is "A" - I can fly implies "B" because the
aircraft can fly me. Just because "B" is true, does not mean "A" is
true. You cannot fly, bird boy.

"If" there were an Easter Bunny, Death Disco would claim that the

Easter Bunny told him there is this "right to life for cockroaches and
other vermin."

Is that those voices coming from your tin hat antenna? Pretty soon

you'll have to put up a sign to warn others. See --
http://tinyurl.com/32tx8n3

>>>>>I ended my comment with a question mark, sir. I was asking you a
>>>>>question.
>>>>
>>>> Well... I don't believe in a God. Certainly not one who figures that
>>>> all biological life, down to viruses and mosquitoes must be given some
>>>> "right to life." Nor do I consider cockroaches to be equal to human
>>>> beings as you have insisted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"I don't believe in a God"
>>>
>>>You don't, sir? Then why do you keep asking it to strike me down?
>>
>> Are you still confused about the word "if," Sir shit-for-brains???
>> But trust me... if would no big loss to humanity. Although
>> cockroaches might attend your funeral. With cockroaches,
>> mourning the loss of their "champion," who insists they are
>> each the equal of a human being, up to the neck of everyone
>> around it. No greater love hath man... than Death Disco for
>> the cockroach.
>>
>
>"Are you still confused about the word "if," "
>
>Oh there's no confusion, sir.

They why is it you continue to insist the word doesn't exist in my
comment, shit-for-brains?

"If" ignorance were painful, you'd be in agony.

>>><snip>

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I have not killed anyone sir.
>>>>
>>>> So that's your excuse for the slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa????
>>
>>>
>>>You perceive that innocence is an excuse? Curious.
>>
>> When you're part of the problem!!!
>
>The part of the problem is the people doing the killing; the other part of
>the problem is the politics behind the people doing the killing. If you are
>involved in neither of those then you are not part of the problem.
>

All men are political animals. If you don't fight against it... then

you are fighting for it. I haven't yet seen you write that you regret
or despise the killing of those Tutsis. But I have seen you insist
you do not know of the Holocaust, while telling the Jews that

"after sixty years, it's time for them to get over it."

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

> "I do remember NOTHING."

>
>If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you
>should not be allowed to play
>

I put up your EXACT words, Sir shit-for-brains. Don't imply I'm lying

when you said exactly that in very precise words.

Sure you did, you airhead. How do you KNOW that there is

a "right to life for all biological life"? There is no written word
from "someone higher than ourselves," unless you are thumping
your Bible. You imagine that "nature" and "biology" TALK TO
YOU?? No one else hears those voices from "nature" and "biology."
An abstraction cannot offer some kind of fact. "Nature" and
"biology" do not dispense "rights" to anything or any one.

"If" one wanted to write rubbish, they could take lessons from you.

>If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you
>should not be allowed to play
>

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>

Isn't that what was stated in my words? Are you deaf, dumb and

blind... or just incredibly stupid with a pathological need to lie?

---------------------------------
See the words "in respect to the death penalty," you lying sack of
shit?

>>>> While Europe continues to fancy Africa as part of her colonial

>>>> empire, and will commit murder and genocide if doing so can
>>>> maintain hegemony over the indigenous population and the
>>>> mineral resources of Africa.
>>>
>>>Your xenophobia is showing again, sir.
>>
>> Actually it's Europe's xenophobia,
>
>No, sir. It's yours.
>

Wrong, shit-for-brains. As I've explained I don't give a rat's ass if
the EU holds a parade and makes sure that every murderer enjoys
a conjugal weekend with Miss EU. That's the EU's business.

Don't even try to argue otherwise, because the evidence is there.

you sticking YOUR nose in... what is none of your business.

>>>As I said, your country is as knee deep in blood as everyone else, sir.
>>
>> So that excuses "everyone else"???
>
>No, sir.

Then why do I not see you having ever complained about the Holocaust

or the genocide in Rwanda, or the genocide in the former state of
Yugoslavia? Why have I never seen you complain about the growing
influence of Islamic terrorism in Europe which led to the murder of
Theo Van Gogh? Or the fact that riots raged across the EU when
cartoons were published lampooning Mohammed? Or the fact that
Geert Wilders must be protected 24 hours a day, every day, because
he is anti-Muslim terrorism? Or the fact that Muslim fathers and
brothers murder their daughters if they have anything to do with
non-Muslims, believing "family honor" (sic) is better served through
murder of one's own family? Why have I not seen you complain
about these images right from the UK --
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/03/In-their-own-words/

Or is that you in one of those "protests"?

>>>Maybe I can borrow some of yours, sir.

>>
>> Oh, gee... I'm shattered.. poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
>> an original thought in his head and simply uses the typical "you
>> to," as some kind of excuses for his psychotic behavior.
>
>"poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
>> an original thought in his head "
>
>Don't you, sir? That's hardly suprising.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>Yes, sir. You're the one whom likes showing off your book collection.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

And yet, I've answered all your questions, while you have answered not

a single one of mine, other than a feeble stab in your original
answer, and then thinking you'd better revise it after you took a
piss. And a question that was not meant to test anything other than
your very basic knowledge of resonance. Which any 14-year-old
knows if he is interested in science of any kind. So you really
haven't proved that you're older than 14.

>>>No I don't, sir.

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>
>> Yes... you do, Sir Double-Speak.
>>
>No I don't, sir.

Who are you to tell me what is "none of your business"? That's
your fascism talking, Sir shit-for-brains.

Clearly you are the one trying to set LIMITS on my "freedom of
speech." Pure fascism on your part.

"If" brains were dynamite, you couldn't blow your nose.

>> You really think name-calling bothers me, when I have the

>> evidence of YOUR HOLOCAUST DENIAL!!!
>>
>
>No, you don't sir
>

Sure I do... your exact words --

1) "You do not remember what is not in your memory and it is not in

your memory if you did not experience or witness it first hand."

2) "You cannot forget or remember the extermination of 6 million jews
unless you remember them."

3) "You cannot forget or remember the extermination of
6 million jews unless you remember them and to remember

them you must have experienced them first hand."

etc.. etc... etc... While you do "remember" the Crusades and the

Greeks bearing gifts!!! And below all the other murders committed
in WW II... but you NEVER "remember" the Holocaust.

>>>I pick up the cockroach with my hand and take it outside, sir.

>>
>> Heh... try it sometime. Are you going to put on your "super powers"
>> costume that "something higher than ourselves" gave you, so you can
>> be faster than a speeding bullet, and pick up that cockroach, because
>> it's hoping to rest in your tender arms, and will quietly wait for you
>> to pick it up? Fat chance!!
>
>"Heh... try it sometime"
>
>I do, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

"A cockroach, for instance, flees from a predator when it detects a

puff of air. It works out the wind direction, and acts in less than 60
milliseconds."

See --
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/animal.asp

>>>> Obviously you would not "step on that cockroach" when it was already

>>>> on your baby's arm... or would you?
>>>
>>>I would not step on the cockroach full stop sir.
>>
>> Clear... you would let it possibly infect your baby with various
>> pathogenic bacteria and viruses they carry on their hairy legs and
>> bodies.
>
>
>No, sir. I would move it. You would stomp on it and infect your baby with
>bacteria from its blood, sir.

The problem did not offer a "door number three," shit-for-brains. By

inventing one you only show your ignorance and sly attempts to cheat
on the problem. It's that "if" factor that you want to use... the
"if" I could pick it up before it ran on my baby I would... but you
can't because the problem itself does not permit it.

>>> I recall you stating that

>>>you would step on it for the hell of it. Do you deny those words, sir?
>>
>> Without a doubt. I would never let a cockroach get close to my
>> baby if it was in my power to kill it before it did. Cockroaches
>> have as much value to me as a stone. And I would throw a
>> stone in water for the hell of it... just to watch it skip.
>>
>>" Without a doubt. I would never let a cockroach get close to my
>> baby if it was in my power to kill it before it did"
>
>Why not just move it, sir? Why are you Americans so obsessed with killing?

Because that wasn't part of the "thought experiment." Look... if

you're going to cheat and lie... then do whatever you want... but it's
obvious that all you are doing is cheating while hoping to use ad
hominem to attack me for wanting to protect my baby.

>>>>The question was phrased to

>>>> argue would you kill that cockroach BEFORE it could crawl on your
>>>> baby's arm, with the condition that you could not reach that cockroach
>>>> with your hand before it did crawl on your baby's arm? Leaving you
>>>> ONLY the choice of killing it BEFORE it could crawl on your baby, or
>>>> seeing it crawl on your baby's arm.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your question is bunkum. and I have already answered it, sir.
>>>
>> I know you have. You would permit your baby to possibly be infected
>> you _your friend... the cockroach_.
>
>So you did not read my answer, sir. Typical,, dear fellow.

There is no "door number three," cheater.

Only a fascist objects to "freedom of speech."

When other people's opinions demonstrate hate I feel it is my moral
obligation to confront that hate. You would argue that doing so is
fascism... but doing so is "freedom of speech."

>>>>>>>You should think your debates through, sir. Did you have any children

>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>lived sir?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living? Trust me...
>>>>>> you start bringing insults to my real family or real children, rather
>>>>>> than a hypothetical thought experiment and you will find yourself
>>>>>> being accused of screwing your sister. Remember that YOU started
>>>>>> it. Now apologize and let's move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Does your mother still prostitute herself for a living?"
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure she could be persuaded, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Last I heard she was only getting a dollar a trick.
>>>
>>>
>>>It cannot be my mother you are thinking of, sir. She does not accept
>>>American money because she has standards. However I do enjoy that you are
>>>such an ignoramus that you fail to comprehend that in my motherland,
>>>prostitution is neither illegal nor immoral. It is a respectable
>>>profession.
>>>The "your mother is a whore" lines do not work on us, dear fellow.
>>>
>> So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
>> the Damrak... isn't she a little bit old for that "respectable
>> profession"? Does she also perform with donkeys??
>>
>
>>So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
>> the Damrak
>
>What did she look like, sir?

A drunken slut.

>"Does she also perform with donkeys??"
>
>Is that a request, sir?

Why would you think so? Does she honor requests?

>Does bestiality rock your boat, sir?

Apparently it rocks yours... since you seem quite determined to

defend your mother's video with that donkey.

> I had

>suspected. If you bring the donkey you usually mate with I'm sure that young
>lady you met on the Damrak might accomodate you.

Your mother has her own donkey. Your sister bought it for her using

the money that you pay your sister for those "sexual favors" she gives
you. Those things are bad enough... but they dim in importance to
your attempts to deny the Holocaust.

>>>>> For a broken down hopeless old man

>>>>>such as yourself, she me very likely increase the price.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not into catching diseases. But what's this "she me very..."?
>>>
>>>
>>>"I'm not into catching diseases"
>>>
>>>Neither is she, sir.
>>
>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>
>
>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible. Did they fail you on referencing at
>university, sir or did you fake your certificate?
>

What "unreferenced cite"?

You only wish... While my wish is that you stop --

10) exhibiting a proclivity for disgraceful buffoonery
11) ranting in frenzied and fallacious demagoguery
12) revealing your malfeasant racism
13) parading a shameful and evil Holocaust denial
14) creating a catachrestic destruction of the English language
15) flaunting your grotesque and ludicrous catagenetic representation
of humans as no better than cockroaches

and --
16) offering your disingenuous and fraudulent cheating and lying

etc...etc... etc...

>>>>>>>Then you are a murderer, sir, on two counts. One for killing the poor

>>>>>>>innocent cockroach
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFLMAO. Read the definition of murder, you ignorant child.
>>>>>> MURDER -- "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially
>>>>>> with premeditated malice."
>>>>>> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Insects are NOT "human." Only someone on the edge of sanity could
>>>>>> argue that _cockroaches_ are HUMAN.
>>>>>
>>>>>The unlawful, deliberate killing, sir.
>>>>
>>>> "of one human by another," shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>>That must be awfully convenient for you. You are still a murdering
>>>bastard,
>>>sir
>>
>> Heh... that from the guy who insists a cockroach is worth every bit as
>> much as a human being. It's laughable.
>
>It's worth more than you are, sir.

Awww... isn't that sweet... Death Disco loves murderers, but insists
he also loves cockroaches.

>>>>> So if womeone were to kill you it would not be murder.

>>>>
>>>> What the fuck is a "womeone" (sic)? Is that one of your gang member
>>>> that I have to worry about murdering me??
>>>>
>>>
>>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>>
>" Hey, I don't care whether English "
>
>Sir? You are going to have to stop your delusion that I care at all about
>what you think.
>

And yet you're still here. The gentle reader would find that a bit

unbelievable. You seem to care a great deal about what I think, since
you insist that I not speak of what I think of the opinions of
others... that you in your best fascist uniform insist is "none of
your business." You care so much about "what I think," that you
want to shut me up... one way or another. You're a very sick boy,
shit-for-brains... seek help.

"If" your ambition is to get educated... you're going at it in the
wrong direction, shit-for-brains.

>> So in your native Tigrinya language the cockroach is equal to the
>> human, and both have been told by "something higher than
>> ourselves," that they "a right to life." Is cannibalism also part
>> of your culture?
>>
>
>"So in your native Tigrinya language "
>
>It makes a nice change from being called, Dutch, sir.

HTH

>>>
>>>AADP neither accepts nor denies anything sir. It is a newsgroup.
>>
>> You're repeating yourself, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>
>You have not answered the argument, sir.

Your argument is that I have no right to free speech in this newsgroup

or any newsgroup, because you insist it's "none of your business." How
am I supposed to answer such an argument, other than to remark that
it's typical fascism?

>>>> See --

>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rtfq
>>>
>>>
>>>If you will post acronyms, sir.
>>>
>>
>> Sure... why not?
>
>Because you have the bandwidth to post the full expressions even if you lack
>the vocabulary, sir.

If you can't figure out the acronym that only reflects upon your
intelligence, shit-for-brains.

>>>> Educated yourself, for fuck's sake. You can't stumble through
>>>> life remaining ignorant... even if you think you can.
>>>
>>>I shall be right behind you in the queue, ignoramus.
>>
>> There is no question that reason would have the same effect on
>> you as daylight has on Dracula.
>
>It would have no effect if he lay asleep in his coffin with the lid closed,
>imbecile.
>

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"

My, my... look at that fascist rage. All because I've humiliated

and discredited you and your Holocaust revision.

You're not well... you're mentally unbalanced... seek help.

>>>At no juncture did I claim it was 100% inaccurate, sir.

>>
>> So it only "accurate" when YOU use it. ROTFLMAO. What a
>> sick hubris you have.
>>
>
>So it only "accurate" when YOU use it.
>
>No, sir. So it only "innaccurate" when YOU use it

If that were only a word in the English language. Do you always

make mistakes when you fly into one of your childish tantrums?
Answer the question.

>>>>>Why Jews, sir? Do you see them more important than the rest of the

>>>>>world?
>>>>>Are you a racist, sir?
>>>>
>>>> Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis... you insist you
>>>> don't "remember" it... so it is not in your memory. Given that fact,
>>>> it is obvious that you care more about six million and one cockroaches
>>>> than those six million innocent Jews slaughtered by your kinsmen
>>>> on the continent of Europe.
>>>>
>>>
>>>" Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis"
>>>
>>>
>>>What about everyone else who were exterminated by the Nazis, sir? Don't
>>>they count? What about those whom were tortured by the Japanese, sir? Don't
>>>tthey count?
>>
>> What about the six million Jews... don't THEY count???
>
>What about the Polish, sir? Don't they count? What about the Czechs, sir?
>Don't they count? What about the norwegians, sir>? Don't they count? What
>about the French, sir? Don't they count? What about the Bitish, sir? Don't
>they count? What about your own people sir? Don't they count? What about all
>the other allied nations who lost people in world war 2, sir? Don't they
>count? Then there's thecivilians, sir. Even Germany's own people were
>subject to the tyranny, sir. Open your eyes!

What about the Jews? Suddenly you "remember" the Polish, the Czechs,

the Norwegians, the French, the British, the Americans... Yet, you
cannot "remember" the Jews. And then you question my finding that to
be Holocaust denial. You do know the definition of "The Holocaust" in
its latest and most current meaning, don't you? See --
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/holocaust?view=uk

>> Apparently

>> your argument is that because others were murdered in a war in which
>> 50 million people lost their lives, those six million Jews are
>> insignificant.
>
>You're wrong again, sir. My argument is that all were significant.

Yet you never mention the Jews... in fact you insist you CANNOT

"remember" any Jews exterminated in WW II, while you certainly
"remember" others murdered in WW II.

You're one very sick puppy.

>>That only shows your anti-Semitism

>
>That is not possible, sir.

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

>
>>

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

But here it comes, gentle reader... according to Death Disco even

White-power groups are not "White people." So obviously he argues
that because THEY are not "White," they would not accept him as
"White."

>>While my opinion holds that you are

>> a racist because of the various comments you have offered in insisting
>> that you've "never seen a Black person."
>
>
>Your opinion is wrong, sir.
>"never seen a Black person." is not racist, sir. There are no black people.
>

Wrong again, sport. You may not like English definitions... you may

even insist you don't accept English definitions.... yet there they
are.... staring you in the face -- See --
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/black
BLACK -- "Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black
skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South
Africa." Notice that "Black" in that case is capitalized. Just as
Italian, or French, or German is capitalized. But then you claim
you've never seen an Italian, or French, or German, either. It's
those damn cockroaches, that have your affection... all 4,000
recognized species of cockroaches.

>>>No you can't sir. You hear only your own fantasies
>>

>> I must be able to hear them. Since I repeat them so accurately,

>>>English is not easy to master, sir. You are 78 and you are still
>>>struggling with it.
>>
>> Oh, gee... I'm shattered. Death Disco, who hope to annihilate the

>>English language by insisting if he sees a definition he _doesn't
>>like_ he simply refuses to accept it, tells me I'm struggling with
>>English.
>

>You should be, sir.

>>>et one fact straight, dear fellow. What you and I do here

>>>is what the British call "Banter". It is harmless fun for both of us, I
>>>hope. There is no threat to your health or any form of physical violence
>>>from me, sir. That is not my way. I detest people who beleive they can win
>>>arguments with thier fists. It's a losing strategy from day one. You will
>>>get no such threat from me, sir.
>>
>> And yet..... you "warned me." Strange...
>
>The only thing that's strange is you, sir.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>> And at this point, Death Disco felt he had been hammered quite enough

It's always nice to meet up with someone like you... since it makes

my limited intellect positively glow in brilliance in comparison.

Now about those nine problems... I'll expect an answer to at least
one of them in 48 hours, unless you expect to weasel out of it.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Jun 18, 2010, 11:44:04 PM6/18/10

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:10:15 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
wrote:

Hey... Sir shit-for-brains. Did you forget this one??? Here it is
again.

Apparently you have a masochist streak in you.

>> I've had more important things to do than wipe the floor with

>> someone who spends his days playing "dungeons and dragons,"
>> as you do, Sir shit-for-brains.
>

>I am keen to meet the fellow, sir. He must have been asleep, or drunk or
>both, sir.

So you admit to being asleep, or drunk or both.

>>>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>

>>What's curious is how you managed to tune your tin hat antenna to pick
>>up voices from "something higher than ourselves." What frequency

>>is it where you hear those voices from "something higher than
>>ourselves"?

>>>" But you're no longer worth my time"
>>>
>>>Was perfectly clear, sir. You cannot take time back, you know.
>>
>> Your "something higher than ourselves" told you that??
>>
>>

>>>If I stay awake that long, sir.
>>

>>Having a normal span of attention is not one of your natural
>>abilities, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>

>>>>>> Hey, you've been declaring yourself the winner, stating that you've
>>>>>> already "accepted <my> flag of surrender." How did you figure that
>>>>>> out other than declaring yourself the winner?
>>>>>
>>>>>I have not declared myself the winner, dear sir. I was asserting an
>>>>>obvious truth.
>>>>
>>>> That's declaring, shit-for-brains. Do try to learn more about the
>>>> English language. The synonyms for "asserting" are "proclaim,"
>>>> "declare," "announce," "state," "voice," "express," etc... etc...
>>>> etc...

>>Oh, dear, Sir shit-for-brains. You have never offered an argument
>>that does not either show you are ---
>>

>>1) acting like a craven coward
>>2) displaying the depressing burden of your exiguous education
>>3) showing your disgusting ignorance
>>4) planting some defamatory slander
>>5) insisting that voices are telling you things that are "unknown"
>>6) sowing your hebephrenic and insensate nature
>>7) expressing your acerbic insolence
>>8) inserting your nefarious antipathy toward humanity
>>9) raving in your lubricous xenophobic hubris
>>10) exhibiting a proclivity for disgraceful buffoonery
>>11) ranting in frenzied and fallacious demagoguery
>>12) revealing your malfeasant racism
>>13) parading a shameful and evil Holocaust denial
>>14) creating a catachrestic destruction of the English language
>>15) flaunting your grotesque and ludicrous catagenetic representation
>>of humans as no better than cockroaches
>>or --
>>16) offering your disingenuous and fraudulent lying
>>
>>etc...etc... etc...

>>>No sir. I was asserting the obvious truth.
>>

>>Are you brain-dead??? When you "assert," you are declaring! Even a
>>trained chimpanzee could understand that, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>

>I see you are still trying to avoid your own screwups, sir.

I see you are still trying to avoid admitting that a voice from

"something higher than ourselves," has been talking to you
personally.

>>>> I haven't yet lost any money betting on your ignorance, Sir

>>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is because you didn't bet any, sir.
>>
>> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains.
>
>Are the bailiffs banging on your door, sir? Hmm? Do they shout through your
>letter box of that all so very bright home of yours, sir? Are they
>threatening to take it away from you because you cannot pay your gambling
>debts, sir. You should give it up, sir. You are no good at it.

I'm racking in the money. But aren't those guys in the white coats

with the straight jackets banging on your door, Sir
shit-for-brains?

>>>"All people are "special," "

>>>
>>>You certainly are, sir.
>>
>> All people are "special," even you, you sick in the head racist.
>
>You certainly are, sir.

You're especially "special." As humans we need to pity those who are

mentally unstable, as you are.

>>>

>>>Are you bored with your own repetition, sir?
>>
>> You mean YOUR repetition, sport...
>
>No, sir. I mean, your repetion..

And yet you can't stop lying.

>> You're insane...
>
>My, dear fellow. Pot, kettle, black.

So you admit you're insane. And insist I'm insane for recognizing

that you're insane. Finally... a breakthrough!!!

>>>

>>>Apparently not, sir. There is no dent in my head
>>
>> I'll bet you haven't checked carefully in your scalp... look for a
>> "666" mark.
>
>You are a Christian, sir.
>

No, Sir shit-for-brains... you have me mixed up with your
Bible-thumping self. After all... I don't claim to hear voices
from "something higher than ourselves," as you do.

Do you also have a reading disability?? After all, you don't want to

wipe that dingleberry away... just think of all the germs you'd be
"murdering" (sic)... ROTFLMAO. I'll bet you're afraid to even sit,
in fear you might crush some of those germs.

>>>Cite:

>>>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>>>From: Planet Visitor II <hidden to protect privacy>
>>>Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:11:17 -0400
>>>Local: Thurs, May 27 2010 5:11 am
>>>Subject: Re: High court rules out life sentences for some juveniles
>>>
>>>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>minor in college"
>>>
>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not Italian, sir?
>>
>> Well, try me, if you are Italian. Prove it.
>
>">>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>minor in college"
>"
>
>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not Italian, sir?
>

It proves TO ME that you are not Italian. That's
good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???

>>>"You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue

>>>French, born and raised in Paris... "
>>>
>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not French, sir?
>>
>> Well, try me, if you are French. Prove it.
>
>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not French, sir?
>

It proves TO ME that you are not French. That's
good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???

>>>"You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,

>>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had"
>>>
>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not German, sir?
>>
>> Well, try me, if you are German. Prove it.
>
>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not German, sir?

It proves TO ME that you are not German. That's

good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???

>>>You neglected to post your reasoning for believing me Dutch, sir.

>>
>> Because I don't speak Dutch, and the Dutch offer quite a
>> bit of education in the English language.
>
>That is your reason for thinking me Dutch, sir? I can see you have not
>thought this through.

I think everything through, Sir shit-for-brains. I form my opinions

independent of arguments from the deranged... like you.

>>>As should you, sir.

>>
>> I "remember" quite a bit of events that happened before I was born,
>
>No you don't, sir. You was not there.

ROTFLMAO... You mean "were not there." And yet I "remember"

them. Are you now in your fascist method intending to tell me what
I can and cannot "remember"? The fact that I "was not there" is
irrelevant to whether it happened before or after I was born. I
can "remember" the Kennedy assassination, even though I "was
not there." "Being there" is irrelevant to what our minds are
capable of "remembering."

>>>>>I did not, sir.

>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>Denying something doesn't automatically make the denier a liar, sir.
>>>
>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>
>Denial proves or disproves nothing, sir.

You seem determined to deny.

>>>>

>>>> Yes you did, you little Holocaust denier.
>>>
>>>I did not, sir.
>>
>> Yes, you did, Sir shit-for-brains. And you're also a Holocaust
>> denier... claiming you hear voices.
>
>I did not, sir.

Sure you did. You related that "something higher than ourselves"

had TOLD you that there is "a right to life for all biological life."
Claiming that it is "murder" to kill any biological life... including
cockroaches... making each of us a murderer a million, billion times,
each time we wash our hands. No wonder they call you "the
unwashed." You're determined to "murder" (sic) as few of those
germs as possible. If that "something higher than ourselves" didn't
TELL you there is such a "right to life," how did you come into that
information? Was it pixies... or the Tooth Fairy... or the Easter
Bunny... or Santa Claus??? Or was it your "mommy" making

you say your prayers to that "something higher than ourselves"???

To your deep annoyance, it follows perfect logical reasoning.
See --
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/remember
Since you are xenophobic toward the "the British."

There is nothing that argues we cannot "remember" what we did not
"experience first hand." And we certainly didn't "have to be there"
to remember something happened.

>>>> Yet you fondly "remember" the Greeks. You naughty boy, you.

>>>
>>>Only the ones I've met, sir.
>>
>> Heh... that must have been a night of debauchery.
>
>A night, sir? Nobody goes to Greece for just one night, sir.
>

Zoommm...... that one flew right over your pointy head.

>>Don't bother sharing the sordid details...
>
>I won't, sir.
>

Thank you.

>
>
>> this is a family oriented newsgroup.
>
>Since when, sir?

Zooommm...... so did that one.

>>>>>You claimed that you could, "hear" me, sir.

>>>>>Any fear that you experience is your own, sir. If you were to be able to
>>>>>feel my emotions sir, you would feel my amusement.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>There was no denial, sir. You responses are getting more random, dear
>>>fellow.
>>
>> Need I point out again --
>
>Not if it is your usual gibberish, sir.
>

The truth has never been something that you want to see, Sir
shit-for-brains. You believe you can "invent" your own truth.

>>>>
>>>

>>>Shall we wait for you temper tantrum to calm down, sir?
>>

>Are you planning to re-interpret his word too, sir?

Are you still unable to follow a link, you little liar?? Didn't I

give you a link to his words? Just as I do with your words
that indict you as an admitted "murderer" (sic). (I saw you wash
your hands... you brutal killer, you. What about that "Right to life"
for those "poor innocent creatures... the germs"?) Have you
thought about turning yourself in to the authorities and claiming
"self-defense"??? ROTFLMAO.

>>>"I never, ever lie. "
>>>
>>>Anothr lie, sir.
>>

>> Really, you admit you lied???
>
>Yes, sir.

Well then why don't you stop lying?

>"little boy, "
>
>You're guessing again, sir.
>

And yet there is no evidence that you are not a "little boy, with
an equally little brain."

Is it also your fascist demand that I "stop guessing"??? Any

other orders for me, Gruppenf�hrer Disco???

Well, you obviously are not educated in the English language in

respect to the use of plurals.

>>>

>>>"Heh... I believe you actually looked at a dictionary"
>>>
>>>When one is learning a language, it is useful to browse a dictionary of
>>>that language sir. It is a practice that I reccomend you try.
>>

>> Too bad you slept through most of that education. But I think you're sweating
>> about now... because I picked the right nation.
>

>Your refusal to educate yourself has been noted, sir.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>"Don't blame me for your illiteracy"

>>>Numeracy, my dear fellow; not literacy.
>>
>> The terms are not mutually exclusive, Sir shit-for-brains.
>
>So you do not understand the expression, "mutually exclusive", either.

You stupid, stupid child. The term "mutually exclusive" means

that both events cannot occur at the same time. The two events
in question in this argument are --
1) Your illiteracy.
2) Your inability to understand numeracy.

Educate yourself.

>>>

>>>There was no denial sir. Your confusion is increasing.
>>
>> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mindless drivel?
>
>Do you, sir?

Given that I only repeat your "mindless drivel" why would I
get tired of it?

>>>""No sir. You were the one whom (sic) "fucked
>>>> up" lightspeed, sir."
>>>
>>>You did, sir. you claimed it was 300,000,000 M/s.
>>
>> No, Sir shit-for-brains... I said "presuming the velocity of light is
>> exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second."
>
>But it isn't, sir.

So what? The velocity of light is only a constant in a vacuum.

Scientists have slowed down light to a crawl when going through
various mediums. The question did not ask for the "speed
of light in a vacuum." It asked to PRESUME the velocity of light
is exactly 300,000,000 meters/ per second. Apparently you admit
you can't follow directions.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-11/st_alphageek

>> The question was posed to not use a calculator or references.. because

>> the reference was given and the arithmetic could be done in the
>> head (not your head, of course, but the head of someone with at
>> least a room temperature IQ). I told you that the problem could be
>> solved in 30 seconds in the head... with nothing else... and I showed
>> how it could be. Unless you have a problem figuring out in your head
>> what the answer to 3000 divided by 8 is. 3/8 is 0.375... ching...
>> ching... ching... and there's the answer 375... bip.. bip... bip.
>> Kids these days... all of them need a calculator and can't read
>> questions accurately.
>>
>
>"The question was posed to not use a calculator or references"
>
>That is not your decision, sir.
>

Rubbish... every question is based upon certain parameters, including
what can be used in solving the question.

>> Good grief... it's so difficult for me to deal with the juvenile

>> uneducated.
>>
>
>Looking the in mirror must be a real problem for you then, sir.

Too bad you have such terrible problems in the English language.

"Looking the in mirror"??? What is that supposed to mean?

>> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only

>> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
>> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>
>"Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole?"
>
>To respond to them, sir.

You don't need to repeat them to respond to them, Sir shit-for-brains.

Respond to them as you read them.

>>>That you didn't spot my quarter wave mistake or pinpoint where my first

>>>mistake was wrong? Yes sir. That is very strange.
>>
>> I'm very forgiving of your basic ignorance.
>
>I am less forgiving of yours.

That's because there is nothing to forgive.

>>>>
>>>

>>>"I'm not the authority. I'm the messenger"
>>>
>>>You are neither, sir.
>>
>> But you implied I was the "authority" behind my argument, when it's
>> obvious that the AUTHORITY is "Bureau International des Poids et

>> Mesures. The International System of Units - le Syst�me international
>> d'unit�s." That is... a lesser authority to those voices you hear

>> from "something higher than ourselves." He he he he he. You
>> psychotic fruitcake. Tell me again how you know more than the
>> Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The International System

>> of Units - le Syst�me international d'unit�s.
>>
>
>"But you implied "
>

>No I didn't, sir.
>
Right... you stated an outright distortion of the facts. I never
claimed to be the "authority" behind my argument, while you
lied and claimed that I have no "right" to quote an "authority"
to justify my argument. In other words, you're not interested
in the truth... you just believe yourself to be more qualified

than the " "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The

International System of Units - le Syst�me international
d'unit�s." But given that you also claim you are the "authority"

behind an Easter Bunny claim that there is "a right to life for
all biological life... including cockroaches and other vermin,
bacteria and viruses," it's clear just how delusional your
belief in your own "authority" actually is.
>

>>>You have read them all in this small time, sir?
>>
>> I'm a fast reader.
>
>You would have to be the fastest reader on the planet, sir.

I've had a lot of time.

>> Can't do it, can you???

>
>
>Can't do what, sir?
>

Handle the truth.

>
>>Yet I've provided cite after cite showing
>> Hz being the recognized standard for "cycles per second."
>>
>
>
>If you had read your books sir, you would see that cs and c/s are also used.

Guess what? -- An assertion lacking a referenced cite is
inadmissible.

>> You're one hard-headed piece of work, Sir shit-for-brains.
>
>Thank you, sir.

You're welcome... always glad to help the retarded deal with their
problem.

>>>>>You haven't answered the problem I gave you, yet.

>>>>
>>>> Nor have you. I could give you a multitude of problems that you
>>>> could not even attempt to solve, sport.
>>>>
>>>
>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>
>>>Yes I have, sir. I am still waiting for your solution if you can offer
>>>one.
>>
>> No, problem.... See -
>> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-2.html
>
>That does not answer the question, sir. You have avoided it yet again.
>

Now that you admit you are mistaken about C/S, Cs, or whatever the
fuck you want to call it to avoid recognizing it as Hz, I have already
answered all your questions in my previous post.
>>

>>>"I've looked in all my books"
>>>
>>>Then you should find the answer in them, sir.
>>
>> I did find the answer in a very concise reference in my library titled
>> the "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers." About 2000 pages
>> deep, edited by Donald G Fink (look him up), published by McGraw Hill,
>> with ISBN 0-07-020973-1.
>
>" About 2000 pages deep"
>
>2304 to be exact, sir.

You counted THEM??? Mine doesn't have the pages numbered. It

just has the sections numbered. You spent all your time COUNTING
the pages??? Don't you have anything better to do?

>>Go to your library and ask them for it.

>> Then go to page 1-9... Systems of Measurement. And you will see
>> that Frequency is measured in Hz.
>
>Are those the only pages you looked at in the entire book, sir?

It is the page that references the STANDARD System of measurements,

Sir shit-for-brains. And nowhere in that book does the term C/S, or
Cs appear.

>> And yet I can find no reference to "Cs is the standard for cycles per

>> second." In fact every reference states that "Hz is the standard
>> for cycles per second."
>
>If that book is any good then it should contain the formulas to answer those
>little problems I gave you. Maybe you should try buying a copy and reading
>it, sir.

Your problems have already been answered. Now when can I expect you

to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???

<fx: sweat begins to form on Death Disco's forehead, as his cheeks
turn a ruddy red, realizing he can't solve even one of them,
regardless of what source he can find that might give him an answer>

>Hz is an abbreviation of a mathematical expression, sir; as are Kilo, Mega,
>Omega etc, etc.

Hz is an abbreviation for the Name "Heinrich Hertz," a contributor to

science... see --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz
As such the term for "cycles per second" is Hz... not Hertz. While
you may find someone posts something like 1050 Hertz.. it is not
correct. In that respect Hz is NOT an abbreviation... but is the
standard representation for "cycles per second."

>C/s are the mathematical expression itself sir and not a
>standard abbreviation.

ROTFLMAO. Wrong again... Sir shit-for-brains. C/S is the

abbreviation
for "C/S Construction Specialties," and "C & S Wholesale Grocers," and
"C & S Oyster Bar," and other companies. It is not the recognized
electronic industry representation of "cycles per second."

> Hertz is an abbreviation, sir. We are not answerable

>to you regarding our choice of terms sir. Of course, should you feel the
>desire you are welcome to call your legal representative and have him sue my
>colleagues and I, sir.

You don't have an "colleagues," Sir shit-for-brains. What you have

are a few fellow dweebs who all collectively sit around with your
fingers up your ass.

>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> R = 3.183 x 10^4 Ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c = 10^-9 Farads
>>>>>>
>>>>>> f = 500 Hz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thus -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xc = 1/(2 x [pi] x f x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 500 x 10^-9 Ohms)
>>>>>
>>>>>Xc=1/w(omega)c sir but it equates to the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xc= 3.183 x 10^5 ohms = 318.3 K Ohms
>>>>>>
>>>>>318.310K to be more accurate, sir but you are doing very well
>>>>
>>>> Heh... you idiot. That is only LESS accurate. Your original data
>>>> gave R = 3.183... you cannot invent that 318310, as presumable
>>>> "more accurate" than your original number. Your entire problem
>>>> is limited to 3.183, which is four significant digits. Offering
>>>> a claim that "318.31..." is "more accurate" is a crock of shit,
>>>> since it implies five digits of accuracy.
>>>
>>>Temper, temper. If you cannot handle the problem you should ask for help.
>>
>> I'm not the type who finds humor in your ignorance.
>
>You're the one whom failed the problem sir.

Already answered... Sir shit-for-brains.

>>
>>> PI has more than 5 digits of accuracy, sir.
>>
>> When I state 3.14159...
>
>You have over snipped, sir. You appear to be as ignorant on snipping, as you
>are everything else.

I used six digits of accuracy, Sir shit-for-brains. Can't you count?
>

>> Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator, thus it is not incorrect to
>> show pi as an approximation because that's what it is, no matter how
>> long one writes integers. Nor can one write pi as a quotient of two
>> integers, in exact terms. While your use of 318.310 implies a
>> constant "more accurate" than your original constant, Sir
>> shit-for-brains.
>>
>
>"Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator"
>
>Nonsense, sir. Pi goes on for as long as there can be new digits calculated.
>and alot of people do not need a calculator to calculate it as you would.
>They spend a finate amount of time on it.

Pi is NOT a constant in any sense of having an absolute value. When

will you ever recognize the difference between rational and irrational
numbers? Pi is only as accurate as the number of digits used, and

it tells you nothing of what the next digit will be.

>"I can't believe you don't know the difference between a rational
> and an irrational number."
>
>You are guessing again, sir.

And yet you continue to show that you don't know the difference.

You admitted elsewhere that you were not "illiterate" (although you

are), but that you suffer from "innumeracy."

>>>> Chee... that's stuff you learn in the 7th grade, or earlier.

>>>
>>>Is that the last time you had any education, sir?
>>
>> We've already been through this, Sir shit-for-brains... See --
>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Maryland.jpg
>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Boston.jpg
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Transcript.jpg
>>
>
>A lot has changed in 22 years, sir. Of course, it is very easy to fake such
>documents and you appear to have no qualifications relating to electrical
>engineering, sir.
>

compute given that at resonance XL = XC.

Hey... good for you, it seems you looked up the definition. I

always get those two mixed up... especially when someone like
you appear on paper to be screaming out his lies and hate.

>For an "educated" man sir, you truly are stupid.

And yet... there are those eight problems that you have not dared
to even touch.

>> Now where are your educational credentials?

>
>In the bottom draw of the desk in my workshop, sir, where they shall stay. I
>am under no obligation to show them to you, sir.
>

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. He called

my bluff knowing I'm just a big baby spewing out a lot of hot air,
while having little in the way of any education. I wish I wasn't as

shit-for-brains as he has found me to be so I could show he is not
correct, but the bastard hit the nail right on the head. AGAIN!!"

All answered... Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.

>>>

>>>You still have not answered your problem, sir.
>>
>> No.
>
>Because you can't, sir.

Wrong... all answered, Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.

>>>

>>>"Not only can you not solve it"
>>>
>>>A guess, sir.
>>
>> That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems
>> I asked you to solve. While you can't even formulate your problems
>> understandably.
>>
>
>"That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems"
>
>That is true, sir. But your problems go deeper that a few numbers, sir.

Not at all... they all have an answer in numbers. But you have to

know how to arrive at those numbers. And that is what is beyond
your meager knowledge of electronics or the mathematics that
is necessary to arrive at answers in electronics circuits. Even the
most basic of data in respect to electronics is based upon
mathematics. Such as I = V/R.

>>>>>Nonsense, sir. Ohms law applies electricity, whether it is DC or AC is

>>>>>irrelevent. As AC is contantly in flux then that has to be taken into
>>>>>account so impedence and phase angle are calculated.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>There was no denial sir. There was only your apology of a response.
>>
>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>> obvious that he speaks a lie.
>>
>> So your apology is accepted.
>
>No apology was offered, sir.

Sure there was. You're trying to make excuses for your lies. And

in doing so admit you've lied... and thus apologize for having lied.

> You're comments in respect to AC and ohms law

>were wrong but you don't have the backbone to admit it, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

>>>You have never proved any, sir.

>>
>> I've proved that your comments always show you are --
>>

>>12) revealing your malfaisant racism

>>etc... etc... etc...
>>
>>Look at all the new words in English you can look up.
>

>No you haven't, sir.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

>>>

E=I/R is Ohm's law, Sir shit-for-brains. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law

Rather there in bold letters -- I = V/R. But now I've got you using
"E."

>>>The Black arts? To calculate current, The formula is I=E/Z and to
>>>calculate
>>>the voltage across an inductor or capacitor the formula is Vl=I*XL and Vc
>>>=
>>>I*XC respectively.
>>
>> I = E/R is Ohm's law.
>
>At last, the penny drops, sir.

Since R is not V except in a DC circuit, Ohm's law applies to DC

circuits and not to resistances that are Z which is impedance,
and appears only in AC circuits.

>> Despite your ignorance of basic electronics, R

>> is not = Z, or = C, or = L. All of which change instantaneously in an
>> AC circuit, while R is a constant, and I and E can be computed using
>> simple arithmetic, and instantaneous AC cannot be computed using
>> simple arithmetic.
>>
>
>You moron, sir. Z=impedence,

Correct... Z is not = R.

> E IS EMF and I is current. Get an education, sir.

I'm still old school, and we always referred to voltage as E. I admit

that is a mistake. It results from an old four word rhyme to
remember how inductive and capacitive impedance work. The
rhyme was ELI THE ICE MAN. And in that rhyme one can then
devise that "voltage (E) leads current (I) (ELI) in inductive
impedance, while current (I) leads voltage (E) (ICE) in capacitive
impedance."

You see how easy it is to admit mistakes? Now if we could only
get you to recognize even 1 out of every 100 mistakes you make.
But then you wouldn't be "hard-headed," would you???

>>>"AC circuits are much more complicated than DC circuits"

>>>
>>>That is something else, we agree on, sir.
>>>
>>>"You couldn't solve even the easiest of differential equations."
>>>
>>>You are guessing, sir.
>>
>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>
>No, sir. The easiest of differential equations include Y=X, Y=1 or Y=X^2
>sir.
>They are examples of the "easiest", sir.

Rubbish. Now of those presumed identities are part of any
differential equation.
>

>"You have no idea how to even approach a solution. "
>
>You are guessing again, sir.

And yet I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.

Wrong!!! I can't even begin to relate how many scientific papers

are written using Newton's laws without the mention of Newton!

>> The only thing you can argue are that my FACTS are wrong... and you

>> know you can't do that.
>
>They aren't your facts, sir.

When I show them to you as proof of my arguments they represent

my facts proving my arguments. While all I have from you is
mumbles, whining, sobbing hysterically while curled up in the
fetal position, lies, hate, ignorance and mindless drivel.
>
>>>>>

>>>>>Very longwinded, sir. The correct formula is radians = degrees*pi/180
>>>>>Of course you would have spotted that a complete circle is 2pi.
>>>>
>>>> That's exactly what I wrote, shit-for-brains. Other than I use
>>>> 2.14159... an approximation for pi. Here it is again --
>>>
>>>No, sir you wrote.
>>
>> And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
>> number, and cannot be expressed as a constant.. obviously. While
>> we don't concern ourselves with degrees that have more than 6
>> digits of accuracy. In fact, degrees in general only have at most
>> three digits of accuracy, at which point further accuracy is usually
>> stated in minutes, and seconds. Each degree being split up into 60
>> minutes, and each minute being split up into 60 seconds.
>
>"And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
>> number"
>
>You cannot state that Pi suddently starts with 2 any more than you can
>declare the last three digits, sir.

Aw... Death Disco caught me in a typo... Good grief... if I had a

nickel for every typo from him it would be like winning the
lottery.

>>>> rad = degrees x (2.14159... /180)

>>>>
>>>> See it right above the list of various radians at degrees?
>>>
>>>the formula for converting degrees to radians is Radians=degrees*pi/180,
>>>sir. That is not what you wrote.
>>
>> See the three dots following 2.14159...? That means in standard
>> mathematics that this is an approximation. And it is a completely
>> accurate approximation. We're not sending a rocket to Mars, Sir
>> shit-for-brains. And you cannot possibly argue that pi is a
>> constant. While I clearly showed the various important degrees
>> in pi.
>>
>
>
>Pi starts with a 3, sir.

Awww.... death disco caught me in a typo.

>>>"I've been retired longer than you've been living."

>>>
>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>
>> And yet you've offered nothing that would refute my guess.
>
>You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.
>

Well, I retired on 23 April 1993. I doubt seriously you are over

the age of 17. But I'm sure that you'll put on your fascist
uniform and insist I am not _allowed to think_, Herr

Sturmbannf�hrer Disco.

How old are you??? Since you never answer my questions,
why do you think I should answer yours until you answer even
one of mine?

>>>> [1] see bottom of post.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was feeble sir. You got as far as working out the capacitive
>>>>>reactance.
>>>>>then you went off at a tangent.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>
>>>There was no denial, sir. You mucked it up.
>>
>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>>
>
>You mucked it up, sir.

TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish

I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>

>>>" knowledgeable when you're not"
>>>
>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>
>> And yet you've offered nothing that would disprove my comment.
>
>You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.

Heh... Am I supposed to give you a fascist salute in responding to
your "order" that I am not _allowed to think_, Herr Sturmbannf�hrer

Disco? You fit perfectly in that fascist outfit.

>>>" All in all you screwed it up pretty badly. "

>>>
>>>It that is what you call screwing up pretty badly then you need a life
>>>sir.
>>>Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are writing a paper
>>>on English language sir.
>>
>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>> Aristotle.
>
>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.
>

A "typo" is the exchange on ONE LETTER of the alphabet for ANOTHER
when typing. Changing words, or changing meaning, or grammatical
mistakes, are NOT considered typos, Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>On newsgroups it's minor at worst and only used as

>>>ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their arguments any other
>>>way. I am still waiting for your answer to the very SIMPLE problem I gave
>>>you.
>>
>> Heh... More ad hominem to cover up your lack of a proper
>> education. See --
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
>
>Your avoidence of the problem is noted, sir. You are too great a coward to
>admit that you cannot do it, sir.
>

And yet you have the answers to your simplistic and ill-conceived and
badly distorted questions, while I still wait for even one answer from
you.

>>>

>>>> "We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your
>>>> horn about --
>>>>
>>>> "I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
>>>> and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
>>>> algorythm."
>>>>
>>>> See the quotation marks, shit-for-brains?? What makes you think I'd
>>>> be as dumb as you and not know how to spell "theorem," and
>>>> "algorithm"?
>>>>
>>>> There has seldom been a poster to AADP who is more in need of a spell
>>>> checker than you, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>>
>>>
>>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are
>>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at worst
>>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>>arguments any other way".
>>
>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>> Aristotle.
>
>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors, sir.
>

A "typo" is the exchange on ONE LETTER of the alphabet for ANOTHER
when typing. Changing words, or changing meaning, or grammatical
mistakes, are NOT considered typos, Sir shit-for-brains.
>

>>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>>
>
>" I already have more of them then I need "
>
>Well try using them from time to time, sir.
>

Generally I don't need one, since I know quite a few different words

that mean about the same thing, but have a slightly different shading.

But it is enough to mention that you have offered Holocaust
denial to put you in your place.

>>>>

>>>> Heh... the penny drops... And Death Disco is speechless.
>>>
>>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>>
>> And yet that's all you have to say.
>.
>Which is not "speechless", sir. You screwed it up again, sir.

"Mindless drivel" is nothing but demonstrating you are "speechless."

>>>> No you didn't.

>>>
>>>Yes I did, sir.
>>
>> No you didn't, Sir shit-a-lot.
>
>Yes I did, sir.

NO you didn't, Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>>>> If that question was too complicated for you I'll give you an easier

>>>>>> one. Since you seem to claim familiarity with differential
>>>>>> equations... solve this one. Understand that this is the EASIEST
>>>>>> of all differential equation to solve, and is used over and over in
>>>>>> solving motion equations related to gravitation -- This one should
>>>>>> be a snap for you --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>>>>
>>>> Heh.. got you going, eh? Gee... my boy... this solution is probably
>>>> all over the net. It's a very general differential equation with no
>>>> numbers involved... those numbers which always confuse you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Heh.. got you going, eh?"
>>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>>
>> Heh heh... and yet not even an attempt. My goodness, DD... it's
>> the SIMPLEST differential equation I know of.
>
>It is sir. Then I suggest you learn differential calculus, sir.
>

>>>You still have not answered your problem, sir. I have noted your repeated
>>>efforts to avoid it.
>>
>> I don't have time for your bullshit,
>
>Your lack of backbone to admit that it is beyond you has been noted, sir.
>

And yet I found the time. Now when will we see anything but
jelly for your backbone???

>>>> You can't even pose your questions accurately. But let's take a quick

>>>> stab at it --
>>>
>>>"You can't even pose your questions accurately"
>>>Yes I can, sir. We shall see what your answer brings.
>>
>> "You just admitted you can't."
>
>No I didn't, sir.
>
>You said integration... I ignored it
>
>I noticed that, sir, but did you know I was meaning to type "differentiate",
>sir?

That's NOT a "typo," Sir shit-for-brains.
>

>> because it made no sense... you realized it made no sense... you
>> admitted you didn't pose your question accurately. Chee... what
>> else do you want when I have your CONFESSION???
>
>That was after the above comment, sir. Please pay attention.

And yet we already have your CONFESSION.

>>>> V=pi*R�*H = 1050 cm�

>>>>
>>>> with R being the radius and H being the height
>>>>
>>>> so H = 1050/(pi)*R�
>>>>
>>>> The surface area, including ends is --
>>>>
>>>> S=2*(pi)R*H + 2*(pi)*R�
>>>>
>>>> Substituting for H --
>>>>
>>>> S=2*1050/R + 2*(pi)*R�
>>>>
>>>> Setting dS/dR = 0 and solving the differential equation for R the
>>>> answer is (V/2*(pi))^1/3 = R
>>>>
>>>> Reducing --> R=(1050/2*(pi))^1/3 = 5.508 cm
>>>>
>>>> Now that we have R, we can solve for H
>>>>
>>>> H=1050/(pi*)*R� = 11.017 cm
>>>>
>>>> Thus the closed cylinder has maximum surface area using minimum
>>>> material at :
>>>>
>>>> Radius = 5.508 cm
>>>> Height = 11.017 cm
>>>>
>>>> V = (pi)*5.508�*11.017 = 1050 cm�
>>>>
>>>
>>>Impressive, sir. Your answer is correct.
>>
>> No, shit... Dick Tracy...
>
>You do not handle praise very well, sir. I suppose that's because you never
>get any.
>

Praise from Holocaust deniers like you means nothing to me. Now

answer my questions... or just one of them.

>>now when can we expect you to answer either

>> of my questions, after fucking up the answer
>
>Language, sir. I did sir. Nevertheless, I corrected. It is fortunate I was
>not submitting it to anyone whose opinion matters. However, I am still
>waiting to see you answer the simple problem I set for you. What was the
>expression you used? "Overly complicated"

Overly stupid... is the correct term.

>>to a very, very, trivial

>> question regarding resonance.
>
>As is this one, sir
>
>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Already answered. Sir shit-for-brains. Now it's your turn.

>"> So when you claimed that my approximation of pi was incorrect you

>"> were full of shit.
>
>Is that your proof, sir?
>

Your question has been answered, Sir shit-for-brains. Quit squirming,
and answer one of my questions.
>

>>In this problem, I did use a calculator, rather
>> than pen and paper ... and entered pi symbolically, which provided an
>> approximation dependent upon the range of the calculator I used. There
>> is no such thing as an exact value of pi. They are ALL
>> approximations. Thus my response was exactly as yours... an
>> approximation! pi is an approximation.
>
>Everyone starts Pi with a three, sir... well except for you that is.

Heh... "typo." That's the way a "typo" is defined. When I have

used 3.14159... over and over, and then I type 2.14159..., that's
a typo. When you substitute "integration" for "differentiate,"
that's NOT a typo.

>>> I shall assume it's your own work.

>>
>> You can assume anything you wish, Sir shit-for-brains. It's a free
>> country. You also assume that "something higher than ourselves,"
>> talks to you. Now how about that easy problem with differential
>> equations...
>
>Would you rather I assumed that you copied it from a book, sir?

It's a free country, Sir shit-for-brains... only a fascist would try

to tell you what to assume... you know.... like your fascist demands
that I only assume what YOU want to assume.

>> Solve the differential equation d�x/dt� = -g

>>
>> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>>
>> Solve it??? I don't even think you know how to even formulate it
>> correctly! Let's see... first you need to integrate once with
>> respect to "t." How does such a formula LOOK... much less ask you to
>> to solve it. v(t) = ???? Come on, Sir shit-for-brains. You're so
>> smart... what does the right side of that equation even LOOK LIKE???
>> This is high school math. Show me what you got... so you can
>> raise those knuckles that drag on the ground, and start thumping
>> your chest in mindless hubris. --
>>
>> v(t) = ???
>
>You haven't solved this one, yet:
>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Already solved, Sir shit-for-brains. We're now waiting for you to

solve the above problem. BTW -- You can get any help your little
heart desires... just as long as see your answer.

>> If you can't solve that one... I have nothing to prove. While

>> even if you solve it, it is so simple that I would not even give
>> you credit for solving it. There must be at least 10,000 sites
>> on the Internet giving the proper notation to that next step.
>> You don't answer it, we have determined the level of your
>> education and intellect... and found it sorely lacking.
>>
>
>
>Wrong, sir. You have already stated that there is no point to me solving it.
>However, if you solve this problem
>
>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.

Already solved it, Sir shit-for-brains. See my comment from two days
ago.

>I might and I mean, "might" overlook that you screwed up ohms law.
>

It's "Ohm's law," Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>>>Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40

>>>>>ohm,
>>>>>calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissapated
>>>>>across each line, sir.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time for you to throw silly problem after problem at me,
>>>> when you can't solve a very simple differential equation.
>>>
>>>You're guessing sir.
>>
>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>
>Your puerile attempt to avoid the problem without having the backbone to
>admit it has ben noted, sir.
>

And yet you have from me the answer to your problem... and we now
await your answer to me to my problem.

>>>>I can

>>>> certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>>> approach. Just how simple do you expect the problems I offer must be?
>>>> Perhaps a little bit of algebra is the limit of your education? Beyes'
>>>> Theorem, my ass.
>>>
>>>" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>>> approach"
>>>
>>>No, you cannot sir.
>>
>> Sure I can, shit-for-brains. I've already thrown three at you that
>> you're afraid to even take a stab at.
>
>
>There's two I've thrown at you which you haven't answered sir. I have a
>third, for you.
>You have a paralell tuned circuit with a resistance of 68 ohm, a resonant
>frequency of 5khz, and an inductor of 145.4 mH. Calculate the capacitance.
>
>That's three each now, sir.

Already answered that one as well, Sir shit-for-brains. That means

you owe me two answers from among the eight questions I posed to
you.

At this point, Death Disco gave up answering any of my responses,
while simply leaving everything in.

Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html

All remarks unanswered by Death Disco --

Already answered, Sir shit-for-brains. You're starting to sweat now.

>>>"Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a

>>>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>>>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir."
>>
>> Hell... here's one for you that does have a schematic along
>> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>>
>
>Answer the problem I gave you sir.

Already answer, Sir shit-for-brains. You're sweating profusely now.

>> But make up your mind... I thought you claimed it was "accurate" to
>> 318310.
>>

Heh... are you claiming it was a "typo"????

>>>> Once again -- how do you even APPROACH a solution to --

Death Disco

unread,

Jun 19, 2010, 10:23:34 PM6/19/10

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:i7fo16tpc4pq0dvfm...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:10:15 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
> wrote:
>
> Hey... Sir shit-for-brains. Did you forget this one??? Here it is
> again.
>

I had previously imagined that you abandoned this thread as you were
obviously out of your depth. Have you been poking around that substantial
bookshelf again, sir?

>>
>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:ah5r06do51ge3jus8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:05 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally have some spare time to wipe out the wimp...
>>>>
>>>>I look forward to seeing that sir.
>
> Apparently you have a masochist streak in you.

No, sir.

>
>>> I've had more important things to do than wipe the floor with
>>> someone who spends his days playing "dungeons and dragons,"
>>> as you do, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>>I am keen to meet the fellow, sir. He must have been asleep, or drunk or
>>both, sir.
>
> So you admit to being asleep, or drunk or both.

Well I have slept, since, sir.

>
>>>>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco"
>>>>>>> <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>What's curious is how you managed to tune your tin hat antenna to pick
>>>up voices from "something higher than ourselves." What frequency
>>>is it where you hear those voices from "something higher than
>>>ourselves"?
>>>>" But you're no longer worth my time"
>>>>
>>>>Was perfectly clear, sir. You cannot take time back, you know.
>>>
>>> Your "something higher than ourselves" told you that??

You needed something higher than you to tell you that? Something higher than
you did tell you that, sir and that something higher was me, sir.

>>>>No sir. I was asserting the obvious truth.
>>>
>>>Are you brain-dead??? When you "assert," you are declaring! Even a
>>>trained chimpanzee could understand that, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>

"Are you brain-dead??? "

A bizarre question, sir, as asking a question to a brain dead person will
give you no answer.

>>I see you are still trying to avoid your own screwups, sir.
>
> I see you are still trying to avoid admitting that a voice from
> "something higher than ourselves," has been talking to you
> personally.
>

It would be pointless to admit to something that never occurred, sir.

>>>>> I haven't yet lost any money betting on your ignorance, Sir
>>>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is because you didn't bet any, sir.
>>>
>>> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>>Are the bailiffs banging on your door, sir? Hmm? Do they shout through
>>your
>>letter box of that all so very bright home of yours, sir? Are they
>>threatening to take it away from you because you cannot pay your gambling
>>debts, sir. You should give it up, sir. You are no good at it.
>
> I'm racking in the money. But aren't those guys in the white coats
> with the straight jackets banging on your door, Sir
> shit-for-brains?
>

"I'm racking in the money"

Racking? Sir?

>>>>"All people are "special," "
>>>>
>>>>You certainly are, sir.
>>>
>>> All people are "special," even you, you sick in the head racist.
>>
>>You certainly are, sir.
>
> You're especially "special." As humans we need to pity those who are
> mentally unstable, as you are.
>

"You're especially "special." "

How quick witted you are, sir. It only took two attempts before you tried to
copy my logic. Is this because you have none of your own, sir?

>>>>
>>>>Are you bored with your own repetition, sir?
>>>
>>> You mean YOUR repetition, sport...
>>
>>No, sir. I mean, your repetion..
>
> And yet you can't stop lying.

You are guessing, sir.

>
>>>
>>> You're insane...
>>
>>My, dear fellow. Pot, kettle, black.
>
> So you admit you're insane. And insist I'm insane for recognizing
> that you're insane. Finally... a breakthrough!!!
>

"> So you admit you're insane"

No, sir.

>>>>
>>>>Apparently not, sir. There is no dent in my head
>>>
>>> I'll bet you haven't checked carefully in your scalp... look for a
>>> "666" mark.
>>
>>You are a Christian, sir.
>>
>
> No, Sir shit-for-brains... you have me mixed up with your
> Bible-thumping self. After all... I don't claim to hear voices

"No, Sir shit-for-brains"

"... look for a
>>> "666" mark."

A Christian remark, sir. You are a Christian, sir.

> from "something higher than ourselves," as you do.
>

I made no such claim, sir.

>>>>We should remind yourself why you think I'm Dutch sir
>>>
>>> Who's this "we," Sir shit-for-brains?
>>>
>>>>"
>>>>Bet you're Dutch, with a dingleberry hanging from your ass because
>>>>of your unhygienic paedomorphic habits. You're certainly
>>>>not Italian... I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>>minor in college. You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>>>French, born and raised in Paris... so I can do very well in
>>>>the French spoken language, and good enough in the written
>>>>language. You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had. I don't think
>>>>you're Spanish or Portuguese. Nor from the former East bloc.
>>>>And since you mention ...
>>>>
>>>>"
>>>
>>> Man, that was a real logical and convincing observation on my part, if
>>> I do say so myself.
>>
>>You do, sir?
>
> Do you also have a reading disability?? After all, you don't want to

"> Do you also have a reading disability?? "

No, sir; do you?

> wipe that dingleberry away... just think of all the germs you'd be
> "murdering" (sic)... ROTFLMAO. I'll bet you're afraid to even sit,
> in fear you might crush some of those germs.
>
>>>>Cite:
>>>>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>>>>From: Planet Visitor II <hidden to protect privacy>
>>>>Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:11:17 -0400
>>>>Local: Thurs, May 27 2010 5:11 am
>>>>Subject: Re: High court rules out life sentences for some juveniles
>>>>
>>>>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>>minor in college"
>>>>
>>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not Italian, sir?
>>>
>>> Well, try me, if you are Italian. Prove it.
>>
>>">>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>>minor in college"
>>"
>>
>>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not Italian, sir?
>>
> It proves TO ME that you are not Italian.

How does that prove to YOU that I am not Italian, sir?

>That's
> good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
> fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???
>
">That's
> good enough for me"

Of course, it is, sir. You have made it obvious that your standards are
lower than everyone else's, sir.

>>>>"You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>>>French, born and raised in Paris... "
>>>>
>>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not French, sir?
>>>
>>> Well, try me, if you are French. Prove it.
>>
>>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not French, sir?
>>
> It proves TO ME that you are not French. That's
> good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
> fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???
>

"> It proves TO ME that you are not French"

How does that prove to YOU that I am not French, sir?

"That's> good enough for me. "

Of course, it is, sir. You have made it obvious that your standards are
lower than everyone else's, sir.

>>>>"You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had"
>>>>
>>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not German, sir?
>>>
>>> Well, try me, if you are German. Prove it.
>>
>>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not German, sir?
>
> It proves TO ME that you are not German. That's
> good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
> fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???
>

"It proves TO ME that you are not German"

How does that prove to YOU that I am not German, sir?

"That's> good enough for me. "

Of course, it is, sir. You have made it obvious that your standards are
lower than everyone else's, sir.

>>>>You neglected to post your reasoning for believing me Dutch, sir.
>>>
>>> Because I don't speak Dutch, and the Dutch offer quite a
>>> bit of education in the English language.
>>
>>That is your reason for thinking me Dutch, sir? I can see you have not
>>thought this through.
>
> I think everything through, Sir shit-for-brains. I form my opinions
> independent of arguments from the deranged... like you.

"> I think everything through"

Then it is curious that you are so bad at it, sir. I would suggest that you
get more practice but it does not appear to be helping you, sir.

>
>>>>As should you, sir.
>>>
>>> I "remember" quite a bit of events that happened before I was born,
>>
>>No you don't, sir. You was not there.
>
> ROTFLMAO... You mean "were not there." And yet I "remember"
> them. Are you now in your fascist method intending to tell me what
> I can and cannot "remember"? The fact that I "was not there" is
> irrelevant to whether it happened before or after I was born. I
> can "remember" the Kennedy assassination, even though I "was
> not there." "Being there" is irrelevant to what our minds are
> capable of "remembering."

"And yet I "remember"
> them"

No, you do not sir. You WERE not there.

>
>>>>>>I did not, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>
>>>>Denying something doesn't automatically make the denier a liar, sir.
>>>>
>>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>>> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>>
>>Denial proves or disproves nothing, sir.
>
> You seem determined to deny.

In response to your guesses, yes, sir.

>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes you did, you little Holocaust denier.
>>>>
>>>>I did not, sir.
>>>
>>> Yes, you did, Sir shit-for-brains. And you're also a Holocaust
>>> denier... claiming you hear voices.
>>
>>I did not, sir.
>
> Sure you did. You related that "something higher than ourselves"
> had TOLD you that there is "a right to life for all biological life."
> Claiming that it is "murder" to kill any biological life... including
> cockroaches... making each of us a murderer a million, billion times,
> each time we wash our hands. No wonder they call you "the
> unwashed." You're determined to "murder" (sic) as few of those
> germs as possible. If that "something higher than ourselves" didn't
> TELL you there is such a "right to life," how did you come into that
> information? Was it pixies... or the Tooth Fairy... or the Easter
> Bunny... or Santa Claus??? Or was it your "mommy" making
> you say your prayers to that "something higher than ourselves"???
>

"Sure you did"

Sure, I did not, sir.

>>>>>>> Are you now denying those were your words?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier. Don't think you are?
>>>>> Well, let me ask you... do you "remember" that there was an
>>>>> extermination of six million Jews in the 20th Century???
>>>>
>>>>"Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier"
>>>>
>>>>No sir.
>>>
>>> If you claim you don't "remember" it happening, that is a clear
>>> indication that you "deny" it happening.
>>>
>>
>>Your logic does not follow normal rational reasoning, sir.
>>
> To your deep annoyance, it follows perfect logical reasoning.
> See --
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/remember
> Since you are xenophobic toward the "the British."
>

"it follows perfect logical reasoning"

No it does not, sir

> REMEMBER -- "to be able to bring back a piece of information into your
> mind, or to keep a piece of information in your memory"
> Or --
> "to be kept in people's memories because of a particular action or
> quality"
> Or --
> "to hold a special ceremony to honour a past event or someone who has
> died"
>
> There is nothing that argues we cannot "remember" what we did not
> "experience first hand." And we certainly didn't "have to be there"
> to remember something happened.

You remember the information, sir. You remember the news, the newspaper or
the article in the book, sir because you read or saw them on television. You
cannot remember something you did not experience, sir.

>
> But then you've already insisted in your fascist way, that if you
> don't like a definition you just refuse to accept it. But in this
> case you are also INVENTING your own definitions in the English
> language in which you presume to demand that "remember"
> is defined as "only having experienced first hand" what you can
> "remember." How neat that is for the Nazis. Or the neo-Nazis
> of today.
>
>>>>> Yet you fondly "remember" the Greeks. You naughty boy, you.
>>>>
>>>>Only the ones I've met, sir.
>>>
>>> Heh... that must have been a night of debauchery.
>>
>>A night, sir? Nobody goes to Greece for just one night, sir.
>>
>
> Zoommm...... that one flew right over your pointy head.
>
>>
>>>Don't bother sharing the sordid details...
>>
>>I won't, sir.
>>
> Thank you.

You are welcome, sir.

>>
>>
>>> this is a family oriented newsgroup.
>>
>>Since when, sir?
>
> Zooommm...... so did that one.

Are you speeding, sir? Such is not advisable for someone of your advanced
epoch.

>
>>>>>>You claimed that you could, "hear" me, sir.
>>>>>>Any fear that you experience is your own, sir. If you were to be able
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>feel my emotions sir, you would feel my amusement.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>
>>>>There was no denial, sir. You responses are getting more random, dear
>>>>fellow.
>>>
>>> Need I point out again --
>>
>>Not if it is your usual gibberish, sir.
>>
> The truth has never been something that you want to see, Sir
> shit-for-brains. You believe you can "invent" your own truth.
>

"The truth has never been something"

That you have ever told, sir.

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Shall we wait for you temper tantrum to calm down, sir?
>>>
>>> Heh... as the Dalai Lama noted -- "If a human being never
>>> shows anger, then I think something's wrong. He's not
> right in the brains" See --
>>>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1993865,00.html
>>
>>Are you planning to re-interpret his word too, sir?
>
> Are you still unable to follow a link, you little liar?? Didn't I
> give you a link to his words? Just as I do with your words
> that indict you as an admitted "murderer" (sic). (I saw you wash
> your hands... you brutal killer, you. What about that "Right to life"
> for those "poor innocent creatures... the germs"?) Have you
> thought about turning yourself in to the authorities and claiming
> "self-defense"??? ROTFLMAO.
>

"Are you still unable to follow a link"

No, sir. I made no claim to being unable to follow the link, sir.

>>>>"I never, ever lie. "
>>>>
>>>>Anothr lie, sir.
>>>
>>> Really, you admit you lied???
>>
>>Yes, sir.
>
> Well then why don't you stop lying?

You first, sir.

>
>>"little boy, "
>>
>>You're guessing again, sir.
>>
>
> And yet there is no evidence that you are not a "little boy, with
> an equally little brain."

There is no evidence that I am either. Just as there is no evidence that
your posted qualifications were not forged, yet there is evidence to suggest
that they are.

>
> Is it also your fascist demand that I "stop guessing"??? Any

> other orders for me, Gruppenf锟絟rer Disco???

Your black shirt needs ironing, sir.

>
>>>>>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They do sir? So you have only the one opinion. Curious
>>>>>
>>>>> "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural. I don't
>>>>> know what it means in your mother-tongue which is apparently Tigrinya.
>>>>
>>>>" "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural"
>>>>
>>>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has 'one'"
>>>>
>>>>The "one" implies singular, sir.
>>>
>>> "Opinions".... plural. "one".... used as a pronoun... for example ...
>>> the simple English constructed sentence -- "she visited ONE of her
>>> cousins." Notice that she does not have only ONE cousin. Thus
>>> a person does not have only ONE opinion.
>>>
>>> Chee... but you are uneducated.
>>
>>You're guessing again, sir.
>
> Well, you obviously are not educated in the English language in
> respect to the use of plurals.

Your words, sir: "While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has 'one'"

"everyone has 'one'"; indicates a singular, and not a plural, sir.

>
>>>>
>>>>"Heh... I believe you actually looked at a dictionary"
>>>>
>>>>When one is learning a language, it is useful to browse a dictionary of
>>>>that language sir. It is a practice that I reccomend you try.
>>>
>>> Too bad you slept through most of that education. But I think you're
>>> sweating
>>> about now... because I picked the right nation.
>>
>>Your refusal to educate yourself has been noted, sir.
>

> TRANSLATION " Your refusal to educate yourself has been noted, sir."

>
>>>>"Don't blame me for your illiteracy"
>>>>Numeracy, my dear fellow; not literacy.
>>>
>>> The terms are not mutually exclusive, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>>So you do not understand the expression, "mutually exclusive", either.
>
> You stupid, stupid child. The term "mutually exclusive" means
> that both events cannot occur at the same time. The two events
> in question in this argument are --
> 1) Your illiteracy.
> 2) Your inability to understand numeracy.
>

"You stupid, stupid child"

You are guessing, sir.

> I said that they are NOT "mutually exclusive," you implied that they
> ARE "mutually exclusive." "Mutually exclusive" is a term that I am
> quite familiar with, since logic circuits often use it. Such circuits
> are called XOR gates. See --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_gate
>

"I said that they are NOT "mutually exclusive,""

Yes, sir and I replied, So you do not understand the expression, "mutually
exclusive", either.

>>>>

>>>>There was no denial sir. Your confusion is increasing.
>>>
>>> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mindless drivel?
>>
>>Do you, sir?
>
> Given that I only repeat your "mindless drivel" why would I
> get tired of it?
>
>>

"Given that I only repeat your "mindless drivel""

No, sir; you only ever repeat yours.

>>>>""No sir. You were the one whom (sic) "fucked
>>>>> up" lightspeed, sir."
>>>>
>>>>You did, sir. you claimed it was 300,000,000 M/s.
>>>
>>> No, Sir shit-for-brains... I said "presuming the velocity of light is
>>> exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second."
>>
>>But it isn't, sir.
>
> So what? The velocity of light is only a constant in a vacuum.
> Scientists have slowed down light to a crawl when going through
> various mediums. The question did not ask for the "speed
> of light in a vacuum." It asked to PRESUME the velocity of light
> is exactly 300,000,000 meters/ per second. Apparently you admit
> you can't follow directions.
> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-11/st_alphageek
>

"So what? "

Therefore, you got it wrong, sir.

>>
>>"The question was posed to not use a calculator or references"
>>
>>That is not your decision, sir.
>>
> Rubbish... every question is based upon certain parameters, including
> what can be used in solving the question.
>

"Rubbish"

You are incorrect again, sir.

>>> Good grief... it's so difficult for me to deal with the juvenile
>>> uneducated.
>>>
>>
>>Looking the in mirror must be a real problem for you then, sir.
>
> Too bad you have such terrible problems in the English language.
> "Looking the in mirror"??? What is that supposed to mean?

"Too bad you have such terrible problems in the English language"

Hardly, sir; you've been using the English language for around 70 years
whereas I've been speaking it for around a fifth of a century and I still
have a greater mastery of it than you do, sir.

>
>>> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
>>> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
>>> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>>
>>"Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole?"
>>
>>To respond to them, sir.
>
> You don't need to repeat them to respond to them, Sir shit-for-brains.
> Respond to them as you read them.
>

"You don't need to repeat them to respond to them"

Yes, I do sir or as you have demonstrated previously; you get confused
regarding what part of your paragraph I am responding to.

>>>>That you didn't spot my quarter wave mistake or pinpoint where my first
>>>>mistake was wrong? Yes sir. That is very strange.
>>>
>>> I'm very forgiving of your basic ignorance.
>>
>>I am less forgiving of yours.
>
> That's because there is nothing to forgive.

Your ignorance is beyond forgiveness, sir.

>
>>>
>>>>>>I have built one in a while. What
>>>>>>about you, sir? When did you last build one?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL..." I have built one in a while," too. You ignorant child. Are
>>>>> you also this stupid in your mother tongue? Don't lie now.
>>>>
>>>>I shall take that as a "Never". shall I ,sir.
>>>
>>> Since the word "never" does not appear in my comment,
>>
>>You avoided the question, sir.
>>
> You presumed to create a word that is not within my comment.
> Further, I was making a mockery of your comment by mimicking
> your exact words which made no sense whatsoever. Those words
> of yours were "I have built one in a while." What the hell is
> that supposed to mean?
>

The question was, "when did you last build one, sir?"

>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"I'm not the authority. I'm the messenger"
>>>>
>>>>You are neither, sir.
>>>
>>> But you implied I was the "authority" behind my argument, when it's
>>> obvious that the AUTHORITY is "Bureau International des Poids et

>>> Mesures. The International System of Units - le Syst锟絤e international
>>> d'unit锟絪." That is... a lesser authority to those voices you hear

>>> from "something higher than ourselves." He he he he he. You
>>> psychotic fruitcake. Tell me again how you know more than the
>>> Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The International System

>>> of Units - le Syst锟絤e international d'unit锟絪.

>>>
>>
>>"But you implied "
>>
>>No I didn't, sir.
>>
> Right... you stated an outright distortion of the facts. I never
> claimed to be the "authority" behind my argument, while you
> lied and claimed that I have no "right" to quote an "authority"
> to justify my argument. In other words, you're not interested
> in the truth... you just believe yourself to be more qualified
> than the " "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The

> International System of Units - le Syst锟絤e international
> d'unit锟絪." But given that you also claim you are the "authority"

> behind an Easter Bunny claim that there is "a right to life for
> all biological life... including cockroaches and other vermin,
> bacteria and viruses," it's clear just how delusional your

"Right"

> belief in your own "authority" actually is.
>>
>>>>You have read them all in this small time, sir?
>>>
>>> I'm a fast reader.
>>
>>You would have to be the fastest reader on the planet, sir.
>
> I've had a lot of time.

An awful lot of time, sir; no time for work or putting that knowledge in
those books to use. Do you use it sir? Do you even just regurgitate it sir?
Or do you just read it and store the knowledge where it can do no good. I
cannot imagine a more pointless use or I should say 'misuse' of a library.

>
>>> Can't do it, can you???
>>
>>
>>Can't do what, sir?
>>
>
> Handle the truth.

I am still looking forward to you telling some truth for a change, sir.

>
>>
>>>Yet I've provided cite after cite showing
>>> Hz being the recognized standard for "cycles per second."
>>>
>>
>>
>>If you had read your books sir, you would see that cs and c/s are also
>>used.
>
> Guess what? -- An assertion lacking a referenced cite is
> inadmissible

Then you have not read your books, sir. You stack them on your shelves
preventing anyone else from reading them.

.
>
>>> You're one hard-headed piece of work, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>
>>Thank you, sir.
>
> You're welcome... always glad to help the retarded deal with their
> problem.

There is no problem, sir.

>
>>>>>>You haven't answered the problem I gave you, yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor have you. I could give you a multitude of problems that you
>>>>> could not even attempt to solve, sport.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>>
>>>>Yes I have, sir. I am still waiting for your solution if you can offer
>>>>one.
>>>
>>> No, problem.... See -
>>> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-2.html
>>
>>That does not answer the question, sir. You have avoided it yet again.
>>
> Now that you admit you are mistaken about C/S, Cs, or whatever the
> fuck you want to call it to avoid recognizing it as Hz, I have already
> answered all your questions in my previous post.
>>>

"Now that you admit you are mistaken about C/S, Cs,"

To do so would be a lie, sir.

"or whatever the
> fuck you want to call"

Your ignorance is noted sir, as is you further attempt in avoiding the
question.

>>>
>>> I did find the answer in a very concise reference in my library titled
>>> the "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers." About 2000 pages
>>> deep, edited by Donald G Fink (look him up), published by McGraw Hill,
>>> with ISBN 0-07-020973-1.
>>
>>" About 2000 pages deep"
>>
>>2304 to be exact, sir.
>
> You counted THEM??? Mine doesn't have the pages numbered. It
> just has the sections numbered. You spent all your time COUNTING
> the pages??? Don't you have anything better to do?
>

" You counted THEM??? "

No, you silly person. I looked the book up on Amazon.

>>>Go to your library and ask them for it.
>>> Then go to page 1-9... Systems of Measurement. And you will see
>>> that Frequency is measured in Hz.
>>
>>Are those the only pages you looked at in the entire book, sir?
>
> It is the page that references the STANDARD System of measurements,
> Sir shit-for-brains. And nowhere in that book does the term C/S, or
> Cs appear.

I'll take that as a "yes", sir.

>
>>> And yet I can find no reference to "Cs is the standard for cycles per
>>> second." In fact every reference states that "Hz is the standard
>>> for cycles per second."
>>
>>If that book is any good then it should contain the formulas to answer
>>those
>>little problems I gave you. Maybe you should try buying a copy and reading
>>it, sir.
>
> Your problems have already been answered. Now when can I expect you
> to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???

"Your problems have already been answered."

Not by you, they have not sir.

"to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???"

Eight, sir? Then I shall pose eight for you in turn, sir.

>Now when can I expect you
> to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???
>

I'm still waiting for you to answer that first question I posed for you,
sir.

Your answer was incorrect, sir.

>>>
>>>> PI has more than 5 digits of accuracy, sir.
>>>
>>> When I state 3.14159...
>>
>>You have over snipped, sir. You appear to be as ignorant on snipping, as
>>you
>>are everything else.
>
> I used six digits of accuracy, Sir shit-for-brains. Can't you count?

Yes, sir and I can tell the difference between two and three, sir; unlike
you apparently.

>>
>>> Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator, thus it is not incorrect to
>>> show pi as an approximation because that's what it is, no matter how
>>> long one writes integers. Nor can one write pi as a quotient of two
>>> integers, in exact terms. While your use of 318.310 implies a
>>> constant "more accurate" than your original constant, Sir
>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>
>>"Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator"
>>
>>Nonsense, sir. Pi goes on for as long as there can be new digits
>>calculated.
>>and alot of people do not need a calculator to calculate it as you would.
>>They spend a finate amount of time on it.
>
> Pi is NOT a constant in any sense of having an absolute value. When
> will you ever recognize the difference between rational and irrational
> numbers? Pi is only as accurate as the number of digits used, and
> it tells you nothing of what the next digit will be.

"Pi is NOT a constant in any sense of having an absolute value"

Wrong, sir; PI is calculated and when a new digit is found it becomes
constant.

>
>>"I can't believe you don't know the difference between a rational
>> and an irrational number."
>>
>>You are guessing again, sir.
>
> And yet you continue to show that you don't know the difference.

I show no such thing, sir.

>
>>>>> And you claim an ability to compute numbers, yet screw up
>>>>> the most basic of all mathematical principles... that values
>>>>> cannot be obtained having greater significance than the
>>>>> significant digits within the mathematical computation.
>>>>> Whenever you make a measurement, that measurement
>>>>> is only as precise as the original significant digits being
>>>>> computed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>" And you claim an ability to compute numbers"
>>>>
>>>>I made no such claim, sir.
>>>
>>> That's sad... you now admit you have no ability to compute numbers.
>>> Glad we agree with that.
>>
>>I made no such claim, sir. Lack of a positive does not assert a negative,
>>sir.
>
> You admitted elsewhere that you were not "illiterate" (although you
> are), but that you suffer from "innumeracy."

"although you
> are"

I see you do not know the meaning of, "illiterate" either, sir.

"but that you suffer from "innumeracy.""

No, sir

>
>>>>> Chee... that's stuff you learn in the 7th grade, or earlier.
>>>>
>>>>Is that the last time you had any education, sir?
>>>
>>> We've already been through this, Sir shit-for-brains... See --
>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Maryland.jpg
>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Boston.jpg
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Transcript.jpg
>>>
>>
>>A lot has changed in 22 years, sir. Of course, it is very easy to fake
>>such
>>documents and you appear to have no qualifications relating to electrical
>>engineering, sir.
>>
> And yet I've solved all the problems you presented to me...

No you haven't, sir.

including

> the laughable one where you stated the circuit was resonant, and gave
> me XL, and asked me to compute XC, as if there is anything to even
> compute given that at resonance XL = XC.

Yes, sir; you solved the easiest one; sir, and I bet you want a cookie for
it. Such a law is printed in most relevant texts. It is a pity that you do
not know what it actually means, sir.

>
>>> See why I accuse you of slander and lies???
>>
>>You accuse me of a lot of things, sir without knowing anything about me or
>>being able to back up your accusations. Of course, I find the irony as
>>funnier as that I find that you confuse slander with libel, sir.
>
> Hey... good for you, it seems you looked up the definition. I
> always get those two mixed up... especially when someone like
> you appear on paper to be screaming out his lies and hate.
>

"good for you, it seems you looked up the definition"

Yes, sir; It's good practice. Maybe you should try it, sir.

>>For an "educated" man sir, you truly are stupid.
>
> And yet... there are those eight problems that you have not dared
> to even touch.
>

They are waiting in the queue right behind the ones I've posed for you, sir.
You have two correct so far.

>>> Now where are your educational credentials?
>>
>>In the bottom draw of the desk in my workshop, sir, where they shall stay.
>>I
>>am under no obligation to show them to you, sir.
>>
>

> TRANSLATION " In the bottom draw of the desk in my workshop, sir, where

> they shall stay. I
>>am under no obligation to show them to you, sir."
>
>>>

>>>>>>> and --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x
>>>>>>> 10^4
>>>>>>> x 10^-9) Hz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cutoff frequency = -3 db
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The question did not ask for the cutoff frequency or the db loss at
>>>>>>cut
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>frequency. it Asked for the db loss and phase angled at 500 Cs, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, gee... I must have not RTFQ. I like to solve practical
>>>>> problems, and knowing the cutoff frequency is more important
>>>>> than the parameters you asked about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"I must have not RTFQ"
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, sir.
>>>
>>> TRANSLATION "Indeed, sir.."
>>>
>>> I haven't seen you take a stab at any of my questions 2 or 3, Sir
>>> shit-for-brains.
>>
>>That's right sir and there are still three questions you have not
>>answered.
>
> All answered... Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.

No they are not, sir.

>
>>>>
>>>>You still have not answered your problem, sir.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>Because you can't, sir.
>
> Wrong... all answered, Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.

No you did not, sir.

>
>>>>
>>>>"Not only can you not solve it"
>>>>
>>>>A guess, sir.
>>>
>>> That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems
>>> I asked you to solve. While you can't even formulate your problems
>>> understandably.
>>>
>>
>>"That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems"
>>
>>That is true, sir. But your problems go deeper that a few numbers, sir.
>
> Not at all... they all have an answer in numbers. But you have to
> know how to arrive at those numbers. And that is what is beyond
> your meager knowledge of electronics or the mathematics that
> is necessary to arrive at answers in electronics circuits. Even the
> most basic of data in respect to electronics is based upon
> mathematics. Such as I = V/R.
>

"Not at all"

Very much so, sir.

>>>>>>Nonsense, sir. Ohms law applies electricity, whether it is DC or AC is
>>>>>>irrelevent. As AC is contantly in flux then that has to be taken into
>>>>>>account so impedence and phase angle are calculated.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>
>>>>There was no denial sir. There was only your apology of a response.
>>>
>>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>>> obvious that he speaks a lie.
>>>
>>> So your apology is accepted.
>>
>>No apology was offered, sir.
>
> Sure there was. You're trying to make excuses for your lies. And
> in doing so admit you've lied... and thus apologize for having lied.
>

"Sure there was"

Sure there was not, sir.

>> You're comments in respect to AC and ohms law
>>were wrong but you don't have the backbone to admit it, sir.
>
> No proof offered. Your claim fails.

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible

>>>

>>>Look at all the new words in English you can look up.
>>
>>No you haven't, sir.
>
> No proof offered. Your claim fails.

An unreferenced cite is inadmissible

>
>>>>

>>>>You are an idiot, sir. What do you suppose you use to calculate the
>>>>current
>>>>through an ac circuit of the voltage across its capacitors or inductors?
>>>
>>> Kirchoff's law. Not Ohm's law.
>>
>>Ohm's Law, you imbecile: E=I/Z is Ohm's law, not Kirchoff's! Do your
>>research, sir.
>
> E=I/R is Ohm's law, Sir shit-for-brains. See --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law
> Rather there in bold letters -- I = V/R. But now I've got you using
> "E."
>

Z is impedance, you imbecile. It is measured in ohms and follows ohms law in
relation to resistance, sir. Do your research, sir.

But now I've got you using
> "E."

No, you have not, sir. E stands for EMF and I was using it when you were
still forging your computing degree papers, sir.

>>>
>>>>The Black arts? To calculate current, The formula is I=E/Z and to
>>>>calculate
>>>>the voltage across an inductor or capacitor the formula is Vl=I*XL and
>>>>Vc
>>>>=
>>>>I*XC respectively.
>>>
>>> I = E/R is Ohm's law.
>>
>>At last, the penny drops, sir.
>
> Since R is not V except in a DC circuit, Ohm's law applies to DC
> circuits and not to resistances that are Z which is impedance,
> and appears only in AC circuits.

Z is impedance sir and follows ohms law. Of course, you have to factor in
phases differences and periodic time but ohms law still applies, sir.

>
>>> Despite your ignorance of basic electronics, R
>>> is not = Z, or = C, or = L. All of which change instantaneously in an
>>> AC circuit, while R is a constant, and I and E can be computed using
>>> simple arithmetic, and instantaneous AC cannot be computed using
>>> simple arithmetic.
>>>
>>
>>You moron, sir. Z=impedence,
>
> Correct... Z is not = R.

Both are measured in OHMS, sir. Both follow ohms law, sir.

>
>> E IS EMF and I is current. Get an education, sir.
>
> I'm still old school, and we always referred to voltage as E.

E is still the symbol for EMF, sir but the units themselves are measured in
Volts, sir.

>I admit
> that is a mistake. It results from an old four word rhyme to
> remember how inductive and capacitive impedance work. The
> rhyme was ELI THE ICE MAN. And in that rhyme one can then
> devise that "voltage (E) leads current (I) (ELI) in inductive
> impedance, while current (I) leads voltage (E) (ICE) in capacitive
> impedance."
>
> Of course Voltage now has the standard of V as its representation,
> just as "cycles per second" has the standard of Hz as its
> representation. But there is still evidence of E being used
> to represent Voltage. On circuit schematics, E is shown as the
> voltage across batteries, or generators, (the voltage out of those
> devices), while V is shown across all other devices such as resistors,
> etc.
>

"Voltage now has the standard of V"

No sir; Voltage is still represented by E at source and V where measuring
potential rather than source, sir.

> You see how easy it is to admit mistakes? Now if we could only
> get you to recognize even 1 out of every 100 mistakes you make.
> But then you wouldn't be "hard-headed," would you???
>

"You see how easy it is to admit mistakes? "

It's good to see you admitting one for a change even though that was one
time where you did not make a mistake. I love the irony, sir. You admit to a
mistake you did not make yet fail to admit to countless one you did make.

>>>>"AC circuits are much more complicated than DC circuits"
>>>>
>>>>That is something else, we agree on, sir.
>>>>
>>>>"You couldn't solve even the easiest of differential equations."
>>>>
>>>>You are guessing, sir.
>>>
>>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>>
>>No, sir. The easiest of differential equations include Y=X, Y=1 or Y=X^2
>>sir.
>>They are examples of the "easiest", sir.
>
> Rubbish. Now of those presumed identities are part of any
> differential equation.

They are all differential equations sir. in the first one, dy/dx=1, in the
second, dy/dx=0 in the final one, dy/dx=2X, sir. They are examples of the
simplest differential equations. Anyone who has ever studied differential
calculus would have recognised those, sir. It is curious that you did not,
sir.

>>
>>"You have no idea how to even approach a solution. "
>>
>>You are guessing again, sir.
>
> And yet I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.

No, sir; I have given you the easiest, and you failed to recognise them. I
wonder if you'd have the same problem with integration, sir.

>>
>>>
>>>>> Kirchoff's law examines "nodes." Because the sum of the current
>>>>> flowing into any node must equal the sum of the current flowing out of
>>>>> any node. Both in steady DC and in instantaneous AC current, which
>>>>> changes depending upon the frequency and other factors, but always
>>>>> remains instantaneously the sum of the current flowing into that node
>>>>> equaling the sum of the current flowing out of that node.
>>>>
>>>>You should reference a text you copy information from or it's
>>>>plagiarism,
>>>>sir.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO. This is common knowledge within all textbooks that
>>> examine Kirchoff's law.
>>
>>There's more to it than that, sir. of course, your feeble attempt at
>>mockery
>>does not diprove you copied that cite without referencing, sir.
>>
>>
>>"> It is not plagiarism to relate a scientific fact."
>>
>>It is if you cite one without refrencing it, sir.
>
> Wrong!!! I can't even begin to relate how many scientific papers
> are written using Newton's laws without the mention of Newton!
>

Not word for word, sir and none of those paper's authors claim the work was
entirely theirs.

>>> The only thing you can argue are that my FACTS are wrong... and you
>>> know you can't do that.
>>
>>They aren't your facts, sir.
>
> When I show them to you as proof of my arguments they represent
> my facts proving my arguments. While all I have from you is
> mumbles, whining, sobbing hysterically while curled up in the
> fetal position, lies, hate, ignorance and mindless drivel.
>>

You do not show proof, sir.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>Very longwinded, sir. The correct formula is radians = degrees*pi/180
>>>>>>Of course you would have spotted that a complete circle is 2pi.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly what I wrote, shit-for-brains. Other than I use
>>>>> 2.14159... an approximation for pi. Here it is again --
>>>>
>>>>No, sir you wrote.
>>>
>>> And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
>>> number, and cannot be expressed as a constant.. obviously. While
>>> we don't concern ourselves with degrees that have more than 6
>>> digits of accuracy. In fact, degrees in general only have at most
>>> three digits of accuracy, at which point further accuracy is usually
>>> stated in minutes, and seconds. Each degree being split up into 60
>>> minutes, and each minute being split up into 60 seconds.
>>
>>"And what I wrote was as accurate as yours since pi is an irrational
>>> number"
>>
>>You cannot state that Pi suddently starts with 2 any more than you can
>>declare the last three digits, sir.
>
> Aw... Death Disco caught me in a typo... Good grief... if I had a
> nickel for every typo from him it would be like winning the
> lottery.

You admit that you performed a typo, sir. I find that immeasurably more
impressive than your bluster, sir

>
>>>>> rad = degrees x (2.14159... /180)
>>>>>
>>>>> See it right above the list of various radians at degrees?
>>>>
>>>>the formula for converting degrees to radians is Radians=degrees*pi/180,
>>>>sir. That is not what you wrote.
>>>
>>> See the three dots following 2.14159...? That means in standard
>>> mathematics that this is an approximation. And it is a completely
>>> accurate approximation. We're not sending a rocket to Mars, Sir
>>> shit-for-brains. And you cannot possibly argue that pi is a
>>> constant. While I clearly showed the various important degrees
>>> in pi.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Pi starts with a 3, sir.
>
> Awww.... death disco caught me in a typo.

More than one, sir but you admitted to it, sir. For you that is personal
growth. Keep it up, sir.

>
>>>>"I've been retired longer than you've been living."
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>
>>> And yet you've offered nothing that would refute my guess.
>>
>>You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.
>>
>
> Well, I retired on 23 April 1993. I doubt seriously you are over
> the age of 17. But I'm sure that you'll put on your fascist
> uniform and insist I am not _allowed to think_, Herr

> Sturmbannf锟絟rer Disco.
>

"Well, I retired on 23 April 1993"

Do you see how easy it is to extract personal information from you, sir?

"I doubt seriously you are over> the age of 17"

You are guessing, sir; although the number 17 has significance, sir.

>>> But
>>> even the thought that you are older than me, and have yet learned
>>> so little of life, sends shivers up my spine.
>>
>>I have already stated that I am younger than you, sir.
>>Your words were: "I've been retired longer than you've been living."
>>How old were you when you retired sir?
>>
> How old are you??? Since you never answer my questions,
> why do you think I should answer yours until you answer even
> one of mine?
>

Because you respond with that silly plagiarised cite of yours, sir.

>>>
>>>>> [1] see bottom of post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was feeble sir. You got as far as working out the capacitive
>>>>>>reactance.
>>>>>>then you went off at a tangent.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>
>>>>There was no denial, sir. You mucked it up.
>>>
>>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>>> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>>>
>>
>>You mucked it up, sir.
>

> TRANSLATION " You mucked it up, sir."

>
>>>>
>>>>" knowledgeable when you're not"
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>
>>> And yet you've offered nothing that would disprove my comment.
>>
>>You've offered nothing to back your guess up, sir.
>
> Heh... Am I supposed to give you a fascist salute in responding to

> your "order" that I am not _allowed to think_, Herr Sturmbannf锟絟rer

> Disco? You fit perfectly in that fascist outfit.
>

"Heh"

I need say no more.

>>>>" All in all you screwed it up pretty badly. "
>>>>
>>>>It that is what you call screwing up pretty badly then you need a life
>>>>sir.
>>>>Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you are writing a
>>>>paper
>>>>on English language sir.
>>>
>>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>>> Aristotle.
>>
>>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors,
>>sir.
>>
> A "typo" is the exchange on ONE LETTER of the alphabet for ANOTHER
> when typing. Changing words, or changing meaning, or grammatical
> mistakes, are NOT considered typos, Sir shit-for-brains.

No, sir; A typo is a printing or typesetting error caused by "mechanical
fault". The expression is often used incorrectly in place of a Freudian slip
for example.

>
>>>>On newsgroups it's minor at worst and only used as
>>>>ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their arguments any
>>>>other
>>>>way. I am still waiting for your answer to the very SIMPLE problem I
>>>>gave
>>>>you.
>>>
>>> Heh... More ad hominem to cover up your lack of a proper
>>> education. See --
>>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
>>
>>Your avoidence of the problem is noted, sir. You are too great a coward to
>>admit that you cannot do it, sir.
>>
> And yet you have the answers to your simplistic and ill-conceived and
> badly distorted questions, while I still wait for even one answer from
> you.

The questions are perfectly clear, sir.

>
>>>>
>>>>> "We're examining YOUR expertise, since you're the one blowing your
>>>>> horn about --
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'll bet you don't know what bayes theorum, linear regression mean,
>>>>> and I suspect you do not know the magic number in the plume encryption
>>>>> algorythm."
>>>>>
>>>>> See the quotation marks, shit-for-brains?? What makes you think I'd
>>>>> be as dumb as you and not know how to spell "theorem," and
>>>>> "algorithm"?
>>>>>
>>>>> There has seldom been a poster to AADP who is more in need of a spell
>>>>> checker than you, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you
>>>>are
>>>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at
>>>>worst
>>>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>>>arguments any other way".
>>>
>>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>>> Aristotle.
>>
>>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors,
>>sir.
>>
> A "typo" is the exchange on ONE LETTER of the alphabet for ANOTHER
> when typing. Changing words, or changing meaning, or grammatical
> mistakes, are NOT considered typos, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>

"A "typo" is the exchange on ONE LETTER of the alphabet for ANOTHER
> when typing"

Wrong, sir.

>>>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>>>
>>
>>" I already have more of them then I need "
>>
>>Well try using them from time to time, sir.
>>
>
> Generally I don't need one, since I know quite a few different words
> that mean about the same thing, but have a slightly different shading.
>

"Generally I don't need one,"

An expression of the arrogant imbecile, sir. There is never any harm in
checking your facts.

> But it is enough to mention that you have offered Holocaust
> denial to put you in your place.
>

No, sir; I never denied the holocaust occurred.

>>>>>
>>>>> Heh... the penny drops... And Death Disco is speechless.
>>>>
>>>>Wishful thinking on your part, sir.
>>>
>>> And yet that's all you have to say.
>>.
>>Which is not "speechless", sir. You screwed it up again, sir.
>
> "Mindless drivel" is nothing but demonstrating you are "speechless."

"Mindless drivel"

Is not speechless, sir.

You failed to understand it, sir. Ergo you were rendered speechless , sir

>
>>>>> No you didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes I did, sir.
>>>
>>> No you didn't, Sir shit-a-lot.
>>
>>Yes I did, sir.
>
> NO you didn't, Sir shit-for-brains.

Yes I did, sir.

>
>>>
>>> Heh heh... and yet not even an attempt. My goodness, DD... it's
>>> the SIMPLEST differential equation I know of.
>>
>>It is sir. Then I suggest you learn differential calculus, sir.
>>
> "Differential calculus" is a broad subject, sport.

But you failed the basics, "Sport"

>You consider it
> nothing but finding a derivative... called "differentiation." It is
> hardly difficult knowing only the Cartesian coordinate system to
> determine the slope of a line at a point using the tangent to
> that point that is determined by approaching that point as
> close as the infinitesimal limit.
>
> That minor part of the basics of "the Differential Calculus,"
> does not touch upon solving "differential equations." Differential
> equations relate functions of more than one variable to their
> partial derivatives. I doubt you even can comprehend such a
> concept, or how to approach solving a partial differential
> equation.
>
>>>
>>>>You still have not answered your problem, sir. I have noted your
>>>>repeated
>>>>efforts to avoid it.
>>>
>>> I don't have time for your bullshit,
>>
>>Your lack of backbone to admit that it is beyond you has been noted, sir.
>>
> And yet I found the time. Now when will we see anything but
> jelly for your backbone???

I wait patiently for your answers sir.
>
*snip 57 pages of detritus*

Death Disco

unread,

Jun 20, 2010, 2:43:52 PM6/20/10

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:0veo16d8ln6ilk9lk...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 21:16:13 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
> wrote:
>
> Hey... Sir shit-for-brains. When can I expect you to answer a single
> question of mine, given that all yours which can be answered have been
> answered?
>

That was a question sir and the answer is that I'm answering it, now.

> Repeating my comment, which you avoided by suddenly disappearing for
> a week.
>>

Did you miss me, sir? How sweet. It is curious that you didn't respond to my
posts until yesterday.

Your bookie will not say that when he expects you to cough up the readies,
sir.

>
>>> I'm betting that question comes from one of your Dutch handbooks
>>> on Electric Circuits and includes a schematic along with the question,
>>> which you just tried to translate into English, and fucked it up
>>> properly as you did with that other problem. If you can't put the
>>> question up with a schematic it's about worthless, in the way you
>>> offered it. But here's help... do it yourself.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase
>>
>>
>>No, sir. The question was taken from a British academic souce and the
>>question was worded correctly. Your response admits that you are unable to
>>understand the question, sir.
>
> I don't believe you. Post that source, and the entire problem as it
> appears in that source. If you can't do that... you're simply lying.
> I'll tell you what... you answer it, and provide a step-by-step answer
> to see what you use that you omitted from the parameters of the
> problem. One does not even know if you are referring to 400VL
> as A/C or D/C.
>

"I don't believe you"

Which proves that your utterly and totally failed to comprehend the
question, sir.

"Post that source, and the entire problem as it
> appears in that source"

How does one post a couple of sides of a4 on the internet, sir?

"If you can't do that... you're simply lying."

No, sir; If I cannot do that then it means I don't have a scanner, sir.

"you answer it"

So you concede that you cannot answer it, sir.

> But the gentle reader should notice that in more of your lies and
> deceptions you even clipped out my entire comment which
> disproved your argument. So I had to put it back in. You're a very
> sick boy... seek help --
>

I believe that the "gentle reader" is not stupid, sir.

"you even clipped out my entire comment"

If I clipped it sir then it can be only of least importance.

>>> In any case your problem is a piece of junk not worth my
>>> time.
>>
>>Wrong, sir.
>
> Bullshit, it's just like all your comments... mindless drivel.

You admit that you did not understand it, sir.

>
>>> However, here's one for you that does have a schematic along
>>> with the problem. Try to answer this one --
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>>
>>I see you've found the section on transients in your book, sir
>

> TRANSLATION " I see you've found the section on transients in your book,
> sir."

>
>>> This has every bit of the information you need to solve the
>>> question.
>>>
>>
>>It does, sir.
>
> And I'll bet you can't solve it.

I would have to draw a graph, sir.

>
>>> ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one with my
>>> friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin.
>>>
>>
>>"ROTFLMAO... I've got a hundred bucks riding on this one "
>>
>>What I would do, you ask. I would start by looking at what the circuit
>>does,
>>sir. At first glance, I see two potential dividers there. I would then
>>redraw the equivalent circuit then work out PHI. Once I have that, I can
>>plot a graph of the charge/discharge voltage of that capacitor and for
>>good
>>measure, I would probably plot the current, also.
>
> ROTFLMAO. You need to provide the ANSWER, sport... not more of your
> bullshit. What is the value of v (sub t) for t > 0 ???? From the
> problem there is no need to graph it, or try your bullshit. See --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
> You have not correctly solved even one of the problems I've given you.
> It has a very straightforward answer, if one knows the Laplace
> transform method. In fact, there are all kinds of tables listing
> various values. Here's some help --
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html

"You need to provide the ANSWER, sport"

The answer would be a graph, sir and you would need to provide a periodic
scale. If you understood the question then you would know that, sir.

"You have not correctly solved even one of the problems"

Yes I have, sir. that's the one you are pretending you haven't seen even
though you gave yourself away with your comment that you read my "excuse",
sir.

> I think you're a load of bullshit and have no idea how to solve any
> Laplace transform.
>

"I think you're a load of bullshit"

Whereas I "know" that, you are full of bullshit, sir.

>>You lose your bet, sir.
>>
> Heh... declaring victory while at the same time admitting defeat in
> solving the problem.

Do you know what a potential divider is, sir? You have until you click the
reply group button to look it up, sir.

>
>> "with my friend that you don't have a clue how to even begin"
>>
>>You do not fool me, sir. You do not have any friends.
>
> LOL... That from the guy who still has his mommy bring him
> his warm milk at night.

Do not be ridiculous, sir. I like my milk cold.

>
> "If" you had another brain it would be lonely.

It would, sir. The two brains would be independently connected and would not
communicate with each other. However for you to have even one brain would
require a transplant.

>
>>Given you have a low pass filter with a resistor of 31830 ohms, and a
>>capacitor of 1 Nano Farad. at frequency of 500 Cs what is the DB loss and
>>the phase angle? You will have to work out the reactance first, sir.
>
> Well, let's see. We've already found the cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x
> [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x 10^4 x 10^-9) Hz
> thus reducing -- cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
> at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
> cutoff frequency = -3 db
>
> For the phase angle in degrees we know that it is equal to
> -tan^-1(f(in)/f(cutoff))... and f(in)/f(cutoff) = 0.1. So from basic
> trig we find that -tan^-1*(0.1) = 10 in degrees. So the phase angle
> at 500 Hz is 10 degrees.

A nice try, sir but your answer is incorrect. You were correct in assuming
that you use trigonometry "tan--1" but the numbers you put in were wrong,
sir. The formula is theta=tan^-1(-r/XC) the result is a 5.7 degree lag, sir.

>
> As to the dB loss there is insufficient information, since it is
> determined by the order of the filter itself. For example: for
> first order low pass filters the gain rolls off at a rate of -20
> dB/per decade, in the stop band. On the other hand, for
> second order low pass filters the roll off is -40 dB/per decade. But
> since the frequency you gave is 500 Hz, and the cutoff frequency is
> 5,000 Hz, I would suspect there would be no dB loss at 500 Hz. See -
> http://www.play-hookey.com/ac_theory/lo_pass_filters.html
>

You have sufficient information to answer that part of the question, sir.
You have Xc and r, sir. That is all you need. Hint: you should use another
bit of trig, sir.

> Now answer please --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/circuit.jpg
>

To solve that would require a graph and a timescale, sir.

>>
>>Given a three phase unbalanced supply, VL=400V, Z1=30,Z2=50 and Z3=40 ohm,
>>calculate phase voltage, Each line current and the power dissipated
>>across
>>each line, sir.
>
> Insufficient information. Provide a circuit schematic and I'll solve
> that problem. I mean... you DO have a schematic for the circuit
> you describe... don't you????

There is sufficient information present, sir. If you want a schematic, then
draw one. You have paper and a pencil don't you?

>
> Answer please --
> Solve the differential equation d²x/dt² = -g
> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)

What is -g, sir?

>
> Answer please --
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/fourier_transform_quiz.jpg
>
> Answer please --
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/laplace_quiz.jpg
>
> These should keep you busy... if you can even handle one of them.
>
> "If" you were any dumber you'd have to be watered twice a week.

You're the one getting the questions wrong, sir.

>
>>You have a parallel tuned circuit with a resistance of 68 ohm, a resonant
>>frequency of 5khz, and an inductor of 145.4 mH. Calculate the capacitance.
>>
>
> Heh... what's this 5khz??? I thought you argued there was no
> such thing... that it is KCs?

I made no such argument sir. You stated that you like to see it in formal
notation, so I provided that for you. Excuse me for being considerate, sir.

>
> However... XL at resonance is --> 2*pi*f*h = 4.568 K ohms...
> Thus CL must also be 4.568 K ohm. And simple arithmetic to
> compute C = 1/(2(pi)*f*4568) gives C = 6.968 *10^-9 = 6.968 nf.
>

"2*pi*f*h"

2*PI*F*L, sir

H is a unit of inductance sir, not the whole of inductance sir

"=4.568 K ohms"

That is correct, sir.

"Thus CL must also be 4.568 K ohm"

Xc. sir.

So what is C, sir?

Sir, had you said, "in a tuned, circuit, at resonance, XC, and XL are always
equal" I would have marked your answer correct. The show your workings
comment was a trick question, sir.

>
> You doofus!!!! At resonance XL = XC. You GAVE me XL, and asked
> for XC. Not just trivial but an identity. Actually... no work
> involved there. Where do you get your problems from??? Joe Miller's
> Joke Book of Electronic Ignorance?

"You GAVE me XL, and asked
for XC. Not just trivial but an identity. Actually... no work
involved there"

Correct, sir but I see from above that you have only just realized that,
sir. Of course you will try to infer that you already knew it, that I Didn't
then you'll resort to your usual name calling. This is your tactic, sir. You
rush to your books find and answer, post it as if to make out that you
already knew it then accidentally, you make it clear that you don't
understand the question and finally you resort to name calling. Are you
aware that people are on to you, sir?

>
> Answer please --
> An amplifier has a 4bB noise figure; the bandwidth is B = 500 KHz.
> Calculate the input signal power that yields a unity SNR at the
> output. Assume T (sub o) = 290 degrees Kelvin and an input
> resistance of one ohm.
>

"sub o", sir?

"unity SNR", sir?

Do you actually understand the question, sir?

> Answer please --
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/fourier_quiz.jpg
>
> And because you asked me a question about a geometric shape --
> One more for good measure --
> Answer please --
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/sphere_quiz.jpg
>
>
> <fx: PV sits back and laughs his head off>
>

<fx: Death disco leans back and smiles at PV's almost total failure to
comprehend the challenges put to him>

>>>>" certainly throw problems at you that you have no idea how to even
>>>>> approach"
>>>>
>>>>No, you cannot sir.
>>>
>>> Sure I can, shit-for-brains. I've already thrown three at you that
>>> you're afraid to even take a stab at.
>>>
>>
>>" Sure I can, shit-for-brains"
>>
>>No, you cannot sir.
>
> See above, Sir shit-for-brains... I have thousands of them that are
> well beyond your intellect.

See above, sir.

"I have thousands of them that are
> well beyond your intellect."

You are guessing, sir.

>
> "If" you were any smarter, your mommy could teach you to fetch.

You are the one whom keeps answering the problems incorrectly, sir. I have
attempted just one of yours and I got the answer correct after the second
attempt, sir. I spotted my mistakes, which is something you failed to do
sir. You really do not understand the electrical field, do you sir?

>
>>"I've already thrown three at you that
>>> you're afraid to even take a stab at."
>>
>>No you haven't, sir.
>
> Of course I have... they are shown above... and you haven't solved
> a single question I've thrown at you... NOT ONE!!!
>

"Of course I have"

No you haven't, sir.

>>>> Not when you failed to answer the simple DB problem I
>>>>gave you earlier.
>>>
>>> When you learn how to formulate your problems accurately you'll
>>> get better results. Offering mumbo-jumbo only shows your own
>>> ignorance.
>>
>>It's formulated correctly, sir.
>
> No... it's not.

Yes it is, sir.

Nonsense, sir; you have all the information that you need.

>>
>>>>
>>>>Problems you cannot solve, sir.
>>>
>>>
>>"Wrong, sport... "
>>I'm glad to hear it, sir. I look forward to seeing your solutions, dear
>>fellow.
>
> See above, shit-for-brains.
>

Yes, sir. One incorrect answer and the rest is missing.

It's not exactly a glowing recommendation for your skill sir.

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's hardly a "simple" problem then, sir.
>>>>
>>> Yes... but you don't even know the first thing how to start.
>>
>>You are guessing, sir.
>
> And yet... there you sit... claiming I haven't thrown a problem
> at you that you cannot solve. And then you wonder why I call
> you a pathological liar.
>

No, sir. I said, "You are guessing, sir"

>>>>> But I can "understand" the solution in going through that _cheat
>>>>> sheet_. I'm quite sure that you couldn't.
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing, sir.
>>>>
>>> Well, prove it!
>>
>>You haven't posted the cheat sheet yet, sir
>
> When you solve the first step, shit for brains.

If you want me to attempt the problem then you need to post all the
information you needed and had to solve it, sir.

>
>>>
>>>
>>> *profound silence from Sir shit-for-brains*
>>
>>You were anything by silent, sir.
>
> Your name is "Sir shit-for-brains." Try to separate fact from
> your rather disturbed and creepy imagination.

"Your name is "Sir shit-for-brains.""

No, sir; I am Death Disco, so by process of elimination you must be, "Sir
shit-for-brains."

>
>>>>Provide me with the references and sources you used and I shall see if I
>>>>can figure it out but it doesn't read like an electrical engineering
>>>>problem.
>>>>It reads like a physics problem.
>>>
>>> Give you the source so you can look up the answer?
>>
>>So you looked up the answer sir. I could have guessed.
>
> I have all the answers. You have none.

You have them in a book, sir, which you had to look up; therefore, you
cannot claim credit, sir.

>
>>>You must be
>>> joking. However, the title of the source contains the word
>>> "Engineering."
>>>
>>

>>Is it electrical engineering, sir?.

>
> No... it's electrical "engineering,"

It's strange that I have not seen a problem like it, sir. It is a
thermodynamics problem, sir.

"you stupid shit-for-brains."

If you cannot win your arguments without lying or (inclusive) name-calling

then you should not be allowed to play,sir.. Do I make you nervous, sir?

> Get yourself a spell checker. It will not only improve the appearance
> of your comments, but teach you how to spell.
>

"Get yourself a spell checker. "

I have one, sir. Now please get yourself a grammar checker.

>>
>>"While you have correctly answered not a one of mine"
>>
>>You are incorrect, sir. I answered your first one correctly, second time
>>round.
>
> The point is that you answered incorrectly. I don't usually answer
> questions until I am sure of the answer. See above. I've enjoyed
> this since it has made me at times go back to the references I
> maintain... you are quite permitted to use any references you might
> find helpful... but so far there hasn't been any real effort shown on
> your part, because you've become aware that the situation is much
> too complex for your limited skills.
>

"The point is that you answered incorrectly"

No, sir; the point is that I answered correctly.

> "If" brains were taxed, you'd break the EU bank in refunds.
>

In addition, there is the insult. You throw one at me when you feel
threatened by me, sir.

>>"Hell... you have three waiting for you,"
>>
>>You have 4 waiting for you.
>
> I have none waiting for me. In fact, there are two of your own
> waiting for you to provide a schematic. You do know what a schematic
> is... don't you???

You have only answered two correctly, sir and they were both so easy, a
school child of 8 could have answered them.

>
> You now have eight questions waiting for you. I promise to give
> you at least two for every one you ask me... and I'll bet you whine
> that you are unable to answer or even try to answer any of them
> with an answer that makes any sense.
>

You now have eight questions waiting for you

Then I shall find 4 more for you, sir. If I were a gambling man, I would
wager that you get one correct at most and claim you got the rest wrong
because I wrote the question wrong, sir.

> Right now the score is eight questions to you with only one
> "second-chance" feeble answer from you, and no unanswered
> questions from you to me.

"
> Right now the score is eight questions to you with only one

> "second-chance" correct answer"

Typo corrected, sir.

>
>
>>>>Basic electrical principles are too complicated for you, evidently sir.
>>>
>>> Heh... I haven't seen any picture of electrical principles from you,
>>> Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>
>>You need pictures, sir?
>>You should be able to draw them from the parameters I gave you, sir.
>
> Wrong. YOU should be able to draw them from the parameters you
> gave, Sir shit-for-brains. You assert YOU CAN... so you need to PROVE
> IT. We both know that you cannot draw the circuits in question given
> only the limited parameters you've given.
>

"Wrong"

That is true, sir. A corrected assertion is that everyone should be able to
draw them from the parameters I gave, sir; you are too stupid, sir.

>>>>> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>Exactly my point, sir. As I said, "You have no basis to back up your
>>>>assertions, so they can only be guesses"
>>>>
>>> You're the one asserting that I'm guessing. Prove it. I've
>>> got the proof.
>>
>>You have never backed up your assertions, without proof they are guesses,
>>sir.
>
> And yet, you're the one asserting I'm guessing.

Indeed, sir but I know the truth, you do not sir. You have not way to prove
your assertions sir so they are guesses.

Is that too complicated for you, sir? Would you like a nurse to explain it
to you before wiping your chin, sir?

>Logic really is
> too complicated for you, sonny. Stick with the warm milk from mommy
> at night, and stay out of Internet information sites about electronics
> that are too complicated for you.
>

"Logic really is
> too complicated for you, sonny"

You are guessing, sir.

>>> I've already given you the easiest of differential equations.
>>
>>No, sir.
>
> Yes, sonny. The differential equation is --
>
> Solve the differential equation d²x/dt² = -g

No, sir. You said, "I've already given you the easiest of differential
equations."

"d²x/dt² = -g" is not the easiest, sir.

Y=x*10^2 is the easiest, sir.

>
> With initial conditions x(0) = x(sub o) and v(0) = v(sub o)
>
> They don't come any easier than that...

Then you should learn differential calculus, sir.
>
> <fx: Death Disco laughs his "ass(sic)" off>

>>>>
>>>>"Keep in mind that YOU originally misspelled both "cite""
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No Didn't sir.
>>>
>>> Yes, you did,
>>
>>No Didn't sir.
>>
> Yes, did... Sir shit-for-brains. Unlike you and your absurd lies I
> have the PROOF... in your own words. you challenge me to provide
> proof positive of your dishonesty. I have this proof, Sir
> shit-for-brains. It is unambiguous, undoubted, and in your own hand,
> and I believe it is in the interest of newsgroup readers to realize
> that your protestations of honesty, repeated over and over, are not
> true. You are a pathological liar.
>

"Yes, did..."

No did not sir.

>>>
>>>>As I said, sir, "Typographical errors are only a bad screwing when you
>>>>are
>>>>writing a paper on English language sir. On newsgroups it's minor at
>>>>worst
>>>>and only used as ammunition for imbeciles like you whom can't win their
>>>>arguments any other way".
>>>
>>> You can say it forever, and it won't for a single second hide your
>>> shown ignorance of the English language.
>>
>>English is not my first language, xenophobe,
>
> Well, English is my mother-tongue and I despise it being assassinated
> by someone who isn't intent upon learning English, but instead intent
> upon using it to spread poisonous filth, and pathological lies. After
> all.... you did write that -- "if i do not approve of a definition I
> simply choose not to use it." That's proof you are not trying to
> learn English, but to corrupt it.
>

"Well, English is my mother-tongue"

Therefore, you should be a lot better at it, sir.

> However, you're the xenophobe, since you insisted I cannot use
> "American English." I just wish you'd use English in ways in which
> you do not intend to corrupt the English language. I'll take any
> kind... as long as you don't use it to spread hate, and Holocaust
> denial, and other venomous lies.
>
>>> "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age." --
>>> Aristotle.
>>
>>
>>Who mentioned education, sir? We were talking of typographical errors,
>>sir.
>>
>
> We're talking about your stupidity.. which is truly astonishing in
> it's breadth and length.
>

No, sir; we're talking about yours. Sir, you pretend that you have not heard
of typographical errors and then you get the meaning wrong, sir.

>>>
>>>>Perhaps you should invest in a Thesaurus, sir.
>>>
>>> And yet that's all you have to say. Repetitive mindless drivel.
>>
>>Pot, kettle, black, sir.
>
> Hardly... See..
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/thesaurus.jpg
> That's just one of them, Sir shit-for-brains... You really are an
> emotional wreck, my boy... seek help.
>

"Hardly..."

You post the evidence of your repetitive mindless drivel anew with every
post, sir.

>>> Yes.
>>
>>No.
>
> YES!!! Heh heh heh... got you going. You've made lying your
> profession. YES... YES... YES...

No, sir; The only thing you got going is your blood pressure, sir.

>
>>>>It's definitely your voice, sir.

>>>
>>> Too bad your comment only again displays your ignorance of the
>>> English language.
>>
>>You're guessing, sir.
>
> Hardly... there is not a single post from you that does not contain
> either a new lie, or a denial of your past lies. And lying is
> well-known as an attempt to cover-up for ignorance. Your
> post here carries a number of your lies.
>

"... there is not a single post from you that does not contain
> either a new lie, or a denial of your past lies"

Pot, kettle, black, sir.

>>>>>
>>>>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefore I cannot know it.

>>>
>>> But you said you _know_ it. You said it was "something higher
>>> than ourselves." Well, how could that be if you didn't hear it from
>>> "it"? Who told you? Oh, wait... it's that Bible talking to you
>>> again... never mind.
>>>
>>

>>Nonsense, dear fellow. It is unknown therefore I cannot know it.

>
> And yet.... you insist you DO KNOW there is "something higher than
> ourselves," who has TOLD YOU there is this fairy tale of "a right to
> life for cockroaches, rats, flies, bacteria and other pathogens." With
> each human falling someone in between one cockroach and two
> cockroaches in worth.
>

"And yet.... you insist you DO KNOW there is "something higher than
> ourselves,""

No, sir.

> Once again, in your imaginary belief that "nature" is that "something
> higher than ourselves" and has given all biological life a "right to
> life," you offer another one of your logical fallacies, "The appeal to
> nature" fallacy. See --
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

"Right to life" offends you, sir. Do you believe that life is a privilege,
sir?

>
> It's thinking like yours that leads to the taking of life, in the
> mistaken belief that doing so protects "a right to life." Clearly in
> your argument about your precious cockroaches, you have insisted
> that the lives of two cockroaches as twice as important as the
> life of one human being.
>

"to the taking of life, in the
> mistaken belief that doing so protects "a right to life." "

Is known as the death penalty, sir.

> I'll ask you again... would you kill two cockroaches to save a
> murderer from being executed?

Why would killing two cockroaches save a human being from being executed,
sir? Are you unable to see a murderer as a human being, sir?

>
>>>>Simple logic, sir.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO. Doesn't that word stick in your craw, considering you
>>> have no idea what it really means???
>>
>>Id that the best you can do, sir? It is apparently.
>
> Was that the best you could do in arguing "Simple logic," in support
> of one of the most massive efforts to diminish the human race ever
> seen in Usenet?
>

"Was that the best you could do in arguing "Simple logic,""

It was a pointless argument sir. You have no concept of logic, simple or
otherwise.

>>>>>
>>>>"Yes, you did".
>>>>
>>>>No I didn't, sir.
>>>
>>> See above... PROOF positive. Poor ol' Sir shit-for-brains... caught
>>> in yet another lie.
>>>
>>
>>No proof at all, sir.
>
> And yet the proof is there... in your own words. your argument when
> put into logical terms is "x is something higher than ourselves." and
> "x is an unknown." But you know that "x is something higher than
> ourselves," So "x is not unknown to Death Disco."
>

It is unknown so I cannot know it; simple logic, sir.

> quod erat demonstrandum -- Death Disco claims to "know the unknown."

No, he does not, sir.

>
> And what's even more revealing is that you clipped the proof, but
> left only your denials in.

There was no proof to clip, sir.

>
> "Nature" doesn't give a shit about biological life, Sir
> shit-for-brains. Your unnatural belief that abstractions _talk to
> you_, is the sign of a sick mind.
>

""Nature" doesn't give a shit about biological life, Sir
> shit-for-brains."

Stop trying to convince yourself of something you cannot know, sir.

>>>>"Shit, son"
>>>>
>>>>I shall take that as a yes.
>>>
>>> Take it any way you want to...
>>
>>Oh I will, sir.
>
> You've always been a master of lies... why should I expect otherwise?

"You've always been a master of lies"

Pot, kettle, black, sir.

>
> "If" ignorance were a crime, you'd be on the "ten most wanted" list.
>>

"If" ignorance were a crime"

Your own country would execute you, sir.

>><snip Mr Noles' puerile nonsense>
>
> Heh... Death Disco admits that my credentials are in order, yet has
> even swallowed the key to his desk in which he keeps his imaginary
> credentials (along with his trusty Bible), to make sure he can claim
> anything he wants.
>

"Heh."

Is what you say when you see another threatening answer, sir.

>>>>>>>>You believe in a god, sir?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the word "if" (a conditional clause) too complicated for you? IF
>>>>>>> you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Is the word "if" (a conditional clause)"
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is sir.
>>>
>>> Well, then... wake up!!
>>
>>You're droning would send anyone to sleep, sir.
>
> There's a solution for that... simply ignore my ruination of
> all your arguments, rather than respond with these endless streams
> of lies and mindless drivel of yours.
>

"There's a solution for that... simply ignore my lies and mindless drivel."

Typos corrected sir

>>>>"IF you were a bird you could fly. But you aren't a bird"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I could fly in an aeroplane, sir.
>>>
>>> No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you. If you
>>> could jump on the back of one of your dragons,
>>
>>My dragons, sir?
>
> Yeah, one of your imaginary dragons.

What imaginary dragons, are you referring to, sir? The only creature I
imagine is the rabbit in your head working the controls, sir.

>>
>>"No. sport... it's the "aeroplane" that flies. Not you"
>>
>>Only if you forget to get on it, sir.
>>
>
> You're insane... by now even you must realize that your trolley has
> jumped the tracks. Have mommy bring you some warm milk and
> tuck you in, you've used up all your lies for today.
>

"You're insane"

The evidence shows that you are the insane one, sir.

>>> In any case... read my word, Sir shit-for-brains. It refers
>>> to BIRDS... and doesn't even say that YOU can't fly but
>>> that IF you were a bird you could fly.
>>
>>And my words do not testify that I cannot fly without an aircraft, sir.
>>They stipulate only that I can fly on one.
>
> That's not YOU flying, Sir shit-for-brains.

That is flying on one, sir.

>
>>I would hope that you did not do much programming in your alleged masters
>>degree, sir. You do not have the logic for it.
>
> ROTFLMAO... Death Disco insists that getting on a plane that
> flies means HE can fly... and calls that _his logic_. Perhaps
> you should examine the logical fallacy of "The Affirmation of
> the Consequent." See -

Really, sir; if you cannot win an argument without lying then you should not
be allowed to play.

> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#consequent
> Notice that your argument is "A" - I can fly implies "B" because the
> aircraft can fly me. Just because "B" is true, does not mean "A" is
> true. You cannot fly, bird boy.

An aeroplane can, sir.

>
> "If" there were an Easter Bunny, Death Disco would claim that the
> Easter Bunny told him there is this "right to life for cockroaches and
> other vermin."
>

"If" there were an Easter Bunny"

Is he related to the rabbit in your head working the controls, sir?

>>But, given that
>>> you also hear voices I suspect you also believe you can be
>>> transmogrified into a bird, simply by stepping into the
>>> teleporter from StarTrek. Perhaps a carrion eating bird...
>>> it would certainly be apposite (look that word up in your handy
>>> pocket English dictionary).
>>>
>>
>>"But, given that
>>> you also hear voices "
>>
>>I can hear them now, sir. the radio is on.
>
> Is that those voices coming from your tin hat antenna? Pretty soon
> you'll have to put up a sign to warn others. See --
> http://tinyurl.com/32tx8n3
>

"Is that those voices coming from your tin hat antenna? "

No, they are coming from my radio, sir.

>>>>"I don't believe in a God"
>>>>
>>>>You don't, sir? Then why do you keep asking it to strike me down?
>>>
>>> Are you still confused about the word "if," Sir shit-for-brains???
>>> But trust me... if would no big loss to humanity. Although
>>> cockroaches might attend your funeral. With cockroaches,
>>> mourning the loss of their "champion," who insists they are
>>> each the equal of a human being, up to the neck of everyone
>>> around it. No greater love hath man... than Death Disco for
>>> the cockroach.
>>>
>>
>>"Are you still confused about the word "if," "
>>
>>Oh there's no confusion, sir.
>
> They why is it you continue to insist the word doesn't exist in my
> comment, shit-for-brains?

I made no such assertion, sir. Why do you persist in imagining texts that
are not there, sir?

>
> "If" ignorance were painful, you'd be in agony.

In addition, there is the insult that you throw one at me when you feel
threatened by me, in a feeble attempt to hide your ignorance, sir.

>>>>>>I have not killed anyone sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that's your excuse for the slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa????
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You perceive that innocence is an excuse? Curious.
>>>
>>> When you're part of the problem!!!
>>
>>The part of the problem is the people doing the killing; the other part of
>>the problem is the politics behind the people doing the killing. If you
>>are
>>involved in neither of those then you are not part of the problem.
>>
>
> All men are political animals. If you don't fight against it... then
> you are fighting for it. I haven't yet seen you write that you regret
> or despise the killing of those Tutsis. But I have seen you insist
> you do not know of the Holocaust, while telling the Jews that
> "after sixty years, it's time for them to get over it."
>

"All men are political animals"

As are all women and all creatures, sir.

>>>> I wasn't at the holocaust. I do remember much of my
>>>>education, however.
>>>
>>> You mean arithmetic. Big deal. But again we have your
>>> two-faced claim. 1) You state "I do remember NOTHING."
>>> and then you state 2) "I do remember much of my education."
>>>
>>> Which is it???
>>
>>"You mean arithmetic"
>>No, sir. I mean a whole lot more.
>
> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

If that were true, sir then none of your posts would be admissible.

>
>> "I do remember NOTHING."
>>
>>If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you
>>should not be allowed to play
>>
>
> I put up your EXACT words, Sir shit-for-brains. Don't imply I'm lying
> when you said exactly that in very precise words.
>
>

If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you
should not be allowed to play

>>> How can the fact that you insist you hear voices from "something

>>> higher than ourselves," possibly be MY problem?
>>
>>I made no such claim, sir.
>
> Sure you did, you airhead. How do you KNOW that there is
> a "right to life for all biological life"? There is no written word
> from "someone higher than ourselves," unless you are thumping
> your Bible. You imagine that "nature" and "biology" TALK TO
> YOU?? No one else hears those voices from "nature" and "biology."
> An abstraction cannot offer some kind of fact. "Nature" and
> "biology" do not dispense "rights" to anything or any one.
>

"Sure you did, you airhead"

Sure, I did not you imbecile.

> "If" one wanted to write rubbish, they could take lessons from you.

In addition, there is the insult that you throw one at me when you feel
threatened by me, in a feeble attempt to hide your ignorance, sir.

>
>>If you cannot win an argument without having to twist words, sir then you
>>should not be allowed to play
>>
>

> TRANSLATION " If you cannot win an argument without having to twist
> words, sir then you should not be allowed to play."

>
>>>>
>>>>Oh please, sir. Once cannnot watch the news without hearing about
>>>>someone
>>>>your people bombed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "In respect to the death penalty"!!! Can't you ever read my words
>>> without distorting them, and lying about it???
>>
>>"In respect to the death penalty"!!!
>>
>>Is that what you call it?
>
> Isn't that what was stated in my words? Are you deaf, dumb and
> blind... or just incredibly stupid with a pathological need to lie?
>

"Are you deaf"

Being deaf would not affect my ability to read your words, sir. Are you
getting angry, sir?

> Once again... to clear this up, because of you hoping to first remove
> my words, and then twist them into saying what I did not say... here
> is my comment... repeated for you -- which you had clipped out.

"to clear this up"

You are not capable, sir. You repeatedly dig yourself in deeper, sir.

> ---------------------------------
> Wrong again... the only people interfering in the affairs of other
> states in respect to the death penalty is the EU trying to exert
> pressure on the U.S. in an internal matter. I don't know of
> any American having posted to AADP who gives a shit what
> the EU does with her murderers. I know I don't care! Yet the
> EU remains *profoundly silence* when it comes to condemning
> Islamic Sharia law, which stones women for adultery, and hangs
> those who are homosexuals.
> ---------------------------------

"I don't know of any American having posted to AADP who gives a shit"

Oh dear, sir.

> See the words "in respect to the death penalty," you lying sack of
> shit?

Pot, kettle, black, sir.

>>>
>>> Actually it's Europe's xenophobia,
>>
>>No, sir. It's yours.
>>
> Wrong, shit-for-brains. As I've explained I don't give a rat's ass if
> the EU holds a parade and makes sure that every murderer enjoys
> a conjugal weekend with Miss EU. That's the EU's business.
>

"I don't give a rat's ass"

Oh dear, sir.

> However, when the EU starts fucking with what WE do with OUR
> murderers... they are the ones demonstrating xenophobia. You really
> need to look up the word, shit for brains. See --
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/xenophobia
> XENOPHOBIA -- "Extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs,
> their religions, etc."
>

"> However, when the EU starts fucking with what WE do with OUR
> murderers..."

They are not your murderers, sir. You do not own them.

"XENOPHOBIA -- "Extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs,
> their religions, etc." "

That is correct, sir. You are a xenophobe, sir.

> Our custom is that we handle our murderers as we see fit... you and
> the rest of the EU show "extreme dislike" for OUR custom. In fact,
> the same applies to the U.S. being a strongly religious based
> citizenship (for some reason which eludes me... because it's truly
> stupid, IMO. But I can form that opinion, without being xenophobic,
> because I am an American). The EU really has little to do other than
> complain about the so-called "American religious right," that drives
> members of the EU into fits of raving hysteria, and fear greater than
> their fear of an EU 9/11.
>
> Don't even try to argue otherwise, because the evidence is there.
>
> As you've argued -- "Who are you to poke your nose into what is none
> of your business?" Apparently your xenophobia applies to your
> objection to me sticking my nose in... while you have no problem with
> you sticking YOUR nose in... what is none of your business.
>

"> Our custom is that we handle our murderers as we see fit"

They are not your murderers, sir. You do not own them.

>>>>As I said, your country is as knee deep in blood as everyone else, sir.
>>>
>>> So that excuses "everyone else"???
>>
>>No, sir.
>
> Then why do I not see you having ever complained about the Holocaust
> or the genocide in Rwanda, or the genocide in the former state of
> Yugoslavia? Why have I never seen you complain about the growing
> influence of Islamic terrorism in Europe which led to the murder of
> Theo Van Gogh? Or the fact that riots raged across the EU when
> cartoons were published lampooning Mohammed? Or the fact that
> Geert Wilders must be protected 24 hours a day, every day, because
> he is anti-Muslim terrorism? Or the fact that Muslim fathers and
> brothers murder their daughters if they have anything to do with
> non-Muslims, believing "family honor" (sic) is better served through
> murder of one's own family? Why have I not seen you complain
> about these images right from the UK --
> http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/03/In-their-own-words/
>

"Then why do I not see you having ever complained about the Holocaust
> or the genocide in Rwanda, or the genocide in the former state of
> Yugoslavia?"

I am not their spokesperson, sir. If you want an explanation they you should
ask Yugoslavia, sir.

> Or is that you in one of those "protests"?
>
>>>>Maybe I can borrow some of yours, sir.
>>>
>>> Oh, gee... I'm shattered.. poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
>>> an original thought in his head and simply uses the typical "you
>>> to," as some kind of excuses for his psychotic behavior.
>>
>>"poor Sir shit-for-brains doesn't have
>>> an original thought in his head "
>>
>>Don't you, sir? That's hardly suprising.
>

> TRANSLATION "Don't you, sir? That's hardly surprising."

>
>>>>Yes, sir. You're the one whom likes showing off your book collection.
>>>

>>> And you, Sir shit-for-brains - like showing off your ignorance.

>>
>>No, sir. I like showing off yours. I'm amazed that one who has so many
>>books
>>knows so little. Perhaps you should try reading them.
>>
>

> TRANSLATION " PV uses the translation service to warp an argument he
> cannot win which is why we see it so often.."

>
> And yet, I've answered all your questions

You have answered some of them sir and most, you answered incorrectly, sir.

>>> Who are you to tell me what is or is not my business, given this
>>> is Usenet, and not a closed political meeting of cigar-smoking
>>> swindlers? Is this more of your God-complex speaking? Are
>>> you acting as the guard for that closed political meeting?
>>>
>>
>>"Who are you to tell me what is or is not my business"
>>
>>Who are you to poke your nose into what is none of your business?
>>
> Who are you to tell me what is "none of your business"? That's
> your fascism talking, Sir shit-for-brains.

Your black shirt needs ironing, sir.
>

> Clearly you are the one trying to set LIMITS on my "freedom of
> speech." Pure fascism on your part.

Clearly, you are trying to tell me what to believe, what to think, what to
say, where to go. You are a fascist, sir.

>
> "If" brains were dynamite, you couldn't blow your nose.

In addition, there is the insult that you throw one at me when you feel
threatened by me, in a feeble attempt to hide your ignorance, sir.

>
>>> You really think name-calling bothers me, when I have the
>>> evidence of YOUR HOLOCAUST DENIAL!!!
>>>
>>
>>No, you don't sir
>>
> Sure I do... your exact words --
>
> 1) "You do not remember what is not in your memory and it is not in
> your memory if you did not experience or witness it firsthand."
>
> 2) "You cannot forget or remember the extermination of 6 million jews
> unless you remember them."
>
> 3) "You cannot forget or remember the extermination of
> 6 million jews unless you remember them and to remember
> them you must have experienced them first hand."
>
> etc.. etc... etc... While you do "remember" the Crusades and the
> Greeks bearing gifts!!! And below all the other murders committed
> in WW II... but you NEVER "remember" the Holocaust.
>

So where is the evidence of holocaust denial that you spoke of, sir?

>>>>I pick up the cockroach with my hand and take it outside, sir.
>>>
>>> Heh... try it sometime. Are you going to put on your "super powers"
>>> costume that "something higher than ourselves" gave you, so you can
>>> be faster than a speeding bullet, and pick up that cockroach, because
>>> it's hoping to rest in your tender arms, and will quietly wait for you
>>> to pick it up? Fat chance!!
>>
>>"Heh... try it sometime"
>>
>>I do, sir.
>
> No proof offered. Your claim fails.

How does it fail, sir?

>
> "A cockroach, for instance, flees from a predator when it detects a
> puff of air. It works out the wind direction, and acts in less than 60
> milliseconds."
>
> and --
> "High-speed videos showed that a cockroach could run 1.5 metres
> (almost five feet) per second. As it increased speed, the cockroach
> leaned back and ran on only four of its six legs. To zoom along at top
> speed, it ran on only its two back legs."
>
> See --
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/animal.asp
>
> Biological facts that limit the response time of all humans show it
> is virtually impossible to reach down and pick up a cockroach with
> the fingers of your hand. At most you'll get only the slippery
> feel of the bacterial agents that cover his body, as he quickly
> rushes across the face of your baby in getting away. Unless you have
> fed that cockroach a hearty dose of vodka beforehand.
>

Therefore, it approaches my baby but when it sees me approaching it runs
away before I get near, hence my baby is safe. That has cleared that up sir.

>
> The problem did not offer a "door number three," shit-for-brains. By
> inventing one you only show your ignorance and sly attempts to cheat
> on the problem. It's that "if" factor that you want to use... the
> "if" I could pick it up before it ran on my baby I would... but you
> can't because the problem itself does not permit it.
>

"The problem did not offer a "door number three"

The problem did not offer any doors, sir.

>>>" Without a doubt. I would never let a cockroach get close to my
>>> baby if it was in my power to kill it before it did"
>>
>>Why not just move it, sir? Why are you Americans so obsessed with killing?
>
> Because that wasn't part of the "thought experiment." Look... if
> you're going to cheat and lie... then do whatever you want... but it's
> obvious that all you are doing is cheating while hoping to use ad
> hominem to attack me for wanting to protect my baby.
>

"Because that wasn't part of the "thought experiment."

Tough frogs, sir.

>>>>Your question is bunkum. and I have already answered it, sir.
>>>>
>>> I know you have. You would permit your baby to possibly be infected
>>> you _your friend... the cockroach_.
>>
>>So you did not read my answer, sir. Typical,, dear fellow.
>
> There is no "door number three," cheater.

You have my answer, sir.

>>> Only a fascist would argue that the opinions of others are _none of
>>> my business_.
>>
>>
>>No, sir. Only a fascist would argue that other people's opinions are his
>>business.
>
> Only a fascist objects to "freedom of speech."

Yes, you do, sir.

>>
>>>So that was your mother I saw in that room with the red light, on
>>> the Damrak
>>
>>What did she look like, sir?
>
> A drunken slut.

Yes, that's her, sir.

>
>>"Does she also perform with donkeys??"
>>
>>Is that a request, sir?
>
> Why would you think so?

Because you asked, sir.

">Does she honour requests?"

Typo corrected

I shall put your request to her, sir. Do you like the smell of stale
cigarettes, sir?

>
>>Does bestiality rock your boat, sir?
>
> Apparently it rocks yours... since you seem quite determined to
> defend your mother's video with that donkey.
>

"Apparently it rocks yours"

You were the one who requested bestiality with a donkey, sir.

>> I had
>>suspected. If you bring the donkey you usually mate with I'm sure that
>>young
>>lady you met on the Damrak might accomodate you.
>
> Your mother has her own donkey. Your sister bought it for her using
> the money that you pay your sister for those "sexual favors" she gives
> you. Those things are bad enough... but they dim in importance to
> your attempts to deny the Holocaust.
>

"Your mother has her own donkey"

She has a dog, sir. Would that do?

>>>>>> For a broken down hopeless old man
>>>>>>such as yourself, she me very likely increase the price.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not into catching diseases. But what's this "she me very..."?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"I'm not into catching diseases"
>>>>
>>>>Neither is she, sir.
>>>
>>> No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>>>
>>
>>An unreferenced cite is inadmissible. Did they fail you on referencing at
>>university, sir or did you fake your certificate?
>>
>
> What "unreferenced cite"?

Is that a 'yes', sir?

>
>>>>"But what's this "she me very..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> English is not your - any language -
>>
>>
>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet;
>>however,
>>it is still better than yours is.
>>
> You only wish... While my wish is that you stop --
>

"You only wish"

You are guessing, sir.

>>>
>>> Heh... that from the guy who insists a cockroach is worth every bit as
>>> much as a human being. It's laughable.
>>
>>It's worth more than you are, sir.
>
> Awww... isn't that sweet... Death Disco loves murderers, but insists
> he also loves cockroaches.

I never said I was Jesus, sir.

>
>>>>>> So if womeone were to kill you it would not be murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the fuck is a "womeone" (sic)? Is that one of your gang member
>>>>> that I have to worry about murdering me??
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>English is not my first language, sir. You are a xenophobic Muppet.
>>>>
>>" Hey, I don't care whether English "
>>
>>Sir? You are going to have to stop your delusion that I care at all about
>>what you think.
>>
>
> And yet you're still here. The gentle reader would find that a bit
> unbelievable. You seem to care a great deal about what I think, since
> you insist that I not speak of what I think of the opinions of
> others... that you in your best fascist uniform insist is "none of
> your business." You care so much about "what I think," that you
> want to shut me up... one way or another. You're a very sick boy,
> shit-for-brains... seek help.
>

"> And yet you're still here. "

Here, sir? where is "here"?

>>> So in your native Tigrinya language the cockroach is equal to the
>>> human, and both have been told by "something higher than
>>> ourselves," that they "a right to life." Is cannibalism also part
>>> of your culture?
>>>
>>
>>"So in your native Tigrinya language "
>>
>>It makes a nice change from being called, Dutch, sir.
>
> HTH

It certainly doesn't help you, sir.

>
>>>>
>>>>AADP neither accepts nor denies anything sir. It is a newsgroup.
>>>
>>> You're repeating yourself, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>
>>You have not answered the argument, sir.
>
> Your argument is that I have no right to free speech in this newsgroup
> or any newsgroup, because you insist it's "none of your business." How
> am I supposed to answer such an argument, other than to remark that
> it's typical fascism?
>

"Your argument is that "

AADP neither accepts nor denies anything sir. It is a newsgroup.

>>>>> See --
>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rtfq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you will post acronyms, sir.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure... why not?
>>
>>Because you have the bandwidth to post the full expressions even if you
>>lack
>>the vocabulary, sir.
>
> If you can't figure out the acronym that only reflects upon your
> intelligence, shit-for-brains.
>

It is a four-letter acronym, sir. There are countless possibilities.

>>>
>>>>> Educated yourself, for fuck's sake. You can't stumble through
>>>>> life remaining ignorant... even if you think you can.
>>>>
>>>>I shall be right behind you in the queue, ignoramus.
>>>
>>> There is no question that reason would have the same effect on
>>> you as daylight has on Dracula.
>>
>>It would have no effect if he lay asleep in his coffin with the lid
>>closed,
>>imbecile.
>>

> > TRANSLATION " PV uses the translation service to warp an argument he
> > cannot win which is why we see it so often.."

>
>>>>"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do?"
>>>>
>>>>Who are you to tell people what to believe, what politics to support,
>>>>what
>>>>religions to support?
>>>>
>>> I've never done that... "
>>
>>Wrong, sir. You always do it. if you read a post where someone has a
>>political or a religious view you don't like, you hound them, you lie and
>>you try to humiliate and discredit them by twisting their words. You are a
>>fascist through and through, sir. In addition, you call your practice
>>"exposing people". You are lower than any cockroach, sir.
>>
>
> My, my... look at that fascist rage. All because I've humiliated
> and discredited you and your Holocaust revision.
>

"My, my... look at that fascist rage."

Yes, sir, your swastika is positively pulsing, sir.

Do you have a little moustache, sir?

>>>>" Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What about everyone else who were exterminated by the Nazis, sir? Don't
>>>>they count? What about those whom were tortured by the Japanese, sir?
>>>>Don't
>>>>tthey count?
>>>
>>> What about the six million Jews... don't THEY count???
>>
>>What about the Polish, sir? Don't they count? What about the Czechs, sir?
>>Don't they count? What about the norwegians, sir>? Don't they count? What
>>about the French, sir? Don't they count? What about the Bitish, sir? Don't
>>they count? What about your own people sir? Don't they count? What about
>>all
>>the other allied nations who lost people in world war 2, sir? Don't they
>>count? Then there's thecivilians, sir. Even Germany's own people were
>>subject to the tyranny, sir. Open your eyes!
>
> What about the Jews? Suddenly you "remember" the Polish, the Czechs,
> the Norwegians, the French, the British, the Americans... Yet, you
> cannot "remember" the Jews. And then you question my finding that to
> be Holocaust denial. You do know the definition of "The Holocaust" in
> its latest and most current meaning, don't you? See --
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/holocaust?view=uk
>

Answer the questions, sir:

What about the Polish, sir? Don't they count? What about the Czechs, sir?

Don't they count? What about the Norwegians, sir>? Don't they count? What
about the French, sir? Don't they count? What about the British, sir? Don't

they count? What about your own people sir? Don't they count? What about all
the other allied nations who lost people in world war 2, sir? Don't they

count? Then there's the civilians, sir. Even Germany's own people were

subject to the tyranny, sir. Open your eyes!

>>> Apparently
>>> your argument is that because others were murdered in a war in which
>>> 50 million people lost their lives, those six million Jews are
>>> insignificant.
>>
>>You're wrong again, sir. My argument is that all were significant.
>
> Yet you never mention the Jews... in fact you insist you CANNOT
> "remember" any Jews exterminated in WW II, while you certainly
> "remember" others murdered in WW II.

"you CANNOT
> "remember" any Jews exterminated in WW II"

Of course, I cannot, sir. I was not there.

"while you certainly
> "remember" others murdered in WW II."

Of course, I cannot, sir. I was not there.

>>>That only shows your anti-Semitism
>>
>>That is not possible, sir.
>
> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.
>

If that were true, sir then none of your posts would be admissible.

>>
>>>
>>>>> You're the only racist, sport. That why you need to call me a racist
>>>>> because I mentioned the Jews... the Jews who you CANNOT
>>>>> remember... but I do remember them.
>>>>
>>>>"You're the only racist, sport">
>>>>
>>>>You're guessing, "sport".
>>>
>>> It's a subjective viewpoint. White-power group members would gladly
>>> accept you as not being a racist.
>>
>>They would not, sir. They would not accept me as white, sir.
>
> An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

If that were true, sir then none of your posts would be admissible.

>
> But here it comes, gentle reader... according to Death Disco even
> White-power groups are not "White people." So obviously he argues
> that because THEY are not "White," they would not accept him as
> "White."
>

"But here it comes, gentle reader"

Pv thinks he's narrating a book.

>>>While my opinion holds that you are
>>> a racist because of the various comments you have offered in insisting
>>> that you've "never seen a Black person."
>>
>>
>>Your opinion is wrong, sir.
>>"never seen a Black person." is not racist, sir. There are no black
>>people.
>>
>
> Wrong again, sport. You may not like English definitions... you may
> even insist you don't accept English definitions.... yet there they
> are.... staring you in the face -- See --
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/black

Check a colour chart, sir. There are no black people.

> BLACK -- "Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black
> skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South
> Africa." Notice that "Black" in that case is capitalized. Just as
> Italian, or French, or German is capitalized. But then you claim
> you've never seen an Italian, or French, or German, either. It's
> those damn cockroaches, that have your affection... all 4,000
> recognized species of cockroaches.
>

"> BLACK -- "Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black
> skin,"

There are no people with black skin, sir.

If course the expression, "browns" would be pointless as that would
categorize everyone except for albinos. However, I look forward to your
explaining away your obsession with skin colour, sir.

>>You hear voices, sir?
>>
> I hear you claiming to hear voices from "nature," "biology," and
> "something higher than ourselves." It's no feat to hear voices
> from REAL PEOPLE. But it's quite a feat for you to claim you
> hear voices from abstractions such as "nature," "biology," and
> "something higher than ourselves." Do you also hear voices
> from your friend... the cockroach???
>

"I hear you claiming to hear voices from "nature," "biology"

I shall take that as a "yes", sir.

>>>>English is not easy to master, sir. You are 78 and you are still
>>>>struggling with it.
>>>
>>> Oh, gee... I'm shattered. Death Disco, who hope to annihilate the
>>>English language by insisting if he sees a definition he _doesn't
>>>like_ he simply refuses to accept it, tells me I'm struggling with
>>>English.
>>
>>You should be, sir.
>
> Really, my ignorant juvenile spoiled brat... if you feel attacking me
> because of my age is somehow relevant, it only shows how miserably
> inadequate, and filled with hate, and Holocaust denial, your arguments
> are.
>

"> Really, my ignorant juvenile spoiled brat"

Oh dear.

In addition, there is the insult that you throw one at me when you feel
threatened by me, in a feeble attempt to hide your ignorance, sir.

>>>>et one fact straight, dear fellow. What you and I do here
>>>>is what the British call "Banter". It is harmless fun for both of us, I
>>>>hope. There is no threat to your health or any form of physical violence
>>>>from me, sir. That is not my way. I detest people who beleive they can
>>>>win
>>>>arguments with thier fists. It's a losing strategy from day one. You
>>>>will
>>>>get no such threat from me, sir.
>>>
>>> And yet..... you "warned me." Strange...
>>
>>The only thing that's strange is you, sir.
>

> TRANSLATION " PV uses the translation service to warp an argument he
> cannot win which is why we see it so often.."

>>>
>>> This one is quite enough to have made a complete fool of you.
>>
>>Only in your fantasies, sir.
>
> It's always nice to meet up with someone like you... since it makes
> my limited intellect positively glow in brilliance in comparison.

"It's always nice to meet up with someone like you"

Who annihilates your every argument sir. I expect you meet up with someone
who does that quite frequently, sir.

>
> Now about those nine problems...

Are those the nine problems that you psychiatrist diagnosed? When will he
diagnose the rest of your problems, sir?

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Jun 21, 2010, 11:12:18 PM6/21/10

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:23:34 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
wrote:

>
>

>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:i7fo16tpc4pq0dvfm...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:10:15 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey... Sir shit-for-brains. Did you forget this one??? Here it is
>> again.
>>
>
>I had previously imagined that you abandoned this thread as you were
>obviously out of your depth.

ROTFLMAO. The moment you saw that response from me, you immediately
disappeared for a week. And that's a FACT, since you cannot produce a
comment from you during the period 8 June until 16 June.

>Have you been poking around that substantial
>bookshelf again, sir?

"You're just guessing." While I have you on RECORD as stating that
during your education you admit -- "I do remember nothing."

And yet there are the answers from me you keep raving about, while not
a single question of mine has been answered by you. In other words --
YOU'RE A FRAUD!!! Capitals used to emphasize that now proven fact.

>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ah5r06do51ge3jus8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:05 +0100, "Death Disco" <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally have some spare time to wipe out the wimp...
>>>>>
>>>>>I look forward to seeing that sir.
>>
>> Apparently you have a masochist streak in you.
>
>
>No, sir.

>>>> I've had more important things to do than wipe the floor with
>>>> someone who spends his days playing "dungeons and dragons,"
>>>> as you do, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>>I am keen to meet the fellow, sir. He must have been asleep, or drunk or
>>>both, sir.
>>
>> So you admit to being asleep, or drunk or both.
>
>Well I have slept, since, sir.

I'm sure you have... too bad you don't study as much as you sleep.
Your words -- "I do remember nothing."

>>>>>>>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:l2db06hcao304a4bg...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:34 +0100, "Death Disco"
>>>>>>>> <iseer...@pIL.co>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>What's curious is how you managed to tune your tin hat antenna to pick
>>>>up voices from "something higher than ourselves." What frequency
>>>>is it where you hear those voices from "something higher than
>>>>ourselves"?
>>>>>" But you're no longer worth my time"
>>>>>
>>>>>Was perfectly clear, sir. You cannot take time back, you know.
>>>>
>>>> Your "something higher than ourselves" told you that??
>
>
>You needed something higher than you to tell you that? Something higher than
>you did tell you that, sir and that something higher was me, sir.
>

Only more of your psychotic God-complex, Sir shit-for-brains. Now you
believe YOU are that "something higher than ourselves," that you've
been psychotically raving about. But let's be clear... when you
insist you are "higher" than any other person, that is just a
manifestation of racism. It places you on the same platform with those
who insisted they were "the Aryan race."

>>>>>No sir. I was asserting the obvious truth.
>>>>
>>>>Are you brain-dead??? When you "assert," you are declaring! Even a
>>>>trained chimpanzee could understand that, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>>
>
>"Are you brain-dead??? "
>
>A bizarre question, sir, as asking a question to a brain dead person will
>give you no answer.

That's why I asked it, Sir shit-for-brains. Keep in mind that before
my comment you once wrote the following insult as a question -- "Have

you always been this retarded, sir or is it a product of your brain

death?" As you now say... asking a question to a brain dead person
will give you no answer. How's it feel to be skewered by your own
words? Feel a bit black... like a pot to a kettle?

>>>I see you are still trying to avoid your own screwups, sir.
>>
>> I see you are still trying to avoid admitting that a voice from
>> "something higher than ourselves," has been talking to you
>> personally.
>>
>
>It would be pointless to admit to something that never occurred, sir.
>

And yet you insist that you KNOW "something higher than ourselves,"
has provided this "right to life for all viruses, microbes, sea
urchins, cockroaches, vermin, plants, dust mites, tree moss, and
itsy-bitsy spiders." We have Death Disco calling housewives
"serial killers" for using a vacuum cleaner. How many "murders"
(sic) has your mother committed in the past week, Death Disco?
Or doesn't she clean the house?

>>>>>> I haven't yet lost any money betting on your ignorance, Sir
>>>>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is because you didn't bet any, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>>Are the bailiffs banging on your door, sir? Hmm? Do they shout through
>>>your letter box of that all so very bright home of yours, sir? Are they
>>>threatening to take it away from you because you cannot pay your gambling
>>>debts, sir. You should give it up, sir. You are no good at it.
>>
>> I'm racking in the money. But aren't those guys in the white coats
>> with the straight jackets banging on your door, Sir
>> shit-for-brains?
>>
>
>"I'm racking in the money"
>
>Racking? Sir?
>

Answer the question, Sir shit-for-brains.

RACK -- "to accumulate or achieve something." See --
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Racking
RACKING -- "To tally, accumulate, or amass as an achievement
or score: Example -- "The corporation racked up the greatest
profits in its history."
See --
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rack
RACK -- To accumulate or score. Example: rack up points.

Of course you would argue -- "if i (sic) do not approve of a

definition I simply choose not to use it."

>>>>>"All people are "special," "

>>>>>
>>>>>You certainly are, sir.
>>>>
>>>> All people are "special," even you, you sick in the head racist.
>>>
>>>You certainly are, sir.
>>
>> You're especially "special." As humans we need to pity those who are
>> mentally unstable, as you are.
>>
>
>"You're especially "special." "
>
>
>How quick witted you are, sir. It only took two attempts before you tried to
>copy my logic. Is this because you have none of your own, sir?

When have you EVER demonstrated your ability to be logical???

>>>>>
>>>>>Are you bored with your own repetition, sir?
>>>>
>>>> You mean YOUR repetition, sport...
>>>
>>>No, sir. I mean, your repetion..
>>
>> And yet you can't stop lying.
>
>You are guessing, sir.

And you've just lied again. While I can certainly prove you lie...
such as when you stated -- "Killing carries a custodial sentence, even
if it is in self-defence. That is British law, of course." That
is a LIE. Proven a lie using hard evidence from the British
"Crown Prosecution Service," which, despite your psychotic
belief you are God, trumps your claim.

>>>>
>>>> You're insane...
>>>
>>>My, dear fellow. Pot, kettle, black.
>>
>> So you admit you're insane. And insist I'm insane for recognizing
>> that you're insane. Finally... a breakthrough!!!
>>
>
>"> So you admit you're insane"
>
>
>No, sir.

Heh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

>>>>>
>>>>>Apparently not, sir. There is no dent in my head
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you haven't checked carefully in your scalp... look for a
>>>> "666" mark.
>>>
>>>You are a Christian, sir.
>>>
>>
>> No, Sir shit-for-brains... you have me mixed up with your
>> Bible-thumping self. After all... I don't claim to hear voices
>
>
>"No, Sir shit-for-brains"
>
>"... look for a
>>>> "666" mark."
>
>A Christian remark, sir. You are a Christian, sir.
>

You know what it means, so using your "logic" (sic) you must
be Christian.

"666" is a religious symbolic legend. Nothing else. While an
educated person, even if not religious in any way, KNOWS what it
implies, simply because he IS EDUCATED -- regardless of any personal
religious connection. If I mention that the Koran states that --

"Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God
has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience,
admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them," See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/koran.jpg

that doesn't mean I am Muslim. It only means I have educated myself
in the thinking of those who are Muslim, not that I am Muslim because
I know what is in the Koran.

You've once again fallen into the logical fallacy of presuming because
A implies B (Christians are those who know the Bible), that proves B
implies A (those who know the Bible are Christians). Education
should not be limited to only what one believes in, but what one does
not believe in to know what those who do believe are thinking, and
believing. To not limit the range and scope of the knowledge you
should seek, because "it is in man's nature to know." It's the search
to gain KNOWLEDGE of as many things as possible... to have a
"catholic" (not the capitalized "Catholic," but "catholic" meaning "Of
broad and liberal scope of knowledge") thirst to know as much about
things as possible. Since you are a bit retarded when it comes to
more than one definition in the English language... See --
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/catholic

I know you're trying, Sir shit-for-brains... but that's no reason that
I should give you some slack when you demonstrate this incredible
stupidity in the English language. If you can't handle the heat, and
need to make EXCUSES for your slender grasp of the English language,
then you should just gravitate to a newsgroup in your mother-tongue.
So either do that, or stop making excuses for you English by pointing
out that it's not your mother tongue, because I don't give a damn,
and will call you out for every illogical argument you offer,
regardless. That's how the game is played. I'm not here to
teach you English.

You're dealing with an educated person, Sir shit-for-brains....
something you've probably never had to deal with in your short
life on this tiny planet. "666" is something that an EDUCATED
person knows about... from various stimuli received during his
life having given him the knowledge of what it is implied to
mean to those who are Christians. I even know the Biblical
source, which is the Book of Revelation, and that 666 is referred to
as "the number of the beast." Which is why the thought came
to my mind when thinking about you.

Because I am not religious you insist in another of your psychotic
God-complex episodes that I must remain ignorant of all religious
folklore and fairy tales. I also know the definition of what a
"ghost" is, but that doesn't mean I believe in ghosts. Educate
yourself, damn it... don't stay ignorant of things just because they
don't refer to the tight ass little world you've allowed yourself to
be caught in.

Do you know how many non-Christians send out "Christmas
cards," at that time of the year? Do you know that both the UK
and the U.S. consider the day of 25 December to be "Christmas
Day"? See --
http://www.year-planner-calendar.wanadoo.co.uk/2011-public-holidays.htm
and --
http://www.opm.gov/operating_status_schedules/fedhol/2011.asp

Does that mean everyone who takes that holiday is a Christian???

But you're the Bible-thumper, insisting that there is "something
higher than ourselves," but then claiming you don't know what it
is.... but it is. And in arguing it "is," you are thumping on the
Bible. You call yourself an "agnostic," but you believe in "something
higher than ourselves," thus you are caught in ANOTHER lie,
because an agnostic does NOT believe. An agnostic argues
that HE WOULD believe if he had proof that there is a God....
but there IS NO PROOF. You insist there is a God... a "something
higher than ourselves," without proof.

quod erat demonstrandum: You are not an agnostic.

>> from "something higher than ourselves," as you do.
>>
>
>I made no such claim, sir.

Of course you did, Sir shit-for-brains. These were your exact
words -- "That honour is strictly owned by something higher than
ourselves." What is that "something higher than the biological
homo Sapiens?" Is it a rock? Is it a cloud? Is it a thunderstorm?
If you insist that there IS "something higher than ourselves,"
then you should be able to PROVE it. If you can't then it's just
more of your psychotic God-complex at work.

Once you go down that road, insisting there IS "something higher
than ourselves," you are entering the magical imaginary Easter
Bunny world of THEOLOGY... Bible-thumping belief in the
imaginary... the "unknown".. the spooky... the ghosts... the
spirits... the goblins... the pixies ... the presence of the
supernatural... the Easter Bunny... and the Tooth Fairy.

While there is NO proof there is an entity "higher than ourselves,"
unless you claim it is the "cockroach." Mental abstractions do
not provide PROOF, since they are all dependent on subjective
viewpoints of each individual... thus they are only a product
of FAITH... religious faith that there IS "something higher than
ourselves." While you have no objective evidence of such an
entity existing. But hiding behind the farce of insisting it is
"unknown," yet you insist you KNOW IT IS "something higher
than ourselves." That's based on FAITH... based on RELIGION...
based on your psychotic belief that you are God almighty himself...
based on BULLSHIT.

>>>>>We should remind yourself why you think I'm Dutch sir
>>>>
>>>> Who's this "we," Sir shit-for-brains?
>>>>
>>>>>"
>>>>>Bet you're Dutch, with a dingleberry hanging from your ass because
>>>>>of your unhygienic paedomorphic habits. You're certainly
>>>>>not Italian... I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>>>minor in college. You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>>>>French, born and raised in Paris... so I can do very well in
>>>>>the French spoken language, and good enough in the written
>>>>>language. You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>>>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>>>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>>>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>>>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>>>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had. I don't think
>>>>>you're Spanish or Portuguese. Nor from the former East bloc.
>>>>>And since you mention ...
>>>>>
>>>>>"
>>>>
>>>> Man, that was a real logical and convincing observation on my part, if
>>>> I do say so myself.
>>>
>>>You do, sir?
>>
>> Do you also have a reading disability?? After all, you don't want to
>
>
>
>"> Do you also have a reading disability?? "
>
>No, sir; do you?

"You're just guessing." But how would YOU know? Since you have
already stated emphatically that -- "It is unknown therefor (sic) I
cannot know it," and also stated that you "remember nothing." In one
ear... out the other.

>> wipe that dingleberry away... just think of all the germs you'd be
>> "murdering" (sic)... ROTFLMAO. I'll bet you're afraid to even sit,
>> in fear you might crush some of those germs.
>>
>>>>>Cite:
>>>>>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>>>>>From: Planet Visitor II <hidden to protect privacy>
>>>>>Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:11:17 -0400
>>>>>Local: Thurs, May 27 2010 5:11 am
>>>>>Subject: Re: High court rules out life sentences for some juveniles
>>>>>
>>>>>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>>>minor in college"
>>>>>
>>>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not Italian, sir?
>>>>
>>>> Well, try me, if you are Italian. Prove it.
>>>
>>>">>"I am almost mother-tongue fluent in Italian having
>>>>>learned most of it before I was 14, and then taking it as my
>>>>>minor in college"
>>>"
>>>
>>>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not Italian, sir?
>>>
>> It proves TO ME that you are not Italian.
>
>How does that prove to YOU that I am not Italian, sir?

Heh... remember your words -- "I am not obliged to prove anything to
you, sir."? Stuff that in your ear and catch it when it comes out
the other ear.

>>That's
>> good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
>> fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???
>>
>">That's
>> good enough for me"
>
>
>
>Of course, it is, sir. You have made it obvious that your standards are
>lower than everyone else's, sir.

"You're just guessing"

>>>>>"You're not French... my wife is mother-tongue
>>>>>French, born and raised in Paris... "
>>>>>
>>>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not French, sir?
>>>>
>>>> Well, try me, if you are French. Prove it.
>>>
>>>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not French, sir?
>>>
>> It proves TO ME that you are not French. That's
>> good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
>> fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???
>>
>
>"> It proves TO ME that you are not French"
>
>How does that prove to YOU that I am not French, sir?

Heh... remember your words -- "I have no obligation to prove my
arguments or to answer anything."? Stuff that in your ear and catch
it when it comes out the other ear.

>"That's> good enough for me. "
>
>Of course, it is, sir. You have made it obvious that your standards are
>lower than everyone else's, sir.

"You're just guessing."

Damn... this is so easy when we do it your way.

>>>>>"You're not German... I spent 20 years in Germany,
>>>>>and can keep up a fairly good conversation, because people
>>>>>tend to overlook grammatical mistakes in respect to "der" "die"
>>>>>"das" gender notation and case endings when speaking, although
>>>>>my written German could use a lot of work, for which I do not
>>>>>have time, and no longer have the drive I once had"
>>>>>
>>>>>This is your logic for thinking I'm not German, sir?
>>>>
>>>> Well, try me, if you are German. Prove it.
>>>
>>>How exactly does your comment prove that I am not German, sir?
>>
>> It proves TO ME that you are not German. That's
>> good enough for me. Are you now invoking one of your
>> fascist commands that I am forbidden to "think"???
>>
>
>"It proves TO ME that you are not German"
>
>How does that prove to YOU that I am not German, sir?

Heh... remember your words -- "I am the exclusive author of my issue

and only I have the authority to make and declerations(sic) base (sic)

upon it"? Stuff that in your ear and catch it when it comes out the
other ear.

>"That's> good enough for me. "
>
>Of course, it is, sir. You have made it obvious that your standards are
>lower than everyone else's, sir.

You're just guessing. See that two can PLAY at your GAME, Sir (he
who never answers any questions) shit-for-brains.

>>>>>You neglected to post your reasoning for believing me Dutch, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Because I don't speak Dutch, and the Dutch offer quite a
>>>> bit of education in the English language.
>>>
>>>That is your reason for thinking me Dutch, sir? I can see you have not
>>>thought this through.
>>
>> I think everything through, Sir shit-for-brains. I form my opinions
>> independent of arguments from the deranged... like you.
>
>"> I think everything through"
>
>Then it is curious that you are so bad at it, sir. I would suggest that you
>get more practice but it does not appear to be helping you, sir.

"You're just guessing."

>>>>>As should you, sir.
>>>>
>>>> I "remember" quite a bit of events that happened before I was born,
>>>
>>>No you don't, sir. You was not there.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO... You mean "were not there." And yet I "remember"
>> them. Are you now in your fascist method intending to tell me what
>> I can and cannot "remember"? The fact that I "was not there" is
>> irrelevant to whether it happened before or after I was born. I
>> can "remember" the Kennedy assassination, even though I "was
>> not there." "Being there" is irrelevant to what our minds are
>> capable of "remembering."
>
>"And yet I "remember"
>> them"
>
>No, you do not sir. You WERE not there.

You're not God, Sir shit-for-brains. So don't play the role of your
psychotic belief that you are God thinking you can order me to not
"remember" what you don't want me to "remember."

I'm not a Holocaust denier like you, and I can well remember that six
million Jews were exterminated in Europe less than 70 years ago, in
the Nazi effort to exterminate European Jewry. If I couldn't remember
it... how could I possibly RELATE that FACT to you? You insist that
it is NOT a FACT if one has not "experienced it first hand." If it
were not "in my memory," as you insist it is not in YOUR memory, how
can you dare claim you even KNOW there was a Holocaust of Jews?
You're the one trying to deny FACTS, claiming you can't "remember"
FACTS. Which argues there IS no such FACT!

I suppose you "remember" that the earth is relatively shaped as a
sphere, rather than flat. If so, have you actually "experienced
first hand" walking the entire earth in order to "remember" it? Or is
it enough that you "remember" being SHOWN (rather than
experiencing it first hand) proof that the earth is not flat?

>>>>>>>I did not, sir.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>>
>>>>>Denying something doesn't automatically make the denier a liar, sir.
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>>>> obvious that he speaks a lie. That seems to be your implication.
>>>
>>>Denial proves or disproves nothing, sir.
>>
>> You seem determined to deny.
>
>In response to your guesses, yes, sir.

"You're just guessing."

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you did, you little Holocaust denier.
>>>>>
>>>>>I did not, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you did, Sir shit-for-brains. And you're also a Holocaust
>>>> denier... claiming you hear voices.
>>>
>>>I did not, sir.
>>
>> Sure you did. You related that "something higher than ourselves"
>> had TOLD you that there is "a right to life for all biological life."
>> Claiming that it is "murder" to kill any biological life... including
>> cockroaches... making each of us a murderer a million, billion times,
>> each time we wash our hands. No wonder they call you "the
>> unwashed." You're determined to "murder" (sic) as few of those
>> germs as possible. If that "something higher than ourselves" didn't
>> TELL you there is such a "right to life," how did you come into that
>> information? Was it pixies... or the Tooth Fairy... or the Easter
>> Bunny... or Santa Claus??? Or was it your "mommy" making
>> you say your prayers to that "something higher than ourselves"???
>>
>
>"Sure you did"
>
>Sure, I did not, sir.

LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

>>>>>>>> Are you now denying those were your words?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, sir.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier. Don't think you are?
>>>>>> Well, let me ask you... do you "remember" that there was an
>>>>>> extermination of six million Jews in the 20th Century???
>>>>>
>>>>>"Then you admit you are a Holocaust denier"
>>>>>
>>>>>No sir.
>>>>
>>>> If you claim you don't "remember" it happening, that is a clear
>>>> indication that you "deny" it happening.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your logic does not follow normal rational reasoning, sir.
>>>
>> To your deep annoyance, it follows perfect logical reasoning.
>> See --
>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/remember
>> Since you are xenophobic toward the "the British."
>>
>
>"it follows perfect logical reasoning"
>
>No it does not, sir

"You're just guessing."

>
>> REMEMBER -- "to be able to bring back a piece of information into your
>> mind, or to keep a piece of information in your memory"
>> Or --
>> "to be kept in people's memories because of a particular action or
>> quality"
>> Or --
>> "to hold a special ceremony to honour a past event or someone who has
>> died"
>>
>> There is nothing that argues we cannot "remember" what we did not
>> "experience first hand." And we certainly didn't "have to be there"
>> to remember something happened.
>
>You remember the information, sir. You remember the news, the newspaper or
>the article in the book, sir because you read or saw them on television. You
>cannot remember something you did not experience, sir.

Please don't use your psychotic belief that you are God, and can tell
me what I can and cannot "remember." One does not need to
"experience" an event to "remember" it, and the circumstances
surrounding it. It's called an EDUCATION. You should try it sometime
in the future.

>> But then you've already insisted in your fascist way, that if you
>> don't like a definition you just refuse to accept it. But in this
>> case you are also INVENTING your own definitions in the English
>> language in which you presume to demand that "remember"
>> is defined as "only having experienced first hand" what you can
>> "remember." How neat that is for the Nazis. Or the neo-Nazis
>> of today.
>>
>>>>>> Yet you fondly "remember" the Greeks. You naughty boy, you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only the ones I've met, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Heh... that must have been a night of debauchery.
>>>
>>>A night, sir? Nobody goes to Greece for just one night, sir.
>>>
>>
>> Zoommm...... that one flew right over your pointy head.
>>
>>>
>>>>Don't bother sharing the sordid details...
>>>
>>>I won't, sir.
>>>
>> Thank you.
>
>You are welcome, sir.

Totally unnecessary.

>>>
>>>
>>>> this is a family oriented newsgroup.
>>>
>>>Since when, sir?
>>
>> Zooommm...... so did that one.
>
>
>Are you speeding, sir? Such is not advisable for someone of your advanced
>epoch.

No, Sir shit-for-brains... it was to signify that the intention of my
comment was totally lost on you. It "flew (zoomed) over your head." I
still believe you have no idea what the reason was that I mentioned
something called "the sordid details"? I'm sure others are not as
naive and child-like in their reasoning process. Try looking up the
Urban dictionary of the word "Greek."

>>>>>>>You claimed that you could, "hear" me, sir.
>>>>>>>Any fear that you experience is your own, sir. If you were to be able
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>feel my emotions sir, you would feel my amusement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no denial, sir. You responses are getting more random, dear
>>>>>fellow.
>>>>
>>>> Need I point out again --
>>>
>>>Not if it is your usual gibberish, sir.
>>>
>> The truth has never been something that you want to see, Sir
>> shit-for-brains. You believe you can "invent" your own truth.
>>
>
>"The truth has never been something"
>
>That you have ever told, sir.

"You're just guessing," Sir shit-for-brains.

>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Shall we wait for you temper tantrum to calm down, sir?
>>>>
>>>> Heh... as the Dalai Lama noted -- "If a human being never
>>>> shows anger, then I think something's wrong. He's not
>> right in the brains" See --
>>>>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1993865,00.html
>>>
>>>Are you planning to re-interpret his word too, sir?
>>
>> Are you still unable to follow a link, you little liar?? Didn't I
>> give you a link to his words? Just as I do with your words
>> that indict you as an admitted "murderer" (sic). (I saw you wash
>> your hands... you brutal killer, you. What about that "Right to life"
>> for those "poor innocent creatures... the germs"?) Have you
>> thought about turning yourself in to the authorities and claiming
>> "self-defense"??? ROTFLMAO.
>>
>
>"Are you still unable to follow a link"
>
>No, sir. I made no claim to being unable to follow the link, sir.
>

So you admit you were just lying when you stated that I was "planning
to re-interpret his words."

I'll take that as your apology.

>>>>>"I never, ever lie. "
>>>>>
>>>>>Anothr lie, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Really, you admit you lied???
>>>
>>>Yes, sir.
>>
>> Well then why don't you stop lying?
>
>You first, sir.
>

"You're just guessing."

>>
>>>"little boy, "
>>>
>>>You're guessing again, sir.
>>>
>>
>> And yet there is no evidence that you are not a "little boy, with
>> an equally little brain."
>
>There is no evidence that I am either.

And yet that's all you have to say. A very sad attempt at denial

while you have rolled yourself up in the fetal position in a corner
of your dark room.

>Just as there is no evidence that

>your posted qualifications were not forged, yet there is evidence to suggest
>that they are.

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible.

However if you ASSERT that "there is evidence to suggest that they
are" forged, then YOU have the responsibility of proving it... or it
can simply be presumed that you are trying to smear me with
another of your own lies.

>> Is it also your fascist demand that I "stop guessing"??? Any

>> other orders for me, Gruppenführer Disco???

>
>Your black shirt needs ironing, sir.

And your death head hat, and your swastika armband need some cleaning,
Gruppenführer Disco.

>>>>>>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has one"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They do sir? So you have only the one opinion. Curious
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural. I don't
>>>>>> know what it means in your mother-tongue which is apparently Tigrinya.
>>>>>
>>>>>" "Opinions." "ass holes." The "s" in English means plural"
>>>>>
>>>>>"While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has 'one'"
>>>>>
>>>>>The "one" implies singular, sir.
>>>>
>>>> "Opinions".... plural. "one".... used as a pronoun... for example ...
>>>> the simple English constructed sentence -- "she visited ONE of her
>>>> cousins." Notice that she does not have only ONE cousin. Thus
>>>> a person does not have only ONE opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Chee... but you are uneducated.
>>>
>>>You're guessing again, sir.
>>
>> Well, you obviously are not educated in the English language in
>> respect to the use of plurals.
>
>Your words, sir: "While opinions are like ass holes... everyone has 'one'"
>
>"everyone has 'one'"; indicates a singular, and not a plural, sir.

An assertion lacking a referenced cite is inadmissible. However,
you are wrong... As EVIDENCE - I submit that I pointed out the
grammatically correct sentence of "she visited ONE of her cousins."
You would argue that "one" cannot be stated if it refers to a
plural... Yet "cousins" is a plural and the sentence is absolutely
grammatically accurate.

Given your very slender grasp of the English language I would
suggest you find other avenues to bitch about, since I'm not here
to teach you English.

>>>>>"Heh... I believe you actually looked at a dictionary"
>>>>>
>>>>>When one is learning a language, it is useful to browse a dictionary of
>>>>>that language sir. It is a practice that I reccomend you try.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad you slept through most of that education. But I think you're
>>>> sweating
>>>> about now... because I picked the right nation.
>>>
>>>Your refusal to educate yourself has been noted, sir.
>>

>>TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
>> I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
>> but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

Hah... don't have an answer for that one... do you, Sir
shit-for-brains?

>>>>>"Don't blame me for your illiteracy"
>>>>>Numeracy, my dear fellow; not literacy.
>>>>
>>>> The terms are not mutually exclusive, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>>So you do not understand the expression, "mutually exclusive", either.
>>
>> You stupid, stupid child. The term "mutually exclusive" means
>> that both events cannot occur at the same time. The two events
>> in question in this argument are --
>> 1) Your illiteracy.
>> 2) Your inability to understand numeracy.
>>
>
>"You stupid, stupid child"
>
>You are guessing, sir.
>

Wrong... I'm offering FACTS and EVIDENCE. You should try it some
time rather than whining like a little baby who has just had his
pacifier taken away (probably by one of those cockroaches that you
wouldn't harm).

>> I said that they are NOT "mutually exclusive," you implied that they
>> ARE "mutually exclusive." "Mutually exclusive" is a term that I am
>> quite familiar with, since logic circuits often use it. Such circuits
>> are called XOR gates. See --
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_gate
>>
>
>"I said that they are NOT "mutually exclusive,""
>
>Yes, sir and I replied, So you do not understand the expression, "mutually
>exclusive", either.

No proof offered. Your claim fails. But did I mention that you're
a "stupid, stupid child"?

>>>>>
>>>>>There was no denial sir. Your confusion is increasing.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mindless drivel?
>>>
>>>Do you, sir?
>>
>> Given that I only repeat your "mindless drivel" why would I
>> get tired of it?
>
>
>"Given that I only repeat your "mindless drivel""
>
>No, sir; you only ever repeat yours.

>
>>>>>""No sir. You were the one whom (sic) "fucked
>>>>>> up" lightspeed, sir."
>>>>>
>>>>>You did, sir. you claimed it was 300,000,000 M/s.
>>>>
>>>> No, Sir shit-for-brains... I said "presuming the velocity of light is
>>>> exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second."
>>>
>>>But it isn't, sir.
>>
>> So what? The velocity of light is only a constant in a vacuum.
>> Scientists have slowed down light to a crawl when going through
>> various mediums. The question did not ask for the "speed
>> of light in a vacuum." It asked to PRESUME the velocity of light
>> is exactly 300,000,000 meters/ per second. Apparently you admit
>> you can't follow directions.
>> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-11/st_alphageek
>>
>
>"So what? "
>
>Therefore, you got it wrong, sir.
>

"You're just guessing." While the FACTS and the EVIDENCE show that
I stated quite clearly that one should PRESUME "the velocity of light
is exactly 300,000,000 meters/per second." It did not ask that one
should COMPUTE the velocity of light, or RESEARCH the velocity of
light - because it was GIVEN as an approximation to be USED as an
approximation. Apparently you only showed that you are illiterate
in the English language and unable to comprehend questions in the
English language. The FACTS and the EVIDENCE show in absolute
terms that your answer did not agree with the parameters stipulated
in the question. In fact, if I asked you to use "the speed of light"
it would be logically insufficient information, since you offered "the
speed of light in a vacuum," and the speed of light in many other
mediums is not the same. For example, the speed of light in H2O is
approximately 75% of the speed of light in a vacuum. See -
http://tinyurl.com/27f3ba4

Here it is shown that the speed of light in water, fused quartz, crown
glass, dense flint glass, and diamond are considerably slower than

the speed of light in a vacuum.

>>>"The question was posed to not use a calculator or references"

>>>
>>>That is not your decision, sir.
>>>
>> Rubbish... every question is based upon certain parameters, including
>> what can be used in solving the question.
>>
>
>"Rubbish"
>
>You are incorrect again, sir.

"You're just guessing." If you think you can walk into taking
any test and do anything you want, or bring anything you want,
you are due for a sudden shock when you do take a test.

Your argument claims that you can take a driving expert with
you if you WANT TO, when you take the written driver's examination,
and he can advise you as to what answers are correct. Test
administrators determine everything as to what is permissible when
taking a test. That is what is known as a FACT. Do try harder to
separate fact from your fantasies and your psychotic God-complex.

>>>> Good grief... it's so difficult for me to deal with the juvenile
>>>> uneducated.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Looking the in mirror must be a real problem for you then, sir.
>>
>> Too bad you have such terrible problems in the English language.
>> "Looking the in mirror"??? What is that supposed to mean?
>
>"Too bad you have such terrible problems in the English language"
>
>Hardly, sir; you've been using the English language for around 70 years
>whereas I've been speaking it for around a fifth of a century and I still
>have a greater mastery of it than you do, sir.

"You're just guessing." I'll bet I speak better Dutch than you do.

>>>> Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole? It only
>>>> makes the post longer than it already is. You see my words,
>>>> answer them when you see them... and not three pages later.
>>>
>>>"Why do you keep repeating my words, you silly asshole?"
>>>
>>>To respond to them, sir.
>>
>> You don't need to repeat them to respond to them, Sir shit-for-brains.
>> Respond to them as you read them.
>>
>"You don't need to repeat them to respond to them"
>
>Yes, I do sir

No. You don't! It's incredibly ignorant of you to argue that you
"need" to REPEAT my words, when you can do the same thing by
simply responding as you read those words, and add a ">"
to the next line of mine to indicate that those are my words
again. The ">" is there for the reader to use in determining
who wrote what... and you simply confuse the issue when you
constantly repeat my words, in addition to making the post
almost twice as lengthy.

You only do it because you're too ignorant and juvenile to do
otherwise.

> or as you have demonstrated previously;

You're full of shit.

> you get confused
>regarding what part of your paragraph I am responding to.
>

"you're just guessing." Notice that I broke up your sentence,
without having to repeat your idiotic comment, simply by
responding at a point which recognizes your words, and then
adding that ">" to the first line of your following words, just
before the "you get."

This is not rocket science, you pathetic sub-functional moron.

>>>>>That you didn't spot my quarter wave mistake or pinpoint where my first
>>>>>mistake was wrong? Yes sir. That is very strange.
>>>>
>>>> I'm very forgiving of your basic ignorance.
>>>
>>>I am less forgiving of yours.
>>
>> That's because there is nothing to forgive.
>
>Your ignorance is beyond forgiveness, sir.
>

"You're just guessing."

>>>>
>>>>>>>I have built one in a while. What
>>>>>>>about you, sir? When did you last build one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL..." I have built one in a while," too. You ignorant child. Are
>>>>>> you also this stupid in your mother tongue? Don't lie now.
>>>>>
>>>>>I shall take that as a "Never". shall I ,sir.
>>>>
>>>> Since the word "never" does not appear in my comment,
>>>
>>>You avoided the question, sir.
>>>
>> You presumed to create a word that is not within my comment.
>> Further, I was making a mockery of your comment by mimicking
>> your exact words which made no sense whatsoever. Those words
>> of yours were "I have built one in a while." What the hell is
>> that supposed to mean?
>>
>
>The question was, "when did you last build one, sir?"
>

No, sport.. you wrote "I have built one in a while." And as
my answer to your question - my answer was "I have built one in a
while," too. Chee... it's like I'm trying to explain brain surgery to
a three-year-old.

>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"I'm not the authority. I'm the messenger"
>>>>>
>>>>>You are neither, sir.
>>>>
>>>> But you implied I was the "authority" behind my argument, when it's
>>>> obvious that the AUTHORITY is "Bureau International des Poids et

>>>> Mesures. The International System of Units - le Système international
>>>> d'unités." That is... a lesser authority to those voices you hear

>>>> from "something higher than ourselves." He he he he he. You
>>>> psychotic fruitcake. Tell me again how you know more than the
>>>> Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The International System

>>>> of Units - le Système international d'unités.

>>>>
>>>
>>>"But you implied "
>>>
>>>No I didn't, sir.
>>>
>> Right... you stated an outright distortion of the facts. I never
>> claimed to be the "authority" behind my argument, while you
>> lied and claimed that I have no "right" to quote an "authority"
>> to justify my argument. In other words, you're not interested
>> in the truth... you just believe yourself to be more qualified
>> than the " "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The

>> International System of Units - le Système international
>> d'unités." But given that you also claim you are the "authority"

>> behind an Easter Bunny claim that there is "a right to life for
>> all biological life... including cockroaches and other vermin,
>> bacteria and viruses," it's clear just how delusional your
>
>
>"Right"

Use "Correct" if the word "Right" is too complicated for you.

>> belief in your own "authority" actually is.
>>>
>>>>>You have read them all in this small time, sir?
>>>>
>>>> I'm a fast reader.
>>>
>>>You would have to be the fastest reader on the planet, sir.
>>
>> I've had a lot of time.
>
>
>An awful lot of time, sir; no time for work or putting that knowledge in
>those books to use. Do you use it sir? Do you even just regurgitate it sir?
>Or do you just read it and store the knowledge where it can do no good. I
>cannot imagine a more pointless use or I should say 'misuse' of a library.

At least I "remember" what I read. You insist that you do not
"remember" what you learned in school regarding the Holocaust
or ANYTHING.

Your exact words were "I do remember NOTHING." <emphasis mine>
You said "I cannot remember something that was never in my
memory." So apparently everything you claim you "learned" in
school was NEVER "in your memory." What kind of an education
is that? That you go to school knowing that everything will not
"stay in your memory," and it will simply go in one ear and out
the other. I don't believe I've ever encountered someone so quick
to admit that he cannot retain in his "memory," what he learned
in school. But I do believe you were honest in stating that what
you learned in school never stayed "in your memory." I'll give
you partial credit for being honest one time in our dialog.

>>>> Can't do it, can you???
>>>
>>>
>>>Can't do what, sir?
>>>
>>
>> Handle the truth.
>
>I am still looking forward to you telling some truth for a change, sir.

"You're just guessing."

>>
>>>
>>>>Yet I've provided cite after cite showing
>>>> Hz being the recognized standard for "cycles per second."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If you had read your books sir, you would see that cs and c/s are also
>>>used.
>>
>> Guess what? -- An assertion lacking a referenced cite is
>> inadmissible
>
>Then you have not read your books, sir. You stack them on your shelves
>preventing anyone else from reading them.

"You're just guessing."

>>
>>>> You're one hard-headed piece of work, Sir shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>>Thank you, sir.
>>
>> You're welcome... always glad to help the retarded deal with their
>> problem.
>
>There is no problem, sir.

The retarded never believe there is a problem. Bless 'em all...
including you, my little retard.

>>>>>>>You haven't answered the problem I gave you, yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor have you. I could give you a multitude of problems that you
>>>>>> could not even attempt to solve, sport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <clipped the young blockhead repeating my words>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes I have, sir. I am still waiting for your solution if you can offer
>>>>>one.
>>>>
>>>> No, problem.... See -
>>>> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-2.html
>>>
>>>That does not answer the question, sir. You have avoided it yet again.
>>>
>> Now that you admit you are mistaken about C/S, Cs, or whatever the
>> fuck you want to call it to avoid recognizing it as Hz, I have already
>> answered all your questions in my previous post.
>>>>
>
>"Now that you admit you are mistaken about C/S, Cs,"
>
>To do so would be a lie, sir.

"You're just guessing." However, I have seen absolutely no EVIDENCE
or FACT from you which would substantiate your claim.

>>"or whatever the fuck you want to call"
>
>Your ignorance is noted sir, as is you further attempt in avoiding the
>question.

You're the one avoiding the question. Where's your PROOF about
C/S, or Cs? I haven't seen anything from you but windbag bluster.

>>>> I did find the answer in a very concise reference in my library titled
>>>> the "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers." About 2000 pages
>>>> deep, edited by Donald G Fink (look him up), published by McGraw Hill,
>>>> with ISBN 0-07-020973-1.
>>>
>>>" About 2000 pages deep"
>>>
>>>2304 to be exact, sir.
>>
>> You counted THEM??? Mine doesn't have the pages numbered. It
>> just has the sections numbered. You spent all your time COUNTING
>> the pages??? Don't you have anything better to do?
>>
>
>" You counted THEM??? "
>
>No, you silly person. I looked the book up on Amazon.

And yet you are still wallowing in ignorance by ignoring what you
found.

>
>>>>Go to your library and ask them for it.
>>>> Then go to page 1-9... Systems of Measurement. And you will see
>>>> that Frequency is measured in Hz.
>>>
>>>Are those the only pages you looked at in the entire book, sir?
>>
>> It is the page that references the STANDARD System of measurements,
>> Sir shit-for-brains. And nowhere in that book does the term C/S, or
>> Cs appear.
>
>I'll take that as a "yes", sir.

"You're just guessing."

>>
>>>> And yet I can find no reference to "Cs is the standard for cycles per
>>>> second." In fact every reference states that "Hz is the standard
>>>> for cycles per second."
>>>
>>>If that book is any good then it should contain the formulas to answer
>>>those
>>>little problems I gave you. Maybe you should try buying a copy and reading
>>>it, sir.
>>
>> Your problems have already been answered. Now when can I expect you
>> to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???
>
>"Your problems have already been answered."
>
>Not by you, they have not sir.

Wrong, Sir shit-for-brains. You've now seen the answers TWICE.

>"to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???"
>
>
>Eight, sir? Then I shall pose eight for you in turn, sir.

And I'll answer one at a time, right after you answer one of my eight
questions to you. That's a piece of cake for me. Like the question
you asked me about a "resonant circuit" giving me the value of RL
and asking me what is the value of RC?? I almost fell off my chair
laughing at that one. You made my day! If that's all you've got
going for you, you really know nothing about electronic circuits.

>>Now when can I expect you
>> to answer even ONE of the eight new problems I've posed to you???
>>
>
>I'm still waiting for you to answer that first question I posed for you,
>sir.

Actually they've all been answered. One of the answers was 10
degrees, with a dB loss of zero. The other was RC = RL. The
other was also answered. The last one is answered below. Now
we wait for YOUR answers to even one of my eight questions.
And we wait... and we wait... and we wait....

>> You don't have any "colleagues," Sir shit-for-brains. What you have

>> are a few fellow dweebs who all collectively sit around with your
>> fingers up your ass.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> R = 3.183 x 10^4 Ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c = 10^-9 Farads
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> f = 500 Hz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thus -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Xc = 1/(2 x [pi] x f x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 500 x 10^-9 Ohms)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Xc=1/w(omega)c sir but it equates to the same thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Xc= 3.183 x 10^5 ohms = 318.3 K Ohms
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>318.310K to be more accurate, sir but you are doing very well
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh... you idiot. That is only LESS accurate. Your original data
>>>>>> gave R = 3.183... you cannot invent that 318310, as presumable
>>>>>> "more accurate" than your original number. Your entire problem
>>>>>> is limited to 3.183, which is four significant digits. Offering
>>>>>> a claim that "318.31..." is "more accurate" is a crock of shit,
>>>>>> since it implies five digits of accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Temper, temper. If you cannot handle the problem you should ask for
>>>>>help.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the type who finds humor in your ignorance.
>>>
>>>You're the one whom failed the problem sir.
>>
>> Already answered... Sir shit-for-brains.
>
>Your answer was incorrect, sir.

"You're just guessing." My answer was right on the money. And you
know it.

>>>>
>>>>> PI has more than 5 digits of accuracy, sir.
>>>>
>>>> When I state 3.14159...
>>>
>>>You have over snipped, sir. You appear to be as ignorant on snipping, as
>>>you are everything else.
>>
>> I used six digits of accuracy, Sir shit-for-brains. Can't you count?
>
>Yes, sir and I can tell the difference between two and three, sir; unlike
>you apparently.

Yet you don't know the difference between 5 and 6. Did I mention...
pot... kettle... black? While my mistake was a true typo, and your
mistake was a failure to properly count the significant digits. Mine
was a mistake in physical coordination (after all... I am 78)! Yours
was a mistake in calculation.... or numeracy... if you prefer.

>>>> Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>>>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator, thus it is not incorrect to
>>>> show pi as an approximation because that's what it is, no matter how
>>>> long one writes integers. Nor can one write pi as a quotient of two
>>>> integers, in exact terms. While your use of 318.310 implies a
>>>> constant "more accurate" than your original constant, Sir
>>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Pi, my young student, is no more a constant than a man is a cockroach.
>>>> pi is only as accurate as your calculator"
>>>
>>>Nonsense, sir. Pi goes on for as long as there can be new digits
>>>calculated.
>>>and alot of people do not need a calculator to calculate it as you would.
>>>They spend a finate amount of time on it.
>>
>> Pi is NOT a constant in any sense of having an absolute value. When
>> will you ever recognize the difference between rational and irrational
>> numbers? Pi is only as accurate as the number of digits used, and
>> it tells you nothing of what the next digit will be.
>
>"Pi is NOT a constant in any sense of having an absolute value"
>
>Wrong, sir; PI is calculated and when a new digit is found it becomes
>constant.

I repeat... Pi does not have an absolute value in the natural numbers.
Constants do not change when a new digit is found, because there
are no new digits to find. 3 is 3.0000 to infinity with those
insignificant zeros. Pi changes with ever new digit to infinity.
Pi is proven to be an infinite decimal. Unlike numbers such as 3,
which have finitely many nonzero numbers to the right of the decimal
place, pi has infinitely many numbers to the right of the decimal
point.

>>>"I can't believe you don't know the difference between a rational
>>> and an irrational number."
>>>
>>>You are guessing again, sir.
>>
>> And yet you continue to show that you don't know the difference.
>
>I show no such thing, sir.

>>
>>>>>> And you claim an ability to compute numbers, yet screw up
>>>>>> the most basic of all mathematical principles... that values
>>>>>> cannot be obtained having greater significance than the
>>>>>> significant digits within the mathematical computation.
>>>>>> Whenever you make a measurement, that measurement
>>>>>> is only as precise as the original significant digits being
>>>>>> computed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>" And you claim an ability to compute numbers"
>>>>>
>>>>>I made no such claim, sir.
>>>>
>>>> That's sad... you now admit you have no ability to compute numbers.
>>>> Glad we agree with that.
>>>
>>>I made no such claim, sir. Lack of a positive does not assert a negative,
>>>sir.
>>
>> You admitted elsewhere that you were not "illiterate" (although you
>> are), but that you suffer from "innumeracy."
>
>"although you
>> are"
>
>I see you do not know the meaning of, "illiterate" either, sir.

I know it when I see it... and it's obvious that it's something you
suffer from.

>"but that you suffer from "innumeracy.""
>
>No, sir

>>>>>> Chee... that's stuff you learn in the 7th grade, or earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that the last time you had any education, sir?
>>>>
>>>> We've already been through this, Sir shit-for-brains... See --
>>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Maryland.jpg
>>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/pv/Boston.jpg
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Transcript.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>>A lot has changed in 22 years, sir. Of course, it is very easy to fake such
>>>documents and you appear to have no qualifications relating to electrical
>>>engineering, sir.
>>>
>> And yet I've solved all the problems you presented to me...
>
>No you haven't, sir.

Yes, I have, Sir shit-for-brains.

>
>including
>> the laughable one where you stated the circuit was resonant, and gave
>> me XL, and asked me to compute XC, as if there is anything to even
>> compute given that at resonance XL = XC.
>
>Yes, sir; you solved the easiest one; sir, and I bet you want a cookie for
>it. Such a law is printed in most relevant texts. It is a pity that you do
>not know what it actually means, sir.

It's a pity that you are so ignorant that you didn't even realize you
had provided the answer within the very question you asked.

>>
>>>> See why I accuse you of slander and lies???
>>>
>>>You accuse me of a lot of things, sir without knowing anything about me or
>>>being able to back up your accusations. Of course, I find the irony as
>>>funnier as that I find that you confuse slander with libel, sir.
>>
>> Hey... good for you, it seems you looked up the definition. I
>> always get those two mixed up... especially when someone like
>> you appear on paper to be screaming out his lies and hate.
>>

>
>"good for you, it seems you looked up the definition"
>
>Yes, sir; It's good practice. Maybe you should try it, sir.
>

"You're just guessing."

>>>For an "educated" man sir, you truly are stupid.
>>
>> And yet... there are those eight problems that you have not dared
>> to even touch.
>>
>
>
>
>They are waiting in the queue right behind the ones I've posed for you, sir.
>You have two correct so far.

And you have none.

>>>> Now where are your educational credentials?
>>>
>>>In the bottom draw of the desk in my workshop, sir, where they shall stay.
>>>I am under no obligation to show them to you, sir.
>>>
>>

>> TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
>> I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
>> but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

>>>>>>>> and --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cutoff frequency = 1/(2 x [pi] x R x c) = 1/(2 x 2.14 x 3.183 x
>>>>>>>> 10^4
>>>>>>>> x 10^-9) Hz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thus reducing --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cutoff frequency = 5 x 10^3 Hz = 5 KHz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at cutoff frequency Xc = R = 3.183 x10^4 ohms = 31.83 K Ohms
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cutoff frequency = -3 db
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The question did not ask for the cutoff frequency or the db loss at
>>>>>>>cut
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>frequency. it Asked for the db loss and phase angled at 500 Cs, sir.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, gee... I must have not RTFQ. I like to solve practical
>>>>>> problems, and knowing the cutoff frequency is more important
>>>>>> than the parameters you asked about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"I must have not RTFQ"
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed, sir.
>>>>

>>>> TRANSLATION "That FUCKING PV must have a crystal ball. I wish
>>>> I wasn't what he found me to be so I could show he is not correct,
>>>> but the bastard hit the nail right on the head."

Stop forging my words to make it appear that I've written something
I have not written, you despicable fraud. It's proof positive that
you are accustomed to lying, cheating, and deception bordering on
the criminal. Do whatever you want in the way of response but do
not play the role of a cheap racketeer, who would sell his mother,
if he believed it could make him look good. It is one of the most
disgusting patterns of behavior possible in Usenet, and only shows
how desperate you are, how little morals you have, how little you
are as a person, and proves that you have no problem with lying.

>>>> I haven't seen you take a stab at any of my questions 2 or 3, Sir
>>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>
>>>That's right sir and there are still three questions you have not
>>>answered.
>>
>> All answered... Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.
>
>No they are not, sir.

"You're just guessing." And in fact, you're lying. All to avoid
admitting that you have no idea how to solve even one of the
questions presented to you. NOT EVEN ONE!!!

>>>>>
>>>>>You still have not answered your problem, sir.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>>Because you can't, sir.
>>
>> Wrong... all answered, Sir shit-for-brains. Your turn now.
>
>No you did not, sir.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Not only can you not solve it"
>>>>>
>>>>>A guess, sir.
>>>>
>>>> That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems
>>>> I asked you to solve. While you can't even formulate your problems
>>>> understandably.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"That's something you haven't even tried in respect to my problems"
>>>
>>>That is true, sir. But your problems go deeper that a few numbers, sir.
>>
>> Not at all... they all have an answer in numbers. But you have to
>> know how to arrive at those numbers. And that is what is beyond
>> your meager knowledge of electronics or the mathematics that
>> is necessary to arrive at answers in electronics circuits. Even the
>> most basic of data in respect to electronics is based upon
>> mathematics. Such as I = V/R.
>>
>
>"Not at all"
>
>Very much so, sir.

"You're just guessing."

>
>>>>>>>Nonsense, sir. Ohms law applies electricity, whether it is DC or AC is
>>>>>>>irrelevent. As AC is contantly in flux then that has to be taken into
>>>>>>>account so impedence and phase angle are calculated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no denial sir. There was only your apology of a response.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't make the denier suddenly speak the truth when it is
>>>> obvious that he speaks a lie.
>>>>
>>>> So your apology is accepted.
>>>
>>>No apology was offered, sir.
>>
>> Sure there was. You're trying to make excuses for your lies. And
>> in doing so admit you've lied... and thus apologize for having lied.
>>
>
>"Sure there was"
>
>Sure there was not, sir.