7 Million will not receive employer provided health care insurance - who would have guessed?

[jane]

President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of
their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous
estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
Budget Office released Tuesday.

CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for
businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning
fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty
to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
decade.


Washington Post

[wy]

Don't worry, they'll still be covered. The penalty pays for the
coverage. Boy, you're stupid.

[jane]

Ya, Right.

[Vandar]

On 2/7/2013 1:58 PM, wy wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> President Obama�s health care law will push 7 million people out of
>> their job-based insurance coverage � nearly twice the previous

>> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
>> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>>

>> CBO said that this year�s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

>> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

>> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they�ll choose to pay a penalty

>> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
>> decade.
>>
>> Washington Post
>
> Don't worry, they'll still be covered. The penalty pays for the
> coverage. Boy, you're stupid.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
- Obama, lying to the public.

And how do you think businesses are going to offset the hit from the
penalty?

[wy]

Where do you think the penalty is going to?

[wy]

On Feb 7, 2:03 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2013 1:58 PM, wy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of
> >> their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous

> >> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
> >> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>

> >> CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

> >> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

> >> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty

> >> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
> >> decade.
>
> >> Washington Post
>
> > Don't worry, they'll still be covered.  The penalty pays for the
> > coverage.  Boy, you're stupid.
>
> "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
> - Obama, lying to the public.
>
> And how do you think businesses are going to offset the hit from the
> penalty?

Maybe the way they do it in Canada and still manage to stay in
business and everybody still gets health coverage and nobody complains?

[jane]

I don't doubt where the penalty/tax is going to go. You did not
provide a citation stating that the amount of the penalty/tax will
"pay for the coverage"

[jane]

That is not the issue.

The issue is that what was passed is not what was promised.

If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care

plan." obama August 11, 2009
If you like your doctor, if you like your plan; you can keep your
doctor, you can keep your plan." obama July 16, 2009
If you like your health care plan, you you will be able to keep your
health care plan; period. No one will take it away; no matter what"
obama June 19 2009

[Vandar]

On 2/7/2013 2:21 PM, wy wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:01 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 1:58 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>>> President Obama�s health care law will push 7 million people out of
>>>> their job-based insurance coverage � nearly twice the previous

>>>> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
>>>> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>>

>>>> CBO said that this year�s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

>>>> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

>>>> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they�ll choose to pay a penalty

>>>> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
>>>> decade.
>>
>>>> Washington Post
>>
>>> Don't worry, they'll still be covered. The penalty pays for the
>>> coverage. Boy, you're stupid.
>>
>> Ya, Right.
>
> Where do you think the penalty is going to?

The government pocket.
The employer drops healthcare coverage for its workers and opts to pay
the penalty.
The worker no longer has insurance, but makes too much money to qualify
for subsidized insurance.
The worker is required by law to purchase insurance out of his own
pocket or also pay a penalty.

[Vandar]

On 2/7/2013 2:22 PM, wy wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:03 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2013 1:58 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> President Obama�s health care law will push 7 million people out of
>>>> their job-based insurance coverage � nearly twice the previous

>>>> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
>>>> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>>

>>>> CBO said that this year�s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

>>>> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

>>>> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they�ll choose to pay a penalty

>>>> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
>>>> decade.
>>
>>>> Washington Post
>>
>>> Don't worry, they'll still be covered. The penalty pays for the
>>> coverage. Boy, you're stupid.
>>
>> "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
>> - Obama, lying to the public.
>>
>> And how do you think businesses are going to offset the hit from the
>> penalty?
>
> Maybe the way they do it in Canada and still manage to stay in
> business and everybody still gets health coverage and nobody complains?

Now try answering the question.

[wy]

You're good at Google searching. Search.

[wy]

You're not saying anything to the contrary.

[jane]

you have a common tradition of making bogus claims without providing
any substantiation or citations.

Why would I waste my time?


For example:
Do you still think that all of these cars have liability insurance?
https://www.google.com/search?q=museum+cars&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=EAMUUfLEFcrM2AWW0IGIDQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1366&bih=643#imgrc=_

[jane]

The CBO estimates that 7 million will not be able keep their plan.

As I have said many times before, you have a reading comprehension
problem.

[wy]

That's right. There's never any time to learn about things that go
against what you think or believe. A true right wingnut.


>
> For example:
> Do you still think that all of these cars have liability insurance?https://www.google.com/search?q=museum+cars&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&t...

[wy]

It's not "their" plan, it's their employer-based insurance plan.
"Their" plan is the one they actually get themselves for themselves,
not rely on someone else for it.

[wy]

On Feb 7, 2:37 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2013 2:22 PM, wy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 2:03 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2013 1:58 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of
> >>>> their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous

> >>>> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
> >>>> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>

> >>>> CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

> >>>> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

> >>>> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty

> >>>> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
> >>>> decade.
>
> >>>> Washington Post
>
> >>> Don't worry, they'll still be covered.  The penalty pays for the
> >>> coverage.  Boy, you're stupid.
>
> >> "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
> >> - Obama, lying to the public.
>
> >> And how do you think businesses are going to offset the hit from the
> >> penalty?
>
> > Maybe the way they do it in Canada and still manage to stay in
> > business and everybody still gets health coverage and nobody complains?
>
> Now try answering the question.

I answered the question. I can't help it if the answer embedded
within the question I asked isn't black-and-white, yes or no, right
wingnut enough for you to get it. Blame your own stupidity.

[Vandar]

On 2/7/2013 2:52 PM, wy wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:37 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2013 2:22 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2:03 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2013 1:58 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> President Obama�s health care law will push 7 million people out of
>>>>>> their job-based insurance coverage � nearly twice the previous

>>>>>> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
>>>>>> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>>

>>>>>> CBO said that this year�s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

>>>>>> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

>>>>>> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they�ll choose to pay a penalty

>>>>>> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
>>>>>> decade.
>>
>>>>>> Washington Post
>>
>>>>> Don't worry, they'll still be covered. The penalty pays for the
>>>>> coverage. Boy, you're stupid.
>>
>>>> "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
>>>> - Obama, lying to the public.
>>
>>>> And how do you think businesses are going to offset the hit from the
>>>> penalty?
>>
>>> Maybe the way they do it in Canada and still manage to stay in
>>> business and everybody still gets health coverage and nobody complains?
>>
>> Now try answering the question.
>
> I answered the question. I can't help it if the answer embedded
> within the question I asked isn't black-and-white, yes or no, right
> wingnut enough for you to get it. Blame your own stupidity.

You wouldn't look so dumb if you just said you don't know.

[jane]

Now, that's hilarious. The method of the left wing nut is to state a
bogus statement, provide not proof or validation, and expect a person
to accept it as fact.

The penalty is $2,000 per employee after the first 30.

That penalty only applies to companies of more than 50 employees.
That means that that fifty first employee will cost the employer
$42,000 in penalties.

The employer has three choices:
1. Hire a person from a temp agency
2. Pay $803,454 for insurance for 51 employees at a national average
of $15,754/employee
3. Pay a $42,000 penalty

If he pays the $42,000 penalty, that money goes towards the $803,454
needed for the 51 employees.[1]

Citations:
1. "Don't worry, they'll still be covered. The penalty pays for the
coverage. Boy, you're stupid." Wy Feb 7 2013

[jane]

On Feb 7, 2:54 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2013 2:52 PM, wy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 2:37 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2013 2:22 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 7, 2:03 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/7/2013 1:58 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of
> >>>>>> their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous

> >>>>>> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
> >>>>>> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>

> >>>>>> CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

> >>>>>> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

> >>>>>> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty

> >>>>>> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
> >>>>>> decade.
>
> >>>>>> Washington Post
>
> >>>>> Don't worry, they'll still be covered.  The penalty pays for the
> >>>>> coverage.  Boy, you're stupid.
>
> >>>> "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
> >>>> - Obama, lying to the public.
>
> >>>> And how do you think businesses are going to offset the hit from the
> >>>> penalty?
>
> >>> Maybe the way they do it in Canada and still manage to stay in
> >>> business and everybody still gets health coverage and nobody complains?
>
> >> Now try answering the question.
>
> > I answered the question.  I can't help it if the answer embedded
> > within the question I asked isn't black-and-white, yes or no, right
> > wingnut enough for you to get it.  Blame your own stupidity.
>
> You wouldn't look so dumb if you just said you don't know.

That will NEVER happen. Wy still won't admit that the US dollar is
fiat money even though he could find that answer on Wikipedia.

Ask him if antique cars in a museum have liability insurance.

[wy]

Solution: get rid of people. Then you'll have no associated costs
whatsoever.

[wy]

On Feb 7, 2:54 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2013 2:52 PM, wy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 2:37 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2013 2:22 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 7, 2:03 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/7/2013 1:58 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of
> >>>>>> their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous

> >>>>>> estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional
> >>>>>> Budget Office released Tuesday.
>

> >>>>>> CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for

> >>>>>> businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning

> >>>>>> fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty

> >>>>>> to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next
> >>>>>> decade.
>
> >>>>>> Washington Post
>
> >>>>> Don't worry, they'll still be covered.  The penalty pays for the
> >>>>> coverage.  Boy, you're stupid.
>
> >>>> "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
> >>>> - Obama, lying to the public.
>
> >>>> And how do you think businesses are going to offset the hit from the
> >>>> penalty?
>
> >>> Maybe the way they do it in Canada and still manage to stay in
> >>> business and everybody still gets health coverage and nobody complains?
>
> >> Now try answering the question.
>
> > I answered the question.  I can't help it if the answer embedded
> > within the question I asked isn't black-and-white, yes or no, right
> > wingnut enough for you to get it.  Blame your own stupidity.
>
> You wouldn't look so dumb if you just said you don't know.

You wouldn't look so stupid if you just said you didn't understand the
question with the embedded answer because it wasn't black-and-white,
yes or nor, right wingnut brain-dead enough for you.

[End Countdown @ghetto.com Iniggeration Over : Countdown to Abomination's End Begins]

"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:3b91d475-6352-4486...@e18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, Nov. 29, 2012 3:13PM EST

An international study ranked Canada first of 11 developed countries for
longest ER wait times.


Canadians wait an average of four hours for emergency room care, and one in
10 patients waits at least eight hours, a report says.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, wait times
persist throughout the patient journey, beginning with primary care.

At least 50 per cent of patients surveyed have difficulty obtaining a
same-day or next-day appointment with their family doctor, the report says.



Canadian Institute for Health Information: Canadians continue to wait for
care



An international study ranked Canada first of 11 developed countries for
longest ER wait times.

An international study showed Canadians wait longer in emergency rooms than
patients in other developed countries.

For 14 per cent of Canadians, it can take more than three months to see a
specialist, and more than four months for 25 per cent of patients needing
elective surgery


Read more:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/wait-times-persist-for-er-primary-care-report-says-1.1059343#ixzz2KFNSnivB

[jane]

If you are proven wrong, punt.

You are a hopeless ignorant fool

[wy]

You're complaining about people and the expense that's incurred by
companies to have them. That's what you're really complaining about.
People. They're the problem. Get rid of the people and the companies
no longer have a problem. But neither do they have a work force
either. Hmm, sounds like a Catch-22 to me.

[Salty Stan]

Wow - no matter how difficult the problem, "wy" always has a
solution.

You should work for Obama, "wy", you sound smarter than he is,
especially when he doesn't have a teleprompter.

[Salty Stan]

Hmm, who's more foolish - the hopeless ignorant fool, or the one who
argues with him?

[jane]

Where did I state that I was complaining about the expense incurred by
employees?

Another tactic: Divert.

To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?

I'm not sure which is most common; making up bullshit and stating it
is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
rather than you providing substantiation?

What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:

1. Bull shit
2. lack of substantiation
3. Diversion

Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
coming in an extremely close third

Punting is way down the list. There are a whole lot of avoidance
tactics between #3 and punting.

[jane]

It's called entertainment. It's sort of like toying with a drunk at a
bar; putting dollar on the floor and watching him try to maintain his
stability while picking it up.

The big difference is that the drunk is sober in the morning.

[wy]

Citing crippling figures here and there and feeling oh-so-sorry for
Mr. Corporate America - the very Mr. C.A. that's hoarded nearly $3
trillion in unspent money. They can afford it.

>
> Another tactic: Divert.
>
> To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
> whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?
>
> I'm not sure which is most common;  making up bullshit and stating it
> is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
> rather than you providing substantiation?
>
> What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:
>
> 1. Bull shit
> 2. lack of substantiation
> 3. Diversion
>
> Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
> coming in an extremely close third
>
> Punting is way down the list.  There are a whole lot of avoidance
> tactics between #3 and punting.

Play your silly little games yourself.

[Salty Stan]

Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that
matter, or even most liberals.

[jane]

Please cut/paste the line where I expressed that I felt "oh-so-sorry
for Mr. Corporate America". Please cut/paste the line where I
expressed ANY emotion one way or the other.

I simply stated the numbers and the options open to the Entrepreneur
of a small business (not Mr. Corporate America).

The reason was to provide substantiation to the fact that your claim
was bogus; that the $42,000 penalty would not be enough such that "The
penalty pays for the coverage"[1] of 51 employees.

The CBO stated the same thing as the reason why there would be 7
million without employee coverage. You didn't state that the CBO
felt "oh-so-sorry for Mr. Corporate America"


Citation:
1. Wy, Feb 7 2013

[wy]

You speak and understand only in monochrome, I speak and understand in
color. I can't help it if you're color blind. Cut and paste yourself
to a wall and be a target for darts.

>
> I simply stated the numbers and the options open to the Entrepreneur
> of a small business  (not Mr. Corporate America).

Entrepreneur ... owner.... Mr. Corporate America..... all adds up to
the same thing - semantic bullshit as usual coming from Jane the right
wingnut.

>
> The reason was to provide substantiation to the fact that your claim
> was bogus; that the $42,000 penalty would not be enough such that "The
> penalty pays for the coverage"[1] of 51 employees.

Not all 51 employees will use health insurance at the same time, you
idiot. One employee may require it for a $20,000 expense one year,
another for a $10,000 expense the next year, a third and fourth for
$12,000 and $25,000 the third year. So what do you have then?
$126,000 in penalties for 3 years, but only $67,000 spent on health
care situations for extreme cases over those three years, leaving
$59,000 left over for whatever minor stuff that some of the other
employees may require over that 3-year period. It's not going to
happen that all 51 employees will need an average $5,000 each for
health care needs at the same time in the same year. A lot of people,
especially those under 40, won't see doctors for anything at all for
years or even a decade or more. Boy, you're stupid with no concept of
day-to-day reality.

[jane]

Not all companies with 51 are corporations. Many are sole
proprietors, many are LLCs

>
> > The reason was to provide substantiation to the fact that your claim
> > was bogus; that the $42,000 penalty would not be enough such that "The
> > penalty pays for the coverage"[1] of 51 employees.
>
> Not all 51 employees will use health insurance at the same time, you
> idiot.  One employee may require it for a $20,000 expense one year,
> another for a $10,000 expense the next year, a third and fourth for
> $12,000 and $25,000 the third year.  So what do you have then?
> $126,000 in penalties for 3 years, but only $67,000 spent on health
> care situations for extreme cases over those three years, leaving
> $59,000 left over for whatever minor stuff that some of the other
> employees may require over that 3-year period.  It's not going to
> happen that all 51 employees will need an average $5,000 each for
> health care needs at the same time in the same year.  A lot of people,
> especially those under 40, won't see doctors for anything at all for
> years or even a decade or more.  Boy, you're stupid with no concept of
> day-to-day reality.
>
>
>

If your logic holds true, then the company should be able to buy
health care insurance for $823.53 per employee. ($42,000 divided by
51)

[wy]

The penalty should be considered as a rainy day fund for the
government to use should disaster strike and all 51 people need to go
to emergency all at once for which the regular rate wouldn't cover the
full total expense. Disaster of all kinds involving multiple numbers
of people do happen all the time, you know.

[jane]

I understand and agree, but that amount is a lot higher than $824 per
employee (plus family) or companies would be able to buy insurance for
that rate.

That is the reason the CBO gave for companies opting out of providing
insurance and opting to pay the penalty, which will leave 7 million
without employer provided insurance.

There will be companies who will provide insurance for various
reasons, one is to obtain and keep high quality workers. However, how
high of a quality worker to you need for someone to say, "welcome to
Walmart". This will affect the lower end of the pay scale the most

[NoBody]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:48:05 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:37:42 -0800 (PST), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>
>>CBO said that this year�s tax cuts have changed the incentives for
>>businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance,
>

>That, of course,is because republicans allowed the HC industries to
>write the legislation, allows the huge increases in costs, pays CEO
>Hundreds of millions in bonuses, and huge dividends on stocks.

The Dems wrote, controlled and passed the legislation IDIOT.

[trainguard]

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Salty Stan wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:51 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 3:34 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:27 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 3:24 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:20 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:47 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:42 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:38 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:21 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:01 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:58 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of > > > > > > > > > > > > > their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous > > > > > > > > > > > > > estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional > > > > > > > > > > > > > Budget Office released Tuesday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for > > > > > > > > > > > > > businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning > > > > > > > > > > > > > fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next > > > > > > > > > > > > > decade. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Washington Post > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry, they'll still be covered.  The penalty pays for the > > > > > > > > > > > > coverage.  Boy, you're stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya, Right. > > > > > > > > > > > Where do you think the penalty is going to? > > > > > > > > > > I don't doubt where the penalty/tax is going to go.  You did not > > > > > > > > > provide a citation stating that the amount of the penalty/tax will > > > > > > > > > "pay for the coverage" > > > > > > > > > You're good at Google searching.  Search. > > > > > > > > you have a common tradition of making bogus claims without providing > > > > > > > any substantiation or citations. > > > > > > > > Why would I waste my time? > > > > > > > That's right.  There's never any time to learn about things that go > > > > > > against what you think or believe.  A true right wingnut. > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > > Do you still think that all of these cars have liability insurance?https://www.google.com/search?q=museum+cars&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&t... > > > > > > Now, that's hilarious.  The method of the left wing nut is to state a > > > > > bogus statement, provide not proof or validation, and expect a person > > > > > to accept it as fact. > > > > > > The penalty is $2,000 per employee after the first 30. > > > > > > That penalty only applies to companies of more than 50 employees. > > > > > That means that that fifty first employee will cost the employer > > > > > $42,000 in penalties. > > > > > > The employer has three choices: > > > > > 1. Hire a person from a temp agency > > > > > 2. Pay $803,454  for insurance for 51 employees at a national average > > > > > of $15,754/employee > > > > > 3. Pay a $42,000 penalty > > > > > > If he pays the $42,000 penalty, that money goes towards the $803,454 > > > > > needed for the 51 employees.[1] > > > > > Solution: get rid of people.  Then you'll have no associated costs > > > > whatsoever. > > > > > > Citations: > > > > > 1. "Don't worry, they'll still be covered.  The penalty pays for the > > > > > coverage.  Boy, you're stupid." Wy Feb 7 2013 > > > > If you are proven wrong, punt. > > > > You are a hopeless ignorant fool > > > You're complaining about people and the expense that's incurred by > > companies to have them.  That's what you're really complaining about. > > People.  They're the problem.  Get rid of the people and the companies > > no longer have a problem.  But neither do they have a work force > > either.  Hmm, sounds like a Catch-22 to me. > > Where did I state that I was complaining about the expense incurred by > employees? > > Another tactic: Divert. > > To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme > whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument? > > I'm not sure which is most common;  making up bullshit and stating it > is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong > rather than you providing substantiation? > > What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest: > > 1. Bull shit > 2. lack of substantiation > 3. Diversion > > Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3 > coming in an extremely close third > > Punting is way down the list.  There are a whole lot of avoidance > tactics between #3 and punting.

>Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that matter, or even most liberals.

But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....

Dr. Barry Worthington

[Steve]

Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that... but they
have both been punished for that... and so have you, Worthington

[Slackjaw]

Oh, is THAT what Obama meant?

--
---
Truth is the cure for liberalism.
---

[Slackjaw]

Well, oops...

[trainguard]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard <barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote: >On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Salty Stan wrote: >> On Feb 7, 3:51�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 3:34�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:27�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 3:24�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:20�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:47�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:42�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:38�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:25�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:21�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:01�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:58�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:37�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > President Obama�s health care law will push 7 million people out of > > > > > > > > > > > > > their >job-based insurance coverage � nearly twice the previous > > > > > > > > > > > > > estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional > > > > > > > > > > > > > Budget Office released Tuesday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CBO said that this year�s tax cuts have changed the incentives for > > > > > > > > > > > > > businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning > > > > > > > > > > > > > fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they�ll choose to pay a penalty > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next > > > > > > > > > > > > > decade. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Washington Post > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry, they'll still be covered. �The penalty pays for the > > > > > > > > > > > > coverage. �Boy, you're stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya, Right. > > > > > > > > > > > Where do you think the penalty is going to? > > > > > > > > > > I don't doubt where the penalty/tax is going to go. �You did not >> > > > > > > > > provide a citation stating that the amount of the penalty/tax will > > > > > > > > > "pay for the coverage" > > > > > > > > > You're good at Google searching. �Search. > > > > > > > > you have a common tradition of making bogus claims without providing > > > > > > > any substantiation or citations. > > > > > > > > Why would I waste my time? > > > > > > > That's right. �There's never any time to learn about things that go > > > > > > against what you think or believe. �A true right wingnut. > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > > Do you still think that all of these cars have liability insurance?https://www.google.com/search?q=museum+cars&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&t... > > > > > > Now, that's hilarious. �The method of the left wing nut is to state a > > > > > bogus statement, provide not proof or validation, and expect a person > > > > > to accept it as fact. > > > > > > The penalty is $2,000 per employee after the first 30. > > > > > > That penalty only applies to >companies of more than 50 employees. > > > > > That means that that fifty first employee will cost the employer > > > > > $42,000 in penalties. > > > > > > The employer has three choices: > > > > > 1. Hire a person from a temp agency > > > > > 2. Pay $803,454 �for insurance for 51 employees at a national average > > > > > of $15,754/employee > > > > > 3. Pay a $42,000 penalty > > > > > > If he pays the $42,000 penalty, that money goes towards the $803,454 > > > > > needed for the 51 employees.[1] > > > > > Solution: get rid of people. �Then you'll have no associated costs > > > > whatsoever. > > > > > > Citations: > > > > > 1. "Don't worry, they'll still be covered. �The penalty pays for the > > > > > coverage. �Boy, you're stupid." Wy Feb 7 2013 > > > > If you are proven wrong, punt. > > > > You are a hopeless ignorant fool > > > You're complaining about people and the expense that's incurred by > > companies to have them. �That's what you're really complaining about. > > People. >�They're the problem. �Get rid of the people and the companies > > no longer have a problem. �But neither do they have a work force > > either. �Hmm, sounds like a Catch-22 to me. > > Where did I state that I was complaining about the expense incurred by > employees? > > Another tactic: Divert. > > To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme > whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument? > > I'm not sure which is most common; �making up bullshit and stating it > is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong > rather than you providing substantiation? > > What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest: > > 1. Bull shit > 2. lack of substantiation > 3. Diversion > > Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3 > coming in an extremely close third > > Punting is way down the list. �There are a whole lot of avoidance > tactics between #3 and punting. >

>>Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that matter, or even most liberals.

> >But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are paedophiles, do they?

>Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that... but they have both been punished for that... and so have you, Worthington

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Dr. Barry Worthington

[Steve]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard

<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, Steve wrote:

>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard <barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote: >On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Salty Stan wrote: >> On Feb 7, 3:51�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 3:34�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:27�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 3:24�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:20�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:47�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:42�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:38�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:25�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:21�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:01�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:58�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7,
>1:37�pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > President Obama�s health care law will push 7 million people out of > > > > > > > > > > > > > their >job-based insurance coverage � nearly twice the previous > > > > > > > > > > > > > estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional > > > > > > > > > > > > > Budget Office released Tuesday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CBO said that this year�s tax cuts have changed the incentives for > > > > > > > > > > > > > businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning > > > > > > > > > > > > > fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they�ll choose to pay a penalty > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next > > > > > > > > > > > > > decade. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Washington Post > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry, they'll still be covered. �The penalty pays for the > > > > > > > > > > > > coverage. �Boy, you're
>stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya, Right. > > > > > > > > > > > Where do you think the penalty is going to? > > > > > > > > > > I don't doubt where the penalty/tax is going to go. �You did not >> > > > > > > > > provide a citation stating that the amount of the penalty/tax will > > > > > > > > > "pay for the coverage" > > > > > > > > > You're good at Google searching. �Search. > > > > > > > > you have a common tradition of making bogus claims without providing > > > > > > > any substantiation or citations. > > > > > > > > Why would I waste my time? > > > > > > > That's right. �There's never any time to learn about things that go > > > > > > against what you think or believe. �A true right wingnut. > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > > Do you still think that all of these cars have liability insurance?https://www.google.com/search?q=museum+cars&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&t... > > > > > > Now, that's hilarious. �The method of the left wing nut is to state a > > > > >
bogus
>statement, provide not proof or validation, and expect a person > > > > > to accept it as fact. > > > > > > The penalty is $2,000 per employee after the first 30. > > > > > > That penalty only applies to >companies of more than 50 employees. > > > > > That means that that fifty first employee will cost the employer > > > > > $42,000 in penalties. > > > > > > The employer has three choices: > > > > > 1. Hire a person from a temp agency > > > > > 2. Pay $803,454 �for insurance for 51 employees at a national average > > > > > of $15,754/employee > > > > > 3. Pay a $42,000 penalty > > > > > > If he pays the $42,000 penalty, that money goes towards the $803,454 > > > > > needed for the 51 employees.[1] > > > > > Solution: get rid of people. �Then you'll have no associated costs > > > > whatsoever. > > > > > > Citations: > > > > > 1. "Don't worry, they'll still be covered. �The penalty pays for the > > > > > coverage. �Boy, you're stupid." Wy Feb 7 2013 > > > > If you are proven
>wrong, punt. > > > > You are a hopeless ignorant fool > > > You're complaining about people and the expense that's incurred by > > companies to have them. �That's what you're really complaining about. > > People. >�They're the problem. �Get rid of the people and the companies > > no longer have a problem. �But neither do they have a work force > > either. �Hmm, sounds like a Catch-22 to me. > > Where did I state that I was complaining about the expense incurred by > employees? > > Another tactic: Divert. > > To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme > whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument? > > I'm not sure which is most common; �making up bullshit and stating it > is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong > rather than you providing substantiation? > > What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest: > > 1. Bull shit > 2. lack of substantiation > 3. Diversion > >
>Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3 > coming in an extremely close third > > Punting is way down the list. �There are a whole lot of avoidance > tactics between #3 and punting. >

>
>>>Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that matter, or even most liberals.
>
>> >But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are paedophiles, do they?
>
>>Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that... but they have both been punished for that... and so have you, Worthington
>
>???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>

Worthington probably doesn't realize that he doesn't need to play
dumb.. he is dumb naturally..

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>
>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:

>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 3:51 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

......

>>>>>> To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
>>>>>> whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure which is most common; making up bullshit and stating it
>>>>>> is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
>>>>>> rather than you providing substantiation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Bull shit
>>>>>> 2. lack of substantiation
>>>>>> 3. Diversion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
>>>>>> coming in an extremely close third
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Punting is way down the list. There are a whole lot of avoidance
>>>>>> tactics between #3 and punting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that
>>>>> matter, or even most liberals.
>>>>
>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are paedophiles, do they?
>>

>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are

>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see

>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>

>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that

Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..

>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>

>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????

>
> Worthington probably doesn't realize that

You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?

--
"One of the great attractions of patriotism -
it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person
of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully
and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a
feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."
~Aldous Huxley

[Steve]

Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..

Names that Lick-knob Lockner has claimed to be me in the course of one
week

"John Patrick"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a1cf0a750ed0a27b

"Nichole"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/7afc288cd5ce842a

"peter"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f0e68f5eeccd3d2d

"Sam"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b6e643d40be55c10

"It's Sollog's GF and/or little brother"
and supporters"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/66c5a3dea83b4cda


"What about the Land of Lakes athletic facility, or the Seven
Springs Golf and Country Club? You left out those, as well
as the Palm Harbor facilities.."
--Licknuts Lochner trying to guess where I post from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/55997666e17bbb8e?hl=en


"Oh, that place over on W. Rio Vista Ave he keeps posting from?"
--Little Kurtie Lichner trying to identify where I post from
and not realizing that any IP in the Tampa area showed up on that
spot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2ceac009efcc3592?

>him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>
>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>
>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>
>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>
>You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?

Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner into admitting that he was an
alcoholic andf a deadbeat dad, and then I chased old foreclosed
Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off Usenet altogether...

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 7, 3:51 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

........

>>>>>>>> To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
>>>>>>>> whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which is most common; making up bullshit and stating it
>>>>>>>> is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
>>>>>>>> rather than you providing substantiation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Bull shit
>>>>>>>> 2. lack of substantiation
>>>>>>>> 3. Diversion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
>>>>>>>> coming in an extremely close third
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Punting is way down the list. There are a whole lot of avoidance
>>>>>>>> tactics between #3 and punting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that
>>>>>>> matter, or even most liberals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are

>>>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see
>>>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that
>>
>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact

>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>

> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..

Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?

>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>
>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>
>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>
>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>
> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner

You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..

> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
> Usenet altogether...

Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..

So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..

[Steve]

Never heard of anyone with that name, Dummy,,

>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>
>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>
>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>
>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>
>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>
>You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..

Transcript of Lochner admitting to being an alcoholic and a
dead-beat dad which leads to him being desperate to
manufacture unsupported nonsense (ie, <chuckle>)"something,
anything to attack me personally."

His problem here, of course, is that I have proof
whereas he has nothing.


Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:30:55 -0600

Canyon: "did the court let you settle for pennies on the
dollar?"


Lochner "Not that I'm aware of.. Did you have any other
petty remarks? "

Canyon: "did they see that your kids were better off if
you weren't in the picture? "

Lochner "Why don't you go and find out for yourself, cartoon
hero..
Oh, that's right, you can't find anything past that, no
child custody filings, no further hearings on the
settled account and discontinuence.. Poor little
cartoon hero..
You really are looking for something, anything to
attack me personally, with malice aforethought..
That'll be just another in a long series of mistakes
you've made today.."

Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"

Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to
attack me personally with, or would you prefer to stop
now before you get into much more trouble?
--Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7171c5a4bd29de81?hl=en

>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>> Usenet altogether...
>
>Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..

<LOL> In order to do professional writing, porky would have to make
money at it. NO, Porky bailed on Usenet because he could no longer
pretend that he hadn't been foreclosed on and that he still had a
wife.

>So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind was still laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:

........

>>>>>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are
>>>>>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see
>>>>>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>>>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
>>>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>>>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>>>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>>>
>>> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>>
>> Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?
>
> Never heard of anyone with that name, Dummy,,

*>LOL!<*

>>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>>
>>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>>
>>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>>
>>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>>
>> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>
> Transcript

Hey, "steve", you links are broken..

>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>> Usenet altogether...
>>
>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>
> <LOL> In order to do professional writing

You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..

As I pointed out, previously..

>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>
> Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

Ahh, so now you're returning to your 'google scholarship'..

*>LOL!<*

> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
> an electric field"
>
> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.

A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,
and that�s precisely the reason why they are associated with each
other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field."

So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:

> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

"The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
was not found on this server."

> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
> in a lecture summary.

"Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..

F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:

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

"Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."

> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

"The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."

Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..

--
In the Age of Information, Ignorance is a choice..

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 6:52 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..

Are you libeling him now?

[Steve]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!msg/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/eq-7b9ZXLKQ/gd4pvaTFcXEJ

>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>
>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>
>> <LOL> In order to do professional writing
>
>You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
>to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..

I know enough to know that Porky Jamieson isn't going to sell any more
books than your other writer wannabe pal, Milt Shook.

I have to laugh at all the usenet leftists who are so unhappy with
themselves that they have to pretend to be something they know they
can never be.

>As I pointed out, previously..
>
>>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>>
>> Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law
>
>Ahh, so now you're returning to your 'google scholarship'..
>
>*>LOL!<*
>
>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>> an electric field"
>>
>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>
>Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..

<CHUCKLE> Why don't you go and argue with the UC at Davis about that?

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an

electric field, so the two fields are not independent."
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

>http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>
>5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>
> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>
>Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..
>
>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>
> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
> other three fundamental forces that they can be
> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
> corrections."
>
>http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field
>
> "Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
> in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
> particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
> drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.
>
> A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

> and that’s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

> other."
>
> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
> field."
>
>So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:

Poor dumb Lochner is too stupid to recognize that his <LOL>
"rebuttals" don't even address the issue...

>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>
>"The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
> was not found on this server."
>
>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>> in a lecture summary.
>
>"Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>
>F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>
> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>
>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>
>"The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>
>Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..

We should feel sorry for Lochner, of course. His Usenet pretense is
very difficult. He's pretending to have a degree in physics when all
he has is an old physics book he probably stole while sweeping out the
school library.

It isn't working very well.

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 7:43 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>
>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>
> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..

You've made the leap of reality by referring to yourself now in the
third person?

That's true mental illness in action.

>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>> Usenet altogether...
>
> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..

You might share that "announcement" with us then, a message id link will
suffice...

> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>

And you're all about the impotence and rage, aren't you "mind"?

Controls freaks of your lot always are.

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 8:32 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..

The mirror image, if true, of YOUR own postings, man of alleged "mind".

Who would have imagined..

[wy]

Which is why the Canadian system works best, because it works for both
the Walmart employee and the CEO of Walmart without bankrupting
either. Do understand that Obamacare is a flawed compromise of what
he really wanted to do, which is create a system patterned after the
Canadian one. But stupid Americans who see a major threat to their
existence in every thing imaginable went ballistic over the notion of
"socialized" medicine without even understanding that what the US has
had was socialized medicine to begin with, only an extreme poor form
of it. Insurance, by definition, is socialized. Anything that
requires a collective pool of money contributed into it by more than
one person is socialized. What you guys fail to understand is basic
math: the bigger the pool, the wider the coverage, the bigger the
clout to negotiate with pharmaceuticals and other medical companies,
and the greater the savings - which is why Canada's costs are 40%
cheaper than yours. And 9 out of 10 Canadians wouldn't ever want to
change the system they've had for half a century now for anything
else, especially a US-like system. Maybe it could still use some
improvements and refinements as it adjusts now to the growing Baby
Boomer generation that will be increasingly using it, but that's a
problem you're going to have also with them, although you're in a
weaker position to deal with it. So the issue is 7 million uninsured,
a figure that would never ever see the light of day in Canada under
its system. But those 7 million could still get insurance, but on
their own, instead of relying on their employer, so it's not like
they'll be going uninsured. Your right wingnut hysteria knows no
bounds of ludicrousness, I tell ya.

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind was still laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:
>> ........

>>>>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>>>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>>>>
>>>> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>>>> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>>>
>>> Transcript
>>
>> Hey, "steve", you links are broken..
>
> https://groups.google.com

Ahh, once a google squalor, always a google squalor, eh?

>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>
>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>
>>> <LOL> In order to do professional writing
>>
>> You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
>> to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..
>
> I know enough to know

No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,

>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>> an electric field"
>>>
>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>
>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>
> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go

I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..

Now, as I pointed out earlier:

>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>>
>> 5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>>
>> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
>> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
>> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
>> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>>
>> Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>
>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>> corrections."
>>
>> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field
>>
>> "Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
>> in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
>> particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
>> drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.
>>
>> A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

>> and that�s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>> other."
>>
>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>> field."
>>
>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>
> Poor dumb Lochner

Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?

>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>
>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>> was not found on this server."
>>
>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>> in a lecture summary.
>>
>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>
>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>
>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>
>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>
>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>
>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>
> We should feel sorry for Lochner

Who?

> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
> have a degree in physics

Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..

Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..

[Steve]

They're losers... like you, Lochner, and nobody is jealous of losers.

>>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>>> an electric field"
>>>>
>>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>>
>>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>>

>> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go arguw with UC at Davis..

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an
electric field"

http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

>I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..

<LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong...

>Now, as I pointed out earlier:
>
>>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>>>
>>> 5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>>>
>>> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
>>> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
>>> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
>>> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>>>
>>> Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..
>>>
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>>
>>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>>> corrections."
>>>
>>> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field
>>>
>>> "Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
>>> in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
>>> particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
>>> drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.
>>>
>>> A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

>>> and that’s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>>> other."
>>>
>>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>>> field."
>>>
>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>
>> Poor dumb Lochner
>
>Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?

Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material hoping folks won't
recognize his earlier stupidity.

>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>
>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>> was not found on this server."
>>>
>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>
>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>
>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>
>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>
>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>
>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>
>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>
>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>
>Who?

You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity out of shame?

>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>> have a degree in physics
>
>Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>create electrical fields'

<LOL> It's these university sites that say it, Dummy

when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>
>Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..

I'm still chuckling over the following:

[Steve]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind

<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?

Lochner failed English grammar too, it seems...

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind was still laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.......

>>>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>>>
>>>>> <LOL> In order to do professional writing
>>>>
>>>> You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
>>>> to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..
>>>
>>> I know enough to know
>>
>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>
> They're losers... like you

But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..

>>>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>>>> an electric field"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>>>
>>> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go arguw with UC at Davis..
>

"arguw with UC"?

> "According to Faraday's law

You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>
> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong

Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..

>>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>>
>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>
>> Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?
>
> Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material

Wrong on both counts, crayon..

>>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>>
>>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>>> was not found on this server."
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>
>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>
>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>
>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>
>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>
>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>
>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>
>> Who?
>
> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity

I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
in that field of study.

You know, if you can't accept that you have but the understanding
of a subject comparable to that of a secondary school student,
maybe you should go learn more before demonstrating your
ignorance on an international newsgroup..

Start here, and if you have any further difficulties..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantative

>>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>>> have a degree in physics
>>
>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>> create electrical fields'
>
> <LOL> It's these university sites that say it

Oh, so you found a couple of mistakes using Google to get
the phrase you wanted to find, and ignored the overwhelming
number of educational web-sites that teach the exact opposite
of what you're flailing around trying to defend with your
'bluster and spit'? *>giggling<*

I think you really should start here:

http://phet.colorado.edu/files/activities/3087/Magnets_Magnetic_and%20Electrostatic_Fields%20unit.pdf

>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields

>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite

>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>
>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>
> I'm still chuckling over the following:

Crayon, let me break it to you gently..

You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 9:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>
> Who?

Now honestly, who can't google a bit and determine "Kurt's" last name..

Why the pretense still?

[Spokane Social Club]

Right after failing life..

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 11:18 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>
> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
> in that field of study.

Is it really "imagined"?

Or is there plenty of proof in the google archive and as well on certain
websites?

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 7:31 AM, Steve wrote:

>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
>
> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>
> Names that Lick-knob Lockner has claimed to be me in the course of one
> week

Wow, that's a sizable list.

>
> "John Patrick"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a1cf0a750ed0a27b
>
> "Nichole"
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/7afc288cd5ce842a
>
> "peter"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f0e68f5eeccd3d2d
>
> "Sam"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b6e643d40be55c10
>
> "It's Sollog's GF and/or little brother"
> and supporters"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/66c5a3dea83b4cda

I wouldn't feel to picked-on, he's pulling the same act on me now.

I think it's evidence of some kind of malignant persecution complex..

>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>
> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner into admitting that he was an
> alcoholic andf a deadbeat dad, and then I chased old foreclosed
> Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off Usenet altogether...
>

Lol, some trick indeed!

[Steve]

<ROTFL> The best Lochner can do is attack typos..

>> "According to Faraday's law
>
>You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

Poor dumb Lochner is still claiming that the University of California
at Davis has it all wrong..

>You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
>and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>
>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>
>Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..

I quoted The University of California at Davis.. <LOL> and Lochner
that they are wrong..

>>>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>>>
>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>
>>> Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?
>>
>> Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material
>
>Wrong on both counts, crayon..

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

<LOL> Now Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis
site is Faulty?

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

>You know, if you can't accept that you have but the understanding
>of a subject comparable to that of a secondary school student,
>maybe you should go learn more before demonstrating your
>ignorance on an international newsgroup..
>
>Start here, and if you have any further difficulties..
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantative

wikipedia???????? <LOL> Really?

>>>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>>>> have a degree in physics
>>>
>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>> create electrical fields'
>>
>> <LOL> It's these university sites that say it
>
>Oh, so you found a couple of mistakes using Google to get

Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis site is
mistaken.. and remember that Lochner's degree is only a figment of
his imagination.

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

>the phrase you wanted to find, and ignored the overwhelming
>number of educational web-sites that teach the exact opposite

...and yet Lochner cannot find anything that supports his claim...

>of what you're flailing around trying to defend with your
>'bluster and spit'? *>giggling<*
>
>I think you really should start here:
>
>http://phet.colorado.edu/files/activities/3087/Magnets_Magnetic_and%20Electrostatic_Fields%20unit.pdf
>
>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>
>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>
>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>
>Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>
>You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..

<CHUCKLE>

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

[Slackjaw]

Steve wrote:

> >> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
> >> Usenet altogether...
> >
> > Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
> > more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
> > before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>
> <LOL> In order to do professional writing, porky would have to make
> money at it. NO, Porky bailed on Usenet because he could no longer
> pretend that he hadn't been foreclosed on and that he still had a
> wife.

Zepp - professional writing?

Thanks, that's my laugh for today.

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 3:19 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flub whimpered when:
>
> On 2/10/2013 9:59 AM, Man of Mind continued laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.....

>>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>>
>>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>>> was not found on this server."
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>
>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>
>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>
>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>
>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>
>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>

>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>
>> Who?
>
> Now honestly, who can't google a bit

Well, apparently neither of you can actually find out
as much as you think you can when you "google a bit"..

But, that's okay, both of you overestimate yourselves,
and wind up humiliating yourselves rather disastrously..

--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling

[Steve]

Gotta give him credit for at least trying to get off welfare.

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 3:58 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>
>>> Who?
>>
>> Now honestly, who can't google a bit
>
> Well, apparently neither of you can actually find out
> as much as you think you can when you "google a bit"..

Apparently you left a lot more out there than you're now comfortable with..

> But, that's okay, both of you overestimate yourselves,
> and wind up humiliating yourselves rather disastrously..

You've had your ass handed to you on the 23 million _and_
magnetic/capacitive matters as well.

How many more crash and burns will you become known for?

[Matt]

Man of Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:kf8o9b$j7t$1...@dont-email.me:

Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?

Three simple words: "right hand rule".

Matt

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.......

>>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>>>>>> an electric field"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>>>>>
>>>>> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go arguw with UC at Davis..
>>
>> "arguw with UC"?
>
> <ROTFL> The best

Is that the best you can type, "steve"? You don't even
check to see if you're spelling your posting correctly?

Wow, I'd read about cases like yours and how your poor
self-esteem causing you bluster abject nonsense, contrary
to established facts..

F'rinstance..

>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>
>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>

> Poor dumb Lochner

You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?

Here, give it another try..

"You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
>>

>> You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
>> and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*
>
> "According to Faraday's law

I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, just like you.. *>LOL!<*

>>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>>
>>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>>
>> Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..
>
> I quoted The University of California at Davis

That's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument, "steve"..

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

> and Lochner that they are wrong..

Stumbling all over yourself today, are you?

>>>>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>>>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>>>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>>
>>>> Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?
>>>
>>> Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material
>>
>> Wrong on both counts, crayon..
>
> "According to Faraday's law

*>LOL!<* You're still wrong, no matter how many times
you repeat your "little bit of googling", you illiterate
anti-science right-wing zealot..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

And for your next mistake..

Is wrong, just like you. Even your political opinions
are just a reversed, likely the result of brain damage
and artificial pride in your ambitious 'bluster and spit'..

>> You know, if you can't accept that you have but the understanding
>> of a subject comparable to that of a secondary school student,
>> maybe you should go learn more before demonstrating your
>> ignorance on an international newsgroup..
>>
>> Start here, and if you have any further difficulties..
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantative
>
> wikipedia???????? <LOL> Really?

Okay, let's try something simpler for you..

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.

A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

and that�s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

>>>>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>>>>> have a degree in physics
>>>>
>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>> create electrical fields'
>>>
>>> <LOL> It's these university sites that say it
>>
>> Oh, so you found a couple of mistakes using Google to get

>> the phrase you wanted to find, and ignored the overwhelming
>> number of educational web-sites that teach the exact opposite

>> of what you're flailing around trying to defend with your
>> 'bluster and spit'? *>giggling<*
>

> Lochner claims that the Unive[..]

Still trying to turn everything into a personal attack?

Wow, you really are a google-cripple..

Now, how many web-sites did you find using google that tell
you how 'magnetic fields create electric fields', "steve"?

Now, did it ever occur to you that you could be so
astoundingly wrong with your search on Google that
you came up with the wrong answers, just like your
amazingly stupid claim that capacitors are magnetic?

Nah, probably not even once.. *>chuckling<*

You probably can't even grasp an electric quadrupole
analysis of a set of EHV-DC transmission lines, where
the cables are strung so as to cancel out the magnetic
fields.

>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>
>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>
>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>
>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>
> <CHUCKLE>

Still trying to make it sound like you're not stupid, eh?

> "According to Faraday's law,

Oh, I see where you're getting this from now.. *>LOL!<*

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

Reciprocal behavior of electric and magnetic fields

"Faraday's Law may be stated roughly as 'a changing
magnetic field creates an electric field'."

"stated roughly" being the key to all of your seemingly
deliberate misunderstanding about this. Here, let me go
over the salient details one more time so you'll finally
get it..

The charged particles, that we call 'electrons', are
what create 'electric fields', and when they move through
space (even a complete vacuum), these moving charges
create an electromagnetic field. Now, in the absence
of charges, a magnetic field, moving or stationary,
cannot create these charged particles out of nothing,
as that would violate the conservation of energy..

Get it yet?

Magnetic fields can attract charges, even cause them to
move in conductors, where electrons are relatively free
to move about, but by itself, a magnetic field cannot
create electric charge. It's that simple, and the
generalization that you've been arrogantly tossing around
only applies to certain situations.

Read here:

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

Electromagnetic field as a feedback loop

The behavior of the electromagnetic field can be resolved
into four different parts of a loop:

the electric and magnetic fields are generated by electric charges,
the electric and magnetic fields interact with each other,
the electric and magnetic fields produce forces on electric charges,
the electric charges move in space.

Hopefully, that will fill in some pot-holes from your googling..

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 3:46 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flubs whined again:
>
> On 2/10/2013 11:18 AM, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.......

>>>>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>>>>> was not found on this server."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>>>
>>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>>
>>>> Who?
>>>

>>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>>
>> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
>> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
>> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
>> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
>> in that field of study.
>
> Is it really "imagined"?

Are you really a 'social club', or just another
right-wing sock-puppet with a full ego diaper?

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>

>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
....

>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>
>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>
>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>
>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>
> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?

Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
prod him into telling on himself again..

It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 5:28 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flub whimpered when:
>
> On 2/10/2013 3:58 PM, Man of Mind was exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 3:19 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flub whimpered when:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 9:59 AM, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> boasted impotently:
.......

>>>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>>>

>>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>>
>>>> Who?
>>>
>>> Now honestly, who can't google a bit
>>
>> Well, apparently neither of you can actually find out
>> as much as you think you can when you "google a bit"..
>>

>> But, that's okay, both of you overestimate yourselves,
>> and wind up humiliating yourselves rather disastrously..
>
> You've had your ass handed to you on the 23 million _and_
> magnetic/capacitive matters as well.

Nope, you're just trying to pretend that your lies have
any bearing upon the facts, owing to your over-reliance
upon that "google a bit" thing.. *>chuckling<*

But, you and "steve" share something in common..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367

Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing
one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

Abstract

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their
abilities in many social and intellectual domains.
The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs,
in part, because people who are unskilled in these
domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people
reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,
but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive
ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors
found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated
their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated
themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked
this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill,
or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants,
and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."

[Steve]

"As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
I didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed
at some good evidence of this.
In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the
lossage becomes insignificant quickly."
--mattt...@sprynet.com Apr 29, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/d8ff3e51e76c1f45

Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron? Matt is
not only not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he's apparently
had some nasty encounters with the disposal..

[Steve]

<CHUCKLE> You do that, Dummy.. and be sure to tell them that they're
all wrong.

>Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
>it's completely wrong, just like you.. *>LOL!<*

<shaking my head and smiling>

>>>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>>>
>>>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>>>
>>> Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..
>>
>> I quoted The University of California at Davis
>
>That's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument, "steve"..

<LOL> No, it's called a quote...

>Meanwhile, back in the real world:
>
>http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>
>5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>
> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>
>> and Lochner that they are wrong..
>
>Stumbling

So put down the bottle and stop your stumbling, Drunky...

[Steve]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>In the Age of Information, Ignorance is a choice..

<LOL> So when is Lochner going to call NASA and tell them that
they're wrong?


Note that trailer trash Lochner returns from his
evening shift janitor job and because he cannot refute
it, he snips the quote from NASA which proves him
wrong.. see below:

Electromagnetic force is the force that produces electricity..
Thus, electromagnetic force is the force
that exists between the plates of a charged capacitor.
Of course it's also the force that charges those plates...

Electromagnetic force is one of the four forces of nature
which produces electricity... ...as stated (below) by
real physicists at NASA

**************************************************************
"there are four known forces:
[...]
2. Electromagnetic - This acts between electrically charged
particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced
by this force and it also has infinite range. "

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127c.html

**************************************************************


NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.
Lochner says it isn't. <LOL> So who're you gonna believe?

[Matt]

Man of Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:kf9cgj$61q$1...@dont-email.me:

> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..
>

I prefer to think of it as being a "Google Scholar", something that I
really do think is harming the country. Admittedly, looking something up
is just as useful as memorizing it, but if you don't know what the right
answer ought to be ... well.


Matt

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.....

>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>
>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>
>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>
>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>
>> Here, give it another try..
>>
>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"

Brave Sir Crayon bravely ran away.. *>LOL!<*

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
>>>>
>>>> You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
>>>> and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*
>>>
>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>
>> I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?

>> Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
>> it's completely wrong, just like you.. *>LOL!<*
>

> <CHUCKLE> You do that

Not a problem, should I have them include you on the
return e-mail? Or are you trying to avoid seeing just
how incompetent you really are, Mr Magnetic Capacitors?

>>>>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>>>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>>>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>>>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>>>>
>>>>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..
>>>
>>> I quoted The University of California at Davis
>>
>> That's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument, "steve"..
>
> <LOL> No, it's called a quote...

No, you're quoting something that contained the phrase
your were trying to "google a bit" and lost the overall
context of Faraday's Law of Induction. Then you tried
to run away, just like you always do..

>> Meanwhile, back in the real world:
>>
>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>>
>> 5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>>
>> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
>> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
>> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
>> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>>
>>> and Lochner that they are wrong..
>>

>> Stumbling all over yourself today, are you?
>

> So put down the bottle

I did, almost nine years ago, little "steve"..

>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>

>> *>LOL!<* You're still wrong, no matter how many times
>> you repeat your "little bit of googling", you illiterate
>> anti-science right-wing zealot..
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>
>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>> corrections."

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
>>>> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
>>>> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
>>>> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
>>>> in that field of study.
>>>
>>> <LOL> Now Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis
>>
>> Is wrong, just like you. Even your political opinions
>> are just a reversed, likely the result of brain damage
>> and artificial pride in your ambitious 'bluster and spit'..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>> Lochner claims that the Unive[..]
>>
>> Still trying to turn everything into a personal attack?
>>
>> Wow, you really are a google-cripple..
>>
>> Now, how many web-sites did you find using google that tell
>> you how 'magnetic fields create electric fields', "steve"?
>>
>> Now, did it ever occur to you that you could be so
>> astoundingly wrong with your search on Google that
>> you came up with the wrong answers, just like your
>> amazingly stupid claim that capacitors are magnetic?
>>
>> Nah, probably not even once.. *>chuckling<*
>>
>> You probably can't even grasp an electric quadrupole
>> analysis of a set of EHV-DC transmission lines, where
>> the cables are strung so as to cancel out the magnetic
>> fields.

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>
>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>
>>> <CHUCKLE>
>>
>> Still trying to make it sound like you're not stupid, eh?
>>

>>> "According to Faraday's law,
>>

*>cricket.wav<*

[Slackjaw]

Steve wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:55:21 +0000 (UTC), "Slackjaw"
> <Cap...@OklahomaSpaceAlliance.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >> >> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
> >> >> Usenet altogether...
> >> >
> >> > Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
> >> > more time to his professional writing,

Kurt, posting a blog is not professional writing.

> >> > and had announced such
> >> > before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..

I seriously doubt that. He uses this NG to get free advertising for his
blog. Something else is up.

> >>
> >> <LOL> In order to do professional writing, porky would have to
> make >> money at it. NO, Porky bailed on Usenet because he could no
> longer >> pretend that he hadn't been foreclosed on and that he still
> had a >> wife.
> >
> > Zepp - professional writing?
> >
> > Thanks, that's my laugh for today.
>
> Gotta give him credit for at least trying to get off welfare.

Could it be that Zepp is finally dead? I can just imagine the obit now.

---

David "Zepp" Jamison R.I.P.

David "Zepp" Jamison, the liberal blogger and hate monger, has been
found dead in a rental double-wide trailer. He was 62.

Authorities state that the cause of death appears to be a combination
of alcohol poisoning and a drug overdose, but emphasise that the exact
cause may never be determined, as the body was only discovered several
weeks after death.

Jameson had been, at various times, a blogger, essayist, and
entrepreneur, but sadly, had failed at all of them.

At the time of his death, Jameson was living in a rented trailer,
supported by a meager government pension. Alone and unemployed, his
filled his ample spare time by posting extensively on the internet news
groups, where his posts had a decidedly liberal slant. Jamison did not
consider himself bound to a strict adherence to the truth, but used his
own form of poetic license to give his posts more colour and flavour.
The exact number of posts he made remains unclear as it is not known
how many names he posted under, but it is estimated in the hundreds per
day.

The authorities have announced that Jamison's remains will be cremated
and placed in an unmarked grave, as he did not leave behind enough
assets to cover the cost of a proper funeral. There was state sponsored
memorial service, but no one bothered to attend.

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM,"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined impotently:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind restored:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

......

>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>
>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>
>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>
>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>
>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>
>> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..
>

> <LOL> So when is

Hey, "steve".. You're desperately appealing to a false
conclusion, based upon your grade-school comprehension again..

Good luck with that.. *><LOL!<*

--

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 7:11 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> Man of Mind replied:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>

>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
....

>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>
>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>
>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>
>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>

>> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>
> I prefer to think of it as being a "Google Scholar",
> something that I really do think is harming the country.

I'd have to concur, as it directly represents a sort of mental
'short-hand' that's simply an excuse for being intellectually
"lazy"..

> Admittedly, looking something up is just as useful as memorizing
> it, but if you don't know what the right answer ought to be ... well.

Not often, and there was a recent study about that, which you've
probably already read about elsewhere (certainly not here!)..

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/is-google-ruining-your-memory/

Is Google Ruining Your Memory? by Jonah Lehrer

"By now, you�ve probably heard about this smart study
showing that Google is making you stupid, led by Betsy
Sparrow at Columbia. The scientists demonstrated that
the availability of the internet is changing the nature
of what we remember, making us more likely to recall
where the facts are rather than the facts themselves.

The actual study:

Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of
Having Information at Our Fingertips

Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu, Daniel M. Wegner

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/science.1207745.full.pdf

[Man of Mind]

"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:

>>
>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>

>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>

>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.....

>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>
>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>
>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>
>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..

You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

[Man of Mind]

On 2/10/2013 7:25 PM, Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling along with:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:55:21 +0000 (UTC), Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling smugly and self-importantly:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
..........
>>>>>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>>>>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>>>>>

>>>>> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>>>>> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..

>>>>>
>>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote

>>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such

>>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>>>

>>>>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>>>>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>>>>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>
> Kurt, posting a blog

I haven't seen anything about his 'blog in a while,
unless you're commenting on his tag-lines. Gosh, did
you get your widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Zepp?

You undoubtedly need years of therapy now after being
scarred for life by his quick quips and humor, right?

> I seriously doubt that. He uses this NG to get free advertising

I've never seen much past a tag-line or two, but I'm sure
that you'll think up some kind of juvenile rationalization..

But, you and "steve" can pretend anything you'd like,
as there's nothing to prevent either of you from
becoming completely delusional..

--And you certainly won't be missed by Zepp..

[NoBody]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 7, 3:51 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>........
>>>>>>>>> To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
>>>>>>>>> whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which is most common; making up bullshit and stating it
>>>>>>>>> is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
>>>>>>>>> rather than you providing substantiation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Bull shit
>>>>>>>>> 2. lack of substantiation
>>>>>>>>> 3. Diversion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
>>>>>>>>> coming in an extremely close third
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Punting is way down the list. There are a whole lot of avoidance
>>>>>>>>> tactics between #3 and punting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that
>>>>>>>> matter, or even most liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are
>>>>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see
>>>>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that

>>>
>>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact

>>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..

>>
>> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>

>Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?

>
>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>
>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>
>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>
>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>
>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>
>You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>
>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>> Usenet altogether...
>
>Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>

BWWWAAAHAAAAA!!!!! Thanks for the morning laugh about Zippo.

[Steve]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:25:21 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>.....
>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>>
>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>
>>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>>
>>> Here, give it another try..
>>>
>>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"
>
>Brave

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

[Steve]

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

[Steve]

[Steve]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:29:54 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM,"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined impotently:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind restored:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>......
>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>
>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>

>>> It's that Dunning–Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>>
>> <LOL> So when is
>
>Hey, "steve"..

Yes, Drunky?


Transcript of Lochner admitting to being an alcoholic and a
dead-beat dad which leads to him being desperate to
manufacture unsupported nonsense (ie, <chuckle>)"something,
anything to attack me personally."

His problem here, of course, is that I have proof
whereas he has nothing.


Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:30:55 -0600

Canyon: "did the court let you settle for pennies on the
dollar?"


Lochner "Not that I'm aware of.. Did you have any other
petty remarks? "

Canyon: "did they see that your kids were better off if
you weren't in the picture? "

Lochner "Why don't you go and find out for yourself, cartoon
hero..
Oh, that's right, you can't find anything past that, no
child custody filings, no further hearings on the
settled account and discontinuence.. Poor little
cartoon hero..
You really are looking for something, anything to
attack me personally, with malice aforethought..
That'll be just another in a long series of mistakes
you've made today.."

Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"

Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to
attack me personally with, or would you prefer to stop
now before you get into much more trouble?
--Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7171c5a4bd29de81?hl=en

[Steve]

Perhaps if you would sober up..

[Man of Mind]

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:51:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

........

>>>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>>>
>>>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..
>>
>> You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

*>cricket.wav<*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

[Man of Mind]

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:25:21 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.......

>>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>>>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>>>
>>>> Here, give it another try..
>>>>
>>>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"
>>

>> Brave Sir Crayon bravely ran away.. *>LOL!<*

"Bravely ran away.."

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

[Man of Mind]

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined loudly:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:29:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM,"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined impotently:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

........

>>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>>

>>>> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..
>>>
>>> <LOL> So when is
>>

>> Hey, "steve".. You're desperately appealing to a false
>> conclusion, based upon your grade-school comprehension again..
>>
>> Good luck with that.. *><LOL!<*
>

> Yes,

Here's a hint, from one of your own cites..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

[Man of Mind]

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:16:42 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 7:25 PM, Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>
>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling along with:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:55:21 +0000 (UTC), Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling smugly and self-importantly:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
........

>>>>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>>>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>>>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>>>>>>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>>>>>>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>>>
>>> Kurt, posting a blog
>>

>> I haven't seen anything about his 'blog in a while,
>> unless you're commenting on his tag-lines. Gosh, did
>> you get your widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Zepp?
>>
>> You undoubtedly need years of therapy now after being
>> scarred for life by his quick quips and humor, right?
>

> Perhaps

Too bad..

[Man of Mind]

On 2/11/2013 4:24 AM, NoBrainer brayed like a jackass:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind pointed out the obvious to:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>

>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
....

>>>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>>>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
>>>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>>>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>>>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>>>
>>> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>>
>> Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?
>

> BWWWAAAHAAAAA!!!!!

Oh, you shouldn't laugh at "steve" like that..

[Man of Mind]

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:11:53 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>
>> Man of Mind replied to:

>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

.......

>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>
>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>

>>> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>>
>> I prefer to think of it as being a "Google Scholar", something that I
>> really do think is harming the country. Admittedly, looking something up
>> is just as useful as memorizing it, but if you don't know what the right
>> answer ought to be ... well.
>

> Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron?

Examples follow:

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:57:06 -0400
Message-ID: <tauob657rrcuvvfmf...@4ax.com>

"The "Windows 2000 machine" that is referenced by the "NT 5.1"
in the headers of your posts, you dumb loser. <ROTFL>
You mean that you really didn't know that?"

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"That's the one... and BTW, I made a mistake.. NT 5.1 is XP, not W2k."

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"Even after I humiliated Matt for not knowing what a platform token
was.. <LOL> and dumbshit Shook for trying to claim it was something
to do with the browser.."

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500
news: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>

"Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
with electric charge attract OR repel one another"

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT
news:<0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields

Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>

"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to prove anything.."

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 5:29 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> You've had your ass handed to you on the 23 million _and_
>> magnetic/capacitive matters as well.
>
> Nope, you're just trying to pretend that your lies have
> any bearing upon the facts, owing to

-snip-

Like for like, Kurt..

http://mittromneycentral.com/tag/underemployed/

�23 million Americans out of work, or stopped looking for work, or way
underemployed. 23 million. The official unemployment number: 8.3
percent. That�s the longest period of time, 42 months, the longest
period of time we have had unemployment above 8 percent in American
history � since this has been recorded. This is an extraordinary record
of failure. The President�s policies have not worked because he thinks
government makes America work. He�s wrong."


Looks like he didn't say "official measure", but he did differentiate
between "official unemployment" and "underemployed".

Bravely run away, "mind"...

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 4:53 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> <LOL> Now Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis
>
> Is wrong, just like you.

Omg!

He's actually gone after UCD now..

Who's next, Newton?

Lol.

> Even your political opinions
> are just a reversed, likely the result of brain damage
> and artificial pride in your ambitious 'bluster and spit'..

The man has you spinning like a whirling dervish.

Consider yourself 'pwnd'...on his behalf..

[Spokane Social Club]

On 2/10/2013 5:04 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>
> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
> prod him into telling on himself again..

A disingenuous lie, as the google record shows you've had this very same
discussion with him multiple times in the past, ergo, lacking a memory
failure in your "mind", your alleged "curiosity" is a cheap ruse.

You crave this repetitive engagement, like the alcoholic his bottle.

> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

It's a dry drunk's rage controlling you and causing you to dance here,
on HIS behalf..