new ridiculous question
dennis curtis
time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
flour!; I have a physics question.
If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
make any difference? --dennis
PranaChomp
>height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
>a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
>make any difference? --dennis
It matters to me.
What was the question? Speed?
Joy
~~~~~~~~a wondrous big little fairy~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(\o/) sidh...@ahooyay.omcay
/_\ "Isn't sanity a one-trick pony anyway?"
" --The Tick
David Cramer
> Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
>time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
>flour!; I have a physics question.
> If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
>height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
>a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
>make any difference? --dennis
Yes!
Heil Y'all,
DC / UWL of the SHJ
[UltimateWarLord of the Secular Humanist Jihad(tm)}
Sammi
David Cramer <david...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ooicks0kplok9st3g...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jun 2000 23:16:10 -0500, dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
> >time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
> >flour!; I have a physics question.
> > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> >make any difference? --dennis
>
> Yes!
i would have thought only until the additional force, i.e from throwing
down, is dispersed/gone and natural gravity takes over ?
sammi
Something Better
>height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
>a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
>make any difference?
I would have to say it depends on the object. If its dropped in a vacuum, then
no, it shouldnt make a difference (unless there are other factors such as
magnetism, etc).
If dropped where air resistance will effect it, then the shape would make the
greatest difference. If the object in question is a sphere, then no, it
shouldnt make a diff. If its an umbrella (for lack of a better example at the
moment), it wouldnt spin for long anyway.
I'm just kinda rambling, hope this makes sense to someone besides me. :)
-Shotnicam
bi...@xnet.com
news:8i5jmr$jc8$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> David Cramer <david...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ooicks0kplok9st3g...@4ax.com...
> > On 12 Jun 2000 23:16:10 -0500, dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote:
> > > Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
> > >time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
> > >flour!; I have a physics question.
> > > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> > >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> > >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> > >make any difference? --dennis
> > Yes!
> i would have thought only until the additional force, i.e from throwing
> down, is dispersed/gone and natural gravity takes over ?
Acceleration and gravity are interchangeable in the problem posed.
Sammi
>billv wrote;
> >Sammi wrote;
> >> David Cramer wrote;
> > >> and on the12 Jun 2000 23:16:10 -0500, dennis wrote;
> > > > Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
> > > >time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
> > > >flour!; I have a physics question.
> > > > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> > > >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> > > >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> > > >make any difference? --dennis
> > > Yes!
> > i would have thought only until the additional force, i.e from throwing
> > down, is dispersed/gone and natural gravity takes over ?
> Acceleration and gravity are interchangeable in the problem posed.
ah yes...
why ?
sammi
bi...@xnet.com
> > > > Yes!
> ah yes...
> why ?
In simple terms, gravity causes acceleration in this problem. I'm
avoiding the balance of possible discourses and refer the reader
to www.howstuffworks.com which has some reasonable
discussions and can lead you into whatever depth you prefer.
Ray L.
>
> >billv wrote;
> > >Sammi wrote;
> > >> David Cramer wrote;
> > > >> and on the12 Jun 2000 23:16:10 -0500, dennis wrote;
>
> > > > > Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
> > > > >time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
> > > > >flour!; I have a physics question.
> > > > > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> > > > >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> > > > >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> > > > >make any difference? --dennis
>
> > > > Yes!
>
> > > i would have thought only until the additional force, i.e from throwing
> > > down, is dispersed/gone and natural gravity takes over ?
>
> > Acceleration and gravity are interchangeable in the problem posed.
>
> ah yes...
> why ?
The Equivalence Principle
though U.Al wants to disprove it by experiment
Prigator
>If dropped where air resistance will effect it, then the shape would make the
>greatest difference. If the object in question is a sphere, then no, it
>shouldnt make a diff.
If it is a sphere with a perfectly polished surface, then no, it shouldn't make
a diff. However, if it is a sphere with a rough surface, a baseball with
stitches or a golf ball with dimples, then spinning will impart a curve to the
trajectory. And the rougher or fuzzier the surface (like a tennis ball,) the
sooner it will reach terminal velocity.
Doug Chandler
Sammi
Ray L. <-@-.-> wrote in message news:3946E0F0.5BF5@-.-...
>
> The Equivalence Principle
thanks
> though U.Al wants to disprove it by experiment
probably. shame he's not around
sammi
Sammi
Ray L.
He's lurking, I'm sure, but is embarrassed after
getting his ASCII kicked for excessive ranting.
dennis curtis
it exits from hte hand? With a ball it doesn't matter, does it matter
with some other shape than a ball? Som,ething that has a different
COG?--dennis
PranaChomp wrote:
>
> > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> >make any difference? --dennis
>
Ben Galehouse
"Something Better" <somethi...@aol.comldtkjkj> wrote in message
news:20000613120759...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
> If dropped where air resistance will effect it, then the shape would make
the
> greatest difference. If the object in question is a sphere, then no, it
> shouldnt make a diff. If its an umbrella (for lack of a better example at
the
> moment), it wouldn't spin for long anyway.
Ever see a good ping ponk player send the ball in a nice curve accross the
table? Hard to get that kind of spin when simply dropping something, but in
principle that odd aerodynamic force is still there.
I know... a frisbie. You could drop a frisbie off of a building with a nice
spin. I bet it'd keep the frisbie upright, and make a very big difference
in the time to fall.
Rian
from me (they borrowed them at least 8 years ago!)
--
Rendering Interface Access Node
Sammi <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
8i6o0u$acf$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
I doubt anything can embarrass Uncle Al. My guess is he's pissed off
and refuses to moderate his posts to get them by the group moderation.
Oh well.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
http://www.babcom.com/polymath/
http://www.babcom.com/gla-mensa/
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
Dave Evans
<poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> He's lurking, I'm sure, but is embarrassed after
>> getting his ASCII kicked for excessive ranting.
>
>I doubt anything can embarrass Uncle Al. My guess is he's pissed off
>and refuses to moderate his posts to get them by the group moderation.
>Oh well.
Strongly agree, Jerry.
regards,
dave
Ken
writes:
>Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
>time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
>flour!; I have a physics question.
> If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
>height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
>a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
>make any difference? --dennis
>
No,
Murphy's law is immune to your attempts to affect it. The object will land in
such a way as to cause maximum damage no matter what you do. Toast will always
land with the jellied side down. An attempt to catch it mid fall will result
in its being deflected out of the kitchen where it will land jelly side down on
the living room carpet.
Ken
Cybercut Precision Machining-
"Quality is created, not controlled."
Ken
>
In article <3945B4AB...@gte.net>, dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net>
writes:
>Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
>time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
>flour!; I have a physics question.
> If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
>height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
>a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
>make any difference? --dennis
>
Yes,
Assume you are holding a pole by its end. If you hold it horizontally (in a
vacuum) it will fall faster than if you are holding it vertically.
Works best at the equator with really long poles.
mark lages
a
> vacuum) it will fall faster than if you are holding it vertically.
I've heard that czechs fall even faster, but I have never seen it proven
either on paper or by actual demonstration.
....Mark
Sammi
mark lages <m.l...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HyP15.1923$C44....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
i've known them to bounce.
sammi
>
>
> ....Mark
>
JWMeritt
Or a cat.....
Jim Meritt, CISSP, CISA
bi...@xnet.com
news:20000614130108...@nso-cb.aol.com...
> In article <3945B4AB...@gte.net>, Cyberkut writes:
> In article <3945B4AB...@gte.net>, dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net>
> writes:
> >Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
> >time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
> >flour!; I have a physics question.
> > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> >make any difference? --dennis
> Yes,
> Assume you are holding a pole by its end. If you hold it horizontally (in
a
> vacuum) it will fall faster than if you are holding it vertically.
> Works best at the equator with really long poles.
Assuming you're moving with the planet, this is an error. Gravitation,
as opposed to straightforward gravity, is less at the equator. There's
a history with the US government believing someone was stealing
small amounts of gold from shipments leaving Alaska and arriving
at Fort Knox. Seems they were using highly accurate spring based
scales calibrated together.
They replaced the scales with balance scales and the apparent
thefts disappeared. There is sufficient difference in the gravitation
between the two locations that with high weight of materials of
high value, the difference became significant.
Gravitation is the net result of gravity less centrifugal forces which
become lower as we approach the poles.
In a vacuum holding the pole vertically or horizontally is insignificant
for poles about 1 body length (6 feet or so). I don't think any difference
measurable by conventional means.
Gary Rimar
aerodynamics will come into play.
Of course, after a certain amount of travel, the difference becomes less and
less, as items like this will generally rotate into their most aerodynamic
position.
"dennis curtis" <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3945B4AB...@gte.net...
dennis curtis
certain mode, not thrown. If tossed, an additional force is present.
if a feather is dropped at the same time as a gun is fired, they
will arrive at ground at the same time. All forces being equal, all
objects will collide with earth at the same time. I am asking if
a non-round object, if dropped with a flip or a half-gainor, will
have any effect on the law of falling bodies. Gallieo used round
objects. Is there a difference with non round ojects having a
different center of gravity? --dennis
Sammi wrote:
>
> David Cramer <david...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ooicks0kplok9st3g...@4ax.com...
> > On 12 Jun 2000 23:16:10 -0500, dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
> > >time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
> > >flour!; I have a physics question.
> > > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> > >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> > >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> > >make any difference? --dennis
> >
> > Yes!
>
> i would have thought only until the additional force, i.e from throwing
> down, is dispersed/gone and natural gravity takes over ?
dennis curtis
IOW, do different forms, having different COG's, alter factors of the
law of falling bodies?
All things being equal,a closed or open umbrella should make no
difference. Please do not include a vacumn, as Gallileo did not.
EG: does a discus flipped have a different fall rate than a discus
dropped edgewise?
It seems to me that the difference is one of effort expended.
I think I asked a dumb ass question. Of COURSE a tossed body given
any advantage will arrive at ground sooner than a dropped body.
Any effort expended in altering a dropped body violates or changes
this rule. if any effort is expended, the law is altered. No?-dc
Something Better wrote:
>
> > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped fashion,
> >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> >make any difference?
>
> I would have to say it depends on the object. If its dropped in a vacuum, then
> no, it shouldnt make a difference (unless there are other factors such as
> magnetism, etc).
>
> If dropped where air resistance will effect it, then the shape would make the
> greatest difference. If the object in question is a sphere, then no, it
> shouldnt make a diff. If its an umbrella (for lack of a better example at the
dennis curtis
bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>
> Sammi <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8i69n0$tth$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > >billv wrote;
> > > >Sammi wrote;
> > > >> David Cramer wrote;
> > > > >> and on the12 Jun 2000 23:16:10 -0500, dennis wrote;
>
> > > > > > Ok, now, since the keener minds on the planet are wasting their
> > > > > >time with trivialities, what with religion and for god's sakes,
> > > > > >flour!; I have a physics question.
> > > > > > If you drop an object, no matter what the object, from a certain
> > > > > >height, does it matter if the object is dropped in a flipped
> fashion,
> > > > > >a spun fashion, or an end dropped fashion? Does how it is dropped
> > > > > >make any difference? --dennis
>
> > > > > Yes!
>
> > > > i would have thought only until the additional force, i.e from
> throwing
> > > > down, is dispersed/gone and natural gravity takes over ?
>
> > > Acceleration and gravity are interchangeable in the problem posed.
>
> > ah yes...
> > why ?
>
dennis curtis
mark lages wrote:
>
> > Assume you are holding a pole by its end. If you hold it horizontally (in
> a
> > vacuum) it will fall faster than if you are holding it vertically.
>
> I've heard that czechs fall even faster, but I have never seen it proven
> either on paper or by actual demonstration.
>
> ....Mark
dennis curtis
infuence the law of falling bodies? Does this imply that objects
with different COG affect the law, provided they are dropped the
same way;EG, without force? Actually, what I am really asking is ;
does the human doing the experiment affect the experiment and if
so, what would the laws pertain to? And how? ---dennis
Gary Rimar wrote:
>
> Absolutely, depending on the object. If you drop a sheet of Plexiglas,
> aerodynamics will come into play.
>
> Of course, after a certain amount of travel, the difference becomes less and
> less, as items like this will generally rotate into their most aerodynamic
> position.
>
> "dennis curtis" <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:3945B4AB...@gte.net...
Ken
Cyberkut (Ken) wrote:
>> Assume you are holding a pole by its end. If you hold it horizontally (in
>a
>> vacuum) it will fall faster than if you are holding it vertically.
>
>> Works best at the equator with really long poles.
>
Billv replied:
>Assuming you're moving with the planet, this is an error. Gravitation,
>as opposed to straightforward gravity, is less at the equator. There's
>a history with the US government believing someone was stealing
>small amounts of gold from shipments leaving Alaska and arriving
>at Fort Knox. Seems they were using highly accurate spring based
>scales calibrated together.
>
>They replaced the scales with balance scales and the apparent
>thefts disappeared. There is sufficient difference in the gravitation
>between the two locations that with high weight of materials of
>high value, the difference became significant.
>
>Gravitation is the net result of gravity less centrifugal forces which
>become lower as we approach the poles.
>
>In a vacuum holding the pole vertically or horizontally is insignificant
>for poles about 1 body length (6 feet or so). I don't think any difference
>measurable by conventional means.
>
>
>bi...@xnet.com
>
Measurements? We don't need no stinking measurements! ;<{)
Do the math;
vertical pole: center of gravity changes at 1/2 the rate pole length changes
horizontal pole; center of gravity changes as a sq root of ( 1/2 the pole
length squared +16,000,000) draw a triangle from hand at end of pole to
center of earth to center of gravity of pole
so a 25 mile long vertical has center of gravity 12.5 miles above earth.
but a 25 mile long horizontal has center of gravity .0031 miles above the
earth.
As bill noted the earths rotation would have a greater effect than gravity
changes here.
also
limit A (acceleration) approaches 0 as pole length approaches 2x where x = the
distance between your hand holding the bottom of a vertical pole and the point
above it in geosyncronous orbit. x is about 18,000 miles
limit A approaches 1G as length approaches 0 for both vert and hori poles.
limit A approaches 0 as pole length approaches 2x where x = the distance
between your hand holding the end of a horizontal pole and the point where the
pole intersects (as a chord) a radius 22,500 miles away from the center of the
earth. x > 22,000 miles and is not a simple exponential function as is the
vertical pole.
Need I say more??
bi...@xnet.com
> So it may make a difference if the object is other than spheriod?
Only in resistance from the atmosphere.
> IOW, do different forms, having different COG's, alter factors of the
> law of falling bodies?
No.
> All things being equal,a closed or open umbrella should make no
> difference. Please do not include a vacumn, as Gallileo did not.
> EG: does a discus flipped have a different fall rate than a discus
> dropped edgewise?
Following the penultimate question makes this difficult to answer
because of a problem with context. It makes no difference to the
"factors of the law of falling bodies" while they will arrive at different
times because of atmospheric (drag) considerations.
Yes, dennis, there is an entire science of drag.
> It seems to me that the difference is one of effort expended.
> I think I asked a dumb ass question. Of COURSE a tossed
> body given any advantage will arrive at ground sooner than a
> dropped body. Any effort expended in altering a dropped
> body violates or changes this rule. if any effort is expended,
> the law is altered. No?-dc
The rule doesn't change but the initial conditions do. The
experiments at Pizza as taught involve an initial condition
with bodies at rest. Initial velocity is added to g, the force
of gravity (actually gravitation.) One must remember that
the initial velocity can be 0, positive (downward) or negative
(upward). Things like firing a gun horizontally which, for our
purposes, has no vertical motion of the projectile are
considered to be 0.
In the 1950's this material was part of the general science
course studied by all high school freshmen. It really isn't
complicated but apparently much more misunderstood
than I had believed before this thread sprang into life.
Edward Kitto
> Assuming you're moving with the planet, this is an error. Gravitation,
> as opposed to straightforward gravity, is less at the equator. There's
> a history with the US government believing someone was stealing
> small amounts of gold from shipments leaving Alaska and arriving
> at Fort Knox. Seems they were using highly accurate spring based
> scales calibrated together.
That is interesting. Here in New Zealand there is a negative gravity
anomaly(120 milligals) in the Wanganui River basin where I live. Not
enough to levitate on a regular basis, though.
Smack in the middle of is a mental hospital with a maximum security unit
for the criminally insane. All at once those cthonic myths don't seem
quite so remote.
Mind you, I'm not entirely convinced that it is a Reptoid Burger(tm)
supply depot butcha never know. I guess you don't find out until it's
tooooooooooo laaaaaaaaate!
For the World is hollow
and I have touched the sky
-Star Trek episode TOS
--
Ed
--
Remove w's for email
JWMeritt
> So it may make a difference if the object is other than spheriod?
>IOW, do different forms, having different COG's, alter factors of the
>law of falling bodies?
The attractor field is nonlinear, hence the configuration of the free-falling
object would depend upon the magnitude of the nonlinearities.
Jim Meritt, CISSP, CISA
bi...@xnet.com
news:39484981...@gte.net...
> So it may make a difference if the object is other than spheriod?
> IOW, do different forms, having different COG's, alter factors of the
> law of falling bodies?
I found a website:
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~demos/demo_index.html/1c20_16gif
that's 1c20_16.gif, the automatic underscore obscures the real underscore.
That is a good beginning point. Move up to the demo_index.html and
explore the other demos while you're there.
bi...@xnet.com
> Measurements? We don't need no stinking measurements! ;<{)
> Do the math;
> vertical pole: center of gravity changes at 1/2 the rate pole length
changes
> horizontal pole; center of gravity changes as a sq root of ( 1/2 the pole
> length squared +16,000,000) draw a triangle from hand at end of pole to
> center of earth to center of gravity of pole
> so a 25 mile long vertical has center of gravity 12.5 miles above earth.
> but a 25 mile long horizontal has center of gravity .0031 miles above the
> earth.
No. You're deceptively changing the initial conditions. Put the
horizontal pole's CG to the same altitude as the vertical pole.
The altitude should be 12.5 miles plus 191 feet to approximate
the Pisa experiment. Now drop each and record what has
happened when each has fallen 191 feet.
bi...@xnet.com
news:MPG.13b3494eb...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> That is interesting. Here in New Zealand there is a negative gravity
> anomaly(120 milligals) in the Wanganui River basin where I live. Not
> enough to levitate on a regular basis, though.
> Smack in the middle of is a mental hospital with a maximum security unit
> for the criminally insane. All at once those cthonic myths don't seem
> quite so remote.
And speaking of the criminally insane in the same breath as a
ridiculous question, there are rumors that Jane Fonda is being
considered for a position among "The 100 Women of the Century."
Many of us remember that young men in the military at the
time thought and continue to think her a traitor for siding
with the government at Hanoi during active hostilities
when people were being killed. Despite I wasn't involved
in Viet Nam other than as a taxpayer, I thought her a
traitor too.
It is felt that if she didn't have a big name and fortune
backing her, given the mindset of those times, she
would have been justly imprisoned for treason.
That we were wrong to be waging war in Viet Nam
is a different issue. Both sides were prolonging an
ongoing evil, and Jane's misconduct simply added to it.
She spat on the system that spawned her.
Personally I think the only good.thing (tm) Jane did was
to make some exercise videos, hardly noteworthy of
the 100 best genre award.
Prigator
>And speaking of the criminally insane in the same breath as a
>ridiculous question, there are rumors that Jane Fonda is being
>considered for a position among "The 100 Women of the Century."
>
Makes one wonder who are the people doing the considering for that list. They
must all be thirtyish or younger, brought up and educated while no mention was
made of Jane's treason.
One of big puzzles of the century is how Ted Turner, a brilliant entrepeneur
and beneficiary of the capitalist system, could have married Hanoi Jane. Did
they never talk politics? What has she got so wonderful that it offsets that
huge flaw?
Doug Chandler
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> Personally I think the only good.thing (tm) Jane did was
> to make some exercise videos, hardly noteworthy of
> the 100 best genre award.
She also made the film, "Barbarella," featuring the world's first
(simulated) zero gravity strip tease in the opening titles. Perhaps she
deserves to be remembered for that and nothing else.
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> One of big puzzles of the century is how Ted Turner, a brilliant entrepeneur
> and beneficiary of the capitalist system, could have married Hanoi Jane. Did
> they never talk politics? What has she got so wonderful that it offsets that
> huge flaw?
Money and connections to Hollywood Old Money and Power. She's an
embarrassment, but she can get his foot into doors he didn't even know
existed.
Dave Evans
>It is felt that if she didn't have a big name and fortune
>backing her, given the mindset of those times, she
>would have been justly imprisoned for treason.
She would never have been heard of.
regards,
dave
PSmith9626
too bad lise mietner and the nobel prize women in physics weren't on the
list. OR were they?
Our culture prefers movie stars.
best
penny
Was rachel carson on the list?
About Fonda. WE had no business in Vietnam. SHe was correct about that.
>Many of us remember that young men in the military at the
>time thought and continue to think her a traitor for siding
>with the government at Hanoi during active hostilities
>when people were being killed.
WE have a democracy. Disagreeing with a war is NOT traitorous, for a civilian
like Fonda. We weren't even in a WAR. Congress never declared war.
" My country, right or wrong, when right to be applauded when wrong to be
corrected"
bi...@xnet.com
news:20000616073830...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> >Many of us remember that young men in the military at the
> >time thought and continue to think her a traitor for siding
> >with the government at Hanoi during active hostilities
> >when people were being killed.
> WE have a democracy. Disagreeing with a war is NOT
> traitorous, for a civilian like Fonda. We weren't even in
> a WAR. Congress never declared war.
> " My country, right or wrong, when right to be applauded
> when wrong to be corrected"
These statements correct in themselves while evading
the real issue completely, that is Hanoi Jane's conduct.
Using caps to emphasize shows you passion but adds
nothing to the substance of the discussion. Jane behaved
very badly. She also abused the family popularity and has
developed a very large hate following. Your penchant for
supporting all things socialist is seriously misplaced in this
instance.
Jerry bryson
to some people. However, it scarcely justifies a troll to force change
the topic. It isn't that hard to start a new thread. Read your manual.
<bi...@xnet.com> wrote:
> Edward Kitto <edk...@paradisew.net.wnz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.13b3494eb...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>
> > That is interesting. Here in New Zealand there is a negative gravity
> > anomaly(120 milligals) in the Wanganui River basin where I live. Not
> > enough to levitate on a regular basis, though.
>
> > Smack in the middle of is a mental hospital with a maximum security unit
> > for the criminally insane. All at once those cthonic myths don't seem
> > quite so remote.
>
> And speaking of the criminally insane in the same breath as a
> ridiculous question, there are rumors that Jane Fonda is being
> considered for a position among "The 100 Women of the Century."
>
> Many of us remember that young men in the military at the
> time thought and continue to think her a traitor for siding
> with the government at Hanoi during active hostilities
> when people were being killed. Despite I wasn't involved
> in Viet Nam other than as a taxpayer, I thought her a
> traitor too.
>
> It is felt that if she didn't have a big name and fortune
> backing her, given the mindset of those times, she
> would have been justly imprisoned for treason.
>
> That we were wrong to be waging war in Viet Nam
> is a different issue. Both sides were prolonging an
> ongoing evil, and Jane's misconduct simply added to it.
> She spat on the system that spawned her.
>
> Personally I think the only good.thing (tm) Jane did was
> to make some exercise videos, hardly noteworthy of
> the 100 best genre award.
>
--
Jerry
jbr...@richmond.infi.net
Nescio qui non sum; ergo credo qui sum.
Jerry bryson
or not
mark lages <m.l...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Assume you are holding a pole by its end. If you hold it horizontally (in
> a
> > vacuum) it will fall faster than if you are holding it vertically.
>
> I've heard that czechs fall even faster, but I have never seen it proven
> either on paper or by actual demonstration.
>
>
> ....Mark
Sammi
Jerry bryson <jbr...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
news:1ecb29m.10z...@rcmda020-1041.splitrock.net...
> Totally off-topic. the question was not whether the check would bounce
> or not
well spotted. go to the top of class.
(gawd who is this twerp ?)
sammi
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> WE have a democracy. Disagreeing with a war is NOT traitorous, for a civilian
> like Fonda. ...
Nor is that the basis for the charge of treason. The US Constitution is
very clear, explicit and narrow about what constitutes treason. Ms.
Fonda's alleged crime was that of giving "aid and comfort" to our
enemies during her visit to Hanoi.
Rian
--
Rendering Interface Access Node
Jerry bryson <jbr...@richmond.infi.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
1ecb3l6.ll9...@rcmda020-1041.splitrock.net...
Rian
up! I like her, Don Quichot in a miniskirt!
--
Rendering Interface Access Node
PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
20000616073830...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> dear billv,
> too bad lise mietner and the nobel prize women in physics weren't
on the
> list. OR were they?
> Our culture prefers movie stars.
> best
> penny
>
> Was rachel carson on the list?
>
> About Fonda. WE had no business in Vietnam. SHe was correct about
that.
>
> >Many of us remember that young men in the military at the
> >time thought and continue to think her a traitor for siding
> >with the government at Hanoi during active hostilities
> >when people were being killed.
>
> WE have a democracy. Disagreeing with a war is NOT traitorous, for a
civilian
bi...@xnet.com
> We understand the discussion of gravitational anomalies can get boring
> to some people. However, it scarcely justifies a troll to force change
> the topic. It isn't that hard to start a new thread. Read your manual.
I personally want to thank you for telling me how to
conduct my affairs and note that you have taken off
nicely in describing yourself, a newcomer to this
venue. I hope you enjoy a very brief stay.
mark lages
> or not
Well, okay.
But I still have a question. Why is it illegal for one to bounce a czech
for even the smallest amount, and yet completely acceptable for one to vault
twice one's height with a pole?
....Mark
Dave Evans
You have been cranky lately Bill. What's up with that?
Simply my perception.
regards,
dave
bi...@xnet.com
news:e8pKOU1zHw8JvM...@4ax.com...
> >Jerry bryson <jbr...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> >news:1ecb3l6.ll9...@rcmda020-1041.splitrock.net...
> >> We understand the discussion of gravitational anomalies can get boring
> >> to some people. However, it scarcely justifies a troll to force change
> >> the topic. It isn't that hard to start a new thread. Read your manual.
> >I personally want to thank you for telling me how to
> >conduct my affairs and note that you have taken off
> >nicely in describing yourself, a newcomer to this
> >venue. I hope you enjoy a very brief stay.
> You have been cranky lately Bill. What's up with that?
> Simply my perception.
It appears that the "discussion of gravitational anomalies" has
been redirected into a discussion about billv. Is one change
of subject, to ane Fonda, unacceptable but the other not? I
am much amused.
Still, propriety dictates that I thank you as well.
Dave Evans
>Dave Evans <Dav...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:e8pKOU1zHw8JvM...@4ax.com...
>> You have been cranky lately Bill. What's up with that?
>
>> Simply my perception.
>
>It appears that the "discussion of gravitational anomalies" has
>been redirected into a discussion about billv. Is one change
>of subject, to ane Fonda, unacceptable but the other not? I
>am much amused.
>
>Still, propriety dictates that I thank you as well.
>
>bi...@xnet.com
>
I make no distinction about propriety, it just occurred to me you have
been a tad testy.
Maybe I am mis-perceiving. Maybe not.
regards,
dave
PSmith9626
FIrst, we were not in a war. Congress had not declared one.
Second , she was never accused and tried for treason by the judicial system
,so calling her a "traitor" is just your opinion.
Alleged crimes are not crimes.
> Ms.
>Fonda's alleged crime was that of giving "aid and comfort" to our
>enemies during her visit to Hanoi.
Right, she is visiting their capital city, in the midst of their money and
power, and giving them :"aid and comfort".
That is a pretty far cry from aiding the soldiers of our enemy ( in a
declared war) on our own soil as the constitution intends .
Conservatives would be amusing ,if they were not so scary.
As to Jane and others:
" I may not agree with what you say,but I will defend to the death : your right
to say it."--Daniel Webster
( the motto of the ACLU)
>The US Constitution is
>very clear, explicit and narrow about what constitutes treason.
It is also very clear , explicit and narrow about constitutes a declared war.
best
penny
Too bad our " traitorous presidents" never bothered to consult the constitution
while they mass murdered our youth.
PSmith9626
Thanks.
all best
penny
" I was villifyed for saying that our president was a crook, well -- I was
right, wasn't I?"
---Abbie Hoffman
The president was nixon.
PSmith9626
For amusement, people on this thread:
Take a heavy book with a long and short axis and flip it in the air
along its short axis. Now do it fast.
Fun.
best
penny
Mathematical dynamics-- super fun.
bi...@xnet.com
> Too bad our " traitorous presidents" never bothered to
>consult the constitution while they mass murdered our youth.
While this is a different issue I believe you elevate these
man far too high.
toci
with dictionaries. The results seldom improved the
dictionaries.Toci
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
>
> dear jerryh,
> FIrst, we were not in a war. Congress had not declared one. ...
Irrelevant. The Constitutional definition of treason does not require
us to be at war.
> Second , she was never accused and tried for treason by the judicial system
> ,so calling her a "traitor" is just your opinion.
> Alleged crimes are not crimes.
And I did refer to them as alleged crimes as you quoted below:
>
> > Ms.
> >Fonda's alleged crime was that of giving "aid and comfort" to our
> >enemies during her visit to Hanoi.
>
> Right, she is visiting their capital city, in the midst of their money and
> power, and giving them :"aid and comfort".
> That is a pretty far cry from aiding the soldiers of our enemy ( in a
> declared war) on our own soil as the constitution intends .
> Conservatives would be amusing ,if they were not so scary.
Article III, Section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the life of the Person attainted."
Note that there is nothing in the above that requires us to be at war
before treason can be committed, nor is there anything about "on our own
soil." IFF Ms. Fonda is guilty of the specific crimes she has been
accused of (betrayal of US soldier prisoners to their captors, resulting
in the deaths of some of them), then she is indeed guilty of treason by
the constitutional definition. Whether or not she is in fact guilty has
never been established in court and likely never will be.
> As to Jane and others:
>
> " I may not agree with what you say,but I will defend to the death : your right
> to say it."--Daniel Webster
> ( the motto of the ACLU)
>
> >The US Constitution is
> >very clear, explicit and narrow about what constitutes treason.
>
> It is also very clear , explicit and narrow about constitutes a declared war.
Which is irrelevant to the definition of treason quoted above.
> Too bad our " traitorous presidents" never bothered to consult the constitution
> while they mass murdered our youth.
They may have been bad presidents, but they didn't levy war against the
United States and gave no aid and comfort to our enemies. (With the
possible exception of Reagan. Selling arms to Iran at that time was
arguably giving aid and comfort to an enemy.)
Dave Evans
>Too bad our " traitorous presidents" never bothered to consult the constitution
>while they mass murdered our youth.
They did. They concocted lies to provide a congressional fiat to wage
that war. Made it all very constitutional!
There is no constitution that can not be read and manipulated to suit
the whim of the criminally powerful.
And then the way the men are treated when they get home- no not the
"spitting" stories- but by a VA that denies them treatment for
exposure to chemical weapons. And other less egregious examples
abound.
Aid and comfort indeed.
regards,
dave
Ray L.
>
> Totally off-topic. the question was not whether the check would bounce
> or not
>
>
> > > Assume you are holding a pole by its end. If you hold it horizontally (in
> > a
> > > vacuum) it will fall faster than if you are holding it vertically.
> >
> > I've heard that czechs fall even faster, but I have never seen it proven
> > either on paper or by actual demonstration.
My Skoda has a red warning light that is always lit while driving.
It is the czech-engine light.
Sammi
Ray L. <-@-.-> wrote in message news:394BBC8C.26FC@-.-...
to see if it's still there ?
sammi
>
dennis curtis
merely made me hungry. I know what you had for dinner!
So COG's make no difference. OK. Yet any effort expended will make a
difference. The only context is that of falling bodies and the
adherence to the law. Any other is other and doesn't count. Effort
does alter the law.
I do not think I misunderstand. In fact, i had a dream segment
about it. Seems that a rail was set up to study friction. A ball,
regardless of direction, touches ground at only one point. In order
to reduce friction(drag), what would the ideal shape of hte rail be?
in my segment, the rail would be microscopically V-shaped. A U shaped
rail, no matter how small, would touch more than the given point,
thereby adding to friction.
It really does seem hard to believe that all things being equal, all
bodies fall to earth at the same rate of speed. perhaps this is what
is so easily misunderstood. --dennis
bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>
> dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:39484981...@gte.net...
>
> > So it may make a difference if the object is other than spheriod?
>
> Only in resistance from the atmosphere.
>
> > IOW, do different forms, having different COG's, alter factors of the
> > law of falling bodies?
>
> No.
>
> > All things being equal,a closed or open umbrella should make no
> > difference. Please do not include a vacumn, as Gallileo did not.
> > EG: does a discus flipped have a different fall rate than a discus
> > dropped edgewise?
>
> Following the penultimate question makes this difficult to answer
> because of a problem with context. It makes no difference to the
> "factors of the law of falling bodies" while they will arrive at different
> times because of atmospheric (drag) considerations.
>
> Yes, dennis, there is an entire science of drag.
>
> > It seems to me that the difference is one of effort expended.
> > I think I asked a dumb ass question. Of COURSE a tossed
> > body given any advantage will arrive at ground sooner than a
> > dropped body. Any effort expended in altering a dropped
> > body violates or changes this rule. if any effort is expended,
> > the law is altered. No?-dc
>
> The rule doesn't change but the initial conditions do. The
> experiments at Pizza as taught involve an initial condition
> with bodies at rest. Initial velocity is added to g, the force
> of gravity (actually gravitation.) One must remember that
> the initial velocity can be 0, positive (downward) or negative
> (upward). Things like firing a gun horizontally which, for our
> purposes, has no vertical motion of the projectile are
> considered to be 0.
>
> In the 1950's this material was part of the general science
> course studied by all high school freshmen. It really isn't
> complicated but apparently much more misunderstood
> than I had believed before this thread sprang into life.
>
> bi...@xnet.com
dennis curtis
She thinks she does, she would like to, but she doesn't. Bella Absug,
Madame Treudeau, or any number of other women have had more direct
influence than has J. Fonda. As for influential women, I would vote
for Kate Millet.--dennis
bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>
> Edward Kitto <edk...@paradisew.net.wnz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.13b3494eb...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>
> > That is interesting. Here in New Zealand there is a negative gravity
> > anomaly(120 milligals) in the Wanganui River basin where I live. Not
> > enough to levitate on a regular basis, though.
>
> > Smack in the middle of is a mental hospital with a maximum security unit
> > for the criminally insane. All at once those cthonic myths don't seem
> > quite so remote.
>
> And speaking of the criminally insane in the same breath as a
> ridiculous question, there are rumors that Jane Fonda is being
> considered for a position among "The 100 Women of the Century."
>
> Many of us remember that young men in the military at the
> time thought and continue to think her a traitor for siding
> with the government at Hanoi during active hostilities
Jerry bryson
>
> Nor is that the basis for the charge of treason. The US Constitution is
> very clear, explicit and narrow about what constitutes treason. Ms.
> Fonda's alleged crime was that of giving "aid and comfort" to our
> enemies during her visit to Hanoi.
\We had more enemies in Washington than in Hanoi. We won in Vietnam by
removing invading foreign soldiers.
Jerry bryson
<bi...@xnet.com> wrote:
>
> I personally want to thank you for telling me how to
> conduct my affairs
As you know, I made no mention of your "affairs," but only of your
disruption of other people's affairs in the original discussion.
> and note that you have taken off
> nicely in describing yourself,
In what way?
> a newcomer to this
> venue.
Actually, I was on this group since shortly after it was formed. As you
also probably know.
> I hope you enjoy a very brief stay.
And I hope you find a new governess soon, so you won''t have to troll us
into spanking you.
Jerry bryson
discussion for the sake of his propaganda. The Billy had already
trashed the rational discussion before I got here. I really had nothing
left to "troll."
Rian <Ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote:
> And who would be the troll here, Edward, Bill or you?
>
> --
> Rendering Interface Access Node
> Jerry bryson <jbr...@richmond.infi.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 1ecb3l6.ll9...@rcmda020-1041.splitrock.net...
> > We understand the discussion of gravitational anomalies can get boring
> > to some people. However, it scarcely justifies a troll to force change
> > the topic. It isn't that hard to start a new thread. Read your
> manual.
> >
Jerry bryson
>
> It appears that the "discussion of gravitational anomalies" has
> been redirected into a discussion about billv.
The "discussion of gravitational anomalies" was redirected to a
discussion about Jane Fonda, then redirected to Billv's behavior.
>Is one change
> of subject, to ane Fonda, unacceptable but the other not? I
> am much amused.
Be amused. You did both. Or did Jane also cause the anamolies?
dennis curtis
inquiry, but the windmills of my mind wanna know. When i went to my
local MacDonald's, I asked politely for a Mac spoon,A Mac the Knife,
and of course, a Mac fork you. ==dennis
Rian wrote:
>
> Penny, you are right. As I am a lowly foreigner I did not dare bring it
> up! I like her, Don Quichot in a miniskirt!
>
> --
> Rendering Interface Access Node
> PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 20000616073830...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> > dear billv,
> > too bad lise mietner and the nobel prize women in physics weren't
> on the
> > list. OR were they?
> > Our culture prefers movie stars.
> > best
> > penny
> >
> > Was rachel carson on the list?
> >
> > About Fonda. WE had no business in Vietnam. SHe was correct about
> that.
> >
> > >Many of us remember that young men in the military at the
> > >time thought and continue to think her a traitor for siding
> > >with the government at Hanoi during active hostilities
> > >when people were being killed.
> >
dennis curtis
record is around 19 feet. --dc
mark lages wrote:
>
> > Totally off-topic. the question was not whether the check would bounce
> > or not
>
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> Actually, I was on this group since shortly after it was formed. As you
> also probably know.
Then you should know that topic drift is a fact of usenet life. Get
over it.
Rian
Rendering Interface Access Node
> The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Nor is that the basis for the charge of treason. The US
Constitution is
> > very clear, explicit and narrow about what constitutes treason. Ms.
> > Fonda's alleged crime was that of giving "aid and comfort" to our
> > enemies during her visit to Hanoi.
>
> \We had more enemies in Washington than in Hanoi. We won in Vietnam by
> removing invading foreign soldiers.
>
Sammi
>
> <bi...@xnet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I personally want to thank you for telling me how to
> > conduct my affairs
>
> As you know, I made no mention of your "affairs," but only of your
> disruption of other people's affairs in the original discussion.
as i remember you was not in the original discussion, as such you are taking
it upon yourslf to be a sort of spokesman for those who were.
i wish you wouldn't.
i find you manner obnoxious and overbearing so why don't you just piss off.?
sammi.
mark lages
> record is around 19 feet. --dc
So, the average pole vaulter is 3 feet 9 inches tall?
....Mark
Sammi
mark lages <m.l...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:vN435.8559$C44.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Twice? More like five times the height of the pole vaulter. Current
> > record is around 19 feet. --dc
>
> So, the average pole vaulter is 3 feet 9 inches tall?
it's those krells again :)
sammi.
>
>
> ....Mark
>
>
dennis curtis
dc
mark lages wrote:
>
> > Twice? More like five times the height of the pole vaulter. Current
> > record is around 19 feet. --dc
>
> So, the average pole vaulter is 3 feet 9 inches tall?
>
> ....Mark
Jerry bryson
sounds like victory to me.
Rian <Ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > \We had more enemies in Washington than in Hanoi. We won in Vietnam by
> > removing invading foreign soldiers.
> >
> huh? won????
Jerry bryson
> When i went to my
> local MacDonald's, I asked politely for a Mac spoon,A Mac the Knife,
> and of course, a Mac fork you.
I don't recall ever seeing a Mack Truck bringing burgers to a MacStore.
Usually Fords. Wazzup with that?
Jerry bryson
>
> as i remember you was not in the original discussion, as such you are taking
> it upon yourslf to be a sort of spokesman for those who were.
> i wish you wouldn't.
> i find you manner obnoxious and overbearing so why don't you just piss off.?
I was reading interesting stuff from the anomaly discussion, not posting
because the others knew more than me. About anomalies, anyway.
Jerry bryson
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I was on this group since shortly after it was formed. As you
> > also probably know.
>
> Then you should know that topic drift is a fact of usenet life. Get
> over it.
mark lages
> Usually Fords. Wazzup with that?
MacOversight
....Mark
Rian
lived during many US-wars and strifes)
--
Rendering Interface Access Node
Jerry bryson <jbr...@richmond.infi.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
1ecgsky.6z...@rcmda020-0026.splitrock.net...
> Removing unwanted foreign soldiers from the soil of a friendly country
> sounds like victory to me.
>
> Rian <Ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> > > \We had more enemies in Washington than in Hanoi. We won in
Vietnam by
> > > removing invading foreign soldiers.
> > >
> > huh? won????
>
>
Sammi
> Sammi <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > as i remember you was not in the original discussion, as such you are
taking
> > it upon yourslf to be a sort of spokesman for those who were.
> > i wish you wouldn't.
> > i find you manner obnoxious and overbearing so why don't you just piss
off.?
>
> I was reading interesting stuff from the anomaly discussion, not posting
> because the others knew more than me. About anomalies, anyway.
i still don't get your problem, threads tend to split off in different
directions and people choose to (or not) follow those directions. the
split/introduction of a different theme must have been interesting to others
otherwise it wouldn't have been picked up and followed, or ?
.
sammi.
bi...@xnet.com
news:8ilove$n5n$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Sammi <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
There are those who add branches while others who insist
on pruning branches they dislike.
Sammi
<bi...@xnet.com> wrote in message news:8im4q8
> There are those who add branches while others who insist
> on pruning branches they dislike.
fine if it's your own backyard but not in the park.
sammi
Jerry bryson
>
> There are those who add branches while others who insist
> on pruning branches they dislike.
And then there are those who try to graft their own particular briar
weed on anything found standing.
dennis curtis
Jerry bryson wrote:
>
> dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > When i went to my
> > local MacDonald's, I asked politely for a Mac spoon,A Mac the Knife,
> > and of course, a Mac fork you.
>
> I don't recall ever seeing a Mack Truck bringing burgers to a MacStore.
> Usually Fords. Wazzup with that?
>
dennis curtis
mark lages wrote:
>
> > I don't recall ever seeing a Mack Truck bringing burgers to a MacStore.
> > Usually Fords. Wazzup with that?
>
> MacOversight
>
> ....Mark
dennis curtis
mensan, although I took a test that said I could be, but i cornfused
that with gadfly. --dennis
Sammi wrote:
>
> Jerry bryson <jbr...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
> news:1ecgsuj.16u...@rcmda020-0026.splitrock.net...
> > Sammi <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > as i remember you was not in the original discussion, as such you are
> taking
> > > it upon yourslf to be a sort of spokesman for those who were.
> > > i wish you wouldn't.
> > > i find you manner obnoxious and overbearing so why don't you just piss
> off.?
> >
> > I was reading interesting stuff from the anomaly discussion, not posting
> > because the others knew more than me. About anomalies, anyway.
>
> i still don't get your problem, threads tend to split off in different
> directions and people choose to (or not) follow those directions. the
> split/introduction of a different theme must have been interesting to others
> otherwise it wouldn't have been picked up and followed, or ?
> .
> sammi.
Sammi
i haven't the faintest what you're talking about.
<g>
sammi.
dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:39519CF9...@gte.net...
bi...@xnet.com
each time the robomoderator applied the Approved
message back to me but the message disappeared.
So I looked at the headers to Jerry's message and found:
>Path: chicago.us.mensa.org!mtm.mensa.org!robomod!not-for-mail
>From: jbr...@richmond.infi.net (Jerry bryson)
>Newsgroups: mensa.talk.misc
>Subject: Re: new ridiculous question (Dear Billv)
>Date: 21 Jun 2000 20:51:48 -0500
>Organization: InfiNet
>Lines: 15
snip
>X-Authentication-Warning: backdraft.briar.org: smap set sender to
<ne...@nw003t.infi.net> using -f
>User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4
The X-Authentication line is designed to kill any replies to Jerry's
article.
It is my opinion that Jerry is so desperate to have the last word that
he resorted to this dirty little trick.
Despite your nastiness, Jerry, here is my response:
============================================
Jerry Bryson wrote:
>>bi...@xnet.com wrote:
>> There are those who add branches while others who insist
>> on pruning branches they dislike.
>And then there are those who try to graft their own particular briar
>weed on anything found standing.
I think it bizarre that anyone would label an important event
in recent American history "a briar weed" but anything is
possible once one loses perspective as to what open
discussions are really about.
An earlier discussion about what constitutes censorship
rears its ugly head in this case. Jerry insists on certain
conduct from me as to how, where, and what subjects
are appropriate. And rather than discuss the basic
difficulty openly, he does a little computer hocus pocus
to preclude me from being able to continue any dialog.
To my way of thinking, that's a form of censorship.
OK Jerry, you now have your way. As hostile as I have
been to putting anyone into a killfile, you've managed to
force me to reassess my posture in that regard and you're
the first, and hopefully the last, ever to achieve that fate.
I don't believe anyone stopping to these measures is
worthy of another minute of my time. Hope you eventually
figure it out.
Joseph
the last troops left.
Joseph
Jerry bryson wrote:
>
> Removing unwanted foreign soldiers from the soil of a friendly country
> sounds like victory to me.
>
> Rian <Ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> > > \We had more enemies in Washington than in Hanoi. We won in Vietnam by
> > > removing invading foreign soldiers.
> > >
> > huh? won????
>