What's with Bobby Simone?
Dan Sontup
Bobby Simone laid low with an as yet undiagnosed illness. It's probably
not a heart attack, the doc says, although it could be; on the other
hand, it may be some kind of infection. Bobby has recently been stabbed
in the arm with a dirty knife by a street hood, and has had his gums
nicked by a careless dentist, both events providing a possible source of
infection.
Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
premiere episode of the season.
Anyone else also think so?
Best wishes -- Dan
Andi Shechter and/or Stu Shiffman
wrote:
You DO know that Smits is leaving the series within a few weeks, yes?
A
--
Andi - Ros...@Halcyon.com
Kathlynn Kirk
>
> The first two episodes of the TV cop drama, NYPD BLUE, have Detective
> Bobby Simone laid low with an as yet undiagnosed illness. It's probably
> not a heart attack, the doc says, although it could be; on the other
> hand, it may be some kind of infection. Bobby has recently been stabbed
> in the arm with a dirty knife by a street hood, and has had his gums
> nicked by a careless dentist, both events providing a possible source of
> infection.
>
> Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
> think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
> we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
> planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
> premiere episode of the season.
>
>
> Best wishes -- Dan
I'm putting my money on something like viral cardiomyopathy, and he
won't get a transplant in time (probably due to a weird blood type or
antibody) and therefore will die, getting him out of the series as has
been previously announced. I think the dirty knife and dental nick are
red herrings leading us to the conclusion that AIDS or Hepatitis will be
the culprit, but his symptoms are very reminiscent of cardiomyopathy.
--
Kathlynn Kirk
kath...@globaldialog.com
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Infogoddess
>
> The first two episodes of the TV cop drama, NYPD BLUE, have Detective
> Bobby Simone laid low with an as yet undiagnosed illness. It's probably
> not a heart attack, the doc says, although it could be; on the other
> hand, it may be some kind of infection. Bobby has recently been stabbed
> in the arm with a dirty knife by a street hood, and has had his gums
> nicked by a careless dentist, both events providing a possible source of
> infection.
>
> Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
> think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
> we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
> planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
> premiere episode of the season.
>
> Anyone else also think so?
>
> Best wishes -- Dan
PIDGEON POOP
gwen
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
## LOOK-IT-UP ##
Information Search Service
Library-Periodicals-Internet
"Knowledge is Power"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
razz
Andi Shechter and/or Stu Shiffman wrote:
> In article <363778...@ix.netcom.com>, Dan Sontup <EQ...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The first two episodes of the TV cop drama, NYPD BLUE, have Detective
> > Bobby Simone laid low with an as yet undiagnosed illness. It's probably
> > not a heart attack, the doc says, although it could be; on the other
> > hand, it may be some kind of infection. Bobby has recently been stabbed
> > in the arm with a dirty knife by a street hood, and has had his gums
> > nicked by a careless dentist, both events providing a possible source of
> > infection.
> >
> > Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> > here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> > clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
> > think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
> > we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
> > planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
> > premiere episode of the season.
> >
>
> You DO know that Smits is leaving the series within a few weeks, yes?
He has a heart transplant.
Razz
Joel Herman
Dan Sontup wrote:
> The first two episodes of the TV cop drama, NYPD BLUE, have Detective
> Bobby Simone laid low with an as yet undiagnosed illness. It's probably
> not a heart attack, the doc says, although it could be; on the other
> hand, it may be some kind of infection. Bobby has recently been stabbed
> in the arm with a dirty knife by a street hood, and has had his gums
> nicked by a careless dentist, both events providing a possible source of
> infection.
>
> Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
> think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
> we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
> planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
> premiere episode of the season.
>
jly...@atl.mindspring.com
> Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
> think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
> we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
> planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
> premiere episode of the season.
I thought of the knife, but he was acting sick before he was stabbed.
And of course the crooks take over television next Tuesday, so we don't
get to see "what's next" until the 10th...
Linda
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jly...@atl.mindspring.com
Kathlynn Kirk <kath...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
> I'm putting my money on something like viral cardiomyopathy, and he
> won't get a transplant in time (probably due to a weird blood type or
> antibody) and therefore will die, getting him out of the series as has
> been previously announced.
I heard he wasn't going to die, but THAT could have been a red herring...
Jeff Kreider
We already know he's leaving, but Bocho and crew are known for "Wow" endings.
Simone's illness is taking was appears to be too obvious of an ending. I would
hope that, just to keep the drama up, that there is a tough battle with the ill-
ness, but he does recover. Then he desides to retire (life's too short,
I need to move on). Or maybe something more ironic, like he gets killed after
recovering by a crazy person in the Emergency Room on his way home.
Dan Sontup wrote:
>
> The first two episodes of the TV cop drama, NYPD BLUE, have Detective
> Bobby Simone laid low with an as yet undiagnosed illness. It's probably
> not a heart attack, the doc says, although it could be; on the other
> hand, it may be some kind of infection. Bobby has recently been stabbed
> in the arm with a dirty knife by a street hood, and has had his gums
> nicked by a careless dentist, both events providing a possible source of
> infection.
>
> Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
> think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
> we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
> planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
> premiere episode of the season.
>
> Anyone else also think so?
>
> Best wishes -- Dan
--
Jeff Kreider, Consultant Specializing in Alpha Micro Environments...
210 N. Iris Ave --------------------
Rialto, CA 92376-5727 Alpha Micro Users Society (AMUS)
Phone: (909) 874-6214 Check out http://www.amus.org
Fax: (909) 874-2143 --------------------
Email: jk...@ix.netcom.com Used Books. 1st Ed/Signed. E-mail for Catalog.
BLIND 321
series.
Oh, and I've heard that he's going to make return appearances, so that nixes
the dramatic death of a detective theory.
KS
Hardyboy01
with Dennis Franz rather than that titan among actors, Ricky Schroeder.
Bob Finnan
Series Book Central
Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, Doc Savage & more!
http://members.aol.com/Hardyboy01/index.html
or
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/postmodern/8
100's Of Affordable Series Books & Collectibles For Sale.
K Barrett
movie coming up on a Sunday, featuring the return of Chris Noth. I hope
its a goodie!
K Barrett
KATYMUNGER
seems like a good guy. But.... he can't act his way out of a paper bag?!! I am
the only one who thinks this?
Fellow Law & Order freak,
Katy Munger
Author of "Legwork" and "Out Of Time," both Casey Jones Mysteries from Avon
Books. Look for "Money To Burn" in August of 1999.
Hardyboy01
>seems like a good guy. But.... he can't act his way out of a paper bag?!! I
>am
>the only one who thinks this?
Well he certainly is more dynamic than Sam Waterston, who is about as exciting
as watching paint dry.
Bob Finnan
Series Book Central
Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, Doc Savage & more!
http://members.aol.com/Hardyboy01/index.html
nat...@acs.tamu.edu
I love Law & Order and Homicide too. I could swear that I have seen
them all repeatedly. However, I have never seen the one where Mike
Logan (played by Chris Noth) was written out? What happened to him?
Can someone give me the synopsis of that episode? You can email me
privately if it is against the group charter to post old show eps.
BTW, I hated Cornwell's latest but was glad that.....(spoiler!!).
Christi
K Barrett <orw...@pop.ccnet.com> wrote:
>Hey, that could be fun!! BTW, they are advertizing a 'Law and Order'
>movie coming up on a Sunday, featuring the return of Chris Noth. I hope
>its a goodie!
>K Barrett
>Hardyboy01 wrote:
>>
>> Now that Chris Noth is out of Law & Order, it would be nice to see him team up
>> with Dennis Franz rather than that titan among actors, Ricky Schroeder.
>>
>> Bob Finnan
>> Series Book Central
>> Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, Doc Savage & more!
>> http://members.aol.com/Hardyboy01/index.html
>> or
>> http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/postmodern/8
Hardyboy01
>them all repeatedly. However, I have never seen the one where Mike
>Logan (played by Chris Noth) was written out? What happened to him?
He punched out a local politician and got transferred to Staten Island.
Bob Finnan
Series Book Central
Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, Doc Savage & more!
http://members.aol.com/Hardyboy01/index.html
hilary rubin
Do you think Diane will leave the show too, or remain in the squad
without Bobby?
Hilary
Erma
first pick to play Morelli, and I haven't watched an entire episode of Law
and Order since he left. <sigh>
Erma
KATYMUNGER wrote in message
|You know, I love Chris Noth and used to see him around NYC all the time. He
seems like a good guy. But.... he can't act his way out of a paper bag?!! I
am the only one who thinks this?
|
KATYMUNGER
You mean to tell me Benjamin Bratt does nothing for you? Have you seen that man
smile? Melts my polyester panties...
--Katy
Erma
I'm glad you didn't ruin any good silk panties. I can't wait to read the ER
report as they thy to get that polyester off your butt. <EG>
Erma
KATYMUNGER wrote in message
<19981029230926...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
Barry Volkman
Bochco a favor in coming on quickly and replacing David Caruso-God, was
he ever a loser-Bochco promised that he wouldn't kill him off. So this
became a a mystery for the writers. Write a plot that will get him off,
keep him off, and keep Kim Delaney on. He doesn't die is the promise.
Barry
Kathlynn Kirk (kath...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
: Dan Sontup wrote:
: >
: > The first two episodes of the TV cop drama, NYPD BLUE, have Detective
: > Bobby Simone laid low with an as yet undiagnosed illness. It's probably
: > not a heart attack, the doc says, although it could be; on the other
: > hand, it may be some kind of infection. Bobby has recently been stabbed
: > in the arm with a dirty knife by a street hood, and has had his gums
: > nicked by a careless dentist, both events providing a possible source of
: > infection.
: >
: > Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
: > here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
: > clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it. Anybody else
: > think they've solved it? I don't think we can consider it a spoiler if
: > we discuss it only to the extent of pointing out where the clue was
: > planted. I'll start it off by saying the critical scene was in the
: > premiere episode of the season.
: >
: > Anyone else also think so?
: >
: > Best wishes -- Dan
: I'm putting my money on something like viral cardiomyopathy, and he
: won't get a transplant in time (probably due to a weird blood type or
: antibody) and therefore will die, getting him out of the series as has
: been previously announced. I think the dirty knife and dental nick are
: red herrings leading us to the conclusion that AIDS or Hepatitis will be
: the culprit, but his symptoms are very reminiscent of cardiomyopathy.
: --
: Kathlynn Kirk
: kath...@globaldialog.com
: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
K Barrett
the little flip in the front... what was THAT??? Too much baooka
bubblegum as a child??
K Barrett
K Barrett
time he forced a confession at gunpoint out of the perp who killed his
partner (George Dzundza), that was way before...
K Barrett
Karen Lee
>
> Bob, do you remember why he punched the politician? I'm confusing the
> time he forced a confession at gunpoint out of the perp who killed his
> partner (George Dzundza), that was way before...
>
I'm not Bob, but I think I remember. The case was one where one politician
killed his political rival. Part of the motivation was homophobia. The
defendant's lawyer got Logan on the stand and made him admit to making
apparently homophobic comments. Outside, the defendant made a comment to Logan
suggesting that they both felt the same way. Logan slugged him.
Karen
Hardyboy01
designed to bait cop-haters everywhere. Any sane society would be disgusted
that slime like like could even exist and execute him post haste. But, hey,
this is TV!
BTW - I always thought Jimmy Smits to be extremely effeminate (not to mention
the fact he can't act worth a damn and should stop using that greasy kid
stuff!) Is he gay in real life?
Mari Hall
sexually involved with Kim Delaney and therefore, his "illness" may be
linked to her to continue the story. Are they going to kill him off or
just let him get out of the show so he can come back sometime? The
powers that be did not let David Caruso go lightly so he won't be back
although they didn't kill him off, but if you recall the show Dallas?
there was a whole season that was a "dream" so maybe that is what is
going to happen,
from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
Mari Hall
>
> Now that Chris Noth is out of Law & Order, it would be nice to see him team up
have you seen he is going to be "back" on Law & Order?
but actually I hoped that Andre Braughner from Homicide would team with
Franz--what a missed opportunity. Franz with his "bigotry" having to
team with a black from another city, whose been a big-shot. I love it!!
from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
Hardyboy01
He has to be one of the ugliest men I've ever seen in my life and, since Dennis
Franz is no Adonis himself, the chances of the producers of NYPD Blue teaming
him up with Franz seem doubtful. They seem to prefer teaming Franz up with
pretty boys like Smits.
Mari Hall
melts them to what??
from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
BLIND 321
laugh out loud and I have to ask--
>>melts them to what??
>>from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
You and your filthy mind.
Now, what's the answer?
KS
Mari Hall
big fan of her Galliger Gray series (now hard to find) so I could hear
her saying that.
(Katy, what did ZuZu say when you got home fromB'con??)
from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
KATYMUNGER
melts them to what??
<<
Rock candy, Mari, rock candy!!!
KATYMUNGER
You know you didn't offend me! (That's impossible.)
Zuzu was MAD I left her for four days. Gave me the business big time for the
first couple of days home. Being 13 months old she couldn't say much, but she
certainly let me know I was a rat for leaving her. One minute she'd smile at
me, the next she'd throw herself down on the rug and pitch a fit. I definately
have a drama queen on my hands! She forgave me by day #3, which made me
considerably more relaxed (what with her 12 new teeth and me still nursing!)
CFree1350
old WASP.
Hardyboy01
old WASP.
Better get new glasses granny, the guy is as ugly as the back end of a mule.
And please, let's not turn this into a racial thing OK?
KATYMUNGER
the same role before this turns into anything at all. I think one of you is
confused.
First there's two Vanessa Williamses... and now this.
Barry Volkman
accounts for stars like Braugherr and the late Telly Savalas, Patrick
Stewart, Avery Brooks, Worf, Spock, and a cast of thousands
Barry
Hardyboy01 (hardy...@aol.com) wrote:
: >You're kidding!! Andre Braughner is one gorgeous sexy guy....and I'm a 65 yr
: old WASP.
: Better get new glasses granny, the guy is as ugly as the back end of a mule.
: And please, let's not turn this into a racial thing OK?
: Bob Finnan
: Series Book Central
: Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, Doc Savage & more!
: http://members.aol.com/Hardyboy01/index.html
: 100's Of Affordable Series Books & Collectibles For Sale.
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
There are two Vanessa Williams and one of them was Miss America
(Disgraced, by some misguided puritans) and was perhaps one of the most
beautiful of all time, and I've known 3 personally.
Barry
KATYMUNGER (katym...@aol.com) wrote:
: I suggest the two of you make sure you are both talking about the same actor in
: the same role before this turns into anything at all. I think one of you is
: confused.
: First there's two Vanessa Williamses... and now this.
: >>>You're kidding!! Andre Braughner is one gorgeous sexy guy....and I'm a 65
: yr
: old WASP.
: Better get new glasses granny, the guy is as ugly as the back end of a mule.
: And please, let's not turn this into a racial thing OK?<<
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
BLIND 321
Isn't that redundant?
KS
KATYMUNGER
but I do agree that the one who was disgraced as Miss America was one of the
most beautiful and talented of all time. She actually had a talent other then
being able to tape her butt into shape for the cameras. The other Vanessa
Williams I was referring to is an actress. She did some role in a kick-ass
movie where she played a bodyguard, but the title escapes me. I remember it
well, because my friends kept insisting it was the former Miss America and I
kept going "but it doesn't look like her!" I won't repeat what they accused me
of after that, but let's just say I got my revenge when I sent them all
newspaper clipping a few months later about the existence of a second Vanessa
Williams...
>>There are two Vanessa Williams and one of them was Miss America
(Disgraced, by some misguided puritans) and was perhaps one of the most
beautiful of all time, and I've known 3 personally.<<
Hardyboy01
Barry Volkman
BLIND 321 (blin...@aol.com) wrote:
: misguided puritans
: Isn't that redundant?
: KS
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
comedies, and since comedy no longer exists in the movies unless you
consider the grotesquery of Jim Carrey funny.
Barry
KATYMUNGER (katym...@aol.com) wrote:
: Well, Barry, I can't say I've known more than one Vanessa Williams personally,
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
Barry
Not I!
Hardyboy01 (hardy...@aol.com) wrote:
: Avery Brooks?!?!?!?!?
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
They're both actresses
Barry
Mike Burke (mburke.s...@pcug.org.au) wrote:
: katym...@aol.com (KATYMUNGER) wrote:
: >Well, Barry, I can't say I've known more than one Vanessa Williams personally,
: >but I do agree that the one who was disgraced as Miss America was one of the
: >most beautiful and talented of all time. She actually had a talent other then
: >being able to tape her butt into shape for the cameras. The other Vanessa
: >Williams I was referring to is an actress. She did some role in a kick-ass
: >movie where she played a bodyguard, but the title escapes me. I remember it
: >well, because my friends kept insisting it was the former Miss America and I
: >kept going "but it doesn't look like her!" I won't repeat what they accused me
: >of after that, but let's just say I got my revenge when I sent them all
: >newspaper clipping a few months later about the existence of a second Vanessa
: >Williams...
: The actress Vanessa Williams also played a regular part in the Murder
: One series, IIRC.
: Mike
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Paul Maffia
>KATYMUNGER (katym...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >>There are two Vanessa Williams and one of them was Miss America
>: (Disgraced, by some misguided puritans) and was perhaps one of the most
>: beautiful of all time, and I've known 3 personally.<<
There may be any number of women named Vanessa Williams. But there cannot
be more than one with that name acting in movies.
The actor's union does not allow more than one person with a name to be an
active member, and therefore working, at the same time.
--
Paul M.
SPAMMERS who send unsolicited ads of any kind to me have assumed the
position of client. My minimum charge to any client is $2,500.00. The sum
will be billed and if unpaid will be put into collection at your expense.
KATYMUNGER
about the second one would speak up and solve this conundrum. I know the former
Miss America used her regular name when she was in the Ah-nold action movie and
I saw the credits for the second one with my own eyes and do not remember an
initial. I'll ask my sister. She's in all the actor unions. Anyone else?
Nothing like a good mystery.....
>>There may be any number of women named Vanessa Williams. But there cannot
be more than one with that name acting in movies.
The actor's union does not allow more than one person with a name to be an
active member, and therefore working, at the same time.
--
Paul M. <<
Katy Munger
KATYMUNGER
One more thing: Is there really an eskimo.com or is that an anti-spam moniker?
Are you posting from Alaska?
Yours in nosiness,
Hardyboy01
variation in the spelling etc.
Eleaticus
> Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it.
Actually, two competing forms of the same clue-type
have been planted:
a. he was cut by a miscreant's dirty knife.
b. he was cut by a dentist.
Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster Thnk...@concentric.net ?
! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
Dan Sontup
>
> In article <363778...@ix.netcom.com>, Dan Sontup <EQ...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Perceptive mystery fans should be able to figure out what's going on
> > here and exactly what has sent Bobby to the hospital. The determining
> > clue has already been planted -- at least, as I see it.
>
> Actually, two competing forms of the same clue-type
> have been planted:
>
> a. he was cut by a miscreant's dirty knife.
> b. he was cut by a dentist.
>
> Eleaticus
There's a third clue. I guess I won't be inserting a spoiler here if I
mention it, since it may be just a red herring. If you'll think back to
the very first scene of the first program of this season, Bobby Simone
is on the roof of his building with his head in his pigeon coop. His
older friend, who is clearly somehwat retarded and still thinks of Bobby
as a boy, chastises him for not cleaning the pigeon droppings from under
the coop. At this time, Bobby is experiencing shortness of breath --
one of the main symptoms of psittacosis ("parrot fever"), an infection
that can come from exposure to pigeon droppings.
However, as a couple of doctors have pointed out to me, psittacosis
doesn't normally affect the heart to the extent that Bobby's heart has
been damaged (he needs a heart transplant), and this would indicate
possible cardiomyopathy. So, I guess we'll all just have to wait and
see what develops next -- and what the writers of the show finally
disclose as the disease or infection that has laid Bobby low. I'm still
betting that psittacosis will be in there somewhere.
Incidentally, all this discussion about Bobby Simone ties in directly
with the subject of this newsgroup. A mystery has been presented in the
course of the TV drama NYPD Blue, and it's instructive for mystery
writers and fans alike to observe how the writers have set up the story
line and planted the clues -- and how they will eventually, we hope,
provide a convincing "solution."
Best wishes -- Dan
Broca
:
>< Okay, I really meant to watch this last week, but either it wasn't
on or I fell asleep. So, having still not seen an episode of the show,
and depending solely on the information on the newsgroup- if his
disease is related to one of the cuts, the disease that would best
concur with transmission, onset, symptoms and the time it takes to
diagnose it, hepatitis C would be the best choice. If, however, the
disease is related to inhaling spores/fungus from pigeon droppings,
histoplasmosis would be more likely than psitticosis. The problems
with psitticosis are that is more likely associated with parrots or
parakeets than pigeons and the duration from infection to the onset
of symptoms is fairly short. If NYPD has been on for six weeks (?)
and those six shows represent, say, six months (or even six weeks)
of Bobby's life, and he was infected with psitticosis, he should have
been experiencing symptoms by the second commercial break that would
have sent him to a doctor, and unless the lab is reallllly slow, would
also have had his diagnosis fairly soon. The infection-onset-diagnosis-
initiation of treatment course of psitticosis is fairly short, unless
the patient neglects seeking treatment, ignores the symptoms or if
you are dealing with some inefficiency or errors on the medical end.
Jane Rubinon
DEATH OF A DJ
FRUITCAKE
CHEAT THE DEVIL
The Cat Austen/Victor Cardenas mysteries from Write Way Publishing
Mari Hall
me off list so I don't spoil it for others.
from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
Dan Sontup
> If you did not see what the actual diagnosis was and want to know e-mail
> me off list so I don't spoil it for others.
>
> from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
I'll wait for the diagnosis episode on TV. But what I'd like to know is
how you got it in advance -- or is that a secret?
Best wishes -- Dan
Mari Hall
it was on last week's show and the trailer's for this week are
"announcing" it.
from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
Dan Sontup
[concerning what has laid Bobby Simone low on NYPD BLUE]
I've watched all the episodes from the beginning this season, including
last week's, the various trailers, and last night's episode. I didn't
see any "ctual diagnosis" in any of these presentations. Did I miss
something?
BTW, last night's episode did bring in once again a scene with Bobby
Simone and his friend at the pigeon coop on the roof, with a couple of
remarks being made about "clearing my head" by cleaning out the coop. I
think this is significant in that it's pointing to what I've said all
along, that psittacosis is the underlying disease -- or that the writers
are going to elaborate lengths to trick those of us who are not medical
experts with a persistent red herring.
We should have the answer in the concluding episode of this segment next
Tues. In the meantime, Mari, I'm still curious about the diagnosis you
saw and that I apparently missed.
Best wishes -- Dan
Steve and Terri
:
: I've watched all the episodes from the beginning this season, including
: last week's, the various trailers, and last night's episode. I didn't
: see any "ctual diagnosis" in any of these presentations. Did I miss
: something?
Admittedly, I didn't watch as carefully last night as I might have, but
the writers seem to be content to leave the actual diagnosis vague --
Bobby's heart surgeon told Diane that the actual pathogen wasn't an issue
any more, since treatment of any infection he might have wouldn't help.
He needed a transplant, period.
Terri
--
Terri Carl
ter...@neosoft.com
Alison Weatherston
>
>
> Admittedly, I didn't watch as carefully last night as I might have, but
> the writers seem to be content to leave the actual diagnosis vague --
> Bobby's heart surgeon told Diane that the actual pathogen wasn't an issue
> any more, since treatment of any infection he might have wouldn't help.
> He needed a transplant, period.
>
> Terri
>
> --
> Terri Carl
> ter...@neosoft.com
Can anyone clear up a medical mystery for me? While I was watching the
episode last night, during the part where the street cops were being
told to watch for recently deceased people who could potentially be
heart donors for Bobby, I was wondering if someone who needed a heart
transplant could accept a heart from just anyone. Don't there need to
be tissue matches made, etc.? I have no medical background, so I can't
tell whether the writers are ignoring medical reality for the sake of
the story.
Does anyone know? (Is there a doctor in the house? <g>)
Alison
awea...@nrcan.gc.ca
KATYMUNGER
just standing there, looking sympathetic. Has anyone else noticed this? Is he
being groomed for a possible long-term role? Or is he just supposed to add some
warmth or something? I started to think he's going to be Diane's new boyfriend
if Bobby kicks the bucket, but perhaps I am projecting far too much into a
simple director's decision re shot angles and need to cut back on my t.v.!
--Katy Munger
Mari Hall
liked so much his first one, but the surgeon) who said that at this
point finding the underlying cause of the "infection" was not worth the
time since Bobby needed a heart transplant and if you saw last night,
you saw the happy ending that he got another cop's heart. The next
episode is the last and will be 1-1/2 hours.
from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
Dan Sontup wrote:
>
> Mari Hall wrote:
>
> [concerning what has laid Bobby Simone low on NYPD BLUE]
>
> > > > If you did not see what the actual diagnosis was and want to know e-mail
> > > > me off list so I don't spoil it for others.
> > > >
> > > > from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
> > >
> > > I'll wait for the diagnosis episode on TV. But what I'd like to know is
> > > how you got it in advance -- or is that a secret?
> > >
> > > Best wishes -- Dan
> >
> > it was on last week's show and the trailer's for this week are
> > "announcing" it.
> >
> > from Mari Hall found.dea...@airmail.net
>
> I've watched all the episodes from the beginning this season, including
> last week's, the various trailers, and last night's episode. I didn't
> see any "ctual diagnosis" in any of these presentations. Did I miss
> something?
>
Dan Sontup
> Admittedly, I didn't watch as carefully last night as I might have, but
> the writers seem to be content to leave the actual diagnosis vague --
> Bobby's heart surgeon told Diane that the actual pathogen wasn't an issue
> any more, since treatment of any infection he might have wouldn't help.
> He needed a transplant, period.
>
> ter...@neosoft.com
I don't think the writers would deliberately leave the actual diagnosis
vague when they wind things up next week. This wouldn't be playing fair
with the viewers. The writers have built suspense to the point where
clues and red herrings have been inserted into the story line to keep
the viewers (and the characters) wondering just what disease has
afflicted Bobby Simone. To just turn around after all this buildup and
say well, it really doesn't matter after all, Bobby needs a heart
transplant and never mind what did this to him -- well, this would be
playing fast and loose with the viewers (sort of like when a whole
season of Dallas was dismissed as a dream), and the reaction would be
far from favorable.
My own feeling is that the writers of NYPD BLUE are consummate
professionals and know the importance in stories *of this type* (crimes,
mystery, and the solving of crimes by detectives) of playing fair with
the viewer. While I'm not a doctor and have no real medical expertise
(just some medical writing and editing), I'm still betting on
psittacosis being in there somewhere simply because of the way the
writers have structured the story line.
As I said, next week's episode should straighten the whole thing out.
Best wishes -- Dan
catm...@my-dejanews.com
> Can anyone clear up a medical mystery for me? While I was watching the
> episode last night, during the part where the street cops were being
> told to watch for recently deceased people who could potentially be
> heart donors for Bobby, I was wondering if someone who needed a heart
> transplant could accept a heart from just anyone. Don't there need to
> be tissue matches made, etc.? I have no medical background, so I can't
> tell whether the writers are ignoring medical reality for the sake of
> the story.
>
> Does anyone know? (Is there a doctor in the house? <g>)
You would need tissue matches, but the most important thing about a heart
donor is that he/she must be dead. You can't even start the process until
you have a donor.
Joan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Infogoddess
> My own feeling is that the writers of NYPD BLUE are consummate
> professionals and know the importance in stories *of this type* (crimes,
> mystery, and the solving of crimes by detectives) of playing fair with
> the viewer. While I'm not a doctor and have no real medical expertise
> (just some medical writing and editing), I'm still betting on
> psittacosis being in there somewhere simply because of the way the
> writers have structured the story line.
>
> As I said, next week's episode should straighten the whole thing out.
>
> Best wishes -- Dan
I sure hope so. A viable medical reason for identifying the pathogen is in
order to prevent re-infection. If it is Histo. or Psitt. from the birds then
he could get reinfected when he started handling them again. In a real setting
they would definitely try to ID the organism responsible. If they told the
docs he had birds they could do it from blood work. I have a hard time
believing that someone that has been around birds for as long as Bobby
wouldn't know the risk of zoonotic infections associated with them.
gwen
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
## LOOK-IT-UP ##
Information Search Service
Library-Periodicals-Internet
"Knowledge is Power"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Broca
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution:
Infogoddess (gspr...@kcinter.net) wrote:
: Dan Sontup wrote:
: I sure hope so. A viable medical reason for
identifying the
pathogen is in
: order to prevent re-infection. If it is Histo. or Psitt. from the birds then
: he could get reinfected when he started handling them again. In a real setting
: they would definitely try to ID the organism responsible. If they told the
: docs he had birds they could do it from blood work. I have a hard time
: believing that someone that has been around birds for as long as Bobby
: wouldn't know the risk of zoonotic infections associated with them.
:
: gwen
>< Not to mention that the normal course of psitto (of course there are
variables) is 7-14 days after incubation, after which there are acute
symptoms, bad enough to make someone seek medical treatment. At this
point, the doctor is doing the workup, taking the H and P and at a
certain point will ask about allergies, pets, and if there are respira-
tory complications (and there will be) birds. This is how it goes:
Doctor: Do you have any allergies?
Patient: Allergies? No.
Doctor: Do you have any pets?
Patient: Pets? No.
Doctor: So you don't have any contact with animals, work in a pet
shop, animal shelter, anything like that?
Patient: No.
Doctor: Can you recall any contact with birds?
Patient: No, not except for my parakeet, Boostie.
Before this point, the doctor may still have started Tetracycline
(or an equivalent), even before the blood work comes back. After this
point, the doctor is required to call the state board of health, where
they will most likely visit the patient's residence and find Bootsie
on the carpet giving up the Q sign.
And yes, there would be tissue typing. There are variations, but
to "waste" a heart on a poor match would be unthinkable.
Jane Rubino
hilary rubin
Here is my view on Bobby Simone's illness.
He was nicked on the gum by the dentist and
the pssiticosis infection was introduced through the cut. One of my
sons has a heart murmur and must take anti-biotics before and after
every dental visit to stop any infection from occurring in this manner.
Hilary
Carolyn Clement
are both big fat red herrings and that he is suffering from a rare heart
disease which requires a heart transplant which will effectively get him
off "the job;" this plot is the basis of . the new Michael Connolly book
"Blood Work" which I'm sure stuck in the mind of one of the scriptwriters.
The only surprising ending to this particular series of episodes would be
if Bobby died on the operating table and Diane actually uttered a coherent
sentence, I hope the focus of this show switches away from St. Diane and
on to Jill , who has the potential to be an interesting character.
Eleaticus
> My own feeling is that the writers of NYPD BLUE are consummate
> professionals and know the importance in stories *of this type* (crimes,
> mystery, and the solving of crimes by detectives) of playing fair with
> the viewer. While I'm not a doctor and have no real medical expertise
> (just some medical writing and editing), I'm still betting on
> psittacosis being in there somewhere simply because of the way the
> writers have structured the story line.
But everything you have said here - especially in the
first big paragraph (which I deleted before deciding
this response should involve it) - militates in the
direction of the dentist. The pigeon coop scenario
as cause leaves us no mystery or culprit, ditto
the miscreant's knife really.
That leaves a murderous dentist, maybe.
Dan Sontup
>
> In article <365314...@ix.netcom.com>, Dan Sontup <EQ...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > My own feeling is that the writers of NYPD BLUE are consummate
> > professionals and know the importance in stories *of this type* (crimes,
> > mystery, and the solving of crimes by detectives) of playing fair with
> > the viewer. While I'm not a doctor and have no real medical expertise
> > (just some medical writing and editing), I'm still betting on
> > psittacosis being in there somewhere simply because of the way the
> > writers have structured the story line.
>
> But everything you have said here - especially in the
> first big paragraph (which I deleted before deciding
> this response should involve it) - militates in the
> direction of the dentist. The pigeon coop scenario
> as cause leaves us no mystery or culprit, ditto
> the miscreant's knife really.
>
> That leaves a murderous dentist, maybe.
>
> Eleaticus
>
this through any planted clues that I can recall. Can you give any
specific instances that I, and others, may have missed? The pigeon coop
scene, however, has been played at the beginning and replayed again this
week. This fits in with the story structure so far in that the mystery
here has been presented all along as what disease has caused Bobby's bad
heart rather then *who* did this to him?
As I said in another posting, next week's episode should straighten all
of this out -- hopefully in a logica solution that will show the writers
have indeed played fair with us viewers.
Best wishes -- Dan
Steve and Terri
:
: As I said in another posting, next week's episode should straighten all
: of this out -- hopefully in a logica solution that will show the writers
: have indeed played fair with us viewers.
Aren't we getting a little carried away with the medical mystery angle?
This whole story arc is for one purpose: to do away with the character so
Jimmy Smit can go on to other things. The writers chose to use a more
involved, lengthy exit than having him shot on the street, and a more
final one than having his career self-destruct. Stretching the farewell
over several episodes gives the other characters a chance for some good
scenes (who wouldn't be moved by Sipowicz's "please, please, please don't
let him die" the other night?) and gives viewers a little more of a
popular character... but if you're looking for crossed t's and dotted
i's... well, life's not like that, and I'll bet that the next episode of
NYPD Blue isn't like that, either.
Dan Sontup
I don't think "we" are getting carried away with the medical mystery
angle at all. The writers placed great stress on this and, as a viewer,
I expect them to follow through. I am indeed "looking for crossed t's
and dotted i's." This is what we should expect in a well-structured
mystery. Whether or not we get it, is another matter. And I know very
well that "life's not like that." If TV *dramas* reflected life as it
acually is, then interesting and compelling and intriguing mysteries
just wouldn't be produced, would they?
I repeat, I'm waiting to see just how fair the writers have been when
they wind this whole thing up.
Best wishes -- Dan
br...@us.ibm.com
procedurals (LAW & Order etc) but the problem for me is that this show has
slipped into an overbearing Melodrama.
I have read that many good writers write the teleplays and I find most of the
Police Story line very good ( except for the fact every hardened criminal
seems to folds and turn himself or his/her crime partner in at first sign of
toughness of the Police). The melodrama story lines have almost driven me
away form the show. I find the romantic story line pretty unnecessary and
frankly out of place for a show that seems to portray a hard, fact only
police show. Indeed I found it a real stretch at time to keep the many
conflicting and improbable storylines and relations in one precinct. I
remember one show where the Delany was allowed to instigation her own
father's murder, where her mother and brother were the prime suspects. It
was great melodrama but very realistic police procedures. Is it also
standard employee practice in the Police Department to allow a husband wife (
lovers) work in the same unit?
It appears to me that the actress who plays Kim even seems tired of the over
cooked melodramatics of the show. She looks bored. She phones in her
performance. Maybe this "purge" of characters and actors will revitalize the
series.
Many years ago there was a show called NYPD. It was entirely photographed in
NY, it was in Black and White and it was only one half hour long. It never
slipped into the mawkishly sentimental melodrama that the once great NYPD Blue
has fell.
Kaki's Mom
BTW, keep in mind that November's a sweeps month. Ergo, Bobby's departure has
been dragged out intentionally to get those ratings.
Jane
In article <365463...@ix.netcom.com>, Dan Sontup <EQ...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Eleaticus
> Eleaticus wrote:
> > But everything you have said here - especially in the
> > first big paragraph (which I deleted before deciding
> > this response should involve it) - militates in the
> > direction of the dentist. The pigeon coop scenario
> > as cause leaves us no mystery or culprit, ditto
> > the miscreant's knife really.
> > That leaves a murderous dentist, maybe.
> Why is the dentist "murderous"?
Did I miss a switch to a discussion of Quincy? <g>
Your major point of your article was that the writers
wre making a lot of the situation and were likely
setting up further crime detection.
The miscreant's knife? No problem. Culprit known.
Psitto/etceto; arrest that pigeon!
That leaves us a dentist, and no accident.
Maybe. [Like I said.]
> The writers haven't prepared us for
> this through any planted clues that I can recall. Can you give any
> specific instances that I, and others, may have missed?
Just the one comment about the dentist.
> The pigeon coop
> scene, however, has been played at the beginning and replayed again this
> week. This fits in with the story structure so far in that the mystery
> here has been presented all along as what disease has caused Bobby's bad
> heart rather then *who* did this to him?
I agree, just as I did before, but if you want
mystery, there is none left in the psitto sceno.
Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster Thnk...@concentric.net ?
! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
==========================================================
What follows is the "Jim Carr the Nut and Liar" faq.
The eligible content grows daily.
Lines/sections following "E:" are current notes
by Eleaticus.
Otherwise, lines without an initial set of attribution
indicators are by Jim Carr.
Lines with attribution indicators containing a j or c,
are by Jim Carr.
Lines with attribution indicators containing an e
are by Eleaticus.
***************************************************************
Message-ID: <6nb1hk$46g$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
e>x0' is not a constant you idiot!
You were the one who said it was in an "invariant equation",
an "invariant term", or other things to imply that it is a
scalar or otherwise time independent.
---------------------------------------------------------------
E: The content on the surface (and below) is a lie. I
have never said that x0' is a constant. I have always
said x0'=x0-vt, it being a transformed x0, whatever
x0 might be in a particular case.
E: You did note Jim said "in an" equation or term, right?
E: The concept of invariance - which the concept of a
scalar depends on but is not identical to - is about
the value of an expression/quantity AFTER some
operation(s): is the value the same? It has nothing to
do with what goes on IN the operations, nor the content/
appearance/details of the expression/quantity.
E: Jim presents himself as an expert on Special Relativity
and math. Do you really imagine such a person doesn't
know any of the above? We are left with the possibilities
only of his insanity or corruption, whether 'insanity' be
a function of drugs or illness or whatever.
--------------------------------------------------------------
After all, if it is a function of time, you need to write that
explicitly since that time dependence is also transformed. It
is wrong to say that x' - x0'(t) is a valid equation in frame K
since there is no "t" in that frame.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E: As everyone knows that has ever dropped in on one
of these threads, the discussion is about the Galilean
tranformation, and t'=t.
E: Further, the transforms are of the nature: x'=x-vt,
which is the same - though more specific - as saying
x'=f(t). In this case, x0'=f(t), not x0'=f(t'), al-
though the two are in practice identical.
E: x' is also a function of t, so why not complain that
the equation should show x'(t) - x0'(t)? the answer
is: Jim Carr is a nutcase who responds to all of my
posts with his brain in 100% animus mode.
E: x'=x-vt=f(t,) and x0'=x0-vt=f(t,).
E: Later/elsewhere, Jim and his fellow crackpots insist
that (x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0) is wrong, but
say (x'+vt-x0) is a correct expression. That expression
mixes notation, and is thus doubly wrong by his above
complaint, since there are terms there that fit neither
frame.
E: Jim presents himself as an expert on Special Relativity
and math. Do you really imagine such a person doesn't
know any of the above? We are left with the possibilities
only of his insanity or corruption, whether 'insanity' be
a function of drugs or illness or whatever.
***************************************************************
Message-ID: <6nb111$41a$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
[Subscribe to sci.physics.relativity]
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
j| Correct. Eleaticus is explicitly stating that x0' is a constant
j| when he asserts that this new equation is "invariant" (sic) and
j| this leads to his absurd conclusion.
E: That is absolutely a bald faced lie.
E: He made the same lie elsewhere, explaining his
'reasoning':
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only one problem: there is only one object since Eleaticus has
asserted earlier that x0 is a constant and this result proves
that (x'-x0') is invariant -- and thus that x0' is also a constant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E: The 'result' of which he speaks is:
(x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0),
showing invariance.
E: Obviously, I never asserted that x0 being a constant
proves (x'-x0') is invariant. If that is what he is
saying I said, that is just a bald-faced lie. If that
is HIS opinion, it is just nut-case idiocy.
E: If he is saying that HE believes x0' is a constant
that is just nut-case idiocy or crackpottery; x0'=x0-vt.
E: If he is saying that anything in what he says SHOWS
x0' is a constant that is just nut-case crackpottery;
x0'=x0-vt.
E: If he is saying that I believe x0' is a constant,
then he says so after I said x0'=x0-vt a few hundred
or a thousand times; that would be both lying and
crackpottery on his part.
E: He says similar things elsewhere in ways that lend
themselves to even more obvious debunking.
e>Perhaps thousands of times I insist that x0'
e>is not a constant, that x0'=x0-vt, ...
ROTFL. No, this is the first time. In the past you have claimed
it is an invariant, that is, a scalar.
E: That is just bald faced, unabated lying. My only claims
about invariance are about:
(x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0).
e> ... that x0'=x0-vt, ...
This means that x0' gets smaller when the ' frame is moving to
the left as it was in your example? But you pretty drawing says
it gets bigger. Better try again.
E: If the ' frame is moving to the left, then v < 0, and
x0' > x0, which is "it gets bigger". His comment is
just plain nut-cake idiocy.
E: Come to think about it - I'm editing this as I insert it
in a typical lying post of his to mews.admin - in that
post he says the faq contains bad arithmetic.
**************************************************************************
Message-ID: <6n94m9$dlm$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
e>The discussion was about the galilean transform
e>of a coordinate axis, x'=x-vt.
So why do you claim it applies to constants as well as coordinates,
E: Jim says there that no object or point has a
coordinate that doesn't change, that no coord-
inate is constant.
***********************************************************************
Message-ID: <6navsb$314$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
| e> Actually, I explicitly state that the
| e> traditional galilean transform equations
| e> are the correct galilean transform equations, ...
j| Of course you do; you just don't use them.
E: Contrast that with another section of the same
carrackpot article:
| e> Further, I use those traditional galilean
| e> transform equations over and over and over
| e> again.
j| ;-) Indeed you do.
j| One too many times, to be precise.
E: See? Not even the slightest compunction about
lying. Obviously, one or the other of his
statements must be false. Either I don't use
them XOR I "indeed ... do" use them.
e>What he means here is that some axis coordinates
e>cannot be tranformed when the axis is transformed.
Scalars are invariant under a transform.
E: It is (x-x0) that is invariant not some of
the various coordinates of a point across a
variety of two or more coordinate systems:
(x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0),
e>In particular, the coordinates of circle centers,
e>points of light emission, etc.
Those coordinates can change under a transformation of the variables
in the equation, as we have shown. It is your assertion that an
equation is "invariant", that is, that an equation is a number,
that is unsupportable.
E: From the eariest days of Einstein and before,
"invariant" in physics was about one central
question since it was the operational test of
the Principle of Relativity: is the equation
the same after transform as before. Do you
really imagine Jim Carr doesn't know that?
*********************************************************
Message-ID: <6n85ep$gne$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
What he did was use the notation of a constant for something
which is not constant. That is why he is unable to do any
problem that has numbers in it. He would either get the wrong
answer or expose the fact that he has done a _third_ transform
that has not been written explicitly. That is, since x0'=x0-vt,
(x'+vt') - (x0'+vt') = 0
==> (x'+vt') - (x0-vt'+vt') = 0
==> x' + vt' - x0 = 0
the equation we all say you get from the galilean transform,
one that clearly shows a lack of covariance by making the time
dependence of x0' explicit.
E: Notice that he mixes notation between frames. Above
here he complained because a form he provided mixed
notation. Since t'=t, x'=x-vt, x0'=x0-vt, we unmix
notation:
E: (x') - (vt' + x0) = 0
(x-vt) - (x0 + vt) = 0
(x-x0) = 0.
E: Which shows unmistakeably there is not time dependence
in that equation.
E: The time dependence of x0' is not in question, that's
just a lie by implication, where he has explicitly
asserted the lie elsewhere.
E: The time dependence of x0' is an irrelevancy; the only
question is whether the whole expression's value is
invariant, and the simple algebra shown above proves
that.
E: Jim presents himself as an expert on Special Relativity
and math. Do you really imagine such a person doesn't
know any of the above? We are left with the possibilities
only of his insanity or corruption, whether 'insanity' be
a function of drugs or illness or whatever.
E: You could just as easily have put in an oranges function
or alligators/acres function in the transforms and mixed
notation to make it look like the transformed equation
was oranges or alligator dependent. How old does the
typical child get before he/she understands that hiding
something doesn't make it non-existene? Even my cat knows
better. Crackpots don't apparently.
E: Let x'=x-vt+2A-3O), where A is alligators per acre and
O is the number of oranges in October in the nearest
orange grove to the stationary axis' origin.
Following the carrackpot, we have:
x' + vt' - 2A + 3O - x0 = 0,
which - according to his and others' crackpot logic -
makes the transformed equation both alligators/acre
and oranges dependent, even though simple reduction
of the equation shows us there are no such effects:
(x-vt+2A-3O) + vt - 2A + 3O - x0 = 0
x - x0 = 0.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
... However, since he has x0' = x0 - vt, it
should be clear that x0' is not a constant, but rather a function of
t.
E: Thus proving in his own words he knows he is lying
everytime he says I say/believe/etc that x0' is
a constant. Unless he is insane enough to not know
how he continually misreperesents and/or says some-
thing delusive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the error is one of notation hiding the time dependence, but
then applying it as if it really were a constant.
E: In other words, I hide the time dependence
by not using mixed-frame notation. His/their
(x'+vt'-x0) - as shown above and elsewhere
often - equals (x-vt +vt-x0)=(x-x0), which
proves there is no time dependence. True,
x' is time dependent, and so is x0', but as
shown, the relevant quantity in my thesis
- the only relevant quantity - (x-x0), trans-
forms as:
(x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0),
invariantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
t>To be consistent with his own notation, Thnky must Thnk that an
t>object (let's say, a rock) is motionless in both (t',x') coordinates and
t>in (t,x) coordinates. This is a difficult Thot to justify, since
t>(t',x') coordinates are in motion WRT (t,x) coordinates.
Correct.
E: It is hard to tell if that is a straight lie, or just
nut-cakery. Since I use the standard transform,
x'=x-vt, obviously only an extremely corrupt liar
(which includes Wayne Crackthroop and Jim Carr) could
imagine I ever said, hinted, or implied motionlessness
in both frames, and there has never been an explicit
hint, statement, or implication of such a silly idea.
I do suppose there may sometime or other been an extreme
sarcasm that an idiot could misconstrue, but I think not.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eleaticus is explicitly stating that x0' is a constant
when he asserts that this new equation is "invariant" (sic) and
this leads to his absurd conclusion.
E: That is just bald faced lying. Or are the insane
exempt from the commission of lies by some decree
of power(s) that be? x' is not constant, so the
constancy of (x'-x0') is only possible if x0' is
not constant.
E: Jim presents himself as an expert on Special Relativity
and math. Do you really imagine such a person doesn't
know any of the above? We are left with the possibilities
only of his insanity or corruption, whether 'insanity' be
a function of drugs or illness or whatever.
******************************************************************
Message-ID: <6n19qg$fh6$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
e>An active transform is not a coordinate transform, ...
Right, it is a transform of the center (in the opposite direction)
done to effect the change of coordinates without a coordinate
transform. But if you know that, you would also know that you
cannot do both at the same time.
E: Transform of the center? Center of a circle?
He really is saying a circle center moves in
the opposite direction of the circle! Right?
********************************************************************
Message-ID: <6n1aho$g14$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
j...@ds16.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
|
|e> >E/!: His complaint is indeed that I transform the 'constant'
|e> > x0. And if you don't? What is the value of x0'? x0'=x0,
|e> > which is what he just lied about me having said he said.
j| Anyway, it was Eleaticus who claimed that x0' is a constant after
j| a Galilean transformation, even going so far as to claim that it
j| is invariant -- that is, the same as x0.
E: That is bald faced lying. There is absolutely no
way I have ever said, hinted, or implied that x0'
is constant/invariant. (x'-x0')=>(x-x0), and since
x'=x-vt, then obviously x0' must change accordingly.
That obvious logic makes his statement not just a
lie but extreme crackpottery.
j|Roberts is merely relying
j| on the Eleaticus FAQ that states this Eleaticus-error very clearly.
E: That is just plain lying.
E: Still about whether x0' is a constant:
e>I have always said that x0'=x0-vt, just as the
e>basic x'=x-vt tranmsform says, ...
e>This means using (x-x.c), for example, instead of
e>just x, so the transform of any such term in any
e>equation is, with x.c as the/a 'centroid' of im-
e>portance, such as a circle center or point of light
e>emission:
e> (x'-x.c') = [ (x-vt) - (x.c-vt) ] = (x-x.c),
You did not say that the equation in the K' frame is (x' -[x.c-vt]),
you said it was (x'-x.c') where x.c' and x.c are your notation for
constants, consistent with your claim that (x'-x.c') = (x-x.c) shows
E: What kind of extreme nut does it take to
see x.c'=(x.c-vt) and then mix notation
and say I did not say x.c'=[x.c-vt] in
effect?
E: And x.c' is not my notation for a constant. That's
just another version of one of his lies. And x.c
would only be a 'constant' for one particular circle,
but any equation using it is about an infinite number
of possible circles.
*******************************************************************
Message-ID: <6lmq47$8jj$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Eleaticus wrote:
e} just what magic is it in equations of class A, B, C
e} (you fill in the expanded names) that would prevent
e} this simple algebra from working:
e} (x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0),
The Lord Leto II <c72...@showme.missouri.edu> writes:
l>There is nothing wrong with the algebra -- those equations are perfectly
l>fine. That statement says that distance (in galilean relativity)
l>between two objects is not dependent upon a moving frame of reference.
Only one problem: there is only one object since Eleaticus has
asserted earlier that x0 is a constant and this result proves
that (x'-x0') is invariant -- and thus that x0' is also a constant.
E: The 'logic' is insane there. The algebra in question
contains x0'=x0-vt and Carr says x0' is a constant?
E: (x'-x0') is invariant [it always reduces to (x-x0)],
x' is not constant, so x0' is a constant?
That logic is, with C=constant, and V=non-constant:
C=(V+C).
What a monster of a nut-cake Carr is!
E: Jim presents himself as an expert on Special Relativity
and math. Do you really imagine such a person doesn't
know any of the above? We are left with the possibilities
only of his insanity or corruption, whether 'insanity' be
a function of drugs or illness or whatever.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
However, up above it is self-evident that x0' is a function of t.
At least it is to most of us.
E: After he argues against it for months, and after even
here he quotes me saying [ x0'=x0-vt ], "it is to
most of us"?!!?
**************************************************************
Message-ID: <6kalj0$7v4$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
e>(2) Apply the galilean transforms to all occurences
e>of values on the axes being transformed:
e> (x'-x_c')^2 + (y'-y_c')^2 + (z'-z_c')^2 = (ct')^2.
Here you assume that "values" are "variables", an interesting mistake.
E: Jim believes a coordinate axis has no place on it
where the place has a particular value. Right?
E: Jim believes that anything that doesn't change
is not a coordinate. Right?
E: Jim believes that an equation containing (x-x0),
where x0 is the x-coordinate of, say, a circle
center or point of emission, applies to only one
circle/etc ever? Otherwise, it is a variable, and
even he must allow the transform, IFF he is honest
and not insane.
e>(3) Which reduces - by collection of terms - to:
e>
e> (x-x_c)^2 + (y-y_c)^2 + (z-z_c)^2 = (ct)^2.
So you conclude that there is no Doppler effect in a Galilean world.
E: We're talking galilean transforms, and Jim
wants us to screw up the equation about the
expending light sphere, and make it differ
wrt every possible observer in the universe.
**************************************************************
Message-ID: <6n93vd$d1t$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
j> You do realize we are talking about a set of trolls here, articles
j> that contain the proof that their author knows they are false?
E: Carr started that troll nonsense when he got caught
lying in a circumstance where no one could take his
subsequent distortions seriously. [See below; that
sequence is being imported from the JC the Liar faq.]
E: He had to resort to another lie to cover up:
j> Consider yourself trolled, Eleaticus.
E: That was in Message-ID <6kh7f2$m7l$1...@news.fsu.edu>.
E: And the 'knows that they are false' is just common,
carrish delusion.
j> Can you seriously assert that there are no variables in Maxwell's
j> equations?
E: When the Carr-ackpot writes that I said there are
no variables in Maxwell's equations, that is so absurd
it can only be measured at the top of a scale built to
handle lies of the psychotically insane.
E: For one thing, I don't discuss 'variables'; 'variables'
are what Carr uses in various lies and distortions, where
he tries to say ... well, lots of stupid things about
coordinates, which are what I discuss. Much of that is
treated above.
j> That a linear transformation applies to constants as
j> well as variables? These are factual matters, not "opinion".
E: All sci.math posts in this regard - when I sought non-crackpot
opinion on the obvious - agree that all coordinates are trans-
formed when an axis is transformed. Not that the 'constants'
he talks about are constants.
***********************************************************
Message-ID: <6kfc9g$eck$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
E: This is the lie sequence where he tried to lie
his way out of it by claiming he was trolling.
"C. Hillman" <opti...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
h} On 19 May 1998, Eleaticus wrote:
e} > SR does not have a vector form of the transformations
E: I responded:
e>Nice editing. Makes it look like that was/is
e>something I was asserting.
E: the article to which Hillman was responding with
such 'nice editing' said:
----------------------------------------------------------
I may have misunderstood something said
to me, but here it is:
SR does not have a vector form of the transformations
because no one has figured out a general form that
fits whatever arbitrary legal velocity of transform
that might be applied to any or all of the three
spatial axes. The result being that SR is impotent
except when the direction of movement has been
set to be parallel to the x axis.
So, is it true or is it not? And if not, please,
what are those vector equations?
--------------------------------------------------------
E: That was Message-ID: <6jrh7q$8...@mariner.cris.com>
E: The above quoted text is the complete start of the
article; I continued with comment on how easy it would
be for me to believe 'it'.
E: So, as you see, Hillman's editing and wording
was indeed deceptive.
E: And what did Jim Carr then say?
---------------------------------------------------------
e>Nice editing. Makes it look like that was/is
e>something I was asserting.
Let's check:
...
Looks to me like you were asserting that SR does not have a vector
form of the transformations, and that you knew why it did not.
The quotation above correctly conveyed your first assertion.
You were wrong about both.
That is what appears in the article as archived on our system.
I see no attempt by Chris to alter your words or conclusions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
E: I don't know whether Jim Carr is insane, using drugs
he shouldn't be using, not using drugs he should be
using, or just so primally corrupt he doesn't care
about either truth or being caught in falsehoods,
but maybe you will know.
*****************************************************************
Message-ID: <6naosf$qi5$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
e>You obviously understand that the x0'=x0 stuff is
e>complete nonsense.
Just as you understand that your claim that x0' is not time
dependent is complete nonsense.
E: Just more of his fairly recent campaign to turn around
his claim that x0'<>x0-vt? It ALWAYS has been my claim
that x0 transforms just like any other x-coordinate,
explicitly and often: x0'=x0-vt. Is Carr 'just' insane?
Or 'just' so recklessly corrupt it LOOKS like insanity?
And thousands of times I have said otherwise.
E: Always saying x0'=x0-vt is always claiming that x0'
is time dependent, so even misunderstanding cannot be
an excuse for his lie here and elsewhere.
e>Now, just remember that the claim is about (x-x0)
e>and (x'-x0') and not just x, x', x0', or x0 individually.
Your original claim was about both.
E: Whatever that means. Both of the four things, x, x', x0',
and x0? Both of (x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0)?
E: I have never claimed invariance/constancy for x' or x0';
I have always specified the standard transforms: x'=x-vt
amd x0'=x0-vt. It is just one more example of a carr lie.
********************************************************************
Message-ID: <6kd0fq$pte$1...@news.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
e>(c) every point in the universe has transformed x-values
e>- as you admit above - at every instant. This is obvious; ...
Yes, but we have been trying to get you to recognize this
obvious point for weeks. I suspect that you do know it,
of course, just as I suspect that you know how to do the
chain rule correctly.
E: After he argues against it for months, "we have been
trying to get you to recognize this obvious point for
weeks." ?!??!
<g<carr
*********************************************************
Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster Thnk...@concentric.net ?
! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
p> He has done the what he thinks is an epoch making discovery
p> that the circle itself does not change as a result of the
p> transformation; the circle is unchanged in it's original frame
p> of reference. This is what Eleaticus think 'invariant' means.
p> The circle does not change - it is the same circle all the time!
And what else do you think an invariant equation
would show?
Your own complaint has often been - as it is just above -
what amounts to the statement:
"It can't be invariant because it is the same".
Replace 'the same' with its equivalent:
"It can't be invariant because it is invariant".
Just how on earth and in heaven and hell can you
justify the idea that something invariant is supposed
to be different?
-----------------------------------
And ask, would the Principle of Relativity - always
the subject matter of the reviled faqs, and their
first one or two sections - ever have concerned itself
about replacing a value with itself?
Could one ever doubt that a law was the same in another
frame if replacing a value with its equal were a relevant
response?
Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster Thnk...@concentric.net ?
! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
I have been bombarded for months by people who
say some coordinates don't get transformed, that
equations that always yield the same value regardless
of time are time dependent, that equations that show
a time term are time dependent even though one of the
other terms concealss a non-visible time term of the
same value but opposite sign, that it is the components
of an expression that must be invariant for the express-
ion to be invariant, etc, plus outright and systematic
lies such as transforming my universal x0'=x0-vt to
"Eleaticus says x0' is a constant" and more.
And that is the saner stuff. We also have circle centers
don't have coordinates, they have constants, that if
(A-B) is invariant and A isn't, then the implication is
that B is.
a> You may note that velocity is not equal to location, acceleration is not
a> equal to velocity, nor is it equal to location. You're reasoning is in
a> a way equivalent to Zeno's paradox.
Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster Thnk...@concentric.net ?
! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
From: Thnk...@concentric.net (Eleaticus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.optics,news.admin.misc,sci.math,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:10:32 -0400
Organization: Think Tank Eleatic
Message-ID: <uGwirCSX...@concentric.net>
References: <physics-faq/galilean-invar...@rtfm.mit.edu> <35AB30...@hia.no> <gZvgrCSX...@concentric.net> <35AC83...@hia.no> <d7EhrCSX...@concentric.net> <35AE8F...@hia.no> <qWdhrCSX...@concentric.net> <35AF74...@hia.no> <D4thrCSX...@concentric.net> <35B3BBA0...@hia.no>
Lines: 240
You all seem to be laboring under the misformed
idea that the frame of the notation is what defines
the frame of the equation.
Given that there is a velocity, at least two
or more 'objects' are involved. Which object
does the equation say is at rest? THAT is what
correctly defines frame.
Then there is the case of mixed notation. What frame
would that be using y'alls' idea of frame?
And when the generalized coordinate form is used, (x-x0)
and the pseudo-transformation is applied, (x'+vt'-x0),
that IS a mix of frames.
Even the (x)=>(x'+vt') pseudo-transformation is a mix
of frames if it is conceived as coming from solving
x'=x-vt for x and chnging t to t'. Why? Where V is
the unprimed measure, the velocity seen by the primed
frame is -V, and retention of the unprimed frame v makes
the expression mixed frame.
On the other hand, if your x'+vt' comes from the
equation in the primed frame for the 'moving' object,
the v is indeed the negative of the unprimed frame's
V, so y'alls' (x'+vt') becomes (x-Vt)+vt' which is
(x-Vt+(-V)t) = x-2Vt.
On the gripping hand, if x=x'+vt' comes from the standard
x'=x-vt transform, your x'+vt'=x-vt+vt=x, an identity,
not a transform.
What decides the frame is which 'object' is stationary.
Working from the 'transform' from primed to unprimed,
x=x'+vt', (with v the negative of the unprimed frame's)
x' is the stationary object location.
Working from x'=x-vt, x is the stationary object location,
a fact that does not change by solving for x=x'+vt and
changing t to t'
Unfortunately, the only way to tell the difference between
the identical APPEARANCES of the two x=x'+vt' equations is
to ask which coordinate axis is moving which way relative
to the other and examining the equation's v accordingly.
About your playing fair line. Anything is fair
that has been foreshadowed.
Eleaticus
ter...@neosoft.com (Steve and Terri) wrote:
> Aren't we getting a little carried away with the medical mystery angle?
> This whole story arc is for one purpose: to do away with the character so
> Jimmy Smit can go on to other things. The writers chose to use a more
> involved, lengthy exit than having him shot on the street, and a more
> final one than having his career self-destruct.
Anything to prevent a 'return of' debacle like
L&O's Noth movie!
Terry James Kreidler
KATYMUNGER wrote:
> Paul,
>
> One more thing: Is there really an eskimo.com or is that an anti-spam moniker?
> Are you posting from Alaska?
>
> Yours in nosiness,
>
> Katy Munger
> Author of "Legwork" and "Out Of Time," both Casey Jones Mysteries from Avon
> Books. Look for "Money To Burn" in August of 1999.
Hardyboy01
the other Bochco shows which start out as good dramas and turn into contrived
soap operas.
Just remember what happened to Hill Street Blues & LA Law.
As with those two, the quality of the writing on NYPD Blue has dropped to zero.
The show will probably stumble along for another season or two and then,
hopefully, will be put out of it's misery.
Bob Finnan
Series Book Central
Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, Doc Savage & more!
Series Books & Collectibles For Sale.
http://members.aol.com/Hardyboy01
NEW ! ! !
The Unofficial Hardy Boys Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3191