O.T. Will there ever be an end?

[AK]

I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.

And it has been very peaceful. :-)

I went to abc news to see what is going on.

And the lead story was about ##ump.

Do they feel that a corrupt, godless person, warrants our attention?

On the brighter side, I took a long ride with my bike. Very expensive MTB
bike made by Huffy. :-)

When I take walks, I like picking up and throwing aside any items that can cause flats in both cars and bicycles.

Take care,

Andy




Best regards,
Andy

[William Crowell]

Trump is a great man and I am really starting to think that he will be re-elected. God, that would be SO GREAT!

[William Crowell]

I'm sorry, I forgot to ask you, Andy, since you claim to know who is godless and who is not, then you must know what god is and what he wants us to do, so would you please explain to me what god is, because I have never been able to figure it out. Thank you.

[AMuzi]

That's your choice but if you do not follow current issues
from various sources daily, please stop voting.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[AMuzi]

On 3/22/2023 7:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:

+1

We have to return to President Polk for a man who actually
completed his campaign promises.

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:38:22 PM UTC-7, AK wrote:

What is this corruption you talk about? Is it anything like the Biden family business of selling influence to the Chinese military? Is it anything like the FBI asking social media to censor anyone that asks uncomfortable questions like "Where did covid-19 come from"? Is it anything like the CIA being complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy so that their super racist Lyndon Johnson could assume the Presidency?

Exactly why is this corruption you're talking about?

As for ungodly - tell us how YOU are godly?

[John B.]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I hadn't realized just how terribly corrupt the U.S. actually is....
How can you stand to live in such a place?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/22/2023 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
>
> That's your choice but if you do not follow current issues from various
> sources daily, please stop voting.

Wait - you mean Fox News isn't sufficient? It's the only source for so
many people!

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/09/fox-news-dominion-voter-systems-zero-evidence


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

I can't say as I don't have a television.

The deficiencies of all television entertainment labeled
'news' (one of which OP cited) is sadly well known, well
documented and for a long while with absolutely no impact on
their advertising revenues.

[sms]

On 3/21/2023 9:38 PM, AK wrote:
>
> I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.

Disappointed that Trump is ranked only as the third-worst president in
history and that Obama is ranked only as 11th best, behind Kennedy and
Johnson. <https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/3/>.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:05 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 3/21/2023 9:38 PM, AK wrote:
> >
> > I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.
> Disappointed that Trump is ranked only as the third-worst president in
> history

That's because in terms of accomplishing "his" agenda "his" administration was remarkably successful. Whether you agree with that "his" agenda was in the best interest of the US is another matter entirely.

[AMuzi]

On 3/22/2023 1:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:05 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>> On 3/21/2023 9:38 PM, AK wrote:
>>>
>>> I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.
>> Disappointed that Trump is ranked only as the third-worst president in
>> history
>
> That's because in terms of accomplishing "his" agenda "his" administration was remarkably successful. Whether you agree with that "his" agenda was in the best interest of the US is another matter entirely.
>
>> and that Obama is ranked only as 11th best, behind Kennedy and
>> Johnson. <https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/3/>.
>>
>> --

>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it

>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as

>> they do about the subject.†—Tin Foil Awards

+1 quite perspicacious.

'ranked only as the third-worst' is another great example of
personal opinion masquerading as God's Own Truth.

I would expect a poll to yield dramatically different
results among readers of NYT than among subscribers to
National Review for example. Neither is 'wrong' although
neither is 'right' either.

Oh and it universal, not USAian only. You'd see the same
when comparing La Repubblica subscribers to those of
Corriere della Sera.

[Tom Kunich]

I would expect that the opinion of the majority of American voters would be a hell of a lot different than that of the NYT or CNN. Oh, yes and the worthless opinions of people like Krygowski or very Slocomb. Flunky's opinions are as worthless as they come. He makes his wannabe lover Krygowski read like Einstein.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

A) I didn't offer an opinion, shit head
b) Your opinion of my opinion is as valuable as my opinion on anything.

[Frank Krygowski]

The article lacks some detail, but they say it's a poll of presidential
historians, not NYT readers.

I'm one of those people who believe that people who have spent their
professional lives studying and learning about a topic tend to be
"right" more often than random people prattling on internet discussion
groups. That applies to engineering, medicine, climate, crime and
presidential history.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 3/22/2023 5:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/22/2023 2:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/22/2023 1:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:05 PM UTC-4,

>>> sms wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2023 9:38 PM, AK wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.
>>>> Disappointed that Trump is ranked only as the
>>>> third-worst president in
>>>> history
>>>
>>> That's because in terms of accomplishing "his" agenda
>>> "his" administration was remarkably successful. Whether
>>> you agree with that "his" agenda was in the best interest
>>> of the US is another matter entirely.
>>>
>>>> and that Obama is ranked only as 11th best, behind
>>>> Kennedy and
>>>> Johnson.
>>>> <https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/3/>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --

>>>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your

>>>> opinions about it
>>>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's
>>>> not
>>>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't
>>>> know as much as

>>>> they do about the subject.† Tin Foil Awards

>>
>> +1 quite perspicacious.
>>
>> 'ranked only as the third-worst' is another great example
>> of personal opinion masquerading as God's Own Truth.
>>
>> I would expect a poll to yield dramatically different
>> results among readers of NYT than among subscribers to
>> National Review for example. Neither is 'wrong' although
>> neither is 'right' either.
>
> The article lacks some detail, but they say it's a poll of
> presidential historians, not NYT readers.
>
> I'm one of those people who believe that people who have
> spent their professional lives studying and learning about a
> topic tend to be "right" more often than random people
> prattling on internet discussion groups. That applies to
> engineering, medicine, climate, crime and presidential history.
>

Depends on your view of the current crop of academics I
suppose.

'Historians' such as the fabulist Nikole Hannah Jones? Her
0work outsells the others, so there's that.

[John B.]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 12:04:05 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/22/2023 11:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/22/2023 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's your choice but if you do not follow current issues
>>> from various sources daily, please stop voting.
>>
>> Wait - you mean Fox News isn't sufficient? It's the only
>> source for so many people!
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/09/fox-news-dominion-voter-systems-zero-evidence
>>
>>
>>
>
>I can't say as I don't have a television.
>
>The deficiencies of all television entertainment labeled
>'news' (one of which OP cited) is sadly well known, well
>documented and for a long while with absolutely no impact on
>their advertising revenues.

But certainly "opinionated" news is not a new phenomena.
After all, "Yellow Journalism" was a major cause for the U.S. entering
the Spanish-American War. And, of course, the alleged weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:39:21 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
>
> >
>.....if you do not follow current issues

> from various sources daily, please stop voting.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>

I've been a public artist and critic of vary kinds all my life, and am suffused by the warming glow of over sixty years of accolades from high and low, but one of the best ever was delivered when I was hauled before a magistrate in Australia a month after I arrived -- for not voting. I admitted that I was aware that the law of the land requires me to vote and explained that I didn't know the personalities and their characters, nor the issues, and so decided it would be socially irresponsible to vote. The magistrate explained that there was no way he could not fine me, then laid two Australian dollars on the ledge in front of his bench and the clerk of the court said he'd get them paid in as my fine. "That's a responsible attitude," the magistrate said to me. "I congratulate your parents and teachers, sir." Hmm, actually I reached that decision by myself after observing politicians in many nations. All the same, high praise from a fellow who probably knew more about irresponsible people than I ever would. -- AJ

[AMuzi]

It was an error but it was not that error.

The Clinton administration, the UN, most western European
clandestine agencies and our many spook agencies under Mr
Bush all agreed it was a real and present danger. None were
shy about stating that in writing or sworn testimony.

There actually was a tranche of uranium which was moved to
Canada:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uranium-shipped-to-montreal-from-iraq-in-top-secret-mission-1.742303

There actually were caches of nerve gas:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

But while even Hussein's own department heads and generals
believed he had advanced nuclear and chemical weapons and
delivery systems,'in secret', the braggadocio was just more
of Hussein's deceit in his land of lies.

[John B.]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:20:55 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/22/2023 5:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/22/2023 2:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2023 1:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:05 PM UTC-4,

>>>> sms wrote:
>>>>> On 3/21/2023 9:38 PM, AK wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.
>>>>> Disappointed that Trump is ranked only as the
>>>>> third-worst president in
>>>>> history
>>>>
>>>> That's because in terms of accomplishing "his" agenda
>>>> "his" administration was remarkably successful. Whether
>>>> you agree with that "his" agenda was in the best interest
>>>> of the US is another matter entirely.
>>>>
>>>>> and that Obama is ranked only as 11th best, behind
>>>>> Kennedy and
>>>>> Johnson.
>>>>> <https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/3/>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --

>>>>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your

>>>>> opinions about it
>>>>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's
>>>>> not
>>>>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't
>>>>> know as much as

>>>>> they do about the subject.â€Â?â€�€?Tin Foil Awards

>>>
>>> +1 quite perspicacious.
>>>
>>> 'ranked only as the third-worst' is another great example
>>> of personal opinion masquerading as God's Own Truth.
>>>
>>> I would expect a poll to yield dramatically different
>>> results among readers of NYT than among subscribers to
>>> National Review for example. Neither is 'wrong' although
>>> neither is 'right' either.
>>
>> The article lacks some detail, but they say it's a poll of
>> presidential historians, not NYT readers.
>>
>> I'm one of those people who believe that people who have
>> spent their professional lives studying and learning about a
>> topic tend to be "right" more often than random people
>> prattling on internet discussion groups. That applies to
>> engineering, medicine, climate, crime and presidential history.
>>
>
>Depends on your view of the current crop of academics I
>suppose.
>
>'Historians' such as the fabulist Nikole Hannah Jones? Her
>0work outsells the others, so there's that.

And of course famous scholars and scientists have been proven wrong,
time after time :-)
https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong
https://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/
And :-) some 174,000,000 other "hits" on Google.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

I'm trying to picture Krygowski thinking he knows anything about anything. He has already made it clear that if he ever knew anything it was buried in a grave after he developed political opinions.

[John B.]

Yes, that was "yellow cake" which is an intermediate product in the
process of producing an "atomic fuel" but has no value as a weapon and
was sold, by the Iraq "government" to Cameco, a Canadian company and
apparently was transported by the U.S. government.Cameco stated that "
Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market,
where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's
currently selling for about half that.

>There actually were caches of nerve gas:
>https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
>

Yup... "In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount
of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered.
Those include:
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling
approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Some 122 mm chemical warheads"

>But while even Hussein's own department heads and generals
>believed he had advanced nuclear and chemical weapons and
>delivery systems,'in secret', the braggadocio was just more
>of Hussein's deceit in his land of lies.

Supported by the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq war Iraq did use chemical
weapons :-0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran
"According to the Geneva Protocol, chemical attacks were banned, but
in practice, to prevent an Iranian victory, the United States
supported the Iraqi army in their use of chemical weapons."
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

The uranium ore was discovered and transferred not by Mr
Hussein but by the Bremer 'government' well after the
occupation.

[John B.]

Picky but yellowcake isn't uranium ore :-) It is partially processed
ore. and YES it was, technically, sold by the Iraq government in 2008
(I believe was the year the yellowcake reached Canada)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

Why does Slocomb continue to talk about things he doesn't know and doesn't understand. It is unlikely that poison gas was purposely used since the one case was more likely accidental dispersion. As for Yellowcake - it is an intermediate stage in the production of purified U235. In itself it is long term radioactive but is relatively harmless unless you swallow it or work around it unprotected long term.

The very fact that we grew to know that they were dealing with poison gas is why the Army wanted an accelerated poison gas detector program and as usual did things that way the government does everything - all fucked up. Rather than having ANY safety standards for the pump out of the chamber they had none. And that's how I got mu injuries while programming the detector. And they also didn't teach the ordinance disposal teams the dangers of the gas and they destroyed it up wind from themselves. I know my injuries and I certainly hope that none of those men had it as bad as I have.

Shitheads should just remain shitheads and not advertise it.

[Tom Kunich]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 3:20:58 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

There are academics and there are academics of the grade of Krygowski. I make a point of him purely as an object lesson. If he taught his classes as he has claimed he has and with his off color political opinions I'm not sure that anyone learned a thing from him. I have on the whole had extremely bad experiences with post grad people. But I have also worked for academics of tremendous value. In my experience though it has been something like 5 to 1 bad.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 1:01:47 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>
> Shitheads should just remain shitheads and not advertise it.

IOW - shut the fuck up tommy

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:06:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I'm one of those people who believe that people who have spent their
>professional lives studying and learning about a topic tend to be
>"right" more often than random people prattling on internet discussion
>groups. That applies to engineering, medicine, climate, crime and
>presidential history.

Premature judgement:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
"The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the
wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it
will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
-- Literary Digest, 1899

If errors in judgement by the experts are so common, why don't I see
more admissions of being wrong from the experts in RBT?

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 21:30:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:06:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm one of those people who believe that people who have spent their
>>professional lives studying and learning about a topic tend to be
>>"right" more often than random people prattling on internet discussion
>>groups. That applies to engineering, medicine, climate, crime and
>>presidential history.
>
>Premature judgement:
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
>"The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the
>wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it
>will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
> -- Literary Digest, 1899
>
>If errors in judgement by the experts are so common, why don't I see
>more admissions of being wrong from the experts in RBT?

The examples of so called "Experts" making foolish assumptions that
history has proved to be incorrect is so extensive that it isn't even
a "fair fight. 10 of the rather large ones made by engineers in
https://www.primeengineering.com.au/top-10-engineering-mistakes/
and Science makes mistakes too
https://www.livescience.com/32051-greatest-scientific-mistakes.html
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/science-top-10-erroneous-results-mistakes
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:38:22 PM UTC-7, AK wrote:
> I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.
>

> And it has been very peaceful. :-)
>
> I went to abc news to see what is going on.
>
> And the lead story was about ##ump.
>
> Do they feel that a corrupt, godless person, warrants our attention?
>
> On the brighter side, I took a long ride with my bike. Very expensive MTB
> bike made by Huffy. :-)
>
> When I take walks, I like picking up and throwing aside any items that can cause flats in both cars and bicycles.
>
> Take care,
>
> Andy

Exactly what do you know about Trump other than what you would hear on ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC? All owned one way or another by either George Soros or Bill Gates?

Trump went to Sunday school and was confirmed in 1959 at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens.[23][24] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, which belongs to the Reformed Church in America.[23][25] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[23] ministered to the family until his death in 1993.[25] Trump has described him as a mentor.

Can you say that you had a better religious education and if so how and what?

Pretend you know about people because others do not like his actions - the real American way. I'll bet you're really proud of yourself belittling a man who was a staunch anticommunist - Well, at least you should enjoy a retirement in a world in which Russia and China rule the globe and your dream is fulfilled.

[Frank Krygowski]

I think both of you guys (Jeff and John) have lost track of what I said.
I would never say that experts never make mistakes.

What I said (paraphrased) is that experts make fewer mistakes than rank
amateurs, such as those posting on the internet.

The horseless carriage quote is up against hundreds of amateurs claiming
we'll have flying cars by 1960. And 1980. And 2000. And 2020. And while
I, too, can point to serious engineering mistakes, would the Titanic or
Tacoma Narrows Bridge really have worked if amateurs had been in charge
of the design?

Again, almost everyone knows experts make fewer mistakes than rank
amateurs, such as those posting on the internet. The only people who
think otherwise are the rank amateurs posting on the internet. ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

The rank amateurs appear to be winning.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=question+authority&tbm=isch>

It isn't really necessary to prove that the experts are wrong. It is
only necessary to shovel enough FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in
their direction, and they will soon be perceived as wrong. Perception
is everything. The problem is that expert opinions vary with time.
New ideas and theories replace old ideas and theories. Try following
the latest discoveries and theories in particle theory and you'll find
that even the best experts are correct, only for a few years. No
sooner is a theory published, that the inconvenient exceptions follow.
In some fields, it really difficult to be always right.

There's also a problem quantifying the expert. Being an expert is not
digital, where the only choices are infallible or always wrong. There
are great experts, usually found waving their Nobel Prize, and minor
experts, who don't invent or discover something new, but have studied
and worked long enough at something to understand how it works. So,
which would you prefer? An expert based on experience or an expert
based upon prizes, awards, patents, fame and possibly fortune?
Personally, I prefer experts based on experience because they tend to
offer more useful information.

There is one exception. Predicting the date of the apocalypse (end of
civilization or the world) has been consistently wrong but remains a
popular sport:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events>
That sorta levels the playing field between the amateur and expert
prophets of doom.

[AMuzi]

I'm apt to assign top credibility to Ig Nobel winners;
https://improbable.com/ig/winners/

Those people really advance human knowledge! Check out the
2022 Ig Nobel Peace Prize award in link.

[Tom Kunich]

You have to give a lot of value to people like Dr. Elena Bodnar demonstrating her invention (a brassiere that can quickly convert into a pair of protective face masks).

Now there is some expertise that give you plenty of faith in the Nobel Prizes. Not to mention Obama's Nobel Prize for Peace as he bombed Afghanistan into the dark ages. This is the sort of thing that the Stupid 5 are very fond of. Expertise on the level of the man who invented marbles most of which are missing from the Stupid 5.

[Tom Kunich]

Here is even MORE expertise and high education as determined by the Nobel Prize Committee: "ECONOMICS PRIZE [UK, POLAND, FRANCE, BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, AUSTRALIA, ITALY, NORWAY, ITALY]
Christopher Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff, and Samuela Bolgan, for trying to quantify the relationship between different countries’ national income inequality and the average amount of mouth-to-mouth kissing.
REFERENCE: “National Income Inequality Predicts Cultural Variation in Mouth to Mouth Kissing,” Christopher D. Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff, and Samuela Bolgan, Scientific Reports, vol. 9, article no. 6698, 2019.
WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CEREMONY: Christopher Watkins"

[Tom Kunich]

Here's one that even Lou should be proud to claim for his countrymen:

"MEDICINE PRIZE [THE NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM]
Nienke Vulink, Damiaan Denys, and Arnoud van Loon, for diagnosing a long-unrecognized medical condition: Misophonia, the distress at hearing other people make chewing sounds.
REFERENCE: “Misophonia: Diagnostic Criteria for a New Psychiatric Disorder,” Arjan Schroder, Nienke Vulink, and Damiaan Denys, PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 1, 2013, e54706.
REFERENCE: “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is Effective in Misophonia: An Open Trial,” Arjan E., Schröder, Nienke C. Vulink, Arnoud J. van Loon, and Damiaan A. Denys, Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 217, 2017, pp. 289-294.
WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CEREMONY: Nienke Vulink, Damiaan Denys, and Arnoud van Loon"

[Tom Kunich]

Now you REALLY have to see this one

"MEDICAL EDUCATION PRIZE [BRAZIL, UK, INDIA, MEXICO, BELARUS, USA, TURKEY, RUSSIA, TURKMENISTAN]
Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom, Narendra Modi of India, Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Donald Trump of the USA, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow of Turkmenistan, for using the Covid-19 viral pandemic to teach the world that politicians can have a more immediate effect on life and death than scientists and doctors can.
REFERENCE: Numerous news reports.
NOTE: This is the second Ig Nobel Prize awarded to Alexander Lukashenko. In the year 2013, the Ig Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Alexander Lukashenko, for making it illegal to applaud in public, AND to the Belarus State Police, for arresting a one-armed man for applauding."

[Tom Kunich]

You really have to see high education in action to believe just how likely they are to be better judges of the world around them than those of us that are just too stupid to have high educations and instead carry most of the water.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 13:41:41 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>I'm apt to assign top credibility to Ig Nobel winners;
>https://improbable.com/ig/winners/
>
>Those people really advance human knowledge! Check out the
>2022 Ig Nobel Peace Prize award in link.

A well deserved award for such important research, which should also
be useful for RBT pundits.
"... for developing an algorithm to help gossipers decide when to tell
the truth and when to lie."
<https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0300>
<https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0300#d1e2323>
Judging by the international nature of the five sources of funding,
one might expect great things when the algorithm is utilized by the
authors in an AI (artificial intelligence) program which balances the
difficult to believe white washed absolute truth with the more
believable and common lies. Unfortunately, since few RBT pundits have
ever admitted to lying, allowing a computer program to decide when
lying is appropriate is useless because the results of either option
(truths or lies) on the readers is the same. That also suggests that
many readers in RBT cannot distinguish between truths and lies, but I
won't go there.

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:38:22 PM UTC-7, AK wrote:
> I have not read any news for about 3 weeks.
>
> And it has been very peaceful. :-)
>
> I went to abc news to see what is going on.
>
> And the lead story was about ##ump.
>
> Do they feel that a corrupt, godless person, warrants our attention?
>
> On the brighter side, I took a long ride with my bike. Very expensive MTB
> bike made by Huffy. :-)
>
> When I take walks, I like picking up and throwing aside any items that can cause flats in both cars and bicycles.
>
> Take care,
>
> Andy

By the way Andy, I am not insinuating that you are stupid but that if you rely upon the Slime Stream Media you will inevitably be misled. Freedom of the Press means nothing if the Press is owned and operated by a very small number of people that are using it to their own ends.

[AMuzi]

On 4/2/2023 3:21 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> You have to give a lot of value to people like Dr. Elena Bodnar demonstrating her invention (a brassiere that can quickly convert into a pair of protective face masks).
>
> Now there is some expertise that give you plenty of faith in the Nobel Prizes. Not to mention Obama's Nobel Prize for Peace as he bombed Afghanistan into the dark ages. This is the sort of thing that the Stupid 5 are very fond of. Expertise on the level of the man who invented marbles most of which are missing from the Stupid 5.
>

The Ig Nobels are a separate institution I've enjoyed for
about 25 years.

One might argue that the other Nobel award to Mr Obama was
some sort of satire or dark humor (which escaped me) or
merely jealousy of the Nobels for the Ig Nobels.

[Lou Holtman]

Indeed, I suffer from that condition. Once a colleague sat opposite of me that ate some carrots in the morning and some nuts in the afternoon every day on the same time. It drove me crazy and I had to leave my desk, because he did nothing wrong and it was me having a problem. Thank god that problem is now recognized. I also can't stand Chinese people eat. Again it is my problem.

Lou

[AMuzi]

On 4/2/2023 3:27 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 1:21:16 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> You have to give a lot of value to people like Dr. Elena Bodnar demonstrating her invention (a brassiere that can quickly convert into a pair of protective face masks).
>>
>> Now there is some expertise that give you plenty of faith in the Nobel Prizes. Not to mention Obama's Nobel Prize for Peace as he bombed Afghanistan into the dark ages. This is the sort of thing that the Stupid 5 are very fond of. Expertise on the level of the man who invented marbles most of which are missing from the Stupid 5.
>
> Here is even MORE expertise and high education as determined by the Nobel Prize Committee: "ECONOMICS PRIZE [UK, POLAND, FRANCE, BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, AUSTRALIA, ITALY, NORWAY, ITALY]

> Christopher Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff, and Samuela Bolgan, for trying to quantify the relationship between different countries’ national income inequality and the average amount of mouth-to-mouth kissing.
> REFERENCE: “National Income Inequality Predicts Cultural Variation in Mouth to Mouth Kissing,†Christopher D. Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff, and Samuela Bolgan, Scientific Reports, vol. 9, article no. 6698, 2019.

> WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CEREMONY: Christopher Watkins"
>

The Nobel awards are not related to the Ig Nobels.

[Tom Kunich]

My mistake but those projects ARE all performed by the educational elite. And isn't that the point?

Here is the 2022 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize:

"The Nobel Peace Prize 2022
Ales Bialiatski, Memorial, and Center for Civil Liberties. The Peace Prize laureates represent civil society in their home countries. They have for many years promoted the right to criticise power and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. They have made an outstanding effort to document war crimes, human right abuses and the abuse of power. Together they demonstrate the significance of civil society for peace and democracy."

In the meantime the Stupid 5 all agree that Constitutional freedoms should be taken from every American they disagree with.

[Andre Jute]

They gave Obama the Nobel Prize before he did anything, so it is difficult not to conclude they gave it to him because he was the first black man elected President of the United States of America. If Michelle had been elected, they would have have given her two Nobel Prizes. -- AJ

[Tom Kunich]

The Stupid 5 who at that time were the Stupid 6 argued that he deserved the peace prize for being elected because Americans were so racist when my entire life's experience showed me that all of the racism came from the upper class elites who did not want to make room for the black intellectuals who were so much smarter than they were. Obama was elected NOT because he was black but because he would charm the population into voting for a man without a single thought in his head.

Joe Biden was the selection of the Democrat Party so it is plain that they wanted a Rook and nothing more so that they could manipulate this country into a Bureaucratic Kleptocracy which is what we presently have. At what point if EVER will the people EVER wake up?

I have protected myself but what of the Stupid 5? California is on the precipice of the entire failure of Calpers. And if this occurs does anyone think that places like Ohio will be far off?

Did Beatie actually leave because reality suddenly sprang into his face in full daylight? Hopefully he didn't make himself a victim.

[John B.]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 13:41:41 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

But even the those who received Nobel Prizes have been discovered in
later years to have been wrong.

The point is, I suggest, that "man is not perfect" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 13:57:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 13:41:41 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>I'm apt to assign top credibility to Ig Nobel winners;
>>https://improbable.com/ig/winners/
>>
>>Those people really advance human knowledge! Check out the
>>2022 Ig Nobel Peace Prize award in link.
>
>A well deserved award for such important research, which should also
>be useful for RBT pundits.
>"... for developing an algorithm to help gossipers decide when to tell
>the truth and when to lie."
><https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0300>
><https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0300#d1e2323>
>Judging by the international nature of the five sources of funding,
>one might expect great things when the algorithm is utilized by the
>authors in an AI (artificial intelligence) program which balances the
>difficult to believe white washed absolute truth with the more
>believable and common lies. Unfortunately, since few RBT pundits have
>ever admitted to lying, allowing a computer program to decide when
>lying is appropriate is useless because the results of either option
>(truths or lies) on the readers is the same. That also suggests that
>many readers in RBT cannot distinguish between truths and lies, but I
>won't go there.

And then there is the failing referred to as "epistemic trespassing"
where an "expert" apparently feels that because he is expert in one
subject that his slightest implication must be accepted by the
multitudes as truth.
( Epistemic trespassers are experts who pass judgment on questions in
fields where they lack expertise.)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 15:12:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:49:19?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:

>> On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:09:42?PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 4/2/2023 3:21 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

tell us Tommy.... How can you stand it to live in such a bigoted and
corrupt country as you describe?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Mike A Schwab]

An actual problem created by a non-engeneer lead to the Great Molasses Flood in Boston Jan 15, 1919, first successfully class action lawsuit, and regulation of building and engineering projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/2/2023 4:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 1:53:11 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 1:27:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 1:21:16 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:

...

I note that Tom really seems to be enjoying the conversation with himself.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/2/2023 6:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> The Stupid 5 who at that time were the Stupid 6 argued that he deserved the peace prize for being elected because Americans were so racist ...

Nobody here said that. You're fantasizing yet again.

Prove me wrong with a link to such a statement, if you can. But you can't.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 11:40:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Well, there are "experts," and there are those who simply claim to be
"experts."

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/2/2023 1:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 11:40:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Again, almost everyone knows experts make fewer mistakes than rank
>> amateurs, such as those posting on the internet. The only people who
>> think otherwise are the rank amateurs posting on the internet. ;-)
>
> The rank amateurs appear to be winning.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=question+authority&tbm=isch>

Meh. That's just marketing.

> ... Try following

> the latest discoveries and theories in particle theory and you'll find
> that even the best experts are correct, only for a few years. No
> sooner is a theory published, that the inconvenient exceptions follow.
> In some fields, it really difficult to be always right.
>

...

> Personally, I prefer experts based on experience because they tend to
> offer more useful information.

Speaking of useful, or of non-useful: As a young man, I was quite
interested in astronomy and cosmology. And I was somewhat interested in
the current discoveries in particle physics.

At this point, I'm not much interested in the latest discoveries in
those fields, because I haven't heard any good answers to "so what?"
Even the closest star is far beyond our practical reach. And 11
dimensional string theory or multiverses seems somewhat less practical
than angels dancing on the head of a pin. At least with the latter, you
get a pin.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

The words "Self Proclaimed" do come to mind, don't they (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 05:50:23 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And then there is the failing referred to as "epistemic trespassing"
>where an "expert" apparently feels that because he is expert in one
>subject that his slightest implication must be accepted by the
>multitudes as truth.
>( Epistemic trespassers are experts who pass judgment on questions in
>fields where they lack expertise.)

Methinks you've expanded the definition somewhat:
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34024942/>
There's nothing in the definition demanding that the multitudes must
accept the experts judgment at face value. It simply means that the
"expert" has gone well beyond the limitations of their education and
experience. For example, William Shockley deciding that his
reputation as one of the inventors of the transistor entitled him to
pontificate on race and eugenics.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Views_on_race_and_eugenics>
That's also largely the problem with about half the errors in
"premature judgment" by the experts I previously mentioned in:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>

However, the limitations of one's education and experience does not
hit the hard walls of ignorance and ineptitude once an expert in a
field steps out of their comfort zone. Knowledge in one field does
not prevent that person from knowing things in adjacent areas. For
most people, their areas of expertise are a patchwork of areas, most
commonly in adjacent fields, but can also be in completely isolated
and unrelated areas. It's much like expertise in some aspect of
cycling grants many RBT readers expertise in politics, economics and
firearms.

In my never humble opinion, half the problem is restraining the
experts in one field, from passing judgment in a different field. The
other half is the responsibility of the reader, to decide if the
"expert" is genuine and worth following, or is just yet another random
opinion in an ocean of similarly random opinions. Such things are not
black or white, but rather various shades of gray in between.

[Frank Krygowski]

So how should society decide on one's expertise?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/2/2023 9:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Knowledge in one field does
> not prevent that person from knowing things in adjacent areas.

I think that's stated far too cautiously. In real life, knowledge in one
field often makes it easier to acquire knowledge in another field.

In some cases, that's because the fields are related, perhaps in
non-obvious ways (math and music). In other cases, it's because the
portion of the brain developed for one topic is useful for a similar
topic. (If you're bilingual, it's much easier to become trilingual, even
in unrelated languages.)

It's quite common for people who are outstanding in one field to also be
excellent in several others.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 18:34:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

(:-) Which is what I wrote, is it not? "experts who pass judgment on

questions in fields where they lack expertise".

As for my personal definitions, "an "expert" apparently feels that

because he is expert in one subject that his slightest implication
must be accepted by the multitudes as truth."

It was simply my own comment as to why the so called "expert" would
expect the public to believe his unqualified statements.... simply
because HE IS an Expert, of course! (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 08:58:53 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

Mostly yes. However, you added
"...because he is expert in one subject that his slightest implication

must be accepted by the multitudes as truth"

which seems to be rather absolute. Either someone is an expert or
they are not an expert, with nothing in between. I don't quite agree
with that as I note in my rant.

>As for my personal definitions, "an "expert" apparently feels that
>because he is expert in one subject that his slightest implication
>must be accepted by the multitudes as truth."

I would think that arrogance, an all too common trait found in most
experts, has something to do with it. Those who know only a little
about some topic tend to have an inflated opinion of their expertise
level. Only later do they discover that they don't really know as
much as they believe they know. The more I know, the more I have to
learn, or something like that. It's fairly easy to detect when an
aspiring expert has reached that threshold. They begin to act humble
with the general public and highly defensive with their colleagues.

>It was simply my own comment as to why the so called "expert" would
>expect the public to believe his unqualified statements.... simply
>because HE IS an Expert, of course! (:-)

It might also be because a genuine expert soon becomes rather weary of
trying to prove or demonstrate his expertise to the public. Similarly,
an aspiring expert uses every opportunity to demonstrate his
superiority. People who are not very confident of their knowledge
tend to surround themselves with symbols of their superiority (awards,
trophies, diplomas, certificate, photos with VIP's, etc). People who
are confident in their abilities don't need such symbols. Those who
don't know anything, buy the t-shirts and buttons:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=trust+me+I%27m+an+expert&tbm=isch>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 21:48:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/2/2023 9:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 20:28:49 -0400, Catrike Rider
>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 11:40:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, almost everyone knows experts make fewer mistakes than rank
>>>> amateurs, such as those posting on the internet. The only people who
>>>> think otherwise are the rank amateurs posting on the internet. ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, there are "experts," and there are those who simply claim to be
>>> "experts."
>>
>> The words "Self Proclaimed" do come to mind, don't they (:-)
>
>So how should society decide on one's expertise?

Hire an expert to help them decide if the expert is qualified. If
that fails, put all the candidates awards, certificates, diplomas,
trophies, medals, etc in a box and weight the box. The expert with
the heaviest box is the most knowledgeable. Or, if that's also
unacceptable, use the system preferred by attorney's for selecting
expert witnesses. The lowest cost bid (dollars per hour) for their
expertise is the best expert. There are other methods, such as
college roommates, former business associates, drinking buddies, etc.
Any of these or worse methods will suffice because only a real expert
can recognize another real expert and such circular methods invariably
result in an expensive run-around to nowhere.

[John B.]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 23:41:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

Far too complicated. Just go to the doctor.... If he cures you then he
is, of course, an "Expert" and equally true, if he doesn't then
obviously he is a charlatan.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 23:28:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

I'm not sure about all of that. We had a bloke working for us on one
of the "Transmigration" projects, he's written a number of books on
the subject. The Indonesians moved, forcibly in some cases, some
500,000 families from Java and Bali to outlying areas, partially due
to the extensive crowding of the home islands - (Java is one of the
most densely populated islands in the world - 1,000 per square km).
Anyway, as our department managed the company's cars I was talking to
him one day about his car and somehow in the conversation I said
something like "But you are a Doctor", meaning that he had a PhD. His
reply was "but anyone can do that. It's just another few years at
school". His PhD was from Oxford, if I remember correctly.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 21:48:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/2/2023 9:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 20:28:49 -0400, Catrike Rider
>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 11:40:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, almost everyone knows experts make fewer mistakes than rank
>>>> amateurs, such as those posting on the internet. The only people who
>>>> think otherwise are the rank amateurs posting on the internet. ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, there are "experts," and there are those who simply claim to be
>>> "experts."
>>
>> The words "Self Proclaimed" do come to mind, don't they (:-)
>
>So how should society decide on one's expertise?

"Society" doesn't decide, each individual decides for themselves on
the value of advice/opinions on any given subject.

[John B.]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 03:46:33 -0400, Catrike Rider

<sol...@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 21:48:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 4/2/2023 9:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 20:28:49 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 11:40:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, almost everyone knows experts make fewer mistakes than rank
>>>>> amateurs, such as those posting on the internet. The only people who
>>>>> think otherwise are the rank amateurs posting on the internet. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Well, there are "experts," and there are those who simply claim to be
>>>> "experts."
>>>
>>> The words "Self Proclaimed" do come to mind, don't they (:-)
>>
>>So how should society decide on one's expertise?
>
>"Society" doesn't decide, each individual decides for themselves on
>the value of advice/opinions on any given subject.

Are you sure? I thought one ran about patting oneself on the back and
shouting "I'm an expert!" And if you could avoid dislocating your
shoulder then you one the title :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Oh, That's right, I forgot it was Obama who invaded Afghanistan....

This is the sort of thing that the Stupid 5 are very fond of. Expertise on the level of the man who invented marbles most of which are missing from the Stupid 5.
> >
> > Here is even MORE expertise and high education as determined by the Nobel Prize Committee: "ECONOMICS PRIZE [UK, POLAND, FRANCE, BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, AUSTRALIA, ITALY, NORWAY, ITALY]
> > Christopher Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff, and Samuela Bolgan, for trying to quantify the relationship between different countries’ national income inequality and the average amount of mouth-to-mouth kissing.
> > REFERENCE: “National Income Inequality Predicts Cultural Variation in Mouth to Mouth Kissing,†Christopher D. Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff, and Samuela Bolgan, Scientific Reports, vol. 9, article no. 6698, 2019.
> > WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CEREMONY: Christopher Watkins"
> >
> The Nobel awards are not related to the Ig Nobels.

shhhhh....don't burst tommy's bubble!

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:46:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:11:26?PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/2/2023 3:27 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> > On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 1:21:16 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:

Well I would guess that the "man who invented marbles" is long gone as
small balls of stone, identified by archaeologists as marbles, were
found by excavation near Mohenjo-daro, in a site associated with the
Indus Valley civilization that were estimated to be from about 2500
BCE

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

Excuse me Mike, but that was not an error of engineering practices but of safety. The molasses in that volume fermented, formed ethanol gas and everyone at that time smoked. So a spark was always near. It exploded and not collapse from weight.,

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 15:52:32 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

"Society" is just another word for group-thinkers.

[Tom Kunich]

The distain shown for anyone with the capacity to think for themselves rather defines the weakness of what is called society these days. Just watch the exchanges between Flunky and Scharf and Liebermann and Krygowski all supporting the preposterous positions of the Demented President that can't even make it through a 20 word speech without being hyped up on Speed.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/3/2023 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> The distain shown for anyone with the capacity to think for themselves rather defines the weakness of what is called society these days. Just watch the exchanges between Flunky and Scharf and Liebermann and Krygowski all supporting the preposterous positions of the Demented President that can't even make it through a 20 word speech without being hyped up on Speed.

Society seems to have settled on an almost unanimous assessment of Tom
Kunich. That's worth something, surely.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

People are dancing away from the pertinent question I asked. Let me try
again:

How would YOU determine whether a person was an expert - or perhaps I
should say, had sufficient expertise? Feel free to address the question
related to practical problems.

What if you needed someone to fix your plumbing so your toilet would
send waste to the sewers instead of to your basement?

What if you needed someone to design a pedestrian bridge on your property?

What if you needed someone to help you write your resume and a good
cover letter to help you get a job?

What if you needed someone to do something about your leaky cardiac valve?

How would YOU decide who was good enough? Would you just say "Aaah, all
those plumbers and engineers and professional writers and cardiac
surgeons are just braggarts?" and hire someone off a Usenet group?

I think not. I think you'd come up with some reasonable standards. What
are _your_ standards?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Meriman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/2/2023 1:22 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 21:30:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:

>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:06:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm one of those people who believe that people who have spent their
>>>> professional lives studying and learning about a topic tend to be
>>>> "right" more often than random people prattling on internet discussion
>>>> groups. That applies to engineering, medicine, climate, crime and
>>>> presidential history.
>>>
>>> Premature judgement:
>>> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
>>> "The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the
>>> wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it
>>> will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
>>> -- Literary Digest, 1899
>>>

>>> If errors in judgement by the experts are so common, why don't I see
>>> more admissions of being wrong from the experts in RBT?
>>
>> The examples of so called "Experts" making foolish assumptions that
>> history has proved to be incorrect is so extensive that it isn't even
>> a "fair fight. 10 of the rather large ones made by engineers in
>> https://www.primeengineering.com.au/top-10-engineering-mistakes/
>> and Science makes mistakes too
>> https://www.livescience.com/32051-greatest-scientific-mistakes.html
>>
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/science-top-10-erroneous-results-mistakes
>

> I think both of you guys (Jeff and John) have lost track of what I said.
> I would never say that experts never make mistakes.
>

> What I said (paraphrased) is that experts make fewer mistakes than rank

> amateurs, such as those posting on the internet.
>

> The horseless carriage quote is up against hundreds of amateurs claiming
> we'll have flying cars by 1960. And 1980. And 2000. And 2020. And while
> I, too, can point to serious engineering mistakes, would the Titanic or
> Tacoma Narrows Bridge really have worked if amateurs had been in charge
> of the design?
>

> Again, almost everyone knows experts make fewer mistakes than rank
> amateurs, such as those posting on the internet. The only people who
> think otherwise are the rank amateurs posting on the internet. ;-)
>

Ish some of sport science Expertise has over the last few decades been
disproven or shown to be well based on someone said something once and so
on.

And the age of science thing of thinking well this is correct I’ve worked
it out this isn’t going to change!

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Why it was the science that proved that mRNA vaccines were safe and effective for all age groups down to 6 months. With all of those devout experts WHY were 1 in 10 people that were vaccinated with mRNA vaccines severely injured or killed by these expert approved experimental vaccines?

Frank is not nor has ever been an expert at anything. Imagine standing in front of a class and repeating the same thing over and over as time goes by and science moves on and believing that you're an expert at anything? Liebermann is, I'm sure, an expert at repairing computers and printers BECAUSE he has been doing it. What is it that Frank has been doing?

I have a relative that had some sort of computer failure and requires the data on a hard drive removed safely. I would recommend her to Liebermann if he were closer. But she lives in Oakland.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 4:59:43?PM UTC-7, Mike A Schwab wrote:
>> An actual problem created by a non-engeneer lead to the Great Molasses Flood in Boston Jan 15, 1919, first successfully class action lawsuit, and regulation of building and engineering projects.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood

>Excuse me Mike, but that was not an error of engineering practices
>but of safety. The molasses in that volume fermented, formed ethanol
>gas and everyone at that time smoked. So a spark was always near.
>It exploded and not collapse from weight.,

Wrong, as usual. Tom, please take the time to actually read the
Wikipedia article:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood>

"Possibly due to the thermal expansion of the older, colder molasses
already inside the tank, the tank burst open and collapsed"

"Witnesses reported that they felt the ground shake and heard a roar
as it collapsed, a long rumble similar to the passing of an elevated
train; others reported a tremendous crashing, a deep growling, "a
thunderclap-like bang!", and a sound like a machine gun as the rivets
shot out of the tank."

"The Boston Globe reported that people 'were picked up by a rush of
air and hurled many feet'"

All that sounds more like a structural failure of the tank and not an
explosion. The article calls it a "rupture".

The tank had been recently refilled and was full, leaving no room in
the tank for explosive vapors to form. For an optimum explosion, the
tank would need considerable airspace at the stoichiometric ratio of
9.7 parts air, to 1 part ethanol:
"...the previous day, a ship had delivered a fresh load of molasses".

There are no broken windows, toppled walls, scorching or other signs
of blast damage visible in the photos. Everyone may have smoked, but
not inside a tank of molasses. The molasses may have been heated to
lower its viscosity, but hardly to the auto ignition temperature of
ethanol (369C/696F).

Also, ethanol has a boiling point of 197C/387F. Below this
temperature, ethanol is a liquid. If there was ethanol (and yeast) in
the tank, it would have been in liquid form and enjoyed by the
citizens of Boston in the form of rum.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum>
<https://ward3.com/how-to-make-alcohol-from-molasses/>

Nice theory, but it doesn't hold water, err... molasses.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/3/2023 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Frank is not nor has ever been an expert at anything. Imagine standing in front of a class and repeating the same thing over and over as time goes by and science moves on and believing that you're an expert at anything?

Tom, you would have flunked out of my Robotics lab, except for the fact
that you would never have qualified to enroll in it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Wow....
As a Massachusetts resident who has worked in and around Boston for 4 decades, I'm regularly treated to tales of the Great Molasses flood. As usual, tom is completely full of shit.

- The molasses didn't ferment. There was no combustion explosion. It did indeed collapse under the weight of the filled tank.
- witnesses at the time reported hearing what sounded like rapid gunfire, later deduced to be the rivets popping out of the tank as it ruptured.
- The tank was known to continuously leak, so much that it was painted brown to hide the leaks, and residents of the neighborhood were known to collect molasses to take home.

In 2019 the Boston Globe published a story on the root causes of the disaster, almost exclusively attributed to a poorly designed and built tank.
- The steel was half as thick as it should have been for a tank of its size even with the lower standards they had at the time.
- The steel was an alloy that wasn't designed to handle the expansion and contraction it would experience as a result of New England weather and heating/cooling of the molasses
- There was no record of any testing of the tank after it was initially built and before it was put into use or any time thereafter.
- The rivets were undersized for the size of the tank, analysis of the plates showed cracking around the rivet holes.

I suppose tom could prove me wrong by posting a link showing that there was an explosion from ignited methanol. OR, he could simply read the linked wikipedia article and decide for himself if he was wrong - then possibly admit he's not an expert in the area........

[Frank Krygowski]

Ah, but some would say those facts were determined by experts, and so
they must obviously be wrong. Meanwhile, Tom is an internet poster, so
obviously correct.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

The popular book _Dark Tide_ on the incident is pretty good. Apparently
the tank leaked badly for quite some time before it collapsed, to the
point where the night watchman, who could not get management to listen
to him, quit his job. I don't think there is any evidence of an
explosion, although an attempt was made to blame anarchists.

>
> The tank had been recently refilled and was full, leaving no room in
> the tank for explosive vapors to form. For an optimum explosion, the
> tank would need considerable airspace at the stoichiometric ratio of
> 9.7 parts air, to 1 part ethanol:
> "...the previous day, a ship had delivered a fresh load of molasses".
>
> There are no broken windows, toppled walls, scorching or other signs
> of blast damage visible in the photos. Everyone may have smoked, but
> not inside a tank of molasses. The molasses may have been heated to
> lower its viscosity, but hardly to the auto ignition temperature of
> ethanol (369C/696F).
>
> Also, ethanol has a boiling point of 197C/387F. Below this
> temperature, ethanol is a liquid. If there was ethanol (and yeast) in
> the tank, it would have been in liquid form and enjoyed by the
> citizens of Boston in the form of rum.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum>
> <https://ward3.com/how-to-make-alcohol-from-molasses/>

197C? Almost 100C more than the boiling point of water? It was an
atmospheric pressure tank.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 12:15:43 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In 2019 the Boston Globe published a story on the root causes of the disaster, almost exclusively attributed to a poorly designed and built tank.

"Magazine looks at science behind 1919 molasses disaster"
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/13/molasses-disaster-boston-north-end-showed-lethal-power-thick-substances/nbhChG332PTOLTAnd7L6DL/story.html>

"Nearly a century Later, structural Flaws in molasses tank revealed"
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/14/nearly-century-later-new-insight-into-cause-great-molasses-flood/CNqLYc0T58kNo3MxP872iM/story.html>

"What builders at the time could not have known was that the type of
steel used for the tank was brittle because it contained a low amount
of the chemical element manganese, making it more likely to crack."

"The Great Molasses Flood of 1919 was Boston’s strangest disaster"
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2019/01/09/the-great-molasses-flood-was-boston-strangest-disaster/VawySumFUf5vKCibM9PLtJ/story.html>

Unfortunately, both articles are hidden behind a paywall. I managed
to bypass the paywall. Click on the "Get Access for $1" button and
scroll down to the bottom of the faded out page. Click on the "Read
Full Article" button and you should be able to read both articles. If
you have problems, such as it only showing the full article on the
first attempt, try deleting all cookies from "www.bostonglobe.com".

"Dark Tide: The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919"
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/559887.Dark_Tide>

Photos:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=boston+molasses+flood&tbm=isch>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:10:57 -0400, Radey Shouman
<sho...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
>> Also, ethanol has a boiling point of 197C/387F. Below this
>> temperature, ethanol is a liquid. If there was ethanol (and yeast) in
>> the tank, it would have been in liquid form and enjoyed by the
>> citizens of Boston in the form of rum.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum>
>> <https://ward3.com/how-to-make-alcohol-from-molasses/>

>197C? Almost 100C more than the boiling point of water? It was an
>atmospheric pressure tank.

Oops. The boiling point of ethanol is 78.2C/173F.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol>
I grabbed the number from some random site in Fahrenheit, mislabeled
it as Centigrade, and then used a units conversion tool to convert it
to Fahrenheit. Since I never make mistakes, I didn't bother with a
sanity check.

Thanks for catching my latest mistake.

Incidentally, you can remove rust from steel with molasses, water, and
some patience:
<https://todayshomeowner.com/cleaning/video/how-to-remove-rust-using-molasses/>

[AMuzi]

Right.

Anyone who's ever distilled it is familiar with methanol and
ethanol boiling points. 2d chart here:

https://www.britannica.com/science/alcohol/Physical-properties-of-alcohols

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 12:15:43 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I suppose tom could prove me wrong by posting a link showing that there was an explosion from ignited methanol.

Ummm, I think you mean ethanol. Methanol (wood alcohol) is poison,
unfit for human consumption and is not what I would like to find in my
rum. I'm not an expert on alcohol distillation or making moonshine
but it seems that ethanol is most commonly produced by fermenting
molasses:

<https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/molasse>
"Ethanol is the major product obtained from the molasses by means of
anaerobic fermentations using microorganisms (Ometto et al., 2009)."

[Tom Kunich]

The boiling point of ethanol is 78 degrees C.

You couldn't get through to Liebermann with a hatchet. Firstly, it was 1919. Apparently the Stupid 5 don't have any idea what that means. They had been building steel ships for the better part of a half century. It was JUST after WW I. So they well knew knew how to build strong steel structures and because of the war they built NOT to engineering specifications but to what they could get and that mean HULL steel which was thicker and stronger than anything some dumbass structural engineer might have specified.

A friend also told me that ass Flunky quoted a "study" in 2009 which determined what caused the "collapse" of the structure. Why of course a hundred years after the fact they knew better what happened than the people who were actually on the scene who said:

"It became known last night that W.L. Wedger State police chemist in charge of explosives had reached the positive conclusion that the disaster, instead of being due to a collapse of the great tank was caused by an internal explosion. Mr. Wedge in his investigation is understood to have found that the tank was fitted with a heating apparatus that connected with a boiler. This heating apparatus consisted of pipes inside the tank and its purpose was to make the molasses run freely.

Mr. Wedger after a careful study of the matter is reported to have reached the conclusion that in the great tank of molasses so heated there could be generated a mixture of gas and air that would be as explosive as the same amount of air and gasoline."

It describes damage like the OVERHEAD railway being blown apart. There was damage that appeared to be from a large amount of dynamite and that was the Chief Chemists report. The nearby buildings were actually protected from damage by the presence of that very heavily constructed tank. The opposite side of the tank that gave way is where the wash of molasses caused devastation so badly that bodies couldn't even be identified.

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 4:59:43?PM UTC-7, Mike A Schwab wrote:

And you know this how? It happened in 1919, long before you arrived on
the scene and possibly before your ancestors had arrived in the U.S.

Did you have a dream?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 12:15:43 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I suppose tom could prove me wrong by posting a link showing that there was an explosion from ignited methanol.
> Ummm, I think you mean ethanol.

yup, my mistake. I do know better. Ethanol is one of the fuel additives I deal with on a regular basis.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

And tommy knows for a fact that they used hull steel.....sure

>
> A friend also told me that ass Flunky quoted a "study" in 2009 which determined what caused the "collapse" of the structure. Why of course a hundred years after the fact they knew better what happened than the people who were actually on the scene who said:
>
> "It became known last night that W.L. Wedger State police chemist in charge of explosives had reached the positive conclusion that the disaster, instead of being due to a collapse of the great tank was caused by an internal explosion. Mr. Wedge in his investigation is understood to have found that the tank was fitted with a heating apparatus that connected with a boiler. This heating apparatus consisted of pipes inside the tank and its purpose was to make the molasses run freely.
>
> Mr. Wedger after a careful study of the matter is reported to have reached the conclusion that in the great tank of molasses so heated there could be generated a mixture of gas and air that would be as explosive as the same amount of air and gasoline."

and of course tommy's article also notes "Ultimately, the judgment of the court determined that the tank was improperly designed. The failure was due to structural weakness and not a terrorist attack." It's linked here, since tommy doesn't want anyone knowing he lied by omission.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-tragedy-forgotten-a-1919-boston-molasses-tank-explosion-that-caused-death-and-destruction_4395868.html?welcomeuser=1

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 07:42:59 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

And you know that the President is snorting "speed"? And, how do you
know that? Have you been creeping around the White House, peeping in
the windows?

And how did you get from California to D.C. to do your peeping? Oh,
that's right you just climb up on the garage roof and leap off,
flapping your arms, and soar right off heading East.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

You seem to have forgotten to include the source of your information.
Do you do that so that you can claim to be the gatekeeper for all
supporting information? Or is it because you added a few things to
the story and didn't want anyone to read the original?

"How newspapers at the time covered the Great Molasses Flood"
<https://www.boston.com/news/history/2019/01/14/great-molasses-flood-newspapers/>

Note that the story was published on Jan 14, 1919, the day BEFORE the
tank rupture as noted in the Wikipedia article. Something might be
wrong with the dates. Either way, that must have been one hell of a
high speed investigation and conclusion by the police chemist. My
guess(tm) is that the newspapers misreported what W.L. Wedger actually
said and also mangled the dates.

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article doesn't mention W.L. Wedger's theory:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood>
but does mention:

"The company claimed that the tank had been blown up by anarchists
because some of the alcohol produced was to be used in making
munitions, but a court-appointed auditor found USIA responsible after
three years of hearings..."

It would seem that the internal explosion and anarchist theories were
discounted by the court appointed auditor after 3+ years of
investigations. W.L. Wedger was still employed as a police chemist in
1922:
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1922/5/22/oil-in-oxygen-tank-cause-of/>
I don't see any evidence of him being a "chief chemist" and no mention
of dynamite or a Chief Chemist's report. Those are rather creative
additions to add credibility to your claims. Why did you think your
story needed the enhancement?

Again, please note that ethanol by itself does not explode. One needs
a fuel-air mixture of 9.7:1 to produce an explosion. There would also
need to be sufficient room near the top of the tank for the explosive
vapor, which is unlikely as the tank was nearly full.

Incidentally, such storage tanks are built with the lid loosely
attached, so that if there were an explosion, it would dislodge the
lid and direct the force of the explosion upwards, instead of
sideways.

[AMuzi]

Wiki? Not generally reliable or serious.

https://www.history.com/news/the-great-molasses-flood-of-1919

[Radey Shouman]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:

> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:10:57 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
>>> Also, ethanol has a boiling point of 197C/387F. Below this
>>> temperature, ethanol is a liquid. If there was ethanol (and yeast) in
>>> the tank, it would have been in liquid form and enjoyed by the
>>> citizens of Boston in the form of rum.
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum>
>>> <https://ward3.com/how-to-make-alcohol-from-molasses/>

That particular tank of molasses was not intended for rum, but
industrial alcohol, which was in high demand during the Great War.

>>197C? Almost 100C more than the boiling point of water? It was an
>>atmospheric pressure tank.
>
> Oops. The boiling point of ethanol is 78.2C/173F.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol>
> I grabbed the number from some random site in Fahrenheit, mislabeled
> it as Centigrade, and then used a units conversion tool to convert it
> to Fahrenheit. Since I never make mistakes, I didn't bother with a
> sanity check.

Why read your own posting if you have machines to think for you, eh?

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Sure it is. You're just buying into the right-wing bullshit that wikipedia can never be trusted.

>
> https://www.history.com/news/the-great-molasses-flood-of-1919

Yup, You'll see that listed here as reference 18, along with 45 other references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood#References

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:10:57 -0400, Radey Shouman
> > <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
> >>> Also, ethanol has a boiling point of 197C/387F. Below this
> >>> temperature, ethanol is a liquid. If there was ethanol (and yeast) in
> >>> the tank, it would have been in liquid form and enjoyed by the
> >>> citizens of Boston in the form of rum.
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum>
> >>> <https://ward3.com/how-to-make-alcohol-from-molasses/
>
> That particular tank of molasses was not intended for rum, but
> industrial alcohol, which was in high demand during the Great War.

The company was accused of trying to convert to drinkable alcohol in order to get a quick profit before prohibition was enforced. Not sure if that was ever proven.

[John B.]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 09:33:54 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Not to argue the fact that the tank did fail but I've been around oil
tanks which might be similarly constructed and they all have a vent
system to prevent the build up of dangerious pressure inside the
tanks. My guess is that even back in 1919 people were smart enough not
to build a giant tank without some sort of venting system. Stop and
think for a moment, You are pumping molasses through a pipe line into
the tank.... without a vent system?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

If I recall correctly, experts were involved. First they advised that
the tank, although leaking, was safe. Later they testified that it
wouldn't have collapsed without being bombed by anarchists.

Which illustrates the problem with experts -- it's not that they're not
smarter, better informed, more eloquent, and better looking than us
great unwashed, it's just that they are no better at forgetting on which
side their bread is buttered. Incentives matter.

Hiring an expert to advise you is great, although you still have to
watch out. Relying on, or, worse, being forced to accept the judgement
of someone else's expert on what is good for you is, in my crude
layman's opinion, not a good situation.

Lawyers and accountants understand this well. Medicos, however, have
managed to put themselves in the position of almost never sharing
aligned interests with their patients

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 18:30:03 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Wiki? Not generally reliable or serious.
>https://www.history.com/news/the-great-molasses-flood-of-1919

That seems to be yet another copy of the original Boston Globe
article. However, the photo gallery (5 photos) are better.

I use Wikipedia because I'm lazy. I can usually find what I need and
it's fairly accurate. Wikipedia is not authoritative, peer reviewed,
or includes every detail. What it does for me is save me time. Most
of my postings (and rants) include several links to source material.
Be thankful that I don't include too many footnotes. Each link that I
cite includes the article title, URL, and at least one quote which
should illustrate the point I'm trying to make. I could easily link
to original sources or use better search engines, but that would take
more time.

You may not have noticed, but when I reply to someone who has a strong
aversion to Google products, I usually switch to DuckDuckGo or Yandex.
With the inclusion of AI features, I might switch to a different
search engine.

As for reliable and serious, it's again a matter of my time. Finding
adequate references is easy but sometimes produces a loser. Finding
the "best" references guarantees that I'll burn far too much time
comparing various articles and comparing them for being reliable or
serious. There some times when mediocrity is good enough.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 19:53:13 -0400, Radey Shouman

<sho...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:10:57 -0400, Radey Shouman
>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
>>>> Also, ethanol has a boiling point of 197C/387F. Below this
>>>> temperature, ethanol is a liquid. If there was ethanol (and yeast) in
>>>> the tank, it would have been in liquid form and enjoyed by the
>>>> citizens of Boston in the form of rum.
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum>
>>>> <https://ward3.com/how-to-make-alcohol-from-molasses/>
>
>That particular tank of molasses was not intended for rum, but
>industrial alcohol, which was in high demand during the Great War.

Ummm, I think you have it backwards. The tank was certainly full of
molasses as a cursory inspection of the associated articles will
demonstrate. Tom suggested that the molasses might have fermented and
produced ethanol.

"The molasses in that volume fermented, formed ethanol gas and
everyone at that time smoked. So a spark was always near. It exploded
and not collapse from weight.,"

I indicated that had the molasses actually fermented in the tank, the
product would more likely have been more like rum than ethanol. Had
the fermentation produced either, it would have been very apparent to
the consumers of the ethanol. There is some mention that the end
product was going to be industrial alcohol and used in the manufacture
of explosives, but that seems unlikely one year after the end of WWI.

>>>197C? Almost 100C more than the boiling point of water? It was an
>>>atmospheric pressure tank.
>>
>> Oops. The boiling point of ethanol is 78.2C/173F.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol>
>> I grabbed the number from some random site in Fahrenheit, mislabeled
>> it as Centigrade, and then used a units conversion tool to convert it
>> to Fahrenheit. Since I never make mistakes, I didn't bother with a
>> sanity check.

>Why read your own posting if you have machines to think for you, eh?

I really hate it when someone takes me seriously. In theory, I should
be able to proofread my own writing. In reality, I routinely fail to
find my own mistakes. Over the years, I've found the most effective
way to proofread is to wait about an hour, and then proceeded with the
proofreading. I didn't do that this time. At least I remembered to
run it through the spelling checker.

I also have the irritating habit of adding mistakes during
proofreading. I can usually find a better way to express myself and
frequently edit my rants while proofreading. Of course, I don't do a
2nd pass to correct any mistakes I've added. The result are some
bizarre grammar, style, and sentence structures. I also have the
habit to thinking faster than I type. The result is that I often
leave out words. I've tried to fix these problems and usually fail.

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:09:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Err.... Actually Tommy the tank was erected in 1915
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Molasses-Flood

>A friend also told me that ass Flunky quoted a "study" in 2009 which determined what caused the "collapse" of the structure. Why of course a hundred years after the fact they knew better what happened than the people who were actually on the scene who said:
>
>"It became known last night that W.L. Wedger State police chemist in charge of explosives had reached the positive conclusion that the disaster, instead of being due to a collapse of the great tank was caused by an internal explosion. Mr. Wedge in his investigation is understood to have found that the tank was fitted with a heating apparatus that connected with a boiler. This heating apparatus consisted of pipes inside the tank and its purpose was to make the molasses run freely.
>
>Mr. Wedger after a careful study of the matter is reported to have reached the conclusion that in the great tank of molasses so heated there could be generated a mixture of gas and air that would be as explosive as the same amount of air and gasoline."

Nope Tommy, it doesn't work that way. At least with hydrocarbons which
I suggest are more flammable then molasses. When an oil storage tank
is heated the liquid does in fact give off vapors which being heavier
then air force the air (oxygen) out of the tanks through the vents
this no explosive atmosphere exists in the tanks.

Molasses does emit gases when natural fermentation occurs.... carbon
dioxide gas... 1hich is 1.5 times as heavy as air.
https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1942.tb17674.x


>
>It describes damage like the OVERHEAD railway being blown apart. rThere was damage that appeared to be from a large amount of dynamite and that was the Chief Chemists report. The nearby buildings were actually protected from damage by the presence of that very heavily constructed tank. The opposite side of the tank that gave way is where the wash of molasses caused devastation so badly that bodies couldn't even be identified.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 8:12:38 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> If I recall correctly, experts were involved. First they advised that
> the tank, although leaking, was safe. Later they testified that it
> wouldn't have collapsed without being bombed by anarchists.
>
> Which illustrates the problem with experts -- it's not that they're not
> smarter, better informed, more eloquent, and better looking than us
> great unwashed, it's just that they are no better at forgetting on which
> side their bread is buttered. Incentives matter.

It's certainly true that incentives matter. That fact is pertinent for situations where
there's significant money at stake. How much money? If it's a civil matter, something
involving government or big corporations, then both sides will probably have
hired gun "experts" who disagree. But at least ideally, their explanations should be
available for analysis. If not, there's a good chance the highest bid would win the argument.

But how about the issues we discuss here? There's typically zero money trading hands.
Instead, it's just reputations at stake. And on one hand, we may have a guy who's expert
at _everything_ saying riding on bumps sucked a dent out of his frame tube. OTOH we
may have several people with engineering degrees and one guy with well over 50 years
of frame repair saying that's impossible.

But the guy with the miracle dent will say "Aaah, experts don't know anything."

- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

It would have resembled neither rum nor pure ethanol, yeast can't live
in either one.