I give up, after many, many years!

terry wrote:
On May 18, 11:01 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? I don't think so.
--
I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information.

What he lacks--among a lot of things--is the ability to take the
information that he learns into a true understanding of those concepts.

The power-is-altitude thing is an example. If you point a Cessna 172 or
a 747 straight at the ground and apply full power, there are a couple of
very obvious reasons why this will not result in a climb, and these can
even be demonstrated in a flight simulator.

-c

gatt writes:

The power-is-altitude thing is an example. If you point a Cessna 172 or
a 747 straight at the ground and apply full power, there are a couple of
very obvious reasons why this will not result in a climb, and these can
even be demonstrated in a flight simulator.

Examine the trajectory and you will see that it's not a straight line.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

The power-is-altitude thing is an example. If you point a Cessna 172
or a 747 straight at the ground and apply full power, there are a
couple of very obvious reasons why this will not result in a climb,
and these can even be demonstrated in a flight simulator.

Examine the trajectory and you will see that it's not a straight line.


Wrong again.


Bertie

In article lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. ....

But stupid? I don't think so.

If it is not a troll, then it doesn't appear to be able to learn.

Is that not one definition of stupid?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21:

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing
to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes.
Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the
responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's
like a Weebil that won't fall down.

But stupid? I don't think so.

You're both ****ing idiots.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21:

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing
to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes.
Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the
responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's
like a Weebil that won't fall down.

But stupid? I don't think so.


Well, relative to you, of course not.


Bertie

Michael Ash writes:

Because you do a crappy job of repeating things.

No. It's because some people reject anything I say in a knee-jerk emotional
reaction. They are more concentrated on me than on my words. Sometimes they
argue with established facts simply because I'm the one who posted them.

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat.

I don't do it any differently than most people do.

Whether this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

It's neither. Some people simply look for some way to argue with what I say,
even when I'm simply repeated well-established facts. I've occasionally made
test posts here that prove it, literally lifting statements from reliable
sources and posting them under my own name, and watching the amusing reaction
of the usual suspects.