Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 1 Feb 2007 20:47 In article <45C22970.44490C99(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > unsettled wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: > > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>>>>>MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>You don't need an anechoic chamber btw. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>How do you measure the EMF in "noisy" environments? > > >>>>>>>>Or don't you need numbers anymore? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Device off, sensors read baseline noise reading. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Device on, sensors read local differential. Extrapolations get > > >>>>>>>made, figures get arrived at. Task complete. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Your test has a big huge unfixable flaw. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that assertion ? > > >>>> > > >>>>The device has to be unplugged to get the baseline reading. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>That's what "device off" MEANS ! > > >>> > > >>>Good Lord ! How daft are you ? > > >> > > >>LOL > > >> > > >>These days "device off" isn't really off. > > > > > > > > > It is when the power cord isn't plugged in you cretin. > > > > That's called, as BAH properly called it, "not plugged in." > > > > "Device off" may have the power connected to the device, > > or it might not. > > > > Her point is valid, and as usual you're nothing more > > than a DumbDonkey. > > And you're a blowhard wannabe. ...and you've graduated WAY past wannabe. What a DUMB donkey! -- Keith
From: unsettled on 1 Feb 2007 20:50 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them > and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum > benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. > > I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will > have those problems reading :-). As a second reply to you on this specific, it seems to me that one of the problems is that Wake, Eeyore, and Smith reply with a fantastic depth of detailed objections in response to relatively brief conceptual presentations. They bury the discussion with all that stuff. The only message they allow to get through is that the US is at fault. The google groups count this evening is 14942. IMO even the entertainment value of this thread is done.
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 20:50 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8f257$45c2935a$49ecf9f$5932(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:c088c$45c12d64$4fe7458$13416(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > I don't know if the comic strip Garfield is syndicated in > the UK or not, but yesterday's product seemed to suit > your understanding of much of what I write, so I'll just > let a comic strip explain it to you since a picture is > worth a lot of words. > > http://www.gocomics.com/garfield/2007/01/31/ Interesting. I am not sure how to take it though - are you saying you are Garfield? Does this mean you don't see it as a fallacy? Oh well.
From: MassiveProng on 1 Feb 2007 20:57 On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:46:52 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >It isn't the burners. It is the computer board in the stove that >is bad. The stove has a clock, a cooking timer, and maybe some thermal probe monitoring ports. That isn't a computer. >> If you want good AM reception, you need a good loop antenna. That >>will keep the reception constant. Otherwise you have a serious issue >>with your house wiring. > >I dismissed the wiring because no other object plugged does >this. The stove is not like ANY of the objects you describe. You have no AC powered object in the house that is wired like, or gets its power from the same branch... as the stove. It has its own SEPERATE AC run. So you didn't even get that right.
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 20:58
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:d26e$45c298f8$49ecf9f$6044(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them >> and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum >> benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. >> >> I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will >> have those problems reading :-). > > As a second reply to you on this specific, it seems to me > that one of the problems is that Wake, Eeyore, and Smith > reply with a fantastic depth of detailed objections in > response to relatively brief conceptual presentations. > > They bury the discussion with all that stuff. The only > message they allow to get through is that the US is at > fault. > > The google groups count this evening is 14942. IMO even the > entertainment value of this thread is done. > Bye. |