RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 380 381 382 383 384 [385] 386 387 388 389 390 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,19:43   

Quote (stevestory @ July 30 2014,18:23)
Don't forget to strengthen the grammar. That's important, likeness.

Heck, no.  Step-one is randomizing the-hyphens.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,02:28   

A miracle happened! A Diesel Engine expert from Georgia who would like to remove the gravitas from “science” wrote a sensational response that is so good it's easy to make a lesson plan for, that starts off with short video of how IBM Watson works then in a few minutes more explained where the "scientific method" came from and how that works too:

http://ncse.com/blog.......4441726

This is a classroom time saver science teachers have been needing. Also introduces cognitive science the students most need to know, to in turn make sense of the Theory of Intelligent Design I defend that works the same way with "confidence" and guess hypotheses to test even where each hypothesis is just four or so bits of motor data as in the ID Lab.


Also, I should mention that the last update of the theory had several weeks of small gradual changes to the introduction then reorganization of the section to better flow from one concept to the next, or I think so. In any case the theory is still developing just fine along with cognitive science coming soon to a classroom near you, anyway. At least those who are spared a confusing chart they soon forget that does not help them will be able to figure out what I said and why I'm not the one using nonstandard terminology, this forum is just old-fashioned and behind the times but at least it's occasionally amusing.  

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,05:02   

Someone said something you agree with....a miracle!

???

Edited by Woodbine on July 31 2014,11:02

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,06:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 31 2014,03:28)
... I'm not the one using nonstandard terminology...

But you are, Gary, you are.
As more than adequately demonstrated by comparing the definition of 'learning' used by Cognitive Science with your usage of the word.
The two could not be further apart.
The only way in which you are not using 'nonstandard terminology' is that you are using it incorrectly.

BTW, where is Watson's sensory addressed memory?  Where does Watson exert motor control directly driven from sensory addressed memory?
In detail, please.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,08:51   

A river in Africa.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,10:00   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 31 2014,16:51)
A river in Africa.

Damnation!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,10:25   

Yes, Thomas Thurman gives a nice statement about the scientific method: making observations, replicating the problem, understanding the relevant literature, making multiple hypotheses, testing them properly, and debating the results until a consensus is reached.  None of that is news: all of it is taught in science classes under "the scientific method".  There's nothing particularly special about it - it is indeed exactly the pragmatic approach that mechanics and technicians use to solve their problems, and it's also pretty much how police detectives solve crimes.  Other examples abound.  Its widespread use (even by people that don't know its name) is because experience has shown that it works really well (not always perfectly, but better than any other system).

You would be well advised to apply it.  Any of it, in fact.  You haven't made relevant observations; you haven't shown that your model replicates anything real; you clearly haven't mastered the relevant literature; you haven't proposed multiple hypotheses (not even one, really); you haven't even proposed any legitimate tests, let alone run any of them; you don't present your results in language that other people can follow; you don't check that your results produce any genuine solutions; you evade and harangue rather than engaging in a debate over your results; and you don't have a consensus (so your ideas do not reach the status of theory).

Hence you are indeed up a very large river in Africa, without even the concept of a canoe or a paddle.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,10:44   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 30 2014,20:43)
Quote (stevestory @ July 30 2014,18:23)
Don't forget to strengthen the grammar. That's important, likeness.

Heck, no.  Step-one is randomizing the-hyphens.

I was making a joke re this line from July 25:

Quote
Right after the perfect punchline came to mind I knew I had a winning blow for a bullying science arena like this one, by how much it had me laughing straight through strengthening its grammar.


:p

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,10:49   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 31 2014,11:25)
Yes, Thomas Thurman gives a nice statement about the scientific method: making observations, replicating the problem, understanding the relevant literature, making multiple hypotheses, testing them properly, and debating the results until a consensus is reached.  None of that is news: all of it is taught in science classes under "the scientific method".  There's nothing particularly special about it - it is indeed exactly the pragmatic approach that mechanics and technicians use to solve their problems, and it's also pretty much how police detectives solve crimes.  Other examples abound.  Its widespread use (even by people that don't know its name) is because experience has shown that it works really well (not always perfectly, but better than any other system).

You would be well advised to apply it.  Any of it, in fact.  You haven't made relevant observations; you haven't shown that your model replicates anything real; you clearly haven't mastered the relevant literature; you haven't proposed multiple hypotheses (not even one, really); you haven't even proposed any legitimate tests, let alone run any of them; you don't present your results in language that other people can follow; you don't check that your results produce any genuine solutions; you evade and harangue rather than engaging in a debate over your results; and you don't have a consensus (so your ideas do not reach the status of theory).

Hence you are indeed up a very large river in Africa, without even the concept of a canoe or a paddle.

There is a layer of bedrock beneath all of this, accurate though it is.
And that bedrock is honesty, consistently and rigorously applied and held to.
Gary has been conspicuously dishonest throughout this thread.  He displays no integrity whatsoever.
Until he adopts an unwavering adherence to honesty, he will remain unable even to see the basic principles of science.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,11:52   

NoName - absolutely: honest definitions, honest hypotheses, honest tests, honest discussion, rather than smuggling stuff into arguments, misrepresenting prior work, making false claims, evading criticisms, and so forth.  I left it unstated, but it should have been explicit.

Stevestory -  My mistake, sorry.  That was great for a giggle, but it can be difficult to remember all those sorts of details in the middle of all this hard real-science.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,12:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 31 2014,12:52)
 That was great for a giggle, but it can be difficult to remember all those sorts of details in the middle of all this hard real-science.

I know, Gary's amazing discoveries are coming so fast and furiously. He's already totally overthrown basically all K-12 science.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,12:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 31 2014,00:28)
In any case the theory is still developing just fine along with cognitive science coming soon to a classroom near you, anyway.

As a case study, presumably.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,13:13   

Quote
Gaulin is like the unholy spawn of Byers, Batshit^77, and Gordon E. Mullings.


Ya ya, apparently he's a result of a menage a tard.  

Plus he's quite a hoot!  :)  :)  :)

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,13:17   

Quote
There is a layer of bedrock beneath all of this, accurate though it is.
And that bedrock is honesty, consistently and rigorously applied and held to.
Gary has been conspicuously dishonest throughout this thread.  He displays no integrity whatsoever.
Until he adopts an unwavering adherence to honesty, he will remain unable even to see the basic principles of science.


Agreed, but he still makes for good MST3K material.  Even if he isn't film, he's still cheesy.  And quite the hoot.

:)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,04:03   

I have a two page (already) reply ready to go, in reply to Thomas Thurman who included this link in their comment:  

http://www.underhoodservice.com/think-l....lusions

For some reason what they replied back to me with is awaiting NCSE moderation. It's such a fascinatingly complicated topic that this one is taking some time to cover, so I'm not ready to reply back anyway. I thought I should at least though keep this forum guessing what that is, by giving you the linkage they provided.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,04:24   

Gary, we don't fucking care what you're saying on some other site.  We basically don't care about what you're saying here.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,04:41   

Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2014,04:24)
Gary, we don't fucking care what you're saying on some other site.  We basically don't care about what you're saying here.

In that case then here's some vroom to go with that:

Rev Theory - Hell Yeah

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,06:49   

385 pages and now you're going on about your remarks on another site, to comments on that other site?
You are a loon, Gary.

Nothing could further strengthen the charge that you are dishonest and lack all integrity than this sort of behavior, taken in context.  You have not addressed any of the significant criticisms raised against your work here, but feel compelled to share your alleged rejoinders to alleged criticisms raised elsewhere.
The phrase 'squid ink' was used recently in another thread, and it certainly applies to your latest whines.

Do be a good lad and address at least some of the criticisms here or bugger off, won't you?

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,07:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2014,02:41)
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2014,04:24)
Gary, we don't fucking care what you're saying on some other site.  We basically don't care about what you're saying here.

In that case then here's some vroom to go with that:

Rev Theory - Hell Yeah

Yeah, you know I didn't click on that, right?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,08:40   

Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2014,07:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2014,02:41)
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2014,04:24)
Gary, we don't fucking care what you're saying on some other site.  We basically don't care about what you're saying here.

In that case then here's some vroom to go with that:

Rev Theory - Hell Yeah

Yeah, you know I didn't click on that, right?

I did that for myself and anyone else who needed some on-topic muscle-car action to take a break with.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,08:45   

Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2014,07:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2014,02:41)
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2014,04:24)
Gary, we don't fucking care what you're saying on some other site.  We basically don't care about what you're saying here.

In that case then here's some vroom to go with that:

Rev Theory - Hell Yeah

Yeah, you know I didn't click on that, right?

Or better yet:

I did that for myself and anyone else who needed some on-topic muscle-car action to take a brake with.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,08:56   

On topic?  What makes it on topic?
It's just another of your deflection, distraction, 'attention deficit oh look a squirrel' dysfunctions.

You haven't defended any of your claims.  You haven't addressed any of the demonstrable lies you've told.  You haven't answered any of the criticisms raised against your "theory".
You're useless Gary.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,10:33   

Quote (NoName @ Aug. 01 2014,06:56)
On topic?  What makes it on topic?

It's a waste of time.  Gary's "theory" is also a waste of time.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,10:47   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 01 2014,11:33)
Quote (NoName @ Aug. 01 2014,06:56)
On topic?  What makes it on topic?

It's a waste of time.  Gary's "theory" is also a waste of time.

Well, except muscle cars (and music videos) have fans, markets, positive attention, etc.
You know, all those things Gary couldn't buy even if he stopped wearing clue-fairy repellant.
Heck, Gary couldn't get any of those things at the "take one, it's free, and then take another" fair.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,20:02   

I waited a full day for the reply to be taken out of "moderation" then posted this to their first reply, and now this one is awaiting moderation. I'll post it in this thread, so that regardless of what the NCSE does I don't have to worry about this having been a total waste of time to write:
Quote

Thomas Thurman: Gary;

I saw this piece today. As I mentioned; "science" live in our repair shops but the techs don't recognize it for what it is. If you read Case of The Missing Throttle Plate, you'll find the whole scientific process, including researching the literature, collaboration and publication of findings. Just a twinge in education and this tech would have called his process what it is; Science.


http://www.underhoodservice.com/think-l....lusions
---------------------

Awesome article Thomas!

In the 90's I bought 1981 Thunderbird with chrome racing wheels and stiffened up suspension that looked great with air shocks, for $1000. The previous owner replaced its V6 with a new V8, which made an emissions circuit nightmare, even with the Chilton manual with schematics to work from. After studying the science that makes for a clean burning engine I discovered that it was an antiquated emissions system that was said to not work all that well even when brand new. The color of the tailpipe residue and exhaust odor it was a very dirty burning engine, which flunked emissions tests real good when it needed a new inspection sticker. It was then a learning marathon to try putting something together. After buying a vacuum gauge I found that was too low, even with all the emission circuit hoses were well connected. My theory was that the vacuum switches and actuator diaphragms reached their age limit (or were about to) and had internal air leaks, which in turn cause the whole system to not work at all. So I tried a racing trick I learned about in a book on building a high performance engine, which was to simply go direct from vacuum tree to EGR actuator. The engine perked right up, real nice, and pass emissions inspection!

After removing the bird's nest of vacuum hoses and components I had a nice clean motor to work on. In time my wife and I installed Edelbrock air intake, cams and obligatory chrome valve covers to indicate what's under them, and with an inexpensive timing light I keep it timed just right. After the transmission went I had them beef up the torque. The motor did well, and outlived the rest of the T-Bird that eventually has ball joint and 100 other issues from the rest of it not having been made to last for two motors, and my wife adding a few dents that would need over a gallon of Bondo to fill, with new door.

Years after that the next challenge of the same type was to get a HP5988A mass spectrometer (with parts machines and spares) running.



In that case it was vintage 1977 and the computer system that came with it needing replacing with a personal computer and interface that costs thousands of dollars after buying the database with spectral peaks of chemical compounds, to go with the software. The NIST had a free online service to one at a time download the peaks for a given chemical compound, and free software that reads a file that I wrote a program to write, which controls the mass spectrometer voltages and takes readings.

As with my having to study how an internal combustion engine works I was again almost over my head in “science” but I did get the mass spectrometer running real nice again. And no kidding the adrenaline rush of the long startup procedure was tremendous. I was rushing around making sure the large diffusion pumps with hot circulating silicone oil don't “boil up” from low or sudden loss of main mechanical roughing pump vacuum (that gets the pressure low enough for a diffusion pump to circulate out remaining interfering gas molecules) which happened but thankfully the silicone oil fumes safely vented outside. Another time it helped blow the main 60 amp fuses and all the electricity in the house was gone, then at that moment a friend of one of my daughters came over to visit! There was smoke coming out of the fuse box out the door then I rushed to replace them to get the roughing pumps back on again. Thankfully its fail safe valves did their job, manifold chamber held enough vacuum to cool down without boil up, and it only took a few minute fusebox pit stop to be back in the race again!

You found a good example of what science looks like, in everyday use, which has a stereotypical idea attached to it that does not really equally respect science in automotive related technology, which is still getting more scientifically demanding all the time and intelligent fully self-driving vehicles are not even showing up in repair bays yet. You'll then need some knowledge of how cognitive systems work. Where one is equipped with speech recognition and personal AI assistant there might then be a human/machine bond that will make bringing a car to a repair shop more like bringing part of the family to a modern hospital where doctors roll in complicated diagnostic machines to hook them up to as the poor thing motionlessly repeats the same distressing diagnostic messages over and over again. Maybe by then it will become a little more obvious how science intensive the occupation actually is.

Even without knowledge of how the system works almost anyone can feed a machine blood or tissue samples then push the right buttons. That job is right away considered “science” and in a forum like this one can qualify them as more of an expert in scientific matters, even though they could not even fix something easy that went wrong with their own car where you gave them the scientific instrument(s) needed to quickly diagnose and repair the problem. Of course not all “scientists” would be as lost. I know one who performed his own car repairs on a classic that needed lots of attention, which gave him enough practical experience to have a good idea of all the “science” that ends up getting into.

There are master technicians who to be certified need to demonstrate scientific knowledge that would qualify them as a “scientist” somewhere else, such as when maintaining motor systems for space vehicles instead of motor systems for roadway vehicles. Human scientific fascination with outer space might be partially related to why we see the two differently.

Academic institutions also show off their well credentialed “scientists” in the same way repair shops show off their certified “master technicians” to the public but that is not as scientifically glamorous sounding. It's not a matter of writing out the chemical formula for all the chemical reactions, which is recognizably “science” even though where someone memorizes all the reactions on through resonator then out the tailpipe that does not make one an expert in modern roadway vehicles, who might not off hand know the chemical formula of everything but be able to conceptualize the reactions happening inside the engine and what compounds smell like and their chemical properties such as flammability, corrosivity to various materials, viscosity at various temperatures, etc.. It's still science but more intuitive and gained from experience that makes a technician remove the right bolts to replace the right gadget then like magic it's back on the road again, not something figured out then the findings are published in a science journal.

It might help to make better use of the phrase “automotive science” or “diesel engine science” whenever possible, but without being a sales pitch. An expert should need to have experience that makes them able to visualize what is happening in all of the reaction areas of the motor. You confidently say that they have an excellent understanding of the chemistry and electronics, know the required sciences.

Whether that would qualify them as a “scientist” or not might be debatable, but I think I could get used to that way of thinking. Academia conditions most to think of the status as an entitlement for spending long hours in classrooms for credentials, which in my opinion is one way to gain recognition for having some scientific knowledge but not the only one. Self-learners stay going on their own and sometimes have to learn fast while on the job or never make it in the industry they are in. In my graphic arts occupation it's also now highly scientific. A company needs people good at diagnosing and rebuilding electronic and mechanical systems of the industry, on top of the day to day chemistry of various processes used in modern printing equipment. But likewise it's not like working with/for a college or university with a credential system where after enough years of in-house training and experience receive a diploma for the science areas mastered, which in turn on paper makes them a “scientist”.

This is an education related problem. A definition like this one is commonly taught:

“the scientific method is the way scientists learn and study the world around them.”

http://www.biology4kids.com/files......od.html

Definitions that do not limit the scientific method to “scientists” still leave the impression that it is still true, as though the detail was left out but to be assumed. There is no explaining that it is inherent behavior we are born with, how an infant learns. After learning how to grasp objects like a spoon they soon learn how to open their hand to drop it on the floor. This normal scientific experimentation has upset many moms and dads through the ages who have had to pick it up for them so they can repeat the experiment. Not knowing why they do that even makes parenting harder.

From my experience with how science is taught in school and around the internet the scientific method is something that was supposedly discovered by “scientists” then refined through the years, not something inherent to our behavior that is best understood by knowing more about how the human brain works. This would be a major paradigm shift, twinge in education, but after putting long thought into all this the tech you linked to was clearly following the scientific method therefore I have to agree he could have called his process what it is; Science.


--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,20:49   

Now that is downright fascinating: you wrote about something other than your usual heap of nonsense, and it actually contained some decent, readable, comprehensible prose.  There are some errors and some clunky and awkward parts, so there's room for improvement, but compared to your usual multiply mangled sentences you've got whole paragraphs that work decently from the get-go.

There's a lesson in there.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,21:23   

Still don't fucking care what Gary is doing somewhere else.  Either actually discuss stuff here, or go the hell away.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,22:07   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 01 2014,20:49)
Now that is downright fascinating: you wrote about something other than your usual heap of nonsense, and it actually contained some decent, readable, comprehensible prose.  There are some errors and some clunky and awkward parts, so there's room for improvement, but compared to your usual multiply mangled sentences you've got whole paragraphs that work decently from the get-go.

There's a lesson in there.

Well thanks for letting me know! I was in the process of taking out the last typos and missing word then I could not edit anymore. A message said to hold it a moment, it's awaiting moderation by the NCSE. Several errors are now staring back at me, which made it seem like it was a disaster.

If it ever gets out of moderation and I can fix the typos then I quickly will. That's what I had before the comment system removed my reply from the thread.

The reason I was excited like it's a miracle is because Thomas was explaining something that I could work with, which helped piece together much of what was earlier mentioned in this thread and others in other forums.

And this is what our 1981 T-Bird looked like exactly, except the larger more balloon-type racing wheels that better filled the wells and air shocks added extra clearance in the rear for heavy loads. It also did well off-road, for a rear wheel drive..



--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2014,10:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 02 2014,06:07)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 01 2014,20:49)
Now that is downright fascinating: you wrote about something other than your usual heap of nonsense, and it actually contained some decent, readable, comprehensible prose.  There are some errors and some clunky and awkward parts, so there's room for improvement, but compared to your usual multiply mangled sentences you've got whole paragraphs that work decently from the get-go.

There's a lesson in there.

Well thanks for letting me know! I was in the process of taking out the last typos and missing word then I could not edit anymore. A message said to hold it a moment, it's awaiting moderation by the NCSE. Several errors are now staring back at me, which made it seem like it was a disaster.

If it ever gets out of moderation and I can fix the typos then I quickly will. That's what I had before the comment system removed my reply from the thread.

The reason I was excited like it's a miracle is because Thomas was explaining something that I could work with, which helped piece together much of what was earlier mentioned in this thread and others in other forums.

And this is what our 1981 T-Bird looked like exactly, except the larger more balloon-type racing wheels that better filled the wells and air shocks added extra clearance in the rear for heavy loads. It also did well off-road, for a rear wheel drive..


Gawd Gary is turning this into a misery history of his life.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2014,10:39   

Quote
Thomas was explaining something that I could work with, which helped piece together much of what was earlier mentioned in this thread and others in other forums.
Thomas explained the scientific method, and why it works.  You aren't using it.  This is something that has been pointed out to you by lots of people in this thread, and by many others elsewhere before and since.  The only miracle would be if you got a clue and started applying it.

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 380 381 382 383 384 [385] 386 387 388 389 390 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]