Disputation with Gordon Ross

[WildCat]

WildCat: There's good reason for that 100psf. It's actually not that hard to design for and it's a good idea to do anyways. The International Building Code (which most of the nation uses, except some places which refuse to get rid of the old UBC), which currently references ASCE7, requires 100psf. Most of the nation now uses this.

Morons will over-use balconies, they have to be designed for the "drunken idiot" load. I actually have labeled a load on one of my calcs as the "drunken idiot" load too. It frequently controls design =\

No, not hard to design for but it adds greatly to the cost of a porch if the contractor actually follows the blueprint. Many don't, and the idiot building inspectors (who all come from a single politically-connected Carpenters Union Local) don't seem to notice this. So some contractors use undersized bolts, lighter-gauge supporting brackets than the code requires. And get away with it.

And as far as inspections go, it's a complete crap shoot. I'm working on a porch repair right now (it's an old porch, but nothing is grandfathered in any more) where the inspector got all worked up over the decks (which IMHO were just fine, but it was the old-style 6x6 lookout in a pocket in the masonry at one end and notched into a 6x6 column at the other), so we tore them all out and did the whole ledger board construction they love now. Meanwhile, the winder stringers are completely miscut, badly designed and/or built, and are a clear and imminent hazard IMHO. But the inspector didn't write those up at all for some reason, go figure. The building owner is selling so doesn't want to do a single thing the inspector didn't write up, so there ya go. Oh, and when you go from 2x8 joists to 2x10 and 3/4" decking to 1 1/2" it really messes up the transition from deck to step... the first step is now either too high or too low, a complete cluster****.

I completely understand why the codes needed to be revised, but it is unecessary on existing porches that don't extend more than 7 feet from the building - the limit for a 6x6 lookout. But then people wanted 10 feet of porch, and incompetent carpenters like the guy who built the one that collapsed frequently underbuilt them.

The old designs were good for 150 lbs/sq. ft. dead load, don't know what the live load rating was.

Sorry for the derail folks...

 

[The Doc]

My first choices would be a combination of any of the following:

Dr. Greening
Ryan Mackey
Newton's Bit
Architect.

I sent out an email to Richard Gage a week or so ago trying to organize a formal debate between him and Architect, but never got a response.

I will be able to set this up on 911debates.com whenever is necessary.

 

[Apollo20]

Ron:

I really wonder why you and many other JREFers would want to debate the likes of Gordon Ross or Steven Jones when you spend so much time on this site describing such "Truthers" as stupid, inane, idiots and liars. If that is what you really believe, then surely any logic and reason applied to the debate would be wasted on such fools and charlatans; so why bother? A “debate” surely implies a situation where both sides initially have a chance of “winning”. A process involving a thesis and an antithesis leading to a synthesis – a true Hegelian dialectic! However, given that the JREFers have an obvious distain for anyone who exhibits even a modicum of skepticism over the official line on 9/11, I would expect a JREF “disputation” with any “Truther” to be more like a scene from a Kafka novel (or perhaps Orwell's 1984)…

 

[Kent1]

Lets stick to science and topics and hand rather than attempts of mudslinging to bolster ones perceived neutrality. Later of course to be regurgitated and strike headlines on 911blogger.

 

[Brainster]

Ron:

I really wonder why you and many other JREFers would want to debate the likes of Gordon Ross or Steven Jones when you spend so much time on this site describing such "Truthers" as stupid, inane, idiots and liars. If that is what you really believe, then surely any logic and reason applied to the debate would be wasted on such fools and charlatans; so why bother? A “debate” surely implies a situation where both sides initially have a chance of “winning”. A process involving a thesis and an antithesis leading to a synthesis – a true Hegelian dialectic! However, given that the JREFers have an obvious distain for anyone who exhibits even a modicum of skepticism over the official line on 9/11, I would expect a JREF “disputation” with any “Truther” to be more like a scene from a Kafka novel (or perhaps Orwell's 1984)…

Isn't it at least possible that these disputations are an attempt to get around the ad-hominem arguments? And aren't you now being just as guilty of deriding all JREF forum members with a broad brush as you claim we are of deriding 9-11 Deniers?

 

[Apollo20]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?

 

[Kent1]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?

I don't recall those words, but you've certainly had your fair share of personal attacks. APOLOGISTS, well-trained parrots, pathetic, nay-sayers etc etc...

 

[rwguinn]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?

The simple reason: There are a number of people who will accept anything that sounds authoritative, or which can be made to sound plausable. It is because of those we address the "stupid, liars, and idiots", because with very little effort they expose themselves as illogical, no-evidence story-tellers and purveyors of lies.

 

[Apollo20]

RWGUINN:

May I ask why you want to debate folks you believe to be "illogical, no-evidence story-tellers and purveyors of lies."

Don't you realize that you are only encouraging them?

Do you think that the insults you guys throw at an Ace Baker, for example, have changed his way of thinking one iota?

KENT1:

When you tell me that "you've certainly had your fair share of personal attacks". I couldn't agree with you more!

 

[rwguinn]

RWGUINN:

May I ask why you want to debate folks you believe to be "illogical, no-evidence story-tellers and purveyors of lies."

Don't you realize that you are only encouraging them?

Do you think that the insults you guys throw at an Ace Baker, for example, have changed his way of thinking one iota?

absolutely not. I fear that only chemical therapy, or possibly electroshock can affect the individual.\None the less, by exposing his ranting and raving for what it is, those who do not have a technical education can see what direction the troofers take--and make up their own minds. Exposure to logic and critical thinking has some effect on the world at large, and if it causes just one person to investigate and learn some physics or engineering, it is worth then effort.
"course, that opinion comes from a mere engineer, not a "why is there air" scientist, so it is probably worthless.

KENT1:

When you tell me that "you've certainly had your fair share of personal attacks". I couldn't agree with you more!

 

[chipmunk stew]

Don't you realize that you are only encouraging them?

Asks the man who coined (or at least popularized) the term "NISTian"...

Ask the man in the mirror, Frank.

 

[Kent1]

I hope people here are not under the impression that they are going to change anyone such as Ace Baker but hopefully others reading might see the problems.

 

[Apollo20]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

 

[Kent1]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

Honestly, I do think we should cut down on the personal attacks and spend less time addressing some of the more fringe ideas. Well-trained parrots or not, I think there is always room to improve.

That aside Jim Fetzer is about as bad as you can get. He's nuked his own base. His days as any sort of leader are numbered. I don't think I would waste much time with him anymore.

 

[T.A.M.]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?

There are some "truthers" who have exibited behavior that could classified as stupid, and some who out right lie. However, that said, I do not think we have called G.Ross or S.Jones those...but I could be mistaken.

The main reason most of us (I speak not for all, for sure) like to debate the issues with these people, if we feel qualified, is to provide a written or recorded record of a presentation of both sides, along with refutation from each, so that those who come here for answers (look at the number of people lurking on the site, compared to the registered users, and you will see this subforum has ALOT of lurkers), get to see just how weak the truther arguments are, when stacked against the REAL EVIDENCE.

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

S. Jones, I agree he is NOT stupid, and I doubt he is a liar. Fetzer, however, is a difference matter. He may have an intellect about him, but he is far from wise. As a matter of fact, he has said that to fabricate evidence in the name of the "truth" is ok, as long as it furthers the cause.

Also, I would point out, that in an actual debate, i doubt anyone here would call their opponent stupid or a liar...we leave that to Jason Bermas and others of his ilk.

Just my opinion.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

How does insulting someone encourage them? How does humoring them by treating their absurd views with respect not encourage them?

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate.

I don't recall anyone here trying to win a debate by calling the other guy stupid. The epithets only come out after (or in lieu of) debate.

In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Looks bad to whom? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

No you're right, it's not the same. A broadbrush, emotive, cleverly loaded term such as 'NISTIAN' is a much more effective propaganda meme, encouraging Truthers to dismiss any argument that cites any work done by NIST, and giving them reason to hope that a highly regarded and credible scientist is seriously questioning the official story too. There's no comparing that with such a weak and overused word as 'stupid'.

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

You're humoring them. You're encouraging them. I honestly don't care that you are--it's your prerogative--but be honest with yourself, Frank. Your engagement with them lends them an air of legitimacy.

BTW, do you really--I mean truly--have "worthwhile dialog" with Fetzer??? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

 

[Apollo20]

Ron had Fetzer on his show. Was Ron encouraging him?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Ron had Fetzer on his show. Was Ron encouraging him?

No, because Ron and Mark made it clear from the very beginning that they thought Fetzer's views about 9/11 are an absurd and twisted fantasy.

 

[JJordan]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

Thank you for your level headed observations. As the kids say, "you're not wrong". One only has to look at the recent need for moderator intervention in the conspiracy section as proof. I've been prefering to debate my favorite movies at JREF, but seeing things are calmer over here, perhaps I will get more involved.

For the record, I think if "truthers" would stop saying "Bush did it"(an absurdity considering his incompetence) and instead point out how he ignored warnings(another example of his incompetence) they wouldn't look or sound as crazed. Still, just because someone is inexpert at presenting their case is no excuse to call them a liar.

As for debating Mr. Ross, I don't know. He doesn't seem to have the intellectual caliber that would make it worth while. IMHO.

 

[Apollo20]

Chipmunk Stew:

Then how about this gem posted on another thread just today?

"But It would be interesting to ascertain whether members of the Idiot Movement are predisposed to long-term memory loss. Just Asking QuestionsTM"

Is this helpful in any way?