Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[spork]

All,

OK, I've found myself stooping to beating up on Humber which I promised I wouldn't do!

I have to confess I haven't seen the beatings because I'm not keeping up with the thread very well at all. But I'll take your word for it. And to put it in perspective, try and imagine enduring humber for a couple of years. Now try and imagine that you are the focus of his lies and hatred. I hope you can see why I would have long since lost all patience with him.

I still owe you a review of your long post. My apologies for the delay.

 

[spork]

We'll try not to appear smug as they ask "Doesn't this sort of violate the laws of physics??" for their first question!

The game here is exactly like Jeopardy. As long as you phrase it in the form of a question - you're good to go. But then there are the people that arrive on scene saying "you guys are idiots and scammers - any child knows that your claims of perpetual motion are nonsense - you should be ashamed".

We don't handle that as well.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Is that really the best response you have?

The obfuscation ploy has been replaced by the semantics ploy.

When you put words inside double quotes, that means you're quoting the person. When they haven't said what you quote them as saying, that isn't a semantics issue.

Are you claiming that you have never accused me of in any way unreasonable (or even reasonably) pressuring yourself and Spork to conduct a demonstration for me? And that in doing so you haven’t used words LIKE (if not ACTUALLY) demanded, whinged, moaned, insisted, etc?

What I have said (look it up) is that you were insulting to us when we wouldn't do the tests that you wanted us to do. You complained that you were busy and that we should be willing to do your (very poorly defined) tests.

JB

 

[ynot]

@ thinAirDesigns

Do you agree or disagree with these comments from your mate Spork? In other words, are these statements correct or false? Are they an accurate account of what I actually said? . . .

All from recent post #7094696

“but not before insulting us for several pages for not doing your experiments for you”

“how you were so much busier than us”

“how we kind of owed you those demonstrations!”

“But there are those like ynot that became convinced "through no help from us" that still have nothing but disdain for us - because we didn't have the time and inclination to perform the specific experiments he insisted on”

A simple yes or no will do - thanks

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

In fact he never did use the word ‘demanded;’ Spork did. Same with the promise stated willingness to supply links. They agree on just about everything wrt this discussion, until you lump them together in a response. Then the parsing begins.

Yep -- RCP logic at work. Because Spork and I agree with "just about everything wrt this discussion", it means that you can say I said things that I never said and my 100% true defense of "I didn't say that" is "parsing".

The logical brilliance of the self confessed addled mind.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

@ thinAirDesigns

Do you agree or disagree with these comments from your mate Spork? In other words, are these statements correct or false? Are they an accurate account of what I actually said? . . .

All from recent post #7094696

“but not before insulting us for several pages for not doing your experiments for you”

“how you were so much busier than us”

“how we kind of owed you those demonstrations!”

“But there are those like ynot that became convinced "through no help from us" that still have nothing but disdain for us - because we didn't have the time and inclination to perform the specific experiments he insisted on”

A simple yes or no will do - thanks

A simple yes or no will not do because I totally agree with some of that and only partly with some of it.

JB

 

[ynot]

When you put words inside double quotes, that means you're quoting the person. When they haven't said what you quote them as saying, that isn't a semantics issue.



What I have said (look it up) is that you were insulting to us when we wouldn't do the tests that you wanted us to do. You complained that you were busy and that we should be willing to do your (very poorly defined) tests.

JB

I suspect if I were to (look it up) and provide links you would merely parrot what Spork said when I previously provide links . . .

You not posting the relevant links really doesn't mean much - does it?

The onus of providing evidence of claims is on those that make the claims. You (look it up) and provide the links

 

[windgrins]

The game here is exactly like Jeopardy. As long as you phrase it in the form of a question - you're good to go. But then there are the people that arrive on scene saying "you guys are idiots and scammers - any child knows that your claims of perpetual motion are nonsense - you should be ashamed".

We don't handle that as well.

Thanks for looking back on my earlier post. I appreciate you just taking the time to bother. I think my only concern is the way I described the prop/relative wind interaction description. The prop clearly accelerates the wind from its front to its back at all times and perhaps I could have said this better.

At any rate, when a new arrogant one arrives all full of hubris, may I be so bold as to suggest something along the lines of:

Yes, we've been accused of being that-PM scammers, con artists, and great internet hoaxers. But since our cart has been certified by a national body to actually run 2.8X times WS DDW, your job is to tell us how we did that. If you can't, if you ask nicely, we'll let you in on the secret.....

Spork, You're a bright guy. I'm sure you can figure something out along these lines. It will make you feel much better!

Respectfully offered,

WindGrins

 

[ynot]

A simple yes or no will not do because I totally agree with some of that and only partly with some of it.

JB

So which bits do you totally agree with then?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I suspect if I were to (look it up) and provide links you would merely parrot what Spork said when I previously provide links . . .

Feel free to suspect anything you wish.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

So which bits do you totally agree with then?

Will you accept something other than a "simple yes or no" answer?

JB

 

[ynot]

Will you accept something other than a "simple yes or no" answer?

JB

Don’t know about “accept” but will consider any direct answer as I haven’t had one yet.

I said yes or will do, not that they are a necessary condition.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

At any rate, when a new arrogant one arrives all full of hubris, may I be so bold as to suggest something along the lines of:

windgrins, I wish I had a dollar for every poster who came along telling us how we should be more civil to some of the idiots who show up accusing of of crap and after a week(or month) or so of dealing with said idiots start going off themselves on them in a very uncivil manner.

In other words -- perhaps it might be more effective to 'walk a mile' or two before offering too much advice on how to deal with them.

Not saying you're one of those without the self control to stay civil ... just saying expect us to figure you might well be since most are.

With an admittedly imperfect recollection, I believe that MichaelC may well be the only long-term regular contributor to this topic (over multiple forums) who has always managed to maintain what I consider a perfect record of civility.

Now when MichaelC suggests something on the topic of civility, I don't question his staying power. Currently I still question yours.

JB

 

[ynot]

Will you accept something other than a "simple yes or no" answer?

JB

Let’s keep it simple and consider just one of Sporks recent accusations against me at a time . . .

Spork - “but not before insulting us for several pages for not doing your experiments for you”


Is this accusation . . .
(a) Completely true?
(b) Partially true? (if so which part is true and which isn‘t?)

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

“but not before insulting us for several pages for not doing your experiments for you”

I have no idea how many posts or pages. I agree with the insulting part.

“how you were so much busier than us”

I know in your reasons as to why we should to your test instead of you doing your own tests you claimed to be busy. I don't know for a fact that this means you felt you were "busier" than we were, but that's not a particularly hard conclusion to extrapolate from such a statement.

“how we kind of owed you those demonstrations!”

Yeah, I totally agree with the tone and substance of that opinion. We were the ones presenting the original evidence and since it wasn't good enough for you, you took the tone that we should do more to convince just you.

“But there are those like ynot that became convinced "through no help from us" that still have nothing but disdain for us - because we didn't have the time and inclination to perform the specific experiments he insisted on”

Don't agree with the "nothing but disdain" ("disdain", yes. "nothing but disdain", no) nor necessarily with the "insisted" part. I would have to reread the entire thread to know if you insisted or demanded or some version of that (and I'm not going to reread the entire thread).

JB

 

[windgrins]

Valid Response!

windgrins, I wish I had a dollar for every poster who came along telling us how we should be more civil to some of the idiots who show up accusing of of crap and after a week(or month) or so of dealing with said idiots start going off themselves on them in a very uncivil manner.

In other words -- perhaps it might be more effective to 'walk a mile' or two before offering too much advice on how to deal with them.

Not saying you're one of those without the self control to stay civil ... just saying expect us to figure you might well be since most are.

With an admittedly imperfect recollection, I believe that MichaelC may well be the only long-term regular contributor to this topic (over multiple forums) who has always managed to maintain what I consider a perfect record of civility.

Now when MichaelC suggests something on the topic of civility, I don't question his staying power. Currently I still question yours.

JB

Fair enough!

MichaelC should get an award! I already made a joke at Humber's expense so I already don't qualify.

WindGrins

 

[ynot]

I have no idea how many posts or pages. I agree with the insulting part.

JB

Provide at least one link to a post of mine in which I insulted you for not conducting a demonstration I had requested.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Ynot -- I'm glad you don't come around often because we get into this sort of thing when you do. We've been through it too many times (to the point I'm not willing to reread the thread again just to post what I've already posted long ago).

I wish you would pay attention to the good things I say about you when you are not around. Just read the last few pages and you'll see that I freely give you much credit for some of the very cool things that you did and don't drag up the conflict. In fact my response when you posted this time was to introduce you to the new folks as a guy who was responsible for a lot of educational product on the topic.

It's a pretty good bet that behind us and Bauer, Ynot has put more effort into demonstrating DDWFTTW than anyone. "Demonstrating" likely isn't the correct word as he was actually attempting to prove us wrong or at least convince himself we were right.

No shame in that as he was willing to accept the evidence as he produced it.

No old crap, no old BS, no accusations -- just pure credit. That has been the pattern of my comments regarding you to others.

JB

 

[spork]

I believe that MichaelC may well be the only long-term regular contributor to this topic (over multiple forums) who has always managed to maintain what I consider a perfect record of civility.

I agree that Michael is the model of civility. RossFW has a very impressive record as well. I will say that I've seen both get in a good slam now and then, but they manage to remain civil while doing it. Very impressive.

On the one hand, I make no claim to civility. I don't care for unfounded insults. By way of rationalization, I'd say too that Michael and Ross have had an easier time of it than me. humber has targeted me for insults and lies from the very start. I suspect few million insults and lies would make most people a bit uncivil (although perhaps not Michael or Ross to be fair).

Interestingly, there have been some that have been downright condescending about our inability to remain civil in the face of the insults and lies - just to go on and set a new example of how uncivil one can be on the internet.

Now when MichaelC suggests something on the topic of civility, I don't question his staying power. Currently I still question yours.

I don't know if windgrins will be able to keep pace with the real civility champs, but he gets big points from me for not being condescending about it.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I don't know if windgrins will be able to keep pace with the real civility champs, but he gets big points from me for not being condescending about it.

Agree 100%

JB