Chip with simple program for Toy

[Bret Cahill]

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

As much as you rail against it, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for
some numbers which will support your position.

I thought you proved mathematically that hybridization ain't cost
effective.

Did you or did you not prove anything?

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-09-02, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Most climbs are less than 6,000 feet so the battery size could drop
even more.

you do not want to run out of go part way up.
without the battery you loose 3/4 of the climbing power
it'd almost be better to stop at a convenient place and recharge
than to crawl up the hill at 8MPH

Either way it's good use of the battery, since on the way down it gets
charged back up to the brim, ready for the next mountain range !

Since the trucks must go slowly downhill for safety, the wind
resistance is low and therefore the potential energy is almost
completely wasted going downhill.

???
80000 pounds has been lifted 6000 feet. On the way down
turn the traction motors into generators and recover some of that
energy and put it back into the battery

lack of atmospheric drag is an advantage here.

With conventional drive trains the engine is used for braking, often
enhanced by shutting off the exhaust manifold. If diesel is still
being injected into the cylinders it just represents more waste.

With electric motors pushing them faster than they want to go turns
them into generators. the diesel engine can stay disconnected unless
it's needed.

With a 400 hp electric motor a rig could really zip across
intersections in town.

that force concentrated on the tires of the rig would wear the
pavement out faster

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Eeyore"wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
. Eeyore wrote

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which would
only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press release or
whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain, then discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits
(w.r.t. a standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck will be much more significant in mountain driving than in
'flat land' driving.

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just strong enough to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough (100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain, a series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain
work.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

Why did you suddenly bring mountains into the discussion ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:09:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

As much as you rail against it, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for
some numbers which will support your position.

I thought you proved mathematically that hybridization ain't cost
effective.

Did you or did you not prove anything?

---
Another dodge, huh?

Whether or not I proved anything is irrelevant; what I'd like to see
is where your 2/3 and 2/7 came from.

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

.. . .

I myself am a little bit confused as to what you mean with 2/3rd the cost or 2/7th the cost...
2/3rd the cost of what ? 2/7th the cost of what ?
Can you elaborate ?

Grid: 10 cents/ kW-hr

Battery: 20 cents/kW-hr

ICE: 50 cents/kW-hr

EV = grid + battery = 30 cents total. The battery cost is 2/3rd the
total. The major cost of power is the battery.

Hybrid = ICE + battery = 70 cents total. The battery cost is 2/7ths
the total.

The point was that battery cost is much less a factor in overall power
cost in hybrids than EVs.

On one hand since grid costs are so low grid + battery is cheaper
power than ICE + battery.

So if possible, go EV with the cheapest/kW-hr possible battery.

On the other hand, since fuel is so expensive, the battery cost is
becoming negligible in hybrids. If burning fuel becomes necessary,
then a performance battery that costs up to $1/kW-hr might be the way
to go.

In fact, the 2/7ths figure is much too high as most of the time the
energy doesn't pass through battery but goes directly to the motor in
series hybrids or directly to the drive shaft in parallel hybrids.
This is even more true for highway driving.

Grid costs will increase too but it may be a decade before it even
equals battery cost.

The battery in plug in hybrids needs to be selected according to the
driving profile. For a lot of short trips, finding a cheap/kW-hr
battery would save more money than charging up off peak only.

For long trips where the ICE is used a lot, a more expensive battery
might make sense.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

�I think farming is 3rd on the list
of most dangerous occupations.

The combination of financial and personal risk might lend itself to
comprehensive spread sheets and cost benefit risk analysis
calculators.

It's certain that a lot of farmers have the smarts to know what to do
when to be cost effective. They can do it in their heads but many
others would probably be surprised that they could do a lot better
with more information.

Just following the leader doesn't always work in commodities.

It'd be interesting to know how many are still guessing still trying
to do it by the seat of their pants when it isn't necessary.

Crop adjusters don't seem to reflect that the insurance company
acturial tables take much of this into consideration.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Think of it this way:
With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.
With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

. . .

I myself am a little bit confused as to what you mean with 2/3rd the cost or 2/7th the cost...
2/3rd the cost of what ? 2/7th the cost of what ?
Can you elaborate ?

Grid: �10 cents/ kW-hr

Battery: 20 cents/kW-hr

ICE: �50 cents/kW-hr

EV = grid + battery = 30 cents total. �The battery cost is 2/3rd the
total. �The major cost of power is the battery.

Hybrid = ICE + battery = 70 cents total. �The battery cost is 2/7ths
the total.

The point was that battery cost is much less a factor in overall power
cost in hybrids than EVs.

On one hand since grid costs are so low grid + battery is cheaper
power than ICE + battery.

So if possible, go EV with the cheapest/kW-hr possible battery.

On the other hand, since fuel is so expensive, the battery cost is
becoming negligible in hybrids. �If burning fuel becomes necessary,
then a performance battery that costs up to $1/kW-hr might be the way
to go.

In fact, the 2/7ths figure is much too high as most of the time the
energy doesn't pass through battery but goes directly to the motor in
series hybrids or directly to the drive shaft in parallel hybrids.
This is even more true for highway driving.

Grid costs will increase too but it may be a decade before it even
equals battery cost.

The battery in plug in hybrids needs to be selected according to the
driving profile. �For a lot of short trips, finding a cheap/kW-hr
battery would save more money than charging up off peak only.

For long trips where the ICE is used a lot, a more expensive battery
might make sense.

I mentioned before that even storage devices with low efficiency, down
to 33%, are becoming cost effective with grid costs "dropping"
compared to ICE.

Similarly, if a battery appeared with a modest gain in efficiency,
say, from 90% to 95%, it might be cost effective in a hybrid even if
it cost twice as much.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

As much as you rail against it, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for
some numbers which will support your position.

I thought you proved mathematically that hybridization ain't cost
effective.

If you proved hybridization isn't cost effective, then why post to a
thread where Eaton, Peterbilt, Walmart and the posters here are all so
delusional they believe hybridization is cost effective?

Did you or did you not prove anything?

Another dodge, huh?

Every time you dodge I'll just repost the question:

Did you or did you not prove anything?

Whether or not I proved anything is irrelevant;

It's relevant to anyone not planning to waste time on someone who is
so delusional he thinks he proved that hybridization isn't cost
effective.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey..

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which
would
only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press
release or
whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain, then

discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits> > (w.r.t. a standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck

will be much more significant in mountain driving than in> > 'flat land' driving.

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just strong

enough �to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big> > enough �(100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain, a
series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain> > work.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat
land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

Why did you suddenly bring mountains into the discussion ?

Because the claim above was that series hybrids would not save fuel by that
much and only work on flat land.

It would be interesting to determine the reasoning behind Eaton's
choice of a parallel hybrid, a complicated drive train where
performance and other characterics fall somewhere between a full
series hybrid and conventional ICE.

Parallel is as good as series around town and better than conventional
on the highway but parallel is worse in the mountains than
conventional or series.

Series is better than parallel on the highway, is a much simpler to
design and much easier to maintain and modify drive train.

The only reasons are,

1. They had some patents on parallel. It's probably impossible to
make any claims on full series hybrids.

2. They are planning on upgrades.


Bret Cahill

 

[Dan Drake]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:54:34 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

John's original, still right at the top, is just plain wrong
on WHEN that collection of silly senile old farts realised
that the earth does in fact revolved around the sun.

Sorry for the confusion.

There is no confusion and there still isnt. You were and still are just plain wrong.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

What I was referring to was the Roman Catholic Church's
official admission that Geocentrism was wrong

Yes, that was always clear.

and, AIUI, that acknowledgement only occurred a few years ago.

And that is where you were always just plain wrong.
It happened a LONG time before that.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Like I said, what actually happened only a few years ago, was that
they did officially admit that Galileo had been very badly treated.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Small comfort for Galileo, who knew he was right, beyond a shadow of doubt,

And he wasnt alone in recognising that at that time. The evidence was very clear.

That's not the point.

Corse it is.

but was forced to perjure himself

He didnt even perjure himself.

In order to save his life, he was forced to lie about his
beliefs before a legislating body, which is perjury.

Wrong, as always.

Do you actually mean anything by that statement? If so, could you tell us what it is?

Pathetic.

I mean, I assume you know what the word "recant" means.

Irrelevant to what the word perjury means.

Obviously you know that Galileo recanted, formally, under oath, before witnesses,
with a transcript being taken, the authenticity of which has never been questioned

Different matter entirely to whether that qualifys as perjury.

-- unless you have now decided to question whether he really said it

Nope.

(in which case it would be nice to know on what grounds
you question it, in opposition to everyone else in the world
and every historian of science that ever considered it).

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

BTW I am not arguing that the Church didn't recognize the Earth's motion till the 1990s.

That fool Fields is clearly doing just that.

After all, when they allowed (in fact, _ordered_) the publication of Galileo's work undiluted in 1822,

They didnt get to ORDER a damned thing.

it was not because the Inquisition had been converted into disciples
of John Locke with a firm belief in Voltaire's famous principle which
he never actually said, about defending to the death your right to be
wrong. It was because they knew they looked too damn stupid by then

As I said, a separate matter entirely to when even those fools
had realised that the earth did in fact revolve around the sun.

-- just as Galileo had warned their predecessors, though
they were not about to say that out loud. And in only 170
years more, the Church got around to saying it out loud.

You cant even manage to grasp just what 'it' is actually being discussed.

This, of course, is a small point in itself; it's just that your
uncompromising and unfounded statements tend to, you know,
make it look as if you don't really know what you're talking about.

You in spades when you cant even manage to work out just what is being discussed.

The senile old farts at Fordham U (your characterization, not mine;

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

I find a lot of highly respecatble scholarship in Romish
sources) have proved a convenient reference:

Pity its doesnt even comment on what is actually being discussed.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

"...But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office
entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre
of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the
centre of the same and that it moved,... I did write and cause to
be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned
doctrine... : I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy,
that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of
the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the
centre of the same, and that it does move.

"Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your
Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion
reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies...

"I Galileo Galilei aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and
hold myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own
hand have subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have
recited it word by word. In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this
22nd day of June, 1633.

"I, GALILEO GALILEI, have abjured as above, with my own hand."

What part of "recanted" or "abjured" or "under oath" do you not understand?

What part of PERJURY do you not understand

Well, here's what I understand: Lying under oath.

Let's see: under oath. If you don't believe that part, maybe you'd
condescend to explain how all the evidence is false, rather than simply
shouting.

Let's see: Lying. So, he really did curse and detest the Copernican ideas,
considering them to be errors and heresies?

Or else there is indeed some part of *your* concept of PERJURY that I fail
to understand.


--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:35:50 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

Or else there is indeed some part of *your* concept of PERJURY that I fail to understand.

It isnt MY concept of perjury thats being discussed.

---
I agree; it's your flagrant and evidently intentionally misconstrued
conception of the meaning of perjury which is on trial.

Since you seem to disagree with the generally held concept of what
perjury is, then it behooves you to expound on your concept of the
meaning of perjury if you want to be a player.

Otherwise, all you're doing is sitting in the bleachers hurling
obscenities without really being in the game at all.
---

Try a dictionary sometime.

---

Better yet, try this from:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1621
"From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2006]
[CITE: 18USC1621]


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 79--PERJURY

Sec. 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever--
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer,
or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is
true,
willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any
material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or
statement
under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title
28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material
matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided
by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or
subscription is made within or without the United States."


More simply put, I think, is that perjury is when one lies after one
has sworn to tell what he believes to be the truth before an august
body, which is exactly what Galileo was forced to do in order to save
his life.

Do you think that he really rejected Copernicus and embraced Ptolomy
after having seen the dance of the heavens in his own telescope?

JF

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Think of it this way:

STOP snipping all the damn headers you fuckwit.

 

[Bret Cahill]

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just strong
enough ?to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big> > enough ?(100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest
mountain, a
series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain> > work.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat
land (compared to a standard diesel rig).
Why did you suddenly bring mountains into the discussion ?
Because the claim above was that series hybrids would not save fuel by that
much and only work on flat land.
It would be interesting to determine the reasoning behind Eaton's
choice of a parallel hybrid, a complicated drive train where
performance and other characterics fall somewhere between a full
series hybrid and conventional ICE.

Parallel is as good as series around town and better than conventional
on the highway but parallel is worse in the mountains than
conventional or series.

Series is better than parallel on the highway, is a much simpler to
design and much easier to maintain and modify drive train.

The only reasons are,

1. �They had some patents on parallel. �It's probably impossible to
make any claims on full series hybrids.

2. �They are planning on upgrades.

It would indeed be great if automakers would comment on their drivetrain choices.
But I think it is a matter of evolution versus revolution that the 'parallel' hybrid has been chosen as the drivetrain platform for
most hybrids.

That was number "3" but I left it out.

The old Model T Ford looks a lot like a carriage -- another example of
consciously or unconsciously paying homage to the past.

When changing the drivetrain with hybrid, there are a lot more
issues to solve apart from pure plain technical efficiency numbers.
Think new suppliers, new contracts, re-training maintenace crews and sales people, risk of product safety problems and lawsuits,
product failure recalls etc. etc.

In that sense, a parallel hybrid is already considered more than 'evolutionary' for big automakers.
A series hybrids and EVs (even though it has the best technical future and the simplest design) would probably be a 'revolution'
which involves taking bigger risks.

That's it.

And automakers are much more conservative than most people think :

It was pretty funny when Schwartznegger told auto executives to build
greener cars.

For example, the GM board claimed that Toyota was going to "loose their shirt" (actual quote from the board room) by bringing the
Prius (parallel hybrid) to production.
Now see where we are : Prius is quickly becoming one of the best sold vehicles in the US, and GM lost not just their shirt but their
underwear as well.

W.r.t. fuel efficiency, series hybrid would be best, but parallel hybrid is better than no hybrid at all :
This (parallel hybrid popularity) is a good test of large scale use of vehicle batteries, and a test of large scale use of plug-in.
After this, you can see another 'evolutionary' step parallel hybrid where the electric motor and battery get bigger, and the ICE
gets smaller. After that, it's a small step to series hybrid and full EV. So we are moving in the right direction, albeit with baby
steps.

I hope the decline in oil supplies will be more gradual than the predictions, because automakers are slow movers...

They'll just go belly up.


Bret Cahill

 

[Jasen Betts]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508510&type=email&skip=true#csTop

On 2008-09-03, Cafemingle <cafemingle@yahoo.se> wrote:

Further Information: We are aheding this produce Arctic Extreme Sports
for television broadcast, media, maps, sports products, and promotion
material since 2008-09-01 In Northern Lapland, Norway, Finland and
Sweden,

http://astore.amazon.com/

spam spam spam spam

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:43:32 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.

---
..
..
..

The sneer has fled from Rod Speed's lip, the teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Rod Speed's blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Rod Speed has struck out.

Apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:43:33 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

You truly do suffer from a lack of imagination and skill at insults.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

You questioned what he thought about perjury.

You're lying, as always.

Apparently you have no memory and can't read.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.

---
Was it more like this, then?:

www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/crossed_fingers.asp

JF

 

[Dan Drake]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:59:43 UTC, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

...
Better yet, try this from:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1621
"From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2006]
[CITE: 18USC1621]


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 79--PERJURY

Sec. 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever--
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer,
or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is
true,
willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any
material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

[Pax, by the way]

Oh, but Mr Fields! You don't understand: Galileo was not under the
jurisisdiction of AMERICAN law!! So your argument doesn't hold water.


--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

 

[Dan Drake]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 01:51:45 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isnt MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

Better yet, try this from:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1621
"From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 79--PERJURY

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

OMFG!!!!!1!

Honest, folks, I thought my preceding post, making exactly this point, was
SARCASTIC.
When shall I learn that with trolls there is no possibility of sarcasm?


--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

 

[Dan Drake]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:40:35 UTC, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:43:33 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

You truly do suffer from a lack of imagination and skill at insults.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

You questioned what he thought about perjury.

You're lying, as always.

Apparently you have no memory and can't read.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.

---
Was it more like this, then?:

www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/crossed_fingers.asp

Nice one.

But it does move, you know.


--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

 

[John Fields]

Perhaps the Angels have given up hope on you entirely.

My point wasn't whether you were right or wrong about my being right
or wrong, it was about your delivery, which was unnecessarily
confrontational if, in fact, you were interested in serious
discussion.

JF

Actually, without of course admitting blame or liability, I'll have to
claim that the weather here is just too hot, and, as you say, ill-advised
things were synthesized from the hot dilute soup on my keyboard. I'm
taking steps to prevent a recurrence.

Pax?

---
I'd amo ut.

JF