No Thread for Tweakers

On Jul 23, 2:21 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will
agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.
? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it
can. ?
A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related
threads
just stated exactly that.
Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.
Now you _really_ look stupid.
I disagree. �He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

I didn't know it had already been done but that was hardly
necessary.
It was trivially obvious that it _could_ be done.

Every last issue of _National Geographic_ every tourist brochure in
every seat pocket on every airliner show photos of curved furrow
agriculture for it's scenic value.

How dumb do you have to be to not know the curve could go into a
complete circle?

It's one thing to say you don't think something can be done when
you
are knowledgeable in the field and it hasn't been proven and you
have
a reason to believe it cannot be done.

It's quite another to dogmatically claim something cannot be done
when
you are ignorant of that field.

Bret Cahill

I think we finally found out who Radium is!

G²

 

[m II]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Saving water has nothing to do with it,

You obviously have never been in a water war.


Bret Cahill

Thanks for cutting my sentence in half.
I see your methods quite clearly now. Goodbye, 'Bret'.

=============================================
Saving water has nothing to do with it, each
plant uses the same water regardless of what shape field they are
planted in.
=============================================




--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

 

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. ?

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

I disagree. ?He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

I didn't know it had already been done but that was hardly necessary.
It was trivially obvious that it _could_ be done.

---
The point was that while you didn't know that it was being done, you
sneakily implied you did with your wording.

Why would I try to hide the fact that I'm astute enough to figure out
something without any research?

That's generally something people would _brag_ about.

I can hardly brag about this one because it's so obvious you'ld have
to be a moron to not figure it out.

You didn't have to be very bright to agree with me here but you have
to be a complete moron to try to disagree.


Bret Cahill


"When compared to genius, that is, he who begets and gives birth, the
scholar comes off a bit like an old maid. He's not conversant with
the two most valuable functions of man."

-- Nietzsche.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:13:31 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. ?

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

I disagree. ?He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

I didn't know it had already been done but that was hardly necessary.
It was trivially obvious that it _could_ be done.

---
The point was that while you didn't know that it was being done, you
sneakily implied you did with your wording.

Why would I try to hide the fact that I'm astute enough to figure out
something without any research?

---
Because you're not astute enough to, you're not bright enough to do
the research, and you'd rather play with smoke and mirrors than do any
real work?
---

That's generally something people would _brag_ about.

---
What, falsifying fact?
---

I can hardly brag about this one because it's so obvious you'ld have
to be a moron to not figure it out.

---
And yet...
---

You didn't have to be very bright to agree with me here but you have
to be a complete moron to try to disagree.

---
That's really just more of your bullshit, since moronity would be
recognizing flim-flammery then letting it pass without confrontation.

The problem with you is I've proven that your electric tractor scheme
is fatally flawed and you can't prove otherwise, but in order to try
to save face by not admitting your error you're trying to use
chicanery to discredit me.

Others have noted the same thing with your responses to their posts,
so it certainly isn't something I'm making up.
---

Bret Cahill


"When compared to genius, that is, he who begets and gives birth, the
scholar comes off a bit like an old maid. He's not conversant with
the two most valuable functions of man."

---
I'm a scholar and a father five times over.

And you?

A father, perhaps, but certainly not a scholar.

JF

 

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. ?

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

I disagree. ?He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

I didn't know it had already been done but that was hardly necessary.
It was trivially obvious that it _could_ be done.

The point was that while you didn't know that it was being done, you
sneakily implied you did with your wording.

Why would I try to hide the fact that I'm astute enough to figure out
something without any research?

After all, no intelligent person claims to be omniscient.

Because you're not astute enough to,

But I was proven correct that circular fields were possible.

Are you really this dumb? Or is this some kind of act?

you're not bright enough to do
the research,

Only an idiot does research when it isn't necessary.

.. . .

That's generally something people would _brag_ about.

What, falsifying fact?

What fact was falsified?

Or even needed to be be falsified?

I can hardly brag about this one because it's so obvious you'ld have
to be a moron to not figure it out.

And yet...

You didn't have to be very bright to agree with me here but you have
to be a complete moron to try to disagree.

That's really just more of your bullshit,

Now now now. Don't get mad at me because you made yerself look
stoopid.

.. . .

The problem with you is I've proven that your electric tractor scheme
is fatally flawed

You've been doing the exact opposite. Everytime you try to tout the
high energy consumption of tractors you are actually arguing against
diesel because diesel costs are so high.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:09:34 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. ?

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

I disagree. ?He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

I didn't know it had already been done but that was hardly necessary.
It was trivially obvious that it _could_ be done.

The point was that while you didn't know that it was being done, you
sneakily implied you did with your wording.

Why would I try to hide the fact that I'm astute enough to figure out
something without any research?

After all, no intelligent person claims to be omniscient.

---
How would _you_ know?
---

Because you're not astute enough to,

But I was proven correct that circular fields were possible.

---
Well, a 100 average ain't that good when you're claiming to be Ty
Cobb.
---

Are you really this dumb? Or is this some kind of act?

---
Neither, obviously.

Are you going to continue to use that stupid line ad nauseam?
---

you're not bright enough to do
the research,

Only an idiot does research when it isn't necessary.

---
Only an idiot thinks it isn't.
---

That's generally something people would _brag_ about.

What, falsifying fact?

What fact was falsified?

---
Oh, just for starters, that pictures of contour plowed fields appear
in every single issue of National Geographic, and in all of the
tourist brochures published by all of the airlines.
---

Or even needed to be be falsified?

---
In truth, facts _can't_ be falsified, yet that's exactly what you've
tried to do by refusing to admit that your battery operated tractor
scheme is fatally flawed.

Instead, in order to save face and make it seem like you knew what you
were talking about, you lied by trying to sidestep the
incontrovertible evidence, which has been presented by several
sources, that's as plain as the nose on your face.

Or, perhaps, you didn't lie and you're just stupid. The latter would
be better.

You remind me a lot of the Roman catholic church, who until recently
fought tooth and nail for a heliocentric universe and finally admitted
that they were wrong and Galileo was right.

You, also, might try giving up your claim to infallibility since it
seems, in this thread at least, that your reach has exceeded your
grasp.
---

I can hardly brag about this one because it's so obvious you'ld have
to be a moron to not figure it out.

And yet...

You didn't have to be very bright to agree with me here but you have
to be a complete moron to try to disagree.

That's really just more of your bullshit,

Now now now. Don't get mad at me because you made yerself look
stoopid.

---
Mad at you?

LOL, I might as well be mad at a mosquito buzzing around looking for a
meal.

As far as looking stupid goes, I think I've presented enough evidence
to drive your capacitor-driven tractor scheme's dick into the dirt so,
as far as I can tell, you're on the shitty end of the stick.
---

The problem with you is I've proven that your electric tractor scheme
is fatally flawed

You've been doing the exact opposite. Everytime you try to tout the
high energy consumption of tractors you are actually arguing against
diesel because diesel costs are so high.

---
Because I argue against your scheme doesn't mean I tout the high
energy consumption of tractors, all it means is that I find your
scheme poorly thought out, unworkable, impractical, and foolish.

JF