OT: Why the US will never go metric....

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:34:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:22:35 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:40:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Jun 17, 8:50 am, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 11:38 pm, John Larkin





jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:52:34 -0700 (PDT), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:17 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:03:46 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:23:13 -0700, the renowned John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 3:58 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:36:13 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:53 pm, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:31 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
Cool, I have to scribble numbers on the paper though. 6400 feet is
about 2000m, the Earth is about 6E6 m in radius, Since we only want a
small change I can ignore the r^2 stuff and just multiple the ratio by
2. something like 4 parts out of 6,000. much smaller than the
divisions on your scale.

No you cannot. What makes you think that G decreases (or
increases)linearly?

Big G doesn't change at all. Little g (the force of gravity on the
Earths surface) will go as 1/r^2. For small changes in r the change
is approximately linear... first term in the taylor expansion if you
want to think of it that way. And it does go as 2*delta-R/Rearth

Not exactly.  The mass of the Earth is not actually concentrated at a
single point.

Outside of a uniform spherical mass, g does behave as if all the mass
were concentrated at the center. The earth is non-homogenous, but
close enough. The short answer to my little problem is that the change
is about 1 part in 2000, too small to matter in the context of the
other measurement uncertainties.

If something is small enough, we engineers just write it off. A quick,
rough calculation is usually enough to decide if that's safe.

After all the profound word salads and hand-waving about forces and
masses and weights, it was fun to see if the lecturers could do a
simple high-school physics exercize.

John

Surveyors and navigators ignore the gravimetric variations at their
own peril.

Actually, delta-g may be less than 1:2000. After all, Truckee isn't
floating on air, it's sitting on rock. It's sort of, not quite, like
being on a planet that's one mile bigger in radius.

This is one I *can't* do in my head.

John

I've got access to a huge map of gravitational anomalies-- If I
remember, I'll take a gander at Truckee vs. San Francisco next time I
get a chance.

I guess the question is whether g at the top of a mountain is greater
or less than g at sea level. A zillion web sites say less, and use the
1/r^2 equation to demonstrate it, but that equation works if you're in
a balloon, not sitting on solid rock.

It depends on how spikey the mountain is.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mountains are the light pieces of earth floating on the magma
underneath.  Hey if we want to calculate the effect of the mountain...
well I'm a physicist... approximate the mountain as a sphere

I heard of this new'ish' gravimeter where they drop a corner cube
reflector as one arm of an interferometer and count fringes as it
drops... At least that's how I think it works.

George h.

Slick. You could digitize the photodiode signal and curve-fit the heck
out of it.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I'll see if I can find a link.  (I saw this at an APS trade
show.)  I think the primary use is for miners mapping the local g
field to figure out where to dig.

George H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://principles.ou.edu/grav_ex/absolute.html

Pretty cool.

George H.

Neat. But at 350 kG, it must disturb the g field it's trying to
measure!

John

Oh come on JL. What you normally spout is tantamount to saying leverage
that distortion to your advantage.

If that sentence made any sense, I'd know if you were trying to insult
me or not.
Click to expand...
---
It made sense to me, in that the first sentence was a quick pull on
your halter, and the second a rebuke of your claim that a magnetic
field (350kG is three hundred and fifty kilogauss, no?) has any effect
at all on the gravitation being measured.

Do you have any evidence to prove that a gravitational field is
affected by magnetism in other than a mundane way?
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

What matters is that 1 N of force accelerates 1 kg of mass by 1
m/sec^2.
Click to expand...
And 1 dyne force accelerates 1 gram of mass by 1cm/sec^2
And 1 poundal force accelerates 1 pound (lb) of mass by 1 ft/sec^2
And 1 pound force (lbf) accelerates 1 slug of mass by 1 ft/sec^2

All the same thing (Newton's Second Law), irrespective of units.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)
 
Late at night, by candle light, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> penned this immortal
opus:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:45:34 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:44:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.


Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale



Most people in the world use SI units, and they weigh things in
kilograms. A kg is a unit of mass.

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

---
Sorry, but no.

The result of the measurement is caused by a force acting on a mass,
the product of which is called a "newton" if the mass is 1kg and the
force is the attraction due to gravity, 9.8m/s˛.

Entirely wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29

---
Yup.

I got the mass wrong, (it should be about 102 grams) but the fact
still remains that what a scale does is measure weight, not mass.

OK, today's puzzler:

Suppose I weigh myself at home, using my ordinary spring-based
bathroom scale. Home is 365 feet above sea level. Now I drive to
Truckee; it takes about 3 hours if I push it, 80+ MPH except for the
speed trap at Clipper Gap. When I arrive I use the same scale to weigh
myself, now at 6400 feet. Latitude is about the same.

1. About how much has my measured weight changed due to the change of
G with altitude?

2. Is this significant to the measurement?

Rules: you have one minute to deliver an answer. Use no paper, pencils
or equivalent, calculators, computers, books, or any external
assistance or references of any kind. Keep your eyes closed. Do it
entirely in your head.

Extra credit, one more minute:

3. Is the position of the moon significant to the measurement?

John
Click to expand...
Kind of depends. Did you drink or eat anything along the way? Take a
leak or dump? Hot weather?

- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:25:34 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

What matters is that 1 N of force accelerates 1 kg of mass by 1
m/sec^2.

And 1 dyne force accelerates 1 gram of mass by 1cm/sec^2
And 1 poundal force accelerates 1 pound (lb) of mass by 1 ft/sec^2
And 1 pound force (lbf) accelerates 1 slug of mass by 1 ft/sec^2

All the same thing (Newton's Second Law), irrespective of units.
Click to expand...
And only in a vacuum. Any gasses (or other impediment) in the path
invokes a back pressure that slows the acceleration.

Does anyone know if the slurry of dark matter that we all sit in
influences bodies in motion?

I do. I say yes. Galactic rotation rates prove it. It will not change
a rock falling here on our globe to any degree that we could measure, but
looking at the patterns in Saturns rings alone makes one wonder why said
patterns exist. Magnetic iron core? Yep. Huge gravitational field as
well.

Maybe it should read "attempts to accelerate".
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:04:55 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:25:34 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

What matters is that 1 N of force accelerates 1 kg of mass by 1
m/sec^2.

And 1 dyne force accelerates 1 gram of mass by 1cm/sec^2
And 1 poundal force accelerates 1 pound (lb) of mass by 1 ft/sec^2
And 1 pound force (lbf) accelerates 1 slug of mass by 1 ft/sec^2

All the same thing (Newton's Second Law), irrespective of units.

And only in a vacuum. Any gasses (or other impediment) in the path
invokes a back pressure that slows the acceleration.
Click to expand...
Spoken by a true innumerate.

Does anyone know if the slurry of dark matter that we all sit in
influences bodies in motion?
Click to expand...
You don't influence anything DorkMatter.

I do. I say yes. Galactic rotation rates prove it. It will not change
a rock falling here on our globe to any degree that we could measure, but
looking at the patterns in Saturns rings alone makes one wonder why said
patterns exist. Magnetic iron core? Yep. Huge gravitational field as
well.

Maybe it should read "attempts to accelerate".
Click to expand...
You should attempt suicide, AlwaysWrong. You *might* get that right, changing
your name forever.
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

Archie > Most of us that have a modicum of
Archie > sense DO use it, so you are the one
Archie > that it decades behind.
Archie > I have been using it for decades.

G > When measuring your junk you use millimeters?

Archie > If you do not know how to quote in Usenet,
Archie > you do not deserve a response, you forum
Archie > invading little bitch!

Archie > Now, IF you [f-ing] EVER learn about this
Archie > forum which you have invaded, and you
Archie > learn about POSTING CONVENTIONS,
Archie > you might deserve a response.
Archie
Archie > I am not going to go hunting up whatever
Archie > post you think you responded to though.
Archie > Get the fuck out of Usenet until you learn
Archie > about it, you little wussified invader.

G > When measuring your junk you use millimeters?

Archie > You are pathetic, and no longer deserve to be responded to.

Do you PROMISE, Archie?
Can others sign up for that as well?
Get ready for a stampede!
Click to expand...
Well, he did say that you didn't *deserve* to be responded to. He doesn't
deserve to breathe but somehow he does, unfortunately. ...but keep up the
good work, anyway.
 
Archie > Most of us that have a modicum of
Archie > sense DO use it, so you are the one
Archie > that it decades behind.
Archie > I have been using it for decades.

G > When measuring your junk you use millimeters?

Archie > If you do not know how to quote in Usenet,
Archie > you do not deserve a response, you forum
Archie > invading little bitch!

Archie > Now, IF you [f-ing] EVER learn about this
Archie > forum which you have invaded, and you
Archie > learn about POSTING CONVENTIONS,
Archie > you might deserve a response.
Archie >
Archie > I am not going to go hunting up whatever
Archie > post you think you responded to though.
Archie > Get the fuck out of Usenet until you learn
Archie > about it, you little wussified invader.

G > When measuring your junk you use millimeters?

Archie > You are pathetic, and no longer deserve to be responded to.

Do you PROMISE, Archie?
Can others sign up for that as well?
Get ready for a stampede!
 
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:15:15 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:34:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:22:35 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:40:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Neat. But at 350 kG, it must disturb the g field it's trying to
measure!

John

Oh come on JL. What you normally spout is tantamount to saying leverage
that distortion to your advantage.

If that sentence made any sense, I'd know if you were trying to insult
me or not.

---
It made sense to me, in that the first sentence was a quick pull on
your halter, and the second a rebuke of your claim that a magnetic
field (350kG is three hundred and fifty kilogauss, no?) has any effect
at all on the gravitation being measured.

Do you have any evidence to prove that a gravitational field is
affected by magnetism in other than a mundane way?
Click to expand...
---
Oops, sorry.

I meant to say: "Do you have any evidence to prove that a
gravitational field is affected by magnetism in any way?"

Johm Fields
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:10:55 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

changing
your name forever.
Click to expand...
I can already do that.
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:02:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

...but keep up the
good work, anyway.
Click to expand...

From one total retard to another... Quasar.

You two retards should marry each other.

Bwuahahahhaahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha!
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:40:50 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:15:15 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:34:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:22:35 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:40:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Neat. But at 350 kG, it must disturb the g field it's trying to
measure!

John

Oh come on JL. What you normally spout is tantamount to saying leverage
that distortion to your advantage.

If that sentence made any sense, I'd know if you were trying to insult
me or not.

---
It made sense to me, in that the first sentence was a quick pull on
your halter, and the second a rebuke of your claim that a magnetic
field (350kG is three hundred and fifty kilogauss, no?) has any effect
at all on the gravitation being measured.

Do you have any evidence to prove that a gravitational field is
affected by magnetism in other than a mundane way?

---
Oops, sorry.

I meant to say: "Do you have any evidence to prove that a
gravitational field is affected by magnetism in any way?"

Johm Fields
Click to expand...
The reference was to the equipment weighing 350 kilograms.

Call it a typo, if you will, like "Johm Fields."

John

(spelled carefully!)
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:47:57 -0700, DrParnassus
<DrParnassus@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:10:55 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

changing
your name forever.

I can already do that.
Click to expand...
We know you can change what you call yourself, AlwaysWrong, but you're still
Nymbecile to everyone else. You can change, yes you can.
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:08:40 -0700, Perenis <Perenis@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:02:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

...but keep up the
good work, anyway.


From one total retard to another... Quasar.
Click to expand...
Yep, I am pretty bright. You, on the other hand, are one dim bulb, DimBulb.

You two retards should marry each other.
Click to expand...
I keep telling you, AlwaysWrong, that you're *NOT* my type. I don't play in
feces.

Bwuahahahhaahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha!
Click to expand...
They're coming to take you away...
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:40:50 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:15:15 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:34:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:22:35 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:40:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Neat. But at 350 kG, it must disturb the g field it's trying to
measure!

John

Oh come on JL. What you normally spout is tantamount to saying leverage
that distortion to your advantage.

If that sentence made any sense, I'd know if you were trying to insult
me or not.

---
It made sense to me, in that the first sentence was a quick pull on
your halter, and the second a rebuke of your claim that a magnetic
field (350kG is three hundred and fifty kilogauss, no?) has any effect
at all on the gravitation being measured.

Do you have any evidence to prove that a gravitational field is
affected by magnetism in other than a mundane way?

---
Oops, sorry.

I meant to say: "Do you have any evidence to prove that a
gravitational field is affected by magnetism in any way?"

Johm Fields
Click to expand...
Sorry Johm, it seems i misread the units as kg (kilograms).
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:40:50 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:15:15 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:34:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:22:35 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:40:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Neat. But at 350 kG, it must disturb the g field it's trying to
measure!

John

Oh come on JL. What you normally spout is tantamount to saying leverage
that distortion to your advantage.

If that sentence made any sense, I'd know if you were trying to insult
me or not.

---
It made sense to me, in that the first sentence was a quick pull on
your halter, and the second a rebuke of your claim that a magnetic
field (350kG is three hundred and fifty kilogauss, no?) has any effect
at all on the gravitation being measured.

Do you have any evidence to prove that a gravitational field is
affected by magnetism in other than a mundane way?

---
Oops, sorry.

I meant to say: "Do you have any evidence to prove that a
gravitational field is affected by magnetism in any way?"

Johm Fields
Click to expand...
Perhaps only as much effect as it may have, at a planetary level, on
the solar wind's distortion of it, as the grav field may "assist" in
providing some of the reluctance to distortion that causes the snap back
of the flux that causes the auroral effects that planets with magnetic
fields many times experience.

If the gravity helps to pull it back.

If not, then the mag field is influenced by charged particles (the
solar wind), which could also be thought of as a bit curious. Though the
"charge" accounts for it. The question is does the charge affect or get
affected by grav fields or does it affect and get affected by the mag
field alone?
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:24:15 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:40:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:15:15 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:34:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:22:35 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:40:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Neat. But at 350 kG, it must disturb the g field it's trying to
measure!

John

Oh come on JL. What you normally spout is tantamount to saying leverage
that distortion to your advantage.

If that sentence made any sense, I'd know if you were trying to insult
me or not.

---
It made sense to me, in that the first sentence was a quick pull on
your halter, and the second a rebuke of your claim that a magnetic
field (350kG is three hundred and fifty kilogauss, no?) has any effect
at all on the gravitation being measured.

Do you have any evidence to prove that a gravitational field is
affected by magnetism in other than a mundane way?

---
Oops, sorry.

I meant to say: "Do you have any evidence to prove that a
gravitational field is affected by magnetism in any way?"

Johm Fields

The reference was to the equipment weighing 350 kilograms.

Call it a typo, if you will, like "Johm Fields."

John
Click to expand...
kG. You are the kGB! (the kG Boy).
 
On 6/20/2010 4:40 PM, John Fields wrote:

(...)

I meant to say: "Do you have any evidence to prove that a
gravitational field is affected by magnetism in any way?"
Click to expand...
Not the field itself.
The effect of the field is a different matter:
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/

--Winston
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:08:40 -0700, Perenis <Perenis@hereforlongtime.org
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:02:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

...but keep up the
good work, anyway.


From one total retard to another... Quasar.

Yep, I am pretty bright. You, on the other hand, are one dim bulb, DimBulb.

You two retards should marry each other.

I keep telling you, AlwaysWrong, that you're *NOT* my type. I don't play in
feces.

Bwuahahahhaahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha!

They're coming to take you away...
Click to expand...

They're there. They are waiting for the hazmat crew to clean it up,
before they can haul it away.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Let's face it, Archie, you want a fan club.
I hope you get exactly the kind you deserve.
Click to expand...
Be careful what you wish for.

Were I to get such a 'club' sending them out after asswipes like you
would take no more than a hand gesture.
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:56:30 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Archie > You are pathetic, and no longer deserve to be responded to.

G > Do you PROMISE, Archie?
G > Can others sign up for that as well?
G > Get ready for a stampede!

krw > Well, he did say that you didn't *deserve*
krw > to be responded to. He doesn't deserve
krw > to breathe but somehow he does, unfortunately.
krw > ...but keep up the good work, anyway.

Archie > From one total retard to another... Quasar.

krw > Yep, I am pretty bright. You, on the other
krw > hand, are one dim bulb, DimBulb.

Archie > You two retards should marry each other.

krw > I keep telling you, AlwaysWrong, that you're
krw > *NOT* my type. I don't play in feces.

Archie > Bwuahahahhaahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha!

krw > They're coming to take you away...

MT > They're there. They are waiting for
MT > the hazmat crew to clean it up,
MT > before they can haul it away.

G > Oceanside or El Cajon?


G > Let's face it, Archie, you want a fan club.
G > I hope you get exactly the kind you deserve.

Archie > Be careful what you wish for.

Archie > Were I to get such a 'club' sending
Archie > them out after asswipes like you
Archie > would take no more than a hand gesture.

Because you can't do it yourself?
Click to expand...

Post your address, pussy. That way, if it ever does become a right
world, you can refer back to this claim you have made and still feel
comfortable in thinking that I won't be visiting.

2012 is fast approaching. whole lotta shakin' comin' down. My powder
is dry... yours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top